# AAAC Vs Style Forum



## kelliw (Aug 13, 2008)

Sorry to post this here, but I wanted to know what people thought was the difference.....If any????

Thanks!


----------



## gardel (Jul 23, 2008)




----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

Well I like to think of AAAC as the place where everybody knows your name...I know cliche. We are much nicer on AAAC than they are on SF. I pretty much only go on SF for the buying and selling section, and to look at the WAYWT thread for outfit ideas.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

As I see it:

AA: Traditional, conservative, mostly focused on affordable clothing these days. Great fondness for "good value" makes such as AE and Joseph A. Bank. Much less discussion of bespoke and higher-end clothing than there used to be. Emphasis is usually on propriety and dressing in a subdued, reserved fashion. Has a tolerance for dressing like a '40s gangster, but not for Thom Browne.

SF: Trendier, rowdier, younger, more upscale and more diverse in terms of styles represented. Members love a bargain. Whereas AA seems to like brands that can be had regularly at low prices, SFers will chase after the latest high-end supersale, even if it backfires on them. Can be a bit of a boy's club, with a rough-and-tumble atmosphere that must sometimes seem impenetrable to more bashful newcomers. Discussions of high-end bespoke sit next to threads about the latest thrift-shop find. Overall, much more eclectic than AA, and less conspicuously mannered.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

DocHolliday said:


> As I see it:
> 
> AA: Traditional, conservative, mostly focused on affordable clothing these days. Great fondness for "good value" makes such as AE and Joseph A. Bank. Much less discussion of bespoke and higher-end clothing than there used to be. Emphasis is usually on propriety and dressing in a subdued, reserved fashion. Has a tolerance for dressing like a '40s gangster, but not for Thom Browne.
> 
> SF: Trendier, rowdier, younger, more upscale and more diverse in terms of styles represented. Members love a bargain. Whereas AA seems to like brands that can be had regularly at low prices, SFers will chase after the latest high-end supersale, even if it backfires on them. Can be a bit of a boy's club, with a rough-and-tumble atmosphere that must sometimes seem impenetrable to more bashful newcomers. Discussions of high-end bespoke sit next to threads about the latest thrift-shop find. Overall, much more eclectic than AA, and less conspicuously mannered.


What he said^^^.....can I make that in addition to what I said lol


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

I have already compared SF to a run-down Taco Bell, so I can not say anything more negative. AAAC is my one and only choice.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

SF is a good place to discuss subjects such as: how many times you can wear a shirt prior to laundering; whether you would find it fun to torture someone; if a gentleman should wash his privates; what sort of person do you find most annoying at the gym; what is the most brutal way to liquidate a homeless person that has taken up residence in your carport; political vitriol far beyond the strengths of mortal AAAC posters, etcetera, etcetera, etcertera.... 

Once you limit your search for new posts to "Mens Clothing" you get usually only a dozen or less posts and half of those are snark, anyway... 

Well, except for DocHolliday's posts, of course...


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

AAAC has a larger emphasis on classic style and tailoring methods. This is the place to learn about the rules and how to best follow them. We appreciate clothes that are about craftsmanship and proportion, never about the latest trends. Of course, many members of AAAC are also on SF, so you will see many similar topics. I just read there and stick to posting here. There has been much here lately about clothing that represents a good value, whereas in the past it had more emphasis on high-end clothing and bespoke, which is still present here. The JAB threads have become much more positive then they had been. You need to examine both places to see where you feel you belong. However, you should find both places to be valuable resources.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Edited for quality control... (I think AAAC is infinitely better) :devil:

Seriously though, SF technically isn't even a clothing forum; it is a lifestyle forum. AAAC is a clothing forum.


----------



## pkincy (Feb 9, 2006)

I suspect that most posters on SF do so with a half empty bottle of Jack Daniels next to them. 

But if you can ignore the rudeness and rowdiness you actually can learn something.

I used to split between the two even with some leaning towards SF but lately have spent most of my time here.

Both will give great information but you have to do a little less filtering of the inane and irrelevant on AAAC.

Perry


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

What hasn't been said and is most important IMHO - the main difference is Andy.

StyleForum is *just* a forum. AAAC is the main website, the Encyclopedia, and the forum combined into a product. Andy spends time promoting the site (and not just the forum) in a variety of ways and in other media. Andy spends time making the product and service better. Every M$ has a Bill Gates (Apple:Jobs) that lives and breathes the product and services of the company - constantly innovating and differentiating. I think it makes a big difference not only having a larger website than just a forum, but having a visible personality 'driving the bus'; even if Andy is not necessarily driving the forum discussion per se.

YMMV


----------



## dshell (Mar 17, 2007)

DocH sums it up well in his usual non-normative fashion. But the following tells only half of the important story:



pkincy said:


> Both will give great information but you have to do a little less filtering of the inane and irrelevant on AAAC.


I feel you have comparable mean quality on both sites (although there is a temporal dynamic, as the sites have changed) but SF has a much higher variance than AAAC. SFs greater traffic also means that once you remove the chaff, you can get some quite amazing posts that might just be too many standard deviations away from what might come up in AAAC. Lately I've found that I've taken to liking the rowdy culture and running jokes in SF, its all part of the enthusiasm -- but the gentlemen in AAAC keep me coming back.


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

welldressedfellow said:


> I have already compared SF to a run-down Taco Bell, so I can not say anything more negative. AAAC is my one and only choice.


We often get just one sentence from WDF but invariably its a jewel !!

I dont really like the lack of focus at SF, you are always digging through the big blue bin to see if there is anything of value left at the bottom. They cover everything and anything leaving the "signal to noise ratio" too high for my taste as DSHELL pointed out in his statistical analysis :icon_smile_big:

I really like everything about AAAC except, and not to be a snob, the new posters who come in wildly vague about an issue like the recent post asking what one should wear and the only clue available was their age, I politely asked a series of questions to be helpful in replying and the response to those questions was "I need shirts and pants".

Conversely its nice to be able to help someone young or inexperienced who has a dilemma that they can explain and for which the AAAC community is quick to provide solid advice regarding. I like to think there are some folks showing up at events with far greater confidence and looking better thanks to help they received here.

Does SF ever attract the kind of clothing/shoe industry celebs and pros we are fortunate enough to have popping in and out at AAAC?


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

DocHolliday said:


> As I see it:


I agree with Doc, I mainly read here just because the sheer volume of threads is less.
SF seems to have lots of REALLY knowledgeable people, but also lots of rude/snarkly threads and a clubby atmosphere that comes with any very active internet forum. Seems wealthier and more political too.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

While SF has some very knowledgable and polite members the name seems to be a joke. About 90% of the membership give the impression of having problems to understand what style is.
It is well possible that impressions are misleading but after some reading I moved, rather horrified, to other websites.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> As I see it:
> 
> AA: Traditional, conservative, mostly focused on affordable clothing these days. Great fondness for "good value" makes such as AE and Joseph A. Bank. Much less discussion of bespoke and higher-end clothing than there used to be. Emphasis is usually on propriety and dressing in a subdued, reserved fashion. Has a tolerance for dressing like a '40s gangster, but not for Thom Browne.
> 
> SF: Trendier, rowdier, younger, more upscale and more diverse in terms of styles represented. Members love a bargain. Whereas AA seems to like brands that can be had regularly at low prices, SFers will chase after the latest high-end supersale, even if it backfires on them. Can be a bit of a boy's club, with a rough-and-tumble atmosphere that must sometimes seem impenetrable to more bashful newcomers. Discussions of high-end bespoke sit next to threads about the latest thrift-shop find. Overall, much more eclectic than AA, and less conspicuously mannered.


Well said.


----------



## GreenPlastic (Jan 27, 2009)

SF and AAAC both have good information and informative posters lurking about them; it's just that SF has a higher "standard deviation" among quality of posts, threads, and posters. You never really know what you're going to get from any given thread there. While every thread on AAAC is not perfect, you get more consistency here.

I don't think SF can be discounted entirely. I've stumbled across some really great and informative posts over there from time to time. The key phrase, however, being "stumbled upon." At AAAC, I can casually open any given thread and probably find useful information. At SF, I have to search it out actively or else find it accidentally.

There is most certainly a level of politeness here that does not exist on SF, probably owing to a generally older age amongst this crowd. On our "What are You Wearing?" thread, for instance, you might see critiques of people's outfits, but they're polite and encouraging critiques. On SF's "What are You Wearing?" thread, you're far more likely to see barbed and even personal attacks on the posters brave and/or foolish enough to post pictures of themselves for the peanut gallery.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

What they all said.

Generally, I see it as Doc said: AAAC is formal and traditional/conservative, SF is fashion forward.

SF is far too wacky for me. I want to learn all the finer bits of conservative dress and then use that for my own ends.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

Orsini said:


> SF is a good place to discuss subjects such as: how many times you can wear a shirt prior to laundering; whether you would find it fun to torture someone; if a gentleman should wash his privates; what sort of person do you find most annoying at the gym; what is the most brutal way to liquidate a homeless person that has taken up residence in your carport; political vitriol far beyond the strengths of mortal AAAC posters, etcetera, etcetera, etcertera....
> 
> Once you limit your search for new posts to "Mens Clothing" you get usually only a dozen or less posts and half of those are snark, anyway...
> 
> Well, except for DocHolliday's posts, of course...


Wow, I like it how I read almost every one of those threads you were mentioning that were on SF. It's totally true though, they can be very brutal over there.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

SF definitely focuses more on the designer brands like Etro, RL Black Label, Prada, Armani, Gucci, Tom Ford, etc. You are much more likely to see a thread about Oxxford, Zegna, Canali, Hickey Freeman and Samuelsohn on AAAC, mostly due to the fact that we have high regard for clothing that is a good value and at least somewhat traditional.

I have noticed a dissapointing trend on AAAC lately. There seem to be a lot of new posters who start a thread called "What shirts should I buy" or "What is the best suit in the whole world". I think this really makes the quality of our site suffer. If we keep getting more of these type threads, then we will end up like SF. You'll have to go through 60 threads to find 6 that are actually worth taking your time to post.

Hopefully these new posters will learn that the best way to enter into AAAC is to respond to other threads at first to get your feet wet, use the search function to find information you want, and only then do you need to start a new thread. Like I've said before, I don't want to be the neighborhood bully. I just want AAAC to stay as informative and interesting as it was when I first found it.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> SF definitely focuses more on the designer brands like Etro, RL Black Label, Prada, Armani, Gucci, Tom Ford, etc. You are much more likely to see a thread about Oxxford, Zegna, Canali, Hickey Freeman and Samuelsohn on AAAC, mostly due to the fact that we have high regard for clothing that is a good value and at least somewhat traditional.


I must disagree with you about the first paragraph you wrote. Most of the regular posters on SF are not fans of Etro, Prada, Armani, Gucci, TF etc. They do, however, enjoy their E. Zenga, Canali, HF, Oxxford, Borrelli, Barba, Isaia and so on. The new members are the ones trying to be the trendy ones with the Gucci or Prada suits, but they quickly learn (after being bashed). I would say that the only part of SF that is super trendy is the Street Wear and Demin section, but I don't frequent that part.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Both have their place, and I post at both under the same user name..


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Preu Pummel said:


> What they all said.
> 
> Generally, I see it as Doc said: AAAC is formal and traditional/conservative, SF is fashion forward.
> 
> SF is far too wacky for me. I want to learn all the finer bits of conservative dress and then use that for my own ends.


Aren't many of SF posters current and former AAAC posters? Wouldn't that make both forums very similar?


----------



## robm (Apr 16, 2009)

Orsini said:


> SF is a good place to discuss subjects such as:
> ...
> if a gentleman should wash his privates
> ...


That's got to be a candidate for the shortest discussion thread ever, surely?!


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

rkipperman said:


> Aren't many of SF posters current and former AAAC posters? Wouldn't that make both forums very similar?


Well, there are some definite differences. There are many cross members I have seen, yes.

Try going over there and researching for yourself.

My interest ceased after I saw them entertaining a cross dresser. It was pretty clear that it isn't a board only focused on male conservative dress.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Orsini said:


> Once you limit your search for new posts to "Mens Clothing" you get usually only a dozen or less posts and half of those are snark, anyway...


Thank you!



robm said:


> Orsini said:
> 
> 
> > SF is a good place to discuss subjects such as:
> ...


And on AAAC wicking underwear takes care of that problem!


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

I can understand why outside observers might find Styleforum difficult to penetrate. Nonetheless, I think many of the opinions in this thread demonstrate a significant misunderstanding of the place.

The people who talk about deviations and means have it the most right: Styleforum is a much more diverse place than AAAC. I never venture into the streetwear forum; the clothes and fashion are completely alien to me, and it is a much ruder place for discussion than I personally prefer. On the other hand, there is frequent discussion of classic bespoke clothing in the Men's Clothing forum. AAAC has not rivaled Styleforum in that respect for years. Such discussion here, when it happens, tends to be uninformed and speculative. For example, all meaningful awareness of the tailoring world outside of London has disappeared from this forum; members fail to associate Italy with anything other than designer ready-to-wear.

