# Repp / Regimental Ties



## Stede Bonnet (Sep 22, 2010)

Gentlemen:

Pardon me if this topic has been discussed before.

Are there customs, rules, or courtesies associated with wearing neckties with "repp" or regimental patterns? Not that I expect to venture into the Commonwealth Realm anytime soon, but would I be looked at askew for wearing a necktie bearing the colours of the Royal Dragoons or the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, without having a connection to those particular units?

If I saw a gentleman wearing cufflinks with Harvard crests, I would suppose him to be an alumnus, or at the very least be someone loosely affiliated or tied to the university in some way. Yet, based on the ubiquity of regimental necktie patterns, it doesn't appear that anyone cares whether the person wearing it may have "earned" it in some way. I hope I don't have to dispose of the few repp ties that I own - but I wish not to appear as a poseur, either. By the way, if I have made a mistake by using the terms "repp" and "regimental" interchangeably, a correction and brief explanation would be welcome. Thank you.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Why limit this to British military units? What about all of the other nations, including the U.S., with military units that have colors associated with them? For example, the U.S. Navy colors are blue and gold.










And then there are all of the schools and institutions that have official colors. I doubt that there are any colors or combinations of colors that haven't been claimed by some group or organization. Well, maybe not fuchsia. :icon_smile_big:

I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.

Cruiser


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

It would be a serious _faux pas_ in the UK to wear a regimental tie you are not entitled to.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

We've had this discussion many times over the years on this forum, though not recently. The consensus is that, while it's a faux pas in the UK, it's perfectly fine in the US. Ben Silver excepted, repp ties here aren't sold as ties associated with military units. Nobody in the US knows of UK military units or has any kind of patriotic deference for them. Plus, the stripes even go in a different direction, which further distances US ties from UK regimentals. 

The closest we get in the US are the Argyle and Sutherland stripe, which is often sold by that name. But I'd be willing to bet that 80% of the people who know the term don't know it's a British Army unit.

If I were vacationing in the UK and saw a regimental tie pattern I liked, I'd buy it. I wouldn't wear it there, but I'd wear it without a second thought here.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

Repp is the weave that is most associated with regimental ties. Leave the striped ties at home when visiting England unless you can make a claim to your stripes. Wear what you want in the states. Any American old enough to have lived before the INTERNET will tell you that for a good 60 + years no one gave a second thought to wearing a regimental tie. Robert Talbott made a fortune selling them. Feel free to read the other links about this, inevitably they always end up as INTERNET fisticuffs.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

If it is a tie I like, I will wear it. If they associate it with a military unit in the UK, I will congratulate the gentleman for belonging to unit with absolutely good taste. I am not British, and that should be acceptable. End of story.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

My old school has the same stripes and pattern as Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. My GF's school had the same stripe and pattern as the MCC. No one has ever questioned me on mine.


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

As Orgetorix says, we've had this discussion a number of times before, and oftentimes it's gotten (somewhat ridiculously) heated. I agree with the views expressed above: in the US, it doesn't matter.

It reminds me of something my salesman at Press told me. The Japanese owners of Press floated the idea of selling fancy Yale sweaters in the US stores, since such sweaters sold so well in Japan. The US Press salesmen had to tell the Japanese that they would not do as well in the US, because very few people without a strong association with Yale would buy them. Apparently, in Japan no one cares about this, likely because it isn't a Japanese university, and thus the sweaters seem merely to fit in with an "American" look.

It's the same with wearing ties in the US that are associated with UK regiments. Very few will know the difference. So it doesn't matter.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Sir Cingle said:


> It's the same with wearing ties in the US that are associated with UK regiments. Very few will know the difference. So it doesn't matter.


And even if they do know the difference, it still doesn't matter. After all this is the US, not the UK.

Cruiser


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

I always eschew striped ties when in the UK for exactly this reason. While not _every_ combination of colors and stripes has been "claimed" by a regiment/snooty boarding school/cricket team, it's a lot easier just to wear something else rather than to research it. Plus, then you don't have to worry about painting yourself into a corner in which your only unworn tie and clean shirt are both striped, and they looks nutty together. I tend to pack non-striped ties on trips for this reason anyway.

In the US, on the other hand, wear your striped ties with impunity and good cheer. This is a different country, and we do things our way here.

And, yeah, "repp" (or "rep") refers to the fabric rather than the stripes, so if you want to be perfectly accurate, you can call them something else, like "regimental" or - better yet, so far as I'm concerned - "striped." On the other hand, if someone asks you for (or about, or whatever) a "rep" tie, you can pretty safely bet he means a striped tie.

And ... speaking of foreign countries allowing the wanton appropriation of Yale sweaters:

https://www.smartturnout.co.uk/products/knitwear/us-collegiate-jumpers/yale-collegiate-jumper.html


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Wasn't the 2nd war with the British in 1812 over our right to wear any of their regimental stripes we pleased? I'm pretty sure that's what it was about, and we won. Therefore I will wear any regimental tie I please here or there. To the victor go the spoils. Good men gave their all for this right!


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Wait I thought Argyle and Sutherland was a British comedy team!


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

I think they broke up because Argyle could sing and got tired of always being the straight man. One agreed to wear green and red, the other navy and gold.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I've got plenty of striped ties that clearly are not regimental. Avoiding offense is not difficult.

I have this nagging sense that someone once (in a British, understated way) observed that my US-bought A&S sweater was a regimental design. I didn't feel that I was being rebuked (maybe I was too naive), and replied with something like a quizzical, "Oh. Really?" More than a decade passed before I would know what it signified. I probably only had two or at most three sweaters during my years in the UK (so it was worn A LOT) and I have no other memory of it attracting comment. If I were in the UK now, I would avoid regimental ties, but wouldn't hesitate for a second to wear that sweater.

As I think about it though, it isn't hard to claim a connection with several associations. I have my university tie; I have friends in Scottish or Irish clans so I would wear those ties; and I have friends who are graduates of other universities, schools, etc. If someone asked me why I was wearing a tie, I'd reply with a polite and understated, "I wear it in honor of my good friend _____." A close friend gave me a sweatshirt from his alma mater, St Andrews University. I only visited, never attended, but I would not feel beaten down if someone asked me why I'm wearing it. Same goes with scarves.

By the way, Cruiser, my terminal degree is from the University of Sheffield. The tie is black with stripes in green and _fuchsia_ (and never leaves my wardrobe unless I'm in full academic dress). Maybe I should wear it more often.


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

Ben Silver had an entire catalogue about these ties and what they were all about. You know what I did? I scanned through it and it went straight in the trash can. Who cares! 40% of my ties are repp/regimental and I have them because I like the pattern period (or full stop).

I will not be going around and say, "oh, this tie I'm wearing is about the British so and so." If someone tells me that, Brit or American (here or abroad) , I would say, "really?" WOW! I would repeat it actually, I would go, "really? WOW!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

P Hudson: I like your viewpoint. I doubt I'll ever get into such a situation, but will be prepared with a response like that if anyone asks! 

However, I strongly doubt anyone would be offended by BB#1, its only provenance being American fashion. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Jovan said:


> However, I strongly doubt anyone would be offended by BB#1, its only provenance being American fashion. :icon_smile_big:


I'm sure you're right. As I said, not all striped ties represent regiments. Lots of options are available, and many of them are our favorites.


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

I agree with you, PHud. In fact, I tend to feel a bit silly when wearing something from my alma mater anyway. I have an emblematic tie from my alma mater, and I tend to feel like a mildly pathetic show-off when I put it on. This doesn't stop me from wearing it (!), but I wouldn't get all worked up if someone who didn't graduate from my school wore it. I can't fathom having an altercation over such a trivial and silly matter.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Did see a picture once on the internet of a rather fetching young lady wearing a Royal Signals tie and not much else. Rather than getting upset at her wearing a tie she was not entitled to, I was pleased that possibly one of my corps members had been there.


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

https://www.chipp2.com/blog/?p=83

I am in the camp, as you might expect that doesn't wear a REGIMENTAL/SCHOOL/CLUB/SOCIETY we'll call them all (REPP) tie unless entitled to it, it is something I've come around to over the years, after going after any old striped tie in my college days.

I now will only wear stripes that have personal meaning, they have to be either a club or society tie that of which I belong, school colors or service branch colors, in my case having been prior Army Guard I have my old regimental tie - which you see in my avatar, and then my new branch is Navy, so more conservative Navy/Gold or Navy/Yellow repps fits that bill.

I am still in a purge status and trying to ween off all the old repps that hang on the back of the rack. Part of it is minimilism I guess.

Now another thing to differentiate is that there is a difference between a STRIPED tie and a REPP tie... You can wear any old striped tie you want to that J.Press or Brooks makes, but wearing a REPP tie from Ben Silver you KNOW is the Royal Marines or Royal Parachute Regiment is not right.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I told myself I wasn't going to read, much less post in this thread, but, as usual, it's taken an interesting turn, and generated a few laffs (looking at you, DBG). Call me old fashioned, but it has been my understanding that club ties are meant to be worn at club events, that otherwise it's just showing off; similarly, that your school tie is only to be worn at school, or school events, same reason. Don't know about British regiments.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

This thread was the last one I participated in when this subject was discussed https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?103762-Argyle-amp-Sutherland-Clarification


----------



## Stede Bonnet (Sep 22, 2010)

I rarely have an original thought anymore, so I should have known that this topic would have at some point in the past been discussed. In any event, thank you for the repp/regimental distinction.


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

Stede Bonnet said:


> I rarely have an original thought anymore, so I should have known that this topic would have at some point in the past been discussed. In any event, thank you for the repp/regimental distinction.


Seems to me Mr. Bonnet, that your namesake didn't much care what the Brits' (or anyone else for that matter) cared about protocol. He simply yelled "arrrg" and took over their vessels and captured their colors if I recall history correctly. Wear what you want. 
Cheers! Tom


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> Did see a picture once on the internet of a rather fetching young lady wearing a Royal Signals tie and not much else. Rather than getting upset at her wearing a tie she was not entitled to, I was pleased that possibly one of my corps members had been there.


I don't know what a Royal Signals tie looks like, but please tell me you're not referring to Jennifer Aniston's GQ Cover.



The Rambler said:


> I told myself I wasn't going to read, much less post in this thread, but, as usual, it's taken an interesting turn, and generated a few laffs (looking at you, DBG). Call me old fashioned, but it has been my understanding that club ties are meant to be worn at club events, that otherwise it's just showing off; similarly, that your school tie is only to be worn at school, or school events, same reason. Don't know about British regiments.


What about wearing your school tie to the office prior to the weekend when your school has a big game?


----------



## MidWestTrad (Aug 14, 2010)

If it eases your mind the repp ties made by BB et al have stripes that descend from your right to left as opposed to British repps that go the opposite direction. So when I'm wearing a BB tie that happens to have the same color scheme as the Brigade of Guards I rest assured that I will not be confused for a member since the stripes are travelling in the opposite direction. Unless of course the other person is dyslexic.....


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Bradford said:


> What about wearing your school tie to the office prior to the weekend when your school has a big game?


Speaking as one who wears a Phillies hat during the playoffs (sob!), I think that's quite acceptable.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Now that you guys talked about it, I started to obsess about real regimental ties! Not that I am a militaristic person. Altough comes with a sense of belonging, nobody who actually was in the military can condone war, I believe.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Saltydog said:


> Wasn't the 2nd war with the British in 1812 over our right to wear any of their regimental stripes we pleased? I'm pretty sure that's what it was about, and we won. Therefore I will wear any regimental tie I please here or there. To the victor go the spoils. Good men gave their all for this right!


Is that the one those peace loving Canadians came down, invaded D.C. , and burned down the White House?


