# Wearing Trad in an Un-Trad world



## AndyE (Jun 4, 2009)

Hi Everyone,
Living in downtown Manhattan where middle aged men where cargo shorts to work, my urge to dress with jacket and tie let alone not trad tassel loafers is considered rebellious. It is interesting how the times have changed. Anyone else have this experience?

Andy


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I'm a social as well as a sartorial reactionary, so the retrograde subversiveness has always been part and parcel.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It is not wrong to set the sartorial bar just a bit higher for those with whom we associate and being noticed under such circumstances can be a good thing. As a retiree, I am no longer faced with the daily challenge/opportunity of dressing up to go to work, but I still dress properly before leaving the crib each day to go about completing a seemingly endless list of errands. At worst, the neighbors nay consider me mildly eccentric! :icon_scratch:


----------



## crispyfresh (Jan 30, 2016)

Most people think today that trad is " dressing up to go to church". I love it, it tells you who is who, what their character is and how they think. Ive had reactions from outright mocking me in my face, to people coming up to me and not wanting to let me leave because they were drawn in by what im wearing.

You can even find phonies. I have a friend that always bragged about how refined he is about clothing and how most people are not. Then i noticed something. He doesnt wear trad or anything near it during the week, but bragged to me about dressing up to go to church to show off his clothes.

Trad isnt just your clothing, its a lifestyle, and a extension of your character.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

When I started working and living in Manhattan, I wore a sport coat 80% of the time I wasn't at work (and a suit and tie for work) - from walking in the park, to going to a baseball game, to eating at everything from a pizzeria to a fancy restaurant - and it was always appropriate - not under or over dressed (not that everyone was dressed that way, but enough were that it did not stand out). Now it is considered "over dressed" in all of those situations but some (not all) fancy restaurants. 

More than anything, this took me by surprised in the early '00s when I realized the center had shifted. Until then, a sport coat was my second skin, my go-to look and I loved it (and owned several sport coats). There were two "ah ha" moments for me. First was when my best friend asked me - when we met at a mid-priced restaurant for dinner and I was wearing chinos, an OCBD and sport coat - if I was "his dad?" I was genuinely confused and asked him what he meant and he said his dad used to wear sport coats every where, but people our age don't (I'm 51 now, was about 40 when this happened).

The second time happened - shortly after the first - when I was walking through Central Park on a nice Sunday - about 60 degrees, sunny - and noticed that almost no one my age or younger was wearing a sport coat and even most older than me weren't until you got to the men in their 70s. 

Wow - what the heck happened? So now I wear a sport coat probably 50% of the time I'm not in a suit and my casual observation is that I'm over dressed in 90% of those situations. You asked, that is my biggest trad in an un-trad world experience. Oh, and I'm going to a baseball game next week and, if it is really hot, I'll pass on the sport coat as my chinos and polo shirt will still put me in the nicer half (or top 10%) of the crowd (I try never to bring the level of dress down).


----------



## AndyE (Jun 4, 2009)

Thanks all for your responses. I work for myself with clients who could care less what I wear. But, I enjoy trad both the look and the meaning behind it. I also enjoy jeans with an OCB and blue blazer, stylishly done.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Tempest said:


> I'm a social as well as a sartorial reactionary, so the retrograde subversiveness has always been part and parcel.


I am genuinely delighted to learn that there is at least one other social reactionary here. Sartorial reactionaries may be thicker on the ground.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

crispyfresh said:


> Most people think today that trad is " dressing up to go to church". I love it, it tells you who is who, what their character is and how they think. Ive had reactions from outright mocking me in my face, to people coming up to me and not wanting to let me leave because they were drawn in by what im wearing.
> 
> You can even find phonies. I have a friend that always bragged about how refined he is about clothing and how most people are not. Then i noticed something. He doesnt wear trad or anything near it during the week, but bragged to me about dressing up to go to church to show off his clothes.
> 
> Trad isnt just your clothing, its a lifestyle, and a extension of your character.


This post could really use an apostrophe or two....just sayin'.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

AndyE said:


> Hi Everyone,
> Living in downtown Manhattan where middle aged men where cargo shorts to work, my urge to dress with jacket and tie let alone not trad tassel loafers is considered rebellious. It is interesting how the times have changed. Anyone else have this experience?
> 
> Andy


This seems crazy to me. Men still dress professionally in downtown Tampa, and believe me, the standard of dress overall is abysmal here. How can it be that men don't still do so in Downtown/Midtown Manhattan?


