# what my coworkers are wearing - blue jeans - and HELLO



## Cottonmather0 (Sep 20, 2007)

Hello All, I am new here - just found the place and absolutely love it. 

And a quick search revealed a few old threads about workplace dress codes, but enough to where I feel comfortable starting a new one to complain a bit about the race to the bottom that has occurred at my workplace in the past couple of years. 

When I started my career 12 years ago, I went to work for a public accounting firm that had just adopted a business casual Fridays policy and it was a big deal for the old timers - people were actually allowed to show up for work one day a week without wearing a suit! - but the rest of the time it was all suits all the time. Being just out of college, I wanted to fit in so I went into debt and bought 3 off the rack cheap suits along with an assortment of shirts and ties and shoes to go along with the suits. I was just learning about style back then and I shudder to think about what I was wearing, but at least I was trying. 

Then a few years later my firm merged with another firm that was business casual all the time when in the office, but suits whenever at the client. I was making enough then to upgrade a little bit to some nicer suits but I got to wear them less. Then not long after that the dress code got revised to business casual all the time and suits were only required if that was the client's dress code as well and my suit wearing opportunity was even smaller, even though I had grown to love dressing nicely. The one exception to this policy was that unless we were working outside or in dirty conditions we were not allowed to wear jeans or other "sloppy" clothes, even if the client did - we still had to maintain a professional image by wearing "real" business casual clothes on the job. 

A couple years later I switched over to a private company that was all suits at first, with business casual fridays, but soon after the pattern began to repeat itself and now, 6 years after I started at this company, I am stuck in sartorial hell every day of the week. Officially, we are business casual all the time with "nice jeans" (is there such a thing?) allowed on Fridays, but the rules only matter when someone is willing to enforce them. Now, even though we do have a real dress code that is supposedly in place, every day of the week very few people, maybe less than 1%, are dressed in what I would call true business casual and the rest are in a mismash of sloppy Old Navy khakis and ill-fitting golf shirts, and less, right on down to the 10% or so who wear ratty jeans (faded with frayed cuffs), sneakers, and t-shirts 5 days a week, the percentage of whom seems to grow on Fridays when more people seem to think it's OK to dress like a sloppy college student and EVERYONE but me it seems thinks it's appropriate and necessary to wear blue jeans in varying degrees of rattiness, even the "executives" who should know better. 

(For the life of me, I cannot understand the appeal of wearing blue jeans in any situation anywhere outside of working on the farm, but even in nightclubs these days that's what men seem to be wearing more than anything else and I don't quite get it... not only is denim a sloppy fabric, it's so damn conforming and looks like everyone else... what's the point?)

Me personally, 5 days a week - even on Fridays - I wear an open collared button down and dress trousers most days, except on hot days in the summer when I might occasionally wear a nice knit shirt instead with the same trousers. Unfortunately, I am BY FAR the best dressed person on our floor and I personally think I have become a lazy and a bit sloppy by real business casual standards. For instance, I know I should be wearing a coat more often, but I live in Houston and it's hot around here... even though I do still wear a coat when I go out at night and to church on Sundays. Maybe you folks will straighten me up. 

Anyway, I just wanted to get that off my chest and express how nice I think it is to have found a place where people appreciate nice clothes and I am looking forward to participating in this community. 

Cheers.


----------



## lee lin (May 2, 2007)

while i've learned how to dress well with the help of people on this forum i've also learned to embrace casual clothing. in fact both are equally fun to me. i guess i just love all kinds of clothes. welcome and enjoy!:icon_smile:


----------



## the etruscan (Mar 9, 2007)

So, I'll weigh in as one of the few proponents of denim on this forum. I'm not into frayed, or destroyed, jeans, but nice, well-made jeans (think Iron Heart, Samurai, Kato, Pure Blue) can be a real pleasure to wear. It's largely about what I do though. I suspect that if I drove or rode the subway instead of biking, and lead a less hectic non-work life, I would find my jeans more and more relegated to the closet. As someone who works in a (very casual research) office during the day, and bicycles around pubs and pool halls in the evenings, the durability and aesthetics of jeans appeal to me. I also just like the feel of denim, it's got more character than most trousers.

That said, I tend to host my dinner parties in one of my pin or chalk stripe suits.

EDIT: This doesn't mean that I will ever be caught in a wrinkly or poorly sewn travesty of a shirt like what Thom Browne pumps out. Hate that ****.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

> (For the life of me, I cannot understand the appeal of wearing blue jeans in any situation anywhere outside of working on the farm, but even in nightclubs these days that's what men seem to be wearing more than anything else and I don't quite get it... not only is denim a sloppy fabric, it's so damn conforming and looks like everyone else... what's the point?)


I think the "point" is that not everyone lives by the same rule book that you live by. I wear jeans just about every day of my life now and I don't find them to be "sloppy". I find them to be comfortable and easy to care for. As for whether or not they are "conforming"; I really don't care one way or the other because I don't care how others dress nor do I overly concern myself with what others think about how I dress.

Of course if others hold some control over me such as being my employer or I feel that I should dress to someone else's standards as a show of respect, such as at Church, a wedding, or a funeral; then that's a different story entirely. I try not to be disrespectful of others; therefore, my closet contains three suits and a tuxedo for those occasions. That is why I read this forum, to educate myself on dress that I do not normally wear. And I appreciate it for that.

But I have no obligation to dress for someone else just because you are sitting at the next desk at work or table at a restaurant. As long as I'm neat and clean what I have on is no one else's business or concern.

I think some people want to be "told" or "ordered" to wear a suit and tie because then they will be "conforming" to what everyone else is wearing, except for the fact that they can show off their my clothes are better than yours because you bought yours at J.C. Penney and mine is Brionni. If this is not the case then wear your "nice" clothes, enjoy wearing your clothes, and don't worry about what everyone else is wearing.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

okay...as a recovered "jeans snob" I can kind of understand where you're comming from, but some months ago, I started wearing jeans again, and I have to be honest...they're pretty damn nice...

Are you saying that you don't wear jeans??? well good for you...what do you want??? a cookie???



seriously, it's just a matter of personal preference. We arent living in 1890's London anymore, so those rules don't apply to the here and now. if you want to wear suits every day, go for it, nothing wrong with it, but I just don't understand why it's so hard for some to understand that perhaps there are people out there who don't want to wear suits while they mow the lawn or whatever...just look it as having your own unique style, you like your suits...fine...

Think of it like this...you find it oh soooo offensive to see guys wearing jeans at work or in the club or wherever...but if they're all wearing jeans, and you're wearing a suit, then you have a leg up (pun intended) on them...either way, there are no "rules", I'd live to know where this notion came from, just wear what you like...that's all that really matters...


----------



## Cottonmather0 (Sep 20, 2007)

The Gabba Goul said:


> okay...as a recovered "jeans snob" I can kind of understand where you're comming from, but some months ago, I started wearing jeans again, and I have to be honest...they're pretty damn nice...
> 
> Think of it like this...you find it oh soooo offensive to see guys wearing jeans at work or in the club or wherever...but if they're all wearing jeans, and you're wearing a suit, then you have a leg up (pun intended) on them...either way, there are no "rules", I'd live to know where this notion came from, just wear what you like...that's all that really matters...


Wow. Just wow. Thanks for making me feel so welcome, and thanks for the cookie.

Of all the places in the world where I wouldn't think to encounter this juvenile (and unfortunately all too common) attitude, it would be a message board dedicated to sartorialism. I thought I had found a place that actually gets "it" and instead it's more of the same old race to the bottom. Color me surprised, I just love the Internet!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Deleted, changed my mind. Sorry.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Cottonmather0 said:


> Wow. Just wow. Thanks for making me feel so welcome, and thanks for the cookie.
> 
> Of all the places in the world where I wouldn't think to encounter this juvenile (and unfortunately all too common) attitude, it would be a message board dedicated to sartorialism. I thought I had found a place that actually gets "it" and instead it's more of the same old race to the bottom. Color me surprised, I just love the Internet!


Telling you to wear what you like is juvenile???

Nobody's saying don't wear suits...but you were looking for a pat on the back for your dislike of those wretched guttersnipes who wear jeans for activities other than ploughing the back forty, just chill, the world isnt comming to an end just because people wear jeans to work...If you were looking for other elitists to give you an attaboy for professing your hatred for denim, trust me, you've probably come to the right place...but in all honesty, once you step outside the confines of the internet and into the real world, most people don't care about "the rules" it doesnt mean that society is going to hell in a handbasket, it just means that people have deifferent priorities than they did in the 1920's...so you can sit there and stew all you want about jeans and "slobs" and "declining standards" and "the rules", but when it's all said and done, at the end of the day, jeans arent going anywhere...neither are suits...there's plenty of room in society for both...


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Welcome to the Forum, Cotton. You and I are truly kindred spirits, and very much on the same page. I detest and despise blue jeans with a purple passion! ("Blue denim--the Devil's fabric," as another forumite aptly put it.) I cannot for the life of me understand why mature men in vast numbers wish to eschew the classic standards of masculine elegance in favor of looking like grubby little boys. I suppose there is some delusion of "comfort"--although I never found jeans particularly comfortable back when I still wore them many years ago.

Your story and mine are somewhat similar. For about 19 1/2 years I worked for a company where decent business casual was the norm, with coat and tie customary for meetings with senior management, luncheons withs guests, advertisers, etc. and other "special" occasions. About 8 1/2 years ago, I changed jobs. I soon found to my dismay that the regnant standard of dress was not decent business casual but "slobwear"--T-shirts, shorts, jeans, sandals, etc. I felt an instinctive revulsion. As I did so, I became more and more interested in dressing in better quality menswear. These days, unless the nature of my work dictates more casual attire, I always wear what I would characterize as "high-end dress casual" attire. Today would be fairly typical. It is a warm day, so I am wearing my green W.W. Chan blazer, a blue and white checked BD shirt with a Canali knit yellow tie with a harmonizing pocket square--yellow silk with little pink and white squares, white cotton slacks and Allen-Edmonds Fairfax wholecuts in chestnut. Yes, I am sure I outdress all my co-workers, including the president of the company, especially on "slovenly Friday," but I couldn't care less!

Anyway, it's great to have you aboard.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I detest and despise blue jeans with a purple passion! ("Blue denim--the Devil's fabric," as another forumite aptly put it.) I cannot for the life of me understand why mature men in vast numbers wish to eschew the classic standards of masculine elegance in favor of looking like grubby little boys. I suppose there is some delusion of "comfort"--although I never found jeans particularly comfortable back when I still wore them many years ago.


OK, there's nothing wrong with you disliking blue jeans. I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is the name calling and condescending attitude toward folks who do like them. I am a 59 year old man who wears jeans and I can assure you that I do not look like a "grubby little boy". And I have no "delusion" of comfort. I find jeans to be the most comfortable item of clothing I own. Just because you don't, don't speak for me.

Just because you think you dress better than someone else certainly doesn't make you better than them. There is a segment of this forum that seems to think that their clothes make them something special when in fact they are far from it judging by the comments they direct at others who they seem to think are beneath them for no reason other than the way they dress. Clothing will never give one character or good manners.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Just because you think you dress better than someone else certainly doesn't make you better than them. There is a segment of this forum that seems to think that their clothes make them something special when in fact they are far from it judging by the comments they direct at others who they seem to think are beneath them for no reason other than the way they dress. Clothing will never give one character or good manners.


You know what...if you're ever out in my area, let me know...I want to buy you a beer...


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> Just because you think you dress better than someone else certainly doesn't make you better than them. There is a segment of this forum that seems to think that their clothes make them something special when in fact they are far from it judging by the comments they direct at others who they seem to think are beneath them for no reason other than the way they dress. Clothing will never give one character or good manners.


I would disagree. Dressing better DOES, in many respects, make me "better" than those who do not. By dressing decently, I am improving public esthetics and general decency, and I am showing respect for others and for the norms of polite society. I am also showing respect for myself. In all, I am just raising the general tone of things. Men who voluntarily choose to dress and look like slobs ("grubby little boys," if you prefer) are doing the exactly the reverse: They are lowering the tone of society, contributing to the general coarsening of the culture and often show a boorish disrespect for others, as in the case of men who will flaunt their hairy legs and ugly feet in decent restaurants and generally mar the dining experience of others by their slobbish attire. In fact, I can confidently say that men who refuse to turn themselves out well are showing an inherent lack of character and good manners! They are boors, plain and simple.

Obviously, by the foregoing, I do not mean to include those noble souls whose honest toil precludes dressing well on the job--miners, construction workers, roofers, etc. However, they would have the same obligation to turn themselves out reasonably decently otherwise.


----------



## the etruscan (Mar 9, 2007)

I support JLibourel here. I think it's good that he has such a low barrior to feeling smug and self righteousness. Many people have to do something in order to feel accomplished, he needs merely not wear jeans.

As I slung on my "grubby little boy" shirt, chelseas, belt and jeans this morning, I felt no such sense, and I'm kind of jealous. People at work wonder why I'm dressed up every day (as I will continue to wear shirts). I can now tell them it is because I am working towards "lowering the tone of society, contributing to the general coarsening of the culture and ... show[ing] a boorish disrespect for others."

Toodles, I'm off to bring about the decline and fall of modern civilization.

-jeff


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> I would disagree. Dressing better DOES, in many respects, make me "better" than those who do not. By dressing decently, I am improving public esthetics and general decency, and I am showing respect for others and for the norms of polite society. I am also showing respect for myself. In all, I am just raising the general tone of things. Men who voluntarily choose to dress and look like slobs ("grubby little boys," if you prefer) are doing the exactly the reverse: They are lowering the tone of society, contributing to the general coarsening of the culture and often show a boorish disrespect for others, as in the case of men who will flaunt their hairy legs and ugly feet in decent restaurants and generally mar the dining experience of others by their slobbish attire. In fact, I can confidently say that men who refuse to turn themselves out well are showing an inherent lack of character and good manners! They are boors, plain and simple.
> 
> Obviously, by the foregoing, I do not mean to include those noble souls whose honest toil precludes dressing well on the job--miners, construction workers, roofers, etc. However, they would have the same obligation to turn themselves out reasonably decently otherwise.


I can see where you're comming from, I too don't like it when people dress inappropriately for the situation...if I'm at a nice restaurant where the majority of patrons are wearing suits, I think it's only right that I go with the flow...but if it's 2 in the afternoon and I'm grabbing a quick hamburger, I'm not going to worry about whether or not the guy at the table next to me is wearing shorts (I'm not all that into looking at other guys' legs)...

You say that dressing well is more asthetically pleasing to others...that's a bit presumptuous (sp?) no??? I mean, how do you know that some people dont prefer the look of others in jeans and T-shirts...I know I enjoy going to the mall and seeing what sneakers everybody else has on...I think that there are many contexts in which a person can go without a suit and not be considered a slob...it's all a matter of taste, you prefer to dress up, and that's okay...but I don't think that there is anything wrong with others choosing for themselves and not marching in lock-step with the "rule" book thumpers...

I don't think it shows a lack of manners or poor upbringing or whatever when a person wears jeans (I type this as I sit at my computer wearing jeans and flip flops)...it just means that they like jeans...just like it doesnt make a person better when they wear suits...it just means that they like to wear suits...although, I'm not sure what calling somebody a slob just because they don't dress the way you say they should says about a person's manners (how would you feel if some denim wearing "slob" called you a woman or a [email protected] for being so into clothing??? I think all of us clothing enthusiasts have had to deal with some form of harsh ribbing for our hobby at one time or another)...People wear what they like...perhaps that's what you have the problem with...but, if you don't want to see that, you'd basically have to lock yourself in your house all the time...

I wouldnt be so quick to write off jeans entirely...I mean...who would you rather sit next to on your next flight???

_no jeans_

or









_jeans_

...I think I'll take the "slob"...


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

But the basic rule remains that unless you are the Senior Partner you should fit in.

How right this is for the business of the firm or whatever else is academic, its not your call.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

GBR said:


> But the basic rule remains that unless you are the Senior Partner you should fit in.
> 
> How right this is for the business of the firm or whatever else is academic, its not your call.


Yes...but if you read the OP, "fitting in" at this guy's work place would include wearing jeans...


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

I agree that denim is for little boys. That being said there is a time and a place for us to be little boys. The problem of our time is that men want to be little boys all the time. This is hardly surprising being that nearly all fashion marketing wants us to be 19 years olds.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Dressing better DOES, in many respects, make me "better" than those who do not. By dressing decently, I am improving public esthetics and general decency, and I am showing respect for others and for the norms of polite society. I am also showing respect for myself. In all, I am just raising the general tone of things. Men who voluntarily choose to dress and look like slobs ("grubby little boys," if you prefer) are doing the exactly the reverse: They are lowering the tone of society, contributing to the general coarsening of the culture and often show a boorish disrespect for others, as in the case of men who will flaunt their hairy legs and ugly feet in decent restaurants and generally mar the dining experience of others by their slobbish attire. In fact, I can confidently say that men who refuse to turn themselves out well are showing an inherent lack of character and good manners! They are boors, plain and simple.


Words escape me. I don't even know how to respond to something like this other than to express surprise that one would openly admit to such elitist snobbery. I guess this means we need to reconsider the very elegantly dressed Al Capone's contributions to the betterment of society.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Blue jeans are a cultural artifact of the California Goldrush. One levi Strauss purchased a quantity of denim and sold a durable pair of pants for the miners. That they were durable is about it. More 49ers died of simple exposure to the elements, disease and malnutrition than all the Pepperbox armed desperados of Bret Hart. The irony is today jeans cost more than most of those gold seekers ever cleared, are no longer durable or even assembled in the USA. They are still hot and restrictive of movement causing measured drops in semen count and viability. Professional search and rescue personell comment the best dressed corpses are always in cotton, usually jeans. Men, like Jan who are students of world history can retell some pretty illuminating facts about clothing and materials worldwide. The problem is they would have to dress in mufti of denim, flip flops, baseball cap and cotton/poly undershirt proclaiming they ate a mooseturd pie in Saskatoon Saskatchewan or some other event changing the path of humanity to have any exchange at all. To dress well today seems to invite attacks on librarians with clam shells. I bet Jan can illuminate that reference before anyone else, clad in jeans or not.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Just because you think you dress better than someone else certainly doesn't make you better than them. There is a segment of this forum that seems to think that their clothes make them something special when in fact they are far from it judging by the comments they direct at others who they seem to think are beneath them for no reason other than the way they dress. Clothing will never give one character or good manners.