It's laughable to suggest that AAAC is more about 'style' than Styleforum. Whether you realize it or not, both forums (and groups in general) tend toward their own trends. At least Styleforum members seem more aware of this phenomenon (knit ties, anyone?). Here, in contrast, every discussion is tainted by the overarching conviction that style is about doing things correctly and AAAC is the last bastion of correctness in the world. In truth, style requires much more than being formally correct and AAAC is far from the only or best place to learn what 'correct' is. 

AAAC is a small, self-contained world. That's great in many ways, but it does tend to result in an ever-shrinking knowledge base and an increasingly inaccurate view of what lies outside. How much can you really learn from one man's CD-ROM, daily discussions of Jos. A. Bank, and completely imagined notions of Savile Row? 

I'm just saying it might be worthwhile to get out more and realistically assess what this, or any forum, can really do for you.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

I entered the world of online clothing message boards via Ask Andy after doing a search for information on my tailor on google out of curiosity. For a time, AAAC was a good source for discussion of bespoke tailoring and tailored clothing style in general. SF was more of a rowdy playground with greater "fashion" orientation. For a variety of reasons, I found the bespoke and higher-end tailoring discussions on AAAC faded away or were buried, and most of the people with serious knowledge of the subject migrated to other places (medwards is one of the few of those that remained here). While those posters may have been replaced by now (I don't know), there is too little here to keep my attention. SF, on the other hand, has a lot of good quality discussion on those topics, though there is also a lot of silly banter and nonsense. Frankly, I enjoy that stuff, as clothing can only be so interesting. The internet provides entertainment as much as information. The main point, though is that there is a critical mass of knowledgeable posters on SF to make a discussion of bespoke and tailored style sustainable. That had ceased to be the case here at the time I stopped frequenting AAAC, though perhaps it has been revived.

The bottom line is that if you think AAAC is for you, then it is. If you don't, go elsewhere. It isn't like participation in one rules out the other or the membership fees are so expensive that you can only afford to read or post in just one.


----------



## TheWardrobeGirl (Mar 24, 2008)

I like this board better


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

mafoofan said:


> Such discussion here, when it happens, tends to be uninformed and speculative... Here, in contrast, every discussion is tainted by the overarching conviction that style is about doing things correctly and AAAC is the last bastion of correctness in the world. In truth, style requires much more than being formally correct and AAAC is far from the only or best place to learn what 'correct' is... and completely imagined notions of Savile Row?


So true, especially a lot of noise emanating from a Sydney suburb but equally some self righteous noise from various sources elsewhere.


dopey said:


> For a variety of reasons, I found the bespoke and higher-end tailoring discussions on AAAC faded away...


That about sums it up. This place serves a different niche.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

SF is more fun than AAAC - more freewheeling and more eclectic. From high-end bespoke items to thrift dross, there's a lot of variety on SF. Discussions here are more "middle market" generally with an accompanying focus on perceived manners.

I tend to find a lot more threads I want to open & read on SF than AAAC. That's not to say there aren't occasionally some interesting threads here, but they're fewer and I spend less time here. I should point out I only generally read the main Men's Clothing forums & the B&S forums on each board, not the other subsidiary ones.

Bottom line: you will eventually gravitate to the site you enjoy more, and just read/post a rump on the other sites. If you enjoy the board you post most on, that's the most important thing rather than "which is better".


----------



## PocketTriangle (Apr 2, 2009)

I like the intimacy of AAAC more. SF is like a big city: there's more there, but there's also a larger chance of getting mugged.

I'm also annoyed by the amount of spam at SF. It seems like 10% of the threads are for prescription drugs. And I also dislike the drama at SF. For example, this thread:
https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=118220

degenerates from a discussion of ties to a flame war over some past dispute I don't know and don't care about. I come to the internet to learn about clothes, not other people's personality conflicts.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

dopey said:


> I entered the world of online clothing message boards via Ask Andy after doing a search for information on my tailor on google out of curiosity. For a time, AAAC was a good source for discussion of bespoke tailoring and tailored clothing style in general. SF was more of a rowdy playground with greater "fashion" orientation. For a variety of reasons, I found the bespoke and higher-end tailoring discussions on AAAC faded away or were buried, and most of the people with serious knowledge of the subject migrated to other places (medwards is one of the few of those that remained here). While those posters may have been replaced by now (I don't know), there is too little here to keep my attention. SF, on the other hand, has a lot of good quality discussion on those topics, though there is also a lot of silly banter and nonsense. Frankly, I enjoy that stuff, as clothing can only be so interesting. The internet provides entertainment as much as information. The main point, though is that there is a critical mass of knowledgeable posters on SF to make a discussion of bespoke and tailored style sustainable. That had ceased to be the case here at the time I stopped frequenting AAAC, though perhaps it has been revived.
> 
> The bottom line is that if you think AAAC is for you, then it is. If you don't, go elsewhere. It isn't like participation in one rules out the other or the membership fees are so expensive that you can only afford to read or post in just one.


Kind of sums up my views. A few years ago (say, 2004-6) I would have felt that AAAC was the better venue for serious sartorialists, and it was my favorite clothing forum. In the past couple of years, though, I just feel AAAC has lost a lot of its "juice." A majority of the most informative, interesting and entertaining posters of the earlier era seem to have largely or entirely forsaken AAAC and migrated to SF or elsewhere (their own blogs, FNB, etc.). Most of the clothing threads here seem to cover a limited spectrum from Brooks or Bookster at the high end through JAB down to J.C. Penney. We discussed the causes of this at great length in the interminable "3-roll-2" thread at the end of last year, and I don't want to beat the dead horse any further. Style Forum just seems to be by far the more informative, lively, rowdy, entertaining and fun forum. Yeah, some of the threads are puerile and gross, but they are easily ignored.

Briefly summed up:

SF=Brioni (on the cheap, via eBay)
AAAC=JAB


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I've always felt JAB didn't receive a lot of praise on AAAC, whether justified or unjustified. I don't think that has changed much over the last 3 or so years. We have a few members who are or were employees of JAB. I still think the majority of AAAC posters would put JAB in the lower echelon of men's clothing. Maybe I'm oblivious.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

The other thing that makes AAAC certainly far different from SF is the relatively low tolerance for friendly argument or banter. Eight times of ten when I challenge someone on an opinion here, I get a "_pshaw, you sir haven't a clue of what you speak, and I shan't waste my time explaining myself further, this is not some billiard hall.. good day to you_..." This almost misses the point of a message board altogether.. I still post here, although less and less, but that was one of the reasons I migrated towards SF a couple of years ago.. The internetz is not supposed to be as serious as some seem to take it..


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

As a relative newcomer I'm still trying to understand the dynamic at this site. Apparently there's a widespread feeling that AAAC has suffered because a lot of smart guys have left, but there's a difference of opinion over why, yes? Some would say the smart guys left because they were tired of having to deal with less-well-informed posters, while others would say the smart guys found the melee of smart and stupid at SF more interesting.


----------



## Mike89LX (Jan 15, 2009)

Being just a casual observer and not one who posts a great deal there are ups and downs to both sites. I find I spend more time at AAAC because of the smaller chance of having to dig through ten pages of garbage to find something good. That said, there are good threads very frequently on SF you just have to know what to look for, or who posted it, or simply get lucky. I don't have the time or desire to get to know who the best or most informed posters are and it is not something that can be determined by simply looking at ones post count.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

I find there are more cliques at SF. People there are more into what seems popular at the moment and there appear to be a lot more "real world" aquaintences there. Appearances seem to rule the roost. To me its a bit of an intimidating place, but it also is worthwhile (I am NewYorkRanger on SF). The B&S threads are FANTASTIC, and AAAC would benefit from similar places (like a thrift exchange NOT in the Trad Forum) but it is what it is. Here, doing "the right thing" is more the topic of conversation. Often times that is an antiquated reality that we hold onto over here. I live in NYC, so I don't need to ask about the latest street trends, and high fashion news, as I can simply hop on a train to witness it first hand. What I do like, is living with that, and then getting the old school classic advice from this board's members and incorporating that into my wardrobe choices.

There are certainly more "Internet Toughguys" over there.

I really think this forum could be more gentle with new members who post. Discussion is what the forums are about, not necessarily judgement, and we tend to judge new members harshly here, whereas it seems everyone is judged harshy over there (except mafoo who has rightfully attained some sort of cult following).

I post here more often and rarely post over there, but having heard what Holdfast and Gnatty said, I may decode to do a bit more on the other side of the tracks.


----------



## Bestof1979 (Oct 2, 2008)

gnatty8 said:


> The other thing that makes AAAC certainly far different from SF is the relatively low tolerance for friendly argument or banter. Eight times of ten when I challenge someone on an opinion here, I get a "_pshaw, you sir haven't a clue of what you speak, and I shan't waste my time explaining myself further, this is not some billiard hall.. good day to you_..." This almost misses the point of a message board altogether.. I still post here, although less and less, but that was one of the reasons I migrated towards SF a couple of years ago.. The internetz is not supposed to be as serious as some seem to take it..


I would have to agree with that one!


----------



## Timeless Fashion (Apr 12, 2009)

I am relatively new to both forums. My initial impression is that SF has more diversity as others have mentioned the larger standard deviation. I like the conservative mens clothing discussion here at AAAC. I think what sets AAAC apart is Andy himself.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Kurt N said:


> As a relative newcomer I'm still trying to understand the dynamic at this site. Apparently there's a widespread feeling that AAAC has suffered because a lot of smart guys have left, but there's a difference of opinion over why, yes? Some would say the smart guys left because they were tired of having to deal with less-well-informed posters, while others would say the smart guys found the melee of smart and stupid at SF more interesting.


While I'd suggest there were a few factors leading to the exodus, I don't think it was the presence of less-informed posters that drove folks away. AA was never the exclusive domain of like minds, and there were always newcomers looking for basic information. Those groups co-existed happily for a long time. Indeed, some of the best posts were for the benefit of newcomers.

Without wanting to re-ignite the grand debate over why so many folks left, I'd say much of it was the result of a clash of personalities and a general shift in the focus of the discussion. I used to post here far, far more than I do now, but I didn't make a conscious decision to stop posting. I just found the conversations increasingly less to my taste. I'm not in the market for Joseph A. Bank, don't care for AE, don't really believe in "classic style" as a set, finite thing. Gradually, I didn't find as much of interest to talk about here. Clearly others do, and that's fine. I'm glad AA has a niche, and that people are still enjoying it as I used to.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

rgrossicone said:


> There are certainly more "Internet Toughguys" over there.
> 
> I really think this forum could be more gentle with new members who post. Discussion is what the forums are about, not necessarily judgement, and we tend to judge new members harshly here, whereas it seems everyone is judged harshy over there (except mafoo who has rightfully attained some sort of cult following).


I think this is true, or at least I can see how it's easily perceived this way, and that's unfortunate. I don't think it's the SF regulars who are harrassing newcomers, for the most part. Instead, it's usually another relative n00b trying to act cool. Among the regulars, there's a lot of joking insults, but, for the most part, it's done in good humor.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

gnatty8 said:


> Eight times of ten when I challenge someone on an opinion here, I get a "_pshaw, you sir haven't a clue of what you speak, and I shan't waste my time explaining myself further, this is not some billiard hall.. good day to you_..."


This was exactly the problem when I used to participate here regularly. People depended too much on reputation and post counts to determine credibility; every debate was 'settled' by one of the forum wise men and 99% of all opinions became mere echoes of what those wise men had to say.



Kurt N said:


> As a relative newcomer I'm still trying to understand the dynamic at this site. Apparently there's a widespread feeling that AAAC has suffered because a lot of smart guys have left, but there's a difference of opinion over why, yes? Some would say the smart guys left because they were tired of having to deal with less-well-informed posters, while others would say the smart guys found the melee of smart and stupid at SF more interesting.


Some unfortunate incidents and changes in moderation made the forum hostile to open discussion, so the people who remained tended to be those more interested in influencing than discussing.



rgrossicone said:


> People there are more into what seems popular at the moment and there appear to be a lot more "real world" aquaintences there.


I don't know about that. Most of what is discussed in the Men's Clothing forum has nothing to do with current fashion; fashion designers are as maligned there as they are here. _Both_ Styleforum and AAAC are predominantly concerned with classic men's clothing. The difference appears to be that AAAC members are much more interested in dressing conservatively and appropriately whereas Styleforum members are a more eccentric bunch.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

There are definitely some knowledgeable posters over there, but most of them are active members of a loud, obnoxious clique. So, if you want to read anything interesting, be prepared to sort through a lot of noise.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

rkipperman said:


> Aren't many of SF posters current and former AAAC posters? Wouldn't that make both forums very similar?


My impression of SF is that it is full of 20 something stock broker types. People with more money than brains, and even less common sense and street smarts.

I go there from time to time, but find AAAC much more friendly and informative. And becuase AAAC is not as busy, you tend to get your questions answered more quickly and intelligently.

The kicker is Andy himself. He is a really down to earth, class act and I am happy to click on banners and buy things in support of his great work.


----------



## Joho (Apr 7, 2009)

pkincy said:


> I suspect that most posters on SF do so with a half empty bottle of Jack Daniels next to them.


