How do they stick to wet steel, like recessed tram tracks or manhole covers? I like shoes that let me step on pretty much any solid surface without having to worry.2XSL wrote:Ah, once a leather sole gets scuffed up, it's really not an issue unless there are marble floors around. Most leather soled-shoes have rubber heels as a concession.
The support of a shanked shoe is superb. Sneakers are crummy beanbag chairs and a solid pair of shoes is a Recaro seat.
I got my workboots. Waterproof, oil resistant, non-slip and not just a steel shank, but steel toecap and heel, too. And a shop absorbing sole.
True, true. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, and the t-shirt or the jeans, they are like the hammer or the toothpick, I think. Once you've got the basic shape down, there's a limit to the possible variations that still provide the same functionality. But the big point of wearing a suit isn't functionality, is it, it's social convention. Symbolism and whatnot, isn't it? If middle management wore clothing for functionality, they'd be running around like the production assistants on a soundstage.2XSL wrote:Jeans are 1850's work clothing, and t-shirts are derived from the union suit, a product of a Victorian clothign reform movement. Suits are problematic in being a matched set, but the form factor makes sense if you don't live amidst orchids blasting heated air like mad. Neckwear, besides the obvious aesthetic benefits, will do much to seal out drafts and keep in warmth. Who is riding around in open collared riding gear on colder days?
As for non-19th century, I for one own one jean. Everything else I've got is cargo-pants and a pair of overalls. Dunno about the history of the overall, but the cargo-pant was first worn by His Majesty's forces in 1938.
Wool is nice. If it's processed right and well maintained. So is having the income to afford both wool and that care and maintenance. The curse of poverty is that you spend much more on many cheap things that don't last than you'd spend on a single, pricey thing that would last, though. Like my father's 40 year old loafers.2XSL wrote:Finally, wool rules. It is a poverty that we devolved to cotton and then to the cheesier synthetics.
Furthermore, wool and the sheep it requires couldn't meet modern demands. In the 19th century, the British owning classes had to pretty much depopulate Scotland (the clearings) to make room for enough sheep to meet demand. We live in an age when methane emissions from cattle for meat-production are a significant contributor to climate change. What would enough sheep to supply all of mankind with wool add to that?
And even if you can afford wool, some people may not want to. Some people, like I, prefer something cheap, because not worrying about damaging what you wear can be just as important for comfort as the tactile sensations.
I do think cotton and synthetics really aren't as good fabrics as we could have. Synthetics are still developing, but I'd like to see cheaper hemp clothing around. The hemp fiber is one of the most, of not the most, strong natural fiber. Heck, in the 1940s, Ford build prototype car-bodies from it. Hemp will grow anywhere, like a weed, so to speak, and restore depleted soil to some degree. Unlike sheep, that'd help.