I'd say that fear of this is half of why the new style icon is the fellow in oil-stained jeans and a t-shirt instead of the man in the gray flannel suit. Nobody wants to give the impression that they might believe that they are in any way superior to anyone else, especially if they have real economic advantages that people might resent. I'd argue that pretending to be someone that one isn't can cause just as many problems, however.

The other half is just that people don't wear suits growing up so much anymore. The kids start walking, stick them in a pair of jeans. They get to high school, still in jeans. They go to college, more jeans. Maybe they go on for a master's, possibly start wearing something a little different, but jeans are still the backbone. Then they end up off in the work force, grown men, for whom suits are as alien as top hats and tails. If they aren't required, of course they won't be worn, any more than if one's workplace suddenly instated a "kimono optional" dress code.

The "comfort" that people keep talking about when they defend what they wear isn't usually physical comfort. Most modern clothes are equally comfortable assuming they fit properly and are appropriate for the weather. It's psychological comfort that they're referring to, and that comes from what a person is used to.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

katon said:


> The other half is just that people don't wear suits growing up so much anymore. The kids start walking, stick them in a pair of jeans. They get to high school, still in jeans. They go to college, more jeans. Maybe they go on for a master's, possibly start wearing something a little different, but jeans are still the backbone. Then they end up off in the work force, grown men, for whom suits are as alien as top hats and tails. If they aren't required, of course they won't be worn, any more than if one's workplace suddenly instated a "kimono optional" dress code.
> 
> The "comfort" that people keep talking about when they defend what they wear isn't usually physical comfort. Most modern clothes are equally comfortable assuming they fit properly and are appropriate for the weather. It's psychological comfort that they're referring to, and that comes from what a person is used to.


First of all I'm not a kid. I will be 60 next time around and I spent many years wearing suits. Nothing in my wardrobe is as comfortable to me as my trusty Lee jeans. I wear them every day now for that very reason. And there is nothing "psychological" about it.

If you don't like jeans, don't wear them. I don't care. Just don't call me a slob because I do. It's more common courtesy than anything.



> Men, like Jan who are students of world history can retell some pretty illuminating facts about clothing and materials worldwide.


Maybe so, but his remarks still reeked of snobbery and elitism. It is becoming increasingly clear to me since I began reading this forum that wearing nice clothes has no correlation to having good manners and displaying common courtesy to others.

I'm not trying to cause trouble or controversy here; but damned if I don't get tired of being indirectly insulted on a daily basis by a few folks. My daughter has a tatoo so how was I supposed to feel when a few here called women with tatoos sluts, tramps, strumpets, etc.? And when blue jeans are referred to as slobwear and folks who wear them as slobs how am I supposed to feel?

I wear suits. Hell, I even own a tuxedo. That's why I read this forum. But most days I'm in jeans, often with a sport coat. It's my usual mode of dress. That doesn't make me a slob nor does it mean that I am responsible for the downfall of society. I'm just an average guy who wears what he feels comfortable wearing. Nothing more. Why can't we stop with the name calling and labeling? And no one is better than me solely because he is in a suit and I'm in jeans. That is an absurd position to take no matter how some of you may try to spin it.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

silly Cruiser...don't you know that only good guys who are helping to make the world a better place wear suits...










and jeans are for lower class uneducated slobs who are ruining society...


----------



## Cottonmather0 (Sep 20, 2007)

I was actually going to never post here again - and yet, and yet - a nice person who will remain unnamed sent me a kind PM apologizing for the rather "abrasive" response with the cookie and encouraged me to continue to participate. So I will make one more post on this thread and continue to enjoy whatever else is out there. Count it as a newcomer's mistake that I opened what appears to be a rather frequent can of worms by making the comments that I did.

For what it's worth -

I will fully admit that it's possible to dress neatly (in a sense) in jeans, and many people that I work with do just that. The point of my OP wasn't to criticize blue jeans in general, though, it was a lament that the introduction of "nice jeans" at work instigated a race to the bottom that has been impossible to control because the proper fashion for wearing jeans is at odds for dressing nicely in the first place. That is, the fashion for blue jeans is to wear those that are faded and frayed and worn out to begin with.

So if your pants are frayed and worn out, what sense does it make to wear nice shiny shoes? Why not wear shoes that are worn out, too, to complete the look? And if you're wearing worn out shoes, why bother tucking your shirt in? And if you're not going to tuck your shirt in, why bother with a pressed shirt? Why not just wear a t-shirt that's meant to be untucked in the first place? And if you're going to wear a t-shirt, why not just wear sneakers?

And voila, you get the look that is unfortunately all too common at my office on Fridays (snapped surreptitiously in the elevator last Friday at lunch):

https://img388.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0921071317zl8.jpg

https://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0921071318ft5.jpg

It is inappropriate to wear jeans to work in an office, just as it's inappropriate to eat with one's hands or fail to hold a door open for a lady or to use certain four letter words in certain company. Can you get away with it in contemporary America today? Yes. It's quite easy to "fit in" (as you said, Whitman Mayo, I am indeed the anomaly at my workplace) and "hide in the crowd" since everyone else seems to be engaging in the same behavior, but that doesn't make it right, and I mourn the lack of standards that we have in America today, all across the board, from manners to fashion.

You can say that there are no "rules" but the way we dress and present ourselves to other people is just as important as how we treat them and how we act in society. If there are no rules for how to dress in a certain situation, then logic says you must also say there are no rules for how we're supposed to act, either. Dressing properly is every bit as important as acting properly, and it's all part of the big picture we call, "manners." It's how society functions, that we're better than the birds and the beasts and the animals in the land. Manners are the grease in the wheels of civilization.

When people justify their bad manners by saying that jeans are "more comfortable" than nice clothes what they are saying is, "I have worn these clothes since I was a little boy and have never known any better, and besides if I wear the same clothes all the time just like everyone else, I'll never have to think for myself. Not to mention that this way I can stay up late and watch Letterman and fall out of bed without shaving and head straight to work. It worked for me in college, so why not? Good Lord, I love Fridays at work!"

Do nice clothes make me work harder or more professionally? I like to think they do but I know that there is likely no real connection. No, I wear nice clothes to work for the same reason that I wear nice clothes to church - to show respect to my employer and my colleagues that I care enough about my job to go to bed early enough to be well rested for work, and to spend time in the morning making myself look nice for work - that I care enough not to just roll out of bed and throw on whatever's easiest.

I'm not saying I never wear jeans or shorts - I did this weekend in fact (so I'll turn down that cookie). I cleared some brush on the backside of my property on Saturday morning and I wore blue jeans and boots, and then, on Saturday evening, I had dinner at a local hamburger restaurant and wore shorts and a t-shirt anf flip-flops  while I drank my beer and watched football. But I didn't wear jeans to church this morning and I won't wear jeans to work tomorrow because I understand that proper clothing has a function and a place and I'm not a little boy anymore who doesn't know any better.

So I'm sorry if I offended anyone by mourning the lack of manners and true style in our society today. Like I said, I figured a place that encouraged the discussion of threadcounts and fabrics in custom made shirts might just be a place to find likeminded souls who also appreciate the finer things in life and wish for a return to a nicer and more gentle society than the one we have now. And I did find many of those people for sure, but apparently I have also found a gaggle of loudmouthed fool BOYS who are so insecure in their own lack of taste or manners that they're compelled to swear up and down that there therefore must not be any rules whatsoever and to ruin the discussion for everyone else. Fair enough, but just because you can be loud in your defense of slovenliness does not make you less slovenly. It just makes you less civilized.

TTFN, see you around the forums.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

Gosh what a ridicoulous bunch of posts. Jeans have their place and if some choose to never wear them that is fine. In some work environments I have been somewhat forced into wearing jeans but do so in the most formal manner possible. I'll routinely wear neat, non-tattered, dark and dressy jeans with a nice shirt, polished shoes and a pocket square. Most of my coworkers will compliment their jeans with a slovenly t-shirt and sneakers but I choose my approach to both "fit-in" but still maintain some standard of dress. In some situations you do need to attempt to be "one of the boys" and more formal options do not bode well. 

That being said, if i had it my way, a sportcoat and slacks would be considered "casual" with a suit being proper attire.

MrR


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Cottonmather0 said:


> I will fully admit that it's possible to dress neatly (in a sense) in jeans, and many people that I work with do just that. The point of my OP wasn't to criticize blue jeans in general, though, it was a lament that the introduction of "nice jeans" at work instigated a race to the bottom that has been impossible to control because the proper fashion for wearing jeans is at odds for dressing nicely in the first place. That is, the fashion for blue jeans is to wear those that are faded and frayed and worn out to begin with.
> 
> So if your pants are frayed and worn out, what sense does it make to wear nice shiny shoes? Why not wear shoes that are worn out, too, to complete the look? And if you're wearing worn out shoes, why bother tucking your shirt in? And if you're not going to tuck your shirt in, why bother with a pressed shirt? Why not just wear a t-shirt that's meant to be untucked in the first place? And if you're going to wear a t-shirt, why not just wear sneakers?
> 
> ...


Okay, I can understand what you're saying, and in this context, I will aggree with you, there's nothing wrong with the way those guys are dressed, but it's probably not such a good idea for the workplace. I was picturing something alot different.



> It is inappropriate to wear jeans to work in an office, just as it's inappropriate to eat with one's hands or fail to hold a door open for a lady or to use certain four letter words in certain company. Can you get away with it in contemporary America today? Yes. It's quite easy to "fit in" (as you said, Whitman Mayo, I am indeed the anomaly at my workplace) and "hide in the crowd" since everyone else seems to be engaging in the same behavior, but that doesn't make it right, and I mourn the lack of standards that we have in America today, all across the board, from manners to fashion.
> 
> You can say that there are no "rules" but the way we dress and present ourselves to other people is just as important as how we treat them and how we act in society. If there are no rules for how to dress in a certain situation, then logic says you must also say there are no rules for how we're supposed to act, either. Dressing properly is every bit as important as acting properly, and it's all part of the big picture we call, "manners." It's how society functions, that we're better than the birds and the beasts and the animals in the land. Manners are the grease in the wheels of civilization.


I'll disagree here though, I refuse to believe that dress and manners are that closely related. A story that sticks with me has to do with when I was younger walking with my mom, there was this guy and his son sitting on the sidewalk, from their apperance you might conclude that they were "white trash" or something like that...anyway, the kid was playing and almost bumped into my mother, the father immediately made the kid say "excuse me"...when my mother told him that it was okay, the guy made some statement about teaching his son manners...that tells you right there that even rough looking carachters can have manners, I wish some of the suit wearing admins and doctors that I work with had the same philosophy about manners as that guy...



> When people justify their bad manners by saying that jeans are "more comfortable" than nice clothes what they are saying is, "I have worn these clothes since I was a little boy and have never known any better, and besides if I wear the same clothes all the time just like everyone else, I'll never have to think for myself. Not to mention that this way I can stay up late and watch Letterman and fall out of bed without shaving and head straight to work. It worked for me in college, so why not? Good Lord, I love Fridays at work!"


Once again, I'll disagree, and contend that those who let an archaic (sp?) set of rules dictate how they are supposed to dress everyday are really the ones who can't think for themselves...



> Do nice clothes make me work harder or more professionally? I like to think they do but I know that there is likely no real connection. No, I wear nice clothes to work for the same reason that I wear nice clothes to church - to show respect to my employer and my colleagues that I care enough about my job to go to bed early enough to be well rested for work, and to spend time in the morning making myself look nice for work - that I care enough not to just roll out of bed and throw on whatever's easiest.


When I played ball in HS, I remember we always had the nicest uniforms, the reasoning behind that was that if you look better, you feel better, if you feel better you play better...we didn't but it was still nice to wear fancy uniforms...nothing wrong with dressing up because it makes you feel good...



> I'm not saying I never wear jeans or shorts - I did this weekend in fact (so I'll turn down that cookie). I cleared some brush on the backside of my property on Saturday morning and I wore blue jeans and boots, and then, on Saturday evening, I had dinner at a local hamburger restaurant and wore shorts and a t-shirt anf flip-flops  while I drank my beer and watched football. But I didn't wear jeans to church this morning and I won't wear jeans to work tomorrow because I understand that proper clothing has a function and a place and I'm not a little boy anymore who doesn't know any better.


I think I had you pegged all wrong, and I'm man enough to admit that I may have jumped to conclusions. But, you'll find that there are some here who would indeed call you a slob too for wearing your flip-flops and shorts in public, that is what I get tired of, so when I hear somebody bemoaning denim in this day and age, that's immediately what comes to mind (see the above reference to slobwear)...these people really do believe that they are like some kind of "enlightened beings" or something like that just because they don't wear jeans (they're the ones who get a cookie)...That aside, there is a time and place for everything, I think that jeans are certainly okay for the workplace, but you have to pay just as much attention to your jeans as you would your slacks if you're wearing them to work...perhaps that's what this argument has turned to, regardless of whether it's jeans or a suit, certain situations require a bit more attention to detail...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Cottonmather0 said:


> I will fully admit that it's possible to dress neatly (in a sense) in jeans, and many people that I work with do just that. The point of my OP wasn't to criticize blue jeans in general, though, it was a lament that the introduction of "nice jeans" at work instigated a race to the bottom that has been impossible to control because the proper fashion for wearing jeans is at odds for dressing nicely in the first place. That is, the fashion for blue jeans is to wear those that are faded and frayed and worn out to begin with.
> 
> So if your pants are frayed and worn out, what sense does it make to wear nice shiny shoes? Why not wear shoes that are worn out, too, to complete the look? And if you're wearing worn out shoes, why bother tucking your shirt in? And if you're not going to tuck your shirt in, why bother with a pressed shirt? Why not just wear a t-shirt that's meant to be untucked in the first place? And if you're going to wear a t-shirt, why not just wear sneakers?
> 
> ...


Okay, I can understand what you're saying, and in this context, I will aggree with you, there's nothing wrong with the way those guys are dressed, but it's probably not such a good idea for the workplace. I was picturing something alot different.



> It is inappropriate to wear jeans to work in an office, just as it's inappropriate to eat with one's hands or fail to hold a door open for a lady or to use certain four letter words in certain company. Can you get away with it in contemporary America today? Yes. It's quite easy to "fit in" (as you said, Whitman Mayo, I am indeed the anomaly at my workplace) and "hide in the crowd" since everyone else seems to be engaging in the same behavior, but that doesn't make it right, and I mourn the lack of standards that we have in America today, all across the board, from manners to fashion.
> 
> You can say that there are no "rules" but the way we dress and present ourselves to other people is just as important as how we treat them and how we act in society. If there are no rules for how to dress in a certain situation, then logic says you must also say there are no rules for how we're supposed to act, either. Dressing properly is every bit as important as acting properly, and it's all part of the big picture we call, "manners." It's how society functions, that we're better than the birds and the beasts and the animals in the land. Manners are the grease in the wheels of civilization.


I'll disagree here though, I refuse to believe that dress and manners are that closely related. A story that sticks with me has to do with when I was younger walking with my mom, there was this guy and his son sitting on the sidewalk, from their apperance you might conclude that they were "white trash" or something like that...anyway, the kid was playing and almost bumped into my mother, the father immediately made the kid say "excuse me"...when my mother told him that it was okay, the guy made some statement about teaching his son manners...that tells you right there that even rough looking carachters can have manners, I wish some of the suit wearing admins and doctors that I work with had the same philosophy about manners as that guy...



> When people justify their bad manners by saying that jeans are "more comfortable" than nice clothes what they are saying is, "I have worn these clothes since I was a little boy and have never known any better, and besides if I wear the same clothes all the time just like everyone else, I'll never have to think for myself. Not to mention that this way I can stay up late and watch Letterman and fall out of bed without shaving and head straight to work. It worked for me in college, so why not? Good Lord, I love Fridays at work!"


Once again, I'll disagree, and contend that those who let an archaic (sp?) set of rules dictate how they are supposed to dress everyday are really teh ones who can't think for themselves...



> Do nice clothes make me work harder or more professionally? I like to think they do but I know that there is likely no real connection. No, I wear nice clothes to work for the same reason that I wear nice clothes to church - to show respect to my employer and my colleagues that I care enough about my job to go to bed early enough to be well rested for work, and to spend time in the morning making myself look nice for work - that I care enough not to just roll out of bed and throw on whatever's easiest.


When I played ball in HS, I remember we always had the nicest uniforms, the reasoning behind that was that if you look better, you feel better, if you feel better you play better...we didn't but it was still nice to wear fancy uniforms...nothing wrong with dressing up because it makes you feel good...



> I'm not saying I never wear jeans or shorts - I did this weekend in fact (so I'll turn down that cookie). I cleared some brush on the backside of my property on Saturday morning and I wore blue jeans and boots, and then, on Saturday evening, I had dinner at a local hamburger restaurant and wore shorts and a t-shirt anf flip-flops  while I drank my beer and watched football. But I didn't wear jeans to church this morning and I won't wear jeans to work tomorrow because I understand that proper clothing has a function and a place and I'm not a little boy anymore who doesn't know any better.


I think I had you pegged all wrong, and I'm man enough to admit that I may have jumped to conclusions. But, you'll find that there are some here who would indeed call you a slob too for wearing your flip-flops and shorts in public, that is what I get tired of, so when I hear somebody bemoaning denim in this day and age, that's immediately what comes to mind (see the above reference to slobwear)...That aside, there is a time and place for everything, I think that jeans are certainly okay for the workplace, but you have to pay just as much attention to your jeans as you would your slacks if you're wearing them to work...perhaps that's what this argument has turned to, regardless of whether it's jeans or a suit, certain situations require a bit more attention to detail...


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Just my two cents but in my teens and twenties blue jeans were always worn as work pants particularly when you had to work outdoors in bad weather (the pouring rain). In later years; at the office; if you worked in the back where clients didn't see you then jeans were okay, but if you worked up front where clients could see you even if you didn't interact with them then it was dress pants. I always thought of Levis as work pants and acceptable for casual dress, but as soon as you moved beyond that - the front office; church; parties and other social functions - it was dress pants & shirt. It does puzzle me a bit to see people wearing blue jeans with a dress shirt and blazer (no tie) to the office and to meet clients and acting like they're well-dressed. In my younger years I spent many days working outside in grimy conditions and the occasional rain shower wearing jeans so I just can't picture jeans as "dressy."


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Welcome to the Forum, Cotton. Don't take anything here too seriously and you'll enjoy it more.

I hear what you're saying - I wish guys like this would stop stinking up the place with their jeans-wearin' shenanigans:


__
https://flic.kr/p/2526881001

:icon_smile:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Mr. Mac said:


> I hear what you're saying - I wish guys like this would stop stinking up the place with their jeans-wearin' shenanigans


I must plead guilty. This is me in the office a couple of weeks ago.