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

^^^FLMike, my experience - of course, being his thread, Andy E will weigh in as well - is that downtown Manhattan has become a tech industry locus and what's left of Wall Street (Goldman Sachs is the exception) has moved to the large money centered banks' midtown headquarters.

Hence, downtown has a very laid-back - jeans, hoodies, etc. - dress (overall); whereas, midtown is, by far IMHO, the most business-attired part of the city. When I walk around downtown, it feels incredibly casual, but midtown still has many men in suits, ties, etc. 

A friend of mine left Wall Street in '11 and joined a tech company. He went from wearing suits and ties, to wearing jeans and polo shirts. He said he was made fun of when he wore a suit and tie, so he stopped. Dress is cultural and the downtown dress culture is driven by what the tech industry wears. 

Of course, you'll still see many in suits and ties downtown and many dressed casually in midtown, but the dominant dress is tech attire downtown and business attire midtown.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

crispyfresh said:


> ...
> 
> Trad isnt just your clothing, its a lifestyle, and a extension of your character.


:badpc:


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Thank you!



Balfour said:


> :badpc:


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

FF, thanks for that explanation. I didn't realize he was making a distinction between Downtown and the other parts of Manhattan. Granted, when I worked in the City (commuting from FL) in 2000-2008, most of my time was spent in Midtown. My office was on Park between 46/47th.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Balfour said:


> :badpc:


+1000


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

FLMike said:


> FF, thanks for that explanation. I didn't realize he was making a distinction between Downtown and the other parts of Manhattan. Granted, when I worked in the City (commuting from FL) in 2000-2008, most of my time was spent in Midtown. My office was on Park between 46/47th.


For years, I worked on Park and 49th for Union Bank of Switzerland Securities in the Westvaco building - loved working in that area. As you know, NYC is so big, that it really is a series of smaller cities within one umbrella city. The West Village and Upper East Side are two different worlds - for example.

What is amazing is that downtown, what was the bastion of Wall Street and trad attire, lost both when the need for propinquity went away and the financial industry left. The physical touchstones are still there - the NYSE, the statue of the Bull - but the business of finance is mainly midtown and, via the digital world, everywhere. When I started in the '80s, "runners" still delivered stock and bond certificates to firms physically everyday based on prior days' trades - hence, the need for proximity - now, of course, it's all electronic.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Balfour said:


> :badpc:


Since everyone already knows I suffer from SBS (small brain syndrome), I'm going to ask: does an emoticon of smashing a computer reflect agreement or disagreement (and why) with the referenced quote?


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

godan said:


> I am genuinely delighted to learn that there is at least one other social reactionary here. Sartorial reactionaries may be thicker on the ground.


Chesterton said that conservatives always were and are and will be the true rebels. lol 

There are parts of the Upper East Side that are very traddy.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Clothes are just clothes. The wearing of a particular style does not change your character. Your character extends your character. For example, it could be argued that some of the most 'trad' dressed people in history didn't particularly exhibit desirable character traits (I.e. cheating on your wife).



Fading Fast said:


> Since everyone already knows I suffer from SBS (small brain syndrome), I'm going to ask: does an emoticon of smashing a computer reflect agreement or disagreement (and why) with the referenced quote?


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Triathlete said:


> Clothes are just clothes. The wearing of a particular style does not change your character. Your character extends your character. For example, it could be argued that some of the most 'trad' dressed people in history didn't particularly exhibit desirable character traits (I.e. cheating on your wife).


Thank you. So, is the smashing of the computer a way to show strong disagreement with the referenced statement? To wit, I'm so frustrated with it, that I want to smash my computer?


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Fading Fast said:


> Since everyone already knows I suffer from SBS (small brain syndrome), I'm going to ask: does an emoticon of smashing a computer reflect agreement or disagreement (and why) with the referenced quote?


