Old-Fashioned? Me?

I am often accused of being an old-fashioned man.  This, despite the fact that I’m using a keyboard to enter my thoughts into a digital medium via a thing called the Internet.  And hey, I prefer brass cartridges over muzzle-loading, so I’m not that  old-fashioned (unlike some of my Readers, who believe that this brass thing is just a passing fad).

If you want to know what gets me going, however, consider the following pics, and guess why I tend to prefer tradition over modernity.  We’ll open with the modern ones:

Interior design:




Men’s appearance:


And you all know about my preferences in architecture:

So yeah, I guess I am old-fashioned.  Feel free to envy me.


  1. Kim, I agree with you almost 100%, but I’m going to throw my oar in anyway.
    Interior design: must be livable. The top one is impossible. The second one is too neat and without anything personal about the people who live there, but it has possibilities.
    Cars: I’m more into handling and drivability than outward looks. Neither of these fits my bill. Put me in an E-Type and we can talk.
    Handguns: I’m a 1911 guy all the way. The Python has too much monkey motion going on under the sheet metal for me. As an old Ordnance Officer, give me a Ma-Deuce any day if we’re laying down lead.
    Women: All the way with Sophia. As to the fashion; both gowns are very nice, but the ink on number one would make me, as a fashion designer, not to want any association with that amount of ink overwhelming my design.
    Men’s Fashion: The first two are not only poorly dressed for the or any occasion but are also just sloppy. The second pair are wearing neckties that are too narrow for my taste. Whenever we go out and I’m in jacket and tie, my wife insists on me having a pocket square.
    Foods or More precisely Cuisine: I’m not a big fish guy, but if we’re eating seafood, a lobster or huge plate of steamed blue crabs in Old Bay is my preference. I’d take a monster steak over either.
    Architecture: Hands down. But I must admit a long time fascination with Frank Lloyd Wright due to having known in my youth some people who had two Wright houses designed for them.

    1. The top one has possibilities, but needs accents. Something on the wall, some framed photographs here and there. A floorlamp or two, a rug, things like that.
      The second is too cluttered, too much a museum rather than a living room. In fact both of them are.

      The two houses, both have their potential. The older one definitely looks more grand, but it also looks way too big (at least for my situation).
      The new one is a bit too modern, but the general principle is salvagable.

      The food choices, neither of them appeal to me. Top one gets big points for the skill gone into creating it, though.
      Either one again has its place, depending on mood and situation. I’d not serve the first to a group of friends on a night on the town, nor the second to an important business contact after closing a multi million dollar contract.

      1. > The second is too cluttered, too much a museum rather than a living room.

        I disagree. It bespeaks, “I’ve hired someone to clean and dust this place.” You see that sort of room in hotels and clubs.

  2. The Ginger on the right in “Men’s appearance” is pretty near pure-bred Neanderthal, so I’ll cut him some slack, he’s just reverting to type.

  3. My business is buying old and badly beat up properties, renovating, converting to multi-family and renting them out. I feel the same as you when I watch a lot of reno shows. Modern architects, and many builders, seem to have no feel for the basic characteristics of their materials. They use brick where it should not go, make steel structures where wood is better and vice versa. They have no sense of economy of material and squander it.

    They are addicted to the very expensive and hard to maintain flat roof, don’t even know the cube square law exists much less what it means and have eliminated eaves and overhangs out of sheer ignorance about their functionality.

    A lot of beautiful old buildings, like the one above (Georgian? Regency?) were built with great care to use the right material, in the right quantities, in the right way. Beauty was almost inevitable, even though the object was economy.

    1. I’m with you on the proper use of materials. My house was built in 1929 and at the time would have been considered an economically built home. The interior window and door trim and the doors themselves are all made of birch stained to look like cherry. With only flat boards of various thickness and small offsets to create shadow lines without expensive mouldings the builders created a visually appealing look at low cost.

      Today it would cost a small fortune to recreate it, just to have a modern design idiot paint it all white.

