Talk:British country clothing

Female clothing?

As far as I can tell, there are very few sentences that remotely describe female attire. This seems a bit unbalanced to me. Kibi78704 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Female clothing in this context is mostly male clothing, cut for women. However it's still very much based on the male styles, and cut by tailoring (cutting and pressing a heavy, shapeable fabric to hang from the shoulders) rather than dressmaking (draping a flexible fabric around the body). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British country clothing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518094329/http://www.ascot-tophats.co.uk/hat-styles-and-history to http://www.ascot-tophats.co.uk/hat-styles-and-history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Barbour in the U.S.

The Telegraph source reporting the 2006 New York boom in demand for Barbour constitutes a decent media source; two pages on, forgive me, rather inconsequential-looking fashion blogs indicating the sale of a massive brand such as Barbour at ten locations in the U.S. doesn't necessarily reflect the massively widespread usage that is claimed to exist by the poster with the exceedingly long sequence of letters and numbers in lieu of a name that I can't reasonably be expected to remember, from whose edit summaries on this article it can reasonably be concluded is a Barbour devotee and accordingly desirous of emphasising the status of Barbour in their country, out of brand loyalty or whatever other motive one can but contemplate. It suffices, surely, to observe that, following the 2006 rise to prominence of the brand, Barbour has retained a foothold in the U.S. market; claiming without a source that in the U.S. Barbour is considered to represent 'the pinnacle' of inclement weather clothing, however likely such a reasonable conclusion might well be given the quality of the garments and the lengthy heritage they hold in the U.K., is simply not encyclopaedic.

I question the extent to which the two blog pages cited as evidence supporting the Telegraph article can be considered even halfway-decent sources; if there were something like a mention in a New York Times piece, or a major fashion magazine- I mean, surely since 2006 there must have been at least SOME proper coverage in support of the popularity of Barbour in the U.S., which, as I've said, I don't necessarily doubt given the circumstances, but do question in terms of scale; the enthusiastic contributor would seem to be desirous of having readers of this page believe that every other person in the U.S. owns a Barbour, which I strongly doubt, and furthermore is an assertion with no real evidence, whether Barbour is sold at ten U.S. stores or a hundred.

'Gimme Glamour' is, as the sidebar indicates clearly enough, nothing more than a fashion-enthusiast college student's personal website, and with all respect to her, in this age of social media equalling status particularly in terms of value of such sites, her extremely small social media followings on Twitter and Instagram strongly hint her to be somewhat short of the first rank in internet fashion commentators. A few hundred Twitter followers and a few thousand Instagram followers is... not exactly strong support for implying she's in any position to be considered in any way authoritative, and the information she provides re: Barbour is purely anecdotal anyway. All this appears to apply to the other site, another young woman interested in fashion and, apparently 'New England' in general; 14 thousand Instagram followers is nothing to sniff at (sort of sub-D-list celebrity level, at best?) for the average social-media-savvy and dedicated young person with a niche website, but again, doesn't represent anything like the influence of a real source.

I suppose it boils down to: if these two sites are the best support for your claim, the claim can't really have much of a basis, can it? If Barbour were the new en vogue item that everyone HAD to have, there'd be more coverage of the subject, plain and simple, than a couple of quite unimportant personal websites.