Men of the world: express yourselves. Flamboyance and originality are qualities badly missed in today’s fashions, and it's time for a little creativity, says our columnist
As a contrast the glorious catwalk shows of the women’s fashion industry are annually made possible by profits from their associated cosmetics and accessories. Chanel’s Grand Palais shows are unimaginable without the decades of support by Chanel No.5, for clothing sales alone could not permit it. While this is not relevant for men, they surely deserve more choice. The fashion houses have built a base capable of allowing choice and experiment in the stock heavy and riskier clothes lines for women. The business model is very different for male clothing. Men, still curiously uninterested in an It-Bag, account for merely 5% of the cosmetics industry’s sales and an even smaller percentage of the accessories produced by the great luxury houses, with the result that clothing for men is not so well financially supported.
The current pattern of men’s spending means that finance directors will make doubly sure that the clothing on the shop floor, however grand the shop, has a high chance of being sold since they have little headroom for losses. This leads to a loss of creative interest. The supply lines become similarly afflicted and there is a decreasing range from specialist makers. Last year, for example, the principal Harris Tweed yarn mill attempted to reduce the famous range of hand woven muted colours to four variations of grey on the basis that grey sold the best. Men’s clothing may become an arena for in-fighting among the less than distinguished dressers of the finance department.
To illustrate the point, Sean Connery’s wardrobe and accessories in the 1960s James Bond films can be usefully compared with Daniel Craig’s. The costume designer of the earlier films had a wide remit to express the personality of the characters through their clothes, with memorable results. Today the Bond franchise is bolstered by brand sponsorship, and in later films it has lessened the creative team’s power to realise the characters fully. Under this system the costume designer, if there is one, may be obliged to choose from a short list of sponsoring brands for the leading actors.
The commercial decisions are understandable, but there is no need for a well-dressed man to follow the same dispiriting path. Like the island tweed weavers, who have found other ways and continue to make their subtle lengths of cloth, don’t settle for four shades of grey but take pleasure in your choices. It takes time and you may wonder why your contribution should matter, but on this, Chanel’s Guru, Karl Lagerfeld, has something to say. ‘Fashion and clothes are what most immediately define an epoch. That is why fashion has every raison d’etre. When you think of the 18th century, before the architecture you think of the robe a panier. When you think of the Romans, you think of the toga before the temple.’
To increase your own visible definition of the epoch and exercise your decision making, wander away from the luxury branded system. In London this could be achieved by browsing the traditional streets and 18th Century arcades which are an easy walk from Bond Street and Piccadilly. They house the small firms making or importing men’s clothes to satisfy exacting customers. Not everything is expensive but the stock is handmade or chosen by enthusiasts rather than by sales per square metre. My own favourites for their refined look would include Budd of Piccadilly, George Cleverley, Lock & Co, Connolly, Cordings, and Hilditch and Key. Men of the world: you have nothing to lose but your dull threads.
The author is a board member of Anderson & Sheppard and a director of the Savile Row Bespoke Association.
www.anderson-sheppard.co.uk
