# why do a, 3 button roll to 2, as opposed to doing a 2-button suit?



## AvariceBespoke

:icon_smile:


----------



## medhat

Higher gorge (?sp?) on the 3/2 than with the 2B alone. Seems like last year there was a uptick in the number of people on TV/in the news that took to wearing the 1st and 2nd buttons buttoned (I guess a 3 role 3?), but that seems to have subsided. Thankfully.


----------



## rgrossicone

*Would...*

versatility be a factor? Could be worn as a 3, or a 2.


----------



## Matt S

rgrossicone said:


> versatility be a factor? Could be worn as a 3, or a 2.


If the rolls is to the middle button the top button can't be fastened. When the lapel rolls to the top button then it can be worn either way.


----------



## Cruiser

Personally I don't understand it either. The overwhelming majority of people see the buttonhole in the lapel and think something is wrong with the jacket, perhaps the dry cleaner screwed up when pressing it. To most people it just doesn't look right.

I think that this is one of those things that guys who have an intense interest in clothing as a hobby see as being indicative of their taste and style while not realizing that most people just don't get it. I do get it but I still think it looks weird. But to each his own.

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine

medhat said:


> Higher gorge on the 3/2 than with the 2B alone*.*


No. _Gorge_ is the notch where the collar meets the lapel.​


----------



## boatshoe

Cruiser said:


> To most people it just doesn't look right.
> 
> Cruiser


Who _are _these people?!


----------



## Miket61

boatshoe said:


> Who _are _these people?!


The same ones who relay every crazy conspiracy theory about BOTH presidential candidates, then casually mention that they aren't registered to vote.


----------



## adhoc

Simple - by virtue of the fact that it's a lot more difficult to alter, it's a more _classic _look. 

Confused? Let me explain. :teacha:

With 2Bs, one has a LOT of room to vary the placement (stance) of the buttons. One could go real low (late 80s to early 90s) or real high (present). Quarters can be really open (now), or real closed (past).

With 3 buttons, You don't really have as much leeway to go nutso. You can't alter the button stance much, nor the quarters. So the style more or less stays constant - most 'vintage' 3B2s have the centre button in the exact same position as 'modern' 3B2s - just have a look on eBay and you'll see what I mean.

It's almost a fashion's version of the hedged bet. Hence its longevity... which makes it classic. Which makes it a favourite of those who would take style _over _fashion - i.e. _most_ people here. All IMO of course.


----------



## 16412

Some look stupid, because of the useless button hole. If there were bunch going up the lapel they would make more since.

Some others are artful, or playful. A big roll in the lapel so the button hole heads straight out from your body. These are cool.


----------



## Bonhamesque

Cruiser said:


> Personally I don't understand it either. The overwhelming majority of people see the buttonhole in the lapel and think something is wrong with the jacket, perhaps the dry cleaner screwed up when pressing it. To most people it just doesn't look right.
> 
> I think that this is one of those things that guys who have an intense interest in clothing as a hobby see as being indicative of their taste and style while not realizing that most people just don't get it. I do get it but I still think it looks weird. But to each his own.
> 
> Cruiser


Totally agree.
I can't the see the point of these suits at all.
Either you want a 2-button or you want the suit to button higher up in which case buy a 3-button.
Having a suit that can potentially do both doesn't work for me because when it's in 2 button mode there's a whole in the lapel which looks like a mistake.
Don't be a cheapskate, buy two different suits.


----------



## logicalfrank

I really don't think people buy the three roll to two suits to be cheap. They aren't going for a jacket that can be worn either way. They are going fora three roll to two jacket. It is a particular look that some people happen to like.

That being said, personally, I'd just assume not have an extra button and hole that I'm never, ever going to use.


----------



## Matt S

logicalfrank said:


> That being said, personally, I'd just assume not have an extra button and hole that I'm never, ever going to use.


Are you a fan of 1-button suits?


----------



## Matt S

WA said:


> Some others are artful, or playful. A big roll in the lapel so the button hole heads straight out from your body. These are cool.


This is my favourite kind of 3-button suit. I find it has a very balanced appearance.


----------



## omanae

My suits have tons of buttons and holes that I'll never use. I happen to like the way most of them look. Some people really like the way a 3 roll 2 looks. 

So little of what's on a suit is really functional these days, so I don't think we can argue about if it's ok to have an extra button hole and button that shouldn't be buttoned.


----------



## boatshoe

Just a question here. From some of the reactions to the 3/2, I was just wondering if most people here then rip off non-functioning sleeve buttons. And for those who don't button every button on their jacket, do you have the unused button holes sewn up by your tailor and the buttons removed?


----------



## logicalfrank

Matt S said:


> Are you a fan of 1-button suits?


I do not consider the bottom button extra. However, I do suppose that does not make rational sense.


----------



## Taliesin

Matt S said:


> Are you a fan of 1-button suits?


This absolutely nails it. Applying pure logic to historical vestiges is no fun, and would eventually lead us to wearing 'rational' Star Trek-like bodysuits. And the question of whether some vague category of 'other people' understand a non-functioning buttonhole is quite simply irrelevant, in my opinion. I genuinely don't care.


----------



## bd79cc

adhoc said:


> Simple - by virtue of the fact that it's a lot more difficult to alter, it's a more _classic _look.
> 
> Confused? Let me explain. :teacha:
> 
> With 2Bs, one has a LOT of room to vary the placement (stance) of the buttons. One could go real low (late 80s to early 90s) or real high (present). Quarters can be really open (now), or real closed (past).
> 
> With 3 buttons, You don't really have as much leeway to go nutso. You can't alter the button stance much, nor the quarters. So the style more or less stays constant - most 'vintage' 3B2s have the centre button in the exact same position as 'modern' 3B2s - just have a look on eBay and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> It's almost a fashion's version of the hedged bet. Hence its longevity... which makes it classic. Which makes it a favourite of those who would take style _over _fashion - i.e. _most_ people here. All IMO of course.





Cruiser said:


> [. . .]The overwhelming majority of people see the buttonhole in the lapel and think something is wrong with the jacket, perhaps the dry cleaner screwed up when pressing it. To most people it just doesn't look right. [. . .]


Interesting speculations. Hilarious if they turned out to be true.


----------



## Cruiser

Taliesin said:


> And the question of whether some vague category of 'other people' understand a non-functioning buttonhole is quite simply irrelevant, in my opinion. I genuinely don't care.


I think you are missing the point of what I was trying to say. First of all, there was never any suggestion as to whether or not one should really care what others think about it, although I truly doubt that you "dont care".

And there is no "vague category" of "other people". This merely refers to the various people with whom you cross paths as you go about your day, whether it be at your worksite, on the sidewalk, the subway, where ever. The term refers to nothing more than the world around you, not some "category".

My point was that this is a style of jacket that only a tiny portion of the jacket wearing population owns. A walk through a typical department store, where most men buy such things, will probably reveal nothing but the ubiquitous two and three button jackets with normal lapels. I dare say that many men have never even seen a 3 rolled to 2 lapel.

I was in my late 50's when I first visited this forum and had been wearing suits for decades, yet I had no earthly idea what this 3 to 2 thing was when I read about it. I had to do some research to see exactly what folks were talking about. My first thought when I saw one with that button hole in that odd place in the lapel was that it looked kind of goofy.

I understand what it is now and how it is considered by people with a strong interest in such things as a "classic" look. All I was saying is that you should be aware that as you walk down the street that is not how it is perceived by many, if not most, of those who you encounter. Most are probably more like me and they will simply think that it looks sort of odd.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't wear it or enjoy the look. Just don't be under the mistaken assumption that the people around you recognize it as a "classic" look or one that signifies your sartorial expertise. Like it or not, most will just think it odd.

This is no different than the discussion of no-iron shirts. Several guys said that they like the wrinkles that develop in non no-iron shirts as it signifies to others that they are wearing a quality shirt. I'm sure it does to a tiny percentage of the population, but unfortunately to most it just signifies a wrinkled shirt.

Just be aware that often the signal you are trying to send out isn't being received with the same meaning. But if you truly don't care how it is received then everything is fine. Of course it's no big deal either way. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## boatshoe

Cruiser said:


> All I was saying is that you should be aware that as you walk down the street that is not how it is perceived by many, if not most, of those who you encounter. Most are probably more like me and they will simply think that it looks sort of odd.
> 
> That doesn't mean that you shouldn't wear it or enjoy the look. Just don't be under the mistaken assumption that the people around you recognize it as a "classic" look or one that signifies your sartorial expertise. Like it or not, most will just think it odd.
> 
> This is no different than the discussion of no-iron shirts. Several guys said that they like the wrinkles that develop in non no-iron shirts as it signifies to others that they are wearing a quality shirt. I'm sure it does to a tiny percentage of the population, but unfortunately to most it just signifies a wrinkled shirt.
> 
> Cruiser


Haven't I seen you at Jos. A. Bank?


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser said:


> And there is no "vague category" of "other people"....The term refers to nothing more than the world around you, not some "category"....I dare say that many men have never even seen a 3 rolled to 2 lapel....All I was saying is that you should be aware that as you walk down the street that is not how it is perceived by many, if not most, of those who you encounter. Most are probably more like me and they will simply think that it looks sort of odd....Like it or not, most will just think it odd.


The "world around" me in this context could only mean anyone who might actually see my jacket, not everyone in the country. Thus, this interesting semiotic analysis assumes that I live in a place, and circulate among people, who rarely if ever see (or used to see) 3/2 jackets. My point in referring to this as a 'vague category' is precisely that - it is vague because it is based on an assumption and is not tied to specific regional, social, or professional factors.


----------



## Holdfast

I have a few 3-2 rolls, alongside some true 3Bs and some true 2Bs.

I think there's something intrinsically rather pretty about the way the button and buttonhole of 3-2 curve around a rolling lapel. I like wearing items I consider aesthetically-pleasing, so like this style of buttoning. Wouldn't have every single garment in this style, because I like some variety.

The 3-2's that are just pressed flat, with no roll - those I think look a bit ugly.


----------



## David V

I wear 3 rolled to 2 because I like to.


----------



## Cruiser

Taliesin said:


> The "world around" me in this context could only mean anyone who might actually see my jacket, not everyone in the country. Thus, this interesting semiotic analysis assumes that I live in a place, and circulate among people, who rarely if ever see (or used to see) 3/2 jackets. My point in referring to this as a 'vague category' is precisely that - it is vague because it is based on an assumption and is not tied to specific regional, social, or professional factors.


The mere fact that you are using a phrase such as "semiotic analysis" tells me that you fully understand what I said. No one example can apply to every person. Just because this style jacket is more common place in your world doesn't necessarily mean that it is common place in the world in which 95 percent of the population resides.

During my working life as I pursued my career I was never fortunate enough, or unfortunate as the case may be, to work in a place like Cambridge MA; however, I suspect that Cambridge isn't representative of where most guys live and work.

I did have occasion to work in Atlanta, Nashville, and Washington D.C., and if I saw many 3/2 jackets they apparently just didn't register with me; however, when one did register with me I thought it odd. And even with my sartorial ignorance I would be willing to bet that I still have as much or more sartorial knowledge than nine out of every ten men in America. This isn't meant as boasting about my knowledge, but rather to emphasize the lack of knowledge or interest on the part of most men in this subject.

And that is my point. If the typical, average man in America walks down the street in a jacket of this style, most of the people who see him will either be totally unaware of it or, if they are aware of it, just think that it is somewhat odd. Truth is, most probably won't even notice. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser said:


> No one example can apply to every person. Just because this style jacket is more common place in your world doesn't necessarily mean that it is common place in the world in which 95 percent of the population resides....And that is my point. If the typical, average man in America walks down the street in a jacket of this style, most of the people who see him will either be totally unaware of it or, if they are aware of it, just think that it is somewhat odd. Truth is, most probably won't even notice. :icon_smile:
> 
> Cruiser


Of course. But my point was that awareness of the 3/2 style is not limited to, as you put it in your first post, "guys who have an intense interest in clothing as a hobby." Awareness of the style extends more broadly than that, so in my opinion, your generalization about what 'everyone else' thinks is, well, too general. One could more accurately qualify it by saying that the 3/2 jacket might look odd outside of particular and admittedly narrow regional, social or professional contexts. As small as those groups are, they are still larger than the micro-universe of intense male clothing hobbyists. In other words, the semiotic messages the style can convey are not only about 'style'.


----------



## Will

Cruiser said:


> If the typical, average man in America walks down the street in a jacket of this style, most of the people who see him will either be totally unaware of it or, if they are aware of it, just think that it is somewhat odd.


It's unlikely IMO that the majority of iGents give a fig for the opinion of the average American about their clothes.


----------



## boatshoe

All this debate inspired me to wear my 3/2 Brooks blazer today.


----------



## logicalfrank

I am probably gonna buy one now that I've thought about it.


----------



## eagle2250

I think there is indeed a practical consideration, in choosing to wear a 3/2 roll button, sack design jacket, that has yet to be mentioned. It offers a somewhat more forgiving fit for those with a tendency towards being "barrel" chested, than would a three button, English/Italian cut jacket. With a proper fit, the lapels are less likely to pop up when one buttons a 3/2 roll, sack jacket. Besides, it's TRAD!


----------



## ToryBoy

I like the fit and fit of my 3/2 roll RL blazer. It looks smart or formal depending on what else I am wearing and it is really comfortable fit whether I am wearing a sweater as well or not. Plus it makes a nice change to my 2 button suits and blazers. 

If I going somewhere for a formal occasion or have a meeting etc and I know I will have the blazer on for most of the day, I will try to wear the 3/2 roll blazer.


----------



## windsor

Eagle has nailed it. It is one way a Trad signals to another Trad, hey we have something in common. It is a sartorial secret password....are you in the club too? Logic ain't part of the equation.


----------



## Jovan

Taliesin said:


> Applying pure logic to historical vestiges is no fun, and would eventually lead us to wearing 'rational' Star Trek-like bodysuits.


What, no love for 23rd century business dress? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## kngrimm

Cruiser,

I think everyone knows that 95%+ of people do not recognize certain clothing decisions... 

We know. We get it. 

I don't care nearly as much as most... but really... it's not a hard point to understand. 

You do not have to bring it up again.


----------



## Peak and Pine

windsor said:


> It is one way a Trad signals to another Trad, hey we have something in common. It is a sartorial secret password....are you in the club too?


Oh, sweet Jesus.​


----------



## Cruiser

kngrimm said:


> it's not a hard point to understand.


From the posts I read I would have to differ with you on that.



> You do not have to bring it up again.


I guess you could say that for about 95 percent of the posts that are made here, but of course you aren't, are you? OK, I get your point; therefore, you don't have to bring it up again when I bring it up again.

Actually I have a better idea. Since it's a discussion board why don't we just continue discussing, and you bring up points that you think are important and I'll do the same? How does that sound. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## bd79cc

eagle2250 said:


> Besides, it's TRAD!


Yeah, baby! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

My memory is that in the 50's and 60's that three button suits were constructed and pressed in such a manner that the top two buttons should be used which everyone in this area did.

Sometime around the 70's my suits started coming back from the cleaners pressed so that only the second button should be used. I think it has been a long time since I have seen a three button that was not rolled to 2 or 2 1/2 - not sure a know the difference between the later two. 

My guess is that the average man either does not care how many buttons his jacket has, of if he does, he would choose two. Some men, if asked, might have to count the buttons on their suit. 

Cheers, Jim.


----------



## Jovan

The three-roll-two goes back far more than that.


----------



## manton

The answer to the OP is, because they look nice:


----------



## AvariceBespoke

manton said:


> The answer to the OP is, because they look nice:


agree!


----------



## Taliesin

Jovan said:


> What, no love for 23rd century business dress?


Can't tell from the photos: do those bodysuits have darts? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Cruiser

manton said:


> The answer to the OP is, because they look nice:


But how does a buttonhole in the middle of the lapel improve upon an otherwise nice looking jacket? It just looks terribly out of place or perhaps like the cleaners screwed up when they pressed the lapels. I'm not trying to be adversarial. I just don't see how something like that improves the appearance of the jacket. Just asking.

Cruiser


----------



## Holdfast

Cruiser said:


> But how does a buttonhole in the middle of the lapel improve upon an otherwise nice looking jacket?





Holdfast said:


> I think there's something intrinsically rather pretty about the way the button and buttonhole of 3-2 curve around a rolling lapel. I like wearing items I consider aesthetically-pleasing, so like this style of buttoning. Wouldn't have every single garment in this style, because I like some variety.
> 
> The 3-2's that are just pressed flat, with no roll - those I think look a bit ugly.


I'm sure Manton will be along to offer an answer of his own from his perspective.


----------



## manton

Holdfast said:


> I'm sure Manton will be along to offer an answer of his own from his perspective.


I wouldn't count on that.


----------



## boatshoe

Cruiser said:


> But how does a buttonhole in the middle of the lapel improve upon an otherwise nice looking jacket? It just looks terribly out of place or perhaps like the cleaners screwed up when they pressed the lapels. I'm not trying to be adversarial. I just don't see how something like that improves the appearance of the jacket. Just asking.
> 
> Cruiser


Obviously it doesn't look terribly out of place to some people. Maybe it does to others, who knows. It has to do with taste and it's one of the reasons why we don't all go around wearing the same things. Certain things look out of place to me that other people think look good. I'lll never understand sexagenarians wearing jeans for a night out on the town. They obviously think it looks cool. I think it screams, "SWM looking for relevancy."


----------



## Holdfast

manton said:


> I wouldn't count on that.


:devil:

At least I can now just keep requoting my earlier reply rather than typing something afresh.


----------



## manton

Holdfast said:


> :devil:
> 
> At least I can now just keep requoting my earlier reply rather than typing something afresh.


This thread, like so many here, is surreal. It's like walking into a cooking class and listening to people say, "I don't like stock, I don't like demi-glace, I don't like veloute, I don't like terrines, I don't like fish, I don't like game, I don't like sauteing, or frying, or grilling," etc.

Well. OK! Your prerogative, certainly. But what the hell are you _doing _here?


----------



## Cruiser

boatshoe said:


> Obviously it doesn't look terribly out of place to some people.


I agree. I meant my question as a serious inquiry and I'm sorry that some have not taken it that way. I am not being demeaning in any way when I ask because I would not ridicule someone for saying that they think something looks good just because I don't see it the same way. After all beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Given that the button hole in the lapel looks so odd to me I simply wondered what it is about this that others think looks good. That isn't a judgement of another's taste.

For example, when I once said that I like black shirts or dark shirts and dark ties together, I would have much preferred that someone ask me what it is about this that I like rather than simply making fun of me or making jokes about my taste in shirts.

After all, isn't part of the reason for a discussion board to share thoughts and ideas?

Cruiser


----------



## Jovan

Taliesin said:


> Can't tell from the photos: do those bodysuits have darts? :icon_smile_wink:


If I remember right, no darts OR buttons. How's that for clean lines?


----------



## Jovan

manton said:


> This thread, like so many here, is surreal. It's like walking into a cooking class and listening to people say, "I don't like stock, I don't like demi-glace, I don't like veloute, I don't like terrines, I don't like fish, I don't like game, I don't like sauteing, or frying, or grilling," etc.
> 
> Well. OK! Your prerogative, certainly. But what the hell are you _doing _here?


I think Cruiser's reasoning is perfectly legit, even though I disagree with him. Some of us here don't even like pocket squares! (Thankfully I'm not one of them. :icon_smile_big While that may be crazy talk to us, there's no need to take a snooty "What are you doing here if you don't appreciate the finer details of clothing?" attitude like Bogdanoff has done way too many times.

Look, I'm here to learn like anyone else. Actually, if it weren't for Ask Andy I wouldn't even be interested in that awesome three button (rolled to two, of course!) sack blazer on eBay right now. But don't you think posts like that are just going to alienate new people or lurkers from posting? (It's the reason one of my friends who wants to learn about dressing well hasn't joined.)


----------



## manton

My point is, this is a totally different place than I remember. It's as if eGullet became a forum that spent all its time talking about canned soup and TV dinners.

Don't worry, I am going back into exile. You guys can go back to debating whether brown works with gray without any interference from me.


----------



## Brooksfan

windsor said:


> Eagle has nailed it. It is one way a Trad signals to another Trad, hey we have something in common. It is a sartorial secret password....are you in the club too? Logic ain't part of the equation.


Kind of like the way Porsche drivers used to flash their headlights at one another back in the day?


----------



## Jovan

manton said:


> My point is, this is a totally different place than I remember. It's as if eGullet became a forum that spent all its time talking about canned soup and TV dinners.
> 
> Don't worry, I am going back into exile. You guys can go back to debating whether brown works with gray without any interference from me.


I am not sure what you are trying to say. We lack class? We're debating the same things over and over again?

I'm sorry you're not posting anymore. You're a good source of knowledge.


----------



## manton

It is now a _question _whether brown goes with gray? Whether the 3-roll-2 is stylish? On a _clothing _forum? That's not even back to basics. That's regression beneath the mean.


----------



## Cruiser

manton said:


> My point is, this is a totally different place than I remember. It's as if eGullet became a forum that spent all its time talking about canned soup and TV dinners.
> 
> Don't worry, I am going back into exile. You guys can go back to debating whether brown works with gray without any interference from me.


So exactly what is one allowed to question in this forum without being told to go elsewhere? It isn't like all of the sartorial gurus here agree on everything, because they don't.

It's almost as if you are saying that there is an agreed upon list of things that look good and things that look bad, and if you don't go along with this you aren't welcome. Meanwhile, those who do agree with what looks good and what looks bad will spend their days talking about how the agreed upon good things look good and the agreed upon bad things look bad. No disagreement, no debate, no discussion about different thoughts or ideas, just one big happy group who agree on everything.

For my part, some of my favorite people in this forum are guys with whom I disagree the most on the most issues. We have learned to have fun with it and even to anticipate responses. And a couple of these guys are among the most respected members of the forum. It's just clothes guys. It should be fun, not angry and mean spirited. We're not curing cancer or seeking world peace here. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Jovan

Well stated.


----------



## manton

Jovan said:


> Well stated.


Glad you are happy, since every single discussion here now seems to return this point.

Cruiser, my hat is off to you! I have never seen another instance of someone remaking an institution in his own image so thoroughly! It's an accomplishment, of sorts.


----------



## David V

manton said:


> Glad you are happy, since every single discussion here now seems to return this point.
> 
> Cruiser, my hat is off to you! I have never seen another instance of someone remaking an institution in his own image so thoroughly! It's an accomplishment, of sorts.


At one time there was a base line. Above this line was elegance. Below the line was in-elegance. We all agreed to discuss the elegant.

Some want to erase the line and say "whatever."


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

Cruiser said:


> But how does a buttonhole in the middle of the lapel improve upon an otherwise nice looking jacket? It just looks terribly out of place or perhaps like the cleaners screwed up when they pressed the lapels. I'm not trying to be adversarial. I just don't see how something like that improves the appearance of the jacket. Just asking.
> 
> Cruiser


One might also ask why we have a bottom button on jackets, vests, and cardigans that we don't button or why we have any buttons on jacket sleeves, functional or not, the only purpose they serve is to look nice.

If we all thought the same thing looked nice we could eliminate all of the discussion about 2 vs 3 buttons, number of buttons on a sleeve, functional sleeve buttons, cuffs or not, size of cuffs, darts, pleats, and about every other detail of tailored clothing.

It is all subjective as to what looks good.

Cheers, Jim.


----------



## Jovan

manton said:


> Glad you are happy, since every single discussion here now seems to return this point.
> 
> Cruiser, my hat is off to you! I have never seen another instance of someone remaking an institution in his own image so thoroughly! It's an accomplishment, of sorts.


I hope you kept the receipt.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

Jovan said:


> The three-roll-two goes back far more than that.


That photo looks like it was taken in the 30's and my post was about suits worn in my part of the country in the 50's and subsequent decades. I really did not pay much attention to suits prior to the 50's.

Cheers, Jim.


----------



## manton

Jovan said:


> I hope you kept the receipt.


Are clothes worn on the body? Has that become a topic of discussion and controversy here? We can all be of two minds on that, right? And no one perspective is any better than any other, right?


----------



## David V

but you should. That IS the baseline, don't you know.


----------



## Jovan

Manton, you're demonstrating exactly what I was talking about.


----------



## manton

Jovan said:


> Manton, you're demonstrating exactly what I was talking about.


If you guys want to spend your time arguing, in effect, that Spam v. fois gras is all in the palate of the taster, you are welcome to it. The argumentative jerk in my is getting a perverse thrill out of mixing it up here, but don't worry, it won't last.

Right, anyone who disagrees is a "snob." Got it.

What a tragedy this is.


----------



## Taliesin

Manton: You went away, and while you were gone, everyone started wearing notch-lapel dinner jackets and A-E Park Avenues as formalwear, and basic non-weird two-button don't-offend-the-neighbors suits as businesswear. Or jeans.


----------



## manton

Taliesin said:


> Manton: You went away, and while you were gone, everyone started wearing notch-lapel dinner jackets and A-E Park Avenues as formalwear, and basic non-weird two-button don't-offend-the-neighbors suits as businesswear. Or jeans.


And because of that, I am going away again. Bye!


----------



## RJman

manton said:


> And because of that, I am going away again. Bye!


You've had more farewells than Barbra Streisand. Maybe they should just ban you (and me) so we can't come back. Even if we wanted to.


----------



## manton

RJman said:


> You've had more farewells than Barbra Streisand. Maybe they should just ban you (and me) so we can't come back. Even if we wanted to.


Aren't you dead?


----------



## Jovan

I think a better metaphor would be sirloin versus prime rib -- that's effectively the same thing as debating the advantages of three roll two versus true two or three button. A matter of taste. Nobody is saying that a Men's Wearhouse suit is going to look or wear better than say... a Kiton. That would be a better comparison suited for your metaphor. (I think both spam and foie gras are nasty, for the record.)

Now, you dislike the high roll three button and even recommend against it in your book IIRC, but not everyone -- even other experts -- are going to agree. That's what Cruiser was trying to say. Secondly, I don't see why you're getting so worked up over what is effectively just a debate. I think the thread is fun and interesting. Are you sure you're not just annoyed that this topic has come up a million times along with grey and brown? That would be understandable.


----------



## boatshoe

I think Manton and David V make legitimate points. Sometimes it seems the common denominator is quite low and getting lower. I expect to eventually read a thread asking about what jacket goes best with jeans shorts. Other threads aren't as bad, but seem like the type of thing you'd find in Yahoo Answers as opposed to a board dedicated to mens fashion. (e.g. What color shoes go with grey trousers?) Board personalities also complicate matters as sometimes people tend to enjoy flaunting sartorial ignorance or take pride in their "breaking the rules."


----------



## manton

The answer is bone-in ribeye.

Seriously, the whole discussion here is now premised on the notion that there is no such thing as connoisseurship, a widely accepted (if not unversally acknowledged) pantheon of the upper reaches of the subject.

This is thread is not about which style do you like best. The point certain posters are making is that _they cannot for the life of them see why anyone could like a certain style_. And not just any style, but a classic long favored by many of the world's best dressers. That is very different from differing tastes.

So, to continue the steak analogy, I can understand someone who prefers the porterhouse to the rib. Even the filet. However, you all want to elevate chuck into the pantheon, and kick the ribeye out. That is nuts.

You are welcome to your opinions. But if you think this is clothing talk at any but the most pedestrian, banal level you are seriously kidding yourselves.


----------



## RJman

manton said:


> Aren't you dead?


:tomasso:


Jovan said:


> I think a better metaphor would be sirloin versus prime rib -- that's effectively the same thing as debating the advantages of three roll two versus true two or three button. A matter of taste. Nobody is saying that a Men's Wearhouse suit is going to look or wear better than say... a Kiton. That would be a better comparison suited for your metaphor. (I think both spam and foie gras are nasty, for the record.)
> 
> Now, you dislike the high roll three button and even recommend against it in your book IIRC, but not everyone -- even other experts -- are going to agree. That's what Cruiser was trying to say. Secondly, I don't see why you're getting so worked up over what is effectively just a debate. I think the thread is fun and interesting. Are you sure you're not just annoyed that this topic has come up a million times along with grey and brown? That would be understandable.


I don't think you're getting it. Cruiser's thrust, at least figuratively, is that clothes don't matter, so the debate is meaningless. Manton's ejaculations above boil down to "Clothes may not matter in the grand scheme of things, but it is entertaining to discuss them." Cruiser hides behind a false naivete and claims that his attacks on debate itself are reasonable. Others who wish to have a discussion about men's clothing, rather than about whether it is permissible to discuss men's clothing, go elsewhere.


----------



## Taliesin

Jovan said:


> Secondly, I don't see why you're getting so worked up over what is effectively just a debate. I think the thread is fun and interesting.


At the risk of speaking wrongly for someone else, I think I know why it bothers him: it's exhausting. Every thread like this ends up like some James Michener novel where you have to write extensively about the very beginnings of the earth just to get to a point of being sure that you are even talking about the same thing. By that time, the thread is worn out and posters have lost interest.

Take the example of formalwear. How many threads have there been in the past year or so about the appropriateness of the notch-lapel dinner jacket? In my view, every one of them has devolved into the same 'debate' about whether a the view that notch-laped DJs are not good examples of classic style is 'snobby' or 'out-of-touch.' I would think that Manton's point would be that of course a notch-lapel DJ is not classic and not as aesthetically pleasing as a peak or shawl lapel. But since we can't even share that same basic understanding 'round here any more, it makes communication very difficult and tiresome.


----------



## Jovan

Points well taken. I still think we're getting too worked up over this, though.


----------



## RJman

Jovan said:


> Points well taken. I still think we're getting too worked up over this, though.


Well, this is Manton we are talking about. The Farewell Queen.ic12337:


----------



## Scrumhalf

Clearly, everyone has dumb questions when getting started. I certainly did and still do frequently. You have to learn to crawl before you can walk. If we look down upon everyone posting newbie questions, the quality of the dialog would certainly improve for the connoisseurs of fashion but the value of the board as a school for the uninitiated would go down. 

A solution to this I have seen on other boards is to have a sub-forum to have beginner's questions. Those experts who are feeling suitably charitable could venture in there periodically to help answer these questions that tend to repeat on a periodic basis. Moderators can help by moving newbie or trivial questions to the beginner's sub-forum if they appear in the main forum. This then allows the main forum to retain its place in the sartorial exosphere, as it were.


----------



## manton

When every single discussion is forced to return to "There are no rules, there is no better and worse, taste is 100% relative, clothes don't matter, wear absolutely anything you want," beginners will learn precisely ... nothing.


----------



## boatshoe

manton said:


> When every single discussion is forced to return to "There are no rules, there is no better and worse, taste is 100% relative, clothes don't matter, wear absolutely anything you want," beginners will learn precisely ... nothing.


+1 Agreed. There is too much of a tendency to rely on iGent manners to avoid correcting people.


----------



## Taliesin

boatshoe said:


> +1 Agreed. There is too much of a tendency to rely on iGent manners to avoid correcting people.


Well, that, and, with certain posters, it just takes too much effort to do so.


----------



## Scrumhalf

manton said:


> When every single discussion is forced to return to "There are no rules, there is no better and worse, taste is 100% relative, clothes don't matter, wear absolutely anything you want," beginners will learn precisely ... nothing.


+1. Manton, I have read your position on this topic and agree with you completely. I am happy and gratelful that experts like you and many others post advice/comments and pictures as well so that others can learn.

On a fitness forum that I frequent, the issue is the same - the same questions, how do I reduce my waistline, what do I eat and when, how do I mix lifting and cardio, ad nauseum..... over and over. A beginner's forum won't fix everything. Wrong advice could still be dispensed but at least, having a "slow lane" and a "fast lane" enables those who are trying to figure out how to match ties to jackets to get out of the way of those who would like to discuss higher aspects of style. It won't fix the problem of dubious assertions as you rightly observe, but at least those not interested do not have to wade throught them.


----------



## RJman

Scrumhalf said:


> +1. Manton, I have read your position on this topic and agree with you completely. I am happy and gratelful that experts like you and many others post advice/comments and pictures as well so that others can learn.
> 
> On a fitness forum that I frequent, the issue is the same - the same questions, how do I reduce my waistline, what do I eat and when, how do I mix lifting and cardio, ad nauseum..... over and over. A beginner's forum won't fix everything. Wrong advice could still be dispensed but at least, having a "slow lane" and a "fast lane" enables those who are trying to figure out how to match ties to jackets to get out of the way of those who would like to discuss higher aspects of style. It won't fix the problem of dubious assertions as you rightly observe, but at least those not interested do not have to wade throught them.


How would a beginners' forum help? The same posters who stifle debate on the main forum would post there, no?


----------



## Taliesin

RJman said:


> How would a beginners' forum help? The same posters who stifle debate on the main forum would post there, no?


And would continue to post on the main forum. I don't think beginner status is really the issue.


----------



## Scrumhalf

Well, my thinking was that if dumb (meaning elementary, not stupid) questions were moved to the beginner's section either voluntarily or involuntarily (moderator intervention), the main forum's S/N ratio might improve. I agree that it won't guard against a determined poster posting his contrarian views anyway and disrupting dialogue, but if only a subset of the noise were reduced, it might still be a good thing.

Anyway, just an idea....


----------



## RJman

Scrumhalf said:


> Well, my thinking was that if dumb (meaning elementary, not stupid) questions were moved to the beginner's section either voluntarily or involuntarily (moderator intervention), the main forum's S/N ratio might improve. I agree that it won't guard against a determined poster posting his contrarian views anyway and disrupting dialogue, but if only a subset of the noise were reduced, it might still be a good thing.
> 
> Anyway, just an idea....


There are no dumb _questions_. Only dumb answers.


----------



## manton

RJman said:


> There are no dumb _questions_. Only dumb answers.


And, at the pinacle, Dumb Threads.


----------



## RJman

manton said:


> And, at the pin*n*acle,
> 
> .


FTFY.


----------



## Scrumhalf

RJman said:


> There are no dumb _questions_. Only dumb answers.


Like I indicated, I didn't mean the word in a pejorative sense, rather as a synonym for elementary to those versed in the art.


----------



## adhoc

manton said:


> When every single discussion is forced to return to "There are no rules, there is no better and worse, taste is 100% relative, clothes don't matter, wear absolutely anything you want," beginners will learn precisely ... nothing.


What a stark POV. You must have a pretty bleak outlook on the world, given how you see things in black or white.

*Dressing well is an art, not a science. Science presumes that there is one true, correct answer. Art does not. Science is to a great degree static - the journey mostly ends once we've solved for 'x', once we've discovered the answer, once we've come up with the formula that makes sense. Art is not static - it evolves.*

We all know _great_ art when we see it, and we all know trash or 'art' when we see it. We all also can tell the differences between _similarly great_ works of art, even if we don't agree with the premise behind it - can one really say a Renoir is 'better' or 'worse' than Dali? So of course we can tell when someone is better/worse dressed, and being able to distinguish between _variations_ of 'well-dressed' does not mean we lose the ability to discriminate between 'well-dressed' and 'not well-dressed'.

The problem with a great deal of this (and other) 'fashion/style' forums is that people become fixated with what they've taken to be (or made) *dogma*, and dressing up like some 50s movie star they've nominated as their 'style paragon'.

Even stranger, they attempt to copy looks off _illustrations_ made in the 30s/40s/50s. Did Prince Edward VIII copy his 'looks' off cartoons and line drawings of people in the 1900s or 1890s? Of course not. Does Rubinacci copy a jacket's cut exactly off a 60s catalogue? Of course he doesn't. Does the Savile Row of today look exactly like the Savile Row of 1950? Of course not.

*Dogma implies unchanging, inflexible. Art isn't - style isn't.* If you want to dress in every way like someone considered well-dressed from the 50s or 60s, more power to you. But you're *not* well-dressed for today. You're well dressed for the 50s or 60s. There is a difference between 'new' and 'worse'. And to sepia-tone a 'golden age' of men's dress as hold it up as some form of 'lost ideal' is just sheer ridiculous - so there weren't any shabbily dressed people in that halcyon age?

My 0.02.


----------



## manton

So what are we here to talk about?

You only have to post "It's all relative; anyone who says otherwise is anal/a snob" once.

And I suppose you cannot see that your post at once denies and affirms the possibility of normative judgement with respect to cloths. But that's the new AAAC, baby. Yeah! :aportnoy:


----------



## boatshoe

adhoc said:


> We all know _great_ art when we see it, and we all know trash or 'art' when we see it. We all also can tell the differences between _similarly great_ works of art, even if we don't agree with the premise behind it - can one really say a Renoir is 'better' or 'worse' than Dali? So of course we can tell when someone is better/worse dressed, and being able to distinguish between _variations_ of 'well-dressed' does not mean we lose the ability to discriminate between 'well-dressed' and 'not well-dressed'.


I understand this objection. But I think the point that was actually raised here was that the level of debate is not comparable to a debate about the merits of Renoir vs Dali. Rather it's between Renoir and some guy who likes to paint velvet Elvis.


----------



## adhoc

manton said:


> So what are we here to talk about?
> 
> You only have to post "It's all relative; anyone who says otherwise is anal/a snob" once.
> 
> And I suppose you cannot see that your post at once denies and affirms the possibility of normative judgement with respect to cloths. But that's the new AAAC, baby. Yeah! :aportnoy:


We're here to agree, and to disagree. We're here to discuss. We're all here to learn. Yes, even you.

FWIW, the 'anal/snob' argument is just a ridiculous IMO as the 'modern relativism = compromising of _my _sartorial ideals' one.


----------



## manton

To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of compromising my sartorial ideals. You can all dress like hell if you want, and I will dress the way I dress. I don't care what any of you think of it.

The point is, this is supposed to be -- it used to be -- an elevated discussion of clothes. Now it is a race to the bottom. You can prefer Spam to foie gras (to return to that analogy) and no one can talk you into liking the latter. But to always dogmatically force every conversation back to the ontological question of whether Spam is actually "better" than foie gras if even one person disagrees is to choke off all possibility of discussion of anything interesting to those whose tastes is a milimeter broader than the lowest common denominator.

The drift of this entire forum has for months been all in that direction. Maybe years. The whole place reads like a bunch of defensive cranks who don't like clothes but who have nonetheless banded together to defend to the death their disinterest against those who still care. Is it any wonder that those who still care are gone?


----------



## RJman

manton said:


> Is it any wonder that those who still care are gone?


Come on, Barbra, it's time to go.


----------



## windsor

Two observations:
first for Cruiser...when a manufacturer is making both two and three button jackets, I believe the position of the center button on the 3 button is higher than the top button on the 2 button, so they present a different appearance,flattering some,but not others. Also, usually the 3 button is not darted. I know there are exceptions. The coat may have less waist suppression...a sack style. These are the choice of the Trads and the style has been around a long time. Yes, as you say, you end up with a buttonhole showing on the lapel and worse (which you didn't mention) the dry cleaners will press the opposite lapel on the button and you end up with a button mark on the face of that lapel. The sack is popular not because the button hole shows,but in spite of it. It provides a good look for some men.
second observation...I think Manton has expressed what many have been feeling but haven't said. I sure have felt that way with the posts of wearing suit coats with jeans etc. I hope you post more often Manton.


----------



## medhat

Peak and Pine said:


> No. _Gorge_ is the notch where the collar meets the lapel.​


"Button stance" was the phrase I was looking for, but I think the thread has moved on to something else...


----------



## Cruiser

windsor said:


> first for Cruiser...when a manufacturer is making both two and three button jackets, I believe the position of the center button on the 3 button is higher than the top button on the 2 button, so they present a different appearance,flattering some,but not others. Also, usually the 3 button is not darted. I know there are exceptions. The coat may have less waist suppression...a sack style. These are the choice of the Trads and the style has been around a long time. Yes, as you say, you end up with a buttonhole showing on the lapel and worse (which you didn't mention) the dry cleaners will press the opposite lapel on the button and you end up with a button mark on the face of that lapel. The sack is popular not because the button hole shows,but in spite of it. It provides a good look for some men.


Thank you windsor for a well thought out response to my question. That is precisely the kind of response I was seeking. And I apologize to Holdfast for not seeing his answer to my question that was posted prior to my asking.

Having said that, if someone wants to complain about people discussing the wearing of jeans or suits without ties in this forum, I can see where that can be a valid discussion issue. As far as I can tell that was never the intended purpose of the forum and for the record I have never brought these subjects up. Anytime I have talked about things such as this it has been in direct response to a question from someone else or in response to a nasty comment someone made about folks who dress like this. I've never suggested that someone else should dress this way and I've never initiated any such discussion despite the fact that I have often been accused of doing so.

But that isn't what the argument going on in this thread is about. Nobody has said anything about people wearing whatever they want an any of this "anything goes" that is so oft repeated. Nobody, including me, has said that clothes aren't important, although I did say that this subject is not an par with world peace or curing cancer. If you think it is then you have a problem, not me.

No, this thread was about the 3/2 lapel and why some like it. This is a legitimate discussion issue if one wants to talk about clothes and dressing well. Suddenly some of you are talking about this line that we shouldn't go below. You are implying that any suggestion that this doesn't look good (and there are some who don't think it looks good) is in the same category as wearing a pair of jeans with a suit coat. That's a big leap. It's like, if you don't like this particular look you aren't elegant and have no business in this forum. Where is that coming from?

Why can't someone who dresses well and likes clothes NOT like a 3/2 lapel? Some respected members here don't like 3 button jackets and only wear 2 button jackets. Others are just the opposite. Some like double vents, some single vents, and a few like me no vents. Why must all of these lines be drawn in the sand? Why can't there be a variety of likes and dislikes without getting angry when someone doesn't like what you like? This isn't about suit coats with jeans for crying out loud. We're discussing lapel styles on jackets.

Of course I do note that many here like to make fun of guys who wear notch lapel tuxedos. Prince Philip has one and President Bush has one but I'm supposed to be some kind of outcast among the "properly" dressed because I have one too, or at least the subject of ridicule in this forum.

And exactly why is it not "elegant" to dislike a 3/2 lapel? And for those of us who don't particularly like this style, what in the world is wrong with asking those who do what it is about it that they like? Good grief.

Cruiser


----------



## James Bond

boatshoe said:


> I expect to eventually read a thread asking about what jacket goes best with jeans shorts.


Seersucker. Crocs are the preferred footwear.


----------



## manton

Cruiser said:


> Thank you windsor for a well thought out response to my question. That is precisely the kind of response I was seeking. And I apologize to Holdfast for not seeing his answer to my question that was posted prior to my asking.
> 
> Having said that, if someone wants to complain about people discussing the wearing of jeans or suits without ties in this forum, I can see where that can be a valid discussion issue. As far as I can tell that was never the intended purpose of the forum and for the record I have never brought these subjects up. Anytime I have talked about things such as this it has been in direct response to a question from someone else or in response to a nasty comment someone made about folks who dress like this. I've never suggested that someone else should dress this way and I've never initiated any such discussion despite the fact that I have often been accused of doing so.
> 
> But that isn't what the argument going on in this thread is about. Nobody has said anything about people wearing whatever they want an any of this "anything goes" that is so oft repeated. Nobody, including me, has said that clothes aren't important, although I did say that this subject is not an par with world peace or curing cancer. If you think it is then you have a problem, not me.
> 
> No, this thread was about the 3/2 lapel and why some like it. This is a legitimate discussion issue if one wants to talk about clothes and dressing well. Suddenly some of you are talking about this line that we shouldn't go below. You are implying that any suggestion that this doesn't look good (and there are some who don't think it looks good) is in the same category as wearing a pair of jeans with a suit coat. That's a big leap. It's like, if you don't like this particular look you aren't elegant and have no business in this forum. Where is that coming from?
> 
> Why can't someone who dresses well and likes clothes NOT like a 3/2 lapel? Some respected members here don't like 3 button jackets and only wear 2 button jackets. Others are just the opposite. Some like double vents, some single vents, and a few like me no vents. Why must all of these lines be drawn in the sand? Why can't there be a variety of likes and dislikes without getting angry when someone doesn't like what you like? This isn't about suit coats with jeans for crying out loud. We're discussing lapel styles on jackets.
> 
> Of course I do note that many here like to make fun of guys who wear notch lapel tuxedos. Prince Philip has one and President Bush has one but I'm supposed to be some kind of outcast among the "properly" dressed because I have one too, or at least the subject of ridicule in this forum.
> 
> And exactly why is it not "elegant" to dislike a 3/2 lapel? And for those of us who don't particularly like this style, what in the world is wrong with asking those who do what it is about it that they like? Good grief.
> 
> Cruiser


You are a gigantic lead weight dragging this forum straight to the bottom. No, that is inaccurate. It is already there. You are the sheet anchor and the chain that will hold it there until the proprietor finally deciedes to listen to the steady hum of the EKG and pull the plug.


----------



## Cruiser

manton said:


> You are a gigantic lead weight dragging this forum straight to the bottom.


So let's look at what I've done. I started by saying that women shouldn't be referred to as "ho's", "sluts", and "strumpets" simply because they have a tatoo. That's what started my downward spiral with some.

Then I suggested that it was inappropriate to say that the world would be a better place if people who wear shorts and tee shirts to the grocery store would all die. That turned a few more against me.

Then I protested calling someone a "sl-b" because his suit came from Macy's. What was I thinking?

Then I had the audacity to defend my notch lapel tuxedo after several members ridiculed me for owning such an inappropriate item of clothing.

And then I admitted that I own a black suit along with a couple of black shirts and some black pants, and I actually like to wear these things. I guess anyone who does this isn't fit company for this crowd.

And finally I guess my biggest sin was to admit that I prefer jeans over khakis for casual wear. Oh yeah, I often go out to dinner in a suit with an open collared shirt.

Well Mr. Manton, if it gets to the point that simple courtesy, decency, and respect for others becomes less important than someone's choice of clothing and the moderators see fit to send me packing, I will leave without regrets. Until that time comes I plan to try to be a good forum citizen and I don't think that my dislike of the 3/2 lapel will affect that at all.

Cruiser


----------



## JLibourel

Your obnoxious, prolix pertinacity both here and in your previous post--and, I might add, your broken-record repetitiveness--prove exactly the point Manton was making. You have almost single-handedly ruined what was once an excellent forum. Congratulations, Cruiser.


----------



## videocrew

Cruiser said:


> So let's look at what I've done. I started by saying that women shouldn't be referred to as "ho's", "sluts", and "strumpets" simply because they have a tatoo. That's what started my downward spiral with some.
> 
> Then I suggested that it was inappropriate to say that the world would be a better place if people who wear shorts and tee shirts to the grocery store would all die. That turned a few more against me.
> 
> Then I protested calling someone a "sl-b" because his suit came from Macy's. What was I thinking?
> 
> Then I had the audacity to defend my notch lapel tuxedo after several members ridiculed me for owning such an inappropriate item of clothing.
> 
> And then I admitted that I own a black suit along with a couple of black shirts and some black pants, and I actually like to wear these things. I guess anyone who does this isn't fit company for this crowd.
> 
> And finally I guess my biggest sin was to admit that I prefer jeans over khakis for casual wear. Oh yeah, I often go out to dinner in a suit with an open collared shirt.
> 
> Well Mr. Manton, if it gets to the point that simple courtesy, decency, and respect for others becomes less important than someone's choice of clothing and the moderators see fit to send me packing, I will leave without regrets. Until that time comes I plan to try to be a good forum citizen and I don't think that my dislike of the 3/2 lapel will affect that at all.
> 
> Cruiser


Honestly, this isn't really responsive to the accusation. While many of your larger debates haven't been particularly egregious, it's the whole tone of "wear what you want, as long as you like it" that seems out of place. I would assume most people come here looking to IMPROVE what they're wearing, or advise others on how to do so, than to just have their existing dress validated. If the point of this board is the latter, it's a sad commentary on all of us that we have to turn to the internet to do so.


----------



## dopey

I have waited long enough. It is time for me to weigh in on this.


----------



## Cruiser

JLibourel said:


> Your obnoxious, prolix pertinacity both here and in your previous post--and, I might add, your broken-record repetitiveness--prove exactly the point Manton was making. You have almost single-handedly ruined what was once an excellent forum. Congratulations, Cruiser.


This coming from the man who suggested that the world would be a better place if folks who wore tee shirts and shorts to the grocery store would all die. I think you also said that you considered yourself to be "superior" to all those who didn't dress as well as you. And you think that opinions such as that constituted an "excellent" forum?

By the way, I read all those nasty things you said about me over on that other forum after you left this one. Laughing at me and making fun of me because I own a Stafford suit from J.C. Penney. I also saw all of the nasty comments made about my daughter over on that forum. You and your buddies are real gentlemen aren't you?

Cruiser


----------



## JLibourel

Cruiser said:


> This coming from the man who suggested that the world would be a better place if folks who wore tee shirts and shorts to the grocery store would all die. I think you also said that you considered yourself to be "superior" to all those who didn't dress as well as you. And you think that opinions such as that constituted an "excellent" forum?
> 
> By the way, I read all those nasty things you said about me over on that other forum after you left this one. Laughing at me and making fun of me because I own a Stafford suit from J.C. Penney. I also saw all of the nasty comments made about my daughter over on that forum. You and your buddies are real gentlemen aren't you?
> 
> Cruiser


At least I never likened anybody's wife to a whore, Cruiser old boy. You sure have a way of playing fast and loose with the truth, as well.


----------



## iammatt

dopey said:


> I have waited long enough. It is time for me to weigh in on this.


No doubt about that.


----------



## Will

Cruiser said:


> This coming from the man who suggested that the world would be a better place if folks who wore tee shirts and shorts to the grocery store would all die. I think you also said that you considered yourself to be "superior" to all those who didn't dress as well as you. And you think that opinions such as that constituted an "excellent" forum?
> 
> By the way, I read all those nasty things you said about me over on that other forum after you left this one. Laughing at me and making fun of me because I own a Stafford suit from J.C. Penney. I also saw all of the nasty comments made about my daughter over on that forum. You and your buddies are real gentlemen aren't you?
> 
> Cruiser


In your previous post you offered to leave the board. I think that's the fourth time I've read such an offer from you. It's been accepted a number of times. But you never go.

It's not accurate to say that you are the only reason that the overwhelming majority of people who actually knew something about clothing and made this board an interesting and worth while place for most readers have departed. But you are in the top two.


----------



## manton

videocrew said:


> Honestly, this isn't really responsive to the accusation. While many of your larger debates haven't been particularly egregious, it's the whole tone of "wear what you want, as long as you like it" that seems out of place. I would assume most people come here looking to *IMPROVE *what they're wearing, or advise others on how to do so, than to just have their existing dress validated. If the point of this board is the latter, it's a sad commentary on all of us that we have to turn to the internet to do so.


Impossible, there is no "improve" and anyone who says so is a snob.

Coming back here after so many months is strangely nostalgic and sad. It's like visiting my hometown, only to find all the windows broken, screendoors clanging in the wind, weeds everywhere, the streets deserted except for the occasional corpse ... but there, in the town square, is Cruiser, alive and well, and armed to the teeth, ready to shoot dead anyone who dares say, "Hey, maybe we can spruce things up around here!"


----------



## Cruiser

Will said:


> In your previous post you offered to leave the board. I think that's the fourth time I've read such an offer from you. It's been accepted a number of times. But you never go.


Actually I said that once and I had no plans to post again; however, a number of people contacted me and suggested that I not let a few jerks run me off. So I changed my mind. I've made no further offers to do that again. You must be confusing me with someone else.

You know Will, I read and enjoy your blog every day. The thing that has struck me is that you often post pictures of people you like and admire and many times they are dressed in the very manner that so many here crucify me over. I've seen black clothing, suits worn with open collared shirts, etc., yet any mention by me that I wear these things is usually met with a suggestion that I leave the forum because I'm ruining it with my "anything goes" attitude.

For most of my adult life I have almost always been one of the best dressed men at whatever gathering I'm in, even when my clothes are less expensive than some others. I'm slender and my clothes are nicely tailored to fit me well, they are always neat and clean, and I always dress appropriate to the setting. I spend a great deal of time and money on gettng the "fit" right. And not once in this forum have I ever advocated anyone else doing anything different.

What I don't do is criticize others for their choices. My primary concern is how I look and if I am to believe those around me, I generally look pretty darn good even in casual clothing. Not me personally, my attire. :icon_smile:

So if I'm one of the top two reasons for people leaving the forum, something is wrong elsewhere. For example, I am currently being torn apart in this thread for simply asking a question. I said that I don't think that the buttonhole showing in the lapel of the 3/2 lapel looks good and I asked those who like it what it is about this style that they like. I guess that if the sartorial gods say that it looks good you aren't supposed to question them on that. I thought that is what a discussion board is all about.

Cruiser


----------



## Orsini

JLibourel said:


> Your obnoxious, prolix pertinacity both here and in your previous post--and, I might add, your broken-record repetitiveness--prove exactly the point Manton was making. You have almost single-handedly ruined what was once an excellent forum. Congratulations, Cruiser.


Agreed. Not just ruined, but conquered, and remade in his own image.


----------



## Orsini

*The Return of the King*



manton said:


> The answer to the OP is, because they look nice:


I am glad to see you back after so long. Is that you in the photos? You look a little thin.


----------



## manton

Cruiser, if all that you write above is true -- and personally I believe it to be disingenuous nonsense -- then maybe you ought to consider the possibilty that you just don't have an "eye" for clothing. That is nothing to be ashamed of. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It says nothing about your character (though your posts say plenty about that). Not everyone is interested in everything, or has the knack for everything.

But that said, why don't you stop wasting everyone's time? Forcing every thread to return to a validation of your banal taste is pointless for everyone but you. If you showed up a cooking school and harrangued every class with lectures about why Arby's was just fine and this classical French crap was for snobs, you would be kicked out. And you would deserve it. Because your behavior would be boorish.

That is what I am saying about your behavior here. You have come to a place whose purpose is to discuss clothes made a dedicated effort to lower the tone, dumb the place down, to strip it of any interest. All, apparently, so that you can feel better about your black trousers and notch DJ.

Yes, Cruiser, there ARE standards, there are hierarchies, traditions, things that can be learned. You have learned none of them. You have stated over and over that you care about none of them. So just ... go away. And let other people learn about them, if they want to.


----------



## arnaud

manton said:


> ...It's like visiting my hometown, only to find all the windows broken, screendoors clanging in the wind, weeds everywhere, the streets deserted except for the occasional corpse ... but there, in the town square, is Cruiser, alive and well, and armed to the teeth, ready to shoot dead anyone who dares say, "Hey, maybe we can spruce things up around here!"


Truly I miss your prose, from foie gras to a clanging screen doors - and all in space of a single thread. Gone yes, but not forgotten: you're always a kick to read.

Manton: King of the Metaphors!


----------



## gnatty8

RJman said:


> Well, this is Manton we are talking about. The Farewell Queen.ic12337:





manton said:


> When every single discussion is forced to return to "There are no rules, there is no better and worse, taste is 100% relative, clothes don't matter, wear absolutely anything you want," beginners will learn precisely ... nothing.





JLibourel said:


> Your obnoxious, prolix pertinacity both here and in your previous post--and, I might add, your broken-record repetitiveness--prove exactly the point Manton was making. You have almost single-handedly ruined what was once an excellent forum. Congratulations, Cruiser.





dopey said:


> I have waited long enough. It is time for me to weigh in on this.





iammatt said:


> No doubt about that.


Jesus, where am I? Its like I am caught in some weird bizarro world where AAAC is SF and vice versa. Let me OUUUUUUTTTTTT..


----------



## gnatty8

manton said:


> Impossible, there is no "improve" and anyone who says so is a snob.
> 
> Coming back here after so many months is strangely nostalgic and sad. It's like visiting my hometown, only to find all the windows broken, screendoors clanging in the wind, weeds everywhere, the streets deserted except for the occasional corpse ... but there, in the town square, is Cruiser, alive and well, and armed to the teeth, ready to shoot dead anyone who dares say, "Hey, maybe we can spruce things up around here!"


This is a very odd analogy, but oddly enough, it seems to fit the situation relatively well.


----------



## RJman

manton said:


> You are a gigantic lead weight dragging this forum straight to the bottom. No, that is inaccurate. It is already there. You are the sheet anchor and the chain that will hold it there until the proprietor finally deciedes to listen to the steady hum of the EKG and pull the plug.





JLibourel said:


> Your obnoxious, prolix pertinacity both here and in your previous post--and, I might add, your broken-record repetitiveness--prove exactly the point Manton was making. *You have almost single-handedly ruined what was once an excellent forum*. Congratulations, Cruiser.


Well, him, the weird racist innuendo makers, and the inconsistent moderation. Note to Mods: if you ban me for this, remember that those who tell you the unpleasant truths aren't necessarily your enemies.



iammatt said:


> No doubt about that.





manton said:


> Cruiser, if all that you write above is true -- and personally I believe it to be *disingenuous *nonsense


Ooh, you're learning...



gnatty8 said:


> Jesus, where am I? Its like I am caught in some weird bizarro world where AAAC is SF and vice versa. Let me OUUUUUUTTTTTT..


<diabolical laughter>


----------



## adhoc

While trawling the archives, I found a post from 2 years back I found especially interesting. I tend to agree with it re: rules and fashion/style. Here it is, warts and all.


BNAFlyer said:


> I may not have answered the question--which is, "Is it proper?". The question answers itself. If you believe in a rigid concept of what is "proper" or not then no, you should never, ever wear a suit jacket without the suit pants. The "rule" forbids it! You are only "allowed" to wear something that has been officially designated as a "sportcoat" as a separate.
> 
> If you find that a little boring, comfort yourself with the fact that many sartorially "proper" features of today's wardrobe started out as innovations that, strictly speaking, were not "proper" when first introduced. Some were downright scandalous. The Duke of Windsor was the master of this form. Gianni Agnelli was another (wearing a wristwatch outside your shirt cuff was certainly not proper, at least until he did it!)
> 
> Needless to say , all of us don't have the style of the Duke of Windsor, so if you aren't adventurous or don't trust your own judgemnt, sense of style and sense of context, you should stick to the rules.


IMO, so much has to do with the intent you have when you 'break the rules' - are you experimenting with the aim of creating a personal sense of style? Or are you simply too lazy to be bothered? I think many of the posters on this thread sometimes confuse the two.


----------



## chrstc

Hello,
OK so I'm probably going to get shot down in flames but I really don't understand why those of you who are worried about Cruiser's posts don't just use the "ignore" feature in the User CP. It really isn't that difficult to skip through a thread and only read responses from certain members whilst skipping others if that is what you feel you "have" to do. You can also try simply responding to questions and not getting involved in off-topic discussions.

This forum is supposed to be a community and to blame any one man (or indeed group) for its supposed decline is ridiculous. Some of the personal attacks in this thread are completely over the top too IMHO. When this thread starts being referenced on Google then that is more likely to facilitate this forum's decline than any one member's opinion. Some of you are making mountains out of molehills in my opinion. 

Chris.


----------



## manton

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> OK so I'm probably going to get shot down in flames but I really don't understand why those of you who are worried about Cruiser's posts don't just use the "ignore" feature in the User CP. It really isn't that difficult to skip through a thread and only read responses from certain members whilst skipping others if that is what you feel you "have" to do. You can also try simply responding to questions and not getting involved in off-topic discussions.
> 
> This forum is supposed to be a community and to blame any one man (or indeed group) for its supposed decline is ridiculous. Some of the personal attacks in this thread are completely over the top too IMHO. When this thread starts being referenced on Google then that is more likely to facilitate this forum's decline than any one member's opinion. Some of you are making mountains out of molehills in my opinion.
> 
> Chris.


This is much too simplistic. It's not as simple as using "ignore". A forum is a complex organism, as it were, and it's direction is set by a lot of factors.

