Who's paying for Bruce Boyer

[dopey]

From Ivy-Style, the new voice of trad on the internet, comes this interview with Bruce Boyer. A couple of my favorite snippets:

. . . IS: A lot of advertisements from the heyday talk about “genuine” or “authentic” Ivy League clothing. Tell us more about the importance of wearing the right brands. BB: There were certain labels that rang true: Corbin trousers, London Fog raincoats, shirts by Gant and Sero. Tom Wolfe pointed out the difference in shirts between Brooks Brothers, J. Press and Chipp — one had no pocket, one had a pocket with a flap, one had no flap — and guys could tell that kind of stuff. They could tell a Gant shirt from a lesser brand. Weejuns, of course, were a top brand. Southwick was huge, probably the best-known suitmaker in any Ivy League shop. I think people think brand consciousness came only when designers started putting the label on the outside. IS: What about the details associated with the Ivy League jacket? How trained were eyes for the details like the 3/2 roll, lapped seams and hooked vents? BB: For guys who understood the look, those details were everything. You not only had to have those details, you had to buy it at a certain store. The store was probably more important than the brand. IS: Then I suppose the answer is that you just went to the right store and then you didn’t have to worry about the details, because that’s what you’d get. BB: Exactly, that’s why the store was more important than the brand. If you went to the right store, you didn’t have to know what a hooked vent was, you were going to get one. That’s how the store got its reputation. You didn’t have to know anything because they were going to take care of you. IS: How did the small campus shops that carried private-label brands, and makers like Southwick and Norman Hilton, compare to Brooks and Press? Were they ahead or behind as far as styling went? BB: Probably Brooks was the standard for shirts. If you had a Brooks button-down on, that was the real thing. You find that all over. George Frazier often told the story about being at a club in New York with John O’Hara, who was nuts about clothes. Frazier was taken over to meet O’Hara, and O’Hara looked at him and said, “You’re wearing a Brooks collar, you can sit with me.” IS: And you’re saying he was being only half ironic? BB: He wasn’t being ironic at all. What he was saying was, “You’re OK; sit down and have a drink.” It was the ticket in. O’Hara was typical of that certain Ivy League guy who would recognize a Brooks collar, and that applied to everything: Were you wearing the real penny loafers or not?

O'Hara put references to Brooks Brothers into a few of his short-stories as well. It really was totemic for him. Given his obsession with being a not-WASP and having not gone to Yale, it is an interesting detail.

IS: At what point did the Ivy League Look go from being a young, modern, collegiate look to a reactionary, middle-aged look? When and how did this transition happen? BB: There are a couple of things going on. You can’t point to one thing because things don’t fall in a straight line. But the look was originally Eastern Establishment Old Money, and that has held for a long time. If you go back to the turn of the century, those Old Money guys are wearing natural-shouldered clothing, basically what Brooks came to call its Sack Suit Number One. IS: In contrast, say, to New Money financiers with shoulder pads? BB: Yes, as opposed to what at the time would have been called traditional American clothing. What happened was that after World War II, because of the GI Bill — which was federal aid for higher education for GIs — a lot of guys started to go to school, and they did two things. First, they saw what the Old Money kids at Harvard and Yale were wearing and they imitated that, and secondly, they integrated their army wardrobes, so there was an awful lot of khaki around, to mesh in with the tweed. So that Old Money Look became popular, but that popularity was for a short time. I’d say from the death of FDR at the end of the War, to the inauguration of Nixon in ‘69, the Old Money Eastern Establishment Ivy League Look became very popular because of the push for higher education. But after 1969 you get so many other interests contending for the popular look: hippies, the British look to get ahead in the world, and Italian fashion. So you get these other groups chewing away at the popularity of Ivy League Style, though the Old Money guys held onto it. Then by the early ’70s the designer look in menswear had firmly taken hold, and that leads to the beginning of what I’d call Postmodern Preppy, where the clothing becomes a costume. A guy like William F. Buckley dressed that way because it was his heritage, but kids today dress that way because they want to assume a look of the moment. It’s not a real belief, it’s just a costume.

This is oft discussed. I don't know that Boyer is an authority on anything, but at least I agree. That gives him a fair shot at being right.

IS: Does the notion of authenticity even matter anymore in 2009? BB: There are certain people out there for whom it matters very much. At a website like The London Lounge, you read what those guys say about clothes, and right away you get the impression that if you don’t fold your pocket square a certain way, none of them will ever speak to you. If you don’t have your shoes made by John Lobb or Cleverley, you’re nothing. So it matters to those guys. But apart from that, fashion is what it is. IS: We live in an inauthentic world. BB: That’s exactly it. There’s a lot of style and no substance, and that’s what we’ve come to. The clothing doesn’t reflect what it used to.

The idea that somehow the world is inauthentic because clothes now reflect style instead of substance is funny. Clothes were never substance. They were always clothes.

IS: The world of online menswear blogs and forums is recognized as a place of draconian cattiness. What’s your take on the Internet? BB: It’s John Lobb London versus John Lobb Paris, and which one is better. That’s one reason why I don’t get involved. The other reason is that they’re amateurs, and I’m a professional, and I ought to get paid for my opinions.

There's more, but it seems to fun to go out on the old man's old media's lament. Boyer is sad because he wants to be paid and he should be paid, he says, because he is a professional, not an amateur. I like his writing and consider him a "professional" because the writing is good. But I think he still sees himself as a gatekeeper and a seller of opinions. In that sense, the world has passed him by. He is not only competing to sell his writing, but he also has to compete for freebies and promotional swag with every other poster, blogger writer and, coming soon, tweeter out there.

 

[randallr]

that was awful

 

[grimslade]

Thanks, Dope. Is Ivy-Style a Russell Street/Mr. Lean confection?

 

[voxsartoria]

I enjoyed that.

- B

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by grimslade

Thanks, Dope. Is Ivy-Style a Russell Street/Mr. Lean confection?
I don't think so. It is run by the guy who ran/runs dandyism.net. Since it relates to trad, there is inevitably some russel street lean whining about who invented trad and who invented ivy style but it is too inside-baseball, confusing and buried on fnb to follow. Nor does it really matter. But perhaps Mr. Lean will come on here to explain it. The trad wars are always entertaining, but like any soap opera, if you don't keep up you'll never know who is Ryan's real father, what happened just before Priscilla lost her memory, and why the stranger in town looks just like Grant, who is supposed to be dead. If you come in the middle, you are lost.

 

[Despos]

T

he idea that somehow the world is inauthentic because clothes now reflect style instead of substance is funny. Clothes were never substance. They were always clothes.
[

QUOTE][/quote]

I think this meant that in the day, clothing you wore represented your ideology and what you wore conformed you to the group. Today the same clothes are worn as conformity to a look and called style.

 

[bluemagic]

"But after 1969 you get so many other interests contending for the popular look: hippies, the British look to get ahead in the world, and Italian fashion. So you get these other groups chewing away at the popularity of Ivy League Style, though the Old Money guys held onto it. Then by the early ’70s the designer look in menswear had firmly taken hold, and that leads to the beginning of what I’d call Postmodern Preppy, where the clothing becomes a costume. A guy like William F. Buckley dressed that way because it was his heritage, but kids today dress that way because they want to assume a look of the moment. It’s not a real belief, it’s just a costume."

I consider that a good thing, along with the democratization of clothing that comes from the fashion industry (as opposed to secret, traditional knowledge).

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Originally Posted by dopey

I don't think so. It is run by the guy who ran/runs dandyism.net. Since it relates to trad, their is inevitably some russel street lean whining about who invented trad and who invented ivy style but it is too inside-baseball, confusing and buried on fnb to follow. Nor does it really matter. But perhaps Mr. Lean will come on here to explain it. The trad wars are always entertaining, but like any soap opera, if you don't keep up you'll never know who is Ryan's real father, what happened just before Priscilla lost her memory, and why the stranger in town looks just like Grant, who is supposed to be dead. If you come in the middle, you are lost.
I thought the OP was rather piquant and something one might place over at FNB but then I suppose you're more of a London Lounge doggie? One thing, Dopes, what's the trademark pocket square arrangement over there?

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff

I thought the OP was rather piquant and something one might place over at FNB but then I suppose you're more of a London Lounge doggie?
What I am is a professional. Pay me. O.K., I'll admit that once again I don't know what you are trying to say.

Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff

One thing, Dopes, what's the trademark pocket square arrangement over there?

Just because Boyer is a "professional" don't forget that he works for the internet now and his opinions now are backed up by all the research and analysis you would expect of the internet. In short, his comment was pretty silly. But if you find evidence of a uniform pocket square or pocket square arrangement, let me know.

 

[gdl203]

I'd pitch in $1 per year to get his opinions here

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff

One thing, Dopes, what's the trademark pocket square arrangement over there?

The fold is complicated, but here it is before you stuff it in:

- B

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by gdl203

I'd pitch in $1 per year to get his opinions here

Really, I think he is a very good writer. I have Eminently Suitable and Elegance, as well as his Fred Astaire Style book.

I enjoyed the interview as well, though I have to believe that he didn't mean to come across the way he did.
As I mentioned to someone else, if you read carefully, most of the places where Boyer comes across at his worst are where he was set-up by the interviewer. Vanity and ego I expect from a "professional" like Boyer, but that he was so unsophisticated in the handling of the interview and interviewer is surprising.

 

[Standard Toaster]

The other reason is that they're amateurs, and I'm a professional, and I ought to get paid for my opinions.

I like Boyer's writing, but he comes across as a bit of a prick.

 

[gdl203]

Okay you convinced me - $2

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by gdl203

I'd pitch in $1 per year to get his opinions here
Would that violate your club membership?