Dressing well returns?

Whoops, perhaps a better title would have been, "Classic style returns."

According to the New York Times, young men lead the "classic style" movement.


Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/fashion/17CODES.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=fashion

One interesting section from the article:

“The fashion gene skipped a generation,” said Samuel Rascoff, 36, a law professor at New York University who specializes in national security law and who, being a fastidious dresser, has given serious thought to the trend, which he sees reflected in his students.

“There’s a sense that this return to style, or to a consciousness of how you look, is an attempt by young men to recover a set of values that were at one point very much present in American society and then lost,” he said. “It strikes me as being of a piece with the way young people buy their coffee or their food: paying attention to authenticity or quality, and to whether something is organic or local. They stand for a rejection of the idea that all consumer goods are ephemeral and inevitably made in China and bought at Wal-Mart.”

Baby boomers may well dismiss the trend as a silly phase that young men will soon outgrow, but they might consider how they are perceived in comparison.

“Not only do I see these guys out there, but I get agitated letters from their wives,” said Mr. Smith, the advice columnist. “One of the most frequent letters I get is: ‘My husband has moved up in his career, but he’s still dressing like a kid. I am embarrassed for him whenever he leaves the house. What do I do?’ I don’t get those letters from women in their 20s and 30s.”

So, in an age of irony, here’s a whopper: Given how zealously baby boomers have clung to, or hopped on, all kinds of youth trends, no matter how age-inappropriate, why can’t they hop on this one?

What’s the worst that could happen, Pops? Someone might think you are 10 years younger?


Good news, eh?

A few years ago at the office, a young staff person asked a 50-year-old senior manager whether it was OK to leave a button-down collar unbuttoned. The senior manager asked if he was talking about skateboarders or adults at a CPA firm.

Maybe it's just that Denver is behind the curve, but my 20-something coworkers have to be told not to come to work on Saturdays wearing baseball caps and ripped jeans.

Paisley said:

A few years ago at the office, a young staff person asked a 50-year-old senior manager whether it was OK to leave a button-down collar unbuttoned. The senior manager asked if he was talking about skateboarders or adults at a CPA firm.

Maybe it's just that Denver is behind the curve, but my 20-something coworkers have to be told not to come to work on Saturdays wearing baseball caps and ripped jeans.

Click to expand...

As I've said before on the forum, here in upstate New York where I live the only people I know who dress vintage are people my age (people in their twenties), and some of the old timers who are still around (usually well at church gatherings, and with more vigor since more young people have started using the style). Maybe it's just an East Cost thing [huh], but I really think it's a kind of "rebel look" for people my age. Most people my age have little interest in dressing like their parents. Some have adopted Goth styles, the hip hop style, and a few (at least here) try to dress urban cowboy lol. But when people from the ages of 30 to the late 60's dress almost exactly alike (t-shirt, jeans, sneakers) there is no where else to go but "up" if you want to be seen as "anti-establishment". Combine that with the pop cultural references (such as Mad Men), and its not hard to see why people my age wear vest and ties out to the malls to try to stand out.

In the 1960's Dad and Grandpa didn't get it! People wanted to be "liberated" from good fashion, and if you wanted to wear a potato sack as a "shirt/pants" combination that's your right! It's the same thing happening again, except that people are now saying "Dad and Grandpa don't get it! We want to prove we have style, and if we want to dress to the nines and show our girls a good time on our dime that's our right!"

lol It maybe a bit silly, and indeed even some members of my own generation don't like it, (it's easy to be lazy with the casual t-shirt and jeans look, not so much with a vintage flair) but I think its the sign of things to come. Ten years from now though the punk rocker look from the 80's could be the "new thing", and people will trade their fedoras for mohawks lol it's how things go with youth style, and even the "young foggies" haven't lasted forever.

Hippies, punk rockers, disco suits, grunge, and now the "Mad Men look". Like President Obama, Twitter, and Octomom whether you like it or it's a sign of the times. When everyone dresses like teenage boys who can barely pick out their own clothing without their Mother help, wearing a suit stands out. Plus Don Draper, and James Bond always get the girl with style .

I think most of us here would enjoy the return of *some* degree of care and/or formality in the way people dress, but my experience hasn't shown that as yet.

I took my state bar exam back in 2008 and found the variety of attire pretty interesting. The test takes three full days at the end of July in a mega-air-conditioned building, so I expected people to dress somewhat comfortably. I was pretty shocked at the number of people wearing pajamas. Really, a LOT of people. A hundred or more. Remember, the average person taking the exam has had 7 years of college and is in the 25-30 year-old range. The worst was a guy wearing the same dirty undershirt all three days, neon boxer shorts, flip flops, and who I doubt bathed at all during the exam. Or maybe the guy in the hoodie with explicit rap lyrics on the back (which the supervisors asked him to remove.)