The point I (we) are making is that its direction is now all toward banality. I actually have used "ignore" for this reason. My version was to set the whole place on ignore by not looking and not posting. A lot of people have done the same. If that's what you want, fine. You got it.

I'm just trying to explain how/why it happened.


----------



## chrstc

Hello,
I am a neutral in all this for one simple reason- I believe this place is more than big enough for people with all sorts of different opinions to co-exist side by side. There are more than enough threads to which you could contribute without ever encountering your nemesis and vice versa. I have no problem with either of you (at least not on my side!) but this is rather like a teacher refusing to teach a whole class because he disagrees with the behaviour of one student. 

Chris.


----------



## gnatty8

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> I am a neutral in all this for one simple reason- I believe this place is more than big enough for people with all sorts of different opinions to co-exist side by side. There are more than enough threads to which you could contribute without ever encountering your nemesis and vice versa. I have no problem with either of you (at least not on my side!) but this is rather *like a teacher refusing to teach a whole class because he disagrees with the behaviour of one student*.
> 
> Chris.


I am not sure I agree with your point here. I think Manton's point about the cooking class is, well, on point here. You don't sign up to learn how to prepare fine French cuisine only to argue with participants that fine French cuisine is crap, and that you prefer hot dogs and baked beans instead. If I were teaching that class, I would not refuse to teach the whole class at all, I would remove the offending student so that the remaining students who really are there to learn, can do so.


----------



## David V

On this forum we all take the roles of teacher and student at some time on some topics. The downfall of this is that only over time can you discern who has the "credentials" to be a teacher on any given topic. Some newer members may be putting equal value on posts when there is no warrant for that.


----------



## dopey

The cruiserification of AAAC was fine with me. I left, not because of him, but because the interesting people all left and there wasn't much to read here. After a while, even chaking the ToC was a waste of time, so I stopped looking in. 

Now, many will argue that the interesting posts and posters left because of Cruiser. And I know there are other complaints as well. Maybe so. But so what? I really fail to see the importance of having multiple websites discussing the same thing. I would rather waste my time at one place than split it between two. And thanks to the FNB site, if there is anything really worthwhile or entertaining, I will see it referenced there.

This thread is fun, but I hope manton fails and AAAC remains as is.


----------



## Cruiser

gnatty8 said:


> You don't sign up to learn how to prepare fine French cuisine only to argue with participants that fine French cuisine is crap, and that you prefer hot dogs and baked beans instead.


And I don't believe that I have done that. Let's use this thread as an example. I said that I don't personally like the way the button hole in the lapel looks on the 3/2 lapel. I then asked that those who do like this look what it is that they find attractive about it. That sounds like a legitimate question to me. I didn't pass judgement on anybody or say anything negative about anybody and I certainly did not question anyone else's taste in clothing.

I simply sought a more informed discussion of this topic than being told that people with sartorial knowledge think it looks good and that should be enough. Why should that be enough? Are you saying that everyone who is qualified to be called "well dressed" agrees and walks in lock step with every single detail of clothing and clothing styles? Of course they don't.

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser said:


> Are you saying that everyone who is qualified to be called "well dressed" agrees and walks in lock step with every single detail of clothing and clothing styles? Of course they don't.


Not with every single detail, but there is consensus on certain big picture matters. Ignoring or challenging that consensus can be illuminating once in a while, but when done regularly and aggressively, it tends to make communication too exhausting to be worthwhile.


----------



## Will

Cruiser said:


> AYou know Will, I read and enjoy your blog every day. The thing that has struck me is that you often post pictures of people you like and admire and many times they are dressed in the very manner that so many here crucify me over. I've seen black clothing, suits worn with open collared shirts, etc., yet any mention by me that I wear these things is usually met with a suggestion that I leave the forum because I'm ruining it with my "anything goes" attitude.
> 
> Cruiser


This is as good example of Cruiserspeak as I've seen. There may be someone else who thinks my writing gives permission to wear black clothes during the day, and open collared shirts with suits, but I haven't heard from him.

I have nothing against you personally, but I like clothing and I will never understand why someone who professes to aspire to dressing well feels it necessary to state that he, along with many other "average Americans," is perfectly happy wearing what he wears and never hears a word of complaint about his dress.

If you don't hear complaints about your dress, you are going to places where people don't know what they are looking at, or you are failing to listen.

For example, you may consider this a complaint.


----------



## Cruiser

JLibourel said:


> At least I never likened anybody's wife to a whore, Cruiser old boy. You sure have a way of playing fast and loose with the truth, as well.


Nor have I. You were using some really nasty and demeaning language to describe other people that could be offensive to many others, not just me. For example in a thread about women with tatoos I commented that my daughter has one. Here was your contribution to that thread:

_"As to the matter of the "tramp stamp," I suppose there are some women who are not cheap sluts who get tattoos on their lower backs. I also suspect they are few and far between. That said, cheap sluts can provide a lot of pleasure in the right circumstances!"
_
I asked you how you would feel if such comments were made about your wife. I did not actually call your wife anything. In fact, I said that as far as I know she is a very nice lady.

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser, I'm going to take at face value your claims that you don't see why Manton, Will and others are critical of your contributions to this forum. With that starting assumption, may I suggest that you review this thread:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=85383

Your contributions from post # 19 onward are examples of what I think is being addressed here. Note how you managed to change the direction of the thread from classical and historical parameters of dress to: (1) what you claim "most men" do; which overlaps nicely with (2) what you yourself happen to do.

In changing the direction of the thread that way, you appeared to be deliberately arguing that the historical and traditional parameters have no relevance and aren't even worth discussing. You also appeared to have been personally insulted that your preferred approach of wearing business shoes with semi-formalwear was not embraced as part of the classical tradition.

The thing is, many of us here would like to discuss the little nuances of those traditions, WITHOUT having to first expend effort to defend their legitimacy and relevance. But as you wrote in the sweatpants vs. suit thread,



> We argue over silly things like whether a 3 rolled to 2 lapel looks good or not. I don't care for the way the buttonhole in the lapel looks, but others do. Personal preference, not a reason to get angry and call people names.


So you think these things are silly, and merely matters of personal preference that are not worth discussing. Why does that view give you license to disrupt the discussions of other who don't think they are silly, and who do think that personal preference should be guided by established traditions and aesthetic principles?


----------



## videocrew

Taliesin said:


> The thing is, many of us here would like to discuss the little nuances of those traditions, WITHOUT having to first expend effort to defend their legitimacy and relevance.


If, of course, the discussion even gets there. As often as not, this sort of derailment just chases off everyone who wants to discuss the actual matter, and fills the thread with people who want to fight the same old fight. Meanwhile, the OP is left wondering what the hell happened to his question about lapel width, or patent leather shoes, or whatever, and no better informed than when he arrived to ask the question.


----------



## JLibourel

Cruiser said:


> I asked you how you would feel if such comments were made about your wife. I did not actually call your wife anything. In fact, I said that as far as I know she is a very nice lady.
> 
> Cruiser


Liar! That was only after someone called you on your outrageous scurrility. In your initial post you said that any woman who would marry someone who wore an ascot and pocket square to the market (meaning me) was a gold-digger and lower than a whore (or something very similar to that.)

Frankly, Cruiser, if it were just a matter of your not caring for 3-2 rolled lapels, nobody would make a big deal of it. In point of fact, you are relentless in defending all that is cheap, lowbrow and third-rate sartorially in your tendentious, pestiferously prolix fashion. You are a first-class bore and an obnoxious boor with your relentlessly pugnacious posts. You are also a vulgar braggart, incessantly touting your "early retirement" and "six-figure retirement income" as a vindication of your thoroughly lowbrow tastes. And, if you are as rich as you say you are, you are a total cheapskate, given the clothes you buy.

A lot of people wonder what you are doing on a forum that was in the not too distant past committed to fine dressing. Many think you are too bad to be true--some sort of sock puppet or mischievous troll. Something about you doesn't ring true. You have said you were 59 years old for at least the past 13 months. This I know for a fact.

It's also interesting whenever I or somebody else in another forum has made a crack about you (and there are many besides me), nobody, but nobody has ever stood up and said, "Hey, don't knock Cruiser. He's okay." How does that make you feel? (On reflection, that is a stupid question, since you are obviously about as thin-skinned as a rhinoceros!) Face it, you are a universally despised laughingstock in the other fora!

I might add, I would never say anything against your daughter. She looks like a cute kid--if you and she are even real people--and she has my deepest compassion having an obnoxious churl like you for a father.

However, when all is said and done, I kind of enjoy having you around. You make a perfect foil--kind of like a villain in professional wrestling--The Man We Love to Hate!


----------



## videocrew

JLibourel said:


> Liar! That was only after someone called you on your outrageous scurrility. In your initial post you said that any woman who would marry someone who wore an ascot and pocket square to the market (meaning me) was a gold-digger and lower than a whore (or something very similar to that.)





Cruiser said:


> ...Of course you are right. Of course I think any woman that marries a man who dons an ascot and pocket square to go to the market is most likely just a gold digging slut who thinks he has money, not much better than a "hoe". In fact she's not as good because at least the hoe isn't pretending to be something she isn't. I'm not talking about anyone personally, just the typical tramp that would take up with a guy like that.


In context: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=632817&highlight=market+ascot#post632817


----------



## RJman

videocrew said:


> In context: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=632817&highlight=market+ascot#post632817


I thought "ho" is spelled without an "e", unless it is gardening. But J-Lib certainly used to be a rake.


----------



## JLibourel

Thanks, videocrew.


----------



## Scrumhalf

This thread, other than having veterans defend sartorial tradition in a way that I surely believe many of us felt but didn't feel equipped to express, is noteworthy for the exquisite use of the English language. It has been a treat to read, the unpleasantness notwithstanding.


----------



## RJman

Scrumhalf said:


> This thread, other than having veterans defend sartorial tradition in a way that I surely believe many of us felt but didn't feel equipped to express, is noteworthy for the exquisite use of the English language. It has been a treat to read, the unpleasantness notwithstanding.


I wonder how often J-Lib has the chance to use the word "pestiferous".


----------



## young guy

Scrumhalf said:


> This thread, other than having veterans defend sartorial tradition in a way that I surely believe many of us felt but didn't feel equipped to express, is noteworthy for the exquisite use of the English language. It has been a treat to read, the unpleasantness notwithstanding.


it just seems like a my way of viewing the world is better than your way of viewing the world pissing contest


----------



## Taliesin

young guy said:


> it just seems like a my way of viewing the world is better than your way of viewing the world pissing contest


I don't think so. It's more about whether we can generally agree on core principles and then have discussions about interesting details that grow out of those core principles, versus whether holding those core principles in the first place is unacceptably snobbish and intolerant.


----------



## manton

young guy said:


> it just seems like a my way of viewing the world is better than your way of viewing the world pissing contest


Since I like this analogy, I will continue with it.

Arby's Man and a classically trained French chef have different world views, maybe. But the chef has knoweldge of something -- lots of it. He has learned a centuries-old tradition, learned fundamentals, technique, and basic recipes. Then he has experience putting all that into practice, both making things the orthodox way, and changing them according to his interests, the ingredients he finds, whatever.

Arby's Man may not care much about that knowledge. He may even despise the food. But to deny that this knowledge is knowledge is foolish and false. The most that Arby's Man can say is that it does not matter to him. Fine.

But then he should get the hell out of the kitchen. He certainly should not take every discussion the chef tries to have and force it back to the existential question "Is haute cuisine realy better than Arby's"? Other people may be interested in the knowledge that the chef wants to convey. Arby's Man is boorishly in their way. Other chefs may have other ideas that they want to discuss with the first chef, maybe even criticism of his work. But that blasted Arby's Man won't let them. Like the windbag he is, he has to elbow in on every conversation and make everyone see that to like Arby's is not a sign of inferiority. Hell, to him preferring Arby's to Taillevent is not even a sign of an unsophisticated palate! And how dare anyone suggest otherwise!

So, no, in the end this is not a dispute about world views. It's a dispute about whether you care about a certain body of knowledge, or not. No one saying that you have to care. We are saying that if you don't care, you should STFU and let the people who do care talk about it.


----------



## young guy

Taliesin said:


> I don't think so. It's more about whether we can generally agree on core principles and then have discussions about interesting details that grow out of those core principles, versus whether holding those core principles in the first place is unacceptably snobbish and intolerant.


thanks, that helps clarify things for me, the thread is so long and some of the humor or satire i know goes over my head and i know i don't know all the history


----------



## Cruiser

videocrew said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cruiser* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=632812#post632812
> _...Of course you are right. Of course I think any woman that marries a man who dons an ascot and pocket square to go to the market is most likely just a gold digging slut who thinks he has money, not much better than a "hoe". In fact she's not as good because at least the hoe isn't pretending to be something she isn't. I'm not talking about anyone personally, just the typical tramp that would take up with a guy like that._
> 
> In context: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=632817&highlight=market+ascot#post632817


And then I said this:

_I seriously hope that no one thought that I really meant to insult anyone's wife. I didn't. For all I know she is a very nice lady. I just want the fellow to know that words can often hurt people and saying after the fact that you are just playing, or "stirring the pot", is no excuse. Perhaps I chose an inappropriate way to try and convey that message and if I did, I'm sorry._

Cruiser


----------



## Cruiser

Taliesin said:


> So you think these things are silly, and merely matters of personal preference that are not worth discussing.


I didn't say that. I don't think these things are silly at all. What I think is silly is arguing and calling each other names over things like what kind of lapel one prefers or what color shirts one prefers. That is beyond silly.

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser said:


> I didn't say that. I don't think these things are silly at all.


https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=849961&postcount=24



Cruiser said:


> We argue over silly things like whether a 3 rolled to 2 lapel looks good or not.


Nothing wrong with thinking this stuff is silly. But you should own up to that view if it's the one you hold.


----------



## Scrumhalf

young guy said:


> it just seems like a my way of viewing the world is better than your way of viewing the world pissing contest


Others have eloquently responded to your message above, but I'll say my few words as well. I will preface this by saying that I a sartorial neophyte but my main purpose of reading these fora is to understand the rules and traditions and help them improve my wardrobe and how I use it, to learn at the feet of the masters, as it were (being of Indian origin, this last phrase is more than metaphorical).

Sartorial rules and traditions have evolved over the years to be what they are. I think one can choose to follow them or not, but one cannot deny that they exist and that they represent the consensus on what is acceptable and what is not.

This forum (as are several others) is ostensibly devoted to the art and practice of fine dressing and style. To be in this forum and profess an opinion that at the end of the day, it does not matter what the rules and traditions of the art dictate, and that anything is acceptable as long as one's circle of acquaintances approve, is as others have opined, boorish. To loudly express an opinion in this forum that it doesn't matter if I am dressed in a JC Penney suit because everybody I know compliments my look is frankly preposterous. I am a person of modest means - I cannot afford bespoke Italian clothing but for me, the purpose of being here is to learn the rules and traditions to figure out how to make the most of the budget I am constrained to work within.

Since manton has contributed extensively to this thread, I am taking the liberty of including below a post of his from Styleforum that I read a while back and saved in my archives - it really struck me as getting to the heart of the matter. It was a response to a discussion on one of our favorite topics - black suits. Manton/moderators, please let me know if I am violating rules by posting this quote - if I did, I apologize.

_Well, look. Whenever someone posts asking a question about the "rules", I tend to answer it if no one else has, because I know what the rules are, I like them, and I generally adhere to them. I have never claimed, and do not claim now, that the rules are entirely or even mostly rational. They have evolved over the years in a curious way. Some rules are just pure tradition and have no claim to a rational origin at all. Others begin life as rational principles, but as things change, and the original reason is forgotten, they remain simply as "rules". The canon of rules is thus very largely an ossified and contradictory jumble.

Part of what I try to do in my book is not only explain __what they rules are, but __how they came to be. The more one delves into this, the more they appear to have no cosmological foundation. Who would have guessed?

By the way, I do explain the reasons behind the rise of black clothing, and its later "promotion" to formal wear only. But I have to leave something for the book.

.....The only way to judge whether something is "inappropriate" or not is by reference to the rules. Which is to say, the same (irrational) principle which places black suits out of bounds also determines what is "appropriate" and what is not.

Black for suits __does violate the rules of tradtional dress, as codified in London, Milan, Naples and New York over the course of the 20th Century. Black wool is for formal wear only. Dark city suits should be blue or gray, or maybe brown. (The rules have been bent in recent decades to make brown more acceptable for town wear). This is not my decision. It just ... __is.

By all means, wear black suits if you want. You won't go to jail. It may not even hurt your career. I guarantee it will have no effect on your soul. But it is still against the rules.
_


----------



## Cruiser

Taliesin said:


> Nothing wrong with thinking this stuff is silly. But you should own up to that view if it's the one you hold.


Like I said, it isn't the 3/2 lapel that is silly, it's the issue of whether it looks good or not evolving into argument and name calling that is silly. I guess we can now argue sentence structure and what modifies what, but that is even sillier.

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser: I don't think it's a valuable use of time to debate whether you wrote that discussing sartorial details is 'silly' or not, given the bigger questions that this thread has raised. Do you have any response to, for instance, Manton's French Chef v. Arby's Guy analogy? Not to the specific details of it, but to the bigger point he's trying to make?


----------



## Holdfast

1) Is AAAC a less educational, less interesting place now than, say, 2 years ago?
2) Does this coincide with any major changes?

Answer the two questions, and draw your own conclusions. 

I know what mine are.

A follow-up question for extra credit would be: why have so many long-standing members either partially or completely shifted their attention to other sites?


----------



## Will

Cruiser said:


> Like I said, it isn't the 3/2 lapel that is silly, it's the issue of whether it looks good or not evolving into argument and name calling that is silly. I guess we can now argue sentence structure and what modifies what, but that is even sillier.
> 
> Cruiser


Frankly I think if there was any hope that you'd get it, it would have happened long before this.

You're the senior man now because the men who were your seniors have overwhelmingly left or gone inactive so they don't have to waste time arguing with you. It's your posts that all the noobs read because you post on a lot of threads.

And when all those posts set a common denominator of Target, or whereever you get your finery these days, that's the tone of the board. When you post photos of yourself in jeans and in hair that hasn't been trimmed for a year, that sets the tone of the board.

Enjoy it.


----------



## mcr29

Firstly, I'd like to say that anyone posting with hostility needs to stop because you're not doing anything to improve either the discussion or the forum in general. 

Secondly, unless I use a person's actual name/handle, please don't assume I'm speaking about you specifically.

I think the problems that folks such as Manton are bringing up are endemic to any sizeable forum, especially one that focuses on a particular subject. As a forum increases both membership and participation (and more importantly, its rank in Google searches) it invariably attracts "newbies" who are in desperate need of advice and people who are interested but generally less knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the particular subject. I think everyone can agree that in general, that's a good thing. It's great that AAAC exists as a place where people who know next to nothing about proper attire can get informed advice. However, as you can imagine, these folks don't like being told that most of their clothing choices are wrong, inappropriate, etc. It's natural (although not necessarily logical) that they defend themselves and in doing so, go against the very purpose of the forum.

I honestly think that the situation would be improved by creating seperate forums for "Beginners" and another forum for "the finer points". Everyone would understand and respect the purpose of these forums. If you don't care or don't agree with the importance of "the finer points", simply stay away. If you have no interest in telling yet another newbie that yes, brown works with gray, simply stay away.

Can't we all just get along? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JLibourel

Cruiser said:


> And then I said this:
> 
> _I seriously hope that no one thought that I really meant to insult anyone's wife. I didn't. For all I know she is a very nice lady. I just want the fellow to know that words can often hurt people and saying after the fact that you are just playing, or "stirring the pot", is no excuse. Perhaps I chose an inappropriate way to try and convey that message and if I did, I'm sorry._
> 
> Cruiser


Only some posts later after somebody (not a moderator) warned you that you were skirting the edge of being banned.


----------



## mpcsb

Reading this thread is more fun than watching the recent presidential debates.


----------



## JLibourel

Will said:


> Frankly I think if there was any hope that you'd get it, it would have happened long before this.
> 
> You're the senior man now because the men who were your seniors have overwhelmingly left or gone inactive so they don't have to waste time arguing with you. It's your posts that all the noobs read because you post on a lot of threads.
> 
> And when all those posts set a common denominator of Target, or whereever you get your finery these days, that's the tone of the board. When you post photos of yourself in jeans and in hair that hasn't been trimmed for a year, that sets the tone of the board.
> 
> Enjoy it.


I have long thought the ascendancy of Cruiser in this forum and the departure of a lot of the respected veterans for SF and elsewhere was a classic example of Gresham's Law in action.


----------



## RJman

mcr29 said:


> I honestly think that the situation would be improved by creating seperate forums for "Beginners" and another forum for "the finer points". Everyone would understand and respect the purpose of these forums. If you don't care or don't agree with the importance of "the finer points", simply stay away. If you have no interest in telling yet another newbie that yes, brown works with gray, simply stay away.


As I said in this thread two pages ago,
How would a beginners' forum help? The same posters who stifle debate on the main forum would post there, no?

Your last two sentences I quote are the nub of the issue. What we have is a poster or posters who don't care or agree about the importance (to someone) of discussing some detail and who have "no interest" in discussing the question at hand, yet who insist on hijacking many threads in order to say that and effectively take over the discourse and shut down discussion.


----------



## KenR

Cruiser said:


> *Like I said,* *it isn't the 3/2 lapel that is silly*, it's the issue of whether it looks good or not evolving into argument and name calling that is silly. I guess we can now argue sentence structure and what modifies what, but that is even sillier.
> 
> Cruiser





Cruiser said:


> *Personally I don't understand it either. The overwhelming majority of people see the buttonhole in the lapel and think something is wrong with the jacket, perhaps the dry cleaner screwed up when pressing it. To most people it just doesn't look right.*
> 
> I think that this is one of those things that guys who have an intense interest in clothing as a hobby see as being indicative of their taste and style while not realizing that most people just don't get it. I do get it but I still think it looks weird. But to each his own.
> 
> Cruiser


You seemed to imply that the 3/2 lapel was silly by bringing up what the overwhelming majority supposedly think about it.

I didn't come here to find out what the overwhelming majority think about clothing. To be perfectly honest I really think they don't care what they wear. Well good for them. But I came to find out what those well dressed few think. Remember that guy Andy? He started this website Ask Andy About Clothes, not Ask Arbys Man (to borrow manton's phrase) About Clothes. As a matter of fact the home page states:

*AskAndyAboutClothes.com*

*is devoted to men's clothes --*
*what to wear, how to properly wear it,*
*and the history of why we wear what we do.*

Sounds ok to me.


----------



## Tim Correll

*What about Rome?*



Scrumhalf said:


> Black for suits does violate the rules of tradtional dress, as codified in London, Milan, Naples and New York over the course of the 20th Century. Black wool is for formal wear only. Dark city suits should be blue or gray, or maybe brown. (The rules have been bent in recent decades to make brown more acceptable for town wear). This is not my decision. It just ... is.
> 
> By all means, wear black suits if you want. You won't go to jail. It may not even hurt your career. I guarantee it will have no effect on your soul. But it is still against the rules.


I am sure that the rules of traditional dress were codified in Rome just as much as they were codified in London, Milan, Naples and New York City.


----------



## dopey

KenR said:


> . . . Remember that guy Andy? He started this website Ask Andy About Clothes, not Ask Arbys Man (to borrow manton's phrase) About Clothes. As a matter of fact the home page states:
> 
> *AskAndyAboutClothes.com*
> 
> *is devoted to men's clothes --*
> *what to wear, how to properly wear it,*
> *and the history of why we wear what we do.*
> 
> Sounds ok to me.


It is worth reminding people, as you did, that this site has an owner and a bunch of moderators. They are all well aware of the departure of many members and what remains behind. Apart from some sad attempts by medwards to stimulate substantive discussion, they have chosen to leave the site exactly as it is.

Presumably, the current incarnation of AAAC is perfectly fine with Andy and whoever else now runs the place. Certainly, the stuff Andy has been getting and lauding is more likely of interest to Cruiser and his ilk than to the bespoke crowd. Is it worthwhile for Gino's Tailor to be promoted here if the audience wants to talk about high-end bespoke? Why should the forum cater to a group that isn't the target audience of the advertisers and the promoters? When manton starts buying from Fredricks or Charles Tyrwhitt, then maybe it will be more important to have a manton friendly site. In the meantime, the dominant voices have won out. And there is really no harm done. If manton wants to post, he has Styleforum (or the LL). If you find what he writes interesting, go there and read it. If not, stay here and post about what is of interest here. I liked AAAC, but we don't need a Landmarks Preservation Society to preserve it in amber if its owners want to let it go somewhere else.


----------



## videocrew

Taliesin said:


> Cruiser: I don't think it's a valuable use of time to debate whether you wrote that discussing sartorial details is 'silly' or not, given the bigger questions that this thread has raised. Do you have any response to, for instance, Manton's French Chef v. Arby's Guy analogy? Not to the specific details of it, but to the bigger point he's trying to make?


This is the one thing I have never seen done. I've seen dozens of threads arguing minor semantical points (I didn't say X meaning X, I meant Y) or (I never said X I said Z).

I very much doubt we'll ever see a satisfying answer to the "why am i here" question that will address the desire to interfere with posts that don't interest me to explain why they don't matter.


----------



## Cruiser

Taliesin said:


> Do you have any response to, for instance, Manton's French Chef v. Arby's Guy analogy? Not to the specific details of it, but to the bigger point he's trying to make?


I don't think that it's a good analogy at all. In fact, I don't know that the word "analogy" even applies.

I don't see my, or most other folks, participating in this forum as being equivalent to sitting at the feet of some sartorial guru and never questioning what he says. Wearing clothes doesn't equate to being a French chef.

Using myself as an example, where is this notion coming from that I'm just some ignorant hayseed that fell off of the turnip truck yesterday and I'm here just so I can learn what Manton and others already know? Why is it assumed that I know nothing about clothing and my opinions are worthless? I totally disagree with this idea that I'm some kind of Arby's man standing in the presence of a classically trained French chef who's every word I must accept or "get out".

Do I know as much about clothing as some others here know? Of course not. Will knows more about different fabrics than I will ever know. This doesn't mean that I can't have a valid opinion to pass on to others about how a specific fabric looks or wears if I have worn that fabric.

Alex knows more about shirts than I will know in two lifetimes and I respect his knowledge in this area. This doesn't mean that if someone asks a question about dress shirts that are a good value, I can't opine that I like my Lands End shirts that I get for $39. Is there some rule here that one must be an expert in something to merely offer an opinion based on one's personal experience? Lord knows there are enough "rules" on everything else.

But the fact of the matter is that in this particular thread I actually sought out Mr. Manton's opinion and was dismissed out of hand. I said, truthfully, that the 3/2 look has not appealed to me because of the placement of the button hole, so I asked what the attraction of this style is to those who like it. All of a sudden I became the Arby's man questioning the French chef's expertise.

Cruiser


----------



## RJman

Cruiser said:


> I don't think that it's a good analogy at all. In fact, I don't know that the word "analogy" even applies.
> 
> I don't see my, or most other folks, participating in this forum as being equivalent to sitting at the feet of some sartorial guru and never questioning what he says. Wearing clothes doesn't equate to being a French chef.
> 
> Using myself as an example, where is this notion coming from that I'm just some ignorant hayseed that fell off of the turnip truck yesterday and I'm here just so I can learn what Manton and others already know? Why is it assumed that I know nothing about clothing and my opinions are worthless? I totally disagree with this idea that I'm some kind of Arby's man standing in the presence of a classically trained French chef who's every word I must accept or "get out".
> 
> Do I know as much about clothing as some others here know? Of course not. Will knows more about different fabrics than I will ever know. This doesn't mean that I can't have a valid opinion to pass on to others about how a specific fabric looks or wears if I have worn that fabric.
> 
> Alex knows more about shirts than I will know in two lifetimes and I respect his knowledge in this area. This doesn't mean that if someone asks a question about dress shirts that are a good value, I can't opine that I like my Lands End shirts that I get for $39. Is there some rule here that one must be an expert in something to merely offer an opinion based on one's personal experience? Lord knows there are enough "rules" on everything else.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is that in this particular thread I actually sought out Mr. Manton's opinion and was dismissed out of hand. I said, truthfully, that the 3/2 look has not appealed to me because of the placement of the button hole, so I asked what the attraction of this style is to those who like it. All of a sudden I became the Arby's man questioning the French chef's expertise.
> 
> Cruiser


Fire inspector called. The number of straw men in your post has become a fire hazard.


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser: I see that you reject the validity of Manton's analogy. Ok, that's fine. Do you have any response to my point, raised here, about what some see as your habit of re-directing threads to suit your own agenda?

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=850016&postcount=129


----------



## manton

Cruiser said:


> I don't see my, or most other folks, participating in this forum as being equivalent to sitting at the feet of some sartorial guru and never questioning what he says.


What a load of crap.

Among the many hundreds of annoying, forum-destroying habits you put in practice every day is the total inability to understand what others write, and the insistence on rewriting their words in ways that are not only totally contrary to what they actually say, but that also neatly fit your martyr complex.


----------



## chrstc

One last appeal for civility. Does no-one else see the irony in spending pages posting off-topic rants complaining about someone constantly diverting threads? Cruiser wasn't even the first poster to question the "sense" of the 3 roll in this thread!

Chris.


----------



## David V

chrstc said:


> One last appeal for civility. Does no-one else see the irony in spending pages posting off-topic rants complaining about someone constantly diverting threads? Cruiser wasn't even the first poster to question the "sense" of the 3 roll in this thread!
> 
> Chris.


At some point the angels had to step in to save the fora.

If it can be saved. If not at least an effort to re-claim has been made.


----------



## ak3000

Cruiser, you seem not to want to respond to many of the points being well made by others. It is one thing to argue against the recieved wisdom, if there is a reasoning or an idea behind one's desire to break a "rule." That can be debated. To simply reduce that argument to "standards are arbitrary" all the time isnt making an argument anyone here wishes to have, and it is maddening (you do seem to recognize the importance of some rules, if not others). 

I am relatively new here, but perhaps this simply isnt the right forum for you? If you really do not accept that which is generally considered as established in this community, then it may not be the right community for you to be a part of, and I mean this in an honest and open way.


----------



## Sator

manton said:


> This thread, like so many here, is surreal. It's like walking into a cooking class and listening to people say, "I don't like stock, I don't like demi-glace, I don't like veloute, I don't like terrines, I don't like fish, I don't like game, I don't like sauteing, or frying, or grilling," etc.
> 
> Well. OK! Your prerogative, certainly. But what the hell are you _doing _here?





manton said:


> If you guys want to spend your time arguing, in effect, that Spam v. fois gras is all in the palate of the taster, you are welcome to it. The argumentative jerk in my is getting a perverse thrill out of mixing it up here, but don't worry, it won't last.
> 
> Right, anyone who disagrees is a "snob." Got it.
> 
> What a tragedy this is.





manton said:


> Impossible, there is no "improve" and anyone who says so is a snob.
> 
> Coming back here after so many months is strangely nostalgic and sad. It's like visiting my hometown, only to find all the windows broken, screendoors clanging in the wind, weeds everywhere, the streets deserted


Firstly, I must say, the only reason I noticed this thread was because it was being talked about elsewhere. And, what a relief it was to find too. Manton sums things up to perfection. I post, or have posted, extensively at classical music fora and of late I can't but feel that I am amongst a whole lot of people in a classical music forum who feel that "everything is relative", "Elvis is as good as Mozart and Bach", it's all a matter of "taste", and that anyone who says otherwise is nought but a snob, who attempts to elevate his subjective judgement to the status of Eternal Truth.

Unlike others who left, I have felt I have been left fighting a rear guard action, struggling to raise the tone of the general discussion, while others elsewhere gleefully predicted the imminent demise of AAAC. I was even offered a position as moderator here, and whereas in the past I might have agreed, I instead politely refused Andy's kind offer.

For whatever reason I have always fared better when taking on those who, according to widespread consensus, have dragged the tone of the forum right down. For a while, I had others to support me, but they have, one by one, left, and the only time things felt like the old days was when Medwards, Alex Kabbaz and I had that discussion about bespoke silk dressing gowns. Now that was nostalgic. But why oh why must it be this way?


----------



## 16412

Perhaps this place needs another forum which would be for bespoke, rules and history. And different forum for general clothes.

I liked seeing some custom hand sewn shirts.


----------



## Jess T Rawling Esq

Cruiser said:


> For most of my adult life I have almost always been one of the best dressed men at whatever gathering I'm in, even when my clothes are less expensive than some others. I'm slender and my clothes are nicely tailored to fit me well, they are always neat and clean, and I always dress appropriate to the setting. I spend a great deal of time and money on gettng the "fit" right. And not once in this forum have I ever advocated anyone else doing anything different.
> :icon_smile:
> 
> Cruiser


Dear Mr. Cruiser,
It seems that everyone is picking on you, and so I must put in my two cents. I think that you are indeed a Gentleman. It would be a shame if you left., or Mr. Kabbas or Mr. Manton, since I enjoy the writings of you three Gentlemen, which keeps me coming to this webpage. I wish you three Gentlemen would post more pictures, as it is a great example of how a man can be elegant in modern times. My hat is off to you sir, and best wishes for a long stay here. Sincerely, Jessie


----------



## Cruiser

ak3000 said:


> Cruiser, you seem not to want to respond to many of the points being well made by others. It is one thing to argue against the recieved wisdom, if there is a reasoning or an idea behind one's desire to break a "rule."


Exactly what is it that you think I'm arguing against, other than all of the angry name calling that is going on? And I haven't seen too many "well made" points. What I've seen are a bunch of rants and comments that are about as far removed from anything that I've said and done as can be.

Many times in the past I've asked those who direct all of these comments toward me to give me specific examples of what they are talking about rather than vague rants. So far all I have gotten is silence or comments taken completely out of context.

I've tried to be a productive member of the forum. I have spoken up in the past when members stopped talking about what they like about their clothes and instead started denigrating others. For example, I objected to calling women "sluts" and I objected to calling men "sl-bs" just because they wear off the rack suits from a department store. I think the forum is, or certainly can be, better than that. Some who enjoy that type behavior disagree.

Over the course of the past year I would venture to guess that I have posted as many or more pictures showing how I dress than all but a few other members. And these aren't pictures that I take after dressing up and posing in front of a mirror. I am a public official and my job leads me to being photographed by local newspapers and being videotaped doing television interviews. Most of the pictures I've posted are of me actually out in the community working, often taken without my knowledge. People here have had ample opportunity to point out all of the shortcomings in my attire. In short, I haven't just talked about it, I've put it out there for everyone to see, warts and all.

https://img119.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scan0033ip0.gifhttps://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php

Cruiser


----------



## Scrumhalf

Sator said:


> ......I post, or have posted, extensively at classical music fora and of late I can't but feel that I am amongst a whole lot of people in a classical music forum who feel that "everything is relative", "Elvis is as good as Mozart and Bach", it's all a matter of "taste", and that anyone who says otherwise is nought but a snob, who attempts to elevate his subjective judgement to the status of Eternal Truth.


Interesting, Sator... I was thinking of the classical music analogy myself earlier in the day when I was perusing this thread. I think it is quite apt.


----------



## Connemara

This thread delivers.


----------



## Sator

Let me provide a nice, concrete example of you dragging down the tone done in a discussion:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=85448

I had to fight hard to argue in favour of foie gras over spam there.


----------



## iammatt

Connemara said:


> This thread delivers.


Does it deliver plane tickets?


----------



## Connemara

iammatt said:


> Does it deliver plane tickets?


Yes, they arrived wrapped in Super 800's shirting.


----------



## Scrumhalf

Sator said:


> Let me provide a nice, concrete example of you dragging down the tone done in a discussion:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=85448
> 
> I had to fight hard to argue in favour of foie gras over spam there.


Good grief!! :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## Sator

Scrumhalf said:


> Good grief!! :icon_headagainstwal


Here is a whole thread full of spam for your delectation. I cherry picked the best morsels from just one (ONE!) thread for your enjoyment:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=850254&postcount=117

Remember, spam is as good as foie gras, or else you are an elitist snob.


----------



## Rossini

Taliesin said:


> Cruiser, I'm going to take at face value your claims that you don't see why Manton, Will and others are critical of your contributions to this forum. With that starting assumption, may I suggest that you review this thread:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=85383
> 
> Your contributions from post # 19 onward are examples of what I think is being addressed here. Note how you managed to change the direction of the thread from classical and historical parameters of dress to: (1) what you claim "most men" do; which overlaps nicely with (2) what you yourself happen to do.
> 
> In changing the direction of the thread that way, you appeared to be deliberately arguing that the historical and traditional parameters have no relevance and aren't even worth discussing. You also appeared to have been personally insulted that your preferred approach of wearing business shoes with semi-formalwear was not embraced as part of the classical tradition.
> 
> The thing is, many of us here would like to discuss the little nuances of those traditions, WITHOUT having to first expend effort to defend their legitimacy and relevance. But as you wrote in the sweatpants vs. suit thread,
> 
> So you think these things are silly, and merely matters of personal preference that are not worth discussing. Why does that view give you license to disrupt the discussions of other who don't think they are silly, and who do think that personal preference should be guided by established traditions and aesthetic principles?





Holdfast said:


> 1) Is AAAC a less educational, less interesting place now than, say, 2 years ago?
> 2) Does this coincide with any major changes?
> 
> Answer the two questions, and draw your own conclusions.
> 
> I know what mine are.
> 
> A follow-up question for extra credit would be: why have so many long-standing members either partially or completely shifted their attention to other sites?





Will said:


> Frankly I think if there was any hope that you'd get it, it would have happened long before this.
> 
> You're the senior man now because the men who were your seniors have overwhelmingly left or gone inactive so they don't have to waste time arguing with you. It's your posts that all the noobs read because you post on a lot of threads.
> 
> And when all those posts set a common denominator of Target, or whereever you get your finery these days, that's the tone of the board. When you post photos of yourself in jeans and in hair that hasn't been trimmed for a year, that sets the tone of the board.
> 
> Enjoy it.


Gentlemen, well said.


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser said:


> Many times in the past I've asked those who direct all of these comments toward me to give me specific examples of what they are talking about rather than vague rants. So far all I have gotten is silence or comments taken completely out of context.


This isn't true. See post # 160, and post # 129, in this very thread. I provided a specific example, and I stated it clearly and without name-calling.

Here's a link. If you are serious in your contentions, then you will respond to my argument, not by nitpicking it to death, but by addressing the actual substantive opinions I put forward about how I think you de-railed an earlier thread about formal shoes:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=850016&postcount=129


----------



## iammatt

Since a housecleaning seems to be going on, can somebody take a look at the Springerchange?


----------



## jpeirpont

Orsini said:


> Agreed. Not just ruined, but conquered, and remade in his own image.


When will we get our ACAC Micky Mouse watch?


----------



## Wayfarer

RJman said:


> Fire inspector called. The number of straw men in your post has become a fire hazard.


I like this. Mind if I steal it?

As I said it over a year ago. Porches and Corvettes are both good cars. But why would a guy in love with Corvettes, keep posting on a Porsche board, saying how great Corvettes are? And then why would he get puzzled and upset, when the Porsche owners told him they prefer Porsches over Corvettes?


----------



## RJman

iammatt said:


> Since a housecleaning seems to be going on, can somebody take a look at the Springerchange?


There's only so much one can hope for...



jpeirpont said:


> When will we our ACAC Micky Mouse watch?


Arnys was selling a vintage Mickey Mouse Rolex a few months ago. For a profligate French version of Cruiser?



Wayfarer said:


> I like this. Mind if I steal it?


Of course I don't mind. How are your cats?



> As I said it over a year ago. Porches and Corvettes are both good cars. *But why would a guy in love with Corvettes, keep posting on a Porsche board, saying how great Corvettes are?* And then why would he get puzzled and upset, when the Porsche owners told him they prefer Porsches over Corvettes?


From long-ago experience in a now former life, the only people who did this were kids with nothing better to do. I don't understand why a grown man does.


----------



## Sator

jpeirpont said:


> When will we [get] our ACAC Micky Mouse watch?


Oh yes! Thanks for reminding me:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=850279#post850279

BTW, that thread was cross posted at SF. Here it is:

https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=58787

Notice the marked difference in tone between them. That one post in the AAAC parallel thread turned it into a Mickey Mouse forum.


----------



## gnatty8

Cruiser said:


> Alex knows more about shirts than I will know in two lifetimes and I respect his knowledge in this area. *This doesn't mean that if someone asks a question about dress shirts that are a good value, I can't opine that I like my Lands End shirts that I get for $39*. Is there some rule here that one must be an expert in something to merely offer an opinion based on one's personal experience? Lord knows there are enough "rules" on everything else.
> 
> Cruiser


What I am at a loss for, is how you can purport to offer an opinion when that $39 Lands End shirt is all you have tried? Perhaps if you had tried a broad range of RTW, MTM, and bespoke shirts, then you might be qualified to offer an opinion on the relative value of your Lands End shirts, but I think by your own admission, you have not amassed the experience to have done so. For someone wanting to hear about relative quality assessments, you don't seem to have too much to offer, and that's by your own admission. Just my $0.02.


----------



## Cruiser

Sator said:


> Let me provide a nice, concrete example of you dragging down the tone done in a discussion:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=85448
> 
> I had to fight hard to argue in favour of foie gras over spam there.


Thank you Sator for the example. Now let's look at it. I did not even enter that discussion until post #27. Another member had made a couple of posts arguing against the necessity of wearing a cumberbund. I didn't take a position one way or the other. I said:



> What is now timeless and classic was at some point in the past new and radical, just as what is now thought to be new and radical may well someday be timeless and classic to another generation. I think that cumberbunds will someday fade into obscurity as more and more men simply stop wearing them. Not saying that this is good or bad, just that I think it will happen.


That's a fairly benign statement but you would have thought that I was telling everyone to stop wearing cumberbunds. It's just that I had read a couple of magazine references to this subject and I have observed more and more men not wearing them. How was my relaying what I was reading and seeing "dragging down" the discussion? It was another member who was arguing against cumberbunds, not me.

As the discussion continued I simply talked about how things change over time in the way of fashion. Who knows if cumberbunds will be around in 50 years? I don't, but I can speculate. If anything was dragging down the discussion it was the attacks on me for reporting my observations. It isn't for me to say whether someone else should wear one or not, especially since a lot of guys are choosing to not wear them now. I only control what I do.

But I still thank you for the example as it gives me an opportunity to see exactly what it is that some of you are talking about. And even though you don't care for me Sator, I have always enjoyed my discussions with you. I like hearing your opinions even when I don't necessarily agree with them. I consider you to be one of the good guys. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## gnatty8

Jess T Rawling Esq said:


> Dear Mr. Cruiser,
> It seems that everyone is picking on you, and so I must put in my two cents. I think that you are indeed a Gentleman. It would be a shame if you left., or Mr. Kabbas or Mr. Manton, since I enjoy the writings of you three Gentlemen, which keeps me coming to this webpage. I wish you three Gentlemen would post more pictures, as it is a great example of how a man can be elegant in modern times. My hat is off to you sir, and best wishes for a long stay here. Sincerely, Jessie


Jess Trawling eh?

Have fun with that, LOL


----------



## Brooksfan

Have we ever arrived at a consensus on the original question on this thread? My answer would be that I really like the authentic 3r2 jacket and while the overall look may be similar to some 2 buttons, I know it's not what I like best. I will keep paying the slight premium in price and processing time to get the 3r2 as long as it is available.


----------



## dopey

gnatty8 said:


> Jess Trawling eh?
> 
> Have fun with that, LOL


It's a lot more fun if you keep it to yourself and just watch what happens.


----------



## gnatty8

dopey said:


> It's a lot more fu*n* if you keep it to yourself and just watch what happens.


I agree, but come on.. Does anyone reallY?


----------



## RJman

dopey said:


> It's a lot more fun if you keep it to yourself and just watch what happens.


Does that make you any better than the troll?


----------



## Étienne

iammatt said:


> Since a housecleaning seems to be going on, can somebody take a look at the Springerchange?


Nice try but I won't get sucked into this again. Not this time.


----------



## dopey

RJman said:


> Does that make you any better than the troll?


Are you talking morals or skill, cuz I got mad skillz.


----------



## masterfred

I haven't been on the forum here in forever, and like some of you, lamented the turn to the tedious on AAAC. Now I return to find some of the old-school best-and-brightest championing a return to elevated sights - and giving the smackdown to the most tedious poster I've read on the various fora! Bitchin' stuff, to be sure.

To Manton, JLib, the ever-so-snarky (and witty) RJMan, Holdfast, and Will (and indeed, Dopey), all I can say is bravissimo, gents, and what a pleasure it is to see you guys shaking this forum out of its mixed-fiber, dumbed-down, downmarket slumber! Woot, there it is!


----------



## gnatty8

masterfred said:


> I haven't been on the forum here in forever, and like some of you, lamented the turn to the tedious on AAAC. Now I return to find some of the old-school best-and-brightest championing a return to elevated sights - and giving the smackdown to the most tedious poster I've read on the various fora! Bitchin' stuff, to be sure.
> 
> To Manton, JLib, the ever-so-snarky (and witty) RJMan, Holdfast, and Will (and indeed, Dopey), all I can say is bravissimo, gents, and what a pleasure it is to see you guys shaking this forum out of its mixed-fiber, dumbed-down, downmarket slumber! Woot, there it is!


Uh, shouldn't you be in bed by now? School bus comes bright and early..


----------



## maxnharry

I read about this fire elsewhere, but it is exciting to see the return of so many. It really is old home week!


----------



## Sator

Sorry, Cruiser but I remain with the majority opinion amongst those respected forum heavy weights such as Manton, Dopey, iammatt, and RJMan.

It is a wonder that RJMan hasn't taken delight to point out that more than once have JLiboural and I talked about you at the "more advanced forum". And, RJMan, if you are wrong to accuse me of bad mouthing you behind your back (I would _never_ do that to you), but were you to accuse both Jan and I of talking of others there, then with respect to Cruiser, you are dead right - guilty as charged. While I have tried to keep my disagreements with Cruiser civil here - I am no saint :devil:


----------



## RJman

Sator said:


> I am no saint :devil:


Neither am I.


----------



## masterfred

gnatty8 said:


> Uh, shouldn't you be in bed by now? School bus comes bright and early..


For you, darling, anything.


----------



## iammatt

Sator said:


> I am no saint :devil:





RJman said:


> Neither am I.


No I'm no angel
No I'm no stranger to the dark
Let me rock your cradle
Let me start a fire with your spark
Oh come on baby
Come and let me show you my tattoo
Let me drive you crazy
Come on and love me baby

So you don't give a darn about me
I never treat you bad
I won't ever lift a hand to hurt you and I'll always leave you glad
So I might steal your diamonds ... I'll... bring you back some gold
I'm no angel


----------



## Taliesin

Taliesin said:


> This isn't true. See post # 160, and post # 129, in this very thread. I provided a specific example, and I stated it clearly and without name-calling.
> 
> Here's a link. If you are serious in your contentions, then you will respond to my argument, not by nitpicking it to death, but by addressing the actual substantive opinions I put forward about how I think you de-railed an earlier thread about formal shoes:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=850016&postcount=129


Still waiting...


----------



## voxsartoria

I haven't been here in quite awhile.

But on the subject of SPAM, we used to spend our winter vacation in Tahiti (and we're hoping to resume now that our boy is a bit older).

SPAM is very popular in the South Seas. My theory is that it is because it must taste a bit like human flesh.

Carry on. It was nice visiting.

- B


----------



## Scrumhalf

Whoa... I think the hunt has been successfully completed :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Sator

I think the real hunt has only begun. 

What I really what to know is which FNB poster "Cruiser" is a sock puppet of. This is a conspiracy theory doing its round on the internet, and up till now I have remained skeptical, but sometimes I really do wonder when posters with names like "Cruiser" and "Soundrel" hunt in packs here. Perhaps only once they succeed in really getting the wheels to completely fall off, and after all the sponsors have withdrawn, will the truth really come out.


----------



## David V

Well it was nice of the old guard to drop by. 
Wish I were cool enough for the advanced forum.
Someone be sure to turn out the lights.


----------



## trimaldo

Andy, y'all need to clean house. Croozer, his slooobwear, and the bad mod with the itchy trigger finger. That'll bring this baby back.


----------



## JLibourel

Sator said:


> I think the real hunt has only begun.
> 
> What I really what to know is which FNB poster "Cruiser" is a sock puppet of. This is a conspiracy theory doing its round on the internet, and up till now I have remained skeptical, but sometimes I really do wonder when posters by the name of "Cruiser" and "Soundrel" hunt in packs here. Perhaps only once they succeed in really getting the wheels to completely fall off, and after all the sponsors have withdrawn, will the truth really come out.


I had a similar reaction after my long post in this thread in which I raised the possibility that he was too bad to be true and a sock puppet. I also pointed out the curious fact that he had been 59 years old for at least the past 13 or 14 months. I had rather expected, in typical prolix Cruiser fashion, a 3000-word "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" from him, but he passed over the matter without a single word. I too was intially skeptical of the sock puppet theory, but now I really do wonder.


----------



## Sator

When Cruiser tried to suck up to me by calling me one of the "good guys" when I pinned him down, that's what made me suspicious. If he is a troll, he is very, very good. Nothing over the years that FNB has managed to achieve on his website to undermine AAAC even remotely approach what Cruiser has done to single handedly bring this place to its knees. I just noted his post-count far exceeds that of iammat and even the outrageously prolific RJman. Cruiser has managed to turn this place into a joke with posts like the Mickey Mouse one, and when you point that out to him he turns it around with a "what's wrong with you? - can't you understand a joke, look at all the smilies". Superb, absolutely superb. He even has poor Andy, _wonderful_ guy that he is (perhaps too nice), and the moderators under his spell.


----------



## Nantucket Red

It's been a long time since I posted here other than occasionally sniping from a high tower over on Devil's Island, but I just wanted to express my agreement with what JLibourel, Manton, Sator and others have so eloquently said.


----------



## jpeirpont

Nantucket Red said:


> It's been a long time since I posted here other than occasionally sniping from a high tower over on Devil's Island, but I just wanted to express my agreement with what JLibourel, Manton, Sator and others have so eloquently said.


Took you long enough.


----------



## Nantucket Red

jpeirpont said:


> Took you long enough.


I'd given this forum up for dead.


----------



## Wayfarer

JLibourel said:


> I had a similar reaction after my long post in this thread in which I raised the possibility that he was too bad to be true and a sock puppet. I also pointed out the curious fact that he had been 59 years old for at least the past 13 or 14 months. I had rather expected, in typical prolix Cruiser fashion, a 3000-word "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" from him, but he passed over the matter without a single word. I too was intially skeptical of the sock puppet theory, but now I really do wonder.


Jan:

I have always been proud of my vocabulary. Yours simply amazes me.

Cheers


----------



## ChicagoMediaMan-27

dopey said:


> It is worth reminding people, as you did, that this site has an owner and a bunch of moderators. They are all well aware of the departure of many members and what remains behind. Apart from some sad attempts by medwards to stimulate substantive discussion, they have chosen to leave the site exactly as it is.
> 
> Presumably, the current incarnation of AAAC is perfectly fine with Andy and whoever else now runs the place. Certainly, the stuff Andy has been getting and lauding is more likely of interest to Cruiser and his ilk than to the bespoke crowd. Is it worthwhile for Gino's Tailor to be promoted here if the audience wants to talk about high-end bespoke? Why should the forum cater to a group that isn't the target audience of the advertisers and the promoters? When manton starts buying from Fredricks or Charles Tyrwhitt, then maybe it will be more important to have a manton friendly site. In the meantime, the dominant voices have won out. And there is really no harm done. If manton wants to post, he has Styleforum (or the LL). If you find what he writes interesting, go there and read it. If not, stay here and post about what is of interest here. I liked AAAC, but we don't need a Landmarks Preservation Society to preserve it in amber if its owners want to let it go somewhere else.


I think this is a good point. We do need to remember that this site has an owner. Andy is one of the nicest guys out there, but it is in his best interest to draw visitors to this site. The more traffic this site gets, the more he can charge his advertisers. And thanks to this site coming up a lot in google searches, more and more people continue to join this forum. And the kind of people who are googling terms about clothing and end up here? Yes, those are the kinds of newbies that might see a Brooks Brothers ad banner on this site and actually click on it to possibly buy BB clothing. Not most of the senior members who only go the bespoke route.


----------



## Jess T Rawling Esq

Gentlemen, three cheers for Mr. Gilchrist I say. We are only here because of him, and all of us here are his guests, therefore, we should treat our fellow guests with respect. Sincerely, Jessie
PS - Thank you for the new picture, Mr. Cruiser. Please continue to post whatever you have. The more the merrier, I say. Best, J.


----------



## Sator

Jess T Rawling Esq said:


> Gentlemen, three cheers for Mr. Gilchrist I say. We are only here because of him, and all of us here are his guests, therefore, we should treat our fellow guests with respect. Sincerely, Jessie
> PS - Thank you for the new picture, Mr. Cruiser. Please continue to post whatever you have. The more the merrier, I say. Best, J.


^ I think the guys over at FNB have realised that Cruiser is their Avenging Angel and their sock puppets are egging him on. "Three cheers for Mr. Gilchrist" indeed - is that meant to be some sort of caricature of AAAC iGentry along with the "Esq" business? You guys have really managed to infiltrate this place well - going in for the kill were we?


----------



## MrRogers

Well, I got my start on AAAC and am one of those whose interest in the site has fallen off. True we are a group that are obviously obsessive about the details of our clothing but I also don't want to read a 4 page thread about some dufus who is asking if he should wear a v-neck undershirt with his polos. 

I can say outright that Cruiser has been a jerk since day one. He is so repetitive and boring, words just don't do him justice. He likes to incite conflict then criticize others for being snobs. I don't think he has any sense of style or education regarding men's clothing as evidenced by the fact that he buys and wears such cheap clothing. Many of us are far from millionaires yet have gained enough knowledge from these forums to stretch our dollars and buy quality wares at discount through various resources. If after 1+ years and 2000 posts you still think you look good in your stafford notch lapel tux, then you're an idiot and not willing to learn from others. There is simply no hope for you. 

In addition, I can't imagine why someone would hang around a place where they contribute nothing and are obviously not wanted. 

MrR


----------



## Sator

Hmmmm, this thread is very suspicious:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=88301

It's almost scripted to allow the perfect entry for Cruiser and his hunting pack. The OP seems to be deliberately inane and provocative to stage the perfect entry for Cruiser and his chums to create enough of a scene to sucker people into discussing a deliberately inane topic designed to turn AAAC into an_ Inane Post of the Day_ generating machine. It seems almost a perfect device for taking the Mickey out of AAAC. It infuriated the Bishop of Briggs into making uncommonly angry remarks that lead to his banning. Where did he end up? Bastardland, of course. Where did Cruiser drive JLiboural to seek refuge?

A coincidence?


----------



## Cruiser

MrRogers said:


> In addition, I can't imagine why someone would hang around a place where they contribute nothing and are obviously not wanted.


Because you and your running mates don't represent the entire forum despite what you might think.

As for all of the talk about me being affiliated with some group of people cross posting, etc., etc., there is nothing to that. I just wandered across this forum while researching a question I had on formal wear and it seemed like an interesting place. I have no agenda nor do I have any desire to create problems, but I will not let a small group of you guys run me off.

And Mr. Sator, I will cross you off of my list of good guys. My perception of you was much different than what you have now shown.

So go ahead fellows, make fun of my clothes, my Mickey Mouse watch, whatever else you want to make fun of. That seems to be the way some of you get your pleasure. All it does is reinforce my initial opinion of some of you. Call me an idiot, say that I have no sense of style, I don't care. It reflects more on you than it does me. I would like to think that I am better than that. At least I try to be.

Cruiser


----------



## Sator

JLibourel said:


> I had a similar reaction after my long post in this thread in which I raised the possibility that he was too bad to be true and a sock puppet. I also pointed out the curious fact that he had been 59 years old for at least the past 13 or 14 months. I had rather expected, in typical prolix Cruiser fashion, a 3000-word "Apologia Pro Vita Sua" from him, but he passed over the matter without a single word. I too was intially skeptical of the sock puppet theory, but now I really do wonder.


Actually, having thought it over I am pretty certain that AAAC is being systematically infiltrated by some very clever trolls to pollute it with a swamp of deliberately inane posts in an effort to systematically undermine it. Numerous posters have expressed disbelief that someone who shops at J.C. Penny would post on a clothing forum. He doesn't seem real. That's because he's not. Cruiser is the creation of a very evil genius.

The only question remaining is who he really is.


----------



## tck13

This is great! I haven't been on AAAC for years!


----------



## Matt S

MrRogers said:


> Well, I got my start on AAAC and am one of those whose interest in the site has fallen off. True we are a group that are obviously obsessive about the details of our clothing but I also don't want to read a 4 page thread about some dufus who is asking if he should wear a v-neck undershirt with his polos.
> 
> I can say outright that Cruiser has been a jerk since day one. He is so repetitive and boring, words just don't do him justice. He likes to incite conflict then criticize others for being snobs. I don't think he has any sense of style or education regarding men's clothing as evidenced by the fact that he buys and wears such cheap clothing. Many of us are far from millionaires yet have gained enough knowledge from these forums to stretch our dollars and buy quality wares at discount through various resources. If after 1+ years and 2000 posts you still think you look good in your stafford notch lapel tux, then you're an idiot and not willing to learn from others. There is simply no hope for you.
> 
> In addition, I can't imagine why someone would hang around a place where they contribute nothing and are obviously not wanted.
> 
> MrR


I must disagree. I have been here for a few years now and learned a lot from many different opinions on how to dress. I do think that Cruiser has changed in his time here, as have I. But we have both gone different ways. We have all learned how to form our own opinions from what we learn on this forum, and I enjoy its diversity. I am happy to have Cruiser here because he isn't the same as everyone else. I haven't been here very much in the last few months, but it's because I haven't had the time. I now see what has been going on and I'm not all too happy with it. And if you don't want to read a four page thread on v-neck undershirts with polos, then don't read it. But some people might be interested in the different opinions people have on the topic. I could get down on you for using the word "tux," but I'll leave it be. I have used this forum and its information to find out what I like. I know I don't like reverse pleat trousers, and I am happy to state why, but other people see advantages in them that I don't. And that's fine with me. I can't understand how a topic about a classic style has become like this. I think a moderator needs to take a look at this thread and perhaps close it.


----------



## MrRogers

Cruiser said:


> make fun of my clothes, my Mickey Mouse watch,


You wear a mickey mouse watch???

MrR


----------



## boatshoe

Sator said:


> Actually, having thought it over I am pretty certain that AAAC is being systematically infiltrated by some very clever trolls to pollute it with a swamp of deliberately inane posts in an effort to systematically undermine it. Numerous posters have expressed disbelief that someone who shops at J.C. Penny would post on a clothing forum. He doesn't seem real. That's because he's not. Cruiser is the creation of a very evil genius.
> 
> The only question remaining is who he really is.


With all this talk of repeatedly celebrating the 59th birthday, I can't help thinking of Jack Benny. He was 39 years old for decades!


----------



## MrRogers

Matt S said:


> And if you don't want to read a four page thread on v-neck undershirts with polos, then don't read it.


Um....I don't read it.

Nor do others.

Thats why its been a ghost town over here lately.

MrR


----------



## Cruiser

boatshoe said:


> With all this talk of repeatedly celebrating the 59th birthday, I can't help thinking of Jack Benny. He was 39 years old for decades!


