Joined
·
20 Posts
Seems you follow quite well... Porter
Cord Suit, what a wonderful idea. If only I could find an event to wear one...
Trad and Effort
61 - 80 of 119 Posts
Cord Suit, what a wonderful idea. If only I could find an event to wear one...
Joined
·
380 Posts
Where were you cord suit fans when the membership of this board was nearly universally panning them and insisting they're not trad at all?
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=57868&highlight=corduroy+suit
White Birch has an excuse - he was looking for a date for the junior prom (should've gone with a more standard BB suit than the cord...). However, the rest of you fans had your chance to step up and missed it...
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=57868&highlight=corduroy+suit
White Birch has an excuse - he was looking for a date for the junior prom (should've gone with a more standard BB suit than the cord...). However, the rest of you fans had your chance to step up and missed it...
Joined
·
449 Posts
I really don't want one. It was an attempt at humor. :icon_smile_wink:
Joined
·
4,130 Posts
:deadhorse-a:
Joined
·
1,994 Posts
Did you manage to even read that thread? I just did, and counted 9 members who voted in favor of a corduroy suit, 6 who voted against (7 if you count kitonbrioni, which I did not do), and 2 who made comments that didn't seem to indicate which way they were leaning. At least two of those 6 negative votes seemed to be due in large part to a negative association with the corduroy suit from the 1970s, not a vote against corduroy suits as a whole.
Joined
·
380 Posts
WNH, you're kidding, right? This board is full of people who spend hundreds of dollars on a single pair of shoes (how trad!.../sarcasm) and, with a straight face, advise each other to buy $500 blazers. Yet, when it comes to a thread on cord suits, a total of 3 out of 24 participants own one. Of the 24 posts on the thread, about half said, outright, cord suits are awful. The other half don't think they're so bad...but barely any actually own one.
The point I was making is that what "trads" wore in 1950 is totally different than what "trads" wear today. That's supported by the fact that in a discussion on this board about cord suits, barely 10% (3 of 24) have one.
Capice?
The point I was making is that what "trads" wore in 1950 is totally different than what "trads" wear today. That's supported by the fact that in a discussion on this board about cord suits, barely 10% (3 of 24) have one.
Capice?
Joined
·
380 Posts
Come on, topsider: you may disagree with me, but you've got to give credit where it's due. The "I'm with stupid" icon was perfect given your icon...
Joined
·
1,994 Posts
I think 3-piece tweed suits are most certainly trad, and I'm sure the vast majority on this forum agree, but I don't own one, nor, I imagine, does the vast majority on this forum. Since when does majority ownership become the test of whether or not something is trad?
Your original claim regarding corduroy suits was that they were "nearly universally" regarding as un-trad, when in actuality they weren't. Further, only 19 members commented, not 24; there were 24 posts, but some members posted more than once. As I stated above, 6 of 19 respondents said no to cord suits--in large part due to negative associations with the 1970's. Six out of 19 is a meager 31%, which in my math is a minority.
"Trads" in the 1950's did wear different things than "trads" wear today, namely darted suits and pleated trousers, but I'd argue that "trad" then and "trad" now are two different, though related, things, today's "trad" being a refinement of the "trad" of a few decades ago.
Anyway, this is all silly and fruitless, though perhaps a little entertaining. I should really find a better outlet for my time.
Joined
·
380 Posts
As usual, WNH, you're being reasonable.
I give. You win.
This comment you made is one I found particularly agreeable:
"Trads" in the 1950's did wear different things than "trads" wear today, namely darted suits and pleated trousers, but I'd argue that "trad" then and "trad" now are two different, though related, things, today's "trad" being a refinement of the "trad" of a few decades ago.
I give. You win.
This comment you made is one I found particularly agreeable:
"Trads" in the 1950's did wear different things than "trads" wear today, namely darted suits and pleated trousers, but I'd argue that "trad" then and "trad" now are two different, though related, things, today's "trad" being a refinement of the "trad" of a few decades ago.
