# Trad and class - questions from an outsider



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Hello all – this is my first post here – so please show mercy.

I have some very general questions about the Trad thing; I understand the European mod/skinhead/jazz/amerophile adaptation or whatever - that's just fashion - but the sociology of the American contemporary Trad thing escapes me. (I’m European, and have spent roughly four accumulated weeks in the US.)

Now, the historical origins of the style are quite clear: It’s the US Establishment look of the fifties and sixties, with different regional and sub-cultural variations. However, to me, much of the present edition seems to be coming from an anxious and embattled middle class. 

Of course, clothing is an important signal of social class anywhere, but it seems to me that this is a peculiarly American thing. There seems to be a great emphasis on "authenticity", whether this pertains the the clothes themselves, or the social background of the wearers. To me, this is a signal that it's about more than dressing well.

As others have pointed out repeatedly here, there seems to be a very strong feeling of ownership to the Trad style in some quarters. I think this is best exemplified by the constant Trad dog/car/house/furniture/girlfriend (and in particular school/university) threads in this forum. There seems to be a double standard between the frequent mentioning of prep schools, clubs, and “understated” social markers, and reassurances that “it’s just a style, anyone’s welcome”.

Most other “styles” of clothing discussed on these forums have few real class connotations, besides sometimes being prohibitively expensive. Class or markers of class are seldom mentioned in discussions about French ties, Italian shoes or Savile Row suits, compared to the Tradly discussions.

Questions:

- Isn’t the Trad intrinsically more middle than upper class in its present-day values?

- How well understood (by the general public) are the Trad staples, such as hunting and sailing motifs, stripey belts and watchbands, etc., understood as markers of social class, or class aspirations?

- So to what degree is Tradliness a function of the users’ class reassurance or aspiration?

I'm obligated to admit that I've posted this on ahem...other forums as well. I hope this doesn't annoy anyone too much.


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

Didn't your mother tell you not to light a cigarette when in a petrol station?


----------



## robieusa (May 1, 2006)

One important distiction needs to be made here. Many posting to this site are aspiring to an ideal that may not be natural to them. That, I suppose is distinctively American. 

So, yes, if you use the forum to define the class -- middle, it is. By definition, truly uppers don't care about all this stuff beyond some possible amusement.

(I'll take a blindfold, gentlemen)


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Blackadder said:


> Didn't your mother tell you not to light a cigarette when in a petrol station?


Heh..sorry, not trying to aggravate anyone.

I can only quote Fussell:


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Although this dead horse may have been beaten in other threads, I do find that quotation to be quite interesting, particularly the last paragraph. What is its source?


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

For someone who lives in Europe and has spent 4 weeks in the US, you sure seem to be pre-occupied with issues of class in America. If I am wrong and this is a serious inquiry, then I apologize.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

tripreed said:


> Although this dead horse may have been beaten in other threads, I do find that quotation to be quite interesting, particularly the last paragraph. What is its source?


I've been lurking here long enough to know it's been discussed, but I still miss a straightforward discussion of the class connotations, and the use of this style as a social marker. I think this can be discussed in a fruitful way, if we try to keep some emotional distance. It's just clothes, after all.

The quote's from Paul Fussell's "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System"

Link: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671792253/103-3139762-5919041?v=glance&n=283155


----------



## mattdebord (May 20, 2006)

"Trad," as it's discussed here, really isn't about class. It's about ethics. The clothes are just a metaphor.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

mattdebord said:


> "Trad," as it's discussed here, really isn't about class. It's about ethics. The clothes are just a metaphor.


Good answer. On the other hand, you might counter that class is also about ethics.



Tom Buchanan said:


> For someone who lives in Europe and has spent 4 weeks in the US, you sure seem to be pre-occupied with issues of class in America. If I am wrong and this is a serious inquiry, then I apologize.


I'm genuinely curious and interested in clothes, yes, and I'm certainly not trying to be unpleasant.

I also think you might be underestimating the impact of American style globally - I just read in a very local paper's fashion column that next year will be "the return of preppy" - no explanation of the term offered or needed. It seems to me that elements of Trad, and American culture in general, are also important parts of the way the rest of the world dress and act. That's what makes the social connotations in the place of origin interesting.

To counter your scepticism: In my numerous encounters with Americans in Europe, many of them seem very preoccupied with the local mores and social structures, even more so than say, Asians.

It might also be that the similarities between the US and Europe are so great that many differences come as surprises. The Trad thing did come as somewhat of a surprise to me - I've always thought of most of these clothes as generic American clothing, with few connotations of class.


----------



## wheredidyougetthathat (Mar 26, 2006)

Possibly worth reminding some people that - in the anglophone world at least - the *vast* majority of writers, artists, sculptors, designers, architects, and so on have come from middle-class origins. The "working class", in spite of all the romantic mythology, has contributed very little, and the upper classes even less ... Byron, and that's about it, actually.

The idea that the upper class is somehow innately possessed of good taste doesn't really seem to have much to back it up, except that often uc people have the money to finance the creativity of middle-class people. In fact the British uc is renowned - if only in stereotype - for its philistinism.

Not meaning to drag this into Interchange territory, just thought the quotation from Fussell (whose origins are ....?) needed a more on point rebuttal than was provided by the (_obviously_ middle class :icon_smile_big: ) library book defacer.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

wdygth: I'm not denying the merits of the middle class; after all, they are the ones with both the means (money, access to education and culture) and the incentive (there's still a reason for being ambitious) to actually do something worthwhile. Much of the general Western domination of the world was established by the middle class. Max Weber and his "The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" describes this ethic and the resulting process very well. 

Well, - back to clothes; I'll repeat my questions to keep this thread on track:

- How well understood (by the general public) are the Trad staples, such as hunting and sailing motifs, stripey belts and watchbands, etc., understood as markers of social class, or class aspirations?

- So to what degree is Tradliness a function of the users’ class reassurance or aspiration?


----------



## MichaelB (Dec 17, 2004)

Lucky Strike poses the question of clothing, class and anxiety very precisely and intelligently--indeed, his question is so just and perceptive it amounts to its own answer. 

I don't have much worthwhile to add, except this related observation: I'm a New England boarding school teacher, and (as a result? despite it all?) a devotee of boarding-school novels and movies. Nearly all the good American ones--I'm thinking of The Catcher in the Rye, Tobias Wolff's Old School, Dead Poets Society, A Separate Peace, Prep--feature a protagonist who is chronically anxious, hyper-verbal, perceptive, self-conscious, plagued by a sense of inadequacy. There is usually a minor character, too--upper class, dismissive, superior, unconcerned. Whit Stillman's Metropolitan isn't a boarding school film, but it visits those same people during school break and examines those same tensions. A boarding school is a fishbowl, a self-contained world, and it permits a novelist or director to examine exactly the issues Lucky Strike raises.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

I'm actually just as interested in the European upper class. What is it really like for the titled nobility in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, etc? I've noticed a few of the board members of a Belgian stock I own are Barons. 

I just got my copy of Metropolitan a few days ago and have only watched it once.

I also wonder what it would be like to put a trad young man (Coolidge, myself, etc) in Europe and see how he would be percieved. From the Fashion Forum we've learned that white shirts and navy blazers have stigma attached to them in England, but I wonder what would happen if it were a navy sack blazer, a wrinkled OCBD, and a bowtied America wearing loafers with no socks?


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> I'm actually just as interested in the European upper class. What is it really like for the titled nobility in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, etc? I've noticed a few of the board members of a Belgian stock I own are Barons.
> 
> I just got my copy of Metropolitan a few days ago and have only watched it once.
> 
> I also wonder what it would be like to put a trad young man (Coolidge, myself, etc) in Europe and see how he would be percieved. From the Fashion Forum we've learned that white shirts and navy blazers have stigma attached to them in England, but I wonder what would happen if it were a navy sack blazer, a wrinkled OCBD, and a bowtied America wearing loafers with no socks?


Ah - one the differences here is that American films and general culture has had such an impact on Europe, that I think you would have many people recognise you as Americans, of that I've absolutely no doubt. I'm less sure they would recognise you as a spesific class or type of American. You see, this style is just what's "American preppy" in Europe, and a style very often emulated by teenagers and older students. Kids being what they are, you periodically see the style followed religiously. To most Europeans, this is just um...ethnic American clothing. You'd have to discuss sailing, hunting, and Ivy League universities in a loud and public voice to coma across as of any particular class, or as anything more specific than just Americans.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> I'm actually just as interested in the European upper class. What is it really like for the titled nobility in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, etc? I've noticed a few of the board members of a Belgian stock I own are Barons.


Do you read German? I have a great article about the Habsburg Spring Ball in Karlsbad lying around. It's very descriptive in ansering your initial question. You have to take into account that most of these people have to have regular jobs, being land-owners isn't normally enough to sustain that lifestyle anymore.

It's not uncommon for different bigger companies to have a few "elevated" names on the letterhead. I think a US equivalent might having a retired senator or congressman attached to them in the same way. This can cover a variety of realities: Some are influential power-brokers, qualified because of their abilities or more often because of their network, others are just there to have a recognisable or impressive name on the list of board members.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Lucky Strike said:


> Do you read German?


Yes I just happen to read a bit of German. Would love to see that article.


----------



## Dr James Ryan (Feb 8, 2006)

You Europeans... so focused on class! I encourage my trad brethren to take at look in the Fashion Forum at the thread about the blue blazer. The Euros almost unanimously agree that the blue blazer is too 'middle class' or too 'prole' to bother wearing. I did not even know how to respond to that thread, so I let it go. You need to believe me when I say, at least in the North East, "social class" is one of the furthest things from Americans' minds. 