Good question. I'd also like to know what that is supposed to represent.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Oh boy, we're into that dichotomy over whether clothes have significance beyond aesthetic muddle again. Clothing expresses something beyond what we find sartorially pretty whether we intend it to or not. It rarely does so perfectly. 
As Trad is not a singular monolith, neither are people's reasons for choosing it and so on. \
That said, there is the rather dated notion that Ivy type dressing indicates that one actually had some vaguely elite Northeast prep school type upbringing and somewhat aloof tastes in other things as well. The egalitarian notion of Trad has been rather lost on the general public.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> For years, I worked on *Park and 49th* for Union Bank of Switzerland Securities in the Westvaco building - loved working in that area. As you know, NYC is so big, that it really is a series of smaller cities within one umbrella city. The West Village and Upper East Side are two different worlds - for example.


Those are my old stomping grounds. The Hotel Intercontinental on 48th and Lex was my home away from home. I finally got tired of all the yankees up there looking down on me for being from Florida, as if my IQ couldn't possibly me higher than my shoe size (it's at least double). Plus, I need my wide open spaces.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

FLMike said:


> Those are my old stomping grounds. The Hotel Intercontinental on 48th and Lex was my home away from home. I finally got tired of all the yankees up there looking down on me for being from Florida, as if my IQ couldn't possibly me higher than my shoe size (it's at least double). Plus, I need my wide open spaces.


I was not unfamiliar with the Intercontinental's bar myself (and enjoyed the Bull and Bear at the Waldorf as well). Also, Maggie's Place and Manchester provided some more day-to-day imbibing options. As a mutt from NJ, I was aware of the disdain that some in the "old school" network felt to those of us who weren't, but so much of that was already breaking down that I didn't care. Nice to know you have a connect to Midtown.


----------



## AndyE (Jun 4, 2009)

People on Wall St or in some parts of finance still wear suits and ties as do some lawyers. But creatives and tech people wear whatever. Upper East Side has some very preppy/trad enclaves.

As a politically progressive person, I am not down with all of the trad roots...


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

AndyE said:


> People on Wall St or in some parts of finance still wear suits and ties as do some lawyers. But creatives and tech people wear whatever. Upper East Side has some very preppy/trad enclaves.
> 
> As a politically progressive person, I am not down with all of the trad roots...


The trad roots....meaning liberal university campuses? Or?


----------



## AndyE (Jun 4, 2009)

Liberal university campuses of the Northeast -- yes. But to many it symbolizes old money WASP conservatism. I know little of the history. Maybe someone could chime in here. Having gone to a northeast liberal arts college (and being a part time professor), 
I identify with the liberal roots.


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

AndyE said:


> Liberal university campuses of the Northeast -- yes. But to many it symbolizes old money WASP conservatism. I know little of the history. Maybe someone could chime in here. Having gone to a northeast liberal arts college (and being a part time professor),
> I identify with the liberal roots.


Okay, so the "liberal" in liberal arts doesn't even come close to modern meaning of "liberalism." Indeed, the term _liberal_ used to mean the exact opposite prior to the first few decades of the 20th century: it meant a very restricted role for the state - thus liberty from the state, thus "liberal/ism" etc.

But anyway, when it comes to the term "liberal arts", it is only distantly related to that meaning. (Trigger warning for progressive liberals here below haha  )

The "Liberal Arts" refer to a classical education, which has it's origins especially in Aristotle. The whole point of a classical education is to orient the student to the three transcendentals: truth, beauty and goodness. It was called "liberal" for a number of reasons: one because it was the education of a free man, a gentleman, a person who was not a slave in one way or another; two it is contrasted to "servile training" which prepares a person for making an income in one way or another. Three because the contemplation of higher things is what man was made for; it is his end or purpose; and because it is his end or purpose, it is in the true nature of man; and because it is in the true nature of man, it is how a man becomes truly free, and in a way that precious few understand.

For these reasons, it was called a "liberal arts" education - from the Latin, _"liber_". And decidedly NOT (lol  ) because it inculcates the values of progressive liberals - btw, yet another way in which a word has been so co-opted and corrupted beyond recognition, that even most apparently educated people are not aware of what I have written here.

Of course, very few - I mean VERY - are truly liberally educated in this sense; and, wrt a classical education, this means that they are not educated at all except in servile ways.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

For the record, I said liberal university campuses, not "liberal arts".....

The Ivy campuses are and always have been fairly progressive/liberal-leaning.


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

FLMike said:


> For the record, I said liberal university campuses, not "liberal arts".....
> 
> The Ivy campuses are and always have been fairly progressive/liberal-leaning.


Please. You said "liberal arts"; and when you say "liberal university" that is short hand for "liberal arts university."

