A Glance Back at a Glance Back - Towards 2001 (1971) from the Old Forum (2013)

[Schneiderfrei]

Here's an interesting forum presentation by Sator on the Cutter and Tailor.

I was reminding myself how to navigate the Wayback machine - Very difficult.

I hope this is of some interest, its a discussion on the Tailor and Cutter magazine from 1971 - an attempt at divination from that time to 2001. Must have been very topical then.I will quote Satorand post the images up in the order they appeared.



"In the March 26th, 1971 issue of The Tailor and Cutter, there appeared a transcript of discussion by several industry people asking what the state of the tailoring industry would be like in 2001. Of the personalities in the discussion, one will be known to all and sundry - Tommy Nutter. However, the most cutting comments actually come not from him but from Eric Joy, a bespoke tailor with a firm on Old Burlington Street, and Karl Dallas, a fashion consultant for The Tailor and Cutter. What a pity they didn't invite along the chief technical editor of the journal - Archibald Whife. There seems to be very strong tension in the discussion between fleeting fashion and classical style in men's dress. Nutter, interestingly actually stresses his relationship to classical tailoring, rather than his radicality.

Here, I thought were the most insightful moments, sometimes prophetic of what was to come."

However, the thing that they didn't really count on was the internet. The internet has really stirred a profound awareness of the fact that most over advertised fashions are little more than plastic gimmicks - often made in China, except with Made in Italy labels affixed to them. Most of the men's fashion labels are based on women's models of built in instant obsolescence and disposability. With this awareness has come a renewed yearning for genuine quality based on traditional artisanal tailoring methods. Between 1971 and now there has been so much water under the fashion bridge, yet that classic two or three button lounge remains an absolute classic. Now people want that coat that has been cut, with very little change, off something straight off a 1950s Tailor and Cutter pattern from Whife, or a classic 1960s Rundschau. Today we look at the dodgy fashion experiments of the 1970s (and 80s and 90s), in now obsolete "space age"synthetics such as Terylene with little more than laughter and ridicule:

The full article is as follows:

[Gerry]

That's a great article. Thanks for posting that Schneiderfrei!

I recently read the biogs of Mary Quant and Barbara Hulanicki. Fashion was a relatively new concept in the late '50s and early '60s and not even its originators understood how it worked. The aforementioned (along with all other boutique owners of the '60s) changed their collections every week or fortnight. They naively thought that they'd lose their customers if they sold the same garments for a few weeks straight.

We know differently now, of course. Designers produce 'seasons' and the pace of change is subsequently slower. However, that generation - despite producing some amazing, beautiful and in some cases classic designs - has a lot to answer for. It invented mass consumerism in the clothing industry, and created needless waste. In all fairness, Quant and Hulanicki focused on producing quality garments, but their competitors (Menswear producers included) churned out crap that was only meant to last a week or two - the period of time that it was in fashion. This change in behaviour must have (and quite clearly did) baffle traditional tailors. The article is an interesting snap shot, in that respect.

Fashion amongst the current youth is almost non existent. They just want to wear generic clothing and blend in. Gone are the individualists of yore. In some ways that's a good thing. There does seem renewed interest in sustainability, durability and classic style. It can be a little characterless though. The last 'look' that was prevalent in the UK was that of "the hipster". Frankly, we could have done without it. Things are looking up for bespoke though.

PS Tommy Nutter's biog is worth a read. Not riveting or anything, but if you have an interest in tailoring definitely worth a visit.

[Schneiderfrei]

Great observations Gerry.

What a fermenting time it was, music, art, fashion, this was the inverntion of the modern world.

But now, just as you say conformism is the go.  My own sons are addicted to conformism.

G

[Greger]

Don't think they had the best conversation about the future. But an interesting read.

[Schneiderfrei]

Yes gregger, they are, some of them, a bit 'Nuttey', but it is interesting to read how "Seat of the pants" operations they ran back then.

[Hendrick]

I was too young to really grasp all of this but I love the period stylewise. Trends were going at lightspeed and style was far more personal then as opposed to these days. But I think that these days going for the sartorial is a means to escape fast fashion, streetwear and the like and maybe that customer is on the search for style instead of fashion. I personally have always been impressed by how the makers of those days were able to perfectly sense the moods of the moment into  infinitly cool garments but perfectly executed and with only tradional tools at their disposition. So actually I much enjoyed your post Schneiderfrei and, franly, where would Guccy be today without the likes of Nutter...

[Schneiderfrei]

I know, Nutter stands out, because of his gaudy extravagance, buy I had never heard of some of those guys.

I am amazed by the simplicity of their thought.  Especially Nutter, "I'll just make what I like and see how it goes." It's brave, for sure.  I wonder how many modern designers are like that?

[Gerry]

I am amazed by the simplicity of their thought.  Especially Nutter, "I'll just make what I like and see how it goes." It's brave, for sure.  I wonder how many modern designers are like that?

I think it was Paypal founder Peter Thiel, in his book Zero to One, who noted that the '60s generation didn't plan. They didn't feel the need to because everything sort of went their way (and for many has continued in that vein). Opportunities were just there.

Nowadays, that lack of planning just seems nuts. Back then, though, the young had the opportunity to be creative. Full employment, disposable income, and they didn't have much (or as much) to lose.

Nutter was useless with money. He had no mind for business and (like others of that generation) lost his name in the end. I was watching a documentary about Radio Caroline the other night. The founder, the late Ronan O'Rahilly (a very sharp dressed guy), was the same. Like Nutter, he had good intuition and knew exactly what was needed at that moment in time; but his company leeched money from day one, until eventually an elder statesman took it over. Needless to say the station then lost its direction, and at least one of the founding visionaries was immediately sacked.

[Greger]

Don't remember what it was called, a selling method. The hippie generation watched the Mickey Mouse Club. The ones who watched it were a group that advertises could take advantage of, and did. The hippies didn't want to be part of the suit and tie culture. They also didn't pass the info down to their children and grandchildren. These younger people are clueless and making things up, and their research isn't much better. The hippie generation was easy to mobilize. Whereas before the depression was not a spendy time. Fashions need money. There are so many different groups for children that it is hard to make fashions for. When there was one fashion to make in the seventies now there is five-ten? More? When reading old tailor publications the words "popular now" shows up. And other ways of saying that.  What are clothes about? Something to talk about? Cultural ever changing interest? How many other definitions of Art can you add. You need to push the ones that are prevalent for the here and now to be relevant. Fashions and styles are about what interest people now that are connected to other interesting things now.  Nothing last long this way. Not even styles. If something last five years or longer that is style. Less than five years is fashion. If from a tailor it should be the high end of the art. Tailors can personalize fashions and styles and other types of clothing considerably more than buying off the rack or mtm.
Before mass production tailors made fashions. Who else could make them? If you go back to Henry Poole (Savil Row tailor) read that he had three shops.  The SR location was for kings, Dukes, Earles, emperors, and other wealthy people.  Another shop was for the middle class. The other shop was for those interested in fashions (younger people and, these would be wealthy). Some tailors won't have three or more different locations. To seperate people they used different doors (many wealthy men don't want to be around pesky children). Because of mass production even the poor can buy a few fashions. Before then, only the wealthy. If tailors today still made fashions the wealthy young could have amazing fashions. I'm not talking about the cuckoo catwalk garbage. It is sad that Savil Row tailors are not trained in all parts of tailoring. They don't have to make it. My opinion, if you are going to be a tailor, you should have knowledge about all parts of it. Their have been plenty of tailors who didn't want to live in the big cities, so they made everything.
Michael Alden, you might have read his stuff, got manipulated by the fashion people, so he doesn't look at fashions as fun and art. He still has the manipulated perspective. Mom said, be careful what you feed your mind with. More than a hundred years ago tailor and cutter was telling tailors that tailors make horse riding clothes, ski clothes, and other clothing. Not just suits. But, everything a man wears.
This 20 years style of skinny clothing has been around far too long. When I was much younger styles lasted maybe ten years. You could look at the bum  and his pants were from the 60s. Coat from the 50s. Overcoat from the 40s. Some people bought into the classic style.
There were also business suits. Fashions suits. How many younger men were sent home to change clothes.  There was always that battle.
Leisure clothes are often fashions. So many younger guys today look at the past and are clearly unaware of the difference between fashion and style.