Hey, nothing wrong with drinking and posting. :icon_smile:

I find AAAC is _much more_ mature and formal than SF (the latter of which is just your typical public message board), and here everyone's more focused on dressing properly. SF is well, more fashion-oriented.

I lurk more on SF but I enjoy the fact that many people dig through thrift stores. That aspect of SF is more oriented toward lower income college students like myself.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> My impression of SF is that it is full of 20 something stock broker types. People with more money than brains, and even less common sense and street smarts.


Curiously, I see this sort of broad, personal insult much more here than there, even as I'm told how much more polite and gentlemanly this place is.

.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I think these Style Forum fans don't know half as much as they think they do. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time defending AAAC or cutting down SF. If you prefer Ask Andy then, by all means, hang around and bring as much to the table as you can. If you like Style Forum, head on over there and participate in all the hissy fits you can handle.

I think I'll head over to Joseph A. Banks and blow off some steam.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

gnatty8 said:


> "_pshaw, you sir haven't a clue of what you speak, and I shan't waste my time explaining myself further, this is not some billiard hall.. good day to you_..."


LMFAO...this couldn't be more true! Especially over on the 'Change.

Gnatty, brilliant paraphrasing!

Although in fairness though, that comment made over at SF would inevitable involve one gender's genitalia and/or one (or more) oraface from the opposite gender.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> I think I'll head over to Joseph A. Banks and blow off some steam.


They're having another sale?


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

mafoofan said:


> They're having another sale?


Don't they always have one?


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

mafoofan said:


> They're having another sale?


Buy ONE suit and get TWO more absolutely FREE!


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Ask Andy now has little information and a civil atmosphere. Prior to that, it had some information and overbearing, nasty moderation. Prior to that, it was a good forum. The senior moderator team liked to engage in character assassination and favoritism, and quashed many interesting threads with appeals to their own authority, often when it didn't exist in the way they might have believed. Unfortunately Andy, who has always been a gentleman, was the one who suffered as good poster after good poster decided that they no longer wanted to engage the powers that be, and other good posters decided that the exodus of those with whom they enjoyed discussing clothing made AAAC a rather dull place.

Styleforum is fun, relatively unmoderated and has a surprising amount of information. If you cannot handle the occasional lack of decorum, it probably isn't the place for you, but to assert that there is actually more content here than there is downright ridiculous.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

nolan50410 said:


> I think I'll head over to Joseph A. Banks and blow off some steam.


You're going to roll a pipe bomb through the front door and run like Hell?


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

The 2 responses below sum it all up for me!



DocHolliday said:


> As I see it:
> 
> AA: Traditional, conservative, mostly focused on affordable clothing these days. Great fondness for "good value" makes such as AE and Joseph A. Bank. Much less discussion of bespoke and higher-end clothing than there used to be. Emphasis is usually on propriety and dressing in a subdued, reserved fashion. Has a tolerance for dressing like a '40s gangster, but not for Thom Browne.
> 
> SF: Trendier, rowdier, younger, more upscale and more diverse in terms of styles represented. Members love a bargain. Whereas AA seems to like brands that can be had regularly at low prices, SFers will chase after the latest high-end supersale, even if it backfires on them. Can be a bit of a boy's club, with a rough-and-tumble atmosphere that must sometimes seem impenetrable to more bashful newcomers. Discussions of high-end bespoke sit next to threads about the latest thrift-shop find. Overall, much more eclectic than AA, and less conspicuously mannered.





ksinc said:


> What hasn't been said and is most important IMHO - the main difference is Andy.
> 
> StyleForum is *just* a forum. AAAC is the main website, the Encyclopedia, and the forum combined into a product. Andy spends time promoting the site (and not just the forum) in a variety of ways and in other media. Andy spends time making the product and service better. Every M$ has a Bill Gates (Apple:Jobs) that lives and breathes the product and services of the company - constantly innovating and differentiating. I think it makes a big difference not only having a larger website than just a forum, but having a visible personality 'driving the bus'; even if Andy is not necessarily driving the forum discussion per se.
> 
> YMMV


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> LMFAO...this couldn't be more true! Especially over on the 'Change.
> 
> Gnatty, brilliant paraphrasing!
> 
> Although in fairness though, that comment made over at SF would inevitable involve one gender's genitalia and/or one (or more) oraface from the opposite gender.


lol, true, but I'd prefer that to the overly formal chiding of the iGentry.. It can be like reading from a Dickens novel for god's sake..


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Mannix said:


> Wow, I like it how I read almost every one of those threads you were mentioning that were on SF. It's totally true though, they can be very brutal over there.


I left out some of the threads whose subjects I could not mention here.

I got sick of reading that stuff and I found, once I filtered it out, there was not much left...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

robm said:


> That's got to be a candidate for the shortest discussion thread ever, surely?!


I must confess, I only heard of this thread: I did not actually read it...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> Buy ONE suit and get TWO more absolutely FREE!


I am holding out for their buy NOTHING, get SOMETHING absolutely FREE sale.

It's coming, I know it...


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

dopey said:


> I entered the world of online clothing message boards via Ask Andy after doing a search for information on my tailor on google out of curiosity. For a time, AAAC was a good source for discussion of bespoke tailoring and tailored clothing style in general. SF was more of a rowdy playground with greater "fashion" orientation. *For a variety of reasons, I found the bespoke and higher-end tailoring discussions on AAAC faded away or were buried*


This and "Joseph A Bank" (said in the voice of the annoying guy who does their monthly 'annual sale' commercials)


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

iammatt said:


> Ask Andy now has little information and a civil atmosphere. Prior to that, it had some information and overbearing, nasty moderation. Prior to that, it was a good forum. The senior moderator team liked to engage in character assassination and favoritism, and quashed many interesting threads with appeals to their own authority, often when it didn't exist in the way they might have believed. Unfortunately Andy, who has always been a gentleman, was the one who suffered as good poster after good poster decided that they no longer wanted to engage the powers that be, and other good posters decided that the exodus of those with whom they enjoyed discussing clothing made AAAC a rather dull place.
> 
> Styleforum is fun, relatively unmoderated and has a surprising amount of information. If you cannot handle the occasional lack of decorum, it probably isn't the place for you, but to assert that there is actually more content here than there is downright ridiculous.


I am a rather infrequent poster and most of my postings are on the Trad forum. I was aware of styleforum but never joined for a long time because I didn't think there was much to appeal to me. While that is true, there are some great posters and sources of information over there. Like any other community, whether online or in real life, it takes some time to get aclimated.

It does seem that the quality of the postings here has declined. I have noticed that many stalwarts on the Trad forum have moved to other boards, or do not post with the frequency as in the past.


----------



## greekgeek (Mar 19, 2009)

I think that the crazies on AAAC tend to write much longer posts than the crazies on SF, which somehow makes SF easier to stomach on the whole.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"Confessions of a Rollerball Pen User." Yes; those were the days Sportsfans. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

SF = drape


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

iammatt said:


> Ask Andy now has little information and a civil atmosphere. Prior to that, it had some information and overbearing, nasty moderation. Prior to that, it was a good forum. The senior moderator team liked to engage in character assassination and favoritism, and quashed many interesting threads with appeals to their own authority, often when it didn't exist in the way they might have believed. Unfortunately Andy, who has always been a gentleman, was the one who suffered as good poster after good poster decided that they no longer wanted to engage the powers that be, and other good posters decided that the exodus of those with whom they enjoyed discussing clothing made AAAC a rather dull place.
> 
> Styleforum is fun, relatively unmoderated and has a surprising amount of information. If you cannot handle the occasional lack of decorum, it probably isn't the place for you, but to assert that there is actually more content here than there is downright ridiculous.


Another very astute and perspicacious analysis. I really think the decline of AAAC is largely the result of two individuals--one a moderator, the other a pestiferously prolific poster.

As it stands, I see this forum drifting into becoming a counterpart to the Modern Man forum that Andy ran in years past. This saddens me in a way, because I am genuinely fond of Andy, who has always impressed me as a truly nice guy.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 18, 2007)

I come here less often now. The discussions here these days are abit more sterile, so to speak. Diversity at SF makes for very interesting discussions, especially since most people can speak their minds freely without fear of being policed. SF has lots of sarcasm and the newcomer familiarization ritual:icon_smile_big: for sure, most of it I find amusing. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing and the greater number of pictures posted there don't hurt either. SF is like hanging out with your mates while being at AAAC is akin to being at your parent's place or a restricted dormitory. 

I don't want to bash either party since they obviously have different "corporate culture". I will just say some of the criticisms here are blanket statements that attack people's profession, age and intelligence.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

robm said:


> That's got to be a candidate for the shortest discussion thread ever, surely?!


No, the discussion actually goes on for quite some time:

https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=38032 (*WARNING: Not for the squeamish or faint of heart!!!!*)

The title is quite precious, don't you think? The discussion is really quite amusing in a wretched, Mondo Cane, sort of a way.

Unfortunately for humanity, the OP seems to have survived (although I won't speculate in what condition) because he started a really stupid thread the other day.

He is a college student -- a leader of tomorrow -- so when he graduates, he will probably be my boss...if I ever get a job again...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> ...the decline of AAAC is largely the result of two individuals--one a moderator, the other a pestiferously prolific poster...


I believe you have summed it up.


----------



## robm (Apr 16, 2009)

Orsini said:


> No, the discussion actually goes on for quite some time:
> 
> https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=38032 (*WARNING: Not for the squeamish or faint of heart!!!!*)
> 
> The title is quite precious, don't you think? The discussion is really quite amusing in a wretched, Mondo Cane, sort of a way.


Ah...it's less a debate about "should I wash" and more of a discussion on the consequences of not washing...I can see why that would run a bit longer.

Some of the posts have an amusing turn of phrase, but you would hope by age 21 someone would know that a) personal hygiene is important, and b) if you're asking a question about a suspected health problem, chances are you need to visit a doctor anyway!


----------



## naylor (May 31, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> I really think the decline of AAAC is largely the result of two individuals--one a moderator, the other a pestiferously prolific poster.


That poster's moniker has been turned into a verb at other fora.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Also, the lack of a denim-dedicated forum here means that half of the threads end up being about jeans.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

robm said:


> Ah...it's less a debate about "should I wash" and more of a discussion on the consequences of not washing...I can see why that would run a bit longer.
> 
> Some of the posts have an amusing turn of phrase, but you would hope by age 21 someone would know that a) personal hygiene is important, and b) if you're asking a question about a suspected health problem, chances are you need to visit a doctor anyway!


You would think so...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I might also add that any "decline" is a subjective interpretation mostly shared by a few well-informed and prolific, but few posters who really care about the top levels of bespoke clothing, etc.

Oh noble definers of the "Inane", I await your verdict.


----------



## gng8 (Aug 5, 2005)

AAAC
1. I like the fact that AAAC has many British posters. They really add to the thinking.
2. I feel AAAC is easier to read. It's layout is much better.
3. AAAC has historically not been so hung up on shoes as SF although that may be changing.

SF.
1. I have purchased and sold any number of items on SF. It is easy to do and those who participate seem trustworthy.
2. The number of participants on SF continues to grow.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

Orsini said:


> SF is a good place to discuss subjects such as [...] what sort of person do you find most annoying at the gym


After reading this, I was inspired to seek out the thread in question. I read the entire thread from start to finish. And while it has _nothing_ to do with men's clothing, shoes, or style, *my God*, is it ever entertaining!


----------



## TheWardrobeGirl (Mar 24, 2008)

Orsini said:


> No, the discussion actually goes on for quite some time:
> 
> https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=38032 (*WARNING: Not for the squeamish or faint of heart!!!!*)
> 
> ...


That discussion definitely made my gag reflex kick in, but the amusement was worth it! Maybe I will have to spend more time browsing the discussions in SF...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

bigchris1313 said:


> After reading this, I was inspired to seek out the thread in question. I read the entire thread from start to finish. And while it has _nothing_ to do with men's clothing, shoes, or style, *my God*, is it ever entertaining!


Oh yes, its funny. But, as you said, it has nothing to do with fancy duds. Once you limit the search for new posts to "Mens Clothing" you get about 6-8 updates a day. And you know what else? All the posters that refugeed from here to there: they hardly ever post in "Mens Clothing." It is a good place for endless discussions about whether a college student should buy a suit *at all*.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

TheWardrobeGirl said:


> That discussion definitely made my gag reflex kick in, but the amusement was worth it! Maybe I will have to spend more time browsing the discussions in SF...


Oh. there is lots more. 
Some of the threads put this one to shame.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Mafoofan makes a lot of sense here.

In my mind, SF has far more extremely knowledgeable people, many of whom who are very witty. Trouble is this often comes across is very amusing, but rather uninformative threads (or threads that devolve into online spats quickly). Look at how many 5+ page threads there are here v. there.

No doubt this can be nice, but I just don;t understand how someone could possibly keep up with the sheer volume of stuff overthere, without devoting hours each day to it. I'm sure most of the regular posters over there are cooler than me and more sociable in real life, but I'm not sure I could post that much without giving up my socail life.

Plus, there's a bit of a bullying, internet toughguy thing at SF, and I'm sorta thin-skinned.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

bigchris1313 said:


> After reading this, I was inspired to seek out the thread in question. I read the entire thread from start to finish. And while it has _nothing_ to do with men's clothing, shoes, or style, *my God*, is it ever entertaining!


That's SF for you. Some people will like that, some won't.



Orsini said:


> Oh yes, its funny. But, as you said, it has nothing to do with fancy duds. Once you limit the search for new posts to "Mens Clothing" you get about 6-8 updates a day. And you know what else? All the posters that refugeed from here to there: they hardly ever post in "Mens Clothing." It is a good place for endless discussions about whether a college student should buy a suit *at all*.


This is just not true. You don't have to like SF, but there's no need to misrepresent it.

Admittedly, the content is different. When I checked here yesterday, four of the threads on the first page were about AE. When I checked just now, three of the threads on the first page were about AE. You're unlikely to see that on SF, so, if you like AE, you'll probably prefer reading here. On the other hand, if you don't care about thrift shopping, or bargain hunting, or trying something different with your clothes, you'll probably find some of the discussion on SF not to your tastes. But that doesn't mean such discussion doesn't exist.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> Mafoofan makes a lot of sense here.
> 
> In my mind, SF has far more extremely knowledgeable people, many of whom who are very witty. Trouble is this often comes across is very amusing, but rather uninformative threads (or threads that devolve into online spats quickly). Look at how many 5+ page threads there are here v. there.
> 
> ...


All this strikes me as the sort of valid concern that I mentioned in my post above. SF won't be to everybody's taste, and that's OK. But in terms of "keeping up" with SF, I just don't. I read when I have the chance, and if I miss stuff between visits, that's OK. I don't need to read everything to get value from it; if anything, having more to look at lets me skim over the stuff I don't care about more quickly.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It might be amusing at first, but it gets old really fast. And it seems like anything worth reading there is buried in 50 pages of that crap.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> Look at how many 5+ page threads there are here v. there.


Not to mention that the longest thread here are about there.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

DocHolliday said:


> That's SF for you. Some people will like that, some won't.
> 
> This is just not true. You don't have to like SF, but there's no need to misrepresent it.
> 
> Admittedly, the content is different. When I checked here yesterday, four of the threads on the first page were about AE. When I checked just now, three of the threads on the first page were about AE. You're unlikely to see that on SF, so, if you like AE, you'll probably prefer reading here. On the other hand, if you don't care about thrift shopping, or bargain hunting, or trying something different with your clothes, you'll probably find some of the discussion on SF not to your tastes. But that doesn't mean such discussion doesn't exist.


Actually, I always advocate buying on sale The only time I pay full retail is when schedule or logistics intervenes.

But, you know, you're right. The activity does pick up during the day -- when all those guys are at work...

My impression is the significant refugees show up in "Mens Clothing" sparingly...


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

DocHolliday said:


> All this strikes me as the sort of valid concern that I mentioned in my post above. SF won't be to everybody's taste, and that's OK. But in terms of "keeping up" with SF, I just don't. I read when I have the chance, and if I miss stuff between visits, that's OK. I don't need to read everything to get value from it; if anything, having more to look at lets me skim over the stuff I don't care about more quickly.


I do the same, read SF occasionally and skim it (frankly I do the same here save for the relativity low activity trad forum).

I just can't find the time to understand all the personalities and in-jokes.
Beyond that, SF seems to have become geared more towards higher-end clothing (in both Men's Clothing and Streetwear and Denim), and while that's an area I'd one day like to be able to persue, right now I'm much more of a find bargains on ebay/thrifts/online clearnce sale type of shopper, and AAAC (paricuarly the trad forum) seems a little better gears towards that.

Hope I don't come across as SF (or AAAC) bashing, there's nothing lamer than an internet forum feud.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

DocHolliday said:


> Curiously, I see this sort of broad, personal insult much more here than there, even as I'm told how much more polite and gentlemanly this place is.
> 
> .


Guess we are reading totally different sections on SF.

.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> Beyond that, SF seems to have become geared more towards higher-end clothing (in both Men's Clothing and Streetwear and Denim), and while that's an area I'd one day like to be able to persue, right now I'm much more of a find bargains on ebay/thrifts/online clearnce sale type of shopper, and AAAC (paricuarly the trad forum) seems a little better gears towards that.
> 
> Hope I don't come across as SF (or AAAC) bashing, there's nothing lamer than an internet forum feud.


I don't think you're bashing at all. If the forums were exactly the same, there'd be no point in having two. But I will say that part of what I find appealing about SF is its focus on bargains. The sales forum there is much, much more active, and many SFers stay on the prowl for a deal. When a good supersale comes along, it can be a blast -- the most fun I've had online. Whereas here, I've largely given up on selling, because it seems hardly anyone buys outside the Trad thrift exchange, and I've largely given up on posting bargain notices, because the ones I've posted have generally been passed by with little comment. Overall, the vibe seems much more sedate. Maybe that's because people here are more interesting in buying in person than online; I dunno. But in general, I get the impression that most folks here are less interested in high-end stuff, and are sufficiently happy with AE, LE and the like that they don't want to bother with the chase required in bargain hunting. If that's the case, that's fine, but it doesn't really fit my tastes. Differing definitions of value, I suppose.

Personally, I like that SF has a long-running thrift bragging thread that sits right next to discussions of high-end bespoke. I'm interested in both those things, much more than I am in another discussion of the merits of AE. We used to have more of that duality here, but it seems like talk of higher-end clothing has vastly decreased, save largely for the theoretical. I, for one, miss it.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

PedanticTurkey said:


> There are definitely some knowledgeable posters over there, but most of them are active members of a loud, obnoxious clique. So, if you want to read anything interesting, be prepared to sort through a lot of noise.





PedanticTurkey said:


> It might be amusing at first, but it gets old really fast. And it seems like anything worth reading there is buried in 50 pages of that crap.


In the interest of full disclosure, you should mention you were banned from SF for trolling.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

1. Page length of threads is irrelevant. The set up there has way fewer posts per page than does this site.

2. Why are we burying AAAC Forum? "More knowledgeable people" over there...how many people do you need to tell you the right, proper, cool thing? All you need is ONE knowledgeable person for each genre. I think we do have that here.

I like AAAC and I think for each member we "lose" we gain new members.

Also, we seem to have quite a few professional tailors here...I'm not to up to date on SF membership, but logistical tailoring questions are always answered here (Alex, David, Sator).

Andy, keep up the good work pal...no need to change what the forum is, many like it, and if those who don't decide to leave, well, thats fine too!

I would like to say though,m that this thread has encouraged me to post some more, and read a bit more over there, and more info is never a bad thing.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> 1. Page length of threads is irrelevant. The set up there has way fewer posts per page than does this site.
> 
> 2. Why are we burying AAAC Forum? "More knowledgeable people" over there...how many people do you need to tell you the right, proper, cool thing?


Well summarized.

When I check the internet for anything with clothes, there is invariably an entry on google from SF and from AAAC. Generally there are FAR MORE different threads with aspects of the topic from AAAC. When I go to the SF threads linked, it is usually something for sale, or a long list of replies which add little or nothing to the OP. I noticed AAAC posters formulate much more sentient and informative opinions or facts on the matters. Hands down, I found 95% of the time a thread from AAAC was giving me what I needed to know or hear from people while SF generally was chatter or jokes if it wasn't selling something already sold.

It always reinforces the reason for why I come to AAAC. Nothing is being buried here. A lot of the "AAAC's glow is faded" replies here are rather weird to me. I still find so much useful info in past posts I just can't get anywhere else on the internet. The modern threads aren't so bad. If someone feels higher class clothing threads are being "buried", it's odd--everything gets buried in a forum, with time. No one is stopping or halting discussion of higher priced clothing, there is just mild negativity to fashion forward clothing.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Preu Pummel said:


> It always reinforces the reason for why I come to AAAC. Nothing is being buried here. A lot of the "AAAC's glow is faded" replies here are rather weird to me. I still find so much useful info in past posts I just can't get anywhere else on the internet. The modern threads aren't so bad. If someone feels *higher class clothing threads* are being "buried", it's odd--everything gets buried in a forum, with time. No one is stopping or halting discussion of higher priced clothing, there is just mild negativity to *fashion forward clothing*.


Why does 'higher class clothing' equal 'fashion forward clothing'? I've not noticed SF being particularly 'fashion forward' unless you count the Jeans section where people talk about nine thousand dollar jeans with one thousand dollar t-shirts and such. I do think we would benefit from a denim section to separate all of the damned denim threads from the rest.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

RJman said:


> In the interest of full disclosure, you should mention you were banned from SF for trolling.


Yeah, because I didn't show enough sympathy for the puppy that got thrown off a cliff in Iraq.

Almost as dumb as being banned here for using the expression "XXXXX."

I think the lesson (if there is one) is that both sites have some pretty lame moderation.

AT LEAST YOU WEREN'T SUSPENDED THIS TIME forsbergacct2000


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, because I didn't show enough sympathy for the puppy that got thrown off a cliff in Iraq.
> 
> Almost as dumb as being banned here for using the expression "limp-wristed."
> 
> I think the lesson (if there is one) is that both sites have some pretty lame moderation.


Maybe the lesson is you should tone it down a bit. I'm not trying to be one of the "internet tough guys" that we mention. But did you ever think that maybe it's not everyone else, but you, that needs to change?


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

JibranK said:


> Why does 'higher class clothing' equal 'fashion forward clothing'? I've not noticed SF being particularly 'fashion forward' unless you count the Jeans section where people talk about nine thousand dollar jeans with one thousand dollar t-shirts and such. I do think we would benefit from a denim section to separate all of the damned denim threads from the rest.


You are making odd connections.

There is a past poster in here who claimed we don't talk about high priced fashion as much, and another (I believe) that said something about such threads being buried.

I'm saying we have no negativity or aversion to higher priced or quality clothing, just fashion forward clothes. The assertion that we "bury" bespoke or high priced clothing threads is pretty insane. I haven't seen anyone BURY such a thread in the years I have lurked/posted.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> Maybe the lesson is you should tone it down a bit. I'm not trying to be one of the "internet tough guys" that we mention. But did you ever think that maybe it's not everyone else, but you, that needs to change?


"Everyone else" in this case is a pair of moderators on clothing websites.

So, to answer your question--no, I haven't.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

There is a difference...but its really subjective based on the type of posts and quality of the posters providing information.

The OP doesn't post on SF and may not understand the difference between the two forums because he doesn't interact on SF

He's asking what's the difference between an apple and an orange even though perhaps he hasn't really tasted the apple ic12337:
Where is Fritzl when you need him to make some incomprehensible Austrian analogy


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Preu Pummel said:


> You are making odd connections.
> 
> There is a past poster in here who claimed we don't talk about high priced fashion as much, and another (I believe) that said something about such threads being buried.
> 
> I'm saying we have no negativity or aversion to higher priced or quality clothing, just fashion forward clothes. The assertion that we "bury" bespoke or high priced clothing threads is pretty insane. I haven't seen anyone BURY such a thread in the years I have lurked/posted.


The main point of my post was to complain about jeans. Yep, adding to the problem I complained about! :icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## GreenPlastic (Jan 27, 2009)

gnatty8 said:


> The other thing that makes AAAC certainly far different from SF is the relatively low tolerance for friendly argument or banter. Eight times of ten when I challenge someone on an opinion here, I get a "_pshaw, you sir haven't a clue of what you speak, and I shan't waste my time explaining myself further, this is not some billiard hall.. good day to you_..." This almost misses the point of a message board altogether.. I still post here, although less and less, but that was one of the reasons I migrated towards SF a couple of years ago.. The internetz is not supposed to be as serious as some seem to take it..


LOL. For my part, I apologize for evidently coming across like an 18th century British naval officer in the recent argument we had. It's hard to read people's tone on the internet sometimes, so I think I misinterpreted yours. My mistake.

In fairness, though, I walked into this forum expecting something a touch more, I dunno, civilized than what you'd find in "teh intrarnetz" at large. So that's probably why I was so easily thrown by the internetiness* I found here.

*Stephen Colbert would be proud of this word, I feel.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

JibranK said:


> The main point of my post was to complain about jeans. Yep, adding to the problem I complained about! :icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


ACH! Now I read your post from THAt angle, I made the odd connections.

Yes. @[email protected]; Well, I have no idea where to go from here.
Actually, I've seen plenty of posts with people wearing very young and unconventional fashion.... compared to the more conservative style espoused here. There are plenty of younger dressers there who are making statements, but there are also plenty of people from here, and people who have conservative dress styles.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Preu Pummel said:


> ACH! Now I read your post from THAt angle, I made the odd connections.
> 
> Yes. @[email protected]; Well, I have no idea where to go from here.
> Actually, I've seen plenty of posts with people wearing very young and unconventional fashion.... compared to the more conservative style espoused here. There are plenty of younger dressers there who are making statements, but there are also plenty of people from here, and people who have conservative dress styles.


I'm 18 but I dress toward the conservative end of the AAAC spectrum. I would never do jeans/jacket for example. I guess that is actually more nonconformist than ripped jeans and pre-'distressed' t-shirts are.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> "Everyone else" in this case is a pair of moderators on clothing websites.
> 
> So, to answer your question--no, I haven't.


