Responding to "the suit died for good reasons"

[Aquafortis]

Isn't that why we're all here? Though the lamenting and crying often get too loud

Well, sure. I for one, admit to being sucked in, to some degree, by the allure of exclusivity. However, I also have a great deal of appreciation for the artisanship and craft that goes into quality tailoring, shoemaking, etc. - and I would think that is true of many here - given the vast numbers and depths of discussions that are aimed at teasing out the subtle distinctions between individual makers, even between the various models/cuts from one maker, MTM vs. bespoke, and so on. So, yes, that is why many are probably here.

What Thomas' book so thoroughly describes is what I'm sure many here bemoan: the cult-like devotees to luxury brands who have blindly bought into the dream of the lifestyle that has been so effectively marketed to the masses. Those who buy for the coveted logo and assumed social status that a particular logo bestows on them - and who care about little else.

The notion of "luxury" and "exclusivity" has truly lost its meaning in the modern context, as those same houses discovered the huge profit potential of selling massive volumes of branded "entry" level items, like handbags, parfums, scarves, ties, etc. Of course, this was a natural evolution with the conglomeration/acquisition of brands under the mega-holding corporations like Richemont and LVMH where corporate boards and the need to continually boost shareholder profits usurped the old paradigm of true luxury and exclusivity. That is, the age when truly only the uber-wealthy (traditionally the aristocracy) had the means, and maybe most importantly, the social status that gave them the access and capacity to walk in the doors of these once-exclusive houses and have entire collections of bespoke items made for them.

So, while there may be positive aspects to the fact that the globalization and commercialization of these brands have made their products available to a much larger consumer base, the definitive downsides are the ambiguity that results for those of us who care more about the details than the name. So yes, this ambiguity is at least partly behind why many of us have sought out this very forum: to try and parse out the half-canvassed from the full canvassed, the blake sole vs. the hand-welted, who is making what for which label - in our efforts to keep some bearing in this vast, international, and rapidly changing marketplace/maker-place, where the concept of "authenticity" is that much harder to define.

 

[SimonC]

Ah, interesting. Makes me think about here in San Francisco (admittedly maybe ground zero for the casual mutiny) the guards at the doors of the high-end boutiques are some of the only folks regularly wearing suits with a tie, or the SAs who work in those boutiques.

I've been thinking about this recently. Previous styles of dress have become an anachronism - take for example the stroller or frock coat.

The only time you'll see one is being worn by someone in service at a hotel; essentially it's gone from a high-status item to a low-status item as those wearing it are doing so to show their formality and subservience to paying clients. Whilst I am sure you could make a beautiful bespoke frock coat, the populace would still assume you have just stepped away from your hotel.

Do we end up in a similar situation with the suit; where the primary wearers are those who are required to wear a 'uniform issue' suit made down to a cost, and to signal their low-status / service role? So taking it further than the prevailing view of suit as societally-obligated workwear, and into a niche garment with a pejoratively low-status connotations.

 

[Riva]

I've been thinking about this recently. Previous styles of dress have become an anachronism - take for example the stroller or frock coat.

The only time you'll see one is being worn by someone in service at a hotel; essentially it's gone from a high-status item to a low-status item as those wearing it are doing so to show their formality and subservience to paying clients. Whilst I am sure you could make a beautiful bespoke frock coat, the populace would still assume you have just stepped away from your hotel.

Do we end up in a similar situation with the suit; where the primary wearers are those who are required to wear a 'uniform issue' suit made down to a cost, and to signal their low-status / service role? So taking it further than the prevailing view of suit as societally-obligated workwear, and into a niche garment with a pejoratively low-status connotations.

I've been mistaken for a hotel staff a few times when wearing navy or dark grey suits. So where I'm at I need to wear flashy suits that no employee dares to wear. Though easier to just wear sportjackets all the time.

 

[Patrick R]

I've been thinking about this recently. Previous styles of dress have become an anachronism - take for example the stroller or frock coat.

The only time you'll see one is being worn by someone in service at a hotel; essentially it's gone from a high-status item to a low-status item as those wearing it are doing so to show their formality and subservience to paying clients. Whilst I am sure you could make a beautiful bespoke frock coat, the populace would still assume you have just stepped away from your hotel.

Do we end up in a similar situation with the suit; where the primary wearers are those who are required to wear a 'uniform issue' suit made down to a cost, and to signal their low-status / service role? So taking it further than the prevailing view of suit as societally-obligated workwear, and into a niche garment with a pejoratively low-status connotations.

That was exactly my perception from about 2000 until the last couple of years; suits are for low-status service and sales people. Since they are no longer wearing suits the past few years, I feel like it doesn’t carry that same “obligation of a low status position” connotation anymore. Now it’s just us weirdos.

 

[spencer096]

@Patrick R totally off topic...that an SVT in your avatar?

 

[Patrick R]

@Patrick R totally off topic...that an SVT in your avatar?

‘72 B-15N. I have a ‘77 SVT and a ‘79 V-4B.

 

[spencer096]

‘72 B-15N. I have a ‘77 SVT and a ‘79 V-4B.

that's a grail amp. id take a b15 flip top, a p-bass with flats and play motown and funk happily all damn day.

i still love my aguilar tone hammer tho.

 

[Riva]

https://nextshark.com/japanese-teen-shows-off-crazy-unique-style-tokyos-famous-fashion-district/

In his defense, he really tried hard to make his dad's clothings fashionable...

 

[Patrick R]

that's a grail amp. id take a b15 flip top, a p-bass with flats and play motown and funk happily all damn day.

i still love my aguilar tone hammer tho.

I generally prefer rounds:

 

[spencer096]

I generally prefer rounds:

likewise...

 

[lakewolf]

Rounds for funk, flats fretless for jazz

 

[Dandy_dapper]

likewise...

View attachment 1038682

Wow, to much sound!

 

[Invinoveritas20]

Ironically this pretty much reflect current society anti-classical mentality which are followers them self of some one ideas while pretending to be original. A classic theory of Plato that never dies:



Without theorizing to much follow what you like, if you go by trends of time your no better than everyone else. The point is to think for yourself and be comfortable in your own skin.

 

[Aquafortis]

I've been thinking about this recently. Previous styles of dress have become an anachronism - take for example the stroller or frock coat.

The only time you'll see one is being worn by someone in service at a hotel; essentially it's gone from a high-status item to a low-status item as those wearing it are doing so to show their formality and subservience to paying clients. Whilst I am sure you could make a beautiful bespoke frock coat, the populace would still assume you have just stepped away from your hotel.

Do we end up in a similar situation with the suit; where the primary wearers are those who are required to wear a 'uniform issue' suit made down to a cost, and to signal their low-status / service role? So taking it further than the prevailing view of suit as societally-obligated workwear, and into a niche garment with a pejoratively low-status connotations.

Given how far the casualization phenomenon has progressed globally, and specifically because the suit is no longer obligatory in so many settings, I think it's fair to say that those who wear suits more frequently are doing so out of personal choice. Ironically, the freedom of choice that is at the core of the casual "rebellion", now permits the wearing of suits where there is absolutely no requirement or expectation of one to dress so. So I would say, the obligatory norm is long gone in many cities.

Again, using San Francisco as an example (where I would argue even the relative norms of what most think of as "business casual", have been watered down) I have seen an increase in the number of younger gents wearing suits over the last decade or so. I think the relative success of makers like Indochino, Suit Supply, Beckett & Robb, Knot Standard, and their appeal (in style, fit, and price point) combined with the social media promotion of younger iGents, has brought momentum to this uptrend. And then there's the connoisseur contingent (likely many on this forum) who not just wear suits, but invest a lot of time, energy, and monetary resources towards doing so.

So to your point about a potential degradation of the suit becoming primarily associated with "low-status" workers, I think and certainly hope this will not become the case. Even if conservative business dress has been and continues to be lost in many workplaces, I would say the wearing of suits, empowered by the loss of workplace mandates, is being taken up and adapted, personalized, and promoted in a diversity of ways that it would likely never would have, if those same mandates continued to remain entrenched in workplace culture.

 

[Vuchko]

I've been mistaken for a hotel staff a few times when wearing navy or dark grey suits. So where I'm at I need to wear flashy suits that no employee dares to wear. Though easier to just wear sportjackets all the time.

Funny, from what I've observed, many people nowadays use the word "suit" for any outfit whose top part resembles a traditional tailored jacket, even when there's no tie and the pants are non-matching and very casual. I remember several occasions when I got puzzled questions "Why are you wearing a suit?!" just for showing up to the office or a social event in a sports coat and jeans.

What's more, in upscale stores, I've been mistaken for sales staff several times when wearing casual sports coats. It seems to me that the vast majority of people nowadays simply can't imagine that anyone would choose to wear anything resembling traditional tailoring, unless forced to do so by some kind of dress code.