Is Manton the Anti-iGent?

Chorn

Resident iGent
Supporter
Messages
2,265
First, I don't consider the term "iGent" particularly pejorative, though I probably dislike how many iGents dress and/or how they present themselves. So when I suggest that Manton is the anti-iGent, I'm not suggesting that this is a good thing. Or a bad thing. Just a thing.

That being said, Manton appears to be the anti-iGent.

When I think of iGents, I think of several things. They dress for the internet. Forums, Tumblr, Instagram, etc. I'd say they'd have to weigh an internet audience at least as heavily as they do a real life audience (the extent to which they dress for themselves or dress for other people is really irrelevant to iGentism). As a result of this priority, they regularly take pictures of what they wear and post it to the internet via some medium. I don't think Manton posts pictures of himself anymore. I don't think he ever did with any sort of frequency. And he sure didn't put tons in of effort when he did (the more effort a person puts in their pictures, the surer a sign they are dressing more for an internet audience and less for a real life audience).

They also dress to grab an audience's attention. All the fits of Manton that I recall were dull as dirt, which I think was how he liked them. Muted colors, decent break on his pants, no bells and whistles. Nothing really stood out, either in a good or a bad way. The iGentiest of iGents seem to always endeavor to find a way to make their outfit "pop" or "stand out." The tie pen0r (my indulgence). Any pocket square besides white linen. Trousers hovering above the ankle, flashing socks. Shoes that range from unusual (those EG's boots that have suede around the ankles and leather elsewhere, double monks (always struck me as an iGent staple), etc) to the bizarre (odd skins and colors). Bracelets. Four pattern bingo. An unusual element for the sake of integrating an unusual element.

I'm not sure if I'd consider bandwagoning (NMWA/Eidos at present) an iGent trait. Maybe just an SF trait. Or a trait of any group of people who get together around a common interest. Regardless, I know Manton is responsible for a few bandwagon type movements, but I don't think he was ever the type to blindly follow. Which is not to say all bandwagoning is blindly following. But that's certainly a strong element.

Anyway, I think the first two are the most important attributes. And I don't think Manton would really qualify by any standard (other than that he has talked about clothing on the internet...which would make all of us iGents)
 
The blue blazer's your igentry Chorn, would like to see you get into dark browns. Can't remember much of anything by Manton as you say doesn't post really.

And what brought you back from the dead?
 
They dress for the internet. Forums, Tumblr, Instagram, etc. I'd say they'd have to weigh an internet audience at least as heavily as they do a real life audience (the extent to which they dress for themselves or dress for other people is really irrelevant to iGentism). As a result of this priority, they regularly take pictures of what they wear and post it to the internet via some medium. I don't think Manton posts pictures of himself anymore. I don't think he ever did with any sort of frequency. And he sure didn't put tons in of effort when he did (the more effort a person puts in their pictures, the surer a sign they are dressing more for an internet audience and less for a real life audience).

Chorn Chorn - This is a good, well-thought-out post.

I think that the bolded comments above really hit the nail on the head, and there certainly are people on SF who dress for the internet rather than for the real world.

That said, while some of the WAYWRN posters on SF look pretty ridiculous at times, I don't see much harm in it. Sure, some people end up spending foolish amounts of money on clothes, shoes and accessories in an attempt to keep up with the Joneses and to keep posting new, interesting looks that will receive "likes". Apart from that, though, it's really just harmless fun. Foolish at times, perhaps, and easy to joke about, but harmless fun. Some people enjoy dressing up in US Civil War uniforms or as mediaeval knights for fun, whereas iGents enjoy dressing up in contrasting patterns, too-tight and too-short trousers, wearing the back blade of their ties too long and their loafers without socks.

It's really a form of costume-play - iGents are like contemporary LARPers!
 
I was training one day in the local forest park with my staff and about 60 larpers dressed in cheap medieval came out into the open and began cos-fighting with fake swords and bow and arrows. I wasn't about to cut my training short so I continued on every once in awhile stopping to look at the alternate universe.

If I were wearing my gi and hakama I could've just snuck in joined the fray but they would've began dropping like flies.
 
Man porn for you fanbois.
47b65e48021877f08acc3674dfdbefc6.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had noticed that people were tagging the hell out of you recently, but I didn't expect this return to ever happen. Welcome back!

