Sun 10 Aug 2008
I was appalled yesterday when the latest Vanity Fair issue on Fashion weighted down my mail box!
Opening quickly to see if my sartorial explorations combining Doc Martens with the Orvis catalogue had raised a stir, I was disappointed. With listings for Best Dressed in Men, Women, Couples, Siblings, All-Stars and Evergreens - a total 39 men and women- not a single Williams alum seemed to be present. And this absense in spite of Williams as a well-known elitest, lefty-righty, morally upright, culturally relative, and very expensive school.
Now I know that there will be some who say “What’s the Williams connection?”. Indeed, Sophmom might immediately jump to my defence by pointing out in six degrees that Count Manfredi della Gherarosca (in the Men’s Top Ten) had had lunch with the sister-in-law of his tailor whose aunt had been the mistress of a movie star who attended a Yankee’s game and waved to Steinbrenner. But I claim that the identity ‘not-Williams’ has a mathematical certainty as sturdy as the appearance of one’s name in the Alumni Directory.
My question for President Shapiro is obvious! With alums making news in entertainment, politics, and high finance, why aren’t we represented in this Directors Cup of Fashion and why not?
Now back in the day, one didn’t expect to be. My old roommate Rechtal Turgidley, Jr made the transition from The House of Walsh to J. Press and Brooks Brothers seamlessly (with the side venture into having his father’s (Rechtal Turgidley ‘28) bespoke suits from the 30’s and 40’s recut).
But today? When appearance is reality? When Adam Thorpe and Joe Hunter take Vexed Generation from Rave to a design deal with Puma and Yoshiki Hishinuma and Yohji Yamamoto do the same, where are additions to the curricula that help us close the Williams Fashion Gap?
I am interested in any reader suggestions as to who from the Purple should have been included in the Vanity Fair recognitions.

August 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Dick,
ROTFL…and
TERTTLFY… (this Ephblog reader thanks the Lord for you)
Now…unlike many of the recent threads, this is a conumdrum with a possible solution! For one, if I was willing to post a photo of myself in full church attire (thereby abandoning my commitment to anonymity), it is my very humble opinion, that some might deem me worthy of at least an honorable mention (in the fashion sense, that is).
However, I need to think about that…and in the meanwhile I very much look forward to seeing ‘the competition’.
August 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Once again, my old friend and roommate has submitted an inane position to the readers of this serious blog read conscientiously I am sure by theologians, philosophers, and economists for intellectual stimulation.
As if fashion were not a foible per se, he includes some reference to my manner of dress. The fact that I have never worn a pair of shoes that did not have laces, is a matter of no interest to these gentle readers.
Yet it is his unfortunate use of ‘to who’ which makes me wince. I refer my dear old friend to the Comden and Green (music by Bernstein and a jump of only one degree to Sondheim) in Wonderful Town - Ruth’s song ‘one hundred ways to loose a man’.
YOU’VE FOUND YOUR PERFECT MATE AND AND IT’S BEEN LOVE FROM THE START
HE WHISPERS, “YOU’RE THE ONE THE ONE I LOVE TO WHO I GIVE MY HEART.”
DON’T SAY, “I LOVE YOU TOO, MY DEAR, LET’S NEVER NEVER PART.”
JUST SAY, “I’m afraid you’ve made a grammatical error — it’s not ‘To who I give my heart,’ it’s ‘To whom I give my heart’ — You see, with the use of the preposition ‘to,’ ‘who’ becomes the indirect object, making the use of ‘whom’ imperative which I can easily show you by drawing a simple chart” –
Inanity by itself, unworthy. Inanity AND bad grammar? Really!
Rechtal Turgidley, Jr
Quark Island, Maine
August 10th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Swart,
First off, Vanity Fair? I can well imagine that finding a copy of Vanity Fair in Hood River is a challenge, sandwiched as it probably is between Guns and Ammo and various “gentlemen’s” magazines down at the Flying J Truck Stop, but that is certainly no reason to encourage Condé Nast by subscribing to it.
Second, as is usual for this blog, a false sense of crisis is being created. A Williams Fashion Gap? Good Lord, man, if Williams alums were any more conspicuous in the fashion industry, Vogue would be edited on Water Street!
Irvington Tuckahoe, class of 1847, convinced Lincoln to ditch the coonskin cap for the beaver felt topper.
Millard Simpson, class of 1886, invented the snap on High Button shoe.
R. Pennington Loafer, class of 1903, developed and gave his name to a certain style of shoe, guess which one?
Mykal Gustic, class of 1975, discovered how to recycle common lint into high quality women’s lingerie.
and everyone knows that Cindy Crawford graduated in my class (1990) and lived in the Berkshire Quad. We went out a couple of times; this just in, she looks REALLY different without her makeup, and, to be honest, she was just a little too much into Phish, macrame and Greenpeace for my taste when we were there.
Don’t mistake poor journalism on Vanity Fair’s part for a crisis on Williams’ part.
Gondo, a loyal J. Press client since 2008
August 11th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Gondo,
With the exception of C.C. (whom I have also seen sans maquillage, and in overalls, bless her heart) your entire list is made up of ‘contributors’ to the fashion world. With all due respect, a designer does not a fashionista make!
For example, Ralph (though photographs may lie), is entirely too short…Donna, lacks grace…Gaultier, can’t pull off the dreadlocks.
There are exceptions (alas, mostly all gone now); Coco (mean as a snake) Chanel…Yves, a veritable icon…
and still with us; Tom Ford, who pulls off a ’sharkskin’ like nobody’s business.
I do realize of course, that none of these are ‘Williams people’. I list them only as examples.
All that said, I daresay the only true ‘fashion’ candidate (whose name can be found within your comment), might possibly be you.
Yes, I’d bet money, that you dear Gondo, ‘wear the seersucker’…it doesn’t ‘wear you’.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:53 am
SM,
So sweet of you to think of me, and although only my wife knows that I am a secret clothes horse (yes, there is a seersucker, as well as a white linen, suit in my closet), I spend most of my time in my study, the recording studio and the swimming pool, and consider myself a bit more Oscar Madison than Oscar de la Renta on day to day sartorial issues.
When those size 11 dirty buc saddle shoes come in, I’ll post a picture for all to see.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Gondo,
I knew it! (Not that I’m …ahem…clairvoyant)
And my husband has a pair of ivory, J. Crew bucks in the closet as we speak.
Like you, I will confess to a love of beautiful clothes. But alas, my daily uniform is more likely to be jeans, a white t-shirt, and Keds.
However…when and if you post your bucks, I will respond with a photo of my spankin’ new, gorgeously authentic, black-brimmed gaucho hat…which I’ve convinced myself will be perfect for my winter travels east (to be packed in lieu of an umbrella which I have always abhorred).
August 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
A gaucho hat! Martin Fierro didn’t have much luck with his clothes during some of his adventures. While he doesn’t mention his hat in particular, he seems to have had a fashion gap with the Florida:
I hadn’t even a shirt nor anything that was like one –
the only use my rags were in the end, was to light the fire…
There’s no plague like an army fort to teach a man to endure.
Poncho, saddle-rugs, harness, my clothes, the coins off my belt,
I tell you, the whole lot got left one by one, in the barrack-store …
The rats and the poverty had got me half crazed by now.
Martin Fierro The Gaucho (Part 1) Jose Hernandez
http://sparrowthorn.com
August 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
In my view, it should never be forgotten that during WWII Coco Chanel deserted France and, more importantly, shacked up with a German military officer safely in Switzerland. I’ll let David explain why this item belongs on EphBlog.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Whoa, whoa, whoa…(and woe!)
He took the “saddle-rugs (and) poncho”, and “left the girl”?!!
Tsk, tsk, tsk…
August 11th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Geez Frank,
A little levity between the ‘political bashing’, the ‘torture’, the ’sex-scandals’ and the general vitriol, is, IMO, much-needed…
‘Ephian’ or not…
With that, I will leave the ‘fun’, and go to work.
P.S. Please note my description of Coco.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:43 am
P.S. Wikipedia says she stayed in Paris during the War under the protection of the officer but then and there had an affair with him. I like my version better - can’t recall my source. According to Wikipedia she was born in 1883. Wasn’t she a little old for a full blown affair at the time? Maybe the officer was satisfied with a half-baked one.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Hey, Gondo-dude,
What shoes does a reader of ‘Guns and Ammo’ and ‘Good Fruit Growers Magazine’ wear between the seasons of the Cabela’s catalogue?
http://www.fluevog.com/code/?w%5B0%5D=attribute%3AMens&w%5B1%5D=order%3Afresh&p=35&pp=4&view=detail&colourID=1931
Why, a John Fluevog up-dated spectator, of course!
See ya at Johnny Sole (Portland’s store for those who believe there is life after cordovan oxfords).
August 11th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
No, thank you. Ordinary work shoes perform efficiently and effectively for essentially all purposes of the aged (including attendance at sporting events, “work outs”, lectures, classes, readings, plays, concerts, luncheons and other social events) in the dirt, rain, mud, flood, snow, sleet, slush, infrequent hail and more greatly infrequent fair weather of Williamstown.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Frank,
Efficient and effective shoes: absolutely!!
http://www.parkingzone.com/parking/category/wheelboots.html
http://www.jamd.com/search?assettype=g&assetid=73779634&text=chinese+bound+feet
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/15/1202760599942.html
August 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Love the ambiguity and ambivalence, in context, of the sobriquet, “Tommie Sneakers”.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Dick,
I am a little afraid to encourage you (given the ’stringent criteria of appropriate EB material’), but my (personal, albeit somewhat twisted) sentiments remain….
ROTFL!
…and again…TERTTLFY!