Tom Ford silver knit tie and...?

[donk93953]

I spend my time in the Trad forum and have avoided Tom Ford's stylings like the plague,BUT...
I have to admit I saw his ad on page 30 of Esquire's 2009 Fall Big Black Book

(http://everydayfacts.files.wordpress...er-perfume.jpg)

....and the silver knit tie...with the silver-white edged pocket handkerchief looks great.
I've searched Tom Ford sites with no success...any suggestions?

[CuffDaddy]

Sam Hober can make you one very like it. See http://www.samhober.com/grenadine-si...lk-tie-21.html.

[Jovan]

Tom Ford is very exclusive. There might be a website, but I doubt one could order off of it.

Maybe you could try a dark grey knit? Very James Bond.

[CuffDaddy]

Tom Ford is very exclusive.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS A RANT

I don't think people understand the meaning of the word "exclusive." Tom Ford would not exclude anyone from buying his stuff, provided they had the money. You don't have to know a secret handshake, pass through an application committee, or be sponsored by three members.

Augusta National is exclusive. Yale law school is exclusive. The baseball Hall of Fame is exclusive. They are all hard to get into, even if you really want in and have lots of money. They exclude most people, and part of their value/appeal is that they do so.

A few Saville Row tailors used to be exclusive, in that they did require letters of introduction from current customers and might refuse to make garments for those who asked for things they considered distasteful. Other than that, very few, if any, clothing merchants are exclusive. Some are expensive. Expensive and exclusive are not the same thing.

RANT OVER. Thanks for your indulgence.

[ToryBoy]

Tom Ford clothing is not very available, does that not make it exclusive (in terms of access)?

In England only two stores sell TF clothing, whereas Armani etc is available almost everywhere. According to his website, there are six stores in the US that sell TF clothing, how many Gucci stores are there in the state of New York alone?

[FrankDC]

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS A RANT

I don't think people understand the meaning of the word "exclusive." Tom Ford would not exclude anyone from buying his stuff, provided they had the money. You don't have to know a secret handshake, pass through an application committee, or be sponsored by three members.

Augusta National is exclusive. Yale law school is exclusive. The baseball Hall of Fame is exclusive. They are all hard to get into, even if you really want in and have lots of money. They exclude most people, and part of their value/appeal is that they do so.

A few Saville Row tailors used to be exclusive, in that they did require letters of introduction from current customers and might refuse to make garments for those who asked for things they considered distasteful. Other than that, very few, if any, clothing merchants are exclusive. Some are expensive. Expensive and exclusive are not the same thing.

RANT OVER. Thanks for your indulgence.

Exclusive can have several connotations. To Jovan's defense, I've always assumed it meant financially out of reach for most people, not in the way e.g. Bijan refuses to sell to anyone without a certain income level.

[CuffDaddy]

Well, Tom Ford's website tells me his menswear is available at an address that's 4 blocks' walking distance from my house. Doesn't sound super exclusive to me!

Regardless, number of outlets is a pretty poor proxy for exclusivity. Does that make the local, mom-and-pop-owned hot dog stand "exclusive"? No. For Tom Ford, if you go to the places where the item is offered, they will sell it to you, and there are no extraordinary barriers to reaching those places.

And even if they were only sold in a difficult place to reach, inaccessibility is not exclusivity. Exclusivity is when the vendor/institution is making a decision not to supply the full demand for their product/service, and then is making some non-economic decision about allocating the undersupplied goods. If it's auctioned, that's not exclusive. If it's first-come-first-serve, that's not exclusive. Exclusive is turning down applications, sending away those who would do business with you even though they have the money and would stand in line, etc.

[Jovan]

I'm pretty sure everyone, including yourself, knew what I meant.

[FrankDC]

Exclusivity is when the vendor/institution is making a decision not to supply the full demand for their product/service, and then is making some non-economic decision about allocating the undersupplied goods. If it's auctioned, that's not exclusive. If it's first-come-first-serve, that's not exclusive. Exclusive is turning down applications, sending away those who would do business with you even though they have the money and would stand in line, etc.

Again, you're being way too strict. The proper definition of exclusive is "excluding or having power to exclude". So charge $500 for a tie and 90% of humanity will be excluded from buying it. That's a valid and common use for the word. Look it up.

[Jovan]

I meant exclusive as in hard to get, seeing as very few stores carry his merchandise.

[donk93953]

Might we return to the question ....?...

I spend my time in the Trad forum and have avoided Tom Ford's stylings like the plague,BUT...
I have to admit I saw his ad on page 30 of Esquire's 2009 Fall Big Black Book

(http://everydayfacts.files.wordpress...er-perfume.jpg)

....and the silver knit tie...with the silver-white edged pocket handkerchief looks great.
I've searched Tom Ford sites with no success...any suggestions?

[CuffDaddy]

Exclusive can have several connotations. To Jovan's defense, I've always assumed it meant financially out of reach for most people, not in the way e.g. Bijan refuses to sell to anyone without a certain income level.

I agree that many are now using the word that way. However, we already have a word for that: "expensive." When we use a word in a totally redundant way, we destroy its meaning. When we use the word "exclusive" to mean "expensive," we make "exclusive" a useless, redundant word.

