|
|
Post by Marc on Dec 26, 2014 16:28:22 GMT -6
So looking over my Gustin workshirts (postal herringbone and wabisabi) I was wondering if the wabisabi is denim or not (I'd say the postal herringbone is)? I'd previously researched a bit about what makes denim denim, but never found a satisfactory answer online.
I thought I'd toss the question out here... what makes denim denim? It's not that it's a twill -- there are many non-denim twills. It's not that it's a 3x1 twill -- there are 2x1 denims. It's not that it's cotton -- there are silk, wool, hemp denims. It's not that it's heavy -- there are many light-weight denims. It's not that it has a contrasting warp and weft -- there are indigo x indigo denims. It's not that it's indigo dyed -- there are many other colors of denim. I could go on.
So is there any one thing that defines denim? Or is it just a 'know it when you see it' sort of thing. And more to my question that got me here... is the Gustin wabisabi fabric denim or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by usctroll on Dec 27, 2014 13:11:00 GMT -6
What is love?
(Baby, don't hurt me)
|
|
|
|
Post by ickes on Dec 28, 2014 15:04:35 GMT -6
Don't hurt me
No more
|
|
|
|
Post by drstrange on Jan 5, 2015 17:32:22 GMT -6
stumbled over this (again) at a forum called ASK ANDY ABOUT CLOTHES (or something the like), and thought it makes a good laugh  Quote Originally Posted by "xxx" Welp, jeans are associated with minorities, drug addicts, slobs, every alternative movement since the 70s, and cowboys, and I feel that, for a person of refinement (and here I am speaking of refinement of more than clothing,) jeans are not even considered. I feel that, for the thinking man, who looks back in history and understands the origin of blue jeans, there will be no other conclusion but to forgo them. I just thank God that dress pants are not nearly as stigmatized as dress jackets are in today's world; wearing a pair of dress pants now draws on average no more attention than, I suspect, wearing a pair of jeans does. And there are other options, too, like chinos, corduroy, etc. I just do not understand how someone who on any level resents what jeans symbolize can at the same time mindlessly slip on a pair, knowing at the same time that they can be completely displaced by other types of pants, which do not have the tainted antecedents of cowboys and frontiersmen (who were usually lower-class, poor, and possibly in exile,) that blue jeans do. |
|
|
|
Post by Old26 on Jan 5, 2015 17:41:20 GMT -6
stumbled over this (again) at a forum called ASK ANDY ABOUT CLOTHES (or something the like), and thought it makes a good laugh Quote Originally Posted by "xxx" Welp, jeans are associated with minorities, drug addicts, slobs, every alternative movement since the 70s, and cowboys, and I feel that, for a person of refinement (and here I am speaking of refinement of more than clothing,) jeans are not even considered. I feel that, for the thinking man, who looks back in history and understands the origin of blue jeans, there will be no other conclusion but to forgo them. I just thank God that dress pants are not nearly as stigmatized as dress jackets are in today's world; wearing a pair of dress pants now draws on average no more attention than, I suspect, wearing a pair of jeans does. And there are other options, too, like chinos, corduroy, etc. I just do not understand how someone who on any level resents what jeans symbolize can at the same time mindlessly slip on a pair, knowing at the same time that they can be completely displaced by other types of pants, which do not have the tainted antecedents of cowboys and frontiersmen (who were usually lower-class, poor, and possibly in exile,) that blue jeans do. I own my personal ghetto, or cowboy, or whatever. Just the fact that someone wrote that is all I need to keep buying more!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2015 22:09:38 GMT -6
stumbled over this (again) at a forum called ASK ANDY ABOUT CLOTHES (or something the like), and thought it makes a good laugh Quote Originally Posted by "xxx" Welp, jeans are associated with minorities, drug addicts, slobs, every alternative movement since the 70s, and cowboys, and I feel that, for a person of refinement (and here I am speaking of refinement of more than clothing,) jeans are not even considered. I feel that, for the thinking man, who looks back in history and understands the origin of blue jeans, there will be no other conclusion but to forgo them. I just thank God that dress pants are not nearly as stigmatized as dress jackets are in today's world; wearing a pair of dress pants now draws on average no more attention than, I suspect, wearing a pair of jeans does. And there are other options, too, like chinos, corduroy, etc. I just do not understand how someone who on any level resents what jeans symbolize can at the same time mindlessly slip on a pair, knowing at the same time that they can be completely displaced by other types of pants, which do not have the tainted antecedents of cowboys and frontiersmen (who were usually lower-class, poor, and possibly in exile,) that blue jeans do. "I feel that, for the thinking man, who looks back in history and understands the origin of blue jeans, there will be no other conclusion but to forgo them" What an insult to generations of hard working Americans (of witch I guess he's not) Include these 5 generations of my family.  To the OP's question. It used to be simple, not so anymore. To me if its not 100% cotton it's not denim. Very open to interpretation currently. |
|
|
|
Post by marauder on Jan 10, 2015 23:04:32 GMT -6
There doesn't seem to be a clear definition of denim, but I think it's a subset of twills. Not all twills are denims, but a denim *has* to be a twill. Everything else is up for interpretation.
|
|