----------



## pseudonym (Aug 1, 2010)

I can't quite tell whether this thread is going anywhere at this point, but I'll put in my two cents. Rambler, you're correct in assuming school ties are (mostly) for school events, but I don't know of any protocol other than treating the tie with the respect you would show the school. I do get a little huffy anytime I see an approximation of my school tie sold, but I take it with a grain of salt, considering my school tie is a navy knit with thin white stripes, easily duplicated by unknowing designers. 

STILL.

They didn't go through what I had to go through to earn that tie. Because of that, I wouldn't do something similar to a member of the Royal Marines or any such unit by wearing their tie in the British direction. Flip the stripes around, remove the connotation, and you're fine, in my book.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

The stripes-in-the-opposite-direction thing is an (oft-repeated) myth that has been exposed on this site more than once. Go through past versions of this thread for irrefutable evidence.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

pseudonym said:


> I do get a little huffy anytime I see an approximation of my school tie sold, but I take it with a grain of salt, considering my school tie is a navy knit with thin white stripes, easily duplicated by unknowing designers.


Considering that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of schools and organizations that lay claim to certain colors and patterns, how do you know that whoever designed your school tie didn't duplicate something already claimed by some other group. Or for that matter, wasn't already a mass produced tie by some tie maker and already being worn by individuals with no group affiliation at all.



pseudonym said:


> They didn't go through what I had to go through to earn that tie.


Do you feel the same way about a Navy peacoat? Or maybe the A2 or G1 flight jackets? Forum participants buy these items and wear them all the time without actually going through what those who actually earned them the old fashioned way go through, and few give it a second thought. To me this is a greater transgression than wearing a necktie that some group claims as theirs.

Having said that, even though I earned my peacoat and G1 flight jacket, not to mention ties from a couple of universities of which I'm a graduate, I couldn't care less if someone wants to wear any or all of the above without actually doing what I did to get mine. To me that would be just a bunch of silliness.

None of these things have any official status outside of the organizations that wear them and getting upset over it is about as rational as a biker getting upset at someone wearing a motorcycle jacket without owning a motorcycle or cowboy boots without owning a horse.

Has anyone seen my horse? I seem to have misplaced him. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> C
> Has anyone seen my horse? I seem to have misplaced him. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


I took him. I'm on my annual "lance the non-sailing boogers I see wearing boat shoes" ride at the farmers market and my trusty steed is in for a transmission overhaul. *Death to Poseurs!!!!*


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Cruiser, bypassing the question of whether you care whether or not someone wearing a military jacket or cowboy boots has earned the right to wear them, don't you find it faintly ridiculous?


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Bradford said:


> I don't know what a Royal Signals tie looks like, but please tell me you're not referring to Jennifer Aniston's GQ Cover.


It certainly was not Jennifer Aniston.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

EastVillageTrad said:


> https://www.chipp2.com/blog/?p=83
> 
> I am in the camp, as you might expect that doesn't wear a REGIMENTAL/SCHOOL/CLUB/SOCIETY we'll call them all (REPP) tie unless entitled to it, it is something I've come around to over the years, after going after any old striped tie in my college days.
> 
> ...


 You can always "purge" those ties by sending them to me. I'll pay postage.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

The Rambler said:


> Cruiser, bypassing the question of whether you care whether or not someone wearing a military jacket or cowboy boots has earned the right to wear them, don't you find it faintly ridiculous?[/QUOTE
> 
> Can't speak for Cruiser...but if you follow the above logic everyone who didn't serve in the military when they wore khakis would have to abandon their chinos.....especially Bills
> M1 model (WWII vets only) or look "faintly ridiculous". Ditto for anyone who hadn't served in the British navy who wears navy blazers with gold buttons. Boat shoe wearers who don't sale have already been assailed as "poseurs" (which I assume is frog for posers). If one is not a really old pilot--no leather bomber jackets. No argyles if you aren't a Scot. Regimental ties are out. Buttondowns only for polo players. Good grief...all trads are wearing something "slightly ridiculous"! Whatever shall we do?
> ...


----------



## pseudonym (Aug 1, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> Considering that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of schools and organizations that lay claim to certain colors and patterns, how do you know that whoever designed your school tie didn't duplicate something already claimed by some other group. Or for that matter, wasn't already a mass produced tie by some tie maker and already being worn by individuals with no group affiliation at all.
> 
> Do you feel the same way about a Navy peacoat? Or maybe the A2 or G1 flight jackets? Forum participants buy these items and wear them all the time without actually going through what those who actually earned them the old fashioned way go through, and few give it a second thought. To me this is a greater transgression than wearing a necktie that some group claims as theirs.
> 
> ...


I agree completely, and it seems I didn't quite express what I meant.

I _realize_ that it's stupid to get all territorial and exclusive over a pattern on a piece of cloth, a pattern certainly used many times in the past and in times to come. But to be honest, there is a part of me that IS that stupid and irrational, and gets upset over that, and many other things of that nature. I don't let that affect the way I behave (because that's a dickish way to go about life), but I thought it would be relevant to say that I do have that twinge of "hey, that's MINE. MINE MINE MINE."


----------



## ashcroft99 (Dec 12, 2008)

Fully agree w/ saltydog and cruiser...though wearing an organization's crest (on a tie, wrap, etc.) without having been a member is cheeky....but there's no law against it.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Have boat shoe, no boat. Have a pair of Noconas, no horse. Have navy blazers, not of Royal or any navy. Have tweeds, not an Irish or Scot -but then who really knows-. Love to wear trad, not even born here. I'll wear any and all kind of regimental or school tie, haven't been to any of them- well actually couple but will stay away from their stuff. I have a (had, it's sold yesterday) Prince of Wales suit, not a prince or Welsh- but he is not either!-. I don't button the bottom button, not a king or have a belly (altough raising one). Goes on and on.
Who gives a horse's a...


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

well, I think you gents are "following this logic" to reduce it to absurdity, right, wear what you want ....


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Saltydog said:


> Wasn't the 2nd war with the British in 1812 over our right to wear any of their regimental stripes we pleased? I'm pretty sure that's what it was about, and we won. Therefore I will wear any regimental tie I please here or there. To the victor go the spoils. Good men gave their all for this right!


I had heard it was over our rights to drive on the righthand side of the road and to spell words like "color," "harbor," and "labor" without that silly "u" stuck in there. Long live Noah Webster!


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

PJC in NoVa said:


> I had heard it was over our rights to drive on the righthand side of the road and to spell words like "color," "harbor," and "labor" without that silly "u" stuck in there. Long live Noah Webster!


It is a little known fact that Gen. Andrew Jackson further humiliated the British troops in the Battle of New Orleans by sporting an Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders Craveat into battle while shouting, "Whatcha gonna do about it tea-drinkers?" This so infuriated the English they totally abandoned their battle plans and ran amuck, while the Americans took advantage of their mindless consternation and systematically routed the Limeys. Day after day he would have his men wear regimental regalia from the Royal Marines to the Royal Dragoon Guards thereby winning the psychological advantage and plunging the Red Coats into ever-increasing states of disarray. It is further said that when he was later inaugerated as president he donned a Royal Stewart sash.

The things they don't teach in school these days. :teacha:


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

As a Briton (admittedly someone who has never done military service) I have no objection to the ties of our regiments being worn by other nationals so long as it is done outside the UK. University insignia is different, as graduates of any university may be of any nationality.
I once bought a striped tie in an ordinary shop in Germany; when I wore it at home someone asked if I belonged to the regiment it signified (I had no idea it was a regimental tie). On my reply that I had no connection with that regiment, I was invited to give a donation to that regiment's benevolent fund (I haven't worn that tie since).


----------



## charphar (Nov 13, 2006)

Saltydog said:


> Wasn't the 2nd war with the British in 1812 over our right to wear any of their regimental stripes we pleased? I'm pretty sure that's what it was about, and we won. Therefore I will wear any regimental tie I please here or there. To the victor go the spoils. Good men gave their all for this right!


Yeah, we've kicked their butts - and pulled their chestnuts from the fire! - more than once. Wear the dang ties!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

williamson said:


> As a Briton (admittedly someone who has never done military service) I have no objection to the ties of our regiments being worn by other nationals so long as it is done outside the UK.


I don't really see what difference this makes. The pea coat traces it's origins back to the British Navy, yet many Brits who have never been in the Navy wear them.

Heck, it's not just traditional but also official uniform wear today of the U.S. Navy sanctioned by government regulations; however, I doubt many Brits check their pea coats at the door upon arrival in the U.S. because of this. That's OK because everybody and their brother, and their sister, wears the things here.

In 1968, when I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy, I was wearing my pea coat with civilian clothes when an Air Force officer called me aside in a restaurant located a couple of hundred miles away from the nearest military base and essentially read me the riot act for unauthorized wear of an article of clothing of a military uniform. It was embarrassing to me to say the least.

My point here is that technically the officer was in the right because I was violating a government regulation; however, everyone present thought that he was just being a jerk, especially given that there were a couple of civilians present who were also wearing pea coats. I think that's what most Americans would think about someone making an issue of a striped tie.

I guess my extremely short hair gave me away as active military. After all, it was 1968. :icon_smile_big:

As far as I know these regimental ties aren't official ties with their wear controlled by government regulations. Am I correct in assuming that they are simply symbols adopted by military units? If so, then they actually have less official sanction than the Navy pea coat, and you should adopt a similar stance against the wearing of that item of clothing; and who knows how many other things we wear that are part of some country's military tradition.



> I once bought a striped tie in an ordinary shop in Germany; when I wore it at home someone asked if I belonged to the regiment it signified (I had no idea it was a regimental tie).


And that's part of the problem. My closet is full of striped ties and I have no earthly idea if any of them are similar to a tie that has been adopted by some military unit somewhere in the world, or the U.S. for that matter. (See the U.S. Navy tie that I posted earlier in this thread.) Nor am I going to research any country I might visit while wearing one of those ties to see if it has been adopted by some military outfit in that country any more than those folks are going to research such traditions in the U.S. before arriving in this country. It's just a tie to me, nothing more.

As far as I'm concerned, Brits can wear their pea coats in the U.S. and I'll wear my striped ties in Great Britain. Sounds like a fair trade off to me. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

A regimental tie isn't just a club tie or odd bit of army surplus. It's a sign you have served alongside, or in direct support of, comrades who have been wounded or killed for Queen and country. In a way it's a medal for those who have not been awarded medals. I think it's discourteous (to say the least) to wear one you are not entitled to, and probably hurtful to those who are, and think they have recognized a comrade.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

My goodness, it's an *expletive* tie. Wear in good health and worry about real problems.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Wow. This thread has gone 'round the bend. 

The huge proportion, if not the majority, of details in all of men's dress can trace their roots back to military uniforms in one way or another. It's a little ridiculous to rule out repp ties on this basis.

Furthermore, it's very common to wear colors or patterns in support of an institution whether it be military, academic, or otherwise.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

hookem12387 said:


> My goodness, it's an *expletive* tie. . . .


But, you see, it's not. If my old Dad was ambling along Piccadilly and spotted some chap wearing his regimental tie he would think 'there's someone with whom I have some bond of loyalty and honour'. He would be hurt to be told it was just some bloke wearing in an *expletive* tie. For my money his feelings are a 'real problem'.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I'm guessing that if your father served in the military it would take more than a necktie tie to hurt his feelings. Maybe it's different in the UK.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

Trip English said:


> I'm guessing that if your father served in the military it would take more than a necktie tie to hurt his feelings. Maybe it's different in the UK.


