# Why have Shetlands become rare?



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

It occurred to met that probably none of the big retail stores in the mall near where I work sell them, and they've become something of an oddity, something the few retailers that concern themselves with 'traditional' menswear--from Bean to J. Press--bother to stock. It's a niche item.

Has this always been the case? Were they ever widely available and commonly stocked?


----------



## ArtVandalay (Apr 29, 2010)

Because for some inexplicable reason, the hoodie has become the shangri-la of cool weather outerwear.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

I wish I could disagree with you Artie.

Actually I have always liked a very heavy all cotton hooded sweatshirt. (With my Alma mater on the front.) But the low riding trouser crowd has now hijacked the look to the point where, depending on your age, you might be looked at as a gang banger just because you are wearing a hooded sweatshirt.


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

Because people think they are itchy. 
Because you can't wash and dry them.
Because people have poor taste.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Z.J.P said:


> Because people think they are itchy.
> Because you can't wash and dry them.
> Because people have poor taste.


+1 to all if these. My wife's younger sister actually calls my Shetlands my "itchy sweaters" lol


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

How does a wool crew neck (which I see for sale all over the place) differ from a 'Shetland'?


----------



## Z.J.P (Jun 29, 2010)

Wool from the Shetland breed of sheep.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Gentlemen:
Who has the space to keep horses these days except the upper middle-class 1%? Might be able to handle a couple goats, but they would have to be rented out to keep the weeds down...
Tough proposition in the city. My niece and her family have the land in the countryside and the inclination, so that they have horses. Not shetlands, but one has not asked for particulars. Generally, Kiowas love horses of all kinds. Very special.
Thanks for asking,
rudy


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Z.J.P said:


> Because people think they are itchy.
> Because you can't wash and dry them.
> Because people have poor taste.











but still worn by those in the know...

Sweaters are more commonly made from man made fibres and blends, largely due to cost and care required for wool garments, and to cheaper Asian imported wool sweaters. Those willing to foot the bill for better wool sweaters are leaning towards merino to avoid the scratchiness of Shetlands and Fair Isle etc., and the Norwegians (and others) are using more and more merino wool to cater to this trend. I think the Scots may have to adopt that tactic as well.

Finally, go to any ski resort or the White Mountains in the fall and compare the number of people wearing fleece or cotton garments with those wearing wool sweaters and compare it to a photo from 1985. It's gone from 1-9 to 9 to 1. Hard to make money selling any wool sweaters with those kinds of changes.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

They are fairly rare…almost certainly because they are expensive. A big general men's store near a mall isn't likely to offer a sweater that costs $150-200. They used to be more common, because they were less expensive and because they were part of typical men's wardrobe. As others have stated, the general population has moved away from wool garments, to poly-fleece and cotton. Partly for price, partly for style.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I saw an ad from the early 1960s, I believe, that advertised Shaggy Dogs for $17.50. I'm not sure what today's equivalent price would be, but that seems very low.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Duvel said:


> I saw an ad from the early 1960s, I believe, that advertised Shaggy Dogs for $17.50. I'm not sure what today's equivalent price would be, but that seems very low.


Duvel, hi, I used an on-line inflation calculator and assumed your add was from 1965 (if you have the exact year, I'll recalculate it) and $17.50 is the equivalent of $132 today, which, if the sweaters are of equivalent quality, isn't that far from J.Press' current sale price of $172 (but is a bit away from the full price of $230, but today, the sale price is kinda the real price since they are having a "sale" before the holiday which was rarely done in the '60s).


----------



## UnivStripe (Mar 6, 2013)

I work in a building of approximately one thousand employees and we have a business casual dress code where ties and coats are not required. Our climate is such that I start wearing Shetland crew neck sweaters around the first of November until the first of April. You could probably gather most, if not all, of the people who wear Shetlands on a regular basis into a small conference room. It is really sad because I love wearing these sweaters and I think that they look great. I do get complements on some of of my sweaters but few of my coworkers seem to want to wear them.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Fading Fast said:


> Duvel, hi, I used an on-line inflation calculator and assumed your add was from 1965 (if you have the exact year, I'll recalculate it) and $17.50 is the equivalent of $132 today, which, if the sweaters are of equivalent quality, isn't that far from J.Press' current sale price of $172 (but is a bit away from the full price of $230, but today, the sale price is kinda the real price since they are having a "sale" before the holiday which was rarely done in the '60s).