BTW, this usage trend (like so many usages) is an outgrowth of marketing. Few people would buy a product (be it a watch, a car, or a house in a new development) if it were advertised as "expensive." Can you imagine the ad copy: "Rolex. Buy it. It's expensive." Instead, they say "Rolex. Buy it. It's exclusive." I can understand why they want to use that word, but it's not accurate.

[FrankDC]

I agree that many are now using the word that way. However, we already have a word for that: "expensive." When we use a word in a totally redundant way, we destroy its meaning. When we use the word "exclusive" to mean "expensive," we make "exclusive" a useless, redundant word.

BTW, this usage trend (like so many usages) is an outgrowth of marketing. Few people would buy a product (be it a watch, a car, or a house in a new development) if it were advertised as "expensive." Can you imagine the ad copy: "Rolex. Buy it. It's expensive." Instead, they say "Rolex. Buy it. It's exclusive." I can understand why they want to use that word, but it's not accurate.

You'll need to take that last claim up with Webster's. It's simply incorrect.

[Taliesin]

I agree that many are now using the word that way. However, we already have a word for that: "expensive." When we use a word in a totally redundant way, we destroy its meaning. When we use the word "exclusive" to mean "expensive," we make "exclusive" a useless, redundant word.

Alas, that ship has sailed. A quick look at online dictionaries reveals that the following is now a common, established definition of the word 'exclusive':

charging comparatively high prices; expensive

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusive

So in using the word to mean expensive, one is not running afoul of its recognized definition. This may be unfortunate, but it's a done deal.

Back to the OP, couldn't you just call one of the Tom Ford shops and ask if they have the item you are seeking? I'm sure they would send it to you, especially if you are paying full price.

[CuffDaddy]

You'll need to take that last claim up with Webster's. It's simply incorrect.

Webster's is a descriptive dictionary. They often have usages that are suboptimal included.

And if meanings can be added to words, they can be taken away. It's a euphemistic, obfuscating usage, and bad for the language.

[FrankDC]

This has turned into a real exercise in semantics, but blaming Webster's for one's own stubbornness is patently absurd.

The word is from L. ex- "out" + claudere "to close or shut". The word specifies NOTHING in regard to whether this shutting out is done intentionally or by some other means (e.g. financially, or via limited distribution, etc).

[CuffDaddy]

Well, a good-natured argument about the correct usage is necessarily semantic, no?

My OED from 1971 does not reflect the usage of "exclusive" as a synonym for "expensive," nor anything close to it that I can see. The online M-W suggests it as definition 3(c)... a location that suggests a later-added meaning.

Moreover, the etymology argument you make actually supports my position. As you note, the root word is "to close or shut." Not "put beyond reach." It implies that someone or something is closing the door, shutting someone out... not that the person trying to get in simply can't reach the doorknob.

I'll readily concede that the usage of "exclusive" to mean "expensive" is widespread. But it's a bad usage, and one we would be better off without. I'd expect that to be a welcome sort of argument on this board, where people often point out clothing choices that, although common, are ill-advised.

[FrankDC]

Well, a good-natured argument about the correct usage is necessarily semantic, no?

True.

Moreover, the etymology argument you make actually supports my position. As you note, the root word is "to close or shut." Not "put beyond reach." It implies that someone or something is closing the door, shutting someone out... not that the person trying to get in simply can't reach the doorknob.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. According to its strict meaning, exclude means "to shut out". It does not go on to explain the hows or whys of this shutting out, or whether it's intentional.

[DCLawyer68]

...

I'll readily concede that the usage of "exclusive" to mean "expensive" is widespread. But it's a bad usage, and one we would be better off without. I'd expect that to be a welcome sort of argument on this board, where people often point out clothing choices that, although common, are ill-advised.

If you can stand the support of a someone wearing a white contrast collar today, I'll just add my support for this viewpoint.

Of course, the agreement of a sartorial slack jawed yokel might lead you to rethink.

[CuffDaddy]

If you can stand the support of a someone wearing a white contrast collar today, I'll just add my support for this viewpoint.

Of course, the agreement of a sartorial slack jawed yokel might lead you to rethink.

LOL. I'll take my allies where I can find them!

(To be clear, I like white collared shirts... I just think they ought to have french cuffs.)

[donk93953]

I ask again, might we return to the original question...?...

I spend my time in the Trad forum and have avoided Tom Ford's stylings like the plague,BUT...
I have to admit I saw his ad on page 30 of Esquire's 2009 Fall Big Black Book

(http://everydayfacts.files.wordpress...er-perfume.jpg)

....and the silver knit tie...with the silver-white edged pocket handkerchief looks great.
I've searched Tom Ford sites with no success...any suggestions?

[Taliesin]

^

Back to the OP, couldn't you just call one of the Tom Ford shops and ask if they have the item you are seeking? I'm sure they would send it to you, especially if you are paying full price.

Anything wrong with this advice?

[CuffDaddy]

Donk, you've got a couple of answers. I told you how to get one made, and others have suggested calling the stores and asking. What are you looking for?

[donk93953]

23 posts...2, maybe 3 address the question....sort of speaks for itself doesn't it...

[Blueboy1938]

. . . a Ford, but perhaps it might do:

http://www.kjbeckett.com/acatalog/si...20-%20Specific