OK, you have a point there. I had not yet turned 59 when I first said I was 59. My 59th birthday was coming up and I felt 59 on some days, so I just said I was 59. I'm now getting ready to turn 60, but I won't say that I am 60 until that day actually comes. When all is said and done I will have been 59 for about 14 months. Sorry about that. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Sator

Even if Cruiser turns out to be real and not a FNB member sockpuppet, there is no doubt that some of his most vocal "supporters" are, for they realise that he is the best weapon they have to destroy AAAC, and so egg him on to achieve ever greater dominance here.


----------



## DocHolliday

It's like old home week in here. If I'd known you guys were coming, I'd have baked a cake.

I have little of value to say that hasn't been said already. But I'll note that I too no longer post here the way I once did. There was a time when the forum was lively and vigorous, and when we would argue over things other than Cruiser. 

I suspect I am not nearly gentlemanly enough for the forum's modern incarnation.


----------



## Bog

manton said:


> Glad you are happy, since every single discussion here now seems to return this point.
> 
> Cruiser, my hat is off to you! I have never seen another instance of someone remaking an institution in his own image so thoroughly! It's an accomplishment, of sorts.


Hip hip horray!


----------



## JLibourel

Cruiser said:


> So go ahead fellows, make fun of my clothes, my Mickey Mouse watch, whatever else you want to make fun of.


F'r chrissake, how can anyone NOT make fun of a guy pushing 60 who takes pride in a friggin' Mickey Mouse watch? C'mon, Cruiser, we know now you're taking the mick, as the Brits would say (and pardon the pun).

Let's see--a diabolical genius out to wreck AAAC? The most likely candidate would be MG. I really wonder if you are he.

Oh yeah, and we know that story you told about defusing some acrimonious labor negotiation through your Mickey Mouse watch was lifted from the Reader's Digest--you fraud!


----------



## Nantucket Red

Cruiser said:


> Because you and your running mates don't represent the entire forum despite what you might think.


Wrong!


----------



## Orsini

chrstc said:


> ...I really don't understand why those of you who are worried about Cruiser's posts don't just use the "ignore" feature in the User CP...


I have suggested this several times and gotten the stuffings beaten out of me each time. You can't even ignore it without it's making an issue about it...


----------



## Orsini

manton said:


> ...The point I (we) are making is that its direction is now all toward banality...


Truely!


----------



## Sator

JLibourel said:


> Let's see--a diabolical genius out to wreck AAAC? The most likely candidate would be MG. I really wonder if you are he.


Marc is certainly a diabolical enough a wit to manage to script the role to perfection. Someone out there is certainly hysterical with laughter over the success of his sock puppet(s).


----------



## Orsini

JLibourel said:


> Liar! That was only after someone called you on your outrageous scurrility. In your initial post you said that any woman who would marry someone who wore an ascot and pocket square to the market (meaning me) was a gold-digger and lower than a whore (or something very similar to that.)
> 
> Frankly, Cruiser, if it were just a matter of your not caring for 3-2 rolled lapels, nobody would make a big deal of it. In point of fact, you are relentless in defending all that is cheap, lowbrow and third-rate sartorially in your tendentious, pestiferously prolix fashion. You are a first-class bore and an obnoxious boor with your relentlessly pugnacious posts. You are also a vulgar braggart, incessantly touting your "early retirement" and "six-figure retirement income" as a vindication of your thoroughly lowbrow tastes. And, if you are as rich as you say you are, you are a total cheapskate, given the clothes you buy.
> 
> A lot of people wonder what you are doing on a forum that was in the not too distant past committed to fine dressing. Many think you are too bad to be true--some sort of sock puppet or mischievous troll. Something about you doesn't ring true. You have said you were 59 years old for at least the past 13 months. This I know for a fact.
> 
> It's also interesting whenever I or somebody else in another forum has made a crack about you (and there are many besides me), nobody, but nobody has ever stood up and said, "Hey, don't knock Cruiser. He's okay." How does that make you feel? (On reflection, that is a stupid question, since you are obviously about as thin-skinned as a rhinoceros!) Face it, you are a universally despised laughingstock in the other fora!
> 
> I might add, I would never say anything against your daughter. She looks like a cute kid--if you and she are even real people--and she has my deepest compassion having an obnoxious churl like you for a father.
> 
> However, when all is said and done, I kind of enjoy having you around. You make a perfect foil--kind of like a villain in professional wrestling--The Man We Love to Hate!


Yes, this subject is the rhinoceros in the parlor that no one dared discuss for a long time. It's always cheat and retreat, isn't it? Such a perfect style...


----------



## Orsini

videocrew said:


> In context: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=632817&highlight=market+ascot#post632817


 I have this link saved for future reference...


----------



## Orsini

manton said:


> Since I like this analogy, I will continue with it.
> 
> Arby's Man and a classically trained French chef have different world views, maybe. But the chef has knoweldge of something -- lots of it. He has learned a centuries-old tradition, learned fundamentals, technique, and basic recipes. Then he has experience putting all that into practice, both making things the orthodox way, and changing them according to his interests, the ingredients he finds, whatever.
> 
> Arby's Man may not care much about that knowledge. He may even despise the food. But to deny that this knowledge is knowledge is foolish and false. The most that Arby's Man can say is that it does not matter to him. Fine.
> 
> But then he should get the hell out of the kitchen. He certainly should not take every discussion the chef tries to have and force it back to the existential question "Is haute cuisine realy better than Arby's"? Other people may be interested in the knowledge that the chef wants to convey. Arby's Man is boorishly in their way. Other chefs may have other ideas that they want to discuss with the first chef, maybe even criticism of his work. But that blasted Arby's Man won't let them. Like the windbag he is, he has to elbow in on every conversation and make everyone see that to like Arby's is not a sign of inferiority. Hell, to him preferring Arby's to Taillevent is not even a sign of an unsophisticated palate! And how dare anyone suggest otherwise!
> 
> So, no, in the end this is not a dispute about world views. It's a dispute about whether you care about a certain body of knowledge, or not. No one saying that you have to care. We are saying that if you don't care, you should STFU and let the people who do care talk about it.


Gee... I wish I'd said that...


----------



## Orsini

Cruiser said:


> And then I said this:
> 
> _I seriously hope that no one thought that I really meant to insult anyone's wife. I didn't. For all I know she is a very nice lady. I just want the fellow to know that words can often hurt people and saying after the fact that you are just playing, or "stirring the pot", is no excuse. Perhaps I chose an inappropriate way to try and convey that message and if I did, I'm sorry._
> 
> Cruiser


As I said, cheat and retreat...


----------



## Orsini

Wayfarer said:


> I like this. Mind if I steal it?
> 
> As I said it over a year ago. Porches and Corvettes are both good cars. But why would a guy in love with Corvettes, keep posting on a Porsche board, saying how great Corvettes are? And then why would he get puzzled and upset, when the Porsche owners told him they prefer Porsches over Corvettes?


This is like a time-warp!

Dog pile!

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=807567&postcount=19

Oh yeah! And you should never let yourself be photographed with a drink in your hand...


----------



## Bog

dopey said:


> ItWhy should the forum cater to a group that isn't the target audience of the advertisers and the promoters? When manton starts buying from Fredricks or Charles Tyrwhitt, then maybe it will be more important to have a manton friendly site. In the meantime, the dominant voices have won out. And there is really no harm done. If manton wants to post, he has Styleforum (or the LL). If you find what he writes interesting, go there and read it. If not, stay here and post about what is of interest here. I liked AAAC, but we don't need a Landmarks Preservation Society to preserve it in amber if its owners want to let it go somewhere else.


Point taken. After being reminded that discussion of silk hose with court dress was not relevant to the wearing of silk sox with formal dress, I found this thread. I'll consider your suggestion, Dopey.

At just under 1000 posts, yours truly.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

Wowzers - a whole lot of posts in one day for a thread that started out asking about a one button difference on a jacket.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I hope some of you folks who used to post here might return.


----------



## MrRogers

Sator said:


> Let me provide a nice, concrete example of you dragging down the tone done in a discussion:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=85448
> 
> I had to fight hard to argue in favour of foie gras over spam there.


Thats a great example actually. Its kind of sad to see AAAC in its current state versus where it was when I first lurked. I wish one of the mods would take the initiative to clean house and restore this site to its glory. I wonder what andy's take on all of this is?? Interesting that this thread has stayed up as long as it has.

MrR


----------



## Nantucket Red

Sator said:


> Marc is certainly a diabolical enough a wit to manage to script the role to perfection. Someone out there is certainly hysterical with laughter over the success of his sock puppet(s).


Though this doesn't really ring true to me, if such is the case it can be considered the end result of the poor and high-handed moderation that has plagued this site for years. Many worthwhile members have been banned or driven off over the past several years. Needless to say, this has hardly created a surfeit of good will among the victims of this type of autocratic moderation. So whether Cruiser is, in fact, a sockpuppet or, as I suspect, just some parasite that feeds off negative attention, it's ultimately the result of the means and methods used by certain moderators, not to mention some of the personalities involved.

As a case in point, the fact of the word S L O B being filtered out indicates a form of moderation characterized by control-freaksterism and princess-and-the-pea syndrome. It's childish and ridiculous. No wonder so many of the better members have just vacated the site.

So, sockpuppets or none, the hollowing out of this board from what it once was is, in the final analysis, an inside job, in my opinion.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

This thread has not been up all that long, it just seems that way. :icon_smile:


----------



## acidicboy

I linked in this thread from the "other place" too.... I am not one of the stalwarts here, nor do I pretend to be one. I joined AAAC and SF at about the same time, and have enjoyed both places equally until AAAC turned to its current direction... I stopped participating in this place for the reason that it has just stopped being fun anymore. I just wanna put this in for the record, as someone who's not one of the more uhm, "prominent" members here. I do hope this thread is a start of AAAC's turnaround, but in the meantime I'll still stay away and just watch this particular thread from time to time.


----------



## Sator

Nantucket Red said:


> As a case in point, the fact of the word S L O B being filtered out


I won't comment on that word, but admittedly, I was surprised when I couldn't type the H O M O in the Latin phrase _lupus hom0 lupus est_ (man is the wolf of man). I shall imagine the Latin for 'old woman' being equally difficult.


----------



## jpeirpont

DocHolliday said:


> It's like old home week in here. If I'd known you guys were coming, I'd have baked a cake.
> 
> I have little of value to say that hasn't been said already. But I'll note that I too no longer post here the way I once did. There was a time when the forum was lively and vigorous, and when we would argue over things other than Cruiser.
> 
> I suspect *I'm not iG*entlemanly enough for the forum's modern incarnation.


FTFY.


----------



## EL72

Sator said:


> Marc is certainly a diabolical enough a wit to manage to script the role to perfection. Someone out there is certainly hysterical with laughter over the success of his sock puppet(s).


I don't think so. He may be that vindictive and spiteful but even the most skilled puppet master could not invent cruiser. Occam's razor...


----------



## AldenPyle

Regardless of the validity of the above complaints, didn't most people, at the end of the day, really move to the other board because they like to call each other "d-bag" and post dirty pictures, and they don't let you do that here?


----------



## DocHolliday

For me, the answer to that is no. I'm not interested in either of those things. But I'm also not interested in most of what is discussed here. The quality of the discourse has declined, and what SF offers, or does not offer, is irrelevant to that.

.


----------



## Étienne

Orsini said:


> I have suggested this several times and gotten the stuffings beaten out of me each time.


That's because it just does not work. Even if you put a specific member on "ignore", you will suffer the general tone he incites in others and the directions he steers the discussion into.


----------



## Jovan

This conversation has gotten... interesting. To say the least.

Wish I still had popcorn left over from _Twilight_.


----------



## T4phage

This thread makes me lol.
The troll isn't even that good.



And nothing of value was lost.


----------



## Rossini

voxsartoria said:


> I haven't been here in quite awhile.
> 
> But on the subject of SPAM, we used to spend our winter vacation in Tahiti (and we're hoping to resume now that our boy is a bit older).
> 
> SPAM is very popular in the South Seas. My theory is that it is because it must taste a bit like human flesh.
> 
> Carry on. It was nice visiting.
> 
> - B


How right you are. It is staggeringly popular. However, part of its popularity is down to over-fishing of local waters, meaning that the locals can't afford fish as part of a regular diet. What compounds the problem is that SPAM in Tahiti and elsewhere in the South Pacific apparently has a much higher fat content than regular British SPAM. Combined with coconut milk, it is making for a lot of podgy Islanders. It's all very sad, really.


----------



## Intrepid

Thread has gotten a bit off track, justifiably so, it would seem. However, OP and replies on subject must be what it would be like to watch a group of cave men trying to explain the purpose of a flush toilet.


----------



## Taliesin

As a long-time AAAC member with a relatively low post count and virtually no name-recognition among the cool kids, I have to say that I hope this thread leads to improvement in the overall quality of debate. I used to really enjoy reading threads here and rarely posted b/c others either said what I might have said, or said something much better than I might have. But I concur that more recently, things have been kind of remedial. Seeing the Old Guard hobble back into the place, eyes blazing, has been fun and I hope it lasts.


----------



## dopey

Taliesin said:


> . . . Seeing the Old Guard hobble back into the place, eyes blazing, has been fun and I hope it lasts.


A day may come when the courage of men fails,
when we forsake our friends
and break all bonds of fellowship,

*but it is not this day*.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman

This thread is the first reason I've had to look at the fashion forum in yonks.


----------



## culverwood

Cruiser said:


> Just because this style jacket is more common place in your world doesn't necessarily mean that it is common place in the world in which 95 percent of the population resides.
> 
> I did have occasion to work in Atlanta, Nashville, and Washington D.C., and if I saw many 3/2 jackets they apparently just didn't register with me; however, when one did register with me I thought it odd. And even with my sartorial ignorance I would be willing to bet that I still have as much or more sartorial knowledge than nine out of every ten men in America. This isn't meant as boasting about my knowledge, but rather to emphasize the lack of knowledge or interest on the part of most men in this subject.
> 
> And that is my point. If the typical, average man in America walks down the street in a jacket of this style, most of the people who see him will either be totally unaware of it or, if they are aware of it, just think that it is somewhat odd. Truth is, most probably won't even notice.
> 
> Cruiser


And you are everyman? Of course.


----------



## Intrepid

Thanks to Mr Rogers, JanL, ACK Red, and Doc for a blinding glimpse of the obvious. 

I would respectfully disagree with Mr Pyle. People drift away because they were originally attracted to a discussion of clothes with kindred spirits.

Posts about the wisdom of a rodent watch, and a guy posting multiple threads wishing himself a happy birthday are somewhat amusing, but not terribly thought provoking.


----------



## rach2jlc

Nantucket Red said:


> I'd given this forum up for dead.


Me, too.


----------



## JLibourel

Cruiser said:


> So let's look at what I've done. I started by saying that women shouldn't be referred to as "ho's", "sluts", and "strumpets" simply because they have a tatoo. That's what started my downward spiral with some.


More because you revealed your humorless, relentlessly tendentious and generally obnoxious side to the forum.



> Then I suggested that it was inappropriate to say that the world would be a better place if people who wear shorts and tee shirts to the grocery store would all die. That turned a few more against me.


Typical Cruiser distortions of the truth. That is not what I said. Moreover, what I said was a bit of playful hyperbole the insincerity of which should have been patent to anyone with a bit more wit and intellectual sophistication than a pre-schooler! Yet, Cruiser ranted on incessantly about that and has continued to carry on about it at intervals for the past 13 1/2 months.



> Then I protested calling someone a "sl-b" because his suit came from Macy's. What was I thinking?


And who might have said that? It certainly was not I. In point of fact, I have a suit from Macy's. It's nothing I'd buy today, but it is still a serviceable and not unattractive garment. Can you cite who the culprit was in that case? Another variant you have proclaimed is that there have been those who have stated that anyone who wears an RTW suit is a "sl-b." Yeah, I am sure all the old-time forum cognoscenti spent their time despising those cheapskate $10bs in their RTW suits from the likes of Kiton, Brioni, Oxxford, RLPL, etc.

Just a couple more examples of how you play fast and loose with the truth to vindicate your miserably disruptive and destructive presence on this forum, Cruiser.



> Then I had the audacity to defend my notch lapel tuxedo after several members ridiculed me for owning such an inappropriate item of clothing.
> 
> And then I admitted that I own a black suit along with a couple of black shirts and some black pants, and I actually like to wear these things. I guess anyone who does this isn't fit company for this crowd.
> 
> And finally I guess my biggest sin was to admit that I prefer jeans over khakis for casual wear. Oh yeah, I often go out to dinner in a suit with an open collared shirt.


All good examples of your lowbrow tastes.



> Well Mr. Manton, if it gets to the point that simple courtesy, decency, and respect for others becomes less important than someone's choice of clothing and the moderators see fit to send me packing, I will leave without regrets. Until that time comes I plan to try to be a good forum citizen and I don't think that my dislike of the 3/2 lapel will affect that at all.
> 
> Cruiser


In your case, amend "simple courtesy, decency and respect for others" to "lying, scurrility and general boorish obnoxiousness" and you have described your presence on this forum rather well.


----------



## dopey

Can someone re-lock this thread?

I was getting used to AAAC being like my doctor. It was nice stopping in for an annual visit, but I don't want a reason to have come by more often.


----------



## gnatty8

Sator said:


> Actually, having thought it over I am pretty certain that AAAC is being systematically infiltrated by some very clever trolls to pollute it with a swamp of deliberately inane posts in an effort to systematically undermine it. Numerous posters have expressed disbelief that someone who shops at J.C. Penny would post on a clothing forum. He doesn't seem real. That's because he's not. Cruiser is the creation of a very evil genius.
> 
> The only question remaining is who he really is.


I have long subscribed to this theory, and some of my responses in the past on this board should be read in that light. I think you are bang on.


----------



## mafoofan

True, today's AAAC is a dumbed down version of what it used to be. But you can't just blame Cruiser. The rise of Cruiser-style relativism required other cohorts: (1) people prone to following Cruiser, (2) moderators with mixed-up incentives, and (3) a complicit forum owner. At the end of the day, I believe there is one person who has any hope of fixing AAAC, and through one simple action.

You can't blame people for agreeing with Cruiser. They exist, and the internet is an open place. The relevant question is: why do they congregate _here_?

First, I blame the moderators. The problem is not that they failed to ban Cruiser, but that their erratic and unpredictable moderation made the forum inhospitable to the free flow of ideas. Hence, more knowledgeable and thoughtful posters departed--either because they were forced to, or because they chose to. Cruiser's point-of-view amounts to _no_ point-of-view, so he and like-minded people stayed around. This left the moderators as the only sources of authority on the forum's subject matter.

Alexander Kabbaz is the worst kind of moderator to be in that position and has single-handedly done more to hurt this forum than anybody else. Consider his conflicting incentives: (1) to moderate discussion about men's clothing, and (2) to maintain his authority as an expert on shirts. Knowledgeable posters promote the former, but tend to challenge the latter; it is not a mere coincidence that they have left. It is not a coincidence that AAAC rules attempt to stop its members from criticizing it elsewhere on the internet or that members cannot link to non-commercial blogs about men's clothing without paying an 'advertising fee'. This forum is moderated to stifle the very discussion that it nominally aims to promote. Now, we have gems like this posing as revelatory information worthy of a newsletter.

But as much as I want to say that Alex is the root cause of this forum's dismal state, the blame ultimately lies with Andy. If Andy wanted to host lively, informed discussion about men's clothing, he should never have let Alex be a moderator in the first place. The conflict of interests was obvious from the beginning. Even worse, Andy did not remove Alex from his position after he started damaging the forum.

Yet, I fear Dopey is right. We can only assume that the forum is _exactly_ as Andy wants it to be and go elsewhere. If Andy wanted otherwise, he could start by firing Alex.


----------



## gnatty8

I like a three roll 2 for the visual interest of that buttonhole partway up the lapel. Most of us do not wear flowers or pins in our lapels, but I don't think we have coats made up without the lapel buttonhole.

Hell, most times, the lapel buttonhole isn't even a real functioning animal.

For me, its about the visual interest. Same reason I get working buttons on the sleeves of most of my coats.

Scratch that, same reason most RTW coats come with buttons on the cuffs. We don't use them. They are for visual interest.


----------



## gnatty8

Dude, you are so banned..


----------



## dopey

mafoofan said:


> . . . Yet, I fear Dopey is right. . . .


always, and /thread. But there is no need for fear.


----------



## RJman

dopey said:


> always, and /thread. But there is no need for fear.


Maybe they should call you "trolley". You treat the fate of this forum like a sick joke.


----------



## gnatty8

Come on now, you guys aren't even addressing the 3 roll 2 question here..


----------



## dopey

RJman said:


> Maybe they should call you "trolley". You treat the fate of this forum like a sick joke.


Then I should be "doc".


----------



## RJman

dopey said:


> Ha! I am very dopey! Ha!


FTFY.


----------



## dopey

RJman said:


> FTFY.


Labelking/Incroyable gave me my FNB forum star turn. I have never come down from the attention-high.


----------



## DocHolliday

dopey said:


> Then I should be "doc".


. . .


----------



## David V

DocHolliday said:


> . . .


That makes you dopey.


----------



## yachtie

This forum used to be fun and informative. I have to agree with the majority of those who left that the "Crusierfication" of AAAC has really been its downfall. There's much more "blind leading the blind" going on here than was ever before. Sorry, Cruiser, relativism is a poor excuse for a philosophy both in clothes and in life.

Really sad.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman

yachtie said:


> Sorry, Cruiser, relativism is a poor excuse for a philosophy both in clothes and in life.


On the contrary, Yachtie, relativism works quite well, circumstances permitting.


----------



## JLibourel

Sator said:


> I won't comment on that word, but admittedly, I was surprised when I couldn't type the H O M O in the Latin phrase _lupus hom0 lupus est_ (man is the wolf of man). I shall imagine the Latin for 'old woman' being equally difficult.


Actually, the Latin phrase is "Hom0 homini lupus." (First attested in Plautus).


----------



## DocHolliday

David V said:


> That makes you dopey.


As though everyone didn't know this already.


----------



## omanae

> Actually, the Latin phrase is "Hom0 homini lupus." (First attested in Plautus).


That does seem more accurate from my limited knowledge of romantic languages.

More to the point, this thread has made me stop to consider that there should be a place where people are allowed to discuss, uninterrupted, fine points of men's clothing, history of men's wear, details, and the artistry that is men's wear without the fear of being snobbish. I feel that perhaps I have been too lax and should consider the value of posts and the great amount of knowledge to be learned here from our venerated members and do hope that there is ample opportunity to sit at their brogues and learn more about the finer points of men's wear.


----------



## Aus_MD

JLibourel said:


> Actually, the Latin phrase is "Hom0 homini lupus." (First attested in Plautus).


But Plautus wrote:

Lupus est hom0 homini, non hom0, quom qualis sit non novit.


----------



## Diggy18

Wow, I mostly lurk on this site, since I'm still learning a lot, and I like a lot of the discussions, but this thread is so absolutely fascinating I am compelled to, at the very least, say, "Wow."

I mean, talk of a conspiracy of individuals concealing their true identities and colluding to bring down the board is the stuff of movies. It reminds me of that Dickens mystery he wrote and then died before actually finishing, where the protagonist appears to have faked his death then returned to the town in disguise with unclear motives. I can't remember the title.

Good stuff. But I'm brand new, and honestly, sorry Cruiser, even I have noticed a tendency for you to derail discussions by constantly criticizing the very idea at the foundation of these boards: there is a proper way to dress and there is an improper way to dress. If you can't accept that statement as is, without justification, then you're just mostly going to just irritate people.

You don't irritate me much, I don't have as much at stake in these boards being a newbie, and I find it easy to just not read your posts if they seem tedious, but I understand what the others are complaining about.


----------



## JerseyJohn

Having read only the last two pages, I'm congratulating myself on having avoided wasting a half hour of my life reading the other 10.


----------



## Nantucket Red

mafoofan said:


> True, today's AAAC is a dumbed down version of what it used to be. But you can't just blame Cruiser. The rise of Cruiser-style relativism required other cohorts: (1) people prone to following Cruiser, (2) moderators with mixed-up incentives, and (3) a complicit forum owner. At the end of the day, I believe there is one person who has any hope of fixing AAAC, and through one simple action.
> 
> You can't blame people for agreeing with Cruiser. They exist, and the internet is an open place. The relevant question is: why do they congregate _here_?
> 
> First, I blame the moderators. The problem is not that they failed to ban Cruiser, but that their erratic and unpredictable moderation made the forum inhospitable to the free flow of ideas. Hence, more knowledgeable and thoughtful posters departed--either because they were forced to, or because they chose to. Cruiser's point-of-view amounts to _no_ point-of-view, so he and like-minded people stayed around. This left the moderators as the only sources of authority on the forum's subject matter.
> 
> Alexander Kabbaz is the worst kind of moderator to be in that position and has single-handedly done more to hurt this forum than anybody else. Consider his conflicting incentives: (1) to moderate discussion about men's clothing, and (2) to maintain his authority as an expert on shirts. Knowledgeable posters promote the former, but tend to challenge the latter; it is not a mere coincidence that they have left. It is not a coincidence that AAAC rules attempt to stop its members from criticizing it elsewhere on the internet or that members cannot link to non-commercial blogs about men's clothing without paying an 'advertising fee'. This forum is moderated to stifle the very discussion that it nominally aims to promote. Now, we have gems like this posing as revelatory information worthy of a newsletter.
> 
> But as much as I want to say that Alex is the root cause of this forum's dismal state, the blame ultimately lies with Andy. If Andy wanted to host lively, informed discussion about men's clothing, he should never have let Alex be a moderator in the first place. The conflict of interests was obvious from the beginning. Even worse, Andy did not remove Alex from his position after he started damaging the forum.
> 
> Yet, I fear Dopey is right. We can only assume that the forum is _exactly_ as Andy wants it to be and go elsewhere. If Andy wanted otherwise, he could start by firing Alex.


Great post, Mafoo. This deserves to be quoted in full.

A couple of years ago, there was a shadowy moderating entity known as Malinda, ostensibly Andy's wife but in reality a group of members who were responsible for banning Horace and Label King, among others, from Ask Andy for some perceived offense.

The heavy-handedness and erratic behavior of what became known as "the Malindae" on other forums eventually led to a moderating team of long-time members with Alex Kabbaz at the helm. This made the moderation more transparent but not better, and as Mafoofan has pointed out, Alex's moderation has been responsible for a great deal more harm than good.

Turning our attention to Cruiser, many of us remember a time here when Cruiser and his ilk would not have lasted a day here before being shown the door, so his continued presence here is something of a conundrum. While other more worthy members have either been banned or have left for greener pastures, Cruiser continues to run rough-shod over everything this forum once stood for, and apparently with Alex's blessings.

Now, anyone in search of civilized discourse about clothes would fare better at FNB (Devil's Island), where many of the banned or disillusioned members who used to make the former Ask Andy (currently Ask Cruiser About Schlobwear) such a convivial and informative place have congregated. For anybody who's been around here for a few years and has seen the developments, that's a very rich irony.


----------



## JLibourel

Some very perceptive analyses here of the ills that beset this formerly wonderful forum.


----------



## gnatty8

And it sh*a*ll be done,
So it shall be said,

He who walks behind the trees
Can*n*ot be seen,
Nor even known..

7465908


----------



## acidicboy

JLibourel said:


> Some very perceptive analyses here of the ills that beset this formerly wonderful forum.


It was bound to happen, Jan. The question is, what will happen next?


----------



## jpeirpont

Nantucket Red said:


> Great post, Mafoo. This deserves to be quoted in full.
> 
> A couple of years ago, there was a shadowy moderating entity known as Malinda, ostensibly Andy's wife but in reality a group of members who were *responsible for banning Horace and Label King*, among others, from Ask Andy for some perceived offense.
> 
> The heavy-handedness and erratic behavior of what became known as "the Malindae" on other forums eventually led to a moderating team of long-time members with Alex Kabbaz at the helm. This made the moderation more transparent but not better, and as Mafoofan has pointed out, Alex's moderation has been responsible for a great deal more harm than good.
> 
> Turning our attention to Cruiser, many of us remember a time here when Cruiser and his ilk would not have lasted a day here before being shown the door, so his continued presence here is something of a conundrum. While other more worthy members have either been banned or have left for greener pastures, Cruiser continues to run rough-shod over everything this forum once stood for, and apparently with Alex's blessings.
> 
> Now, anyone in search of civilized discourse about clothes would fare better at FNB (Devil's Island), where many of the banned or disillusioned members who used to make the former Ask Andy (currently Ask Cruiser About Schlobwear) such a convivial and informative place have congregated. For anybody who's been around here for a few years and has seen the developments, that's a very rich irony.


That took my interest in the site down around 20%. When Collidge got fed up with the Trad plebian tone and left my interest declined 15% more. Once JL,Bothhist Manton, Iammatt, RJMan, Dopey, you and a few others left I started reading FNB and SF exsclusively almost.


----------



## Nantucket Red

acidicboy said:


> It was bound to happen, Jan. The question is, what will happen next?


Either Cruiser will be banned or those of us holding the moderators' feet to the fire will be banned. Given the history of the moderation here, the latter is far more likely. And in that case, I fear the patient is terminal. Then again, given the state of the forum, it would be no great loss, I'm sad to say.


----------



## Ebonyman

AvariceBespoke said:


> :icon_smile:


Hey There:

I actually have had three suits with the 3 buttons roll on 2 and can say that while I initially liked it, I am beginning to see that it is a little frustrating that you cannot button the top button. In fact, at least in my situation, you have to force the top button to button up and that takes skills from my cleaners to press the lapel in such a way that I am able to do it! Therefore, I have decided that should I get the itch for a 3 buttons suit, I will just get the "regular" 3 button look! Because I like lots of Tie space, I generally get 2 buttons suits made.

Thanks for Sharing!

EM


----------



## Nantucket Red

jpeirpont said:


> That took my interest in the site down around 20%. When Collidge got fed up with the Trad plebian tone and left my interest declined 15% more. Once JL,*Bothhist* Manton, Iammatt, RJMan, Dopey, you and a few others left I started reading FNB and SF exsclusively almost.


Bothhist in particular felt very betrayed by the moderators. When he asked to have his account here closed, they simply banned him. It made it look like his departure had been ignominious when, in fact, there had been no drama at all surrounding it. He was very unhappy about that.

I miss Bothhist. He was on the far opposite end of the spectrum from Cruiser and his ilk.


----------



## clemsontiger

This thread is blowing my mind, it's almost to the point of an epic.


----------



## welldressedfellow

Cruiser said:


> This coming from the man who suggested that the world would be a better place if folks who wore tee shirts and shorts to the grocery store would all die. I think you also said that you considered yourself to be "superior" to all those who didn't dress as well as you. And you think that opinions such as that constituted an "excellent" forum?
> 
> By the way, I read all those nasty things you said about me over on that other forum after you left this one. Laughing at me and making fun of me because I own a Stafford suit from J.C. Penney. I also saw all of the nasty comments made about my daughter over on that forum. You and your buddies are real gentlemen aren't you?
> 
> Cruiser


JLibrouel made that comment?And to think I sent a friend request.


----------



## welldressedfellow

I hereby coin the term "Clothes Nazi" to some of the posters here.This is ridiculous!I will be breaking a few friendships and have lost a lot of respect for some posters.And where are the moderators?You'd think after all this crap they'd lock this thread.


----------



## Nantucket Red

welldressedfellow said:


> JLibrouel made that comment?And to think I sent a friend request.


You take Cruiser's remarks at face value to your detriment. This truly saddens me, especially in the case of JLibourel, who is vastly more deserving of friendship.



welldressedfellow said:


> I hereby coin the term "Clothes Nazi" to some of the posters here.This is ridiculous!I will be breaking a few friendships and have lost a lot of respect for some posters.And where are the moderators?You'd think after all this crap they'd lock this thread.


Your righteous indignation is again misplaced. This was once a place where people could engage in civil and circumspect discussions about clothing before it descended into the merely parochial and prudish. Through mismanagement, the vast majority of the most knowledgeable members were either purged or left in disgust. Now the forum has been so dumbed down through a kind of misguided egalitarianism that it has long not been worth visiting.

Airing dirty laundry at this point may be too little too late, but at least the posts critical of the moderation and the direction this forum has taken are no longer deleted within minutes. If this leads to a house-cleaning, so much the better, but I fear this is merely love's labor lost.


----------



## jamgood

*HIDE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!*

Is the spontaneously coincidental drop by of a coterie of former residents for convivial chit chat over, yet?


----------



## Kaizen

welldressedfellow said:


> JLibrouel made that comment?And to think I sent a friend request.


Before passing judgment on JLibourel, using only Cruiser's interpretation of the facts, I suggest you read the thread that is most likely the source of Cruiser's comment and decide on you own https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=74442. Reading that thread (and keeping Cruiser's comment in mind) should give you much more insight into the character of both JLibourel and Cruiser.


----------



## JLibourel

Thanks for sticking up for me, Nantucket and Kaizen.


----------



## RJman

JLibourel said:


> Thanks for sticking up for me, Nantucket and Kaizen.


When you saw only one pair of footprints on the beach, that was when they carried you.


----------



## gnatty8

RJman said:


> When you saw only one pair of footprints on the beach, that was when they carried you.


Where is the vomit emoticon?


----------



## Wayfarer

RJman said:


> When you saw only one pair of footprints on the beach, that was when they carried you.


:icon_hailthee: Probably one of the cheesiest religious "poems" ever written.


----------



## gnatty8

Wayfarer said:


> :icon_hailthee: Probably one of the cheesiest religious "poems" ever written.


Why only one pair of footsteps for "they"?

Cue music from Halloween for the real creepy part...


----------



## Holdfast

RJman said:


> When you saw only one pair of footprints on the beach, that was when they carried you.


Aw Hell No.


----------



## iammatt

Bump.


----------



## Acct2000

Why?

It was still well on the first page.


----------



## gnatty8

Holdfast said:


> Aw Hell No.


Thank you sir, may I have another? :aportnoy:


----------



## gnatty8

iammatt said:


> Bump.


Pure evil, Eee-ville!!!


----------



## Acct2000

As evil as trolling a clothing message board gets, I suppose. (I get this picture of 40 year old men soaping windows on Halloween as I type this.)

Somehow life as we know it will go on.


----------



## dopey

forsbergacct2000 said:


> As evil as trolling a clothing message board gets, I suppose. (I get this picture of 40 year old men soaping windows on Halloween as I type this.)
> 
> Somehow life as we know it will go on.


iammatt has been not a day over 59 or as long as I've known him.


----------



## Acct2000

Iammatt will certainly be the best dressed person doing that! 

(I have always really liked Matt's sense of style and even when I'm on the business end of his sense of humor, I always have to admit that he's really good at it!)


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

Another moderator


----------



## gnatty8

forsbergacct2000 said:


> As evil as *trolling a clothing message* board gets, I suppose. (I get this picture of 40 year old men soaping windows on Halloween as I type this.)
> 
> Somehow life as we know it will go on.


Don't you think your being a little too harsh on Cruiser? I mean come on, he's already taken a few licks here already.. :devil:


----------



## Acct2000

If that post was "hard" on anyone, Clothing Message Board folks ARE what the outside world stereotypes us to be.


----------



## gnatty8

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If that post was "hard" on anyone, Clothing Message Board folks ARE what the outside world stereotypes us to be.


Panty-waist girly-men?


----------



## Gurdon

*Manton is always correct, and almost always right*

A combination of work and computer difficulties have kept me off the web lately. It seems the situation here has deteriorated during my absence.

Although I am a bit more sartorially flexible than many on this board, I truly enjoy tailor made clothes and English shoes. I sometimes wish my circumstances warranted more than occasional opportunities for suiting up.

When, for example, I post about Levis and cowboy boots it is from the perspective of trying to work some elements of style into situations where standard east coast norms would be inappropriate. And, as I've noted, what I used to think were east coast norms have been slipping lately.

I value what Manton has to say and hope he continues to contribute to this forum. I am glad to see something from Jan.

Much of what has been said on this thread is annoyingly simplistic, and so hopelessly stupid that I cannot bring myself to try to reply. Suffice it to say that I would rather read what Manton and Medward have to say than waste my time with Cruiser's banal twaddle.

Regards,
Gurdon

PS: I'll have paintings on display tomorrow in the Arroyo Arts Collective in Highland Park, off the Avenue 54 exit of the Pasadena Freeway. If anyone is interested send me an e-mail for directions.


----------



## Jovan

gnatty8 said:


> Why only one pair of footsteps for "they"?


Get two pairs made -- one pleated and cuffed, the other plain front and hemmed. That way they won't wear out as fast.


----------



## Holdfast

iammatt said:


> Bump.


Unsartorial Bump:


----------



## gnatty8

^^ I hope his trousers are at least wool and that he's wearing leather-soled shoes..


----------



## Holdfast

The lady looks down after the bump and is even more revolted, so I'm guessing thong and square-toe shoes.


----------



## RJman

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Another moderator


One of my favorite posters on this forum... glad to be reminded of your presence...


----------



## omairp

This thread delivers.


----------



## Tim Correll

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Iammatt will certainly be the best dressed person doing that!
> 
> (I have always really liked Matt's sense of style and even when I'm on the business end of his sense of humor, I always have to admit that he's really good at it!)


I agree with all of this about Iammatt.

I wonder what Iammatt's opinion of William Fioravanti is, though. I did, of course, ask him his opinion of Fioravanti a few weeks ago and he never responded. He absolutely loves Rubinacci because all of their bespoke tailored clothing-as well as all of Fioravanti's bespoke tailored clothing (suits, sportsjackets or odd jackets, odd trousers, odd vests, tuxedos, morning coats, tailcoats, topcoats and overcoats), FTW and FWIW, is 95-99% hand sewn and 1-5% machine sewn.

At Rubinacci as well as at Fioravanti, all of the machine sewing in all of both of these tailors' bespoke tailored clothing is done by a machine or done by machines where the operation of each of their sewing machines is 51-95% manual and 5-49% automated at the absolute least. But most likely, the operation of each of their sewing machines is 90-95% manual and 5-10% automated.

Either way, the entire extremely scarce amount of machine sewing in all of the bespoke tailored clothing from both of these tailoring firms is legally 100% handmade and 0% machine made.

Basically, Fioravanti is the Roman Italian version of Rubinacci (who is Neapolitan Italian). Of course, Rubinacci is in London, England (as a Savile Row tailor; this branch of Rubinacci is the only branch that has absolutely anything to do with Savile Row) Naples, Italy and Milan, Italy (these two branches have absolutely nothing to do-not even remotely-with Savile Row other than these two branches of Rubinacci being under the same ownership as Rubinacci London of Savile Row).

William Fioravanti, OTOH, always has been, still is and, 1,000,000-1, always will be in New York, NY, USA.

Since Iammatt doesn't particularly dig Brioni (he actually dislikes Brioni quite a lot), I have a hunch that he does not like or would not like Fioravanti because his silhouette is almost exactly the same or exactly the same as Brioni's silhouette judging from pictures that I have seen and from what other forum members of AAAC, LL and SF have said.


----------



## JLibourel

It's curious how this thread has gone on for several days without Cruiser returning to fray, which seems unlike him.

You would think that after all this public pillorying he might have slunk off to lick his wounds or just go off cruising or whatever else he does. But, no, I see him posting in other threads as undaunted as ever. You'd think anyone with an iota of sensitivity or introspection might have been affected by such displays of public scorn from so many individuals, but evidently not. All of this tends to make me think Cruiser is either (a) some sort of sock puppet or troll, as many have opined, or (b) a complete psycho case. I am actually more inclined toward the latter view.


----------



## Holdfast

Audi S5 TC said:


> I agree with all of this about Iammatt.
> 
> I wonder what Iammatt's opinion of William Fioravanti is, though. I did, of course, ask him his opinion of Fioravanti a few weeks ago and he never responded. He absolutely loves Rubinacci because all of their bespoke tailored clothing-as well as all of Fioravanti's bespoke tailored clothing (suits, sportsjackets or odd jackets, odd trousers, odd vests, tuxedos, morning coats, tailcoats, topcoats and overcoats), FTW and FWIW, is 95-99% hand sewn and 1-5% machine sewn.
> 
> At Rubinacci as well as at Fioravanti, all of the machine sewing in all of both of these tailors' bespoke tailored clothing is done by a machine or done by machines where the operation of each of their sewing machines is 51-95% manual and 5-49% automated at the absolute least. But most likely, the operation of each of their sewing machines is 90-95% manual and 5-10% automated.
> 
> Either way, the entire extremely scarce amount of machine sewing in all of the bespoke tailored clothing from both of these tailoring firms is legally 100% handmade and 0% machine made.
> 
> Basically, Fioravanti is the Roman Italian version of Rubinacci (who is Neapolitan Italian). Of course, Rubinacci is in London, England (as a Savile Row tailor; this branch of Rubinacci is the only branch that has absolutely anything to do with Savile Row) Naples, Italy and Milan, Italy (these two branches have absolutely nothing to do-not even remotely-with Savile Row other than these two branches of Rubinacci being under the same ownership as Rubinacci London of Savile Row).
> 
> William Fioravanti, OTOH, always has been, still is and, 1,000,000-1, always will be in New York, NY, USA.
> 
> Since Iammatt doesn't particularly dig Brioni (he actually dislikes Brioni quite a lot), I have a hunch that he does not like or would not like Fioravanti because his silhouette is almost exactly the same or exactly the same as Brioni's silhouette judging from pictures that I have seen and from what other forum members of AAAC, LL and SF have said.


----------



## Tim Correll

Holdfast said:


>


Don't like my posts, Holdfast? Then please ignore them and don't read them then! Doofus!

Let the people who run these boards decide whether or not I should stop posting.


----------



## Rossini

JLibourel said:


> It's curious how this thread has gone on for several days without Cruiser returning to fray, which seems unlike him.


Some time has recently been spent getting to grips, as it were, with Styleforum. Perhaps that has accounted for the lack of focus. Each of us is but one man.


----------



## Holdfast

Audi S5 TC said:


> Don't like my posts, Holdfast? Then please ignore them and don't read them then! XXXXXXXXXX!


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

RJman said:


> One of my favorite posters on this forum... glad to be reminded of your presence...


And I am pleased to see that reports of your demise were greatly exaggerated. 

Now if one could only put this thread out of its misery. :icon_pale:


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

JLibourel said:


> It's curious how this thread has gone on for several days without Cruiser returning to fray, which seems unlike him.
> 
> You would think that after all this public pillorying he might have slunk off to lick his wounds or just go off cruising or whatever else he does. But, no, I see him posting in other threads as undaunted as ever. You'd think anyone with an iota of sensitivity or introspection might have been affected by such displays of public scorn from so many individuals, but evidently not. All of this tends to make me think Cruiser is either (a) some sort of sock puppet or troll, as many have opined, or (b) a complete psycho case. I am actually more inclined toward the latter view.


I often do not agree with Cruiser's views, but if he has decided to stop participating in a flame war, I applaud him for that decision.

They are unpleasant for most people and seldom accomplish anything positive.

I do wonder about your motive in posting the above message which seems intended to promote disharmony here.

-Jim-


----------



## JLibourel

Jim In Sunny So Calif said:


> I often do not agree with Cruiser's views, but if he has decided to stop participating in a flame war, I applaud him for that decision.
> 
> They are unpleasant for most people and seldom accomplish anything positive.
> 
> I do wonder about your motive in posting the above message which seems intended to promote disharmony here.
> 
> -Jim-


Because I happen to enjoy all this immensely. Cruiser has been a blight on this forum. He has made scurrilous and insulting remarks about my wife, and he has bad mouthed and lied about me for well over year, long after I withdrew so that he could enjoy his position as this forum's newly anointed arbiter elegantiae. Motive enough for you?

Frankly, this forum could use a good deal more "disharmony." The rigidly enforced code of "gentlemanly" conduct regnant on this forum created a climate passivity and quiescence that allowed a bullying, loutish, anti-sartorialist like Cruiser to become a dominant force here!


----------



## David V

JLibourel said:


> Because I happen to enjoy all this immensely. Cruiser has been a blight on this forum. He has made scurrilous and insulting remarks about my wife, and he has bad mouthed and lied about me for well over year, long after I withdrew so that he could enjoy his position as this forum's newly anointed arbiter elegantiae. Motive enough for you?
> 
> Frankly, this forum could use a good deal more "disharmony." The rigidly enforced code of "gentlemanly" conduct regnant on this forum created a climate passivity and quiescence that allowed a bullying, loutish, anti-sartorialist like Cruiser to become a dominant force here!


I don't find that he has become a dominant force. Maybe I just don't feel dominated by his attitude.
Course I have felt I was the newly self-anointed arbiter elegantiae (is that a real word?) However truth is Sartor is the real power behind my throne.


----------



## acidicboy

I'm really surprised this thread hasn't been given the axe yet.


----------



## dopey

acidicboy said:


> I'm really surprised this thread hasn't been given the axe yet.


Just a guess, but page views are probably up considerably since this thread started.


----------



## Sator

acidicboy said:


> I'm really surprised this thread hasn't been given the axe yet.


Because someone has the wisdom to realise that we are at a critical point in the history of AAAC. If the response is to sweep it all under the rug, then it will drive a new generation of posters to join JLiboural in exile over at FNB. It is critical to allow veteran posters to vent their feelings about the direction the forum is taking, and if they are not allowed to feel they are being allowed to participate in that process, then they will likely all leave. Nor will shutting this thread down stop people from venting their long pent up feelings, for they can always do that at FNB/SF. Indeed, it is far better to both encourage and allow people to speak openly here than shoot their mouths off at Devil's Island.

The persistence of this thread says: The senior management wants experienced members to come to the board meeting to participate in discussion about the future of the establishment, because your views are important to us. And more over: Please tell us honestly to our faces, how we can improve things here, rather than going elsewhere to vent your spleen behind our backs.


----------



## omairp

Holdfast said:


>


:aportnoy:


----------



## DocHolliday

Sator said:


> The persistence of this thread says: The senior management wants experienced members to come to the board meeting to participate in discussion about the future of the establishment, because your views are important to us. And more over: Please tell us honestly to our faces, how we can improve things here, rather than going elsewhere to vent your spleen behind our backs.


I would feel more optimistic if there were more response from the senior management. Instead, I imagine the thread will peter out and the comfortable status quo will resume.


----------



## acidicboy

Sator said:


> The persistence of this thread says: The senior management wants experienced members to come to the board meeting to participate in discussion about the future of the establishment, because your views are important to us. And more over: Please tell us honestly to our faces, how we can improve things here, rather than going elsewhere to vent your spleen behind our backs.





DocHolliday said:


> I would feel more optimistic if there were more response from the senior management. Instead, I imagine the thread will peter out and the comfortable status quo will resume.


If reports at SF are to be believed, the several incidences of closing/reopening of this thread means that there's something cooking behind the scenes amongst the moderators. Really, I do hope this thread remains open long enough for us to vent our complaints/suggestions/criticisms and maybe something good does come out of this for this forum. Do keep this open, Andy- and I hope more moderators come in here and make this a more productive discussion.


----------



## Sator

Yes, if this thread is locked or deleted it would be a catastrophe for AAAC. It would just send all the wrong messages.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

JLibourel said:


> Because I happen to enjoy all this immensely. Cruiser has been a blight on this forum. He has made scurrilous and insulting remarks about my wife, and he has bad mouthed and lied about me for well over year, long after I withdrew so that he could enjoy his position as this forum's newly anointed arbiter elegantiae. Motive enough for you?
> 
> Frankly, this forum could use a good deal more "disharmony." The rigidly enforced code of "gentlemanly" conduct regnant on this forum created a climate passivity and quiescence that allowed a bullying, loutish, anti-sartorialist like Cruiser to become a dominant force here!


I am surprised that anyone would find this situation immensely enjoyable. I would think wichever side of the table one is on that they would think it is unfortunate.

I often don't agree with the views of Cruisor, but I don't see him as a dominant force here.

I doubt that your approach is the best way to achieve your goals, but I guess I will sit back and see.


----------



## RJman

Audi S5 TC said:


> I agree with all of this about Iammatt.
> 
> I wonder what Iammatt's opinion of William Fioravanti is, though. I did, of course, ask him his opinion of Fioravanti a few weeks ago and he never responded. He absolutely loves Rubinacci because all of their bespoke tailored clothing-as well as all of Fioravanti's bespoke tailored clothing (suits, sportsjackets or odd jackets, odd trousers, odd vests, tuxedos, morning coats, tailcoats, topcoats and overcoats), FTW and FWIW, is 95-99% hand sewn and 1-5% machine sewn.
> 
> At Rubinacci as well as at Fioravanti, all of the machine sewing in all of both of these tailors' bespoke tailored clothing is done by a machine or done by machines where the operation of each of their sewing machines is 51-95% manual and 5-49% automated at the absolute least. But most likely, the operation of each of their sewing machines is 90-95% manual and 5-10% automated.
> 
> Either way, the entire extremely scarce amount of machine sewing in all of the bespoke tailored clothing from both of these tailoring firms is legally 100% handmade and 0% machine made.
> 
> Basically, Fioravanti is the Roman Italian version of Rubinacci (who is Neapolitan Italian). Of course, Rubinacci is in London, England (as a Savile Row tailor; this branch of Rubinacci is the only branch that has absolutely anything to do with Savile Row) Naples, Italy and Milan, Italy (these two branches have absolutely nothing to do-not even remotely-with Savile Row other than these two branches of Rubinacci being under the same ownership as Rubinacci London of Savile Row).
> 
> William Fioravanti, OTOH, always has been, still is and, 1,000,000-1, always will be in New York, NY, USA.
> 
> Since Iammatt doesn't particularly dig Brioni (he actually dislikes Brioni quite a lot), I have a hunch that he does not like or would not like Fioravanti because his silhouette is almost exactly the same or exactly the same as Brioni's silhouette judging from pictures that I have seen and from what other forum members of AAAC, LL and SF have said.


Iammatt worship is soooo 2006. This year it's all about voxsartoria (he's even more mealy-mouthed)... Dopey is just a bitter hausfrau that he never got to be fora miss popularity like Manton in 2004, the RJ cat in 2005 or mafoofran in 2007.


----------



## Marcus Brody

Having read numerous debates about the 3 roll 2 jacket I didn't open this thread for several days. Finally I got curious to see what exactly was proving so debatable about that sneaky extra button. 

Now I know...

Strangely, having come to this board not long ago, I never realized that Cruiser would be considered a dominant force on it. It was easy to tell that his views weren't in line with many posters, but I never got the feeling that he represented majority opinion, and thought he was usually fairly reasonable in voicing his dissent. I'm not sure how he would discourage "higher level" sartorial conversations, except possibly by being supportive of non-rule following posters and thus making them comfortable enough to stay and continue posting.

Also, what is this FNB that is a possible location of exile for the more disenchanted posters? All I get when googling is a lot of First National Banks.


----------



## Sator

FNB aka Film Noir Buff, but wait, there is another way of getting there:

https://buffsbastards.com/


----------



## Sator

RJman said:


> Iammatt worship is soooo 2006. This year it's all about voxsartoria (he's even more mealy-mouthed)... Dopey is just a bitter hausfrau that he never got to be fora miss popularity like Manton in 2004, the RJ cat in 2005 or mafoofran in 2007.


Um, I think you're going to have to tell them who the heck Vox is...


----------



## Marcus Brody

Sator said:


> FNB aka Film Noir Buff, but wait, there is another way of getting there:
> 
> https://buffsbastards.com/


Oh yeah...minus one on the acronym comprehension for me. Thank you, sir.


----------



## Wayfarer

Marcus Brody said:


> Now I know...
> 
> Strangely, having come to this board not long ago, I never realized that Cruiser would be considered a dominant force on it. It was easy to tell that his views weren't in line with many posters, but I never got the feeling that he represented majority opinion, *and thought he was usually fairly reasonable in voicing his dissent. I'm not sure how he would discourage "higher level" sartorial conversations, except possibly by being supportive of non-rule following posters *and thus making them comfortable enough to stay and continue posting.


I think the bolded is the main source of contention however. I am a sartorial lightweight, compared to the lofty dress illustrated here. However, I do not spend post after post after post telling people that are truly well dressed men, that they had better not think they are special or better, for dressing so well. Nor do I spend post after post after post defending decidely down market items and items that lack the details and extras that make for true elegance.

What I have found here, is a way to improve my dress. For instance, while AEs are the entry point for most here, I was introduced to AEs, enjoy AEs, and continue to wear them years after Jan and Jcusey introduced me to them. I have gained by listening to those with more knowledge than myself, vs. wasted everyone's time and bandwidth by defending the shoes I had been wearing previously. I have used PMs to have a very knowledgable member help me with the details on some new suits recently. That, IMO, was the purpose of this website; to improve your dress. Not to make excuses or seek justification for not improving your dress.

Corvettes on a Porsche board.


----------



## Marcus Brody

Wayfarer said:


> I think the bolded is the main source of contention however. I am a sartorial lightweight, compared to the lofty dress illustrated here. However, I do not spend post after post after post telling people that are truly well dressed men, that they had better not think they are special or better, for dressing so well. Nor do I spend post after post after post defending decidely down market items and items that lack the details and extras that make for true elegance.
> 
> What I have found here, is a way to improve my dress. For instance, while AEs are the entry point for most here, I was introduced to AEs, enjoy AEs, and continue to wear them years after Jan and Jcusey introduced me to them. I have gained by listening to those with more knowledge than myself, vs. wasted everyone's time and bandwidth by defending the shoes I had been wearing previously. I have used PMs to have a very knowledgable member help me with the details on some new suits recently. That, IMO, was the purpose of this website; to improve your dress. Not to make excuses or seek justification for not improving your dress.
> 
> Corvettes on a Porsche board.


I agree with you and have been using the board in almost precisely the same manner. I just did not imagine that the less stylish countercurrent would be so difficult to ignore for those who most would consider "better dressed."


----------



## iammatt

RJman said:


> Iammatt worship is soooo 2006. This year it's all about voxsartoria (he's even more mealy-mouthed)... Dopey is just a bitter hausfrau that he never got to be fora miss popularity like Manton in 2004, the RJ cat in 2005 or mafoofran in 2007.


WTF man. Why you gotta go and take away a man's posse?


----------



## dopey

RJman said:


> Iammatt worship is soooo 2006. This year it's all about voxsartoria (he's even more mealy-mouthed)..*. Dopey is just a bitter hausfrau that he never got to be fora miss popularity like Manton in 2004, the RJ cat in 2005 or mafoofran in 2007.*


One reason I am so remarkably well adjusted is that I have never tried to overreach. I know my limits.


----------



## ChicagoMediaMan-27

Audi S5 TC said:


> I agree with all of this about Iammatt.
> 
> I wonder what Iammatt's opinion of William Fioravanti is, though. I did, of course, ask him his opinion of Fioravanti a few weeks ago and he never responded. He absolutely loves Rubinacci because all of their bespoke tailored clothing-as well as all of Fioravanti's bespoke tailored clothing (suits, sportsjackets or odd jackets, odd trousers, odd vests, tuxedos, morning coats, tailcoats, topcoats and overcoats), FTW and FWIW, is 95-99% hand sewn and 1-5% machine sewn.
> 
> At Rubinacci as well as at Fioravanti, all of the machine sewing in all of both of these tailors' bespoke tailored clothing is done by a machine or done by machines where the operation of each of their sewing machines is 51-95% manual and 5-49% automated at the absolute least. But most likely, the operation of each of their sewing machines is 90-95% manual and 5-10% automated.
> 
> Either way, the entire extremely scarce amount of machine sewing in all of the bespoke tailored clothing from both of these tailoring firms is legally 100% handmade and 0% machine made.
> 
> Basically, Fioravanti is the Roman Italian version of Rubinacci (who is Neapolitan Italian). Of course, Rubinacci is in London, England (as a Savile Row tailor; this branch of Rubinacci is the only branch that has absolutely anything to do with Savile Row) Naples, Italy and Milan, Italy (these two branches have absolutely nothing to do-not even remotely-with Savile Row other than these two branches of Rubinacci being under the same ownership as Rubinacci London of Savile Row).
> 
> William Fioravanti, OTOH, always has been, still is and, 1,000,000-1, always will be in New York, NY, USA.
> 
> Since Iammatt doesn't particularly dig Brioni (he actually dislikes Brioni quite a lot), I have a hunch that he does not like or would not like Fioravanti because his silhouette is almost exactly the same or exactly the same as Brioni's silhouette judging from pictures that I have seen and from what other forum members of AAAC, LL and SF have said.


Are you stalking iammatt?


----------



## T4phage

Nantucket Red said:


> Bothhist in particular felt very betrayed by the moderators. When he asked to have his account here closed, they simply banned him. It made it look like his departure had been ignominious when, in fact, there had been no drama at all surrounding it. He was very unhappy about that.
> 
> I miss Bothhist. He was on the far opposite end of the spectrum from Cruiser and his ilk.


Just a little aside before continuing on this AAAC great lint search.

And N.tuck.Red, I'm a bit disappointed in you since you said you were a mod on another site.....

In vBulletin and other fora (oh lol) software, REMOVAL of a poster sometimes has the unintended consequence of REMOVING all the posts of said poster. Now, if Bothist had made valuable contributions to past threads, it would be silly to remove them, as it will cause discontinuities in the thread and cause confusion for the reader. The option left is to 'ban' the poster and thus preserve the posts.

The site admins either: 
1) did not know the full intricacies vbulletin, and failed to explain it to Bothist
2) Did know what they were doing.

The above example can be seen in some old threads in Styleforum.

The rot had started before the so called 'cruiserification', but it sped it up. It can be clearly seen by the large numbers of former AAAC posters migrating to Styleforum.

... 
nao back to the regularly scheduled snipe hunt.
oh lol


----------



## Nantucket Red

T4phage said:


> And N.tuck.Red, I'm a bit disappointed in you since you said you were a mod on another site.....


A mod, not an admin.


----------



## Rossini

Marcus Brody said:


> Strangely, having come to this board not long ago, I never realized that Cruiser would be considered a dominant force on it. It was easy to tell that his views weren't in line with many posters, but I never got the feeling that he represented majority opinion, and thought he was usually fairly reasonable in voicing his dissent. I'm not sure how he would discourage "higher level" sartorial conversations, except possibly by being supportive of non-rule following posters and thus making them comfortable enough to stay and continue posting.





Wayfarer said:


> I think the bolded is the main source of contention however. I am a sartorial lightweight, compared to the lofty dress illustrated here. However, I do not spend post after post after post telling people that are truly well dressed men, that they had better not think they are special or better, for dressing so well. Nor do I spend post after post after post defending decidely down market items and items that lack the details and extras that make for true elegance.
> 
> What I have found here, is a way to improve my dress. For instance, while AEs are the entry point for most here, I was introduced to AEs, enjoy AEs, and continue to wear them years after Jan and Jcusey introduced me to them. I have gained by listening to those with more knowledge than myself, vs. wasted everyone's time and bandwidth by defending the shoes I had been wearing previously. I have used PMs to have a very knowledgable member help me with the details on some new suits recently. That, IMO, was the purpose of this website; to improve your dress. Not to make excuses or seek justification for not improving your dress.
> 
> Corvettes on a Porsche board.


And Wayfarer is exactly right here. May I just add, as has been noted earlier in this thread, it's ok to voice dissent but not to consistently fundamentally change the line of enquiry or direction of sartorial debate so that it always ends up being about reasons why there's no need to improve rather than about the point at hand - to the frustration of all those others participating in the thread who are seeking further knowledge and who desire to share their passion.

It's not clever, it's not worthy of a fiendish and intricate plot by some kind of nemesis sartorial mastermind from another dimension, it's doesn't add balance, it's just tiresome.

(Of course that doesn't make this thread any less entertaining. More pictures of deranged cats please!)


