Jacob Grier

The best news I’ve read this week:

After 60 years, the Men’s Dress Furnishings Association, the trade group that represents American tie makers, is expected to shut down Thursday.

Association members now number just 25, down from 120 during the 1980s power-tie era. U.S. tie companies have been consolidating. Others have closed because of overseas competition as the U.S. market share for American-made ties has fallen to about 40%, from 75% in 1995.

Members have lost interest. But the biggest reason for the group’s demise: Men aren’t wearing ties.

I especially like these paragraphs:

Some members of the neckwear association sensed the trend two years ago when, at the group’s annual luncheon in New York, a number of people turned up tieless. Marty Staff, chief executive of men’s clothing company JA Apparel Corp., which has a big neckwear business, was one of them.

“It was deliberate,” explains Mr. Staff, who says he wanted to make a statement to his colleagues. “Historically, the guy wearing the navy suit, the white shirt and the burgundy tie would be the CEO. Now he’s the accountant,” Mr. Staff explains.

And this one nails it:

The problem for neckwear designers, as for regular guys, is that a tie no longer automatically conveys the authority and respectability it once did, even if it does cause some people to call you sir. In fact, it can be a symbol of subservience and of trying too hard.

The obligatory necktie is an absurd requirement, especially in a swampy town like Washington, DC where so many people walk, Metro, bus, or bike to work. It’s hot, constricting, and adds considerably to the cost of a wardrobe. Many men hate their ties too much to bother making them look good, and ties are no longer the only way to convey an image of authority. Their time as an everyday necessity has passed.

Washington, of course, will be the last place to get the memo.

[Via TMN.]

With Lindland’s new light-weight nano-waling, you can wear your ‘roys all year long. Want!

Previously: Great fabric, great beer

Do you know what tomorrow is? It’s 11/11, the day that most resembles corduroy as declared by the incredibly awesome Corduroy Appreciation Club.

The New Yorker tells the story of the club in this intriguing article. A question left undecided is what drink most resembles corduroy. One member suggests a Manhattan, which with its complex hues of brown and red is a fine choice. However I think the most fitting drink is Guinness. With its soft, creamy texture, brown and black coloring, and conspicuously upward-flowing bubbles suggesting verticality, it’s the ultimate choice for 11/11.

I wonder if DC’s Corduroy restaurant has Guinness on the menu?

The new hotness? Maybe not.

If the epidemic of pastel Ugg boots of several years ago proved anything, it’s that Vanderbilt women should beware of strange fashion trends from island nations. That lesson must have faded from institutional memory. As Chad reports from our weekend excursion to Nashville for our college’s annual Rites of Spring concert, a new atrocity has swept across the Vanderbilt fashion landscape:

The muumuu is perhaps the worst of all worlds: it is like placing a price ceiling on attractiveness: everyone above a 5 becomes a 5 by wearing one, but no one below a 5 can become more attractive by wearing one… I’m told that no one on campus wore this before Friday, and that it was some kind of spontaneous mass early adoption. Some wore them with bows. Some wore them with belt buckles. Why? WHY??? Try a google image search on muumuu: do you notice a theme? People in muumuus look (a) very, very large, (b) very, very large and pregnant, or (c) very, very large and male. One of the pictures even has a cow wearing a muumuu. If you have a figure, or anything even close to resembling an approximation of a figure, why would you destroy it so thoughtlessly? Surely there are other ways to feel comfortable on a breezy day? What happened to the summer dress? The bikini top? Even a t-shirt?

To avoid sounding sexist, I’ll concede that Vandy men’s fashion looks just as dumb. But Vandy frat boys always look dumb, so this isn’t really news.

In the meantime, my mental image of Vanderbilt women is going to be marred for a long time by the infamous King Size Homer.

I deleted the previous post because I missed the ironic message behind this shirt. But I’m still not sure how to interpret it…

Obviously a play on the Red campaign. But it’s either being oddly harsh on that or way too flippant with Communism. What’s the deal?

[Via Mighty Goods.]

[Update: The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that the shirt is saying that by tying our purchases to ethical causes, consumer capitalism has sort of come around to Communism. This is lame though. Capitalism isn’t anti-charity any more than Communism is pro-exchange. So what’s the point?

Radley has confronted the obliviousness behind “Soviety chic” in the past. See here and here for two good posts on how it trivializes atrocities that ought to be better remembered.]

[Update 1/1/07: Related: Target pulls Che CD cases off shelves.]

Judging by the frequency with which the word “Ugg” is showing up on the list of search phrases that lead people to my website, winter must be coming on fast. For example, the list includes the search phrase “sorority ugg” (which should really read “Sorority? Ugh!” But I digress…). As a caution to my Vanderbilt friends, I note that the list also includes the phrase “ugg nashville,” so it appears that the Vandy sorority girls are once again looking to acquire these pastel travesties for the coming winter season.

One searcher found the site with the question “Can I still wear uggs in 2005?” As she will have hopefully learned from my previous post on the subject, the answer is a resounding “no.” Wearing them in 2004 was regrettable, but wearing them in 2005 would be criminal. If you must insist on looking fashionably silly in the new year, your best bet is to wear a poncho instead.

In fact, the poncho trend seems to have already sown some confusion among the Ugg wearers, as evidenced in the search phrase “ugg gaucho boots women.” No no no no no! Gauchos don’t wear Uggs, they wear ponchos! Come on now, did Clint Eastwood wear powder blue emu boots with fluffy lining in A Fistful of Dollars? Of course not, he only dressed like that off the set.

The same goes for the person looking for “ugg american indian.” Ugg boots are an invention of the Aussies, and she’d better remember that — they get a little testy when people forget.

Finally, as a parting fashion tip from Eternal Recurrence, please don’t ever wear Uggs and ponchos together. The culture clash is just too much to bear and unless you possess the macho-panache (panacho?) of Clint Eastwood, you just won’t be able to pull it off.