Im not sure I even know how to define the middle class in America. Incomes anywhere between 50k and 750k probably qualify. What are the substantive differences in lifestyle between a guy making 100k and 250k? Maybe it’s easier to pay for your kid’s college… What is the difference between 250k and 750k? A slightly bigger boat or slightly better piece of real estate… It does not affect your group of friends, your hobbies, or really anything meaningful about your standard of living. 

People who dress in the trad style find it aesthetically pleasing, appreciate the value, and enjoy the tradition, whether carrying it on in the family or giving a nod to prominent figures in the 20th century. I cant imagine anyone adopting trad in an attempt to look "old money." People would soon becoming hip to the imposters scam when they could produce an estate in Hunt Country, Virginia, anyway. It would be about as easy to impersonate English royalty…

Im not convinced trad was ever an old-money look to begin with. At the time of trad’s birth in the Ivy League, the SAT was around. It was a meritocracy. I suspect one of the reasons trad has remained so popular is that these middle-class kids and Gis in the Ivy League left school having learned a method of dressing properly that was very cost-effective. The fact that they attended Ivy League schools made it likely that they would accumulate wealth in their lives, whether by the opportunities opened to them or by their own innate ability evidenced in gaining acceptance into these colleges, and this furthered the connection between trad and money, even though the clothes were strongly rooted in thrift. The older-money kids probably originated the look (and also appreciated the thrift having the Great Depression in recent memory,) but the middle-class kids on scholarship kept it alive. 


If you want examples of people putting on airs of wealth, look in the black and Italian communities. There the focus on brand name, “expensive,” clothes and cars is a way of life. These people put themselves in terrible financial situations, never saving a dime, so they can give the appearance of money. Ever here, it’s not so much class as it is cash. Is this kind of thing what you’re comparing contemporary trads to? 

It’s tough to get a handle on American trad without a good knowledge of the Ivy League, SAT, GI Bill, economic condition, puritan tradition, etc. I can see how Euros struggle to make sense of it all. And this isn’t even considering the Southern varieties, whose origins I don’t even have a clue about. I just want to assure you that this forum isn’t made up of a bunch of trad posers- creatures that probably don’t exist.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Lucky Strike has raised some good points that I have tried to touch on before, but to little avail.

Of one thing I am sure; Americans have little idea of their place in this world. Keeping to clothes to save this thread from the Interchange, entertainment has done a huge amount in spreading images of the USA (as has the news and current affairs shows), and that has both positive and negative connotations. On the positive side, the world over has been introduced to the USA. On the negative side, societies outside of the US have been swamped with cheap Chinese rip-offs of American streetwear. Worse still, every indiginous race seems to have bought into the gangsta-homy-boy ideology and wants to rectify the injustices of their past by poppin' a cap in the a*s of their government.

In relation to Trad and Preppy, the image of those styles are recognised from entertainment, and may be aped by some outside the US, although not to the extent of gangsta wear. Generally sack blazers, khakis and loafers are seen as identifiably American, and for that reason all or parts of the style are shunned. Maybe my view is skewed by living in a Commonwealth country where we lean more to Britain, and for that and other reasons, away from the US, but the wearing of loafers, lime shirts or GTH pants by a local would bring about ridicule. Of course, an American tourist sporting the same would be recognised for who he is and accepted with a wink and a grin.

As to class, I have been corrected in many threads by saying my views are outdated and economic brackets are more accepted. Be that as it may, in this country serious money may be held in awe, but class is determined by manners, or lack thereof. Manners are the knowledge of exclusive unwriten rules that are passed from one generation to another. Either you know how to set a table or you don't, either you know how to dress as a gentleman or you don't; either you recognise a striped tie for what it is (or isn't) or you don't.

If I may equate American Trad with the closest we have here, it is a style of dress worn and recognised by middle, upper middle and some upper classes (in the old, non-money sense of the word), as well as by aspirants. "Old family" styles are, I think, recognised by all classes, and they are a uniform. I'm not certain that the dress is a means of reassurance, except perhaps by aspirants, but a trad will often feel uneasy if deprived of trad wear. Is the dress therefore reassurance? I think it is simply part of a culture and to be deprived of the accepted dress is no different than being deprived of any other cultural norm.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Lucky Strike said:


> ...I'll repeat my questions to keep this thread on track:
> 
> - How well understood (by the general public) are the Trad staples, such as hunting and sailing motifs, stripey belts and watchbands, etc., understood as markers of social class, or class aspirations?
> 
> - So to what degree is Tradliness a function of the users' class reassurance or aspiration?


In answer to your first question: IMO, Trad is a term peculiar to e-boards such as AAAC (I think invented here) and SF. I do not believe you will find the word in the American vernacular. Hunting and sailing motifs are probably well understood by the general public, but I do not believe these are taken too seriously by the general public, nor by power groups such as business decision makers, and probably not by the majority of politicians, nor by others who are driving this bus. I am not sure that Dandy and Trad were meant to be interchangable terms, but I infer that here they are viewed as the same from the various posts I have read.

In answer to your second question: I believe some of the desire to be Trad, if that's the term we wish to use, is due to what you imply, which is self-validation that one has arrived at a certain class, or is from a certain class. However, this should not always be considered as synonomous with those who just desire to be well dressed, or for those who just have clothes as a hobby.

As an example of exigencies of the well-dressed, I have always expected leaders to be well-dressed and groomed. This means clean and cut nails, polished shoes, groomed hair, and hence high standards of personal appearance which would include respectable clothing. I do not, however, extend this to what I identify as "costumes". Costumes to me are attention getting clothing that many feel make them distinctive. Such items are braces, bow-ties, madras pants, spectator shoes, etc. If I were to interview an attorney for a prospective job, and he was dressed in one of these costumes, such as a thick-striped shirt, braces, and a bow-tie, I would think him more fit to serve ice cream at Baskin-Robbins or to play an accordion at an amusement park, and not fit to work for me in any litigation, or any other business matter, or represent me in any matter whatsoever. And while co-workers may comment that such an individual dresses nicely, I can assure you that behind his back they are at best smirking, or at worst laughing out loud (I have actually witnessed this). However, some individual celebrities can get away with this, i.e., George Will, Tucker Carlson, but even they are the subject of ridicule.

These are my opinions on the matter.

M8


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> I do not, however, extend this to what I identify as "costumes". Costumes to me are attention getting clothing that many feel make them distinctive. Such items are braces, bow-ties, madras pants, spectator shoes, etc. If I were to interview an attorney for a prospective job, and he was dressed in one of these costumes, such as a thick-striped shirt, braces, and a bow-tie, I would think him more fit to serve ice cream at Baskin-Robbins or to play an accordion at an amusement park, and not fit to work for me in any litigation, or any other business matter, or represent me in any matter whatsoever. And while co-workers may comment that such an individual dresses nicely, I can assure you that behind his back they are at best smirking, or at worst laughing out loud (I have actually witnessed this). However, some individual celebrities can get away with this, i.e., George Will, Tucker Carlson, but even they are the subject of ridicule.
> 
> These are my opinions on the matter.
> 
> M8


Well that's one firm off the list. Just remember, as FNB once sagely posted on his board..."they may laugh at your funny pants, but you and your friends are having the last laugh"

Indeed.

Cooly


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

It is my opinion that personal style rarely, if ever, truly changes. This includes writing styles. With this in mind, why am I expecting to read the OP inject "gay trad" at any time?

Warmest regards


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Harris--I'm mellowing out!

This topic will not die...

As far as preppy stuff goes--lime green shirts, GTH pants, etc.--I don't know what that means to people in terms of class. I think it's a disposable fashion trend at this point, and will come in and out of favor like hippy peasant blouses and mod stovepipe trousers.

As for the Trad:

I think the "aspirational" aspect of the trad has been grossly overstated and is a moot point. The plain fact is that policy makers, titans of industry, the "social elite," etc. simply don't dress like this anymore. The social elite is now characterized by the swinish likes of Brandon Davis, who I'm sure would sooner set himself on fire than wear a sack suit.

We dress this way because our fathers did, or we were seduced by old movies, or are fed up with "fashion," or for lots of other reasons. We are curators of a moribund style, not pretenders to some notional upper class that stopped wearing this stuff 20 or 30 years ago. 

To directly answer your questions:

- Isn’t the Trad intrinsically more middle than upper class in its present-day values?

No. The trad is an obscure point of interest for a small group of enthusiasts who like it for all sorts of personal reasons. Wearing an OCBD and bow tie to borrow cachet from "the elite" would, at this point, be a sadly misguided strategy. If anything, it makes people think you are a little eccentric.

- How well understood (by the general public) are the Trad staples, such as hunting and sailing motifs, stripey belts and watchbands, etc., understood as markers of social class, or class aspirations?

Probably not understood at all, and, furthermore, the "general public" could not care less. They're watching "American Idol" and worrying about their kid's report card and buying groceries and living their lives in blissful ignorance of archaic class markers--those sailboats and hunting dogs might as well be Egyptian heiroglyphics re their relevance to the "general public."

- So to what degree is Tradliness a function of the users’ class reassurance or aspiration?

For me, none. If I wanted to ape my richer, socially connected friends, I would wear a hoodie and sneakers. I wear the trad because I like it and it suits me. I'm not anxious about my class standing and don't need to be reassured. I think most well-educated, sensible people don't take "class" too seriously, anyway--it's petty on the one hand, pathetic on the other, and there are so many more interesting subjects to think about.