Personally I have more problems with the black belt that I had on than the jeans (actually I have no problem with the jeans), but I explained the black belt in a previous post. Let's just say that I didn't realize that I had on a black belt until I saw the picture. It's called getting old. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## LeggeJP1 (Dec 3, 2010)

Welcome!

I can relate. I am an engineer. No one ever dresses up where I work; order of the day is 'as casual as you like.' People wear jeans in regularly, work jeans. "A collared shirt" is the most they ask of us. 

I usually still wear a blazer/SC with button down just because I want to. My group supervisor has noticed and is often complimenting me on this (she also flirts with me which I find very funny, though she's only 8-9 years older than me and still pretty cute). She likes the old saying "Dress for the job you want..." and repeats it every so often, leading me to believe that my image is helping me move towards a faster promotion path.

I'm still kinda new, but I pump out papers very fast and look good doing it. And even though I still spend half my day on this website (and some others), everyone seems to think highly of me. I recognize the benefit a very positive image brings.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I must plead guilty. This is me in the office a couple of weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like that jacket (cord?).

I don't understand the jeans-hate that comes up every now and then. Don't get me wrong: I sell suits for a living. I _live _in suits. I *love *suits. But for crying out loud, I'm not wearing cashmere slacks and a silk sportcoat to a summer 'garden party'. Very sharp, but not my cup of tea (and frankly I'd stick out like a sore thumb in my neck of the woods).

I posted the pic of Robby to show that denim can look very sharp. And your pic reinforces that fact by showing that mere mortals can look good in a similar ensemble.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Alas, these do seem the times that try men's souls! Don't get me wrong...I like jeans, when worn under appropriate circumstances but, the office is not one of those circumstances! LOL. I have never been and never will be a fan of casual Fridays...I am pretty sure they represent an unholy alliance with the anti-christ.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

The cabal behind the "business casual" death spiral is the sartorial equivalent of the Khmer Rouge, where neckties and jackets replaced glasses and pens as the marker for targeting "the elite." 

The ultimate end has turned out to be a sort of "Lord of the Flies" dress code. 

I honestly believe that the next step will be men in our break room wearing footie pajamas eating Cheerios out of over-sized bowls with over-sized spoons while watching cartoons.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

History tells us that the decline of a culture or power does not happen overnight.
There is no doubt that the west is in decline , an example is it's traditions. Clothing being one of them. The emerging nations China , India etc, are far more traditional than America , and Great Britain once very traditional countries. Both nations in decline.

Jeans for example was created as work clothing , only blue collar workers wore jeans at work ! now because of the attempt to destroy the traditions that made America and Britain
great , jeans are worn in a office with a T-shirt and athletic shoes ! 

Some excellent restaurants now allow the wearing of jeans and athletic shoes. Music , art , 
literature etc, has also seen a decline , not just men's clothing , I might include values and patriotism as well.

What we are all witnessing is the fall of the western tradition which has made the west great , but than the young today couldn't care less.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I for one, am quite comfortable with my jean-hate!!


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

It's not what you do, it's how you do it.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Mr. Mac said:


> I like that jacket (cord?).


Yes, it's a Stafford corduroy jacket that I got at Penney's 7-8 years ago. With the sale price and a discount coupon I don't think I paid but about $30 for it and it has been my favorite "jean jacket" ever since.

I've had at least one corduroy jacket (not the same one) in my closet since the late 60's, but didn't start wearing them with jeans until I saw Redford wearing the tweed jacket with jeans in "Three Days of the Condor" in 1975. I then started working for the U.S. Government in 1976 and encountered a number of guys wearing sport coats with both denim and corduroy jeans and just decided that I liked it; however, with the exception of a very brief period many years ago I don't wear ties with jeans.

One of my favorite jean/jacket wearing guys was an FBI Supervisory Special Agent that I became friends with back in the early 90's. His office was just down the hall from mine and there was something interesting about this FBI agent dressed more like Robert Redford's character in "Condor" than J. Edgar Hoover. :icon_smile_big:

I have another retired FBI agent friend who now works as chief of security for a well known entertainer and he regularly wears jeans with sport coats and blazers. I suppose the line of work one is in goes a long way toward what is acceptable and what isn't in this regard.

Having said that, I don't normally wear jeans to the office these days. When the above picture was taken I had just stopped in to make some phone calls. My office was closed at the time.

Cruiser


----------



## ada8356 (Dec 14, 2007)

I think the OP might be long gone... this thread was started in 2007. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

This is why I love AskAndy. I pop in after being away for months and someone's revived the jeans-hate conflict. I enjoy reading this kind of squabble the way some people like watching sports on TV.

I'm one of very few who wear sports coats and suits at work, and I like being one of the few. I don't care that others dress in jeans, it's just not for me.

Cruiser is a good example of wearing jeans and looking sharp with a jacket. I wear wool dress pants and khaki pants most of the time. I have one pair of jeans that my fabulous wife calls my porn-star jeans.

I hope the original poster didn't take it all so seriously that he went away. It's not real, it's just the internet.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I can never muster the energy for threads like this, they just seem so pointless. I wore jeans today. I wore slacks, a blazer and a tie yesterday. I might wear a navy suit or jeans tomorrow, whatever takes my fancy tomorrow morning!


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

One of the problems that I have with the blue jeans - medium blue shirt look is that it was standard issue prison garb back in the mid-to-late seventies, and is still used in some states even today (I think). So is this what we should aspire to? - to look like our favorite celebrity prison inmate? No thank you.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Regillus said:


> One of the problems that I have with the blue jeans - medium blue shirt look is that it was standard issue prison garb back in the mid-to-late seventies, and is still used in some states even today (I think). So is this what we should aspire to? - to look like our favorite celebrity prison inmate?


Blue denim pants and a blue chambray shirt was also the standard U.S. Navy work uniform for decades; however, I would submit to you that if you are wearing jeans and a blue OCBD shirt that even remotely resembles prison wear or a Navy work uniform, you desperately need to find a new place to purchase your clothing or you need to at least get some help picking it out.

I've been in the Navy and I've worked in a prison, and I can assure you that what I'm wearing in the picture above looks nothing at all like what those guys wear. :icon_smile_big:

This reminds me of the comments that some make here about looking like a security guard if you wear a navy blazer with medium gray pants. I say that if you do look like a security guard the problem goes far beyond the navy blazer and the gray pants. This would be yet another person who could use some help picking out clothes.

Cruiser


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

JLibourel said:


> Today would be fairly typical. It is a warm day, so I am wearing my green W.W. Chan blazer, a blue and white checked BD shirt with a Canali knit yellow tie with a harmonizing pocket square--yellow silk with little pink and white squares, white cotton slacks and Allen-Edmonds Fairfax wholecuts in chestnut.


Sounds like a wonderful combination; quite suitable (no pun intended) for your local. Should be in WAYWT!!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Blue denim pants and a blue chambray shirt was also the standard U.S. Navy work uniform for decades; however, I would submit to you that if you are wearing jeans and a blue OCBD shirt that even remotely resembles prison wear or a Navy work uniform, you desperately need to find a new place to purchase your clothing or you need to at least get some help picking it out.
> 
> I've been in the Navy and I've worked in a prison, and I can assure you that what I'm wearing in the picture above looks nothing at all like what those guys wear. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> ...


One wears jeans in the military when working ! The standard uniforms are not jeans. Jeans are work clothes, designed to wear when doing hard dusty work or work that can soil one's clothing. Cheap , durable and easy to maintain clothing ,that 's the reason Levi Strauss
invented the cloth and the idea.

The baby boomers decided in order to break with tradition they would wear jeans to an office.
Jeans to church , when going out to dinner and even to a symphony concert. The issue as I see it isn't jeans but an attempt to look as non traditional as possible.
Some might say going back to the hippie days to look as non establishment as possible !


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Yes - the baby boomers didn't want to look like their parents so they wore jeans - but there are limits to this. Does anyone recall back at the beginning of Clinton's first term in the White House that there was a minor flap over what the incoming staffers were wearing. Clinton, being a baby boomer (so am I) hired a lot of boomer staffers - who showed up at the White House in their usual jeans, shirts and sneakers. They were told "this is the White House," i.e. dress up; a suit and tie - and if they didn't; they wouldn't be let into the building. So they got suits - the jeans guys lost...comments? My point being: Some people seem to think that jeans are appropriate anywhere - even when working at the White House - but it didn't turn out that way.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

edhillpr said:


> This is why I love AskAndy. I pop in after being away for months and someone's revived the jeans-hate conflict. I enjoy reading this kind of squabble the way some people like watching sports on TV.
> 
> I'm one of very few who wear sports coats and suits at work, and I like being one of the few. I don't care that others dress in jeans, it's just not for me.
> 
> ...


but what great entertainment this is. Today I wore a blazer obtained from gentlemengeorge with a OCBD some bills and shell cordovan tassle loafers. I had two people say that being dressed up in the office made "them" feel uncomfortable.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jeans blah blah blah workwear blah blah blah...actually it's 2011 not 1911. One would be hard pressed today to find any worker employed in a professional capacity wearing jeans, due to all the H & S regulations for flameproof, waterproof, rip proof, stain proof, boilable clothing in conjunction with the fact that jeans ceased to be the best or most suitable item several decades ago. I can't think of a single employed corps of workers who wear jeans as workwear. Medical? Construction? Emergency services? Street cleaners? Manufacturing industries? Process industries? Roadworks? Agriculture? Horticulture? Civil engineering? Military? No, I can't think of a single area of manual work in which jeans are more suitable than the numerous specifically designed workwear items available today for a whole range of manual work tasks. 

Those of you who think jeans are manual workwear today must be baffled by all the people around you in jeans. As well as the fact that you are over 50 years behind the times!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

spielerman said:


> but what great entertainment this is. Today I wore a blazer obtained from gentlemengeorge with a OCBD some bills and shell cordovan tassle loafers. I had two people say that being dressed up in the office made "them" feel uncomfortable.


Luckily I get the opposite, I have people telling me that more people should dress as I do.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> One wears jeans in the military when working ! The standard uniforms are not jeans. Jeans are work clothes, designed to wear when doing hard dusty work or work that can soil one's clothing. Cheap , durable and easy to maintain clothing ,that 's the reason Levi Strauss
> invented the cloth and the idea.
> 
> The baby boomers decided in order to break with tradition they would wear jeans to an office.
> ...


Levi Strauss never invented the cloth (it's basically a form of sailcoth from Nimmes in France originaly hence "De Nimmes" which became "denims"), he made it into jeans though. I also doubt anyone wearing jeans is making any attempt to look non traditional, I doubt they give it that much thought now and consider it just "ordinary" or "normal" - maybe some years ago it would be an act of rebelion, now it's very much the staus quo.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Jeans blah blah blah workwear blah blah blah...actually it's 2011 not 1911. One would be hard pressed today to find any worker employed in a professional capacity wearing jeans, due to all the H & S regulations for flameproof, waterproof, rip proof, stain proof, boilable clothing in conjunction with the fact that jeans ceased to be the best or most suitable item several decades ago. I can't think of a single employed corps of workers who wear jeans as workwear. Medical? Construction? Emergency services? Street cleaners? Manufacturing industries? Process industries? Roadworks? Agriculture? Horticulture? Civil engineering? Military? No, I can't think of a single area of manual work in which jeans are more suitable than the numerous specifically designed workwear items available today for a whole range of manual work tasks.
> 
> Those of you who think jeans are manual workwear today must be baffled by all the people around you in jeans. As well as the fact that you are over 50 years behind the times!


Bad taste is also normal today in men's clothing. Jeans are very popular with migrant workers. Designed to with stand outdoor farming. Miners also wear jeans , again durable and easy to maintain. There are few examples of specially designed work wear for agricultural workers, than there are still those who herd cattle . jeans are perfect.

2011 NOT 1911 , I suggest anyone visit a migrant work area where fruits and vegetables are
being harvested and the over whelming number of workers are wearing jeans ! Visit a mine , construction work site , etc, etc.

There is no doubt that men today especially young men generally dress very poorly. 
Certainly generally young women tend to dress better. This of course was not always the case.
Finally look at Hollywood once a place where male actors set a standard in dress , Look at 
how male actors in Hollywood dress today and please don't compare the male singers
today with the Sinatra's , Cole's , Como's , Martin's , Mathis with today's male singers !
Yes this is the 21th century. Work clothing passes for anything today , even attending
a classical concert !


----------



## FrontHeadlock (Dec 1, 2009)

Like any other piece of clothing, jeans can be worn well and worn poorly. I see some people in jeans who look FAR better dressed than many people in wool slacks and suits.

There is nothing wrong with a quality, well-fitting pair of jeans, paired with nice shoes, a shirt, and possibly a blazer. It is a very good look, and looks downright sharp with proper attention to detail. Not to mention that, if you are in good shape, a well-fitting pair of jeans (on either men or women) can really highlight a nice body.

Jeans are a very distinctly american piece of clothing, and I don't really see anything wrong with that. It's something that's a part of our culture.


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

FrontHeadlock said:


> Like any other piece of clothing, jeans can be worn well and worn poorly. I see some people in jeans who look FAR better dressed than many people in wool slacks and suits.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a quality, well-fitting pair of jeans, paired with nice shoes, a shirt, and possibly a blazer. It is a very good look, and looks downright sharp with proper attention to detail. Not to mention that, if you are in good shape, a well-fitting pair of jeans (on either men or women) can really highlight a nice body.
> 
> Jeans are a very distinctly american piece of clothing, and I don't really see anything wrong with that. It's something that's a part of our culture.


Agreed, Much smarter than the typical , could stand to lose 20lbs, guy in pleated Zanellas and polo BD,

Or the typical , much beloved, "rumpled" bills and bb ocbd look. IMHO.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Regillus said:


> Yes - the baby boomers didn't want to look like their parents so they wore jeans - but there are limits to this. Does anyone recall back at the beginning of Clinton's first term in the White House that there was a minor flap over what the incoming staffers were wearing. Clinton, being a baby boomer (so am I) hired a lot of boomer staffers - who showed up at the White House in their usual jeans, shirts and sneakers.


This was nothing new to the White House. President Carter's "Georgia Mafia" didn't hesitate to wear jeans. Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan would wear jeans and drink beer from a secret cooler that he had hidden in his office after Carter declared the White House would be alcohol free. Both Jordan and Press Secretary Jody Powell were considered to be "hip" enough that they both made the cover of _Rolling Stone_ magazine.

I remember a much bigger conversation going on about these guys than the Clinton staff. Even the President was a confirmed jeans wearer. Here we see a dapper Carter in his jeans and navy blazer. I'm assuming that he just got out of prison since he is wearing what another poster referred to as prison wear, what with the medium blue shirt and all. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I agree with your thinking, Cruiser. And I'd say that most people, seeing the above chap riding by on his bicycle, A) would have no idea who he is, and B) if questioned by the police, would say "the guy that rode by was super well dressed, like in a suit"

It's how ya do it


----------



## Finian McLonergan (Sep 23, 2009)

Yes President Carter looks well, and is appropriately dressed for someone riding a bike. But unlike most older men he's slim. Unfortunately we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic, with older men especially vulnerable. And I've yet to personally encounter an overweight older man who looks good in jeans.

So the reality you're likely to encounter in real life will probably look more like this:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> I agree with your thinking, Cruiser. And I'd say that most people, seeing the above chap riding by on his bicycle, A) would have no idea who he is, and B) if questioned by the police, would say "the guy that rode by was super well dressed, like in a suit"


I'd report, "...but he would have looked even better in khakis!!"


----------



## FrontHeadlock (Dec 1, 2009)

Finian McLonergan said:


> Yes President Carter looks well, and is appropriately dressed for someone riding a bike. But unlike most older men he's slim. Unfortunately we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic, with older men especially vulnerable. And I've yet to personally encounter an overweight older man who looks good in jeans.
> 
> So the reality you're likely to encounter in real life will probably look more like this:


I'd say that's not the problem of jeans per se. It's a problem of being overwight plus wearing sloppy outfits.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

This just in: The "Robert & Me" guy is using his outfit to say he's a man of the people type of dude. Looking bad is looking good, and looking good is looking bad.

Jeans are relaxed and unpretentious (stated postitively; but done poorly they can be sloppy and fat assed) -- AND jeans are free and creative (or lazy and unthinking). 

Khakis can make you look like a Ken Doll doofus in pleats (say) -- or wonderfully trim, sunny and clean. 

It really comes down to how ya do it, to it


----------



## MicTester (Oct 8, 2009)

I hope the trend goes away. Far too many threads about what others are (not)doing. This place was so much better when things began and ended with attire. Now it is turning into a discourse on the world not enrolled here. 

Each time I read someone make a sweeping statement about a "slob" he has encountered, I feel pain. How can we judge people in such a sweeping manner without reference to context? May be his sister has been admitted to a hospital after a cardiac arrest and he ran with no consideration of what he had on. And here we are recounting how we ran into this guy this morning who was dressed like an ass. 

I recall once a member even commenting that flip-flops were no-no, unless one was making a quick trip to the convenience store next door. So what, now people are supposed to wear badges as to where they are headed and how long the trip will last? Just so others are not offended by their attire? 

Let's forget about others. We don't know their history and context. It is not our position to judge.


----------



## Finian McLonergan (Sep 23, 2009)

FrontHeadlock said:


> I'd say that's not the problem of jeans per se. It's a problem of being overwight plus wearing sloppy outfits.


But jeans exacerbate the problem, instead of helping to camouflage it, as classic menswear can do.

Jeans only work consistently well on slim younger men, who are very much in the minority. That's why their wholesale adoption as the uniform of choice is usually such a stylistic disaster.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

MicTester said:


> I hope the trend goes away. Far too many threads about what others are (not)doing. This place was so much better when things began and ended with attire. Now it is turning into a discourse on the world not enrolled here.
> 
> Each time I read someone make a sweeping statement about a "slob" he has encountered, I feel pain. How can we judge people in such a sweeping manner without reference to context? May be his sister has been admitted to a hospital after a cardiac arrest and he ran with no consideration of what he had on. And here we are recounting how we ran into this guy this morning who was dressed like an ass.
> 
> ...


+1 and very well said, MicTester!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Finian McLonergan said:


> Yes President Carter looks well, and is appropriately dressed for someone riding a bike. But unlike most older men he's slim. Unfortunately we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic, with older men especially vulnerable. And I've yet to personally encounter an overweight older man who looks good in jeans.
> 
> So the reality you're likely to encounter in real life will probably look more like this:


There may be a difference in Ireland , but here in America older men generally dress better than younger men ! The gentleman pictured is a younger man. Not unlike the generation 
that has caused a decline in men's personal appearance. jeans has led that decline.
The shoes pictured is another example of poor taste in clothing , here in America young
men are wearing suits with shoes designed for athletic use. The shoes pictured above.
We in America call it the casual look !

