It's about time we define "fedora"

[Richard Warren]

This could be the breakthrough we've been looking for !

As posted by RLK sometime previously:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4810376620_458cba7b70_b.jpg

 

[Undertow]

..."Oh good, another endless and unwinnable internet debate, just what the world needs...
...Do you really think anyone gives a damn about the correct meaning of the word "Fedora"?
..."Fedora" in current real-world usage means: 1. those crappy polyester stingy-brimmed things that the "cool" kids are wearing, 2. any hat that people wore in the olden days that isn't a cowboy hat or a bowler/derby or a top hat.

Considering you’re a member of this forum, I'm surprised at your reaction to a thread about fedoras on a website devoted to that very subject (among many others).

Perhaps you and your ilk are accustomed to other internet behavior, however, the Fedora Lounge is not a place devoted to the flame wars, negativity, pointless conjecture, trolling and otherwise exhaustive social networking cliques typical of internet forums. Certainly, that business pops up here from time to time, but fortunately we’ve had moderators keen enough to squash any such activity (as best they can, mind). The Fedora Lounge is very much a place for these “endless internet debates” in as much as it relates to the Golden Era, Fedoras, Suits, Accessories, LP’s, Radio programs, etc. In fact, that’s exactly what this forum represents.

As far as someone caring about the definition of a hat, yes, I do believe someone cares, as is plainly seen by the responses to this very thread. Ought the Fedora Lounge and its members worry how society thinks of our debate? Should the Loungers concern themselves with “current real-world usage” of a term? Frankly, we should care no more about these things than we should care about your opinionated prattling.

You’re very much welcome at the Fedora lounge, as I’m sure others would attest, but in order that you are a welcome member, you’ll need to carry conversation in a gentlemanly fashion. There has been an upswing in membership, even lately, and that’s great, but the Lounge isn’t a place to crash through and bluntly force your opinions.

I’ve seen a flux of behavior that is very unfortunate lately, and I believe some of the veteran members (2003-2006) have made comment in passing. I’m certainly still new to this place, as far as I’m concerned, and I’m most definitely not implying that one must be a “veteran member” in order to carry validity.

But for your sake, keep in mind that this forum is not like other forums, the people here are not like other people, and this type of negativity that has been recently perpetuated isn’t necessary in order to contribute.

 

[Undertow]

If we never get the numbers, at least it's enough to demonstrate that 1) fedoras have historically been wool felt, not only fur felt, and that 2) the selection of vintage hats displayed on the Fedora Lounge site probably isn't statistically representative.

I don't think a catalog represents this at all. A catalog, especially older varities, represents the projected offerings of a single company; i.e. what a company hoped would sell.

Certainly, a company such as Sears may have chanced wool felt fedoras, but it's just as likely the majority of material-conscious men didn't purchase the cheaper, lower quality wool felts.

Without FACTUAL statistics, BanjoMerlin's argument is pointless conjecture. [huh]

And of course, wool-felt fedoras have existed in the past, just as the tweed variety has, just as rabbit and beaver felts.

 

[Richard Warren]

Actually, if one may be permitted to say it, there is some merit in
DAJE's definitions.

The tendency in humans to Platonic Realism runs deep.

 

[jlee562]

I don't think a catalog represents this at all. A catalog, especially older varities, represents the projected offerings of a single company; i.e. what a company hoped would sell.

Certainly, a company such as Sears may have chanced wool felt fedoras, but it's just as likely the majority of material-conscious men didn't purchase the cheaper, lower quality wool felts.

Without FACTUAL statistics, BanjoMerlin's argument is pointless conjecture. [huh]

And of course, wool-felt fedoras have existed in the past, just as the tweed variety has, just as rabbit and beaver felts.

The factual accuracy of the statement that "By pure numbers there were vastly more wool felt fedoras produced than fur felt and possibly more woven wool fedoras as well," may be in dispute, but I think Banjo Merlin's essential point about the material (wool vs fur felt) not being the determining factor is cogent.

I can see the line of argument bearing out excluding cut and sew hats as "fedoras," but honestly, I don't really see how one can exclude wool hats as not being fedoras, all other factors being equal.

 

[Feraud]

If we never get the numbers, at least it's enough to demonstrate that 1) fedoras have historically been wool felt, not only fur felt, and that 2) the selection of vintage hats displayed on the Fedora Lounge site probably isn't statistically representative.

That is incorrect logic. No one ever said fedoras were only fur felt.
Without the numbers we should assume nothing or assume whatever we want.
I may feel fedoras were made of newspaper but that doesn't make it so.
If someone states tweed fedoras outnumber felt then please prove it if asked.

 

[dwebber18]

Yeah as much as I don't like I think we must include wool or woven wool in the definition. A cheap pair of Chinese made "dress" shoes are just as much shoes as my Alden's, but they are at different quality levels just like wool fedoras are still fedoras, but a fur fedora being at a different quality level.

 

[W4ASZ]

Or just keep it under your Stetson ...

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the fedora got its name not from what the immortal Bernhardt wore, but from what the leading man in the Davenport production (Mantell?) wore.

I found it odd to be reminded earlier by someone else that the term fedora comes from Sardou's play Fedora. I think the modern expression is, "Duh !"

Let us now search for the Holy Grail of Hats, the True Domepiece, the Lid of Lids.

As you suggest, Richard, that HGoH, TD, or LoL ( ) may well be the hat worn by the character Loris Ipanoff, and not by the character the Princess Fedora.

If that is the case, perhaps we can abandon the discussion and start referring to a better-quality hat as a loris, not a fedora.

But do we really want this renamed the Loris Lounge ?

 

[W4ASZ]

As posted by RLK sometime previously:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4810376620_458cba7b70_b.jpg

Yes, Sir !

 

[jlee562]

That is incorrect logic. No one ever said fedoras were only fur felt.
Without the numbers we should assume nothing or assume whatever we want.
I may feel fedoras were made of newspaper but that doesn't make it so.
If someone states tweed fedoras outnumber felt then please prove it if asked.

Well, ScottyRocks proposed that:

To me, its materials and shape.

Felt, either beaver or rabbit.

Even so, why belabor the point? If material is not in question, whether there were more wool felt hats than fur felt hats is irrelevant to the attempt to define a fedora.

 

[Undertow]

The factual accuracy of the statement...may be in dispute, but I think Banjo Merlin's essential point about the material (wool vs fur felt) not being the determining factor is cogent.

I was addressing the following statements:

By pure numbers there were vastly more wool felt fedoras produced than fur felt and possibly more woven wool fedoras as well.

This topic is again showing that people want their own personal preference to define what a fedora is or is not.

There were, are and always will be wool felts in relation to fur felts. I don't think anyone said there weren't. Previous posters have implied that in order to define a fedora, we only use fur (and exclude wool), however as this thread is a tentative conglomeration of ideas, there are bound to be differences from the outset.

I believe Banjo was correct in stating "people want their own personal preference to define what a fedora is or is not", but that's assumed - nothing is set in stone as of yet.

I took argument with his statement that wools vastly outnumbered felts. I'm also with Feraud that we should like to see factual statistics and examples of this claim.

 

[Undertow]

Even so, why belabor the point? If material is not in question, whether there were more wool felt hats than fur felt hats is irrelevant to the attempt to define a fedora.

Coincidentally, material is in question. In fact, all variables are still in question (as best as I can tell).

 

[BanjoMerlin]

Listen buddy I ain't playing this faulty logic game.
The proof (or lack of numbers proof) is in the catalog.
You were the one who made this outlandish assumption-


You go provide the proof to back up your assumptions made by looking at catalogs..
Show us the pure numbers you talked about that bear out your comment.

Typical response when you don't have a leg to stand on. ATTACK!!!!

