# British style



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I'd like this thread to include links to photos of British men in, dare I say, "traditional British " clothing. Or in other words that which is considered as British style and class.

Now by that I don't just mean photos of men in tweeds, hacking jackets and plus fours :icon_smile_wink:, but in traditional town and country and traditional business and casual wear. 
Also traditional college and uni wear, both worn in an out of educational institutions. 
But please can we avoid the minefields of both "street wear" and formal wear (both day and evening).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

A nice illustration showing a covert coat exactly the same as mine. Note absence of velvet collar, the 4 lines of stitching on hem and cuffs, and the sloping pockets.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Wbd-uMYm...ABgY/SciG5mUUBnc/s400/fellows+covert+coat.jpg

John Lydon (the artist formerly known as Johnny Rotten) hamming it up as the country squire for a butter advert. Note, last button on waistcoat! https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/29/article-0-0270C8F900000578-31_468x585.jpg

Two MCC members - Note what I consider to be the garish MCC tie and brolly! 
https://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0akjdfF5lweYH/610x.jpg


----------



## clemsontiger (Jun 9, 2007)

The gentlemen on the left in the first picture reminds me of South Carolina.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Are Johnny Rotten's boots factory seconds?


----------



## Zingari (Jul 9, 2007)

Here's a traditional British look:


----------



## Zingari (Jul 9, 2007)

And another:


----------



## Leon (Apr 16, 2005)

Saw a girl wearing a bowler hat on the tube yesterday...

Leon


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Leon said:


> Saw a girl wearing a bowler hat on the tube yesterday...
> 
> Leon


Women in men's hats, that's just very sexy!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

For the record, the building in the background in the 40s illustration is St.James Palace on Pall Mall, easily identified by its very distinctive crenellated tower and clock and the position of the archway.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Pink and fuschia were obviously the colour of the week for ties when this photo was taken.
https://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/011GbSObnRfKn/610x.jpg


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

*Three Kings!*

Well I never, turnups on uniform trousers...
https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3249/3144376268_da9e7c55a0_o.jpg


----------



## Zingari (Jul 9, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well I never, turnups on uniform trousers...
> https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3249/3144376268_da9e7c55a0_o.jpg


Very unusual for RAF but expected for some cavalry regiments. Then again they both ended up as Kings of England!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I think they look quite smart, especially with no break like that.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I think they look quite smart, especially with no break like that.


A break on trousers in the UK is very uncommon anyway. Although the PoW's are perilously close to "flood warning" length! 
George's are at least touching his shoes.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Oh? I heard men have just as much a problem with "bagging" as in the US. That is, having far too much fabric at their shoe. I prefer a slight break or none.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Oh? I heard men have just as much a problem with "bagging" as in the US. That is, having far too much fabric at their shoe. I prefer a slight break or none.


No, not really. Not in my experience anyway. I very rarely saw anyone in civvies or uniform with a break that went beyond say, a half inch. And defintiely not baggy. I'm talking about late 70s, 80s and 90s now.

When I moved to Sweden in 96, I got a fair bit of stick from tailors and other Swedes for the "very British, too short, non-European" length of my trousers, as one tailor put it when he was fitting me for a suit. So since then I've had a slight break.


----------



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

Earl of Ormonde said:


> A break on trousers in the UK is very uncommon anyway. Although the PoW's are perilously close to "flood warning" length!
> George's are at least touching his shoes.


I certainly haven't noticed this.

The UK is a sartorial conundrum to me, there are those with great style, as seen in this thread, and there is a higher level of formality as a whole (far more men in ties, and suits).

But that's coupled with a society that's more receptive to fashion, particularly when it's sold in cheap high street stores.
So you get more men in suits, but they're really cheap, fashion-forward garish ones from H&M and Topshop two years ago (usually too long in the trousers), accompanied with disgusting square toed faux leather shoes.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> I certainly haven't noticed this.
> 
> So you get more men in suits, but they're really cheap, fashion-forward garish ones from H&M and Topshop two years ago (usually too long in the trousers), accompanied with disgusting square toed faux leather shoes.


Perhaps you're right. Perhaps standards have dropped in the UK.

I saw a photo earlier today, I'll se if I can find it again, and of all the men in suits, whose fronts you could see, most of them were tieless; and in support of what you say, in ill-fitting suits.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Here it is: https://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200709/r173850_657834.jpg

Look at the tieless chap in the light gray suit directly under ST. It looks like he's borrowed the suit from someone who's six inches taller with much longer arms and a much broader and deeper body.

And look at the tieless chap on the other side, whose face you can't see, talking to one of the blue shirted staff - his jacket looks like it's falling off him it's so big.

The only person in this photo approximaitng anything near style is the chap on the far left, holding the mobile phone, nice cut, good fit.
Spoiled however not by the lack of a tie but by what is probably keys in his left trouser pocket.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Not sure, that shirt with that kilt Charles, bit garish, don't you think old boy? https://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/slideshow/the_prince_in_pictures/images/charles_in_kilt.jpg


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not sure, that shirt with that kilt Charles, bit garish, don't you think old boy? https://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/slideshow/the_prince_in_pictures/images/charles_in_kilt.jpg


Mixing checks is a royal prerogative going back to the earlier POW(DOW)


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Am I the only one who thinks posting British Style on the Trad Forum is similar to expecting a great steak at a restaurant known for seafood? Unless I missed something I thought the intent of the Trad Forum was to celebrate Traditional Natural Shoulder Ivy League(TINSL) clothing?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Literide said:


> Mixing checks is a royal prerogative going back to the earlier POW(DOW)


That's as maybe dear boy, but the EoO would never do so! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

Brooksfan said:


> Am I the only one who thinks posting British Style on the Trad Forum is similar to expecting a great steak at a restaurant known for seafood? Unless I missed something I thought the intent of the Trad Forum was to celebrate Traditional Natural Shoulder Ivy League(TINSL) clothing?


To me trad is about traditional clothing. If not then why to people comlain when KitonBrioni posts on the WAYWT forum, but not Sir Royston? How exclusive do you want to be?


----------



## Clay J (Apr 29, 2008)

So is the new term going to be trab? or trabr? we need to get this out of the way early on you know...


----------



## cravat (Feb 8, 2009)

My vote is for BriTrad. I prefer the Jermyn Street/Saville Row look to the American Trad for my personal fit and style, but I like both, and I think it perfectly fits into this forum. After all, where else could we go? Certainly not to the fashion forum where fashion forward takes precedence over style.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Brooksfan said:


> Am I the only one who thinks posting British Style on the Trad Forum is similar to expecting a great steak at a restaurant known for seafood? Unless I missed something I thought the intent of the Trad Forum was to celebrate Traditional Natural Shoulder Ivy League(TINSL) clothing?


My idea for this thread was inspired by the Anglo-Trad discussion a couple of weeks ago on this forum and I see it as a natural progression of that.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

My vote, inspired by Brit-pop and wanting to avoid the word trad, because I think trad is a bit of a misnomer anyway, even for US trad, would be Brit-clad.:icon_smile:


----------



## cravat (Feb 8, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My vote, inspired by Brit-pop and wanting to avoid the word trad, because I think trad is a bit of a misnomer anyway, even for US trad, would be Brit-clad.:icon_smile:


Agreed. I think this is done.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

See you around, then. It's been nice but time to move on.


----------



## Zingari (Jul 9, 2007)

Is there an American trad or is it American style? Personally clothing cut in a traditional way doesn't become dated. 

Despite some of my tailoring being over 50 years old it is not out of 'step' within certain town and country circles.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

cravat said:


> My vote is for BriTrad. I prefer the Jermyn Street/Saville Row look to the American Trad for my personal fit and style, but I like both, and I think it perfectly fits into this forum. After all, where else could we go? Certainly not to the fashion forum where fashion forward takes precedence over style.


Isn't the British look what they talk about over at the London Lounge?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Brooksfan said:


> See you around, then. It's been nice but time to move on.


What just happened here?


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

katon said:


> Isn't the British look what they talk about over at the London Lounge?


