workwear, authenticity, details and context

Originally Posted by Teger

Click to expand...

I echo Get Smart's sentiment from the TAT thread: why add useless features? Although he was takling about two buttons on a suit, when one is always going to be unbuttoned, I think it applies to things like a game pocket.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. A game pocket, map pocket, hammer loops, ruler pockets and so on are not foreign to me at all. I work construction and hunt like a fiend so these "bizarre" features aren't bizarre at all. I wouldn't own these clothes if they didn't have these features. So with this in mind if an outsider to this lifestyle wants to dress like they are on the inside then you accept these features and put them to use somehow. I've said it before, I make the workwear outdoorsy style of dress look easy for one simple reason. It's what I do on a daily basis. My clothes reflect my lifestyle and personality as it should be.

Originally Posted by Teger

Click to expand...

The real question becomes: are you carrying a notebook because you want to, or so you feel you're utilizing the chest pocket?

Well, after I got the shirt this morning I went and bought the notebook and wrote/sketched in it real quick and then backdated it before snapping the pic. Then I chopped down a tree and built a cabinet and went fishing for lunch.

Maybe I should go out and buy an expensive wallet, so i'll feel compelled to utilize the cash storage.

Originally Posted by Crane's

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A game pocket, map pocket, hammer loops, ruler pockets and so on are not foreign to me at all. I work construction and hunt like a fiend so these "bizarre" features aren't bizarre at all. I wouldn't own these clothes if they didn't have these features. So with this in mind if an outsider to this lifestyle wants to dress like they are on the inside then you accept these features and put them to use somehow. I've said it before, I make the workwear outdoorsy style of dress look easy for one simple reason. It's what I do on a daily basis. My clothes reflect my lifestyle and personality as it should be.

Here's the question though: how much of your purchasing of these items is based on a tradition of owning them (and them be being owned by people similar to you) or the fact that they are 100% the best possibly designed piece for the situation.

The point I'm trying to make is two fold: it comes down to personal style and choice (duh), but so many features of clothes are anachronistic and merely exist out of tradition, that singling out something like EG over any pair of jeans is kind of silly.

Originally Posted by airportlobby

Click to expand...

An interesting difference in the philosophy of vintage-inspired workwear and new actual workwear - old stuff seemed to be built to take a beating and last. Value was recouped by continuous use. New workwear, with notable exceptions, tends to be disposable - value is achieved by cheapness. Much of the fetishizing of vintage workwear derives from a yearning for quality and the aversion to post-modern disposable lifestyles as well as a reactionary longing for a more traditional static social structure. It's interesting though, few actually makes use of the quality of vintage-inspired workwear (i.e. durability), especially since we are consuming like post-modernists (non-stop) rather than only by need. The main use we obtain through vintage-inspired workwear is aspirational. As far as authenticity - it's a false premise. There is no such thing.
Great post, but I take a little issue with your point that the value of most new workwear tends to be achieved by cheapness. Are you including EG and WWM in this category? If not, please ignore the rest of this paragraph I've worn out several pairs of Carhartts through actual work (field studies, working on houses, etc). They were great, because they were fairly durable and cheap. I buy some EG or MFSC because I'm fairly certain that it will last forever (i.e., durable), considering I'm not actually using it for sailing across the Atlantic or building skyscrapers. None of it was certainly inexpensive. I certainly don't take on the qualities of workwear I admire. Rather, I look for workwear that has the qualities I expect or even demand. I do agree that part of the obsession with vintage workwear arises from an aversion to post-modernist consumption, at least for me. It's awfully comforting to know that I won't need to buy another pea coat or chambray workshirt for the next decade at least. We need clothing, don't we? I would think it was much more sensible to buy a well-made article of clothing, whether or not it was vintage-inspired. I just personally like vintage stuff in all aspects of my life, so I naturally tend to gravitate towards 'vintage' workwear. What more is 'fashion' than a method by which we express ourselves, anyway?

Originally Posted by Teger

Click to expand...

I think it applies to things like a game pocket.
I was thinking about this just yesterday. I'd be surprised if anyone would like their EG jackets to be bloody and ****-stained I think there is a bit of a grey area in respect to this, though. I think it's a little silly for anyone to imply that one should not wear jeans with a hammer loop if they aren't going to carry and use a hammer. But if that's what defines what you choose to wear, so be it.

Originally Posted by Crane's

Click to expand...

