With timing undoubtedly influenced by what was to have been the release of the film Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps before its delay to later in the year, May 11 will bring us the release of an updated version of Alan Flusser's 1996 book Style and the Man.
Flusser is a permanent member of the International Best-Dressed List and one of a handful of the most knowledgeable men in the world on all aspects of men's dress. As the book jacket points out, he attracted national attention in 1987 for Michael Douglas's wardrobe in the original Wall Street, a film that did much to recreate public awareness of classic dress after the depredations of the decade that preceeded it.
The original Style and the Man combined how to information about dress with a guide to the finest men's clothing stores in the world. That latter information is gone from the new edition - Flusser pointed out that many of those stores are gone now and have not been replaced. What remains is a slim guide to buying and wearing men's clothes that has been updated to take into account the changes in fit and silhouette that have occurred in the years since its original release.
Like the original, Style and the Man contains chapters on the elements of dress from tailored clothing to neckwear, with information on quality, fit and how to put together successful combinations. It complements Dressing the Man, Flusser's much more comprehensive guide to the same topic, with all the basics at a third of the cost of the larger work. That makes it a perfect graduation gift for young men who will be entering the professions this year as well as a not-quite-small-enough-for-a-pocket guide for their fathers.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Style & the Man, Take Two
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
Will, can you comment on the differences between Clothes & the Man, Dressing the Man, and Style & the Man? I own the former, and wonder whether the others cover much of the same ground or are worth seeking out as well.
Clothes and Dressing are similar. Dressing is a bit larger, with more information on color and pattern coordination. Clothes has more elegant touches, like pages of actual shirting samples.
Style is more condensed than either of them. It does not attempt, for example, to discuss all the different options of a man's suit and when they are appropriate. But it does cover fit and quality comprehensively for men who buy ready to wear clothing.
I'm no expert, but for a tie to appear on me in such a fashion, it would have to mean that I tied it in the car, in rush hour traffic, while on the way to a meeting. It seems to jarring and rushed to have the tail wagging out the bottom
Ties are commonly tied that way by men who want to tuck the rear blade into their trousers as well as by those who want to display some (deliberate) carelessness.
Alan wears his tie in this manner for a simple reason: the tie is too long.
I used to buy his ties, and they were all longs. I found myself doing the same thing. Otherwise, the the tip would end mid-way to the crouch.
Will, does Flusser's new book add anything new? Is it a revision? Or is it an abridgement of his earlier book?
As Kevin Hickey accurately points out, his tie is improperly tied. I don't buy intentional carlessness as a reason. Also, he has western pockets on his suit and it looks like he is wearing slippers on his feet. I personally have never thought of Alan Flusser as much of a dresser. I think he dresses almost the opposite way of his advice given in his books so he can say he is different or eccentric in his dress. I have the first Style book and will check out the new one. He isn't on any best dressed list that I would find credible.
The break on his trousers is horrible.
Sorry, Will, but while I enjoyed and learned from Flusser’s earlier books, particularly Making The Man, the current version of Mr. Flusser as revealed in his accompanying photo is highly unappealing. Most egregious being his jean-cut hip huggers. There is a point where idiosyncrasy and sprezzatura become simply sloppiness and I’m afraid Mr. Flusser reached that point quite some time ago. It is precisely Mr. Flusser’s changes to fit and silhouette that did not need changing.
I have to agree with the other comments here about the picture in question: it's not a particularly edifying look, for a number of reasons (tie, shoes, trouser length and cut, etc.). Still, I'm grateful to you for bringing the book to my attention. I was only 10 when Wall Street came out, and this guide inevitably passed me by. I shall give it a look.
beingmanly.blogspot.com
Gentlemen, I must say your tastes are far too staid if you can't appreciate the nonchalance and subtle aggression of the style display put before us in the photo of Alan Flusser. Lets say his pants were pulled up and his tie was set as you expected along with having some proper Oxfords to shod his feet. He would look too matchy matchy. In other words - too studied. He wouldn't be particularly interesting or original except for the windowpane check over what appears to be a glenplaid suit and the particularly arresting pocket square. The detailing such as the ribbon belt, the way he knotted his tie, the cut of his trouser pockets and his dress slippers take the ensemble from simply fitting in a certain preconceived mold into something original and far more intriguing to look at than what you expect him to dress like. Perhaps he has too many elements that stray too far from the dictates of proper formality but you should at least be able to pick one element that you can thieve for yourself to add that dandified air that will carry you forward as a man of style instead of just another suit.
Jacket too long, pants too long, tie too long. Sigh...
I think the matching blue of the suit, tie, belt and piping of the square is over kill. As others pointed out the tie is up for debate. You hate or loathe it. What's not up for debate, the puddle on the ground that resembles pants with a deep cuff. Flusser take the Gucci's off and walk away, slowly. Azam, nothing redeeming to me.
In theory his outfit is quite nice. There are a few things I would say I find find objectionable about his suit, but as I have not been asked I will keep mum on the topic.
I will say though, that perhaps, as an acknowledged authority on men's style, he has enough confidence that he thinks he can diverge from the 'rules,' unlike a lot of men.
What does ADG ('Maxminimus' blogger and Flusser client) have to say about this photograph, I wonder?
What I find curious is Will's statement implying that Flusser was responsible for undoing the sartorial damage of the late 1970s and 1980s. Flusser was not alone, as Brooks Brothers, Polo, and the traditional tailers were right there beside him.
Good point Youngin. The matching blues are over kill. The pocket square at least should contrast more. The Gucci loafers should indeed be taken off. Don't really like the cut of the three button suit jacket. Feels stiff. Nonetheless, it's worth looking at and interesting ideas here worth noting and potentially taking. Disarticulate the elements and rework for yourself. This photo is far from being the complete wash that you and the other commentators seem to believe.
It's easy to imagine that the trousers sat a bit higher on the waist at beginning of the day. Braces surely would address that issue, but then he wouldn't be able to wear the belt. While I, too, have little appreciation for his shoes, I recognize that mine is not the only valid opinion. Suffice to say that I would not choose them.
As for the "matchiness" of the tie, belt, and suit, shouldn't one have the option of matching every now and again? If Flusser only presented similar looks, the criticism would be more understandable, but he seems to employ enough variety that he should be judged in the broader context. I, for one, quite like the pocket square in this ensemble.
Except for his theoretical knowledge about clothing and style, can someone explain to me what makes Flusser an authority if he can't dress well himself? Is this like being a coach for a professsional sports team? You used to play (well), you no longer can't, so you attempt to teach others?? Flusser looks absolutely horrible in almost all, if not all pictures I have seen of him. Perhaps he's been around to long that the "fashion" world refuses to realize how abysmal he is currently.
Will, you'd run circles around this guy.
I very much appreciate Flusser's books and his contribution to men' awareness of what constitutes classic style. I am still struggling though with the idea that he be considered a particularly well dressed fellow. Not only are there too many elements in the photograph in this post that let me question not only the proper cut of his suit (shoulder width, patch breast pokcet with slanted side pockets, trouser length etc) but also whether he's either simply a sloppy dresser (that would be almost unbelievable, wouldn't it) or seriously overdoing the concept of sprezzatura, which is over- and abused ad nauseam lately anyway in the online style communities. Beyond this particularly unconvincing example, I fail to recall any recent photograph of the man that really made me think: Goodness, this is truly how it should be done.
He has written excellent books but a style icon himself - clearly not.
Oh my, I've seen one too many unflattering photo's of Mr Flusser to ever consider buying any of his books....
Will perhaps you should drop him a friendy email with the contact details of the fellows at Gaziano & Girling so he can get some proper shoes.
Readers, readers, you're missing the point! The photographer hired by Will to take the two photos obviously conspired with Mr. Flusser to create an intentional parody of style, putting him in a Western suit two sizes too large, with Gucci loafers and a potholder as pocket square. But the set piece showing the book, now there's style... wait a minute, those shoes look like monk's-strap, but there's no buckle! They don't close with some dreadful velcro, or a magnet... do they really? Please save us!
Ah... The comment section has turned into a forum for a heated debate about the photograph of Mr. Flusser displayed in this post. Hmmmm...