Incidentally, I think there may be a couple of states that still require all applicants to wear a suit and tie, but they are few and far between. I only saw a couple of older men (probably lawyers from other jurisdictions) taking the exam so dressed. Mostly it was casual summer clothes, T-shirts, shorts. I mean, that's fine.

Here's the kicker though. I wore a button-down shirt and nice khakis, no tie, which is how I generally dress. I really did have several people ask me if I was "trying to freak out" the other test takers or "playing mind games" with people. Because I didn't dress like a hoodlum? Hah. [huh]

No, I definitely haven't seen the same style-trend amongst law students that this professor has. Maybe it'll take a few years to make its way out of New York.

Some of the lines in that article jumped out at me, such as...:

The result is a kind of rift emerging between the generation of men in their 20s and 30s and those in their late 40s and 50s for whom a suit was not merely square but cubed, and caring about how one looked was effeminate.

That's much like me and my father. My dad (in his early 60s) has almost never dressed formally for as long as I can remember. At most he wore a dress-shirt, trousers, shoes and a coat. Only when I was VERY young did I ever remember him wearing a tie.

Myself, I'd be very comfortable wearing a suit as regular clothing. Probably because I went to a private school and spent 99% of my life from the age of five to eighteen wearing a two-piece suit with a belt and tie.

Orion said:

I think most of us here would enjoy the return of *some* degree of care and/or formality in the way people dress, but my experience hasn't shown that as yet.

I took my state bar exam back in 2008 and found the variety of attire pretty interesting. The test takes three full days at the end of July in a mega-air-conditioned building, so I expected people to dress somewhat comfortably. I was pretty shocked at the number of people wearing pajamas. Really, a LOT of people. A hundred or more. Remember, the average person taking the exam has had 7 years of college and is in the 25-30 year-old range. The worst was a guy wearing the same dirty undershirt all three days, neon boxer shorts, flip flops, and who I doubt bathed at all during the exam. Or maybe the guy in the hoodie with explicit rap lyrics on the back (which the supervisors asked him to remove.)

Incidentally, I think there may be a couple of states that still require all applicants to wear a suit and tie, but they are few and far between. I only saw a couple of older men (probably lawyers from other jurisdictions) taking the exam so dressed. Mostly it was casual summer clothes, T-shirts, shorts. I mean, that's fine.

Here's the kicker though. I wore a button-down shirt and nice khakis, no tie, which is how I generally dress. I really did have several people ask me if I was "trying to freak out" the other test takers or "playing mind games" with people. Because I didn't dress like a hoodlum? Hah. [huh]

No, I definitely haven't seen the same style-trend amongst law students that this professor has. Maybe it'll take a few years to make its way out of New York.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is just a New York thing [huh], but if it is it's a part of the state and not just the City. Maybe it's why I'm a bit surprised when some people on here think I'm crazy when I say alot of people my age dress vintage/vintage inspired in one way or another. I'd like to hear about other areas in the country, and indeed the world.

If it's a trend it's not very obvious here in Sydney.

What I find interesting is that the article talks about the sloppy baby boomers and the guys in their twenties To early thirties, but doesn't really
mention my age group (I'm 42).

Of course we gen Xers invented the whole dress nice as a form of rebellion back in the eighties. I well remember stepping out in my Micheal J Fox inspired yellow power tie with matching braces, ox blood loafers, collar bars and armbands. That preppie trend didn't quite change the world and I don't suppose this one will either.

Shangas said:

My dad (in his early 60s) has almost never dressed formally for as long as I can remember. At most he wore a dress-shirt, trousers, shoes and a coat. Only when I was VERY young did I ever remember him wearing a tie...I...and spent 99% of my life from the age of five to eighteen wearing a two-piece suit with a belt and tie.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you were sent to a school where realtively formal wear was demanded when your father didn't wear such things! I once saw a very scruffy father tell his 9-year-old son to straighten his tie! Did parents expect others (i.e. schools) to impose rules that they themselves wouldn't impose, or was it "don't do as I do but do as I say?"

Those guys at the NYTimes never fail to crack me up. Biting satire indeed.

Hey Hal.

My school was pretty firm on the dress-code. It was a grey suit-coat and grey trousers, white dress-shirt and a red necktie, with all the buttons done up and the tie done up to the throat at all times. Obviously, you were expected to know how to tie a tie. Elastic or clip-on ties were available, and they were allowed in school, but if you wore one, your classmates were likely to tease you as being an unsophistocated sort of fellow who didn't know the finer points of male attire.

Having worn that uniform for close-on 13 years, it became a sort of habit with me, which is, I guess, why my style or personal dress-code is more formal than most people in their twenties. You wouldn't find me dead with jeans and a T-shirt.

