Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

"Man's Carelessness in Dress"

Matthew S.

New in Town
Messages
14
"In fact, there is a certain reaction against the loose method of dressing, and against the exaggerated modes of the cheaper class."

Could this statement apply in the present day, and could it find support from members of this Lounge? It is, regardless of agreement, no new sentiment, for it closed an article from June, 1913, in Bit & Spur, by Mortimer Seymour (see embedded in full below).

When considered in retrospect, over a century hence, this article provides an interesting citation, depending on one's interpretation, of continual decline in sartorial standards (the decadence of casualness) or changes in sartorial taste (the freedom of casualness). Seymour, upon reflecting the automobile's invitation to disregard country-city dress distinctions, argued against tweed suits, brogues, and colorful hats, in favor of the traditional morning coat, striped trousers, and derby hat. I think it goes without saying that this argument is in the context of the monied.

On a note related to today's popular fashion, I would argue that the lounge suit, even in today's casual climate, remains informal attire as it allows an informal range of personal expression. I suppose that core items of popular, or street, wear today are derivative elements of the lounge suit, particularly above the waist, though often casually stripped down to underwear. What would Seymour think?

It appears to me that Mortimer Seymour would be no proponent of the Fedora Lounge, though I think Seymour would die of shock seeing street wear today.
Men'sCarelessnessInDress.jpg


Edit Note: I originally believed Mortimer Seymour to be a man and referred to him as such. Further research points to the author as being a woman, Rae Mortimer Seymour, and I removed masculine distinguishers.
 
Last edited:

Tiki Tom

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,241
Location
Oahu, North Polynesia
The first paragraph of that article is certainly as true today as it was in 1913.

My wife and I often comment on couples we see in public: She is often well put-together and fashionable; he often looks as if he is still 12 years old and coming straight from the playground.
 

FOXTROT LAMONT

One Too Many
Messages
1,723
Location
St John's Wood, London UK
A Roman Catholic, a few years ago the celebrant cleric admonished our congregation's
attire as overly casual and disrespectful of the Mass, which was entirely correct.
Society needs to take some sartorial stock and take heed.
 
Messages
10,558
Location
vancouver, canada
Could this statement apply in the present day, and could it find support from members of this Lounge? It is, regardless of agreement, no new sentiment, for it closed an article from June, 1913, in Bit & Spur, by Mortimer Seymour (see embedded in full below).

When considered in retrospect, over a century hence, this article provides an interesting citation, depending on one's interpretation, of continual decline in sartorial standards (the decadence of casualness) or changes in sartorial taste (the freedom of casualness). Mr. Seymour, upon reflecting the automobile's invitation to disregard country-city dress distinctions, argued against tweed suits, brogues, and colorful hats, in favor of the traditional morning coat, striped trousers, and derby hat. I think it goes without saying that this argument is in the context of the monied.

On a note related to today's popular fashion, I would argue that the lounge suit, even in today's casual climate, remains informal attire as it allows an informal range of personal expression. I suppose that core items of popular, or street, wear today are derivative elements of the lounge suit, particularly above the waist, though often casually stripped down to underwear. What would Mr. Seymour think?

It appears to me that Mortimer Seymour would be no proponent of the Fedora Lounge, though I think he would die of shock if he saw street wear today.
View attachment 616931
At the risk of being gauche....who the hell is Mortimer, and why should I care what he thinks?
 
Messages
10,558
Location
vancouver, canada
A Roman Catholic, a few years ago the celebrant cleric admonished our congregation's
attire as overly casual and disrespectful of the Mass, which was entirely correct.
Society needs to take some sartorial stock and take heed.
I think that church attendance is down so dramatically, across denominations, these days they will take you regardless of your dress standard. In my city the cost of housing is so insane I would think that making the rent has a higher immediacy than one's sartorial standard.
 

Matthew S.

New in Town
Messages
14
At the risk of being gauche....who the hell is Mortimer, and why should I care what he thinks?
I was wondering who this Mortimer Seymour was myself, as I did not find anything concrete before posting this thread, but I did some more digging after you asked and found that he was very likely a she: Rae Mortimer Seymour. This is based on the publication (a show journal with material slanted toward women), her writing experience (see bio below), and high society background (ditto). The other Mortimer Seymours I located around this time were a Civil War veteran in a Boise, Idaho, soldiers' home and a farmer in Illinois, so I believe that it is Miss Seymour that fits the bill. I suppose she may have removed her feminine first name with the thought that men would not heed a lady's fashion advice.

The Descendants of Josiah Churchill (c. 1615-1686) and Elizabeth Foote (1616-1700), Volume 5 (2009), page 2314:

Rae Mortimer Seymour was born on 24 August 1877. She married Josiah Dwight IV, son of Josiah Dwight III and Amanda Leonard Griffing, on 6 January 1923 in the Church of the Covenant, Washington, DC. She died on 8 August 1933 at age 55. She was buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery, Cambridge, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

Rae Mortimer (Seymour) Dwight was educated in the Friends School in Washington, DC, and at a private school in New Milford, Connecticut, was a keen wit and a vivacious writer in prose and verse. As a citizen of Orlando, Florida, after her marriage, she was much interested in the charitable activiies of the place and contributed a great deal to the social service of the city and helped several young people through college. Her husband, Josiah Dwight, she was his second wife, was grandson of the Honorable Josiah Dwight and Rhoda Edwards, the latter being granddaughter of the noted theologian, the Reverend Jonathan Edwards, and own cousin of the first Timothy Dwight, President of Yale College.

As it appears that Mortimer Seymour was, in fact, a woman, I edited my original post to remove masculine distinguishers.

Now, it already came across as a high society piece not relatable to those of modest means, but I suppose I might generally ask (not just to Belfastboy): does the article come across differently knowing it was written by a woman?
 
Last edited:
Messages
10,558
Location
vancouver, canada
I was wondering who this Mortimer Seymour was myself, as I did not find anything concrete before posting this thread, but I did some more digging after you asked and found that he was very likely a she: Rae Mortimer Seymour. This is based on the publication (a show journal with material slanted toward women), her writing experience (see bio below), and high society background (ditto). The other Mortimer Seymours I located around this time were a Civil War veteran in a Boise, Idaho, soldiers' home and a farmer in Illinois, so I believe that it is Miss Seymour that fits the bill. I suppose she may have removed her feminine first name with the thought that men would not heed a lady's fashion advice.



As it appears that Mortimer Seymour was, in fact, a woman, I edited my original post to remove masculine distinguishers.

Now, it already came across as a high society piece not relatable to those of modest means, but I suppose I might generally ask (not just to Belfastboy): does the article come across differently knowing it was written by a woman?
Any self respecting man would never truly heed a woman's fashion advice. I may pretend to listen but never heed.
 

FOXTROT LAMONT

One Too Many
Messages
1,723
Location
St John's Wood, London UK
I think that church attendance is down so dramatically, across denominations, these days they will take you regardless of your dress standard. In my city the cost of housing is so insane I would think that making the rent has a higher immediacy than one's sartorial standard.
Your metropolitan populace includes Chinese and other ethnic groups including me own
Celtic; all of whom were well dressed for turn out at Mass, last I visited Vancouver.
Housing cost and economic cost issues did not impede proper attire at church during the
Great Depression or the Second World War; however, today at venues of my own acquaints
the attitude is far more relaxed and reflective dress and deportment.
Making rent and maintaining sartorial standards appropriate are not exclusive.:rolleyes:
 
Messages
10,558
Location
vancouver, canada
Your metropolitan populace includes Chinese and other ethnic groups including me own
Celtic; all of whom were well dressed for turn out at Mass, last I visited Vancouver.
Housing cost and economic cost issues did not impede proper attire at church during the
Great Depression or the Second World War; however, today at venues of my own acquaints
the attitude is far more relaxed and reflective dress and deportment.
Making rent and maintaining sartorial standards appropriate are not exclusive.:rolleyes:
In my church I am just pleased when folks show up for Sunday service. I am glad of their presence regardless of their attire. As worship is such a personal endeavour I don't venture to judge and if casual dress is what they choose then I respect the choices they make.
 

Tiki Tom

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,241
Location
Oahu, North Polynesia
Here in Hawaii, if a man wears long trousers and an Aloha shirt, that is considered to be dressing up. Thats what I usually wear. Most guys normally wear shorts, tshirts, and baseball caps.

I am quite pleased with our church, which is thriving. And only half the congregation are senior citizens. Also, during COVID, they took lemons and made lemonade. Now there is a sizeable Zoom attendance every week… (meaning 50 people or so)…with participants from all over the world. On the downside, the back of the church looks a little like a TV studio. Men wearing shorts and flip-flops to church is not uncommon. That’s a bit too casual for me, but I’m a bit old fashioned in that regard and always.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
107,739
Messages
3,045,860
Members
53,082
Latest member
Alex_Cobe
Top