The OP makes a very good point. And I find it true that at the (wealthy east coast) roots of Trad/TNSIL men gave only a bit of thought to their clothing and had relatively few items. Somehow they always seemed to have looked quite good and had consistency in the items they did own (all 3/2 sack jackets for some reason, all shirts were button-downs for some reason, etc.). I will always be confused as to how such a non-chalance can result in true style. Hell - a lot of these guys even looked great in stuff that was handed down from their fathers and presumably didn't fit perfectly, was shiny, frayed...Welcome to the Catch-22 of AAAC: you can only be trad if you effortlessly dress in trad clothes; you can't be effortless if you're taking the time to read and post on forums like AAAC.
Embrace the hypocrisy.
But the points made about the relative lack of information in those days are definitely true. Maybe if they had the internet they would be more fastidious.
As to the line quoted above - and this highlights my confusion about how fastidious and good results may be mutually exclusive - what do you have to say about all of the very dapper Brits from years ago. SR customers are most certainly concerned with detailing, etc. By default.
I'm still confused by this whole topic