I've said it before, I make the workwear outdoorsy style of dress look easy for one simple reason. It's what I do on a daily basis. My clothes reflect my lifestyle and personality as it should be.
That's obvious from your pictures and I agree is how it should be, as you say. What we usually see on this forum is workwear for the aesthetic of it - trying to evoke a particular association from the viewer.

Originally Posted by zissou

Click to expand...

Great post, but I take a little issue with your point that the value of most new workwear tends to be achieved by cheapness. Are you including EG and WWM in this category? If not, please ignore the rest of this paragraph

I've worn out several pairs of Carhartts through actual work (field studies, working on houses, etc). They were great, because they were fairly durable and cheap. I buy some EG or MFSC because I'm fairly certain that it will last forever (i.e., durable), considering I'm not actually using it for sailing across the Atlantic or building skyscrapers. None of it was certainly inexpensive.

I certainly don't take on the qualities of workwear I admire. Rather, I look for workwear that has the qualities I expect or even demand. I do agree that part of the obsession with vintage workwear arises from an aversion to post-modernist consumption, at least for me. It's awfully comforting to know that I won't need to buy another pea coat or chambray workshirt for the next decade at least. We need clothing, don't we? I would think it was much more sensible to buy a well-made article of clothing, whether or not it was vintage-inspired. I just personally like vintage stuff in all aspects of my life, so I naturally tend to gravitate towards 'vintage' workwear. What more is 'fashion' than a method by which we express ourselves, anyway?



I was thinking about this just yesterday. I'd be surprised if anyone would like their EG jackets to be bloody and ****-stained

One question your post raises (and something I will take disagreement with) is that designer workwear is somehow better constructed than equally expensive non workwear designer clothing. While there are definitely some exceptions, I don't expect a jacket from say, Rag & Bone, to fall apart quicker than a jacket from EG, as long as the two are made of similar fabrics. I think the price/quality ratio applies to all clothing - certainly not unique to workwear, and is justification for many big purchases.

I will say the funniest part of the designer workwear concept is that most people would be afraid to do 'work' in the clothing for fear of destroying their $700 jacket.

I think theres a bit of confusion, or confounding of variables here One discussion is on the usefulness of workwear inspired stuff as actual workwear, the other on the appeal of vintage and modern workwear. The first discussion is rather pointless, since no one buys EG for actual work wear. That doesnt necessarily mean its of less quality than the work wear of yesteryear, just that the intent (and price) of the product is different. Regarding details, does anachronistic necessary equal = bad? For me, definitly not. Sometimes the most useful isnt the best, or most pleasing to the eye...

Originally Posted by Teger

Click to expand...

One question your post raises (and something I will take disagreement with) is that designer workwear is somehow better constructed than equally expensive non workwear designer clothing. While there are definitely some exceptions, I don't expect a jacket from say, Rag & Bone, to fall apart quicker than a jacket from EG, as long as the two are made of similar fabrics. I think the price/quality ratio applies to all clothing - certainly not unique to workwear, and is justification for many big purchases.
Yes, I agree about the price quality ratio applying to all clothing. I did not mean to imply that designer workwear is better constructed than non-workwear designer clothing (my argument pertained only to comparing new and 'vintage-inspired' workwear). I would argue that the two could be equally well constructed, but it is rather the features, design, and materials as they relate to the historic context of the workwear garment that appeal to me most. I suppose, with my tall thin frame, that I could get away with wearing lots of Jil or whatever, but I'd feel horribly uncomfortable and it would have no relation to me, my interests/hobbies in life, or where I live or have lived.

I will say the funniest part of the designer workwear concept is that most people would be afraid to do 'work' in the clothing for fear of destroying their $700 jacket.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the absurdity of it all. When MFSC first came out, I had the same thought as you. But, it wasn't until I saw cotton duck's posts regarding his MFSC jeans on sufu that I began to realize that, yes, it's ok to tear a hole in your $300 jeans or $900 coat and patch it. I think it actually looks better that way as opposed to if it had the look of a pristine unworn garment. Hell, didn't he win "best dressed on sufu award" or something like that?

Originally Posted by SuperBobo

Click to expand...

Regarding details, does anachronistic necessary equal = bad? For me, definitly not. Sometimes the most useful isnt the best, or most pleasing to the eye...
Indeed. Well said.

Originally Posted by Teger

Click to expand...

Here's the question though: how much of your purchasing of these items is based on a tradition of owning them (and them be being owned by people similar to you) or the fact that they are 100% the best possibly designed piece for the situation.

The point I'm trying to make is two fold: it comes down to personal style and choice (duh), but so many features of clothes are anachronistic and merely exist out of tradition, that singling out something like EG over any pair of jeans is kind of silly.