----------



## acidicboy

Wayfarer said:


> I think the bolded is the main source of contention however. I am a sartorial lightweight, compared to the lofty dress illustrated here. However, I do not spend post after post after post telling people that are truly well dressed men, that they had better not think they are special or better, for dressing so well. Nor do I spend post after post after post defending decidely down market items and items that lack the details and extras that make for true elegance.
> 
> What I have found here, is a way to improve my dress. For instance, while AEs are the entry point for most here, I was introduced to AEs, enjoy AEs, and continue to wear them years after Jan and Jcusey introduced me to them. I have gained by listening to those with more knowledge than myself, vs. wasted everyone's time and bandwidth by defending the shoes I had been wearing previously. I have used PMs to have a very knowledgable member help me with the details on some new suits recently. That, IMO, was the purpose of this website; to improve your dress. Not to make excuses or seek justification for not improving your dress.
> 
> Corvettes on a Porsche board.


Very well put, sir, very well put.

*************

I'm still waiting for more moderators/administrators to come in here and give this thread a shake. Come on, gentlemen, this is the time your voices should be heard. The very existence of this forum is on the line. Some good may come out of this yet!


----------



## dopey

acidicboy said:


> Very well put, sir, very well put.
> 
> *************
> 
> I'm still waiting for more moderators/administrators to come in here and give this thread a shake. Come on, gentlemen, this is the time your voices should be heard. *The very existence of this forum is on the line.* Some good may come out of this yet!


Really, nothing is on the line here.

At best, this thread is interesting if you find it interesting. But AAAC has survived just fine in the Cruiser format, even if different people like it, and it will continue to survive just fine in whatever incarnation takes hold.


----------



## Tim Correll

ChicagoMediaMan-27 said:


> Are you stalking iammatt?


You're joking, right?


----------



## JLibourel

dopey said:


> Really, nothing is on the line here.
> 
> At best, this thread is interesting if you find it interesting. But AAAC has survived just fine in the Cruiser format, even if different people like it, and it will continue to survive just fine in whatever incarnation takes hold.


Has it really "survived just fine"? When I came aboard, AAAC was supposedly the largest menswear forum on the Net. Today, if you compare membership lists, you find:

AAAC: 14,144

SF: 27,625

Does that tell us anything?


----------



## mcr29

Keep in mind, SF hosts discussions for clothing types that aren't normally discussed here. It seems natural they'd eventually have more members.


----------



## ChicagoMediaMan-27

Audi S5 TC said:


> You're joking, right?


Um...sort of. Sorry, but the best way to describe that post about iammatt is "creepy". That one and your 5 paragraph analysis in another thread about the wardrobe of undertakers. Just a little weird, IMO.


----------



## dopey

JLibourel said:


> Has it really "survived just fine"? When I came aboard, AAAC was supposedly the largest menswear forum on the Net. Today, if you compare membership lists, you find:
> 
> AAAC: 14,144
> 
> SF: 27,625
> 
> Does that tell us anything?


It tells us that SF has more members. That alone isn't much. In any case, 14,000+ members is plenty and I am not sure why you think maximizing the number of members has to be the objective of the owners.

In any event, failing to maximize the number of members certainly doesn't equate with a threat to survival. AAAC, as it is, may suit the ownership just fine.

But take what I say with a grain of salt - unlike you, I am happy with the current state of affairs as I prefer to have my serious discussions about clothes (and the non-serious ones as well) in one place rather than scattered across multiple redundant forums.


----------



## Holdfast

acidicboy said:


> I'm still waiting for more moderators/administrators to come in here and give this thread a shake. Come on, gentlemen, this is the time your voices should be heard.


All joking aside for a moment, I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of the administration on some of the issues raised in this thread.


----------



## DocHolliday

Pure speculation, but perhaps the administrators have not weighed in, a la Dopey, because they are not of one mind on the matter.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

JLibourel said:


> Has it really "survived just fine"? When I came aboard, AAAC was supposedly the largest menswear forum on the Net. Today, if you compare membership lists, you find:
> 
> AAAC: 14,144
> 
> SF: 27,625
> 
> Does that tell us anything?


Not much. Look at it this way. Some 84 percent of the threads on this Forum are on attire(Fashion Forum and Trad Forum); yet only 43 percent of the threads on Style Forum are on Men's Clothing! It only goes over 50 percent when one adds those Streetwear & Denim postings that are rather far afield from your expressed interest. Or this way: the particpation on London Lounge is a pittance compared to SF and AAAC, but that doesn't lessen its value one iota. The point is not to argue that one Forum is better than the other, but to try to improve them all. I would suggest that what would truly enhance this Forum would be a return of Mssrs JLibourel, Manton, RJman et alia. Heavy handed moderation would be the death of this -- and virtually any other -- internet forum. The solution is for the members to take responsibility. I'm not terribly keen on American literature, but I always favoured McMurphy over Nurse Ratched (that one's for you, RJman.). :devil:


----------



## JLibourel

While it may be true that a smaller percentage of the threads on SF are devoted to clothing, I would assume that most men who join SF do so because, first and foremost, they are interested in men's clothing. I think it improbable that many join SF expressly for the "---- Women Appreciation" threads or the "Dumb Threads" subforum. All the figures you cite mean is that SF is a more lively, diverse and generally fun forum, especially these days. In point of fact, I post much more frequently in the non-clothing threads on SF these days.

I'll put it another way. I have edited magazines for most of my working career. If a competitive magazine that mine formerly outsold a few years later was enjoying circulation twice as large as mine, it would be a strong indicator that something I was doing needed to be changed.

I think the moderation style at SF is a major reason why so many of us who were formerly Andy-ites have come to regard it as a more congenial place.


----------



## Jordan

This thread has been enlightening. I've been a member here for several years, but don't read or post often enough to get a "real" sense of what specifically ails the forum.

I do have to say that I have noticed a downward trajectory in this forum. The topics just aren't as interesting or illuminating anymore. Indeed, the Collection of Sartorial Excellence doesn't seem as good as it once was. 

The reasons now seem quite clear. Hopefully this forum can get back on track.


----------



## RJman

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> I'm not terribly keen on American literature, but I always favoured McMurphy over Nurse Ratched (that one's for you, RJman.). :devil:


I always identified more with Billy Bibbitt, although I suppose I should have said Chief out of ethnic pride.ic12337:


Jordan said:


> Indeed, the Collection of Sartorial Excellence doesn't seem as good as it once was.


With luminaries like Savile Row Master Tailor Darren Beaman and Carlo Franco... :devil:


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

jlibourel said:


> While it may be true that a smaller percentage of the threads on SF are devoted to clothing, I would assume that most men who join SF do so because, first and foremost, they are interested in men's clothing. I think it improbable that many join SF expressly for the "---- Women Appreciation" threads or the "Dumb Threads" subforum. All the figures you cite mean is that SF is a more lively, diverse and generally fun forum, especially these days. In point of fact, I post much more frequently in the non-clothing threads on SF these days.
> 
> I'll put it another way. I have edited magazines for most of my working career. If a competitive magazine that mine formerly outsold a few years later was enjoying circulation twice as large as mine, it would be a strong indicator that something I was doing needed to be changed.
> 
> I think the moderation style at SF is a major reason why so many of us who were formerly Andy-ites have come to regard it as a more congenial place.


What SF moderation style? I find it a jumbled, chaotic, insider-dominated, jargon-ridden place (that's not a criticism, mind you, I speak ill of no one ).

I have no clue as to what the desired level of participation is on this forum, but I would suggest that more members means less focus...particularly on higher end attire and attention to small details. Whether that is desirable or not, I will leave to others. Personally, I liked both fora better with fewer participants and more indepth discussion of bespoke clothing and the great British heritage in classic menswear.

My real point, however, is not to debate the differences. It is merely to suggest that this Forum has a great deal to offer (as do others) and that it would be well served by your returned participation on it. If you think otherwise, that is your choice. But if you decide not to participate, I personally feel that you also give up some of your right (that's not really the correct word) to criticize its tone and direction. [Of course you have the _right_, but I think you get my drift].


----------



## Jordan

RJman said:


> With luminaries like Savile Row Master Tailor Darren Beaman and Carlo Franco... :devil:


Point taken. But even them aside...


----------



## LD111134

I am intrigued and entertained by this thread.

I haven't kept up with AAAC over the past couple of months due to the demands of work and absorbtion with the U.S. presidential election. When I came back to this board, I was taken aback by this debate over "process". 

However, is the debate over a single poster bringing down the tone of the entire forum? If so, then he can only do so with the complicity of other posters. Or, is this does this debate really concern a perceived decline in the overall quality of the larger conversation?


----------



## Jovan

Jordan said:


> Point taken. But even them aside...


Make sure you use collar stays in your points.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

LD111134 said:


> However, is the debate over a single poster bringing down the tone of the entire forum? If so, then he can only do so with the complicity of other posters.


+1



> Or...does this debate really concern a perceived decline in the overall quality of the larger conversation


Your use of the word _perceived_ is well chosen. [I do recognize that perception can be reality...and that in this eWorld there may be little distinction] In any case, there is no question that the _focus_ of this Forum has shifted. I personally regret that. I would very much have liked to continue on with some illusion of this being a rather genteel, cyber gentlemen's club debating whether Huntsman's jaunty single button closure is preferable to Poole's more staid, closed quarter, two-button classic. Alas, that was not to be. There are far too few individuals really interested in such matters to sustain the discussion, let alone growth. And once the basics -- the "rules," the major styles, the quality makers and retailers, the geographic differences -- were explored, the discussion diminished. New members of this ilk may well have found the archives and search function sufficed. This Board was not alone in that. Witness the venerable London Lounge.  At the same time, the Forum's major internet presence, its frequency as a result on google searches, its ongoing publicity in print as well as electonic venues, undoubtedly expanded the base. With expansion came more members and even greater participation, but also making it a more egalitarian venue. Interests changed, new voices were heard. In some ways, this was a good thing. More and more individuals seeking a place to discuss or find answers to questions of attire should be welcomed. But this new cohort often had different priorities. There are a large number of young men who do care deeply about clothes..but not _our_ kind of clothes. Just look at the size of SF's Streetwear Forum. I fear that many among the old guard felt -- shall we say -- unappreciated and disrespected. In truth, I have images of my father in the 1960's...at a loss about this new generation, outraged by their lack of respect, their breaking with tradition, their unwillingness even to learn the basics. Some of these stalwarts went elsewhere out of frustration. Many of those who stayed (_moi_, in this instance) got somewhat tired of rehashing the same conversations and posted less and less. The void was filled by others. What they said may have been of questionable value, but if there were too few willing to respond, their voices seemed very large. Perhaps now the pendulum has begun its swing back. I hope so. And I do hope that individuals like manton and Jlibourel will continue to give it a push. We will all be the better off for it. :icon_smile:


----------



## LD111134

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> I would very much have liked to continue on with some illusion of this being a cyber gentlemen's club debating whether Huntsman's jaunty single button closure is preferable to Poole's staid more closed quarters, two-button classic...At the same time, the internet expanded the base, making it a more egalitarian venue. Interests changed, new voices were heard. In some ways, this is a good thing...Perhaps now the pendulum has begun its swing back. I hope so. And I do hope that individuals like manton and Jlibourel will continue to give it a push. We will all be the better off for it. :icon_smile:


Bravissimo, Mr. C. I myself do not own any bespoke clothing (although I had planned on venturing into that realm early next year, but then the bottom fell out of the financial markets...sorry, I digress). However, I have always found the discussions on the various fora concerning Saville Row, Rubinacci, _et al_ to be both entertaining and informative.

I participate and read message boards on a wide variety of topics, and I must observe that the men's fashion boards have more discussion about their own _culture _or _process _(e.g the present discusssion, discussions on other boards concerning _this_ discussion) compared to boards concerning other topics.


----------



## Sator

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> And once the basics -- the "rules," the major styles, the quality makers and retailers, the geographic differences -- were explored, the discussion diminished. New members of this ilk may well have found the archives and search function sufficed. This Board was not alone in that. Witness the venerable London Lounge.


There is this view that all the subject of tailored men's clothes has already been thoroughly exhausted, and all that is worth saying already said. In my opinion, we have only just started to really explore what is really important. Most threads on tailoring are about making up eg whether the canvas is hand padded etc. The more important subject of cutting has been left totally unexplored, along with the issue of manipulation during the making up that may be required of certain cutting systems.

I am placing all of my technical discussions on cutting and tailoring in the LL bespoke forum. They tend to get lost amongst countless AE and Brooks Brother's RTW discussions elsewhere. Such technical threads get read more when posted at LL. That, plus the presence of NJS (who is about to join Manton as a published author on the subject of men's dress), together with some AAAC ex-pats such as RWS, is giving the LL a new lease of life.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

Sator said:


> There is this view that all the subject of tailored men's clothes has already been thoroughly exhausted, and all that is worth saying already said.


I certainly did not mean to imply and I certainly do not believe that. There is indeed a great deal more to be said. However, I would suggest that the types of questions -- and the level of interest -- that bring _most_ individuals to this particular forum are not those of great depth nor technical sophistication. That does not mean these arenas should not be explored; simply that they are not of great interest nor of great salience to the vast majority of participants. My hope would be that by exploring this Board they would develop such an interest, but I fear that is seldom the case. Most can find what they seek or need through an examination of the Hall of Fame threads or through use of the search function. Because these conversations have already taken place (often repeatedly), they lose some of their vibrancy. As they say, "been there; done that!"



> Most threads on tailoring are about making up eg whether the canvas is hand padded etc. The more important subject of cutting has been left totally unexplored, along with the issue of manipulation during the making up that may be required of certain cutting systems.


I, for one, would find such threads of great interest but I believe that there are very few others who would share this interest. Moreover, such tutorials are not conversations; they tend to be lectures. The participation of most members ends up being little more than "thank you for this information." That is not bad. It just isn't suficient to maintain the energy of a Forum such as this. That takes involvement, discourse, insight, relevance and even disagreement.



> I am placing all of my technical discussions on cutting and tailoring in the LL bespoke forum. They tend to get lost amongst countless AE and Brooks Brother's RTW discussions elsewhere. Such technical threads get read more when posted at LL. That, plus the presence of NJS (who is about to join Manton as a published author on the subject of men's dress), together with some AAAC ex-pats such as RWS, is giving the LL a new lease of life.


I suspect this is a wise approach. It appears to me that each of these fora needs to have an individual identity and a distinct (though often overlapping) group of members. While I personally am not an advocate of cross-posting, I do appreciate it when a worthwhile thread on another forum is highlighted on a different Forum.

Regardless, this Forum would certainly be strengthened by deeper content, more penetrating discussion, and a greater sense of true community. The challenge is that the content of a forum such as this one rests not with the moderators or even the proprietor (though they are not without responsibility); it rests with the members.


----------



## Nantucket Red

dopey said:


> Really, nothing is on the line here.
> 
> At best, this thread is interesting if you find it interesting. But AAAC has survived just fine in the Cruiser format, even if different people like it, and it will continue to survive just fine in whatever incarnation takes hold.


The thing that's on the line here is control of the discourse. It seems that the AAAC moderation has sought to pick and choose the members who constitute its sartorial authorities, and in the process a good many knowledgeable members have been purged and others alienated.



dopey said:


> It tells us that SF has more members. That alone isn't much. In any case, 14,000+ members is plenty and I am not sure why you think maximizing the number of members has to be the objective of the owners.
> 
> In any event, failing to maximize the number of members certainly doesn't equate with a threat to survival. AAAC, as it is, may suit the ownership just fine.
> 
> But take what I say with a grain of salt - unlike you, I am happy with the current state of affairs as I prefer to have my serious discussions about clothes (and the non-serious ones as well) in one place rather than scattered across multiple redundant forums.


Whatever happens to AAAC is fine with me. I find more interesting and productive discussion on FNB because, like it or not, that's where a majority of the purged AAAC talent has gone. This has made AAAC almost completely redundant, except as fodder for Inane Post of the Day.


----------



## acidicboy

dopey said:


> Really, nothing is on the line here.
> 
> At best, this thread is interesting if you find it interesting. But AAAC has survived just fine in the Cruiser format, even if different people like it, and it will continue to survive just fine in whatever incarnation takes hold.


I should have said "significance" and not "existence." I joined AAAC and SF in '06 after a very frustrating experience with a local tailor whom I commissioned a suit. My lifestyle does not entail me to wear one at work, and there is absolutely no one here in our parts to turn to for me to learn about these things. Joining AAAC and SF opened my eyes to this world outside my mall branded clothes and styling dictated mostly by GQ and runways. I have learned a lot- from bespoke Savile Row tailors to OTR quality makers on sale at STP or Saks Off 5th. I've also learned to develop an eye on what to look for in suits, jackets, shirts, ties, shoes- and most specially shoes which after joining here I started to have a keen interest in... Lobbs, EGs, Vass, G&G, C&J, Santoni, Mantellasis, AEs, Aldens and the rest. Perhaps what the most important thing I learned was to appreciate the finer details in one's style- and not be dictated by what brand is "hip" or which "look" is popular now. All these I learned from quietly browsing, asking questions to the learned members, and just knowing when to keep quiet and listen (or read) what others have to say. Sometimes I put in some opinions, right or wrong, and sometimes I just try to lighten the mood with my "inane posts" but all in the name of good fun amongst fellow members which is what we are all actually- members of a club sharing the same interests. I am grateful that the "popular kids" of both forums have shared their knowledge and time to further feed our interest in style and clothes. I am also grateful to the mods and admins for the existence of these sites. I am also grateful that during the SF crash days, AAAC gave shelter to SF members.

That is why the change that happened here saddens me. I don't blame one single person for this- what happened here is a product of several factors that are also products of several factors and so on... Membership count doesn't matter here, the quality of discussion is. I don't want to compare AAAC to SF, but it was mentioned that SF has topics that are not normally discussed here (Anne Hathaway?  ) But then I don't think people join it just to post on the "worst actor/actress" thread- if it was a brick and mortar club, those threads are like the open space behind the building where you could go light up a smoke for a few minutes. Amongst the sheer number of threads there, you still get to learn a lot, and you also get to appreciate new things you usually do not look at. That is what this forum was beginning to lack before I stopped visiting regularly, and that may be the reason some of us left... this forum, sad to say, turned mediocre.


----------



## DocHolliday

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Your use of the word _perceived_ is well chosen. [I do recognize that perception can be reality...and that in this eWorld there may be little distinction] In any case, there is no question that the _focus_ of this Forum has shifted. I personally regret that. I would very much have liked to continue on with some illusion of this being a rather genteel, cyber gentlemen's club debating whether Huntsman's jaunty single button closure is preferable to Poole's more staid, closed quarter, two-button classic. Alas, that was not to be. There are far too few individuals really interested in such matters to sustain the discussion, let alone growth.


I agree that perception often plays an important role. I've seen numerous message boards lapse into nostalgia for themselves, with talk of golden ages that maybe weren't so golden. But in this case, the interesting conversations are still being had. They're just not being had _here_.

I post on AA much less these days not out of protest, but because I don't find much of interest to post about.


----------



## [email protected]

I won't really buy into any discussion of the way this site is modded - I have some queries about the way the mods run AA, I'm sure they in turn have some queries about the anarchy that we preside over at SF. 

Historically, I always came to AA for info and SF for fun. 

One was a library to me, the other a dive bar. 

Barbarian that I am, Ive always been more comfortable in dive bars. 

One area that I do think SF excels in though is in member retention, and I attribute that to the non-clothing boards. That's the stuff that keeps people around. 

Noting discussion above on finer points vs ad nauseum discussion of the same topics...ya, we still get newbs asking about sleeve length...and in a lot of ways, those boys are the lifeblood of the forum. 

What I think we are doing well is keeping them around. 

Sure, they are debating whether Anne Hathaway is hotter than Jennifer Love Hewitt, talking mixed martial arts, and trying to work out whether RJ is funnier with or without his bear pig - but they are hanging around. Those guys field their share of questions regarding sleeve length to the dudes who follow them in...and we end up with a very lively set of boards. 

Certainly this is true in my case. Ive barely posted in men's clothing in the past two years, other than to brag about my overactive dong. Apparently Jan's case is similar, according to what he posted above. Plus, we have all gotten to hear countless stories about the weird and wonderful places that he has followed his dong over the years!

Anyhow, no dog in the fight, and have always been of the opinion that the world is big enough for there to be no rivalry between the sites. I remain very fond of this board, even if I don't spend as much time here as I used to, and I wish the mods and admins the best in whatever direction they see the site heading in future.


----------



## acidicboy

The fight was between Anne Hathaway and Megan Fox. Really, [email protected], I'm beginning to question your mod skilz. Has the dong really affected you that much?!


----------



## [email protected]

ahem.

dare to question my authority


----------



## Mad Hatter

Kinda an old-boys' club mentality here among the tenured and more-learned. And I grant you a measureable right to assert it.

But it seems Cruiser is a proxy for newbies-personal issues aside.

As tedious as the questions are, your service is appreciated when offered. We can't learn without teachers. 

There's a couple of lost generations to proper dress/comportment, and in lieu of any direction, an aboriginal style has evolved. 

Stick around. And Thanks.


----------



## jamgood

John Kennedy Toole


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays

Honestly, I read AAAC because it has fewer post than other places (notably SF, but also places I've found like ivy-style, FNB, LL etc etc).

I can;t see how people get anything done participating in such active other boards.


----------



## acidicboy

[email protected] said:


> ahem.
> 
> dare to question my authority


that's it. i get time out.


----------



## Nantucket Red

Jamgood, is that the cleverest thing you can come up with? Good example of why I mostly don't even bother checking this board. Even the attempts at snark are dull.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

All this banter (friendly and otherwise) is not entertaining. People who think they're clever aren't. It's just noise. 

This thread is a good example of the worst of it.


----------



## jamgood

Nantucket Red said:


> Jamgood, is that the cleverest thing you can come up *with*? Good example of why I mostly don't even bother checking this board. Even the attempts at snark are dull.


----------



## Nantucket Red

PedanticTurkey said:


> All this banter (friendly and otherwise) is not entertaining. People who think they're clever aren't. It's just noise.
> 
> This thread is a good example of the worst of it.


Indeed, and declining rapidly.


----------



## eagle2250

jamgood said:


> John Kennedy Toole





Nantucket Red said:


> Jamgood, is that the cleverest thing you can come up with? Good example of why I mostly don't even bother checking this board. Even the attempts at snark are dull.


Speaking as a forum member, and not as a mod, I find Jamgood's creative effort to be very good (as they always are!) and in the present instance, to be accurately reflective of the general tenor of this thread.


----------



## gnatty8

Mad Hatter said:


> Kinda an old-boys' club mentality here among the tenured and more-learned. And I grant you a measureable right to assert it.
> 
> But it seems Cruiser is a proxy for newbies-personal issues aside.
> 
> As tedious as the questions are, your service is appreciated when offered. We can't learn without teachers.
> 
> There's a couple of lost generations to proper dress/comportment, and in lieu of any direction, an aboriginal style has evolved.
> 
> Stick around. And Thanks.


I'm not sure I agree with you, and that's part of the problem. Noobs come to learn, they learn, they grow. Others never seem to learn but just keep throwing their contrarian advice around, and this is what p*sses others off. Again, Manton's analogy about the cooking class is apt here.

Here is a thread that contains a perfect example:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=86315

I offer a suggestion that the OP may want to try something else for casual wear like corduroys or chinos, with his burgundy sportcoat. Another poster jumps in and recommends that no, maybe I need to switch to wearing jeans because they would make me look "less old and frumpy". That is a good example of what I find irritating about the discourse here at times..


----------



## LD111134

That thread is almost epic, gnatty!


----------



## mafoofan

Mad Hatter said:


> As tedious as the questions are, your service is appreciated when offered. We can't learn without teachers.
> 
> There's a couple of lost generations to proper dress/comportment, and in lieu of any direction, an aboriginal style has evolved.
> 
> Stick around. And Thanks.


Yet, you can learn much more about classic men's clothing at any of the other forums (Styleforum, London Lounge, FNB, etc.), newbie or not.

More knowledgeable posters must have an incentive to stick around for a forum to stay relevant. In the case of men's clothing forums, it seems enough to give them a place to shoot the breeze and freely exchange ideas. Very simple.


----------



## David V

gnatty8 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with you, and that's part of the problem. Noobs come to learn, they learn, they grow. Others never seem to learn but just keep throwing their contrarian advice around, and this is what p*sses others off. Again, Manton's analogy about the cooking class is apt here.
> 
> Here is a thread that contains a perfect example:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=86315
> 
> I offer a suggestion that the OP may want to try something else for casual wear like corduroys or chinos, with his burgundy sportcoat. Another poster jumps in and recommends that no, maybe I need to switch to wearing jeans because they would make me look "less old and frumpy". That is a good example of what I find irritating about the discourse here at times..


But I loved your response!


----------



## David V

mafoofan said:


> Yet, you can learn much more about classic men's clothing at any of the other forums (Styleforum, London Lounge, FNB, etc.), newbie or not.
> 
> More knowledgeable posters must have an incentive to stick around for a forum to stay relevant. In the case of men's clothing forums, it seems enough to give them a place to shoot the breeze and freely exchange ideas. Very simple.


If you can cut throught all the rubbish over at SF. And LL is not really a noobie place. You need to understand the basics. I must admit to never going to FNB.


----------



## mafoofan

David V said:


> If you can cut throught all the rubbish over at SF. And LL is not really a noobie place. You need to understand the basics. I must admit to never going to FNB.


The difference is that there is stuff to find on SF once you 'cut through' the rubbish. It's just more rubbish here.

Anyway, if you ask an earnest question on SF, you'll probably get some help. I don't know of any more vibrant English-speaking forum for the discussion of high-end men's clothing (particularly bespoke). The quality of discussion at London Lounge and FNB can be of equal or higher caliber, but they are quieter places. London Lounge is an excellent example of a smaller, high quality forum; Ask Andy does not compare anymore.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

That's _your _view. I would differ. I am always amazed at this constant need to rank order items..."what is the best...?" I would suggest that with internet fora -- just like quality tailors, shoemakers, watchmakers -- they differ. Whether one fits your particlar needs and wants better is a matter of personal preference. I believe this Forum has the strongest archive of posts on classic tailoring generally and Savile Row in particular. I also believe that to be true in terms of classic men's footwear. I wish there were more discussions on that topic, but as a resource it is unmatched (even by the London Lounge). It is the easiest to navigate. And there is precious little of extraneous (ie..non-clothing) matters. On the other hand, I find the Style Forum (and this is not a criticism just a personal observation) to be very much like what I imagine an American high school to be like..unruly with lots of cliques, fads, insiders, snarking, posturing. To me, it is very off-putting, difficult to navigate, and I always feel like an outsider. Few threads seem to stay on course very long. And I simply don't "get" many of the inside references. I am sure there is quality in there somewhere (SF and your high schools) but it isn't terribly apparent from this side of the pond. I understand that some -- perhaps many -- prefer that approach. That is your choice. But to remake this Forum in that image would be a grave mistake.


----------



## manton

mafoofan said:


> The difference is that there is stuff to find on SF once you 'cut through' the rubbish. It's just more rubbish here.
> 
> Anyway, if you ask an earnest question on SF, you'll probably get some help. I don't know of any more vibrant English-speaking forum for the discussion of high-end men's clothing (particularly bespoke). The quality of discussion at London Lounge and FNB can be of equal or higher caliber, but they are quieter places. London Lounge is an excellent example of a smaller, high quality forum; Ask Andy does not compare anymore.


Maybe it's personal, but I don't see what anyone sees in the FNB forum. Whatever good discussions there just get overwhelmed by the sulfuric, corrosive personalities, the pervasive meanness, and the endless bitching and iGrudge nursing. I can (barely) understand someone like Matt who gleefully says he reads it because he enjoys watching insane people make fools of themselves. I can't see any other reason to go there. It's like sitting in a living room with six other people, all of whom are Livia Soprano.


----------



## Wayfarer

*Perfect Example*



gnatty8 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with you, and that's part of the problem. Noobs come to learn, they learn, they grow. Others never seem to learn but just keep throwing their contrarian advice around, and this is what p*sses others off. Again, Manton's analogy about the cooking class is apt here.
> 
> Here is a thread that contains a perfect example:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=86315
> 
> I offer a suggestion that the OP may want to try something else for casual wear like corduroys or chinos, with his burgundy sportcoat. Another poster jumps in and recommends that no, maybe I need to switch to wearing jeans because they would make me look "less old and frumpy". That is a good example of what I find irritating about the discourse here at times..


That is not only a perfect example of what I alluded to in my last post, it goes one step further. Not only is it defending the inferior dress, Cruiser has actually stated the superior dress is "old and frumpy." I suppose we can say a nice pair of brogues are "old and frumpy" vs. the "stylish" Cole Haans we see worn around? A peak lapel vs. a notch? The list goes on.

Should this forum be all about discouraging better dress? Corvettes on a Porsche board.


----------



## gnatty8

Wayfarer said:


> That is not only a perfect example of what I alluded to in my last post, it goes one step further. Not only is it defending the inferior dress, Cruiser has actually stated the superior dress is "old and frumpy." I suppose we can say a nice pair of brogues are "old and frumpy" vs. the "stylish" Cole Haans we see worn around? A peak lapel vs. a notch? The list goes on.
> 
> Should this forum be all about discouraging better dress? Corvettes on a Porsche board.


Exactly! When I read your post, it actually brought this thread back to mind..

Livia Soprano? Manton, really..


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

I concur with your appaisal but I simply don't understand how you let one poster to so dominate your view of this or any other forum. The printed statistics show 53,348 threads, 624,477 posts, 21,008 members of whom 14,475 are active. Ignore him or rebut him, but do not give him the power to dictate your actions.


----------



## Jovan

gnatty8 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with you, and that's part of the problem. Noobs come to learn, they learn, they grow. Others never seem to learn but just keep throwing their contrarian advice around, and this is what p*sses others off. Again, Manton's analogy about the cooking class is apt here.
> 
> Here is a thread that contains a perfect example:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=86315
> 
> I offer a suggestion that the OP may want to try something else for casual wear like corduroys or chinos, with his burgundy sportcoat. Another poster jumps in and recommends that no, maybe I need to switch to wearing jeans because they would make me look "less old and frumpy". That is a good example of what I find irritating about the discourse here at times..


"...if I wanted to look like every other retard in their 30s"

Yeah, classy.


----------



## Scrumhalf

I like the sartorial level over at SF, largely contributed by the AA expats who have now set up shop there, many of whom have contributed to this thread. What I have a hard time dealing with on SF are the constant d-bag references, foul language and a bunch of forty-somethings talking in some kind of high school patois. AA on the other hand, while genteel, is noticeably duller on the high end sartorial front. A perfect board for me would be a combination of the two where knowledgeable individuals would converse on elegant attire in a gentlemanly way.


----------



## manton

Scrumhalf said:


> I like the sartorial level over at SF, largely contributed by the AA expats who have now set up shop there, many of whom have contributed to this thread. What I have a hard time dealing with on SF are the constant d-bag references, foul language and a bunch of *forty-somethings *talking in some kind of high school patois. AA on the other hand, while genteel, is noticeably duller on the high end sartorial front. A perfect board for me would be a combination of the two where knowledgeable individuals would converse on elegant attire in a gentlemanly way.


Hey! I am 30-something!


----------



## James Bond

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> On the other hand, I find the Style Forum (and this is not a criticism just a personal observation) to be very much like what I imagine an American high school to be like..*unruly with lots of cliques, fads, insiders, snarking, posturing.*


Perhaps the Internet isn't for you, then.


----------



## gnatty8

Jovan said:


> "...if I wanted to look like every other retard in their 30s"
> 
> Yeah, classy.


Why thanks for noticing..


----------



## gnatty8

manton said:


> Hey! I am 30-something!


Still 39 eh Manton?


----------



## manton

gnatty8 said:


> Still 39 eh Manton?


Not yet.


----------



## David V

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> That's _your _view. I would differ. I am always amazed at this constant need to rank order items..."what is the best...?" I would suggest that with internet fora -- just like quality tailors, shoemakers, watchmakers -- they differ. Whether one fits your particlar needs and wants better is a matter of personal preference. I believe this Forum has the strongest archive of posts on classic tailoring generally and Savile Row in particular. I also believe that to be true in terms of classic men's footwear. I wish there were more discussions on that topic, but as a resource it is unmatched (even by the London Lounge). It is the easiest to navigate. And there is precious little of extraneous (ie..non-clothing) matters. On the other hand, I find the Style Forum (and this is not a criticism just a personal observation) to be very much like what I imagine an American high school to be like..unruly with lots of cliques, fads, insiders, snarking, posturing. To me, it is very off-putting, difficult to navigate, and I always feel like an outsider. Few threads seem to stay on course very long. And I simply don't "get" many of the inside references. I am sure there is quality in there somewhere (SF and your high schools) but it isn't terribly apparent from this side of the pond. I understand that some -- perhaps many -- prefer that approach. That is your choice. But to remake this Forum in that image would be a grave mistake.


Thank you. That is the rubbish I refered to.


----------



## David V

manton said:


> Hey! I am 30-something!


But we don't hold that against you. With any luck you will grow out of it.


----------



## manton

David V said:


> But we don't hold that against you. With any luck you will grow out of it.


Doubt it. If anything, I have regressed.


----------



## gnatty8

Aren't you the guy who said he was 12 when Star Wars came out in 1977?

Maybe not, carry on..


----------



## David V

...and the thread peters off. 

Closure is not achieved.


What would James Bond do?

Don't mind me...I'm just some wag.


----------



## RJman

Scrumhalf said:


> I like the sartorial level over at SF, largely contributed by the AA expats who have now set up shop there, many of whom have contributed to this thread. *What I have a hard time dealing with on SF are the constant d-bag references, foul language and a bunch of forty-somethings talking in some kind of high school patois*. AA on the other hand, while genteel, is noticeably duller on the high end sartorial front. A perfect board for me would be a combination of the two where knowledgeable individuals would converse on elegant attire in a gentlemanly way.


Sounds like you would enjoy teh London Lounge.

Your description of SF left out the LOLcats and teh ghey.



manton said:


> Hey! I am 30-something!


So am I, at the other end...  You no longer seem so fustian to me... ic12337:



manton said:


> Doubt it. If anything, I have regressed.


"You are fustian going on seventeen..."


----------



## Taliesin

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> I concur with your appaisal but I simply don't understand how you let one poster to so dominate your view of this or any other forum. The printed statistics show 53,348 threads, 624,477 posts, 21,008 members of whom 14,475 are active. Ignore [Cruiser] or rebut him, but do not give him the power to dictate your actions.


I would agree with this in the abstract, but in practice, the problem is that rebutting Cruiser takes so much effort that it isn't worth it. His long-winded comments suck the energy out of the virtual room. It's easy to predict which threads Cruiser will turn up in (e.g., anything on black tie, where he will invariably argue in favor of notch lapel DJs worn with A-E Park Avenues (don't you know, that's what Prince Philip and George W. Bush do!)). For some reason, it's very hard to just turn a blind eye to his remarks.


----------



## PeterEliot

*A rude interruption*

I have only read the thread up to page 8 or 9 (can't read further; it's 5AM in my part of the world and I have the alarm set to 9AM), so what I say now may rather interrupt the flow of the discussion. But here it is anyway.

Going over the increasingly vitriolic argument between Cruiser and Manton & Co. was... surreal. I am, in tastes as well as ideologies, conservative, so it isn't rare for me to clash online with more liberal-minded folks about the validity of rules and forms and conventions and such. This is a predominantly liberal age that delights in embarrassing the conservative into silence--and so I am apt to find myself on the minority side, forced into the position of an apologist_,_ in the original sense of that term, defending traditions against a jeering crowd. Some of you have used analogies from cuisine, and others from music, out of your personal interest in those fields. My area of interest happens to be in literature and language, and I not infrequently engage in debate over whether "serious" literature is in fact superior to modern commercial fiction, etc. You can understand easily, I am sure, how such debates might run their courses and what sort of arguments might be offered on behalf of either camp. Claims and illustrations are made that are quite similar to those made here.

But on this thread the usual majority and minority camps are reversed. (And the fact that I was surprised by that, must alone be enough to tell you I am a newcomer.) All the nastiness and the clever flippant sarcasms, the preferred weapons of the liberal majority elsewhere, I have here witnessed wielded to spectacular success against the lone Cruiser. And Manton--Heavens man, I agree with you that the rules are worth keeping--and your verbal prowess is so formidable I wonder what you do for a living--but, by God, your wit is so keen, so merciless, it pains to see it applied to a human being. That sort of wit is reserved for a foe far stronger than you. Satiric wit shines because the satirist, armed only with his pen, is defiant before an enemy he can't beat; because he is on the losing side. Take your wit to a board where there are an army of Cruisers, where _you_ are the outnumbered one, and use it against _them_. The way you and your companions are bombarding one man with insults--and I think you must give Cruiser credit that he tries harder than you to be civil--is bullying at its ugliest, and whatever Cruiser has done does not warrant the insufferably clever abuse you so enjoy. This is why I was so shaken by what I read here. I find that I am on your side of this debate, but you seem to represent everything I have come to disapprove of the opponent's tactics.

I apologize for haranguing. The truth is that I don't know precisely what Cruiser has done to deserve his poor reputation with you, and I have no place in this debate. The above is less a comment on this local fallout between Cruiser and the others, and more about how I believe traditionalists ought to behave themselves when engaging anti-convention campers in debate. Few things irk me as the typical liberal's ill-considered philosophy that "all is relative and nothing is better or worse than anything else." Such irresponsible subjectivism is poison to rational thinking, and it ought to be fought wherever it is met--but not in the fashion I saw here.

No doubt the shocking impoliteness on this thread is the result of long-tried patience finally abandoned. But let us get that patience back. To say "please get out; I can't stand you anymore" is the worst failure any debate can end in. If we really believe in what we say, we must be willing to say it, in civil language, to the end even if all hope is dead of convincing the other man.


----------



## Taliesin

PeterEliot said:


> To say "please get out; I can't stand you anymore" is the worst failure any debate can end in. If we really believe in what we say, we must be willing to say it, in civil language, to the end even if all hope is dead of convincing the other man.


Why? Being a martyr holds no appeal for me. Nor does wasting my time.


----------



## manton

Geez, I think you are overeacting. I really don't think anything I said was that harsh. The harshest thing was probably the "lead weight" comment, and it wasn't that harsh.

Anyway, the argument is over as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Acct2000

I don't dislike anyone in this fight, but Peter makes some excellent points.

When there is too much piling on, it can unintentionally turn someone into a sympathetic figure.


----------



## PeterEliot

Taliesin said:


> Why? Being a martyr holds no appeal for me. Nor does wasting my time.


Anybody who is willing to argue passionately for any personal belief already has a foot set in the land of martyrs. Some people sacrifice five minutes of their time to defend an ideal of theirs. Others sacrifice their lives for the same. The difference here is of degrees, not of kind. All I am saying is, follow your logic home; defend nothing that you aren't prepared to defend to death, and having joined its defense, maintain your ground to the end.


----------



## Jordan

PeterEliot said:


> But on this thread the usual majority and minority camps are reversed. (And the fact that I was surprised by that, must alone be enough to tell you I am a newcomer.) All the nastiness and the clever flippant sarcasms, the preferred weapons of the liberal majority elsewhere, I have here witnessed wielded to spectacular success against the lone Cruiser.


If you're so "polite" and conservative, shouldn't be be avoiding baseless political attacks on a fashion forum? (Nastiness is a preferred weapon of the "liberal majority"?)



PeterEliot said:


> And Manton--I wonder what you do for a living-- .


Among other things, he write speeches for the people for whom you seem to vote.


----------



## PeterEliot

Jordan:

I mainly meant "majority" in the areas of literature, arts and such--the people I regularly argue with, who say it is unenlightened and bigoted of us to label Iago (in Othello) "evil." But even in the political area, nasty sarcasms are more often employed by liberals against conservatives than the other way around. Ridiculing conventions has long been a favorite pastime for progressives. I do not mean to offend but to observe a historical pattern.

And thanks for letting me know of Manton's job. But I am a Korean citizen and the people I vote for are not at all the same as the people he writes for. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Jordan

PeterEliot said:


> Jordan:
> 
> I mainly meant "majority" in the areas of literature, arts and such--the people I regularly argue with, who say it is unenlightened and bigoted of us to label Iago (in Othello) "evil." But even in the political area, I should think it evident that nasty sarcasms are more often employed by liberals against conservatives than vice versa. Ridiculing the establishment has always been the favorite method of progressives.
> 
> .


Fair enough, but just asking you to be careful. You began your long message by talking about conservative ideology and then morphed that into literature. (I realize one can have a "literature ideology," but it it didn't come across that way.)


----------



## Jordan

PeterEliot said:


> Jordan:
> 
> I mainly meant "majority" in the areas of literature, arts and such--the people I regularly argue with, who say it is unenlightened and bigoted of us to label Iago (in Othello) "evil." But even in the political area, I nasty sarcasms are more often employed by liberals against conservatives than the other way around. Progressives have always enjoyed ridiculing the conventional. I do not mean to offend but to observe a universal pattern.
> 
> And thanks for letting me know of Manton's job. But I am a Korean citizen and the people I vote for are not at all the same as the people he writes for.


And one other point. You state that Manton is in the majority, but I think his point is that he is now in the minority and it's only on this thread - once ol'timers like Jan stepped in - that he seems to be in the majority.

I think that Manton is making the same exact point that you try to make in your literature debates. In a culture where relativism is paramount, both you and he are trying to stand up for the "rules" (i.e. what is good literature and what is good dress, respectively) and for logical discourse. Indeed, both you and he once had "majority" opinions, but now may be somewhat outcast (perhaps you in academia and Manton on AAAC). Manton's point, it seems to me, is that the logic behind tenure-track ideology that has changed your literature debate has infected this forum.


----------



## PeterEliot

Oops, you added your post while I was editing mine...

Anyhow, as I said above, I do not mean to offend but to observe what I believe is a historical pattern: newly powerful liberals often have a lot of fun undermining conservative beliefs by ridiculing them--laughing at the "naive" and "outmoded" thoughts. 

It's human nature, I think. The young find the old ridiculous. The old find the young infuriating. Hence liberals love to poke fun--and conservatives love to condemn. The great wits and humorists have usually been of the liberal bent.


----------



## PeterEliot

Jordan said:


> And one other point. You state that Manton is in the majority, but I think his point is that he is now in the minority and it's only on this thread - once ol'timers like Jan stepped in - that he seems to be in the majority.
> 
> I think that Manton is making the same exact point that you try to make in your literature debates. In a culture where relativism is paramount, both you and he are trying to stand up for the "rules" (i.e. what is good literature and what is good dress, respectively) and for logical discourse. Indeed, both you and he once had "majority" opinions, but now may be somewhat outcast (perhaps you in academia and Manton on AAAC). Manton's point, it seems to me, is that the logic behind tenure-track ideology that has changed your literature debate has infected this forum.


Yes, he and I are indeed very much agreed on respecting the standard, some sort of normative yardstick. (I thought I said as much when I admitted "I am on your side on this debate"... ) My only issue was with his acidic insults.


----------



## Peak and Pine

This back and forth between Messrs Eliot and Jordan has rekindled this thread in quite the literate manner. Pls keep it up.

P&P​


----------



## Jordan

PeterEliot said:


> Yes, he and I are indeed very much agreed on respecting the standard, some sort of normative yardstick. (I thought I said as much when I admitted "I am on your side on this debate"... ) My only issue was with his acidic insults.


I guess my point was not to get too worked up about them. They were in response to a long string of insults; Manton just phrases his with more panache.


----------



## Nantucket Red

PeterEliot said:


> If we really believe in what we say, we must be willing to say it, in civil language, to the end even if all hope is dead of convincing the other man.


In this case, all hope really is dead.


----------



## mafoofan

manton said:


> Maybe it's personal, but I don't see what anyone sees in the FNB forum. Whatever good discussions there just get overwhelmed by the sulfuric, corrosive personalities, the pervasive meanness, and the endless bitching and iGrudge nursing. I can (barely) understand someone like Matt who gleefully says he reads it because he enjoys watching insane people make fools of themselves. I can't see any other reason to go there. It's like sitting in a living room with six other people, all of whom are Livia Soprano.


I don't like the prevalence of personal attacks there, either. In fact, I've spoken out against it. But the Inane Post of the Day thread can be fun so long as you don't take it seriously, and there are some knowledgeable posters with unique points of view. I know you and Marc Grayson have a bitter history, but I value his opinion.

Of course, it's also worth noting that the criticism of AAAc in this thread comes on the heels of _years_ of the same over at FNB. So, to some degree, you and they have something in common.


----------



## Nantucket Red

mafoofan said:


> I don't like the prevalence of personal attacks there, either. In fact, I've spoken out against it. But the Inane Post of the Day thread can be fun so long as you don't take it seriously, and there are some knowledgeable posters with unique points of view. I know you and Marc Grayson have a bitter history, but I value his opinion.


The personal attacks really are the achilles heel of that forum, but most people get over their grudges after a while and get on with posting about clothes. The Inane Post of the Day thread is at its best when some knowledgeable member spots erroneous information and sets it straight (and let's face it, there's an awful lot of balderdash posing as fact on the internet). It also gave birth to the term "iGent" currently in vogue. Love it or hate it, IPoD has become iconic.



mafoofan said:


> Of course, it's also worth noting that the criticism of AAAc in this thread comes on the heels of _years_ of the same over at FNB. So, to some degree, you and they have something in common.


It's also ironic that over the years the AAAC has been unequivocal in its hatred of FNB, but has ended up being the greatest contributor of members to the site. In fact, I believe at one point AAAC members were not even allowed to refer to FNB or visit the site, or at least there was a rumor to that effect. After growing weary of dodging all the thou-shalt-nots here, fresh exiles to FNB generally breathe sighs of relief at being able to speak their minds without constraints.


----------



## acidicboy

I see where this thread is going... where the powers that be hope it will go- to obscurity. How disappointing.


----------



## jamgood




----------



## Mark from Plano

I leave the forum for a few weeks and I miss all the good stuff.


----------



## Nantucket Red

acidicboy said:


> I see where this thread is going... where the powers that be hope it will go- to obscurity. How disappointing.


Of course. Did you think it was really going to make an impact on this forum? By ignoring it, the powers that be hope the conversation will just peter out. It probably will, but is that really any great loss?

Perhaps the best you can hope for is that this will be the grain of sand inside the oyster around which a pearl forms, but I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

For my part, the reason I posted here was to eulogize the forum I once knew, not to rock the coffin trying to force the corpse to get up and dance a merry jig.


----------



## Rossini

acidicboy said:


> I see where this thread is going... where the powers that be hope it will go- to obscurity. How disappointing.


It's certainly all rather neatly self-contained within one thread.

However, to do anything different, to escalate, may require more clarity in terms of what is actually wanted as a conclusion.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

I keep coming back to the same point. If this Forum is to change, it is the members who must change it. Quite frankly, I do not know what you want the moderators to do except ban Cruiser. If participants in this thread are serious about improving the quality of discussion, I would suggest that each of us begin some interesting, informative, or provocative threads; add our voices to some of the ongoing discussions that are now on this board; and intervene when conversations turn awry.


----------



## David V

I agree with Mr. C.
It is the members who need to reclaim the forum and steer the conversations. We also need to leave room for those of us (me) for which bespoke is never going to be in the cards. Raising the bar is good for all but not all will be able to reach the bar. We do need to encourage the wise choices in what ever price point our individual circumstances finds us.


----------



## Orsini

*Big Surprise: I Don't Like It Either!*

It is good to see so many members who have not posted much lately active again. It would be nice if they continued. 

Everyone knows that I do not like how this forum has changed, either, so I am not going bore you all with my old rant. In addition, those who have returned from the Diaspora have described our situation so eloquently there is not much to add.... 

Except that is it deplorable that one character who has no interest whatsoever in fancy duds has managed to torpedo this forum.

This excellent new hypothesis that that he might be a sock puppet with a wolf pack that organized a coordinated action is absolutely fabulous! I had noticed an influx of less knowledgeable posters who seemed ready to flame any reference to anything "classical" but it never occurred to me that he might be behind it. I would never have imagined any of this. 

And I agree with all of what all the "prodigal sons" had to say. 

Once again, thanks to those who have returned from exile.


----------



## acidicboy

Nantucket Red said:


> Of course. Did you think it was really going to make an impact on this forum? By ignoring it, the powers that be hope the conversation will just peter out. It probably will, but is that really any great loss?
> 
> Perhaps the best you can hope for is that this will be the grain of sand inside the oyster around which a pearl forms, but I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
> 
> For my part, the reason I posted here was to eulogize the forum I once knew, not to rock the coffin trying to force the corpse to get up and dance a merry jig.


Sad to say I have also realize the logic of what you said, Red. Am I a fool to think otherwise? Maybe in the eyes of the administrators we are truly on the wrong side of the argument- I don't know. Maybe rocking the boat is not good business sense what with the commercialism here. Still, I hold in high esteem Andy, Mr. Kabbaz, the moderators, and people like JCusey who shared so much of their time and resource to make the reference pages of this forum a true gem. I guess that's the reason for my disappointment. Oh well. (shrug)



Rossini said:


> It's certainly all rather neatly self-contained within one thread.
> 
> However, to do anything different, to escalate, may require more clarity in terms of what is actually wanted as a conclusion.


Having read the whole thread, and also looking up the past arguments here and as it spilled in other forums it is quite clear what is wanted by some as a conclusion.



Mr. Chatterbox said:


> I keep coming back to the same point. If this Forum is to change, it is the members who must change it.


True, but it is also times like this when leaders are supposed to be heard.



Orsini said:


> It is good to see so many members who have not posted much lately active again. It would be nice if they continued.
> 
> Everyone knows that I do not like how this forum has changed, either, so I am not going bore you all with my old rant. In addition, those who have returned from the Diaspora have described our situation so eloquently there is not much to add....
> 
> Except that is it deplorable that one character who has no interest whatsoever in fancy duds has managed to torpedo this forum.
> 
> This excellent new hypothesis that that he might be a sock puppet with a wolf pack that organized a coordinated action is absolutely fabulous! I had noticed an influx of less knowledgeable posters who seemed ready to flame any reference to anything "classical" but it never occurred to me that he might be behind it. I would never have imagined any of this.
> 
> And I agree with all of what all the "prodigal sons" had to say.
> 
> Once again, thanks to those who have returned from exile.


At least we still have that 'dive bar' to go to- dumb thread and all...


----------



## Orsini

acidicboy said:


> ...At least we still have that 'dive bar' to go to- dumb thread and all...


I have tapered off over there after being admonished for advocating gentlemanly treatment for carport-bums...


----------



## AvariceBespoke

what a hit this thread has been haha :aportnoy:


----------



## jamgood

Denouement and VIP retreat was pages ago.


----------



## JLibourel

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> I keep coming back to the same point. If this Forum is to change, it is the members who must change it. Quite frankly, I do not know what you want the moderators to do except ban Cruiser. If participants in this thread are serious about improving the quality of discussion, I would suggest that each of us begin some interesting, informative, or provocative threads; add our voices to some of the ongoing discussions that are now on this board; and intervene when conversations turn awry.


I think many of us "returnees" who have participated in this thread would concur that banning Cruiser is not the answer. The problem lay not in Cruiser--whoever or whatever he may be. Obnoxious pests occur in every forum with regularity. In a freer forum, the membership would have risen up with a chorus of "STFU's" to put him in his place. But, because of the authoritarian style of moderation that has been regnant in this forum since the days of "Malinda," no-one wanted break the "gentlemanly" code so stringently enforced. Normally, Cruiser would almost certainly have been banned for his tendentious obnoxiousness, but because, I have long suspected, he claims to be a Republican and Vietnam veteran he secured the protective favor of the Head Moderator, whereupon he was able to run riot and lower the tenor of discussion throughout the whole forum substantially.

The fact that the moderation team here have permitted this thread to run its course may in fact be a very positive sign. Perhaps there has been a realization that the old-style "tight ship" moderation was causing a hemorrhaging of talent from this forum, and maybe things will be changing for the better. Maybe I'll even stick around to find out.


----------



## Rossini

At which point the moderators should now confirm whether such a change in disposition has occurred. 

Gentlemen, your input is now both requested and required.


----------



## jamgood

How gracious of you to deign.


----------



## Rossini

jamgood said:


> How gracious of you to deign.


Thank you for dispersing the momentum such as it was. Do you disagree?!


----------



## Orgetorix

JLibourel said:


> I think many of us "returnees" who have participated in this thread would concur that banning Cruiser is not the answer. The problem lay not in Cruiser--whoever or whatever he may be. Obnoxious pests occur in every forum with regularity. In a freer forum, the membership would have risen up with a chorus of "STFU's" to put him in his place. But, because of the authoritarian style of moderation that has been regnant in this forum since the days of "Malinda," no-one wanted break the "gentlemanly" code so stringently enforced. Normally, Cruiser would almost certainly have been banned for his tendentious obnoxiousness, but because, I have long suspected, he claims to be a Republican and Vietnam veteran he secured the protective favor of the Head Moderator, whereupon he was able to run riot and lower the tenor of discussion throughout the whole forum substantially.
> 
> The fact that the moderation team here have permitted this thread to run its course may in fact be a very positive sign. Perhaps there has been a realization that the old-style "tight ship" moderation was causing a hemorrhaging of talent from this forum, and maybe things will be changing for the better. Maybe I'll even stick around to find out.


By contrast, a blatant troll like Jess T. Rawlings, Esq. can run amok on this board, stirring up more stupid "gentleman" discussions. As long as he is subtle and appears to act like a "gentleman," the moderators won't ban him. Even though his username announces his intentions loud and clear.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

The solution to trolls on this and every other board is the same: simply do not feed them! :crazy:


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> I keep coming back to the same point. If this Forum is to change, it is the members who must change it. Quite frankly, I do not know what you want the moderators to do except ban Cruiser. If participants in this thread are serious about improving the quality of discussion, I would suggest that each of us begin some interesting, informative, or provocative threads; add our voices to some of the ongoing discussions that are now on this board; and intervene when conversations turn awry.


Once again Mr C. is the voice of reason IMO. Thank you sir.


----------



## welldressedfellow

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> The solution to trolls on this and every other board is the same: simply do not feed them! :crazy:


+1 :aportnoy:


----------



## Nantucket Red

AvariceBespoke said:


> what a hit this thread has been haha :aportnoy:


All my suits are 3-roll-2, and these includ MTM, bespoke and one OTR that happened to fit amazingly well. I find this configuration works quite well for my build, at least much better than a 2-button because the button stance can be placed higher with more visual harmony than with a 2-button. At least that's my rationale.

Of course, not all 2-roll-3s are created equal. On the least lovely examples, the top buttonhole can be seen on the lapel turnout, while on the best examples the top button can be seen just under the lapel roll but the buttonhole on the opposite side is hidden by the lapel roll.

Sorry to re-rail the thread.


----------



## jamgood

Amusing tempest in a tea pot. 

We're experiencing the decline and fall of the U.S., yet to be fully exacerbated by the degenerate popculture election of a media-generated messianic socialist puppet and his minions (hava made any new friends, yet?), and y'all're apopletic over trifles on a relatively ephemeral pseudonymic cyberforum? 

An egocentrically grande-delusional avant-garde Delta Force of sartorially pretentious pomposity invades St. Andrew's from a mothership on which verbal effluence masquerades as the thrust and parry of rapier witted raconteurs and bon vivants. (Drones' Club replication?) Spearheading this narcisstically hiliarious, allegedly bespoken, motley crew is a political flack, one Benito Mantolini, hell bent on censoring the free expression (pause, ponder) of a defiant Joe Sixpack, bane of voluntary expatriate libbie (!!!!OXFORD!!!!). The transgression being intransigent sartorial incorrectness as defined by assumed keepers of the faith. First they came for Cruiser, next they'll draw and quarter you JAB patrons. It's the paradymic nature of the troglodytic wee beastie bullyragoisie. (See: Christmas Story, Our Gang, bad-girl movies, Kristallnacht, etc.)

The magnanimously arrogant Magna Carta (contrived in "Latin" no less by guess whom) proffers a New Andrew Order dominated by soi-disant "experts" of arcane raiment, anathematizing subjects mundane in their benevolent oligarchy. Implicit in the PSYOPS objective is a sty for a rarified environ ensconcing the avatar of one "vitaminc", denizen of that most eloquent and sophisticated of iGent clubs, and his ilk. 

Shocked and awed by the invading gaggle's Oz-idry, obsequious Andyites defecate their Dockers with delight of the deigning pseudo-doyens and beg for more; "Yes, yes, enlighten us with chaos!!!. Gorge us with more BS!!!!

Carrion, "Gentlemen"


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan

Nantucket Red said:


> All my suits are 3-roll-2, and these includ MTM, bespoke and one OTR that happened to fit amazingly well. I find this configuration works quite well for my build, at least much better than a 2-button *because the button stance can be placed higher with more visual harmony than with a 2-button.*


That's a good point. However, there was a time when BB also made 2-button jackets that had the same (high) button stance as a 3-button. The only difference was the lack of rolled buttonhole and its neglected button.

Furthermore, in the 1920s, '30s and early '40s, most American 2-button jackets had a stance has high as that of today's trad 3-button jackets.

.


----------



## DocHolliday

jamgood said:


> Amusing tempest in a tea pot.
> 
> We're experiencing the decline and fall of the U.S., yet to be fully exacerbated by the degenerate popculture election of a media-generated messianic socialist puppet and his minions (hava made any new friends, yet?), and y'all're apopletic over trifles on a relatively ephemeral pseudonymic cyberforum?
> 
> An egocentrically grande-delusional avant-garde Delta Force of sartorially pretentious pomposity invades St. Andrew's from a mothership on which verbal effluence masquerades as the thrust and parry of rapier witted raconteurs and bon vivants. (Drones' Club replication?) Spearheading this narcisstically hiliarious, allegedly bespoken, motley crew is a political flack, one Benito Mantolini, hell bent on censoring the free expression (pause, ponder) of a defiant Joe Sixpack, bane of voluntary expatriate libbie (!!!!OXFORD!!!!). The transgression being intransigent sartorial incorrectness as defined by assumed keepers of the faith. First they came for Cruiser, next they'll draw and quarter you JAB patrons. It's the paradymic nature of the troglodytic wee beastie bullyragoisie. (See: Christmas Story, Our Gang, bad-girl movies, Kristallnacht, etc.)


Jam, you are very good at your iPersona. I find you an enigma, and there are few I can say that about. If only mine were so well defined.

But to your point: I suspect that those insulting invaders will ultimately be vanquished, and the forum will be left chiefly to those who are not what they seem; those who do not recognize those who are not what they seem; those seeking basic information; and those seeking not information but affirmation. I hope you find something of value there, or can provide value to those who remain.


----------



## Nantucket Red

Arnold Gingrich fan said:


> That's a good point. However, there was a time when BB also made 2-button jackets that had the same (high) button stance as a 3-button. The only difference was the lack of rolled buttonhole and its neglected button.
> 
> Furthermore, in the 1920s, '30s and early '40s, most American 2-button jackets had a stance has high as that of today's trad 3-button jackets.
> 
> .


Yes, I'm aware that a 2-button jacket can be made with a higher button stance. This is the approach I would take with a blazer or sport coat, but would hesitate to do so with a suit.

I guess the choice really depends on how you feel about the vestigial button on the 3-roll-2. It doesn't bother me in the least, though some probably find it ridiculous.

Such preferences are not even necessarily rational. For example, my resistance to having a 2-button suit jacket made is the notion that it would end up reminding me of one of dad's old hand-me-downs. No doubt that's nonsense, but the association is nevertheless there and is my equivalent of others not liking the vestigial button on the 3-roll-2.