I am sure you are right.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> As far as I know these regimental ties aren't official ties with their wear controlled by government regulations. Am I correct in assuming that they are simply symbols adopted by military units?
> Cruiser


I'm sure that you are correct here, that regimental ties are not part of official uniform. But Trimmer has made an important point. However, it is difficult to know (unless told, as I was) that one is wearing such a tie inadvertently.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

williamson said:


> I'm sure that you are correct here, that regimental ties are not part of official uniform. But Trimmer has made an important point.


I'm not so sure that I agree. For example, the leather flight jacket that was issued to me after I completed my aircrew training is not only part of the uniform that I wore while serving MY country, but is also symbolic of my membership in the fraternity of Navy/Marine Corps air crews. I believe that I earned that piece of leather every bit as much as a member of the British military earned a piece of silk to wear around their neck.

In other words, why should he consider my flight jacket or my pea coat to be odd military surplus and yet object to my considering that striped tie as anything more than a necktie bought off the clearance table at Macy's? I expect similar objections to Brits wearing pea coats, just to be consistent.

Cruiser


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

Apparently many from the U.K. feel differently about the issue than Americans do. Just because we think that they shouldn't mind doesn't mean they don't.

I will continue to wear any tie I please here but should I ever travel to the U.K. I would absolutely not wear a regimental stripe. The chances of that happening approaches zero so I will not lose any sleep over it.


----------



## ashcroft99 (Dec 12, 2008)

Cruiser--I should think that your remarks here are dispositive: perfect!


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

While clothing has a practical function (outdoors, at least), it is largely a social construct. Particular items, or their details, have particular meanings. The meanings may vary with the context, and certainly are different in different cultural groups. In most cases, the associations are largely arbitrary: the notion that you can apply some sort of logic to them ("if X is okay, than Y should be") is specious - just as specious as the notion that, since the word "duck" is perfectly acceptable to use in all contexts, then similar words are also.

The fact there's no official sanction for misusing a symbolic item doesn't mean it's appropriate to do so.

If you're American, you probably didn't walk around your high school wearing a letter jacket unless you actually lettered (though, if you did, some hipster may be roaming around Brooklyn nowadays wearing your old jacket).


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> In other words, why should he consider my flight jacket or my pea coat to be odd military surplus and yet object to my considering that striped tie as anything more than a necktie bought off the clearance table at Macy's? I expect similar objections to Brits wearing pea coats, just to be consistent.
> 
> Cruiser


I believe the issue would be the whether or not the article was designed as regalia, as a symbol representative of a group or achievement. In this context a flight style jacket or a tie is just that, designed for function or style (normally both) but when an organization or office determines to create one with crest, epaulets, letters, regimental colours, etc, to denote something representative then to my mind it is appropriate treat that tradition with the respect it deserves. I might thus be less inclined to wear a tie representing the 1st Regiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Horse_ArtilleryRoyal Canadian Horse Artillery than that of the Redoubtable Halifax Equine Club.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

OK...here's a question/example that may make this discussion a bit more relevant for those of us who are United States citizens. I saw on the Ben Silver website and in a catalogue a regimental/repp tie patterned after the ribbon awarded to those who served during the Vietnam war. (They may still offer it, and there were ties patterned after the ribbons for other conflicts as well.) I did not serve in the Army, or any other branch of the military, during the Vietnam conflict--though thousands of my generation did. It was a fine tie--but I could not bring myself to buy or wear it...though most probably would not recognize what it represents. 

Call it respect for those who served, or--despite a legitimate deferrment--perhaps a bit of guilt because many served and I didn't...regardless, I just would not feel right. There was also a Desert Storm tie that was absolutely beautiful...couldn't justify wearing that one either though I was past service age during that one. Almost talked myself into it on grounds that I could wear it in honor of the magnificent job accomplished by our military. Couldn't work through that one either.

While I am the first to argue my right to wear some British regiment or school tie as I please--when it hit closer to home I took a different view. Hypocritical? Double standard? Intellectual dishonesty? Insensitivity? None of the above, or all? I frankly don't want to dig too deeply because I fully intend to continue to wear my British regimentals. I'll wear the colors of another college if I like them. But a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces I didn't belong to, or a campaign I didn't serve in...no can do. 

Anyone else have thoughts on this?


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

An exception might be the tie of a unit one _could not_ have served in, but have some close connection with. As schoolboys we sometimes wore our fathers' regimental ties. In a decade or so there will be few left who have the right to wear his Second World War army (as opposed to regimental) tie; maybe then I will wear it in his (and their) memory.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Saltydog said:


> It was a fine tie--but I could not bring myself to buy or wear it...though most probably would not recognize what it represents.
> While I am the first to argue my right to wear some British regiment or school tie as I please--when it hit closer to home I took a different view.


Very natural and understandable thoughts and feelings. You have epitomised the dilemma very well indeed.


Trimmer said:


> An exception might be the tie of a unit one _could not_ have served in, but have some close connection with. As schoolboys we sometimes wore our fathers' regimental ties. In a decade or so there will be few left who have the right to wear his Second World War army (as opposed to regimental) tie; maybe then I will wear it in his (and their) memory


Until recently I had my father's First World War campaign medals; I never wore them but am told that I could have done so in his memory. I have given them to my cousin (his great-great-niece), a serving army officer who has served in Iraq; she was delighted to receive them and I am sure is the right person to treasure them.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
There is a lesson to be learned from all of this, for us old soldiers, sailors marines and airmen. As I posted i an earlier thread, pertaining to a similar subject, the awards, badges, decorations, medals, and all the associated detritus from my careers in the military and law enforcement; are ensconsced in two (rather large) shadow boxes displayed on the walls of my study. Acknowledging that these days, they only seem to impress the little guys (the grandkids), they are forced to reflect on them from a distance and through"the looking glass," so to speak and are unable to play with or wear them, inappropriatly.

As for ties commemorating former affiliations, campaigns, membership, etc., offered for open sale to the public, I honestly do not see what all the fuss is about. If they pay for it, may they wear it in good health and in peace! For the rest of us, it's high time we get a life.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> the awards, badges, decorations, medals, and all the associated detritus from my careers in the military and law enforcement; are ensconsced in two (rather large) shadow boxes displayed on the walls of my study.


I want to know where you keep that old pair of earth shoes? I think that at the least you should have them bronzed and mounted on a display like my daughter's baby shoes. Now THAT would be a testimony to your past that the grandkids could enjoy. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

The original question was about the "customs, rules, or courtesies" associated with wearing ties of British regiments with which one had no connection in the 'Commonwealth Realm'. I still think it would be a breach of customs, rules, or courtesies which really do exist and so it would be inappropriate to wear one. Wearing one where it would not be recognized, where there are no such custom, ruls, or courtesy, or where the tradition is to 'have a life' and wear what you like, is another matter.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Saltydog said:


> OK...here's a question/example that may make this discussion a bit more relevant for those of us who are United States citizens. I saw on the Ben Silver website and in a catalogue a regimental/repp tie patterned after the ribbon awarded to those who served during the Vietnam war. (They may still offer it, and there were ties patterned after the ribbons for other conflicts as well.) I did not serve in the Army, or any other branch of the military, during the Vietnam conflict--though thousands of my generation did. It was a fine tie--but I could not bring myself to buy or wear it...though most probably would not recognize what it represents.


A couple of things. First, I'm not advocating everyone running out and buying regimental ties claimed by British military units and wearing them.

Secondly, I see a difference in a tie that is specifically designed to represent something else and an ordinary striped tie. I've looked at a number of regimental ties claimed by various military units in Great Britain and the fact is that they are nothing more than common, everyday striped ties like the ties sold by retailers all over the world. There is nothing unique about them at all.

For example, here are two ties that have been adopted by British military units.



















These ties aren't specifically designed to identify anything. There are no crests, logos, or other identifying marks on the ties. In other words, they are just everyday, ordinary striped ties. What if the U.S. Army 82d Airborne Division decided that some common item worn by thousands of people was going to be their identifying symbol? Maybe they chose a tie like this.










Does that mean that everyone who owns such a tie but wasn't in the 82d Airborne should stop wearing it? Of course not. On the other hand if they designed a tie with their unit logo, crest, or some other identifying mark on it, it would be a horse of a different color. Some British regimental ties are designed in just this manner; but the fact is that if you start looking at the long list of regimental ties that have been adopted by some military unit or organization you quickly see that just about any striped tie you care to choose is identical, or at least similar, to a tie that some group has claimed as theirs.

All I'm saying is that if you are going to adopt something as common place as a simple red and blue striped tie with no other identifying marks on it as your symbol, you shouldn't be offended if others are wearing it. That's just plain common sense.

Cruiser


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

The Desert Storm campaign tie






The Special 
Forces

I agree with Cruiser, which is why I have no problem wearing most college color ties. They are just striped ties with alternating colors. On the other hand here are a couple from Ben Silver. They also have, in addition to the
Vietnam and WWII ties, etc. all patterned after those campaign ribbons, a number of "club" or "emblematic" ties with the insignia for the various branches of services i.e. U.S. Marines, etc. I love to wear my J Press "Royal Marines" tie and am relatively sure no one on this side of the pond recognizes it. Frankly, few would recognize the ones above, but I would be less comfortable wearing them. No way would I wear an emblematic tie with an anchor and globe lest some Leatherneck comes up, says "Semper Fi" and wants to know about my service...and takes extreme offense when I fess up Just depends on where you are I suppose.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Very well put, Cruiser.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

It comes back to my earlier point that so much of formal dress descended from military uniforms. The argument for the sanctity of regimental stripes assumes that the tie has not evolved and diffused to the same extent as other garments and it's just not the case. Schools and clubs had the right idea with emblematics. These are clearly as specific as a brand logo and could only be worn with the express purpose of making a statement about that group.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I would like to remind everyone that eons ago, my ancestors declared red as their own color, and I-IV-V as their own chord progression, and carbohydrates as one of their key nutritional categories.


----------



## superpacker (Jul 16, 2008)

I think it is also hard to say that every British military man would be offended. I had a good friend who moved here from the UK. He was a Royal Air Force pilot, his grandfather was a Royal Air Force if WWII. This friend also attended a prestigious school where all of his neckties were issues to him for his academic/athletic achievements. One day (without thinking) I showed up wearing an RAF tie. He asked if I knew what tie It was. I told him RAF and he LOVED it! He loved seeing an American know a British regiment and love the history behind the tie so much as to wear one. He later told me all the amazing repp/club ties he has earned an loved how much I drooled over that fact.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

What a bunch of hand-wringing over nothing. If you have a striped tie and like the colors/pattern, wear it in the US, the UK, or UeverUwant. The chance of someone having a hissy fit is quite minimal, and on the off-chance that someone does, just use any one of the arguments above that support wearing what you please.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Dragoon said:


> Apparently many from the U.K. feel differently about the issue than Americans do. Just because we think that they shouldn't mind doesn't mean they don't.
> 
> I will continue to wear any tie I please here but should I ever travel to the U.K. I would absolutely not wear a regimental stripe. The chances of that happening approaches zero so I will not lose any sleep over it.


I am from the UK, I served, so did my dad's generation and his dad's. I am dam sure you could wear their reg ties and mine and they and I would not give a monkey's whatsit. Same with tartans AFAIK you can wear any tartan except the royal Balmoral. Wear any bit of kit except medals and awards.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> Wear any bit of kit except medals and awards.


and, if you don't care what anyone thinks, wear them too, as smmrfld suggests: just tell anyone who has a hissy fit that it's an homage to the DSC :biggrin2:.


----------



## superpacker (Jul 16, 2008)

+1 to Douglas Brisbane Gray reply. That is in perfect agreement with what my UK pal said as I posted a few comments above


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

smmrfld said:


> What a bunch of hand-wringing over nothing. If you have a striped tie and like the colors/pattern, wear it in the US, the UK, or UeverUwant. The chance of someone having a hissy fit is quite minimal, and on the off-chance that someone does, just use any one of the arguments above that support wearing what you please.





Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I am from the UK, I served, so did my dad's generation and his dad's. I am dam sure you could wear their reg ties and mine and they and I would not give a monkey's whatsit. Same with tartans AFAIK you can wear any tartan except the royal Balmoral. Wear any bit of kit except medals and awards.





The Rambler said:


> and, if you don't care what anyone thinks, wear them too, as smmrfld suggests: just tell anyone who has a hissy fit that it's an homage to the DSC :biggrin2:.


I find this body of logic, along with other like minded arguments, impossible to refute. Like Trip suggests, I might avoid certain emblematics designed precisely to connote membership or certain achievements...but stripes should well be open to all. One need not have been a passenger on the Ark to wear the colors of the rainbow if so desired.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

The ties, in the UK, denote membership in something esteemed and sometimes held in high honor due to things like death and duty.

I think the analogy of wearing a high school letter jacket or sweater, complete with letter, is spot on. Why not throw on the star or the "C" or whatever your school used to denote the captain of the team while you're at it? I don't know about things today, but when I was in school, nobody would have done that. It would have instinctively been known to be inappropriate.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

P Hudson said:


> The ties, in the UK, denote membership in something esteemed and sometimes held in high honor due to things like death and duty.
> 
> I think the analogy of wearing a high school letter jacket or sweater, complete with letter, is spot on.


So what if my school adopts the navy blazer as it's school letter jacket? Would that mean that everyone who didn't attend my school should stop wearing navy blazers? And that's my point. Many of these ties are nothing more than simple striped ties.

Now if you add the school letter to the jacket it becomes something entirely different. It is distinguished from other similar jackets by this identifying mark. Put a unit crest or logo on those ties and I agree with you 100 percent; but if you are going to pick something as ubiquitous as a plain blue tie with red stripes, for example, then all bets are off.

Cruiser


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I want to know where you keep that old pair of earth shoes? I think that at the least you should have them bronzed and mounted on a display like my daughter's baby shoes. Now THAT would be a testimony to your past that the grandkids could enjoy. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


LOL. Well, I've gotta tell ya, those monstrosities took the 'walk of shame to the Goodwill Store, or perhaps it was to the Salvation Army Thrift, many, many years ago! However, I do have a pair of recently purchased Allen Edmonds Blue Suede Wing Tips on display in what used to be our oldest daughter's bedroom but, as empty nesters, we have converted to the Elvis Room in our house. The wife has been a big fan of "the King of Rock & Roll" for quite some time and had accumulated a fair amount of Elvis memorabilia, which now has a place to call home! Alas, after a lifetime spent as nomads, staying 'lean and mean' in the process, we are realizing that both the wife and I are really packrats at our core, as we fill the house with clothes, shoes and Elvis memorabilia(!) that we really don't need. I fear, at some point in the future the kids, grandkids or neighbors are going to come in and discover the two of us under one of these mountains of (unnecessary) stuff...a potential, future, TV special on the harmful effects of hoarding! :crazy: Paraphrasing the late Charlton Heston in a past address to the NRA, "they will have to pry my beloved USAF necktie , from my cold, dead hands!"


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

lol! You must be proud to have your blue suede wingtips on display in the Elvis Room.


----------



## Drew Bernard (Feb 19, 2009)

https://theivyleaguelook.blogspot.com/2009/10/hemingway-on-fitzgeralds-tie.html

Scroll down to *Reps and Regimentals*. I agree with Russell Smith's advice.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Sorry I'm so late to this party, but I need to clairfy that Regimental and Repp are NOT the same thing!

From the Necktie Chapter of *The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes* (now in downloadable PDF format):
*Regimental * - authentic colors and stripes in various widths originally represented membership in British Military regiments. By the 1920's every drinking society, athletic team and private clubs had their own striped tie.

*Repp, Rep *or *Reppe* (NOT Regimental)- a fine corded silk fabric with closely spaced narrow ribs, produce intense color since the weft is floated on the surface instead of being woven in. Repp can be solid colors or stripes often used for school or club colors.​


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

I think the problem here is one of context and perception.

If you live in Anytown, USA and wear a tie to church on Sunday and to weddings, funerals, etc., I can see that you're in a quandry on this issue, it might not matter or seem an issue to you because you have no real connection with the larger 'identity' of a particular club/regt tie, etc.

It also doesn't help with the Harry Potterization of the look by BB, J Press, RL, etc.

If you live in the parts of the US (where the tradition is adheared to) and actually belong to private social clubs, societies, and have served in the military or spend time in the UK or with those that have, or have served in the UK Armed Forces, you understand a bit better where the issue is.

I think you have to "get it" to be "in" on the discussion...


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

EastVillageTrad said:


> I think the problem here is one of context and perception.
> 
> If you live in Anytown, USA and wear a tie to church on Sunday and to weddings, funerals, etc., I can see that you're in a quandry on this issue, it might not matter or seem an issue to you because you have no real connection with the larger 'identity' of a particular club/regt tie, etc.
> 
> ...


Actually, I think many of us are fully capable of participating in the discussion, snarky comments such as yours notwithstanding.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

EastVillageTrad said:


> I think you have to "get it" to be "in" on the discussion...


Actually I do "get it." I don't think that you "get it," at least you aren't getting the point I've been trying to make. As a military veteran myself and a member of several organizations I fully understand the significance of organizational symbols; however, in order for those symbols to be of any significance to the general public they must be individualized in some way.

How do you do this? You do it by designing some identifying symbol, crest, logo, etc., that identifies your particular group. When you go no further with this than to say that some common, ordinary item such as a red and blue striped necktie is your symbol you must realize that it will be worn by many other people. You have no real right to ask or suggest that it not be anymore than some organization has the right to lay claim to the navy blazer as their symbol.

The official colors of the U.S. Marine Corps are scarlet and gold, but these colors are really meaningless unless the official anchor, globe, and eagle emblem is also used. Without this identifying symbol those colors mean nothing. Some of the British regimental ties do include such symbols and under no circumstances would I ever even think about wearing one of them; but I'll be danged if I'm going to not wear one of my striped ties just because some group claims ownership of striped ties in those colors.

Cruiser


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Actually I do "get it." I don't think that you "get it," at least you aren't getting the point I've been trying to make. As a military veteran myself and a member of several organizations I fully understand the significance of organizational symbols; however, in order for those symbols to be of any significance to the general public they must be indiviualized in some way.
> 
> How do you do this? You do it by designing some identifying symbol, crest, logo, etc., that identifies your particular group. When you go no further with this than to say that some common, ordinary item such as a red and blue striped necktie is your symbol you must realize that it will be worn by many other people. You have no real right to ask or suggest that it not be anymore than some organization has the right to lay claim to the navy blazer as their symbol.
> 
> ...


Cruiser,

I am on-board with you, my comments weren't directed at you, be they perceived as 'snarky' or not by others...

My bottom line is; if you don't see a problem wearing the tie of a group you have no association with, it is likely because you don't have any interaction with that segment of society. Just my opinion...


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> So what if my school adopts the navy blazer as it's school letter jacket? Would that mean that everyone who didn't attend my school should stop wearing navy blazers? And that's my point. Many of these ties are nothing more than simple striped ties.
> 
> Now  if you add the school letter to the jacket it becomes something entirely different. It is distinguished from other similar jackets by this identifying mark. Put a unit crest or logo on those ties and I agree with you 100 percent; but if you are going to pick something as ubiquitous as a plain blue tie with red stripes, for example, then all bets are off.
> 
> Cruiser


Thanks for responding. My reply is that there are lots of points on the continuum between a letter sweater and a navy jacket. Somewhere along that line is the striped tie. You say crests or logos set things apart. Apparently there was a time in the UK when people thought stripes were sufficient to set things apart. Of course you're right that stripes per se can't be claimed, and that many ties represent simple and obvious patterns that can't be claimed, but those aren't really the ones that become an issue. My university tie would never be mistaken for a fashion item. If someone in the UK challenged me for wearing a tie that is obviously just a nice striped pattern, then I'd (1) be surprised, because I don't think it happens except for those ties that are, at least to the British, fairly obviously connected with some formal association, and (2) reply that where I come from it is just a striped tie.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

It's little I know about British regimental and collegiate stripes, but my recollection is that they often don't really match what we Americans loosely call "regimental" stripes. I've compared a few actual regimental ties (pictures, that is) to the somewhat pedantically identified Ben Silver versions, and found them different in color and, moreso, in design. I have a dim recollection of sitting in a bar in Oxford, long ago, which was plexiglass over hundreds of drunkenly-scissor-cut (one imagines) school and regimental ties. One thing the British do supremely well is stripes, for which we Americans are grateful.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

To honor all the servicemen who died for the right to think whatever one wants, to say whatever one wants, to believe whatever one wants, and finally to wear whatever the hell one wants, I will wear whatever the hell I want!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Have there been any Wars fought over the right to wear what you want? Surely, some of you clever Historians can identify some :icon_scratch: ?


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

catside said:


> To honor all the servicemen who died for the right to think whatever one wants, to say whatever one wants, to believe whatever one wants, and finally to wear whatever the hell one wants, I will wear whatever the hell I want!


You think people who had no say whatsoever in what they were wearing died so you can wear whatever you want? Does that mean you wouldn't mind going to a WWII memorial event in a bikini? What about in a jacket covered with medals? What about in a NAZI full dress uniform? Just wondering.

By the way, I don't know that anybody fought for you to wear whatever you want in another country. And the question isn't what is legal or defensible. It is what is socially appropriate. But then plenty of Americans travel around the world saying, "I'll do whatever I want", ignoring local customs and social values. It is why we're often referred to as the ugly American.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

The Rambler said:


> Have there been any Wars fought over the right to wear what you want? Surely, some of you clever Historians can identify some :icon_scratch: ?


I thought I did that earlier.


----------



## palmettoking (Jan 2, 2010)

Maybe Andy should commission a striped tie for the forumites so that y'all can wear a regimental tie without bickering...


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Saltydog said:


> I thought I did that earlier.


I thought we lost that war.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

palmettoking said:


> Maybe Andy should commission a striped tie for the forumites so that y'all can wear a regimental tie without bickering...


Well, this _is_ the Trad Forum, but I suppose some traditions are honored more in the breach than the observance, as somebody said. :drunken_smilie:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

P Hudson said:


> And the question isn't what is legal or defensible. It is what is socially appropriate. But then plenty of Americans travel around the world saying, "I'll do whatever I want", ignoring local customs and social values. It is why we're often referred to as the ugly American.


You're right. Nobody ever comes to the U.S. and ignores our local customs and social values. Two wrongs don't make a right; but please, let's not think that Americans have the market cornered on this.

As for the phrase "ugly American," this comes from the 1958 book _The Ugly American _in which the protagonist was a physically unattractive American who was living in squalor in a hut in Burma while devoting his life to helping the locals with various community projects. No country in the history of this planet has given more in the way of money, resources, and blood to preserve the rights and safety of people all over the world. Ugly Americans, indeed.

Cruiser


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> As for the phrase "ugly American," this comes from the 1958 book _The Ugly American _in which the protagonist was a physically unattractive American who was living in squalor in a hut in Burma while devoting his life to helping the locals with various community projects. No country in the history of this planet has given more in the way of money, resources, and blood to preserve the rights and safety of people all over the world.
> 
> Cruiser


I agree with your last point, but it doesn't change the fact that sometimes people go to other countries and show an insensitivity to local customs. It bugs me to see people take US aid while wearing an anti-American t-shirt.