I really don't have vast exposure to the man, but one could argue that he's just the albino of igentism, the isolated CBD strain. Photographically and, you know, how he wears clothing, the point is valid. He does not do elaborately staged shots or prissy, peacocky or trendy clothes. The psychology of the igent (I'm not a psychologist like Sarto) is a whole other topic...
 
Maybe a pre-iGent. A forerunner of today's Internet peacock. More interested in discussion and communicating his views and knowledge than showing "here's what I bought and how I look"
 
I feel your definition of iGent is wholly incorrect. You are describing a Cosplayer. The iGent is the bastion of accrued sometimes archaic "rules" (clothing, etiquette or otherwise) that one has aggregated by participation in internet clothing fora. It's a binary beast that has no sense of nuance or context, is not in anyway flexible and declares loudly that everything done in 1956 is the absolute peak of correctness.

Manton is the biggest iGent who has ever trod the electrons of the interwebs.
 
The blue blazer's your igentry Chorn, would like to see you get into dark browns. Can't remember much of anything by Manton as you say doesn't post really.
I don't know if having a bunch of the most boring color for a jacket can be considered an iGent tendency. Obsessive. Perhaps even gimmicky. What labels me an iGent (by the above definition) is that I dress, to a large extent, for an internet audience rather than an in real life one. I love my clothing, and wear them first and foremost for me. I will look at my closet occasionally and be happy. I enjoy thinking about what I will wear, what I could have worn, and what I'd like to buy. But when it comes to the audience, I generally value the opinions of an e-audience over the opinions of one in real life (only when it comes to what I'm wearing mind you).

My wife has forbidden the purchase of any more blue. She thinks it's ridiculous and needles me about it (didn't you wear that jacket yesterday? And the day before it? I'm sorry, but they all look the same).

I do have a nice four season (three season in Texas) mossy green jacket coming from Kent Wang.

More pressing of the two questions
This is the place for meta-forum discussion

Maybe a pre-iGent. A forerunner of today's Internet peacock. More interested in discussion and communicating his views and knowledge than showing "here's what I bought and how I look"
This seems accurate.

Chorn Chorn : honest question. how do you come up with questions like this? are you really thinking about this kinda stuff?
What do y'all think about when you post on forums? It can't just be clothes, clothes, clothes. Or maybe it can. I got bored with decontextualized clothes fairly quickly though. You can only post so much about iGents without thinking about what it means to be an iGent, right?

Specifically, when reading the "Good Taste" thread, the thought of Manton in high rise, ankle bearing pants, sockless dubmunks, wrists covered in bracelets, wearing a tie from Passaggio Cravatte, thumbin' and chummin' it up with Lino near the Pitti wall tickled my fancy.

I feel your definition of iGent is wholly incorrect. You are describing a Cosplayer. The iGent is the bastion of accrued sometimes archaic "rules" (clothing, etiquette or otherwise) that one has aggregated by participation in internet clothing fora. It's a binary beast that has no sense of nuance or context, is not in anyway flexible and declares loudly that everything done in 1956 is the absolute peak of correctness.

Manton is the biggest iGent who has ever trod the electrons of the interwebs.

I think Manton acquired most of his knowledge before the internet found clothing. Could be wrong. But I think the first part (bolded) is a good definition of some sort of SF Gentry (some of whom may also be iGents). But the second part (italics) eliminates, well, most people currently active on SF, Tumblr, and IG.


iGent lacks an agreed upon definition, but I think most of us look at it like porn (in the sense that we know it when we see it). A lot of what we are quick to label iGentry wouldn't fit in your definition either explicitly or implicitly. Though that could simply be because what we often dub iGent is incorrectly labelled so.

As far as knowledge of tradition, a lot of iGents seem to lack it and have no desire to acquire it. It's irrelevant to them. I'm looking beyond the walls of SF here.

And I think to cosplay, there needs to be some sort of target. What are cosplayers playing as? As far as I can tell, iGents want to be like other, more accomplished, iGents. Like Luca or Vox or Chad Park or even the Shibumi guys. They certainly aren't playing at being businessmen. I guess, when they take elaborately staged pictures of themselves, they are playing at being a e-retailer utilizing social media? But that eliminates people like me, Pingson, Spandexter, Murlsquirrel, etc who don't stage shots (though I will shoot outside if it's for a contest with a prize or if it is for a product I'm reviewing) and eliminates people like Braddock/Pingson, EFV, Tira, etc who have a valid reason to stage shots. .
 
