When is a Suit’s Silhouette “Too Much”?

[TheDarkKnight]

I think this silhouette looks great, Hymo

Originally Posted by hymo

Is this jarring? My tailor has never made anything this waisted before.

 

[George]

Originally Posted by Tangfastic

If I didn't know who that was I would assume at first glance that he was wealthy and probably public school educated. The give aways are the relatively discrete polo logo and khakis - if you're trying to imply he looks like a feral urban youth (I'm not sure you are), you are wrong.
You would think he was wealthy? I'd think he looked like any other working class kid. The point is that dress has for the larger part become so homogenised over the last 20 to 30 years that it is no longer an accurate guide to a persons social class.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Originally Posted by Slewfoot

NorCal - I was actually about to mention that people should run some searches for old posts of Whoopee as he always had the most striking silhouettes IMO. That one is a good example.


Good call Slewfoot, this looks fantastic, though I'd like to have seen a full length photo!

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Originally Posted by George

You would think he was wealthy? I'd think he looked like any other working class kid. The point is that dress has for the larger part become so homogenised over the last 20 to 30 years that it is no longer an accurate guide to a persons social class.

This thread has gone way off topic

I think his face looks wealthy.

British aristocracy have a distinct facial appearance, indeed so do most social classes. It's simply a case of most social groups have families with partners in their own social class. This creates a physical look to each class.

Of course diet and taking care of yourself has a lot to do with it too - the lower class (ie below working class) drink a great deal, smoke a lot more than the average, eat very poorly generally etc.

As a result, they generally look "rough as a badger's arse" by the time they're 30.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Originally Posted by lasbar

I have two kids under 1 and to be fair , my move is more than compromised and that's an euphemism...

My Great Aunt lived in New-Jersey and my sister worked for First Bank in Chicago...

I wanted to move to Montreal ,Toronto or Vancouver...

So has this move been put on a medium term hold Lasbar?

My current re-location plans are

1. London this Autumn,

2. then NY or an offshore haven like the Isle of Man or Luxembourg, or China/ India in the next few years.

I don't have any children at the moment though, which is something I need to work on, though I'm planning a first child when I'm about 40 ( 7 years time) or earlier, career/ finances/ suitable girl permitting

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by TheDarkKnight

This thread has gone way off topic

I think his face looks wealthy.

British aristocracy have a distinct facial appearance, indeed so do most social classes. It's simply a case of most social groups have families with partners in their own social class. This creates a physical look to each class.

Of course diet and taking care of yourself has a lot to do with it too - the lower class (ie below working class) drink a great deal, smoke a lot more than the average, eat very poorly generally etc.

As a result, they generally look "rough as a badger's arse" by the time they're 30.

One should make a distinction between wealthy and aristocratic.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Originally Posted by lasbar

I do agree with your analysis of middle classes being obsessed by their look ,clothes and the car they're driving...
That is the reason why they spend so much energy being sartorially perfect instead of being just themselves.
They're craving for social reconition when the upper classes are just themselves and not giving a crap about what other people think of them..

The upper classes come from a position of great strength - established old money, and established social status. Both of which are very tangible.

Unfortunately most lower middle class Brits, miss the fact that if they want real, long term TANGIBLE money, they must suffer "intangible" investment in the medium to long term.

Unfortunately they tend to focus on much more short term tangible material things, all of which is on credit, and don't better themselves (or get in a real mess of debt) because of this short sighted view.

(this is my explanation and extrapolation from your comment Lasbar, though perhaps I am being too candid. I promise you all, I am not a facist

)

 

[radicaldog]

I agree with most of what the OP said. Plenty of continental tailors share the Poole philosophy, though. Exhibit A: Caraceni.

 

[radicaldog]

Originally Posted by lasbar

The second point is absolutely spot on..
Huntsman's customers can not be referred as the Average American suit wearer.

I do agree with your analysis of middle classes being obsessed by their look ,clothes and the car they're driving...
That is the reason why they spend so much energy being sartorially perfect instead of being just themselves.
They're craving for social reconition when the upper classes are just themselves and not giving a crap about what other people think of them..

Certainly true. But the modern aesthetic is a middle-class aesthetic -- there's no getting away from that.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

Certainly true. But the modern aesthetic is a middle-class aesthetic -- there's no getting away from that.
Or rather, the normative aesthetic is the middle-class aesthetic, or lack thereof. To say that it's the modern aesthetic seems to imply that there's some monolithic concept at work here. For better or for worse, that structure was slowly whittled away last century.