As for the novel _The Ugly American_ by Burdick and Lederer, Otto Hunerwadel (on whom the novel was based) was called ugly because he was willing to get dirty, unlike other diplomats, not because he was ugly or disfigured. In fact, the novel is a pretty strong indictment of official American behavior overseas, and was immediately recognized as such by the State Dept.

Edit: by "official" in the penultimate line, I was referring to behavior by officials, not gov. sanctioned activities.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

The Rambler said:


> Have there been any Wars fought over the right to wear what you want? Surely, some of you clever Historians can identify some :icon_scratch: ?


Right to express yourself includes right to dress as you wish. Did Afghan women have a right not to wear burqa, or men not to grow beard? Will they after NATO leaves? Mao wanted everyone dress in sacks (sort of). Hitler wanted Jews carry stars etc. Iranian regime is regulating haircuts. Etc, etc.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

P Hudson said:


> You think people who had no say whatsoever in what they were wearing died so you can wear whatever you want? ...


They died, partly, to defend the rights of everyone, including people they would not agree with under any circumstance, to be able to express themselves freely. And I am thankful for that. I am sure you are, too.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

P Hudson said:


> By the way, I don't know that anybody fought for you to wear whatever you want in another country. And the question isn't what is legal or defensible. It is what is socially appropriate. But then plenty of Americans travel around the world saying, "I'll do whatever I want", ignoring local customs and social values. It is why we're often referred to as the ugly American.


I believe the "ugly American" usually refer to unpopular US state policies, not to American tourists or people. I think Americans as people are usually well liked even though they are sometimes considered naive about the world affairs. I should know, I call soccer football.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

catside said:


> I believe the "ugly American" usually refer to unpopular US state policies, not to American tourists or people. I think Americans as people are usually well liked even though they are sometimes considered naive about the world affairs. I should know, I call soccer football.


Not here certainly, where the term does indeed refer to an arrogant culturally insensitive American. I met the epitome of that particular pejorative sitting at the table beside me at a cafe in Provence. However he was, as I recall, from Toronto. The fellow from Boston on the other side of us was a perfect and very pleasant true gentlemen.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

catside said:


> I believe the "ugly American" usually refer to unpopular US state policies, not to American tourists or people. I think Americans as people are usually well liked even though they are sometimes considered naive about the world affairs. I should know, I call soccer football.


Sorry to be so blunt, but I think you are wrong. But then I base my opinion on having lived in Germany, Austria, France, England and Australia. Maybe somewhere else what you're saying is correct.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

^^Oh, well. That is quite an experience. Maybe I am too naive about world affairs. Is it because we wear their regimental ties?:icon_smile:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

palmettoking said:


> Maybe Andy should commission a striped tie for the forumites so that y'all can wear a regimental tie without bickering...


 It's been done already, but I'm not sure how successful it was. I haven't seen too many forum members wearing it or the pocket square. Maybe due to it having a lot of purple? Who knows.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

I just had a thought. I got my B.A. at the University of Paisley, does this mean not everyone who I have seen in a paisley tie was a fellow graduate?
Shocked to the core.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

palmettoking said:


> Maybe Andy should commission a striped tie for the forumites so that y'all can wear a regimental tie without bickering...





The Rambler said:


> Well, this _is_ the Trad Forum, but I suppose some traditions are honored more in the breach than the observance, as somebody said. :drunken_smilie:





Jovan said:


> It's been done already, but I'm not sure how successful it was. I haven't seen too many forum members wearing it or the pocket square. Maybe due to it having a lot of purple? Who knows.


Indeed! Does Sam (David) Hober still offer AAAC Trad #1, #2 and #3 tie designs? Absolutely beautiful ties! In contradiction with some of the 'more established' regimental tie designs, David's ties actually give very tastful consideration to color and overall design balance.


----------



## Sam Hober (Jan 2, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed! Does Sam (David) Hober still offer AAAC Trad #1, #2 and #3 tie designs? Absolutely beautiful ties! In contradiction with some of the 'more established' regimental tie designs, David's ties actually give very tasteful consideration to color and overall design balance.


*Eagle2250,*

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, we still offer and probably always will the designs that you mention although Trad #3 is temporarily out of stock. There are a number of Trad special designs that have never been woven but will be when time allows - all designed by the same designer.

I do love history and we are about to add many (dozens and dozens..) classic UK regimentals to our regimental collection.

In addition we will as time allows add to American military and college designs. The Americal division is currently being woven.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

charphar said:


> Yeah, we've kicked their butts - and pulled their chestnuts from the fire! - more than once. Wear the dang ties!


I didn't know that the Americans won that particular war? As far as I remember, the Americans invaded Canada, and got beaten. The war ended with the restoration of the status quo ante. Which means that the aggressor, the Americans, lost.
When have Britain's chestnuts been pulled from the fire by the US?


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Chouan said:


> When have Britain's chestnuts been pulled from the fire by the US?


I believe he is speaking of a couple of little conflicts WW I and WW II. Recall?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Saltydog said:


> I believe he is speaking of a couple of little conflicts WW I and WW II. Recall?


Perhaps he is. I'd rather thought that the US joined in WW1 because they perceived a need to protect their investments, and WW2 because Japan attacked them, and because Germany declared war.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Well jolly old England certainly benefitted greatly from the US participation, in both conflicts! Indeed, we on this side of the Pond, might reasonably be inclined to conclude that it was our participation (or more correctly that of our fathers, grandfathers, etc.) that turned the tide in each instance, or as was previously opined, "pulled Britain's chestnuts from the fire!"


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

You can squirm all you like, but the US was helpful to the allies on both those occasions.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Well jolly old England certainly benefitted greatly from the US participation, in both conflicts! Indeed, we on this side of the Pond, might reasonably be inclined to conclude that it was our participation (or more correctly that of our fathers, grandfathers, etc.) that turned the tide in each instance, or as was previously opined, "pulled Britain's chestnuts from the fire!"


I would suggest that in WW1, the USA's participation saved France, rather than Britain. Britain had effectively knocked the Turks out of the war, and could, if pushed, have abandoned France, and emerged from the war without territorial loss, or indemnities. Afterall, the RN had effectively sealed the German Navy up, which meant that Germany was being starved of resources and was facing collapse.
In WW2, it was the USSR which "pulled Britain's chestnuts from the fire!". The US was far more concerned about their own colonial war in the Pacific than the war in Europe. Just look at the relative expenditure on the two theatres. The only reason, I can see, for the US involving itself in Europe was to stop the USSR getting too much of it once they, the USSR had won.
I would suggest that in both cases it wasn't US forces that "turned the tide". 
In WW1 the tide was turned by the defeat of Germany's Spring Offensive in 1918; their last throw of the dice. Once that was stopped, which was done without US help, the Germans were done for.
In WW2 the two incidents that "turned the tide" were the defeat of Rommel in N.Africa, and the defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk, in Russia. Neither are attributable to the US. In SEAC, it was the defeat of the Japanese in New Guinea by the ANZACs, and the defeat of the Japanese invasion of India at Kohima/Imphal, by 14th Army under Slim, which led directly to the defeat of the Japanese in SE Asia. In mainland Asia, the Russians "turned the tide" with their invasion of Manchuria, where the bulk of the Japanese Army were stationed. In all of these areas there was minimal, if any, US involvement.
The US "turned the tide" in the Pacific war, but that was their own colonial campaign, between the US and the Japanese over who controlled the Pacific. Britain even sent a fleet of aircraft carriers to help.....
Helpful, yes. Lend-Lease was of great assistance, but it did have to be paid for, including the handing over of British Naval bases in the Caribbean. But "pulled Britain's chestnuts from the fire!" or "turned the tide"? Not quite.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Right, dude, I'll try to explain that to my father's brother, who was killed in the aftermath of the Normandy Invasion, and my mother's uncle who was killed in France by an artillery shell in WW1.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

I knew that regimental ties were a fraught topic, but this is ridiculous.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

right, a flash of irritation that I'd delete if it didn't leave your comment hanging here.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

^ My comment was aimed at the whole rabbit trail, not your post.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Chouan certainly has provided us with a prime example of European revisionist blather that is, no doubt, the prototype of anti-American palaver they use to excuse themselves from siding as fully with us as they should against the extremist Muslim threat to western democracy. In reality they are afraid of the burgeoning population of militant Islamist throughout the EU. It is much easier to decry the U.S, if they diminish the inconvenient fact that had we not entered WWII, especially, they would all be speaking German now. Perhaps they can look to their former "savior" Russia to take care of that little problem as well.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Orgetorix said:


> I knew that regimental ties were a fraught topic, but this is ridiculous.


.....true, perhaps but, alas, could such observation not also be accurately applied to a growing number of threads, these days? :icon_scratch: However, your point is well taken, regarding arguments of military history offered in a thread on ties, included in a clothing forum. The propriety of such commments in such circumstance certainly are arguable.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

at least the flood of "is * trad?" posts has subsided :icon_smile:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> .....your point is well taken, regarding arguments of military history offered in a thread on ties, included in a clothing forum.


Yes, it's a clothing forum; therefore, let's stop this nonsense about who saved who's chestnuts and debate who was the nattiest dresser, Patton or Montgomery. :icon_smile_big:










Cruiser


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

As one who has both complained about--and participated in--chasing rabbits in these discussions...I have come to the conclusion that some of the more interesting and entertaining threads have been those that strayed from the original topic. It starts out innocently enough and then turns into a sort of stream of consciousness thing that can stimulate all sorts of comments and opinions. Some are outrageous. Some quite witty. But gents, how long can we continue to only discuss who makes the best ocbd...whether or not to wear loafers with a suit, or which khakis are closest to the original.

As interesting as our tradliness is...I do find that we hit "lulls" in postings where there seems to just not be much more to say on our subjects of interest except to regurgitate what we've already been through many times. Repeating ourselves is certainly not all bad. New comers shouldn't always have to search the archives (and probably don't know how) and we hard core trads seemingly never to tire of discussing the virtues and vices of Brooks Brothers, et al.

On the other hand, when you bring together well educated, highly opinionated and strong-minded people from all backgrounds, regions and experiences...it is bound to make for lively discussion no matter what the original subject. For some reason, going to the interchange to do the same thing just doesn't seem to be the same. This is more unexpected and seems more spontaneous. As long as it doesn't get too out of hand what's wrong with letting the conversation take it's course? Everything that possibly can be said about the OP's question in this thread, for example, has been said several pages back. Let's have some fun. Just my two cents.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Perhaps. Sometimes it detracts from the quality of the thread, however.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I agree Salty. 

I think that if a random dozen of us were to get together for drinks, the conversation would bolt from clothing in a matter of minutes never to return. No reason for us to be less interesting here!

And while I'm too young to have second-hand knowledge of any conflict prior to Desert Storm, the idea that "Britain... could, if pushed, have abandoned France, and emerged from the war without territorial loss, or indemnities." Without even postulating an alternative outcome, this assertion is lunacy. That WWII could have had any other outcome than the sum total outcome is not a reasonable assertion. So Britain would have recovered, dusted off its palms, and then established diplomatic relations with some weakened Nazi Franco-German state? Please. America was late to the party, but clearly played a roll that a crippled Britain was not capable of playing.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Chouan said:


> to stop the USSR getting too much of it once they, the USSR had won


One could go either way on this, but - at least vis-a-vis the US and the UK - the only way it matters is in determining which fire Britain's chestnuts got pulled out of. If anything, Britain sitting off on the corner of Soviet Europe might have been in a more uncomfortable position than Britain sitting off on the corner of Nazi Europe.

In any event, the whole subject reminds me of an exchange in _A Hard Day's Night_:
"Don't take that tone with me, young man! I fought the war for your sort."
"I bet you're sorry you won."