Last edited:
I think Manton acquired most of his knowledge before the internet found clothing. Could be wrong. But I think the first part (bolded) is a good definition of some sort of SF Gentry (some of whom may also be iGents). But the second part (italics) eliminates, well, most people currently active on SF, Tumblr, and IG.


iGent lacks an agreed upon definition, but I think most of us look at it like porn (in the sense that we know it when we see it). A lot of what we are quick to label iGentry wouldn't fit in your definition either explicitly or implicitly. Though that could simply be because what we often dub iGent is incorrectly labelled so.

As far as knowledge of tradition, a lot of iGents seem to lack it and have no desire to acquire it. It's irrelevant to them. I'm looking beyond the walls of SF here.

And I think to cosplay, there needs to be some sort of target. What are cosplayers playing as? As far as I can tell, iGents want to be like other, more accomplished, iGents. Like Luca or Vox or Chad Park or even the Shibumi guys. They certainly aren't playing at being businessmen. I guess, when they take elaborately staged pictures of themselves, they are playing at being a e-retailer utilizing social media? But that eliminates people like me, Pingson, Spandexter, Murlsquirrel, etc who don't stage shots (though I will shoot outside if it's for a contest with a prize or if it is for a product I'm reviewing) and eliminates people like Braddock/Pingson, EFV, Tira, etc who have a valid reason to stage shots. .

The cosplaying is what Stitches (and all of the others) does relentlessly. They are putting on a costume. That costume is anything from suits to SW&D that have no appropriateness to the activities they are actualy doing from day to day. They are simply costumes for the camera.

iGentism is manifested in belief, not in action (beyond keystrokes or words). It really doesn't even have to be on the internet. pseudoGent is pretty much a synonym.

Edit:FWIW Chorn Chorn I think of you as a clothing nerd, which is what most of us are.
 
I think it is clear that we do not have a singularly acceptable term to describe the continuum of individuals actively engaged in clothing forums. Superimpose upon that the relatively new Tumblr IG and visual blog posters and it is clear that the catch all term iGent is no longer valid - if it ever was - as a suitable label. It is also clear that - given our meta-forum focus - we need to redefine terminology for accuracy and terms of use, and, most importantly in my case, to better help me to focus my hateful ramblings.

CosPlay confuses the mix even more as we have to separate out CosPlay for profit (shills, AV's and other non-SF sanctioned vendors and I will cite the PieFacedPolishPrince Tom Miler as the most recent creation), CosPlay for attention (like today's cigar-smoking, mirror-posing Danny DeVito impersonator) and CosPlay for self-validation (give me an "I", give me an "S", what have you got? IS aka insta-shitbag)

ConchitaWurst ConchitaWurst posed a question earlier in the day as to just what was the Catamite looking up at. He may have indeed been looking to the skies for inspiration or a sign from a more tolerant God that I would ever imagine if I believed in deities in the sky to help him define this very conundrum.

If an iGent falls in the forest, does he shriek like a little bitch for his photographer to help pick him up and wipe the muck off his suede and calf (burnished toe just so) MTO Galways? This answer will help us start the conversation, no?
 
IG-ent: seeks to lead by example. Therefore believes himself worth following. Often tags his own photos with #inspiration
 
I don't know if having a bunch of the most boring color for a jacket can be considered an iGent tendency. Obsessive. Perhaps even gimmicky. What labels me an iGent (by the above definition) is that I dress, to a large extent, for an internet audience rather than an in real life one.


I don't think your wife and I are the only ones tired of seeing you in blue though. SF won't tell you the truth but there's gotta be others sick of seeing it. If blue makes you happy then no need to say you're dressing for internet audience.
 
When Chorn spurned us he became dead to me so I don't know if he wears too much blue or not. Now that he is back I suppose I can consider stalking him again. iIRC, except for the odd tie penor episode he is well turned out and remarkably un-egregious in his postings. Sometimes I confuse him with Heldentenor and I apologize for that and promise to pay closer attention now that he is temporarily back in the fold.

As a side note, do or should well respected SF auteurs have socks? No idea why this popped into my head.