Well, my two cents: In this era of suits that, in the eyes of the multitudes, are a uniform one wears not because one wants to look good, but because one has to mainly for professional reasons, Mr. Flusser has the right idea. I haven't been to his shop, but even his website is designed to make me feel relaxed and at home. I have read "Style and the Man," and in that book, as well as in his interviews, Mr. Flusser repeats that dressing appropriately is not an expensive side-hobby for the rich and powerful, but is within everyone's reach. While Mr. Flusser is mainly known to the wider public for creating the wardrobe of a nouveau-riche prick on film, the style he promotes is one of relaxed elegance that is the absolute yin of the yuppie look's yang. If you came upon Mr. Flusser in the street wearing the outfit of the picture, you wouldn't think "there's a suit", you'd think, "there's a man who inhabits his clothes with comfort and aplomb." And that's the point.
I won't ever say anything bad about Mr. Flusser's dress as it is not always wise to confuse genuine style with "mistakes". Style uses the highest quality but sometimes is relaxed about the whole thing. Mr. Flusser exhibits here the truism that God is, as always, in the details: note the highest quality of that windowpane cloth, the soft sumptuousness of that light grey (or taupe), and how such a suit is emblematic of a correct gentleman's wardrobe for the spring. Note that perfect solid tie, and those low tight trousers are correct for the western pockets and give the swagger. As far as how the tie is tied, the manner about which most men have complained, it suits the attitude of the whole ensemble. Those Black Gucci slip ons suit the relaxation of the overall. Here is a key to some tradition behind what Flusser is doing. think Gary Cooper. If you look back at the Coop you can see some definite influence of that paragon of men's style of yore on Mr. Flusser in this particular photo.
Addicts of all sorts (and egoists) must constantly express their Jones in a more elaborate way. Flusser or any of us are no different.
"Style" as it relates to dress and the extreme of dress are incompatable, by definition. "Style" is not inherently good.
Believe it or not, what has come to be known as style in dress (or other activity)is historically based primarily on the philosophy of and now the science of ergonomics. Practicality is very elegant on the merits.
Practicality, along with the practice of the artful appreciation of beauty known as aesthetics, allow for detail that compliments the ergonomic need. Together, that equals style. Think form and function. Think BMW.
As an example, if one does not need to turn up their suit sleeves for some activity or work, then why would one pay for working button holes? Remember that the only reason there are buttons on the sleeve to begin with is because Napoleon didn't want his troops wiping their nose on their sleeves.
To do so (demand working button holes on sleeves) is not style in and of itself but rather an affectation,(conspicuous artificiality of manner or appearance; effort to attract notice by pretense, assumption, or any assumed peculiarity) usually. The form has no function. Do you just want people to know your suit is custom, bespoke, etc.? That's fine, just don't proclaim (outwardly or inwardly) superiority of style or position.
On the other hand, who among us can devine whether a person leans toward affectation or toward one's deep, true and pure appreciation for the aesthetics of dress or life? I would suggest it's like pornography. You just know, depending on the fellow. Think vanity.
Style is either vulgar or sublime. I'd say Flusser's windowpaned, low rider, mis-tied and slippered (and most likely sock-less)look is closer to vulgarity than sublimity.
Speaking of sublime, Cary Grant was a great stylist (whoever created it for him)and I would offer that his classic and much admired style in North By Northwest and other films--solid everything--is based on the Brummel philosophy of sublime style that is based on fit and quality. "If one turns around to look at you, you are not well dressed." That, rather than the prevailing gimmickry that passes today as style. I'd bet that if ol' Cary had working button holes one of them would not be unbuttoned, to make sure people knew they "worked".
In short, you either think Flusser, Grant, style bloggers, me or anyone who professes to appreciate "style" are, on an individual basis either fops or aestheticists.
OR, a fellow can be so individually unique and unassuming as to unintentionally create a physical and psychological persona that can be admired and respecfully emulated. Now that's style!
Best Regards to all,
LD
It sounds like the new Style and the Man is a slimmer, less expensive version of Dressing the Man, and if you already own the latter there's really no reason to purchase the former...is that correct?
Post a Comment