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Yes, it's a clothing forum; therefore, let's stop this nonsense about who saved who's chestnuts and debate who was the nattiest dresser, Patton or Montgomery. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From the picture offered, I cannot say which might be the nattiest dresser but, Gen Patton's clothing certainly presents a better fit. LOL. Poor old Monty's clothing fits him about as well as a BB traditional fit shirt fits the rest of us!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Trip English said:


> I agree Salty.
> 
> I think that if a random dozen of us were to get together for drinks, the conversation would bolt from clothing in a matter of minutes never to return. No reason for us to be less interesting here!
> 
> And while I'm too young to have second-hand knowledge of any conflict prior to Desert Storm, the idea that "Britain... could, if pushed, have abandoned France, and emerged from the war without territorial loss, or indemnities." Without even postulating an alternative outcome, this assertion is lunacy. That WWII could have had any other outcome than the sum total outcome is not a reasonable assertion. So Britain would have recovered, dusted off its palms, and then established diplomatic relations with some weakened Nazi Franco-German state? Please. America was late to the party, but clearly played a roll that a crippled Britain was not capable of playing.


+1 on all counts, TE. As to the outcome of WWII and not to diminish the sacrifice and valor of any allied combatants, American Iron won that war. The US industrial base simply out produced the axis powers. We were not only a major contributor to putting the iron on target, we produced the airframes that carried that iron, the crews that drove those airframes and the ordinance that was placed on those targets. Note to all: Logistics wins wars! Make no mistake about that, Chouan


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

The Rambler said:


> Right, dude, I'll try to explain that to my father's brother, who was killed in the aftermath of the Normandy Invasion, and my mother's uncle who was killed in France by an artillery shell in WW1.


Sorry for your family's loss, I guess anyone who denigrates such things doesn't really get what service and being an ally really means.


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> Cruiser


I like the tie tucked into the shirt. When I went through trade school in 1980-1981 my instructor (who I admired a great deal) cautioned us that should we ever have a job that required wearing a tie to either tuck it into the shirt or better, wear a clip on.

Getting choked to death by a machine tool would be a very sad way to go.

Interestingly (probably only to me) I had one mentor in the tool and die trade that worked for the allies and one that worked for the nazis.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Isn't Monty wearing Bill's M1Ps, high water style?


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^
Darn--you beat me to it Rambler.


----------



## rlp271 (Feb 12, 2009)

The US may get too much credit for their actions in the European theater during both great wars, but don't try to change history. The British did a horrible job in Gallipoli. I think you should consult a few others under the Union Jack on that one, namely the ANZAC forces. They bore the brunt of the disastrous decisions on the beaches of Turkey. You need to remember that the British abandoned Turkey after poor leadership decisions led to heavy casualties. There's a reason why they celebrate ANZAC day down under.

If you think the US was really more concerned with a "colonial war" in the Pacific, you need to read a little bit more history. The United States used Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor as an excuse to enter WWII, but the focus of the initiative was squarely on Europe first. There's a reason, aside from ego, that General MacArthur was constantly enraged by the lack of support in the Pacific. All the best leaders, Patton, Bradley, and Eisenhower made their name in Europe, not in Asia. The British, of all people, have no right to give anyone else flack for colonialist tendencies.

The USSR gets less credit than it deserves for victory in WWII, but I wonder how many more millions of people Stalin would have thrown into the meat grinder if the US had never joined the allies. Look at how many men were lost at Kursk alone. If the Red Army wasn't 1.4 million men in operational strength, who knows what would have happened. The Soviets 

MacArthur, despite his huge ego, was a genius at war. He used the limited resources he was given in the Pacific to cutting off Japan's supply lines. He island hopped to lesser known islands to isolate the larger ones. His plan was always to starve out the Japanese, not fight them directly. It saved thousands of lives. You should try reading about the series of amphibious assaults and naval battles that took places in the Pacific. There's a reason why the Japanese had to take their attention away from Oceania. Only after the European theater was wrapping up did MacArthur get the resources he wanted.

Yes, the Aussies fought off the Japanese at the Battle of Coral Sea, but the Japanese never planned a full invasion of Australia. They were set to take the islands around Australia to isolate it from their US allies. The defeat there was a setback, but their plans were put on permanent hold by the US victory at Midway. If Midway doesn't happen, the Japanese go through with another set of attacks on the islands surrounding Australia.

You also give zero credit to the Chinese and Korean Communists who were busy fighting a guerrilla war against the Japanese in Manchuria after they took it in 1931. That's a long time for Japanese forces in Manchuria to be softened up. Not to mention the fighting that was happening in the Chinese mainland from 1937 onward. That was completely ignored by Europe. By the time WWII started in Europe, China had already been fighting the Japanese for 8 years and very small pockets of Korean resistance had been forming since 1905. The USSR entering Manchuria in 1945 only tipped the scales, and it happened between the two atomic bombs being dropped. Not only was Japan reeling from their defeat in Okinawa, they were dealing with a brand new super weapon the US had decided to use on them.

The US didn't single handedly win the great wars, but they certainly contributed a lot more than you're trying to give them credit for.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> From the picture offered, I cannot say which might be the nattiest dresser but, Gen Patton's clothing certainly presents a better fit. LOL. Poor old Monty's clothing fits him about as well as a BB traditional fit shirt fits the rest of us!


Recall that Patton was from a wealthy family, and a cavalryman (so much tonier, donchaknow), and no doubt had all his uniforms bespoken (he had enough money to buy spare parts for the fledgling armored unit he commanded in the late thirties). He adapted a camel polo coat for uniform wear, and also modified a B-3 bomber jacket. Most of the shots I've seen of Monty indicated he wore variations of issue clothing


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

Chouan said:


> In WW2 the two incidents that "turned the tide" were the defeat of Rommel in N.Africa, and the defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk, in Russia. Neither are attributable to the US.


In the battle which won North Africa:

1. The British fought under American command (Eisenhower).
2. Montgomery fought beside an American army commanded by Patton and later Bradley.
3. The British were using hundreds of American manufactured Sherman tanks.
4. The French also fought on our side and NEVER would have come over if not for American involvement and command.

So I think maybe it was a team effort. 

As a former US Marine officer who has been in the field with British and Dutch Marines, I respect the Brits. But there is no substitute for industrial power in a big war.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

rlp271,

Dare I prolong this thread? I just want to point out that Japan did not restrict itself to the islands around Australia. Darwin was bombed heavily. Furthermore, a Japanese submarine can be seen at the Australian War Memorial that was destroyed in Sydney harbour.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

P Hudson said:


> Dare I prolong this thread? I just want to point out that Japan did not restrict itself to the islands around Australia.


they also shelled Fort Stevens on the Oregon coast (June 1942)

and killed six people in a balloon bomb attack in June 1945 (some 285 balloon bombs fell on the US in late 1944-early 1945)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Trip English said:


> I agree Salty.
> 
> I think that if a random dozen of us were to get together for drinks, the conversation would bolt from clothing in a matter of minutes never to return. No reason for us to be less interesting here!
> 
> And while I'm too young to have second-hand knowledge of any conflict prior to Desert Storm, the idea that "Britain... could, if pushed, have abandoned France, and emerged from the war without territorial loss, or indemnities." Without even postulating an alternative outcome, this assertion is lunacy. That WWII could have had any other outcome than the sum total outcome is not a reasonable assertion. So Britain would have recovered, dusted off its palms, and then established diplomatic relations with some weakened Nazi Franco-German state? Please. America was late to the party, but clearly played a roll that a crippled Britain was not capable of playing.


You need to read my post properly. I was referring to the First world War at that point.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> +1 on all counts, TE. As to the outcome of WWII and not to diminish the sacrifice and valor of any allied combatants, American Iron won that war. The US industrial base simply out produced the axis powers. We were not only a major contributor to putting the iron on target, we produced the airframes that carried that iron, the crews that drove those airframes and the ordinance that was placed on those targets. Note to all: Logistics wins wars! Make no mistake about that, Chouan


But Britain bought that iron, it wasn't a gift! The Us produced airframes that Britain bought, and that Britain flew. I'm not denying the US role in Europe, but they didn't "win the war", anymore than the British Enfield rifles purchased by the US army in the 1860's won the Civil War. Of course logistics win wars, but the logistics that Britain,. and the USSR got from the US was bought, not given.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Steve Smith said:


> In the battle which won North Africa:
> 
> 1. The British fought under American command (Eisenhower).
> 2. Montgomery fought beside an American army commanded by Patton and later Bradley.
> ...


The Battle which "turned the tide" the expression I was replyiong to, was El Alamein, in which the Americans played no part. The US tanks used by the UK were purchased from the US; they weren't gifts!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

rlp271 said:


> The US may get too much credit for their actions in the European theater during both great wars, but don't try to change history. The British did a horrible job in Gallipoli. I think you should consult a few others under the Union Jack on that one, namely the ANZAC forces. They bore the brunt of the disastrous decisions on the beaches of Turkey. You need to remember that the British abandoned Turkey after poor leadership decisions led to heavy casualties. There's a reason why they celebrate ANZAC day down under.


Gallipoli wasn't a success, apart from mthe evacuation, but I think you'll find that the French lost more casualties there than the ANZAC forces did, and the British troops lost significantly more than the French did. Gallipoli is a classic example of myth-making, the myth being created by Rupert Murdoch's father Keith, for his own reasons. ANZAC forces fought well there, as they did later in Palestine, but it wasn't an ANZAC only operation.

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-45883546.html


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Chouan said:


> The US tanks used by the UK were purchased from the US; they weren't gifts!


Lend-Lease?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Chouan said:


> But Britain bought that iron, it wasn't a gift! The Us produced airframes that Britain bought, and that Britain flew. I'm not denying the US role in Europe, but they didn't "win the war", anymore than the British Enfield rifles purchased by the US army in the 1860's won the Civil War. Of course logistics win wars, but the logistics that Britain,. and the USSR got from the US was bought, not given.


...and the purchases(?) to which you refer were made with credit, extended to our allies by an ever gracious US, much of which, in the bloom of the rose experienced subsequent to the cessation of combat activiteis, the US forgave. The debts were never paid and those tanks, airframes, bombs, etc., to which you refer were never paid for and were therefore, gifts to our allies! LOL. No need to say thank-you. Just buy me a drink, when next we meet!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

True. I accept, graciously, I hope, your argument.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Steve Smith said:


> 4. The French also fought on our side and NEVER would have come over if not for American involvement and command.QUOTE]
> 
> I rather thought that Britain and France fought alongside each other, as Allies, until Petain surrendered. Perhaps you're thinking of a different war?


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

Why did it take the Americans so long to realize that the Nazis were a bad lot?


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Trimmer said:


> Why did it take the Americans so long to realize that the Nazis were a bad lot?


We were paying too much attention to Salazar and Franco.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Saltydog said:


> Chouan certainly has provided us with a prime example of European revisionist blather that is, no doubt, the prototype of anti-American palaver they use to excuse themselves from siding as fully with us as they should against the extremist Muslim threat to western democracy. In reality they are afraid of the burgeoning population of militant Islamist throughout the EU. It is much easier to decry the U.S, if they diminish the inconvenient fact that had we not entered WWII, especially, they would all be speaking German now. Perhaps they can look to their former "savior" Russia to take care of that little problem as well.


So suggesting that America didn't win both world wars for us is "the prototype of anti-American"? I don't see how. Does pro-American mean accepting everything that Americans say as the Truth? Challenging American assertions the they "pulled our chestnuts out of the fire for us" isn't actually anti-American, really, is it. Myths are there to be challenged, aren't they? Or would you rather people just beleived what they're told.
As I've suggested elsewhere, it was the USSR that defeated Nazi Germany, not the US. We wouldn't have been "all speaking German now". Germany had lost the war when they failed to invade Britain in 1940. Whether an invasion then would have succeeded is open to discussion. I don't think they'd have got enough kit across the channel for a successful invasion. By 1941 it was too late. Britain fought off Germany and Italy, without outside military help, from the summer of 1940, until the summer of 1941, when the Russians became involved
As far as Islamist extremism is concerned, Britain had no problems until Britain helped the US in their invasion of Iraq, thuis allowing the US to argue that it wasn't an "American" war, but a UN war...... 
US Politicians have been calling for Wikileaks to be declared a Terrorist Organisation.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/congressman-calls-for-anti-wikileaks-offensive.ars
Are you subscribing to that as well?


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

Chouan said:


> Steve Smith said:
> 
> 
> > 4. The French also fought on our side and NEVER would have come over if not for American involvement and command.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Chouan said:


> As I've suggested elsewhere, it was the USSR that defeated Nazi Germany, not the US. We wouldn't have been "all speaking German now". Germany had lost the war when they failed to invade Britain in 1940. Whether an invasion then would have succeeded is open to discussion. I don't think they'd have got enough kit across the channel for a successful invasion. By 1941 it was too late. Britain fought off Germany and Italy, without outside military help, from the summer of 1940, until the summer of 1941, when the Russians became involved


OK...you would be speaking Russian.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Chouan said:


> US Politicians have been calling for Wikileaks to be declared a Terrorist Organisation.
> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/congressman-calls-for-anti-wikileaks-offensive.ars
> Are you subscribing to that as well?


Damn right!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Any justification for that view? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction to true stories that embarrass the US government?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Saltydog said:


> OK...you would be speaking Russian.


Would the USSR been able to get together sufficient men and materiel to maintain control of mainland Europe, after defeating Nazi Germany, and their satellites, *and* launch a successful cross Channel invasion?


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Perhaps not immediately. But given the way the Soviets expanded through Eastern Europe...they would have gotten to it. But both our premises are conjecture.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Saltydog said:


> Perhaps not immediately. But given the way the Soviets expanded through Eastern Europe...they would have gotten to it. But both our premises are conjecture.


Except that the Russians actually not only limited their expansion through Europe, but also withdrew from some territories that they'd liberated from the Nazis. That suggests to me that they wanted security, not domination. They kept out of Greece, despite calls from the Greek Communists, and Britain's presence in Greece wouldn't have been capable of stopping them. They moved out of Jugoslavja, and allowed Tito pretty much a free hand, even as a communist. They withdrew from Austria and from significant areas of Germany that they were occupying at the end of the War. Not the action of a regime bent on conquest, but that of a state that wanted peace.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Chouan said:


> They moved out of Jugoslavja, and allowed Tito pretty much a free hand, even as a communist.
> 
> Not the action of a regime bent on conquest, but that of a state that wanted peace.


Actually Stalin made several unsuccessful attempts to assasinate Tito because in Stalin's view Tito was too independent of Soviet control. KGB secret papers that were later made public revealed that at the time of Stalin's death a plan was being put together to kill Tito by infecting him with the plague.

They didn't call it the "Soviet Empire" for nothing. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Actually Stalin made several unsuccessful attempts to assasinate Tito because in Stalin's view Tito was too independent of Soviet control. KGB secret papers that were later made public revealed that at the time of Stalin's death a plan was being put together to kill Tito by infecting him with the plague.
> 
> They didn't call it the "Soviet Empire" for nothing. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Rather like the "American Empire"; no less of an empire for not being acknowledged.
As far as Tito & the KGB are concerned, it is rather on a par with Allende & the CIA.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Rather like the "American Empire"; no less of an empire for not being acknowledged.


The term American Empire refers only to cultural and economic influences that America has over other parts of the world rather than actual States under the control of the U.S., unlike the Soviet Empire. But that's actually not the point because you were referring to the peace loving Soviets, not the U.S..



> As far as Tito & the KGB are concerned, it is rather on a par with Allende & the CIA


What does that have to do with your comment about the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Cruiser


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Ignore the troll.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

ah... yes... when will I ever wise up about these things? and such an obviously troll-attracting topic, too :icon_pale:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Gentlemen:

As amusing as this diversion from the topic is, we need to keep it somewhat respectful in tone here. Otherwise it may as well be Interchange material.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

I don't know what the majority of Brits think but the rest of the world including myself before I got Americanized, do think that Americans saved Brits' backsides twice in recent history. It is OK to be grateful. 
Back to the topic:
I wonder if there are any Croats out there who could decide if British regiments' monopolization of certain tie patterns is just or not? They don't call it "cravatte" for no reason.


----------



## snakeroot (Aug 30, 2008)

Sirs,

To return this thread to topic, is it proper for a non-urologist to wear a tie associated with a society of urological interns?

Regards,


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

^Snakeroot, that's a darn good question. As the owner-to-be of said Duke University DYSURIA tie, I'll let you know what happens to me when I wear it in public. Perhaps when an irate urological intern threatens to dump his drink on me, I'll plead that I at least attended Duke University, and thus am only *partially* a fraud for wearing the tie. I would imagine that he'd then dump *half* of his drink on me.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

^After a certain age we all are associated with the said "motorized" regiment with one way or another. If you are not there yet, wait and see:icon_smile: 

BTW Duke should not be a problem; we even tolerate Harvard ties around here, not the case for us in Boston I hear:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## snakeroot (Aug 30, 2008)

Sir Cingle said:


> I'll let you know what happens to me when I wear it in public. Perhaps when an irate urological intern threatens to dump his drink on me, I'll plead that I at least attended Duke University, and thus am only *partially* a fraud for wearing the tie. I would imagine that he'd then dump *half* of his drink on me.


Given who you're messing with if a *drink* is all you get splashed with count yourself lucky.

Regards,


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

snakeroot said:


> Given who you're messing with if a *drink* is all you get splashed with count yourself lucky.
> 
> Regards,


:biggrin2:


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

looking at the emblems on the tie, I wondered just what was in those glasses.


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

snakeroot said:


> Given who you're messing with if a *drink* is all you get splashed with count yourself lucky.
> 
> Regards,


A darn good point, snakeroot. Darn good.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> The term American Empire refers only to cultural and economic influences that America has over other parts of the world rather than actual States under the control of the U.S., unlike the Soviet Empire.
> 
> Cruiser


On the contrary, apart from US puppet states, like the Phillipines and S.Korea, and most of Central America, the US occupies Hawaii and Puerto Rico, as well as Guam, Wake, the US Virgin Islands. the Marianas, and American Samoa. I'd call that an Empire.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Starch said:


> Ignore the troll.


 Why, or how, is responding to US jingoism the action of a troll?


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Chouan said:


> On the contrary, apart from US puppet states, like the Phillipines and S.Korea, and most of Central America, the US occupies Hawaii and Puerto Rico, as well as Guam, Wake, the US Virgin Islands. the Marianas, and American Samoa. I'd call that an Empire.


Hey, don't short change our Empire - we've colonlized a lot more places than the countries you listed, except we called them territories and then states...and we still have them too.


----------



## snakeroot (Aug 30, 2008)

Geez, even scatological humor can't distract you people. Let me try again:

Assuming one wished to adhere to the highest standards of UK punctilio, would it be improper to wear *non-tie* articles of clothing bearing a regimental pattern? For example what about my Argyle & Sutherland or Blackwatch belts or my Blackwatch socks?

Likewise, under the same standard, are bowties subject to the same strictures as are long ties?

Regards,


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Sir Cingle said:


> ^Snakeroot, that's a darn good question. As the owner-to-be of said Duke University DYSURIA tie, I'll let you know what happens to me when I wear it in public. Perhaps when an irate urological intern threatens to dump his drink on me, I'll plead that I at least attended Duke University, and thus am only *partially* a fraud for wearing the tie. I would imagine that he'd then dump *half* of his drink on me.


 You private college kids sure have money. 1 thing you can be sure of in Austin, no one is wasting a perfectly good drink by pouring it on someone!


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

:biggrin2:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Cardinals5 said:


> Hey, don't short change our Empire - we've colonlized a lot more places than the countries you listed, except we called them territories and then states...and we still have them too.


Also the U.S. has not had to use force to hold on to a single one of the territories named. You will find no mass graves in any of them courtesy of the U.S. government, unlike have been discovered in Belarus, for example. Nor has the U.S. ever had to build walls to hold people in. Actually we need to build a few to hold people out.

Cruiser


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Also the U.S. has not had to use force to hold on to a single one of the territories named. You will find no mass graves in any of them courtesy of the U.S. government.
> Cruiser


Uh oh, don't say that around any first-nations peoples. Don't mean to upset anyone, but here's a mass grave on American soil with U.S. soldiers standing around it (anyone wants me to remove the picture just let me know).


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

^^ Cruiser, how about Hawaii? Not the mention the real owners of the land we are stepping on, I know it started with the Brits and Spanish but US just continued. Nobody has a clean history in that regard and should not claim moral superiority. It is what it is.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Cardinals5 said:


> Uh oh, don't say that around any first-nations peoples. Don't mean to upset anyone, but here's a mass grave on American soil with U.S. soldiers standing around it


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that U.S. history isn't dotted with shameful episodes; and Wounded Knee certainly is one of them. U.S. troops massacred about 300 Native Americans at Wounded Knee; but to compare such episodes with things like the purge in Belarus in the 1930's where some estimates put the dead at over a quarter of a million simply won't hold water.

Cruiser


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

snakeroot said:


> Sirs,
> 
> To return this thread to topic, is it proper for a non-urologist to wear a tie associated with a society of urological interns?
> 
> Regards,


I think the urology club tie is hilarious, and I think that now that you _know _what it is_, _SirC, you won't be able to wear it without feeling like a fraud (half-fraud doesn't cut it). I suggest that you sell it by placing an ad in the society's newsletter.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that U.S. history isn't dotted with shameful episodes; and Wounded Knee certainly is one of them. U.S. troops massacred about 300 Native Americans at Wounded Knee; but to compare such episodes with things like the purge in Belarus in the 1930's where some estimates put the dead at over a quarter of a million simply won't hold water.
> 
> Cruiser


How about the Phillipines? The US take the islands from Spain in 1898, then kill, or directly cause the death of 250,000+ Philipinos who have the temerity to want self-determination. I'd call that Imperialism. Taking Puerto Rico from Spain in 1898, and making it a US territory, without the say so of the population also suggests Imperialism to me.
In any case, your response suggests that what matters is scale of casualties, not intent.
In terms of blatant land-grabbing imperialism, I'd suggest that the Mexican-American War takes some beating.

"To us it was *an empire* and of incalculable value; but it might have been obtained by other means."
Ulysses S. Grant, Memoirs

For the Phillipines, here's an introduction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War#Atrocities
I know it's Wikipedia, but it's an easy introduction to those who aren't aware of the scale of loss of life.


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

It would be nice if the moderators would act and move all this non-topical dithering to some other thread/forum...
Highly annoying that this is still going on. Take it somewhere else fellows...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

EastVillageTrad said:


> It would be nice if the moderators would act and move all this non-topical dithering to some other thread/forum...
> Highly annoying that this is still going on. Take it somewhere else fellows...


Now that you mention it I will have to agree with you. I mean after all there is so much more to say about striped ties. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> I think the urology club tie is hilarious, and I think that now that you _know _what it is_, _SirC, you won't be able to wear it without feeling like a fraud (half-fraud doesn't cut it). I suggest that you sell it by placing an ad in the society's newsletter.