----------



## jamgood

DocHolliday said:


> Jam, you are very good at your iPersona. I find you an enigma, and there are few I can say that about. If only mine were so well defined.
> 
> But to your point: I suspect that those insulting invaders will ultimately be vanquished, and the forum will be left chiefly to those who are not what they seem; those who do not recognize those who are not what they seem; those seeking basic information; and those seeking not information but affirmation. I hope you find something of value there, or can provide value to those who remain.


A perplexed muchos gracious, i guess. Bon Chance. I didn't start this ----. (We Are L-----)

We'll try our best to match our sox, er hosiery, with our, um , ah........

See ya when surrpetitiously engaging and toying with the bilious "connoisseurs" and "cognoscenti" at the sty, subtly. Hello to the Fredos.

Bidin' our time, choosin' our lines, tryin' 'cide what to say. Looks like me stop, gotta get off, and Walk Away.


----------



## LD111134

DocHolliday said:


> Jam, you are very good at your iPersona. I find you an enigma, and there are few I can say that about. If only mine were so well defined.
> 
> But to your point: I suspect that those insulting invaders will ultimately be vanquished, and the forum will be left chiefly to those who are not what they seem; those who do not recognize those who are not what they seem; those seeking basic information; and those seeking not information but affirmation. I hope you find something of value there, or can provide value to those who remain.


That is truly a dreary prospect, Doc.

Jamgood, I enjoy your baroque, Mamet-esque prose, including the tongue-in-cheek Rev. Martin Niemoller reference ("first they came for Cruiser...").


----------



## jamgood

jamgood said:


> A perplexed muchos gracious, i guess. Bon Chance. I didn't start this ----. (We Are L-----)
> 
> A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. A modest, humble one.
> 
> We'll try our best to match our sox, er hosiery, with our, um , ah........
> 
> See ya when surrpetitiously engaging and toying with the bilious "connoisseurs" and "cognoscenti" at the sty, subtly. Hello to the Fredos.
> 
> Bidin' our time, choosin' our lines, tryin' 'cide what to say. Looks like me stop, gotta get off, and Walk Away.


.....


----------



## Cruiser

jamgood said:


> Bidin' our time, choosin' our lines, tryin' 'cide what to say.


_Takin' my time 
Choosin' my lines 
Try'n' to decide what to do_

"Walk Away"
Joe Walsh (The James Gang) 1971

Thanks for the memory. I've still got the 8 track. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Orsini

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> The solution to trolls on this and every other board is the same: simply do not feed them! :crazy:


Generally, I agree that the best thing to do with a troll is to ignore the thing. When it baits, don't bite. When it insults, don't respond. Put it on the twit filter and forget about it. Then you don't even see its trash. That way you deny the thing what it wants most -- to get some attention and to aggravate you. 

I used to find reading his posts quite aggravating so I put him on my twit filter. He made a big issue out of it. It turns out that you can't event ignore the guy without him getting upset. 
Since then my blood pressure is better and life has one less aggravation. But while I have not been paying attention, he has thrived and the forum has withered&#8230;


----------



## DocHolliday

jamgood said:


> A perplexed muchos gracious, i guess. Bon Chance. I didn't start this ----. (We Are L-----)


Don't mean to perplex, Jam. My posts are shallow waters. No need to stare too deeply into them.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan

Nantucket Red said:


> Such preferences are not even necessarily rational. For example, my resistance to having a 2-button suit jacket made is the notion that it would end up reminding me of one of dad's old hand-me-downs. N


So true, it hurts. Bet most (if not all) of us here are guilty as charged.

.


----------



## Nantucket Red

Arnold Gingrich fan said:


> So true, it hurts. Bet most (if not all) of us here are guilty as charged.
> 
> .


The next generation will probably shun our 3-roll-2s for similar reasons in favor of the 2-buttons we shunned and call it "Trad" . . . And so the world turns.


----------



## T4phage

ITT 
looking to see who is lower than a skiddie.



jamgood said:


> ... I didn't start this ----. (We Are L-----)
> .....


*¿ʎlɹo*​
simple double:
001001010011010000110110001001010011010000110001001001010011010000111001001001010011010001000011001001010011000001000100001001010011000001000001001001010011010000110110001001010011010000110001001001010011010000110111001001010011000001000100001001010011000001000001001001010011010100110101001001010011000001000100001001010011000001000001001001010011010001000101001001010011010000110101001001010011010000110101001001010011010000110100001001010011010101000001001001010011000001000100001001010011000001000001001001010011010000110011001001010011010000111000001001010011010000110101001001010011010001000100001001010011010001000110001001010011000000110000


----------



## Smiley Dan

Nantucket Red said:


> The next generation will probably shun our 3-roll-2s for similar reasons in favor of the 2-buttons we shunned and call it "Trad" . . . And so the world turns.


I'm not sure if I qualify as the 'next generation'. I'm 30 and getting my first bespoke suit made. It's being delivered today (fingers crossed).

My cutter asked me to consider a 3 roll 2 at the first measurement stage. As a short man, I was quite adamant I wanted a two button. My feeling was that surely the 3 roll is a compromise of some sort... the cut in the lower chest must surely accomodate the possibility of the roll. He didn't really question this.


----------



## gnatty8

jamgood said:


> A perplexed muchos gracious, i guess. Bon Chance. I didn't start this ----. (We Are L-----)
> 
> We'll try our best to match our sox, er hosiery, with our, um , ah........
> 
> See ya when surrpetitiously engaging and toying with the bilious "connoisseurs" and "cognoscenti" at the sty, subtly. Hello to the Fredos.
> 
> Bidin' our time, choosin' our lines, tryin' 'cide what to say. Looks like me stop, gotta get off, and Walk Away.


What are you saying? Did you take a course in writing impenetrable prose or something? This is like reading The Dubliners after my 7th whiskey,


----------



## Nantucket Red

Smiley Dan said:


> I'm not sure if I qualify as the 'next generation'. I'm 30 and getting my first bespoke suit made. It's being delivered today (fingers crossed).
> 
> My cutter asked me to consider a 3 roll 2 at the first measurement stage. As a short man, I was quite adamant I wanted a two button. My feeling was that surely the 3 roll is a compromise of some sort... the cut in the lower chest must surely accomodate the possibility of the roll. He didn't really question this.


Congrats. Hope your first bespoke turned out well and that you post a follow-up.

You are right to insist on a 2-button if you think it suits your build or even if it's just the style you prefer. Really, the only hard and fast rule governing which choice is correct is whether you will feel comfortable and unself-conscious wearing it.


----------



## 16412

It was interesting to read about fine hand made clothes, $150,000 watches, shoes $$$$, and so on. Today almost all that is written about is common. While common is good and threads fine for many people it is a shame that the high end is gone. If people want to talk down clothes then they should start a new thread for lower rung clothes. 

I think aaac has lost a lot when those who spend a lot of money on clothes have left. And a lady that hand sews most of a shirt and people like her shirts why would somebody run down her shirts? Hand sewn is nicer than something nailed together with a sewing machine.


----------



## [email protected]

It was all lost when Bradford started his "what is your favorite hoodie?" thread


----------



## Sator

WA said:


> While common is good and threads fine for many people it is a shame that the high end is gone. If people want to talk down clothes then they should start a new thread for lower rung clothes.


Maybe what we need is a subforum for high end clothes and another subforum for budget clothes. The way we are going at the moment, the Style Forum Tailored Clothing Forum is becoming the high end clothes forum and the whole of AAAC, the budget clothes forum eg J.C. Penney and Jos A Banks.

There is obviously a demand for a place where people can talk about budget clothes, and perhaps that can be met with a forum custom made for that purpose.


----------



## wheredidyougetthathat

Sator said:


> Maybe what we need is a subforum for high end clothes and another subforum for budget clothes. The way we are going at the moment, the Style Forum Tailored Clothing Forum is becoming the high end clothes forum and the whole of AAAC, the budget clothes forum eg J.C. Penney and Jos A Banks.
> 
> There is obviously a demand for a place where people can talk about budget clothes, and perhaps that can be met with a forum custom made for that purpose.


No, the whole point of AAAC is to discuss dressing _well_; cost is only one factor among many.


----------



## dopey

To repeat a point I made earlier in this thread:
I see no reason for lamenting the change in AAAC. There are other forums, notably SF, where a wide range of tailored clothing choices, both RTW and bespoke, are discussed by informed members. What does AAAC really have to add? Why is it necessary for there to be more than one forum talking about the same thing? It is not as if membership to SF is restricted? Anyone interested in the subject can read and post there.

Frankly, the Crusierification of AAAC gives AAAC an identity and subject matter distinct from SF. That is its reason to exist, now. If you are interested in the finer points of tailored clothing and a more elegant approach to menswear, go to SF. You will find lots to interest you and many informed members to talk with. If you want budget shopping and sportcoats with jeans, stay here. You will have lots of information comparing JCPenny, Jos A Banks and Lands End to help you decide and like-minded fellows to discuss it.

The moaning about why AAAC is no longer what it was is just pointless. Internet sites aren't real places. They are just a collection of people, some real, some imagined, are talking to each other. Just go where the people who talk about what you like are talking and have your conversation.


----------



## RJman

dopey said:


> Internet sites aren't real places. They are just a collection of people, some real, some imagined, are talking to each other. Just go where the people who talk about what you like are talking and have your conversation.


So all my friends are imaginary? :icon_pale:

So lonely... So alone...

Jam, glad to see Kav's writing workshop paid off.


----------



## dopey

RJman said:


> So all my friends are imaginary? :icon_pale:
> 
> So lonely... So alone...
> 
> . . .


That's silly. Even imaginary friends can keep you from being lonely. Besides, I am real. I am sure some of the others are too.


----------



## JLibourel

wheredidyougetthathat said:


> No, the whole point of AAAC is to discuss dressing _well_; cost is only one factor among many.


No, the whole point of AAAC WAS to discuss dressing well. This was subverted into a philosophy of "there are no 'rules'--anything goes; clothes are meaningless--it's the inner person that counts--to hold otherwise is 'hateful snobbery'; cheap clothes will do fine, etc." That this was very largely due to the persistency of a single individual is, as I have remarked both in this thread and in other fora, is striking testimonial to his force of personality.

I don't see the matter as "cheap" clothes vs. expensive. Much of my apparel was acquired on the cheap: pants and shirts from Costco, shoes from the A-E outlet, ties from the Off-5th. Even my W.W. Chan apparel, although expensive by the lights of a JCP/JAB aficionado, would seem cheap indeed to a fan of high-end New York, Savile Row or Italian tailoring. However, I did and do believe that dressing well is a virtue in itself and that the man who turns himself out well is, ceteris paribus, superior to one who does not, much as a man who maintains his home and yard decently is likewise to be admired in preference to one who turns his front yard into a junkyard. Since this view seems to be regarded as tantamount to the espousal of Naziism by the most vociferous participants in this forum, I chose to cease participation.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

dopey said:


> If you are interested in the finer points of tailored clothing and a more elegant approach to menswear, go to SF. You will find lots to interest you and many informed members to talk with. If you want budget shopping and sportcoats with jeans, stay here. You will have lots of information comparing JCPenny, Jos A Banks and Lands End to help you decide and like-minded fellows to discuss it.


While I do not agree with this assessment (my own view is that there is a great deal more subtance on tailored clothing to be found here, albiet much of it archived, and far more posts on plebeian matters on SF), but that notwithstanding I am wondering if part of the challenge is one of nomenclature.

This is Ask Andy About Clothes, is it not? Would that not attract those who have _questions_, indeed basic questions, about dressing and apparel. SF is StyleForum.net, is it not? Would that not attract those who want to _discuss_ fashion? Just a thought :icon_smile:


----------



## dopey

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> . . . I am wondering if part of the challenge is one of nomenclature.
> 
> This is Ask Andy About Clothes, is it not? Would that not attract those who have _questions_, indeed basic questions, about dressing and apparel. SF is StyleForum.net, is it not? Would that not attract those who want to _discuss_ fashion? Just a thought :icon_smile:


Good point. Henceforth, shut up and let Andy answer the questions.


----------



## jpeirpont

dopey said:


> To repeat a point I made earlier in this thread:
> *I see no reason for lamenting the change in AAAC*. There are other forums, notably SF, where a wide range of tailored clothing choices, both RTW and bespoke, are discussed by informed members. What does AAAC really have to add? Why is it necessary for there to be more than one forum talking about the same thing? It is not as if membership to SF is restricted? Anyone interested in the subject can read and post there.
> 
> Frankly, the Crusierification of AAAC gives AAAC an identity and subject matter distinct from SF. That is its reason to exist, now. If you are interested in the finer points of tailored clothing and a more elegant approach to menswear, go to SF. You will find lots to interest you and many informed members to talk with. If you want budget shopping and sportcoats with jeans, stay here. You will have lots of information comparing JCPenny, Jos A Banks and Lands End to help you decide and like-minded fellows to discuss it.
> 
> *The moaning about why AAAC is no longer what it was is just pointless*. Internet sites aren't real places. They are just a collection of people, some real, some imagined, are talking to each other. Just go where the people who talk about what you like are talking and have your conversation.


It is more fun to complain about the decline, than to just move on. Without this thread how many times would you or any number of SF'ers have visited the site.


----------



## 16412

I have been of one mind to go to one place, so not to jump all over, but the reasons that I came here has moved to another place- it looks like it is time to move.

I tried LL once but thought they refused me but, somebody say, years later, they had computer glitches. SF is certainly where almost all of the interest has gone. I have mentioned a forum here for high class clothes and style of use to seperate the general from that, but they have not done so. Others have tried to get me to go to SF. I guess it is time.


----------



## JLibourel

jpeirpont said:


> It is more fun to complain about the decline, than to just move on. Without this thread how many times would you or any number of SF'ers have visited the site.


+1. I think there has been a lot of pent-up resentment on the part of many ex-Andyites that needed venting here.


----------



## jamgood

Not easily baited, considering the source. A wiggly little escargo skewered on a kite stringed safety pin hung from a plastic-bamboo pole pretending to be whangee. yawns

Are you going to Vanity Fair?
Paisley sage Burberry silk ties
Remember me to the one who reigns there
He once scribbled ol' ____'s lies


----------



## jpeirpont

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> While I do not agree with this assessment (my own view is that there is a great deal more subtance on tailored clothing to be found here, albiet much of it archived, and far more posts on plebeian matters on SF), but that notwithstanding I am wondering if part of the challenge is one of nomenclature.
> 
> This is Ask Andy About Clothes, is it not? Would that not attract those who have _questions_, indeed basic questions, about dressing and apparel. SF is StyleForum.net, is it not? Would that not attract those who want to _discuss_ fashion? Just a thought :icon_smile:


What the use of the archives if there is no one here to build on them? Your assessment that SF is more plebeian is odd, but in any event take away ACAC's archives and what are you left with? Certainly nothing that would attract new people to come and build upon the knowledge held in those archives. ACAC playing to the lowest common denominator will certainly not induce anyone knowledgeable to post here about better clothes here as oppose to SF, FNB, or LL. I say this as a rather "plebian" member myself who was here largely for the Trad forum.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

dopey said:


> Good point. Henceforth, shut up and let Andy answer the questions.


That's a very helpful and mature response. :icon_smile_big: I am sure it will add greatly to the conversation about how to improve this Forum.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

jpeirpont said:


> ACAC playing to the lowest common denominator will certainly not induce anyone knowledgeable to post here about better clothes here as oppose to SF, FNB, or LL. I say this as a rather "plebian" member myself who was here largely for the Trad forum.


I am not sure how it "plays" to the lowest common denominator. The questions and discussions come from the participants, not Andy, do they not? With one notable exception, I see little of the moderators shaping the content of the forum and most of their substantive (rather than administrative) postings actually appear to be in threads about "better clothes."


----------



## jamgood

My dearest fellow T4phage,

Oh no, please, no.

You're apparently laboring under a misapprehension or misconception.

Your frame of reference appears to be contemporary patois de geek.

My reference was to writ, obscure here, originally first century Greek.

Apologies kind sir. One remains your humble, intimidated servant.

jg


----------



## LVP

*Sator the wise*



Sator said:


> Maybe what we need is a subforum for high end clothes and another subforum for budget clothes. The way we are going at the moment, the Style Forum Tailored Clothing Forum is becoming the high end clothes forum and the whole of AAAC, the budget clothes forum eg J.C. Penney and Jos A Banks.
> 
> There is obviously a demand for a place where people can talk about budget clothes, and perhaps that can be met with a forum custom made for that purpose.


I am one of the "budget" members and I think you have a fantastic idea here. Sometimes I feel _guilty_; I feel I am dragging the WAYWT thread down the drain when I post myself wearing a $15 shirt, $1 thrifted tie, $20 eBay suit, or $25 shoes. I don't think the sartorial heavyweights should have to share the thread with "us" because we're coming from very different worlds. At the same time I would still like a place where I can post my attire - it might be even better if there was an inherent "budget" context in that forum/thread. I think it is a win-win.


----------



## 16412

JLibourel said:


> No, the whole point of AAAC WAS to discuss dressing well. This was subverted into a philosophy of "there are no 'rules'--anything goes; clothes are meaningless--it's the inner person that counts--to hold otherwise is 'hateful snobbery'; cheap clothes will do fine, etc." That this was very largely due to the persistency of a single individual is, as I have remarked both in this thread and in other fora, is striking testimonial to his force of personality.
> 
> I don't see the matter as "cheap" clothes vs. expensive. Much of my apparel was acquired on the cheap: pants and shirts from Costco, shoes from the A-E outlet, ties from the Off-5th. Even my W.W. Chan apparel, although expensive by the lights of a JCP/JAB aficionado, would seem cheap indeed to a fan of high-end New York, Savile Row or Italian tailoring. However, I did and do believe that dressing well is a virtue in itself and that the man who turns himself out well is, ceteris paribus, superior to one who does not, much as a man who maintains his home and yard decently is likewise to be admired in preference to one who turns his front yard into a junkyard. Since this view seems to be regarded as tantamount to the espousal of Naziism by the most vociferous participants in this forum, I chose to cease participation.


In one of the paragarphs above I meant that those who wanted to move up or do the best they can with what they have would be welcome along with those in the high class $$$$ or high class thinking, I guess I wasn't clear since we can't all afford $10,000 coats or even $2,000. That way snobbery shouldn't exist in this fourm. And have another forum for those that want to talk about neutral or downwards.

Teens have their own world or rules with clothes, which I find sometimes to be interesting as it is ever changing as new teens come and old one grow out. So a teen forum would be interesting reading.


----------



## 16412

> Originally Posted by *dopey* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=854307#post854307
> _Good point. Henceforth, shut up and let Andy answer the questions._





Mr. Chatterbox said:


> That's a very helpful and mature response. :icon_smile_big: I am sure it will add greatly to the conversation about how to improve this Forum.


This is some of the way it used to be. Now it is so sterilized. While some control is useful, to much kills the forum. Some of the arguements and debates were fun.


----------



## 16412

[email protected] said:


> It was all lost when Bradford started his "what is your favorite hoodie?" thread


What shocked me was when somebody wearing jeans and a white golf shirt or something like that showed a picture and asked "How do I look?" How ordinary can a person dress in this country and yet he needed to ask if he looks ok?


----------



## jamgood

>>> swiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiish >>>>>>>>>>>>>








:stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid:


----------



## 16412

Smiley Dan said:


> I'm not sure if I qualify as the 'next generation'. I'm 30 and getting my first bespoke suit made. It's being delivered today (fingers crossed).
> 
> My cutter asked me to consider a 3 roll 2 at the first measurement stage. As a short man, I was quite adamant I wanted a two button. My feeling was that surely the 3 roll is a compromise of some sort... the cut in the lower chest must surely accomodate the possibility of the roll. He didn't really question this.


There are number of ways of cutting and making up coats. Some are great artist while others are not. And some people like one type of art and not another. What is nice about 3 fittings method is you can at the first fitting experiment with where you want the buttons and how you want the roll. The shape of the lapel can be cut straight or cuvred and where the curve is at, and how much you want is adjustable at the fitting to match your body. How wide you want the lapes and whether you want a fat roll or thin.

Even the waist where it looks best on you, higher or lower or even slanted downwards at the front by an inch or two. With m2m you don't have these options. I think a good rule of thumb for figureing where the waist belongs is 1/4 height of the subject - take that length and measure from the nape to the waist for the pattern. Some people are long backs and others are short backs in proportion to their leg lenght and neck and head. So where the waist really looks best on a person really depends on that person. From my perspective this is why rtw and mtm looks so bland- one size or cut doesn't fit everybody. Enjoy your bespoke adventure.


----------



## DocHolliday

WA said:


> In one of the paragarphs above I meant that those who wanted to move up or do the best they can with what they have would be welcome along with those in the high class $$$$ or high class thinking, I guess I wasn't clear since we can't all afford $10,000 coats or even $2,000. That way snobbery shouldn't exist in this fourm. And have another forum for those that want to talk about neutral or downwards.


I'm one of those unhappy with the current state of affairs, but I'm also extremely cheap. As such, I don't think the problem here is one of price tag. One of the great passtimes over at SF is the hunt for high-dollar clothing at a fraction of retail. Discussion of bespoke mixes with talk about the latest thrift-store finds. In fact, the thrift thread is one of the longest on the men's clothing forum.

On SF, there is a lively ongoing debate --bordering on fetish -- about what represents good value for money, but I don't see that so much on AA. Here, there's far less interest in bargain hunting, far less interest in higher-end men's clothing, far less interest in bespoke. As such, the discussion is narrowed greatly. It's to the point, I would suggest, that efforts to discuss topics outside a certain narrow niche are doomed to failure. That does not seem at all beneficial to the long-term health of the forum.


----------



## gnatty8

^ lol

:idea:

OK


----------



## eagle2250

Not meaning to be argumentative but, I have visited SF, in specific search of these meaty cyber-dialogues/exchanges pertaining to the proper wear of classic/high-end clothing; quality/style/value debates; and quite frankly, have been unable to find them. Again, not meaning to throw stones at another website, but, fully intending to plagiarize those old Burger King commercials, "where's the beef?"


----------



## Wizard

eagle2250 said:


> Not meaning to be argumentative but, I have visited SF, in specific search of these meaty cyber-dialogues/exchanges pertaining to the proper wear of classic/high-end clothing; quality/style/value debates; and quite frankly, have been unable to find them. Again, not meaning to throw stones at another website, but, fully intending to plagiarize *those old Burger King commercials, "where's the beef?"*


Wendy's :icon_smile:


----------



## eagle2250

^Oops, there goes the memory again! Thanks for the correction, Wizard.


----------



## mack11211

eagle2250 said:


> Not meaning to be argumentative but, I have visited SF, in specific search of these meaty cyber-dialogues/exchanges pertaining to the proper wear of classic/high-end clothing; quality/style/value debates; and quite frankly, have been unable to find them. Again, not meaning to throw stones at another website, but, fully intending to plagiarize those old Burger King commercials, "where's the beef?"


It's there.

Look harder.


----------



## encyclopedia

we're replaying one of the oldest and longest debates in history here. what i enjoy most is that the normally-loosing side seems to be winning on the forum...

on one side the now-heading-into-retreat absolutists:
"When [the soul] is firmly fixed on the domain where truth and reality shine resplendent it apprehends and knows them and appears to possess reason, but when it inclines to that region which is mingled with darkness, the world of becoming and passing away, it opines only and its edge is blunted, and it shifts its opinions hither and thither, and again seems as if it lacked reason. "

"How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves ¬ thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching", looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires. However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an "Adult" means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth. "

"Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own 'ego'."

"The original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. _This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part._ In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the "common home" where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. "

and the appearing-to-be-triumphant relativists:
"Listen-I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger."

"Thus, Socrates, injustice on a sufficiently large scale is a stronger, freer, and a more masterful thing than justice, and, as I said in the beginning, it is the advantage of the stronger that is the just, while the unjust is what profits man's self and is for his advantage."

a lot more people have heard of plato and the current and former pope than the sophists of ancient greece. this thread and forum are genuinely new things in the history of human discourse.

and quite a few posters here probably feel they are exactly who plato was talking about when he said "The sun ... not only furnishes to visibles the power of visibility but it also provides for their generation and growth and nurture though it is not itself generation. ... In like manner, then ... the objects of knowledge not only receive from the presence of the good their being known, but their very existence and essence is derived to them from it, though the good itself is not essence but still transcends essence in dignity and surpassing power."

thanks to wikipedia btw, im not quoting from memory...


----------



## 16412

eagle2250 said:


> Not meaning to be argumentative but, I have visited SF, in specific search of these meaty cyber-dialogues/exchanges pertaining to the proper wear of classic/high-end clothing; quality/style/value debates; and quite frankly, have been unable to find them. Again, not meaning to throw stones at another website, but, fully intending to plagiarize those old Burger King commercials, "where's the beef?"


There are certain names you look for. Iammatt, Manton, Dopey, etc. Look for threads they post in.


----------



## 16412

DocHolliday said:


> I'm one of those unhappy with the current state of affairs, but I'm also extremely cheap. As such, I don't think the problem here is one of price tag. One of the great passtimes over at SF is the hunt for high-dollar clothing at a fraction of retail. Discussion of bespoke mixes with talk about the latest thrift-store finds. In fact, the thrift thread is one of the longest on the men's clothing forum.
> 
> On SF, there is a lively ongoing debate --bordering on fetish -- about what represents good value for money, but I don't see that so much on AA. Here, there's far less interest in bargain hunting, far less interest in higher-end men's clothing, far less interest in bespoke. As such, the discussion is narrowed greatly. It's to the point, I would suggest, that efforts to discuss topics outside a certain narrow niche are doomed to failure. That does not seem at all beneficial to the long-term health of the forum.


It used to be that way here, too. Some of the deals and discounts I've seen here in the long past were increditable. But those people don't post here anymore.


----------



## Orgetorix

I know this is the just about the only thread I've paid attention to this week.


----------



## Lucky Strike

Orgetorix said:


> I know this is the just about the only thread I've paid attention to this week.


It's one of the few threads here I've paid much attention to, ever. (I sort of started out on SF and got used to the format and the tone there.) I generally only check in here if something on AAAC is linked on the other message-boards.


----------



## jamgood

OK
20K
G'day


----------



## David V

DocHolliday said:


> I'm one of those unhappy with the current state of affairs, but I'm also extremely cheap. As such, I don't think the problem here is one of price tag. One of the great passtimes over at SF is the hunt for high-dollar clothing at a fraction of retail. Discussion of bespoke mixes with talk about the latest thrift-store finds. In fact, the thrift thread is one of the longest on the men's clothing forum.
> 
> On SF, there is a lively ongoing debate --bordering on fetish -- about what represents good value for money, but I don't see that so much on AA. Here, there's far less interest in bargain hunting, far less interest in higher-end men's clothing, far less interest in bespoke. As such, the discussion is narrowed greatly. It's to the point, I would suggest, that efforts to discuss topics outside a certain narrow niche are doomed to failure. That does not seem at all beneficial to the long-term health of the forum.


I think you will find that over at SF those post few and very far between. There has been more grass is greener talk about SF than I can remember.


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks

Look, post what you want to post about. If a post is not to your liking then don't reply. If the subject matter at SF is more to your liking, then spend the majority of your time there. I may wind up there myself in the future but for the time being I'm still in the learning phase and there's plenty to keep me occupied here.

I have a mind of my own and I value these fora for information and opinions, whether I agree with them or not. If I think a thread has been "hijacked" or fallen victim to trolls I simply quit reading/posting in it.

If you lament that this site has lost some "former greatness" then either leave or try to improve it. And I know that's exactly what some are trying to do in this topic but I'm amazed and amused at how long this thread has gone on. Add to the wheat and discourage the chaff - ignore the trolls and bring your contributions from your highest ideals and philosophy of the sartorial arts for the benefit of us all. Especially me.


----------



## DocHolliday

David V said:


> I think you will find that over at SF those post few and very far between. There has been more grass is greener talk about SF than I can remember.


I and several other people clearly disagree. There's been more discussion of bespoke at SF in the last month than in the last six here. The bespoke tragedies thread at SF was fascinating, both in a car-wreck sense and in an instructional sense. The best thread here of late was Jeffryd's explanation of suit construction, but his follow-up thread ended up on SF.

Ultimately, though, I don't mean to pose this as a competition between SF and AA. I'd like to see both succeed. I'm most troubled by AA's current state not when I compare it with SF, but when I compare it with what it used to be.


----------



## JLibourel

DocHolliday said:


> Ultimately, though, I don't mean to pose this as a competition between SF and AA. I'd like to see both succeed. I'm most troubled by AA's current state not when I compare it with SF, but when I compare it with what it used to be.


Well said, Doc. I used to enjoy and participate in both fora since soon after I discovered them, but I always preferred and was more active in AAAC. This is obviously no longer the case.


----------



## jamgood

Excepting libbie's chronic vendetta, appears the prodigals came galloping over here, man-crush minions in tow, out of boredom with their own incestious clique-chatter and with malignant intent. Perhaps the locals are losing interest in the sty's "heavy hitters". Weren't coincidental they loitered these parts briefly before zeroing in with an attempted bully session on ol' takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'. (Reminiscent of comedic movie pile-ons in which the object crawls from beneath and walks away.) Wisdom and discernment were not required to detect that disingenuous altruistic-motivation horse hockey espoused by the invading F Troop.

Genesis > incubation > promotion > novelty > growth > plateau, been there, done that maturity > reinventive resuscitation, not retrogression, or decline to complete the bell curve

Brands, trendy restaurants, shopping malls, fashions......

(If allusions are elusive that's the reader's problem. Biassociation ain't everyones forte.)

There's a perceived plateau here and there will always be some dissolution replaced by new members, until. 

It's happening here and SF's time will come, if not already. The other places also.

Am personally puzzled by the inclination to condescend to "noobies" with a snide remark to search the archives. That's all well and good, but time consuming. Carried to its logical conclusion, reference to the information on the AndyDisc, home page features and archives would leave the forums as relative ghost towns with few queries. There really ain't much new and we're in an unstable economy, which doesn't help. Real world distractions and apprehension. 

This was a lemonade stand which has evolved into a mall. It's a big tent. It needs new blood because most maturing members have satiated their interest and will either seek novelty and stimulation elsewhere or pursue other interests. It takes a panty waist, swagger though he will, to whine that he doesn't grace these premises because of one prodigious poster who doesn't share apparel aesthetics or spending predisposition. AAAC is now a commercial enterprise with a target market not particularly interested in 18th century Hapsburgian Court attire. Or for that matter arcane bespoke tailors, interesting as that may be. Such niche subjects have their place but are of little relevance to the typical contemporary viewer. Elitism intimidates participation here, the entity is more financially viable without its dominance. Wherever they roost a small coterie will just chatter amongst themselves anyway. The "elite" on some fora are merely vulgar jerks in expensive threads, perchance disproportinately expensive to their net worth. Yeah, this site needs more purported umbrella-clergymen with belligerent rampant middle finger avatars (class), an obscure nod to the conspiratorialists at Blaxploitation Movie Fan.

Andy's papa here. He and his consigliere declare anethema, be that me or thee. And the powers that be will act in their pecuniary self interest, not that of the dearly departed dapper dozen snarkettes. 

Hello Kittie!


----------



## DocHolliday

Aside from the tedious and unnecessary namecalling (rather hypocritical, in its context), you make some good points, Jam. Forums do tend to cycle through phases. Perhaps AA's star will once again start to rise, just as it did previously. But I don't see how trying to make that happen sooner rather than later is a negative. 

I agree about the eagerness to shoot down questions from newcomers, even as the forum recasts itself as a destination for newcomers. The archives are lovely, but they're essentially dead things, insects trapped in amber. A great resource for the museum but not so effective at exciting the first-time visitors. To my way of thinking, AA should be a lively discussion, rather than a reference book -- especially considering how many of the authors of those much-vaunted archives have since departed. They were handy when they were here, and their work is our best asset, but now we're better off without them. Or so the argument seems to go.

As for the financial interest aspect, I'll leave that alone, other than to say that I'd shut up if Andy came along and said "This is the direction we've chosen for the forum." Perhaps it's been said without so many words, but I've never been one for nuance or subtlety.


----------



## Acct2000

Why is it up to an elite group of posters to decide whether or not "Andy's Star is rising?


----------



## Peak and Pine

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Why is it up to an elite group of posters to decide whether or not "Andy's Star is rising?


It's not, although I bet they relish your moniker of _elite_.​


PinkPlaidSocks said:


> Look, post what you want to post about. If a post is not to your liking then don't reply. If the subject matter at SF is more to your liking, then spend the majority of your time there.
> 
> I have a mind of my own and I value these fora for information and opinions, whether I agree with them or not. If I think a thread has been "hijacked" or fallen victim to trolls I simply quit reading/posting in it.
> 
> If you lament that this site has lost some "former greatness" then either leave or try to improve it.


I like you.​


----------



## eagle2250

mack11211 said:


> It's there.
> 
> Look harder.





WA said:


> There are certain names you look for. Iammatt, Manton, Dopey, etc. Look for threads they post in.


Just an update...I'm still looking (under every rock!) for those meaty entries/posts on SF pertaining to the proper wear of fine/classic clothing. There are a couple posts by Dopey that were indeed informative and one rather riveting entry in which J Libourel commented as to the attractiveness of a young lady and referenced his past ability to encourage such to "clutch her pillow!" While I think I may have watched that movie, unless we're talking of pajamas, it may have missed the focus of our present conversation(?)! 

I have also pulled out my copy of Manton's book, The Suit and am reading it for the third time...what a great piece of work. It is both entertaining and informative. I really do wish he would write and publish another book.


----------



## Wayfarer

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Why is it up to an elite group of posters to decide whether or not "Andy's Star is rising?


FB2K:

No group of posters shall "decide" anything. There is no group of elites, sitting around a granite conference table, surrounded by richly paneled walls, with sweeping views of the mountains, making decisions. However, what we have in play, is the typical 80/20 type rule.

80% of your posts are going to come from 20% of your members. The other 80% of members are coming just to read what the 20% have to say, and make the occasional post of their own. So while a formal group of "elites" never meets or makes a decision, if the atmosphere is such that this 20% or so find it more attractive elsewhere, you are left with your (relatively) non-posing 80%. Some (many) of these 80% will drift away too, as the reason they came, the posting 20%, have more or less moved on. A new crop of 20%'ers will come along, and in this case, it was headed up by Cruiser.

So I do not think your question quite nails the subject. I agree with many people above, that the power structure really decides, whom it will encourage or discourage from posting. Pick your opinion makers, encourage or discourage them as you will, and that is how the fate of the board, or any board, gets decided IMO. I think there is a general consensus on the current king of opinion makers is here.


----------



## Rossini

I must agree with Wayfarer and Doc in their recent posts. The forum is, and becomes, what the prevalent members make of it. What we have here is a bunch of regular posters who are not happy with it has become in recent times and they no longer feel comfortable here. The silence from the top basically tells us that there are other motivations at play (as has been hinted at) and that, basically, this concern is less important to "AAAC" in the wider scheme of things. And so, these posters move on and the forum changes, if not for the better to our eyes, but trades on the knowledge they have contributed heretofore.

On other posts here, I am put in mind of the great C. J. who might have said, I didn't get where I am today by not recognizing deliberately oblique self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectual adolescent jibber-jabber when I see it!


----------



## Wyvern1138

Wayfarer said:


> FB2K:
> 
> No group of posters shall "decide" anything. There is no group of elites, sitting around a granite conference table, surrounded by richly paneled walls, with sweeping views of the mountains, making decisions. However, what we have in play, is the typical 80/20 type rule.
> 
> 80% of your posts are going to come from 20% of your members. The other 80% of members are coming just to read what the 20% have to say, and make the occasional post of their own. So while a formal group of "elites" never meets or makes a decision, if the atmosphere is such that this 20% or so find it more attractive elsewhere, you are left with your (relatively) non-posing 80%. Some (many) of these 80% will drift away too, as the reason they came, the posting 20%, have more or less moved on. A new crop of 20%'ers will come along, and in this case, it was headed up by Cruiser.
> 
> So I do not think your question quite nails the subject. I agree with many people above, that the power structure really decides, whom it will encourage or discourage from posting. Pick your opinion makers, encourage or discourage them as you will, and that is how the fate of the board, or any board, gets decided IMO. I think there is a general consensus on the current king of opinion makers is here.


Is this an example of the Iron Law of Oligarchy?

I read through much of this thread on Saturday, and was struck by how much of the debate could apply to broader questions of philosophy, political philosophy in particular. Case in point, what do you when the old elite you respected gives way to a new one with which you don't see eye-to-eye?


----------



## MrRogers

21 pages and not a peep from Alex or Andy??? A few posters commented on how their may be incongruent views on the current state of things, but I'm beginning to think neither of them really care. 

MrR


----------



## 16412

eagle2250 said:


> Just an update...I'm still looking (under every rock!) for those meaty entries/posts on SF pertaining to the proper wear of fine/classic clothing. There are a couple posts by Dopey that were indeed informative and one rather riveting entry in which J Libourel commented as to the attractiveness of a young lady and referenced his past ability to encourage such to "clutch her pillow!" While I think I may have watched that movie, unless we're talking of pajamas, it may have missed the focus of our present conversation(?)!
> 
> I have also pulled out my copy of Manton's book, The Suit and am reading it for the third time...what a great piece of work. It is both entertaining and informative. I really do wish he would write and publish another book.


There are maybe 20 names worth reading. Lot of chitter chatter among them, nowadays. But if you post good questions you will get good answers mixed in with the chitter chatter. LL is a good place to look, too.

Have the book and read a little bit of it. Some of the knowledge comes from tailors who have pasted on how to make people look good. A few of these I have heard in the early 60s. If you go to a good tailor some of the "rules" don't apply because of the skill of the tailor. Your personality contributes enormouly to whether you look not good, ok, or great in some fashions (there are actually three words that governer clothes - fashion, style and taste (I have been thinking about posting what these are and how they work with each other). Some colors or patterns you may not wear well until you find some character within you that goes with it. Some tailors craftmanship is so awesome that you won't notice that maybe the cut should be different. Perhaps most tailors do most of the finish press job on the flat, but when you see the jackets that are pressed on curves the jacket fits better and moves with the wearer better. The cloth being "set" on the flat by a hot iron creates resistance to bend and flow. Some of the old tailors made their own tailors ham so they could create the shape they wanted with there fist or knee or arm or something else underneath the ham. Tailor hams you buy are usually stuffed with sawdust, so you are stuck with that shape. There is a lot of art that can be created with a tailors ham and a heavy hot iron and the flat cloth that was now fits the curves of the person. No doubt some shapeing is done on the flat, but not all of it will be by the best. Sewing skills and methods make a difference. Cutting and fitting...

Before the hippies took over there were many suits, sportscoats and blazers to be seen. Everybody wore their Sunday Best at Church and many people went to Church. Even the athist kids at school knew what is between the covers of the Bible, whereas today, I read most kids know nothing. The Churches I went to taught that God demanded you wear your best clothes to Church. The hippies came and Churches abandoned that teaching. Today suits, sportscoats and blazers are rather rare. I think the children and grandchildren of the hippies are seeing the value of suits, sportscoats and blazers. There is a place for most types of clothes.

Manton wanted a book with pictures or illustrations. Perhaps he will get the opportunity.


----------



## yachtie

jamgood said:


> Am personally puzzled by the inclination to condescend to "noobies" with a snide remark to search the archives. That's all well and good, but time consuming. Carried to its logical conclusion, reference to the information on the AndyDisc, home page features and archives would leave the forums as relative ghost towns with few queries. There really ain't much new and we're in an unstable economy, which doesn't help. Real world distractions and apprehension.


I don't think that's fair. I've answered noob questions as well as Sator, Manton, Doc H, iammatt and the other ex-pats. Opinions differ, and that's what makes a forum exciting; but there's been an awful lot of " it doesn't make any difference" or "how dare you criticise my choices" etc. from people who don't know much and don't want their horizons expanded either. If that's where this forum wants to go, so be it, but that's the explanation as to why so many have left. There's more to life, folks, than black sportcoats worn with jeans and Converse Hi-tops- but you can't point that out without being pegged a snob. Sorry- some looks are by their nature sloppy and a sad attempt to hold onto a spent youth. I guess pointing out that adults should dress like adults is too much for some.


----------



## Wayfarer

yachtie said:


> I don't think that's fair. I've answered noob questions as well as Sator, Manton, Doc H, iammatt and the other ex-pats. Opinions differ, and that's what makes a forum exciting; but there's been an awful lot of " it doesn't make any difference" or "how dare you criticise my choices" etc. from people who don't know much and don't want their horizons expanded either. If that's where this forum wants to go, so be it, but that's the explanation as to why so many have left. There's more to life, folks, than black sportcoats worn with jeans and Converse Hi-tops- but you can't point that out without being pegged a snob. *Sorry- some looks are by their nature sloppy and a sad attempt to hold onto a spent youth. I guess pointing out that adults should dress like adults is too much for some.*


We have contrary opinions to that concept: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=814776&postcount=7


----------



## Peak and Pine

yachtie said:


> There's more to life, folks, than black sportcoats worn with jeans and Converse Hi-tops- but you can't point that out without being pegged a snob.


Do I have to be wearing the outfit you mention in order to peg you a snob, or can I do it dressed the way I am? ​


----------



## yachtie

Peak and Pine said:


> Do I have to be wearing the outfit you mention in order to peg you a snob, or can I do it dressed the way I am? ​


Two choices- that or a burlap sack. Else, you're a member of the effete overloards of sartorialism and out of luck. Welcome to the dark side, boy.

Edit: Since you're a Mainer, you can wear jeans and flannel shirts.


----------



## Peak and Pine

yachtie said:


> Welcome to the dark side, boy.
> Since you're a Mainer, you can wear jeans and flannel shirts.


Only in bed. (Ain't got no stove.) When up, am in flannel-lined tweeds, Pendletons, Bean boots and such. Would make you proud, as it does my mama.​


----------



## jamgood

yachtie said:


> I don't think that's fair. I've answered noob questions as well as Sator, Manton, Doc H, iammatt and the other ex-pats. Opinions differ, and that's what makes a forum exciting; but there's been an awful lot of " it doesn't make any difference" or "how dare you criticise my choices" etc. from people who don't know much and don't want their horizons expanded either. If that's where this forum wants to go, so be it, but that's the explanation as to why so many have left. There's more to life, folks, than black sportcoats worn with jeans and Converse Hi-tops- but you can't point that out without being pegged a snob. Sorry- some looks are by their nature sloppy and a sad attempt to hold onto a spent youth. I guess pointing out that adults should dress like adults is too much for some.


That comment references no specific personnae. It's an abstract generalization of fora observations of impatience in a separate paragraph, apparently intrepreted personally. No snowball was lobbed at you or the discerning few. I think the attire you describe is the typical raiment of a relatively recent influx from that other place. You know, the sartorial Valhalla.


----------



## jamgood

Rossini said:


> On other posts here, I am put in mind of the great C. J. who might have said, I didn't get where I am today by not recognizing deliberately oblique self-aggrandizing pseudo-intellectual adolescent jibber-jabber when I see it!


Don't be so harsh on him.


----------



## JLibourel

jamgood said:


> It takes a panty waist, swagger though he will, to whine that he doesn't grace these premises because of one prodigious poster who doesn't share apparel aesthetics or spending predisposition.


I caught this little personal dig amidst your turgid and murky prose, O Raider of the Lost Thesaurus. The reason you allege is NOT why I ceased participation. It had nothing to do with "apparel aesthetics or spending predisposition." It was a protest against inconsistent, favoritistic moderation. As to calling someone a "pantywaist," at least I have always had the guts to use my own name because I am personally willing to stand behind what I say. I have made it clear who I am and what I do. Anyone who wants to find out where I work can do so in a few seconds, hence can easily find me in the flesh. If somebody took sufficient umbrage at my posts, he could easily show up and beat the stuffing out of me or even gun me down. It seems to me that that is a good deal less "pantywaist-ish" than the customary forum practice of tossing out snarky insults secure under the protective cloak of a pseudonym. Right, "jamgood"?


----------



## gnatty8

Wayfarer said:


> We have contrary opinions to that concept: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=814776&postcount=7


Ah, thanks for the reminder for that train wreck WF, always a pleasure reading it again.. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Falconboy

A long time ago, I'm pretty sure, JLibourel used to come into an ice cream shop where I used to work. He came just about every day and ordered a Jamocha shake [or was it a malt?].

I used to despise him for that in spite of the fact that even at that tender age I was learning from his writings in various publications.

And now, older, not much wiser I have found his postings in this and other forums to be incredibly informative and useful.

My contempt, borne of serving him, has become an esteemed reverence borne of learning from him.

I hope the malteds passed muster. Who am I kidding... He would have told me if they hadn't.

Thank you, Sir.


----------



## Orsini

This has been useful in bringing out some of that wolf pack we heard about...


----------



## JLibourel

Falconboy said:


> A long time ago, I'm pretty sure, JLibourel used to come into an ice cream shop where I used to work. He came just about every day and ordered a Jamocha shake [or was it a malt?].
> 
> I used to despise him for that in spite of the fact that even at that tender age I was learning from his writings in various publications.
> 
> And now, older, not much wiser I have found his postings in this and other forums to be incredibly informative and useful.
> 
> My contempt, borne of serving him, has become an esteemed reverence borne of learning from him.
> 
> I hope the malteds passed muster. Who am I kidding... He would have told me if they hadn't.
> 
> Thank you, Sir.


That must have been me all right. I do think "every day" is a bit of an exaggeration--a couple of times a week, maybe. I presume you are referring to the Larchmont Baskin-Robbins. There was also one up in Burbank I patronized occasionally when I lived up that way. My customary order was a "large Jamoca malt with chocolate syrup."

Why did you despise me for consuming the products you were dispensing? I thought they were right tasty! Thanks for the kind words now. I appreciate them.


----------



## Falconboy

Larchmont - I forgot about the syrup (again). 

I despised you because:
1) I was Seventeen
2) You seemed very particular anddemanding
3) I was 17 and you were very particular and demanding

Don't get me wrong, you were not a bad customer and certainly infinitely better than the cocky 12 year olds that thought it was fun to torment the counter guy. I was a bad kid.


----------



## David V

Falconboy said:


> Larchmont - I forgot about the syrup (again).
> 
> I despised you because:
> 1) I was Seventeen
> 2) You seemed very particular anddemanding
> 3) I was 17 and you were very particular and demanding
> 
> .


See. He had perfectly good reasons...being 17 and all.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan

WA said:


> The Churches I went to taught that God demanded you wear your best clothes to Church.


Oh dear. Hasn't God anything better to do?


----------



## JLibourel

Falconboy said:


> Larchmont - I forgot about the syrup (again).
> 
> I despised you because:
> 1) I was Seventeen
> 2) You seemed very particular anddemanding
> 3) I was 17 and you were very particular and demanding
> 
> Don't get me wrong, you were not a bad customer and certainly infinitely better than the cocky 12 year olds that thought it was fun to torment the counter guy. I was a bad kid.


Fun memories! You should have mentioned you were reading my stuff. It would have made my day! Were you working for that German couple? I can't remember when they sold the place--late '80s or very early '90s, I think.

I never thought I was especially particular and demanding. How particular can you be when ordering a "large Jamoca malt with chocolate syrup"? The only thing I can recall "demanding" was if more of the malt had been made than would fit in the container, I'd ask for the overflow in one of those little plastic cups.

It's been ages since I have even set foot in a Baskin-Robbins. Gotta watch the ol' cholesterol these days...and the waistline!


----------



## Acct2000

Isn't it cool when you have something from the past come back like this??


----------



## Falconboy

I worked for the asian family in the late 80s.

I think you asked me for extra malt powder - *once*. Or maybe it was syrup. Whatever. You were labeled, regardless, and in spite of your work for <popular mag>. Jeebus, that was 20 years ago.

Was your B&R in Burbank the one on Magnolia, Buena Vista or Hollywood Way? I live near one in Burbank now. I like to go and torment the counter guys.

Anyhow, your contributions to this forum have been a great resource. It would be nice if this kerfuffle resolved itself to where you could contribute again. But I thouroughly understand your and your compatriot's points of view and can't say as I necessarily disagree with your well articulated observations.


----------



## DocHolliday

This thread makes me really want a German chocolate malt.


----------



## Franko

DocHolliday said:


> This thread makes me really want a German chocolate malt.


Ah, the Dinklakker Budapester, with cream double caps.

F.


----------



## JLibourel

Falconboy said:


> I worked for the asian family in the late 80s.
> 
> I think you asked me for extra malt powder - *once*. Or maybe it was syrup. Whatever. You were labeled, regardless, and in spite of your work for <popular mag>. Jeebus, that was 20 years ago.
> 
> Was your B&R in Burbank the one on Magnolia, Buena Vista or Hollywood Way? I live near one in Burbank now. I like to go and torment the counter guys.
> 
> Anyhow, your contributions to this forum have been a great resource. It would be nice if this kerfuffle resolved itself to where you could contribute again. But I thouroughly understand your and your compatriot's points of view and can't say as I necessarily disagree with your well articulated observations.


Oh dear, one minor request and labelled for life!

The B-R in Burbank was on Glenoaks just west of Alameda. I'm not sure it's still there. I was living in the apartment complex at 434 Elmwood. I partly chose that locale because of its proximity to King's Gun Works.

Once again, thanks for your too-kind words.


----------



## 16412

Arnold Gingrich fan said:


> Oh dear. Hasn't God anything better to do?


Just telling it like it was when I was a kid.

Sounds like you have never been in a Church unless it was one where even the pastor fell a sleep while preaching.


----------



## Rope

Variety is the spice of life even for narrow-minded eccentrics that only like to wear blue cashmere blazers all winter so in addition to a 2-button, side-vent, kissing-button blazer and a 3-button, side-vent, waterfall-button blazer I have a 3-roll-2 center-vent, waterfall-button blazer plus I really like the 3-roll-2; no reason necessary.


----------



## Peak and Pine

What are kissing-buttons and waterfall-buttons?​


----------



## windsor

WA said:


> Just telling it like it was when I was a kid.
> 
> Sounds like you have never been in a Church unless it was one where even the pastor fell a sleep while preaching.


There was in the past and may be today in some churches, the concept of bringing your best before God. I think this may be the underlying reason that people attending a worship service dressed up. There is much in the Old Testament about using only the best animals for sacrifice etc. There seems to be a trend against dressing for any occasion, but rather dressing for oneself.


----------



## Cruiser

windsor said:


> There was in the past and may be today in some churches, the concept of bringing your best before God. I think this may be the underlying reason that people attending a worship service dressed up.


The problem was that going to Church started to turn into a fashion show, especially with the women. I remember back in the 50's when people started trying to outdress each other with the result being that those members who were less well off began to be uncomfortable in their presence.

I still remember that Sunday morning when one of the less fortunate members of the congregation wore the "best" he had, an orphaned suit coat with another pair of pants. Some of the guys were poking fun at him and he was unaware of what he had even done wrong. In effect they were laughing at the poor guy.

The more casual mode of dress tends to blur socio-economic standing and allows for more equal footing. The desired result is greater attendance which I think it has achieved; however, just as with the "overdressing" in times past now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. There needs to be a happy medium between overdressing for a fashion show and looking like you just got out of bed or came in from the factory.

Cruiser


----------



## gnatty8

Cruiser said:


> The problem was that going to Church started to turn into a fashion show, especially with the women. *I remember back in the 50's *when people started trying to outdress each other with the result being that those members who were less well off began to be uncomfortable in their presence.
> Cruiser


For a man of 59, that's some memory you've got there.. :devil:


----------



## Wyvern1138

If I wore by best suit to Mass, Fr. might draw some unfavorable conclusions about my financial contributions to the parish. 

Plus, I might be mistaken for a greeter, since most of the time, no one else wears a suit. I don't know if it's a Midwestern/Chicago thing, a Catholic thing, or just having a lot of college students and younger families in the parish, but most members don't dress at all. Coat, and maybe a tie for Holy Days only. 

Before I started going to a Catholic parish, I tried out an Epriscopalian one for a few months. The Parishions were a little more dressy, but very few coats and ties. The only Mass I've attended where coat and tie was predominant was an Anglican Catholic one, and that was during Lent, IIRC.


----------



## Cruiser

gnatty8 said:


> For a man of 59, that's some memory you've got there..


It doesn't seem unusual to me. I would think that many folks have childhood memories. I can still remember that first day of school in 1955 like it was yesterday. I even remember what I wore to school that day. I remember the air raid drills when we would get in the basement. I remember getting my first real bike in 1956, it was a red Western Flyer.

What stood out about church was the hats that the women wore. They seemed to get bigger and more elaborate by the week. I was only aware of this competitive nature among them by listening to what the adults were saying.

So I ask, why do you think it's so unusual to remember things from childhood? Actually I don't think that you think that at all.

Cruiser


----------



## Wyvern1138

On 3-roll-2 in general, it's actually my favorite style. Out of 7 suits and 5 odd jackets, I have 2 suits with 3-button sack jackets, a 3-button sack blazer, and one suit with a 3-roll-2 darted jacket.

I think that, with rlatively open quarters, it visually gives a coat more balance than a 2 button, and gives the lapel a better roll than either a 2 button or high roll 3-button. Plus, it just has an old fashioned charm and is subtle enough that it's only only likely to be noticed and recognized by people with whom I might share common tastes.


----------



## gnatty8

Cruiser said:


> It doesn't seem unusual to me. I would think that many folks have childhood memories. I can still remember that first day of school in 1955 like it was yesterday. I even remember what I wore to school that day. I remember the air raid drills when we would get in the basement. I remember getting my first real bike in 1956, it was a red Western Flyer.
> 
> What stood out about church was the hats that the women wore. They seemed to get bigger and more elaborate by the week. I was only aware of this competitive nature among them by listening to what the adults were saying.
> 
> So I ask, why do you think it's so unusual to remember things from childhood? Actually I don't think that you think that at all.
> 
> Cruiser


I am a bit younger than you, and I just don't have vivid memories at all about what people were wearing to church when I was a child.. I might remember roller coasters, or hearing the Bee Gees on the radio, or first communion, but certainly not things like what strangers, or even my father, would have been wearing at the time. Memorable events are retained, but seriously, what people were wearing to church when you were 5, 6, or 7 years old? Seems a bit of a stretch is all..


----------



## Cruiser

gnatty8 said:


> but seriously, what people were wearing to church when you were 5, 6, or 7 years old? Seems a bit of a stretch is all..


Perhaps you are being a little ethnocentric. I grew up in an upper lower working class community in the South where I, along with most of my friends, wore the same thing to Church every Sunday. We called them our "Sunday clothes". Most of us had one sport coat, one pair of dress pants, one dress shirt, one neck tie, and one pair of dress shoes (commonly referred to as "Sunday shoes") which were often hand me downs. Some of the kid's families were on welfare and they wore fairly shabby clothing.

Anybody that had more than one set of Sunday clothes definitely stood out. Some of the people who made Church a fashion show had more than the others and didn't hesitate to flaunt it. A few of the ones who had very little would spend money they didn't have trying to keep up. Even as a child I felt bad sitting in Sunday School class with someone who not only had different clothes to wear every week but also had nice clothes that fit properly. Meanwhile I sat there with cardboard stuffed in my shoes to cover the holes in the soles.

So perhaps remembering the class warfare in Church is a stretch to you. It isn't to me because many of those memories are quite painful. Public school was just as bad. You have your memories and I have mine.

Cruiser


----------



## gnatty8

Maybe. There wasn't much class warfare at my Catholic church, only warfare directed at non-Catholics.. :devil:


----------



## windsor

Cruiser said:


> The problem was that going to Church started to turn into a fashion show, especially with the women. I remember back in the 50's when people started trying to outdress each other with the result being that those members who were less well off began to be uncomfortable in their presence.
> 
> I still remember that Sunday morning when one of the less fortunate members of the congregation wore the "best" he had, an orphaned suit coat with another pair of pants. Some of the guys were poking fun at him and he was unaware of what he had even done wrong. In effect they were laughing at the poor guy.
> 
> The more casual mode of dress tends to blur socio-economic standing and allows for more equal footing. The desired result is greater attendance which I think it has achieved; however, just as with the "overdressing" in times past now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. There needs to be a happy medium between overdressing for a fashion show and looking like you just got out of bed or came in from the factory.
> 
> Cruiser


The casual mode may be blurring socio economic lines in the sanctuary, but they seem to reappear in the parking lot. I haven't noticed a "dressing down" phenomena in the cars purchased or driven to church. I believe that the last time I looked up the statistics in an almanac, it showed that mainline Protestant congregations were at their peak membership in the fifties and have been on a decline since then. Correlation does not prove causation and I'm not suggesting clothes had anything to do with that. It was a different time and people got "dressed up" to go "down town" to shop. Women put on hats and white gloves, for church and shopping. For womens fashions it was the age of Chanel.(I think)


----------



## Cruiser

windsor said:


> The casual mode may be blurring socio economic lines in the sanctuary, but they seem to reappear in the parking lot. I haven't noticed a "dressing down" phenomena in the cars purchased or driven to church. I believe that the last time I looked up the statistics in an almanac, it showed that mainline Protestant congregations were at their peak membership in the fifties and have been on a decline since then. Correlation does not prove causation and I'm not suggesting clothes had anything to do with that. It was a different time and people got "dressed up" to go "down town" to shop. Women put on hats and white gloves, for church and shopping. For womens fashions it was the age of Chanel.(I think)


I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of what you say. I think where Church attendance differed is that this is a purely voluntary act where one is put in direct association and interaction with others and I think many felt uncomfortable in not being able to keep up with the Jones'. And even worse were those who clearly couldn't keep up with the Jones' but still tried with money they didn't have.

And I'm certainly not denying that the counter-culture movement of the late '60's-early 70's wasn't a huge factor. After that Churches were doing whatever they could to bring those folks back into the fold. Being accepting of more casual dress was just one of those things.

This discussion reminds me of guys like Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings. Those guys tried for years to make it in the music business with limited success, all the while wearing suits and ties. Then they put on some jeans, grew long hair and beards and look what happened. They became superstars, but they were still the same people as before. This phenomenon was not lost on the established Churches.

Cruiser


----------



## Wyvern1138

Cruiser said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with you on any of what you say. I think where Church attendance differed is that this is a purely voluntary act where one is put in direct association and interaction with others and I think many felt uncomfortable in not being able to keep up with the Jones'. And even worse were those who clearly couldn't keep up with the Jones' but still tried with money they didn't have.
> 
> Cruiser


Maybe I'm missing something here (perhaps to the extent I come from the high church/litugucal side of the faith) but as I preveiously alluded, if anyone has cause to be uncomfortable in a Christian cogregation, it should be the more prosperous parishioners.


----------



## gnatty8

Cruiser said:


> This discussion reminds me of guys like Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings. Those guys tried for years to make it in the music business with limited success, all the while wearing suits and ties. Then they put on some jeans, grew long hair and beards and look what happened. They became superstars, but they were still the same people as before. This phenomenon was not lost on the established Churches.
> 
> Cruiser


The power of denim! Perhaps if I shuck my navy suits for denim, throw my razor away, and lose the phone number of my hair stylist, I can become President of the good old U.S. of A!!


----------



## Cruiser

gnatty8 said:


> The power of denim! Perhaps if I shuck my navy suits for denim, throw my razor away, and lose the phone number of my hair stylist, I can become President of the good old U.S. of A!!


Denim wasn't the issue. Please try to think a little deeper when looking at an analogy. The subject of the analogy was the increasing acceptance of all things more casual and less formal brought on, in part, by the counter-culture of the late '60's. People, such as Willie and Waylon, along with institutions, such as Churches, started to tap into this changing culture as a means of survival.

