Rat Pack
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 115
- Location
- Pacific NW, Seattle area.
Don't use ebay's description to guide you, here is a Vintage Leopard print fur FEDORA wide Brim dress HAT
BanjoMerlin said:I think the issue of whether a particular hat could be a fedora is moot... An open crown hat with snap brim, etc. is NOT a fedora until it is given a crease that completes the fedora look...
That's just like mine!Rat Pack said:Don't use ebay's description to guide you, here is a Vintage Leopard print fur FEDORA wide Brim dress HAT
Undertow said:Now here's an idea! Perhaps we should really focus on the "fedora" look!
Maybe it's too hard to nail down a definition of the hat because there are so many exceptions and gray areas. But what if, instead, we focused on a style, or "look"?
That means we could include things like straws and wools, without getting too technical?
Undertow said:Now here's an idea! Perhaps we should really focus on the "fedora" look!
Maybe it's too hard to nail down a definition of the hat because there are so many exceptions and gray areas. But what if, instead, we focused on a style, or "look"?
That means we could include things like straws and wools, without getting too technical?
kaosharper1 said:Shows you what happens in a thread. Back on page 2 we Brad and I were talking about "fedora" being a style. I still think that's the way to look at it. But that seemed to get lost in here.
rlk said:For any who doubt the significance of the Center Crease in defining the Fedora Style check out this recently resurrected Thread:
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=21548
These is why you want the minimum of specifics but enough to exclude most things that are not your intended target. Automobiles still are motor driven vehicles(usually 4-wheels,but numbers and interface with the surface occasionally vary) poor analogy. I think most would consider motor,wheels and some body make or break for an automobile. Something needs to separate it from a wagon or sled. Telescopes pre-exist the Center crease, and this was its defining style characteristic(1900 Army Manuals refer to the official "Fedora Crease"). While styles loosen up over time, they are not fundamentally transformed because some don't know any better. Note that I made an allowance for Porkpies in common modern (mis)perception.John in Covina said:I think that the concept of a fedora has changed since the early description listed previously. The majority of people would not consider a center dent as a make or break item. Over time the various crown set ups develope diamond, c-crown, telescopic are a few. It seems a bit hard and fast considering those styles as taking what could be a fedora out of the fedora line up.
As an insight to my view let's do an analogy: Say that an "early" definition of automobile might have something about coachwork being only done in wood. Under that definition steel coachwork, unibody and composites would not then be considered automobiles. Then we'd have a situation where 99% of people recognize current production as automobiles and 1% is saying no they are not automobiles.
John in Covina said:Based on historical fact arsenic was a treatment for some sexually transmitted dieases, but that might not be relavant today.
rlk said:... Definition is not a popularity contest ...
Remains a transient incorrect popular usage until it becomes a long-term transformation. Becoming more common doesn't necessarily make them correct or negate the proper language. This is why weighty Dictionaries have dated examples(these wouldn't yet qualify) but don't jettison the fundamental origins. Object(or style thereof) definitions are somewhat less fluid than general expressions but this is way beyond this thread which has ceased to be productive.tonyb said:Like it or not, popular usage trumps.
There are many usages gaining popularity that to my ears are like fingernails on a chalkboard ("reticent" for "reluctant," for instance, or "sketchy" for "sleazy"), but my railing against it won't stop it.