 

[radicaldog]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I think 99% of all Americans have one of two views: (1) a suit is a suit, or (2) suits vary between slim-fitting and boxy. I'd say twice as many take the first view as the second, but the important point is that exceedingly few Americans take notice of silhouette as we mean it here. Thus, I think many of you are overestimating the magnitude and precision of reactions to silhouettes that are more shapely. Somebody who thinks your nipped-waist, flared-skirt Savile Row suit looks effeminate will just as likely find a slim-fitting suit from Banana Republic to be effeminate--the differences in their silhouettes simply won't calculate. He sees 'slim-fitting', and that's it. Moreover, most will just see a suit.
This seems broadly true, but it does not account for the sort of sub-conscious, inarticulate reactions to clothes that people probably have. For instance, some people are repelled by the unfamiliar, even though they can't put their finger on it and can't even realise they are repelled because it's unfamiliar. Some suit silhouettes may have just that effect. Not that I would care about it, but if I were a car salesman or an attorney I probably should.

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Or rather, the normative aesthetic is the middle-class aesthetic, or lack thereof.

To say that it's the modern aesthetic seems to imply that there's some monolithic concept at work here. For better or for worse, that structure was slowly whittled away last century.

homogeneity - the normative aesthetic, sells LK, furthermore extremes within this are very profitable by having a high turnover - what was deemed fashionable last year - looks ridiculous this year, so people need to buy something new.

 

[radicaldog]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Or rather, the normative aesthetic is the middle-class aesthetic, or lack thereof. To say that it's the modern aesthetic seems to imply that there's some monolithic concept at work here. For better or for worse, that structure was slowly whittled away last century.
It seems bizarre to suggest that the European (and by extension American) middle class of the late 19th and 20th century didn't have an aesthetic, with conflicting currents and all. It just wasn't based around the timocratic normative commitments of the aristocracy. Now it's just too late to say that something based on non-timocratic values doesn't qualify as an aesthetic (you know, truth is power and all that). For better or worse, the aristocratic world fell into an irreversible coma around 1848 and was pronounced clinically dead in 1914. As for what has been happening since 1968, or 1989, or 2001, well, it's just too early too tell. Though I'd pick 1978 (Chinese economic reforms) as a more important date. P.S. Btw, I think an aesthetic is by definition normative.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

It seems bizarre to suggest that the European (and by extension American) middle class of the late 19th and 20th century didn't have an aesthetic, with conflicting currents and all. It just wasn't based around the timocratic normative commitments of the aristocracy. Now it's just too late to say that something based on non-timocratic values doesn't qualify as an aesthetic (you know, truth is power and all that). For better or worse, the aristocratic world fell into an irreversible coma around 1848 and was pronounced clinically dead in 1914. As for what has been happening since 1968, or 1989, or 2001, well, it's just too early too tell. Though I'd pick 1978 (Chinese economic reforms) as a more important date.

P.S. Btw, I think an aesthetic is by definition normative.

Considering this forum is an ode to petit-bourgeois conceptions, values and aesthetics it's hard to deny the later exists.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

It seems bizarre to suggest that the European (and by extension American) middle class of the late 19th and 20th century didn't have an aesthetic, with conflicting currents and all. It just wasn't based around the timocratic normative commitments of the aristocracy. Now it's just too late to say that something based on non-timocratic values doesn't qualify as an aesthetic (you know, truth is power and all that). For better or worse, the aristocratic world fell into an irreversible coma around 1848 and was pronounced clinically dead in 1914. As for what has been happening since 1968, or 1989, or 2001, well, it's just too early too tell. Though I'd pick 1978 (Chinese economic reforms) as a more important date. P.S. Btw, I think an aesthetic is by definition normative.
The 19th century was the century of the middle-class with all its posturing, insidious diplomacy and moral consciousness extended into taste. Yes, but prior to World War II, there was still a legitimate aristocratic social force that expounded its mores and tastes. So you have that particular legion that this middle-class often looked up to and emulated, which doesn't suggest that the middle-class look was necessarily the normative movement it is today. I do find postwar America somewhat interesting. It was intensely bourgeois, but it also had intensely manifested cultural pretensions. That era seems defined by naively earnest scientific longings and aspirations to a cultured, socially dynamic state of being. Witness how what would be considered serious literature today was oftentimes the number one sellers: Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, et al. One certainly still sees the culturally-conscious middle-class, but it seems relegated to highly urban areas. These days, there are several legitimate subcultural aesthetics one can work with. Whether or not they are socially condoned is another question.