Speaking of becoming President, just look at the last campaign. How often did the candidates appear in public dressed down in a way that would not generally have been seen prior to the societal standards of today, standards that trace their roots back to the '60's. These guys are adapting to the world around them because the world isn't likely to adapt to them.

I'm not expressing an opinion as to whether this is good or bad, only that it is. Successful people and instititions generally are those that acknowledge and adapt to change while still maintaining core values.

For example, the Tennessee Titans are an old school football team coached by an old school coach. Their fundemental philosophy is old school in every way, run the ball and play defense. But if you look deeper into their current 11-1 record you will find that despite their disdain for the modern day forward pass they won't hesitate to use it in abundance when needed.

In other words, no matter how much you may dislike something, only the foolish refuse to acknowledge the world around them and adapt to it. You don't have to embrace everything or change your core values; but you rarely win when you cut your nose off to spite your face or even worse, stick your head in the sand.

Cruiser


----------



## Rossini

Well, for the highest of offices, perhaps it would require a black denim suit comprising an OTR jacket but bespoke trousers.


----------



## JLibourel

Cruiser said:


> Perhaps you are being a little ethnocentric. I grew up in an upper lower working class community in the South where I, along with most of my friends, wore the same thing to Church every Sunday. We called them our "Sunday clothes". Most of us had one sport coat, one pair of dress pants, one dress shirt, one neck tie, and one pair of dress shoes (commonly referred to as "Sunday shoes") which were often hand me downs. Some of the kid's families were on welfare and they wore fairly shabby clothing.
> 
> Anybody that had more than one set of Sunday clothes definitely stood out. Some of the people who made Church a fashion show had more than the others and didn't hesitate to flaunt it. A few of the ones who had very little would spend money they didn't have trying to keep up. Even as a child I felt bad sitting in Sunday School class with someone who not only had different clothes to wear every week but also had nice clothes that fit properly. Meanwhile I sat there with cardboard stuffed in my shoes to cover the holes in the soles.
> 
> So perhaps remembering the class warfare in Church is a stretch to you. It isn't to me because many of those memories are quite painful. Public school was just as bad. You have your memories and I have mine.
> 
> Cruiser


Aw f'r chrissake, get out your violin, Snoozer! How many little kids in the '50s, which I should be able to remember a good deal better than you, had wardrobes of multiple jackets, suits, etc.? I sure as hell didn't. Nobody I knew did. I think most little kids--whatever their economic status--then, now or anytime in between, have at most one ensemble of dressy clothes. Given how quickly the little tykes outgrow their attire, very few parents are going to spring for multiple dressy ensembles. Your stories and your "painful memories" sound mighty implausible to me!


----------



## Cruiser

JLibourel said:


> Your stories and your "painful memories" sound mighty implausible to me!


Then put me on ignore so don't see them. But hey, before you do why don't you leave me a phone number where I can reach you. That way if I ever give a rat's behind how anything I say sounds to you I can call you and make sure that you are the first to know. But don't hold your breath.

Cruiser


----------



## JLibourel

^Oh no, Cruiser, I find you highly entertaining. As I have said before, you fill role of a villain in professional wrestling--The Man We Love to Hate!

Seriously, though, did you worry that much about clothes that much as little kid? Most kids don't care much about clothing. I was probably the poorest kid at two of the schools I went--yet I never fretted about my duds. I went off to prep school with two hand-me-down sport coats from my uncle. They seemed fine to me. I deemed myself well clad. If you did take clothes that seriously when you were little, perhaps your present egalitarian insouciance is a reaction to your earlier anxieties. Perhaps a bit of therapy would help you, my boy!


----------



## Rossini

Monday to Wednesday, presumably.


----------



## Patrick06790

Cruiser said:


> For example, the Tennessee Titans are an old school football team coached by an old school coach. Their fundemental philosophy is old school in every way, run the ball and play defense. But if you look deeper into their current 11-1 record you will find that despite their disdain for the modern day forward pass they won't hesitate to use it in abundance when needed.
> 
> In other words, no matter how much you may dislike something, only the foolish refuse to acknowledge the world around them and adapt to it. You don't have to embrace everything or change your core values; but you rarely win when you cut your nose off to spite your face or even worse, stick your head in the sand.
> 
> Cruiser


Bewildering, yet compellingly tedious.

I buried my nose in the sand after I cut it off. Then I went to watch a single-wing football team. You better not insult me, buster - that cannon points both ways. I'm cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. Selah.


----------



## Cruiser

Patrick06790 said:


> Then I went to watch a single-wing football team


Hey, I PLAYED on a single wing football team. I bet I can still diagram Buck 33. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Wayfarer

Well it took 23 pages, but glad to see Cruiser was finally able to take control of this thread too.


----------



## Cruiser

Rossini said:


> Monday to Wednesday, presumably.


:icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Rossini

Wayfarer said:


> Well it took 23 pages, but glad to see Cruiser was finally able to take control of this thread too.


Just when the thread was starting to peter out, too. Still I wonder, given a few careless recent posts, whether the mission might now be on self-destruct.


----------



## gnatty8

I posted some excellent pictures of some 3 roll 2 in another thread here, does that count?


----------



## Orsini

Wayfarer said:


> Well it took 23 pages, but glad to see Cruiser was finally able to take control of this thread too.


And he turned it around to blue jeans and class struggle, didn't he?


----------



## Wayfarer

Orsini said:


> And he turned it around to blue jeans and class struggle, didn't he?


Exactly what I was thinking. The word "relentless" comes to mind.


----------



## gnatty8

I am relentless in my mission to convert the 3 roll 2 doubters into believers..


----------



## Orsini

Wayfarer said:


> Exactly what I was thinking. The word "relentless" comes to mind.


Yes...relentless...

Hadn't seen you around much lately. I thought you'd been chased away...


----------



## Taliesin

Orsini said:


> And he turned it around to blue jeans and class struggle, didn't he?


Eureka! That's why this debate is so endlessly entertaining - it's like re-enacting college during the Cold War, with Cruiser playing the Campus Radical, heck-bent on taking down the Glee Club and their silly crested blazers. Elaine! Elaine!


----------



## Wayfarer

gnatty8 said:


> I am relentless in my mission to convert the 3 roll 2 doubters into believers..


:icon_hailthee:

Orsini: Not chased away. Just cut down my visits by choice.


----------



## jpeirpont

Is Crooz the James Dean of AAAC?


----------



## Taliesin

jpeirpont said:


> Is Crooz the James Dean of AAAC?


He's The Graduate. Rebel without a pause.


----------



## gnatty8

jpeirpont said:


> Is Crooz the James Dean of AAAC?


Interesting that this was post six hundred sixty six for you J:devil:


----------



## Rossini

I don't see the rebel analogy. Whereas most here are keen on expressing an interest in clothing (often but not always as against the tide of mindless mediocrity on the high street), the opposing view monotonously plugs anti-fashion warping every conversation, sucking the life out of the Board, and professing no real interest or passion in clothing. Surely such a passion should be a prerequisite to participate here.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

I have to agree with Cruiser on two counts. Firstly, 3 button jackets that roll to 2 are odd in absolute terms. Secondly, this a clothing discussion forum and not a master class.

And if Cruiser has driven away a lot of people then, from what I can see having had a glimpse of them on this thread, they were beastly little over-reaching snobs anyway; so good riddance.


----------



## Taliesin

Rossini said:


> I don't see the rebel analogy. Whereas most here are keen on expressing an interest in clothing (often but not always as against the tide of mindless mediocrity on the high street), the opposing view monotonously plugs anti-fashion warping every conversation, sucking the life out of the Board, and professing no real interest or passion in clothing. Surely such a passion should be a prerequisite to participate here.


That's what makes it so funny. It's the Boomer mentality, well past its expiration date. Jeans and untucked shirts are still 'hep' to those who haven't kept up with the times. It is ironic that Cruiser (and other similarly-situated Boomers throughout our culture) represents the status quo, indeed that his view is the conservative one, because it's still cast in outmoded denim-clad fantasies of sticking it to the squares.

Nowadays, the squares are the real rebels.


----------



## DocHolliday

Hector Freemantle said:


> And if Cruiser has driven away a lot of people then, from what I can see having had a glimpse of them on this thread, they were beastly little over-reaching snobs anyway; so good riddance.


You seem very charming yourself.


----------



## JLibourel

Hector Freemantle said:


> And if Cruiser has driven away a lot of people then, from what I can see having had a glimpse of them on this thread, they were beastly little over-reaching snobs anyway; so good riddance.


"Beastly over-reaching snob" I may well be. However, the adjective "little" has not been applied to me in a great many years. Perhaps if I hung out with NFL linemen matters would be different....


----------



## Hector Freemantle

DocHolliday said:


> You seem very charming yourself.


Thank you. Sadly, however, I am rarely charming. Thankfully, though, I do not wear 3 button rolled to 2 jackets, so at least my lack of charm is not compounded by looking unnecessarily ridiculous.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

JLibourel said:


> "Beastly over-reaching snob" I may well be. However, the adjective "little" has not been applied to me in a great many years.


So you were once a beastly little over-reaching snob? But did you also appear to be an odd one by wearing 3 button rolled to 2 jackets?


----------



## Wayfarer

Hector Freemantle said:


> Thankfully, though, I do not wear 3 button rolled to 2 jackets, so at least my lack of charm is not compounded by looking unnecessarily ridiculous.





Hector Freemantle said:


> So you were once a beastly little over-reaching snob? But did you also appear to be an odd one by wearing 3 button rolled to 2 jackets?


People telling Doc H he looks ridiculous and Jan that he's a "beastly little over-reaching snob"? What hath Cruiser wrought? It is this.

As I said, Cruiser finally got control of this thread too.


----------



## gnatty8

Hector Freemantle said:


> Thank you. Sadly, however, I am rarely charming. Thankfully, though, I do not wear 3 button rolled to 2 jackets, so at least my lack of charm is not compounded by looking unnecessarily ridiculous.


What *do* you wear? In fact, I don't recall seeing a serious post from you at all, much less pictures of anything you have worn.. Why are you so interested in this thread?

On the rest of your comments, I think it would be very difficult to look at the 3 roll 2 coats I have posted pictures of various places, most recently here, and not agree they are the epitome of well executed style and balance.. :aportnoy:


----------



## RJman

Wayfarer said:


> *People *telling Doc H he looks ridiculous and Jan that he's a "beastly little over-reaching snob"?


From Oman, no less.


----------



## Wayfarer

gnatty8 said:


> What *do* you wear? In fact, I don't recall seeing a serious post from you at all, much less pictures of anything you have worn.. Why are you so interested in this thread?
> 
> On the rest of your comments, I think it would be very difficult to look at the 3 roll 2 coats I have posted pictures of various places, most recently here, and not agree they are the epitome of well executed style and balance.. :aportnoy:


gnatty, you look excellent in all those photos. I particularly like the fourth one.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

gnatty8 said:


> ... I think it would be very difficult to look at the 3 roll 2 coats I have posted pictures of various places, most recently here, and not agree they are the epitome of well executed style and balance.. :aportnoy:


I'm afraid I don't agree. In all cases the 3 rolled to 2 coats look very odd. Did the dry cleaner get it wrong? Is there a stain being hidden? Does the wearer need a second hole to insert a bloom?

In contrast the blue blazer which is NOT a 3 rolled to 2 looks good. Here, one doesn't find oneself drawn to noticing other oddities and flaws as one does in the earlier snaps.


----------



## Wyvern1138

Hector Freemantle said:


> I'm afraid I don't agree. In all cases the 3 rolled to 2 coats look very odd. Did the dry cleaner get it wrong? Is there a stain being hidden? Does the wearer need a second hole to insert a bloom?
> 
> In contrast the blue blazer which is NOT a 3 rolled to 2 looks good. Here, one doesn't find oneself drawn to noticing other oddities and flaws as one does in the earlier snaps.


?!?

My computer must be picking up posts from the Evil Parallel Universe again.


----------



## Rossini

Wyvern1138 said:


> ?!?
> 
> My computer must be picking up posts from the Evil Parallel Universe again.


Very good!


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Wyvern1138 said:


> ?!?
> 
> My computer must be picking up posts from the Evil Parallel Universe again.


Why is that you appear to find it difficult to believe that people might not agree with you?


----------



## Taliesin

Hector Freemantle said:


> I'm afraid I don't agree. In all cases the 3 rolled to 2 coats look very odd. Did the dry cleaner get it wrong? Is there a stain being hidden? Does the wearer need a second hole to insert a bloom?


It's already been said earlier in this gigantic thread, but I'll say it again: it's surprising to see the view expressed on a clothing forum that the 3/2 roll looks odd or like a mistake. This is so because it's a very well established and classic look, with a very long pedigree. It's one thing not to like it, but it's another thing -- on a clothing forum -- to find it strange.


----------



## Wayfarer

Hector Freemantle said:


> Why is that you appear to find it difficult to believe that people might not agree with you?


It is not that you do not find the look attractive. It is that someone, posting on obstensibly, a high end clothing forum, would repeatedly say a rather classic look appears "odd." I personally would not have a suit made for me in this fashion, but I do not find it "odd" looking, but rather a classic look that I just don't happen to that fond of. There is a difference between our positions and a rather perplexing reason why someone would say such things in such a board.


----------



## JLibourel

Hector Freemantle said:


> So you were once a beastly little over-reaching snob? But did you also appear to be an odd one by wearing 3 button rolled to 2 jackets?


Well, I was once "little." However, since I stood over 6 feet and weighed about 170 around the time I was 14, that was a very long time ago. I am sure I was "beastly." Just about all young boys are. I am not quite sure what is meant by "over-reaching" in this context, but I don't recall being especially snobby. As I mentioned earlier, it would have been rather odd since I was surely one of the poorest kids, if not the poorest in the two private schools I attended. I didn't have a 3-2 jacket when I was little, as best I can recall. I was not as concerned as about dress apparel as your pal Cruiser evidently was at a tender age. I have one now that looks nice, though.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Wayfarer said:


> ... I do not find it "odd" looking, but rather a classic look ...


I think we must have different notions as to what constitutes a 'classic' look. For me 'classic' is something that has timeless validity by virtue of either form or function. It seems that for you 'classic' simply means 'established in so far as there have been previous periods in the history of male fashion design when a 3 rolled to 2 has been worn. Apologies if this is not how you are using the word.

But to return to the 3 to 2. I understand the origin of lapel and sleeve button holes and how what was initially functional became decorative. Does the 3- rolled to - 2 have a similar pedigree? A genuine question, which I would appreciate a response to if anyone knows.


----------



## David V

I find it odd that classic, well established looks are found odd in a way that makes it sound as though there is something sartorially suspect about the the style. It makes you question the opinion espoused.

There are some who like the look of a suit worn without tie. It is as if those same folks would then state that wearing a tie with a suit looks odd and can't understand why you would wear one. Have you some spot on your shirt which you need to cover.


----------



## Bird's One View

Hector Freemantle said:


> But to return to the 3 to 2. I understand the origin of lapel and sleeve button holes and how what was initially functional became decorative. Does the 3- rolled to - 2 have a similar pedigree? A genuine question, which I would appreciate a response to if anyone knows.


The high button on a 3/2 originally had the same function as the lapel buttonhole: to close the front of the coat in bad weather.


----------



## David V

Hector Freemantle said:


> I think we must have different notions as to what constitutes a 'classic' look. For me 'classic' is something that has timeless validity by virtue of either form or function. It seems that for you 'classic' simply means 'established in so far as there have been previous periods in the history of male fashion design when a 3 rolled to 2 has been worn. Apologies if this is not how you are using the word.


3 to 2 fits your definition. Valid by virtue of form.


----------



## Wayfarer

Hector Freemantle said:


> I think we must have different notions as to what constitutes a 'classic' look.* For me 'classic' is something that has timeless validity by virtue of either form or function.* It seems that for you 'classic' simply means 'established in so far as there have been previous periods in the history of male fashion design when a 3 rolled to 2 has been worn. Apologies if this is not how you are using the word.


So then, the Parthenon is not "classic"? I mean, it is a marble copy of buildings made in wood, with the famous flutings copies of decoration designed to hide the joints in the wood. The function is superflous, rendering the form redundant. Using your definition, proving "timeless validity" is going to leave you with a mighty austere world.


----------



## whistle_blower71

I like a sb3/roll 2 if the lapel has a gentle roll and the top buttonhole is finished on both sides by hand. I do not like the "flat" look unless it is part of a US "trad" look. I also prefer it on sports jackets (linen, cotton, seersucker, Harris tweed etc.) rather than a lounge suit...a nice soft light/medium grey woollen flannel being the exception.
It is not seen very often in the UK but I see good examples of them on my trips to Florence and Milan.

*W_B*


----------



## gnatty8

Wayfarer said:


> gnatty, you look excellent in all those photos. I particularly like the fourth one.


Why thank you for saying so sir. Not only do I appreciate your comments, I also heartily concur with your pick of the fourth. One of my favorite examples.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Bird's One View said:


> The high button on a 3/2 originally had the same function as the lapel buttonhole: to close the front of the coat in bad weather.


Are you sure about this? Surely, if the coat is already closed in inclement weather by fastening the lapel button, the top button of a 3 button coat becomes redundant. In a 3 button jacket, the 'normal' practice of fastening only the middle button has more to do with comfort and balance. However, what I was initially asking was the original reason for rolling a 3 button lapel so far down that the top button becomes otiose. Does anybody know?


----------



## Bird's One View

Why does any coat have more than two buttons? Why do shirts have six, seven, or eight buttons, when the collar button has already closed them?


----------



## gnatty8

Hector Freemantle said:


> Are you sure about this? Surely, if the coat is already closed in inclement weather by fastening the lapel button, the top button of a 3 button coat becomes redundant. In a 3 button jacket, the 'normal' practice of fastening only the middle button has more to do with comfort and balance. However, what I was initially asking was the original reason for rolling a 3 button lapel so far down that the top button becomes otiose. Does anybody know?


Think of what you just said. Picture a 2 button coat with a lapel button closed. Anything in particular strike you about the distance between the top button of the coat and the lapel button?

As far as the second question, the original reason for rolling the lapel, I am sure that's lost to the sands of time, and I personally don't care because I find the 3 roll 2 so amazingly aesthetically pleasing. Case in point:

Sheer poetry.


----------



## JLibourel

*Apology to Cruiser*

Y'know, I've been thinking over Cruiser's posts about how painful his memories of Sunday School were because of all the well-dressed kids in there. I was sceptical and scornful at first, but on reflection I can realize what an insensitive snot I have been, and I just want to say, "I'm sorry, Cruiser."

I can just envision this tragic scene: It's a hot Sunday morning somewhere in Dixie in midsummer 1957 or 1958. Little Cruiser, age 8 or 9 is sitting there in the same one-and-only "Sunday best" outfit his parents bought for him last fall. It is at once too hot and by now uncomfortably small. He looks over and thinks, "There's Timmy Johnson in his impeccably tailored new seersucker suit. Last week it was the cream-colored linen suit. Next week will it be the navy blazer and white ducks or the open-weave tan wool suit? And there's Randy Jones in his pale blue linen blazer...Gee, some kids have all the luck, but not me." The hopes, dreams and aspirations of a typical 8-year-old American boy--DENIED! On reflection, it just brings tears to my eyes. Again, I want to say I'm really, really sorry for all the cynicism, the skepticism and the hateful snobbery I've been guilty of. The long-ago plight of that poor little boy has really touched my heart.


----------



## gnatty8

Jan, I think I am about to shed a tear along with you..


----------



## Wayfarer

JLibourel said:


> Y'know, I've been thinking over Cruiser's posts about how painful his memories of Sunday School were because of all the well-dressed kids in there. I was sceptical and scornful at first, but on reflection I can realize what an insensitive snot I have been, and I just want to say, "I'm sorry, Cruiser."
> 
> I can just envision this tragic scene: It's a hot Sunday morning somewhere in Dixie in midsummer 1957 or 1958. Little Cruiser, age 8 or 9 is sitting there in the same one-and-only "Sunday best" outfit his parents bought for him last fall. It is at once too hot and by now uncomfortably small. He looks over and thinks, "There's Timmy Johnson in his impeccably tailored new seersucker suit. Last week it was the cream-colored linen suit. Next week will it be the navy blazer and white ducks or the open-weave tan wool suit? And there's Randy Jones in his pale blue linen blazer...Gee, some kids have all the luck, but not me." The hopes, dreams and aspirations of a typical 8-year-old American boy--DENIED! On reflection, it just brings tears to my eyes. Again, I want to say I'm really, really sorry for all the cynicism, the skepticism and the hateful snobbery I've been guilty of. The long-ago plight of that poor little boy has really touched my heart.


:icon_hailthee:


----------



## M6Classic

*A 603 post thread*!!!! Good Lord, somebody might think you guys were discussing pink shirts or somesuch.

Buzz


----------



## Wayfarer

M6Classic said:


> *A 603 post thread*!!!! Good Lord, somebody might think you guys were discussing pink shirts or somesuch.
> 
> Buzz


But not black odd trousers! :devil:


----------



## Will

Hector Freemantle said:


> However, what I was initially asking was the original reason for rolling a 3 button lapel so far down that the top button becomes otiose. Does anybody know?


The style increases the amount of visible necktie when a vest is not worn.


----------



## Rossini

I like the first picture in particular. It does provides some of the symmetry and elemental protection of a three-button without the high gorge, which I don't find works as well on my own body shape. 

Anyway, this sartorial diversion is distracting us from the futile purpose of the overall thread.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Will said:


> The style increases the amount of visible necktie when a vest is not worn.


Well, it does. But so does a 2 button, without having a redundant and unsympathetically positioned button hole drawing the eye to an area that in most people should probably be avoided. Incidentally, does anyone know if manufacturers have started to produce faux 3 to 2 jackets yet?


----------



## gnatty8

Hector Freemantle said:


> Well, it does. But so does a 2 button, without having a redundant and unsympathetically positioned button hole drawing the eye to an area that in most people should probably be avoided. Incidentally, does anyone know if manufacturers have started to produce faux 3 to 2 jackets yet?


yes, I believe all of the good manufacturers are manufacturing faux 3 roll 2 coats as a result of the high demand generated by interweb surfers stumbling across those pictures I posted above and deciding they just *MUST* have that latest 3 roll 2 look in their wardrobe. Manufacturers of course, wanting to squeeze higher margins, balk at actually cutting that buttonhole.. You haven't seen them yet?


----------



## zarathustra

gnatty: I really like the green and purple windowpane jacket. I need a dark green jacket with a bit bolder windowpane. However, in looking at your pictures, something is just off. I cannot place my finger on it... Wait!! 

It is the bloody breast pocket!!! Combine that with many of the needless lapel buttonholes... 

They serve no point other than to ruin the visual lines running north/south and ruin the left/right symmetry. Why did you decide to further accent the this abominable vestige with a pocket silk? 

The button hole and breast pocket are simply odd contraptions that our learned friend has pointed out are redundant and draw the eye to areas that people should not focus on, given our corpulent nature these days. Moreover, with the new found freedom that everything is relative, there is no need to cling to these mindless details that disrupt our clothing. If they are not pleasing, they should be cast off. 

Perhaps you keep a pocket watch in the breast pocket? Probably not. When is the last time that you have worn a flower in the lapel buttonhole? My thought is that you last wore a flower to your high school prom.

Why then must these details remain on otherwise great pieces of clothing. It simply ruins the cadence of the poetry!


----------



## Will

Hector Freemantle said:


> Well, it does. But so does a 2 button


The two button came later. You may prefer it. I prefer to have both in my closet.


----------



## RJman

Will said:


> The two button came later. You may prefer it. I prefer to have both in my closet.


And a very suitable closet it is, no doubt. :icon_smile:


----------



## Bird's One View

I have a 2 button, trapped in the closet.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Will said:


> The two button came later. ...


Oh, I see. So, in other words, the 3 rolled to 3 was an early DIY street fashion 2 buttoner that was picked up by the rag trade. Interesting.


----------



## Orsini

Rossini said:


> I don't see the rebel analogy. Whereas most here are keen on expressing an interest in clothing (often but not always as against the tide of mindless mediocrity on the high street), the opposing view monotonously plugs anti-fashion warping every conversation, sucking the life out of the Board, and professing no real interest or passion in clothing. Surely such a passion should be a prerequisite to participate here.


Gee...I wish I'd said that...


----------



## Orsini

Wayfarer said:


> :icon_hailthee:
> 
> Orsini: Not chased away. Just cut down my visits by choice.


There is a lot of that going around...


----------



## Hector Freemantle

The most valuable thing about this rambling thread has to be that I am now aware of the Film Noir Buff site. What a bunch of sociopaths! I shall be extra careful who I open my door to. I wonder how many of those maliciously malevolent malcontents wear 3 rolled to 2 coats?


----------



## Falconboy

I'm sure they'd prefer the term "disreputable reprobates"

Hey, H. Freemantle, are you an engineer by any chance?

Very nice coats Gnatty. You're photos have convinced me that 3R2 coats are wonderful.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Falconboy said:


> I'm sure they'd prefer the term "disreputable reprobates"
> 
> ...


No, that has somehow acquired connotations of a good-natured, if wayward, miscreant who means no harm. These people are sad, infantile, ne'er-do-wells, who proudly display their mean- spirited behavior as if it were something to be applauded.


----------



## DocHolliday




----------



## manton

Back to the original question, I can think of three reasons:

1) Tradition. The 3 button coat long predates the 2 button coat, which many on Savile Row consider a pointless innovation. When "modern" coat cutting stabilized in the '30s, 3 button was the standard. I am not sure when two button originated, but it did not become widespread until well after WW2. It has always been more popular in the US than the UK.

2) Symetry. Three buttons looks more symetrical. Without the top button, a coat looks like something is missing. If you are going to drop one of the buttons, why stop with the top one? The bottom one should go, too. It looks slightly off to keep the bottom useless button but ditch the top useless button. This is, at any rate, the Huntsman rationale.

3) "Dégagé " (for lack of a better term). Having all three buttons and only buttoning one gives the coat a relaxed, casual look. It's a reminder that coats used to button up fully over the torso, but don't any more, because we feel more comfortable and less restricted this way. The roll of the lapel through the top button is the most elegant visual reminder of this welcome change.


----------



## Acct2000

gnatty8 said:


> Think of what you just said. Picture a 2 button coat with a lapel button closed. Anything in particular strike you about the distance between the top button of the coat and the lapel button?
> 
> As far as the second question, the original reason for rolling the lapel, I am sure that's lost to the sands of time, and I personally don't care because I find the 3 roll 2 so amazingly aesthetically pleasing. Case in point:
> 
> Sheer poetry.


On a different subject, I like the grey slacks with the light blue coat. I just bought a similar light blue coat that looks good with dark blue or (the evil) black slacks, but does not look good with my grey slacks. From your picture, maybe I need to try to find a lighter pair of grey slacks. HMMM


----------



## Hector Freemantle

manton said:


> Back to the original question, I can think of three reasons:


But the reasons you then enumerate are largely irrelevant to the discussion of 3 rolled to 2, but rather point out that 3 button coats have been around longer than and are superior to 2.

This is all point 1 says, along with some perhaps interesting but off- point history says.



manton said:


> 1) Tradition. The 3 button coat long predates the 2 button coat, which many on Savile Row consider a pointless innovation. When "modern" coat cutting stabilized in the '30s, 3 button was the standard. I am not sure when two button originated, but it did not become widespread until well after WW2. It has always been more popular in the US than the UK.


Point 2 actually argues in favor of a 3 versus 2 button coat on the grounds of symmetry. Oddly, it fails to miss the obvious that to pervert what was designed a balanced 3 button look to a messed up 2 destroys much of the balance.



manton said:


> 2) Symetry. Three buttons looks more symetrical. Without the top button, a coat looks like something is missing. ...


Point 3 is probably the one that makes at least some sense. Yes, a 3 buttoned suit, with the middle one unbuttoned, does make for comfort. However, the 3 to 2 style forces a 3 button into a 2 button appearance and creates an appearance of not relaxation but disarray. As to it being elegant? Well, we have no more proof of that than when we started. Unless, that is, that we believe assertion is sound ground for evidence.



manton said:


> 3) "Dégagé " (for lack of a better term). Having all three buttons and only buttoning one gives the coat a relaxed, casual look. It's a reminder that coats used to button up fully over the torso, but don't any more, because we feel more comfortable and less restricted this way. The roll of the lapel through the top button is the most elegant visual reminder of this welcome change.


----------



## Rossini

Orsini said:


> There is a lot of that going around...


There certainly is. And it doesn't appear to be getting any better!


----------



## Wyvern1138

Hector Freemantle said:


> But the reasons you then enumerate are largely irrelevant to the discussion of 3 rolled to 2, but rather point out that 3 button coats have been around longer than and are superior to 2.
> 
> This is all point 1 says, along with some perhaps interesting but off- point history says.
> 
> Point 2 actually argues in favor of a 3 versus 2 button coat on the grounds of symmetry. Oddly, it fails to miss the obvious that to pervert what was designed a balanced 3 button look to a messed up 2 destroys much of the balance.
> 
> Point 3 is probably the one that makes at least some sense. Yes, a 3 buttoned suit, with the middle one unbuttoned, does make for comfort. However, the 3 to 2 style forces a 3 button into a 2 button appearance and creates an appearance of not relaxation but disarray. As to it being elegant? Well, we have no more proof of that than when we started. Unless, that is, that we believe assertion is sound ground for evidence.


I think 3 roll 2 has been around about as long as the lounge suit itself. IIRC, the high roll 3 button started out on hunting coats and hacking jackets, which appeared much earlier than lounge suits. Those sportcoats were designed to be worn outoors, and I think all 3 (or more) buttons were used. I'm not sure whether 3 roll 2s had come to be used on some sportcoats when the lounge suit was introduced, but it makes sense that a more open front was adopted on lounge suits, as they were designed to be worn indoors.

Anyway, the high roll 3 looks unbalanced if you button the top button, insofar as the bottom is left undone. If you leave the top button undone, it's more balanced, but tends to roll below the top button and the lapel rolls themselves sometimes stick out awkwardly. The 3 roll 2 results from designing the lapels so that those rolled edges don't stick out.


----------



## manton

Hector Freemantle said:


> But the reasons you then enumerate are largely irrelevant to the discussion of 3 rolled to 2, but rather point out that 3 button coats have been around longer than and are superior to 2.


No, all the points I made are DIRECTLY relevant to the 3 roll 2 because they speak the original question: what does that third, top button add? My answers: 1) a nod to tradition; 2) symetry; 3) a casual, relaxed air to the coat.



> This is all point 1 says, along with some perhaps interesting but off- point history says.


The point is that 3 buttons is more traditional that two, _in any configuration_. Hence even a 3 roll 2 has the edge, tradition-wise, over a plain 2.



> Point 2 actually argues in favor of a 3 versus 2 button coat on the grounds of symmetry. Oddly, it fails to miss the obvious that to pervert what was designed a balanced 3 button look to a messed up 2 destroys much of the balance.


No, my point is simply this. There is a waist button on all SB coats. It is, rought speaking, in the "middle." If there are 3 total front buttons, then you have symetry. If there is one front button, you have symetry. If there are two, then you do not. You have a middle, and a bottom, but no top -- asymetry



> Point 3 is probably the one that makes at least some sense. Yes, a 3 buttoned suit, with the middle one unbuttoned, does make for comfort. However, the 3 to 2 style forces a 3 button into a 2 button appearance and creates an appearance of not relaxation but disarray. As to it being elegant? Well, we have no more proof of that than when we started. Unless, that is, that we believe assertion is sound ground for evidence.


This demonstrates in a nutshell what is so wrong with this forum: the insistence on "proof" for thing that have cannot be proved ... the hair-trigger touchiness over matters of taste ... the propensity to demand answers to question, pose as an innocent who is only interested in debate, and then to denigrate the answer once it is given ... and the inevitable strawman.

I did not say or imply or meant that "assertion is sound ground for evidence." The original question was "why do some people like this style?" I answered it. That is all.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

*Manton: *At numerous points in this thread you have argued passionately, if not vehemently, in favor of canonical, absolute sartorial traditions and against relativism. Now you state: that what is wrong with with this forum is 'the insistence on "proof" for thing that have cannot be proved ... the hair-trigger touchiness over matters of taste ...' 
This seems to be case of wanting to have your cake and eating it; or if you prefer both your spam and your foix gras. And please look a little closer to home for hair-trigger touchiness.


----------



## gnatty8

Hector Freemantle said:


> *Manton: *At numerous points in this thread you have argued passionately, if not vehemently, in favor of canonical, absolute sartorial traditions and against relativism. Now you state: that what is wrong with with this forum is 'the insistence on "proof" for thing that have cannot be proved ... the hair-trigger touchiness over matters of taste ...'
> This seems to be case of wanting to have your cake and eating it; or if you prefer both your spam and your foix gras. And please look a little closer to home for hair-trigger touchiness.


Now now, I sense a foie pas here..


----------



## manton

Hector Freemantle said:


> *Manton: *At numerous points in this thread you have argued passionately, if not vehemently, in favor of canonical, absolute sartorial traditions and against relativism. Now you state: that what is wrong with with this forum is 'the insistence on "proof" for thing that have cannot be proved ... the hair-trigger touchiness over matters of taste ...'
> This seems to be case of wanting to have your cake and eating it; or if you prefer both your spam and your foix gras. And please look a little closer to home for hair-trigger touchiness.


I do not think you have understood what I wrote in this thread.

I have never claimed that good taste can be "proved." I don't believe it can.

What I have argued for in this thread is the idea of connosieurship: the concept that study of a subject and long experience in it refines ones appreciation and enables one to tell higher from lower, better from worse, with increasing sophistication. I do believe that there is "better" and "worse" even in matter of clothing, but such cannot be "proved" nor can which is which ever be proved. Proof is for math, physics, chemistry, and sometimes for criminal investigations. "Proof" that Rembrandt is great will elude the art world forever.

I have further argued that to force every sartorial question, raised on a clothing forum no less, back to the existential point of whether clothing taste matters in the grand scheme of things is a waste of time and destructive of even the possibility of any interesting conversations.

A point which your post has born out amply. If you hadn't noticed, _you _are the one being an absolutist here, trying to read the 3 roll 2 coat -- a classic long favored by the greatest dressers -- out of the sartorial cannon because you don't like it and I failed to "proove" to your satisfaction that it looks good. This is like trying to argue that foie is crap because you had it once and you thought it tasted bad, and then you asked a foodie what he saw in it he failed to proove to your satisfaction that it tastes good. To you. Right.

But, whatever, because there is no canon, there are no classic styles, and there were no great dressers, so it's all moot.

This thread appears to have come full circle. An attempt to answer the original question was made -- after several people positively begged for such an attempt, and dared anyone to try -- and the response bore out almost to perfection all the complaints raised by the departed old-timers.


----------



## gnatty8

Manton you forgot to run spellcheck on foix gras,

Just saying..


----------



## PedanticTurkey

gnatty8 said:


> Manton you forgot to run spellcheck on foix gras,
> 
> Just saying..


Quiet, or he'll blast you with his sartorial cannon.


----------



## manton

It's spelled foie gras. If you are going to be pedantic, at least be right.


----------



## gnatty8

Hector Freemantle said:


> *Manton: *At numerous points in this thread you have argued passionately, if not vehemently, in favor of canonical, absolute sartorial traditions and against relativism. Now you state: that what is wrong with with this forum is 'the insistence on "proof" for thing that have cannot be proved ... the hair-trigger touchiness over matters of taste ...'
> This seems to be case of wanting to have your cake and eating it; or if you prefer both your spam and your foix gras. And please look a little closer to home for hair-trigger touchiness.





gnatty8 said:


> Now now, I sense a foie pas here..





gnatty8 said:


> Manton you forgot to run spellcheck on foix gras,
> 
> Just saying..





manton said:


> It's spelled foie gras. If you are going to be pedantic, at least be right.


Sheesh, some guys just can't take a (running) joke..


----------



## manton

gnatty8 said:


> Sheesh, some guys just can't take a (running) joke..


Either that, or we can't get the jokes. I am probably a bit of both.


----------



## Rossini

gnatty8 said:


> Sheesh, some guys just can't take a (running) joke..





manton said:


> Either that, or we can't get the jokes. I am probably a bit of both.


I'm sure that, in some way or other, you've both just said something profound about this entire thread.


----------



## Wayfarer

manton said:


> But, whatever, because there is no canon, there are no classic styles, and there were no great dressers, so it's all moot.
> 
> This thread appears to have come full circle. An attempt to answer the original question was made -- after several people positively begged for such an attempt, and dared anyone to try -- and the response bore out almost to perfection all the complaints raised by the departed old-timers.


Perfect summation.

/thread.


----------



## Rossini

Wayfarer said:


> Perfect summation.
> 
> /thread.


And still nothing, seemingly, will be done about it.


----------



## Mad Hatter

gnatty8-is one of your arms noticeably longer than the other? It appears so in the picture with the very nice blue windowpane sportcoat. I ask because one of my arms is almost an inch longer. I have gone back-and-forth on how to establish sleeve length. Thanks.


----------



## gnatty8

there is much too much talk about canons in this thread for my comfort..


----------



## gnatty8

Mad Hatter said:


> gnatty8-is one of your arms noticeably longer than the other? It appears so in the picture with the very nice blue windowpane sportcoat. I ask because one of my arms is almost an inch longer. I have gone back-and-forth on how to establish sleeve length. Thanks.


Don't think so... Look at the position of the tips of my thumb in relation to the bottom of my sportcoat.. Chalk it up to poor posture.. If you have problems with sleeve length I would think you would buy RTW for the longer arm and simply have the other side taken up.

Oh, and thank you for the gentlemanly compliment on my blue windowpane sportcoat, I am glad you like it.


----------



## gnatty8

Rossini said:


> I'm sure that, in some way or other, you've both just said something profound about this entire thread.


back in school I was always told I was a profound thinker..


----------



## Hector Freemantle

*Manton: The original poster asked "why do a, 3 button roll to 2, as opposed to doing a 2-button suit?" He asks in other words why bother with converting to 3 to 2 when we already have 2.

In your post, you try to give three reasons why. My point is that you clearly do not do this. Instead you attempt to justify the existence of 
the 3 to 2. However, your points are elegantly but ineffectively made, and you end up effectively pointing out that the best configuration is actually a 3 button jacket.

You then, as you did earlier, if I understand you, say that it's a matter of taste informed by connoisseurship or a knowledge of clothing acquired through study. However, you present your notion of taste as if it were indeed something that could be proved. The form of your 'reasoning' with its numerical signalization was certainly suggestive of this.

I will admit that prior to this discussion that I was unaware of the pedigree of the 3 to 2. I now accept that it does have historical validity in a sartorial sense. But on parting could I just ask you to consider that since the creation of 2 button coats that the style has 
**little more than nostalgic value, and is perhaps best seen for what it is as an affectation?

*


----------



## Peak and Pine

Hector Freemantle said:


> Manton, could I just ask you to consider that since the creation of 2 button coats that the style has little more than nostalgic value, and is perhaps best seen for what it is*...an affectation?*


Hear, hear!​


----------



## kngrimm

Wow.. Hector, you need to read for comprehension. 

Manton has made the case why certain people enjoy the 3 roll 2 jacket. Maybe read it again?


----------



## Bog

Thank you, again, Manton. I will never look at 2 button coats again the same way.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

kngrimm said:


> Wow.. Hector, you need to read for comprehension.
> 
> Manton has made the case why certain people enjoy the 3 roll 2 jacket. Maybe read it again?


Please read the original post.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Peak and Pine said:


> Hear, hear!​


I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is seen as such by large numbers of members on this forum. Given that, outside the world of clothing fora it must look extremely silly.


----------



## JLibourel

Hector Freemantle said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is seen as such by large numbers of members on this forum. Given that, outside the world of clothing fora it must look extremely silly.


Well, I'm wearing a 3-roll-2 jacket at this very moment, and I don't feel in the least silly!

But what does it really matter, Hector, because I strongly suspect you must be one of my buddies from FNB having a bit of fun trolling Andyland?


----------



## Rossini

This conversation about buttons has worn me down to the extent that I'm going to take all my jackets down to the tailors to get zips fitted. Don't ask me what kind, either.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Rossini said:


> This conversation about buttons has worn me down to the extent that I'm going to take all my jackets down to the tailors to get zips fitted. Don't ask me what kind, either.


Quality.


----------



## heimskringla

3/r2 suits are generally sack cut as well, which some prefer to darted models. I'll wear a darted 3 or 2 button suit or jacket, but I really don't care for waist suppression.


----------



## manton

Hector Freemantle said:


> *Manton: The original poster asked "why do a, 3 button roll to 2, as opposed to doing a 2-button suit?" He asks in other words why bother with converting to 3 to 2 when we already have 2.
> 
> In your post, you try to give three reasons why. My point is that you clearly do not do this. Instead you attempt to justify the existence of
> the 3 to 2. However, your points are elegantly but ineffectively made, and you end up effectively pointing out that the best configuration is actually a 3 button jacket.
> 
> You then, as you did earlier, if I understand you, say that it's a matter of taste informed by connoisseurship or a knowledge of clothing acquired through study. However, you present your notion of taste as if it were indeed something that could be proved. The form of your 'reasoning' with its numerical signalization was certainly suggestive of this.
> 
> I will admit that prior to this discussion that I was unaware of the pedigree of the 3 to 2. I now accept that it does have historical validity in a sartorial sense. But on parting could I just ask you to consider that since the creation of 2 button coats that the style has
> **little more than nostalgic value, and is perhaps best seen for what it is as an affectation?
> 
> *


I don't know what to call this, except a perverse insistence to not read what is written, and to misunderstand what one reads.

The original question was not, why add a third button to a two button suit. It was, why buy (or order) a 3 roll 2 over a 2 button.

I attempted to answer that question. That is, I tried to set forth the reasons why some men prefer 3 roll 2 to 2.

I really don't understand your points. Are you _denying _that some men prefer 3 roll 2 to 2? You may as well deny that the earth is round.

Are you saying that they are _wrong _to do so? I suppose that would be a matter of opinion and taste, though one that would put you on the opposite side of some of history's greatest dressers.

Are you saying that my reasons are not the reasons that motivate most of those who do prefer the 3 roll 2? That could be. Perhaps more of them will speak up and either confirm or deny what I wrote.

You are the one insisting on proof. It is such a stupid argument to make that I have to suspect that Jan is right.

At any rate, I am more convinced than ever that the discussion here has reached an absolute nadir and can never recover.

I am sort of curious to see what sartorial classic will be next deemed an "affectation" and written out of the male wardrobe by the esteemed lights of the "new" AAAC. Gray flannel perhaps? Maybe the blazer?

Think big!


----------



## Hector Freemantle

manton said:


> I don't know what to call this, except a perverse insistence to not read what is written, and to misunderstand what one reads.
> 
> The original question was not, why add a third button to a two button suit. It was, why buy (or order) a 3 roll 2 over a 2 button.
> 
> I attempted to answer that question. That is, I tried to set forth the reasons why some men prefer 3 roll 2 to 2.


Who on earth is talking about adding a third button to a two button suit? And what on earth is a 3 roll to 2 other than a 3 button suit styled to function as a 2 buttoner with the option of reverting to 3 button? In other words it is a converted 3 button suit. Think of a car with a roll top that can be covered or not. This is called a convertible.



manton said:


> I really don't understand your points. Are you _denying _that some men prefer 3 roll 2 to 2? You may as well deny that the earth is round.
> 
> Are you saying that they are _wrong _to do so? I suppose that would be a matter of opinion and taste, though one that would put you on the opposite side of some of history's greatest dressers.
> 
> Are you saying that my reasons are not the reasons that motivate most of those who do prefer the 3 roll 2? That could be. Perhaps more of them will speak up and either confirm or deny what I wrote.


No, obviously I am saying none of these things. What I am saying is that you did not answer the answer, have failed to understand the you have failed to answer the question, and have actually effectively, if unwittingly, argued against the aesthetic rightness of 3- rolled to- 2 button coats.



manton said:


> You are the one insisting on proof. It is such a stupid argument to make that I have to suspect that Jan is right.


Once again I am not insisting on anything of the sort. I was merely teasing you on your tendency to present points of taste as if they were mathematical proofs replete with numbering. The point about Jan being right (whoever he is) is one that loses me totally.



manton said:


> At any rate, I am more convinced than ever that the discussion here has reached an absolute nadir and can never recover.


Don't be such a drama queen.



manton said:


> I am sort of curious to see what sartorial classic will be next deemed an "affectation" and written out of the male wardrobe by the esteemed lights of the "new" AAAC. Gray flannel perhaps? Maybe the blazer?
> 
> Think big!


Now gray flannel and blazer? Perhaps you are on to something there.


----------



## gnatty8

:deadhorse-a:

What say everyone do as I did and posts pics of their favorite 3 roll 2 coats? Its highly exhilirating and I find, has an almost tonic like effect on the headaches I experience after reading new posts to this thread?

Gentlemen?

I've kicked us off, so let's see them.


----------



## manton

Hector Freemantle said:


> Who on earth is talking about adding a third button to a two button suit? And what on earth is a 3 roll to 2 other than a 3 button suit styled to function as a 2 buttoner with the option of reverting to 3 button? In other words it is a converted 3 button suit. Think of a car with a roll top that can be covered or not. This is called a convertible.
> 
> No, obviously I am saying none of these things. What I am saying is that you did not answer the answer, have failed to understand the you have failed to answer the question, and have actually effectively, if unwittingly, argued against the aesthetic rightness of 3- rolled to- 2 button coats.
> 
> Once again I am not insisting on anything of the sort. I was merely teasing you on your tendency to present points of taste as if they were mathematical proofs replete with numbering. The point about Jan being right (whoever he is) is one that loses me totally.
> 
> Don't be such a drama queen.
> 
> Now gray flannel and blazer? Perhaps you are on to something there.


Ah, I see the source of your confusion. Because I used numbers to list a series of reasons why some men like a certain look, use mistook those numbers for an attempt to make a mathematical "proof."

I have to say, it is a very stupid error on your part. But to each his own.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

manton said:


> Ah, I see the source of your confusion. Because I used numbers to list a series of reasons why some men like a certain look, use mistook those numbers for an attempt to make a mathematical "proof."
> 
> I have to say, it is a very stupid error on your part. But to each his own.


I'm sure I've made many stupid errors in my time and shall continue to do so.

But a particularly stupid error is not to recognize when your arguments are off-point and that appears to be what you are doing now.

Another stupidity is to bandy around the word stupid. Once again, that is something that you seem to do as a matter of habit.

A third stupidity is to attempt to be an arbiter of taste with such a lack of humility. The mark of a true connoisseur in any field is that he is able to promote his beliefs without the arrogance that you have exhibited throughout this thread. Such behavior is the stamp of the poseur rather than the expert.

Yet another stupidity is to lose all sight to humor and this in itself is a sign of a flawed taste in matters human.

But you are clearly passionate about how many buttons you have on your jackets, Manton. So in view of this I will forgive you your rudeness.


----------



## David V

Hector Freemantle said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is seen as such by large numbers of members on this forum. Given that, outside the world of clothing fora it must look extremely silly.


outside of the world of a clothing fora many people look silly. Not reason enough to join the masses of the silly looking.


----------



## Orsini

Hector Freemantle said:


> *Manton: The original poster asked "why do a, 3 button roll to 2, as opposed to doing a 2-button suit?" He asks in other words why bother with converting to 3 to 2 when we already have 2.*
> 
> *In your post, you try to give three reasons why. My point is that you clearly do not do this. Instead you attempt to justify the existence of *
> *the 3 to 2. However, your points are elegantly but ineffectively made, and you end up effectively pointing out that the best configuration is actually a 3 button jacket.*
> 
> *You then, as you did earlier, if I understand you, say that it's a matter of taste informed by connoisseurship or a knowledge of clothing acquired through study. However, you present your notion of taste as if it were indeed something that could be proved. The form of your 'reasoning' with its numerical signalization was certainly suggestive of this. *
> 
> *I will admit that prior to this discussion that I was unaware of the pedigree of the 3 to 2. I now accept that it does have historical validity in a sartorial sense. But on parting could I just ask you to consider that since the creation of 2 button coats that the style has *
> *little more than nostalgic value, and is perhaps best seen for what it is as an affectation?*


Wow! Bold font! You've really put everyone in their place, now! This establishes you as a real expert on wardrobe.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Orsini said:


> Wow! Bold font! You've really put everyone in their place, now! This establishes you as a real expert on wardrobe.


The bold is actually a result of my cutting and pasting the original poster's question. Following this, the rest seemed determined to become bold. Alas, I am no expert on wardrobe, unlike many others on here it would appear.


----------



## Orsini

Hector Freemantle said:


> The bold is actually a result of my cutting and pasting the original poster's question. Following this, the rest seemed determined to become bold. Alas, I am no expert on wardrobe, unlike many others on here it would appear.


Yes, "cheat and retreat". That is always a good tactic here.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Orsini said:


> Yes, "cheat and retreat". That is always a good tactic here.


Is it? Please explain.


----------



## Wyvern1138

Hector Freemantle said:


> Who on earth is talking about adding a third button to a two button suit? And what on earth is a 3 roll to 2 other than a 3 button suit styled to function as a 2 buttoner with the option of reverting to 3 button? In other words it is a converted 3 button suit. Think of a car with a roll top that can be covered or not. This is called a convertible.
> 
> No, obviously I am saying none of these things. What I am saying is that you did not answer the answer, have failed to understand the you have failed to answer the question, and have actually effectively, if unwittingly, argued against the aesthetic rightness of 3- rolled to- 2 button coats.


I suppose you could button the top button on a 3 roll 2, but it looks ridiculous because of the shape of the lapels. No one wears the style with the intention of using it as a convertible.

As I mentioned, the idea behind the 3 roll 2 seems to be that it's a 3 button cut so that the rolls of the lapel don't jut out when only the waist button is closed. It was always my understanding that this was the normal way to button a 3 button jacket. In the resurgence of the 3 button high roll, wearing it with both the waist and top button done up, and the bottom open, did become popular but even after years of seeing it, it still looks awkward to me, akin to buttoning both buttons on a 2 button.

Anyway, I think Manton's argument in favor of the 3 roll 2 over the 2 button on the grounds of tradition, balance, and producing a more relaxed look, did answer the question effectively. Even if you didn't find it persuasive, I don't see how it could be characterized as a failure.


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Wyvern1138 said:


> I suppose you could button the top button on a 3 roll 2, but it looks ridiculous because of the shape of the lapels. No one wears the style with the intention of using it as a convertible.


Thank you for that information. This is contrary to what has been stated by others on this thread. So what began as a convertible is now purely decorative rather like working or non-working cuff buttons which either cannot, or will not be used?



Wyvern1138 said:


> As I mentioned, the idea behind the 3 roll 2 seems to be that it's a 3 button cut so that the rolls of the lapel don't jut out when only the waist button is closed. It was always my understanding that this was the normal way to button a 3 button jacket. In the resurgence of the 3 button high roll, wearing it with both the waist and top button done up, and the bottom open, did become popular but even after years of seeing it, it still looks awkward to me, akin to buttoning both buttons on a 2 button.


I would personally only button the middle of a 3 button and the top of a 2 button.



Wyvern1138 said:


> Anyway, I think Manton's argument in favor of the 3 roll 2 over the 2 button on the grounds of tradition, balance, and producing a more relaxed look, did answer the question effectively. Even if you didn't find it persuasive, I don't see how it could be characterized as a failure.


I'm afraid we will have to agree to differ on this, But thank you for a refreshingly urbane and civilized post.


----------



## RJman

Hector Freemantle said:


> The most valuable thing about this rambling thread has to be that I am now aware of the Film Noir Buff site. What a bunch of sociopaths! I shall be extra careful who I open my door to. I wonder how many of those maliciously malevolent malcontents wear 3 rolled to 2 coats?





Hector Freemantle said:


> No, that has somehow acquired connotations of a good-natured, if wayward, miscreant who means no harm. These people are sad, infantile, ne'er-do-wells, who proudly display their mean- spirited behavior as if it were something to be applauded.





Hector Freemantle said:


> *Manton: *At numerous points in this thread you have argued passionately, if not vehemently, in favor of canonical, absolute sartorial traditions and against relativism. Now you state: that what is wrong with with this forum is 'the insistence on "proof" for thing that have cannot be proved ... the hair-trigger touchiness over matters of taste ...'
> This seems to be case of wanting to have your cake and eating it; or if you prefer both your spam and your foix gras. And please look a little closer to home for hair-trigger touchiness.





Hector Freemantle said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is seen as such by large numbers of members on this forum. Given that, outside the world of clothing fora it must look extremely silly.


Ever get the feeling you're being trolled?



PedanticTurkey said:


> Quiet, or he'll blast you with his sartorial cannon.


Don't you have a racist innuendo to make somewhere?


----------



## dopey

I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but I didn't want to start a new thread:

Has anyone seen my sock? I seem to have misplaced it - it was gray with red accents at the heel and toe.

Please let me know if you find it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

RJman said:


> Don't you have a racist innuendo to make somewhere?





> Ever get the feeling you're being trolled?


Yeah.


----------



## Taliesin

RJman said:


> Ever get the feeling you're being trolled?


hector (verb): To intimidate or harass by bluster or personal pressure.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hector[2]

Just sayin'...


----------



## gnatty8

Remove the (very clumsy) trolls and the exiled members and I think there may only be 1 or 2 AAAC posting in this infernal thread! :devil:


----------



## Will

Hector Freemantle said:


> And what on earth is a 3 roll to 2 other than a 3 button suit styled to function as a 2 buttoner with the option of reverting to 3 button? In other words it is a converted 3 button suit.


Wrong.



Hector Freemantle said:


> What I am saying is that you did not answer the answer, have failed to understand the you have failed to answer the question, and have actually effectively, if unwittingly, argued against the aesthetic rightness of 3- rolled to- 2 button coats.


Wrong again, but why stop now?


----------



## jpeirpont

RJman said:


> Don't you have a racist innuendo to make somewhere?


New Brompton?


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

dopey said:


> I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but I didn't want to start a new thread:
> 
> Has anyone seen my sock? I seem to have misplaced it - it was gray with red accents at the heel and toe.
> 
> Please let me know if you find it.


Oh, I think the loss of your gray with red accents sock is more important than some of the recent discussion here and, at least for me, it is easier to understand. Also, I don't think it can be turned into a debate or result in insults.

Hey, are you sure it is the one with the red accents? I thought it might match up with a gray sock with blue accents that I recently lost. Please double check.

It is amazing the tumultuous discussion that can result over the addition or elimination of a single button.

And, speaking of buttons, in my part of the country during the 50s and 60s most every one fastened the top button on a three button suit. I believe that changed sometime during the 70s. This is posted solely for information purposes and is not intended to support anyone's views about 2 button, 2R3 button, or 3 button suits.

No buttons were sacrificed in order to make this post. Have fun folks, Jim.


----------



## Rossini

dopey said:


> I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but I didn't want to start a new thread:.


I keep thinking that. Surely this thread is now the best place to ask all questions on the forum. It's probably the best attended, moderators excepted.


----------



## manton

OK, Hector, let me go through this is clearly as I can.

First, you are wrong about what a 3 roll 2 is. You seem not to know that there is more than one type. Some are indeed, essentially, two button coats with an extra (and totally useless) third button. The Trad version from BB and J Press and Chipp would fall into this category.

But others are cut differently. The lapel roll is designed to end not at the waist button (as is typical on a two button coat) or at the top button (as is typical on a true three button coat) but halfway in between. Some tailors call this a "roll through" or a "2 1/2". The lapel shape will be cut differently. Indeed, I once ordered a 2.5, and when I went to the first fitting, saw that there was marking thread for a waist button and a bottom button, but not for a top button. I reminded the tailor that I had asked for a roll through, and he got annoyed with himself because he realized that he had forgotten, and because of tha mistake now had to recut the fronts.

That little business cleared up, let me now restate some of the arguments I have made in this thread. Some things I have asserted to be fact, others I have not. You have (it seems deliberately) confused and conflated the two. I will make this is clear as I can to make it impossible for you to continue with that straw man, without being exposed for obvious intellectual dishonestly.

Facts:
* That three button coats exist
* That 3 roll 2 coats exist
* That some men like them
* That they are part of the classical canon of men's dress
* That they are made, and have been made, by some of the most prominent and influential tailors and manufacturers
* That have been worn by men whom most would consider to be among the world's best dressed

Opinions:
* That 3 roll 2 looks nice
* That some of the reasons men like them include tradition, symetry, and their dégagé air.

Actually, the last point is a mixture of fact and opinion, or at least speculation and opinion. Those are reasons why _I _like them, and I think they might help explain why others like them, but I can't be sure of the latter.

The original question, again, I took to mean "Why do some men like this style?" I endeavored to answer that. I believe it is an undeniable fact that some men do like this style. I am one of them. So I tried to think through my reasons and explain them.

You can say "Your reasons have not convinced me that the style looks good." My reply would be, I was not trying to convince you that the style looks good. I was trying to explain what I (and perhaps others) like about it.

But you appear to have said something else. If I could summarize the thrust of your posts, it would be: "Manton, your attempts to prove that the 3 roll 2 looks good have failed; in fact it looks bad, and is not a classic."

But I have not attempted to prove that it looks good, and whatever you say, it _is _a classic. Whether it looks good will forever remain a matter of opinion. That is, you could prefer a 3-year-old's finger painting to a Vermeer. I would think you a fool, but I could not "prove" that you are wrong. Neither can I prove that you are wrong about a 3 roll 2. Nor can you prove that I am wrong.

I can say, however, that a person who prefers a finger-painting to a Vermeer is almost certainly not a connosieur of fine art, and is likely a philistine. I can also say, if with less confidence, something similar about a person who denigrates the 3 roll 2. Certainly, attempting to read it out of the satorial world is a joke. You may as well go the Met, ask to see the curator, and tell him, "You should remove all the Vermeers from this museum, because I think he sucks."

And once again we return to the overriding theme of this thread. This forum has been taken over by people who hate clothes, or who at least have no use for them, and who take it upon themselves to drop the axe on garments and traditions that have been hallowed among the best dressed for more than seven decades. And then these doctrinaire epigones are the first to point fingers and cry "pedant!" "snob!" "closed-minded!" "fashion dictator!" at those of us who merely pipe up and say "We think this looks good and it has been part of the tradition of fine dress for a long time."

As to rudeness, if I have responded to rudeness with sharpness, all I can say is, you had it coming. Act like an ass, you will be treated like an ass.


----------



## gnatty8

manton said:


> And once again we return to the overriding theme of this thread. *This forum has been taken over by people who hate clothes,* or who at least have no use for them, and who take it upon themselves to drop the axe on garments and traditions that have been hallowed among the best dressed for more than seven decades. And then these doctrinaire epigones are the first to point fingers and cry "pedant!" "snob!" "closed-minded!" "fashion dictator!" at those of us who merely pipe up and say "We think this looks good and it has been part of the tradition of fine dress for a long time."


You've forgotten the trolls; let's not forget the trolls. Particularly in responding to Harry.


----------



## JLibourel

gnatty8 said:


> You've forgotten the trolls; let's not forget the trolls. Particularly in responding to Harry.


"Harry" or "Hector"?


----------



## Wayfarer

gnatty8 said:


> You've forgotten the trolls; let's not forget the trolls. Particularly in responding to Harry.


And what are trolls wearing this year? Jeans, an OCBD (not a striped one, as they don't come in stripe, ya know?), black CH shoes, and an orphaned pin-stripe jacket? Just not a 3/R2 one!


----------



## Hector Freemantle

I'm afraid this thread has now deteriorated to the point of near insanity and hysteria. And if hear any more absurd, juvenile and thoroughly shopworn and exhausted attempts to analogize those with whom one disagrees with folk who want to elevate Arby's over haute cuisine and burn all the Vermeers, I shall be forced to throw up the spam sandwich I had for breakfast all over my ice- blue trousers and tan shoes despite the fact that the trousers actually fit me. Hence, I shall be leaving the thread on the advice of another, clearly sane, member if this forum who supported my view point and stated that he had glad he had "read the thread for no other reason than it has revealed the true colors of these snobbish, vindictive asses." No prizes for those who guess to which posters he refers.


----------



## DocHolliday

Be seeing you.


----------



## JLibourel

Oh, Hector, please don't leave! I found your talents for invenctive quite delightful: "beastly little over-reaching snobs"..."sociopaths"..."maliciously malevolent malcontents"..."sad, infantile ne-er do wells"..."snobbish, vindictive asses." 

If go you must, I'm sure we'll be trading bon mots over on the Advanced Forum soon enough if we aren't already.


----------



## Orsini

Nyah! Nyah! Philistine!


----------



## chrstc

So let's recap. Cruiser said that he personally didn't like the 3roll2 style after Bonhamesque had criticised it first. Bonhamesque is not hated for his supposed past misdeeds so, despite his condemnation of the style being much stronger (he called it a cheap way of getting out of buying two jackets I believe) he was not verbally lynched. It became open season on Cruiser instead. So far so predictable.
Then someone else dares to suggest that they also share this view and so, naturally, they have to be a troll as they don't agree with the majority opinion. How mature of you all.

I talked to the two tailors I use about this thread and the 3 roll 2 style. Both are Savile Row trained and one still works on the Row. Neither of them like the style at all. Does that mean that they are ignorant of the classic sartorial traditions too, then, or are they, heaven forbid, simply suggesting that just because a style is well-established doesn't mean you have to like it....
On a similar theme I note that both of our rules arbiters Will and Manton seem to be happy wearing brown shoes with navy suits. This might be acceptable using continental "rules" of dress but Will should perhaps speak to Mr Moore next time he visits Fosters. He hates this habit. But again perhaps he is just not as knowledgable as some of the posters here.. I also note a comment on Will's blog where he tells someone that he doesn't like wholecuts. Please enlighten me- what is the difference between not liking a classic shoe style and not liking a classic jacket style? 

Chris.


----------



## 16412

Hector Freemantle said:


> I'm afraid this thread has now deteriorated to the point of near insanity and hysteria.......


You clearly misunderstand why this thread became the way it did. It started before even Cruiser knew of this aaac.

If somebody is going to talk down clothes they should start a new thread to aim their ideas to what they like instead of taking a thread that is going upwards to downwards. All Cruiser had to do here was click 'new thread'. It is sorta like going to a Rock concert and one of the players or singers starts doing a swiss yodel and the rest of the concert becomes that- You would see thousands of young rockers leaving in droves. Or during a piano concerto where one of the players pulls out a Ukeke and starts playing and singing hawaiian music. That's called derailing the program.


----------



## 16412

chrstc said:


> So let's recap. Cruiser said that he personally didn't like the 3roll2 style after Bonhamesque had criticised it first. Bonhamesque is not hated for his supposed past misdeeds so, despite his condemnation of the style being much stronger (he called it a cheap way of getting out of buying two jackets I believe) he was not verbally lynched. It became open season on Cruiser instead. So far so predictable.
> Then someone else dares to suggest that they also share this view and so, naturally, they have to be a troll as they don't agree with the majority opinion. How mature of you all.
> 
> I talked to the two tailors I use about this thread and the 3 roll 2 style. Both are Savile Row trained and one still works on the Row. Neither of them like the style at all. Does that mean that they are ignorant of the classic sartorial traditions too, then, or are they, heaven forbid, simply suggesting that just because a style is well-established doesn't mean you have to like it....
> On a similar theme I note that both of our rules arbiters Will and Manton seem to be happy wearing brown shoes with navy suits. This might be acceptable using continental "rules" of dress but Will should perhaps speak to Mr Moore next time he visits Fosters. He hates this habit. But again perhaps he is just not as knowledgable as some of the posters here.. I also note a comment on Will's blog where he tells someone that he doesn't like wholecuts. Please enlighten me- what is the difference between not liking a classic shoe style and not liking a classic jacket style?
> 
> Chris.


These guys, Manton, Will, etc. know some tailors don't like everything they make. I don't like some 3 roll 2 coats either, but I don't like every million dollar painting on the walls at musems either. But enough like them that they are worth lots.

The difference between Bonhamesque and Cruiser is Bonhamesque pushes bespoke, being a tailor and/or cutter himself, while Cruiser pushes jeans and other cheapo. One pushes people upwards, no matter what price range, and the other pushes towards s l o b wear. AAAC was a non-s l o b wear place to chat. It was a place you could learn about the best clothes and how to best wear the best you could buy. Today at aaac there is very little pushing upwards, and a lot of blind leading the blind- for upwards, but so much is just bland gab here. The old guys made this place unique and grand instead of bland. When you were not here towards the beginning to compare to what it is today you have no idea how boring this place has become. As you can see they certainly livened this thread up.


----------



## heimskringla

What in Hades was this thread actually about? Perhaps we should all simply look for that missing sock... or perhaps this is a good time to point out that BB are having a sale on argyles.


----------



## Cruiser

WA said:


> If somebody is going to talk down clothes they should start a new thread to aim their ideas to what they like instead of taking a thread that is going upwards to downwards. All Cruiser had to do here was click 'new thread'.


Huh. The person who started this thread expressed skepticism about the 3/2 lapel. Four posts later I agreed with him saying that I also didn't understand it and said that I'm sure that plenty of others don't either. What would have been the purpose of starting a new thread when all I was doing was agreeing with the OP at the very beginning of the thread?

Unfortunately instead of an interesting discussion of this particular style, including the ins and outs of why some like it and some don't, it quickly became a piling on by a few folks here who simply don't like me. It really had little to do with a discussion of clothing styles at that point.

Besides, isn't it a stretch to say that someone is "talking down clothes" simply because they don't care for one particular style?

Cruiser


----------



## Will

chrstc said:


> I also note a comment on Will's blog where he tells someone that he doesn't like wholecuts. Please enlighten me- what is the difference between not liking a classic shoe style and not liking a classic jacket style?
> 
> Chris.


There is none. The discussion arose when some poster attempted to argue that anyone who liked the classic design was wrong to do so.

A wholecut, by the way, is not a classic in my book, being a relatively recent design as these things go. But if you like them you won't get criticism from me.


----------



## David V

The OP made no comments pro or con to 3to2. He simple asked why.

Nearly every attempt to answer why was met with an unnecessary rebutal.


----------



## manton

Hector Freemantle said:


> I'm afraid this thread has now deteriorated to the point of near insanity and hysteria. And if hear any more absurd, juvenile and thoroughly shopworn and exhausted attempts to analogize those with whom one disagrees with folk who want to elevate Arby's over haute cuisine and burn all the Vermeers, I shall be forced to throw up the spam sandwich I had for breakfast all over my ice- blue trousers and tan shoes despite the fact that the trousers actually fit me. Hence, I shall be leaving the thread on the advice of another, clearly sane, member if this forum who supported my view point and stated that he had glad he had "read the thread for no other reason than it has revealed the true colors of these snobbish, vindictive asses." No prizes for those who guess to which posters he refers.


Straw man again. You either can't read or won't read, preferring instead to just vent and huff and puff.

Once again, the original question was "Why do some like this style?" I gave an answer. You can say fifty more times that I intended to make my answer binding in perpetuity on all persons throughout the universe, but it will still be a lie.



chrstc said:


> Then someone else dares to suggest that they also share this view and so, naturally, they have to be a troll as they don't agree with the majority opinion. How mature of you all.


No. See above.



> I talked to the two tailors I use about this thread and the 3 roll 2 style. Both are Savile Row trained and one still works on the Row. Neither of them like the style at all. Does that mean that they are ignorant of the classic sartorial traditions too, then, or are they, heaven forbid, simply suggesting that just because a style is well-established doesn't mean you have to like it....


I know that MOST SR tailors don't like the style. But neither would they deny that it is a classic, nor would they deny that (say) Fred Astaire was well dressed because he had the temerity to wear the style.

For my part, I don't like the true 3-button. But I don't deny that it, too, is a classic. Nor would I assert that (say) Gary Cooper was badly dressed because he wore it.

Once again, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO LIKE ANY STYLE! Do you understand? NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO LIKE ANY STYLE! Once more?

NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO LIKE ANY STYLE!

What I am saying is that it is idiotic for the Cruiser brigades to try to write the style out of the cannon because _they _don't like it. They are the ones being absolutist and arbitrary, not me.



Will said:


> A wholecut, by the way, is not a classic in my book, being a relatively recent design as these things go. But if you like them you won't get criticism from me.


I agree, and I don't like them either.


----------



## Cruiser

David V said:


> The OP made no comments pro or con to 3to2.


Nor did I. I simply said that I personally found the buttonhole in the lapel to look somewhat odd (which I do) and I suspected that most folks would see it the same way since most folks (as everyone here laments on a daily basis) have little understanding of different clothing styles. I think the real problem wasn't what I said, but rather the fact that it was me who said it. It was really a rather benign comment.



> Nearly every attempt to answer why was met with an unnecessary rebutal.


Again, not by me. The only rebuttals I offered were to the personal attacks; otherwise, my only point, which I attempted to reiterate, was that given that this is more typical of high end clothing and not a common style in the general population (something most here will probably admit is true), there are probably many folks like me who will not understand the buttonhole in the roll of the lapel and think something is wrong. This isn't due to any shortcoming in the style but rather a lack of knowledge by folks who buy their suits and jackets in department stores, which is the majority of people.

For example, I've seen several posts here in the past from guys who took their 3/2 jackets to the dry cleaners and they came back pressed wrong. The dry cleaners tried to press them as they would a standard 3B jacket. Clearly they didn't understand the style either and were trying to repair something that wasn't broken. Again, the problem isn't the style of the jacket but rather the fact that they aren't that common outside of folks who buy high end clothing and many folks just don't understand it. I think that is where the OP was coming from.

My simply saying that doesn't mean that I don't think that this is a classic style or that many well dressed men wear them. Of course it is and of course they do. If I found a jacket that I really liked I don't know that I would let the location of that buttonhole keep me from buying it, although quite honestly given some of the stories I've heard I would probably live in fear, perhaps unfounded, of the dry cleaner screwing it up.

Cruiser


----------



## mack11211

Cruiser said:


> Nor did I. I simply said that I personally found the buttonhole in the lapel to look somewhat odd (which I do) and I suspected that most folks would see it the same way since most folks (as everyone here laments on a daily basis) have little understanding of different clothing styles. I think the real problem wasn't what I said, but rather the fact that it was me who said it. It was really a rather benign comment.
> 
> Again, not by me. The only rebuttals I offered were to the personal attacks; otherwise, my only point, which I attempted to reiterate, was that given that this is more typical of high end clothing and not a common style in the general population (something most here will probably admit is true), there are probably many folks like me who will not understand the buttonhole in the roll of the lapel and think something is wrong. This isn't due to any shortcoming in the style but rather a lack of knowledge by folks who buy their suits and jackets in department stores, which is the majority of people.
> 
> For example, I've seen several posts here in the past from guys who took their 3/2 jackets to the dry cleaners and they came back pressed wrong. The dry cleaners tried to press them as they would a standard 3B jacket. Clearly they didn't understand the style either and were trying to repair something that wasn't broken. Again, the problem isn't the style of the jacket but rather the fact that they aren't that common outside of folks who buy high end clothing and many folks just don't understand it. I think that is where the OP was coming from.
> 
> My simply saying that doesn't mean that I don't think that this is a classic style or that many well dressed men wear them. Of course it is and of course they do. If I found a jacket that I really liked I don't know that I would let the location of that buttonhole keep me from buying it, although quite honestly given some of the stories I've heard I would probably live in fear, perhaps unfounded, of the dry cleaner screwing it up.
> 
> Cruiser


Who knows what 'most folks' think? Pethaps they think the top button can be buttoned in extreme wind or cold, as of course it can. Absent some survey, what they really think of it is pure speculation on your part. That they will fear or disapprove of what they don't understand is speculation as well.

Many people I move among do not understand how or why I dress as I do. But they see the pleasure and care I take in dressing, and they like it.

I came to this board because there were people here who knew lots of things I did not understand, and I sought to learn them. I now know there are many aspects of classic dress that I like, and some I do not.

I also know that fearing the incomprehension or disappoval of the silent majority will make us dull dressers indeed. People try to dress in a way appropriate to their contexts, but this fear will make us dull dressers indeed.

Lastly, if you fear your dry cleaner will press the coat wrongly, search for a better one.


----------



## Rossini

Hey, everyone, button it! (sorry).

And what happened to all the love for the C&J Weymouth?


----------



## Rossini

Cruiser said:


> Nor did I. I simply said that I personally found the buttonhole in the lapel to look somewhat odd (which I do) and I suspected that most folks would see it the same way since most folks (as everyone here laments on a daily basis) have little understanding of different clothing styles.


That's just it. This isn't about most folks and what they think. This is a clothing forum for people who are passionate about clothes and have an interest in tailoring and so forth.


----------



## Cruiser

mack11211 said:


> Absent some survey, what they really think of it is pure speculation on your part. That they will fear or disapprove of what they don't understand is speculation as well.


OK, what's wrong with that? In fact, I have even admitted that I am speculating by saying that I "suspect" rather than I "know". And then I gave my reasoning for my speculation.

Despite my reputation here (Cruiser's flophouse, I believe), I "suspect" or "speculate" that I am more knowledgable about men's clothing than the average man on the street, given that I've not only been wearing them for six decades but I've also been reading this forum for a couple of years.

My point was that if I found the location of the buttonhole to be odd or unusual, I think it would be reasonable to think that many other less informed guys would think the same way. Again speculation, but speculation based on some degree of reasoning. And like I asked, what's wrong with that in a discussion forum?

It is easy for all to agree on something being "classic", but that doesn't mean that we have to agree that we all like it. For example, the most classic color for an automobile is black. Heck, that once was the only color for an automobile. Let me speculate that we don't all like black automobiles no matter how "classic" the color.

Cruiser


----------



## David V

Cruiser said:


> for six decades but I've also been reading this forum for a couple of years.
> 
> My point was that if I found the location of the buttonhole to be odd or unusual, I think it would be reasonable to think that many other less informed guys would think the same way. Again speculation, but speculation based on some degree of reasoning. And like I asked, what's wrong with that in a discussion forum?


But the OP didn't ask for what people didn't like about the 3to2 by what was the appeal of it.



Cruiser said:


> It is easy for all to agree on something being "classic", but that doesn't mean that we have to agree that we all like it. For example, the most classic color for an automobile is black. Heck, that once was the only color for an automobile. Let me speculate that we don't all like black automobiles no matter how "classic" the color.
> 
> Cruiser


You are confusing common with classic.


----------



## manton

Cruiser said:


> And like I asked, what's wrong with that in a discussion forum?


This is the point you make over and over to justify every act of threadjacking and every new paen to banality.

In the abstract, there is nothing wrong with having discussions on a discussion forum. But in actual practice, there is a very great deal wrong with always turning every discussion back to "Why does this matter, it's just clothes?" or "99% of classic clothes are pointless and silly and I don't like them."

It's not just that you want to force every discussion to focus only the lowest common denominator. It's that you cannot abide any other discussions to take place at all. You remind me of a little kid who wants to talk about kick-ball while the adults are busy discussing football, tennis, golf, baseball, etc., and you just can't stand it -- can't stand that they are talking about things that you don't understand, and can't stand that you and your favorite topic is not the focus of the conversation. You have to elbow your way in, every time, and make sure that turn their full attention to you and your low-brow interests.


----------



## Cruiser

manton said:


> It's not just that you want to force every discussion to focus only the lowest common denominator. It's that you cannot abide any other discussions to take place at all.


Like I pointed out, I post in less than one out of every ten threads and almost never in threads discussing bespoke or other high end clothing. By my math that leaves about 90 percent of this forum untouched my me in any way. And when you look at the threads I do post in you will see that in almost every case they have nothing to do with the things that you and your buddies complain that I keep you from discussing.

The fact is that this whole crusade against me started in two threads, one about tatoos and one about how people dress to go to the grocery store. I was hardly invading your sacred territory in those particular threads, but I did get into a disagreement with a highly regarded (by some) member of the forum and from that point on all of his buddies started piling on at every opportunity. And again, these disagreements had nothing to do with classical clothing but rather tatoos and grocery store attire, neither of which were threads that I started. Quit trying to re-write history.

My personal impact on this forum has in reality been negligible, or should have been; however, there is a group of you who have chosen to create a person called "Cruiser" who is very different from the real person. You have repeatedly taken things out of context and created an image of me throughout this forum that simply isn't me. I've posted many pictures showing you who I am and I've put forth opinions on things that are almost identical to what many of the sartorial experts here say. You choose to ignore all of that. I'm happy to see that a few others are starting to notice this.

Have I said things in anger that I regret? Of course I have, but I invite you to look at some of the really nasty things that have been said about me. There have been times that I haven't even posted in a thread and you guys start throwing my name around saying nasty things. Who wouldn't get angry?

And I'm not even going to repeat some of the really dispicable things that were said in another forum, a forum I don't even post in, about my daughter by some of these highly regarded members of this forum. How you can equate "class" with some of that disgusting garbage is beyond me. I've at least made public apologies for my lapses in jdugement.

Cruiser


----------



## mack11211

Cruiser said:


> Despite my reputation here (Cruiser's flophouse, I believe), I "suspect" or "speculate" that I am more knowledgable about men's clothing than the average man on the street, given that I've not only been wearing them for six decades but I've also been reading this forum for a couple of years.
> 
> My point was that if I found the location of the buttonhole to be odd or unusual, I think it would be reasonable to think that many other less informed guys would think the same way. Again speculation, but speculation based on some degree of reasoning. And like I asked, what's wrong with that in a discussion forum?
> 
> Cruiser


Of course you're more knowledgeable than the man in the street when it comes to men's clothing. We all are, just by joining this forum if nothing else.

But the 'man in the street' is a fiction, a figment, and a straw man. If we really cared what he thinks, why would we be here? We already would know enough.

To believe that other share your view is just your personal belief of long standing. Reason doesn't come in to it.


----------



## Wayfarer

Cruiser said:


> Despite my reputation here (Cruiser's flophouse, I believe), I "suspect" or "speculate" that* I am more knowledgable about men's clothing than the average man on the street, given that I've not only been wearing them for six decades but I've also been reading this forum for a couple of years. *


The fact you have worn clothes for nearly 60 years does not convey automatic knowledge of the finer points in tailored clothes. One could play golf for 60 years, and still be bad at it, and not have a basic swing down. Now, reading this forum for a couple of years. So, you use this as proof of having knowledge above the average man? Whom here has this deep knowledge, on this topic, that you have tapped into? Maybe the guy that has written a book on the topic? Or the one with a well respected blog on the topic? Or one not only has been wearing mens' clothes for over 60 years, but is roundly acknowledged by his peers to be well dressed? This group of people, are better known as "those you constantly disagree with." I find it odd you would use them as justification for having above average knowledge, given your propensity to argue with them.



Cruiser said:


> And that is my point. If the typical, average man in America walks down the street in a jacket of this style, most of the people who see him will either be totally unaware of it or, if they are aware of it, just think that it is somewhat odd. Truth is, most probably won't even notice.


This is from the first page of this thread. It sums up the problem quite nicely. If you give a damn what the "average man in America" thinks about your clothing, *this is not the place to seek sartorial advice.* Yet your answers invariably revolve around this. The thread about OCBD vs. straight collars re: stripes and checks, was a classic example. I mean, the LE catalouge as proof?

That, my friend, is how you've driven folks away.


----------



## Cruiser

mack11211 said:


> To believe that other share your view is just your personal belief of long standing. Reason doesn't come in to it.


I don't know exactly who shares my views nor do I spend a great deal of time thinking about it, but I can say that reason certainly doesn't seem to enter into many of the arguments some of you are presenting. You pick up on little tidbits that you think supports your beliefs and ignore everything else.

I did a quick check earlier and found that out of the last 50 active threads I had posted in exactly 6 of them, and none of them were threads devoted to any of the things that you guys say I am preventing you from discussing. I posted in a thread asking what magazines we read. I posted in a couple more asking about Jos. A. Bank, certainly not something that you guys care about. And then there was one about sticky rollers for removing lint from clothing. I know something about sticky rollers. Oh yeah, one was about overcoat colors. Is my participation in any of these threads impeding your discussions.

At the same time I was posting in those 6 threads mentioned, there were 44 other active threads ongoing in which people were discussing bespoke clothing and shoes, high end brands, bespoke black tie wear, a high end fabric discussion, etc. I read many of those threads but uttered not a word in a single one of them. In no way did I hamper anyone's ability to discuss those issues.

Every day people wander into this forum who want to dress nice but have little interest in bespoke clothing or scouring ebay for used high end clothing. They are interested in and ask questions about clothing that some of you guys have no interest in. I could be wrong but I don't think Andy intended for this forum to be off limits to them the way a few of you seem to think. If he did I doubt we would be seeing those retailers that some of you dismiss as "crap" advertising at the top of the page. I have a feeling Andy has too much integrity for that.

Like I said, I completely stay out of 90 percent of this forum. If my participation in that remaining 10 percent threatens or angers you to the point that you cannot participate in the other 90 percent, I think the problem is yours, not mine.

Cruiser


----------



## JLibourel

Cruiser said:


> Like I pointed out, I post in less than one out of every ten threads and almost never in threads discussing bespoke or other high end clothing. By my math that leaves about 90 percent of this forum untouched my me in any way. And when you look at the threads I do post in you will see that in almost every case they have nothing to do with the things that you and your buddies complain that I keep you from discussing.
> 
> The fact is that this whole crusade against me started in two threads, one about tatoos and one about how people dress to go to the grocery store. I was hardly invading your sacred territory in those particular threads, but I did get into a disagreement with a highly regarded (by some) member of the forum and from that point on all of his buddies started piling on at every opportunity. And again, these disagreements had nothing to do with classical clothing but rather tatoos and grocery store attire, neither of which were threads that I started. Quit trying to re-write history.
> 
> My personal impact on this forum has in reality been negligible, or should have been; however, there is a group of you who have chosen to create a person called "Cruiser" who is very different from the real person. You have repeatedly taken things out of context and created an image of me throughout this forum that simply isn't me. I've posted many pictures showing you who I am and I've put forth opinions on things that are almost identical to what many of the sartorial experts here say. You choose to ignore all of that. I'm happy to see that a few others are starting to notice this.
> 
> Have I said things in anger that I regret? Of course I have, but I invite you to look at some of the really nasty things that have been said about me. There have been times that I haven't even posted in a thread and you guys start throwing my name around saying nasty things. Who wouldn't get angry?


This is so typical of you, Cruiser. You can go on and on in other threads in your relentless, bullying style in high dudgeon, giving vent to your resentment of any standards of elegance and sartorial excellence. Yet, when you get some flak back, you fall back into this whiny, self-serving, "I haven't done anything, why is everyone picking on poor little me?" mode.



> And I'm not even going to repeat some of the really dispicable things that were said in another forum, a forum I don't even post in, about my daughter by some of these highly regarded members of this forum. How you can equate "class" with some of that disgusting garbage is beyond me. I've at least made public apologies for my lapses in jdugement.
> 
> Cruiser


I have known you were a liar and a contemptible human being for a long time, and this merely compounds it. I assume you are referring to those comments on FNB's "Inane Post" thread. Not a single one of the few men who commented was even a member of this forum, much less a "highly regarded" one. (A couple of the comments were perhaps in questionable taste, I admit.) I note that you have tried to associate me with this business in past remarks you have made, when I made no comments about your daughter whatsoever. You still haven't answered my question about who it was in this forum that supposedly said that everyone who wears RTW suits should be killed, which you have alleged with the implication that it was I. ( In that case, I'd have to eat the gun in the interests of philosophical consistency!) You like to assume the mantle of righteous indignation, but you sure have a way of playing fast and loose with the truth.


----------



## paper clip

WA said:


> It is sorta like going to a Rock concert and one of the players or singers starts doing a swiss yodel and the rest of the concert becomes that-


Try this on for size!

https://www.totalmusicgeek.com/2008/07/focus-hocus-pocus-1971.html


----------



## Will

Cruiser said:


> I did a quick check earlier and found that out of the last 50 active threads I had posted in exactly 6 of them


I believe that a greater than 10% participation rate is in the highest 1%, if not the absolute highest on the board.

And I have no objection to that, nor to about half your white bread posts that simply state what you wear.

No, my objection is to the repetition about what the average American might think, combined with your attempts to define yourself as some upper echelon version of those same average Americans.

Few men on this board care to emulate the dress of small town America. Most are trying to learn how the very best do things so they can improve themselves.

And that is another place where we seem to differ for I see no signs that you are not already satisfied with your dress. Or perhaps I've missed some post relating how you tried wearing brown shoes one day but were sent home to change by your outraged neighbors. That would at least be an interesting read.


----------



## Rossini

Cruiser said:


> My personal impact on this forum has in reality been negligible, or should have been; however, there is a group of you who have chosen to create a person called "Cruiser" who is very different from the real person. You have repeatedly taken things out of context and created an image of me throughout this forum that simply isn't me.


Cruiser, let's assume you do care for a moment. In which case, I do think you need to take a look at some of the threads people are referring to and how you've influenced them. IF you are genuinely concerned about this forum and how you are perceived then, slights and anger on all sides aside, perhaps you should reflect on whether there might be some truth to it. After all, you've heard this from a number of quarters, from people who don't know eachother and have no allegiance to eachother. We've each formed our conclusions and a good number of them are suggesting that we feel that your dogmatic everymanism is extinguishing the free sartorial debate by, as many have said, warping the shape and direction of discussions and bringing them back to the same axioms each time. Nothing wrong with your point of view, it's just that it sometimes permeates and upsets otherwise interesting discussions.

This is nothing to do with who the real Cruiser is or who the Internet Cruiser is. This is about how the actions and posts made in the style you have adopted are changing the board to the detriment of the enjoyment of many a person here with an actual interest in clothing and a passion for debating the finer points in it (something you once professed to me that you just do not have). The criticisms would just not be forthcoming if there was no truth to them.

Again, if you are a serious man, as I believe you to be, you will realise that you owe it to yourself, and to this forum, to contemplate unemotionally some of the facts here and the criticisms that have been made about the style you have adopted. With certain realisations, perhaps we can all work at getting along. And maybe we can get to know the better man underneath the style heretofore.


----------



## gnatty8

JLibourel said:


> "Harry" or "Hector"?


Harry, Hector, same ****, different pile..


----------



## gnatty8

Hector Freemantle said:


> I'm afraid this thread has now deteriorated to the point of near insanity and hysteria. And if hear any more absurd, juvenile and thoroughly shopworn and exhausted attempts to analogize those with whom one disagrees with folk who want to elevate Arby's over haute cuisine and burn all the Vermeers, I shall be forced to throw up the spam sandwich I had for breakfast all over my ice- blue trousers and tan shoes despite the fact that the trousers actually fit me. Hence, I shall be leaving the thread on the advice of another, clearly sane, member if this forum who supported my view point and stated that he had glad he had "read the thread for no other reason than it has revealed the true colors of these snobbish, vindictive asses." No prizes for those who guess to which posters he refers.


Now I know I am not a snobbish vindictive ass, so I feel, vindicated? :aportnoy:

My trousers still don't fit though so, hollow words indeed..


----------



## Rossini

gnatty8 said:


> Harry, Hector, same ****, different pile..


Hector wants to know what an iGent is. Anyone?


----------



## gnatty8

An iGent? I haven't a clue. Ask Manton, lol


----------



## Nantucket Red

Cruiser said:


> I simply said that I personally found the buttonhole in the lapel to look somewhat odd (which I do) and I suspected that most folks would see it the same way since most folks (as everyone here laments on a daily basis) have little understanding of different clothing styles. I think the real problem wasn't what I said, but rather the fact that it was me who said it. It was really a rather benign comment.


Who cares what "most folks" think? Who cares what _you think_ most folks think? You take the bottom rung of mediocrity as your yardstick and presume to be the spokesman for "most folks," when this segment is irrelevant to those of us who actually care about clothes. Your relentless insistence that it is your conception of "most folks" that matters just gets in the way of the discussion.



Cruiser said:


> . . . there are probably many folks like me who will not understand the buttonhole in the roll of the lapel and think something is wrong. This isn't due to any shortcoming in the style but rather a lack of knowledge by folks who buy their suits and jackets in department stores, which is the majority of people.


So what? Again, who cares what this supposed majority thinks or does? Personally, I don't participate in internet clothing forums because I care what the lowest common denominator thinks. Those of us who take issue with you will never care no matter how long or how loudly you flog this dead horse.



Cruiser said:


> For example, I've seen several posts here in the past from guys who took their 3/2 jackets to the dry cleaners and they came back pressed wrong. The dry cleaners tried to press them as they would a standard 3B jacket. Clearly they didn't understand the style either and were trying to repair something that wasn't broken. Again, the problem isn't the style of the jacket but rather the fact that they aren't that common outside of folks who buy high end clothing and many folks just don't understand it. I think that is where the OP was coming from.


Seriously?? I'm at a loss here except to say that your predilection for making inane points like this is one reason many suspect you're a troll. It's clear to anyone able to read between the lines that you are arguing for willful ignorance. You assert that "many folks just don't understand it" with the implication that, rather than learn about it and understand it, one should avoid it. Perhaps the OP was seeking fresh insight about this style instead of looking for reasons to dismiss it.



Cruiser said:


> My simply saying that doesn't mean that I don't think that this is a classic style or that many well dressed men wear them. Of course it is and of course they do. If I found a jacket that I really liked I don't know that I would let the location of that buttonhole keep me from buying it, although quite honestly given some of the stories I've heard I would probably live in fear, perhaps unfounded, of the dry cleaner screwing it up.
> 
> Cruiser


Don't be bullied by straw bogeymen! If your dry cleaner gets something wrong, set them straight.

You continue to fail to provide anything like a useful insight into sartorial choices, and those of us who would prefer to learn something new about the subject -- as Will and Manton, most notably, have offered -- grow weary of your long-winded and tiresome twattle.


----------



## dopey

dopey said:


> I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but I didn't want to start a new thread:
> 
> Has anyone seen my sock? I seem to have misplaced it - it was gray with red accents at the heel and toe.
> 
> Please let me know if you find it.


Leave Cruiser alone. He promised to help me find my sock.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif

dopey said:


> Leave Cruiser alone. He promised to help me find my sock.


Wait a minute here. What about my lost sock, and did I mention that I never lost one until I met you.


----------



## Nantucket Red

dopey said:


> Leave Cruiser alone. He promised to help me find my sock.


You may end up with two mismatched socks, one threadbare.


----------



## 16412

paper clip said:


> Try this on for size!
> 
> https://www.totalmusicgeek.com/2008/07/focus-hocus-pocus-1971.html


Got me there.

But the guy didn't come out with lederhosen and playing umpha during another song. So i sorta rest my case.


----------



## 16412

Cruiser said:


> Huh. The person who started this thread expressed skepticism about the 3/2 lapel. Four posts later I agreed with him saying that I also didn't understand it and said that I'm sure that plenty of others don't either. What would have been the purpose of starting a new thread when all I was doing was agreeing with the OP at the very beginning of the thread?
> 
> Unfortunately instead of an interesting discussion of this particular style, including the ins and outs of why some like it and some don't, it quickly became a piling on by a few folks here who simply don't like me. It really had little to do with a discussion of clothing styles at that point.
> 
> Besides, isn't it a stretch to say that someone is "talking down clothes" simply because they don't care for one particular style?
> 
> Cruiser


I don't disagree with you about a lot of stuff for ordinary wear that some folks like to do. I find it hard to pair a sports coat with jeans, but I have no problem with being around loggers and their stagged pants and red supenders and cork boots. Why don't you start threads that meet your beliefs of ordinary and less than, and let other threads soar to the sky?

Some people think you name precedes you with "this thread is going to be shot down." Did Zegnamtl leave because of you? He was one of the best writers here.


----------



## 16412

Nantucket Red said:


> You may end up with two mismatched socks, one threadbare.


That's good.

Next time you should warn me so I can be dressed in my white tie and layed in my casket ready to die laughing.


----------



## chrstc

manton said:


> Once again, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO LIKE ANY STYLE! Do you understand? NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO LIKE ANY STYLE! Once more?
> 
> NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO LIKE ANY STYLE!
> 
> What I am saying is that it is idiotic for the Cruiser brigades to try to write the style out of the cannon because _they _don't like it. They are the ones being absolutist and arbitrary, not me.


Hmm OK then Mr smug and patronising. You are saying that your answers in this thread are not in the slightest bit tempered by the fact that you have an ongoing feud with Cruiser? In that case, kindly quote Cruiser telling us all that the 3 roll 2 should be banished from the face of the planet. I can see sections where he has said he doesn't like the style and that the majority of Americans would probably not understand it (which may or may not be true) but I can't see anything more absolute than that. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before criticising that of others.

Chris.


----------



## 16412

chrstc said:


> Hmm OK then Mr smug and patronising. You are saying that your answers in this thread are not in the slightest bit tempered by the fact that you have an ongoing feud with Cruiser? In that case, kindly quote Cruiser telling us all that the 3 roll 2 should be banished from the face of the planet. I can see sections where he has said he doesn't like the style and that the majority of Americans would probably not understand it (which may or may not be true) but I can't see anything more absolute than that. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before criticising that of others.
> 
> Chris.


Not sure what your dog is in this fight.

Perhaps you can explain.


----------



## chrstc

My last post on the subject- Manton insulted my intelligence so I insulted him back. Seems perfectly fair don't you think. Everyone should be able to post their opinions here without fear of being slapped down. That is what a community is all about. You don't have to agree with everyone all of the time but they should have a right to say what they like about clothing here. 

Chris.


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks

This thread has become astounding. I quit reading it for a week and then come back to see ten more pages added.

The nature of the discussion baffles me. So Cruiser usually comes at a subject from the angle of what the "common man" is thinking. SO WHAT? Are we all in such lofty ivory towers we can't even tolerate hearing the opinions of the great unwashed masses? Some things I agree with Cruiser on, many things I don't. I state my opinions and read the answers of others. I've learned much from those of a higher "breeding" than myself, but Cruiser has given me something to think about on more than one occasion.

My point is, it's a DISCUSSION. Moreover, it's a discussion on men's clothing. Some of us sound like we're demanding pistols at dawn. We're not debating how to bring world peace or cure cancer.

If you think Cruiser's posts are tiresome or inflammatory or repetitive or whatever it is, ignore them. Point the thread back in the direction you want it to go. Nobody can "hijack" a thread if the others don't allow it.

Peace be unto you all.

Pink


----------



## welldressedfellow

:deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a::deadhorse-a:

Does that sum it up?


----------



## acidicboy

I just ordered a 5 button roll to 4 like this



I really appreciate the history of such fine menswear and it is an honor to be counted as one who keeps this tradition alive. Unfortunately, some guy on the street wearing denims- DENIMS! laughed at my jacket of storied tradition and I didn't have the time to correct his errors in style. Poor chap.


----------



## Acct2000

AB, thou beest whimsical, I tthink, I think!


----------



## manton

chrstc said:


> Hmm OK then Mr smug and patronising. You are saying that your answers in this thread are not in the slightest bit tempered by the fact that you have an ongoing feud with Cruiser? In that case, kindly quote Cruiser telling us all that the 3 roll 2 should be banished from the face of the planet. I can see sections where he has said he doesn't like the style and that the majority of Americans would probably not understand it (which may or may not be true) but I can't see anything more absolute than that. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before criticising that of others.
> 
> Chris.


I don't have an ongoing feud with Cruiser. I found that the site had gotten boring many months ago and stopped posting because of that. I would occasionally check in to see if there was anything interesting. There never was.

Then a couple of weeks ago I found this thread, and one asking if brown could be worn with gray. I was, to say the least, flabbergasted.

I had read several accounts of Cruiser's role in all this on Style Forum and never fully believed or understood it. But reading through a couple of threads on my last visit, I became absolutely convinced that the critics were correct.

As to my reading comprehension, it seems to me quite obvious that many of Cruiser's posts (and Hector's, and those of some others) are indeed tantamount to writing the 3 roll 2 out of the canon, to marking it as "affected", improperly made, jarring to the average eye, silly, something no serious person would wear. If you don't see that, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks

manton said:


> As to my reading comprehension, it seems to me quite obvious that many of Cruiser's posts (and Hector's, and those of some others) are indeed tantamount to writing the 3 roll 2 out of the canon, to marking it as "affected", improperly made, jarring to the average eye, silly, something no serious person would wear. If you don't see that, I don't know what to tell you.


So ok. That's Cruiser's opinion. In this case I disagree with him, too. I'm no fan of 3 roll to 2 suits either but not for any of Cruiser's reasons, I just think a 2 button looks nicer. The End.


----------



## manton

PinkPlaidSocks said:


> So ok. That's Cruiser's opinion. In this case I disagree with him, too. I'm no fan of 3 roll to 2 suits either but not for any of Cruiser's reasons, I just think a 2 button looks nicer. The End.


If that's where it ended, great. But the point many of us have been trying to make is, that's not where so many threads have ended.


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks

You want "jarring to the eye" look at Acidicboy's 5-button up there. But I like it. I'm too timid to wear something like that myself but if I saw someone else pull it off I'd smile.


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks

manton said:


> If that's where it ended, great. But the point many of us have been trying to make is, that's not where so many threads have ended.


Bear with me, I haven't read all 30 pages of this. What do you mean? Did they go down in argumentative flames? And if so, that's MY point. Perhaps some of us are allowing ourselves to be goaded. Why not have an attitude of "Oh geez, there goes Cruiser spouting his nonsense again" and address the original poster instead, putting in your two cents and getting the thread back on track?


----------



## manton

PinkPlaidSocks said:


> Bear with me, I haven't read all 30 pages of this. What do you mean? Did they go down in argumentative flames? And if so, that's MY point. Perhaps some of us are allowing ourselves to be goaded. Why not have an attitude of "Oh geez, there goes Cruiser spouting his nonsense again" and address the original poster instead, putting in your two cents and getting the thread back on track?


Well, my complaints (and those of others) have been amply aired in this thread. I am too lazy to restate them.


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks

manton said:


> Well, my complaints (and those of others) have been amply aired in this thread. I am too lazy to restate them.


Yeah, you're right. I couldn't make my position any more clear than I already have, either. See you on the other threads.


----------



## Cruiser

manton said:


> As to my reading comprehension, it seems to me quite obvious that many of Cruiser's posts (and Hector's, and those of some others) are indeed tantamount to writing the 3 roll 2 out of the canon, to marking it as "affected", improperly made, jarring to the average eye, silly, something no serious person would wear. If you don't see that, I don't know what to tell you.


Mr. Manton, if I had actually said those things I would agree with everything you have said about me; but I didn't say that. That's what you, and others, have read into my comments about why I personally don't care for this particular style; although I did say that if I otherwise liked a jacket enough it wouldn't be a deal killer for me. That's hardly in line with what you are saying I said.

Recently an esteemed member of this forum posted a picture of himself in casual clothing. With the exception of the color of the shoes he was wearing, it was an identical outfit to what I was previously called a "sl-b" for saying that I wore. Nobody called him a "sl-b". Instead everyone told him how good it looked. Go figure.

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser said:


> Mr. Manton, if I had actually said those things I would agree with everything you have said about me; but I didn't say that.


I don't know, Cruiser, it kind of looks like you did. Manton summarized your contribution as: "tantamount to writing the 3 roll 2 out of the canon, to marking it as 'affected', improperly made, jarring to the average eye, silly, something no serious person would wear. "

Now this is what you actually wrote: "The overwhelming majority of people see the buttonhole in the lapel and think something is wrong with the jacket, perhaps the dry cleaner screwed up when pressing it. To most people it just doesn't look right. I think that this is one of those things that guys who have an intense interest in clothing as a hobby see as being indicative of their taste and style while not realizing that most people just don't get it. I do get it but I still think it looks weird."

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=848453&postcount=5

So let's see. (1). Manton: Marking it as affected; Cruiser: "this is one of those things that guys who have an intense interest in clothing as a hobby see as being indicative of their taste and style while not realizing that most people just don't get it."

(2). Manton: Improperly made; Cruiser: "perhaps the dry cleaner screwed up when pressing it.....I do get it but I still think it looks weird."

(3). Manton: jarring to the average eye; Cruiser: "The overwhelming majority of people see the buttonhole in the lapel and think something is wrong with the jacket....To most people it just doesn't look right."

(4). Manton: Silly, something no serious person would wear; Cruiser: "guys who have an intense interest in clothing as a hobby see [the style] as being indicative of their taste and style while not realizing that most people just don't get it."

So Cruiser, do you now "agree with everything" that's been said about you, as you promised you would if it could be shown that the characterization of your comments was accurate?


----------



## Rossini

welldressedfellow said:


> Does that sum it up?


No.



Cruiser said:


> (....) Go figure.
> 
> Cruiser


Cruiser, I really urge you to consider my direct post to you in this thread a page or two back. There's no smoke without fire. Surely it's not doing you or anyone else any good to continually have to wade through the vitriol and constant criticism caused by this situation.Take a couple of days out of the forum to consider it and reflect on your role and contribution here. It will be good for your soul and hopefully, as I said, we can move on more amenably as a result.


----------



## gnatty8

Cruiser said:


> Mr. Manton, if I had actually said those things I would agree with everything you have said about me; but I didn't say that. That's what you, and others, have read into my comments about why I personally don't care for this particular style; although I did say that if I otherwise liked a jacket enough it wouldn't be a deal killer for me. That's hardly in line with what you are saying I said.
> 
> Recently an esteemed member of this forum posted a picture of himself in casual clothing. With the exception of the color of the shoes he was wearing, it was an identical outfit to what I was previously called a "sl-b" for saying that I wore. Nobody called him a "sl-b". Instead everyone told him how good it looked. Go figure.
> 
> Cruiser


Link please.


----------



## Cruiser

Taliesin said:


> So Cruiser, do you now "agree with everything" that's been said about you, as you promised you would if it could be shown that the characterization of your comments was accurate?


No, not at all.



> So let's see. (1). Manton: Marking it as affected; Cruiser: "this is one of those things that guys who have an intense interest in clothing as a hobby see as being indicative of their taste and style while not realizing that most people just don't get it."


The fact that many people on the street wouldn't recognize it or understand it for what it is doesn't make it an "affectation". An affectation is defined as the act of taking on or displaying an attitude or behavior that is not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt. I see nothing about this style jacket that even comes close to that.



> (2). Manton: Improperly made; Cruiser: "perhaps the dry cleaner screwed up when pressing it.....I do get it but I still think it looks weird."


You edited out the first part where I said that I was speculating as to what unknowing people might be thinking. I followed that up in a later post by explaining how I arrived at that line of thinking when I said:

_For example, I've seen several posts here in the past from guys who took their 3/2 jackets to the dry cleaners and *they came back pressed wrong*. The dry cleaners tried to press them as they would a standard 3B jacket. Clearly they didn't understand the style either and were *trying to repair something that wasn't broken*. Again, *the problem isn't the style of the jacket* _

Clearly that should not be interpreted as me saying that the jacket was improperly made. In fact, I'm saying just the opposite. Just because the style isn't my cup of tea doesn't mean that I think it is wrong or "improperly made". That's ridiculous. Besides, the thought of the dry cleaners pressing it wrong came straight from some prior posts from people who had that actually happen to them. I didn't make this up.



> (3). Manton: jarring to the average eye; Cruiser: "The overwhelming majority of people see the buttonhole in the lapel and think something is wrong with the jacket....To most people it just doesn't look right."


Perhaps we interpret "jarring to the eye" differently. I don't care for 3B jackets in general but I certainly don't consider them "jarring to the eye". That's a little extreme. I truly believe that people not armed with a significant amount of knowledge of men's fashion, the great unwashed masses as it were, would wonder why there is a buttonhole in the middle of the roll of the lapel. Would it be "jarring" to their eyes, or even something that they might give more than a couple of seconds of thought to; probably not. It would just be something different and probably wouldn't make much sense to them, but again not something that they would give much thought to in the grand scheme of things. "Jarring to the eye" is a little dramatic if you ask me.



> (4). Manton: Silly, something no serious person would wear; Cruiser: "guys who have an intense interest in clothing as a hobby see [the style] as being indicative of their taste and style while not realizing that most people just don't get it."


And most non-bikers didn't "get it" when I paid $150 to replace a perfectly good chrome air cleaner cover on my Harley-Davidson with a similar looking billett chrome air cleaner. That didn't make it "silly". And whether I think that "serious" people would or should wear this style, I answered that in a later post which you failed to mention when I said:

_"My simply saying that doesn't mean that I don't think that this is a classic style or that many well dressed men wear them. Of course it is and of course they do."_

I'm hardly putting forth the proposition that I think serious people wouldn't wear this style. Again, a little dramatic if you ask me.

To tell you the truth, I think that anything I say that appears to support your image of me gets locked in your brain while all of the things I say that would dispel that image are quickly forgotten. Let's admit it, you just don't like me and it really doesn't matter what I say or do or who I am. It's like I said, I wear the same outfit as an esteemed member of the forum and he looks nice while I'm a sl-b.

Cruiser


----------



## JLibourel

Cruiser said:


> Recently an esteemed member of this forum posted a picture of himself in casual clothing. With the exception of the color of the shoes he was wearing, it was an identical outfit to what I was previously called a "sl-b" for saying that I wore. Nobody called him a "sl-b". Instead everyone told him how good it looked. Go figure.
> 
> Cruiser


That's easy enough to figure out. It's because you're The Man We Love To Hate. The "esteemed member" (whoever he may have been) is not.

Keep on slugging, Cruiser. Your indefatigability is an inspiration to us all. You are a triumph of dogged perserverance. Sorta puts me in mind of the story of Robert Bruce and the spider.


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser said:


> To tell you the truth, I think that anything I say that appears to support your image of me gets locked in your brain while all of the things I say that would dispel that image are quickly forgotten. Let's admit it, you just don't like me and it really doesn't matter what I say or do or who I am. It's like I said, I wear the same outfit as an esteemed member of the forum and he looks nice while I'm a sl-b.
> 
> Cruiser


Aww. I don't dislike you Cruiser.

But I do agree that in some threads your contributions have tended to steer things in a direction that I personally don't prefer, especially relating to semi-formalwear. I don't care for your frequent oracular declarations of what Joe Average thinks -- in my view it doesn't enhance discussions here very much and levels downward rather than upward.

See, the thing is, you post really frequently (e.g., compare your post count, accrued in 2 1/2 years, to mine, accrued in over 4 years -- you have five times as many posts). This means that your contributions have a greater impact by virtue of volume alone. So, to the extent some here find your worldview incompatible with a meaningful and distraction-free discussion of men's clothing, the frequency with which you re-iterate that worldview is, frankly, kind of grating.


----------



## Wyvern1138

Cruiser:

I don't take issue with you offering your perspective on matters of taste. It's salutary to have diverse viewpoints presented.

However, I have noticed that you seem to to take abstract criticisms personally, which makes it hard to have a frank discussion. Most of us have a combination of high- middle- and lowbrow tastes, but we don't feel compelled to defend tastes which other contributors identify as low brow, e.g. if I want to wear a rugby shirt, jeans and Chuck Taylors, I don't care if other members of this board don't think that ensemble is appropriate for someone my age.

You, on the other hand, seem to feel that if you like something, it must be objectively worthy, and in defending your own tastes, rely on grounds that call into question the legitmacy things like tradition, expertise and the idea that there is a hierarchy in sartorial matters, i.e. that there even is a highbrow, a middle brow and a lowbrow. While I am not among the experts, I don't think anyone who has devoted a lot of time and energy to a subject can be expected to appreciate the implication that his knowledge is worthless, especially in a forum devoted to that subject. Whatever is intended on your part, the perceived slight tends to escalate into into a discussion that _is_ personal.


----------



## Wayfarer

Cruiser said:


> To tell you the truth, I think that anything I say that appears to support your image of me gets locked in your brain while all of the things I say that would dispel that image are quickly forgotten. Let's admit it, you just don't like me and it really doesn't matter what I say or do or who I am. It's like I said, I wear the same outfit as an esteemed member of the forum and he looks nice while I'm a sl-b.
> 
> Cruiser


Yes, poor Cruiser. This is all in our heads and you are unjustly maligned. How about this, which has been quoted a couple of times already? Wearing chinos makes one "really old and frumpy."

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=814776&postcount=7

Yes, we're just mis-reading where someone suggests an alternative to jeans. This whole "Myth of Cruise" (MOC, pronounced "mock") was constructed out of thin air. Or this example of MOC:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=855066&postcount=9

Yes, let us leave out guys that wear bespoke and MTM, and instead appeal to the Land's End catalogue as a reference source! Because, as you state, that is no doubt what the OP was after.

Or this MOC example:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=781679&postcount=26

Could I just have a source on where the average millionaire is buying his suits please?

MOC some more:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=858120&postcount=37

Heaven forbid one finds hand done stitching a plus!

MOC manages to slam high quality shirts that wrinkle, and in the same post, state SB peak lapels are not noticed by the average Joe, as if that should matter. (FWIW, my SB peaks always get comments):

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=836725&postcount=4

"Who needs a suit?" Moc asks. Why, a black one without a tie is fine, thank you very much.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=828442&postcount=16

And what MOC conversation could do without the ridicule of the shawl lapel tux in favor of the notch?

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=766640&postcount=6

Yes Cruiser, MOC is something merely constructed in the heads of many people, with no basis in reality.


----------



## jpeirpont

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, poor Cruiser. This is all in our heads and you are unjustly maligned. How about this, which has been quoted a couple of times already? Wearing chinos makes one "really old and frumpy."
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=814776&postcount=7
> 
> Yes, we're just mis-reading where someone suggests an alternative to jeans. This whole "Myth of Cruise" (MOC, pronounced "mock") was constructed out of thin air. Or this example of MOC:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=855066&postcount=9
> 
> Yes, let us leave out guys that wear bespoke and MTM, and instead appeal to the Land's End catalogue as a reference source! Because, as you state, that is no doubt what the OP was after.
> 
> Or this MOC example:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=781679&postcount=26
> 
> Could I just have a source on where the average millionaire is buying his suits please?
> 
> MOC some more:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=858120&postcount=37
> 
> Heaven forbid one finds hand done stitching a plus!
> 
> MOC manages to slam high quality shirts that wrinkle, and in the same post, state SB peak lapels are not noticed by the average Joe, as if that should matter. (FWIW, my SB peaks always get comments):
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=836725&postcount=4
> 
> "Who needs a suit?" Moc asks. Why, a black one without a tie is fine, thank you very much.
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=828442&postcount=16
> 
> And what MOC conversation could do without the ridicule of the shawl lapel tux in favor of the notch?
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=766640&postcount=6
> 
> Yes Cruiser, MOC is something merely constructed in the heads of many people, with no basis in reality.


Were you listening to Nas, Way? You just Ethered him?


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, poor Cruiser. This is all in our heads and you are unjustly maligned. How about this, which has been quoted a couple of times already? Wearing chinos makes one "really old and frumpy."
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=814776&postcount=7
> 
> Yes, we're just mis-reading where someone suggests an alternative to jeans. This whole "Myth of Cruise" (MOC, pronounced "mock") was constructed out of thin air. Or this example of MOC:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=855066&postcount=9
> 
> Yes, let us leave out guys that wear bespoke and MTM, and instead appeal to the Land's End catalogue as a reference source! Because, as you state, that is no doubt what the OP was after.
> 
> Or this MOC example:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=781679&postcount=26
> 
> Could I just have a source on where the average millionaire is buying his suits please?
> 
> MOC some more:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=858120&postcount=37
> 
> Heaven forbid one finds hand done stitching a plus!
> 
> MOC manages to slam high quality shirts that wrinkle, and in the same post, state SB peak lapels are not noticed by the average Joe, as if that should matter. (FWIW, my SB peaks always get comments):
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=836725&postcount=4
> 
> "Who needs a suit?" Moc asks. Why, a black one without a tie is fine, thank you very much.
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=828442&postcount=16
> 
> And what MOC conversation could do without the ridicule of the shawl lapel tux in favor of the notch?
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=766640&postcount=6
> 
> Yes Cruiser, MOC is something merely constructed in the heads of many people, with no basis in reality.


I am inclined to favor Cruiser, if only because he does not make posts or threads like this one.

Does he?


----------



## Hector Freemantle

manton said:


> As to my reading comprehension, it seems to me quite obvious that many of Cruiser's posts (and Hector's, and those of some others) are indeed tantamount to writing the 3 roll 2 out of the canon, to marking it as "affected", improperly made, jarring to the average eye, silly, something no serious person would wear. If you don't see that, I don't know what to tell you.


I did try to leave this thread and spend my time more productively. However as I find my name cropping up I can't resist a final comment.

As Pink Plaid Socks and ChrisC have pointed out this forum does not exist only for clothing hobbyists who like to take photos of themselves wearing their latest acquisition, not that there is anything at all wrong with that if that's what rocks your boat, but for everyone from people such as this right down to posters like Victor C who simply want to know how to polish their shoes. If a canon actually exists in clothing then it highly unlikely that averagely interested clothes fanciers such as Cruiser and I will be the ones to decide what is to be included in the canon or excluded from it. I accept that, as I'm sure Mr. Cruiser does also, that on these matters it is you and your disciples who are the equivalent of the Frank and Queenie Leavis ( to borrow a couple of names from Eng. Lit rather than gastronomy for a change) and that we most certainly do not present anyone as remotely threatening to your notions of 'correctness' as, say, C.P. Snow did to Leavis. We are in fact, to stick with the literary analogy, mere members of the reading public, whereas you wrote the book - as I understand you actually did in one instance. However, this does not mean that our opinion does not merit consideration and should not be treated with respect. Not to treat us with consideration and respect is, I suggest, really to harm the cause of those who would spread awareness of the importance of clothing. And, by extension, it harms this web-site.


----------



## Wayfarer

Hector, 

I like how you give Cruiser the salutation "Mr." It just adds that little something extra to the trolling. Good show!

Cheers.


----------



## Taliesin

The "Mister" thing is a bit of a trend right now 'round The Thread.



Cruiser said:


> Mr. Manton, if I had actually said those things I would agree with everything you have said about me; but I didn't say that.


----------



## Wayfarer

Taliesin said:


> The "Mister" thing is a bit of a trend right now 'round The Thread.


Mr. Taliesin:

You are quite correct.


----------



## DocHolliday

Mssrs. Taliesin and Wayfarer,

I, for one, am glad to see the return of some gentility to this barbarous discussion. Truly our forum is in decline when we witness the arrival of dissent within our ranks.

I remain most sincerely

Yours,
Dr. John H. Holliday, DDS


----------



## Wayfarer

DocHolliday said:


> Mssrs. Taliesin and Wayfarer,
> 
> I, for one, am glad to see the return of some gentility to this barbarous discussion. Truly our forum is in decline when we witness the arrival of dissent within our ranks.
> 
> I remain most sincerely
> 
> Yours,
> Dr. John H. Holliday, DDS


Dear Doc:

You always make me laugh. I wish I could say the same about Mr. Ringo.

Cheers


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Wayfarer said:


> Hector,
> 
> I like how you give Cruiser the salutation "Mr." It just adds that little something extra to the trolling. Good show!
> 
> Cheers.


Sadly, an attempt to bring some civility to the thread is ridiculed as trolling and serves as a signal for some further juvenile yapping.


----------



## Wayfarer

Hector Freemantle said:


> Sadly, an attempt to bring some civility to the thread is ridiculed as trolling and serves as a signal for some further juvenile yapping.


Hector, this will be your Achilles heel.


----------



## DocHolliday

Hector Freemantle said:


> Sadly, an attempt to bring some civility to the thread is ridiculed as trolling and serves as a signal for some further juvenile yapping.


Sure is annoying when you're enjoying a discussion and people keep interrupting with irrelevant noise, eh? Almost makes one want to move to another forum.


----------



## DocHolliday

Wayfarer said:


> Dear Doc:
> 
> You always make me laugh. I wish I could say the same about Mr. Ringo.
> 
> Cheers


Mr. Wayfarer,

Your kind words fill my heart with delight. I will treasure them tomorrow every bit as much as I do today, and perhaps even more in the years to come. Rest assured, friend, that I feel every bit the same, if not more so.

Yours in gentlemanly friendship,

Doc


----------



## Rossini

My esteemed Messers Doc and Wayfarer,

Heaving this importunity, I take up my keyboard to write to you endeavouring to make this post more worthy your attention than my last.

Now, Get a room!

Affectionately yours,

Rossini.


----------



## Cruiser

Wayfarer said:


> Yes, poor Cruiser. This is all in our heads and you are unjustly maligned. How about this, which has been quoted a couple of times already? Wearing chinos makes one "really old and frumpy."


I am probably among the older members of the forum and I currently have nine pairs of chinos hanging in my closet. I'm beginning to wonder what good it does to put a smiley face at the end of a sentence. Many of my comments are tongue in cheek or self-deprecating but humor seems lost on some of you, unless of course it is you making fun of the great unwashed masses.

Within the past couple of days there have been a number of active threads devoted to the type topics that you guys say that you want to discuss, take them "soaring to the sky" as one put it. The fact is that with a couple of exceptions, many of you aren't in those threads discussing those things. Instead you're in this thread complaining about how I'm preventing you from discussing those things currently being discussed in threads in which I am nowhere to be found.

Like I said, over 90 percent of this forum is completely untouched by me. Almost the entirety of this forum is there ready and waiting for you to soar to the sky with your discussions, with zero interference from me. Clearly some of you guys have more fun complaining about me than you do discussing clothing. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Wayfarer

Cruiser said:


> I am probably among the older members of the forum and I currently have nine pairs of chinos hanging in my closet. I'm beginning to wonder what good it does to put a smiley face at the end of a sentence. Many of my comments are tongue in cheek or self-deprecating but humor seems lost on some of you, unless of course it is you making fun of the great unwashed masses.


Even if your above is accepted, for that single example, it rather leaves a preponderance of MOC examples. So as you are appealing to a 90/10 ratio to support your position, I will appeal to a similar 90/10 ratio, regarding MOC. You must either accept your own logic regarding you, or dismiss it, which removes your justification.

Most of us have Average Joe dressing down pat. Being average, it is easy to observe and copy. I came to learn from the experts and highly knowledgeable amateurs, not to see them constantly told they are wrong, because the average man does not dress like that. A good MOC example would be your challenge to Will, based on the shirts available in the LE catalogue. I thank them for what they have taught me, and I know I am much better dressed for their sharing.


----------



## Cruiser

Wayfarer said:


> Even if your above is accepted, for that single example, it rather leaves a preponderance of MOC examples. So as you are appealing to a 90/10 ratio to support your position, I will appeal to a similar 90/10 ratio, regarding MOC. You must either accept your own logic regarding you, or dismiss it, which removes your justification.


That's fine. I've played this game before, going point by point to discuss these type things and my comments are simply ignored. It's really a pointless waste of time since those who don't like me aren't going to change their opinion no matter what I say.

The truth of the matter is that I'm not claiming to be blameless in creating the image of me that is fixed in some of your minds, but at the same time the image that some of you have is being distorted well beyond reality by your own actions. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as it probably is with all of us.