Shangas said:

That's much like me and my father. My dad (in his early 60s) has almost never dressed formally for as long as I can remember. At most he wore a dress-shirt, trousers, shoes and a coat. Only when I was VERY young did I ever remember him wearing a tie.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's me and my family all over. At my brother's wedding, my dad (51) wore a tux for the ceremony and then IMMEDIATELY after pictures were done, he flew into the restroom and changed into jeans. I was absolutely appalled!! There are pictures of him and my mother, who had the good grace to remain in her dress and heels all day, dancing and looking so mismatched.

His parents, on the other hand, are always impeccably dressed. I have rarely seen my grandmother without her hair done, makeup on and either a dress, suit, or coordinated slacks-type outfit and heels. My grandfather almost always has on a button-down shirt and nice trousers, unless he's doing yardwork.

And then there's me... Well, let's just say that I'm ecstatic the baby weight came off so quickly and I'm back in my pencil skirts and heels. Plus, now that she's a little bigger, not in need of constant attention and sleeping through the night, I'm finding time to set my hair in pincurls on a regular basis again. I'm also apparently now lighter than before the baby came along, because this skirt I'm wearing, which was a little snug in the waist, is now loose. Oh darn, guess I've got to go shopping!

My mister goes through swings in fashion, though. He's a mechanic and so must wear a uniform every day, and despite the nature of his work he always looks neat and pulled together - undershirt and overshirt always tucked in tight, always a belt, neat boots. Out of work, we don't really go to many places, so it's generally jeans and a nice shirt, but accessorized well. Once in a while though, I think he just doesn't give a rat's patootie and wears whatever is available, but he know's he's not looking up to par. One time, he was wearing these enormous wide-legged pants and a long sleeve T-shirt, I had on one of my usual outfits and was made up. He looked at himself, then at me, and cracked, "You know, when we go out, people probably think I'm your un-savvy brother or some poor urchin you're doing charity work for." It really made me laugh.

Selvaggio said:

Of course we gen Xers invented the whole dress nice as a form of rebellion back in the eighties. I well remember stepping out in my Micheal J Fox inspired yellow power tie with matching braces, ox blood loafers, collar bars and armbands. That preppie trend didn't quite change the world and I don't suppose this one will either.

Click to expand...

Even most people who didn't dress preppy made an effort to look nice. Hair was washed and combed, clothes more or less fit, torsos were covered and any mooning that happened was on purpose. You don't know what you've got until it's gone.

I'm in my early sixties and have to admit that I don't wear a suit very often. Mostly because I don't have to.

When I was young putting on a suit was almost always associated with having to do something I didn't want to do, like going to church or a funeral. It was never voluntary. Then I spent 4 years in the military having to wear what I was told to wear. After that, suits in the workplace were mandatory. So, for me the reality was that I always had to wear a suit because someone else demanded it and made rules. Never because I wanted to. You'll then understand why when dress codes at work relaxed I gladly quit wearing them. And when I did wear them, took them off as soon as I got home.

Now, the younger generation may well be discovering suits and wearing them as a form of setting themselves apart, I don't know about that. But for sure they are wearing them because they want to, not because they are being forced to. Makes all the difference in the world.

But I don't see it around here at all. Certainly not at the university where I work where it seems most of the kids are wearing baggy basketball shorts, tshirts, flip flops and baseball caps anyway but bill forward regardless of the weather.

All that said, this weekend I'm taking my bride of 37 years to a concert and a nice restaurant afterward. I will be wearing a suit, a top coat and a nice fedora. Because I want to.

JimWagner said:

When I was young putting on a suit was almost always associated with having to do something I didn't want to do, like going to church or a funeral. It was never voluntary. Then I spent 4 years in the military having to wear what I was told to wear. After that, suits in the workplace were mandatory. So, for me the reality was that I always had to wear a suit because someone else demanded it and made rules. Never because I wanted to.

Click to expand...

It is still this way in Chile. I was surprised to discover that Chilean men intensely dislike suits and never wear them unless protocol calls for it. The reason is that every Chilean male must wear a suit and tie at school from the age of 4 or 5 onwards. They get a break during college, then most put the "uniform" back on for work. Even office boys are required to wear suits.


.

Marc Chevalier said:

I Chilean male must wear a suit and tie at school from the age of 4 or 5 onwards. They get a break during college, then put the "uniform" back on for work. Even office boys are required to wear suits.


.

Click to expand...

Excellent point it is a uniform. plain and simple. I now wear a suit and tie to perform, before that it was to go to court and wall street prior to that it was at school when was a boy. Now my uniform consists of jeans and and suspenders and my fedora. Of course I do wear suits when necessary.

