It's about time we define "fedora"

[tonyb]

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.

Hats ain't trees. Trees are of a particular species by nature, not by human definition. Gotta do the reproduction thing, etc. A hemlock knows hemlock pollen from spruce pollen, whether we do or not, or no matter what we call it.

It doesn't work quite the same way with things of human manufacture, such as hats. What is or is not a member of that particular category of hats called "fedora" is entirely up to the speakers of the language. Some (such as many of us here) will have a more refined understanding, for sure, but we don't get to decide for everybody else.

 

[Lefty]

Change the borders and more undesirables may be included or friends left out.

This is a great discussion thread, productive or not. For all of the great insights here, the quote above is my favorite, even though it's somewhat frightening in its many possible applications. :eusa_clap

 

[danofarlington]

This is a great discussion thread, productive or not. For all of the great insights here, the quote above is my favorite, even though it's somewhat frightening in its many possible applications. :eusa_clap

But that leaves out my favorite Napoleon hat.

 

[BanjoMerlin]

A fedora is a fedora. It might not be anything you would want to own but it is none the less a fedora. (May I suggest "FSO" (Fedora Shaped Object) to designate those hats that may appear to be a fedora but are, in fact, simple pieces of junk?)

So a "fedora" is a hat with a creased crown and ...

"Creased crown" eliminates bowlers.

There is historical evidence to indicate a homburg is a fedora although not all fedoras are homburgs. In that light, stingy-brim fedoras are fedoras but not all fedoras have stingy-brims. (Lots of these but I'm not gonna do 'em all.)

The brim definition is tough. A fedora is different than a "western" hat but is an Open Road a fedora? If a "western" hat has a 2 1/2" brim is it a fedora?

An somebody please tell me... Is an "Indy" hat a fedora?

 

[Richard Warren]

Before you define the word "fedora" you have to decide whether you are defining (1) a Platonic form or idea, or (2) a word used to describe the members of a group of similar physical objects, or (3) a member of the group objects, or (4) the perhaps transitory characteristics of a subset of the group of similar objects.

The more the definition tends to try to set out (4), it also perhaps unintentionally becomes (1).

 

[Neophyte]

(May I suggest "FSO" (Fedora Shaped Object) to designate those hats that may appear to be a fedora but are, in fact, simple pieces of junk?)

...is an Open Road a fedora?

...Is an "Indy" hat a fedora?

I believe I've seen faux-dora as a descriptor of your FSOs lol.

I was wondering about an OR fedora/? questions as well, as I have two Akubra Campdrafts in my collection so far...

I believe I've read somewhere that when searching for a hat for Indy, they desired a western/fedora/safari hybrid...

 

[Undertow]

Although I agree with RLK to some extent that we do have to try and be specific in our words, and it helps to have actual knowledge of hats, I agree with Banjo here.

As mentioned before, and as we're winding our way along, why not take two angles to get to one point?

1st, let's only define fedora inasmuch as a style (fluid), rather than a scientific (solid) definition. That seems to make more sense so far.
2nd, let's attempt to define what a fedora is not as thoroughly as possible. When we've determined that a fedora is not [x] in so many ways, we can then set in on what it is.

 

[Undertow]

So let's say this, a fedora (as a style) is not:
1. open crowned (if you're wearing it that way, it's just a hat)
2. cylindrical
3. brim over 3"
4. rolled brim
5. hard or overly-stiff
6. creased crown over 5" or under 3"
7. without a ribbon

Then we can say fedora is:
1. creased crown, typically center, teardrop, diamond
2. tapered
3. brim under 3"
4. flanged and snap-able brim
5. soft
6. creased crown under 5", but typically over 3"
7. with a ribbon of some matieral


Remember, this is the STYLE, not the science of a fedora.

 

[donnc]

Hats ain't trees.

That's for sure. Interesting analogy, though. Ever heard someone call any and all conifers "pine trees"? That happens enough to be somewhat common usage, but it's wrong anyway. A fir is not a pine, period. (And a Douglas fir is not a fir. Oh well.)

But what's a "cedar"? From a strict historical perspective, a "true" cedar is a Mediterranean native that most of us encounter as an ornamental street tree, in parks etc.; in various parts of the US, "cedar" might mean a type of juniper, here on the west coast it's several species with small flat leaves arranged in feathery plumes. No doubt in New Zealand and Australia it's something else altogether, but something with a relatively soft, aromatic, resinous, rot-resistant wood, like the various cedars in North America. So ... from a taxonomic point of view, a disorderly mess, but perfectly useful in context. If someone moved here from Texas, some explanation might be needed, but the last thing we need is someone to come around and notify us that our usage is historically incorrect. As long as we've been using it to mean what it means, that's all the history we really need.

Of course, with botanical nomenclature that's exactly how it works - Abies, Pseudotsuga, Thuja, these terms are reliably, rigorously defined - and the fact that it's possible to do that is, as you observe, evidence that hats ain't trees.

 

[Lefty]

Undertow,

I disagree with a lot of that.

I don't think brim width or crown height is relevant. A 2 foot crown on a fedora would be odd, but I don't think it would make a difference as to whether or not the hat is a fedora. The same goes for brim width. Though it seems funny, you'd never be able to say that a character on a sign is wearing a giant fedora, because the hat would have a brim over 3" and a very high crown. Of course, a 50' cowboy would still be wearing a cowboy hat, regardless of the brim and crown size.

The part about brim curl is difficult. I still don't know where I stand on that. These days, a curled brim on what we think of as a fedora is a rare thing, though it was the norm for hats called fedoras in the late 1800s up through the 20s.

The degree of stiffness is also hard (goodnight, folks!). Derbies are either a subset of fedoras or an entirely different type of hat. What might otherwise be considered a fedora, but loaded with stiffener, makes that distinction difficult if we allow for curled brims.

I don't think that a ribbon is necessary.

 

[Richard Warren]

(May I suggest "FSO" (Fedora Shaped Object) to designate those hats that may appear to be a fedora but are, in fact, simple pieces of junk?)

BanjoMerlin introduces the much more interesting subject of whether various currently manufactured objects are real hats, or mere simulacra. The references to historical usages suggest there are some seeking "authenticity."

Welcome to hyperreality.

(It also appears BanjoMerlin may have been handling sharp pointed objects.)

 

[donnc]

Before you define the word "fedora" you have to decide whether you are defining (1) a Platonic form or idea, or (2) a word used to describe the members of a group of similar physical objects, or (3) a member of the group objects, or (4) the perhaps transitory characteristics of a subset of the group of similar objects.

The more the definition tends to try to set out (4), it also perhaps unintentionally becomes (1).

I like this care with semantics, but I have to admit I don't understand the details. Maybe too telegraphic for some of us morons. Did you really mean to say "(3) a member of the group objects"? Didn't get that one at all, wouldn't every object be a member of that group? ... example?

If a subset of a group of similar objects has certain definitional characteristics, then it is per se a group of similar objects, right? Why does it need to be a subset of a larger group of similar objects? I mean, would "(4) the perhaps transitory characteristics of a group of similar objects" mean exactly the same thing? (And in which case is it just (2) with some extra commentary?)

Or maybe you could just expound on the Platonic form point, perhaps adding some commentary on the characteristic absurdity of Plato's philosophical propositions and the futility of trying to apply them to real life.

 

[Undertow]

I disagree with a lot of that...

I don't think brim width or crown height is relevant...
The part about brim curl is difficult...
The degree of stiffness is also hard (goodnight, folks!)...
I don't think that a ribbon is necessary.

I do understand your points, but what I'm saying is we have to nail this down one way or another. And if we're going to define it at all, we'll have to stick to one angle (style) or the other (science). Additionally, we can use history as a backbone, but we cannot rely on it for our definition because history has quite obviously changed.

I think style is really the easiest angle because it's fluid, and it allows for a little more conjecture. Moreover, it allows many of us to say, "I know one when I see one," while also allowing the scientists to say, "Well, yeah, that's a fedora more or less".

I know there are hats that look like fedoras without ribbons - but I don't believe those are the fedora style. Just like we can say, "That hard felt, open crown, semi-curled brim hat looks like a derby" - but it's not the fedora style.

A 24" crown on a hat would be odd - and would not be a fedora. It's like trying to decide between a sombrero and a derby; who's to say one is not the other without drawing some lines on style.

Notice how all of us have some idea of what a fedora is, and notice how hard it is for us to come to a simple resolution? Well that's just it, we're over-thinking this. Ask a 15yr old high school dropout, "Hey, dummy, what's a fedora?" And he'll point to the fedora style hat over the cowboy hat because there are stylistic differences. But try asking him to explain ribbon width, nap, brim size, crown height, etc.

So that's where our knoweldge pool comes in; namely, we can take the style approach, and further whittle things down with a few scientific facts. We have to set up some kind of structure from which to jump. We have to say, "A fedora is this, but not that" or else we will spin our wheels for another 10 pages.

 

[donnc]

A fedora is a fedora. It might not be anything you would want to own but it is none the less a fedora. (May I suggest "FSO" (Fedora Shaped Object) to designate those hats that may appear to be a fedora but are, in fact, simple pieces of junk?)

I think you may not. Where this kind of usage makes sense elsewhere, like "Trombone Shaped Object", the referent is supposed to not actually be a trombone for functional reasons that we implicitly recognize as definitional: you have to be able to use a trombone to play trombone music, or it isn't one. This would be at issue if the trombone had been cheaply but poorly made - shiny, but with questionable functionality.

In the hat case ... snobbery is fine, no one wants to de-legitimize that, but if a fedora is expected to have some unique functional characteristic over other types of hat, that's a new one here, and we would have to figure out exactly what it would be. Otherwise, a Fedora is exactly a Fedora Shaped Object, unless you want to claim it can't serve as a hat, which is a pretty low barrier.

 

[Lefty]

I do understand your points, but what I'm saying is we have to nail this down one way or another. And if we're going to define it at all, we'll have to stick to one angle (style) or the other (science). Additionally, we can use history as a backbone, but we cannot rely on it for our definition because history has quite obviously changed.

I'm with you. What we might be ignoring, that the rigid-definition argument has going for it, is that the fedoras at WalMart probably now control the definition.

On a different note, in Hat Talk, Debbie Henderson writes that soft felt hats were

"catapulted into the fashionably stylish category when in 1851 the Hungarian patriot, Lajos Kossuth, wore one while touring the United States and Engalnd at a time when the stiff topper was predominant. But Kossuth was certainly not the first to wear a felt hat of shaped rounded crown and wide felt brim."

She then notes the popularity of the plays Fedora and Trilby, and says,

"The now widely popular hat had a soft felt crown that could easily be creased lengthwise, while the brim could be flanged up or down or both, at will, by the wearer instead of the hatter, giving the individual more control over his appearance."

Similarly, she writes that a crusher is a variation of soft wool or fur felt,

"with a soft leather or grosgrain sweatband, it could easily be folded or 'crushed' for travel".

An 1897 Sears catalog, she writes, describes crushers as having

"flexible sweatbands, heavy satin lining, [and they] can be creased or not as desired."


All of this is from pages 75-76.


The use of "can" or "could" be "creased as desired" is interesting to me, suggesting that an open crown would be included in the definition of fedora - at least, back then.

 

[Richard Warren]

Or maybe you could just expound on the Platonic form point, perhaps adding some commentary on the characteristic absurdity of Plato's philosophical propositions and the futility of trying to apply them to real life.

I thought that was what I was doing.

 

[BanjoMerlin]

I think you may not. Where this kind of usage makes sense elsewhere, like "Trombone Shaped Object", the referent is supposed to not actually be a trombone for functional reasons that we implicitly recognize as definitional: you have to be able to use a trombone to play trombone music, or it isn't one. This would be at issue if the trombone had been cheaply but poorly made - shiny, but with questionable functionality.

In the hat case ... snobbery is fine, no one wants to de-legitimize that, but if a fedora is expected to have some unique functional characteristic over other types of hat, that's a new one here, and we would have to figure out exactly what it would be. Otherwise, a Fedora is exactly a Fedora Shaped Object, unless you want to claim it can't serve as a hat, which is a pretty low barrier.

Trombone Shaped Object is the term trombone folks use to describe an actual trombone that is a poor quality musical instrument but which is indeed a trombone and can be used to play music though it would not be a satisfying experience.

Is prefering a fedora of such quality that it will last more than 50 years over a cloth thing that will self destruct within a few months really snobbery or is it just good sense?

But well anyway, obviously the "sense of humor shaped object" line was doing well that day.

 

[BanjoMerlin]

"The now widely popular hat had a soft felt crown that could easily be creased lengthwise, while the brim could be flanged up or down or both, at will, by the wearer instead of the hatter, giving the individual more control over his appearance."

The use of "can" or "could" be "creased as desired" is interesting to me, suggesting that an open crown would be included in the definition of fedora - at least, back then.

I don't read it that way. The statement is in the past tense so to me the "could" goes with "by the wearer instead of the hatter" meaning the wearer could put the requisite lengthwise crease in himself.

In 1942 Stetson was advertising their "Three-way" hat ($8.50) as being designed to be worn Snap brim, Brim down all around or Brim up all around.

An open crown fedora with the brim snapped up all around would look like a bowler.

 

[Undertow]

An open crown fedora with the brim snapped up all around would look like a bowler.

I actually have a nice, medium-hair Stetson Imperial like this with a short 1 1/4" brim in tan. The crown is around 5" tall with a center crease and I didn't like the way it looked on me. So I opened it up and wore it like that.

It absolutely did not look like a fedora, and very much like a bowler. Someone even asked me if that's what it was. [huh]

 

[Lefty]

I don't read it that way. The statement is in the past tense so to me the "could" goes with "by the wearer instead of the hatter" meaning the wearer could put the requisite lengthwise crease in himself.

In 1942 Stetson was advertising their "Three-way" hat ($8.50) as being designed to be worn Snap brim, Brim down all around or Brim up all around.

An open crown fedora with the brim snapped up all around would look like a bowler.

I see where you're coming from, but you're trying to sneak that "requisite" party by, and I'm still not buying it.

While an open crown fedora might resemble a bowler, the distinction is clear to anyone who knows anything about hats. A bowler has a sharply curled, bound brim, nearly closing in on itself at the sides.