# Artifically distressed clothing: More trad than you think



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

* That's "Artificially"*

After reading through the comments on a thread lamenting the "faux distressing" of a pair of AE for BB longwings, it appears that many members feel that "real" trad clothing acquires patina naturally, over decades of wear, and any attempt to hurry the process along is in direct violation of some trad ethos. After all, "distressed" clothing is a modern invention championed by fashion designers and adopted wholeheartedly by the clueless masses, right?

I did a little bit Google-fu and I was able to find quite a few first hand accounts of TNSIL wearers who were around during it's heyday that mentioned the lengths to which some would go in order to achieve the right "look" for some of our most cherished trad staples.










For example, we're all familiar with the well known tradition of wrapping Weejuns in duct tape. But, if the old "Made in Wilton" Weejuns were so much better quality than today's version, how could prep school/college age wearers inflict the level of destruction necessary to need taping together in such a relatively short time?

One source says:


> Now, we who followed these fashions were at a stage in our lives when we grew like weeds. And given that Weejuns, under normal wear, might last a good forty years before becoming really shredded (I have a pair from the late sixties I wear to this day), it was futile to expect you might wear a pair to destruction in the name of fashion.
> 
> Nonetheless, fashion ruled, and so we artificially aged the shoes with sandpaper, metal files, and such-like. We also cut the seams with razor blades, to achieve the necessary look of disintegration, and then wrapped the result in white adhesive tape. Bill Quick


 A similar approach went into "aging" Brooks OCBDs:











> When I was in college, there was a guy famous for wrapping his brand-new Weejuns with duct tape so that it would look as though his soles were already flapping. He also, or so it was said, took brand-new shirts from Brooks Brothers and painstakingly frayed the cuffs with sandpaper. This was at Yale in the late 60's, during the last wheezing gasp -- the final catarrh -- of the patrician ethos that held that the ultimate status, the highest social perch, belonged to those who seemingly paid no attention to status." Charles McGrath


And, of course, artificially yellowing white wool crew socks:



> "We had pretty much a uniform, just like college students have today with their t-shirts, cargo pants and flip-flops. Then it was Weejun penny loafers, which had to be as decrepit as possible, often held together with duct tape. We wore thick white woolen socks by Adler. On the label it said "Do not bleach," so of course we all bleached them. It turned them a sickly yellow color, and that was standard." Ken Pollock


 It seems to me that the style many of us hold near and dear wasn't much different from the tattered jeans and old flannels of the "grunge" era, the safety-pinned together look of "punk," and, dare I say it, the current fashion of distressed everything. The only difference I can see is that current designers and clothing manufacturers are cashing in on it by distressing the clothes for the consumer and charging him/her and arm and a leg for it.

What does the forum think? Is the artifical distressing of TNSIL clothing by the wearers back in the day "better" or more acceptable than artificial distressing done by a clothing manufacturer today? Does this discredit the idea that a "good" patina can only be achieved by time and honest wear?


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

I can view the various aspect in different ways depending on which lens I wish to use. In some ways distressing done by a manufacturer is no different than distressing done at home (mostly objective), and in others, it is quite different (mostly subjective, dealing with a personal touch).

Either way, I personally have no interest in distressing unless I'm dealing with a costume piece for some reason. In my eyes, artificial aging is missing the whole point of why old items have a personality: their story. A pair of C&J's from the 40's is War & Piece; anything pre-distressed is a children's picture book.


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> Is the artifical distressing of TNSIL clothing by the wearers back in the day "better" or more acceptable than artificial distressing done by a clothing manufacturer today?


Nope. Shortening the product life and ruining perfectly good clothes is still shortening the product life and ruining perfectly good clothes.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

sbdivemaster said:


> Nope. Shortening the product life and ruining perfectly good clothes is still shortening the product life and ruining perfectly good clothes.