Just for full disclosure, Arnathor and Leitmotif Leitmotif are my socks
 
The cosplaying is what Stitches (and all of the others) does relentlessly. They are putting on a costume. That costume is anything from suits to SW&D that have no appropriateness to the activities they are actualy doing from day to day. They are simply costumes for the camera.

iGentism is manifested in belief, not in action (beyond keystrokes or words). It really doesn't even have to be on the internet. pseudoGent is pretty much a synonym.

Edit:FWIW Chorn Chorn I think of you as a clothing nerd, which is what most of us are.
I'm absolutely a clothing nerd. But the internet plays too big a role in its manifestation to not have an "i-" somewhere. Interesting that you think it is about a belief/worldview. It really annoys me when people associate any sort of dress with any sort of moral high ground. As if dressing a certain way somehow transformed a person into a "gentleman" with all its positive connotations (nevermind the negative)

I think it is clear that we do not have a singularly acceptable term to describe the continuum of individuals actively engaged in clothing forums. Superimpose upon that the relatively new Tumblr IG and visual blog posters and it is clear that the catch all term iGent is no longer valid - if it ever was - as a suitable label. It is also clear that - given our meta-forum focus - we need to redefine terminology for accuracy and terms of use, and, most importantly in my case, to better help me to focus my hateful ramblings.

CosPlay confuses the mix even more as we have to separate out CosPlay for profit (shills, AV's and other non-SF sanctioned vendors and I will cite the PieFacedPolishPrince Tom Miler as the most recent creation), CosPlay for attention (like today's cigar-smoking, mirror-posing Danny DeVito impersonator) and CosPlay for self-validation (give me an "I", give me an "S", what have you got? IS aka insta-shitbag)

If an iGent falls in the forest, does he shriek like a little bitch for his photographer to help pick him up and wipe the muck off his suede and calf (burnished toe just so) MTO Galways? This answer will help us start the conversation, no?

Galways! Those were the shoes I was trying to think of.

With the term "CosPlay"...what are they playing as when they dress this way? The actions of some indicate they are playing (and no harm in playing as long as folks do it with a sense of fun and are open about it) at being the social media menswear seller/reseller. But that is in the actions rather than the clothing.

People like Tibor are clearly costume playing something. Tom Miller maybe as well (though he's doing it with intent, that stroller/morning dress/whateveritscalledIdontknoworcare was certainly a costume). But I'm not sure if most of what we're calling CosPlay around here would qualify as costume. I don't think most of these people are dressing as something they aren't.

But I really like the idea of starting from scratch. I think we'd need a list of important attributes relevant to various subsets of men dressing funny on the internet before we begin to group them and label those groups ( doghouse doghouse , I'm not just a clothing nerd). That's for a subsequent post.

I don't think your wife and I are the only ones tired of seeing you in blue though. SF won't tell you the truth but there's gotta be others sick of seeing it. If blue makes you happy then no need to say you're dressing for internet audience.

The extent to which people dress for themselves and for an audience is a different question than the extent to which their audience is online or in real life. I mostly dress for myself. I've always been happiest with blue jackets. Though I almost got a 0520 fresco despite having a jacket in almost an identical blue. I resisted.

Never really thought about people looking at a person's wardrobe as a whole. I mean, I understand getting tired of seeing a bunch of people in blue jackets. Or brown shoes. Or green ties. That makes the thread dull. But to tire of an individual is interesting. I don't think my blue saturates WAYWRN. Anyway, even I am now growing tired of the blue. Going to get that green and then a third brown.

I have gotten more than a few nudges to move away from blue (maybe three blue jackets ago). But yeah, the moment an audience exerts that sort of influence is the moment to step away from the computer. To consciously allow one's own tastes to be subsumed by that of a collective is, well, no good.


When Chorn spurned us he became dead to me so I don't know if he wears too much blue or not. Now that he is back I suppose I can consider stalking him again. iIRC, except for the odd tie penor episode he is well turned out and remarkably un-egregious in his postings. Sometimes I confuse him with Heldentenor and I apologize for that and promise to pay closer attention now that he is temporarily back in the fold.

As a side note, do or should well respected SF auteurs have socks? No idea why this popped into my head.

Just for full disclosure, Arnathor and Leitmotif Leitmotif are my socks

All my socks are navy, some shade of brown, or dull argyle. No fun socks for me.

In terms of personality, I don't mind the confusion. Helden seems like a well intentioned nice academic. Like me, he has stronger views about SF and all that in private than he voices in public.