I believe the ad Duvel is referring to is this one, from 1968. The inflation calculator I referenced says today's equivalent price is $119.40. Quite a bit of difference from today's full retail price.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Yes, I really belive that clothing prior to around the mid-1970s was much more affordable than it is today. Someone might argue that it is too relative to determine exactly, since you have to look at other things, such as median incomes, median house prices, etc. But it does at least seem that prices were better. Anecdotally, I remember feeling that decent clothing, acquired a little at a time, was affordable when I was in college in the '70s, even though I did not have a lot of money..


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Gamma and Duvel, re-ran it for '68 and got the same number as Gamma, $119, which, as noted, is meaningfully far away from the full price and even from the "sale" price of $172. 

Maybe, because Trad it is no longer the dominant way of dressing - ask a group of a hundred people what a "Shaggy Dog" sweater is and I doubt more than one or two hands goes up - there is less competition; hence, less competitive pricing. 

Also, did you see all those additional colors available in '68, which also argues it was a bigger and (probably) more competitive market.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

FF, I agree with that assessment. Again, this is just anecdotal, but back in my day, many of us kids wore the things that now we call trad, including Shetlands. Even in the afterglow of the '60s, kids on my dorm floor had crewneck sweaters, OCBDs, and toggle coats hanging in their closets.We took the stuff for granted--it was what you or your parents bought for you anywhere from a downtown department store or Sears to a men's store. Nowadays, I imagine it would be rare to find a closet like that in any dorm.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Fading Fast said:


> Gamma and Duvel, re-ran it for '68 and got the same number as Gamma, $119, which, as noted, is meaningfully far away from the full price and even from the "sale" price of $172.
> 
> Maybe, because Trad it is no longer the dominant way of dressing - ask a group of a hundred people what a "Shaggy Dog" sweater is and I doubt more than one or two hands goes up - there is less competition; hence, less competitive pricing.
> 
> Also, did you see all those additional colors available in '68, which also argues it was a bigger and (probably) more competitive market.


Yes, many more colors back in '68. JPress also offered a Shaggy Dog sport coat around that time. Not sure if they do today.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

gamma68 said:


> Yes, many more colors back in '68. JPress also offered a *Shaggy Dog sport coat* around that time. Not sure if they do today.


That might be one fuzzy item too far for me, but I'd love to see it.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Duvel said:


> FF, I agree with that assessment. Again, this is just anecdotal, but back in my day, many of us kids wore the things that now we call trad, including Shetlands. Even in the afterglow of the '60s, kids on my dorm floor had crewneck sweaters, OCBDs, and toggle coats hanging in their closets.We took the stuff for granted--it was what you or your parents bought for you anywhere from a downtown department store or Sears to a men's store. Nowadays, I imagine it would be rare to find a closet like that in any dorm.


I agree. My Dad did not go to college and there was not an Ivy tradition (I didn't even know the word) in my house and, growing up, nobody was taking me to Brooks or Press - all my clothes came from an Army Navy store, Robert Hall (a discount clothing chain) and, occasionally, a department store, but I wore chinos, button down collared shirts, wool sweaters, converse sneakers, toggle coats, etc. It was what the basic, not-hippie kid wore in the '60s and '70s.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Exactly. Until I went to college, most of my clothes came from JC Penny and Sears, but the items were mainly OCBDs, chinos, and crewneck sweaters. I wore this stuff because it was what my parents told me I had to wear, not necessarily because I wanted to. After all, the cool kids were wearing wide-collared paisley shirts and striped bell bottoms.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Z.J.P said:


> Because people think they are itchy.
> Because you can't wash and dry them.
> Because people have poor taste.


Actually you can and should hand wash them. "Put this On" had a wonderful tutorial about it last winter. Just make sure to take measurements and block the sweater and dry horizontally. Use a good hair conditioner, I use Khiel's, and the wool will be clean and wonderfully soft.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

gamma68 said:


> I believe the ad Duvel is referring to is this one, from 1968. The inflation calculator I referenced says today's equivalent price is $119.40. Quite a bit of difference from today's full retail price.


I want a shaggy dog dickey!