I buy based on suitability of purpose when it comes to my work and field clothes, so do the people I work and hunt with. The nostalgia is nice but it's not considered when buying.

Originally Posted by PinkPantser

Click to expand...

That's obvious from your pictures and I agree is how it should be, as you say. What we usually see on this forum is workwear for the aesthetic of it - trying to evoke a particular association from the viewer.

And therein lies the problem. To pull of the look requires the attitude and composure of what you're trying to be and if you're not a good actor it comes off as false, pretentious or just out of place.

As someone pointed out who's going to put a bloody carcass in the gamebag of some designers ridiculously expensive coat? I'll go a step further, does it even have a blood liner in that pocket? Probably not so it's poorly designed on top of it.

Crane's- you bring up a very good point, but where to draw the line? When you are in your shop being the business owner and selling goods, do you wear a business suit? OK, now I really must get to the library. I'll catch up with this all later... I think this is one of the better discussions I've seen here on SF.

Originally Posted by Crane's

Click to expand...

... And therein lies the problem. To pull of the look requires the attitude and composure of what you're trying to be and if you're not a good actor it comes off as false, pretentious or just out of place.

As someone pointed out who's going to put a bloody carcass in the gamebag of some designers ridiculously expensive coat? I'll go a step further, does it even have a blood liner in that pocket? Probably not so it's poorly designed on top of it.


I grew up working at really **** jobs. Roofing is about 2 inches from torture really when you start out as just a hand lugging bundles.

What it comes down to is that, no offense intended, but I wouldn't think bobo was someone who actually worked for a living from a mile away. I think your clothing style is kinda cool and not saying you look bad at all but I think that you look like you wear workwear to try to look like a workman, if that makes sense.

In order to be authentic you have to be authentic... and if you are authentic most likely you don't care.

Maybe I just don't get workwear but I have worn enough dickies and carhartt for two lifetimes thank you.

Originally Posted by Crane's

Click to expand...

To pull of the look requires the attitude and composure of what you're trying to be and if you're not a good actor it comes off as false, pretentious or just out of place.

totally. This comes up a lot and is the truest thing written, about the attitude being the most important accessory. Anyone can dress like _____ but without the attitude it oftentimes just looks like dressup and pretentious

^^No offense taken, and I really dont try to look like a "working man". I like the stuff I wear because of its cultural anchoring, and since I feel comfortable in loose fitting, durable clothes. And as I said, I mix and match different stuff, and the last time I checked, ocbd´s, bucket hats and dirty bucks isnt what you see on a construction worker.

His name *is* SuperBobo...

Slightly ott, but I think excessive emphasis on authenticity is one of biggest mistakes that men interested in clothing make (I'm talking more about men in general than I am about this forum btw.)

Guys tend to go wrong not so much with individual purchases as they do with their overall look. From what I've seen, men are far more likely to to dress AS something than women are and this is almost always a mistake. I'd no sooner leave the house in head to toe workwear as I would in head to toe western gear or WWII pilot gear. I've spent most of my life in areas where workwear and westernwear are commonplace, and like Crane's I hunt and fish and have spent my share of time on construction sites. So I can't help but chuckle a little when I see some of the more stereotypical of the 'authentic' workwear looks being touted these days. Unless you are actually going to work as a construction worker or logger etc. this is basically costume.

Still, workwear is undeniably relevent at the moment so the trick is to incorporate it into your own style without coming off as a stereotype. Bobo does this extremely well - most all the stuff he wears is authentic but he doesn't look like a parody. Additionally, he does this while staying within a fairly narrow stylistic range which is even harder. It's a tricky line to toe - I thought what I was wearing yesterday for instance was borderline costumey for me. I think for most guys it's much easier to pull iconic looks from a range of influences and combine them into an appealing whole with a masculine and classic but not stereotypical vibe. That's what I attempt with my casual clothing.


Re. specific items - yes, most of the detailing on men's clothing was originally functional in a way that is not relevant to modern wearers. But these styles and details have survived because they have aesthetic merit in their own right (also because of cultural resonance as Bobo and ringring referenced, but that is a topic for another dissertation.) If the authentic detailing of a garment contributes to its' overall aesthetic appeal then I'm all for it. But if the details were originally added for purely functional reasons and the garment would look better without them then I have no problem with a pared down version. I have as much of an issue with stuff that is overly detailed for the sake of authenticity as I do with designer stuff that is overly detailed in an attempt to be different. In the end though, the 100% authentic items can still look good as long as they are paired effectively.