Is Hat Ettiquette Obsolete?

[Mr Oldschool]

Shadomega, a belated welcome to the Lounge from across the pond.
I think you're putting it rather well, the point you're trying to convey. It really is more of a philosophical question, it seems.

On the one hand, we wish to dress properly following standards that have long been neglected by the majority, although never disappearing entirely, and which are also constantly being twisted by the quirks of fashion.

On the other hand, we find ourselves in a society - or societies, and groups within societies etc. etc. - where different people react in very different ways when being confronted with someone who dresses classical with hat and all, sometimes in a manner that may be surprising from the viewpoint of those who follow these standards. The reactions are not necessarily according to the original intention of the well-dressed man, those being self-respect and respect towards others, among other things.

Considering that our way of dressing unfortunately does not always come across the way we intend to, what, then, constitutes proper dress* in our day, given a traditionalist point of view that the "old standard" should be honored?
*Proper dress meaning to include the behaviour that goes with it, like the topic of etiquette as discussed.

I think it's a riddle that can only be solved in practice. The thinking machine rather seems to hinder the solution.

Would that be part of your point?


On a side note, I think it's natural that this is thread a bit a of a hot topic. Don't worry. After all, we are a little passionate about wearing hats.

Thanks for the welcome! I've visited England and France once, and look forward to bringing my kids over sometime in the future. I appreciate your feedback about my ramblings. I keep finding myself lost in the middle of my typing, so I'm never quite sure how clear I'm being. I also often forget the reason why I walk into a room, but that's beside the point... Yes, I think you have my point correct. What we wear, and how we manage our appearance is an extension of something of our personality. The hat I wear, the jacket, tie, shoes, etc. all are chosen by me to reflect me, my sense of aesthetics yes, but also something deeper. I actually would say that I was a nerd in school, but not in the more traditional sense, just that I didn't have a large circle of friends, and not only was unpopular, but had a fair amount of people who actively looked down on me for being poor and weird. I liked science and sci-fi, continued watching cartoons longer than my peers, and wasn't exceptionally athletic, although I had a couple sports I did well enough at. The majority of my peers were wealthy and multi sport athletic, so I didn't fit in. Anyway, back to the point, I wore a fedora in middle school and high school at a time when nobody wore them, and was ridiculed for it then. I always wanted to try to fit in, but my sense of what looked cool was completely out of sync with everyone else. I would occasionally wear something that would get a compliment here or there, but mostly people treated me like I was a dork for being different. Many years later, I am still different from most of my peers, but I have learned to appreciate my own peculiarities. I recognize that I am ecclectic, and I'm okay with that. What's funny is that now, I actually avoid some things simply because they're popular, particularly with regards to music and movies. I find that what appeals to the masses does not appeal to me, and the way things are marketed when they are popular I often find offensive (i.e. "Come see what everyone is talking about"). It's a backhanded putdown trying to make people think that they're out of the loop. Since they start that sort of push rather early in the game, it also seems patently false to me. Make something popular by telling everyone it's popular. And the sheep come running... Okay, that was a bit of a digression! It's so easy to get off topic for me.

 

[HudsonHawk]

If that's the case, the word "you" is not grammatically or syntactically correct to begin with.

"You" is both singular and plural pronoun. It can be used to refer directly to the person being addressed, as in "you are my favorite poster at Fedora Lounge"; refer to a group of individuals to which the person being addressed belongs, as in "you fedora wearers sure look good in them"; or in general reference to any person or group of persons, not particularly the person be addressed, as in "after wearing a hat for so long, you start to feel naked without it".

It's entirely correct in the way I used it, both grammatically and syntactically.

This is akin to me asking you who won the World Series last year and you telling me who won it in 1926, and further claiming who won it in 1926 is somehow an answer to who won last year. It makes absolutely no sense.

No, it's akin to you saying that "last year's World Series winner was the first to have to win more Series games than the previous winner", suggesting that they somehow had it more difficult than anyone else ever has, and then me pointing out that prior winners, but not the immediately preceeding winner, had to win the same number of games. It's disingenuine at best.

Again, if you're not referring to me, don't use the word "you."

Again, "you" has multiple uses. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but I will be more careful in the future.