I definitely agree with you and I think most forum members do as well. I just wonder if nostalgia sometimes clouds our memory as to how immune to fashion trends the actual (as opposed to our collective memory of it) Ivy League style really was.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

I think that this look both then and now is more or less popular with kids trying to imitate authenticity in the "I have dressed this way for ages" vein. As an adult, or something like an adult, lets just say as a guy with a job I know that my clothes will achieve this look quicker than I would like and then I will have to shell out money for new clothes.


----------



## inq89 (Dec 3, 2008)

Glenn O'Brien mentioned his thoughts on the subject before, saying how rich people would buy new suits and then make their butlers wear them for a year first. Or Fred Astaire throwing a new suit against the wall a few times to "get the freshness out"

Interesting read:
https://blog.bergdorfgoodman.com/bg-magazine/wardrobes-in-distress

I think there's a fine line between purposly making something distressed and buying pre-distressed clothing. The former is forgivable, the latter is not.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Hardline,

Thank you for the Ken Pollock link. I never realized that while there are six degrees of Kevin Bacon, thanks to Mr. Pollock, on AAAC there are only two degrees to Jerry Sprenger and three degrees to Gwyneth Paltrow.



inq89 said:


> Interesting read:
> https://blog.bergdorfgoodman.com/bg-magazine/wardrobes-in-distress


Very interesting, thank you for posting.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Going back to a slightly earlier era: I have it on first-hand authority (so it's second-hand to you), that in the early '50s the appropriate collegiate cool (or "white shoe") look required one to scuff up, heavily, one's white bucks before ever having the temerity to wear them. The description I heard of the process was "drag them around behind your car," though there may be some hyperbole there.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

I think there is a distinction that needs to be made between distressing and "aggressive breaking-in." If you sanded that OCBD to achieve a look, then you are an imitator. If you sanded it to make it as soft as the one you've owned for several year then you are just trying to achieve a function that would have a following form. 

I will clarify and state that I would do neither, as I find a large portion of the purpose for buying such clothing is to enjoy the longevity that a quality product provides. In either of the above cases I would state: shame on you for purposely throwing money down the drain.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Starch said:


> Going back to a slightly earlier era: I have it on first-hand authority (so it's second-hand to you), that in the early '50s the appropriate collegiate cool (or "white shoe") look required one to scuff up, heavily, one's white bucks before ever having the temerity to wear them. The description I heard of the process was "drag them around behind your car," though there may be some hyperbole there.


IIRC, that's the reason for the introduction of the "dirty buck," which already has the grayish-tan hue of evenly worn white bucks.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Ok, so if distressing (fake aging) by a manufacturer isn't ok, what about the deliberate antiquing/burnishing that high-end shoemakers like Edward Green are known for? After all, it's just a more polished version of the same thing - artificially making the shoe look like it's older and more well-used than it really is.


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

I don't agree. Wrapping Weejuns with duct tape in the 60's is not at all the same as buying pre-distressed junk in 2012. You wrapped your Weejuns because, as one of your quotes makes clear, they last forty years and college kids are still growing. Given their high quality, you had little prospect of _actually _wearing them down that much---hence those who had worn them to pieces had status, hence the fashionable imitation of wear. But pre-distressed junk is pre-distressed junk. The way clothing wears out today, there is no status attached to ratty shoes. It just looks like you're wearing ratty shoes. Paying a manufacturer to make your shoes ratty from day 1 is just foolishness compounded.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

unmodern said:


> I don't agree. Wrapping Weejuns with duct tape in the 60's is not at all the same as buying pre-distressed junk in 2012. You wrapped your Weejuns because, as one of your quotes makes clear, they last forty years and college kids are still growing. Given their high quality, you had little prospect of _actually _wearing them down that much---hence those who had worn them to pieces had status, hence the fashionable imitation of wear. But pre-distressed junk is pre-distressed junk. The way clothing wears out today, there is no status attached to ratty shoes. It just looks like you're wearing ratty shoes. Paying a manufacturer to make your shoes ratty from day 1 is just foolishness compounded.