No, all types of styles are discussed on the LL. Also great articles, with illustrations, about Apparel Arts


----------



## DixieTrad (Dec 9, 2006)

*Trad Highjack*



Jovan said:


> What just happened here?


It appears that some of us do not appreciate a highjack of this forum by a pompous a** who dubs himself "Earl of Ormonde".


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Whoa, I didn't even notice this was in the Trad Forum. I just look at threads that are under "New Posts" and barely pay any mind to where they are located.

I think it should be moved.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Brooksfan said:


> Am I the only one who thinks posting British Style on the Trad Forum is similar to expecting a great steak at a restaurant known for seafood? Unless I missed something I thought the intent of the Trad Forum was to celebrate Traditional Natural Shoulder Ivy League(TINSL) clothing?


No, you are not alone. I'm no purist. This forum should be a great place to talk about different approaches to the traditional shoulder style which includes different ways that could be combined with different traditions including the British.

This thread, however, was started with a post saying that they want a purist thread in the British style uncluttered by American Trad looks. Obviously, this is not only the wrong forum for such a thread, but exactly the wrong forum. Why have a thread in the American Trad forum that excludes American Trad looks (Besides being obnoxious, that is)?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

katon said:


> Isn't the British look what they talk about over at the London Lounge?


No idea.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Could a moderator please move or delete this thread then. I thought there was room for it on the trad forum, but clearly not.

I'll just remember to be as zealous every time anyone in the future starts a thread on the Fashion Forum about trouser cuffs & pleats, sack suits, waistcoats, loafers, homburgs etc. etc.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

DixieTrad said:


> It appears that some of us do not appreciate a highjack of this forum by a pompous a** who dubs himself "Earl of Ormonde".


Moderators, this is totally uncalled for. I don't appreciate that kind of tone at all.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

DixieTrad said:


> It appears that some of us do not appreciate a highjack of this forum by a pompous a** who dubs himself "Earl of Ormonde".


Ah, the hard man attitude of the new member! Always a good laugh!

Well, for your information DixieChick, registered on AAAC are 19 Lords, 2 Counts, 1 Marquis, 5, Princes, 2 Earls, 6 Kings, and 10 Dukes. Including the Duke of Wellington and the Duke of Kent.
One of the Lords who is a friend of mine in the real world is a real Lord, and that is his real title, however he rarely posts here.

Now do you want to PM them all and call them all pompous asses yourself or shall I do it for you? 
Yet you call me a pompous ass without ever having encountered me prior to this thread....curious!

A user name is a user name, get some perspective! 
Or maybe the person posting as Count Basie really is the late great Count Basie..wow...back from the dead to post on AAAC!


----------



## Spats (Dec 3, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Moderators, this is totally uncalled for. I don't appreciate that kind of tone at all.


Welcome to the deep south! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Spats said:


> Welcome to the deep south! :icon_smile_big:


Thanks Spats. But I'm sure you chaps down there in the Lone Star Republic aren't that rude.:icon_smile:

Obviously a different breed over there in Dixieland!

I have a friend from Georgia (Now living in one of the Carolinas) and he conducts himself as a Gentleman. I like to think it was the influence of the UK and Germany on him when he was serving over here with the US Army Provost in the early 90s, when I met him.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

For being self-styled Southern Gentlemen, some of them can be pretty damn rude on any given occasion.


----------



## DixieTrad (Dec 9, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ah, the hard man attitude of the new member! Always a good laugh!
> 
> Well, for your information DixieChick, registered on AAAC are 19 Lords, 2 Counts, 1 Marquis, 5, Princes, 2 Earls, 6 Kings, and 10 Dukes. Including the Duke of Wellington and the Duke of Kent.
> One of the Lords who is a friend of mine in the real world is a real Lord, and that is his real title, however he rarely posts here.
> ...


Member status is determined by the number of posts, not length of membership. I have been around for some time. I do not post often, and do not make it habit to bump posts, as you are apt to do.

My comment regarding a "pompous a**" is not so much about your username, but more about one who bumps posts, attempts to hijack a forum, and appears to know little about the subject matter while attempting to appear an expert.

IF you made any effort to understand the nature of this forum, you would understand that this is a forum dedicated to TNSIL, not to "English Trad".

