Talk:Gant (company)/Archives/2013

Questions and comments
Is there a reliable source (other than Gant) that makes this claim? "(Further reduction of objectionable advert-style copy. Request retention of remaining article due to cultural role of company among US youth in the past.) " &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

More: There's more to come. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * premium -- according to whom? In any case, it's hyperbolic and vague (adspeak, in other words)
 * with product available from retailers throughout the world -- adspeak and unsourced
 * wide range of clothing -- adspeak
 * fine shirts to respected private labels in America -- adspeak (besides, what do "fine" and "respected" really mean, and "private label" is sheer adspeak nonsense)
 * Gant dress shirts were d'riguer (it’s de rigueur, btw) -- source? Spelling is wrong also
 * reveal the roll of the collar -- and? adspeak
 * formality of an occasion demanded otherwise -- adspeak
 * offered similar product -- adspeak

And on... Stll more to come. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * double-truck hem – a what?
 * a feature that became absolutely requisite for any brand targeted at adolescents and young men – adspeak
 * Sero was considered to be the only truly acceptable alternative to Gant in the youth market – proof? source?
 * distinctive Gant loop – adspeak
 * clearly identified themselves as knockoffs by failing to precisely conform to the Gant cut – source? adspeak
 * The Gant-cut Madras cloth shirts were the most prized. – source? proof? adspeak
 * Madras craze – not everyone knows what this was


 * More


 * this reads like adspeak through and through. "These were considered ‘preppy’ and sold well in college shops all over the USA. The Gant approach was to sell through the most prestigious store in town. If they weren’t accepted immediately, they waited. And, after a difficult first year, sales took off. The shirts were sold as fast as they could be produced. Advertising was concentrated in upscale publications such as The New Yorker." &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This needs to be added to the article and sourced if you expect the article to stay. "The brand was a cultural phenomenon in the 1960's, and is referred to in literature encompassing that decade." &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a bad title: Icon status needs to be proven. "Growth of an Icon"  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

-

A Modest Defense

When I first came across this article, it was fairly neutral. I added a section concerning the 1960's, based upon my own direct experience as an adolescent during those years. I not only observed the de rigueur status of the brand in my large-city Midwestern surroundings, but heard reports from contemporaries who traveled about the United States and informed me of the phenomenon holding sway in other locations. I also saw extensive use of Gant product via televised entertainment and news, and in photos appearing in newspapers and magazines. I spent an embarrassing number of hours discussing these matters with my contemporaries at the time.

After I added my section, someone came in and did completely rewrite the article as a hardcore advert. I reinserted my information on the 1960's, but left the rest intact, as it was purported history outside my expertise. The article existed in this form for several months.

When I saw the removal template, I went through the entire article and endeavored to denature the advert qualities, assuming facts such as Mr. Gant's date of immigration to be correct, since I have no independent knowledge to the contrary.

I'm at two principle disadvantages. Firstly, what I have to contribute is the product of firsthand observation. I've read the Wikipedia policy on independent research. At some point, a human being who has observed something has to be the first person to write it down, if the information is to be preserved. Has someone done this in a scholarly context in the past 45 years since the Gant cut began its six-year era of predomination? Frankly, I don't know. But I know what I saw and trust the contemporanious reports of traveling observers I heard.

Secondly, I'm nearly illiterate in terms of word processing protocols, and even if I had outside sources, am unschooled in how to link hypertext to other pages.

I won't endeavor to defend information outside the 1960's section, my contribution. I thought I had edited the rest of the article to acceptible standards, and stand willing to give the entire article another pass through the editing process if given the chance.

As to the 1960's:

The loop was a distinctive Gant hallmark, and was copied on knockoffs.

Knockoffs were easy to spot, because only Sero copied the exact width of such items as pleats, the interval between the stitching on the double-truck shoulder, the frontpiece along the left seam where the shirt buttoned, and the cuffs.

The Madras craze DID begin in 1964. One can see not only shirts, but sport coats and even women's clothing made from this East Indian cloth pictured in periodicals of the time. The vogue for Madras came on suddenly over the spring and summer of that year. It wasn't a easy thing to predict with certainty. Colors bled when the clothing was washed. There must have been doubts as to whether this could be sold as a desirable trait. I assume that in order to get sufficient product to market, Gant contracted with other manufacturers and slapped their labels on some nonconforming shirts. But since I don't know this, I don't say it in my contribution. The fact was that there were nonconforming shirts on sale, but were not seen in great numbers actually being worn.

The double truck hem is the "track" down which the buttonholes ran at the front of the shirt. Instead of smooth cloth folded over once at the hem, it was pleatlike, with several folds stiched to form the track. Nonconforming Madras shirts often did not have this feature. Some even had fly-away collars, i.e. not button-down, a cardinal sin against the fashion of the time. These features were indeed "absolutely requisite" to the very strict idea of style that pertained...not only in that they were included, but that they conformed to the Gant metrics.

Sero was considered an acceptable alternative because its product was of similar quality, was indistinguishable from Gant apart from the characteristics mentioned, and sold at a similar pricepoint.

Gant and Sero were in fact "premium" and "fine" products, even when considered apart from their fashion dominence. By this, I mean the quality of the materials and workmanship and the durability of the shirts. This was reflected in a selling price of around twice the price of knockoffs.

The roll of the collar was distinctive, in the strict sense of the word. The collar had a particular length, and the buttons were positioned in a way to make the collar stand out from the neckband, i.e. the roll, in a way dissimilar from knockoffs.

Gant and Sero product not made from Madras cloth were dress shirts. They were worn by young people with the first, and only the first, button open in general use. However as dress shirts, they could be worn with a suit or sport jacket. The "formality of an occasion" which I refer to as requiring a necktie is meant literally to be  truly formal settings. Not social events, but rather such activities as funerals, religious services, weddings and jobs that required a tie. Only the demand of formality induced fans of the shirts to put on neckties, much to the consternation of elders, by the way.

By "similar product," I refer to knockoffs that had the button-down collars, front button track, center pleat in back, and sometimes even a loop at the top of the back pleat. For whatever reason, only the equivalent-quality Sero brand matched the measurement specifications of these features, even though manufacturers of lesser product, and for that matter, other premium brands, could have precisely imitated these dimensions at little or no expense. I have no information, or even conjecture, as to why they didn't undertake this potentially profitable strategy.

For the record, I have never had any affiliation with the company. My principal interest in getting involved with this article is to document the cultural dominence of this particular product during the 1960's.

I will fix the spelling of "de rigueur."

I am Ben7 in my Wikipedia registration. Ben7 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Ben7


 * Ben, thank you very much for taking the time to respond, and a good response it was, too. If you'd like we can work on this together -- I have no real knowledge of Gant (born too late I guess), but I'm good at writing in an NPOV style (and at the hypertext stuff etc).  Let's see if we can find any private sources that will help us get this article up to standards.  Feel free to contact me on my user page if you wish. Cheers.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim, Stubbed my toe in endeavoring to e-mail...will work that out. I'd like very much to work with you toward improving the article. Hope you'll be patient, as I'm getting ready to be on the road for a few weeks. But I'll have the computer with me, and time to do some research as things settle down. Best, Ben  Ben7 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Ben7


 * Ben, sounds good...let's see what we can come up with. I'm sure there has to be something on the web about Gant.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)