Cruiser


----------



## gnatty8

Cruiser said:


> I am probably among the older members of the forum and I currently have nine pairs of chinos hanging in my closet. I'm beginning to wonder what good it does to put a smiley face at the end of a sentence. Many of my comments are tongue in cheek or self-deprecating but humor seems lost on some of you, *unless of course it is you making fun of the great unwashed masses. *
> 
> Like I said, over 90 percent of this forum is completely untouched by me. Almost the entirety of this forum is there ready and waiting for you to soar to the sky with your discussions, with zero interference from me. Clearly some of you guys have more fun complaining about me than you do discussing clothing. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


I have much more fun making fun of the great unwashed masses.. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JLibourel

gnatty8 said:


> I have much more fun making fun of the great unwashed masses.. :icon_smile_big:


Me, too. It consoles me for being unable shoot them!

BTW, in the new spirit of civility pervading this thread, I should like hereafter to be addressed as "Dr. Libourel."


----------



## Wayfarer

JLibourel said:


> Me, too. It consoles me for being unable shoot them!
> 
> BTW, in the new spirit of civility pervading this thread, I should like hereafter to be addressed as "Dr. Libourel."


Dear Dr. Libourel,

I could not think of someone more deserving of the title than you. I, for one, will be happy to comply with your wishes. In the same spirit, and aligned with my passion, I would like to be addressed as Piper MacCrimmon.

Cheers


----------



## gnatty8

JLibourel said:


> Me, too. It consoles me for being unable shoot them!
> 
> BTW, in the new spirit of civility pervading this thread, I should like hereafter to be addressed as "Dr. Libourel."


As opposed to say, Captain Libourel?

As you wish Dr. Libourel.

Your humble and obedient servant,

Gnatty8


----------



## RJman

Please call me Admiral RJman.


----------



## Wayfarer

RJman said:


> Please call me Admiral RJman.


Dear Admiral,

Please do not show me the Captain's log.

Thank you.


----------



## Rossini

Cruiser said:


> That's fine. I've played this game before, going point by point to discuss these type things and my comments are simply ignored. It's really a pointless waste of time since those who don't like me aren't going to change their opinion no matter what I say.
> 
> The truth of the matter is that I'm not claiming to be blameless in creating the image of me that is fixed in some of your minds, but at the same time the image that some of you have is being distorted well beyond reality by your own actions. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as it probably is with all of us.
> 
> Cruiser


Dear Cruiser,

Are you incapable of listening? Read my posts.


----------



## Bird's One View

RJman said:


> Please call me Admiral RJman.


I trust you are wearing the 6x3 jacket, or perhaps the 8x4. Admiral.


----------



## SlowE30

It's a shame that posts in "pointless argument" threads count the same as "normal" threads. I'm convinced some members build their "post count credibility" by such debates. 

As I have done before, here is my non-contribution in exchange for another post point. At least I'm honest.


----------



## dopey

When I wear an undershirt for a long time, the underarm area gets really yellowed and crusty. I don't throw it out, though, until it gets holes. The way I think about it, as long as I am wearing a shirt over it, no one can see the yellow stains.

Is this wrong? What do the other members here do?

I still can't find my sock.

Thanks, in advance.


----------



## David V

dopey said:


> When I wear an undershirt for a long time, the underarm area gets really yellowed and crusty. I don't throw it out, though, until it gets holes. The way I think about it, as long as I am wearing a shirt over it, no one can see the yellow stains.
> 
> Is this wrong? What do the other members here do?
> 
> I still can't find my sock.
> 
> Thanks, in advance.


If you kept it on till it had holes and got crusty it wouldn't matter to you if you lost it.


----------



## Taliesin

SlowE30 said:


> It's a shame that posts in "pointless argument" threads count the same as "normal" threads. I'm convinced some members build their "post count credibility" by such debates.


Good observation. I wish the site didn't reward high post counts with designations like Super Member or whatever. Or at least that such designations were somehow a function of both time and post counts. There are posters here who have been on the site for 1/16th the length of time I've been here, with double or triple the number of posts I've got. I seriously doubt that such a phenomenon breeds quality. That's why I've recently added this silly signature line to my posts -- it makes me feel better to flaunt my old-timer status. But seriously, I think it should count for something, especially if reasoning from perceived authority is to be the currency of the realm.

Newer members ought to read much more than they write, but that doesn't seem to be the practice any more. In my opinion, this is also part of the problem that's been lamented here in The Thread.


----------



## 16412

dopey said:


> When I wear an undershirt for a long time, the underarm area gets really yellowed and crusty. I don't throw it out, though, until it gets holes. The way I think about it, as long as I am wearing a shirt over it, no one can see the yellow stains.
> 
> Is this wrong? What do the other members here do?
> 
> I still can't find my sock.
> 
> Thanks, in advance.


All men that I have seen wearing bespoke always wore tank tops, or whatever they are called. That should prevent you from haveing crusty yellow shirts.

The other answer is to never take off the second shirt. That way you will never see the crusty yellow on the first shirt.

About your missing sock you should always buy purple socks, because they are more royal, and royality never gets lost.


----------



## daytura

WA said:


> About your missing sock you should always buy _flesh-coloured_ socks


Noob.


----------



## 16412

daytura said:


> Noob.


Your link _flesh-coloured_ is that some sort of sign language? Rather toey though.


----------



## [email protected]

Are black suits appropriate for business?


----------



## Sator

[email protected] said:


> Are black suits appropriate for business?


Rest assured, Cruiser will be here soon to reassure you that they are.


----------



## Cruiser

Rossini said:


> Dear Cruiser,
> 
> Are you incapable of listening? Read my posts.


Yes, I've read what you wrote and I truly appreciate the civil, and thoughtful, approach that you have taken. The only problem I have with what you said is that you seem to believe that I am the sole cause of any discontent. I don't buy into that and we will just have to agree to disagree. But again, I do appreciate the civil manner in which you presented your position and suggestions.

My comments were not directed at you.

Cruiser


----------



## Rossini

Cruiser - no, not the sole cause but each is responsible for their own actions. Take away the opportunity for the complainers to complain and we'll be left with no option but to be civil. 

And, thanks, by the way.


----------



## Bog

Cruiser said:


> The only problem I have with what you said is that you seem to believe that I am the sole cause of any discontent. I don't buy into that and we will just have to agree to disagree.


Except that you are the cause of discontent. You've heard it from numerous people, who don't know each other, who have all come to this conclusion. Don't delude yourself any longer.


----------



## Vecsus

As a moderator of a heavily trafficed mountain bike forum, I can't help but wonder why this thread wasn't closed 25 pages ago. The longer this stays open the more immature the primary participants appear. I guess being well dressed does not necessarily equate to being well tempered.


----------



## welldressedfellow

Vecsus said:


> As a moderator of a heavily trafficed mountain bike forum, I can't help but wonder why this thread wasn't closed 25 pages ago. The longer this stays open the more immature the primary participants appear. I guess being well dressed does not necessarily equate to being well tempered.


So,so very true!


----------



## Bog

Vecsus said:


> As a moderator of a heavily trafficed mountain bike forum, I can't help but wonder why this thread wasn't closed 25 pages ago. The longer this stays open the more immature the primary participants appear. I guess being well dressed does not necessarily equate to being well tempered.


And I can't help but wonder why Cruiser wasn't banned a long time ago. Well, actually, the explaination why is found in this thread.


----------



## DocHolliday

Vecsus said:


> As a moderator of a heavily trafficed mountain bike forum, I can't help but wonder why this thread wasn't closed 25 pages ago. The longer this stays open the more immature the primary participants appear. I guess being well dressed does not necessarily equate to being well tempered.


I find it heartening that what you suggest hasn't happened. There was a time when it would have, and quickly. And that was a big part of the problem. I hope the thread's continued existence bodes well for the future of free discourse on the forum.

Personally, I do not place all the blame for what has happened here on Cruiser. Not even most of it, really. I lost interest in posting here when the conversation became so artificially genteel that even civil disagreements were frowned upon. It became "ungentlemanly" to argue contrary viewpoints, even in polite terms. That's a sure way to stifle the conversation, and it did.

I still find it both amusing and depressing that the word "s l o b" is censored on a clothing forum. That's how dainty and delicate AA's sensibilities had become. Heaven help us should anyone's feelings be bruised by an untoward remark!

No one should be ridiculed or called names, of course, but we're big boys here. Too often, I find, the forum confuses differing opinions with personal attacks.


----------



## Vecsus

This thread has long since past the point of "civil disagreement" and has crossed well into the realm of the absurd. Maybe you should read the forum rules again, especially Rule 1. I'm no stranger to profanity and crude humor. But I would think a forum such as this would be a lot more mature.


----------



## DocHolliday

Vecsus said:


> This thread has long since past the point of "civil disagreement" and has crossed well into the realm of the absurd. Maybe you should read the forum rules again, especially Rule 1. I'm no stranger to profanity and crude humor. But I would think a forum such as this would be a lot more mature.


I am sorry if my civil disagreement offended your sensibilities.

"Mature" does not have to equal "humorless."

I liked the forum better before there was a huge list of rules to avoid offending the most easily offendable. Surely most of us know how to behave ourselves, and those who don't are unlikely to pay much heed.

.


----------



## Wayfarer

Vecsus said:


> This thread has long since past the point of "civil disagreement" and has crossed well into the realm of the absurd. Maybe you should read the forum rules again, especially Rule 1. I'm no stranger to profanity and crude humor. But I would think a forum such as this would be a lot more mature.


I did not think things strayed far from the path of civility. The level of ad homs, etc., has been very low, except for people stating people are not mature enough for them, are snobs for valuing classical clothing, etc. Basically, the usual things launched by the masses, when the traditional cannon gets defended. The background given on the 3/2 coat was detailed and enlightening (the reason so many come here) and the personal grievances were mainly kept to pointing out examples of said grievances.

All in all, a healthy debate of both the topic if the thread and some issues than have been brewing here for years. Interesting a guy that has been a member for three years, with under 40 posts, would be so moved by this thread, to start telling people they are uncivil and immature.

Terribly ironic, your appeal to the "Rules," when the major grievance is the constant dismissal of the rules of clothing, the reason we are all ostensibly here.


----------



## Wayfarer

DocHolliday said:


> I am sorry if my civil disagreement offended your sensibilities.
> 
> "Mature" does not have to equal "humorless."


My good Doctor:

Please do not become humourless. As I have said before, you always make me laugh.

Cheers


----------



## storeynicholas

How can *a button* have such an impact?
NJS


----------



## dopey

****, ****, ****
just testing to see if it's true.

Amazing. It is. The letters were all changed to "*". Awesome.
Sl ob. Does that work? Yes, it does.

How about this slob. SO if you change a color, it gets through the editor.

slob

Cool. If you change a letter to a color and then back to black, it stays.

slob, slob slob


----------



## gnatty8

dopey said:


> ****, ****, ****
> just testing to see if it's true.


Not bad..


----------



## gnatty8

DocHolliday said:


> I find it heartening that what you suggest hasn't happened. There was a time when it would have, and quickly. And that was a big part of the problem. I hope the thread's continued existence bodes well for the future of free discourse on the forum.
> 
> Personally, I do not place all the blame for what has happened here on Cruiser. Not even most of it, really. I lost interest in posting here when the conversation became so artificially genteel that even civil disagreements were frowned upon. It became "ungentlemanly" to argue contrary viewpoints, even in polite terms. That's a sure way to stifle the conversation, and it did.
> 
> I still find it both amusing and depressing that the word "s l o b" is censored on a clothing forum. That's how dainty and delicate AA's sensibilities had become. Heaven help us should anyone's feelings be bruised by an untoward remark!
> 
> No one should be ridiculed or called names, of course, but we're big boys here. Too often, I find, the forum confuses differing opinions with personal attacks.


I agree with most of what you've written here, and I think this type of behavior probably was the inspiration for the term iGent, but I am not sure. When I think of the iGentry, I certainly think of behavior like this.

However, balance is important. Other forums, er, fora, can quickly descend into frat house bullsh*t and immaturity that make me somewhat embarassed to be a party to.

I sometimes think that the forum that comes closest to the ideals of what I look for in a clothing forum is the Advanced Forum, which is almost odd given how widely derided it can be..


----------



## Mad Hatter

iGent? I thought that was Americans using English spelling.

Anyway, I can see what the more-tenured mean. There's been a few jeans posts lately. I can't see overthinking something that casual, yet it seems there is a need for..advice. Perhaps the Streetwear Forum suggested earlier would be a compromise.

Dopey, have you looked on your foot for the sock? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Orsini

Vecsus said:


> This thread has long since past the point of "civil disagreement" and has crossed well into the realm of the absurd. Maybe you should read the forum rules again, especially Rule 1. I'm no stranger to profanity and crude humor. But I would think a forum such as this would be a lot more mature.


https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=84167&highlight=holster


----------



## JerseyJohn

Wow. 32 pages and no one has brought up Hitler or the Nazis. We've just disproved Godwin's Law! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law


----------



## James Bond

JerseyJohn said:


> Wow. 32 pages and no one has brought up Hitler or the Nazis. We've just disproved Godwin's Law! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law


Congrats, you just lost the thread! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JLibourel

JerseyJohn said:


> Wow. 32 pages and no one has brought up Hitler or the Nazis. We've just disproved Godwin's Law! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law


No, someone referred to the anti-Cruiser faction as "clothing Nazis" way back in this thread.


----------



## Marcus Brody

JerseyJohn said:


> Wow. 32 pages and no one has brought up Hitler or the Nazis. We've just disproved Godwin's Law! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law


It did make it 290 posts if that makes you feel any better...


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser said:


> The truth of the matter is that I'm not claiming to be blameless in creating the image of me that is fixed in some of your minds, but at the same time the image that some of you have is being distorted well beyond reality by your own actions. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as it probably is with all of us.
> 
> Cruiser


Cruiser: This is probably true. Given that you acknowledge both your own shortcomings and the imperfect behavior of others, what do you suggest as a win-win solution to close out this matter? The ball's in your court.


----------



## pbunt911

*ridiculous...*

It's unfortunate that, on most occasions, when I turn to this forum for advice or ideas I end up leaving disappointed in the behavior of some of the major contributors. It really is quite astonishing. Perhaps it's just poorly moderated. More often than not I'm just amazed how a group of adults can actually find it worthwhile to argue and, at times, get downright ugly over something as purely subjective as clothing. Isn't that what makes clothes so great? We all get to wear what we like whenever we want and if others don't like it&#8230;who cares? Why does there need to be an equilibrium on the 3B2 suit?? The answer to the posters question is, "There is no reason, it's whatever you think looks better". That's it!!! Why would anyone, who has clearly never met you and thus has no idea how well or poorly you dress, care about your personal opinions on the matter? More importantly, why do some people care so adamantly about telling everyone there opinion? You all have just made clothing another meaningless criterion on which to judge everyone else because you assume they enjoy debating the topic for hours on end as some of you appear to. I've actually run across several posts that were nothing more than the poster pointing out all the fashion faux pas of some poor guy walking down the street minding his own business. It was disgusting how many people chimed in to join the barrage.

In any event, as I clearly don't understand the purpose of this forum, I'll stop using it as a reference (Flusser and Boyer are much more concise and considerable less frustrating) and leave you to your own devices. The last thing this forum wants is a dissenter. I will say, however, the forum would be of much more useful service to the general public if everyone just stuck to offering helpful advice rather than trying to impress or state their opinion as fact (or at all). Adios.


----------



## manton

pbunt911 said:


> It's unfortunate that, on most occasions, when I turn to this forum for advice or ideas I end up leaving disappointed in the behavior of some of the major contributors. It really is quite astonishing. Perhaps it's just poorly moderated. More often than not I'm just amazed how a group of adults can actually find it worthwhile to argue and, at times, get downright ugly over something as purely subjective as clothing. Isn't that what makes clothes so great? We all get to wear what we like whenever we want and if others don't like it&#8230;who cares? Why does there need to be an equilibrium on the 3B2 suit?? The answer to the posters question is, "There is no reason, it's whatever you think looks better". That's it!!! Why would anyone, who has clearly never met you and thus has no idea how well or poorly you dress, care about your personal opinions on the matter? More importantly, why do some people care so adamantly about telling everyone there opinion? You all have just made clothing another meaningless criterion on which to judge everyone else because you assume they enjoy debating the topic for hours on end as some of you appear to. I've actually run across several posts that were nothing more than the poster pointing out all the fashion faux pas of some poor guy walking down the street minding his own business. It was disgusting how many people chimed in to join the barrage.
> 
> In any event, as I clearly don't understand the purpose of this forum, I'll stop using it as a reference (Flusser and Boyer are much more concise and considerable less frustrating) and leave you to your own devices. The last thing this forum wants is a dissenter. I will say, however, the forum would be of much more useful service to the general public if everyone just stuck to offering helpful advice rather than trying to impress or state their opinion as fact (or at all). Adios.


This is, unfortunatley, shot through with contradiction.

Once you say "There is no reason, it's whatever you think looks better", then there is nothing else to say, nothing to talk about, hence no forum worth reading.

Also, if "There is no reason, it's whatever you think looks better", then why turn to Flusser and Boyer? Why do you need them at all? What can they possibly tell you that is worth knowing?


----------



## JerseyJohn

JLibourel said:


> No, someone referred to the anti-Cruiser faction as "clothing Nazis" way back in this thread.


Oops, missed that one. Godwin is vindicated after all!


----------



## Rossini

Er... right then!


----------



## JLibourel

*Cruiser, don't change, please!*



Cruiser said:


> That's fine. I've played this game before, going point by point to discuss these type things and my comments are simply ignored. It's really a pointless waste of time since those who don't like me aren't going to change their opinion no matter what I say.
> 
> The truth of the matter is that I'm not claiming to be blameless in creating the image of me that is fixed in some of your minds, but at the same time the image that some of you have is being distorted well beyond reality by your own actions. The truth is somewhere in the middle, as it probably is with all of us.
> 
> Cruiser


Cruiser, your image is far more important than the "real, inner Cruiser." In fact, I've always had the sneaking suspicion that if we got together and had a few beers, we might actually find ourselves quite liking each other. In many ways, we're not all that far apart, and I find myself in agreement with you more times than I would care to admit.

However, you have made yourself into a larger than life figure. You bestride the forum culture like a colossus. To your foes you are the ultimate anti-sartorialist, a prolix obnoxious pest who "ruined" Andyland. I have often likened you to a villain in professional wresting...and you are a veritable Freddie Blassie. To your admirers, and I realize they exist, you are "the voice of reason," the champion of the average guy who wants to dress a bit better, the scourge of sartorial snobbery, a gallant maquisard fighting the clothing Nazis. But look at what you have accomplished: In other clothing fora, this one is now often referred to as "Ask Cruiser About Clothes," "Ask Kabbaz About Cruiser," "Cruiserland," etc. Nobody ever called it, "Ask Will About Clothes" or "Mantonland."

The bottom line is, we want our Cruiser to remain a towering, symbolic figure. If you devolve into just another bland iGent talking about ordering C&Js from Plal or whether MyTailor or Jantzen is a better source for cheap custom shirts, the whole forum culture will be much duller. We will have lost The Man We Love To Hate. The effects on the Advanced Forum would be almost too heart-rending to describe.

Let's look at it another way. How much duller would the Batman saga be if the Joker foreswore his evil ways and turned to doing stand-up, the adventures of Superman if Lex Luthor turned his wealth and power to genuine philanthropy? What would the story of Robin Hood be like without the Sheriff of Nottingham, Sherlock Holmes without Professor Moriarty?

So, we really don't want a "kinder, gentler" more introspective and conciliatory Cruiser, even if that be the "real, inner" Cruiser. It would take a lot of the zest out of this whole clothing forum endeavor. Cruiser, accept this heartfelt plea, and don't change!


----------



## Acct2000

Sounds like a plan!! Can you save some beer for me?


----------



## Cruiser

JLibourel said:


> Cruiser, your image is far more important than the "real, inner Cruiser." In fact, I've always had the sneaking suspicion that if we got together and had a few beers, we might actually find ourselves quite liking each other.


Whether this would be true is hard to say; however, I will say that as a gunowner and holder of a handgun carry permit I have read things that you have written in the past, and I believe that I have a booklet that you wrote, I think it was you, on defensive handguns somewhere on my bookshelf. So in a manner of speaking our paths crossed long before this forum.

I guess we all are who we are, at least in a forum such as this, and I doubt that there will be any dramatic changes in any of us. It appears that the moderators have decreed that we will all be allowed to co-exist, so I suppose we should just make the best of it. Until told otherwise that is my plan.

Cruiser


----------



## Andy

Bird's One View said:


> I trust you are wearing the 6x3 jacket, or perhaps the 8x4. Admiral.


Bird's One View:

Since we live in the same town, let me ask you this: With Dallas Raines, the weatherman on channel 7, who dresses like trailer trash - no offense to those who live in trailers and dress with sophistication the expection - who have you seen in a double breasted jacket in the past 14 years?


----------



## Wayfarer

Cruiser said:


> It appears that the moderators have decreed that we will all be allowed to co-exist, so I suppose we should just make the best of it.


An interesting statement.


----------



## Bay Area Baritone

Cruiser said:


> It appears that the moderators have decreed that we will all be allowed to co-exist, so I suppose we should just make the best of it. Until told otherwise that is my plan.
> 
> Cruiser


Cruiser, when was the last time you visited Film Noir Buff Style Forum:

https://www.filmnoirbuff.com/forum/

It appears as if _many_ are in agreement that at AAAC, you certainly seem to get more than your share of favorable moderation.

B.A.B.

P.S. And before anybody says anything negative about fnb, please remember that negative remarks about other forums are simply not permitted at AAAC. It's in the rules--you can look it up for yourself.


----------



## Bird's One View

Andy said:


> Bird's One View:
> 
> Since we live in the same town, let me ask you this: With Dallas Raines, the weatherman on channel 7, who dresses like trailer trash - no offense to those who live in trailers and dress with sophistication the expection - who have you seen in a double breasted jacket in the past 14 years?


I am wearing a double breasted jacket as I type this.

Forgive me, I watch little TV -- is Dallas Raines the fellow with the five button suits?


----------



## Falconboy

JLibourel said:


> I have often likened you to a villain in professional wresting...and you are a veritable Freddie Blassie.


Freddie Blassie was in fact "classy."

My dad always loved his style...


----------



## JLibourel

Falconboy said:


> Freddie Blassie was in fact "classy."
> 
> My dad always loved his style...


But one of the most hated men in the annals of the "sport." I think in some areas he was more popular than others. In SoCal he was especially loathed. Large police escorts were required when he wrestled to prevent attacks by the fans.

I wonder if "Classy Freddie" of Style Forum infamy took his name from Blassie. This just occurred to me. He was banned after a record two posts, as I recall.


----------



## Rossini

Crikey! We are allowed to call people trailer trash but not slob? This is confusing. I think we need a glossary or approved list of insults or something


----------



## Taliesin

Cruiser said:


> It appears that the moderators have decreed that we will all be allowed to co-exist, so I suppose we should just make the best of it. Until told otherwise that is my plan.
> 
> Cruiser


I missed the decree you refer to. Silence is consent?

So what you are saying is that after all this, you don't plan to do anything differently? No changes at all?


----------



## RJman

Bay Area Baritone said:


> Cruiser, when was the last time you visited Film Noir Buff Style Forum:
> 
> https://www.filmnoirbuff.com/forum/
> 
> It appears as if _many_ are in agreement that at AAAC, you certainly seem to get more than your share of favorable moderation.
> 
> B.A.B.
> 
> P.S. And before anybody says anything negative about fnb, please remember that negative remarks about other forums are simply not permitted at AAAC. It's in the rules--you can look it up for yourself.


Ooooh, I'm sure the mods make an exception for negative posts about FNB. ic12337:


----------



## Wayfarer

Taliesin said:


> I missed the decree you refer to. Silence is consent?
> 
> So what you are saying is that after all this, you don't plan to do anything differently? No changes at all?


It will be denied, but I think the best way to read the statement, is that he's surprised there have not been bannings, but since there haven't been, he's just going to have to accept it and make the best of it.

Denials forth coming.


----------



## Rossini

Nothing forthcoming. I'll check behind the sofa.


----------



## JLibourel

Y'know, this thread seems to be flagging at last. I'd sure like to see it reach a thousand posts. (Don't know if it will ever overtake the "Should Every Gentleman Have a Pistol" thread on the Interchange though.)

C'mon, Cruiser. Fight back s'more! Are you a man or a mouse? Hit me with your best shot!

We could entitle the revived thread, "3-Roll-2 Wars II: The Cruiser Strikes Back."


----------



## Sator

JLibourel said:


> We could entitle the revived thread, "3-Roll-2 Wars II: The Cruiser Strikes Back."


"Black suits are good"


----------



## Rossini

Are white suits appropriate for daywear?










Note: cross-post from WAYWT.


----------



## eagle2250

Sator said:


> "Black suits are good"


Which raises an issue that perhaps merits some conversation. Given the unremitting aversion many of us harbor to black suits, that is readily apparent throughout these fora, how might we explain the universal, female affinity for the perfect "little black dress"! My wife has five of them (I think!). If black (as it seems) is the perfect color for the ladies ...why not the gentlemen?


----------



## gnatty8

JLibourel said:


> Y'know, this thread seems to be flagging at last. I'd sure like to see it reach a thousand posts. (Don't know if it will ever overtake the "Should Every Gentleman Have a Pistol" thread on the Interchange though.)
> 
> C'mon, Cruiser. Fight back s'more! Are you a man or a mouse? Hit me with your best shot!
> 
> We could entitle the revived thread, "3-Roll-2 Wars II: The Cruiser Strikes Back."


There was a "Should Every Gentleman Have a Pistol" thread? How did I miss that one!

I am wearing a 3 roll 2 today in honor of this thread.. Its anachronistic tendencies are pure poetry..


----------



## Sator

eagle2250 said:


> Which raises an issue that perhaps merits some conversation. Given the unremitting aversion many of us harbor to black suits, that is readily apparent throughout these fora, how might we explain the universal, female affinity for the perfect "little black dress"! My wife has five of them (I think!). If black (as it seems) is the perfect color for the ladies ...why not the gentlemen?


I don't know if you guys in the US see much Trinny & Suzannah of _What Not to Wear_ TV fame but this is what they say (and what I repeat to any woman):

Mr Vader, that applies you too.


----------



## Sator

Here's another quote from Trinny and Suzannah:



See, even Darth watches Trinny & Suzannah:



Only Cruiser remains recalcitrant.


----------



## James Bond

eagle2250 said:


> My wife has five of them (I think!). If black (as it seems) is the perfect color for the ladies ...why not the gentlemen?


I agree. Also, if stilettos work for women, why not for us?


----------



## JLibourel

gnatty8 said:


> There was a "Should Every Gentleman Have a Pistol" thread? How did I miss that one!


It intermittently resurfaces. Last post was by globetrotter on July 10 of this year. It currently has 945 posts, so there is chance we can overtake it if we keep this going a bit longer.


----------



## David V

here's # 820.

When did the 2B over take the 3B in common usage?


----------



## David V

Anybody notice the tags for this thread?


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks

That first line is only partially true. When referring to the spectrum of light, black is indeed the absence of light i.e. "color." When referring to physical pigments, dyes, paints, etc, black is obtained by combining many (some would say all) colors. 

There, I've done my part to keep this worthless thread going. :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## acidicboy

and the day after, Emperor Palpatine banished Casual Fridays in all the galaxy


----------



## Rossini

Sator said:


> Only Cruiser remains recalcitrant.


Well, I think my Granny also uses that to keep her teeth in.


----------



## Jovan

I sincerely hope this thread doesn't continue into Christmas and New Year's. It would be sad if people still cared this much about absolutely nothing (this is just an internet forum after all) when they should be spending time with friends and family.

This is assuming you celebrate Christmas, of course.


----------



## jpeirpont

Jovan said:


> I sincerely hope this thread doesn't continue into Christmas and New Year's. It would be sad if people still cared this much about absolutely nothing (this is just an internet forum after all) when they should be spending time with friends and family.
> 
> This is assuming you celebrate Christmas, of course.


Taking any interesting pictures this year?


----------



## eagle2250

James Bond said:


> I agree. Also, if stilettos work for women, why not for us?


Well frankly, while I am admittedly a fan of an attractive member of the opposite sex, in "the perfect little black dress", the suggestion that we "manly men" wear stilettos strikes me as just slightly more bizarre than the idea of Cruiser and JLibourel sitting down and enjoying a beer together! :devil:


----------



## Taliesin

eagle2250 said:


> the suggestion that we "manly men" wear stilettos strikes me as just slightly more bizarre than the idea of Cruiser and JLibourel sitting down and enjoying a beer together! :devil:


Should all gentlemen carry a stiletto?


----------



## Acct2000

Eagle, you and I should go along to keep the peace. (Cruiser and Jan will have to pay for the beer, though!)


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman

JLibourel said:


> It intermittently resurfaces. Last post was by globetrotter on July 10 of this year. It currently has 945 posts, so there is chance we can overtake it if we keep this going a bit longer.


I'll do my bit. I love a 3/2 jacket, but only if it has darts!


----------



## JLibourel

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eagle, you and I should go along to keep the peace. (Cruiser and Jan will have to pay for the beer, though!)


I'll let Cruiser pick up the tab 'cuz he's always boasting about how rich he is.


----------



## Acct2000

Actually, Jan, it probably would be fun to have a beer with you. If you'll come to Lansing, I'll buy the beer and I promise not to wear either jeans or a tie without sport coat!!


----------



## JLibourel

In the unlikely event I should ever get up to Lansing, I'll PM you and we can get together for a few beers. Just to show you how easygoing I am in real life, I'd even be cool with your wearing jeans and more than happy to pick up the tab myself.


----------



## Acct2000

Now, Now, while I am working in jeans today and do it on Friday, I frequently dress up Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday even though I don't "have to." I realize that you are not a stuffed shirt and actually enjoy your sense of humor quite a bit, even on the rare occasion when I'm on the business end of it.

(Mondays, I weigh in and thus, wear my clunky walking shoes most of the time to make the readings more meaningful.)

I probably would enjoy dressing up for the situation and would do so. 

Hmmm. I have to get with the Regional Chamber of Commerce and get them to see how a gun event could draw a lot of visitors to Lansing. (I actually love it here, but other than our pedestrian State Capitol and Michigan State University, there is NO reason under the sun for anyone to visit. Sigh.) Even WE head up north or to the Upper Peninsula when we get time off, LOL.


----------



## Acct2000

I know!!! We could head up to Mackinac Island. The Grand Hotel still actually enforces a coat and tie dress code in the restaurant for dinner and the Island is a pretty cool place to visit in the summer. They don't allow cars and it makes for a different atmosphere. (No, that is NOT a horse manure joke!)

By the way, if I catch you in California, I'm not usually as naive as the Fisting Faux Pas on Styleforum probably made me seem. LOL.


----------



## Rossini

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eagle, you and I should go along to keep the peace. (Cruiser and Jan will have to pay for the beer, though!)


I'm sure there's a proverb to be quoted here along the lines of taking care lest you unite two enemies against a common foe!


----------



## Jovan

I'd love to have drinks with a fellow forum member. Last time I did that was late last year...


----------



## JLibourel

I have only socialized with three forum members: Andy himself, FlatSix, who will be fondly remembered by forum old-timers, and pmccloskey. The latter is my stepson's half brother, who joined and made a few posts after meeting Andy at one of my Chan appointments, so he probably doesn't really count as a true forumite.


----------



## Falconboy

I said "Hello, what can I get'ya" to Jlibourel a number of times but we've already talked about that. And that isn't really socializing, either...


----------



## JLibourel

For all this talk about having drinks together, I am reminded of scene from the spaghetti Western "Barquero" ["Ferryman"] starring Lee Van Cleef. The anti-hero ferryman played by Van Cleef has managed to ferry a number of people across a river, thereby foiling a vicious outlaw gang.

The leader of the outlaws shouts from across the river, "Hey, barquero, if we'd met down in Mexico, maybe we could have killed a bottle of tequila." "Well, we sure as hell would have killed something," Van Cleef replies and thereupon shoots the outlaw dead with a buffalo rifle.

Inspired by this, I always used to tell my stepson we'd "kill a bottle of tequila" when he turned 21. Instead, we just knocked off a large quantity of margaritas in a Mexican restaurant with one of his half-brothers and a couple of his closest pals.


----------



## DocHolliday

EDIT: My post now makes no sense as the thread moved on without me.


----------



## gnatty8

Today, I bought:

1) Blue Zegna sportcoat, 3 roll 2

2) Tan plaid Isaia sportcoat, 3 roll 2

3) Charcoal plaid Etro sportcoat, 3 roll 2

I will post pictures to this thread of them all, once they get back from the tailors. They are sublime. I caressed them the entire way home from Neiman's/Sak's.

While there, I saw an Isaia 2 roll 1!!


----------



## Falconboy

Bravo. Well done. 
I can't wait to see more pictures of your great coats.


----------



## JLibourel

gnatty8 said:


> Today, I bought:
> 
> 1) Blue Zegna sportcoat, 3 roll 2
> 
> 2) Tan plaid Isaia sportcoat, 3 roll 2
> 
> 3) Charcoal plaid Etro sportcoat, 3 roll 2
> 
> I will post pictures to this thread of them all, once they get back from the tailors. They are sublime. I caressed them the entire way home from Neiman's/Sak's.
> 
> While there, I saw an Isaia 2 roll 1!!


What an impressive haul! Congratulations.


----------



## eagle2250

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eagle, you and I should go along to keep the peace. (Cruiser and Jan will have to pay for the beer, though!)





JLibourel said:


> I'll let Cruiser pick up the tab 'cuz he's always boasting about how rich he is.


Jan: Would love to join all of you for a few beers and I would even pick up the tab but, I spent all my money trying to keep up with you on all those AE purchases, a while back!  I threw in the towel, when my collection hit 31 pair!


----------



## acidicboy

JLibourel said:


> I have only socialized with three forum members: Andy himself, FlatSix, who will be fondly remembered by forum old-timers, and pmccloskey. The latter is my stepson's half brother, who joined and made a few posts after meeting Andy at one of my Chan appointments, so he probably doesn't really count as a true forumite.


If you find yourself, by accident or otherwise, in any island in the Philippines, it will be my pleasure to buy you a round or 5 of San Miguel premium all-malts or any other beer of your liking. And I'm gonna wear plaid shorts and flip flops so you'll recognize me.

This also goes out to all members.


----------



## Rossini

DocHolliday said:


> EDIT: My post now makes no sense as the thread moved on without me.


Your standards are too high, Doc. Such considerations aren't stopping anyone else!


----------



## acidicboy

BTW, congratulations to Andy for a featurette on him on the Jan 2009 issue of Esquire, p. 52.


----------



## JLibourel

acidicboy said:


> If you find yourself, by accident or otherwise, in any island in the Philippines, it will be my pleasure to buy you a round or 5 of San Miguel premium all-malts or any other beer of your liking. And I'm gonna wear plaid shorts and flip flops so you'll recognize me.
> 
> This also goes out to all members.


Thanks for the kind offer. Dark San Miguel is a favorite of mine. I drink it with some frequency.


----------



## chrstc

gnatty8 said:


> While there, I saw an Isaia 2 roll 1!!


I suggest that we start a 2 roll 1 companion thread ASAP :icon_smile_big:

Merry Christmas to everyone here at AAAC, then- this seems a good place to post that as I reckon most members are reading this thread even if not posting in it!!
Whether you'd like a bespoke morning suit or a pair of Evisus with an old pinstripe coat I genuinely hope that you have a great "holiday season".

Chris.


----------



## Rossini

chrstc said:


> I suggest that we start a 2 roll 1 companion thread ASAP :icon_smile_big:


I've said it before but... there's simply no need for that as this thread is sufficiently capable of hosting the discussion you are suggesting. In fact, all other threads are probably now redundant other than for purposes of historical record. :icon_smile:


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Sator said:


> I don't know if you guys in the US see much Trinny & Suzannah of _What Not to Wear_ TV fame but this is what they say (and what I repeat to any woman):
> 
> Mr Vader, that applies you too.


I cannot believe that Trinny and her crony are being given the honor of arbitrating on matters of taste. They are as totally lacking in style as that other British 'expert', Super Nanny' is clueless on how to raise children.

It is sad when Americans have lost so much confidence that they allow themselves to be bullied by such a pathetic, colonizing coterie of ragtag and bobtail nonentities.

Merry Christmas to all forumites - even to those who wear ill fitting 3 roll to 2s.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## RJman

Hector Freemantle said:


> I cannot believe that Trinny and her crony are being given the honor of arbitrating on matters of taste. They are as totally lacking in style as that other British 'expert', Super Nanny' is clueless on how to raise children.
> 
> It is sad when Americans have lost so much confidence that they allow themselves to be bullied by such a pathetic, colonizing coterie of ragtag and bobtail nonentities.
> 
> Merry Christmas to all forumites - even to those who wear ill fitting 3 roll to 2s.:icon_smile_big:


Sator is an Australian. Although I don't know if that excuses his quoting Trinny and Tranny.


----------



## Rossini

RJman said:


> Sator is an Australian. Although I don't know if that excuses his quoting Trinny and Tranny.


No it doesn't but I think the point is whether the message is right. Which, in this case, it is. The messenger, no matter how odious, doesn't actually enter into it. But I think Hector knew that already, he was just going for the easy low blow. Cop-out Hectoring, as it were and as it appears to be.


----------



## gnatty8

So good to hear from you again Hector, where have you been? 

I passed your critique of my fits on to my tailor.. He chuckled, and assured me he would not so offend thee again.. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mad Hatter

Hector Freemantle said:


> I cannot believe that Trinny and her crony are being given the honor of arbitrating on matters of taste. They are as totally lacking in style as that other British 'expert', Super Nanny' is clueless on how to raise children.
> 
> It is sad when Americans have lost so much confidence that they allow themselves to be bullied by such a pathetic, colonizing coterie of ragtag and bobtail nonentities.
> 
> Merry Christmas to all forumites - even to those who wear ill fitting 3 roll to 2s.:icon_smile_big:


I've seen that show a time or two; been a while back. I think they had more misses than hits in their "makeovers". Furthermore, I thought they dressed poorly, themselves. IMO any popularity they had was due to their coarse language and manners. Gotta love it when they cop a feel on some woman and say "Nice t*ts!" 

Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah to all. :icon_smile:


----------



## Falconboy

I'm digging this suit fabric. I think it would make a nice 3R2 suit and double as a great sportcoat.

Does anybody recognize the maker of this fabric?


----------



## Hector Freemantle

Mad Hatter said:


> I've seen that show a time or two; been a while back. I think they had more misses than hits in their "makeovers". Furthermore, I thought they dressed poorly, themselves. IMO any popularity they had was due to their coarse language and manners. Gotta love it when they cop a feel on some woman and say "Nice t*ts!"
> 
> Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah to all. :icon_smile:


The level of their poor dressing was about as low as it could go. I think they probably got away with their coarseness in Britain because of their very 'upper class' British accents: something which still intimidates a good proportion of Britishers, particularly those with a limited education. I get the feeling, too, that their indictment of black had less to with genuine antipathy than with the need of the program's producers to seem to be in the vanguard of taste reformation in Britain.

But 'back to black'. I don't have time to change for an informal meeting I'm going to in a few minutes. I have removed the jacket and burgundy tie of a dogstooth suit and retained the trousers and burgundy brogues. And, as it's a tad chilly, I've slipped on a crew -neck black cotton sweater and undone the buttons of the pale blue shirt that I also couldn't be bothered to change out of. The black sweater looks good to me.


----------



## JLibourel

Just thought I'd use this occasion to extend my best wishes for the Holiday Season--whether you observe Xmas, Hannukah or Kwaanza or some combination thereof--to all at Andyland. And, in the spirit of the famous "Christmas Truce of 1914" during World War I, I'd like to extend the hand of peace and friendship to Cruiser. We may be sniping at each other from opposite trenches next year, ol' Snoozer, but at least I'll drain a cup of holiday eggnog in your honor, given that it's Christmas season.


----------



## Falconboy

Indeed - A Merrily Happy Christmahannukwanzakamas no matter how you want it to roll.


----------



## Jovan

JLibourel said:


> Just thought I'd use this occasion to extend my best wishes for the Holiday Season--whether you observe Xmas, Hannukah or Kwaanza or some combination thereof--to all at Andyland. And, in the spirit of the famous "Christmas Truce of 1914" during World War I, I'd like to extend the hand of peace and friendship to Cruiser. We may be sniping at each other from opposite trenches next year, ol' Snoozer, but at least I'll drain a cup of holiday eggnog in your honor, given that it's Christmas season.


That's the spirit!


----------



## gnatty8

I wore this 3 roll 2 today, hope you all like it.


----------



## Falconboy

Lovin' it Gnatty8.


----------



## eagle2250

Very, very nice, gnatty8...it's just as a three button suit coat should look!


----------



## AvariceBespoke

wow, this thread is still going on? lol


----------



## JLibourel

Throughout all ages, thread without end. Amen.


----------



## 16412

gnatty8 said:


> I wore this 3 roll 2 today, hope you all like it.


That looks nice. The roll of the lapel is rather flat. Flat lapels I call suitcase lapels. If the jacket is not going into a suitcase then a gaint roll at the bottom looks terrific.

Guys with a prononced stomach look better with a lower button stance (about the apex of the stomach) and a gaint roll lapel, distracting from the prononced stomach (your going to have to eat lots to gain that).


----------



## moss01

Nice 3/2


----------



## JLibourel

Anybody know how well this is competing with the famous (or infamous) "Black Suit" thread on SF?


----------



## Falconboy

JLibourel, is it really a competition?
I didn't care much for that thread. This thread rules.

For Christmas I received an Orvis Traveler's Hopsack Navy Blazer and a couple of OCBDs. Turns out someone had read the prep look was coming back.

It's got patch lower pockets and is darted.
Best of all: *It's 3r2.*

:idea: Maybe I'll replace the buttons and make it part of a Blazersuit (tm).

Have a great New Year! *:icon_smile_big:*


----------



## James Bond

JLibourel said:


> Anybody know how well this is competing with the famous (or infamous) "Black Suit" thread on SF?


Just surpassed it as the black suit thread has 837 posts.

https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=8221&page=56


----------



## gnatty8

James Bond said:


> Just surpassed it as the black suit thread has 837 posts.
> 
> https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=8221&page=56


Feels great just being part of such an achievement. Congratulations to all of my fellow 3R2 afficianados. Great to be part of such a wonderful movement..


----------



## eg1

Hector Freemantle said:


> I cannot believe that Trinny and her crony are being given the honor of arbitrating on matters of taste. They are as totally lacking in style as that other British 'expert', *Super Nanny' is clueless on how to raise children.*
> 
> It is sad when Americans have lost so much confidence that they allow themselves to be bullied by such a pathetic, colonizing coterie of ragtag and bobtail nonentities.
> 
> Merry Christmas to all forumites - even to those who wear ill fitting 3 roll to 2s.:icon_smile_big:


I believe you have missed the point of Super Nanny, which is to show families where the parenting is so wholly atrocious as to give the rest of us parents a warm glow of relief by way of cathartic comparison ... :icon_smile:


----------



## JLibourel

James Bond said:


> Just surpassed it as the black suit thread has 837 posts.
> 
> https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=8221&page=56


Well done, forumites! Let's see if we can overtake the "Pistol" thread on the Interchange, now.


----------



## Mad Hatter

I got my first 3/2 suit today. I so rock!:aportnoy:


----------



## Falconboy

JLibourel said:


> Well done, forumites! Let's see if we can overtake the "Pistol" thread on the Interchange, now.


I aprove of firearms of all types, especially fine, handheld, turn of the century, german varietals. Is that what you meant? Does that help or hinder.

or

I wouldn't wear a 3r2 with a shoulder holster. The holster would ruin the suit's lines and the suit's lower buttoning stance might impolitely expose your P-08. Does this serve?


----------



## Falconboy

Mad Hatter said:


> I got my first 3/2 suit today. I so rock!:aportnoy:


Well done, can't wait to see pictures.

I'm still looking for this material. If you can help me out I'd be grateful. I'm thinking it would make a great MTM or bespoke 3r2:


----------



## JLibourel

Falconboy said:


> I wouldn't wear a 3r2 with a shoulder holster. The holster would ruin the suit's lines and the suit's lower buttoning stance might impolitely expose your P-08. Does this serve?


Any sizeable sidearm carried in a shoulder holster is going to ruin the lines of any suit not specially tailored to accommodate it. Your best bet at avoiding this would be with an undarted sack suit of the type beloved of trads. Even a specially tailored jacket is going to look asymmetrical and "off" with a good-sized gun underneath it. A double shoulder rig carrying a matched pair of guns is the best way to obviate the problem of asymmetry and a rather good way to go seriously armed, but it will almost invariably involve special tailoring.

I am sure many men get away with wearing a shoulder rig under a normal suit coat because (a) they are indifferent to looking like hell and (b) most people are too unobservant to discern the gun "printing."


----------



## eagle2250

JLibourel said:


> Any sizable sidearm carried in a shoulder holster is going to ruin the lines of any suit not specially tailored to accommodate it. Your best bet at avoiding this would be with an undarted sack suit of the type beloved of trads...


Jan: You keep talking like that and we will call you JL and proclaim you...TRAD! I struggle to understand why so many want so badly to carry a concealed weapon but, certainly support their choice to do so, legally. However, after being required to carry concealed for so many years by my job, as a retiree,I feel positively liberated in not having to do so! The lining in my jackets sure seem to last longer. Though, I still enjoy going to the range, trying to maintain some modicum of proficiency.


----------



## James Bond

JLibourel said:


> A double shoulder rig carrying a matched pair of guns is the best way to obviate the problem of asymmetry and a rather good way to go seriously armed, but it will almost invariably involve special tailoring.


I like the way you think, sir.


----------



## Infrasonic

Who could refuse a fine pair of matched Purdey's...? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Mad Hatter

Falconboy said:


> Well done, can't wait to see pictures.
> 
> I'm still looking for this material. If you can help me out I'd be grateful. I'm thinking it would make a great MTM or bespoke 3r2:


I don't have a camera, yet. Hopefully by the time I get back the new suit from the tailor, I'll have one. Would like to see your jacket as well.

The fabric; I wouldn't have an idea where to source it from. I agree it would make up well and think the blue windowpane overcheck is outstanding.

And IMO, a 3/2 with side vents is ideal for IWB carry at 4:30-5:00.


----------



## Falconboy

Mad Hatter said:


> And IMO, a 3/2 with side vents is ideal for IWB carry at 4:30-5:00.


Not for a southpaw. See? Broad generalizations often appear on their face to be perfectly acceptable, but upon further scrutiny they lack the depth necessary to be informative or helpful (this is not actually directed at you MH, just trying to stay on topic 875 posts deep into the thread).


----------



## JLibourel

Side vents detract from concealability but probably enhance accesssibility with any strong-side carry.


----------



## emptym

Wow. Interesting thread.

Fwiw, I like 3/2.


----------



## Bog

Infrasonic said:


> Who could refuse a fine pair of matched Purdey's...? :icon_smile_big:


Identical twins or cloned?


----------



## RJman

Bogdanoff said:


> Identical twins or cloned?


Take a Gambit?


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

Infrasonic said:


> Who could refuse a fine pair of matched Purdey's...? :icon_smile_big:


Not quite Mrs. Peel, but she did have wonderful assets...I mean, of course, her martial arts training and marksmanship...rather apt for a character actually named for a gunsmith. :icon_smile:



Bogdanoff said:


> Identical twins or cloned?


Just a single avenging angel. 



RJman said:


> Take a Gambit?


Not quite up to Steed though, was he?


----------



## RJman

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Not quite up to Steed though, was he?


No. Poor Patrick Macnee, constantly shortchanging himself.

His memoirs are charmingly self-effacing, you know. _Blind in One Ear_. A classic, even better than Omar Sharif's _The Eternal Male_.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

Need one conceal a suitably trad firearm whilst wearing a 3 button roll to 2 suit coat or would any pistol do?


----------



## RJman

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Need one conceal a suitably trad firearm whilst wearing a 3 button roll to 2 suit coat or would any pistol do?


Steed, of course,did not carry a gun -- a conscious decision by Macnee who said he had seen enough of his friends blown apart in World War II.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox

But then did not his three button coats button to all three??? Imagine the wild and unpredictable things he might have done had he had one of those "3 roll to 2" jackets that are being discussed (occasionally) on this thread. :icon_smile_big:!


----------



## wheredidyougetthathat

RJman said:


> Steed, of course,did not carry a gun .


He did, actually. Less often as the series progressed, but I clearly remember him being relieved of a PPK-sized handgun after capture by the bad guys as late as the last B&W season.


----------



## medwards

https://imageshack.us


----------



## BLFancher

I love those boots! I'd love to find something that sleek today!


----------



## Mad Hatter

BLFancher said:


> I love those boots! I'd love to find something that sleek today!


Which ones? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mad Hatter

Falconboy said:


> Not for a southpaw. See? Broad generalizations often appear on their face to be perfectly acceptable, but upon further scrutiny they lack the depth necessary to be informative or helpful (this is not actually directed at you MH, just trying to stay on topic 875 posts deep into the thread).


Touche'! But, isn't everyone that wears a 3/2 *right*? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250

^If you are referring to Steed's boots, they look to be a pair of Chelsea's. Try www.bootsonline.com.


----------



## Falconboy

Mad Hatter said:


> Touche'! But, isn't everyone that wears a 3/2 *right*? :icon_smile_big:


Agreed. But...

The right half of the body is controlled by the left half of the brain.
The left half of the body is controlled by the right half of the brain.
Ergo
Only southpaws are in their right minds.
Extension
A southpaw in a 3r2 is righter than the rest. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JLibourel

wheredidyougetthathat said:


> He did, actually. Less often as the series progressed, but I clearly remember him being relieved of a PPK-sized handgun after capture by the bad guys as late as the last B&W season.


Yeah, Leroy Thompson did an article on "Guns of the Avengers" for me some years back in Gun World. As I recall, Steed, being veddy, veddy, British, favored vintage Webley revolvers. I always kind of winced at the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes using a Colt Single Action Army. (I think the actual revolver was a "spaghetti Colt" replica.) I know that a number of British officers and adventurers favored the Colt Single Action, so it is not historically inaccurate. Still, a "cowboy" revolver for Holmes just doesn't seem quite right!


----------



## jbierce

This may be an entirely absurd question, but I'm willing to take the heat:

is it possible to turn an ordinary 3-button jacket into a 3 roll 2?


----------



## eagle2250

^Just my opinion but, unless the coat was crafted with that intent, you will not be able to get the lapels to lie properly or present the ever enchanting natural roll of a coat designed that way!


----------



## JLibourel

*Hey, Cruiser!*

Cruiser, ol' pal, you stated earlier in this thread that somebody on this forum had stated that anybody who wore a ready-to-wear suit was a contemptible s l o b, the implication being that it may have been yours truly. I have twice challenged you post a link or give a citation. I decided, in the spirit of the Xmas Truce, not to bring this up until Twelfth Night had passed. The 12 Days of Xmas have come and gone. I am still waiting for you to post a link...or will you be man enough to admit you made that business up out of whole cloth?


----------



## gnatty8

Here is a 3r2 in hopsack that I particularly like:


----------



## Falconboy

That's practically what I'm wearing right now. 
What shoes are you wearing with that?


----------



## gnatty8

Falconboy said:


> That's practically what I'm wearing right now.
> What shoes are you wearing with that?


Can't remember, something battleship in size most likely..


----------



## jpeirpont

gnatty8 said:


> Here is a 3r2 in hopsack that I particularly like:


Those buttons are fun. Nice look Gnatty.


----------



## gnatty8

Why, thank you!


----------



## damon54

Just bought a 3/2 & doing a little research. Did not expect 37 pages of info!!


----------



## gnatty8

The 3 roll 2 question is a very, very serious one. Battle lines are drawn over it.


----------



## Stanley Ketchell

3 roll to 2. What a great idea! I'll get one, and wear it with my lace-up loafers.


----------



## TomK

I'm heading a few towns over to Keezer's to search for a nice 3/2 jacket on Tuesday.


----------



## JLibourel

Interestingly, Patrick Chu of W.W. Chan has now decided that the 3-roll-2 is "right" for me and insisted that the latest blazer I ordered from him on Friday be a 3-roll-2.


----------



## Acct2000

Sounds like a nice jacket, Jan!!!

But will the Igentry vote yea or nay??? (I'm guessing yea!)

However, I'm sure it will make a nice jacket. I've never understood the emotion for or against this jacket. (I'll confess that I would not go out of my way to get that feature in a jacket, but I would not refuse to buy a jacket that I liked and would fill a niche in my wardrobe just because of that feature.)


----------



## JLibourel

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Sounds like a nice jacket, Jan!!!
> 
> But will the Igentry vote yea or nay??? (I'm guessing yea!)
> 
> However, I'm sure it will make a nice jacket. I've never understood the emotion for or against this jacket. (I'll confess that I would not go out of my way to get that feature in a jacket, but I would not refuse to buy a jacket that I liked and would fill a niche in my wardrobe just because of that feature.)


The background to this is that during Chan's summer tour I ordered two jackets--a 15 ounce Harris tweed and a 12-ounce Hardy Alsport. I ordered the Harris tweed to be a 3-roll-2, on the theory that I could button the top button if it got really cold. I expected the Hardy Alsport to be in my usual two-button style, but somehow the order got confused and they made that a 3-roll-2 as well, which was perfectly okay with me. I was wearing the latter jacket when I met with Patrick. I guess he liked the result so much that he strongly recommended my new blazer be a 3-roll-two. The fabric is Harrison's Frontier, an open-weave 10/11-ounce cloth, in royal blue. It will have patch pockets and smoked mother-of-pearl buttons. I am thinking of ordering a summer suit from the same fabric in tan during Chan's March tour.


----------



## welldressedfellow

Oh no! Not again. Why? WHY?


----------



## johnpark11

I like the roll look...not for every suit I own but a few in the roto is a good way to keep it fresh.


----------



## Jovan

welldressedfellow said:


> Oh no! Not again. Why? WHY?


The posts right now are a lot more civilised than they were before.


----------



## Cruiser

Jovan said:


> The posts right now are a lot more civilised than they were before.


Probably because I haven't said anything about not understanding the attraction to a buttonhole in the middle of the lapel roll. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## El_Abogado

My head hurts trying to read this thread. So, I gather the attraction to 3 roll 2 is, in part, tradition and, in part, style. Some people dislike the 3 roll 2 because it looks odd and/or the button and button hole are even more vestigal than the bottom button and hole. . . . Have I missed anything, besides the invectives and ad hominum attacks?

BTW, for the record, as it were, I have a couple 3-roll-2 suits from J.Pres


----------



## Blueboy1938

*LOL!*



Stanley Ketchell said:


> 3 roll to 2. What a great idea! I'll get one, and wear it with my lace-up loafers.


I have three-button coats and sometimes leave the top button buttoned, sometimes not. But I shall never, knowingly, obtain a coat that has three front buttons, the topmost of which cannot be buttoned. I'm with Cruiser in not wanting more than the so-called "boutonniere" button hole gouged out of a lapel.

I also fail to see why a button is installed opposite that inoperable buttonhole, since it shouldn't be seen if the lapel truly rolls to the 2. There isn't one for the "boutonniere" anachronism, which at least makes an honest statement about its vestigial self.


----------



## welldressedfellow

True enough...let us hope that it stays this way.:icon_smile:



Jovan said:


> The posts right now are a lot more civilised than they were before.


----------



## hockeyinsider

TomK said:


> I'm heading a few towns over to Keezer's to search for a nice 3/2 jacket on Tuesday.


Could you let me know if you see any 3/2 in a 40-short? I may be interested in purchasing.


----------



## Fuseli

*3/2 to 3: oh nooooooo!*



eagle2250 said:


> ^Just my opinion but, unless the coat was crafted with that intent, you will not be able to get the lapels to lie properly or present the ever enchanting natural roll of a coat designed that way!


And then there are those who, in their ignorance, think that a 3/2 roll was some sort of accident, where a regular 3-button jacket was intended. So they "fix" it. I believe is an example.  (Hard to say for sure because it's a lousy picture.)

I'm tempted to buy it and take to the cleaners just so they can re-press it properly.


----------



## Coleman

I've bought a few 3/2s on eBay, and in each instance the seller had buttoned the top button for his/her photos---out of ignorance. They were all fine when I received them; none had been pressed incorrectly (although I've heard of this happening).


----------



## TomK

hockeyinsider said:


> Could you let me know if you see any 3/2 in a 40-short? I may be interested in purchasing.


40short.....gotcha


----------



## Matt S

Coleman said:


> I've bought a few 3/2s on eBay, and in each instance the seller had buttoned the top button for his/her photos---out of ignorance. They were all fine when I received them; none had been pressed incorrectly (although I've heard of this happening).


I see this all the time. Some sellers picture such a suit with all 3 buttons fastened, forcing the top and the bottom to bind. Either they think their mannequin in too big or just want to prove that the suit has 3 buttons.


----------



## Lowndes

Came across this gem on my search about 3 roll 2s. Very informative.


----------



## gnatty8

Lowndes said:


> Came across this gem on my search about 3 roll 2s. Very informative.


Do you like them? The 3 roll 2s?


----------



## jbierce

For a long time, I've felt like my 3B BB suit is actually a 3r2 that was pressed incorrectly. Excuse my ignorance; how can you really distinguish between a 3B and 3r2?


----------



## Cardinals5

The most obvious sign is the finishing on the back of the top button - the back on a true 3/2 is more finely finished because it will be visible. If it appears more finely finished than the other two buttons, you probably have a 3/2.


----------



## jbierce

All the buttons have the same smooth, polished black backing, so I suppose it's a 3B. Thank you


----------



## Jovan

Another good sign is if it pulls oddly at the top button when fastened or the lapel canvassing doesn't line up with how it's pressed.


----------



## Cardinals5

jbierce said:


> All the buttons have the same smooth, polished black backing, so I suppose it's a 3B. Thank you


Hopefully, you understood that I meant the top buttonhole rather than the button itself (why I just didn't write buttonhole the first time, I don't know ic12337


----------



## tennesseeato

How was the 3/2 "born"? I'm sure there is a story behind it, as there usually is for elements of style that have no functional purpose (at least no current function). The answer may lie in the 38 pages of this thread, but I readily admit I did not read them all. As near as I could tell, 34 or so of the pages had nothing to do with the 3/2 anyway.


----------



## CuffDaddy

I can't prove it, but it is my strong suspicion that it was invented to mimick, from day one, the softened roll of an old 3-button jacket that had been buttoned at the middle button only for many years.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> I can't prove it, but it is my strong suspicion that it was invented to mimick, from day one, the softened roll of an old 3-button jacket that had been buttoned at the middle button only for many years.


I thought long and hard before I re-entered this thread, but what the heck. I assume we are all here at least in part to have a good time and debate meaningless points, so here goes. :icon_smile_big:

If this is true, wouldn't this be along the same lines as the jeans companies selling new distressed jeans in an effort to mimic jeans that become naturally distressed with wear? Or perhaps a pre-tied bow tie that is designed to mimic a tie that was painstakingly tied by the wearer?

In other words, a shortcut to achieve an end result that would ordinarily only be achieved by time and/or effort. Just wondering.

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy

Yes, I think that's about right, Cruiser. 

I didn't say I was a fan.


----------



## dopey

dopey said:


> I am not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but I didn't want to start a new thread:
> 
> Has anyone seen my sock? I seem to have misplaced it - it was gray with red accents at the heel and toe.
> 
> Please let me know if you find it.


Good news!!! I found it.


----------



## jamgood

dopey said:


> Good news!!! I found it.


Hooz did I bleach & hide?


----------

