During the early 20th century, when labor was more divided by gender, the US Dept. of Agriculture organized youth clubs orientated around developing certain skills. Chief among them were clothing clubs, which taught young girls how to cut, mend, and sew clothing.
In her book The Lost Art of Dress, historian Linda Przybyszewski estimates that more than 324,000 girls participated in clothing clubs (cooking clubs were a distant second with half as many members). The US gov also funded home economics education, which taught similar skills.
The US Dept of Agriculture also published guides on how to spot quality clothing and take care of things you own. The guides were surprisingly sophisticated. This guide on men's suits talked about fabrics like gabardine, serge, covert, and tropical worsted.
Here is the guide for men's shirts (they recommended that you buy a full-cut shirt, not a slim fit). Note the page showing different weaves: broadcloth, oxford, chambray, etc. You don't even get this kind of info in men's fashion magazines nowadays.
It's hard to overstate the impact of this education. Not only were consumers more informed, but people at home knew how to mend clothing or repurpose things they no longer wore. There was a *culture* of repair, such that people bought and kept things for longer.
I recently spoke with fashion critic and StyleZeitgeist founder Eugene Rabkin, who lamented the "deskilling of consumers." We all know about the deskilling of workers—the way automation or division of labor can deskill workers such as craftsmen, putting them on an assembly line.
Rabkin believes a similar thing has happened to consumers. Many today are less educated about how to buy and care for quality goods. Privately-owned media enterprises have done a poor job of filling in this space, as they focus on trends, celebrities, and industry news.
"But Derek," you say, "I think the original poster was talking about the government *making* clothes. Surely, they're bad at that!"
Not true. In fact, much of menswear can be traced back to the US Dept of Defense.
After all, it was the US military that came with the A-1 and A-2 bombers; MA-1 flight jackets; B-3 and B-6 shearlings; M43, M51, and M65 Army jackets; N-3B and M-51 parkas; and naval-issued peacoats. These things are still available in thrift shops today bc they're so well made.
These designs have also inspired countless designers, who reinterpret them in different materials, details, and designs. Such remixes can be cool ... but the originals are also great and widely available at military surplus depots and thrift shops.
In some ways, the quality of military clothing has deteriorated with time, as technology makes it possible to cut corners. For instance, 1950s and '60s Army chinos and fatigues were made from pure cotton, which made them more breathable and allowed them to fade in nicer ways.
Starting in the 1980s, the US gov switched to a poly blend to save money. Unfortunately, this fabric doesn't develop the nice fades you see below. They also changed the cut, so the pants fit more like Dickies, rather than the wider pre-1980s silhouette.
When it comes to the US government's involvement in clothing, perhaps the most important has been the creation of American jobs. US gov contracts still require that clothes be made at US factories. This has helped prop up plants like the former Hickey Freeman factory.
My point: the state can be used for good. It's not true that the private sector is always better. A lot of development and even capitalist structures required incredible state involvement. I recommend checking out these two books.
But on the matter of clothing—which is not unlike other areas of our lives—the government has been a positive force in ways that often goes unrecognized. I bet if you look through your closet now, you will find some things that some government helped develop.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's first establish good vs bad ways to think about style. The first pic is correct — style is a kind of social language and you have to figure out what type of person you are. The second pic is stupid bc it takes style as disconnected objects ("this is in" vs "this is out").
I should also note here that I'm only talking about style. I'm not here to argue with you about ergonomics, water bottle holders, or whether something accommodates your Dell laptop. I'm am talking about aesthetics.
Watch these two videos. Then answer these two questions:
— Which of the two men is better dressed?
— How does each come off?
I think Carney is better dressed, partly because his clothes fit better. Notice that his jacket collar always hugs his neck, while Pierre Poilievre's jacket collar never touches him.
The level of craftsmanship that goes into a lot of Japanese menswear simply doesn't exist in the United States. You can do this for many categories — suits, jeans, hats, etc.
In this thread, I will show you just one category: men's shoes 🧵
For this comparison, I will focus on Japanese bespoke shoemaking vs. US ready-to-wear. The level of bespoke craftsmanship shown here simply doesn't exist in the US, so a Japanese bespoke vs. US bespoke comparison would be unfair. US bespoke is mostly about orthopedic work.
So instead, I will focus on the best that the US has to offer: ready-to-wear Alden.
On a basic level, top-end Japanese shoes are better because they are handwelted, whereas Alden shoes are Goodyear welted. The first involves more handwork and can be resoled more often.
In 1999, a group of Haitians were tired of political disorder and dreamed of a better life in the United States. So they built a small, 23-foot boat by hand using pine trees, scrap wood, and used nails. They called the boat "Believe in God." 🧵
In a boat powered by nothing but a sail, they somehow made it from Tortuga Island to the Bahamas (about a 90 mile distance). Then from the Bahamas, they set sail again. But a few days and some hundred miles later, their makeshift boat began to sink.
The men on the boat were so dehydrated this point, one slipped in and out of consciousness, unable to stand. They were all resigned to their death.
Luckily, they were rescued at the last minute by the US Coast Guard.
After this post went viral, I called Caroline Groves, a world-class bespoke shoemaker, to discuss how women's shoes are made. I normally don't talk about womenswear, but I found the information interesting, so I thought I would share what I learned here. 🧵
Footwear is broadly broken into two categories: bespoke and ready-to-wear. In London, bespoke makers, including those for women, are largely focused on traditional styles, such as wingtip derbies and loafers. Emiko Matsuda is great for this.
In Paris, there's Massaro, a historic firm that has been operating since 1894, now owned by Chanel. Their designs are less about creating the women's equivalent of traditional men's footwear and more about things such as heels or creative styles. Aesthetic is still "traditional."
Earlier today, Roger Stone announced his partnership with a menswear company, where together they've released a collection of tailored clothing items.
Here is my review of those pieces. 🧵
The line is mostly comprised of suits and sport coats, supplemented with dress shirts and one pair of odd trousers (tailor-speak for a pair of pants made without a matching jacket). Suits start at $1,540; sport coats are $1,150. One suit is $5,400 bc it's made from Scabal fabric
Let's start with the good points. These are fully canvassed jackets, meaning a free floating canvas has been tacked onto the face fabric to give it some weight and structure. This is better than a half-canvas and fully fused construction, but requires more time and labor.