----------



## MythReindeer (Jul 3, 2013)

While the article linked in this blog post has disappeared, Pete of Put This On addressed the increasing price of many things, using Shaggy Dog sweaters as an example: https://putthison.com/post/62819400733/expensive-things-not-getting-any-cheaper-for

It seems that prices for clothing that many posters here once took for granted have outpaced inflation, which would help explain why the calculations cited above don't square with today's prices. I couldn't scare up a good article dealing with _why_ the price of clothing (or at least "good" clothing) has risen so much, though there are likely multiple contributing factors. Regardless, that may explain the relative rarity: people want inexpensive things.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Fading Fast said:


> That might be one fuzzy item too far for me, but I'd love to see it.


Ads from 1979 and 1978, respectively


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

I wouldn't say that Shetlands are rare, but they are definitely not as mainstream as they have been at times. Off the top of my head here are a few places where I know that you can buy one today.

Brooks Brothers
Ralph Lauren
J.Crew
LL Bean
Woolrich
Pendleton
O'Connell's
J.Press

I say not rare, because the top 3 companies that I listed currently move a lot of product.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

gamma68 said:


> Ads from 1979 and 1978, respectively


I'm struggling with this - is the sport coat finished just like the sweater, with the shaggy dog look and feel as the (admittedly hard to see in detail) pictures don't look like it, but the text seems to say so? It is hard to picture a sport coat truly being like a shaggy dog sweater. Regardless, Gamma, great find - thank you for posting.


----------



## my19 (Nov 11, 2009)

Duvel said:


> I saw an ad from the early 1960s, I believe, that advertised Shaggy Dogs for $17.50. I'm not sure what today's equivalent price would be, but that seems very low.


$17.50 in 1960 would be $140 and change today, based strictly on inflation. I think J.Press has a sale going on for Shaggy Dogs at $170 or so, but that's still well above inflation.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

If $17.50 was the regular retail price in 1968, I wonder what their sale prices were like? $10? 

I remember even in 1973-1975 or so, picking up wool sweaters in men's stores for under $20. I bought a beautiful angora v-neck for something like $30 and I felt like I was splurging, and considering that I only made about $5/hour in my part-time retail job, it probably was a splurge. The polo overcoat I bought at a men's store came in at around $200, full retail.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Fading Fast said:


> I'm struggling with this - is the sport coat finished just like the sweater, with the shaggy dog look and feel as the (admittedly hard to see in detail) pictures don't look like it, but the text seems to say so? It is hard to picture a sport coat truly being like a shaggy dog sweater. Regardless, Gamma, great find - thank you for posting.


 Same but different. Press offered them up infrequentlyover the years. Memory serves me correctly, they were actually really cool in person.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

While OCBD makes a good point with his list, I did notice something odd today when this thread prompted me to look - BB only sells a men's Shetland sweater under its Red Fleece label - it's "youth-oriented" slimmer cut line. It is kinda surprising that they don't sell a traditional cut Shetland in five or six colors, no? Nor do I think LE sells a basic Shetland at all - also surprising.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

MythReindeer said:


> While the article linked in this blog post has disappeared, Pete of Put This On addressed the increasing price of many things, using Shaggy Dog sweaters as an example: https://putthison.com/post/62819400733/expensive-things-not-getting-any-cheaper-for
> 
> It seems that prices for clothing that many posters here once took for granted have outpaced inflation, which would help explain why the calculations cited above don't square with today's prices. I couldn't scare up a good article dealing with _why_ the price of clothing (or at least "good" clothing) has risen so much, though there are likely multiple contributing factors. Regardless, that may explain the relative rarity: people want inexpensive things.


There is a really good book called "Overdressed: the Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion" that deals with the stratification of clothing and the quick decline of middle-market clothing beginning in the 90's. Outsourcing killed a lot of the clothing that was well made and sold at a fair price. A big part was that, where a critical mass of American consumers were once willing to pay reasonable prices (eg $100 or so for a well made sweater), cheap labor-fueled price gouging in the 90's (Uncle Ralph was a big offender) manipulated the market to the point that consumers became used to paying rock bottom prices (eg $30 for a $30 sweater "marked down from $100" at an "outlet").