While I lived in Florida, I was to see a Christmas show which starred Julie Andrews, Christopher Plummer and Charlotte Church. I dressed like I normally did for a Broadway shoe in NYC. BIG mistake.

Everyone , I mean everyone was dressed in tee shirts and jeans. Even my Harvard educated doctor. I stuck out like sore thumb. I was asked for an autograph and shown to the better seats ...so I guess it worked out..

Irksome NYT Piece on Vintage Style

Here's an article from the New York Times that makes me want to set fire to my own pelvis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/fashion/17CODES.html

According to author David Coleman, the interest in dressing sharp expressed on sites like this one is all due to the television series Mad Men. That's right -- you weren't really dressing up before 2007. Furthermore, the post-Mad Men interest in bespoke suits is only applicable to people in their 20s and 30s. This is because people in their 40s and 50s all came of age thinking that casual clothes were a sign of the carelessness of true success.

Related cultural forces, such as, oh, swing dancing, Vampyros Lesbos night (with its wine-drinking libertines in suits), 60s spy flicks such as Our Man Flint, reactionary style (kids I knew in New York who grew up wearing suits in reaction to the American version of yobbos parading around in name brand sportswear), fin de siecle, gentleman's clubs, nostalgia for earlier standards (aesthetic and political), Robert Benchley, film noir, even the co-opting of niche markets by corporations -- all afforded ample possibilities for personal aesthetics to align with cultural eclecticism, yielding a keen interest in dressing well for at least the past twelve decades. In every period, there are factions concerned with sartorial aesthetics. Rarely are they married to generational lockstep.

But of course, none of those influences and social phenomena exist any more than we do. No, it all comes down to generational astrology, cliches about decades and people watching far too much TV.

FYI, there's already a thread about this article:

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=46243

Shangas said:

...grey suit-coat and grey trousers, white dress-shirt and a red necktie...having worn that uniform for close-on 13 years, it became a sort of habit with me...

Click to expand...

Many say that if a boy gets used to wearing suit and tie at a young age, it becomes "a sort of habit" and he'll happily wear them as an adult, which is clearly the case with you. But another poster remarks that it seems to be the opposite with the men of Chile. I wonder what is the reason for both of these?
However, to my eye most continental European men (who by and large have no school uniform) dress better than most Britons (where school uniform is common though not usually as formal as suit and tie).

You wouldn't find me dead with jeans and a T-shirt.

Click to expand...

Great! Nor would you ever find me dressed that way.

JimWagner said:

When I was young putting on a suit was almost always associated with having to do something I didn't want to do, like going to church or a funeral. It was never voluntary. Now...(the younger generation) are wearing (suits) because they want to, not because they are being forced to. Makes all the difference in the world.

Click to expand...

Jim may be hinting at an answer here; if parents encouraged (and perhaps expected) their sons to dress formally for enjoyable occasions, might the boys associate wearing a suit with pleasure?

...I'm taking my bride of 37 years to a concert and a nice restaurant afterward. I will be wearing a suit, a top coat and a nice fedora. Because I want to.

Click to expand...

Great again! I don't know how cold or wet it is likely to be where you are for this occasion, but have long felt that top coat and hat can add smartness and completeness even when they may not be necessary because of the weather. I hope you both have a really enjoyable time.

Doctor Strange said:

FYI, there's already a thread about this article:

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=46243

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

The odd thing is that that thread really isn't "about" the article itself, in the sense that no one examined the incredibly ageist and cultural presumptions it made, and absolutely no one has made the correlations I did in the above post. The previous thread seems only to confirm David Coleman's point of view, and posting my critical thoughts there would probably spoil the party.

I can't be the only person here who is old enough to remember the many examples of people and cultural strata dressing vintage over the past fifteen years for reasons that have nothing to do with Coleman's ageist cliches. Unfortunately, he is too busy watching TV to notice trends in clubs and artist-peppered neighborhoods.

For those of us who have dressed that way all along, that article is insulting. It is also insulting to members of various generations insofar as it makes the kinds of generalizations that never apply to individuals in any useful sense. The only possible use it could have would be to make people in their 20s and 30s feel special at the expense of their parents -- a goal from the 60s and 70s if ever I heard one.

Hence this particular post is completely different from what's been said, just as two reviews of the same film might not belong on the same thread.

My perspective deserves to be considered, just as the pro-article thread to which you linked deserves to be read.

Haven't read this yet...

...but I don't have a great feeling about any such piece in the modern NYT, which tends to embrace consumption over connaisseurship and always manages to cock a subtle snook in any feature about collecting or preserving things old and rare. If it can't be trended, focus-grouped, and monetized, it's just somehow icky and gross.