Younger American men not only wear jeans but in many cases with their underwear showing.
The baby boomer generation has set a poor example of proper dress. The Xers generation
(1965-1989 ) in America generally has no idea as how to dress properly.

Ask Andy is a wolf howling in the wind. Maybe not in Ireland but here in America men's dress has been in decline for more than 40 years , except for a brief reprieve in the 1980's
it has been all down hill , again work cloths (jeans) has led the way.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> Bad taste is also normal today in men's clothing.


That is purely your subjective opinion. Don't state it as if it were fact.



silverporsche said:


> Jeans are very popular with migrant workers..


Totally irrlevant for the simple reason that jeans are popular with EVERYONE, regardless of cultural/ethnic belonging.



silverporsche said:


> Designed to with stand outdoor farming.


No they're not at all. Not today's jeans. Today's jeans are designed as just another everyday item of casual clothing.



silverporsche said:


> Miners also wear jeans


So what? Totally irrelevant to a discussion about jeans as the most common item of clothing today.



silverporsche said:


> again durable and easy to maintain.


Wrong again, not today's jeans.



silverporsche said:


> There are few examples of specially designed work wear for agricultural workers,


Then you must be living in a very isolated backward part of the world. I can show you entire catalogues of agricultural wear from Euorpe.



silverporsche said:


> than there are still those who herd cattle . jeans are perfect.


So what? BTW, jeans are the least perfect trouser for horseriding



silverporsche said:


> 2011 NOT 1911 , I suggest anyone visit a migrant work area where fruits and vegetables are
> being harvested and the over whelming number of workers are wearing jeans ! Visit a mine , construction work site , etc, etc.


Again irrelevant.



silverporsche said:


> There is no doubt that men today especially young men generally dress very poorly.


Your subjective opinion again. The best dressed men in Sweden and the UK are those under 60!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That is purely your subjective opinion. Don't state it as if it were fact.
> 
> Totally irrlevant for the simple reason that jeans are popular with EVERYONE, regardless of cultural/ethnic belonging.
> 
> ...


I have no idea concerning the dress of younger men in Sweden or the UK. My reference is the United States of America.
Your references are Europe mine America , the richest and most powerful country in the world. What's that old quote " when America catches a cold Europe catches pneumonia "

As for as common dress, jeans are very common when worn with good taste. My point is relevant , jeans were created as work clothes, example miners , field workers , construction workers etc. One can wear work boots as dress. Many Americans wear athletic shoes with suits, in my opinion bad taste.

Oh lest I forget , America is neither backward nor isolated , My reference has to do with the United States of America ! and yes jeans were very popular with American cowboys 
even today. Have you ever seen an American western movie that did not feature jeans ?
Jeans are an American tradition until some probably European designer decided why not take cheap denim market it to the main stream as a dress up item and make millions !
That's capitalism.
In America we have an old quote " A sucker is born every second " One man's opinion.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> My point is relevant , jeans were created as work clothes, example miners , field workers , construction workers etc.


And the cummerbund was created to be worn by servants; however, over time it was adapted to and became accepted as a component of black tie wear. So unless you are also saying that one should not wear a cummerbund because of it's humble origins as servant wear, how is your point relevant to the way that blue jeans are worn today?



silverporsche said:


> Have you ever seen an American western movie that did not feature jeans ?


Levi Strauss did not even "invent" blue jeans until 1873 and they weren't widely worn by cowboys back in the days of the old West. In real life the cowboys of the old West wore a lot of second hand clothing that was handed down from the more well to do. I suppose that makes cowboys proponents of thrifting. That's why in so many of the old photographs they are wearing items of dress clothing such as jackets or the previously mentioned striped pants. Also, after the Civil War many cowboys kept wearing items from their uniforms.

The Western movies that did feature blue jeans were factually inaccurate in this regard; however, I think that if you will pay more attention to those movies you will see that the characters are not usually depicted wearing blue jeans. They are more often than not wearing tan, brown, or some type of striped pants.



















Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> Have you ever seen an American western movie that did not feature jeans ?


Actually, I'm glad you asked. I am a huge fan of westerns. I've probably seen more westerns than you have. I'm very well up on the genre. And on the wild west in general. Now, since the 90s film directors have been taking a much more responsible role as regards accuracy, so in any of the current batch of films, Appalossa, 3.10 to Yuma, Serpahim Falls, Jesse James etc you won't see a single pair of jeans!

Secondly, have you ever riden a horse? I have plenty of times, and one DOES NOT wear jeans when riding a horse, nor did cowboys in the wild west, nor did horse soldiers or cavalry.

If you want to restrict your discussion to the US, then make that clear in EVERY one of your posts. All threads are open to all viewpoints.

Actually, none of your points are in the slightest bit relevant or even interesting because your arguments are 50 years out of date. Young men started wearing jeans as casual wear in the mid-50s! Get over it!

Also what the hell are you inferring with this nasty comment? I find this kind of nationalistic xenophobia extremely distasteful! 


silverporsche said:


> Your references are Europe mine America , the richest and most powerful country in the world. What's that old quote " when America catches a cold Europe catches pneumonia "


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> The Western movies that did feature blue jeans were factually inaccurate in this regard
> Cruiser


Exactly, the fact that John Wayne wore jeans in westerns in the 30s, 40s and 50s is not historical fact. It was a film, and those films were full of errors! For example, men firing revolvers over a 100 yards down a street and actually hitting people. Or down a mountainside at men far bleow. Old revolvers were good up to about 30 yards on a good day, with a following wind.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Actaully, I'm glad you asked. I am a huge fan of westerns. I've probably seen more westerns than you have. I'm very well up on the genre. And on the wild west in general. Now, since the 90s film directors have been taken a much more responsible role as regards accuracy, so in any of the current batch of films, Appalossa, 3.10 to Yuma, Serpahim Falls, Jesse James etc you won't see a single pair of jeans!
> 
> Secondly, have you ever riden a horse? I have plenty of times, and one DOES NOT wear jeans when riding a horse, nor did cowboys in the wild west, nor did horse soldiers or cavalry.
> 
> ...


Have you seen pictures of the American poor doing the 19th century ! The poor in America wore jeans ! As for as western movies much was fiction , jeans were cheap , most Americans were poor when Levi Strauss invented jeans. Jeans than was less than a $2.00
a pair. Prior to World War One most Americans lived on farms. What do you think they wore ?

Did I write a horse ? that's none of your business ! What you find tasteful is of no interest to me. 
As for as nationalism it was you who focus on Europe , The statement I made about America is true ! like it or not.

You should watch more western movies your references are limited. Edward G. Robinson, Humphrey Bogart , James Cagney and the elegant English actor Stewart Granger wore jeans in movies as cow men. With few exceptions American male actors performed as cowboys , others Gable ,Peck , Taylor , Clift , Brando , Newman , Poitier , Tracy , etc, etc.

I refer to America because I live in America , when traveling I refer to my travels. 
Jeans is an American tradition ! Invented here in America ! Invented for the poor ! To be worn as work clothing ! Not suited for an office.

To take an item invented for hard outdoor work and the poor and to merchandise it as an
item to wear with a sport coat and other non working occasions was a stroke of genius !


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Exactly, the fact that John Wayne wore jeans in westerns in the 30s, 40s and 50s is not historical fact. It was a film, and those films were full of errors! For example, men firing revolvers over a 100 yards down a street and actually hitting people. Or down a mountinaside at men far bleow. Old revolvers were good up to about 30 yards on a good day, with a following wind.


The Americans who moved west were poor many walked ! Jeans was cheap and durable.
Cowboys are any worker in America wore jeans because they were again affortable !
Cowboys earned very little and needed durable affordable pants. So did farmers , Levi's
filled that need.

As for as john Wayne , he was only one in a line of actors that played a cowboy. As a matter of fact Gene Audry was far more popular , was the top American box office male actor before entering the army ! Gene Audry wore jeans in his movies and rode a horse !


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Have you seen pictures of the American poor doing the 19th century ! The poor in America wore jeans !


The 19th century was nearly over before modern day blue jeans were even invented.



> most Americans were poor when Levi Strauss invented jeans. Jeans than was less than a $2.00
> a pair.


And a dress shirt cost about 25 cents.



> Jeans is an American tradition ! Invented here in America ! Invented for the poor ! To be worn as work clothing !


But not anywhere near as poor as the citizens of India when the cummerbund was invented there for wear by the servants. You repeatedly make this argument about jeans being work clothes for the poor, but you have never addressed your feelings about the cummerbund which actually shares a somewhat similar history in it's rise from humble beginnings to accepted wear by servants and nobility alike.



> To take an item invented for hard outdoor work and the poor and to merchandise it as an
> item to wear with a sport coat and other non working occasions was a stroke of genius !


It certainly would be if that's what had happened, but it isn't. The jeans manufacturers were behind the curve on this one.

When jeans began moving from the factories and fields to the offices of America in the mid-20th century, it wasn't because they were being marketed this way. It was because people just started doing it on their own, most likely jump started by Hollywood and music industry celebrities who had adopted this look.

During the 20 year period from 1976 to 1995 iconic figures like Robert Redford, Harrison Ford, and Tommy Lee Jones all appeared in movies as leading men in white collar jobs wearing jeans with sport coats. I don't remember any industry advertising promoting this look in the early days. It was driven by the public, not the industry.

Cruiser


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

Someone needs to start a thread about wearing used shoes with blue jeans and something in black. :devil: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> Did I write [sic] a horse ? *that's none of your business* ! *What you find tasteful is of no interest to me. *


And reading those words I've just lost the little interest I had in continuing a discussion with you.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> The 19th century was nearly over before modern day blue jeans were even invented.
> 
> And a dress shirt cost about 25 cents.
> 
> ...


Iconic figures , why not actors Robert Redford , Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones , dress poorly.
You are correct Hollywood was gong through a change which began in the 1950's. Leading men were generally short and unattractive. Glamour was a think of the past. Elvis corrupted singers , wearing jeans and white socks. It was the beginning of the decline in men's dress. Lead in part by the recording industry and Hollywood.
Movies today exhibit sex , violence and car chases , music loud , no melody , and gutter lyrics. 
One thing we agree on times have changed ! There is no longer a " a code of decency " or in my opinion good taste
in entertainment , anything goes !

I don't think one would compare American with India a third world country at the time you referred to India was colony of Great Britain !
jeans were work clothing ! , durable and easy to maintain. Today they are less durable and is worn everywhere .
It all depends on one's values as it applies to dress. The difference between using Hollywood , Clark Gable and 
Robert Redford. Please don't compare the male actors today when it comes to dress. Redford after all is near or more than 70 years old , while not a great actor an excellent one.

Cost , a pair of jeans cost $.50 times were tough . As for as cowboys that was a very short period in American history. Americans generally lived in very poor conditions prior to World War Two. Many Americans could not afford
a pair of Levi's. Especially those living in the south , and large American cities. 
I remember the great entertainer Eddie Cantor stating , " The difference between he and a gangster was that he could sing and dance " Mr. Cantor grew up in one of those immigrant ghetto's , New York !
I would amagine many immigrants could not afford a pair of jeans , especially those living in large American immigrant ghetto's and those working on farms in the south. 
When I was young a loaf of bread cost $. 10 ! that was in the late 40's early 50's. a pair of Levi's $5.00 in 1951 !
A different time. Many poor Americans could not afford that.

You have read my comments as it applies to jeans, I have read yours. We can agree to disagree.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

This thread really starts to confuse me near the end. :crazy:

As one of my hobbies I do some historical reenancting from the period of the US Civil War to the early 1900s. Most people never wore "jeans" during that time. By jeans I mean the clothing item most folks think of today in blue denim material and sold by the likes of Wrangler and Levis. There was jean fabric available during the period, but it referred more to a heavy cotton weave and not the blue denim normally thought of. As Cruiser mentioned, the original cowboys more often than not were former US Cavalry soldiers and just wore their old uniforms (wool pants).

andy b.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

andy b. said:


> As one of my hobbies I do some historical reenancting from the period of the US Civil War to the early 1900s. Most people never wore "jeans" during that time...... the original cowboys more often than not were former US Cavalry soldiers and just wore their old uniforms (wool pants).


That's exactly what my reading over the decades tells me as well.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Iconic figures , why not actors Robert Redford , Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones , dress poorly.
> You are correct Hollywood was gong through a change which began in the 1950's. Leading men were generally short and unattractive. Glamour was a think of the past. Elvis corrupted singers , wearing jeans and white socks. It was the beginning of the decline in men's dress. Lead in part by the recording industry and Hollywood.


You totally missed my point. It had nothing to do with whether celebrities today dress well or not; I really don't care one way or the other. You contended that blue jeans started being worn in office buildings because the industry marketed them that way. All I did was provide one example of how this evolved without benefit of any marketing strategies by the manufacturers.



> I don't think one would compare American with India a third world country at the time you referred to India was colony of Great Britain !


I wasn't comparing the U.S. to India. I was comparing the evolution of the cummerbund to the evolution of blue jeans.



> jeans were work clothing !


So was the cummerbund, which is the point that I was making and which you went right past.



> Cost , a pair of jeans cost $.50 times were tough .


Then why did you say that they cost $2.00?



> a pair of Levi's $5.00 in 1951


Now they cost $5.00. silver, I think that I'm a fairly intelligent guy, but for the life of me I can't follow any line of reasoning here.



> As for as cowboys that was a very short period in American history.


You're the one who brought up the subject of cowboys. I just pointed out to you that the cowboys of the old West, as a rule, didn't wear blue jeans. Like I said, blue jeans weren't even invented until 1873.



> Americans generally lived in very poor conditions prior to World War Two. Many Americans could not afford
> a pair of Levi's. Especially those living in the south , and large American cities.
> I remember the great entertainer Eddie Cantor stating , " The difference between he and a gangster was that he could sing and dance " Mr. Cantor grew up in one of those immigrant ghetto's , New York !
> I would amagine many immigrants could not afford a pair of jeans , especially those living in large American immigrant ghetto's and those working on farms in the south.


OK, but what on earth does this have to do with anything in this discussion of the evolution of blue jeans? The only thing I see here is you contradicting yourself.

You go on and on in various threads about how blue jeans were designed for and worn by the lowest on the socio-economic ladder, the migrant farm workers and miners; but then you go on and on about how these folks couldn't afford to buy a pair of jeans because they were so expensive and times were so hard.

This begs the question; exactly who was buying and wearing blue jeans? Why would a company market a product to the poor working man if the poor working man couldn't afford to buy it? And if the product was priced out of reach of the poor working man, perhaps it wasn't designed and marketed to the poor working man. Like I said, you contradict yourself here.



> Many poor Americans could not afford that.


Please stop lecturing me on the poor, silver. I was born into a poor family in the 1940's. I lived in the public housing projects as a child and know what it's like to do without.



> You have read my comments as it applies to jeans, I have read yours. We can agree to disagree.


It isn't really about agreeing or disagreeing, silver. In this thread and others you make factually incorrect statements or, at best, just plain illogical statements. I don't have a problem in the world with you disliking blue jeans or at least how many wear blue jeans, I don't always like it myself; however, much of what you say just doesn't make sense, at least not to me?

Cruiser


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Jeans blah blah blah workwear blah blah blah...actually it's 2011 not 1911. One would be hard pressed today to find any worker employed in a professional capacity wearing jeans, due to all the H & S regulations for flameproof, waterproof, rip proof, stain proof, boilable clothing in conjunction with the fact that jeans ceased to be the best or most suitable item several decades ago. I can't think of a single employed corps of workers who wear jeans as workwear. Medical? Construction? Emergency services? Street cleaners? Manufacturing industries? Process industries? Roadworks? Agriculture? Horticulture? Civil engineering? Military? No, I can't think of a single area of manual work in which jeans are more suitable than the numerous specifically designed workwear items available today for a whole range of manual work tasks.
> 
> Those of you who think jeans are manual workwear today must be baffled by all the people around you in jeans. As well as the fact that you are over 50 years behind the times!


Jeans are ubiquitous workwear for farmers, at least in the USA.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Jeans are ubiquitous workwear for farmers, at least in the USA.


And construction workers, truck drivers, ranchers, repairmen, etc.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> The Americans who moved west were poor many walked ! Jeans was cheap and durable.


As a direct-line descendant of Mormon pioneers who pulled all their earthly possessions across the prairie in handcarts, I can assure you none of them wore jeans :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I don't imagine the jeans would have cooperated with the special underpants.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

Congratulations to all! As a group we have led this conversation up a blind alley and clubbed it to death. Well done!
I laughed at some of the comments. Please take my congratulations in the humorous spirit that created them.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> You totally missed my point. It had nothing to do with whether celebrities today dress well or not; I really don't care one way or the other. You contended that blue jeans started being worn in office buildings because the industry marketed them that way. All I did was provide one example of how this evolved without benefit of any marketing strategies by the manufacturers.
> 
> I wasn't comparing the U.S. to India. I was comparing the evolution of the cummerbund to the evolution of blue jeans.
> 
> ...


read my post better , jeans cost less than $2.00 and in 1951 jeans cost $5.00 a pair.
I am not lecturing you , but responding to a post. Offering a counter to that reply. 
if my statements are incorrect in your opinion, than offer a counter. My replies are adddressed to the entire forum not just you.

Americans had it very hard up and until World war Two ! Prior to World War One most Americans lived on farms and most could not read or write !
Jeans were worn by those who could afford them as work clothing. Jeans were cheap and durable.

Jeans became a fad starting in the middle 1950's , Elvis worn jeans as well as Steve McQueen , James Dean , and most of the rebellious youth of that period.
Designer jeans came later , when women and older baby boomers began to except jeans 
as a more dressier form of clothing even wearing them with sport jackets.

Why do you insist in being personal ? counter my post and leave it at that.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

andy b. said:


> This thread really starts to confuse me near the end. :crazy:
> 
> As one of my hobbies I do some historical reenancting from the period of the US Civil War to the early 1900s. Most people never wore "jeans" during that time. By jeans I mean the clothing item most folks think of today in blue denim material and sold by the likes of Wrangler and Levis. There was jean fabric available during the period, but it referred more to a heavy cotton weave and not the blue denim normally thought of. As Cruiser mentioned, the original cowboys more often than not were former US Cavalry soldiers and just wore their old uniforms (wool pants).
> 
> andy b.


Jeans was created in 1873 by Levi Strauss , work pants with metal points of strain for greater strength.
In World War Two jeans were worn in factories , because of durability and safety reasons.
It wasn't until the 1960's that jeans became acceptable.

Cowboys were generally poor teenage farm boys working for very little pay at a point in time when life in America was extremely difficult. Life expendency was very low for the American poor ,which most Americans were at the time and in the south and west lower !

Jeans today or very common , what started off as work clothing now with the help of ingenious add men can be sold for hundreds of dollars with the right designers names attached.
No different than when due to the shortage of leather after World War Two some very bright add men were able to take cheap vinyl trim it with leather add a designers 
name and sell that purse for thousands !
Isn't capitalism wonderful !


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

What's really wonderful, it seems, is Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans


----------



## dream34 (Jan 7, 2010)

Silver,
For a guy that professes a love for all things proper, decries the fashion faux pas of others and portrays themselves as one who takes pride in attention to detail you certainly have quite a knack for butchering the English language, especially with regard to verb tense. 

That said jeans are like any other item of clothing in my wardrobe in that there is a time and place they are appropriate, it's just that unlike a suit, they are a bit more flexible in terms of when and where they will be worn without fear of offending the sensibilities of reasonable men. While I am in the crowd that has quite a disdain for the large portion of corporate America that has decided the logo polo and khaki pants are a suitable alternative to the business suit, I cannot bring myself to believe that jeans are always inappropriate for the office. The fact of the matter is that what type of office one works in, along with what is expected by clients, supervisors, and senior management dictates proper office attire. If one does not like the management opinion of said attire then perhaps it is time to find a new office. What I find more troubling than jeans themselves is this ever evolving idea among the under thirty set that somehow cost dictates use. Believe it or not there are far too many that think that the price tag of a "throw back" sports jersey, basketball shoes, and designer jeans justifies their use as formal/semi-formal attire.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

dream34 said:


> Silver,
> For a guy that professes a love for all things proper, decries the fashion faux pas of others and portrays themselves as one who takes pride in attention to detail you certainly have quite a knack for butchering the English language, especially with regard to verb tense.
> 
> That said jeans are like any other item of clothing in my wardrobe in that there is a time and place they are appropriate, it's just that unlike a suit, they are a bit more flexible in terms of when and where they will be worn without fear of offending the sensibilities of reasonable men. While I am in the crowd that has quite a disdain for the large portion of corporate America that has decided the logo polo and khaki pants are a suitable alternative to the business suit, I cannot bring myself to believe that jeans are always inappropriate for the office. The fact of the matter is that what type of office one works in, along with what is expected by clients, supervisors, and senior management dictates proper office attire. If one does not like the management opinion of said attire then perhaps it is time to find a new office. What I find more troubling than jeans themselves is this ever evolving idea among the under thirty set that somehow cost dictates use. Believe it or not there are far too many that think that the price tag of a "throw back" sports jersey, basketball shoes, and designer jeans justifies their use as formal/semi-formal attire.


What one wears to the office depends in large part to what management will allow.
My point is that jeans were designed for work in the fields , blue collar attire. Times have changed. American culture has changed. There was a time when children was expected
to dress properly when attending school. To say , yes sir and no sir when addressing an adult. 
Hollywood had a "Code of Decency " and Americans believed in earning a living rather than
government entitlements.

I agree the office culture has changed. Oh by the way it is a pleasure for a member to 
have such an excellent command of the English , no American written language.
I have visited New Orleans a very nice city. I did detect a different dialect there. A little different from what we are accustom to hearing in the Midwest. As for as pride in detail , thank you. Just giving one man's opinion.
That is why there exist a forum , an exchange of opinions. As a new member , WELCOME !


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> There was a time when children was expected
> to dress properly when attending school. To say , yes sir and no sir when addressing an adult.


In the UK, it is mandatory for school children (5-16 years olds; sometimes 16-18 years old) in the majority of state and private schools to wear a school uniform, consisting of trousers, shirt, tie, blazer, jumper, shoes. This in no way (as far as I can discern) encourages the up-and-coming adult to dress 'properly'; far from it: the last thing the young adults seem to what to do is dress the way they have been dressing all their lives.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Jake Genezen said:


> In the UK, it is mandatory for school children (5-16 years olds; sometimes 16-18 years old) in the majority of state and private schools to wear a school uniform, consisting of trousers, shirt, tie, blazer, jumper, shoes.


A majority of private schools, no doubt, but certainly not the majority of maintained schools in my part of the UK, where the private school tradition is hardly present.
(For the benefit of non-British readers, "state school" is shorthand - not a single school is run by the British state.)


> This in no way (as far as I can discern) encourages the up-and-coming adult to dress 'properly'; far from it: the last thing the young adults seem to what to do is dress the way they have been dressing all their lives.


In this you are indubitably right; to my eye, continental European men (where school uniforms are virtually unknown) are generally better dressed than are our compatriots.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> My point is that jeans were designed for work in the fields , blue collar attire.


silver, you continue to repeat this line over and over but to be honest with you I don't know what it really has to do with anything. I wish you would explain this, but you don't. Is it your belief that once something is designed for a specific purpose it should never be used for any other purpose?

The reason I ask this is because you continue to say this while ignoring my comment about the cummerbund originally being designed for wear by servants. Do you believe that cummerbunds should not be worn for any other purpose than waiting on others? If you don't, then how does it differ from another product like blue jeans?

And what about all of the other things we use in life for things other than their original purpose? For example:

Minoxidil was designed and marketed as an anti-hypertensive medication. It wasn't until later that someone realized that it would also grow, or at least prevent, hair loss. Now we call it Rogaine, but it certainly was not designed to be a hair restorer.

Did you know that one of the most popular children's toys in history, the slinky, was originally developed by a naval engineer to stabilize sensitive instruments aboard ships. After accidentally dropping one and watching it do it's thing one day the guy decided that it might make a fun children's toy and the rest is history.

And then there is duct tape, a product developed during World War II specifically for the purpose of providing a waterproof seal for ammunition cases. Do you suppose folks might find other uses for this product?

And we can't forget WD-40, a product designed to protect the outer skin of the Atlas Missile from rust. 
I, for one, am glad that folks decided that this stuff could be used for many other things also.

What is your opinion on pea coats? You do know that this coat was designed to be worn by sailors at sea. Is it your opinion that society has gone downhill because people who don't sail the seas have taken to wearing the pea coat to offices all over America and the world.

My point is that hardly a day goes by that we don't use products in a manner or for a purpose other than their original purpose. I'm sure that you do it too. Perhaps you've worn a pea coat without actually sailing the high seas or a cummerbund without actually being a servant, I don't know; but I'll bet you've used something for something other than it's original purpose and thought nothing of it.

So why keep harping on this about blue jeans. If you don't like them, that's fine; say that you don't like them and don't wear them, and just leave it at that. Why does it matter what their original purpose was any more than it does with the pea coat or cummerbund? Just wondering.

Cruiser


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

Great post Cruiser. I wouldn't be surprised though, if you get the same tired point back in response.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> silver, you continue to repeat this line over and over but to be honest with you I don't know what it really has to do with anything. I wish you would explain this, but you don't. Is it your belief that once something is designed for a specific purpose it should never be used for any other purpose?
> 
> The reason I ask this is because you continue to say this while ignoring my comment about the cummerbund originally being designed for wear by servants. Do you believe that cummerbunds should not be worn for any other purpose than waiting on others? If you don't, then how does it differ from another product like blue jeans?
> 
> ...


I have never , never posted Cruiser ! why do you continue to personalize this forum ?
Discuss the subject , I am not the subject . I have tried in vain to get you to do that.
Please don't direct your comments to me but to the subject !!!
THANKS


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

Hard to believe this thread is still alive, but it makes me miss reading Jan's posts of old.

Cruiser can always be counted on to offer up his egalitarian defense of any perceived slight to the common man who favors Dockers over Brioni. But nobody here has ever argued that a certain type of dress makes one _morally_ superior, only _aesthetically_ superior. Having an old car up on blocks in your yard doesn't mean you're a bad person, but it does show a certain lack of concern for your neighbors... This is the underlying point that seems to be missed.

AAAC is a website for clothing enthusiasts. Imagine, for example, a website for Porsche enthusiasts. Cruiser's stock posts on such a website would go something like this: "Oh sure Porsche makes a fine auto. I've even owned a few. I admire their styling, handling, and engineering. But a Taurus is just as good, only different. And people who own a Taurus instead of a Porsche are fine people, just as good as Porsche owners. And I'm getting tired of all the snooty attitudes on this website about Taurus drivers. Not everyone is rich and drives a Porsche." It's a bit absurd.

It's also tiresome, just as jeans and business casual are tiresome. People on AAAC like to debate sartorial standards, and often lament the decline in those standards. This is not because AAAC members come from privileged backgrounds or don't work blue collar jobs, as Cruiser imagines. It's because Americans dress and look like crap, and some people would like to see a renaissance of sorts. Those people not surprisingly post on AAAC.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jeffdeist said:


> ... nobody here has ever argued that a certain type of dress makes one _morally_ superior, only _aesthetically_ superior.


Oh, now you have REALLY done it!!


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

jeffdeist said:


> Hard to believe this thread is still alive, but it makes me miss reading Jan's posts of old.
> 
> Cruiser can always be counted on to offer up his egalitarian defense of any perceived slight to the common man who favors Dockers over Brioni. But nobody here has ever argued that a certain type of dress makes one _morally_ superior, only _aesthetically_ superior. Having an old car up on blocks in your yard doesn't mean you're a bad person, but it does show a certain lack of concern for your neighbors... This is the underlying point that seems to be missed.
> 
> ...


Post of the century.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

jeffdeist said:


> Hard to believe this thread is still alive, but it makes me miss reading Jan's posts of old.
> 
> Cruiser can always be counted on to offer up his egalitarian defense of any perceived slight to the common man who favors Dockers over Brioni. But nobody here has ever argued that a certain type of dress makes one _morally_ superior, only _aesthetically_ superior. Having an old car up on blocks in your yard doesn't mean you're a bad person, but it does show a certain lack of concern for your neighbors... This is the underlying point that seems to be missed.
> 
> ...


Clothing is a far broader topic than Porsche and clothing enthusiasts have very diverse tastes.

A lot of people come to this forum hoping to reinforce their opinions/prejudices of America's slovenly sartorial state and are disappointed to find that some clothes enthusiasts like unspeakably tawdry things like jeans and sweatpants as well as suits and ties - and are willing to cut a lot of slack for others like us.

Don't confuse our lack of desire for a personal relationship with our clothes with a lack of enthusiasm for clothing.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I doubt a thread about sweatpants would generate as much interest as these jeans threads do -- but maybe in five or 10 years from now?

The previous sentence could be used to support arguments on either side of this regular skirmish. Either we're on a slippery slope, or some specific items of clothing have a way of elevating themselves over the decades and centuries....


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

This thread was deadly stupid when it was buried back in 2007, and the corpse has not improved with age.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Trip English said:


> Post of the century.


Apparently it seems we have a fondness for hyperbole. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

I am proud to say that I haven't worn denim for over twenty years. It was about all I wore as a kid. Then I started working as a welder, and then I found out that any frayed threads would catch fire from welding sparks. After catching fire a few times I switched to Dickies. The difference in the fabric was that when sparks landed it would melt - not catch fire. So I only wore denim as casual wear. Then came the big change. I started college - in mid-year just after Christmas. So my dear departed mother went around to all the after-Christmas sales and got me five or six bags of dress clothes. So I wore dress clothes all the way through college - and I've mostly worn dress clothes ever since. Sure I have some work clothes - Army green cargo pants, Carhartt painter's pants and pocket tees - but no denim in any color.

Re Post #28: "...stinking up the place...." That reminds me of the one where Sinatra was on his way to receive an award and he picked up Jackie Gleason on the way. Both were famously snookered. At the ceremony, Gleason threw up all over the front of Sinatra's suit. Afterwards, on the way back to the hotel, Gleason told the cabbie to pull over; push Sinatra out - he's stinking up the place, but I digress.

Re #32: "...unholy alliance with the Antichrist." Ah! So that makes Cruiser and his cohorts the Antichrist's evil minions - I thought as much.

Re #42: "...get some help picking it out." Help picking out blue jeans?! - I don't think so.

Re #53: Yes; Hamilton Jordan and Jody Powell wore jeans at the White House, and in my opinion lowered the tone of the place by doing so. I think the only reason they got away with it was because they were Carter's friends. "Georgia Mafia" is an insult to the real Mafia. Gotti - whatever his other failings - knew how to dress well. "[M]ade the cover of Rolling Stone magazine." Rolling Stone is hardly a sartorial reference - recall that Prince's armpit once made the cover. Yes; Carter looks decently and casually dressed in that photo - but he never gave a State of the Union address dressed like that.

I think that Jordan and Powell should be clapped in stocks and hauled before a Sartorial Court presided over by no less august a personage than the Right Honorable Sir Andy Gilchrist. Upon the inevitable finding of guilty (see #29 supra) their penance should be a years public service touring high schools across the land profusely apologizing for their misconduct wearing the finest in Savile Row bespoke with a suitable rotation of C&J, AS and EG to demonstrate to impressionable young minds the sartorial heights they should aspire to.

Re #65: Ok Cruiser; if no one else will address your point about cummerbunds I will. "And the cummerbund was created to be worn by servants[.]" No. Check Wikipedia; the cummerbund was first worn by British military officers.

Re #76: "I was born into a poor family in the 1940's. I lived in the public housing projects as a child and know what it's like to do without." Yeah, so? I started out a poor country boy. I lived in a house with a tin roof and an outhouse. Later, I lived down an unnamed dirt road out in the woods. That has nothing to do with what I or you are wearing now.

Re #85: "...I cannot bring myself to believe that jeans are always inappropriate for the office." Just because you said that; I'm going to do something. When I must go in to work on the occasional Sunday I will start wearing argyles with my suit. I'm the only one who wears a suit and tie on Sunday. All the twenty-somethings wear ratty blue jeans, mud-besplattered tennis shoes and a Beastie Boys t-shirt. The very sight of argyles will drive them bananas. Watching their faint discomfort when they're near me should give me hours of quiet amusement.

Let the word go forth, from this time and place, that we, the besuited vanguard, shall pay any price, bear any burden to hold high the sartorial standards of the world's sole remaining superpower!

Hyperbole indeed.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Mr. Mac said:


> Clothing is a far broader topic than Porsche and clothing enthusiasts have very diverse tastes.
> 
> A lot of people come to this forum hoping to reinforce their opinions/prejudices of America's slovenly sartorial state and are disappointed to find that some clothes enthusiasts like unspeakably tawdry things like jeans and sweatpants as well as suits and ties - and are willing to cut a lot of slack for others like us.
> 
> Don't confuse our lack of desire for a personal relationship with our clothes with a lack of enthusiasm for clothing.


That sir, is it in a nutshell! Perfectly put! I love wearing ties and suits and blazers and my tweed jackets and brogues and so on and do so regularly, on the 2 days a week I have to drive to work. I also love wearing my old Rudeboy/Skinhead uniform to gigs and festivals or whenever I feel like it actually : Jeans with a double half-inch turnup as per regulation 1969  with a Fred Perry tennis shirt or Ben Sherman checked shirt, Oxblood Dr. Martens, and topped off with a Harrington jacket. OR like today a white Kappa tennis shirt with navy piping under a birght green V neck jumper, faded blue jeans and classic black Adidas SL 72s with red laces, topped off with a Green Barbour Bedale and a navy Fred Perry shoulder bag, because today I cyceld to work on a racer in the rain,so I'm not wearing a suit and Loakes doing that!!! Practicality and Comfort are my watchwords!

I am not tied to a specific look or to always dressing in a shirt & tie. I love clothes but the look I want or NEED for practical or work reasons on any given day far outweighs any need (a need that many on this forum clearly have) to always be what they consider "properly attired".


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Regillus said:


> Re #65: Ok Cruiser; if no one else will address your point about cummerbunds I will. "And the cummerbund was created to be worn by servants[.]" No. Check Wikipedia; the cummerbund was first worn by British military officers.


Wikipedia also has a banner at the top of that page saying it does not meet standards.


> This article *needs additional citations for verification.*


, The page also says it's from Indian languages from the Persian Kammer Band (waist band).


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

jeffdeist said:


> Hard to believe this thread is still alive, but it makes me miss reading Jan's posts of old.
> 
> Cruiser can always be counted on to offer up his egalitarian defense of any perceived slight to the common man who favors Dockers over Brioni. But nobody here has ever argued that a certain type of dress makes one _morally_ superior, only _aesthetically_ superior. Having an old car up on blocks in your yard doesn't mean you're a bad person, but it does show a certain lack of concern for your neighbors... This is the underlying point that seems to be missed.
> 
> ...


Porsche owners would never compare a Taurus with a Porsche. Most Porsche owners are very serious about their cars. As for as one person being better than another that is perceived by the reader. The word better should never be used when referring to another person this causes all can of class issues. Different is a better term in my opinion.

The word snooty is usually used to define class differences. Jeans the subject discussed
has it's beginning as work clothing a historical fact. Suits were generally worn by those with
white collar jobs. There were class differences. That has changed.

The late 1950's and early 60's bought about a change in attitude as it applied to jeans 
Discussed here earlier.
In recent years there has been a trend in business especially in the office where jeans has 
been excepted as normal wear , unheard of previously. I am referring to the U.S. not other
countries.

Ask Andy is a forum that discusses men clothing. Opinions are given that is what a forum is supposed to be. To agree to disagree on a certain clothing subjects.
The problem comes when some members personally attack another because they disagree
with another members opinion.

Back to your point in regards to Porsche's, having been a member of the Porsche Club for 
several years , if one compared a Porsche with a Taurus , Honda , Toyota , or any non performance oriented car the response would be amazement ! if there was any response at all. Most people who drive Porsche cars are not rich ! Maybe Ferrari's because of the
price differences , and I am sure most people who drive Fords are not poor.
The same rule would apply to men's clothing most men who wear Brioni , Kiton or Edward
shoes are not rich. I would think it shows an appreciation for excellent men's wear , cars are
no different.

This site in my opinion is to help bring about an awarness to many concerning men's clothing.
no more than what a car site would do. Ask Andy does an excellent job of doing just that !


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That sir, is it in a nutshell! Perfectly put! I love wearing ties and suits and blazers and my tweed jackets and brogues and so on and do so regularly, on the 2 days a week I have to drive to work. I also love wearing my old Rudeboy/Skinhead uniform to gigs and festivals or whenever I feel like it actually : Jeans with a double half-inch turnup as per regulation 1969  with a Fred Perry tennis shirt or Ben Sherman checked shirt, Oxblood Dr. Martens, and topped off with a Harrington jacket. OR like today a white Kappa tennis shirt with navy piping under a birght green V neck jumper, faded blue jeans and classic black Adidas SL 72s with red laces, topped off with a Green Barbour Bedale and a navy Fred Perry shoulder bag, because today I cyceld to work on a racer in the rain,so I'm not wearing a suit and Loakes doing that!!! Practicality and Comfort are my watchwords!
> 
> I am not tied to a specific look or to always dressing in a shirt & tie. I love clothes but the look I want or NEED for practical or work reasons on any given day far outweighs any need (a need that many on this forum clearly have) to always be what they consider "properly attired".


Oh yeah? I bet you have a car on cinder blocks in your front yard! Covered in guano!

By the way, I think the relativists are pulling ahead of the absolutists in this thread, and I approve.

Absolutist position: Dressing well always means tailored clothing. Jeans are for scooping poop.
Relativist position: Dressing well varies by occasion. Jeans can be sharp and stylish in many social settings.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Joe Beamish said:


> By the way, I think the relativists are pulling ahead of the absolutists in this thread, and I approve.
> Absolutist position: Dressing well always means tailored clothing. Jeans are for scooping poop. Relativist position: Dressing well varies by occasion. Jeans can be sharp and stylish in many social settings.


I have to say - more's the pity - though I'm not an extreme absolutist by any means (but I have never owned a pair of jeans and never shall). There's a posting by Centaur (who, sadly, hasn't posted for some time now) who says that he believes there are absolute aesthetic (which include sartorial standards. I fully accept the difficulties of philosophically justifying this position, but to me, to say "_de gustibus non est disputandum_" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" looks very much like a cop-out. Oddly enough, it is the relativists, I find, who so often vocally assert that by saying one prefers A to B, one is condemning B. I may be misunderstanding Cruiser, but this is what I think he is trying to say.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Joe Beamish said:


> Oh yeah? I bet you have a car on cinder blocks in your front yard! Covered in guano!
> 
> By the way, I think the relativists are pulling ahead of the absolutists in this thread, and I approve.
> 
> ...


An excellent point , but there are consequences. It confuses our youth and strengthens our enemies. As animals that live in a group , clothing and other items define each and every one of us.

But than isn't the world based on absolutism ? doesn't it define us as individuals Is it not true in our western culture we are defined by our parents, occupation and education.
What we wear plays a major part. That to depart from absolutism would not only confuse our youth but ourselves.
The Relativist as I understand it anything goes.As humans we lose one of the most important aspects of human existence , identification.
Jeans for over a century identified us as blue collar workers or in some cases as semi or unskilled workers. 
Suits as white collar workers or generally office professionals. But than relativist would respond with who needs that , anything goes ! 
You are correct the relativist are pulling ahead of the absolutist. We here it in the lyrics of today's popular music.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

I was pleased to see that Cruiser's work as a minion of the anti-Christ and their evil plan to promote jeans is being exposed in this forum.
(see Regillus above: Re #32: "...unholy alliance with the Antichrist." Ah! So that makes Cruiser and his cohorts the Antichrist's evil minions - I thought as much.)


While I prefer wearing suits and sports coats for work and casual outings, I have not come up with suitable dress wear for the beach, hiking or mountain biking. I'm thinking a denim jeans suit for hiking and a form fitting spandex suit for the beach may solve this problem. This solution is thwarted by the difficulty of including the traditional banana-hammock pants into the beach suit.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

williamson said:


> Oddly enough, it is the relativists, I find, who so often vocally assert that by saying one prefers A to B, one is condemning B. I may be misunderstanding Cruiser, but this is what I think he is trying to say.


Not really. I wear jeans and I wear suits, and just about everything in between. I have posted many pictures of myself in this forum and more often than not I was wearing tailored clothing. For many years I wore a suit and tie every day to a casual office surrounded by co-workers in jeans, and these things are well known here; however, in spite of this I have been demonized by many because I have said that I prefer jeans for casual wear. So who is condemning who?

I originally found this forum while looking for the answer to a question regarding black tie wear. The only reason that I ever got into any discussion of jeans at all was because I got tired of reading all of the posts demeaning and ridiculing men who wear jeans. I got tired of reading about how the only reason a man puts on a pair of jeans is to recapture his youth or that wearing a pair of jeans somehow isn't dressing like a man or an adult.

In other words, a load of crap; so I entered some of these discussions in which I defended something that I'm quite fond of. The funny thing is that often I would be typing these defenses while wearing a suit and tie. Why would I condemn the wearing of a suit and tie when I've been doing it on a regular basis for most of my 62 years, and wouldn't I find a different picture to use for my avatar? Doesn't make much sense.

Cruiser


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

> Regillus;1205287]Rolling Stone is hardly a sartorial reference


If you will read what I said more carefully you will see that this was precisely my point. I was responding to a comment about the Clinton administration lowering the White House standards by wearing casual clothing, and I was simply pointing out that long before Clinton, the Carter staff was wearing jeans in the White House. It was because Powell and Jordan were considered to be "cool" and "hip", in part due to their casual attire, that they made the cover of _Rolling Stone;_ a publication that wasn't exactly noted for putting corporate executives and government leaders in suits and ties on it's cover.



> Yes; Carter looks decently and casually dressed in that photo - but he never gave a State of the Union address dressed like that.


And that was the only point being made, that one can look decent when casually dressed in jeans. Actually one can look quite sharply dressed in jeans when done right. I don't think it was ever suggested that one should give the State of the Union address in blue jeans. Where did that come from?



> Ok Cruiser; if no one else will address your point about cummerbunds I will. "And the cummerbund was created to be worn by servants[.]" No. Check Wikipedia; the cummerbund was first worn by British military officers.


Although I don't put a huge amount of stock in Wikipedia, that isn't what the article says. It says that the cummerbund was first "adopted," not "created" or invented, by British military officers as an alternative to the vest. These officers were posted in India and saw the Indian servants wearing them and "adopted" the garment for their own purposes. In other words, they used it for a different purpose than it's original one, which is the only point I was making and that was in response to something another poster said.

The cummerbund moved from the servants to high society wear much in the same way that jeans moved from the fields to their current status as perhaps the most ubiquitous item of clothing in the Western world.



> "I was born into a poor family in the 1940's. I lived in the public housing projects as a child and know what it's like to do without." Yeah, so? I started out a poor country boy. I lived in a house with a tin roof and an outhouse. Later, I lived down an unnamed dirt road out in the woods. That has nothing to do with what I or you are wearing now.


I wasn't speaking to you. I was directing that to another poster who keeps talking about what poor working people used to wear; and I was saying essentially the same thing that you are saying. Today it has nothing at all to do with anything that we are wearing.



> "...I cannot bring myself to believe that jeans are always inappropriate for the office." Just because you said that; I'm going to do something. When I must go in to work on the occasional Sunday I will start wearing argyles with my suit. I'm the only one who wears a suit and tie on Sunday. All the twenty-somethings wear ratty blue jeans, mud-besplattered tennis shoes and a Beastie Boys t-shirt.


I applaud you for that. I've never worn ratty blue jeans or tennis shoes to Church. When I was a twenty something I wore a suit and tie. Even now if I don't wear a tie, I still wear nice clothing with a sport coat or blazer. Heck, I've never worn the type clothing that you mention. Even when I was a long haired hippie in the early 70's I wore neat, clean clothing. Actually I was a hippie with a mild case of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

You aren't going to be very successful trying to put me in my place by agreeing with me, which is exactly what you have done; apparently without even realizing it. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> For many years I wore a suit and tie every day to a casual office surrounded by co-workers in jeans, and these things are well known here; however, in spite of this I have been demonized by many because I have said that I prefer jeans for casual wear. So who is condemning who?


Thanks for your reply; but I wasn't expressing condemnation myself (and accept that you weren't either); but it seems to me that you think we are doing so when we express our dislike of jeans.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
As the author of post #32, which does indeed refer to casual Fridays and the wearing of jeans in office work environments as "a possible alliance with the Antichrist," let me be the fist to say that forum member Cruiser is not a minion of Satan because he wears jeans (in the office or otherwise). It seems he is subjected to, at times, unfair degrees of scrutiny for simply championing the cause of the underdogs in society. Indeed his postings are frequently some of the best researched and well documented positions presented in these fora and, from the pictures he has offered for our consideration, Cruiser (IMHO) dresses rather nicely. Now in the interest of total candor, I must add that some relationship with the lord of darkness may exist, in that he was a sailor and not only a sailor, but a Navy medic who reportedly...volunteered to play nicely with combat marines, for an extended portion of his military career. LOL, in retrospect we might be inclined to question his sanity but, not his faith!  In any event, I consider him a friend.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> forum member Cruiser....Indeed his postings are frequently some of the best researched and well documented positions presented in these fora


I agree. Post #7 in this thread, which is located on page 1, is probably the finest thing he has ever posted. He should post similar sentiments more often! :aportnoy:

:devil: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

williamson said:


> Thanks for your reply; but I wasn't expressing condemnation myself (and accept that you weren't either); but it seems to me that you think we are doing so when we express our dislike of jeans.


No, not at all. There is no reason at all that we should all like the same things. I have close friends who can't stand jeans. What I don't like are the comments that often pop up here about either the motives or the character of people who do like jeans.

For example, I don't like cummerbunds so I don't wear them; but it doesn't bother me that others do. I don't think less of someone who wears one. Heck, as much as I dislike the things I still own one and will wear it under certain circumstances. I don't like pleated pants, but I'm not going to speak negatively of those who do. If you don't like jeans, that's fine; don't wear jeans.

All I ask is that you (not you personally) not tell me all of the demeaning reasons that you think I like them. I'm not trying to recapture my youth nor am I trying to be "cool" or "hip." I just like the comfortable, durable, carefree nature of the garment; that's all. At the same time I don't wear them to formal business meetings. I wear a coat and tie. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Cruiser is not a minion of Satan





Racer said:


> I agree.


Thanks guys. Your checks are in the mail. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Re Post #108: " You aren't going to be very successful trying to put me in my place by agreeing with me,...." Ack! Have I agreed with you on something? (Other than the Carter thing.) Let me be more precise here: I don't think that a blazer; made out of the usual material(s) that suit coats are made of, and blue jeans; go together. It's like oil and water - they just don't mix. Yes; many people including celebrities have worn this type of thing for years and I don't think they've ever pulled off making it look good. You wear jeans when you're working on your car or making a run up to the store for a gallon of milk. Not for the office during business hours or even for (horrors!) casual Fridays. The difference in the materials between a wool blazer and denim is just too stark - it jumps out at you like the front end of a Ford Edsel.

"...put me in my place...." Who said anything about putting you in your place? You're shadowboxing; Cruiser.

Re #92: "But a Taurus is just as good,...." No! no! no! A Taurus is far too high up the social ladder for Cruiser. He would drive a BMW Isetta (Google "Steve Urkel car").:icon_smile_big:


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Regillus said:


> Re Post #108: " You aren't going to be very successful trying to put me in my place by agreeing with me,...." Ack! Have I agreed with you on something? (Other than the Carter thing.) Let me be more precise here: I don't think that a blazer; made out of the usual material(s) that suit coats are made of, and blue jeans; go together. It's like oil and water - they just don't mix. Yes; many people including celebrities have worn this type of thing for years and I don't think they've ever pulled off making it look good. You wear jeans when you're working on your car or making a run up to the store for a gallon of milk. Not for the office during business hours or even for (horrors!) casual Fridays. The difference in the materials between a wool blazer and denim is just too stark - it jumps out at you like the front end of a Ford Edsel.
> 
> "...put me in my place...." Who said anything about putting you in your place? You're shadowboxing; Cruiser.
> 
> Re #92: "But a Taurus is just as good,...." No! no! no! A Taurus is far too high up the social ladder for Cruiser. He would drive a BMW Isetta (Google "Steve Urkel car").:icon_smile_big:


BMW Isetta are not legal for American roads. Times have changed , I would think we all agree to that. Men today are less formal than their grandfathers were. Today anything goes. Tradition , values such as respect for women ,love of country, even respect for ones
self is long gone. listen to the music ,the lyrics , the sex and violence in movies and the constant use of four letter words even by our youth.

You are correct denim. and the material used in a blazer is very different but in America 
today who cares ! A nation does not decline all at once but in segments. There is no doubt in my opinion that America is in decline. A nations institutions are the first to go. with It's values. 
We now have Presidents who admit to the use of drugs , Presidents who avoid the draft by leaving the country and A President who's wife stated she was not always proud to be an American !

No it is not just jeans worn with a sport coat or athletic shoes worn with a suit , it is deeper than that. in my opinion it is a disregard for everything that made America a great 
country. 
It started with the hippies in the 60's burning the American flag , a flag young men have died and bleed for.

Here is a phrase I think we all can understand , If you think things are bad now just wait you ain't see nothing yet .


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> It seems he is subjected to, at times, unfair degrees of scrutiny for simply championing the cause of the underdogs in society.


You insinuate that jean wearers are underdogs and therefore somehow less worthy than others??

Why you!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> ...and the constant use of four letter words even by our youth.


Or worse, older guys who should know better!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Joe Beamish said:


> Oh yeah? I bet you have a car on cinder blocks in your front yard! Covered in guano!


Sorry, but I don't understand the comparison/imagery/cultural reference there. But if it helps I have an old Vauxhall out on the farm in a barn, and I drive a very modest Ford Mondeo, 4 door saloon. I think Porsches and other sports cars are purely for posers and inadequates


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I think Porsches and other sports cars are purely for posers and inadequates


I say that about almost everything I can't afford!!


----------



## RomeoDandy (Apr 1, 2007)

It's interesting to me, I don't believe I've read any comments regarding the first post's admission of wearing knit shirts to work, I don't understand why that should be viewed any differently than wearing jeans. I tend to think knit shirts in the work place are more of a sloppy look than jeans.

It's amazing to me the elitism on display by so many here. I would suggest that a large portion of the problems this country is facing stems from a contemptuous attitude towards blue collar workers. My grandfather fought at D-Day, he was like 17 or something and later helped build Cape Canaveral among other things. He was most decidedly blue collar and wore jeans. He played his part and others were able to play theirs, a certain appreciation for the blue collar worker is not unwarranted.

What really motivated me to respond though is this posts sturm and drang about loss of traditions, decline of america, blah blah blah. The decline is over, it's all over but the shouting, I would suggest you get used to it and prepare for the acknowledgment. It wasn't really the blue jeans wearers who did it though, I don't see Ken Lewis, Geithner, Bernanke, et al wearing jeans often, if at all. 
Really, the people who wrecked this country ethically and financially were and are all wearing suits, I would guess expensive ones for the most maybe even bespoke. J'accuse. Of course that shouldn't be read as a promotion of hippies.



silverporsche said:


> BMW Isetta are not legal for American roads. Times have changed , I would think we all agree to that. Men today are less formal than their grandfathers were. Today anything goes. Tradition , values such as respect for women ,love of country, even respect for ones
> self is long gone. listen to the music ,the lyrics , the sex and violence in movies and the constant use of four letter words even by our youth.
> 
> You are correct denim. and the material used in a blazer is very different but in America
> ...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Regillus said:


> Ack! Have I agreed with you on something? (Other than the Carter thing.)


If I'm to believe what you posted, yes you have. In addition to the "Carter thing" we both agree that the President shouldn't wear blue jeans when delivering the State of the Union address, we agree that what poor working people used to wear has nothing to do with what we wear today, and we agree that folks should dress nice for Church.



> Who said anything about putting you in your place? You're shadowboxing; Cruiser.


When I put a smiley face on the end of the sentence it means that it's just a humorous comment that is not meant to be taken literally.



> A Taurus is far too high up the social ladder for Cruiser. He would drive a BMW Isetta (Google "Steve Urkel car").:icon_smile_big:


See what I mean about the smiley face? I assume that you are simply making a humorous comment the way I did that isn't meant to be taken literally.

But to address your statement,I have three cars and a motorcycle; and yes, one of the cars is a Taurus. You didn't know that I was that far up the social ladder, did you? :icon_smile_big:

Did you know that back in the 60's I owned one of the first Mustangs to come off of the assembly lines, a 1964 1/2 model. Every time I go to a car show now and see one of those I can't help but beat myself up for not keeping mine. I have a 2007 Mustang convertible now, but it just doesn't have the same soul.

Other cars that I've owned that I wish I had kept in the stable and not sold include my 1953 and 1957 Chevy hot rods and my 1979 Mazda RX7.

Cruiser


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

RomeoDandy said:


> It's interesting to me, I don't believe I've read any comments regarding the first post's admission of wearing knit shirts to work, I don't understand why that should be viewed any differently than wearing jeans. I tend to think knit shirts in the work place are more of a sloppy look than jeans.
> 
> It's amazing to me the elitism on display by so many here. I would suggest that a large portion of the problems this country is facing stems from a contemptuous attitude towards blue collar workers. My grandfather fought at D-Day, he was like 17 or something and later helped build Cape Canaveral among other things. He was most decidedly blue collar and wore jeans. He played his part and others were able to play theirs, a certain appreciation for the blue collar worker is not unwarranted.
> 
> ...


I sometimes wonder whether at least one poster who is (on the surface) virulently anti-jeans is just pulling everyone's leg. He/she certainly gets a lot of reaction - - -


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I sometimes wonder whether at least one poster who is (on the surface) virulently anti-jeans is just pulling everyone's leg. He/she certainly gets a lot of reaction - - -


Anti-jean ? why not a counterpoint to those who might disagree or agree with how jeans are positioned in today's work place. Certainly a forum is for points and counterpoints and is not personal. One can agree to disagree on a subject without being anti -anything.
It sometimes leads to interesting discussions. Men's clothing is no exception.
End result we all learn something.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

RomeoDandy said:


> It's interesting to me, I don't believe I've read any comments regarding the first post's admission of wearing knit shirts to work, I don't understand why that should be viewed any differently than wearing jeans. I tend to think knit shirts in the work place are more of a sloppy look than jeans.
> 
> It's amazing to me the elitism on display by so many here. I would suggest that a large portion of the problems this country is facing stems from a contemptuous attitude towards blue collar workers. My grandfather fought at D-Day, he was like 17 or something and later helped build Cape Canaveral among other things. He was most decidedly blue collar and wore jeans. He played his part and others were able to play theirs, a certain appreciation for the blue collar worker is not unwarranted.
> 
> ...


Over ? with a thirteen trillion dollar debt , unemployment above 9 % , the housing industry in depression and gasoline prices above three dollars a gallon ?

Politicians wrecked the country and they wear all types of clothing. There is nothing improper with wearing jeans. But in the office ?

