... and it's all about clothes, I'm afraid, but it's witty:
Boyer writes:
"When I was growing up back in the late 1950s, the matter of dress for young men was relatively simple. There were basically three types of clothing stores. There was of course the traditional store for the traditional American business look: conservatively cut suits, safe shirts, and discreet foulard or striped neckwear. Then there was the somewhat “sharper” store, a more courant version of the trad store. Finally there was the Ivy League shop.... For most, the subtleties of double-breasted jackets and grenadine neckwear, of suede town shoes, enameled cuff links, covert cloth chesterfields, and cashmere cabled hosiery were not imaginable. But then neither were exterior logos, Italian designers, or microfibers. There also didn’t seem to be the questions of what to wear when. We certainly knew when the occasion called for a tie, and gym clothes were confined to the gym. It was, as I say, a simpler time."
Read the whole thing at A Continuous Lean.
1 comment:
I doubt it was simpler. Dandies have existed in every age, (consider: we STILL know who Beau Brummel was) and the niceties of a Windsor vs a Four in Hand have telegraphed volumes of meaning to the men who cared. That the author is bewildered by today's fashion only means, not to put too fine a point on it, he's out of it. As am I. Two T shirts at a time? Bra straps that show? I am teetering on the edge of Grandma Fashion--no matter how expensive and well cut, still 30 years behind the times.
Post a Comment