I just don't know of many posters who have been suspended from both AAAC and SF. That's what I was getting at. I have no beef with you. I was just making an observation.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

JibranK said:


> The main point of my post was to complain about jeans. Yep, adding to the problem I complained about! :icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


Blue jeans (sniff) ain't goin' away any time soon. Best to just take another Paxil and not let it get your goat...


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, because I didn't show enough sympathy for the puppy that got thrown off a cliff in Iraq.
> 
> Almost as dumb as being banned here for using the expression "limp-wristed."
> 
> I think the lesson (if there is one) is that both sites have some pretty lame moderation.


This is not a fair statement at all, I think SF is one of the better moderated message boards out there, and the mods there deserve a round of applause for that..


----------



## glowell222 (Apr 20, 2009)

I like both SF and AAAC. I have learned a lot from both, and I think I've helped at least one person.


----------



## rider (Jan 8, 2004)

Interesting post.....I was far more active (both posting and reading) in the past than I am now. I think the archives might actually hurt both forums in this regard. New members posting legit or interesting questions are as apt to see a 'search the archives' reply than anything....it is correct, but also discourages conversation. Some random thoughts:

-50 members a month contact me and say 'I heard about you on SF', and call me Ron
-5 members a month contact me and say 'I heard about you on AAAC', and call me Mr. Rider
-AAAC guys are usually interested in very classic patterns, basic leathers/colors, and interested when I will have a sale
-SF guys usually want something custom made, will challenge me pattern and material wise and rarely inquire about price (maybe unusual, but for me true)
-I think posters here come having a loyalty to a brand and/or style, and are interested in defending and encouraging it
-I think SF posters are more interested in different styles, learning, finding new sources/brands, etc.
-AAAC is a more suburban, white, middle-to-upper-middle class basic American 'clothing' site
-SF is a more urban, multi-ethnic, multi-income 'fashion' site with a fair amount of International flavor

I don't know if any of this is correct, but that's how I see it. Both are great, but in their own ways. I do think that some of us who have been around since before all the publicity (and especially those of us in the business) should participate a little more and start more conversational topics. I would love to post more in some of the shoe threads that are so full of BS it's amusing, but (and this is different than in the beginning) so many industry people watch these boards now I could be hurt if I get caught saying too much. Maybe I should create an alias....and start cutting up shoes again  .


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

gnatty8 said:


> This is not a fair statement at all, I think SF is one of the better moderated message boards out there, and the mods there deserve a round of applause for that..


How should I put this--that's not been my experience.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

rider said:


> Interesting post.....I was far more active (both posting and reading) in the past than I am now. I think the archives might actually hurt both forums in this regard. New members posting legit or interesting questions are as apt to see a 'search the archives' reply than anything....it is correct, but also discourages conversation. Some random thoughts:
> 
> -50 members a month contact me and say 'I heard about you on SF', and call me Ron
> -5 members a month contact me and say 'I heard about you on AAAC', and call me Mr. Rider
> ...


Well said.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,

The one sign of "decline" I have seen here, leaving aside personal grievances with various posters and their agendas which are entirely unaviodable, is the fact that Medwards posts much less often than he used to. To me he remains the archetypal AAAC gentlemanly figure-a man who has more genuine knowledge of bespoke items (from a buyer's perspective) than virtually anyone else I can think of. He manages to combine this with a humility which so many of the other "big name" posters both here and at SF seemingly fail to possess. I wish he would post more often once again.

I'd also like RJman to post more often like he did in the "old days". These days it seems that when he drops in it's normally to make a withering comment rather than share his knowledge as he used to. 

Chris.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

rgrossicone said:


> ...how many people do you need to tell you the right, proper, cool thing? All you need is ONE knowledgeable person for each genre. I think we do have that here.


This is exactly the point-of-view that I think has dulled this forum. First of all, there isn't always one clear answer as to what's right or proper. Second, even the most knowledgeable person is fallible. Third, and most importantly, what's right and proper will only take you so far and fixating on it can easily distract from developing the less formalistic aspects of your personal style.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*I agree*



chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> The one sign of "decline" I have seen here, leaving aside personal grievances with various posters and their agendas which are entirely unaviodable, is the fact that Medwards posts much less often than he used to. To me he remains the archetypal AAAC gentlemanly figure-a man who has more genuine knowledge of bespoke items (from a buyer's perspective) than virtually anyone else I can think of. He manages to combine this with a humility which so many of the other "big name" posters both here and at SF seemingly fail to possess. I wish he would post more often once again.
> 
> ...


Yes, along with Manton, Jacusey, Kav and a few others.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> I just don't know of many posters who have been suspended from both AAAC and SF.


Classic.


----------



## dport86 (Jan 24, 2009)

mafoofan said:


> This is exactly the point-of-view that I think has dulled this forum. First of all, there isn't always one clear answer as to what's right or proper. Second, even the most knowledgeable person is fallible. Third, and most importantly, what's right and proper will only take you so far and fixating on it can easily distract from developing the less formalistic aspects of your personal style.


Couldn't agree more. I love the gracious and considerate atmosphere on this forum as much as I enjoy the humor and wit of SF. SF definitely crosses the line into offensive and inappropriate often. OTOH, AAAC sometimes crosses the line into dogmatic and close-minded.

Many people have been quick to offer advice and share knowledge here. OTOH, someone on this forum recently suggested (apparently not in jest) that I was unqualified to answer a question about the trad life in SoCal (where I live) because I'd mentioned Canada and Thom Browne in other posts. The word 'heresy' was used. Again, without any humor or wit. Wow. Talk about killing healthy dialogue.

I love this forum but, like the old line trad clubs in L.A., I worry it may suffer a long, slow decline to irrelevance if it doesn't maintain the generous, open, gracious attitude of it's founder, Andy.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I like AAAC better because it's where I got started, Andy's been unfailingly nice (and generous), they gave us a Trad forum and I've gotten to know a few guys in the real world through it.

SFs fine, but a very different crowd. If I was 27 instead of 47, I'd probably prefer it.

But I ain't, and don't.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> The one sign of "decline" I have seen here, leaving aside personal grievances with various posters and their agendas which are entirely unaviodable, is the fact that Medwards posts much less often than he used to. To me he remains the archetypal AAAC gentlemanly figure-a man who has more genuine knowledge of bespoke items (from a buyer's perspective) than virtually anyone else I can think of. He manages to combine this with a humility which so many of the other "big name" posters both here and at SF seemingly fail to possess. I wish he would post more often once again.
> 
> ...


I miss medwards too .

My major shift away from AAAC came after an encounter with Pedantic Turkey here and a run-in with an Internet Tough Guy who is now quoted in my signature. So they exist on this forum, somewhere, and then run to FNB.com to post revisionist histories of their victories.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I must have really pissed you off for you to periodically return to call me out in these obnoxious meta-threads. What is this, the third time?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*They Do Like to Gloat...*



RJman said:


> ...So they exist on this forum, somewhere, and then run to FNB.com to post revisionist histories of their victories.


One of the senior members here hypothesized that invaders from FNB were coming here to sabotage AAAC. After sniffing around over there I expect it is probably the case, although not formally organized. They also seem to be very interested in activities at SF as well.

I always check the FNB "Inane Post of the Day" to see if I have made it yet. So far, nothing. I guess I will just have to try harder...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Gurdon said:


> Yes, along with Manton, Jacusey, Kav and a few others.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Some of the refugees have changed their style and focus since they left here...


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

RJman said:


> I miss medwards too .
> 
> My major shift away from AAAC came after an encounter with Pedantic Turkey here and a run-in with an Internet Tough Guy who is now quoted in my signature. So they exist on this forum, somewhere, and then run to FNB.com to post revisionist histories of their victories.


Hello,

Sorry to hear that but you're definitely missed. You were actually the first person to welcome me to this place by PM (after my Swaine Adeney factory shop report)!!

Chris.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

nolan50410 said:


> I just don't know of many posters who have been suspended from both AAAC and SF. That's what I was getting at. I have no beef with you. I was just making an observation.


Oh, I think you can find quite a few over at the "advanced" forum!

Symptomatic of what is wrong with this forum:

LabelKing is banned, Cruiser abides and flourishes.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Everyone complains about Cruiser but it's kitonbrioni who irks me.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

JibranK said:


> Everyone complains about Cruiser but it's kitonbrioni who irks me.


You just ain't been around long enough...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> Oh, I think you can find quite a few over at the "advanced" forum!
> 
> Symptomatic of what is wrong with this forum:
> 
> LabelKing is banned, Cruiser abides and flourishes.


Labelking is banned? From where?

Why do people get banned, anyway? Every time I see someone is banned on AAAC or SF, I look at their recent posts and I usually do not see anything that seems ""bannable" to me.

One the other hand, the most despicable jerks rise from the mire to jerk us around again and again...


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Orsini said:


> You just ain't been around long enough...


kitonbrioni epitomises the consumerist mindset that I despise. He never talks about what he wears and/or why - just what brands he wore. That adds nothing to discussion and is most ungentlemanlike.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

Orsini said:


> Why do people get banned, anyway? Every time I see someone is banned on AAAC or SF, I look at their recent posts and I usually do not see anything that seems ""bannable" to me.
> 
> One the other hand, the most despicable jerks rise from the mire to jerk us around again and again...


In my day as a moderator we tended to delete the post(s) that caused a banning. They were usually too offensive in some way to continue to exist.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

The worst thing I've seen in my short time on AAAC is posts where people go out of their way to get personal and unpleasant. No doubt it's even worse on SF, but that doesn't make it okay here. If you don't care for someone else's perspective, just politely move along. It's not that hard.


----------



## Mr. Moo (Jan 27, 2009)

I like both places. I prefer SF for two simple reasons:

1) Much more active WAYWRN thread. 

2) The forum is easier on the eyes.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Will said:


> In my day as a moderator we tended to delete the post(s) that caused a banning. They were usually too offensive in some way to continue to exist.


Aw, gee...

Maybe we could put them in some special place that you can only see after signing a release....and paying a fee...


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

JibranK said:


> kitonbrioni epitomises the consumerist mindset that I despise. He never talks about what he wears and/or why - just what brands he wore. That adds nothing to discussion and is most ungentlemanlike.


Golly, you've really got this figured out. I'm impressed!

In any event, the guy never done me no wrong.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Orsini said:


> One of the senior members here hypothesized that invaders from FNB were coming here to sabotage AAAC. After sniffing around over there I expect it is probably the case, although not formally organized. They also seem to be very interested in activities at SF as well.
> 
> I always check the FNB "Inane Post of the Day" to see if I have made it yet. So far, nothing. I guess I will just have to try harder...


I've made it a few of times. (One person who was banned just before I started moderating has a grudge. What can I say. There have been three other times.) Hey, if you can't achieve immortality, inanity may not be a bad second.

Although, I'm a bit disappointed because on StyleForum when I asked FNB to get me some more recognition, he apparently ignored me. I'll just have to achieve any further inanity recognition on my own. Life is tough.


----------



## ChiliPalmer (Nov 18, 2008)

What's FNB?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

ChiliPalmer said:


> What's FNB?


Those who find out seldom live to tell the tale!!!! (Hey, if it's good enough for Monty Python - - - - -)

P.S. Was THAT inane, or what?????


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

ChiliPalmer said:


> What's FNB?


www.filmnoirbuff.com


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Kurt N said:


> The worst thing I've seen in my short time on AAAC is posts where people go out of their way to get personal and unpleasant. No doubt it's even worse on SF, but that doesn't make it okay here. If you don't care for someone else's perspective, just politely move along. It's not that hard.


I don't agree it's worse on SF, but I'm with you in that it's unnecessary in both places.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

No doubt SF has most of the best writers. Bespoke is the most interesting because they care enough about the details they are willing to buy it whether they are middle class to rich. What I don't care about SF is the language is a little more profane than I like and trying to find the threads that interest me. I do like the banter, etc.

AAAC has become so boring. Usually the (almost never) subjects that interest me stand out, so easy to find. But the writers that made this place so interesting are almost all gone. Bespoke passion does not exist here anymore. Those who discover the world of bespoke seem to find a way to buy more. After all, they discover a world of comfort they can wear for hours and hours everyday instead of the uncomfortable clothes of rtw and mtm. I believe "Who so ever will may come." But those who shouldn't be get booted out. This place has become middle of the road is fine or good enough. I think the best is good enough or fine, and middle of the road is for the dead. So, do the best you can, not middle of the road, at least don't write about middle of the road almost ever.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

If you don't care for someone else's perspective, just politely move along. It's not that hard.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't disagree more. When someone shoots his mouth off, I find it best when others challenge them...especially when its personal

Some folks can't take criticism and their responses or postings are consistent with this. Other times there are misunderstandings and folks then explain themselves...private e-mails help to ensure peace is mantained when appropriate

We are not all Jesus to just turn the other cheek. There are great threads because someone posts, another replies that the posters comments are inaccurate and then great debates flourish. Personal attacks happen and some of the bestt moments on the forum occur when this flows onto other threads


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Ay329 said:


> I couldn't disagree more. When someone shoots his mouth off, I find it best when others challenge them...especially when its personal


Challenging and even criticizing are fine and, done properly, fun and informative. I hereby retract any implication to the contrary. But I still say this needn't get personal and unpleasant.