Blue collar workers were simply classified as workers who generally worked with their hands.
They could be skilled,semi-skilled or not skilled. White collar workers as the term suggest
generally worked in the office . They to might be skilled , semi-skilled or have few skills at all.

What one wears in an office is determined by management ! If management allows for sloppy knit shirts than that is managements decision.
Elitism ? why not disagreements. If one disagrees must one be an elitist ? Are should we all agree ?


----------



## RomeoDandy (Apr 1, 2007)

silverporsche said:


> Over ? with a thirteen trillion dollar debt , unemployment above 9 % , the housing industry in depression and gasoline prices above three dollars a gallon ?
> 
> Politicians wrecked the country and they wear all types of clothing. There is nothing improper with wearing jeans. But in the office ?
> 
> ...


I made my point clumsily, I mean the decline is over as in it's "stick a fork in it's done" over. Empire America as a going concern is finished and before you get upset and start waving a flag at me, just tell me exactly how anything will change. This government can't even cut 1% of spending without it being a national crisis. As Principal Skinner would say, "Prove me wrong kids". Incidentally, your numbers are hopelessly optimistic, they simply don't reflect reality.

So eventually the whole things goes belly up, and those responsible are the ones in the suits, a lot of whom went to Harvard and Yale. So I think the contempt shown to blue jeans as being "blue collar" is embarrassing.

If you would like to criticize blue jeans on aesthetic grounds or utilitarian grounds, I'm with you. Criticism based on socio-economic status is bad form.


----------



## RomeoDandy (Apr 1, 2007)

Aesthetically speaking, most men are obese, knit shirts highlight their obesity and reveals their pathetic weakness. It is sickening that I should be exposed to such "men" but it is so. At the least, they could show some consideration and not wear their disgusting knit shirts to work. Fit men are perfectly fine wearing knit shirts because not being obese, they are not disgusting.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

RomeoDandy said:


> I made my point clumsily, I mean the decline is over as in it's "stick a fork in it's done" over. Empire America as a going concern is finished and before you get upset and start waving a flag at me, just tell me exactly how anything will change. This government can't even cut 1% of spending without it being a national crisis. As Principal Skinner would say, "Prove me wrong kids". Incidentally, your numbers are hopelessly optimistic, they simply don't reflect reality.
> 
> So eventually the whole things goes belly up, and those responsible are the ones in the suits, a lot of whom went to Harvard and Yale. So I think the contempt shown to blue jeans as being "blue collar" is embarrassing.
> 
> If you would like to criticize blue jeans on aesthetic grounds or utilitarian grounds, I'm with you. Criticism based on socio-economic status is bad form.


Empire America does exist , The United States is a super power with it's troops and navy capable of extending it's power anywhere in the word ! The world's currencies are pegged to the dollar ! America prints dollars. American deficit as a result can be passed on to other countries and it is !

It was the American Congress that put pressure on wall street and financial institutions
to make housing more affordable. It was the collapse of the American housing market that started the international financial crisis. Barney Franks , Democratic member of the U.S House of Representative , than controlled by the Democratics , the U.S House was also controlled by the Democrats said" No one should be denied a house because they can't afford one " This was the beginning !
The banks and financial institutions were forced by politicians to change housing requirements leading to bad loans being made. Leading to the housing crisis, which started The banking crisis. Fannie Mae and Fannie Mack's failure was the beginning

As for as criticism of jeans based on socio-economic status , no where in my post has that 
been posted . jeans as I have stated was created as work clothing , they were cheap and durable , it's intentions was not for work in an office environment. 
Blue collar was a term used in America to depict those who did not work in offices , those who worked in offices were called white collar workers. They did not wear jeans in an office.

If you wish there was a publication by John T. Malloy , "Dress for Success " a #1 best seller for years. A book that set standard for men and women moving into the business and 
professional world. I suggest you might read that book. Many businesses and professional 
organizations still follow it's guidelines all over the world ! Some American offices do not.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Haven't had one of these for a while. Might be fun...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

RomeoDandy said:


> Aesthetically speaking, most men are obese, knit shirts highlight their obesity and reveals their pathetic weakness. It is sickening that I should be exposed to such "men" but it is so. At the least, they could show some consideration and not wear their disgusting knit shirts to work. Fit men are perfectly fine wearing knit shirts because not being obese, they are not disgusting.


I avoid knit shirts for that very reason!!

But I can't beleive I'm wearing jeans and boots to work today. 

Just because I did it, doesn't mean I'm going to defend my poor and lazy choice however!!


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

I hope you are not going to be upset silverporsche (you may even laugh I think).

When I was in my late teens I had a sack suit made from tie die bleached denim, I wore it with a grandad collared shirt and adidas kick or pum clyde trainers, to football matches and the pub, I thought I looked great in it. (I would have been mortified if anyone had suggested wearing it to work or church though).


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I hope you are not going to be upset silverporsche (you may even laugh I think).
> 
> When I was in my late teens I had a sack suit made from tie die bleached denim, I wore it with a grandad collared shirt and adidas kick or pum clyde trainers, to football matches and the pub, I thought I looked great in it. (I would have been mortified if anyone had suggested wearing it to work or church though).


How did you get this thing? Were they a fad?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> When I was in my late teens I had a sack suit made from tie die bleached denim


I don't remember any being tie dyed, but denim suits were quite popular in the early 70's. I never had one but several of my friends did.

Cruiser


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Orsini said:


> How did you get this thing? Were they a fad?


I had it made by a MTM house who specialised in low end suits for hoodlums and wasters. I was in my late teens and working in the oil industry, I really did have more money than sense.
It was not just a denim suit it was tie die effect. I had seen other guys my age wearing tie die denim jeans, or tie die denim safari jackets and I decided I needed to kick the arse out it and have a suit made. I had also seen brushed denim summer suits in stock in a shop I was a Saturday boy in while I was still at school.

It really was not a good look but I managed far worse as the 70s rolled into the 80s.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I had it made by a MTM house who specialised in low end suits for hoodlums and wasters. I was in my late teens and working in the oil industry, I really did have more money than sense.
> It was not just a denim suit it was tie die effect. I had seen other guys my age wearing tie die denim jeans, or tie die denim safari jackets and I decided I needed to kick the arse out it and have a suit made. I had also seen brushed denim summer suits in stock in a shop I was a Saturday boy in while I was still at school.
> 
> It really was not a good look but I managed far worse as the 70s rolled into the 80s.


 I live in a country in which the add men were able to merchandise
and sell "pet rocks " it was easy selling work pants worn with a sport coat or as a suit .


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Re Post #103: "...I think the relativists are pulling ahead...in this thread,...."

Waait a minute!

Re #104: "...he believes there are absolute aesthetic...standards."

I agree; see below.

Re #120: "It's amazing to me the elitism on display...." Elitism? If I say that a diamond is aesthetically superior to a lump of coal is that elitist? Though Cruiser'll probably stick up for the lump of coal. He'd argue that they're inherently the same - since they're both forms of carbon. Which would be true but also beside the point. Most people would much rather wear a diamond than a lump of coal. I can't see how anyone could plausibly make the argument that a lump of coal was aesthetically the equal of a diamond. Applying this to clothes; dress pants - even chinos - look better than blue jeans. Not to disparage those who wear jeans as a normal part of their work - it's the look that matters - not the social status.

If this be elitism; make the most of it!

Re #115: "[L]isten to the music,...." Yes; listen to ZZ Top "Sharp-Dressed Man."

Re #120: "My [g]randfather fought at D-Day,...." I thank your grandfather for his service. My father served in the U.S. Navy from 1939 - 1959. He went through WWII and worked in the Pentagon during the Korean Conflict. He started out a sailor and rose to Chief Petty Officer (radioman chief). After the Navy he worked for Bendix Corp. (which later became Allied-Signal which later became Honeywell). He worked in satellite intelligence i.e. spying on the Russians under a D.O.D contract. Ever hear of Shemya? - but enough on this.

Re #121: "...simply making a humorous comment...." Of course I was!
This is not personal; this is business.
Business is business; capisce?

Cruiser you had a '64 1/2 Mustang? That was a great car. Too bad you couldn't hold onto it. Today in good condition it would be worth at least ten times what you paid for it. I love Mustangs. In my wild younger days I had a 1972 Mach One 351C 4bbl until I wrapped it around a power pole going seventy m.p.h. - broke the pole in half.

Re #114: What I should have added there is that Cruiser's boss the Antichrist has a black 1972 Cadillac Eldorado stretch limousine with a red crushed velvet interior and an albino (a la "DaVinci Code") evil minion driver wearing a Regis Philbin monochromatic black suit with red silk lining and black shell longwings and Eric Morecambe horn-rims.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Regillus said:


> If I say that a diamond is aesthetically superior to a lump of coal is that elitist? Though Cruiser'll probably stick up for the lump of coal. He'd argue that they're inherently the same - since they're both forms of carbon. Which would be true but also beside the point. Most people would much rather wear a diamond than a lump of coal.


No, when I got married I bought my wife a diamond.

When I bought a telescope I got an apochromat with a lens that was hand ground out of exotic glass by one of the most renowned lens makers in the world. This numbered lens is now highly valued by collectors. The eyepieces that I use with this instrument are the most prized, and expensive, in the industry.

Many of the motorcycle parts that I have bought are made from billet steel that is much more expensive than the ordinary aluminum parts that are common on motorcycles.

We all make choices based on our own interests and needs. If you wanted to go out at night and observe the Great Red Spot on Jupiter or the rings of Saturn, you might be perfectly content with a department store telescope instead an an exquisite hand made instrument like I use that cost anywhere from 10-20 times what that store bought model cost.

Furthermore, you would be welcomed in an amateur astronomy forum and your comments on your observations would be treated with respect and not ridiculed by those with more advanced equipment or more skilled observing technique.

This is one of the biggest differences that I have noted when comparing clothing hobbyists with those who have other interests. There tends to be much more disdain heaped onto anyone who doesn't have the same level of interest in clothing. I have often wondered how many folks wander across a forum like this and get totally turned off on the idea of trying to dress a little better.

I fear that this notion that if one doesn't dress like Cary Grant 24/7, then one is nothing more than a slob. It's ridiculous. Heck, I don't think that Cary Grant dressed like Cary Grant 24/7.

Or the idea that every man needs a bespoke suit, or even a Brooks Brothers suit, is so out of line with reality that it is silly. Many men wear a suit once or twice a year at most and can get by quite nicely with something from a department store like Men's Wearhouse.

A clothing enthusiast who is truly interested in helping men to look better would help such a person maximize his appearance within the parameters of that person's individual needs rather than ridicule him for wearing a lesser suit. Unfortunately the latter occurs much too often here. The issue isn't about whether or not one suit looks better than the other; it's about what is appropriate and acceptable within each person's own degrees of interest and budget.

I may be wrong, but I do believe that one of the stated purposes for the existence of this forum is to help men dress better and look nicer, not to badger every man into wearing bespoke and high end suits and ties every day.

Not everybody who plays golf needs the most high quality, custom made clubs to enjoy the game. Skilled golfers should encourage and support duffers, but within the parameters of the duffer's level of interest. In the end it will be the game of golf that benefits. The same is true with clothing enthusiasts.

While typing the above response it occurred to me that, now that I know the end result of it all, maybe I would have been better off if I had bought her a lump of coal instead of that expensive diamond. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

One of the problems with a clothing forum is specifics. The spectrum of clothing is very broad. With cars it is more specific , example those interested in Porsche's goes to a Porsche's forum not a car forum. Porsche , BMW , Mercedes , and most high end car enthusiast generally has desdain for those who drive lesser cars. is there any difference with clothing?

As for as Cary Grant , Cary Grant was a very stylist motion picture actor of another era.
Mr. Grant set a standard in men's dress , no more than a Ferrari sets a standard in sports cars. I use cars as an example because most people own cars as they do clothing.

Not everyone who owns a car needs a Porsche Carrera to enjoy cars. Should Porsche Carrera owners encourage other car owners to buy high end cars ? Some do , some don't. In my experience no one has more desdain for lesser car owners than car enthusiasts.
Especially those with really expensive cars.

Many people who own cars can get by with a Honda , Mustang , or Toyota. Are people who 
own S series Mercedes , seven series BMW , or Audi eight series out of line with reality that they are silly ? If so there are millions of silly people.
Many of my car club friends only drive their cars on sunny days or on weekends.
Would one wear aKiton suit or a pair of Lobb shoes every day ?
When one buys a Porsche Carrera or a Mercedes 550SL one is not buying need but want !
Is that not also true when one buys a Brioni suit or Richard Green shoes.

Ask Andy's Forum covers a wide spectrum of men's clothing therefor attracting a broad spectrum of those who have casual interest or those one might say are clothing enthusiasts. That will always bring disagreement. . 
Road and Track's comment about Mercedes S series cars was " people don't dislike the big Mercedes , people dislike those driving them "
Would one attach that quote to one wearing a very expensive watch or a really well made suit ?


Ask Andy is an excellent site and the moderators are very liberal.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> ...While typing the above response it occurred to me that, now that I know the end result of it all, maybe I would have been better off if I had bought her a lump of coal instead of that expensive diamond. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Dude. Really?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The traditional method for using coal as a present to communicate displeasure is to place it in a Christmas stocking. 

Modern etiquette allows for no other appropriate delivery method.


----------



## Mikey78 (Apr 1, 2011)

there is nothing wrong with a pair of blue jeans!
however, there are of course huge differences between different manufacturers and styles.
i´d prefer a nicely fitted blue jeans on anybody over a cheap, loose suit!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> Dude. Really?


When this :icon_smile_big: is at the end of a sentence it means that it was not meant to be taken literally or it is meant to be humorous; however, considering all of the alimony that I have paid over the years, maybe I was serious about the coal vs. the diamond. :icon_smile_big: (OK, more humor, sort of.)

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mikey78 said:


> there is nothing wrong with a pair of blue jeans!
> however, there are of course huge differences between different manufacturers and styles.
> i´d prefer a nicely fitted blue jeans on anybody over a cheap, loose suit!


Why not compare a fitted well made suit with a fitted pair of jeans. the man wearing the 
fitted suit might be an executive with Daimler Benz , the one wearing the fitted pair of jeans might be a coal miner. One would not expect a man to wear a fitted suit to mine coal.
one would not expect a man to wear a pair of jeans to a Daimler Benz board meeting.
There is a huge difference in preception.
That preception is the difference between wearing jeans and wearing a suit , whether fitted or not. Both can be ill fitting and both can be well fitted.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> the man wearing the fitted suit might be an executive with Daimler Benz , the one wearing the fitted pair of jeans might be a coal miner.


Of course the man wearing jeans just might be a Daimler Benz executive, in this case Daimler Benz CEO Dr. Dieter Zetsche, shown here on the right wearing denim blue jeans. I will grant you that he isn't in the board room, but he isn't in a coal mine either.










Perhaps it's time you traded that Mercedes in on a Ford Focus. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

Cruiser said:


>


How come John Goodman looks so short in that photo?

andy b.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

andy b. said:


> How come John Goodman looks so short in that photo?


He's not wearing vertical stripes.

:smile:

(BTW, "John Goodman" is a man named Norbert Haug, and he's a Mercedes executive too - he's in charge of the Motorsports division)


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Of course the man wearing jeans just might be a Daimler Benz executive, in this case Daimler Benz CEO Dr. Dieter Zetsche, shown here on the right wearing denim blue jeans. I will grant you that he isn't in the board room, but he isn't in a coal mine either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mr. Zetsche is not wearing denim jeans in his office. The environment appears to be in the picture that of an outdoor car sporting event. Maybe an award for a winning a motor car race. Mercedes sponsors many such events in Europe. 
Should Mr. Zetsche appear at a coal mine in all likely hood he may just wear a pair of denim jeans , which would be more appropriate worn in a coal mine than in an office.

As for as trading in a high end Mercedes for a Ford , would one trade in a Kiton suit for a Men's Warehouse suit ?
Mercedes builds a number of low end fuel efficient cars , they are not sold in America. One can if one chooses purchase one of these cars as a gray market car. Why would one trade down to a Ford ? any Ford from a Mercedes ? Are times that bad ?


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> Why would one trade down to a Ford ? any Ford from a Mercedes ? Are times that bad ?


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Are you comparing the car pictured to a Mercedes SLS AMG ? or maybe a Mercedes McLaren? 
Fords are not in competition with Mercedes ! their market is more toward General Motors , Chrysler , Toyota , Nissan , Honda etc,. 
Their Lincoln series does not compete with Mercedes but with Infiniti , Lexus , Accra , Cadillac , etc.,

The car pictured is a special type of Ford. Does it really compete with a SLS AMG ?
Cetainly in development the Ford is far behind the SLS AMG Mercedes. The car pictured
is a 1960's designed updated.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

The Gabba Goul said:


> and jeans are for lower class uneducated slobs who are ruining society...


Yes, the iPod and the music industry come to mind. Good example.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Of course the man wearing jeans just might be a Daimler Benz executive, in this case Daimler Benz CEO Dr. Dieter Zetsche, shown here on the right wearing denim blue jeans. I will grant you that he isn't in the board room, but he isn't in a coal mine either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unless on a Lederhosen forum, I don't think I would point to a German to make any fashion points.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

El_Abogado said:


> Unless on a Lederhosen forum, I don't think I would point to a German to make any fashion points.


I'm not. I was responding to another poster who was.

Cruiser


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> The traditional method for using coal as a present to communicate displeasure is to place it in a Christmas stocking.
> 
> Modern etiquette allows for no other appropriate delivery method.


In Scottish tradition a lump of coal is one of the traditional gifts you bring to a house you first foot on Ne'erday (New Year's Day)
The others are a form of cake called black bun (shortbread is an acceptable and more palatable alternative) and whiskey (also salt in some areas).


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

El_Abogado said:


> Unless on a Lederhosen forum, I don't think I would point to a German to make any fashion points.


Hugo Boss? Karl Lagerfeld? Jil Sander? Escada? Wofgang Joop?


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

El_Abogado said:


> Yes, the iPod and the music industry come to mind. Good example.


Jeans were designed as work clothing. The person above may be a genius in telephonics
but may not have any idea as to how to dress. Dress is learned ! The gentleman above 
has little or no interest in proper dress. Even his jeans sag !

As for as the music industry , the well dressed music performer of today is an oddity !
The so -called geeks are another example of generally those who take little care in appearances.

Any class can wear jeans , the difference is knowing where to wear jeans. President Ronald Reagan one of the best dressed Presidents in the past 70 years , knew the proper
place to wear jeans.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Any class can wear jeans , the difference is knowing where to wear jeans. President Ronald Reagan one of the best dressed Presidents in the past 70 years , knew the proper
> place to wear jeans.