You're trying to make a distinction where none exists. The only relevant question here is whether a manufacturer distressing an item the day before it's put on the store shelves is meaningfully different than you distressing it yourself the next day after you buy it.

Oh, and '60s Weejuns were not meaningfully better constructed than AEs today.


----------



## inq89 (Dec 3, 2008)

rwaldron said:


> I think there is a distinction that needs to be made between distressing and "aggressive breaking-in." If you sanded that OCBD to achieve a look, then you are an imitator. If you sanded it to make it as soft as the one you've owned for several year then you are just trying to achieve a function that would have a following form.
> 
> I will clarify and state that I would do neither, as I find a large portion of the purpose for buying such clothing is to enjoy the longevity that a quality product provides. In either of the above cases I would state: shame on you for purposely throwing money down the drain.


Reminds me of this picture, which coincidentally was featured in an O'Brien article in GQ about this very same subject. The dirty bucks and general upheavaled look does add a certain cool distinction, hence the purpose behind the distressed look.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

I'd agree that sanding your BB OCBD to make it look like you have been wearing them since 1st year at St. Grottlesex or wearing hard wash denim to make it look like you have been sleeping in them in the van that you're indie band has been driving from show to show for the last couple of years is pretty much the same thing: kid stuff. I hope young guys can have fun doing what they do, but otherwise who cares.


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

I'm not sure anyone has made this point yet or if it is relevant. In the 50s and 60s there wasn't that much around to buy, and goods cost a fair bit of your pay cheque. Even the wealthy were limited to a certain extent because there wasn't an excess of items like there is now.

Ones shoes looked worn because maybe we had only a pair or two. This may seem like the good old days to a lot of Trads.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

I've had 2-3 OCBD's look like the picture from hard and repeated wear. Over a year I wore each once or twice a week. Eventually after 6 years wear, I donated them. I guess they could be comfy around the house clothes, but if I slipped up and wore them to church, I felt like I had accidentally dressed rather slovenly.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> * That's "Artificially"*
> 
> After reading through the comments on a thread lamenting the "faux distressing" of a pair of AE for BB longwings, it appears that many members feel that "real" trad clothing acquires patina naturally, over decades of wear, and any attempt to hurry the process along is in direct violation of some trad ethos. After all, "distressed" clothing is a modern invention championed by fashion designers and adopted wholeheartedly by the clueless masses, right?
> 
> ...


Interesting topic, Hardline. Writing as one who was in college from 1959-1964 - and walked the walk - I never saw anyone sandpaper their OCBDs, never saw anyone duct tape a Weejun, and never saw anyone bleach their white sweat socks to turn them yellow. Not sayin' these things didn't happen, but I believe their relative rarity made them worthy of comment - not their commonness. Kind of a man bites dog story. Adler socks, for example, were notable for their whiteness - heck they even advertised them that way - and nearly no one wanted pure white socks with their Weejuns or Keds or anything else. That's why almost all the guys I knew bought Wigwams (625s or Huskys) or Fox River Mills (1127s). They were sold as white, but they were that beautiful creamy color that was highly sought after. Good Lord, If I had to bleach socks because the color I bought was wrong - well, I'd never have bought them in the first place.

Here are Wigwam Husky's on 8/4/2012 - the maiden voyage for this pair. Wigwam calls this color white, but as you can see, it's cream.








I think it's fine that writers comment on the odd and the unusual. It leads to richer, fuller understanding. But, it's also worth noting that the odd, the unusual, and the rare, are - by definition - tails on the bell curve, not the norm.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

If there are impostors/posers today, who says that there weren't back then?


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

rwaldron said:


> If there are impostors/posers today, who says that there weren't back then?


Don't know to whom your comment is directed, rwaldron, but I wouldn't disagree with your statement, though I'd offer that if the size of your equation is 1 poser then and 1 poser today, I don't think it's much of a problem. In fact, I'd say it was a rarity.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Wow Billax those shoes are -- well not sure even how to describe them.