  4. Yep, all the way, the old way. What the hell is going on in the brains of people, especially women who get tattoos, lots of them all over? Is the air or the food or the drugs that mess up their heads?

    I have no problem with a man who is a Marine having a the emblem on his arm, a sailor having an anchor or two, best done where a long shirt will cover it up. If a woman want’s a nice rose on her but or a tramp stamp on her back at the waist that’s kind of goofy but OK. Of course those who put ink all over tend to wear as little as possible when they go to Walmart and that it really not tasteful at all.

  5. I’m pretty much on your side of the divide, except that I’ll split the difference on architecture. I do like me some Frank Lloyd Wright, and also I’m a big fan of the Craftsman bungalow. On the cars, I’d lean a little more towards the E-type Jaguar or a Mercedes SL from the 1950s or ’60s, but I wouldn’t turn down the Corvette if somebody offered to give me one.

  6. I googled house of Boughton at one point and I liked that house

    Course then I found out I was named after a town than was founded by the French on English soil so that passed

    I just got a 1911 made by ruger. See if it works and better than the others I have had

  7. If you’re ever in western Colorado, visit the little burg of Crawford. Joe Cocker built himself a nice little English mansion just outside town. He was also the mayor, and ran a little general store. It’s just north of the north rim of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison:


    God, I hate tattoos on women. The female form is a canvas best left bare. They do not make pretty women prettier, and can make fat/ugly women downright hideous.

    Here’s a great video of American muscle cars in Europe. I swear I can hear the Euro soy boys’ testicles pulling up into their abdomens at times. My choice? The old Mercury Cougar near the beginning:


    Guns? Sure. Revolvers ftw, Glocks not so much.

  8. I was once a fan of Swedish Modern interior design, but it has one big problem…it demands CONTINUAL housekeeping to maintain the look. Victorian works quite well for a bachelor…you can live in it.

    Cars? It depends on the car. There have been ugly cars in each generation. But the modern cars are mechanically superior.

    And those suppository guns are just a passing fad. Add in the time you spend picking up brass and reloading, and muzzle-loaders come out on top.

  9. I’ll add one other point. For a young woman, it’s pathetically easy to stand out these days. Avoid the tattooist and you’ve raised your dating value considerably (and sent a message saying that you have class). Put the phone away on a date, and men will think you incredibly attentive (and attractive). Dress nicely (BTW, read the older books on fashion. They had a lot of information on how to conceal figure flaws), and you’ll stand out.

    It’s a seller’s market.

  10. I’ll have both those cars, please! And despite my supper just now being steak & chips I’d no way object to that plate of food being put in front of me.

  11. Olde Fashioned? ? Hell yes.
    This from a man that does not own a plastic fantastic pistol, owns a 65 year old Jaguar, (actually it owns me), took his Highly sporterised, Eddystone Enfield, US rifle of 1917, rebarreled in +/- 1935 with a USGI HS barrel to his local range last week and shot groups less than 1″ with two different weight bullets.
    The pistol collection runs from the 1850’s up through an EDC Sig 229. NO plastic here not now not never.
    Vietnam veteran, God bless America and FUCK antifa. And the dimocrats.

  12. I think the pistol comparison is a little unfair. The Colt was a top tier revolver used for serious purposes. That AR “pistol” (as is) is a range toy at best. A more fair comparison Chiappa Rhino, or Walther P99 or similar ilk–I mean, just to be reasonably fair and still make your point.

    As to women again I think it an unfair comparison–one of the modern ‘politically active’ scolds would be a better choice than a out-and-out slattern.

    1. Choosing a politically active scold over a slattern is like wanting to die every day as opposed to once some time in the future. You would be always wrong on the basis of your birth and nothing but “Yes, Dear” is fightin’ words. She would be the woman and aggrieved because of imaginary s*** that happened to imaginary people in the distant past. She might be “Miss Right”, but her first name is “Always”.

  13. For me, Arts-and-Crafts homes with a few heirloom Stickley. