Theoretically speaking...

[Fletch]

In any subjective field of endeavor – music, art, clothing, food, drink – there will always be people who speak, loudly or softly but always firmly, in terms of Essential Truths that should be Obvious to the Most Casual Observer. Flusser is clearly in that category.

The desire to do this often comes from pure self-interest, from defending a reputation as The Authority that makes them a living or promises to. It may originate in plain ego(t)ism. Or it may come from a firm, or even rigid, belief in Standards, and that one's taste embodies those Standards which all ought to recognize.

 

[manton]

This:

To say that one shouldn't wear a particular style; simply because of their height or weight is nonsense.

Would seem to be contradicted by this:

If you have a BIG BUTT and you're wearing a tight fitting, back belted jacket and it looks like an orange triangle should be hanging from the waist, you're in trouble and you shouldn't be wearing tight fitting jackets. Conversely, if you're short and wearing a suit (regardless of SB, DB, PL or NL) that makes you appear to be modeling for the 8-12 year old section at Sears, then that style suit is not for you.

Wouldn't it?

 

[manton]

In any subjective field of endeavor – music, art, clothing, food, drink – there will always be people who speak, loudly or softly but always firmly, in terms of Essential Truths that should be Obvious to the Most Casual Observer. Flusser is clearly in that category.

Flusser is not clearly in that category -- a category which in any case appears to be a straw man. Flusser does not claim to be the last word on anything. Those who don't like him and want to criticise him seem to prefer to do so on grounds other than what he actually wrote. Hence the false claim (constantly repeated) that Flusser believes that his "taste embodies ... Standards which all ought to recognize."

Flusser is both a historian and a critic. As a historian, he reports the received widom of decades of tailoring lore, and also records the traditions of men's dress. As a critic, he gives his opinion. Honestly, I think the only way he could avoid offending certain people is never to give his opinion or write any books at all. People seem to object to the endeavor itself and not merely Flusser's actual words.

The desire to do this often comes from pure self-interest, from defending a reputation as The Authority that makes them a living or promises to. It may originate in plain ego(t)ism. Or it may come from a firm, or even rigid, belief in Standards, and that one's taste embodies those Standards which all ought to recognize.

Or it may not stem from a base motive at all. Why leap to the conclusion that Flusser's motives are impure and self-interested? Isn't possible that he actually knows the things he claims to know? And that his taste is appealing enough to a large audience? And that his books are therefore a service to those who are interested?

Yes, they are also in his self-interest: he makes money from them. But one can say that about most any book. Should any tome from which the author stands to make a buck not be written? MK may make a buck off Classic Style. Let's hope that he does. Would that make his motives impure? The content of the magazine compromised? Would it make him an "egotist"? Is he doing it to set himself up as an "Authority"? Because he has a "rigid belief in Standards"? Is he trying to force "all" to recognize his standards?

 

[Lincsong]

Not contradictory, because it's all about the individual and the cut of the suit. Those suits can look great on said individual if they're cut right. Just because a style is one way doesn't mean it won't look good. I used specific examples. Now, someone with a big butt can have a back belted jacked cut so as not to highlight his butt just as a shorter person can have a certain style suit cut so he doesn't look like the boy models at Sears.

 

[Tomasso]

I'm 170 lb. and 6'1.

As am I , as was Cary Grant. Tailors will say that someone with those dimensions can wear anything. It's model size, not too tall, not too short, not too thin, not too heavy.

 

[manton]

No one (including Flusser) has said that certain styles can never be worn by certain body types. What has been said is that certain styles accentuate certain aspects of certain body types. If you don't wish to present that effect, and/or do wish to present another effect, it is best to know this.

I understand that some people do not care, or do not believe, that body type matters, and think any man can look good in anything. I do no not wish to begrudge them that view.

I remain, however, at a loss at the hostility directed against the idea. Reading some posts in this thread, it seems that some people simply object to the argument being aired at all. This should not be spoken aloud! It will trick the newbies into not wearing nice things!

Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas? Present all the arguments and let people decide for themselves? I for one would rather know the whole case for and against before I make a decision about clothes or anything else. Why object to people at least hearing the arguments about body type and style?

 

[Feraud]

Would it make him an "egotist"? Is he doing it to set himself up as an "Authority"? Because he has a "rigid belief in Standards"? Is he trying to force "all" to recognize his standards?

Publishing a book probably does make one an egotist. I am not saying that is a bad thing but the idea that one feel he/she has enough of something to say to get a tome published does bear the idea out. Others can debate the pros or cons of being one. I am just pointing out the fact.
When you publish a book you do set yourself up to be an expert and have to be open to criticism of your alleged expertise.
If you cannot stand the heat...

 

[manton]

When you publish a book you do set yourself up to be an expert and have to be open to criticism of your alleged expertise.

No, when you publish a book you put before the public (those who choose to read it) a series of statements/arguments/claims, etc., which can be judged on their merits, and rejected for any reason.

I have said again and again, in this thread and elsewhere, that those who do not believe that certain styles look better and/or worse on certain body types are free to ignore all such advice. What I am reading here is a general objection to the advice being aired at all. What's more, I see that people who have given such advice attacked as doing so solely from impure motives. That's unwarranted, and unfair.

Anyone who thinks these guidelines are false can say so, and say why. I have yet to read that. Anyone who simply doesn't care about them can ignore them. In that case, no more need be said. So why must it constantly be said that those who think the guidelines have merit are "egostistical" and "rigid" and forcing their "propaganda" on others?

 

[Feraud]

Based on the comments people make: short men should not wear a db suit, tall fellows show not...etc. I think readers are not looking at the books as

a series of statements/arguments/claims, etc., which can be judged on their merits, and rejected for any reason.

It appears the majority are reading and repeating something that was read in a book written by someone who "must know what they are talking about".

The reason why this discussion frequently comes up at the Lounge and is given fair discussion is because Lounge members are doing just what you recommend. They are judging on their merits, and rejecting for any reason.

 

[manton]

Based on the comments people make: short men should not wear a db suit, tall fellows show not...etc.

Except, as we have seen, these comments have not been made by anyone. The single attempt to pin down a source failed, when said source turned out to have said exactly the opposite. These statements are a sort of sartorial "Play it again, Sam." Everyone seems to think they have been written down as received wisdome. But all the actual sources cited don't contain them.

The reason why this discussion frequently comes up at the Lounge and is given fair discussion is because Lounge members are doing just what you recommend. They are judging on their merits, and rejecting for any reason.

Again, I do not see in this thread a genuine discussion the merits of any style guideline. No one has said why DB may not look good on the short (for instance), or why it might look fine. But I count at least half a dozen posts objecting to the idea that anyone might suggest that, and give reasons why, short men are not shown at their best in DB. Is the topic supposed to be verbotten?

 

[Hemingway Jones]

.

Well, something need not be written down to be generally accepted as true. Also, I am sure if we search long enough and diligently enough, we could find a source for anything.

With that in mind, and fully realizing that an anecdote is never a good source for anything, I cannot tell you all how many times I have been in a mens shop trying on a suit and have had a sales person say something along the lines of, "You can wear a DB suit because you are tall and lean" with the implication clearly being that if you are short and portly you cannot. Upon pressing them, the stated reason is that Double-breasted suits inherently add bulk around the midsection because it is a double layer of fabric, and broad peaked lapels add visual weight to the chest because it emphasizes that area. However, and this is an important distinction, properly tailored clothes of any style can suit anyone.

This idea is a sort of flawed folk wisdom that does not take into account individual style or proper tailoring.

 

[Feraud]

I will not get bogged down in arguing the semantics of what is a valid discussion verus not one.
If this cannot be described as a valid discussion I do not know what constitutes one!
What I have frequently observed is the "butting of heads" on ideas that reflect a difference in the sartorial aesthetic.

 

[manton]

There has not been a real discussion here. The OP made a comment about SB peak, which elicted a screed against any statement to the effect that any style favors, or does not favor, a given body type. Since then, there have been several statements to the effect that not only is it false to claim that this or that style may or may not favor this or that body type, but it is destructive even to make the claim, because others are not capable of judging for themselves. Beyond this, it has been asserted that anyone who does make such a claim does so from petty, disreputable, self-interested motives.

I can only repeat what I have written before. Body type guidelines are not meant to be hard and fast infallible rules. They do not assert, "If you are X, and you wear Y in any form whatsoever, you will necessarily look bad." Rather, they are meant to help the X look less X and more Y, if he so desires. If person of body type X wishes to look less X and more Y, then he should wear A and not B. That is all.

One may think this is bunk. All I can say is that I see it, and that many others I know claim to see it. If you or anyone else says he does not see it -- that to you the same man looks no better or worse in a half a dozen suits of widely different cut -- I would be the last man to deny that you see (or do not see) what you claim to see (or not see). Why is it that you in turn must deny that I and others see what we claim to see? And what's more why is it necessar to, in effect, accuse us of lying about it for profit? Why is it somehow illegitimate for us to state our claims?

 

[Senator Jack]

I know we're all being hypocritical here (no sarcasm intended) because we all have certain pet peeves that we say 'no-no' to while others are saying 'yes-yes', and, certainly, this was weighing on my conscience when I put together that 'suit-killers' article for CS. How could I, a man who constantly questions the rules, have the audacity to write up a set of them? Well I got out of this dilemma (at least I hope I did) by avoiding the blasting of any sort of look that I've seen even one person 'own'. Lug soles with a suit, for instance. Sorry. Iggy Pop can't even pull that one off. (see the Varvatos ads). A baseball hat with a suit? Okay, let's just say I was directing the article toward grown men and not man-boys. Heck, I 've seen one guy 'own' a powder blue leisure suit with quiana shirt and no longer will I say, 'It can't be done.' But considering the title of the magazine, I tried to give some basic rules of how to achieve it. If I were to write a similar article for a magazine called 'Ratrod', let's say,' I don't think it would be my opinion that billet wheels have no place on a ratrod, but, rather, it would be a simple statement of fact. My problem with the style rules that are repeated ad nauseum is that they are given as fact when they are really subjective opinion - which leads me to this:

Posted by Manton: I can only repeat what I have written before. Body type guidelines are not meant to be hard and fast infallible rules.

If they'd only print disclaimers such as this in style books and at the websites, I wouldn't grouse, but never do I see 'Your results may vary.' Unfortunately, the average reader does buy these books to accept them as gospel. If the only book a man buys on mixology erroneously lists a Sidecar as rum, lime, and creme de cassis, then that man is of course going to go around telling everyone that those are the ingredients in a Sidecar. And why shouldn't he? He read it in a book, didn't he? It was written by an authority?

Finally, I have to concur with Lincsong who is exactly right: any suit can work on any man as long as it's cut right, but instead of it being printed in a book by an authority that's sold in haberdasheries around the world, this great sartorial truth will only be found here at this ridiculous little forum located at the outer arm of the Milky Way Galaxy. The public deserves more for its $21.95 plus tax.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[manton]

My problem with the style rules that are repeated ad nauseum is that they are given as fact when they are really subjective opinion

In this sense at least, some of them are fact. It is a fact that DB coats were traditionally made only with peaked lapels and never with notched lapels, and that tailors and men who enjoy dressing alike viewed DB notched as an ugly faux pas. Now, this tradition is of course not binding on anyone. Not on makers, not on tailors, not on customers. Anyone who wants to wear that look (or any number of others that were historically not seen and considered gauche) can do so. One may even think these looks good and reject the historical prohibitions as unsound. That's fine too. But to conclude from there -- from one's own personal preference -- that "There are no rules," and mean by that "There never has been a general predeliction against DB notch" is historically inaccurate.

I for one think that sources that lay all this out --whether books or anything else -- are doing men a service. Some men want to know this stuff. Just because some other men think it bunk and don't care, why should they begrudge the learning of it to other men?

If they'd only print disclaimers such as this in style books and at the websites, I wouldn't grouse, but never do I see 'Your results may vary.'

I disagree. The most proscriptive and dogmatic clothing books are the ones people complain about the least. I never read anyone complain about Hardy Amies or John T. Molloy (except me, with regard to the latter). People praise Amies' book for being charming (which it is) withouth fautling his dogmatism and English snobbism. Molloy never seems to come up. But Flusser and Boyer -- who are infinitely more flexible than both combined, and say so -- get routinely savaged.

Unfortunately, the average reader does buy these books to accept them as gospel.

I really don't think so. Not based on what I have read, seen or been told. He buys them to learn something and gain ideas. Men still have to dress themselves. The books can help, that is all.

any suit can work on any man as long as it's cut right

"As long as it's cut right." What is right in this instance? Sounds dangerously like and objective truth, or even a rule!

I can only telll you what I think. Take the example of a DB suit on a short man. I have said more than once in this thread, I do not believe that short men must avoid DB. However, I do believe that the DB that works best on the tall does not work as well on the short. The shorter man looks better in a DB that is cut shorter overall, with a higher gorge, upswept peaks (not so high they peak up over the shoulder), lower pocket placement, and (critically) narrower wrap. Best of all, if he can bear a relatively major change in the usual cut, is to raise the overall button stance, then roll the lapel all the way to the bottom button (i.e., a 6x1 stance). The long lapel really gives him a little extra impression of height. Unless he is quite heftly, it also helps that the coat be cut as lean as is comfortable.

This is, from my perspective, not the ideal DB silhouette for a tall man. But it looks great on the short man. However, put that same man in an SB suit that is also cut "right" for him (I will forgo the details in this case), and he will look taller. At least he will to me and to a lot of other people. Maybe not to you, but to some. I think it's worth letting shorter men know this so that they can make an informed decision about what to wear. To say nothing of other considerations, the DB that would be cut "right" for him is hard to find off the rack, maybe impossible. But an SB that will work well for him is easy to find.

Perhaps, in the end, he will be happier in a more standard DB cut, and simply not care that an SB might make him look marginally taller to some percentage of people. That's his choice, but one he will make with more confidence if he knows all the variables first.

Finally, I would challenge the notion that any suit can work on any man, if the cut is right. I use the following example. Try to think of a DB that works well for a pear shaped man whose middle is quite a bit wider than his chest and shoulders. I can say two things with confidence: it should definitely be 6x2; it should definitely not have vents. Beyond this I can't think of anything, and to my eye the suit will still look bad on him even if it is perfectly balanced and fitted. An extreme example, maybe, but one that I think illustrates the issue well enough.

 

[Senator Jack]

I can say two things with confidence: it should definitely be 6x2; it should definitely not have vents.

Now here's where you'd find yourself grousing about some of the authorities, Manton. I've read on several published 'no-no' lists, 'Never wear a ventless jacket.'

It is a fact that DB coats were traditionally made only with peaked lapels and never with notched lapels, and that tailors and men who enjoy dressing alike viewed DB notched as an ugly faux pas.

I'll admit to not knowing enough about history, so I could be wrong, but didn't the 6x2 peak descend from the 8x4 military jacket?

Coast Guard Uniform Circa 1910. Note the notch lapels. But to be fair, here's a military peak from about the same time.

Seems both were standard, but perhaps there was a rift between tailors when the style was being adopted for civilian use, with the more pretentious claiming that the notch was gauche.

 

[manton]

Now here's where you'd find yourself grousing about some of the authorities, Manton. I've read on several published 'no-no' lists, 'Never wear a ventless jacket.'