Once the critical mass of consumers dropped out of the more expensive (but not luxury-priced) market, those retailers were faced the choice of either raising their margins to compensate for the lower volume in sales or follow the labor race to the bottom. Those who refused ended up folding. As the market became further stratified, many retailers who were previously middle market found themselves charging prices more in line with the upmarket luxury and fashion houses and realized that they now had to compete in the sphere of Veblen goods (Think Brooks Brothers, to an extend J. Press, very much Ralph Lauren). They jacked up prices, not just to compensate for lower volume, but because they had to pay for additional brand imaging and had to maintain an aura of luxury around their products.

This is a very oversimplified version of what happened, but it leaves us where we are now - clothing is simultaneously way too cheap and way too expensive. Most Americans spend way too little of our income on clothing (3% for the average American, versus 25% 50 years ago). But that leaves most of us with landfills full of junk clothes, a higher overall cost of living, lower overall wages, and an average of $7k of credit card debt per person.

On the other hand, if you're not satisfied with cheap asian made junk, you'll have to pay big bucks for quality, far more than ever before.

Thanks Uncle Ralph.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Duvel said:


> If $17.50 was the regular retail price in 1968, I wonder what their sale prices were like? $10?
> 
> I remember even in 1973-1975 or so, picking up wool sweaters in men's stores for under $20. I bought a beautiful angora v-neck for something like $30 and I felt like I was splurging, and considering that I only made about $5/hour in my part-time retail job, it probably was a splurge. The polo overcoat I bought at a men's store came in at around $200, full retail.


Honestly, I wouldn't consider that a huge splurge, depending on your situation. When I was in college 10 years ago, I made $7.50/hr working my part time coffee shop job. My basic expenses were covered by a combo of scholarship, loans, parents, and free meals at work, so it wouldn't have been unreasonable for me to use some of my earnings to buy a $45 sweater. But a $45 angora sweater would have been considered a real steal, not the standard price; something one would find only on a good day at Loehmann's.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Fading Fast said:


> While OCBD makes a good point with his list, I did notice something odd today when this thread prompted me to look - BB only sells a men's Shetland sweater under its Red Fleece label - it's "youth-oriented" slimmer cut line. It is kinda surprising that they don't sell a traditional cut Shetland in five or six colors, no? Nor do I think LE sells a basic Shetland at all - also surprising.


Brooks did precisely that up until just a few years ago. Now Brooks treats it like a niche piece.


----------



## sporto55 (Aug 2, 2008)

*Shetlands Are a Classic*



MythReindeer said:


> While the article linked in this blog post has disappeared, Pete of Put This On addressed the increasing price of many things, using Shaggy Dog sweaters as an example: https://putthison.com/post/62819400733/expensive-things-not-getting-any-cheaper-for
> 
> It seems that prices for clothing that many posters here once took for granted have outpaced inflation, which would help explain why the calculations cited above don't square with today's prices. I couldn't scare up a good article dealing with _why_ the price of clothing (or at least "good" clothing) has risen so much, though there are likely multiple contributing factors. Regardless, that may explain the relative rarity: people want inexpensive things.


It is very difficult to find quality Shetlands . I recently purchased three from a company called Rakutan. They are made in Scotland and the company is out of Japan. It was a little difficult navigating as some of the stuff was in Japanese. There is a company called Traveler that fulfills orders to the United States. I ordered them the 17th and they arrived on the 23rd. It only cost $30.00 shipping and the sweaters were 160.00 each, but I got purchase points for a future purchase which equals to getting two more free. I got exactly what I wanted. There is nothing worse than cutting corners ie. a cheaper price and then realizing you are unhappy with what you bought. 25-50% off of what you don't want is unhappiness. The bottom line is what you are willing to live with. I would rather have 5 items I am happy with wearing than have ten that I never wear.


----------



## red_shift (Aug 8, 2013)

Eric W S said:


> Actually you can and should hand wash them. "Put this On" had a wonderful tutorial about it last winter. Just make sure to take measurements and block the sweater and dry horizontally. Use a good hair conditioner, I use Khiel's, and the wool will be clean and wonderfully soft.


You're right but it doesn't fit the current culture. People have decided they want things that require no care and cost so little that they can be thrown away once they show any wear. The members here are a subset of a subset, but we do reap the reward of being able to recognize quality and obtain it at a low cost.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Yes, well, $30 of 1974 US dollars, seemed like a lot of money to this struggling student. Of course, I was trying to fit in other priorities, such as beer and the occasional girlfriend or two.



