It's about time we define "fedora"

[Rat Pack]

Don't use ebay's description to guide you, here is a Vintage Leopard print fur FEDORA wide Brim dress HAT

 

[Undertow]

I think the issue of whether a particular hat could be a fedora is moot... An open crown hat with snap brim, etc. is NOT a fedora until it is given a crease that completes the fedora look...

Now here's an idea! Perhaps we should really focus on the "fedora" look!

Maybe it's too hard to nail down a definition of the hat because there are so many exceptions and gray areas. But what if, instead, we focused on a style, or "look"?

That means we could include things like straws and wools, without getting too technical?

 

[danofarlington]

Don't use ebay's description to guide you, here is a Vintage Leopard print fur FEDORA wide Brim dress HAT

That's just like mine!

 

[BanjoMerlin]

Now here's an idea! Perhaps we should really focus on the "fedora" look!

Maybe it's too hard to nail down a definition of the hat because there are so many exceptions and gray areas. But what if, instead, we focused on a style, or "look"?

That means we could include things like straws and wools, without getting too technical?

Exactly. It is the appearance that makes a hat a fedora, not the material or construction. The material and construction details are what determines the quality.

 

[mayserwegener]

I think the most important thing that was discovered (by RLK) was the original (late 19th early 20th Century) look of a men's Fedora hat.

 

[DOUGLAS]

Great reading gents! Thanks.

 

[rlk]

For any who doubt the significance of the Center Crease in defining the Fedora Style check out this recently resurrected Thread:
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=21548

 

[kaosharper1]

Now here's an idea! Perhaps we should really focus on the "fedora" look!

Maybe it's too hard to nail down a definition of the hat because there are so many exceptions and gray areas. But what if, instead, we focused on a style, or "look"?

That means we could include things like straws and wools, without getting too technical?

Shows you what happens in a thread. Back on page 2 we Brad and I were talking about "fedora" being a style. I still think that's the way to look at it. But that seemed to get lost in here.

 

[Undertow]

Shows you what happens in a thread. Back on page 2 we Brad and I were talking about "fedora" being a style. I still think that's the way to look at it. But that seemed to get lost in here.

lol Ain't that the truth!

 

[mayserwegener]

For any who doubt the significance of the Center Crease in defining the Fedora Style check out this recently resurrected Thread:
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=21548

+1 Fantastic Center Creases on display! :eusa_clap

 

[Feraud]

If the term fedora is fluid then a current definition may be unfit for the Lounge crowd.

I typed the word in Google and this was the first retail image I got -

On sale at Amazon for $8.49, "classic Johnny Depp black fedora hat".

 

[John in Covina]

I think that the concept of a fedora has changed since the early description listed previously. The majority of people would not consider a center dent as a make or break item. Over time the various crown set ups develope diamond, c-crown, telescopic are a few. It seems a bit hard and fast considering those styles as taking what could be a fedora out of the fedora line up.

As an insight to my view let's do an analogy: Say that an "early" definition of automobile might have something about coachwork being only done in wood. Under that definition steel coachwork, unibody and composites would not then be considered automobiles. Then we'd have a situation where 99% of people recognize current production as automobiles and 1% is saying no they are not automobiles.

 

[mayserwegener]

Regardless based on historical fact it was the defining characteristic.

 

[John in Covina]

Based on historical fact arsenic was a treatment for some sexually transmitted dieases, but that might not be relavant today.

 

[rlk]

I think that the concept of a fedora has changed since the early description listed previously. The majority of people would not consider a center dent as a make or break item. Over time the various crown set ups develope diamond, c-crown, telescopic are a few. It seems a bit hard and fast considering those styles as taking what could be a fedora out of the fedora line up.

As an insight to my view let's do an analogy: Say that an "early" definition of automobile might have something about coachwork being only done in wood. Under that definition steel coachwork, unibody and composites would not then be considered automobiles. Then we'd have a situation where 99% of people recognize current production as automobiles and 1% is saying no they are not automobiles.

These is why you want the minimum of specifics but enough to exclude most things that are not your intended target. Automobiles still are motor driven vehicles(usually 4-wheels,but numbers and interface with the surface occasionally vary) poor analogy. I think most would consider motor,wheels and some body make or break for an automobile. Something needs to separate it from a wagon or sled. Telescopes pre-exist the Center crease, and this was its defining style characteristic(1900 Army Manuals refer to the official "Fedora Crease"). While styles loosen up over time, they are not fundamentally transformed because some don't know any better. Note that I made an allowance for Porkpies in common modern (mis)perception.

Feraud's Amazon "Depp" hat above has all the defining characteristics of a Fedora -style hat without any conflicts. No problem for me. Definition is not a popularity contest or "what I like".

 

[mayserwegener]

Based on historical fact arsenic was a treatment for some sexually transmitted dieases, but that might not be relavant today.

LOL!

 

[tonyb]

... Definition is not a popularity contest ...

Like it or not, popular usage trumps.

There are many usages gaining popularity that to my ears are like fingernails on a chalkboard ("reticent" for "reluctant," for instance, or "sketchy" for "sleazy"), but my railing against it won't stop it.

 

[rlk]

Like it or not, popular usage trumps.

There are many usages gaining popularity that to my ears are like fingernails on a chalkboard ("reticent" for "reluctant," for instance, or "sketchy" for "sleazy"), but my railing against it won't stop it.

Remains a transient incorrect popular usage until it becomes a long-term transformation. Becoming more common doesn't necessarily make them correct or negate the proper language. This is why weighty Dictionaries have dated examples(these wouldn't yet qualify) but don't jettison the fundamental origins. Object(or style thereof) definitions are somewhat less fluid than general expressions but this is way beyond this thread which has ceased to be productive.
A definition needs to have some confining parameters- we do the best we can and can't achieve perfection or please everyone. Change the borders and more undesirables may be included or friends left out. Every field of specialization has its definitions and we wouldn't expect them to be made by a poll or inquiry of those outside of that field. If I don't know what a hat is I certainly can;t identify a Fedora. If I know what a hat is but don't know anything about the history of hat styles, how do I have any basis to specify what it is? I can't accurately define something I don't have a thorough knowledge of. Having seen a picture or overheard a conversation is hardly expertise. There is a circular problem. I can't tell if a hat is a Fedora unless I already know what the meaning of that term is.

 

[tonyb]

Such is the way of a living language, sirs, or dudes.

Etymology is fun, often, or at least interesting. (I gotta wonder how long it will be until most speakers of American English are utterly unaware of the definition of "dude" as people of my age first learned it.)

Me, I'm generally more of a stickler than most. The beauty of a huge lexicon, such as that of our language, is that there are better and worse words. "No true synonyms," it's been said. Subtle differences in meaning, but still differences that matter. Sometimes digging into a word's origins illuminates those differences.

 

[rlk]

To beat the broken skeleton of a decomposed horse...

Analogy:
I like trees and forests and even know that there are Coniferous and Deciduous Trees. There are only a few species that I'm familiar with however, maybe a Pine and a Spruce and a Maple and an Oak. I have no specialized scientific education. Now I go into another forest where there are lots of different species of trees though they are superficially similar. Can I identify all of the specific species correctly? I go to the West. I've seen a lot of Pines, can I now tell you which tree is a Hemlock, Douglas Fir, Sequoia, etc. etc. or an Aspen, Birch or Poplar? I'm not going to be able to write a Field Guide. All those things with needles are only evergreens to me even though I'm a real Tree Hugger.

This is exaggerated for effect, but illustrates why just because a lot of hats are classified by a lot of people as Fedoras, that doesn't make for an effective (or correct)definition. "I know one when I see one" only works if you know enough before you begin to look.