Perhaps you're right, Rambler. After all, what if I'm wearing the DYSURIA Duke University tie and happen to run into this character: https://surgery.ucsd.edu/faculty/sur/Pages/cv.aspx

He's a member in good standing of the Duke Youthful Society of Urology Residents Interested in Advancement. He'd know I'm a fraud. And he looks like a tough customer, too.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Due to the finite number of colour combinations, certain duplications are always going to happen, some will be seen as fortunate others not so. A recent and in my opinion unfortunate one I came across was when my eldest son and I went on the Anfield tour in early November, and being the keen cricket fan I am I immediatley noticed that the staff tie for the guides was exactly the same as the hallowed MCC tie. I say hallowed because the MCC (ostensibly Marylebone Cricket Club, but in reality a lot more than that) guards this tie heavily, so much so that it can't be bought in the shop at Lords, it is only issued to MCC members. The shop sells Lords and England Team and ECB souvneir ties but not the red and yellow MCC members' tie. However, I only buy ties in the other shop at Lords on the other side of the ground, namely the MCCC shop (Middx.) I have a very nice burgundy and blue stripe with the MCCC 3 scimitars logo.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

snakeroot said:


> Sirs,
> 
> To return this thread to topic, is it proper for a non-urologist to wear a tie associated with a society of urological interns?
> 
> Regards,


I would be concerned about what they might do in retaliation...


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Chouan said:


> On the contrary, apart from US puppet states, like the Phillipines and S.Korea, and most of Central America, the US occupies Hawaii and Puerto Rico, as well as Guam, Wake, the US Virgin Islands. the Marianas, and American Samoa. I'd call that an Empire.


I'm amazingly offended by this attitude and I certainly hope this is not what Europeans think of America these days. In fact, I think my response is summed up best in a quote from Gen. Colin Powell:
_*
"We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.
And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are."*_


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

EVT's right - let's take this to the Interchange - I'll start a thread over there.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Sir Cingle said:


> Perhaps you're right, Rambler. After all, what if I'm wearing the DYSURIA Duke University tie and happen to run into this character: https://surgery.ucsd.edu/faculty/sur/Pages/cv.aspx
> 
> He's a member in good standing of the Duke Youthful Society of Urology Residents Interested in Advancement. He'd know I'm a fraud. And he looks like a tough customer, too.


Uh! Oh! He is a marine urologist!

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Bradford said:


> I'm amazingly offended by this attitude and I certainly hope this is not what Europeans think of America these days. In fact, I think my response is summed up best in a quote from Gen. Colin Powell:


I think you'd be mighty disappointed to learn what many Europeans (and Australians) think of the US. When people settle on moral relativism, it is I suppose inevitable. In fact, George Orwell wrote a lot about those who are unable to distinguish between tyranny/"evil" (which of course requires inverted commas nowadays) and the response to it. Christopher Hitchens wrote an interesting little book called _Why Orwell Matters_ in which he discussed these things.

All I can say is I'm glad when my grandparents fled from tyranny, they chose to go west rather than east (but then, nobody but a few US intellectuals in the 1950s and 60s "escaped" to Russia).


----------



## snakeroot (Aug 30, 2008)

P Hudson said:


> I think you'd be mighty disappointed to learn what many Europeans (and Australians) think of the US. When people settle on moral relativism, it is I suppose inevitable. In fact, George Orwell wrote a lot about those who are unable to distinguish between tyranny/"evil" (which of course requires inverted commas nowadays) and the response to it. Christopher Hitchens wrote an interesting little book called _Why Orwell Matters_ in which he discussed these things.
> 
> All I can say is I'm glad when my grandparents fled from tyranny, they chose to go west rather than east (but then, nobody but a few US intellectuals in the 1950s and 60s "escaped" to Russia).


This is the stripy ties and urine jokes thread. The sententious codswallop thread has moved here.

Does anyone know if the Brooks #1 in red and gold is claimed by any UK regiment?

Regards,


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

snakeroot said:


> Does anyone know if the Brooks #1 in red and gold is claimed by any UK regiment?
> 
> Regards,


Yes, several of the cavalry regiments i.e Hussars and Lancers have variations on the basic wide stripe 2 colour red/burgundy - gold/yellow tie


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes, several of the cavalry regiments i.e Hussars and Lancers have variations on the basic wide stripe 2 colour red/burgundy - gold/yellow tie


That particular BB tie is one of my favorites. Now that I am a bit older and mellower than before, I believe that if I ran across one of these "Hussars" or "Lancers" wearing a variant of my favorite tie, I would just give the guy a pass. Live and let live, no need to punish him for his indiscretion. He may be ignorant to the fact that I so strongly identify with that particular stripe/color combination.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

snakeroot said:


> This is the stripy ties and urine jokes thread. The sententious codswallop thread has moved here.


 Thank you. All further posts on that matter should be posted there.

The mods don't mind going a bit off topic here and there, but it was starting to weigh down the thread in politics.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Steve Smith said:


> That particular BB tie is one of my favorites. Now that I am a bit older and mellower than before, I believe that if I ran across one of these "Hussars" or "Lancers" wearing a variant of my favorite tie, I would just give the guy a pass. Live and let live, no need to punish him for his indiscretion. He may be ignorant to the fact that I so strongly identify with that particular stripe/color combination.


LOL! I can just picture the scene, you strolling around backstreets in Belgravia, doing the tourist thing, and you come head to head with a cavalry officer on his way to his favourite hidden away pub off Lowndes Square, you spy each other's ties, nod, and carry on.

Incidentally, the hallowed MCC tie I mentioned earlier is also red and yellow. I forgot to mention the colours in that previous post.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Are there any stripes that is not claimed by some armed gentlemen or another?


----------



## snakeroot (Aug 30, 2008)

*Ah the Hell with It, I'm Switching to Emblematics*



catside said:


> Are there any stripes that is not claimed by some armed gentlemen or another?


The armed gentlemen are the least of it in some respects. The difficulty of having to explain to Nigel Brook-Hamster that one wasn't at school with him is not to be underestimated.

In all seriousness, is there a unified list of these things somewhere? Goldings has 171 ties for land forces alone, and I'm not sure that's comprehensive.

Regards,


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Obviously this is a little too much. I will continue to wear whatever I want and stay the hell out of England)


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Obviously there is nothing wrong with a group, organization, school, military unit, whatever, picking out a tie to represent their group. I think the problem is picking out a common, everyday tie that many people wear and expect everyone to stop wearing it just because that group has claimed it. Either pick something completely unique to your group or simply accept that you are sharing it with many others.

Cruiser


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

catside said:


> Are there any stripes that is not claimed by some armed gentlemen or another?


I never realized that one had to have advanced degrees in Western history, military history, political science and philosophy--to name but a few--in order to tie the proper bit of striped silk around one's neck. After all the research I've done in tieology!

I've studied with great care all the leading works on the subject. I developed my thirst for knowledge with the late works of Huntington Clothiers. A fantastic little catalogue that offered nothing but 3/2 sack jackets and suits, flat front trousers (when they had all but disappeared)...ocbd, pinpoint, and broadcloth shirts with outstanding collar rolls, GTH and holiday specific trad wear, and--yes--regimental ties...all at a fraction of the cost of BB or even the more expensive JAB of the day. Then earlier catalogues by Lands' End (when they, for a season carried some of the better regimental/repp ties ever offered to the proletariat at affordable prices). I also mertriculated in some wonderful hand drawn Brooks Brothers catalogues/works (when they carried quite a large collection of regimental stripings). Along the way, I indulged in the legendary regimentals by Robert Talbot. I then did advanced studies in the catalogues of Ben Silver,
who carried not only the largest collection of military, athletic, academic, social, and professional ties but standards, descriptions and histories of each....along with examples of "old boys" who wore them. I labored under the false illusion that I was at least somewhat conversant enough on the subject as to have something of value to offer in a discussion of same. (Hey, if the stipes don't run from upper left to lower right--or "from the heart"--it ain't a true regimental.)

Alas, I have now been disabused of that of self-aggrandizing notion. Now, as I slink away into the corner reserved for the neophyte, I leave with one question I don't _think_ has been asked--or answered. Is Argyll & Sutherland a pattern of stripes in any mix of colors a company decides need to go there? Or is it the uhhhhhh "traditional" navy, hunter, red and gold in that pattern that makes it uhhhhhh...."A&S"? A simplistic question in light of the weighter matters henceforth discussed, no doubt replete with self-admitted spelling errors and puntuational liberties that are to be expected from one so uninformed.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

catside said:


> Obviously this is a little too much. I will continue to wear whatever I want and stay the hell out of England)


I'll go there, but damned if it's with anything except solids...that *is *okay, isn't it? Earl, somebody, tell me before I book the flight


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

phyrpowr said:


> I'll go there, but damned if it's with anything except solids...that *is *okay, isn't it? Earl, somebody, tell me before I book the flight


Well, if it's a solid in the shade of pink known as cyclamen, you might be seen as trenching upon the cravatorial perquisites of a rowing association called the Leander Club:

https://www.bensilver.com/C37-Leander-Club,1297.html


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Well, if it's a solid in the shade of pink known as cyclamen, you might be seen as trenching upon the cravatorial perquisites of a rowing association called the Leander Club:
> 
> https://www.bensilver.com/C37-Leander-Club,1297.html


ARRRGGGHHHHHH!!!


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Starch said:


> I always eschew striped ties when in the UK for exactly this reason.


This thread has caused me to re-evaluate my ways and I will, in the future, intentionally wear regimental ties in the UK just to piss 'em off.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Like I said before there are a finite number of combinations that are suitable, attractive and wanted by clubs, regts and so on, so there are lots of duplicaitons especially of the two-colour ties. So the thing to do in case of confrontation, and the chances of that are very very slim, is to create a fictitious home for the tie and always have that answer ready, "Oh really, you say it's the same as the 18th Fusiliers, well you see this is actually the tie issued to me as a member of the KCC, Karlstad Cricket Club, in Sweden"


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I think with certain threads, like this one, the moderators should either change the title or send me a registered letter so I'll know the topic's gone topsy turvy into something in which I really would like to have participated rather than have me just pass out at the thought of actually discussing stripes on neck ties. I've missed the whole damn thing.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

I hereby, and henceforth for all time, in my role as representative, adopt without reservation, the Old Cholmelians regimental stripe necktie as symbolic and emblematic of the Greenville County, Travelers Rest division (NW sector), Mixed Couples Bowling League champions.


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

I once passed through there. So, I claim membership.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

catside said:


> I once passed through there. So, I claim membership.


If, kind Sir, you audaciously wear the Greenville County, Travelers Rest division (NW Sector) Mixed Couples Bowling League Champions repp stripe tie you can either expect to hear from our well-heeled team of lawyers or, minimally, can expect a bespoken bowling shoe to be driven up your backside. You have been warned.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

That's the spirit Card. And if you ever want to wear the burgundy and blue tie of the KCC, you have my permission as founder and life chairman of said cricket club. Apparently though some bunch of yahoos in the UK called the Guards Division also lay claim to it


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

:biggrin2:


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> I think with certain threads, like this one, the moderators should either change the title or send me a registered letter so I'll know the topic's gone topsy turvy into something in which I really would like to have participated rather than have me just pass out at the thought of actually discussing stripes on neck ties. I've missed the whole damn thing.


Peaky, with your vast 2000 post+ experience, you should know that this is an explosive topic: but don't worry, there will be another iteration of this topic in a few months.

Cards, I presume your team's bespoke bowling shoes are in complementary colors.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

phyrpowr said:


> ARRRGGGHHHHHH!!!


Courage, man--it's just that one specific shade of pink.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Starch said:


> This thread has caused me to re-evaluate my ways and I will, in the future, intentionally wear regimental ties in the UK just to piss 'em off.


Agreed and I will join you in this endeavor.


----------