Please, spend some time studying the buying habits of Americans in the early to mid 20th century so you will have at least a little bit of knowledge of the subject. Assumptions are only required by those who haven't knowledge.

 

[Feraud]

Assumptions are only required by those who haven't knowledge.

Agreed. Which is why I didn't make such assumptions on wool produced fedoras gleaned from catalog offerings.
Got any "pure numbers" to back up your spurious claims of wool and tweed fedora production or are ya just blowin' wind?

Typical response when you don't have a leg to stand on. ATTACK!!!!

Not sure what part of my multiple askings for clarification on the numbers you claim should be categorized as a attack but it wasn't meant as such.

 

[Undertow]

Typical response when you don't have a leg to stand on. ATTACK!!!!

Please, spend some time studying the buying habits of Americans in the early to mid 20th century so you will have at least a little bit of knowledge of the subject. Assumptions are only required by those who haven't knowledge.

I don't believe Feraud has any obligation to meet this ridiculous challenge (but I'm certainly not speaking for him). You produced the argument, thus you should provide the evidence. If you're unable to produce evidence and thereby back your own argument, your logic is at fault, your argument is conjecture and your intentions are dubious.

Just because you make some wild statement you can't defend doesn't oblige anyone with knowledge of the matter to refute your faulty claim.

 

[jlee562]

I was addressing the following statements:



There were, are and always will be wool felts in relation to fur felts. I don't think anyone said there weren't. Previous posters have implied that in order to define a fedora, we only use fur (and exclude wool), however as this thread is a tentative conglomeration of ideas, there are bound to be differences from the outset.

I believe Banjo was correct in stating "people want their own personal preference to define what a fedora is or is not", but that's assumed - nothing is set in stone as of yet.

I took argument with his statement that wools vastly outnumbered felts. I'm also with Feraud that we should like to see factual statistics and examples of this claim.

No, I understand what you were getting at. My point is, whether or not it is true that there were more wool felt hats than fur felt hats is inconsequential to the defining a fedora.

 

[Lefty]

Take it easy, guys, we're just talking about hats.

Also, remember that I'm not asking for the history of the term fedora - we have many threads on the subject, and one really great recent one. Obviously, whatever hat was worn in the play is not the sole form of a fedora, and probably isn't near what we'd consider a fedora today. As rlk's recent thread pointed out, the term itself is hardly ever used in hat ads or industry literature. Where it does appear in ads, the hat it refers to doesn't look much like the 40s snap brims we commonly associate with the term.

We can certainly play with the meaning of a term that seems to have never had any hard and fast definition, and has barely even been used by the industry itself.

 

[BanjoMerlin]

In 1936, the average US family spent $160 per year on clothing, this was about 10% of their total income. In 1950, the average US family spent $437 per year on clothing, this was about 10% of their total income. In 1960, the average US family spent $558 per year on clothing, this was about 10% of their total income.

Roughly half of the total US families spent less than the average and the other half spent more. The half that spent less than average weren't the target market for hatmakers like Stetson and competitors. They were the ones Sears and competitors targeted.

Men who got their clothes at Sears bought the clothes Sears sold and Sears sold clothes those men could afford.

 

[W4ASZ]

Take it easy, guys, we're just talking about hats.

Also, remember that I'm not asking for the history of the term fedora - we have many threads on the subject, and one really great recent one. Obviously, whatever hat was worn in the play is not the sole form of a fedora, and probably isn't near what we'd consider a fedora today. As rlk's recent thread pointed out, the term itself is hardly ever used in hat ads or industry literature. Where it does appear in ads, the hat it refers to doesn't look much like the 40s snap brims we commonly associate with the term.

We can certainly play with the meaning of a term that seems to have never had any hard and fast definition, and has barely even been used by the industry itself.

I was having fun. Now, though, I think I'll take my loris and go home.

 

[Lefty]

You and your tiny friend are welcome to stay.