As I have stated in the past, it is of no concern what some wanker in the UK thinks about my reputation as a gentleman. Yes, we are Southern gentleman, but we also call it as we see it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Ah, very good, what a clever little boy you are, you can say "wanker"! Now run along and do the rest of your homework!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gentlemen: It is time that we attempt to apply the good manners our mamas worked so hard to teach us and drop the personal attacks! Now let's talk about clothes?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I think it's too late for that Eagle, Dixie has already destroyed the thread. 

And others feel its presence on this forum as some kind of threat or invasion. So I've totally lost interest in carrying on the discussion I'd hoped would develop. 

Like I said before, can a moderator please kill it?


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

Seeing as Im given an honourable mention in this thread I thought I may as well get involved!!

Earl of Ormonde you are entirely correct and right to discuss here and as for the rude people out there. please refrain from you obscenities.. keep them to you local neighborhood (sic) where I'm sure you are highly respected (!)
RBH


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I agree, but I think this thread should be moved if it is to continue. Yes, it IS traditional clothing, but this forum is focused on a specific set of American traditional clothing. Let them have their space and let it go. The Fashion Forum isn't necessarily about fashion-_forward_ clothing either as has been implied, just anything else that doesn't fit into the Trad Forum.


----------



## Beefeater (Jun 2, 2007)

*Observation*

I'm no saint, but this forum hasn't strictly been about _TNSIL_ for some time now. I think there's room for all opinions, but let's be honest about what it is. Look at the threads on jeans, "is this trad", etc. Again, just an observation. . .FNB has some very compelling criticism on this point.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

So, I assume that my attire doesnt fit into the "Trad" basket???

Maybe we need to have a thread called "Trad but not in any way traditional" and another called " Traditional and by that we actually mean traditional and not Jeans and trainers"


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Regarding the compatibility of this thread with the forum in which it resides, sufficient latitude must be allowed for a reasonable discussion of the issues raised. While personal attacks should be avoided, differing opinions can be a good thing and can certainly add an element of animation to the ongoing discussion! Let us try to not take ourselves too seriously. Sir Royston, yours is a splendid look!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Sir Royston said:


> So, I assume that my attire doesnt fit into the "Trad" basket???
> 
> Maybe we need to have a thread called "Trad but not in any way traditional" and another called " Traditional and by that we actually mean traditional and not Jeans and trainers"


You sir, yes sir, YOU sir, are a man after my own heart. Bravo, a very fine ensemble.


----------



## wheredidyougetthathat (Mar 26, 2006)

Sir Royston said:


> Maybe we need to have a thread called "Trad but not in any way traditional" and another called " Traditional and by that we actually mean traditional and not Jeans and trainers


Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. "Trad" in this forum is used (see the description alongside the forum title) to mean a very specific style of dress. It is not being used as an abbreviated form of "traditional".

Dhotis, lederhosen, kilts - these are all traditional items of clothing, certainly worthy of discussion but this forum is not the place to discuss traditional clothing.

Clothing that has traditionally been worn by city gents in London or country squires in Loamshire does not - by the same token - belong here either. Not because it is somehow unworthy of discussion, by any means, but simply because it is not "trad" - again, see the brief outline of what "trad" means - _in this context -_ that can be found alongside the forum title.

There are numerous posts on British style(s) in the main forum. Anyone is very welcome to add to those discussions or to start new ones there.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

I love these forums.. It never ceases to amaze me how lively discussion always turns into full on attacks and vitriol!!


I could say what colour is Orange and end up with people arguing about it
(For the record is Green!!)

RBH
Having a mad day


----------



## ardbeg1977 (Jan 16, 2009)

Sir Royston said:


> I love these forums.. It never ceases to amaze me how lively discussion always turns into full on attacks and vitriol!!
> 
> I could say what colour is Orange and end up with people arguing about it
> (For the record is Green!!)
> ...


Sir Roy--_Puh-lease! _Orange is clearly purple, not green.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

ardbeg1977 said:


> Sir Roy--_Puh-lease! _Orange is clearly purple, not green.


