# Is a "Trad" forum anti-Trad?



## sperrytopsider (May 3, 2008)

It seems to me like a forum about "Trad" men's clothing is anti-Trad in itself. 

Would those men from decades ago whom you all admire so much be caught dead on a message board discussing clothing like ladies? 

Would they be caught dead taking pictures of themselves every morning and showing them off in a "What are you wearing" thread? 

I'm not trying to criticize anyone here, but I thought it might make for an interesting discussion and I'd like to hear your opinion.


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

Back then as now, some men are interested in clothes and some aren't. Some of those who are interested find it fun to talk about them. 

There have been Saturday morning meetings at the Andover Shop in Cambridge for decades with men shooting the breeze about clothes, etc. 

This is just an electronic version, especially useful at work..... There's no reason to think we need necessarily be anti-technology. WFB and many others always enjoyed the latest technological gadgets and still dressed in tnsil style.

I don't see what the problem is.


----------



## sperrytopsider (May 3, 2008)

I guess its the thread in which middle aged men take daily pictures of their outfits and post them online like a teenaged girl would on myspace. 

There's something about that which seems...un-manly (for lack of a better word) about that.



EDIT: I hope its clear that I am not attempting to insult anyone here. I am, obviously, on a men's clothing forum right now and have an interest in the subject. I am just curious to hear any of your opinions on the matter.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

sperrytopsider -- 

I ask myself such questions very often. But, in the end, the only answer is -- Who Knows?

Was Wilt Chamberlain the best center of all time? Could the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers have competed with the 2008 Kansas Jayhawks? How would Marciano have stood up to Muhammad Ali? How about the 1927 Yankees against recent Red Sox series winners? Who knows?

So many contextual changes (rules, training, competition, toughness, nutrition, etc.) that it's all conjecture. 

Today I wandered Central Park with my 8 year old daughter and marveled at the horrendous dress that is common nearly to all. Not just because these people weren't "trad". But they wore (all of them) running shoes, or hybrid hiking shoes or loafers combined with running shoes. And endlessly ill-fitting shirts on every man. Men who love to wear olive pants and an orphaned black suit jacket to work. And so on. 

Those previous gents were not surrounded by such a disposable culture. People today happily pay 129 bucks for a pair of shoes that will last a year -- and think nothing of it. It's a disposable culture today. With bad manners to boot.

In short: Who Knows? Everything has changed.


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

sperrytopsider said:


> I guess its the thread in which middle aged men take daily pictures of their outfits and post them online like a teenaged girl would on myspace.
> 
> There's something about that which seems...un-manly (for lack of a better word) about that.
> 
> EDIT: I hope its clear that I am not attempting to insult anyone here. I am, obviously, on a men's clothing forum right now and have an interest in the subject. I am just curious to hear any of your opinions on the matter.


Perhaps it would be interesting for you to explain why you read online clothing fora if you feel this way? Do you feel that it makes you less of a man? If so, perhaps you should stop.

My thoughts on the subject: no reason why it needs to be unmanly. For example: A sloppy college kid stumbles across the forum; it teaches him (with pictures) how to dress in the tnsil kit; and then he scores hot sorority girls in madras dresses. :aportnoy:


----------



## sperrytopsider (May 3, 2008)

Again, its more the "show of your cute outfit!!" threads that I object to and would label un-Trad, not the idea of a men's clothing forum in general.


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

sperrytopsider said:


> Again, its more the "show of your cute outfit!!" threads that I object to and would label un-Trad, not the idea of a men's clothing forum in general.


Well, then it's just a small part of the forum--one part of one thread--that you object to and find unmanly. Simply by-pass that thread.

You'll surely have gripes about (parts of) individual threads on other fora. Search around SF for a while and you may not like everything you see there too. No need to pick on this forum.

Maybe you should move on to this forum (link below), which has already started a discussion about clothing and manliness. You'll probably find the posts by poster Russell Street particularly enlightening.

https://www.filmnoirbuff.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=3073


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

sperrytopsider said:


> Again, its more the "show of your cute outfit!!" threads that I object to and would label un-Trad, not the idea of a men's clothing forum in general.


I am not clear why this makes you squeamish. A picture is worth many words especially if they are of well-executed examples. The idea of this being un-manly is simply silly. For instance, the U.S. military has acres of pictures and manuals on how to dress for different situations, from combat to formal dances. If looking at a gig line isn't unmanly how could gazing at a bow tie be?

I suppose, of course, we could end the forum and start a series of circular letters replete with custom made sketches. That'd possibly be Trad but I defer to WFB, one of the first adopters of the laptop, the GPS navigation system (for backup purposes only of course ) and other technological innovations that simply made it easier to find one's way and communicate. Just as this forum does, pictures and all.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

Quay said:


> I am not clear why this makes you squeamish.


Freudian analysis would suggest the squeamishness lies not with the photos themselves, but with the OP's own projections and constructions of what the photos mean, which necessarily harken back to his own experiences.


----------



## sperrytopsider (May 3, 2008)

My father dressed in such way that many of you would call Trad, but I can assure you that he didn't take pictures of his 'cute' outfits everyday and exchange them with his friends. 

To have been so obsessed and proud of his clothes would have completely contradicted the subtlety and class of his style.

Does anyone get what I'm saying?


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

sperrytopsider said:


> My father dressed in such way that many of you would call Trad, but I can assure you that he didn't take pictures of his 'cute' outfits everyday and exchange them with his friends.
> 
> To have been so obsessed and proud of his clothes would have completely contradicted the subtlety and class of his style.
> 
> Does anyone get what I'm saying?


Again, this is beating a dead horse. Then as now, some men like/care about clothes more than others.

The Duke of Windsor cared a helluva lot about clothes--having his trousers made in the USA and his jackets on Savile Row. Was he unmanly or classless?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

sperrytopsider said:


> My father dressed in such way that many of you would call Trad, but I can assure you that he didn't take pictures of his 'cute' outfits everyday and exchange them with his friends.
> 
> To have been so obsessed and proud of his clothes would have completely contradicted the subtlety and class of his style.
> 
> Does anyone get what I'm saying?


I don't think anyone need any assurances as to the kind of behavior your father did or did not practice, although it is kind of you to stand for him.

I may be reaching but it seems part of your point is a tense sense that such public displays of one's wardrobe are in bad taste. This forum isn't the public. No one needs look at anything here unless he or she wants to. Kindly avert your eyes from the pictures thread if it offends your sensibilities. What could be easier?

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

My dinner included squirrel gravy--your's?


----------



## B R A N D X® (Mar 15, 2008)

I think there was a time when to get ideas about how to dress properly one had only to go out in public and observe other properly dressed men. In this age of the cargo shorts-t-shirts-ball cap look the photo's posted here help give people like me ideas about what looks correct and what doesn't.

I find it helpful given the casual attire atmosphere we currently live in.

And then there is the idea that this community serves almost as a support group for those of use who are *strange* enough to actually aspire to elegance in a day and age where it is frequently considered odd to wear dressier attire.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ :icon_smile: I'm not familiar with this stance. What's it called? "Modified Wrought Iron?"

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## sperrytopsider (May 3, 2008)

B R A N D X® said:


> I think there was a time when to get ideas about how to dress properly one had only to go out in public and observe other properly dressed men. In this age of the cargo shorts-t-shirts-ball cap look the photo's posted here help give people like me ideas about what looks correct and what doesn't.
> 
> I find it helpful given the casual attire atmosphere we currently live in.
> 
> And then there is the idea that this community serves almost as a support group for those of use who are *strange* enough to actually aspire to elegance in a day and age where it is frequently considered odd to wear dressier attire.


Okay, I get it. Well said.


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

A.Squire said:


> My dinner included squirrel gravy--your's?


Way to cling, my friend.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

Quay said:


> ^ :icon_smile: I'm not familiar with this stance. What's it called? "Modified Wrought Iron?"
> 
> Cordially,
> A.Q.


LOL, funny as ever. I only posted 'cause i saw you were hot on this thread and hoped the watch band might trigger your promised review. Remember?

in it 4 laughs mostly,


----------



## sperrytopsider (May 3, 2008)

A.Squire said:


> My dinner included squirrel gravy--your's?


See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

I believe it shows an insecurity to feel the need to take a picture of oneself hunting in traditional clothes, upload it to an imageshack account and post it on a men's clothing forum as if to prove one's manliness.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

M. Charles said:


> Way to cling, my friend.


Now what's that mean? Remember I'm sensitive, so if you're making fun of me please just use the PM feature.

shootin' in B&W,


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

A.Squire said:


> LOL, funny as ever. I only posted 'cause i saw you were hot on this thread and hoped the watch band might trigger your promised review. Remember?
> 
> in it 4 laughs mostly,


You're very kind. :icon_smile: And actually I'm not sure I remember. Would you remind me? Was it about my recent Central Watch 5-band purchase or the Orvis watch? The latter I posted about a while back. My apologies for swiss-cheese brain this evening. On a powerful anti-allergy medicine.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

sperrytopsider said:


> See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
> 
> I believe it shows an insecurity to feel the need to take a picture of oneself hunting in traditional clothes, upload it to an imageshack account and post it on a men's clothing forum as if to prove one's manliness.


Theatre, my friend. Fun. Tongue-and-cheek.

Loosen up. Clearly you're the one with the fixation. You keep coming back here. If this stuff bothers you so much, kindly find another thread to view, as Quay has suggested.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

sperrytopsider said:


> See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
> 
> I believe it shows an insecurity to feel the need to take a picture of oneself hunting in traditional clothes, upload it to an imageshack account and post it on a men's clothing forum as if to prove one's manliness.


If you enlarge the whole picture you'll see he's actually aiming at a line of Dandified Fops daring to walk down the street in front of his house -- a very manly thing as they might be off to a photo booth. The squirrels are actually cheering him on. He looks totally secure with the whole thing.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

sperrytopsider said:


> See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
> 
> I believe it shows an insecurity to feel the need to take a picture of oneself hunting in traditional clothes, upload it to an imageshack account and post it on a men's clothing forum as if to prove one's manliness.


If I knew you better I'd direct you to my wife's blog (friends and family) where the other 50 pictures taken that day are posted, but then you wouldn't be interested in kids, kats, and knitting would you?


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Blog? Do tell..


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

gnatty8 said:


> Blog? Do tell..


Probably best not to, I would advise. Too many pedophiles out there.


----------



## babycatcher (Apr 6, 2008)

I do get what is being ventured here, albeit in a provocative way. 

Right off, one may think that older Trad men have their assistants print their email, so they can scribble a reply and have it sent off. Not that they are technophobes per se, but cannot be bothered learning new things.

Similarly, one may assume that an interest in clothes is somewhat unmanly, and even more unmanly if the interest is taken to the level of taking photos of themselves to post online. After all, most men tend to put on whatever their wives/partners bring home from the store for them to wear, don't they?

But, as Bob Dylan said (2 years before I was born, I might add)--The times they are a changin'.

While I always dressed fairly Trad (it was called preppy in the 80's when i came of age), it has not been something I really planned.

I used to have many other interests, many quite time-consuming, when I was younger. I first broke 90 on the on the golf course when I was 12, for example.

But life, and career, took over. I neither have the time nor desire to spend 4-5 hours playing golf on the weekends when I could do much better spending time raising my kids, and having a lot of fun doing it.

So--I suspect my story is similar to others in the forum. In the past several years, I have been fortunate enough to be in a position where I could afford some of the finer things in life. When it was time to replace something in my home, I used the Web to research what was of the best quality, and I found that while quality was expensive, it was usually the best value in the long-term.

As my responsibilities at work increased, it was time to upgrade my wardrobe, and I used the same method to research what was the best quality. After my first bespoke blazer and suit, matched with a nice pair of Aldens, I learned a few things (especially as someone who is hard to fit)

1. High quality clothing that fits well is much more comfortable. In fact, it can almost be like wearing pajamas, which helps me get through some 14 hour days.

2. Good Trad clothing got me positive attention. Not in a flashy way, not in a way that stands out, but in a way that those with a good eye see and comment on.

This is a feeling that can be somewhat addictive. Naturally, I wanted more, and did more research. That is what led me to AAAC and several other forums, and I have learned a lot in these places. 

Forums like these cater to people with similar interests---pretty obvious, huh? I have seen forums dedicated to guns, model trains, comics, just about anything. Is this forum unmanly because it is about clothes? Personally, I am not ambivalent, as I think it is practical. Where I live, I cannot carry a gun, would look like a fool carrying a model train, and would be arrested if I did not wear clothes.

One last thing about the unmanly issue. I work with mostly women. I think a lot of men know that women like to talk about clothes, yet men do not have much to add to the conversation most of the time. A well dressed man who understands clothes, if he was so inclined (and I am happily married and am not so inclined)--how do I put this, hmmm? Let's just say that as long as he was not a complete troll, he could get more a** than a toilet seat.

Sorry for the last line and the length of this reply, but I believe it all to be true.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

sperrytopsider said:


> See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
> 
> I believe it shows an insecurity to feel the need to take a picture of oneself hunting in traditional clothes, upload it to an imageshack account and post it on a men's clothing forum as if to prove one's manliness.


you created a username today so you can criticize some forumites' manliness?

duuuuuuuuude, you are uber manly and uber secure. *Über*.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

Smells like a troll. Is it really worth dragging this on to have a bout with someone who _clearly_ doesn't want to insult anybody?

I must say though, sperrytopsider, I'm flattered that you think I'm cute. But to be fair, I don't bat from that side of the plate.


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

I agree. It's past Russy's bedtime anyway.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Please click over to the WAYW thread and look at my cute outfit.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

M. Charles said:


> Probably best not to, I would advise. Too many pedophiles out there.


Why you're right, pedophiles are constantly trolling style blogs looking to access pictures of people's kids.. I mean, I routinely troll cigar blogs hoping to get tips on where I can find blogs related to needlepoint too.

:crazy:


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I'm confused. I thought we were dupes. Now we're sissies, too?


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

Patrick06790 said:


> I'm confused. I thought we were dupes. Now we're sissies, too?


Not me, I gotz firearmz.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

M. Charles said:


> I agree. It's past Russy's bedtime anyway.


Russ Never Sleeps. Neil Young, innit?

Sussed.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

A.Squire said:


> Not me, I gotz firearmz.


So I guess one doesn't have to be straight to be Trad, just shoot straight?

I'm now confused, too. It must be all these pictures of well-dressed men.

Time for a cognac.

Cordially,
A. Quay


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The real question: is the German Feinwerkbau Beeman 124 Trad? :devil:


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

B R A N D X® said:


> I think there was a time when to get ideas about how to dress properly one had only to go out in public and observe other properly dressed men. In this age of the cargo shorts-t-shirts-ball cap look the photo's posted here help give people like me ideas about what looks correct and what doesn't.
> 
> I find it helpful given the casual attire atmosphere we currently live in.
> 
> And then there is the idea that this community serves almost as a support group for those of use who are *strange* enough to actually aspire to elegance in a day and age where it is frequently considered odd to wear dressier attire.


This hits the nail on the head. Some of us live in areas where "style" consists of men in shiny black silk shirts with gold chains, and women wearing short shorts with the word "JUICY" written across their posteriors.


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> The real question: is the German Feinwerkbau Beeman 124 Trad? :devil:


I think we all know the answer to that one. Give me an undarted Daisy or Crossman any day. Iron sights, too.

Scott


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Much Ado bout Nothing?*

Even though limited, there seems to have always been a healthy interest, by some, in TNSIL clothing. Not a lifestyle, but just the clothing itself.

Look at the fine prints from old Esquire magazines, that have appeared here. People were interested in the clothes themselves, nothing more. The interest goes back to post WWI.

Harris introduced the term "Trad" here to be roughly synonymous with TNSIL, as I understand it. He certainly didn't claim to be the originator of the term, but it seemed to be a shorthand reference to TNSIL.

That seemed to work well for sometime, and then there were those that took Trad to mean an aspirational life style. The result was a fair number of obtuse posts wondering if this or that was "trad"? Condoms, tennis rackets, thermos bottles, etc, having nothing to do with clothing.

Unfortunately, this turned off a number of serious participants, that departed.

It's pretty easy to dispatch those that aren't really interested in the clothes, Fortunately, there are still a fair number here that are interested in clothes, and have a lot to contribute.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

^ Oh, sure. Be reasonable.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

sperrytopsider said:


> I guess its the thread in which middle aged men take daily pictures of their outfits and post them online like a teenaged girl would on myspace.
> 
> There's something about that which seems...un-manly (for lack of a better word) about that.
> 
> EDIT: I hope its clear that I am not attempting to insult anyone here. I am, obviously, on a men's clothing forum right now and have an interest in the subject. I am just curious to hear any of your opinions on the matter.


I don't post pictures but, certainly would if I could! I've tried to do it and have consistently failed miserably...maybe someday? And, I have no concerns about my "manly"-ness! Every day I look at my trophy wife and recall that almost 36 years ago this beautiful woman met her "warrior king" husband and now all these years later...she retains her trophy looks but, is married not to a "warrior king" but rather, to an older (and ever aging) geezer. Given my state of deterioration, as long as she chooses to remain in my company...I'll guess there is nothing wrong with my manliness! :icon_smile_wink:



A.Squire said:


> My dinner included squirrel gravy--your's?





sperrytopsider said:


> See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
> 
> I believe it shows an insecurity to feel the need to take a picture of oneself hunting in traditional clothes, upload it to an imageshack account and post it on a men's clothing forum as if to prove one's manliness.


Sperrytopsider: You are insulting several posters, who I consider to be friends. A.Squire, mcarthur and others take the time and make the effort to share their knowledge of sartorial matters and frequently their sense of good humor to educate and entertain others who frequent these fora. The consistent use of photos in their posts has served only to enhance the impact of their posts on the rest of us. I can't think of any better dressed (or more "manly") examples, of what these fora are all about. A.Squire and mcarthur have certainly had a pronounced impact on my wardrobing and footgear choices and for that, I thank both of them. I also curse them for the impact of their sartorial influence on my wallet! :icon_smile: While new members are always welcomed in these parts, please try to be more thoughtful and considerate with your future comments.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

What's wrong with appreciating the efforts that some make to offer photos of clothing they own and like?

There's no point in my bothering to do so because most of what I wear nowadays is so bloody boring. Grey or navy suit (sometimes with stripe, sometimes without) and almost always a striped or emblematic tie. Either a blue or white OCBD; sometimes a blue-white university stripe. There was a time--just a few years ago, actually--when my day-to-day wardrobe was slightly more interesting if only because it included more color (I occasionally pull the now-too-small lime green cords off the closet shelf and smile), but nowadays I wear suits during the week and a basic (and yes, boring) khakis-OCBD combo on the weekend. There's no point in my posting on the shoe photo thread because I alternate between just a few pairs of Aldens--the tassel, the shell cord LHS, and the burgundy calf LHS. _Bo-ring._

Still, I look forward to seeing what others have bought and wear. If the photos have accomplished anything, they've demonstrated how broad the American traditional look really is.

edit: Following up on Intrepid's post--for what it's worth, in that original post I referred to it first as the "American look." I think I also used American traditional in the early days. And confirmed my utter disinterest in whatever label would be used by adding "whatever you want to call it." I still feel that way. I don't care for "preppy" and I think "Ivy League" is somewhat limiting as well. But...well, "whatever you want to call it." Big tent, for which this Virginia ******* is thankful.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Well Put Eagle!*

I have learned a lot from guys willing to post pictures, to illustrate a point.

Patrick is another that has added a lot to the Forum with his willingness to post pics. Tintin in Lily Pulitzer trousers, Brownshoe, etc.in addition to the ones that you mentioned.

It seems that the willingness to post pics is the opposite of insecurity. It takes a very secure person to post a pic, and say "what do you think?"

If you don't approve of pictures, boatshoe, by all means don't post one. We'll just have to struggle along without them.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Ditto the joy taken in the Patrick posts, including photos.

I still chuckle at cousin Charlie the state senator--demanding more Thousand Island dressing on the side. Hee-larious.

And Brownshoe's photos remind us that the "Trad as serious fogey" thing is tempered by something altogether cool and hip. No way I could pull it off, but he does with a healthy dose of panache.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^ Thank you Intrepid and thanks also for mentioning several other gentlemen from our midst, who have offered such extraordinary contributions to our sartorial edification. Though I must mention that Patrick has yet to write that book on fly-fishing he was supposed to write, forcing me to reread Howell Raines' "Fly Fishing Through The Midlife Crisis"! I fear the Lizard people have corrupted his mind?


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

It may be something in the the Boston water,but, it seems to me that the OP has taken some unfair heat for stating the obvious.Yes,some of the picture-posting is like that of "teenage girls on Myspace" and there can be kind of a "cute" aspect to it. Relax,fellas,nobody is questiong your manhood,but be careful of that guy in the mirror.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

For my next trick, I will join a fly-fishing message board and proceed to complain about the silly photos of guys holding trout.


----------



## sperrytopsider (May 3, 2008)

Patrick06790 said:


> For my next trick, I will join a fly-fishing message board and proceed to complain about the silly photos of guys holding trout.


There is something intrinsically different about a man modeling his new outfits and posting pictures online than posting pictures of fish one has caught.

Why? I don't know. But there is.


----------



## StickPig (Feb 8, 2008)

B R A N D X® said:


> I think there was a time when to get ideas about how to dress properly one had only to go out in public and observe other properly dressed men. In this age of the cargo shorts-t-shirts-ball cap look the photo's posted here help give people like me ideas about what looks correct and what doesn't.
> 
> I find it helpful given the casual attire atmosphere we currently live in.
> 
> And then there is the idea that this community serves almost as a support group for those of use who are *strange* enough to actually aspire to elegance in a day and age where it is frequently considered odd to wear dressier attire.


I think this is a large part of it. I'd add that forums such as this are a logical outgrowth of a disconnected society. How many people regularly converse with their neighbors? Forums and message boards reconnect us around topics we are interested in. It is difficult to receive feedback on a "look" via the internet without pictures. It is also difficult to pass on your knowledge without them.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

sperrytopsider said:


> There is something intrinsically different about a man modeling his new outfits and posting pictures online than posting pictures of fish one has caught.
> 
> Why? I don't know. But there is.


I can do both.


----------



## StickPig (Feb 8, 2008)

In the same pic?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

^ Absolutely.


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

Geez, Russ has so many sock puppets. For all his talk about us being obsessed with this forum, I think his obsession with fora in general is simply incredible. I mean, he would have to be institutionalized if these fora were ever to go away. No more meaning in life... He posts more in a week than I do in a year...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ Perhaps he has more to say.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

Quay said:


> ^ Perhaps he has more to say.
> 
> Cordially,
> A.Q.


I have no doubt about that, obviously. Russy is like a parrot that won't shut up.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

*The English Patient*


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

Patrick06790 said:


>


ROFLOL!!


----------



## Desk Jockey (Aug 19, 2005)

Patrick06790 said:


> ^ Absolutely.


You realize that you'll now have to deliver on that threat... in seersucker.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

dbgrate said:


> It may be something in the the Boston water,but, it seems to me that the OP has taken some unfair heat for stating the obvious.Yes,some of the picture-posting is like that of "teenage girls on Myspace" and there can be kind of a "cute" aspect to it. *Relax,fellas,nobody is questiong your manhood*,but be careful of that guy in the mirror.


Funny you should say that. From his second post:



sperrytopsider said:


> I guess its the thread in which middle aged men take daily pictures of their outfits and post them online like a teenaged girl would on myspace.
> 
> There's something about that which seems...un-manly (for lack of a better word) about that.


If you don't like it, shut up and stop reading. It may be "untrad" to talk about "trad" clothing, but I think that few people here are actually trying to emulate what they conceive as a "trad" lifestyle, so who cares? We're trying to emulate a style which we like, whether or not it's the epitome of mid-century Ivy League style.

If you don't like the picture posting, stop reading the threads. But using the teenage chicks on MySpace analogy, do realize that you're doing the same thing, only less technologically advanced: we're putting up our cute pictures of what we're wearing on MySpace so the other girls will like us; you're only yapping on the phone while twirling your hair with your finger (and probably sucking on a lollipop).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I, too, suspect that the OP is a troll attempt.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

If we're going to be like MySpace girls then we need a set of semi-secret, coded phrases so we can, like, make fun of the uncool kids when they're like, right there?

I'll start:

OMG HTH DIG MBT CITB?


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

Patrick06790 said:


> If we're going to be like MySpace girls then we need a set of semi-secret, coded phrases so we can, like, make fun of the uncool kids when they're like, right there?
> 
> I'll start:
> 
> OMG HTH DIG MBT CITB?


I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Jessica is only pretending to like you.

And she's sleeping with your boyfriend.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

^ Close.

It means "Ohmoigawd, how the hell did I get my bow tie caught in the blender?"


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Patrick06790 said:


> It means "Ohmoigawd, how the hell did I get my bow tie caught in the blender?"


Well, duh. Everyone knows that one.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

I'll preface this statement with the following: I'm a nobody here and I know it and I mean no offense to any of the regulars.

Having said that, I hear what I think Sperry is saying. To me, the look of trad clothing represents a wholesome manliness from a bygone era. In my imagination, the original "trads" just did it, they didn't need to talk about it. So, to have a forum to discuss, analyze, argue over their style sometimes does seem a little poofish to me. Yet, I'm still here, every day, reading what folks have to say. And I love it. And I learn a lot. And I wouldn't change it in any way.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

"We had tailored suits, a place for a little carnation in the lapel -- and inside, a monogrammed pocket for your opium pipe and switchblade." ... "If you wanted to do something private with a man back then, it wasn't gay. It was just two men, celebrating each other's strength."


----------



## sperrytopsider (May 3, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> I'll preface this statement with the following: I'm a nobody here and I know it and I mean no offense to any of the regulars.
> 
> Having said that, I hear what I think Sperry is saying. To me, the look of trad clothing represents a wholesome manliness from a bygone era. In my imagination, the original "trads" just did it, they didn't need to talk about it. So, to have a forum to discuss, analyze, argue over their style sometimes does seem a little poofish to me. Yet, I'm still here, every day, reading what folks have to say. And I love it. And I learn a lot. And I wouldn't change it in any way.


Exactly. Well said.


----------



## Northeastern (Feb 11, 2007)

Brownshoe said:


> "We had tailored suits, a place for a little carnation in the lapel -- and inside, a monogrammed pocket for your opium pipe and switchblade." ... "If you wanted to do something private with a man back then, it wasn't gay. It was just two men, celebrating each other's strength."


That was a great 30 Rock episode Brownshoe. Well done for remembering that line.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Well, that's it. Boston has spoken. Later.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ Yes but we've yet to hear from a Lowell or Cabot on the subject so it doesn't yet count.

Although it can be said that what we've heard is full of beans.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Northeastern (Feb 11, 2007)

Quay said:


> ^ Yes but we've yet to hear from a Lowell or Cabot on the subject so it doesn't yet count.
> 
> Although it can be said that what we've heard is full of beans.
> 
> ...


The only Cabot I know dresses like a homeless person, so I wouldn't care what they had to say about our supposed manliness or lack thereof in posting photos of our attire.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Thanks to the original poster for asking the question. The idea that someone could be posting on and fully participating in the forum, and still be conflicted about it, is not a ridiculous notion. I asked myself the same question before I posted pix of myself. I chose to do so because of the overwhelming sense of good humor, fellowship, and supportiveness of most of the members of the forum toward each other. An attitude that is conspicuously lacking in this thread.

The picture posting exists because we all have an unusually high interest in clothing, one that is not usual for males. You're not supposed to talk about clothes with your man friends, are you, you're supposed to talk about football or the stock market, and that bit of dissonance is what the poster was asking about.

TJS


----------



## Larsd4 (Oct 14, 2005)

I don't see the posting of pictures as unmanly at all. In fact, as others have more eloquently stated, it takes a set to put a photo of yourself up for others to critique. I see it more like the modern equivalent of bursting into a neighboring dorm room before going out to a party and saying to your buddies, "Check it out! These pants are gonna get me lucky tonight."

What does seem a little unmanly to me are the threads that trumpet "Look what I just bought!" These remind me of my wife and her friends oohing and ahhing after a trip to the mall. I have to admit, that I've been guilty of posting a few of these in the past, but in retrospect, they are silly.


----------



## Ron_A (Jun 5, 2007)

A.Squire said:


> My dinner included squirrel gravy--your's?


OP seems like a troll (particularly second post). A.Squire, this might be one of your best posts ever! (Like the can of Cope in the pocket -- Southern Trad all the way.)


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Northeastern said:


> The only Cabot I know dresses like a homeless person, so I wouldn't care what they had to say about our supposed manliness or lack thereof in posting photos of our attire.


I once met a Cabot (one of the now-elder statesman of the clan) and, boy, did he live up to it. This guy was dripping trad in an effortless way.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

We've come a long way,baby???? It's a long way from the teen girl pic posting to the pathetic notion that a pair of pants virtually guarantees getting laid.That's what this is about?Doubts about manhood? Picture posting as proof of high testosterone count?Give me a break!Oh,and you ladies out there...watch out for that guy in the lime Lily Pulitzer outfit,he's an insatiable hound!


----------



## Tucker (Apr 17, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> This guy was dripping trad in an effortless way.


I had that problem once; took two visits to the urologist and three different antibiotics to fix me up.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

dbgrate said:


> We've come a long way,baby???? It's a long way from the teen girl pic posting to the pathetic notion that a pair of pants virtually guarantees getting laid.That's what this is about?Doubts about manhood? Picture posting as proof of high testosterone count?


Actually, picture posting due to _low_ testosterone count, if you've been paying attention.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

WNH...you must have missed the question mark,huh?


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

What Sartre said,+1.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Tucker said:


> I had that problem once; took two visits to the urologist and three different antibiotics to fix me up.


Alright, that one legitimately made me "LOL" as the kids say. Well played, Tucker.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Sartre said:


> (...)
> The picture posting exists because we all have an unusually high interest in clothing, one that is not usual for males. You're not supposed to talk about clothes with your man friends, are you, you're supposed to talk about football or the stock market, and that bit of dissonance is what the poster was asking about.
> 
> TJS


The flaw here is that you assume a singular, universal male upbringing and set of rules and expectations where none actually exists.

Flashback: It's late in the fall of 1980 on the lacrosse field at a prep school. Very, very rugged men are chasing a little ball and trying to slyly bash each other with sticks. The game is well-attended by most of the school as the visiting team is Them, the arch-rival. The conversation in the stands and on the sidelines? Sometimes about the game or a particularly good shot, play or pass. Quite a bit of the time about someone's boat shoes (Are those Topsiders or Docksiders?), the width of one's tie (Great repp, John! Where'd you get it? Press?), and an assortment of fashion and fashionable topics all quite manly by definition as it was all men doing the talking. Sports and scores (including the finer points of scoring off the field) came into it but clothes made the men then. Still do in some parts.

Perhaps we should all take a lesson from Irish Spring soap: "Manly yes, but I like it too!"

Cordially,
Adrian Quay, who probably greatly out-sports anyone here in terms of All American Awards received and national records held but who is also a terrible fop mercilessly obsessed with the size of other men's cuffs.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Quay said:


> Flashback: It's late in the fall of 1980 on the lacrosse field at a prep school. Very, very rugged men are chasing a little ball and trying to slyly bash each other with sticks. The game is well-attended by most of the school as the visiting team is Them, the arch-rival. The conversation in the stands and on the sidelines? Sometimes about the game or a particularly good shot, play or pass. Quite a bit of the time about someone's boat shoes (Are those Topsiders or Docksiders?), the width of one's tie (Great repp, John! Where'd you get it? Press?), and an assortment of fashion and fashionable topics all quite manly by definition as it was all men doing the talking. Sports and scores (including the finer points of scoring off the field) came into it but clothes made the men then. Still do in some parts.


Brings back memories of what we rowers would discuss at the Head of the Charles. Who cared about the women checking us out. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Surely I can't speak for Sartre,but I understood his remarks to refer to the "typical" or commonplace male environment that MOST of us have experienced,not ALL of us. That is not a flaw,is it?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

dbgrate said:


> Surely I can't speak for Sartre,but I understood his remarks to refer to the "typical" or commonplace male environment that MOST of us have experienced,not ALL of us. That is not a flaw,is it?


The flaw is in the assumption that what you call the typical environment is what most have experienced. Perhaps. But definitely not so much on this board. Until this thread came up no one had objected to Tradly preening and posing for pictures. :icon_smile_wink:

Come to think of it, AAAC might think about suing some of these social networking sights others here have noted. They must have stolen the idea from the good Mr. Andy.

And let's face it: to be quite frank and perhaps over-blunt, the best groomed men got laid the most. What more can one say to the contrary about wanting to view pictures to continue to look the very Tradly best possible even until the end of time?

Cordially,
Adrian Quay

PS
Everyone remember A. Squire is still locked and loaded.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I'm one of the few females who post here, and here or anywhere else, I don't post pictures of my clothing ensembles. But I think that is a totally gender-neutral activity and a picture speaks 1,000 words on a clothing forum.

Now, pictures of my handbag collection laid out lovingly on the bed, yes. That is totally girly. *Squeal!*


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

A.Squire said:


> My dinner included squirrel gravy--your's?


DON'T FIRE 'TIL YOU SEE THEIR PLEATS AND DARTS!


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

I can't say I'm very interested in arguing the relative manliness of various internet activities.

I would, however, make the case for posting or at least taking pictures. Obviously, clothes are a visual medium and its easy to communicate ideas about them with pictures, beyond that. Beyond that, I'm here to learn about dressing well and like most things its something you have to learn by doing. Your mirror is an old friend and he will always tell you that you look better than you actually do. Camera's are bluntly honest, unforgiving, even mean spirited.


----------



## Joe Tradly (Jan 21, 2006)

Quay said:


> Until this thread came up no one had objected to Tradly preening and posing for pictures. :icon_smile_wink:


Hey hey hey, no need to drag me into this completely inane thread.

The worst part about this thread? Now the username "Sperry Topsider" is taken by this guy.

JB


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Quay...I'd bet the "typical environment" IS what most on this board have experienced.Obviously,I can't prove that. As you say,none has protested the preening and posing,but I doubt the preeners and posers mention those activities in the "outside world" of the workplace and playplace ,in general society. "Georgie,did you watch that game last night?... Oh,no,I was posting my new grosgrain and circingle combo on the net!" ...Most on this board would shy away from acknowledging this.....When one is dressed pretty much like everyone else,say,, trad, in a particular environment,say,tailgating at a lacrosse game,in my experience,it ain't the guy with the best collar roll that gets laid,it's usually the guy with the best line of BS...if you can identify with that....


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

For pulling babes in short order, I wouldn't pick Trad as the ladykiller wardrobe. You're better off looking seriously wealthy or dirty rock 'n roll. Anything but Trad.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

Joe Tradly said:


> Hey hey hey, no need to drag me into this completely inane thread.
> 
> The worst part about this thread? Now the username "Sperry Topsider" is taken by this guy.
> 
> JB


Funny &



Joe Beamish said:


> For pulling babes in short order, I wouldn't pick Trad as the ladykiller wardrobe. You're better off looking seriously wealthy or dirty rock 'n roll. Anything but Trad.


True

though I've done my share of lady Killin'...but then again I'm handsome and well, you know. <S-M-I-L-E>


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Joe Tradly said:


> Hey hey hey, no need to drag me into this completely inane thread.
> 
> The worst part about this thread? Now the username "Sperry Topsider" is taken by this guy.
> 
> JB


My apologies for the confusion-- I wasn't dragging. It was not written well. What I meant was that no persons dressing in a Tradly style had complained, not someone in particular with the username Tradly. Inane? Quite possibly, especially if you hearken to the older sense of the word, meaning vain.

Must agree with that last point, though. Alas.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

dbgrate said:


> Quay...I'd bet the "typical environment" IS what most on this board have experienced.Obviously,I can't prove that.


Then why keep it up? Bets on no air at all aren't usually very wise.



> As you say,none has protested the preening and posing,but I doubt the preeners and posers mention those activities in the "outside world" of the workplace and playplace ,in general society. "Georgie,did you watch that game last night?... Oh,no,I was posting my new grosgrain and circingle combo on the net!" ...Most on this board would shy away from acknowledging this


Upon what do you base such assertions? You imply some kind of secret shame where there is no evidence of anything like that.

Many here are quite proud of the way they dress and happily publish their results with total abandon. No one seems to shy away from anything except pleats.



> .....When one is dressed pretty much like everyone else,say,, trad, in a particular environment,say,tailgating at a lacrosse game,in my experience,it ain't the guy with the best collar roll that gets laid,it's usually the guy with the best line of BS...if you can identify with that....


I can totally identify which is why I ceased such shoveling, lying and cheating to get laid. In addition to exuberant and total fun, one gets lovely breakfasts that way instead of being shown the door 'round two in the morning when that thin veneer of cheap BS has rubbed off.  A man need only lie if he truly believes he has nothing of veracity to offer.

But no it's not the collar roll that impresses. It's another kind of roll. If you understand.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Joe Beamish said:


> For pulling babes in short order, I wouldn't pick Trad as the ladykiller wardrobe. You're better off looking seriously wealthy or dirty rock 'n roll. Anything but Trad.


Actually I said "best groomed." Not necessarily Trad, but stupendously wealthy people often dress Trad, a fact many savvy women take into account.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

A.Squire said:


> ...though I've done my share of lady Killin'...but then again I'm handsome and well, you know. <S-M-I-L-E>


You must currently be going for the Annie Oakley types. Très viril.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Quay said:


> The flaw here is that you assume a singular, universal male upbringing and set of rules and expectations where none actually exists.
> 
> Flashback: It's late in the fall of 1980 on the lacrosse field at a prep school. Very, very rugged men are chasing a little ball and trying to slyly bash each other with sticks. The game is well-attended by most of the school as the visiting team is Them, the arch-rival. The conversation in the stands and on the sidelines? Sometimes about the game or a particularly good shot, play or pass. Quite a bit of the time about someone's boat shoes (Are those Topsiders or Docksiders?), the width of one's tie (Great repp, John! Where'd you get it? Press?), and an assortment of fashion and fashionable topics all quite manly by definition as it was all men doing the talking. Sports and scores (including the finer points of scoring off the field) came into it but clothes made the men then. Still do in some parts.
> 
> ...


Quay,

I've got to be honest: as a student at my prep school, if I'd tried to engage any of my classmates in an extended conversation about their fashion (at lacrosse games or elsewhere), I'm pretty sure I would have been labeled with a nickname questioning my sexuality...


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Quay said:


> The flaw here is that you assume a singular, universal male upbringing and set of rules and expectations where none actually exists.
> 
> Flashback: It's late in the fall of 1980 on the lacrosse field at a prep school. Very, very rugged men are chasing a little ball and trying to slyly bash each other with sticks. The game is well-attended by most of the school as the visiting team is Them, the arch-rival. The conversation in the stands and on the sidelines? Sometimes about the game or a particularly good shot, play or pass. Quite a bit of the time about someone's boat shoes (Are those Topsiders or Docksiders?), the width of one's tie (Great repp, John! Where'd you get it? Press?), and an assortment of fashion and fashionable topics all quite manly by definition as it was all men doing the talking. Sports and scores (including the finer points of scoring off the field) came into it but clothes made the men then. Still do in some parts.


Well, your second paragraph certainly proves the first! I never had that experience in school or in college, in fact at first I thought you were joking. So there certainly is no universality of upbringing or experience.


----------



## Northeastern (Feb 11, 2007)

Quay said:


> But no it's not the collar roll that impresses. It's another kind of roll. If you understand.


Beef roll penny loafers?


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Lobster roll.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

Bank roll, of course!:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Northeastern (Feb 11, 2007)

Sorry PC, I think I'll stick with BrownShoe on this one...particularly if the lobster roll in question is heavy on the claw meat.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

NE, the lobster roll (esp. the claw reference) sounds too close to crabs for my liking. No gal wants to be thinking about those critters!:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Patrick06790 said:


> ^ Close.
> 
> It means "Ohmoigawd, how the hell did I get my bow tie caught in the blender?"


Not to veer off on a totally unrelated tangent but did you ever see the Chipp tie with the following: IITYWTMWYBMAD?


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

A.Squire said:


> though I've done my share of lady Killin'...but then again I'm handsome and well, you know. <S-M-I-L-E>


What? You play dirty rock n roll? 

Just kidding, I can sympathize with your plight.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> For pulling babes in short order, I wouldn't pick Trad as the ladykiller wardrobe.


I would.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Brooksfan said:


> Not to veer off on a totally unrelated tangent but did you ever see the Chipp tie with the following: IITYWTMWYBMAD?


No, but I'll bite.

_" 'What does it mean?' he asked, dreading the answer. Outside the window a group of five or six small boys were busy prodding a deceased creature with sticks. Snodgrass couldn't make out the animal, but supposed it to be a possum. There were always possum carcasses roadside in spring."

_- Graham Greene, Our Man in Bridgeport


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Brooksfan said:


> Not to veer off on a totally unrelated tangent but did you ever see the Chipp tie with the following: IITYWTMWYBMAD?


I remember this one. Right outta Cheever. "If I tell you what this means will you buy me a drink"

TJS


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Sartre said:


> I remember this one. Right outta Cheever. "If I tell you what this means will you buy me a drink"
> 
> TJS


_"Snodgrass groaned. 'Cheever!' he spat. 'Not a mysterious message or Catholic reference to be found. Pah!' "
_


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> Quay,
> 
> I've got to be honest: as a student at my prep school, if I'd tried to engage any of my classmates in an extended conversation about their fashion (at lacrosse games or elsewhere), I'm pretty sure I would have been labeled with a nickname questioning my sexuality...


You seem to make it sound as if that would be a bad thing.

Times and ties have continued to change it seems. One has to blame something so I'll say that the constricted discourse now allowed is a function of people wearing darted jackets. Reduces oxygen available in the head and thus reduces the conversational range.

Cordially,
A. Quay


----------



## JohnnyVegas (Nov 17, 2005)

Joe Beamish said:


> For pulling babes in short order, I wouldn't pick Trad as the ladykiller wardrobe. You're better off looking seriously wealthy or dirty rock 'n roll. Anything but Trad.


My girlfriend disagrees with you. She refers to it as the academic look, and thinks it fits me perfectly. Nothing against you Joe, but she has a prettier smile than you do, and that tips the scales of opinion heavily in her favor.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Quay...it's possible that some of what I've written doesn't accurately express my thoughts...like MOST of us here,a good deal of my assumptions are based on "life experience"....I know,I know...they're not all the same.If you felt secret shame was implied,that's something I have no control over.It was not intended nor implied.I see no shame nor reason for there to be any.Maybe a bit of self- conciousness and awareness that pic posting on this forum is not and never will be on the Top 1,000 List of Acceptable Subjects for Casual Conversation in General Society.I'd say there's a kind of self-imposed rating system and pic posting is classified Not For General Audiences.Pride and interest in one's clothing and appearance? I would hope so and share that....and lastly,posting with "total abandon"? Wonderful,wonderful..keep in mind this is a tiny forum..a few hundred (,maybe thousands??)members and viewers...not the world stage...isn't "total abandon" part of the deal when one preaches to the choir??....time to move on..or at least take a nap!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ Since you wish to close on your terms that is fine with me. You defend a majority I say does not exist. No real matter. And I've certainly enjoyed your contributions to this somewhat inane but often amusing thread. However, I know an impossible cause when I see it. After all, I'm Southern. 

A nap does sound good. But even better is the martinis being served for Squire on another thread.

Cordially and gone before the Greene vs. Cheever thing gets unruly,
Adrian Quay


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Yes, yes.

Of course: It's not what you do. It's how you do it.



JohnnyVegas said:


> My girlfriend disagrees with you. She refers to it as the academic look, and thinks it fits me perfectly. Nothing against you Joe, but she has a prettier smile than you do, and that tips the scales of opinion heavily in her favor.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

Tom Buchanan said:


> What? You play dirty rock n roll?
> 
> Just kidding, I can sympathize with your plight.


hung!


----------