L-feld said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't consider that a huge splurge, depending on your situation. When I was in college 10 years ago, I made $7.50/hr working my part time coffee shop job. My basic expenses were covered by a combo of scholarship, loans, parents, and free meals at work, so it wouldn't have been unreasonable for me to use some of my earnings to buy a $45 sweater. But a $45 angora sweater would have been considered a real steal, not the standard price; something one would find only on a good day at Loehmann's.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Duvel said:


> Yes, well, $30 of 1974 US dollars, seemed like a lot of money to this struggling student. Of course, I was trying to fit in other priorities, such as beer and the occasional girlfriend or two.


Yes, but $5/hr was a pretty decent wage in 1974, was it not? Adjusted for inflation, that would have been $19.16 in 2004 and is $23.63 in today's dollars. Your $30 sweater would be $114.95 in 2004 and 141.76 today, which does sound like a splurge for a college student.

My first full time job out of college in 2006 snagged me a piddling $12/hr.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Jeeze, I was making that much money? It sure didn't feel like it. However, I wasn't working full-time, either. Usually just 15-20 hours a week, except for a few weeks in the summer. On average, I think my weekly take-home pay was about $80.


----------



## Yodan731 (Jan 23, 2011)

Real minimum wage has been shrinking for 50 years. College students, the primary drivers of fashion, have never been poorer than they are today, hence they buy poor quality cheap clothes.

If they had more money we might be able to convince them to buy nicer stuff.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Based on the cars today's college kids seem to be driving, compared to the beaters my generation drove, I don't think today's kids are all that bad off. In debt, surely, but not frugal.


----------



## Yodan731 (Jan 23, 2011)

I dunno, I'm working on my masters part time at the local state college, and I see some pretty beat up cars every day I'm there. I drive a 2014 Ford and I've probably got the nicest car on campus most days. Ha! Most of the kids in the program that came right out of undergrad are struggling badly. Many have no car at all and work full-time in crummy retail jobs while going to school full time at night. It's pretty bad. I'm sure glad I'm not trying to get started in today's environment.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Yodan731 said:


> Real minimum wage has been shrinking for 50 years. College students, the primary drivers of fashion, have never been poorer than they are today, hence they buy poor quality cheap clothes.
> 
> If they had more money we might be able to convince them to buy nicer stuff.


While you're 100% correct in regard to wages, that only tells 50% of the story. There was a big cultural shift in the 80's, where a lot of people moved to a sort of disposable, quantity based mentality. And at some point concepts like "retail therapy" emerged. The Internet has also magnified our consumer tendencies, so now there are a lot of folks in a peculiar position where they have less disposable income than previous generations, but have a seething desire for way more stuff.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Yodan731 (Jan 23, 2011)

L-feld said:


> While you're 100% correct in regard to wages, that only tells 50% of the story. There was a big cultural shift in the 80's, where a lot of people moved to a sort of disposable, quantity based mentality. And at some point concepts like "retail therapy" emerged. The Internet has also magnified our consumer tendencies, so now there are a lot of folks in a peculiar position where they have less disposable income than previous generations, but have a seething desire for way more stuff.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Very true. I think advertising works. This was done on purpose. Big business wants us buying all the time.


----------



## Kreiger (Nov 6, 2011)

I think that the college kids of today have more indulgent parents than in previous generations. I imagine no responsible lender would give a loan for a new car to a 19 year old with no income- that is, without a parent to co-sign.

It also depends on the college. At a school where total yearly costs approach 60k (and where many students receive no financial aid) it isn't unreasonable for mommy and daddy to buy a new car for junior.

As far as shetlands go- I'd imagine that overheated indoor environments have also contributed. My favorite sweater is a medium grey shetland from O'Connells that I bought when I was a senior in college. I still wear it about once a week when it is cold, but often end up uncomfortable in indoor environments heated to 70 or above. It's very frustrating to have to choose between wearing clothes warm enough not to freeze on a commute or wearing clothes that will be comfortable indoors.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

L-feld said:


> While you're 100% correct in regard to wages, that only tells 50% of the story. There was a big cultural shift in the 80's, where a lot of people moved to a sort of disposable, quantity based mentality. And at some point concepts like "retail therapy" emerged. The Internet has also magnified our consumer tendencies, so now there are a lot of folks in a peculiar position where they have less disposable income than previous generations, but have a seething desire for way more stuff.


The bigger shift was in the change away from long term saving towards an 'I need this now' mindset, from my perspective in retail banking. Families in the 60's and 70's would purchase cars and go on vacation when they could afford them, and mortgages were paid down when people were in their forties. Now people attain the material lifestyle a generation earlier than they used to using levels of debt previous generations were uncomfortable with accumulating, and banks were uncomfortable with providing. This, and media globalization which helps standardize lifestyle expectations across nations, has made for dramatically higher levels of indebtedness as we go into middle age. Many economists have for years been suggesting this will result in something cataclysmic but it seems to me we just won't see the large inheritances in the future that we currently see being passed down, and more seniors will have some financial struggles in retirement, or at least a less affluent one.



Yodan731 said:


> Very true. I think advertising works. This was done on purpose. Big business wants us buying all the time.


And it was done before.



Kreiger said:


> I think that the college kids of today have more indulgent parents than in previous generations. I imagine no responsible lender would give a loan for a new car to a 19 year old with no income- that is, without a parent to co-sign.


That is true on both counts. Parents seem to have lost their minds; the lesson seems to be on entitlement as opposed to responsibility.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

blairrob said:


> The bigger shift was in the change away from long term saving towards an 'I need this now' mindset, from my perspective in retail banking. Families in the 60's and 70's would purchase cars and go on vacation when they could afford them, and mortgages were paid down when people were in their forties. Now people attain the material lifestyle a generation earlier than they used to using levels of debt previous generations were uncomfortable with accumulating, and banks were uncomfortable with providing. This, and media globalization which helps standardize lifestyle expectations across nations, has made for dramatically higher levels of indebtedness as we go into middle age. Many economists have for years been suggesting this will result in something cataclysmic but it seems to me we just won't see the large inheritances in the future that we currently see being passed down, and more seniors will have some financial struggles in retirement, or at least a less affluent one.


_"The greatest single engine in the destruction of the Protestant ethic was the invention of the installment plan, or instant credit. Previously one had to save in order to buy. But with credit cards one could indulge with instant gratification. The system was transformed by mass production and mass consumption, by the creation of new wants and new means of gratifying those wants."
_
So wrote Daniel Bell in 1976.


----------



## boatswaindog (Nov 18, 2010)

I like the theory that the people who came of age in the 1980s had different values. Probably the first adults with money who didn't live through the Depression or WWII. But I think the major factor in Shetland's decline is the advent of man made fleece. It just seems to be the go to garment of everyone these days.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

boatswaindog said:


> I like the theory that the people who came of age in the 1980s had different values. Probably the first adults with money who didn't live through the Depression or WWII. But I think the major factor in Shetland's decline is the advent of man made fleece. It just seems to be the go to garment of everyone these days.


The Woodstock Generation didn't live through the Depression or WWII and had plenty of disposable income.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

blairrob said:


> The bigger shift was in the change away from long term saving towards an 'I need this now' mindset, from my perspective in retail banking. Families in the 60's and 70's would purchase cars and go on vacation when they could afford them, and mortgages were paid down when people were in their forties. Now people attain the material lifestyle a generation earlier than they used to using levels of debt previous generations were uncomfortable with accumulating, and banks were uncomfortable with providing. This, and media globalization which helps standardize lifestyle expectations across nations, has made for dramatically higher levels of indebtedness as we go into middle age. Many economists have for years been suggesting this will result in something cataclysmic but it seems to me we just won't see the large inheritances in the future that we currently see being passed down, and more seniors will have some financial struggles in retirement, or at least a less affluent one.


I would have to think that the increasing availability of credit cards in the mid to late 60's on played a pretty big role.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

oxford cloth button down said:


> I would have to think that the increasing availability of credit cards in the mid to late 60's on played a pretty big role.


Certainly if you have the desire to do something you need the means, and access to credit facilitates overspending, but, at least in general, folks of my fathers generation did not leverage themselves like my generation has despite having had the opportunity, albeit later in their lives. Their pattern of spending was established, they were comfortable with it, and they lived accordingly. The next generation almost doubled the size of new construction homes and the rule of thumb around how much of one's income you can safely dedicate towards housing costs has changed accordingly. Increasing consumer credit's availability just adds to the fun.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Duvel said:


> I saw an ad from the early 1960s, I believe, that advertised Shaggy Dogs for $17.50. I'm not sure what today's equivalent price would be, but that seems very low.