Oh come on.. its clear to everyone thats is Blue with White spots

hehe


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I think it's pretty clear than the colour is aqua... striped with gold.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

That will teach me to be flippant won't it!!


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

*By the great Ronald Searle...from Vogue (early 1950s)*


----------



## Drew Bernard (Feb 19, 2009)

wheredidyougetthathat said:


> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. "Trad" in this forum is used (see the description alongside the forum title) to mean a very specific style of dress. It is not being used as an abbreviated form of "traditional".


_"And a New Word ... TRAD ... was coined! It began thus: "Hello to all. I'm Harris. I live in the Northeastern U.S. and tend toward the American Look. Or Trad or whatever you wish to call it. Sack suits, tassel loafers, shetland crewnecks, Harris Tweeds, madras, etc. I am interested in knowing how many forum members have stuck with this look--the J. Press-Brooks-Andover Shop crowd." And now the New Word has a home of its own."_

Why the disconnect? As stated by wheredidyougetthathat, the description of this forum is very clear. Although I'm new to Trad (as a word), I've taken some time to read through many, many pages of posts and have come to the conclusion that this is the style of dress I've grown accustomed to over the years. It's an American look. Yes, there are British influences, and a quick search through the archives reveals many posts here on the Anglo-Ivy or Anglo-Trad connection. But I think that a discussion of British style belongs on the main forum, not the Trad forum.


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

Drew Bernard said:


> _"And a New Word ... TRAD ... was coined! It began thus: "Hello to all. I'm Harris. I live in the Northeastern U.S. and tend toward the American Look. Or Trad or whatever you wish to call it. Sack suits, tassel loafers, shetland crewnecks, Harris Tweeds, madras, etc. I am interested in knowing how many forum members have stuck with this look--the J. Press-Brooks-Andover Shop crowd." And now the New Word has a home of its own."_
> 
> Why the disconnect? As stated by wheredidyougetthathat, the description of this forum is very clear. Although I'm new to Trad (as a word), I've taken some time to read through many, many pages of posts and have come to the conclusion that this is the style of dress I've grown accustomed to over the years. It's an American look. Yes, there are British influences, and a quick search through the archives reveals many posts here on the Anglo-Ivy or Anglo-Trad connection. But I think that a discussion of British style belongs on the main forum, not the Trad forum.


Absolutely. To me Trad is quintessentially American in origin. It may have partially British roots, but the British look is definitely not what is understood here (in America, on AAAC) by Trad. I just posted the above picture cos i like it.


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

*JUST A THOUGHT*

Perhaps a new BritStyle forum is in which to pen all the wayward, Wooster-lovers is in order, once we've herded them back through the hole in the fence. Cmon boy, come by, come by (sounds of sheep in the background)..


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

nicksull said:


> Absolutely. To me Trad is quintessentially American in origin. It may have partially British roots, but the British look is definitely not what is understood here (in America, on AAAC) by Trad. I just posted the above picture cos i like it.


Isn't this why the Revolutionary War was fought? "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the sartorial bands that have connected them with another...." :teacha:


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

norton said:


> Isn't this why the Revolutionary War was fought? "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the sartorial bands that have connected them with another...." :teacha:


I though it was about tea. That's what they taught us at school. Tea and being generallydisagreeable.


----------



## Pale Male (Mar 24, 2008)

*Too, too TRAD...*

Only the most boring, undertailored jackets and tight-fitting trousers cuffed at the ankles are acceptable to the High Priests of the TRAD cult.

Darts, pleats, padding -- no matter how flattering -- are Abominations. Since some bureaucrat decided no excess fabric be used in order to beat Hitler, it must ever after always be so.

Hats -- "Costume"
Polo Coat -- "too Old"
Chesterfield -- "too Right-Wing"
Covert Coat -- "too British"
Aran Sweater -- "too Irish"
Polo RL -- "too Yiddish"
Edw. Green, John Lobb, Peal... -- "too Fancy"
Cashmere -- "too Luxurious"

Of course, I'd rather follow Gary Cooper and Fred Astaire rather than Archibald Cox and Eliot Richardson. And I find the Duffle Coat far too Left-Wing, though temptingly warm. So flay me!


----------