In terms of photography, dems fighting words. Though I guess you've missed the rise of the Chair (and the subsequent Chorn crotch shots). Very distinct pose. Also very easy.
 
So picking up on what Thruth Thruth mentioned. The need to straighten out some definitions so that he may continue ranting accurately.

Some points that probably deserve to be dissected, grouped, and labelled:

*What they wear
*How they wear it
*Purchasing habits
*Content of purchases
*motivation behind purchases
*Involvement in mediums (forums, tumblr, etc)
*Photography (effort, style, etc)
*motivation for taking pictures
*the way in which they discuss clothes

----

I do like

SF Gentry: Lots of discussion of clothing. Stickler for rules and traditions which had long since lost any sort of relevancy before being reborn on SF 2005-2008.
 
to start, some third party thoughts on iGents, which clearly use the term in a pejorative manner

Urban Dictionary: iGent

An iGent is a clothing hobbyist who posts on clothing fora such as Ask Andy About Clothes, and Style Forum and has the inclination to take photographs of himself in his latest sartorial acquisitions.
'here I am in my new (x) suit/jacket/shoes. Pic attached. Bask in my sartorial prowess/i am an iGent'

http://putthison.com/post/66792296806/you-might-just-be-an-igent-igent-short-for

You Might Just Be an iGent

“iGent’ (short for Internet Gentleman) is a derogatory term for a certain kind of poster on men’s clothing forums (mainly StyleForum, but much talked aboutelsewhere too). Although the character type is very specific, the general personality is not. Our friend Réginald-Jérôme de Mans recently wrote a funny piece at A Suitable Wardrobe about how you can tell if you’re an iGent. A sampling:

  • If your new Alan Flusser book is sitting on top of your old Alan Flusser book;
  • If you get all dressed up with nowhere to go but online;
  • If you look for jobs that are business formal;
  • If you have to decide between your Brigg or your Smith when it rains… and you post your dramatic decision online;
  • If you pay $10 an issue for a magazine without people committing lewd acts inside it;
  • If you buy magazines about shoes and clothing in languages you can’t read;
  • If your suit would have cost more than your car if you hadn’t bought it on 95% clearance;
  • If you ask strangers to look at clothed pictures of you on the Internet;
  • If you ask other men to post selfies from the men’s room and are not a conservative politician;
  • If you know where the outlet centers are in countries you have never visited;
  • If you have ever used the words “suitings” or “shirtings,” (even correctly);
  • And if you laughed at these… you just might be an iGent.
An Affordable Wardrobe: The Curse of the "iGent"

The Curse of the "iGent"

What a strange world it is that we clothing nerds have created for ourselves via the megalithic beast that is the "internet". We who think, care, and obsess over not just clothing itself but the infinite minutiae of details it entails have found one another, to the relief I'm sure of many a significant other who no longer has to listen to quite so much harping about the roll of a collar or the cut of a lapel. And in large part, this community is a good and wholesome thing. But as with any community, we have our bad side. In #menswear circles, our more embarrassing proclivities manifest themselves in the form of the dreaded "iGent". He's the one who gets all in a twist at the mere suggestion that any of a number of rules in a strict and mostly imaginary code of rules be even mildly transgressed, the one who wails at the very idea of pleated trousers, or flat front, depending on which particular code to which he has decided to subscribe. He's also the one most likely not to have known how to tie a tie three years ago, before this got out of hand.

I won't deny my own indulgence in iGent-ism. After all, I am writing this on a self published clothing blog bursting with self portraits meant to show the extent of my own closet. Nor will I go into too much detail about just what makes and iGent. An in depth (and quite funny) description can be found here. Nor will I rant about the foolishness of such strict code adherence, as I've already done that here, here, and elsewhere on this blog. Instead, I will illustrate the horrors that can take place when the imaginary world the iGent inhabits overlaps too much with the real one where everyone else lives [it goes on to describe the DIY addition of a 3rd button to make an Andover Shop 2-button closure into a 3/2]......He did this not because he was a man of style, but a copy cat merely regurgitating the things he'd seen on the screen......There is a wealth of information and knowledge at our fingertips these days, and it's a wonderful thing, but we need to be careful with it. You may think that by dressing well you are setting yourself apart in some way from the mindless masses dressed in logo sweatshirt and cheap sneakers, and you'd be right. But if you are foolish enough to advertise so obviously as this, at least to those who know, that you really are only doing what the internet told you, then you really aren't any different. It would of course be nothing short of hypocrisy for me to say "Don't be an iGent", have a good time and take it in stride. Just, you know, don't be an iGent.