:thumbs-up:


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

zzdocxx said:


> Wow Billax those shoes are -- well not sure even how to describe them.
> 
> :thumbs-up:


EXACTLY!!!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Been away, catching up, so late with my invaluable commentary, but I believe in the 50s weejuns were wrapped with adhesive tape, the white stuff. Duct tape was not in common use.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

The Rambler said:


> Been away, catching up, so late with my invaluable commentary, but I believe in the 50s weejuns were wrapped with adhesive tape, the white stuff. Duct tape was not in common use.


You're right, and even the Take Ivy photo I posted bears that out. But the quotes I came across all said "duct tape." Maybe some of those old timers just replaced it in their minds once duct tape became the panacea that it is.


----------



## GarrishTweed (Jul 25, 2012)

I don't know why people would want to ruin clothes like that.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> A similar approach went into "aging" Brooks OCBDs:


Well when my shirts look like that, it usually means they're going in the bin. New shirts are cheap enough around there, there's no need for me to be wearing threadbare, worn out ones. As for actually paying good money for something that looks like that... I just don't understand it at all.



hardline_42 said:


> What does the forum think? Is the artifical distressing of TNSIL clothing by the wearers back in the day "better" or more acceptable than artificial distressing done by a clothing manufacturer today? Does this discredit the idea that a "good" patina can only be achieved by time and honest wear?


I prefer to do my own distressing through natural wear and tear, and if get's too bad, it usually means it's time to buy new clothes.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ It would be easy for an observer to conclude that I'm into the distressed look, based on my daily kit! I find it comforting to think that I am in a business relationship with our local men's stores and a variety of online shops in which I pick up crisp, shiny new items and over the course of time, distress them...the natural way! LOL. Now if I could only figure out a way to convince BB, et al., to exchange those "naturally distressed garments and shoes/boots for crisp, shiny new items, it would seem a perfect relationship!


----------



## LouB (Nov 8, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^ It would be easy for an observer to conclude that I'm into the distressed look, based on my daily kit! I find it comforting to think that I am in a business relationship with our local men's stores and a variety of online shops in which I pick up crisp, shiny new items and over the course of time, distress them...the natural way! LOL. Now if I could only figure out a way to convince BB, et al., to exchange those "naturally distressed garments and shoes/boots for crisp, shiny new items, it would seem a perfect relationship!


Perhaps they could take trade-ins and market them as certified pre-owned?


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I was told by a Wyoming cowboy that their worn jeans are shipped to Japan, where they fetch fancy prices, especially if they have the round mark left in a back pocket by a snuff tin.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

The Rambler said:


> I was told by a Wyoming cowboy that their worn jeans are shipped to Japan, where they fetch fancy prices, especially if they have the round mark left in a back pocket by a snuff tin.


I had not heard about shipping jeans to Japan, but I have direct experience that tourists are willing to buy jeans right off the bodies of wyoming cowboys and, yes, the snuff tin print adds value. Years ago, when the passenger train stopped in downtown Cheyenne, I knew a fellow who would lounge around in front of the Albany Bar, next to the station, usually selling his "only" pair of jeans at least twice a day. True story.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Sorry, but i just have to ask, were your friend's customers primarily men or women. The motivating factor driving each purchase would have been drastically different...methinks! LOL.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Sorry, but i just have to ask, were your friend's customers primarily men or women. The motivating factor driving each purchase would have been drastically different...methinks! LOL.


The one sale I observed personally was to a couple. The jeans were obviously for the man - a middle-aged tourist. The wife was an active part of the negotiation. After the deal, I initiated a conversation with the seller who eventually told me the convincing story of his enterprise. I was on ranch business, dressed accordingly. The seller said he could probably market my hat and my Levi jacket, but my jeans were too new. This occurred sometime in the mid-1980's. I still have the hat.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

How about these:


----------