Which apparently included working in the Oval Office. :icon_smile_big:










Cruiser


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

^ zing

You people arguing with cruiser don't have the chops to counter his relentlessness. Ha! Not with softballs like that one.....


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Which apparently included working in the Oval Office. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Behind closed doors ! President Reagan is wearing his jeans with a western styled shirt not with a sport coat ! 
Many actors of Reagan's era wore jeans but usually with a horse. John Wayne , Cooper won an Academy Award wearing jeans but again there was that horse. Than there was Gable 
without a horse but he was mining , Bogart mining and there was that horse again. Both actor did appear in other movies wearing jeans but with a horse.
The debonair Errol Flynn also wearing jeans , again that horse was around.

I wonder jeans and horses , which complements whom ? Than again the horse disappeared and later there was jeans and motorcycles , did the motorcycle replace the horse ?
Times change. We must admit the horse added class to work pants !
I wonder does Prince Charles wear jeans without a horse present ?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Cooper won an Academy Award wearing jeans but again there was that horse.


Gary Cooper won two Academy Awards, one for _High Noon_ and one for _Sergeant York_; but did not wear jeans in either movie. He did wear overalls in the pre-Army scenes in _York_, but not jeans.

As for _High Noon _he wore a three piece pinstripe suit, minus the jacket. Does this mean that business men should not wear pinstripe suits to the office since one was worn around horses in this movie? :icon_smile_big:










Cruiser


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Silverporche, items like brogues were originally designed for marshy areas in Ireland and the Scottish Highlands. My brogues have never seen the marshy areas of either place, just the (sub)urban landscape wear I live. I've never been in the military or been on a horse (well, only when I was young ...) but I wear jackets that wear designed for that purpose. 

I know that the sentiment I expressed has been made by others ... what, Silverporche, is precisely your point? (insert smiley face here)


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Jake Genezen said:


> Silverporche, items like brogues were originally designed for marshy areas in Ireland and the Scottish Highlands. My brogues have never seen the marshy areas of either place, just the (sub)urban landscape wear I live. I've never been in the military or been on a horse (well, only when I was young ...) but I wear jackets that wear designed for that purpose.
> 
> I know that the sentiment I expressed has been made by others ... what, Silverporche, is precisely your point? (insert smiley face here)


 , Jeans were designed to work in Dusty, generally filthy placeS ! not wear to an office. ! 
I have repeatedly made that point. I would not expect to see jeans worn in the Ritz , Rules ,
or Wilton's restaurants in London , if so Londoners have began to imitate their American cousins. 
I would assume one would find an Englishman wearing those Brogues while shopping at Anderson & Sheppard , Asprey , and buying wines at Harrods on the ground floor. 
Times have changed.

One should wear what one wishes , where one wishes. Funny but the Japanese and Chinese 
are learning to appreciate western tradition . The younger western generation can't spell tradition , let alone understand it's meaning.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> , Jeans were designed to work in Dusty, generally filthy placeS ! not wear to an office. !
> .


And the same could be said for brogues, though marshy, wet places rather than dusty, filthy places?


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

I suppose the dust, filth, and horse in the Oval Office were cropped out in Reagan's photo.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

riyadh552 said:


> I suppose the dust, filth, and horse in the Oval Office were cropped out in Reagan's photo.


What was President Reagan wearing with his jeans ? certainly not a sports coat . President Reagan did enjoy riding horses and working on his ranch , wearing jeans !
Have you ever seen President Reagan wearing anything with jeans other than a western shirt or a jeans jacket ?

When dressed for a semi or formal occasions the President dressed appropriately. Not in work clothing.


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> What was President Reagan wearing with his jeans ? certainly not a sports coat . President Reagan did enjoy riding horses and working on his ranch , wearing jeans !
> Have you ever seen President Reagan wearing anything with jeans other than a western shirt or a jeans jacket ?
> 
> When dressed for a semi or formal occasions the President dressed appropriately. Not in work clothing.


Going back to your original point, that jeans were not worn by the social elite (political and business leaders, movie stars, etc.) for other than dusty, dirty work or movie set conditions, or while riding horses, and certainly not in the office, this photo of President Reagan wearing jeans in the Oval Office certainly does throw a monkey wrench in your theory.

I do appreciate your viewpoint of classic, time-and-place appropriate attire. I myself will not wear jeans to my office, even though 70% of my colleagues, when not visiting clients, will wear jeans -- this is however, my personal choice. However, you seem very narrowly focused on the use of jeans. It is a fact that jeans today come in many different cuts and finishes, and some are just fine to wear in casual setting such as high end restaurants and such (more about who does this below). There are plenty of people who are better dressed in well-fitted jeans, golf or button-down shirt, than others dressed in ill-fitted slacks and blazers.

I agree with your personal choice that jeans should generally not be worn in a professional setting, but only to a certain degree. There are plenty of professional offices today, in engineering, architecture, manufacturing, where jeans are quite appropriate and widely accepted. And no, I'm not talking about field work, but rather office work. There are also plenty of leaders of industry, politics, and entertainment, who, while impeccably dressed in the best tailored suits in the office, will make social appearances in dressy jeans and OCBDs (high end restaurants, media events, product unveilings).

The point that I, and many others, are trying to make is this: times change, and fashions change with the times. What started out as strictly military style uniform, is now the most accepted form of business wear: the business suit. What started as shoes meant to wear in the marshes and bogs of Ireland and Scotland, are now considered classic footwear: brogues. What started as equestrian footwear, are now frequently worn with business suits: monk strap shoes. What started out as a cravat worn by Croatian soldiers in the 1600s, is now considered standard businesswear: the necktie. What started out as military drill and field pants, are now considered a staple in a well-dressed man's wardrobe: khakis. Similarly, what once constituted appropriate evening menswear -- frock coats, breeches, white wigs, and powdered faces -- will invite ridicule, unless you're a theater actor playing a period character on stage.

Again, while I appreciate your sense of classic attire, I hope you can be broad-minded enough to see that use of attire materials change over time, as does their propriety.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Very good post ^

My only beef happens to be with the eroding distinction between work and personal life as reflected in clothing, and in actual fact.

Jeans in the office DO seem to say, "hey bring your relaxed cool, self here -- and please expect to check your email over the weekend for work related crap, too. Lots of it, sometimes. Oh yeah."

However, jeans themselves are not the culprit. I happen to wear them (dark ones) to most business meetings in a "creative" field in which dressing down IS the uniform because extremely casual street clothes CONNOTE creativity.

Even in many, many biz settings, grey flannels and blue blazers -- and suits -- are NOT examples (at all) of "dressing well", but of being tone deaf and stuffy and clueless.

I do try to work around this...but....


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

riyadh552 said:


> Going back to your original point, that jeans were not worn by the social elite (political and business leaders, movie stars, etc.) for other than dusty, dirty work or movie set conditions, or while riding horses, and certainly not in the office, this photo of President Reagan wearing jeans in the Oval Office certainly does throw a monkey wrench in your theory.


I don't think it does, as the Ronald Reagan presidency was many years after the time to which silverporsche refers. Jeans had been adopted as everyday dress by many (the default casual trouser - more's the pity in my opinion) 25-30 years before the Reagan presidency.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

williamson said:


> I don't think it does, as the Ronald Reagan presidency was many years after the time to which silverporsche refers.


Not true. Mr. silver has been all over the map on this, referring to the old West one minute and to President Reagan the next. After repeatedly, in this thread and others, declaring that jeans were only for dirty work in the fields and coal mines he said that President Reagan was a well dressed man who knew when and where to wear jeans.

The purpose of the picture was to show that the well dressed President Reagan who knew when and where to wear jeans apparently included the Oval Office as one of those places. While he might have been "off duty" at the time, clearly he was not working in the fields, mining coal, or riding a horse at the time.

The point is that whether one personally likes jeans or not, the fact is that today they are entirely appropriate for a broad range of activities far removed from manual labor in dirty, dusty environments. That doesn't mean that they are appropriate for every activity, but what is?

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Not true. Mr. silver has been all over the map on this, referring to the old West one minute and to President Reagan the next. After repeatedly, in this thread and others, declaring that jeans were only for dirty work in the fields and coal mines he said that President Reagan was a well dressed man who knew when and where to wear jeans.
> 
> The purpose of the picture was to show that the well dressed President Reagan who knew when and where to wear jeans apparently included the Oval Office as one of those places. While he might have been "off duty" at the time, clearly he was not working in the fields, mining coal, or riding a horse at the time.
> 
> ...


The emerging countries such as China ,and India , . I wonder are they wearing jeans to the office ?
Certainly Europe with the exception of Germany is generally in a state of decline. Asia especially China is more traditional and is on an incline. Do the Japanese wear jeans to the office ?

The United States generally a conservative country is in a state of change. American traditional values is becoming less of a factor.
One can see that change in music , art , clothing , entertainment , language , values, and
even attitudes toward government and it's role.

Wearing of Jeans is only a small part in the change. President Reagan was from a different era. Some call it an era of American heroes. This was before flag burning and free sex.
Jeans became very popular with those groups , I wonder why ? 
Now jeans are worn in the offices. All of you are correct change is taking place in America and other western countries. 
Is it for the better or worst ? only time will tell.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> The United States generally a conservative country is in a state of change. American traditional values is becoming less of a factor.
> One can see that change in music , art , clothing , entertainment , language , values, and
> even attitudes toward government and it's role.
> Wearing of Jeans is only a small part in the change. President Reagan was from a different era. Some call it an era of American heroes. This was before flag burning and free sex.
> Jeans became very popular with those groups , I wonder why?


This is a proper rant, love it:biggrin:

Here was i thinking jeans were maybe a bit overdone and boring, now I see them in a whole new light as the harbingers of the end of civilization as we know it


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> President Reagan was from a different era. Some call it an era of American heroes. This was before flag burning and free sex.
> Jeans became very popular with those groups


I wear jeans and I've never burned a flag.

As far as the free sex, I'm still waiting on that. Actually when I look back on the alimony, child support, flowers, dinners, diamonds, etc., that I've paid for over the years, I'm not so sure that I'm not running a deficit. Maybe it would have been different if I hadn't been wearing jeans----- :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Everything has a beginning. Wearing jeans in an office environment is a break with tradition.
That break began in the rebellious years of the 1950's. A good example is music , Elvis 
wore jeans, white socks and tee shirts when performing. Traditional singers of that period , Como , Cole , Sinatra , Mathis , Williams , Martin , etc., dressed more traditionally.


Hollywood was not exempt , Brando , Dean , McQueen etc, also broke with tradition in dress , Jeans were worn by those above as normal wear , while the Grants , Coopers , 
Gables , etc, dressed very differently.

As pointed out earlier values change , lyrics , , attitudes toward women , clothing , jeans ,
, attitudes toward drugs , Families became an after thought. Jeans was only a small potion of the direction of the future. In many circles jeans was an example of the rebellious mood in America.

Some of us watched as the mood in America changed , younger generations put less value in dress , the decline in men's dress had began. One of the casualties is dress in the business environment. Work pants instead of a suit.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Everything has a beginning. Wearing jeans in an office environment is a break with tradition.
> That break began in the rebellious years of the 1950's. A good example is music , Elvis
> wore jeans, white socks and tee shirts when performing. Traditional singers of that period , Como , Cole , Sinatra , Mathis , Williams , Martin , etc., dressed more traditionally.
> 
> ...


Do you keep this post on your desktop so you can cut an paste it into the thread at intervals?


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Re Post #155: Ah Cruiser; you've finally stepped into a bear trap. That Reagan photo doesn't support your argument. You need to know the story behind that photo. I originally read a version of this story in Newsweek magazine. I found this on the internet:

[Lyn] Nofziger: A political reporter for KPIX in San Francisco said ah, I want to do an interview with Reagan on horseback. And, I said that's a great idea, that really humanizes him. And he had a ranch out in Malibu Canyon -- about 25 miles from downtown Los Angeles. So, we went out there and he came out wearing jodhpurs. And I said, what in the hell are you doing in those jodhpurs. Well, he said, that's how I always ride around here, very huffily. And I said, Ron, we're trying to win an election here, you know. People in California, as they see you in those jodhpurs are going to think you're an Eastern sissy. He says well, this is what you wear when you're jumping horses. I said, we're not jumping horses, we're going for a ride. She wants you to be a cowboy. I want you to be a cowboy because that's what the people here will identify with. So, he said, well all right (sic). So, he went back in and changed into jeans and boots.

And the myth of the cowboy President was born.

Point being that the photo you show of Reagan in jeans in the Oval Office doesn't show the real Reagan. It shows an image of Reagan that his handlers wanted to present to the public. Cowboys have always been portrayed as heroes in print and film and Reagan's handlers wanted to associate him with that. Sometimes a picture doesn't speak the thousand words that it appears to on the surface. You have to look into the story behind the photo. Can you imagine the public reaction if Reagan had been wearing his jodhpurs in that photo? What's this upper class elitist doing in the people's White House!?

Expanding on what I said in #135 (supra); about there being absolute standards. Gold has been a highly prized metal for thousands of years. It's appeal cuts across social and cultural boundaries and has stood the test of time. It's why the U.S. dollar became the reserve currency of the world. If you lived in a foreign country you could take your dollars to the U.S. embassy and exchange them for gold - until the U.S. went off the gold standard.

I assert that the same applies to clothing. Certain types of cloth, weaves, ways of cutting the fabric and types of stitching are superior to others. They appeal to many people of diverse backgrounds and cultures and have done so for many years. A lot more people would buy fine clothing if they could afford it. For all the talk that some people (Cruiser included) make about denim being suitable for many occasions - I know that if they won $300M in the lottery tomorrow they'd be off to Savile Row the day after - never to wear denim again. They'd speak of their denim-wearing days as if they were some dark Dickensian past.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Re the Steve Jobs photo. Steve Jobs gets away with dressing like a slob because people aren't that much interested in what he's wearing as in what hot new product he's developed. People overlook how poorly he's dressed because his clothes aren't what they want to see - they want to see the new product. Jobs doesn't understand or care that his presentation would be enhanced if he wore a well-tailored suit, and from what I read about his pay package he can certainly afford it. Jobs poor appearance is compensated for by the new product that he's going to present - that's what people are going to look at. It's too bad that a person in as prominent a position as he is doesn't care about his clothes. Maybe a visit to the woodshed is in order.:biggrin:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Regillus said:


> Re Post #155: Ah Cruiser; you've finally stepped into a bear trap. That Reagan photo doesn't support your argument. You need to know the story behind that photo.


I'm not making an argument as much as I'm just having a little fun with this thread. I really don't care what other people wear.



> A lot more people would buy fine clothing if they could afford it. For all the talk that some people (Cruiser included) make about denim being suitable for many occasions - I know that if they won $300M in the lottery tomorrow they'd be off to Savile Row the day after - never to wear denim again. They'd speak of their denim-wearing days as if they were some dark Dickensian past


Surely you don't really believe that the folks who wear denim jeans are only doing so because that's all they can afford to wear. Heck, I know a few who wear denim because they have enough money and position that they CAN wear denim without concern for what someone else might think about it.

In my own situation, I have a closet full of tailored clothing that goes largely unworn for the most part these days. I have several pairs of MTM dress pants that haven't been worn in 4-5 years. Wearing jeans, or khakis for that matter, usually has little to do with one's financial standing.

Sure, a guy who enjoys wearing suits would most likely upgrade the quality of his suits if he came into more money; but a guy who enjoys wearing jeans isn't likely to suddenly start wearing suits instead just because he has more money. It isn't the same thing.

It's like the Bare Naked Ladies say in their song, _If I Had a $1,000,000_;

_If I had a million dollars we wouldn't have to eat Kraft dinners
"But we would eat Kraft dinners."
"Of course we would, we'd just eat more."_

Cruiser


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

It's like the Bare Naked Ladies say in their song, If I Had a $1,000,000;

If I had a million dollars we wouldn’t have to eat Kraft dinners
“But we would eat Kraft dinners.”
“Of course we would, we’d just eat more.”
********
Oh pish and posh! They would not! They'd eat steak and lobster and caviar by the pound. Followed by a glass of exquisite Chateau Lafite 1787 (sold at auction for $160K).


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

So it seems I get the last laugh after all.
So long, Cruiser.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Ohh noo! Cruiser's baack! He's been un-banned! This proves it; he's one of the Undead! He's back to prey on unsuspecting innocents with glittering eyes and fangs a-drip!:devil:


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Regillus said:


> And the myth of the cowboy President was born.
> 
> Point being that the photo you show of Reagan in jeans in the Oval Office doesn't show the real Reagan. It shows an image of Reagan that his handlers wanted to present to the public.


It doesn't matter whether he picked the outfit himself or not. Both the picture and story (which is from a PBS documentary and doesn't actually reference this picture) actually *reinforce *Cruiser's point that jeans - despite their humble beginnings - have come to be an accepted clothing item in nearly all circles and situations.

And as an aside, it's a pretty large intellectual leap to assume that because Reagan's 'handlers' dressed him for _one _occasion they dressed him for _all_ occasions.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Re Post #179: "And as an aside, it's a pretty large intellectual leap to assume that because Reagan's 'handlers' dressed him for one occasion they dressed him for all occasions."

Oh, they probably didn't dress him for every single thing, but usually when photos are taken of a prominent person there is an effort to "pose" the person to make them look good or to convey a message using the way they're dressed.:smile:

The jeans were being worn when Reagan was not officially at work, so he could "dress casual" and look like the average guy. Reagan never showed up at an official state dinner dressed like that. In the case of that photo, the jeans look was being used in a very limited way to show how Reagan could dress during his off hours.

"...jeans - despite their humble beginnings - have come to be an accepted clothing item in nearly all circles and situations."

The jeans cabal would have us believe that. I for one don't agree and intend to draw a line in the sand on this point: "This far and no farther."


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Regillus said:


> Ohh noo! Cruiser's baack! He's been un-banned! This proves it; he's one of the Undead! He's back to prey on unsuspecting innocents with glittering eyes and fangs a-drip!:devil:


Regillus: Knock it off! Several times in this thread you have come off sounding very troll like. If you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, don't post. This is the only caution you will receive.


----------



## Lord Byron (Nov 23, 2005)

Welcome, Cotton. I grew up in Houston, so I'm familiar with a few gentlemen there who share your feelings. Be true to your school. If you're dressed more elegantly than others in your office, so be it. Colleagues and clients may interpret the habit to mean that you're more attentive with your work, as well. Bonus.

https://lordbyronsrevenge.blogspot.com/


----------

