Richard Warren
Practically Family
- Messages
- 682
- Location
- Bay City
W4ASZ said:This could be the breakthrough we've been looking for !
As posted by RLK sometime previously:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4810376620_458cba7b70_b.jpg
W4ASZ said:This could be the breakthrough we've been looking for !
DAJE said:..."Oh good, another endless and unwinnable internet debate, just what the world needs...
...Do you really think anyone gives a damn about the correct meaning of the word "Fedora"?
..."Fedora" in current real-world usage means: 1. those crappy polyester stingy-brimmed things that the "cool" kids are wearing, 2. any hat that people wore in the olden days that isn't a cowboy hat or a bowler/derby or a top hat.
donnc said:If we never get the numbers, at least it's enough to demonstrate that 1) fedoras have historically been wool felt, not only fur felt, and that 2) the selection of vintage hats displayed on the Fedora Lounge site probably isn't statistically representative.
Undertow said:I don't think a catalog represents this at all. A catalog, especially older varities, represents the projected offerings of a single company; i.e. what a company hoped would sell.
Certainly, a company such as Sears may have chanced wool felt fedoras, but it's just as likely the majority of material-conscious men didn't purchase the cheaper, lower quality wool felts.
Without FACTUAL statistics, BanjoMerlin's argument is pointless conjecture. [huh]
And of course, wool-felt fedoras have existed in the past, just as the tweed variety has, just as rabbit and beaver felts.
donnc said:If we never get the numbers, at least it's enough to demonstrate that 1) fedoras have historically been wool felt, not only fur felt, and that 2) the selection of vintage hats displayed on the Fedora Lounge site probably isn't statistically representative.
Richard Warren said:I seem to recall reading somewhere that the fedora got its name not from what the immortal Bernhardt wore, but from what the leading man in the Davenport production (Mantell?) wore.
Richard Warren said:As posted by RLK sometime previously:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4810376620_458cba7b70_b.jpg
Feraud said:That is incorrect logic. No one ever said fedoras were only fur felt.
Without the numbers we should assume nothing or assume whatever we want.
I may feel fedoras were made of newspaper but that doesn't make it so.
If someone states tweed fedoras outnumber felt then please prove it if asked.
To me, its materials and shape.
Felt, either beaver or rabbit.
jlee562 said:The factual accuracy of the statement...may be in dispute, but I think Banjo Merlin's essential point about the material (wool vs fur felt) not being the determining factor is cogent.
BanjoMerlin said:By pure numbers there were vastly more wool felt fedoras produced than fur felt and possibly more woven wool fedoras as well.
This topic is again showing that people want their own personal preference to define what a fedora is or is not.
jlee562 said:Even so, why belabor the point? If material is not in question, whether there were more wool felt hats than fur felt hats is irrelevant to the attempt to define a fedora.
Feraud said:Listen buddy I ain't playing this faulty logic game.
The proof (or lack of numbers proof) is in the catalog.
You were the one who made this outlandish assumption-
You go provide the proof to back up your assumptions made by looking at catalogs..
Show us the pure numbers you talked about that bear out your comment.
Agreed. Which is why I didn't make such assumptions on wool produced fedoras gleaned from catalog offerings.BanjoMerlin said:Assumptions are only required by those who haven't knowledge.
Not sure what part of my multiple askings for clarification on the numbers you claim should be categorized as a attack but it wasn't meant as such.BanjoMerlin said:Typical response when you don't have a leg to stand on. ATTACK!!!!
BanjoMerlin said:Typical response when you don't have a leg to stand on. ATTACK!!!!
Please, spend some time studying the buying habits of Americans in the early to mid 20th century so you will have at least a little bit of knowledge of the subject. Assumptions are only required by those who haven't knowledge.
Undertow said:I was addressing the following statements:
There were, are and always will be wool felts in relation to fur felts. I don't think anyone said there weren't. Previous posters have implied that in order to define a fedora, we only use fur (and exclude wool), however as this thread is a tentative conglomeration of ideas, there are bound to be differences from the outset.
I believe Banjo was correct in stating "people want their own personal preference to define what a fedora is or is not", but that's assumed - nothing is set in stone as of yet.
I took argument with his statement that wools vastly outnumbered felts. I'm also with Feraud that we should like to see factual statistics and examples of this claim.
Lefty said:Take it easy, guys, we're just talking about hats.
Also, remember that I'm not asking for the history of the term fedora - we have many threads on the subject, and one really great recent one. Obviously, whatever hat was worn in the play is not the sole form of a fedora, and probably isn't near what we'd consider a fedora today. As rlk's recent thread pointed out, the term itself is hardly ever used in hat ads or industry literature. Where it does appear in ads, the hat it refers to doesn't look much like the 40s snap brims we commonly associate with the term.
We can certainly play with the meaning of a term that seems to have never had any hard and fast definition, and has barely even been used by the industry itself.