The mafoofan and Thom Browne philosophies are not too unlike.

[dopey]

Originally Posted by bluemagic

I wish I could free your mind.

Send me some free Thom Browne stuff. I have been begging SoCal and he won't give me anything. All I really want is some swag.

 

[mafoofan Jr.]

What's so "new" about Browne? Are people paying more for the brand niche (being part of the stylish crowd)? I'll take a conservative Ford cut over Browne.

 

[zjpj83]

Originally Posted by dopey

I will not be convinced that there is anything of substance worth talking about when it comes to Thom Brown other than whether or not the clothes look nice or make the wearer look silly.
The clothes are either worth the money or they aren't. People are buying either something with value added or they aren't. If the answer is simply that he makes a different fit then anyone else, then your point is spot on. But, of course, people aren't just judging it for how it looks but, rather, what it does. How else could one justify paying $X for a pair of rebadged Black Fleece Alden longwings instead of $0.65X for the Alden model? Because people perceive that they are getting something more, buying in to some sort of total design aesthetic. They think this because this is what the marketing is aimed at. And this is why the following questions are importance: (i) what is wearing Thom Browne supposed to try to say and (ii) does it achieve that goal? I would suggest that Thom Browne is marketed as having the effect that I describe above in my earlier post . I would suggest further that it fails in achieving this effect and, instead, is simply an odd-fitting garment that, when worn as intended, makes the wearer look like more of a conformist chump than the people of whom the style is intended to be a critique. It is not revolutionary. It does not turn on its head the way we think about anything. And its attempt to do so is not even novel.

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

The clothes are either worth the money or they aren't. People are buying either something with value added or they aren't.

If the answer is simply that he makes a different fit then anyone else, then your point is spot on.

But, of course, people aren't just judging it for how it looks but, rather, what it does. How else could one justify paying $X for a pair of rebadged Black Fleece Alden longwings instead of $0.65X for the Alden model? Because people perceive that they are getting something more, buying in to some sort of total design aesthetic. They think this because this is what the marketing is aimed at. And this is why the following questions are importance: (i) what is wearing Thom Browne supposed to try to say and (ii) does it achieve that goal?

I would suggest that Thom Browne is marketed as having the effect that I describe above in my earlier post . I would suggest further that it fails in achieving this effect and, instead, is simply an odd-fitting garment that, when worn as intended, makes the wearer look like more of a conformist chump than the people of whom the style is intended to be a critique. It is not revolutionary. It does not turn on its head the way we think about anything. And its attempt to do so is not even novel.

You forgot to privilege the oppositional dialogue. Understandable, given the frequency with which "standards" are conflated with transgressive gender-norms.

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

Do you see value in the painting? I know many people who don't.

 

[zjpj83]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

Do you see value in the painting? I know many people who don't.
I do. It was posted in connection with the "And its attempt to do so is not even novel" comment, btw.

 

[Fuuma]

I can't speak for anyone else but TB is one of those labels where I don't particularly subscribe to the design philosophy and just like some of the stuff. I buy TB suits because they look good and fit me well and style them in a 60s, slightly more dressed up/rakish way than what is intended. I like the shorter body and pants but don't overdo it, the fabrics are nice and the grosgrain a great touch. That's pretty much it.

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

I can't speak for anyone else but TB is one of those labels where I don't particularly subscribe to the design philosophy and just like some of the stuff. I buy TB suits because they look good and fit me well and style them in a 60s, slightly more dressed up/rakish way than what is intended. I like the shorter body and pants but don't overdo it, the fabrics are nice and the grosgrain a great touch. That's pretty much it.
From what I have seen in WAYWN, they look good on you as well. But that makes for duller conversation. And you forgot to use "dialogue" or "tension", not to mention "cultural norms" and "boundary".

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by dopey

From what I have seen in WAYWN, they look good on you as well.

Thanks. Keep in mind that I'm 5'8" and a size 0 isn't ultra-tight and short on me just slim so I don't even wear it the way most do.

I don't see why you can disregard signifiers associated with clothing though, surely a guy that wear bowties would, at least subconsciously, accept the idea that they do exist. Why would anyone buy 1800 euros TB sneakers if they didn't associate it with something on a conceptual level?

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

I do.

It was posted in connection with the "And its attempt to do so is not even novel" comment, btw.

I get where you're going with it. But was struck by the similarity of your argument to that I often hear from people who don't like modern art. The painting is as worthless to them as Browne is to you.

The endless debates on Thom have worn down any strong opinion I might have had about him. But he gets people talking about clothes like no other. That alone gives his work some value, to my way of thinking.

 

[polar-lemon]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

I can't speak for anyone else but TB is one of those labels where I don't particularly subscribe to the design philosophy and just like some of the stuff. I buy TB suits because they look good and fit me well and style them in a 60s, slightly more dressed up/rakish way than what is intended. I like the shorter body and pants but don't overdo it, the fabrics are nice and the grosgrain a great touch. That's pretty much it.

I think many of us admire those attributes, but just aren't willing to pay such a hefty premium for it. Out of curiosity, what do you think of the BF suits? They now retail for $1900, and can be found for cheaper with relative regularity. Aside from detailed difference, the TB aesthetic is basically there; would you rather maintain your allegiance to the TB mainline at many times more money, or does BF approximate the look well enough considering its price advantage?

 

[zjpj83]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

The endless debates on Thom have worn down any strong opinion I might have had about him. But he gets people talking about clothes like no other. That alone gives his work some value, to my way of thinking.

I wouldn't even go that far. 99.999% of people have never heard of him. He gets people talking about clothes who would be talking about clothes anyway.

 

[gomestar]

Originally Posted by dopey

And no matter how hard Fuuma tries, I will not be convinced that there is anything of substance worth talking about when it comes to Thom Brown other than whether or not the clothes look nice or make the wearer look silly. And it seems that the harder people try to pretend otherwise, the more they have to resort to babble and gibberish.

When you finally got around to explaining Thom Browne, you did it clearly - He likes short jackets because he thought that is what his style icons wore even though he eventually realized that it wasn't, and he likes cutting pants too short because everyone else wears pants that are too long and he wanted to do the opposite. You won't see me make fun of that. But when people dress it up as a comment about fascism or some sort of dialogue with pants of the past, it gets silly.

Ooops - it is gomestar that explained Browne with lucidity. But I'll give you credit anyway.

I'm not going to resort to "babble and gibberish" though I do think that there is substance worth talking about. Perhaps I lack the ability to talk about suits in a superficial manner (lets talk about the id!). I love TB suits because of the way they fit me. I'm 5' 8" and 132 lbs, I've always been as skinny as a twig. The slimmest suits at any department store look like duvee covers on me. Enter Thom Browne, where his slim lapels, slim cropped jackets, tight flat front pants and overall trimmed up and simplified look suit me perfect. I don't go for the all out "pants to the ankles" look. The other reason I love them is because they remind me of my grandfather's suits from the 50's and 60's - he was 5' 4" and always bought MTM from some place in Chicago. Most of them were grey or charcoal, and each one looked identical to the last, except of course for the fabric. TB has captured an interesting part of that look, and I like that - but for me that's about where it stops.

Dopey, if you can take the time, read this article about TB from GQ. It's well written and gives some interesting points and perspectivse. If anything, it's an entertaining read:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/lan...d=content_7639

 

[eg1]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Huh?

Originally Posted by dopey

Pants = Panties, is the point, I think.

dopey is mostly correct: pants = underpants; also a derisive English slang term approximating "crap"

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Oh, English readers as in British readers, right! I read english I think anglo-saxons!

Fuuma, I didn't say British because I had no wish to implicate the Welsh or Scots.

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by gomestar

I'm not going to resort to "babble and gibberish" though I do think that there is substance worth talking about. Perhaps I lack the ability to talk about suits in a superficial manner (lets talk about the id!). I love TB suits because of the way they fit me. I'm 5' 8" and 132 lbs, I've always been as skinny as a twig. The slimmest suits at any department store look like duvee covers on me. Enter Thom Browne, where his slim lapels, slim cropped jackets, tight flat front pants and overall trimmed up and simplified look suit me perfect. I don't go for the all out "pants to the ankles" look. The other reason I love them is because they remind me of my grandfather's suits from the 50's and 60's - he was 5' 4" and always bought MTM from some place in Chicago. Most of them were grey or charcoal, and each one looked identical to the last, except of course for the fabric. TB has captured an interesting part of that look, and I like that - but for me that's about where it stops.

Dopey, if you can take the time, read this article about TB from GQ. It's well written and gives some interesting points and perspectivse. If anything, it's an entertaining read:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/lan...d=content_7639

If this is what you mean by substance, I agree - there is plenty of substance to talk about. It sounds like you know how to wear TB in a way that makes it yours, not his, too.

I read that article some time ago (a few months, I think). I thought it was pretty good and interesting. Not a lot of gibberish in it, either. It was mostly a bio and short history of his business.