Stating that upward mobility in the US in the 21st century is lower than it was in the post war period is not a "projection" as such. Moreover, as milliedog pointed out, historical analysis have demonstrated that socio-economic mobility in the U.S. is lower than many developed nations. This is NOT a projection or a prediction, this is a historical analysis of age cohorts. A broad analysis of the decades between 1940-2000 (PDF) concludes: "...our estimator places greater weight on birth location effects than the standard intergenerational coefficient, evidence suggests that the size of the bias is small and unlikely to account for the sharp change
since 1980. The recent decline in mobility is only partially explained by education. Our preferred set of results suggest that the rate at which earnings are regressing to the mean is slower now than at any time in the post World War II period causing economic differences between families to pe rsist longer than they had mid-century."

I cannot open the link you provided, as my employer has blocked it as NSFW. I'm not sure why, it doesn't appear particularly inappropriate.

While I don't doubt the authenticity of your life experience, the fact that you have achieved the Horatio Alger myth is not evidence that the statistical data is untrue.

The data *are* untrue. "Data" is plural. If we're going to pick grammatical nits, let's get 'em all.

 

[fashion frank]

Yea what he said !

Shadomega, a belated welcome to the Lounge from across the pond.
I think you're putting it rather well, the point you're trying to convey. It really is more of a philosophical question, it seems.

On the one hand, we wish to dress properly following standards that have long been neglected by the majority, although never disappearing entirely,


where different people react in very different ways when being confronted with someone who dresses classical with hat and all, sometimes in a manner that may be surprising from the viewpoint of those who follow these standards. The reactions are not necessarily according to the original intention of the well-dressed man, those being self-respect and respect towards others, among other things.

Considering that our way of dressing unfortunately does not always come across the way we intend to, what, then, constitutes proper dress* in our day, given a traditionalist point of view that the "old standard" should be honored?

*Proper dress meaning to include the behaviour that goes with it, like the topic of etiquette as discussed.

Man you are a freaking mind reader ,because thats just how I look at !

I dress as you pointed out so well ,as to what consistitutes "proper dress" suit ,polished shoes ,hat ,overcoat
BUT ONLY BECAUSE I CHOOSE TO just as I choose to follow "good manners" in regards to taking off my cover ( being in the military also gives you a different viewpoint on headwear and when to doff it ) when I should tip my hat to a lady, just like holding a door for anyone lady or not etc.etc.etc. and again I do it because I try to have "class " something that is lost on alot of people today.

As you also stated proper dress goes hand in hand with proper behaviour which to me spells "class" plain and simple.

As they say Rabbit manI like your style ! :eusa_clap

All the Best ,fashion Frank

 

[DJH]

Hmm, that is interesting. I guess, strictly speaking "data" is the plural of "datum" (a single data point), so Mr. HH is quite correct.

Having said that "data are" never looks right to me and I'd always use "data is"

Anyway, the data are in (yep, doesn't look right at all!) and the hat etiquette is still dead

Oh, when I was at school in the UK, lots of teachers pronounced data as darta. That always seemed odd too!

 

[HudsonHawk]

Hmm, that is interesting. I guess, strictly speaking "data" is the plural of "datum" (a single data point), so Mr. HH is quite correct.

Having said that "data are" never looks right to me and I'd always use "data is"

Anyway, the data are in (yep, doesn't look right at all!) and the hat etiquette is still dead

Oh, when I was at school in the UK, lots of teachers pronounced data as darta. That always seemed odd too!

Actually, as I'm sure Jared will point out, while strictly speaking "data" is plural, both the singular and plural forms of "data are" and "data is" are commonly accepted, though it is by no means universal either way. Being the old-schooler I am, "data are" is one of my hot buttons, and I never miss a chance to push it.

Pronunciation is whole "nuther" ball of wax. Don't get me started on people who say "nucular"...

 

[Florida_Marlin]

I suppose if I wear a nice wide ribbon Knox from the 1940's, ( a sweet hat, BTW) with jeans, topsiders, and a collarless pullover shirt, I'm not properly dressed. Since I'm not properly dressed, I'm exempt from the proper dress and proper behavior code of the said, aforementioned time period. So,,the next topic to be considered, is it acceptable etiquette to wear a classic fedora with jeans, topsiders ( no socks, of course!) and what is quite possibly nothing more than a dyed black Tshirt.?

Wear your hats. Enjoy them. Life's too short to worry about it. Be kind and polite to people, with your hat on your head or in your hand, and people will appreciate you either way. If not, they're the one with the problem.

 

[jlee562]

"You" is both singular and plural pronoun. It can be used to refer directly to the person being addressed, as in "you are my favorite poster at Fedora Lounge"; refer to a group of individuals to which the person being addressed belongs, as in "you fedora wearers sure look good in them"; or in general reference to any person or group of persons, not particularly the person be addressed, as in "after wearing a hat for so long, you start to feel naked without it".

It's entirely correct in the way I used it, both grammatically and syntactically.

But for the fact that read in context, the only way it makes sense is as a singular pronoun in reference to me.

This is absurd. How you can make sweeping conclusions about what's going to happen in the next 50 years based on what you've seen in the last 3-5?

Read as a plural pronoun, this makes no sense. You are quite obviously directing your reply towards me. It is likewise nonsensical to claim that you are addressing a non-existent crowd of younger people, especially as you quote my post.

No, it's akin to you saying that "last year's World Series winner was the first to have to win more Series games than the previous winner", suggesting that they somehow had it more difficult than anyone else ever has, and then me pointing out that prior winners, but not the immediately preceeding winner, had to win the same number of games. It's disingenuine at best.

What's disingenuous is you not actually addressing why your statement is irrelevant, and instead trying to pick apart the analogy. If the question posed is: "is this generation worse off than the one that preceded it?" What the experience of the depression era was, is totally irrelevant. What part of the question does the experience of the depression era answer? It has NO relation to this the conditions of this generation, or the conditions of the previous generation. It is utterly and totally irrelevant. Just as it would be totally and utterly irrelevant even if I admitted to having written a bad analogy.

The way to compare DATA on inter-generational change, is not to skip generations for "historical context."

I cannot open the link you provided, as my employer has blocked it as NSFW. I'm not sure why, it doesn't appear particularly inappropriate.

Odd, it's a working paper from the Chicago Federal Reserve bank.

The data *are* untrue. "Data" is plural. If we're going to pick grammatical nits, let's get 'em all.

Then show that the data is not true. Prove your argument! I put my cards on the table, notwithstanding your problems with work filters. Upward mobility is down compared to the post-war era. It is therefore an entirely valid conclusion to state that a young person of the current generation has a worse chance of upward mobility than did a young person of the same age in the immediate post war era.

That is a conclusion supported by empirical data.

If you believe that data is false, and upward mobility is easier now, show it. Simply saying that the data is untrue means nothing.

If upward mobility is down/has been flat for thirty years, the young generation today has a student debt problem which is literally unprecedented in the history of the world, and the entire global population now perches on the edge of global climate change which going to bring unprecedented changes the world.

Now, the claim that the young always think they have it worse, may or may not be true. Even if it were, that it was true, does not actually mean that it can't also be objectively true (or likewise, false) that this generation "has it worse." The two are completely independent, and you seem to be conflating them.

 

[HudsonHawk]

But for the fact that read in context, the only way it makes sense is as a singular pronoun in reference to me.

Incorrect.

If you believe that data is false, and upward mobility is easier now, show it. Simply saying that the data is untrue means nothing.

"Those data are". And I never said upward mobility is easier now (nor did I say it was harder). I said the millenial generation is not the first one to think they will have it worse off than previous ones, and whether they actually will or not is a matter of perception. The rest of this is just blustering.

 

[jlee562]

Right...ok. so that post wasn't a reply to mine. Yah, that's the ticket.

You said the data was false. Demonstrate how it is.

As I said before, there are objective metrics we can look at. From this, we can draw generalizations. I have given one example in measurements of upward mobility. That is not a matter of perception. There are generalizations which can be made, and can be true, whether or not you want them to, or accept as such.

You seemed to take issue with my assertion that this generation objectively is faced with a larger set of problems (be they economic, social, structural, or environmental), than did the previous.

It's all well and fine if you think that part of a trend. But don't claim the assertion to be false, without evidence, and then claim that you were only making an observation.

 

[Tomasso]

[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0[/video]

 

[HudsonHawk]

Right...ok. so that post wasn't a reply to mine. Yah, that's the ticket.

It was in reply to you, but it wasn't directed *at* you specifically, but rather at the larger group we were referencing. It was used in the plural sense. I've explained that.

You said the data was false. Demonstrate how it is.

I never said the data *were* false.

As I said before, there are objective metrics we can look at. From this, we can draw generalizations. I have given one example in measurements of upward mobility. That is not a matter of perception. There are generalizations which can be made, and can be true, whether or not you want them to, or accept as such.

And I've said the objective measurements are only proof if you accept them as an absolute indicator of future occurence. I reject that premise. That doesn't mean the data *are* false, it only means that they are indicative of a trend, not definitive.

You seemed to take issue with my assertion that this generation objectively is faced with a larger set of problems (be they economic, social, structural, or environmental), than did the previous.

Well, I do. But I haven't said that yet. I only taken issue with your assertion that the future is set in stone by virtue of some upward mobility statistic. And on a larger theme, I take issue with the assumption that "worse off than your parents" is on some sort of absolute scale. It's not. It's relavative and how bad that actually is is a matter of opinion/perception, which is why comparing it only to the previous 20 years is not only misleading, it's pointless.

Things like social and environmental issues are another day's argument.

 

[Edward]

I think you hit the nail on the head at my concern with attempting to follow reasonable ettiquette, my friend. Those would be the Neo-Ska types over on this side of the pond, and I definitely don't want to be taken for one of them, much less a dandy on any level.

I don't think we're quite the same thing as that at all (though the worst is people who think we're hipsters because some of our number sport facial hair. Fighting talk....). Dandy is an interesting label, though, in how the definition changes over time. Beau Brummell was the ultimate dandy in his era, and his particular sartorial rebellion was to take menswear away from being bright colours and eye-catching patterns towards sober, dark colours and matching jacket and trousers. In many respects he invented the "suit" as we know it, or at least the concept on which it is based. These days, whether we want to be or not, anyone who wears a suit regularly, who makes a significant effort not only to dress well, but to dress in ap articular style from another era most likely is inescapably a bit of a dandy in today's society. "Suits" were once the conformists, now they're the revolutionaries.

In terms of behaviour being affected, well, it either is or isn't. To some extent how we round here all dress is an affectation for today - we go out of our way to find these clothes which are not the current norm. It really is a style choice - if mere utility was what we wanted, there would be significantly easier and cheaper ways of achieving it. Beyond that, what is authenticity? What is genuine? If something feels uncomfortable or awkward, then possibly it will appear affected. If doffing or tipping your hat feels like that to you, then maybe it's just not your thing. [huh] Tht's the beauty of living today and "being vintage" - selective adoptation of the past becomes possible.

I abhor feminism as much as I do machismo.

In that case, I would respectfully suggest you do not understand it. This is, however, perhaps a discussion for elsewhere and another time.

"Feminism" no longer exists like it once did, as a radical, anti-capitalist, anti-human, anti-logic, anti-family ideology.

In truth, it never did. Again, however, perhaps a discussion best reserved for other places.

Jeez.....


All I wanted to do was wear a hat. [huh]

Quite.

 

[Seb Lucas]

This debate is tiresome and would be better conducted elsewhere. Nothing less fun than pedantry.

 

[HudsonHawk]

This debate is tiresome and would be better conducted elsewhere. Nothing less fun than pedantry.

You are not required to read it. It never ceases to amaze me how people complain about the quality of a conversation in which they claim to have no interest.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I'm here to read about hats not you guys and your amateur philosophy. That's why the thread has a specific title: hat etiquette and not personal opinion. The arguments are about as interesting as any first year college debate. It does involve me because I have to wade through the dross.

 

[HudsonHawk]

The arguments are about as interesting as any first year college debate.

Then by all means, feel free to ignore them.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I am but you're taking up space for hats.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I am but you're taking up space for hats.

Feel free to start a different thread.

 

[Seb Lucas]

No, that's your job since you are hogging this one with irrelevant posturing. I'm done complaint to be set to site bartenders.

 

[HudsonHawk]

No, that's your job since you are hogging this one with irrelevant posturing. I'm done complaint to be set to site bartenders.

Complaining is always easier.