--------
next, an insider's take on iGents from the "source" himself - clearly a pejorative term but also tongue and cheekly calling himself the iGent - followed by 18 pages of discussions

The Official iGent Handbook

Manton: There's a lot of confusion about this, and I wanted to see if i could clear some of it up. It will no doubt take more than one post and I welcome others to weigh in as necessary.

Rather than provide an all-ecompassing definition, which in the past has proved difficult, I thought I would just run through some of the touchstones.

First, the shoulders. This is the iGent's ne plus ultra characteristic. There can be no padding. A little extension is fine, as is no extension. Drape in the chest (highlighed) is essential.

Note the knit tie. Another hallmark of the iGent is succumbing to groupthink. Also, a classic square from H&H (unicorns), with a border. Nothing newfangled, ever, for the iGent. Note also the texture mixing (silk tie, wool square) and the fact that the square matches nothing, espeically not the tie, but picks up a little of everything.

iGents also wear coats with high buttoning points. And the preferred stance is 3 roll 2. Not the top buttonhole (highlighted). Note also the patch breast pocket (optional) with a swelled edge (mandatary for patch pockets).

iGents cannot leave the house without wearing something from Napoli. It's like going out with no green on St. Patrick's Day. Except instead of getting pinched, your iGent card will be revoked. In this case the trousers (Ambrosi) and the tie (Buonnano) are from Naples. Extra points if at least one item is not from one of the more recognized Neapolitan brands.

iGents also, whenever possible, wear bandaid-colored shoes. This is not always possible. But when it is, and an iGent fails to wear them, he goes on iGent probation.

There's a lot more to it than this, but that is a basic primer that should kick off the discussion.
 
Jesus, I knew you were fucked up, but I didn't know it was THIS bad.

jajajajajja, look deep inside me, past my SpanishSleeves, past my tacky placket, beyond my Caccaruti vintage thirst, and see my deep narcissism and my high crimes. my heart is a dark room of disease, jajajajja. i am to be studied on psicologica class. i am worse than cheese on the market on Napoli i am lower than a morroquian and smell worse than a burning riot tire. see me. feel me. touch me. heal me.
 
The extent to which people dress for themselves and for an audience is a different question than the extent to which their audience is online or in real life. I mostly dress for myself. I've always been happiest with blue jackets. Though I almost got a 0520 fresco despite having a jacket in almost an identical blue. I resisted.

Never really thought about people looking at a person's wardrobe as a whole. I mean, I understand getting tired of seeing a bunch of people in blue jackets. Or brown shoes. Or green ties. That makes the thread dull. But to tire of an individual is interesting. I don't think my blue saturates WAYWRN. Anyway, even I am now growing tired of the blue. Going to get that green and then a third brown.


Why wouldn't you judge a person's style by his wardrobe as a whole? Here's what search for "claghorn waywrn" comes up with and at least four of the non-blue aren't even you. You think this collage isn't representative of what people you see irl every day think of if they were to think of you? On a visual level this is worse than eating a root vegetable every day, Monday rutabaga, Tuesday pink top turnip, Wednesday parsnip, Thursday kohlrabi, Friday daikon. One week of it would be a culinary novelty, but to repeat it every week would be culinary hell for me.

chorn.jpg
 
Who the fuck is manton? Is this a split personality of Sarfto?
Manton is the author of a book about the evolution and anatomy of the suit, and is Foo's mentor, role model, muse and wankfriend.
Wrote the book under the name Nicholas Antongiavanni, a pseudonym to gain street cred with the IGents, or the real name?
 
Last edited:
Manton is the author of a book about the evolution and anatomy of the suit, and is Foo's mentor, role model, muse and wankfriend.
Wrote the book under the name Nicholas Antongiavanni, a pseudonym to gain street cred with the IGents, or the real name?

Michael Anton
 
Why wouldn't you judge a person's style by his wardrobe as a whole? Here's what search for "claghorn waywrn" comes up with and at least four of the non-blue aren't even you. You think this collage isn't representative of what people you see irl every day think of if they were to think of you? On a visual level this is worse than eating a root vegetable every day, Monday rutabaga, Tuesday pink top turnip, Wednesday parsnip, Thursday kohlrabi, Friday daikon. One week of it would be a culinary novelty, but to repeat it every week would be culinary hell for me.

