It's about time we define "fedora"

[BanjoMerlin]

Intended as a visually-based analogy regarding categorization and identification without knowledge. If you don't know you can't possibly do it.

That's what the "tree identification" books are for. Anyone with eyes can match the leaves and other characteristics of a particular tree to the photos in the book and come pretty close to identifying that tree.

So is a hat a tree and a fedora a particular type of hat (tree)? Or is a hat a plant and a fedora is a tree with many sub-variations? Or is a fedora a maple tree with many sub-variations? Or is a fedora a sugar maple tree (Acer saccharum) which is distinct from other types of maple tree (hat)?

 

[donnc]

Partially OK but many Cowboy Hats don't have Center Creases(Open Crown or Telescope, for example). When they have a Center Crease they might be Fedoras.

They are certainly not fedoras. Be serious.

Cf. "The Conversion Corral", which is about converting cowboy hats to what? Fedoras!

Where, by the way, a quick scan of the first couple pages suggest that the post-conversion crease is usually a C crown. I'm guessing that is not particularly saying that the C crown is preferred for fedoras, so much as that it's preferred for fedoras where the starting crown height is as high as it usually is in a western. What always happens is, they let the curl out of the brim. That's the difference, between a cowboy hat and a fedora, between a homburg and a fedora, etc., is the brim.

 

[mayserwegener]

Cowboy / Western hats can have a Fedora (Alpine or Center) crease! Also a Fedora can have a curled brim. A Homburg has a center (Fedora or Alpine) crease.

 

[rlk]

They are certainly not fedoras. Be serious.

Cf. "The Conversion Corral", which is about converting cowboy hats to what? Fedoras!

Where, by the way, a quick scan of the first couple pages suggest that the post-conversion crease is usually a C crown. I'm guessing that is not particularly saying that the C crown is preferred for fedoras, so much as that it's preferred for fedoras where the starting crown height is as high as it usually is in a western. What always happens is, they let the curl out of the brim. That's the difference, between a cowboy hat and a fedora, between a homburg and a fedora, etc., is the brim.

Note I said "might"-- not all. Many traditional "Cowboy" hats have the same brim shape as your definition of Fedoras. The Saddle/Taco Shell Brim is mostly a modern thing. Check out some of the Vintage Western Threads.
Here's a gray area for you, I can show some that are 100% Fedora, just wanted to make it less obvious.

 

[donnc]

That's what the "tree identification" books are for. Anyone with eyes can match the leaves and other characteristics of a particular tree to the photos in the book and come pretty close to identifying that tree.

So is a hat a tree and a fedora a particular type of hat (tree)? Or is a hat a plant and a fedora is a tree with many sub-variations? Or is a fedora a maple tree with many sub-variations? Or is a fedora a sugar maple tree (Acer saccharum) which is distinct from other types of maple tree (hat)?

As tonyb pointed out earlier, a hat ain't a tree. You can do that kind of taxonomy on trees because there is variation in trees that naturally follows that kind of structure, inherited in their chromosomes. With hats, you might as well be looking at trees with one or more main branches broken, vs. trees with hearts and initials cut in the trunk, vs. trees in the fall vs. trees in the spring.

You can identify trees because they have a natural identity, in a way that hats do not. Any classification of hats must be arbitrary, and to some extent indefensible.

I'd do it on weighted conformance to certain parameters. Take, for example, the ribbon. No one seems to want to make the ribbon a part of the definition, but you know that style can change radically with the ribbon - a hat can have a western rarrow ribbon, or tyrolean cords, and while that might not technically disqualify it, it's certainly not characteristic either. So ... standard ribbon, you know what I'm talking about, give that a low weight. Center dent, uncurled brim - there may be differences over how important these features are, but give them weights. You won't be able to use it as a simple taxonomy like you could with trees, but if you try to define the term with a few "make or break" features, you can't win.

 

[rlk]

As tonyb pointed out earlier, a hat ain't a tree. You can do that kind of taxonomy on trees because there is variation in trees that naturally follows that kind of structure, inherited in their chromosomes. With hats, you might as well be looking at trees with one or more main branches broken, vs. trees with hearts and initials cut in the trunk, vs. trees in the fall vs. trees in the spring.

You can identify trees because they have a natural identity, in a way that hats do not. Any classification of hats must be arbitrary, and to some extent indefensible.

I'd do it on weighted conformance to certain parameters. Take, for example, the ribbon. No one seems to want to make the ribbon a part of the definition, but you know that style can change radically with the ribbon - a hat can have a western rarrow ribbon, or tyrolean cords, and while that might not technically disqualify it, it's certainly not characteristic either. So ... standard ribbon, you know what I'm talking about, give that a low weight. Center dent, uncurled brim - there may be differences over how important these features are, but give them weights. You won't be able to use it as a simple taxonomy like you could with trees, but if you try to define the term with a few "make or break" features, you can't win.

You have some valid points, but you have a very narrow very modern viewpoint. Look over some of the many Vintage threads with an open mind and perhaps reexamine your perameters.


Example: Cowboy Hat

Look at the range of styles on display(Not making any Fedora-related commentary here).

 

[danofarlington]

You have some valid points, but you have a very narrow very modern viewpoint. Look over some of the many Vintage threads with an open mind and perhaps reexamine your perameters.


Example: Cowboy Hat

Look at the range of styles on display(Not making any Fedora-related commentary here).

I'll be dogged!

 

[donnc]

but you have a very narrow very modern viewpoint.

Of course - I was born in 1954. I suppose all you older guys kind of live in a different world? Grew up in sod houses on the prairie, stuff like that?

About cowboy hats - really I believe we can find plenty of anecdotal evidence on this site and elsewhere that, in practice we might find all kinds of hats on the heads of actual cowboys (to the extent there is any such occupation any more.) But to take that as an objection is absurd. You and everyone else here knows right away what "cowboy hat" means, and it doesn't really matter who wears them or doesn't wear them. Or didn't wear them, 6 generations ago.

 

[rlk]

I would not make any attempt to define Cowboy hat visually(not occupationally)in such a specific way except perhaps in the eye of the modern public --same as the Fedora. A whole lot of different hat styles come to my mind and many others here. Its not that simple and narrow. It has nothing to do with age. Anyone who looks at old pictures can quickly see that.
Dinerman(c. age 22 I think) may be our most knowledgeable member(wisely staying out of this discussion).

Vintage Hats are a large part(perhaps most of) this part of the Lounge and I did my best to come up with the outlines of a definition that would serve for the entire range and history of the Fedora Style Hat, not a snapshot of today's public. It doesn't seem to be too different than many current views committed to paper or website.
Perfection is not approachable. Any modifications result in an even less successful outcome. I personally can do no better so I will stop aggravating myself and stay away(for real this time).

 

[BanjoMerlin]

As tonyb pointed out earlier, a hat ain't a tree. You can do that kind of taxonomy on trees because there is variation in trees that naturally follows that kind of structure, inherited in their chromosomes. With hats, you might as well be looking at trees with one or more main branches broken, vs. trees with hearts and initials cut in the trunk, vs. trees in the fall vs. trees in the spring.

You can identify trees because they have a natural identity, in a way that hats do not. Any classification of hats must be arbitrary, and to some extent indefensible.

I knew someone wouldn't be able to understand.

The scientific naming system for plants and animals was originated more than 100 years before anyone even suggested the idea of genetics. It was all done by visual comparison of characteristics and was quite arbitrary.

Hats do indeed have characteristics that can be perceived visually, many have only slight variations between them while others are quite different. The question is whether a "fedora" is ONE single hat and anything that does not look exactly like that hat is not a fedora, or is "fedora" a family of hats with similar characteristics?

 

[BanjoMerlin]

I would not make any attempt to define Cowboy hat.

That would be where the term "Western Hat" becomes so valuable. A "Cowboy hat" is a hat perched on the head of a cowboy. A Western Hat could be on any head and still look the same.

 

[mayserwegener]

Robert, I appreciate all the info you collected and posted regarding the Fedora. It was very informative especially (for me) the late 19th and early 20th Century stuff. :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[tonyb]

Intended as a visually-based analogy regarding categorization and identification without knowledge. If you don't know(insufficient education or experience) you can't possibly begin to do it. The Botany is not the point. So far I don't think my hats have replicated , although it seems like it with the expanding space they now occupy. [huh]

Really, it seems you are trying to miss the point.

Of course botany isn't the point, but you're the one who brought up trees. I was attempting to illustrate why your analogy, like all analogies, falls a bit short. Some just fall shorter than others.

As I said before, popular usage trumps. That doesn't make a popular definition historically accurate, or one the experts are obligated to accept. But it also doesn't mean that I or anyone else here gets to decide what "fedora" or any other lexical item means to the larger world, or even this small one. This thread pretty clearly shows that even among the cognoscenti, absolute definitions can be all but impossible.

Believe me, there's a long list of popular usages that I think are just plain wrong, not that most people would care to hear my opinion on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, there ain't no way a homburg is a fedora. Nor is a cowboy hat (whatever that means these days, right?) nor a porkpie nor a boater nor a bowler nor any of those other brimmed men's hats that I say ain't fedoras. But man, there are many hats that straddle my categories.

 

[donnc]

I knew someone wouldn't be able to understand.

The scientific naming system for plants and animals was originated more than 100 years before anyone even suggested the idea of genetics. It was all done by visual comparison of characteristics and was quite arbitrary.

Hats do indeed have characteristics that can be perceived visually, many have only slight variations between them while others are quite different. The question is whether a "fedora" is ONE single hat and anything that does not look exactly like that hat is not a fedora, or is "fedora" a family of hats with similar characteristics?

Millenia before we understood genetics in terms of genes and chromosomes, we understood heredity well enough to breed animals and plants. That's what makes the variation in trees different - it's constrained by the need to inherit characteristics. I can dream of, say, a date palm with leaves like a black locust, but (probably) no one could create that tree in real life. With the skills, you can make any hat, with any blend of whatever features might suit you, so the range of possibilities is infinite and without natural boundaries. It's fundamentally different, and fundamentally resistant to a taxonomic approach - I mean, you can do it, and of course it's the way we usually tend to think whether it works or not, but it just obviously has its limitations.

 

[tonyb]

Robert, I appreciate all the info you collected and posted regarding the Fedora. It was very informative especially (for me) the late 19th and early 20th Century stuff. :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

Yes, me too. Robert turns up lots of cool stuff.

And he's very generous in sharing his knowledge of hats, which must have taken God only knows how many hours of study to acquire. We're lucky to have him.

 

[BanjoMerlin]

Millenia before we understood genetics in terms of genes and chromosomes, we understood heredity well enough to breed animals and plants. That's what makes the variation in trees different - it's constrained by the need to inherit characteristics. I can dream of, say, a date palm with leaves like a black locust, but (probably) no one could create that tree in real life. With the skills, you can make any hat, with any blend of whatever features might suit you, so the range of possibilities is infinite and without natural boundaries. It's fundamentally different, and fundamentally resistant to a taxonomic approach - I mean, you can do it, and of course it's the way we usually tend to think whether it works or not, but it just obviously has its limitations.

I just don't understand what is so hard to understand. YES, you can make a hat look any way you want but that doesn't make it a FEDORA!

A date palm with leaves like a black locust would NOT BE a date palm. It would be something else and would have another name. And don't be so sure it could not be created today, gene manipulation is more broadly undertaken today than hat making.

Living things are NOT constrained by the need to inherit particular characteristics, the inherited characteristics determine what they ARE.

 

[danofarlington]

This keeps coming up and we don't have anything close to an answer.

Rlk put together some great information on the origin of the term "fedora" and the way in which hats with that label changed from the late 1800s into the early 1900s. Now, let's try to define the term as we understand it today.

I like CptJeff's suggestion that a fedora must be made of a single piece of material, rather than a cut-and-sewn approach. Of course, that would exclude all straw hats and any of those wild two tone hats, where a crown of one color sewn to a brim of another, as well as those WalMart caps that noone wants to call fedoras.

And what about the brim? Does it have to snap? Can it be curled? When does a fedora become something else - like a cowboy hat?

The wikipedia entry is beyond epic failure, so let's see if we can put together anything better.

Take your shot.

See what you've done? Who dares to ask this question again? I shudder to bring it up. I'm starting to dream about forestry, botany and hat creases. I may never say "fedora" again. Instead, I'll just say "hat."

 

[donnc]

I just don't understand what is so hard to understand. YES, you can make a hat look any way you want but that doesn't make it a FEDORA!

Oh? What is a fedora?

 

[danofarlington]

This keeps coming up and we don't have anything close to an answer.

.

Actually, I have a constructive idea. Why not hammer out two or three alternate definitions of a fedora, not overly long or overly technical, raise them up the flagpole in one of those polls, and have a vote? By now the various challengers should be able to come up with two or three cohesive definitions that might be adopted by popular press or encyclopedias. The winner could be put out as the winner of TFL poll, and have a small number of accompanying photos to say what's "in," and possibly what might be "out."

 

[BanjoMerlin]

Oh? What is a fedora?

I've suggested a couple of definitions so far. If it isn't important enough for you to bother reading them it isn't important enough for me to restate them.