Perhaps we should call them ‘Freedom Cuffs’
Posted on May 2, 2008
Filed Under Clothing |
I was pleased, initially, to see the Wall Street Journal (still one of my favorite dailies) devote several column inches to the subject of some of the elements that go into the construction of a quality dress shirt. This was wrapped up in an article by Ray Smith that talked about British shirt makers pursuing a larger slice of the American market. As usual (and perhaps deservedly), though, the tone of the piece followed the lead of many such articles these days, making the point that the American man is so disinterested in and uneducated about his clothes that he wouldn’t know a French cuff from a Italian poke in the eye.
(Speaking of French cuffs; it’s perfectly acceptable to refer to them thus. Just because we appreciate the craftsmanship of a good British shirt, that doesn’t mean we have to embrace their separatist lingo. When I fillet a fish it does not rhyme with the place I was assigned to sleep when I was in the Army. Double cuff is fine as well, but only if it’s said with no hard feelings.)
Quotes like “…he was flummoxed by some of the descriptions, including ‘cutaway collars’…” can be found throughout the article, and this points to either a strange bias on the author’s part or it is a pitiful indictment of American culture. ‘Split yokes’ I could understand, but ‘cutaway collars’? Flummoxed? This is not a good sign.
Perhaps any publicity is good publicity if we have truly reached the point of dazed incomprehension when presented with the mysteries of the gusset. Review the article for yourself. Slightly condescending tone aside, it contains some good general information and references to Turnbull & Asser and Charles Tyrwhitt, and a brief quote from Alan Flusser.
Comments
Leave a Reply