In the 1960's one might buy a shelby cobra for $3,500. Today, that car would be $3.5m. So, probably the car may have appreciated in cost more than the sweater... $17.50 was still a lot of coin in 1960.
Just a thought.
rudy


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

RM Bantista said:


> $17.50 was still a lot of coin in 1960.


$138.50 in 2014 dollars, according to one calculator.


----------



## GenuineWeejun (Jan 15, 2014)

Could one argue that the feminization of society has made people more inclined towards softness as opposed to ruggedness as a feature of clothing? The same thing has happened to jeans, considering today's pre-washed jeans versus the stiffer fabric in the days of old.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

GenuineWeejun said:


> Could one argue that the feminization of society has made people more inclined towards softness as opposed to ruggedness as a feature of clothing? The same thing has happened to jeans, considering today's pre-washed jeans versus the stiffer fabric in the days of old.


Because no Ivy-look adherent never went out of their way to make their Weejuns look battered and distressed...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## GenuineWeejun (Jan 15, 2014)

L-feld said:


> Because no Ivy-look adherent never went out of their way to make their Weejuns look battered and distressed...
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Hmm, true. But aren't beaten and rugged two sides of kinda the same coin? I might be off. 
Sorry for nitpicking. I will stop now.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

GenuineWeejun said:


> Hmm, true. But aren't beaten and rugged two sides of kinda the same coin? I might be off.
> Sorry for nitpicking. I will stop now.


The brushed Shetland look comes from the same place as the worn out Weejun or the threadbare OCBD. It's the desire to look like you've had the garment for years, or it was handed down to you, etc. Artificial aging.

Same as distressed jeans, really.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

L-feld said:


> Because no Ivy-look adherent never went out of their way to make their Weejuns look battered and distressed...


Could you clarify your point.....the double negative is making it extra hard for my pea sized brain to compute. Ahh, never mind, what does it matter, I live in Florida....you're talking about ponies, right?


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

FLCracka said:


> Could you clarify your point.....the double negative is making it extra hard for my pea sized brain to compute. Ahh, never mind, what does it matter, I live in Florida....you're talking about ponies, right?


Damn, I was trying to speak in cracker-ese so you would understand. I thought the double neg was a part of the cracker patois. Now I know how your ancestors must have felt when trying to explain the concept of property rights to the Seminoles.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

L-feld said:


> Damn, I was trying to speak in cracker-ese so you would understand. I thought the double neg was a part of the cracker patois. Now I know how your ancestors must have felt when trying to explain the concept of property rights to the Seminoles.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Man, you're really struggling with your English tonight, aren't you?! This time you spelled patios wrong. I'm actually enjoying a nice cigar and a cocktail on mine right now!


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

GenuineWeejun said:


> Hmm, true. But aren't beaten and rugged two sides of kinda the same coin? I might be off.
> Sorry for nitpicking. I will stop now.


Also, as a side note, I am curious what you mean by the feminization of society. Do you mean that in a sartorial sense, with men wearing things that, until recently, were viewed as feminine clothing, like closer rises, cropped jackets, skirts, etc? Or are you referring more to an emasculation of society in general, where folks can't handle discomfort and need to be coddled?

I personally don't think brushed Shetlands arise from either, but I do recall a debate a while ago that involved some members arguing that fuzzy sweaters were traditionally a feminine item and that brushed Shetland had too much in common with things like mohair sweaters to be part of a "traditionalist" wardrobe.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

FLCracka said:


> Man, you're really struggling with you English tonight, aren't you?! This time you spelled patios wrong. I'm actually enjoying a nice cigar and a cocktail on mine right now!


I'm jealous. My father-in-law decided that everyone was drinking sea breezes tonight (speaking of the feminization of society).

What are you smoking? I would have been smoking a turkey if the weather had cooperated. I still got to have my Fuente though.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

L-feld said:


> I'm jealous. My father-in-law decided that everyone was drinking sea breezes tonight (speaking of the feminization of society).
> 
> What are you smoking? I would have been smoking a turkey if the weather had cooperated. I still got to have my Fuente though.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Nothing fancy. A Macanudo Hyde Park.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

FLCracka said:


> Nothing fancy. A Macanudo Hyde Park.


Good stuff. Those make for a nice smoke. Not too big, not too bold. I know some people like cigars that make their mouths burn for three hours straight, but I'm too much of a wimp for that.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

L-feld said:


> Good stuff. Those make for a nice smoke. Not too big, not too bold. I know some people like cigars that make their mouths burn for three hours straight, but I'm too much of a wimp for that.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Same here. I like my cigars mild, my wings medium, and my women extra spicy......oh, who am I kidding....I've been married 19 years...my wife is laughing at me about right now.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

L-feld said:


> Good stuff. Those make for a nice smoke. Not too big, not too bold. I know some people like cigars that make their mouths burn for three hours straight, but I'm too much of a wimp for that.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Like me- La Flor Dominicana Double Ligero last night with a glass of Laphroaig 10 year, which is peaty enough that it might as well be liquid smoke. :devil:


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

orange fury said:


> Like me- La Flor Dominicana Double Ligero last night with a glass of Laphroaig 10 year, which is peaty enough that it might as well be liquid smoke. :devil:


Yeah, my 70 year old neighbor likes to flag me down and drag me into his house for Talisker. I always oblige him, but I can't drink too much of that stuff without a glass of water near by. I usually stick to rye.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

L-feld said:


> Yeah, my 70 year old neighbor likes to flag me down and drag me into his house for Talisker. I always oblige him, but I can't drink too much of that stuff without a glass of water near by. I usually stick to rye.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


No shame in that, a rye old fashioned is my mixed drink of choice, followed closely by a rye manhattan. I like bourbon, but those drinks are supposed to be made with rye.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

J. Crew has added a shetland to their Wallace and Barnes offerings, which is void of the logo and doesn't look bad for what is a $100 sweater on sale. 

Ralph Lauren has expanded their shetland offerings to have those without elbow patches.

Perhaps some neo-preps will end up with their first shetland under the tree this year?


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I hope they choose the better-looking PRL option. Myself, with a couple of shetlands in the drawer, I'm still saving my pennies for the sub-$200 number at O'Connells.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

GenuineWeejun said:


> Could one argue that the feminization of society has made people more inclined towards softness as opposed to ruggedness as a feature of clothing? The same thing has happened to jeans, considering today's pre-washed jeans versus the stiffer fabric in the days of old.


Could one of us? With our pink shirts and yellow cashmere sweaters?

On the other hand, people certainly like to look as though they were going to make an athletic effort, hence the UnderArmour T-shirts I see on men who've clearly not been near a gym in a while.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

universitystripe said:


> J. Crew has added a shetland to their Wallace and Barnes offerings, which is void of the logo and doesn't look bad for what is a $100 sweater on sale.
> 
> Ralph Lauren has expanded their shetland offerings to have those without elbow patches.
> 
> Perhaps some neo-preps will end up with their first shetland under the tree this year?


I want to like the Wallace and Barnes one as J.Crew does a decent job with that line (not super skinny, usually vintage inspired and better made than its regular stuff - and. on sale, reasonable value) - but I don't like the elbow patches or the odd ribbing where the neck and shoulder meet.

How do others feel about elbow patches on brand new Shetlands?


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'd rather not have the patch, but if other things are good, and depending on the price, it's not a deal breaker. I wouldn't want it on a more expensive sweater. 

The deal breaker for me with these things is the saddle shoulder. The sweater has to have seamless shoulders, i.e, the sleeves can't be sewn own.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

SlideGuitarist said:


> On the other hand, people certainly like to look as though they were going to make an athletic effort, hence the UnderArmour T-shirts I see on men who've clearly not been near a gym in a while.


I believe that this was once also true of early adopters of polo shirts, tennis sweaters, button down collars, turtlenecks, and tweed.

If I'm to believe local legend, Eddie Jacobs, Sr. was known for wearing his tennis sweater off the court in the 30's and started a minor trend among other young tennis players. When he opened his store in the 40's, he started selling tennis sweaters alongside proper city wear, and the garment became a hit among students at Johns Hopkins, and worked its way into the wardrobes of non-athletes.

Or so says the Baltimore Sun.

The difference might be that tennis, polo, cricket and shooting have different class connotations than football, basketball and weightlifting.

Although, I think there is an argument to be made that the adoption of Yoga pants may be in line with that tradition.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

It might also be that the clothing associated with tennis, cricket, and polo is simply nicer looking than a basketball or weightlifting tank-top.


----------