PS:

Paul Fussell is a wonderful writer, but I wouldn't take that stuff from Class at face value--there is a strong satirical element at work there.

Even funnier is his excellent BAD: The Dumbing of America. CLASSic.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

As for the actual subject of discussion, I'm really not sure how to respond, but I'll try

>- Isn't the Trad intrinsically more middle than upper class in its present-day values?

I have absolutely no idea. If class is entirely based on money, most of the richest people, in my estimation, probably do not dress trad. Trump, Gates, etc. Fussell's book, which you quote, lists people depicted in the Official Preppy Handbook as upper middle class, professionals, while the upper class is apparently easily distinguished by having houses not visible from the road.

My house is visible from the road, my parents own a summer place, and I live in a nice apartment in an urban downtown high-rise, the apt. is owned by my father, and I wear ties that have sailboats on them. According to Fussell, this makes me upper middle class. Still, I imagine I have it better than a good 95% of America. Next to the not-visible-from the road Trump types I'm nothing. I have no idea what I am. I imagine upper middle class is a fair description, and since this style is that OPH style in many ways, it would, by deduction, be middle class. Of course, I don't know if I'd call Adlai Stevenson or Rodman Rockefeller or Lev Saltonstall upper middle class and they dressed the same way.

It's a tough question to answer, and it is really dependent on how you define class. I define it as more connected to taste than money, but I don't think that makes me upper class by any stretch. I'm not even sure I buy into the whole idea of class, I'm tempted more by the old English idea that I learned in midaeval history of "sort"

- How well understood (by the general public) are the Trad staples, such as hunting and sailing motifs, stripey belts and watchbands, etc., understood as markers of social class, or class aspirations?

Everyone I've ever met either says nothing or terms it "preppy". And that only applies to the things like madras jackets or ties with whales. It is oh, so rare that someone will observe the difference between 2button darted and 3 button sack. I really don't think anyone does think about it, at all, or if they do, they keep it to themselves. Once somebody, while we were all drunk, at a party, said "[my last name], are you, like, old money?" Pretty startled, I said no I didn't think so, but then again, I don't know what the real defintion for that is unless you're a Vanderbilt or Cadwalader, or a Rockefeller. So maybe they do give off that image but except for that drunk guy nobody's said anything.

>- So to what degree is Tradliness a function of the users' class reassurance or aspiration?

If trad is assumed to connote someone who comes from the following background: Episcopal, Presby, or Congregational, private school and Ivy League (or -esque ie Virginia) or NESCAC (Bowdoin, Conn Coll, Middlebury and the like) tradition in the family (if not always extended to yourself, as it was not in my case due to my father's dislike of his own school and his desire that I be happy in high school, which I was), enjoys sports such as squash, lacrosse, tennis, sailing, golf, has affection for old Mercedes, Jaguar, Jeep Wagoneer, formal American Sedans, Country Squires, lives in the mid-Atlantic to coastal Maine...these are just generalizations but yes I think that is a reflection of a lifestyle and "sort" with which owning a wardrobe resembling the J.Press catalog fits well. I don't think anyone can really dispute that.

What can be disputed is whether that necessarily connotes such a "sort" or whether those who adopt that style, not being of that "sort", are, in fact, aspiring to be thought of as that "sort." I'm not sure if such "aspirants" are indeed trying to be like the people you'd encounter at the Hartford Club in 1965, but if Martinis at 8 is right, such people, not limited to but including my immediate predecssors on my father's side, are the object of general mockery, so I don't get the attraction of trying to ape a sort of people that has long been pushed aside by the Gordon Gekko set. I suspect they just like the way it looks.

So yes, I think it fits with who I am. It is culturally suited to who I am. I don't see others striving to be like me though. What I do occasionally see on this forum is people striving for a set of standards for what to wear when that may not actually exist.

>I'm obligated to admit that I've posted this on ahem...other forums as well. I hope this doesn't annoy anyone too much.

Hardly, I check both places since I enjoy the contributions


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Funny. I've always thought that Trad was about class, passed down to us by the Ivy Brahmins. But as Americans we benefit from living in a classless society. This allows us to aspire and dress Trad without repercussions or ridicule.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Harris said:


> If it is "just clothes," then I think it's safe to say there's something of a "retro" thing going on--an exaltation of "what once was," a romantic reminiscence, a happy reflection upon a bygone era. Even if Brownshoe claims to be our resident Tommy Townsend, I think he would agree that even the Howard Dean-supporting trads are, at heart, _aesthetically_ conservative.


tom22 has long made this part of the argument as well. I think there's a lot of merit to it. it is definitely part retro. And from the conservative standpoint, I am more of a reactionary than a party-line conservative. so it fits that too.

I admit to being somewhat retro myself. otherwise what would I be doing listening to Blossom Dearie, The Four Freshmen, and tooling about in an old rear wheel drive canoe.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I have nothing to contribute to the discussion but I thought this might be a fine opportunity to introduce my new avatar, photographed from an old belt in my collection.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

*Curmudgeon=Trad?*

From Cool's last post I suspect that the equation is now curmudgeon is tantamount to Trad. Correct me if I'm wrong. And to be retro, doesn't it suggest that we've, in the past, strayed?


----------



## JDDY (Mar 18, 2006)

"the sociology of the American contemporary Trad thing escapes me."

It seems like a good bit of the sociology has been developed on AAAC as the threads came up, and some posters found they shared common interests and/or backgrounds. I previously viewed this general type of clothing as "traditional", "conservative", or "classic", and heard it described (often when incorporating bright colors and some boat/dog motifs) as "preppy". I think a large part of the appeal of the style today is that it resonates with those averse to insecurity created by the wheels of fashion, more than those insecure over money/class status.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> Yes I just happen to read a bit of German. Would love to see that article.


Here:
https://www.stern.de/lifestyle/leute/:Karlsbader-Wochenende-Hier-Graf/560814.html

Here's a photo-series:


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Thank you all for giving such considered replies, and for not going straight for my jugular when doing so. I'm quite a bit more informed now, but still somewhat confused.



Dr James Ryan said:


> You Europeans... so focused on class! I encourage my trad brethren to take at look in the Fashion Forum at the thread about the blue blazer. The Euros almost unanimously agree that the blue blazer is too 'middle class' or too 'prole' to bother wearing. I did not even know how to respond to that thread, so I let it go. You need to believe me when I say, at least in the North East, "social class" is one of the furthest things from Americans' minds.


This, I have difficulties believing in. Some months ago, I read a long series of articles in the NYT about social class in the US (very well written and put together, I think), and the articles seemed to conclude that the US is currently more class-ridden than modern Europe. (Much of this had to do with free or almost-free higher education having been offered in Western Europe for the last generation or so.



> Im not sure I even know how to define the middle class in America. Incomes anywhere between 50k and 750k probably qualify. What are the substantive differences in lifestyle between a guy making 100k and 250k? Maybe it's easier to pay for your kid's college&#8230; What is the difference between 250k and 750k? A slightly bigger boat or slightly better piece of real estate&#8230; It does not affect your group of friends, your hobbies, or really anything meaningful about your standard of living.


Generally true and quite sage words, I think, but beside the point, I think, as is pointed out repeatedly by various posters here, money is no, or just a small part of the class equation. According to the NYT articles and graphs, about a quarter.



> People who dress in the trad style find it aesthetically pleasing, appreciate the value, and enjoy the tradition, whether carrying it on in the family or giving a nod to prominent figures in the 20th century. I cant imagine anyone adopting trad in an attempt to look "old money."


I have no difficulties in imagining some people adopting anything in an attempt to look "old money". If it works for them, it works.



> Im not convinced trad was ever an old-money look to begin with. At the time of trad's birth in the Ivy League, the SAT was around. It was a meritocracy. I suspect one of the reasons trad has remained so popular is that these middle-class kids and Gis in the Ivy League left school having learned a method of dressing properly that was very cost-effective. The fact that they attended Ivy League schools made it likely that they would accumulate wealth in their lives, whether by the opportunities opened to them or by their own innate ability evidenced in gaining acceptance into these colleges, and this furthered the connection between trad and money, even though the clothes were strongly rooted in thrift. The older-money kids probably originated the look (and also appreciated the thrift having the Great Depression in recent memory,) but the middle-class kids on scholarship kept it alive.


The last sentence illustrates the point of my question. Thank you very much for the explanation - I hadn't thought of SAT tests and the GI Bill as factors. It seems quite natural, then, that the growing American middle class emulated the "old money" look from more upper class fellow students in the fifties or sixties.



> If you want examples of people putting on airs of wealth, look in the black and Italian communities. There the focus on brand name, "expensive," clothes and cars is a way of life. These people put themselves in terrible financial situations, never saving a dime, so they can give the appearance of money. Ever here, it's not so much class as it is cash. Is this kind of thing what you're comparing contemporary trads to?


No - I'm not, really. It seems to me that these members of the black community and the various immigrant communities might initially have given up on the possibility to appear upper- or even middle-class, because of skin colour, accent, last names, etc., - features that are impossible or hard to disguise. I think the conspicuous spending in these communities has mainly been a way of showing status within the community - and then internal rules are adapted.



> It's tough to get a handle on American trad without a good knowledge of the Ivy League, SAT, GI Bill, economic condition, puritan tradition, etc. I can see how Euros struggle to make sense of it all. And this isn't even considering the Southern varieties, whose origins I don't even have a clue about. I just want to assure you that this forum isn't made up of a bunch of trad posers- creatures that probably don't exist.


I don't want to offend anyone here, but the general rule seems to be to be that if there's any social or financial profit to be reaped from dressing or acting in a particular way, people will do so. I don't know if that's the case here, but it seems improbable to me that this should be a style of dressing that's exempt from these mechanism.

Very interesting reply, thank you.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It is my opinion that personal style rarely, if ever, truly changes. This includes writing styles. With this in mind, why am I expecting to read the OP inject "gay trad" at any time?
> 
> Warmest regards


I sincerely have no idea why you would expect that.

As far as I can understand, there's nothing particularly gay or straight about the Trad style. I would expect the gay sub-culture to find the style too frumpy. The more dandified variations might appeal to the gay segment, I suppose.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Lucky Strike said:


> I sincerely have no idea why you would expect that.
> 
> As far as I can understand, there's nothing particularly gay or straight about the Trad style. I would expect the gay sub-culture to find the style too frumpy. The more dandified variations might appeal to the gay segment, I suppose.


In-house joke, Lucky Strike. Maybe a bit before your time here.


----------



## Chris H (Oct 30, 2004)

Lucky Strike said:


> I sincerely have no idea why you would expect that.
> 
> As far as I can understand, there's nothing particularly gay or straight about the Trad style. I would expect the gay sub-culture to find the style too frumpy. The more dandified variations might appeal to the gay segment, I suppose.


I think the insinuation behind the 'gay trad' quote is a reference to another poster recently banned from here for piss-taking, although it seems a rather groundless allegation.

Edit: Doug, you beat me to it.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

xcubbies said:


> Funny. I've always thought that Trad was about class, passed down to us by the Ivy Brahmins.


Again, who's "us" in this sentence?



> But as Americans we benefit from living in a classless society.


You just mentioned one class and hinted at another (or the same, I don't know). Or is this a question of evolution over time?

Furthermore, I don't think such a thing as a classless society is possible, or even desirable. An amount of social mobility is probably the closest one can get.



> This allows us to aspire and dress Trad without repercussions or ridicule.


I think a few of the posts above detracts from that - [email protected]'s post about not wanting to hire anyone who looks like an ice-cream vendor, and the replies to that seem to illustrate this.


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

I think Coolidge has really hit the nail on the head here. It rings very true.

I was born and grew up overseas but attended an Ivy League school in a town with a J Press. I laughed at the frumpy suits in the windows until I began to appreciate the culture and history that they represented, and that culture and history resonated very strongly with my own values and the way I was raised. Furthermore, as the style has been increasingly marginalised, I felt that trad needed some local champions -- if only that the whole world would not be homogenised into Italian clothing design.

Some of my friends grew up with trad and others have adopted it. They are very aware of its associations, and I think that appeals to them. To me its associations are America in its postwar heyday. I recently purchased a brownish check suit from Press, and you can almost hear the Sinatra music playing as you imagine yourself climbing the stairs onto a PanAm jet at Idlewild. To other friends it represents an association with their Ivy educations and with their traditionalist mores and leanings.

Those who wear trad seem to belong to a club of sorts. Generally conservative aesthetically and intellectually (though not necessarily politically), very aware of style but quite low-key (although occasional GTH pants make their appearance), and not comfortable with sexualized clothing. I find that some unpleasant people do seem to wear it as a quiet "F*** You" to non-Trad people. Those Trads tend to be people less successful people from old families who feel that they have been pushed aside in the last few decades, and they give trad a bad name. To them, their Trad background (including clubs and real estate) is pretty much all the currency they have left in the world, and they use it petulantly. You used to see a lot of similar behaviour among the English upper classes in the 1980s and 90s. Sometimes the Trad lifestyle threads here flirt dangerously close to bitterness.

I find that the top old families in NYC tend not to be fixated on these things. They wear what looks best on them, at a price they're comfortable with, from a store they trust. BB & Press are first stops for them because they've known them forever and they know what they're going to get. I find few really fixate about the number of sack suits BB now makes or the future of J Press. Increasingly these people are more cosmopolitan, but the men still tend to buy their suits from Anglo-named shops rather than department stores. The women are all over the place: some are Brooks Bros, Ann Taylor and Talbotts all the way, but the more cosmopolitan (and wealthier) throw in a bit of Hermes or Chanel (if on the more daring side). Other than for women's Ferragamo shoes, Italian manufacturers are avoided almost completely if subconsciously.

My .02


----------



## Chris H (Oct 30, 2004)

Than you for an interesting post, Blackadder, your upbringing seems to have given you a unique view from both the 'outside' and an 'insiders' point. 

As an englishman who wears the natural shoulder purely because the 'look' appeals to me I have had some difficulty understanding why anyone would wear the style for any reason other than because they thought it looked good.

You mentioned Italian clothing design, I feel there was a period in the early 1960's when the Ivy style absobed some Italian influences at a time when both styles were in the mainstream.

Chris


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Don't you think it's true that you learn/know about something by first learning/knowing about what said somethig is *not*? Definition by converse or opposite. Not a bad trick among social scientists, and could be a worthwhile exercise here.

If so, then the oft (ad infinitum) asked "Why are you trad?" and/or "Why do you like or prefer trad?" might stand in need of editing. How 'bout "Why don't you choose to dress like the masses?" or "Why do you choose to be unique?" or "What is it about non-trad clothing that you find unattractive?"

As a more basic level: "Why do you think two 'darts" running up-and-down the front of a jacket are just plain ugly?" or "Why do you think that a couple of billowing 'pleats' are ugly?" or "What is it about lace-ups that you don't like?" or ...

I think it leads us back to retrophilia. If Tom emphasized the retro mentality, then, yet again, kudos to Tom. I think he's right.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

rojo said:


> I have nothing to contribute to the discussion but I thought this might be a fine opportunity to introduce my new avatar, photographed from an old belt in my collection.


Nice! I can never tell the difference, galleon or frigate?


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

*Class or Values?*

I have read everyone's posts trying to explain elements of class, lifestyles, and even ethics.

Arent we really talking about values, not class? Class is rather amorphous in America. Even Fussel (from what little I have read) has an awful hard time in defining different classes and markers. I believe that trads often share certain values, or that certain values bring people to trad styled clothes. These values do not require wealth.

These values may be:

* family (dressing like your father, relatives, or friends), 
* thrift (buying clothes that have purpose and will not go out of style),
* conservativism (not in a political sense, but in a "dont stand out" sense),

Now, I agree that many of these values may have originated or been maintained in the upper classes. However, if you read Ben Franklin or many other early American's, they certainly believed in these values and many were not of upper class or aristocratic origins. Franklin started life as one of many children and a tradesman.

Also, people can move up classes in America much easier than in most societies (albeit with hard work, familial support, and/or some luck). Trad to me is about values, not about one's station in life. There are plenty of trad civil servants, professors, and others who are not wealthy. There are also plenty of wealthy people who are the opposite of trad (e.g., Trump).

Whoever wrote previously that people on this board would be laughed at by the Filmnoirbuff crowd because our preference for old cars and clothing was an attempt to emulate coupon-clipping rich people, missed the boat. The point of maintaining old clothes, cars, houses, furniture is not to look like a cash strapped aristocrat, but to value thrift, family ties, and conservativeness.

Did Warren Buffett drive an old station wagon for many years because he wanted to look like a cash strapped aristocrat? No, he probably wanted to get every dime out of his investment in the car.

If you are jumping on the new preppy trend, fine and welcome, but know that there are reasons behind trad clothing and lifestyle.

Edit: Having read earlier posts more closely, I now realize that in my rush to put down thoughts that I was having on the topic last night, I duplicated some discussion above. Oh, well. Wont be the last time.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Exactly. It's not a class. It's a sort. Meaning money is not so much of a factor. The sort of person who appreciates such values. Good post Tom B.

edit: Indeed, if these are the values of Franklin et.al we might further argue that this is the last vestige of a style of dress that is truly American in what it stands for, nearly everything else having been swamped by an often European or Asian worshipping cosmopolitanism: business models, education, cars, drinks (I often wonder if rojo and I are the only people who haven't ditched Gordon's gin for Bombay Sapphire or some weird thing from Holland that sells for $70 a bottle), pop music (wherefore are thou, Great American Songbook or rock 'n roll) etc etc.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Coolidge24 said:


> (I often wonder if rojo and I are the only people who haven't ditched Gordon's gin for Bombay Sapphire or some weird thing from Holland that sells for $70 a bottle), pop music (wherefore are thou, Great American Songbook or rock 'n roll) etc etc.


Are other house brands accepted? - been drinking Beefeater since college.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*American Trad Thread*

For Lucky Strike, or any of those that have not reviewed it, the time spent looking through the 19 pages of the American Trad thread, that Harris started, is a good investment.

That thread is the genesis of this Forum, as Andy points out in his home page.

When we get an outsider that isn't nearly as interested in trad, as in creating a problem, they usually try to divert a thread into some kind of a class warfare struggle.

That's why you see posts here about a "gay trad" thread that were started to create flames.

After you have taken the time to thoroughly study the AT thread, come back and let's discuss it.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Coolidge24 said:


> Exactly. It's not a class. It's a sort. Meaning money is not so much of a factor. The sort of person who appreciates such values. Good post Tom B.
> 
> edit: Indeed, if these are the values of Franklin et.al we might further argue that this is the last vestige of a style of dress that is truly American in what it stands for, nearly everything else having been swamped by an often European or Asian worshipping cosmopolitanism: business models, education, cars, drinks (I often wonder if rojo and I are the only people who haven't ditched Gordon's gin for Bombay Sapphire or some weird thing from Holland that sells for $70 a bottle), pop music (wherefore are thou, Great American Songbook or rock 'n roll) etc etc.


Thank you, Coolidge.

And I see that I should have added another value -- the love of Gordon's Gin  Coincidentally, that is all that is served in my house. If it was good enough for Humphrey Bogart, then it is good enough for me. Gordons is gin; Bombay Saphire, Tanqueray, etc. are too close to vodka (although the original Bombay is alright).


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> Are other house brands accepted? - been drinking Beefeater since college.


Beefeater, my other love. Definitely, sir, I would think.

viz the Cheever story: "Two Geefeater Bibsons!" demanded my father.

That was a sad story though

EDIT: (for completeness) I think Gilbey's qualifies too. It's borne mention in Cheever. And of course the Gordon's was Bogie's, and showed up in Fitzgerald stories too.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> For Lucky Strike, or any of those that have not reviewed it, the time spent looking through the 19 pages of the American Trad thread, that Harris started, is a good investment.
> 
> That thread is the genesis of this Forum, as Andy points out in his home page.
> 
> ...


Intrepid, maybe it is time to post that thread as a permanent sticky.


----------



## JBZ (Mar 28, 2005)

Tom Buchanan said:


> Thank you, Coolidge.
> 
> And I see that I should have added another value -- the love of Gordon's Gin  Coincidentally, that is all that is served in my house. If it was good enough for Humphrey Bogart, then it is good enough for me. Gordons is gin; Bombay Saphire, Tanqueray, etc. are too close to vodka (although the original Bombay is alright).


Sorry, I just can't give up my Bombay Saphire or Tanqueray. If that means I must divorce myself from the trad forum, then so be it. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> After you have taken the time to thoroughly study the AT thread, come back and let's discuss it.


I read that thread before starting this one, although it's a month or so ago. Actually, it's what led me into posing those questions (that, and being sick at home in bed, and bored to tears).

It seems funny to me that class, social structures, and the possible markers of them should be so difficult for people to discuss. My interest here is really in the way clothing and class, and class values, are connected.

As to the clothes, I have to admit that it's not really my style, although I like some of the features; mainly, the acessories and shoes. The tailored clothing just doesn't get tailored for me, and I find many of the shirts a bit blousy in cut. Another thing may be that it's too specifically American for me. I bought a J. Press grosgrain belt in a red-white-blue stripe a few weeks ago, though, so you may have a small hope of turning me.


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

Tom Buchanan said:


> Whoever wrote previously that people on this board would be laughed at by the Filmnoirbuff crowd because our preference for old cars and clothing was an attempt to emulate coupon-clipping rich people, missed the boat. The point of maintaining old clothes, cars, houses, furniture is not to look like a cash strapped aristocrat, but to value thrift, family ties, and conservativeness.


There was a time when these attributes were considered the hallmark of Old Money. I am sure that some people DO indeed try to "look like cash strapped aristocrats" -- I've met some of them. One reason that Murray's sold pre-faded Nantucket reds was so that people wouldn't have to walk around with new trousers and they could like they'd been wearing them for years.

IN general, though, I'd agree that the Trad values are values based around old families and tradition, rather than money. However, those trad class values wield considerable social power among the (dwindling number of) people who care about or aspire to be in that world.

EDIT: One of the barbs that Alan Clark (who considered himself Old Money, despite its merely Victorian pedigree) levelled at Michael Heseltine (who was very much self-made) was that "He buys his own furniture." A brilliant put down to which some unpleasant Trads are susceptible.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Lucky Strike said:


> I read that thread before starting this one, although it's a month or so ago. Actually, it's what led me into posing those questions (that, and being sick at home in bed, and bored to tears).
> 
> It seems funny to me that class, social structures, and the possible markers of them should be so difficult for people to discuss. My interest here is really in the way clothing and class, and class values, are connected.
> 
> As to the clothes, I have to admit that it's not really my style, although I like some of the features; mainly, the acessories and shoes. The tailored clothing just doesn't get tailored for me, and I find many of the shirts a bit blousy in cut. Another thing may be that it's too specifically American for me. I bought a J. Press grosgrain belt in a red-white-blue stripe a few weeks ago, though, so you may have a small hope of turning me.


Thanks for the post, Lucky Strike. Hope that you recover soon.

You mention that you are not interested in trad clothes, but are interested in class, class values, etc. This Forum is essentially about clothes.

One of the best things that Andy did was to split AAAC into separate forums, for those with different interests. Your inerest in class and class values would seem to be better suited for the Interchange. You will notice that this thread has veered off into a discussion of various brands of gin.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Tom Buchanan said:


> I have read everyone's posts trying to explain elements of class, lifestyles, and even ethics.
> 
> Arent we really talking about values, not class? Class is rather amorphous in America. Even Fussel (from what little I have read) has an awful hard time in defining different classes and markers. I believe that trads often share certain values, or that certain values bring people to trad styled clothes. These values do not require wealth.
> 
> ...


A social class, in my book, is described mainly by its values. To me, what you describe above is a fairly exact description of middle- rather than upper-class values, or to put it more mildly, what may be termed as "Patrician" rather than "aristocratic" values, or, say, roundhead rather than cavalier.

The emphasis on an ethos, rather than a historical family background, connections or ready money, is quite typical. I referred to "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" by Max Weber in an earlier post - I can't recommend it enough. The elements of thrift, sense of duty, hard work are all described as essentially middle-class values, and offered as an explanation of the rise of the bourgeoisie as the dominant class.

Now, the different vanities of social classes is another matter. Pierre Bourdieu described the tyranny of taste in "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste". Although Bourdieu was an ardent socialist, I think modern marketing experts are his best student, with their splits into "segments", "core groups", etc. His contention was that in a modern Western society, where most ordinary consumer goods are at least to some degree available to most, we're all more or less middle class.

"Taste", or the ability to recognise quality, or to distinguish, for example, between high- and low-brow, is what determines your class. For Bourdieu an individual occupies a position in their social space and is defined not by social class, but by the amount of all kinds of capital they possess, and by the relative amounts symbolic, social, economic and cultural capital account for.

Some examples of his empirical results include:

- Showing that despite the apparent freedom of choice in the arts, people's artistic preferences (e.g. classical music, rock, traditional music) strongly correlate with their social position.

- Showing that subtleties of language such as accent, grammar, spelling and style - all part of cultural capital - are a major factor in social mobility (e.g. getting a higher paid, higher status job).

Pierre Bourdieu's work emphasized how social classes, especially the ruling and intellectual classes, reproduce themselves even under the pretence that society fosters social mobility - particularly through education.

(The last bit is lifted from Wikipedia - saved me a bit of original thinking, hehe.) (Coolidge: I think you'd like his preference for the term "field" rather than "class" to describe different social groups.)


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> One of the best things that Andy did was to split AAAC into separate forums, for those with different interests. Your inerest in class and class values would seem to be better suited for the Interchange. You will notice that this thread has veered off into a discussion of various brands of gin.
> 
> Best wishes for a speedy recovery.


Thanks, and you're probably right.



Blackadder said:


> There was a time when these attributes were considered the hallmark of Old Money. I am sure that some people DO indeed try to "look like cash strapped aristocrats" -- I've met some of them. One reason that Murray's sold pre-faded Nantucket reds was so that people wouldn't have to walk around with new trousers and they could like they'd been wearing them for years.
> 
> IN general, though, I'd agree that the Trad values are values based around old families and tradition, rather than money. However, those trad class values wield considerable social power among the (dwindling number of) people who care about or aspire to be in that world.
> 
> EDIT: One of the barbs that Alan Clark (who considered himself Old Money, despite its merely Victorian pedigree) levelled at Michael Heseltine (who was very much self-made) was that "He buys his own furniture." A brilliant put down to which some unpleasant Trads are susceptible.


And I think this, along with some other posts, notably Coolidge's and Harris', sums the answers to my questions up beautifully.

Thank you all for answering so lucidly and honestly - I don't think, after all, that the differences of opinion are that great.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

Lucky Strike said:


> This, I have difficulties believing in. Some months ago, I read a long series of articles in the NYT about social class in the US (very well written and put together, I think), and the articles seemed to conclude that the US is currently more class-ridden than modern Europe. (Much of this had to do with free or almost-free higher education having been offered in Western Europe for the last generation or so.


The very funny thing about that series is that there was no mention made of the Times' own weddings/engagements section, which is unintentionally ironic.

Many aspirational Americans want to be successful/accomplished or rich, which isn't really the same thing as being a social climber: wanting to be accepted by or mistaken for a member of a higher social class. (Most of the brides and grooms in the NYT weddings section have parents who are successful/accomplished or rich, and are not necessarily scions of old money families.)

Americans also do not reliably vote according to social class or economic caste...("working class" people aren't necessarily pro-union, for example) so are not generally class conscious in that way either.

Most of us consider ourselves to be part of a giant middle class if we consider class at all, middle class being not on welfare and not having a huge trust fund. In short, most Americans don't think about class much at all (though we do think about making more money, but that is not the same as jumping class) and do not waste time pigeonholing people with whom we come into contact based on their dress or speech, which is sometimes (but not always) the case in Europe. Which doesn't make Europeans bad, just different.

In terms of the "preppy trend" we've seen for a few seasons, anybody who's a trend-follower (and AA trads aren't trendy at all) wears sailboat belts from JCrew because they're fashionable. In a year they'll be wearing ripped jeans again, not because they want to emulate the ethos of the poverty-stricken, but because ripped jeans will be fashionable again. Probably.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Blackadder said:


> There was a time when these attributes were considered the hallmark of Old Money. I am sure that some people DO indeed try to "look like cash strapped aristocrats" -- I've met some of them. One reason that Murray's sold pre-faded Nantucket reds was so that people wouldn't have to walk around with new trousers and they could like they'd been wearing them for years.
> 
> IN general, though, I'd agree that the Trad values are values based around old families and tradition, rather than money. However, those trad class values wield considerable social power among the (dwindling number of) people who care about or aspire to be in that world.
> 
> EDIT: One of the barbs that Alan Clark (who considered himself Old Money, despite its merely Victorian pedigree) levelled at Michael Heseltine (who was very much self-made) was that "He buys his own furniture." A brilliant put down to which some unpleasant Trads are susceptible.


Blackadder,

That is a thought provoking observation regarding Nantucket reds and peoples desire for the pre-faded variety. Since I have kept my red pants in pristine (even pressed, horrors) condition to wear at summer cocktail parties, I find it rather amusing that people want the fading. But is this really an attempt to emulate old money, or a desire for worn-in pink, rather than stiff red, pants. Does anyone really say "his pants are pink, he must have been on nantucket many summers?" Are people that buy (and even pay more for) broken in jeans trying to look like old jeans wearers? Some might say that nantucket reds derive from the rich trying to look like their dock-hands (as opposed to wearing white flannels or white ducks).

Anyway, yes, I agree that some people will always try to copy the rich, and that some will use class markers to exclude others. In fact, many of the "old money institutions" were actually created by the former new money industrialists who wanted to join "society." Look at how many old line prep schools, clubs, and colleges were formed in the 1880s and 1890s to cater to the new money industrialists. I would argue that at least it is better to copy the rich, than to run around with your pants too large in order to copy prison thugs. The only problems I see are when people are marketed into paying a premium for faux goods (ala RL), buy knock offs, or put on airs. Or when markers are used to exclude others who might otherwise have good values. Plenty of [insert lower paid career] buy Louis Vuitton purses to look rich.

The difference between an aristocracy and a meritocracy is that a meritocracy attempts to recognize a persons talents, accomplishments and values. Yes, it is nice to inherit furniture or items for personal significance, but having the brains, skills, and motivation to acquire your own nice furniture is what counts for more in America. At least in my opinion.

Tom


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Tom Buchanan said:


> Whoever wrote previously that people on this board would be laughed at by the Filmnoirbuff crowd because our preference for old cars and clothing was an attempt to emulate coupon-clipping rich people, missed the boat. The point of maintaining old clothes, cars, houses, furniture is not to look like a cash strapped aristocrat, but to value thrift, family ties, and conservativeness.


You did not read my post correctly.

What I said is this, basically. There is an element of those who claim, legitimate or not, to be upper class. They do not have liquidity one might associate with upper class, so they contend with older items, sometimes in disrepair because they can't afford to replace. As well, because they grew up feeling "priveledged", they never really applied themselves in school or careers, hoping instead for connections to bail them out of any trouble. Generally, they spend the inheritance, whatever is actually left. All the while, though, they look down upon anyone with something "new", and are always grouping people according to class.

So, when I see people waxing poetic about "old money" and their "old things", I say "wait a minute." Much of it is too often a show. They clip coupons out of NEED, not thrift. They drive the old Mercedes because they can't afford a new one. Same with the old suit. But in their pretentious minds, they are elite, and will fight dirty to prevent anyone who threatens this fantasy.

It is this element of the social strata that is harmful. Local and regional economies can actually stagnate because of these tendencies.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Lucky Strike said:


> A social class, in my book, is described mainly by its values. To me, what you describe above is a fairly exact description of middle- rather than upper-class values, or to put it more mildly, what may be termed as "Patrician" rather than "aristocratic" values, or, say, roundhead rather than cavalier.
> 
> The emphasis on an ethos, rather than a historical family background, connections or ready money, is quite typical. I referred to "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" by Max Weber in an earlier post - I can't recommend it enough. The elements of thrift, sense of duty, hard work are all described as essentially middle-class values, and offered as an explanation of the rise of the bourgeoisie as the dominant class.
> 
> ...


My B.S. detector is going off the charts that Lucky Strike is a Norwegian who has spent 4 weeks in America. Let's see...named for American cigarette, has read extensively on American class and class markers, possesses flawless english and grammar. Anyone with that level of interest in the US would have traveled and lived here extensively. I am not buying it.

If I am wrong, it will not be the first or last time.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Lucky Strike said:


> Hello all - this is my first post here - so please show mercy.
> 
> I have some very general questions about the Trad thing; I understand the European mod/skinhead/jazz/amerophile adaptation or whatever - that's just fashion - but the sociology of the American contemporary Trad thing escapes me. (I'm European, and have spent roughly four accumulated weeks in the US.)
> 
> ...


Horace? 'zat you?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I feel it more and more.....and I see others are now too.

Warmest regards


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Tom Buchanan said:


> My B.S. detector is going off the charts that Lucky Strike is a Norwegian who has spent 4 weeks in America. Let's see...named for American cigarette, has read extensively on American class and class markers, possesses flawless english and grammar. Anyone with that level of interest in the US would have traveled and lived here extensively. I am not buying it.
> 
> If I am wrong, it will not be the first or last time.


I'm mostly flattered and only slightly offended - I'll send you a PM to present myself.

If there are people reading this who also post on SF, they may chime in - I've posted there regularly for almost a year now.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

*Time for a breather*

Time to get the thread back on topic please. This forum is about trad clothing. Speculation can also stop please. Consideration is being given to moving the thread or if necessary locking it.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

I'd venture up to half the posters on forums like these are trolls of some sort. The worst were definitely Yahoo stock boards, the best being specific interest forums focused more on the mechanics of the interest than general discussion.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Harris said:


> If it is "just clothes," then I think it's safe to say there's something of a "retro" thing going on--an exaltation of "what once was," a romantic reminiscence, a happy reflection upon a bygone era. Even if Brownshoe claims to be our resident Tommy Townsend, I think he would agree that even the Howard Dean-supporting trads are, at heart, _aesthetically_ conservative.


I can go along with that. My participation in the trad is certainly an expression of my general retrophilia.

My annoying refrain is that a profound love of "the good old days" does not preclude the possibility of finding new things maybe sort of remotely worth considering--After a pleasant afternoon with the Great American Songbook, I might be in the mood for an evening of jittery indie rock. I love the golden age of Hollywood, but don't take away my gritty 70s cinema. The Marx Brothers are hilarious, but so is Mr. Show and the Christopher Guest crowd. I like Cheever, Updike, O'Hara, and weird alternative comic books. Etc.

This promiscuity may well be unbecoming. It does make things tricky for me occasionally on a social level--musicians and recording enineers can react pretty stiffly to me on first meeting, fearing I'm a narc.

It does seem to me inarguable, though, that the basic aesthetic elements of daily life--clothes, cars, architecture, furniture--hit a peak around the early middle part of the last century, and have been steadily declining ever since.

Part of wearing the trad is form of protest against this...shoring these fragments against our ruin.


----------



## Mr. Tartan (Jun 8, 2006)

It seems that identity does matter, if not actual social class. What's somewhat strange to me is how varied the views of trad clothing tend to be depending on region (and indeed region within region) and background. Having been all about both this country and the U.K., it is interesting to see the levels on which someone judges someone else by their clothes. We all do it, whether overtly or subconciously. I think alot of the old distinctions are virtually dead in the U.S., thanks (unfortunately) to the "slobbing-down" of America. 

Social aspiration may be somewhat of an obsession in the U.S., but it is mostly admirable. I feel that there is also a coupling of backlash against the slovenly and "fashionable" trends that have dominated American culture as of late. Trad style is neat, orderly, it reflects a certain Anglo-American heritage and, well, tradition. 

Clothing is a symbol of identity. If one aspires to be more "traditional," more cultured or just look his best in what is a classic style - this does not necessarily mean that he is a snob or plutocrat no more than it denotes that he spends all his spare time at Martha's Vineyard, the City Club or cotillions. Nor, I suppose does class necessarily denote a culture of oppression, snobbery and aloofness. I should dearly hope that the continual slide into a melange of barbaric slobs is at least buffered by the resurgence of trad - whatever the class implications may seem.


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

I_Should_Be_Working said:


> You did not read my post correctly.
> 
> So, when I see people waxing poetic about "old money" and their "old things", I say "wait a minute." Much of it is too often a show. They clip coupons out of NEED, not thrift. They drive the old Mercedes because they can't afford a new one. Same with the old suit. But in their pretentious minds, they are elite, and will fight dirty to prevent anyone who threatens this fantasy.
> 
> It is this element of the social strata that is harmful. Local and regional economies can actually stagnate because of these tendencies.


This is true from an economic perspective certainly. The moth-eaten old money family, however, can possess pre-capitalist virtues of fair-play, support for charity and the arts, and a respect for education. I'm not saying that new money need necessarily be devoid of these traits, but it is more likely to lack generations of exposure to high culture or hold the belief that high culture and the past is valuable. Please note that I am merely stating "more" and "less" likely and not that one has and one hasn't.

Again, it comes down to how you define elite, I guess.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Blackadder said:


> This is true from an economic perspective certainly. The moth-eaten old money family, however, can possess pre-capitalist virtues of fair-play, support for charity and the arts, and a respect for education. I'm not saying that new money need necessarily be devoid of these traits, but it is more likely to lack generations of exposure to high culture or hold the belief that high culture and the past is valuable. Please note that I am merely stating "more" and "less" likely and not that one has and one hasn't.
> 
> Again, it comes down to how you define elite, I guess.


I completely agree. These sorts of folks, though, are more likely to be self-sufficient, capable individuals. The ones I have in mind are marked by artificial standing, if not outright failure, in school or professional life, addiction issues, and poor financial direction.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Coolidge24 said:


> Nice! I can never tell the difference, galleon or frigate?


She's a full-rigged ship, with three square-rigged masts, possibly a clipper ship -- but how much can you really tell from a bit of repeating embroidery on ribbon stitched to cotton webbing to make a belt?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Since we wandered into the subject of wealth, I found it interesting that the Forbes 400 changes 50% every 10 years. I think that is a remarkable statisitic when compared to wealth patterns I have observed in more feudal-like countries where the same last names remain on the wealth list for several hundred years. The US really has only one family that has maintained it's wealth since the Founding, the Duponts, and even in their case most of that wealth was generated during the Civil War.

Forbes at one time stated that not one direct descendant of Cornelius Vanderbilt remains a millionaire today.

Also when one considers the huge fortunes like those of Woolworth (retail) and Duke (tobacco), and takes into consideration that both Barbara (Woolworth) Hutton and Doris Duke died penniless, one can appreciate that social mobility is a 2-way street.

M8


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Doris Duke died penniless,M8


This is patently false.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Forbes at one time stated that not one direct descendant of Cornelius Vanderbilt remains a millionaire today.


Anderson Cooper? Wendy Vanderbilt Lehman?


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

rojo said:


> Anderson Cooper? Wendy Vanderbilt Lehman?


Oddly enough, I feel Anderson Cooper's primetime career would have been hindered had he been named Anderson Vanderbilt. Especially given he utilizes his now trademark "sensitive, poignant reporter" routine, it just wouldn't play the same.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Blackadder said:


> This is patently false.


Do you have a source that says otherwise?

Re Doris Duke: I am quoting from a book I just read, _The Last Playboy_. Of course everything we read in print is not always accurate. Apparently the butler made off with everything and she was left with no personal assets. The trust became a subject of litigation with the butler being paid trustee "fees".

M8


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

rojo said:


> Anderson Cooper? Wendy Vanderbilt Lehman?


Let me clarify: I mean money descendant. Anderson's individual wealth has been generated on his own - which is admirable. Gloria, his mother, was actually quite broke. Some of us older folks will remember this.

Wendy Vanderbilt Lehman - wealth by marriage.

The Commodore's legacy was squandered, that was the point of the Forbes article (which was printed several years back).

The important point is that the 400 has a good turnover, which means that opportunity abounds.

M8


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Do you have a source that says otherwise?
> 
> Re Doris Duke: I am quoting from a book I just read, _The Last Playboy_. Of course everything we read in print is not always accurate. Apparently the butler made off with everything and she was left with no personal assets. The trust became a subject of litigation with the butler being paid trustee "fees".
> 
> M8


Below is an excerpt from the first paragraph of the New York Court of Appeals decsion regrading the Doris Duke Estate litigation (87 NY2d 465 (1996)):

"On October 28, 1993, Doris Duke died, leaving an estate valued at over one billion dollars. Duke bequeathed a large portion of her estate to charity. Bernard Lafferty, described as her assistant and confidant, was named in Duke's will as the lone individual co-executor of her estate. Exercising discretionary authority granted solely to him in the will, Lafferty selected U.S. Trust as the corporate co-executor. "


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Dr James Ryan said:


> You Europeans... so focused on class! I encourage my trad brethren to take at look in the Fashion Forum at the thread about the blue blazer. The Euros almost unanimously agree that the blue blazer is too 'middle class' or too 'prole' to bother wearing. I did not even know how to respond to that thread, so I let it go. You need to believe me when I say, at least in the North East, "social class" is one of the furthest things from Americans' minds.
> 
> Im not sure I even know how to define the middle class in America. Incomes anywhere between 50k and 750k probably qualify. What are the substantive differences in lifestyle between a guy making 100k and 250k? Maybe it's easier to pay for your kid's college&#8230; What is the difference between 250k and 750k? A slightly bigger boat or slightly better piece of real estate&#8230; It does not affect your group of friends, your hobbies, or really anything meaningful about your standard of living.
> 
> ...


That next to last paragraph should keep this thread going for some time!!


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Blackadder said:


> Below is an excerpt from the first paragraph of the New York Court of Appeals decsion regrading the Doris Duke Estate litigation (87 NY2d 465 (1996)):
> 
> "On October 28, 1993, Doris Duke died, leaving an estate valued at over one billion dollars. Duke bequeathed a large portion of her estate to charity. Bernard Lafferty, described as her assistant and confidant, was named in Duke's will as the lone individual co-executor of her estate. Exercising discretionary authority granted solely to him in the will, Lafferty selected U.S. Trust as the corporate co-executor. "


Very good. Lafferty was her butler, widely regarded as a Rasputin. Do you have the whole extract? I remember much of the scandal surrounding her death, including suspicion of murder. Thank goodness that her father had the foresight to bypass her on the trust. Personal assets of hers were down to nil.

Here is the extract from Shawn Levy's book:

_When Doris Duke died in 1993, ghostly and weird and gulled by a bullying butler who made off with her fortune...

_This of course gets us somewhat back on topic in how wealth can be squandered, or bamboozled away (as in Doris' case), or made in the first place by one generation and lost by another. So one has to ask oneself how the social aspirations of this come into play via what one wears as clothing.

M8


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=NY&vol=087&invol=0465


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Lucky Strike said:


> Here:
> https://www.stern.de/lifestyle/leute/:Karlsbader-Wochenende-Hier-Graf/560814.html
> 
> Here's a photo-series:


Cant read German, but sort of reminds me of the Russian Nobility Ball in NY, which is a bunch of poor people in white tie. Though some of them have managed to marry some good old 19th century American robber barron money shortly after fleeing the Bolshies.

Somebody mentioned "old money surnames". These names usually date to the colonial period in America a most of the people I know who bear them had somewhat priveleged upbringings, always claim their cousins are much richer, and now have a range of jobs not a lot different from most (white collar) people. One I know is even in jail, but maintains a country club membership I'm told. I also know a farmer of the same surname as the jailbird whose family has never risen above farmer for the last 300 years.

Cheers


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Blackadder said:


> https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=NY&vol=087&invol=0465


Thanks for posting that. Makes for interesting reading, eh? :icon_smile_wink:

M8


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Thanks for posting that. Makes for interesting reading, eh? :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> M8


Not if you do it for a living.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Literide said:


> Cant read German, but sort of reminds me of the Russian Nobility Ball in NY, which is a bunch of poor people in white tie. Though some of them have managed to marry some good old 19th century American robber barron money shortly after fleeing the Bolshies.
> 
> Cheers


It sounds very similar, yes. The last time I was there, I shared a table with a very un-trad, but apparently also very well-off American, who was there on some sort of date, I think. At the end of the dinner, he leaned over to me and whispered in a shocked tone: "You realise that these people actually don't have any money?"

To be fair, I don't think he was at all representative of Americans in general, as far as I've encountered them.

Which illustrates the point I (and various others) have been trying to make here: Social class is only marginally about money. It's got far more to do with "values" or an ethos, if you will.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

I hope, by the way, that everyone's satisfied I'm not Horace, Russell, Miles or the Yeti. I would be relieved if someone would acknowledge that.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

When I think of Trads, I think of people that might be a bit nostalgic about times gone by, when the titans of business and the masters of the biggest fortunes did, in fact, dress in that style (if such a time ever existed). But, I think that Europeans are a lot more preoccupied with class than Americans are. Maybe this is because in Europe there are classes that people can never reach no matter how much money they make or how much education they obtain. In America, it is possible for anyone to enter any class. You could start out penniless and a good enough idea can launch you, or at least your progeny, into any class. But in Europe, no matter how much money you make, something like nobility may elude you forever.

I thought it was interesting when I was summering at a law firm this summer and we had an outing at a country club that when we all finished our rounds of golf and went to dinner at the club we all arrived dressed pretty Trad.  I wore a blue blazer, gray trousers, a white and pink tattersall shirt and a blue tie. My family has advanced from lower, to lower middle, to upper middle class, and here I am at a white-shoe law firm looking pretty Tradish and nobody bats an eye. You have to love America.

In America, to draw lines between classes would be very difficult. You can't use money because you just don't know how much money people have. People who make $35,000 a year drive new Mercedes and BMW that they are leasing and wear a ton of bling that they had on layaway for 5 years. There are rich people who are so busy that they can't be bothered to get a properly fitting suit and just wear the latest monstrosity that they bought from Joey Banks. You can't tell from manners...there are well-mannered and ill-mannered poor people and well-mannered and ill-mannered rich people. 

Class, in America, in my opinion, is irrelevant. Now, race on the other hand...


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Literide said:


> Cant read German, but sort of reminds me of the Russian Nobility Ball in NY, which is a bunch of poor people in white tie.


I had no idea there was such an event (I guess that proves that I'm not a displaced Eastern European or Russian aristocrat?). Sounds like a blast though. There are a lot of neat pictures on that site. Haven't read the article yet though.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

Lucky Strike said:


> I hope, by the way, that everyone's satisfied I'm not Horace, Russell, Miles or the Yeti. I would be relieved if someone would acknowledge that.


I was holding out for the Yeti. Damn.

Class is irrelevant. I don't think sort always is. See above posts. A milieu still exists to some extent, even if not everyone who dresses that way is part of or wants to be part of said milieu.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I found the photo of the woman helping herself to the buffet particularly interesting...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

The question of whether Trad (and let me add that I generally like the style and incorporate elements of it in the way I dress) is costume or not, has been broached. I think that if Trad cannot evolve than it is costume. If we saw someone wearing a frock coat, a tricorn hat or Byronesque ruffles we would (most of us anyway) find it a contrived and costumey look. Many posters wax nostalgic about the era when Trad was common place but lets be honest we are nearing 40 years ago when Trad began to lose favor. 

I always find it a bit odd when something like darts or pleats throw people into a fit or when someone speaking ex cathedra declares something Trad or not Trad and says that no self respecting Trad would/wouldn't do this or that. To me such rigidity seems self defeating, if one has to try SO hard and has to follow rules to the letter then its not a style but a uniform.

Maybe a year ago a woman from Boston posted on a Trad thread and in essence said that Trad wasn't so much about rules and a look but rather taking the classic pieces you had on hand and wearing them comfortably and maybe with a little flair.

I think that for some the attraction to Trad is not so much the clothing but rather to a bygone era fondly remembered. And there is nothing wrong with that but by being so rigid, so attached to copying the past rather than updating it and making it your own, I fear that for many Trad has simply become costume.

Maybe I wrong.

Karl


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I always find it a bit odd when something like darts or pleats throw people into a fit or when someone speaking ex cathedra declares something Trad or not Trad and says that no self respecting Trad would/wouldn't do this or that. To me such rigidity seems self defeating, if one has to try SO hard and has to follow rules to the letter then its not a style but a uniform.


I've made the same argument (in this forum) but challenging such 'rules' as "the last button on a waistcoat/vest must never be buttoned" and have been quickly put in my place. We talk about and debate 'trad rules' simply to ensure that people don't get the idea that just anything is 'trad'. After all, it's good to have an ideal, even if one never quite achieves it. Thank God for sub-cultures which keep these things alive, for historical purposes if no other reason.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

So is Trad merely a clothing style that puts one in touch with a possibly mythical past or is more of a philosophy/paradigm? Further, if it is a paradigm, does one need others to go along with it for it to work? For instance, take today's dining. In many eateries the wait staff will go to any length to let you know that merely because you are the customer and they are serving you, in no way should you think your position superior to theirs in this setting. In my mind, a Trad dining experience would encompass gracious wait staff.

Warmest regards


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> I found the photo of the woman helping herself to the buffet particularly interesting...


Agreed.

I read the article last night. Repeated references to the 'hand kiss', something I've never seen outside of movies.

Shame askandyaboutclothes missed out on the guest list....


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Here's the English version of the Russian nobility ball:



I haven't been to this one, but I've heard that the influx of nouveau riche Russians there should make it quite a spectacle.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So is Trad merely a clothing style that puts one in touch with a possibly mythical past or is more of a philosophy/paradigm? Further, if it is a paradigm, does one need others to go along with it for it to work?


Actually, trad is nothing more than a framework that we use on this forum to discuss and debate and share information about a style of dress a number of share (and love). Nothing more. One cannot be a (big T) Trad or (little T) trad. There is no such class, role, job, or title. The term is really a code-word for a basket of style cues and products that share a contemporaneous history, are descended from Ivy League, TNSIL, and 'traditional' post-war American clothing, and have been applied in the real world -- "on the man" so to speak -- in a consistent, recognizeable, and classifiable way.

Cases have been made for a trad worldview or philosophy, but it's actually nothing more than a certain focus on value-for-money, restraint, individualism, inside jokes, and (again) a particular style of dress, all attributes which can be found across social strata around the world in varying combinations.

Er...that's my opinion.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> Actually, trad is nothing more than a framework that we use on this forum to discuss and debate and share information about a style of dress a number of share (and love). Nothing more. One cannot be a (big T) Trad or (little T) trad. There is no such class, role, job, or title. The term is really a code-word for a basket of style cues and products that share a contemporaneous history, are descended from Ivy League, TNSIL, and 'traditional' post-war American clothing, and have been applied in the real world -- "on the man" so to speak -- in a consistent, recognizeable, and classifiable way.
> 
> Cases have been made for a trad worldview or philosophy, but it's actually nothing more than a certain focus on value-for-money, restraint, individualism, inside jokes, and (again) a particular style of dress, all attributes which can be found across social strata around the world in varying combinations.
> 
> Er...that's my opinion.


To explore abit, what would a deconstructionist or semiotics say? Are we not sending messages with an assumed style that is oppositional to currently established norms?

Warmest regards


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> To explore abit, what would a deconstructionist or semiotics say? Are we not sending messages with an assumed style that is oppositional to currently established norms?


You're losing me, Wayfayer, what the noodle are you talking about? I am too many years out of grad school to grasp that stuff with ease.


----------



## Lucky Strike (Feb 23, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Are we not sending messages with an assumed style that is oppositional to currently established norms?


What I asked to begin with.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I still don't quite grasp the phrasing, but...

Trad dressing is not outside the "currently established norms", since it only focuses on the details, not the main elements. The currently established norms are so poorly defined, highly changeable, and too broad in scope to ever (reasonably) exclude trad dress.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> I still don't quite grasp the phrasing, but...
> 
> Trad dressing is not outside the "currently established norms", since it only focuses on the details, not the main elements. The currently established norms are so poorly defined, highly changeable, and too broad in scope to ever (reasonably) exclude trad dress.


https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=55314

I think it was never once remarked our good friend The Virginian looked anything less than trad in this photo. I think it looks quite distinctive so please do not think my use of you as example is an insult! However, I think we can all agree this outfit does not generally adhere to current styles, in fact, our example is quite happy to relate that he is distinctly noticed for dressing this way.

DD, I am getting on in years too since grad school and so might not get all this 100% correct, excuse any minor inaccuracies in the details.

There are a couple of schools of thought, mainly deconstructionist and semiotics, that maintain there is a sub-text to most everything. What we drive, read, eat, etc. Part of this is a concept of "oppositional dress" which basically holds that sub-cultures will dress outside the norm so as to distinguish themselves as part of the sub-culture. One might stipulate that is what all the Trad folk are doing, is identifying themselves as members of a sub-culture that rejects current fashions, i.e. AmJack, and their defined choices in clothing not only identify them with this sub-culture, but is actually one of the main defining characteristics of the sub-culture known to us as Trad.

Maybe a reach but if I was doing a thesis in a couple of different disciplines, I bet this would have legs!

Warmest regards


----------



## furiouschads (Jun 28, 2006)

Is trad an empty suit? Or an attempt to telegraph class markers and successfully compete in our tribe of primates?

Class exists in America. I think class anxiety is higher in the US because we don't have a clear way of defining it and because of the widespread confusion between money and class. Why did so many non-preps buy the pink-and-green bible? 

Trad dressing is a way to signal continuity and linkange with the admirable portions of the historically dominant class. Sure, it's a cheap longterm way to dress, it's comfortable, and it's a way to look OK even if we get dressed in the dark. But we aren't exactly dressing like CIO organizers or Irish longshoremen, are we? They wore natural fibers too...

We didn't stop being monkeys when we stepped onto Plymouth Rock. (Actually my dad arrived in Baltimore and my mom disembarked in Tampa.) Class is one way of fitting in. It exists worldwide. Saying it doesn't exist because race is our big thing is partially right. A mediocre white guy still gets in the door faster than a sharp black gal. If you disagree, think what it would be like for you if your pigment and sex were different. 

People in the US can move up in class to some extent if they pay attention. If that dope puts on the Press costume, he gets another little edge. If he comes in the office looking like a guido in a members' only jacket, then he doesn't seem to fit in quite so well, does he?

If you know how to live in the suit then you have a little more confidence. Another little edge in the social and economic competition. Last week I went to a meeting crosstown in DC with my boss. It was hot, he didn't know how to live in the suit. He took off his jacket. Later he unbuttoned his sleeves. He was uncomfortable in the meeting. I follow the Jacket Rule so I knew what to do to have no such problems. Edge to me.

An important class function is to help the attempt to pass that edge on to the offspring, who have a depressing tendency to revert to the mean. Teaching kids Latin, how to outline, the forks, the manners, the tie dimple, to think British and buy Yiddish is part of passing on the edge. As the parent of a 13 year old girl, I am rapidly gaining an understanding of why sending kids away is a very, very good idea.

Trad dress can be an aesthetic(?!) choice. But it is also a way to signal that I get it, I'm willing to focus on the important stuff, and that I am part of the team. A wise man I know told me to always dress for my next job. Worked for me in the past. But since I want my next job to be a bicycle courier I don't have the balls to stick with his advice.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

*That NYT series on class was a politicized crock...*



Lucky Strike said:


> Thank you all for giving such considered replies, and for not going straight for my jugular when doing so. I'm quite a bit more informed now, but still somewhat confused.
> 
> This, I have difficulties believing in. Some months ago, I read a long series of articles in the NYT about social class in the US (very well written and put together, I think), and the articles seemed to conclude that the US is currently more class-ridden than modern Europe. (Much of this had to do with free or almost-free higher education having been offered in Western Europe for the last generation or so.
> 
> ...


being passed off as sociology. US more stratified than Europe, I dont think so. Status at birth can still carry weight in Europe no matter how broke one may become. Our various socio-economic levels (different than class or caste) in the states are highly fluid. And you cannot tell by cloting anymore.


----------