View attachment 6174

Oh, if you are judging a wardrobe, then yes, you should judge as a whole (and my verdict would be, at best, dull). But it seemed as if you were talking about audience experience (they are bored). I don't think most people's experience is of a single person's wardrobe (this may not be true for Instagram and Tumblr) but of a spectrum of posters on WAYWRN. I doubt if anyone just views all of my fits at once for the sole purpose of appreciating/criticizing them. So my blue jackets are interspersed between 5-20 other fits, some may be blue and some may be otherwise. The removal of a blue jacket from that selection is unlikely to make a difference in terms of interest in that selection. For example, Braddock generally is wearing the same three jackets these days (a green, that navy windowpane, and I want to say something else). If it were a bunch of those three in a row, then yes, I'd get bored. But it isn't. There are any number of fits in between, so I don't get bored.

To extend it to your analogy, you aren't just eating a root vegetable every day (unless mine is the only fit you view). As far as me (if by eating you meant wearing), I am absolutely the kind of guy who will eat the exact same meal at any given restaurant because it's my favorite meal there. There might be different side dishes, but if I know my favorite dish at Rambo's Good Time Healthfood is their ginger-peanut chicken salad, I am happy going there twice a week and ordering just that (replace that with an actual restaurant, same dish, and this is true of me for about three years). Culinary hell for you. Relaxation for me. Different strokes.

But back to the audience. It probably just depends on the extent to which the audience involves the user in their viewing experience. I don't think who is wearing what factors heavily, or at all, in my experience. A blue jacket is a blue jacket, regardless of who is wearing it. An eight pattern bingo is an eight pattern bingo, regardless of who is wearing it (and I'll dislike it regardless of whether it is AAS, Timotune, or some neophyte fresh from AAAC). But I guess that isn't universal. I suppose I see everything as internally contained. It is interesting that others don't.

The question gets far more interesting when you bring in IRL folks as they aren't exposed to the...buffet...of looks online. But they also care a whole lot less about clothing than any of us. If they were to think of me, they'd think of me in a blue jacket. I can't imagine it is any different from a person who wears gray and navy suits all the time. In the end, it isn't something I worry about (which is not to say it isn't something I love discussing...clearly I do ^_^).

For what it's worth, my wife isn't so much bored of blue jackets as she is exasperated with the idea of spending more money on something which essentially looks identical to something I already have.

Manton is the author of a book about the evolution and anatomy of the suit, and is Foo's mentor, role model, muse and wankfriend.
Wrote the book under the name Nicholas Antongiavanni, a pseudonym to gain street cred with the IGents, or the real name?

More likely to gain street cred with the political science nerds. I believe the book is a "if Machiavelli wrote a book on menswear" type thing.
 
That collage was the very first time I saw 'all' of your fits at one time. I've followed SF for couple years now my 'experience' is definitely of individuals, I don't view everyone on SF like a collective bee hive, however some act as such. When you mention AAS, bingo, strange pairings, and childish colors are the only things that come to mind. I don't care if the five previous and following posters have no patterns at all. AAS posts a fit and I've been well sick of it.

You could take a poll on SF and ask whether people judge a person's fit within the context of the individual's wardrobe or the fits posted by others before and after.
 
I am surprised at all this interest in Manton. Is he even active in any of the "fora" these days? He departed from AAAC years ago, and I really haven't seen his postings in SF for a good long while. I very much doubt he'd be posting in FNB. London Lounge, maybe?
 
I last saw Manton on SF in the context of cooking (a while ago, I haven't visited the place in ages), which leads me to comment that I always see iGent as someone with shallow knowledge and flashy tendencies. That is, someone who believes that clothes make the man, and nothing else really matters.

By that yardstick, I see Manton as anti-iGent as it gets. His knowledge and life experiences run varied and deep, and he's been more than willing to share his knowledge with me and help me become a slightly-less-hapless would-be-world-dictator. As best I can tell, clothing is a utilitarian and academic pursuit for him, set in the greater context of career. There is such a thing as being too dandy in some areas / industries, and he's wise enough to avoid the negative connotation.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom