Living in the past

[Edward]

That is not the point. The cost is irrelevant unless it is stated. If someone chooses to spend 10 pounds on an original vintage pair of shoes or 2000 pounds on bespoke shoes is of little consequence, if they do not state the cost. That is my only point. I have no problem with somebody spending what ever they wish, that is their choice.

Agreed. To be fair, I'm willing to maintain an open mind on this. It's the way of the media that anything you say will get cut down into a tiny soundbite. It's even worse on broadcast. The average soundbite in the JFK era was three minutes - as of the mid Nineties, it has been eleven seconds. Print can be as bad for selectively editing what you said in order to provide the story they want to write.

So, why tell the journalist how much he spends? Surely, it has no relevance, so when asked, he could have politely refused to answer. I am afraid, in the vintage world there are those who do make it very public knowledge waht they spend, and, seem to feel that those who do not spend the same are somehow inadequate and not as 'vintage' as them.

That would be the logical approach, though again a lot depends on how the information was elicited. A chatty conversation about "oh nice shoes..." and five minutes later "how much do they cost anyhow...". It does happen. I absolutely agree that there are folks out there who think of themselves as better and more vintage than others who cannot afford the "right" stuff. Alas, that type crop up in every scene I've ever encountered.

Vintage ain't cheap. "He spends too much?"

I must be getting old. Though I operate on what is very much a thin (thin) budget, all I got from the article was "here's a chap who is living the life, doing it well, and entertaining people, making his own way." Can we just appreciate the accomplishments of another without begrudging them the success?

Yes. Agreed.

Well, the fact is that among the vintage crowd having fancy vintage clothes can be quite a status symbol, and there are people who don't mind letting you know how much they spent. (Tho, really, most of brag about how LITTLE we spend on things). Anyhow, I don't think Michael is the type to brag. I suspect it's the author who flashed those figures around. But I will say, Michael does LOOOOVE to look cool.

Ha, don't we all? I sure as hell wouldn't be as fussy about what I wear if it was solely utilitarian. But yeah... I've got equally little time for both extremes. Being a braggart is unpleasant whatever the context, spending, saving, being uber modern, being more vintage than thou... et cetera.

 

[Ben Stephens]

Please don't get me wrong, I do realise how bad the press can be, my point is really, if someone looks good, it matters very little to me if they have spent 20 pounds or 2000 pounds on their outfit.

Also, at least he is keeping more people employed by having his shoes made than I do buying vintage shoes!

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the response to this article has long since ceased to be about the man himself and more about divergent worldviews within the so-called "Vintage Community." As far as the man himself is concerned, well, whatever. There isn't a pair of shoes on earth that I think is worth that kind of money, but obviously we look at the world in a very different way. He may very well have been misinterpreted or twisted by the reporter, but the fact remains that to some of us here, paying that kind of money for a pair of shoes or owning seven cars -- vintage or not -- doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Doesn't mean we think he's a bad person, we just don't understand it. I'm the kind of person who thinks paying over $10 for a meal is robbery, so $1300 for shoes is enough to send me into a spasm of incomprehension. And owning seven cars? In New York? Incomprehension.

It has nothing to do with a greater or lesser degree of how "vintage" one is, a word and concept I'm really beginning to loathe, the way people swing it around here like it's the ultimate end of all discussion. It's simply a matter of fundamental worldview. I'm not presuming to judge the guy or condemn him or even criticise him. I just don't understand how anyone could possibly think of spending that much money on something that, eventually, will be permeated with foot odor and will at least once come in contact with dog poop.

 

[Edward]

Please don't get me wrong, I do realise how bad the press can be, my point is really, if someone looks good, it matters very little to me if they have spent 20 pounds or 2000 pounds on their outfit.

Absolutely agreed!

Also, at least he is keeping more people employed by having his shoes made than I do buying vintage shoes!

lol

I just don't understand how anyone could possibly think of spending that much money on something that, eventually, will be permeated with foot odor and will at least once come in contact with dog poop.

lol

You're absolutely right, it's all subjective - different things are worth more or less to different people. I recently saw a thread on another forum in which guys lined up to mock an entire gender for being prepared to spend big money on designer handbags. Almost none of them could fathom how this could possibly be comparable to a grown man being prepared to spend upwards of two grand on a Gibson guitar because they were "buying a piece of American heritage". lol

 

[LizzieMaine]

You're absolutely right, it's all subjective - different things are worth more or less to different people. I recently saw a thread on another forum in which guys lined up to mock an entire gender for being prepared to spend big money on designer handbags. Almost none of them could fathom how this could possibly be comparable to a grown man being prepared to spend upwards of two grand on a Gibson guitar because they were "buying a piece of American heritage". lol

I could almost see spending that much money on a musical instrument if you happen to be a musician -- after all, even Jack Benny owned a Stradivarius. But I've never, ever, even once in my life, been impressed by a designer handbag. "You paid a thousand dollars for that, and it's full of gum wrappers, corroded pennies, and used Kleenex just like the one I got at the Army surplus? They saw you coming."

In all seriousness, though, I think another thing about the article that's gotten some of us riled is something that's common to all these types of articles. Whenever you see a magazine or newspaper profile of a so-called "vintage person" it's all about the stuff, the accoutrements. Just once I'd like to see a "Living In The Past" article that focused on other reasons why someone might choose to reject modern culture besides "the hats were cool."

 

[rue]

Wow.... I wonder if he's a member of the Lounge.....

 

[William Stratford]

I could almost see spending that much money on a musical instrument if you happen to be a musician -- after all, even Jack Benny owned a Stradivarius. But I've never, ever, even once in my life, been impressed by a designer handbag. "You paid a thousand dollars for that, and it's full of gum wrappers, corroded pennies, and used Kleenex just like the one I got at the Army surplus? They saw you coming."

[video=youtube;uVvcD4Czx4Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVvcD4Czx4Y[/video]

In all seriousness, though, I think another thing about the article that's gotten some of us riled is something that's common to all these types of articles. Whenever you see a magazine or newspaper profile of a so-called "vintage person" it's all about the stuff, the accoutrements. Just once I'd like to see a "Living In The Past" article that focused on other reasons why someone might choose to reject modern culture besides "the hats were cool."

Indeed. The media do seem intent on fostering the "lets play dress-up" mentality.

 

[C-dot]

I am afraid, in the vintage world there are those who do make it very public knowledge waht they spend, and, seem to feel that those who do not spend the same are somehow inadequate and not as 'vintage' as them.

This isn't restricted to the "vintage community", and may be less prevalent herein than in many other circles. These people exist in every community, and it is unfair to infer that braggarts only exist here, or are most prevalent. As dhermann1 says, most of us actually brag about how little we've spent.

As for being made to feel inadequate, or "not vintage enough", I have seen people complain about that on here for years and have never once seen the source. We are all here for different reasons - Some of us adopt the morals and aesthetic, and others just the admire the cars, movies, or furniture, but we all have something in common. I thought that was widely understood, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Just once I'd like to see a "Living In The Past" article that focused on other reasons why someone might choose to reject modern culture besides "the hats were cool."

But that wouldn't make good copy - Anyone who rejects anything about modern culture, other than the clothing and hairstyles, is a Luddite and therefore crazy.

 

[Edward]

I could almost see spending that much money on a musical instrument if you happen to be a musician -- after all, even Jack Benny owned a Stradivarius. But I've never, ever, even once in my life, been impressed by a designer handbag. "You paid a thousand dollars for that, and it's full of gum wrappers, corroded pennies, and used Kleenex just like the one I got at the Army surplus? They saw you coming."

It's much less pronounced in rock and roll than in the classical world. A professional classical violinist might well expect to be playing an instrument (often on loan from a trust of some sort) with a market value of USD20,000 and up. Plenty of people have produced real, critically acclaimed classic rock and roll, blues and whatever else on the cheapest of instruments. Nonetheless, I absolutely agree that were I a professional musician (or otherwise fortunate enough to be in a position that money was no object) I'd be able to spend, and able to justify spending, a lot more on a guitar than I ever could now. What I can't fathom are guys who never play in front of anyone other than the cat making much a show of buying these crazy expensive instruments when - and here's the kicker - it's not actually the quality of the individual instrument itself that is paramount, but the lifestyle brand of the manufacturer's trade mark attached t it and the perceived value of the "heritage" in that. That to me is crazy. Their money, but really they're just designer handbags that make a lot more noise and you can't put anything into when it comes to utilitarian terms.

In all seriousness, though, I think another thing about the article that's gotten some of us riled is something that's common to all these types of articles. Whenever you see a magazine or newspaper profile of a so-called "vintage person" it's all about the stuff, the accoutrements. Just once I'd like to see a "Living In The Past" article that focused on other reasons why someone might choose to reject modern culture besides "the hats were cool."

I'll take that over the n millionth "Here's a couple who love the past and vintage so much, they live in a Real! Fifties! Home!" stories about people who turn their house into the set of the diner from Happy Days.... But yeah. It's just like any subculture: the mainstream seems only able to cope with reducing it to a look. Same happened with punk rock.... though much like punk rock, "vintage" people rarely fit into one neat, ideological group. TBH, though, I'm equally as bored of the "I'm into vintage because I hate the modern world" as I am the "let's play dressing up" stereotype. I'm much happier to live in 2012 than 1942, I just don't see any point in dismissing what was worth holding onto about the past. That's a view that never gets represented, or hardly ever at least in these things. I've heard of quite a few people being interviewed and then turned down for inclusion in tv shows and whatever because they didn't conform to a rose-tinted "past was perfect" mindset.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've heard of quite a few people being interviewed and then turned down for inclusion in tv shows and whatever because they didn't conform to a rose-tinted "past was perfect" mindset.

Then they'd fall over dead at those of us who have the "we believe the past dealt more forthrightly with its imperfection than the present" mindset. Which maybe isn't such a bad result.

 

[Chasseur]

Just because the journalist writing the article is money-focussed, doesn't mean the subject of the article is. He seems to be a passionate person who is definite about what he wants, period, style etc. And has found a way of financing it

I would have to second this. Often when explaining a hobby or interest to people with no background in your interest the first question (and often the default question) is "How much does that cost?" Then they get all amazed at whatever the price point is and tend to focus on that. This can happen with about any hobby/interest/lifestyle choice: musical instruments, cars, computers, sound systems, boats, fly fishing, etc. People in the media love doing this in particular. Back in my college days I used to live near total vintage lifestyle, and I was interviewed by my college newspaper. The price issue (and my general sanity to a lesser extent) was about all the "journalist" was interested in ("Where did you get those shoes and how much did they cost?" etc.).

But this happens with every day people as well. I shoot sporting clays and/or skeet and often I take people out to give it a try. One friend of mine was flabergasted when I told him the prices of a good shotgun. That same friend was an avid cyclist and had no problem with the "high" (to me) prices of his cycles.

 

[Hercule]

Sorry I'm late to the party. When I saw this thread I though it would be about the Archers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlUwUhh8Qhw

 

[Ben Stephens]

I'll take that over the n millionth "Here's a couple who love the past and vintage so much, they live in a Real! Fifties! Home!" stories about people who turn their house into the set of the diner from Happy Days.... But yeah. It's just like any subculture: the mainstream seems only able to cope with reducing it to a look. Same happened with punk rock.... though much like punk rock, "vintage" people rarely fit into one neat, ideological group. TBH, though, I'm equally as bored of the "I'm into vintage because I hate the modern world" as I am the "let's play dressing up" stereotype. I'm much happier to live in 2012 than 1942, I just don't see any point in dismissing what was worth holding onto about the past. That's a view that never gets represented, or hardly ever at least in these things. I've heard of quite a few people being interviewed and then turned down for inclusion in tv shows and whatever because they didn't conform to a rose-tinted "past was perfect" mindset.

Yes, agreed completely. I have been interviewed by TV researchers, when I told them my views on the past and how I am happy living in 2012, they get bored, as it would not make good television. Here is Ben, he likes old clothes, old cars and old manners yet, he works in a hight tec industry and realises that the world today is actually a rather good place to live, as, at least for one I can indulge my passion for old clothes, old cars and old manners. I take the best of the past and mix it with the now to make a better future.

Ben

 

[Miss Stella]

My, this thread certainly took a turn from the first post

So how about that handsome man on the train wearing the ascot, isn't he dapper?!!

 

[MikeBravo]

At the end of the day it's all about different peoples' perceptions from a single article about a person few if any of us has ever met.

And yes, I get satisfaction from how little I spend, rather than how much

In regard to musical instruments, there a world renown Australian flautist, Jane Rutter. I saw her recently on a music game show where she mentioned that her favourite flute cost her $60,000! Of course all jaws dropped. When asked why so expensive, she said it was made of 19 carat gold.

Apparently it does sound better, but only 5% of the top musicians would be able to tell the difference.

Read into that what you will

 

[dhermann1]

I met the first chair violist from the LA Philhatmonic. He let me hold his $2.5 million instrument. I gave it back quickly. The tools of some trades are just very expensive.

 

[Ben Stephens]

My, this thread certainly took a turn from the first post

So how about that handsome man on the train wearing the ascot, isn't he dapper?!!

Yes he does very much so, he really does have the look, and I really do admire the lengths he goes to to achieve that.

Ben

 

[Two Types]

$1300 on a new handmade pair of shoes is not just about loving the past, its a status statement....[huh]

One could argue that spending that money on a pair of shoes is actually an investment, both in a pair of shoes that will last for many, many years, and in the future of a specialist industry.

 

[Two Types]

Following on from Edward and Ben's points about TV documentaries:

I was recently asked by a tv company about the possiblity of appearing on a series about 'Vintage Lifestyles'. I had to explain that, as a historian, I have a strong interest in the history of real fashion and wear traditional mid-20th century styles. But that doesn't mean that one is totally immersed in a lifestyle. I felt that for television (and other media) everything has to be reduced to a certain level of basic understanding in order to make it easily accessible to viewers/readers. Let's face it, a 'vintage lifestyler' telling the world "I totally reject modern society" has less of an appeal than me declaring "I really like mid 20th century British ties and scarves".

It reminds me of seeing a 90 year old man interviewed about the football club he had played for, worked for and supported all his life. At the end of the piece they asked him "so what does the team mean to you?" They had set it up for him to reply "They are my entire world" Instead he simply answered "I quite like them". it just doesn't have the same impact.

 

[HadleyH]

Anybody who thinks he or she is vintage for the things they pay are out of their minds.

Vintage is not that, vintage is in the heart, stupid as it sounds thats where it is, it makes no difference the stupid pair of shoes or the clock or the suit....


Spend money if you must but don't claim that you are living the vintage life. That's it really.