And really, what I mainly had in mind when I wrote that earlier comment was not posts as part of a vigorous debate, but rather posts where someone brings up another member, who hasn't even been posting to that thread, just to dump on him and without saying anything new or clever. I don't see how that's a "best moment."


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

mafoofan said:


> This is exactly the point-of-view that I think has dulled this forum. First of all, there isn't always one clear answer as to what's right or proper. Second, even the most knowledgeable person is fallible. Third, and most importantly, what's right and proper will only take you so far and fixating on it can easily distract from developing the less formalistic aspects of your personal style.


I disagree. It doesn't take me 18 different opinions about a "look" for me to know if I like it or not. I know that you don't either, you're a VERY stylish fella, who blends his own style with whats classically accepted. Maybe you're right, for some, who have very little clue and or confidence about how to dress and what looks good on them, many different points of view would be helpful, but for people like me (and presumeably you - but I don't want to speak for you) if I have a question, its generally about what is classically accepted and acceptable. I'll then take that answer and twist it according to my taste, which I feel is developed. I certainly don't ask a question about "rules" with the sole intention to follow them, in fact most of those questions are asked to see how far I can bend them without breaking...and I, like any good satorialist, have had some pretty bad breaks...but thats what we're here to do, learn, develop our own tastes and styles from the standard.

So for me, thats what I need when I post queries. There can't be 18 different answers to "what is right", maybe 2 or 3, but what you make of those two or three make your own style, with a foundation in classicism.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

^The danger I see in this is that there are remarkably few posters, either here or on SF, with the knowledge necessary to serve as the guru on the mountain. Some of the "rules" you see trotted out on the forums are simply wrong, or misunderstood, while others are outmoded, having applied to situations and circumstances of yesteryear. As an example, I enjoy the Trad forum very much, but I do not think it represents the whole of my grandfather's closet, or encompasses the entirety of the period from which Trad draws its influence.

Personally, I tend to think the forums function best when the conventional wisdom is challenged, or at least debated. Believing anything blindly, no matter how trustworthy the source seems, is, IMO, foolish.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

DocHolliday said:


> ^The danger I see in this is that there are remarkably few posters, either here or on SF, with the knowledge necessary to serve as the guru on the mountain. Some of the "rules" you see trotted out on the forums are simply wrong, or misunderstood, while others are outmoded, having applied to situations and circumstances of yesteryear. As an example, I enjoy the Trad forum very much, but I do not think it represents the whole of my grandfather's closet, or encompasses the entirety of the period from which Trad draws its influence.
> 
> Personally, I tend to think the forums function best when the conventional wisdom is challenged, or at least debated. Believing anything blindly, no matter how trustworthy the source seems, is, IMO, foolish.


Good point. I guess being here for a while (well, over a year) I've figured out many posters individual styles, and take that into consideration when reading their posts, which helps me figure out what I need. I guess it comes down to having the confidence in ones own style. While I feel I have that, many do not have that, and it wasn't long ago when I didn't have that confidence, so *now* for me my needs and expectations are different from many who post here.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> Some of the "rules" you see trotted out on the forums are simply wrong, or misunderstood, while others are outmoded, having applied to situations and circumstances of yesteryear.


It seems that these Rules are meant to be the Eternal and Immutable Laws of Timeless Style for Men. I have been researching the historic background to these "Rules" a lot recently. I've found most of them to have no historic precedent at all. Often they are someone's personal preference, which they and forum groupthink have elevated to the status of an Eternal Truth. Here is one example:


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Sator said:


> It seems that these Rules are meant to be the Eternal and Immutable Laws of Timeless Style for Men.


I think there's truth to this. AA tends to cling tightly to the belief that, during the early to mid-20th century, there became a "right" way to wear clothing, and that the beliefs of that period should bind us today and, really, henceforth. Speaking generally, the discussion here is often more about not being wrong by those standards than about finding a unique personal style. I'd go so far as to say the latter is largely discouraged, except for certain forum-approved looks, such as Trad, that were canonized long ago. Telling people to "go to hell" with your orange lobster pants is OK, because that is Trad, but doing so in a style that wasn't popular in the '50s is treated with suspicion and derision.

SF's Men's Clothing section, on the other hand, tends to be more open to "fashion," though still somewhat reluctantly. Conservative clothing dominates, but there's more interest in aesthetics, fine details, and trends. The concept of "classic style" -- i.e., one fixed, unchanging standard established long ago -- holds less sway, with more emphasis placed on ecclecticism and cultivating individual personal style. There's more openness to the belief that the evolution of clothing is natural, even fun, though there's still very much the notion that what we buy today should be giving us service in 20 years. People are interested in the "rules" there too, but to a lesser degree, such that they constitute a smaller component of the discussion.

Ultimately, I would argue, the complaints about AA may be generated, in large part, because its focus has become fairly narrow: affordable, traditionally styled clothing, worn in a fashion that should not stand out. If that niche appeals to you, it's ideal; for those who want a broader discussion, the old days, when there was more diversity in topic, pricepoint and theme, seem like a more golden age.

.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> AA tends to cling tightly to the belief that, during the early to mid-20th century, there became a "right" way to wear clothing, and that the beliefs of that period should bind us today and, really, henceforth.


Very true, but there are those on SF who think that way too. Some people even talk about the 1920-30s in America as being the Classical Period. With the advent of Cruiser et al. on AAAC, many here see that as a lot of rubbish.



DocHolliday said:


> Ultimately, I would argue, the complaints about AA may be generated, in large part, because its focus has become fairly narrow: affordable, traditionally styled clothing, worn in a fashion that should not stand out. If that niche appeals to you, it's ideal; for those who want a broader discussion, the old days, when there was more diversity in topic, pricepoint and theme, seem like a more golden age.


That sums it up perfectly. If you look at the internet traffic out of AAAC a sizeable portion of it is to Brook Brothers and Allen Edmonds. I think these two brands that perfectly embody affordable middle of the road Americana seem to be the corner stones of the modern AAAC. Nothing wrong with that either.


----------



## clee1982 (Jan 10, 2009)

It was a simple switch for me, the discussion on AAAC is somewhat "limited", there is nothing wrong with trad., just not my cup of tea.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Sator said:


> Very true, but there are those on SF who think that way too. Some people even talk about the 1920-30s in America as being the Classical Period. With the advent of Cruiser et al. on AAAC, many here see that as a lot of rubbish.


This is unquestionably true. Both forums tend to similar conservative beliefs; I just think AA tends to be more black and white -- it seems like an eternal struggle between "abide by the traditional rules" or "the rules are dead, do as you want, but nothing too crazy." Even the latter isn't really interested in the nuances of individual style so much as it is a reactionary stand against AA's conservative beliefs. After all, the big, neverendending debate here is whether it's OK to wear denim, which isn't even a consideration at SF.

Too often, I think, AA ends up with this us v. them tension that dominates the discussion, and which I find incredibly tedious. I don't like everything posted at SF, but I'm glad to have the variety of styles.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> ...an eternal struggle between "abide by the traditional rules" or "the rules are dead, do as you want, but nothing too crazy."


That more or less sums up the polemic between Manton and FNB over at SF.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*English shoes*

This is the place where I learned of English shoes, although I did manage to get a pair from Ben Silver before Andy. Moreover, I can talk about them and be understood by the minority that shares this interest.

Likewise, I really have learned a lot about clothes, tailoring, and politics (but not economics, as most here are hopeless capitalists) from some of the participants.

I was a kid in the idealized 50's and still hate the snap brim look of the rat pack. Now that I know enough, I can find grown up clothes that I like.

It has gotten a bit tame, but perhaps things will pick up.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## kelliw (Aug 13, 2008)

I agree with this comment. I feel by starting this thread, I have opened a can of worms.......

Some posts are interesting and others a little rude. I do appreciate though the response and time people have taken to answer this question.

I am very surprised that no one has asked this before.....

Onwards and upwards........



Ay329 said:


> If you don't care for someone else's perspective, just politely move along. It's not that hard.


I couldn't disagree more. When someone shoots his mouth off, I find it best when others challenge them...especially when its personal

Some folks can't take criticism and their responses or postings are consistent with this. Other times there are misunderstandings and folks then explain themselves...private e-mails help to ensure peace is mantained when appropriate

We are not all Jesus to just turn the other cheek. There are great threads because someone posts, another replies that the posters comments are inaccurate and then great debates flourish. Personal attacks happen and some of the bestt moments on the forum occur when this flows onto other threads[/QUOTE]


----------



## rocco (Feb 21, 2007)

I post a bit on both forums.

The answers to posed questions on AAAC are better. Such threads can go off-topic on SF. Overall I perhaps prefer SF because the crowd is younger, like myself. I wear brands such as J Crew rather than Brooks Brothers.

These internal forum dramas I know nothing about, AAAC seems quieter these days for whatever reason.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Sator said:


> That more or less sums up the polemic between Manton and FNB over at SF.


No, not at all.

Not defending Mantoni, but that's a mischaracterization to the extreme.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apparently there is a JAB Mgr posting at SF, but AAAC gets the JAB label even though most of the posts are by far about Brooks? Yeah; nice try SFrs. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Apparently there is a JAB Mgr posting at SF, but AAAC gets the JAB label even though most of the posts are by far about Brooks? Yeah; nice try SFrs. :icon_smile_wink:


The JAB manager came to SF because of relatively high JAB bashing on SF. AAAC seems to have more JAB customers.


----------



## pkincy (Feb 9, 2006)

Being reminded by this thread that FNB does exist, I have been taking a bit of a look. Some good threads but they truly do have a thread where they bash things said both on SF and AAAC.

It so totally reminds me of a group of grade school children who couldn't go to the high school prom so they hide in the bushes and make fun of how the prom queen is dressed.

PK


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> The JAB manager came to SF because of relatively high JAB bashing on SF. AAAC seems to have more JAB customers.


Thanks and that makes sense in a twisted way.

Only JAB Management would go where there were less of their customers and a higher percentage were already dead set against them.

I hope the AE CEO stays here and maybe we could get a Brooks Manager posting too.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Thanks and that makes sense in a twisted way.
> 
> Only JAB Management would go where there were less of their customers and a higher percentage were already dead set against them.
> 
> I hope the AE CEO stays here and maybe we could get a Brooks Manager posting too.


I wouldn't be surprised if we did sometime along the road. We already have bespoke tailors.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

AAAC doesn't have any Mystery Bespoke Tailors like StyleForum.


----------



## naylor (May 31, 2007)

dopey said:


> AAAC doesn't have any Mystery Bespoke Tailors like StyleForum.


Or even Mystery Bespoke Nose Hair Trimmers.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Thanks and that makes sense in a twisted way.
> 
> Only JAB Management would go where there were less of their customers and a higher percentage were already dead set against them.
> 
> I hope the AE CEO stays here and maybe we could get a Brooks Manager posting too.


AE, JAB, Brooks Brothers? We've got Salvatore Ambrosi and Chris Despos, amongst others, at SF.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

For the last years or two I'd say SF is better than AAAC in every possible way. I think it was by design personally, AAAC does it's best not to come off as elitist. Fussell would have a field day with this place.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> The one sign of "decline" I have seen here, leaving aside personal grievances with various posters and their agendas which are entirely unaviodable, is the fact that Medwards posts much less often than he used to. To me he remains the archetypal AAAC gentlemanly figure-a man who has more genuine knowledge of bespoke items (from a buyer's perspective) than virtually anyone else I can think of. He manages to combine this with a humility which so many of the other "big name" posters both here and at SF seemingly fail to possess. I wish he would post more often once again.
> 
> ...


You are very kind. Thank you.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

I miss your posts, too, Medwards. Please post more.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> The one sign of "decline" I have seen here, leaving aside personal grievances with various posters and their agendas which are entirely unaviodable, is the fact that Medwards posts much less often than he used to. To me he remains the archetypal AAAC gentlemanly figure-a man who has more genuine knowledge of bespoke items (from a buyer's perspective) than virtually anyone else I can think of. He manages to combine this with a humility which so many of the other "big name" posters both here and at SF seemingly fail to possess. I wish he would post more often once again.
> 
> ...


Other than the reference to SF, where I have visited maybe 3 times and therefore with which I am not sufficiently familiar, I agree entirely.

When my new 28 bore is finished, RJman and I can go shooting for Turkeys.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Turkeys with a 28-gauge????!!!!


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Well, it's a bit difficult to get anything more substantial legally in this neck of the woods, so we might have a few bits of feather still remaining afterwards...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Let me just grab my Daisy to make it a fair fight.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*It has been a long time...*



medwards said:


> You are very kind. Thank you.


Yes, Professor, I am too would love to see you post more often. I miss the old days ;-)

Paris 2 LA


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

lovemeparis said:


> Yes, Professor, I am too would love to see you post more often. I miss the old days ;-)
> 
> Paris 2 LA


I would like to see more activity by anyone who has anything relevant to say about wardrobe.


----------



## emptym (Feb 22, 2008)

I think there's room in the world for both.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Orsini said:


> I would like to see more activity by anyone who has anything relevant to say about wardrobe.


This is turning into a SF-like thread isn't it? Just without the breasts and foul language.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

rgrossicone said:


> This is turning into a SF-like thread isn't it? Just without the breasts and foul language.


Oh! You can't use foul language to talk about breasts here?
Then I'll have to doff this Peak and Pine thing, grab the Egdon Heath hat and head over there.​


----------



## qwerty (Jun 24, 2005)

There are a few gem posters on SF (mafoofan, manton, voxsartoria, iammatt, whnay, others...) who make the experience truly educational and humorous all at the same time. I literally laugh out loud when I read some of the banter amongst this group (so many inside jokes), which never really happens when I'm on AAAC.

SF also seems to have fewer novices and also more expensive tastes, FWIW. I wish AAAC had a shoe porn thread, but alas all we have here is the string of cordovans in the Trad Forum's "What footwear are you wearing today" thread -- gorgeous shoes, but I think it gets a bit old to see five Alden LWBs posted in 3 days.

I miss the old days of AAAC, from 2005ish. I miss jcusey, and a bunch of the guys I've mentioned from SF whom I used to see posting here.

ALL of that said, I think my tastes are still a bit more subdued and traditional, which enables me to identify more with what the (potentially older?) AAAC crowd wears, especially in AAAT.

Finally, I think the money that is spent by some posters on SF is ridiculous, but at the same time I get tired of the countless threads on AAAC about trying to find a JAB suit on sale for $200. Both are extremes (and I should count myself as fortunate to not have to find suits for $200 from JAB), but as a matter of what is interesting to read, it is more interesting to me to read about high end stuff I wouldn't wear on SF than to read about thrift store bargains on AAAC.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

qwerty said:


> There are a few gem posters on SF (mafoofan, manton, voxsartoria, iammatt, whnay, others...) who make the experience truly educational and humorous all at the same time. I literally laugh out loud when I read some of the banter amongst this group (so many inside jokes), which never really happens when I'm on AAAC.
> 
> SF also seems to have fewer novices and also more expensive tastes, FWIW. I wish AAAC had a shoe porn thread, but alas all we have here is the string of cordovans in the Trad Forum's "What footwear are you wearing today" thread -- gorgeous shoes, but I think it gets a bit old to see five Alden LWBs posted in 3 days.
> 
> ...


I think having a separate pinned thread devoted to AE and Jos Bank would help in this regard.


----------



## Dott. Borrelli (Aug 2, 2009)

AAAC is much more civil, and has more information about dressing in a conservative manner. Since I found this website, I go to SF only to see what's in the For Sale section. :icon_smile:


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Dott. Borrelli said:


> AAAC is much more civil, and has more information about dressing in a conservative manner. Since I found this website, I go to SF only to see what's in the For Sale section. :icon_smile:


Dott. Borrelli:

And, of course, you know we have the *SALES Forum* !!


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

JibranK said:


> The JAB manager came to SF because of relatively high JAB bashing on SF. AAAC seems to have more JAB customers.


I am really surprised a JAB manager has the authority to post on a forum. I wonder if everything has to go through a PR firm.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

David Reeves said:


> I am really surprised a JAB manager has the authority to post on a forum. I wonder if everything has to go through a PR firm.


Good question. I know where I work, my head would be chopped off if I posted in the name of my company without getting prior written approval from Corporate Communications.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

SF: Apparently, predominantly spendthrift, hedonistic punks (fancying themselves clever johnnies) sporting plastic-financed slim suits and pointy-toed shoes or whatever the current group-think trend. Urban youts. Lots of noise, lacking in substance considering its volume. More compulsive BS posters. There are not a few posters with 5000+ posts per year over several years, not all gems. "Gossip Girl" viewers. Lame efforts at novelty, a few exceptions notwithstanding. One doesn't have to be a prude to find it crude. A verbal Sodom and Gommorah.

AAAC: Probably predominantly dads with responsibilities and 401Ks. Relatively restrained and somewhat basic. The 'burbs. Criticized elsewhere for its tolerance of "practical" shoes and a dad's budget clothing discussion. Is there anything in the charter regarding its perceived function by an occassional poster as a venue for the discussion of "fine" men's clothing? Family values oriented, though sometimes surprisingly argumentative over wasting assets.

Some bemoan AAAC's devolution. It would appear a majority of those earlier AAAC contributors considered connoisseurs/cognocenti, oft objects of nostalgia, have shared their information and/or wisdom and moved on, not redundant via compulsion. Perchance they're broke? Upscale retailers aren't exactly flourshing and mid-decade was a period of illusionary prosperity. Certainly few are @ SF and those few considered elite are referenced ad infinitum when this subject arises. There's always LL, or is there?


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*A Peaceful Coexistence?*

OK folks, so this thread got me to give Styleforum another chance a few months ago. Let me share what I've learned.

1. Especially in the WAYWN thread, SF has a far more diverse posting population, with far greater numbers. We over here have started an upswing in that dept lately but can not compete with the sheer amount of posts over there. To be honest, I've learned quite a bit (not so much about clothing and wearing it but) about photography. A better picture makes your clothes look that much better on the thread, and I think you can see the difference in _my_ WAYWN posts from a year ago, to now. We over here tend to be more conservative, however SF also has their share of conservatives as well, some are gracious, and some are prats. At AAAC, I'm glad to say we have far fewer of the latter.

2. There are a few poster over there who have some sort of cult status, one being MaFooFan, a poster here as well. The board is filled with threads about him. They also have a gentleman by the moniker "vox" whose wardrobe, advice, and wit are second to no one. His shoe collection alone is probably worth more than my home. His wardrobe would fit in well here, but I think his personality, unfortunately, wouldn't be tolerated, which is our loss, because he really is a bastion of knowledge on bespoke tailoring and men's clothing all around.

3. There are far too many spam threads that pop up on SF...thankfully, we have been left out of that.

4. There is a far greater number of ethnically diverse posters there. We basically are a bunch of "white guys" (for lack of a better term) posting on our forum from the US and the UK. Over there there are quite a few Asian-American, and SE Asian posters from HK, Australia, China, and Korea...I haven't noticed many Japanese though oddly enough. There are also a few more continental Europeans posting there as well, a few from the Benelux region. Our own Vic from Lisbon is one of our few regular Continentals, and his style is very much inline with the British look. Video doesn't post enough to be considered a "regular", but aside from them, I find our continentals few and far between.

5. I stand by my first thought months ago that some posters in their WAYWT thread can be rude, crude, and nasty at times. They could easily run off new posters whose skin is not as thick, and thats too bad, because it prevents them from becoming even more popular. Here, we tend to be a bit more civil with the looks we don't like, but as one poster in WAYWN pointed out, we appear to be a bunch off good guys, and friends. We do get an edge there.

All in all, if you can stand the nasty comments, and crude references, a lot can be learned by taking a peek over at SF, but in conjunction with whats going on over here, because a lot can be learned aat AAAC as well.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I post in both, but I write differently there. There I can write younger. Here I write old. I am old, but I'm not that fond of living up to it.​


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

jamgood said:


> SF: Apparently, predominantly spendthrift, hedonistic punks (fancying themselves clever johnnies) sporting plastic-financed slim suits and pointy-toed shoes or whatever the current group-think trend. Urban youts. Lots of noise, lacking in substance considering its volume. More compulsive BS posters. There are not a few posters with 5000+ posts per year over several years, not all gems. "Gossip Girl" viewers. Lame efforts at novelty, a few exceptions notwithstanding. One doesn't have to be a prude to find it crude. A verbal Sodom and Gommorah.


I don't think that's quite fair.
ic12337:


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> 2. There are a few poster over there who have some sort of cult status, one being MaFooFan, a poster here as well. The board is filled with threads about him. They also have a gentleman by the moniker "vox" whose wardrobe, advice, and wit are second to no one. His shoe collection alone is probably worth more than my home. His wardrobe would fit in well here, but I think his personality, unfortunately, wouldn't be tolerated, which is our loss, because he really is a bastion of knowledge on bespoke tailoring and men's clothing all around.


Vox makes SF worth reading.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

jamgood said:


> SF: Apparently, predominantly spendthrift, hedonistic punks (fancying themselves clever johnnies) sporting plastic-financed slim suits and pointy-toed shoes or whatever the current group-think trend. Urban youts. Lots of noise, lacking in substance considering its volume. More compulsive BS posters. There are not a few posters with 5000+ posts per year over several years, not all gems. "Gossip Girl" viewers. Lame efforts at novelty, a few exceptions notwithstanding. One doesn't have to be a prude to find it crude. A verbal Sodom and Gommorah.
> 
> AAAC: Probably predominantly dads with responsibilities and 401Ks. Relatively restrained and somewhat basic. The 'burbs. Criticized elsewhere for its tolerance of "practical" shoes and a dad's budget clothing discussion. Is there anything in the charter regarding its perceived function by an occassional poster as a venue for the discussion of "fine" men's clothing? Family values oriented, though sometimes surprisingly argumentative over wasting assets.
> 
> Some bemoan AAAC's devolution. It would appear a majority of those earlier AAAC contributors considered connoisseurs/cognocenti, oft objects of nostalgia, have shared their information and/or wisdom and moved on, not redundant via compulsion. Perchance they're broke? Upscale retailers aren't exactly flourshing and mid-decade was a period of illusionary prosperity. Certainly few are @ SF and those few considered elite are referenced ad infinitum when this subject arises. There's always LL, or is there?


Also, AAAC has the dedicated "Bespoke" subforum


----------



## pkincy (Feb 9, 2006)

dopey said:


> Also, AAAC has the dedicated "Bespoke" subforum


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## comrade (May 26, 2005)

Also, for whatever reason, at least in the Bay Area, Style
Forum has frequent meet-ups where one may put a face
to poster and actually discuss non-style subjects. It
also provides an opportunity for those of us who care
about clothes to meet in the sartorial wasteland of California
to focus on style.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Does KitonBrioni post at SF?


----------



## LD111134 (Dec 21, 2007)

Yes he does.


----------



## phillyesq (Dec 9, 2008)

I started reading and posting at SF, primarily because I found that site first. I lurked for a while at AAAC, and only recently starting posting. 

I find that my sense of style (and decorum) is much more aligned with AAAC than it is with styleforum. For the most part, I like Brooks Brothers and Allen Edmonds. Not every article from each company, but most of what I wear comes from either BB or AE. On SF, that makes me low brow and out of fashion. Especially becuase I (gasp!) will wear the BB Madison suits, and not just the Regent or Fitzgerald cuts. 

While I don't like a lot of what is part of the standard group think on SF, I've learned a lot over there as well. As some have pointed out, there are more posters at SF. With that quantity of posters, there is certainly some good information to be found. I don't agree with all of the tastes at SF, but I have learned a lot.

I have also learned quite a bit at AAAC. I find a lot of the advice here to be much more practical. I have a certain threshold for spending on clothing, and the brands favored and discussed on AAAC seem eminently more practical than those discussed on SF.

I will likely continue to read and post on both forums, but overall, I think that I favor AAAC. If AAAC had more posters, it would be a slam dunk.


----------



## Pale Male (Mar 24, 2008)

*We're living through a Golden Age of Comedy...*

at Style Forum. Interestingly, Vox was not funny here.

If the choices are "Ask xxxxx About Clothes" or " Please, Please, Pay Attention to ME, Vox" I go with the latter every time. And as I roar with laughter, I learn a lot, too.

Full disclosure: Vox doesn't even know I'm alive. Poor Me.

NO NEED TO SLAM INDIVIDUAL POSTERS BY NAME

forsbergacct2000


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

RJman said:


> I don't think that's quite fair.
> ic12337:


We hold these truths to be self evident. A wee pinch of hyperbole for emphasis, perhaps.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

dopey said:


> Also, AAAC has the dedicated "Bespoke" subforum


The Crowning Glory

A cherry atop the sartorial sundae that is AAAC.

Not sub, super

One can only press one's impoverished rural rustic urchin's nose against yon portal's pane and wistfully wonder in bedazzlement at the visual and informational feast that is the artisanal cornucopia which lies within. Ooooooh!, the envious frustration, the raiment lust which burns unquenched by approved tailors' visits to the Trade'n'Post down the holler which might, just might, qualify one's entre, subject to Med's dreaded black ball. Unclubbable, yet again. Destined to wander burdened by imperfectly fitting off the peg, spat upon by toffs.


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

I read both for a while, but at this point I only have so much time to read the different boards I frequent each day and I have little tolerance for the tone of a lot of the discourse over at SF.


----------



## Zon Jr. (May 20, 2009)

jamgood said:


> The Crowning Glory
> 
> A cherry atop the sartorial sundae that is AAAC.
> 
> ...


Good Heavens sir, you have a way with the pen! What a treat, in this day and age of texting and email and acronym, that you take time to exercise your intelligence and write our beautiful language the way it was meant to be written! Good job, sir--keep it up!


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

jamgood said:


> The Crowning Glory
> 
> A cherry atop the sartorial sundae that is AAAC.
> 
> ...


Kav? Is that you?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*more lists than posts, sadly*



xcubbies said:


> Does KitonBrioni post at SF?


Every now and then he is a discussion topic, which epitomizes to me that things are actually examined with open thought over there. Here we are so stifled by notions of gentility that such an enigma persists without real comment.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> As I see it:
> 
> AA: Traditional, conservative, mostly focused on affordable clothing these days. Great fondness for "good value" makes such as AE and Joseph A. Bank. Much less discussion of bespoke and higher-end clothing than there used to be. Emphasis is usually on propriety and dressing in a subdued, reserved fashion. Has a tolerance for dressing like a '40s gangster, but not for Thom Browne.
> 
> SF: Trendier, rowdier, younger, more upscale and more diverse in terms of styles represented. Members love a bargain. Whereas AA seems to like brands that can be had regularly at low prices, SFers will chase after the latest high-end supersale, even if it backfires on them. Can be a bit of a boy's club, with a rough-and-tumble atmosphere that must sometimes seem impenetrable to more bashful newcomers. Discussions of high-end bespoke sit next to threads about the latest thrift-shop find. Overall, much more eclectic than AA, and less conspicuously mannered.


A very good description Doc.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> I miss your posts, too, Medwards. Please post more.


+1. Great knowledge and well said replies.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

The sheer volume of threads at SF is a bit much for me.

I still read it frequently, but I think it has more "typical internet forum"-type stuff going on than happens here. Stuff like lifestyle discussions, posters almost having online friendships, inside jokes, conservative/libertarian political discussions.
Much of that, like the discussion and the jokes, are very good (and you can certainly get sucked in, and entertained by them) but thats not really what I go online to do.

There's some poster there who really seem to know their stuff. Guy's that, if I see their name on a started thread I'll click (I really like threads by "Manton" and "Maloffan"), but sometimes you have to wade through pages of confusing inside jokes and refences to other threads to get at the interesting bits.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Every now and then he is a discussion topic, which epitomizes to me that things are actually examined with open thought over there. Here we are so stifled by notions of gentility that such an enigma persists without real comment.


Well put, I think KB and the reaction to him, migh epitomize the difference between the two sites.

For example, where politeness is encouraged, we ignore this 500-lb gorilla that is always present in the WAYWN threads (aside: I believe Gorilla may in fact be one of the exotic skins represented in Kiton Brinoi's boot collection).
Where's there, people seem to have more fun with the oddness of it.

Having said that, I'm much more comfortable posting my own WAYWN pictures here, after seeing responses like that to KB, whereas at styleforum, I'm to afraid I'd be cleverly mocked, and corrected.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> Well put, I think KB and the reaction to him, migh epitomize the difference between the two sites.
> 
> For example, where politeness is encouraged, we ignore this 500-lb gorilla that is always present in the WAYWN threads (aside: I believe Gorilla may in fact be one of the exotic skins represented in Kiton Brinoi's boot collection).
> Where's there, people seem to have more fun with the oddness of it.
> ...


You're ignoring the fact that the SW&D section and the Men's Clothing section of Style Forum are entirely different in groupthink. That thread would have never appeared in the latter unless it was sarcastic. The two forums might share a url, but they are as different as Huntsman and J. Press.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I post on and enjoy both sites, though the frequency of my visits and level of participation on AAAC is far more extensive. The depth of discussions on AAAC seems greater and the socialization of participants on AAAC is more apparent...we do seem to play better, together, than is to be witnessed on SF. Meaning no disrespect to either party, a good analogy for comparison of the two cited cybercultures on clothing forums is like comparing conversations that might be overheard in a boy's locker room, before and after gym class, to those that occur between gentlemen, sitting in overstuffed, leather armchairs at the local men's club! Now, where did I put that damn cup(!)?


----------



## Politely (May 8, 2008)

I like both and read both regularly, although I post more at AA (mostly because it can be difficult to get a word in edgewise at SF). I agree with most of the sentiments posted, but here's a few personal observations:

. with respect to wealth, AA'ers are apt to be reserved about displaying wealth and SF'ers are apt to be conspicuous, but I suspect that AA'ers are generally better off than SF'ers (which generally seems to be a much younger demographic) even if SF'ers are willing to spend more;

. the core level of information I think is fairly similar, if different in focus at times;

. many posts (and posters) at SF are not credible, and much of the "advice" there needs to be taken with a grain of salt 

. SF has a greater diversity of opinion, and if you're looking to do something stupid or shady, you are much more likely find someone(s) to support you at SF :icon_smile:;

. SF is usually more fun and has a great B&S section, but scrolling through pages of "+1"s, three word posts and random JPGs gets tiresome, especially if you're looking for information as opposed to internet banter.

. AA is to SF as:
classroom is to playground
department store is to bazaar
boxing match is to barroom brawl
sobriety is to drunkenness
Dear Abby is to Dan Savage (or NYT is to The Onion)


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

I haven't looked at it for months. I'm free. This one's next.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Politely said:


> . AA is to SF as:
> classroom is to playground
> department store is to bazaar
> boxing match is to barroom brawl
> ...


I had been thinking more like golf vs. street hockey (both of which I play or at least have played, my hockey days being long over, and enjoyed), but I see your point.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Politely said:


> AA is to SF as:
> (or NYT is to The Onion)


I'm not so sure that I wouldn't take The Onion more seriously than the NYT. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

i enjoy both. if everyone was the same, what a boring world this would be.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

vs


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

A bit OT, but IMO one of the prettiest streets I've ever seen is Pall Mall late on a clear day. The way the slanting rays of a setting sun light up those creamy facades from the west is something to behold.

An interesting little historical side note, assuming that this George Smith fellow is correct:

https://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_MY_P_I/0_my_photographs_london_monopoly_pall_mall_1mk29.htm

Execution Dock at Wapping was where Captain Kidd was hanged by the Admiralty in 1701. He was drunk and the rope broke, but (contrary to what works of fiction sometimes say about this circumstance) the rope breaking didn't get him off, just strung up again.


----------



## Geoff Gander (Apr 4, 2007)

I agree with many of the comparisons made here. SF is the sort of place where people shoot from the hip (and you'd better be prepared to shoot back, or develop a thick skin). Certain high-end and/or trendy brands seem to be worshipped for being what they are (witness the "stuff SF overrates" thread), and the membership seems to be younger, more diverse, and single. I would even go as far as to classify some of the members as consummate sartorialists - to the exclusion of other things in life. If SF were a locale, it would be a downtown loft at midnight with techno music blasting your eardums, filled with upscale supermodels, rockstars, and fashonistas. With balmoral boots.

AAAC is quieter, more restrained. Members tend to be whiter and older, but the overall tone is far more family-friendly here (not just in terms of language, but also due to the fact that more members seem to be parents here). If AAAC were a locale, it would be a gentlemen's club on a sunny afternoon, with sherry and port, soft music in the background, and murmured conversation. With Aldens and AEs.

Each forum has its place, IMO.


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

Geoff Gander said:


> I agree with many of the comparisons made here. SF is the sort of place where people shoot from the hip (and you'd better be prepared to shoot back, or develop a thick skin). Certain high-end and/or trendy brands seem to be worshipped for being what they are (witness the "stuff SF overrates" thread), and the membership seems to be younger, more diverse, and single. I would even go as far as to classify some of the members as consummate sartorialists - to the exclusion of other things in life. If SF were a locale, it would be a downtown loft at midnight with techno music blasting your eardums, filled with upscale supermodels, rockstars, and fashonistas. With balmoral boots.
> 
> AAAC is quieter, more restrained. Members tend to be whiter and older, but the overall tone is far more family-friendly here (not just in terms of language, but also due to the fact that more members seem to be parents here). If AAAC were a locale, it would be a gentlemen's club on a sunny afternoon, with sherry and port, soft music in the background, and murmured conversation. With Aldens and AEs.
> 
> Each forum has its place, IMO.


Keen observation and good analogy.


----------



## chim12 (Aug 28, 2009)

AA is more civilized, I just came over from SF... the one thing I can say about SF that's a positive is that if you ask for an opinion you'll get lots and very quickly at that. You do need a thick skin but you will come away with feedback as requested. You don't neccessarily get the same here, at least not with nearly the same speed.


----------



## Bflotom2 (Feb 14, 2006)

As a lurker for a long time I have seen a positive shift here at AAAF vs. SF. Previously this forum was deeply involved with bespoke and $1000 "goat leather" driving gloves. It has always been a very civil site but one which by design or not excluded regular participation by the likes of wearers of Florshine or JSBanks. This recent shift has made the forum very welcoming and enjoyable to read.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

As a recent arrival to both, I see both positive and negative aspects of each, but I find both are far better than the impressions left of the other on each forum.

AA may be more kind to a new member as they find their footing, but I've seen far worse hazing than on SF.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Orsini said:


> I haven't looked at it for months. I'm free. This one's next.


Nobody's stopping you. 

You and others have complained about "declining standards" here for so long yet keep coming back... is it really _that_ bad because people no longer talk about Kiton and Oxxford all the time? I keep wondering why the members who are so offended by the "shift in direction" here don't just create more informative threads like the ones they miss.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Nobody's stopping you.
> 
> You and others have complained about "declining standards" here for so long yet keep coming back... is it really _that_ bad because people no longer talk about Kiton and Oxxford all the time?


No, it's not so bad, I suppose. The forum just serves a different function than it did. But naturally some of us who enjoyed it for what it used to offer -- one of the best discussions of higher-end men's clothing online -- will miss what we had.



> I keep wondering why the members who are so offended by the "shift in direction" here don't just create more informative threads like the ones they miss.


As the bespoke forum experiment shows, it takes a certain critical mass of posters with a shared interest to created an interesting, sustainable discussion. Beyond that, I don't want to create "informative" threads so much as learn interesting things I don't already know. There's nothing wrong -- at all -- with threads on the basics or on common brands such as Lands' End or Jos. A. Bank. But it used to be that such threads stood side-by-side with talk of bespoke, high-end RTW, and esoteric niche brands. As such, we had a two-tiered system, where there was information of benefit for newcomers but also enough of value to keep the more experienced folks coming back. That, to me, was an ideal setup -- a healthy mix of those looking for basic information and folks who were well qualified to answer their questions.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Politely said:


> AA is to SF as:
> (NYT is to The Onion)


I respectfully disagree. AA is much more credible than SF.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

It's weird for me to think that there are probably hundreds of thousands of forums/boards out there, each with it's own culture and attitude.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I don't think you can make a direct comparison as a whole of SF with AAAC since SF since to have much more diverse subforums. For example, SF has a fairly active denim forum. Despite some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth from some here about talk of denim, there really is limited interest in it as a discussion topic here unlike at SF. 

If you just compare Andy's Fashion Forum with SF's Clothing Forum, they really are quite similar. As I type this there are 350 people viewing the SF Clothing Forum and 353 viewing this forum.

They also appear similar as far as discussion topics. Some of the topics being bandied about today on SF include things like frayed collars; does this look OK; do I need chukkas; Banana Republic suits; and 100 percent polyester suits. Certainly nothing that one could say is more sophisticated or high end than what is discussed here. 

If there is a difference in the content, it seems that they are a little nastier and more insulting to each other in SF. For those who enjoy this sort of thing I'm sure SF has more appeal. I guess that is the joy of the internet. There is something out there for everyone. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## foodguy (Feb 6, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> If there is a difference in the content, it seems that they are a little nastier and more insulting to each other in SF.
> 
> Cruiser


I don't know ... i'm new to both forums, but i've gotta say that i've found more nasty reactions on AAAC than on SF. SF is definitely rowdier, but AAAC sometimes seems openly contemptuous of anything that doesn't fit the group think. it feels a little bit like crashing some pretty exclusive (in the bad sense) country club. i keep coming back because, quite frankly, though I admire them immensely, i'm not yet at the point where i'm willing to spend for bespoke or rubinacci and in a lot of cases, the discussions here of LE, BB, etc., work for me on a more practical level. It's just that I don't think they are the exclusive end-all be-all.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

foodguy said:


> I don't know ... i'm new to both forums, but i've gotta say that i've found more nasty reactions on AAAC than on SF. SF is definitely rowdier, but AAAC sometimes seems openly contemptuous of anything that doesn't fit the group think. it feels a little bit like crashing some pretty exclusive (in the bad sense) country club. i keep coming back because, quite frankly, though I admire them immensely, i'm not yet at the point where i'm willing to spend for bespoke or rubinacci and in a lot of cases, the discussions here of LE, BB, etc., work for me on a more practical level. It's just that I don't think they are the exclusive end-all be-all.


Please don't feel intimidated by SF. While there's plenty of talk of bespoke and such, it sits right next to threads about thrift-shop finds. Most folks there are out for a bargain, and the forum is all about stretching the budget and finding good deals. That's one of the big differences in SF and AA, as I see it: AA these days tends toward stuff that can be purchased inexpensively at retail, while SF is more willing to do the legwork (and take the risk) to find the next great score.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Jovan said:


> Nobody's stopping you.
> 
> You and others have complained about "declining standards" here for so long yet keep coming back... is it really _that_ bad because people no longer talk about Kiton and Oxxford all the time? I keep wondering why the members who are so offended by the "shift in direction" here don't just create more informative threads like the ones they miss.


 Charming, as always. Back on the list!


----------