I've never read or heard anyone say that. True, I know a lot of people who strongly prefer vented to ventless. But then I know a sizable minority who are just as passionate about ventless. Anyone who wants to get too high handed about vents would have to contend with two inconvenient facts. 1) Vents are a relatively recent innovation, and most suits worn in the Goldnen Era did not have them. Savile Row pattern drafting books from the 30s by and large don't show vents, except on certain country jackets. 2) The handful of people whom most of us would agree were among the very best dressed men of the 20th century -- Astaire, Grant, etc. -- did not wear vents.

I'll admit to not knowing enough about history, so I could be wrong, but didn't the 6x2 peak descend from the 8x4 military jacket?

All of these garments descend from an 18th century riding coat, which was DB and most likely to be 6x3. But there are a lot of branches to this family tree. The modern DB coat's most recent ancestors are the frock coat and the reefer jacket. The former could be almost any button stance, DB or SB, peak, notch or Ulster (cutting in the 19th century was much less standardized than in the 20th). However, the frock coat typically did not have show buttons. The latter was 6x3 or 8x4, but again, no show buttons.

(As an aside, an army jacket was a differnt thing than a navy jacket in those days. I was often DB, but more in the "tunic" style. It is a step removed from the modern DB, which owes more to the naval coat.)

On more or less parallel, contemporaneous tracks, the frock coat slowly gave way to the morning coat for day formal wear. This coat was always DB. And the reefer jacket (minus all military insignia and trimmings) became popular with civilians, especially rich ones who owned boats or vacationed in seaside resorts.

Tailors adapted the reefer jacket into an informal (so it was considered) suit coat that could be worn without a vest. The "show" buttons, so far as anyone knows, were added to spiff it up a bit. High closures like 6X3 or more were avoided to make the coat look less naval and also to show more shirt and tie.

Seems both were standard, but perhaps there was a rift between tailors when the style was being adopted for civilian use, with the more pretentious claiming that the notch was gauche.

I wouldn't put it that way. By the time the DB became common for civilian wear (the early 3os), it was purely a peaked lapel garment. And this was not so much pretension as just a tradition whose origin no one can fully account for, and whose importance is debatable.

I mean, you can call any hard and fast tradition "pretentious". Why should a DJ absolutely take a black tie, but absolutely not a white tie? And why should the exact reverse be true about a tailcoat? Is that necessarily pretentious? Or is it just one of those traditions with no rational underpinning, that are nonetheless enjoyable to some and harmless to everyone else?

 

[Senator Jack]

I'm looking around for pics of 1890s civilian DBs. In the meantime, here's an ad from 1903. I'm now wondering which came first for the civilian - the notch or peak. If it turns out to be the notch, then in a sort of one-off for tailors, they rejected the traditional for the modern.

 

[manton]

That looks basically like a short frock coat. In 1903, the English were still wearing day formal wear in town. They would not have worn a coat like that, even for business. The Americans were always less formal.

You see a lot of things in American pics that the English simply would never have done. America never became completely English, but the differences in styles were much greater before WWI than between the wars. By the 30s, Americans were striving to be English. In the early 40s, they went their own way a little bit. After the war, they went completely their own way.

 

[Fletch]

Flusser is not clearly in that category -- a category which in any case appears to be a straw man.

On reflection, I may have judged him harshly by his book Making the Man, which I read some 25 years ago. I got some good advice out of it but rankled at the tone of it all, which seemed to purr regally (and now and then hiss a little) that these were eternal verities on the lines of the earth revolving around the sun.

Flusser is both a historian and a critic. As a historian, he reports the received widom of decades of tailoring lore, and also records the traditions of men's dress. As a critic, he gives his opinion.

Some take exception when opinion is presented side by side with history, whether or not the intent was to pass it off as history. And any authority is going to take a brickbat or two from those who feel differently.

People seem to object to the endeavor itself and not merely Flusser's actual words.

Writing about men's clothes is still kind of a touchy specialty. I think a lot of the readers and (yes) writers of it are not a little self-conscious, uneasy at treading a path blazed by feminine fashionistas and catty vanity. After all, as I was reminded last night during some pre-Oscar designer's interview, there are two kinds of men in the world: those who dream of dressing Marcia Gay Harden, and those who dream of undressing her.