No, they weren't "fairly progressive" in general and especially when compared to today; the "liberal/progressive" student on campus today at say a Yale or a Princeton would seem shockingly liberal and profoundly ignorant if he or she were transported back to even the early 1960s.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Quantum Physics allows for the Meta Universe, wave function collapses provide an infinity of possibilities. We live, those of us with taste, in the wrong Universe.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Califax said:


> Please. You said "liberal arts"; and when you say "liberal university" that is short hand for "liberal arts university."
> 
> No, they weren't "fairly progressive" in general and especially when compared to today; the "liberal/progressive" student on campus today at say a Yale or a Princeton would seem shockingly liberal and profoundly ignorant if he or she were transported back to even the early 1960s.


Don't please me. I know what I said....you can look at my post for yourself....it hasn't been edited. The word "arts" is nowhere in my post. You obviously read a meaning into it that I didn't intend. The guy called himself politically proflgressive and said he had some issues with the roots of trad (Ivy) dress. I was pointing out what I thought was some irony because the look originated on Ivy campuses, which I called "liberal university campuses" to describe them as politically liberal-leaning. Whether or not they were is debatable, I suppose, but don't tell me I was trying to say something I wasn't.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Califax said:


> Please. You said "liberal arts"; and when you say "liberal university" that is short hand for "liberal arts university."
> 
> No, they weren't "fairly progressive" in general and especially when compared to today; the "liberal/progressive" student on campus today at say a Yale or a Princeton would seem shockingly liberal and profoundly ignorant if he or she were transported back to even the early 1960s.


Comparing the politics of yesterday and today through the lens of the current political debate is silly. MikeFL makes a good point - Princeton and Yale in particular have lent liberal in the context of the prevailing mores of the time.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Please, I implore you, do not engage with the bore.


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

Balfour said:


> Comparing the politics of yesterday and today through the lens of the current political debate is silly.


That^ is completely meaningless - u do realize that?

Moreover, I wasn't the one comparing them - Mike was. So he, at least, must believe they are somehow comparable wrt an unchanging standard.

And, of course, you can compare them and it turns out that when you do that campuses today are off the charts in term of their "liberalism".



> MikeFL makes a good point - Princeton and Yale in particular have lent liberal in the context of the prevailing mores of the time.


The histories of Princeton and Yale in the 20th century are far more complex than that. I wouldn't make such a broad statement that they "leaned liberal" prior to the general decline in standards in the 1960s/70s; only a person who knows little about their history would allow themselves to make such a glittering generalization.

On the other hand, as we get closer to the now universities like these get less and less nuanced because there is more and more ideological conformity - Robert George and a few others aside, there are very, very few conservatives at Princeton, for example.


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

Shaver said:


> Please, I implore you, do not engage with the bore.


Exactly why no one is responding to your posts.

Still smarting from our interchange are we? I personally have been reading your posts for a while and noticing that you've mistaken a minor facility with words with actual knowledge and thought, as well as being able to debate coherently.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^I don't suppose that there is any possibility you may consider typing that again in a semblance of coherent English?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Balfour said:


> Comparing the politics of yesterday and today through the lens of the current political debate is silly. MikeFL makes a good point - Princeton and Yale in particular have lent liberal in the context of the prevailing mores of the time.


Yep: WFB Jr wrote "God and Man at Yale" 65 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_Man_at_Yale


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

Shaver said:


> ^I don't suppose that there is any possibility you may consider typing that again in a semblance of coherent English?


I don't suppose you can read?

You're attempt at sounding posh is so evident. You can pull it off among some Americans maybe but really it's embarrassingly transparent to the rest of us.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

I still don't understand the rude and dismissive "Please" that was delivered to me, along with the accusation that I was lying about what I said, when it's right there in black and white for all to see. You can debate the merits of my posts all you want, but that's entirely unacceptable. I don't consider the matter settled.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Califax said:


> I don't suppose you can read?
> 
> You're attempt at sounding posh is so evident. You can pull it off among some Americans maybe but really it's embarrassingly transparent to the rest of us.


The rest of us? Which 'us' would that be?

Don't be so transparently butthurt old boy, I'm certain that there is an arena somewhere in which you could be victorious. Off you pop and drink a cocktail. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

Shaver said:


> The rest of us? Which 'us' would that be?
> 
> Don't be so transparently butthurt old boy, I'm certain that there is an arena somewhere in which you could be victorious. Off you pop and drink a cocktail. :thumbs-up:


Anyone reading that thread would conclude that you were way out of your depth.

You bluff and bluster with cleverly worded but utterly vacuous posts hoping that no one - probably especially yourself - will notice.

Some are no doubt fooled by the thin veneer of polish; the rest of "us" (I can only imagine or hope that there are at least a few) are not remotely fooled and can see right through it.


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

FLMike said:


> I still don't understand the rude and dismissive "Please" that was delivered to me, along with the accusation that I was lying about what I said, when it's right there in black and white for all to see. You can debate the merits of my posts all you want, but that's entirely unacceptable. I don't consider the matter settled.


I was obviously mistaking you for AndyE; very sorry about that, I'm in a rush tonight (mother is at the hospital and I'm juggling a million things, should not be posting at all.) But yes, I still disagree with your post, but I was mistaken about your referencing "liberal arts."


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

^Thank you. I accept your apology.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Califax said:


> Anyone reading that thread would conclude that you were way out of your depth.
> 
> You bluff and bluster with cleverly worded but utterly vacuous posts hoping that no one - probably esipecially yourself - will notice.
> 
> Some are no doubt fooled by the thin veneer of polish; the rest of "us" (I can only imagine or hope that there are at least a few) are not remotely fooled and can see right through it.


That's it? That's the best you've got? For one brief flickering moment I had imagined that you might be a worthy opponent. You disappoint me. Same old same old.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Califax said:


> ... utterly vacuous posts hoping that no one - probably especially yourself - will notice.


I was just about to ask why someone jumped into this thread with flames blazing without the slightest pretense of topical discussion. 
I'd be curious to hear the overseas take on the topic and not his own ego.
To avoid utter hypocrisy, I must now make a crack about how those founding Ivy League Calvinists were indeed reformers or something. I can't really account for the entirety of the other centuries and claim that liberalism was always prevalent.
I know some wish to utterly strip culture and politics and history from clothing, but I believe that most can actually discuss this intelligently.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Yes or no Herr Tempest- did the Holocaust happen?



Tempest said:


> I was just about to ask why someone jumped into this thread with flames blazing without the slightest pretense of topical discussion.
> I'd be curious to hear the overseas take on the topic and not his own ego.
> To avoid utter hypocrisy, I must now make a crack about how those founding Ivy League Calvinists were indeed reformers or something. I can't really account for the entirety of the other centuries and claim that liberalism was always prevalent.
> I know some wish to utterly strip culture and politics and history from clothing, but I believe that most can actually discuss this intelligently.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Guys, can we cool it? This thread has gotten way out of hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## crispyfresh (Jan 30, 2016)

Califax said:


> Exactly why no one is responding to your posts.
> 
> Still smarting from our interchange are we? I personally have been reading your posts for a while and noticing that you've mistaken a minor facility with words with actual knowledge and thought, as well as being able to debate coherently.


Im about done posting here myself.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Fading Fast said:


> Since everyone already knows I suffer from SBS (small brain syndrome), I'm going to ask: does an emoticon of smashing a computer reflect agreement or disagreement (and why) with the referenced quote?


Perhaps we are witness to the murder of a television.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Califax said:


> That^ is completely meaningless - u do realize that?
> 
> Moreover, I wasn't the one comparing them - Mike was. So he, at least, must believe they are somehow comparable wrt an unchanging standard.
> 
> ...


So many fish in a barrel to shoot here. But, conscious of a moderator's intervention, I will refrain from my first response to someone who presumes to correct my grammar by implication who within the same post resorts to 'text msg speak'.

I will leave you with the comment that suggesting a tendency does not involve a generalisation, as a tendency involves a high level qualitative assessment of the overall prevailing winds and admits of many internal countervailing opinions.

I think where we may find some common ground - although your syntax is often difficult to penetrate - is with the depressing politicisation of university campuses. My 'safe space' thread in the Interchange provided one example. But this is very much territory, I suspect, for the Interchange.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Brio1 said:


> Perhaps we are witness to the murder of a television.


I would say 'mea culpa', but I do not think there is any sin in destroying a computer. The internet is - despite my participation here - in many ways the bane of my life. But in answer to your previous question, I would sum up the computer smashing icon, when used by myself, to express contemptuous but, critically, jocular disagreement with the proposition to which it is used as a response. Jocular, in the sense of this not being a serious matter:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Guys, can we cool it? This thread has gotten way out of hand.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Whilst I can think of nigh on six million reasons to pursue one avenue of enquiry broached here, still, your recommendation is noted.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

crispyfresh said:


> Im about done posting here myself.


The apostrophe still eludes....


----------



## Theoden (Dec 16, 2009)

AndyE said:


> Hi Everyone,
> Living in downtown Manhattan where middle aged men where cargo shorts to work, my urge to dress with jacket and tie let alone not trad tassel loafers is considered rebellious. It is interesting how the times have changed. Anyone else have this experience?
> 
> Andy


Andy, I haven't been hanging out downtown much, but I work it Midtown and lots of guys wear suits or sport coats. You'll spot the occasional tassel loafer or shell cordovan LHS.

You are right - if you walk up Madison Avenue in the East 50's and head into the 70's and 80's you'll see a lot more well-dressed men.

--Theoden


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

FLMike said:


> The apostrophe still eludes....


It sure does. The more I read Internet discussion board's, the more I am convinced that school's these days just do not place any importance on the proper use of apostrophe's. That really irk's me.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Charles Dana said:


> It sure does. The more I read Internet discussion board's, the more I am convinced that school's these days just do not place any importance on the proper use of apostrophe's. That really irk's me.


One might even ask - although rarely it is asked - 'is our children learning'.

Hell no!


----------



## FiscalDean (Dec 10, 2011)

My goodness, this thread went in a completely different direction than I expected. Upon reading the title, I expected a discussion of wearing a 3/2 roll suit or sport coat amid a sea of 2 button, roped shoulder coats.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

FiscalDean said:


> My goodness, this thread went in a completely different direction than I expected.


The Internet's funny that way.


----------



## FiscalDean (Dec 10, 2011)

Charles Dana said:


> The Internet's funny that way.


So true


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

You guys are killing me, in a good way.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Balfour said:


> I would say 'mea culpa', but I do not think there is any sin in destroying a computer. The internet is - despite my participation here - in many ways the bane of my life. But in answer to your previous question, I would sum up the computer smashing icon, when used by myself, to express contemptuous but, critically, jocular disagreement with the proposition to which it is used as a response. Jocular, in the sense of this not being a serious matter:
> 
> View attachment 16199


Sir , I would gladly be your accomplice in the destruction of a computer , or for that matter , the killing of a television. :badpc: ( However , not in ' sin ' because I do not believe in such a literal thing .)

Yours in Luddism,

Brio


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Brio1 said:


> ...
> 
> Yours in Luddism,
> 
> Brio


:beer:


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Califax said:


> Okay, so the "liberal" in liberal arts doesn't even come close to modern meaning of "liberalism." Indeed, the term _liberal_ used to mean the exact opposite prior to the first few decades of the 20th century: it meant a very restricted role for the state - thus liberty from the state, thus "liberal/ism" etc.
> 
> But anyway, when it comes to the term "liberal arts", it is only distantly related to that meaning. (Trigger warning for progressive liberals here below haha  )
> 
> ...


The proper term is _banausic _as in occupational/vocational/career training in order to prepare one for commercial life ( think of an MBA ) . The purpose of an education in the liberal arts ( nonpartisan ) sense is to build character and instill virtue and, furthermore , to make good use of one's leisure ( Aristotle).

Would an ' educated ' man make much of his ' education ' ? ( Leave that to our MBA and others so * credentialed * .) No , of course not. He would allow his character to speak on his behalf.

How is your mother , Califax ? Please tend to her for goodness' sake.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

FiscalDean said:


> My goodness, this thread went in a completely different direction than I expected. Upon reading the title, I expected a discussion of wearing a 3/2 roll suit or sport coat amid a sea of 2 button, roped shoulder coats.


That's what happens when the people who were interested about the original post have stopped caring and moved on.


----------



## FiscalDean (Dec 10, 2011)

gamma68 said:


> That's what happens when the people who were interested about the original post have stopped caring and moved on.


Good point


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Brio1 said:


> The proper term is _banausic _as in occupational/vocational/career training in order to prepare one for commercial life ( think of an MBA ) . The purpose of an education in the liberal arts ( nonpartisan ) sense is to build character and instill virtue and, furthermore , to make good use of one's leisure ( Aristotle).