Joined
·
4,130 Posts
I'm not sure what you're suggesting, that you think I'm stupid? Correct me if I've misinterpreted.
If that's what I'm supposed to give you credit for, don't hold your breath.
Joined
·
380 Posts
No, topsider. I wasn't intending to call you stupid, I was intending to mock your use of an emoticon.
If you don't think using an emoticon is childish and dumb, then I'm afraid you're beyond my assistance.
Joined
·
4,130 Posts
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
Re: effort. It took effort at first. Now these clothes are just the clothes in my closet. Effortless for a couple of years now...
Joined
·
192 Posts
Although I typically disagree with PrterSq, I can see where he is coming from. For example, where did the obsession with pocket squares on this board come from? I could be wrong, but I don't think kids in the 50/60s carried anything but a white hankie - and they certainly certainly didn't go to great lengths to display it from their breast pocket. Maybe AP can cite an ad/article that says otherwise.
Joined
·
2,500 Posts
Hear, hear! This is the major benefit to this type of wardrobe. Simplicity of dressing! No "new" fashion items to keep up with.
I bought and bought for about my first 2 years, and now that I have a great base, I have hardly bought anything this past year, yet I love everything I'm wearing each day.
Joined
·
2,186 Posts
I too have reached the "very little effort" phase. Took me 6 months (from 0 to 60), but I'm there.
This is a weird thread.
Evidently we've established that if a "trad" in today's world were to wander science fictionally onto a 1955 college campus, nobody would recognize what he was wearing. And he himself would be vastly confused. Everyone would be exclaiming "Mein Gott! What kinds of clothes are THOSE?"
Occasionally, 50 years ago, some newspaper would run an "ad" showing outlandish futuristic clothing, but only as a college prank.
This is a weird thread.
Evidently we've established that if a "trad" in today's world were to wander science fictionally onto a 1955 college campus, nobody would recognize what he was wearing. And he himself would be vastly confused. Everyone would be exclaiming "Mein Gott! What kinds of clothes are THOSE?"
Occasionally, 50 years ago, some newspaper would run an "ad" showing outlandish futuristic clothing, but only as a college prank.
Joined
·
1,994 Posts
I don't think I follow. My point from before--and I'm assuming it's my point that you're drawing from--was that, while on this forum we bestow the virtues of sack jackets and flat-front pants, and point to much of the 1950's as our inspiration, many well-dressed men back then weren't the owners of wardrobes with nothing but sack jackets and flat-front pants. Today's "trad" who traveled to the 1950's would fit in perfectly, but perhaps the average 1950's Ivy Leaguer who traveled to today's trad forum wouldn't.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, mind you, it's just that we seem to have established here a spectrum of clothing that is more narrow than a general "classic American" or "Ivy League" style. I'm actually of the opinion that this is a good thing, since how many of us would even know what a sack jacket was if they weren't so exclusively discussed on this forum?
Joined
·
1,240 Posts
I started buying Trad suits in the mid 50s and as I recall did not wear pocket squares until some time in the 70s for whatever that is worth. I don't think many others wore them much before the 70s either, but I could be wrong.
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
If you look at "The Trad's" scans of Take Ivy Chap. 3, which focuses on pictures of well-dressed NY businessmen ca. 1966, you see about 50% of the pictures show people wearing pocket squares which is markedly lower than what you see on the Trad WAYWN thread. But I would also say that it was much much higher than what I would see walking down the street today in downtown Washington D.C. on my visits to that city. Note that D.C. is a more formal city than all but a handful of US cities.
So the best that you could say would be that pocket squares were probably more characteristic of those days than today,perhaps to the extent of having a mildly retro affect. Personally, I dismiss all of the little rules on gentlemanly dressing (always match your socks with your pants, always button your jacket when standing etc.) and probably "always wear a pocket square" falls in that category though I also like them a lot so I usually wear them. I would say that the long chest of the sack especially benefits from a square but to each his own.
61 - 80 of 119 Posts