A clothing-related observation--

All this talk of a liberal versus a vocational education (or the intellectual versus the mercantile life) has reminded me of a charming 1932 movie entitled "Love Me Tonight." It's a musical comedy starring Maurice Chevalier. He plays a Parisian custom tailor who unexpectedly shows up at a castle to collect a large debt from the deadbeat aristocrat who lives there.

It so happens that a fancy ball is in progress, attended by all of the town's swells in their finest evening clothes. When word eventually gets around that a tailor--a common, hardscrabble merchant--is on the premises, the guests start panicking, just as if there were a fire. First one person shouts "Tailor!" Then another and another. Pretty soon, all of the guests are frantically yelling "Tailor! Tailor!" as they flee the dance floor in all different directions in search of the nearest exit. There's total pandemonium. They run for their lives, except they are shouting "Tailor!" instead of "Fire!"

Gotta get away from the tradesman!

I believe scenes like this are called "making a statement."

"Love Me Tonight," having been made in 1932, is a "Pre-Code" movie. That means it was made before Hollywood went all puritanical in 1934. Accordingly, the film contains some sexual innuendo of the kind that wouldn't be allowed again (in America, anyway) until the 1960s.

"Tailor! Tailor! Run for your lives, all you people with a liberal arts education!"


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

haha Charles Dana  Excellent post. Maurice Chevalier is a superb and lovely actor. 

@Brio1 - After 5 harrowing days, my mother is improving rapidly. Thanks!


----------



## gr8w8er (Jul 14, 2010)

Califax said:


> two it is contrasted to "servile training" which prepares a person for making an income in one way or another.


A fellow employee enjoyed his time at Columbia, earning a degree in Literature on his way to becoming a superb waiter. Asked what he intended to do with his expensive degree, his response is now with me nearly 40 years - "Do? My education is not a shovel. I went to college to learn."

Your entire response reminds me why I was part of Vico College, a small subset of the massive University of Buffalo. They aspired to a Cambridge environment, where students and professors of like minds gathered in housing and learning. The focus of the college was "liberal arts" (only Bachelor of Arts students admitted). My attraction was that the subset was intended to incorporate rather than exclude God/faith in our education. Giambattista Vico himself has been used as a buttress for many Conservative schools (to be fair, he has also been quoted by Karl Marx). Our emblem: The Vitruvian Man, by Leonardo Davinci. In their nature none of these underlying precepts can be identified as "conservative" or "liberal".

Sigh. Colleges today on the whole would be better to be torn down and replaced with trade centers - leaving education, the rising of the soul, to those institutions that aspire to greatness.

Thanks to Califax. It was great walk back to 1975.


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

crispyfresh said:


> Most people think today that trad is " dressing up to go to church". I love it, it tells you who is who, what their character is and how they think. Ive had reactions from outright mocking me in my face, to people coming up to me and not wanting to let me leave because they were drawn in by what im wearing.
> 
> You can even find phonies. I have a friend that always bragged about how refined he is about clothing and how most people are not. Then i noticed something. He doesnt wear trad or anything near it during the week, but bragged to me about dressing up to go to church to show off his clothes.
> 
> Trad isnt just your clothing, its a lifestyle, and a extension of your character.


Not sure about lifestyle or character but I've dressed in mostly traditional clothing since I was in my early teens(nearly 60 years ago). That's just what I do. Yes, I get comments about dressing up to go to church, but that's how I grew up and somewhat who I am. Not that I'm more religious or better than anyone else but I'm comfortable in my own skin and in my own familiar style of dress.

Being retired, I do not dress in a coat and tie daily as I did for nearly 40 years but do dress for church or other events (where my mother would roll over in her grave if I did not) out of respect for myself. Weddings, funerals, nice restaurants, Church services and the like are events where I think that showing respect is just what I do.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Succinctly, it takes balls to proudly flaunt sartorial concepts that many in the world consider to be woefully anachronistic.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

fishertw said:


> Not sure about lifestyle or character but I've dressed in mostly traditional clothing since I was in my early teens(nearly 60 years ago). That's just what I do. Yes, I get comments about dressing up to go to church, but that's how I grew up and somewhat who I am. Not that I'm more religious or better than anyone else but I'm comfortable in my own skin and in my own familiar style of dress.
> 
> Being retired, I do not dress in a coat and tie daily as I did for nearly 40 years but do dress for church or other events (where my mother would roll over in her grave if I did not) out of respect for myself. Weddings, funerals, nice restaurants, Church services and the like are events where I think that showing respect is just what I do.


+1. Frankly I do not think it could have been stated any more eloquently!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

fishertw said:


> Not sure about lifestyle or character but I've dressed in mostly traditional clothing since I was in my early teens(nearly 60 years ago). That's just what I do. Yes, I get comments about dressing up to go to church, but that's how I grew up and somewhat who I am. Not that I'm more religious or better than anyone else but I'm comfortable in my own skin and in my own familiar style of dress.
> 
> Being retired, I do not dress in a coat and tie daily as I did for nearly 40 years but do dress for church or other events (where my mother would roll over in her grave if I did not) out of respect for myself. Weddings, funerals, nice restaurants, Church services and the like are events where I think that showing respect is just what I do.


Agreed on all counts. What I tell my children is that their father dresses with care, not to impress those who encounter him, but to show respect for those who encounter him.


----------



## Vecchio Vespa (Dec 3, 2011)

I have dressed more or less the same way since the mid-1950s, but although I am a few months from 70 am still working. I hate business casual. The things I wear to work may horrify folks, but so be it. That is who I am. I too dress up for church. There is a parishioner who, three Sundays out of four, wears the exact same thing I do. Last week it was olive poplin suit, blue striped OCBD, and a bow tie. I’ll outfox him on Sunday with a Madras jacket!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I dress as my father (Michael - born in the 1930's) and his father (Clarence - born in the 1890's). 

Anachronistic? 

Proudly.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

fishertw said:


> Not sure about lifestyle or character but I've dressed in mostly traditional clothing since I was in my early teens(nearly 60 years ago). That's just what I do. Yes, I get comments about dressing up to go to church, but that's how I grew up and somewhat who I am. Not that I'm more religious or better than anyone else but I'm comfortable in my own skin and in my own familiar style of dress.
> 
> Being retired, I do not dress in a coat and tie daily as I did for nearly 40 years but do dress for church or other events (where my mother would roll over in her grave if I did not) out of respect for myself. Weddings, funerals, nice restaurants, Church services and the like are events where I think that showing respect is just what I do.


I hit the like button once by accident but if I were to hit it on purpose I would be tempted by this post.

Continuity is, sadly, in short supply.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

I’m a high school and community college Spanish teacher so I feel like I should dress up for my profession. Tweeds, OCBDs, khakis, ties except Friday


----------



## Vecchio Vespa (Dec 3, 2011)

Bermuda said:


> I'm a high school and community college Spanish teacher so I feel like I should dress up for my profession. Tweeds, OCBDs, khakis, ties except Friday


I hope you leave as positive and lasting an impression as Mr. Reed did on me. I still remember his perfectly knotted paisley ties, his pocket squares or pressed handkerchiefs, his fearlessly wearing pink shirts in a boys school in 1965, and his wearing beautiful suits and crisp white shirts on the days he was going from school to the opera. You aren't just honoring your profession. You are shaping humans.


----------



## LMFHW (Aug 21, 2018)

AndyE said:


> Hi Everyone,
> Living in downtown Manhattan where middle aged men where cargo shorts to work, my urge to dress with jacket and tie let alone not trad tassel loafers is considered rebellious. It is interesting how the times have changed. Anyone else have this experience?
> 
> Andy


We share a building with an advertising agency. Young and old there dress in everything from pajamas (really) to shorts to torn jeans. I'm told it helps their creative juices flow. Whatever...
And another thing - what's with all this stretchy stuff?


----------



## LMFHW (Aug 21, 2018)

drlivingston said:


> Succinctly, it takes balls to proudly flaunt sartorial concepts that many in the world consider to be woefully anachronistic.


Absolutely! I enjoy standing out in a crowd of people I'd rather not be with. Or as Groucho said - I wouldn't want to be in a club that would have me as a member.


----------



## Califax (Jul 10, 2015)

TKI67 said:


> You are shaping humans.


Indeed. We do this with every action and word.


----------



## GRH (Feb 3, 2014)

https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/27/the-it-doesnt-matter-suit-sylvia-plath/
... and the right tailor can fix almost anything.


----------

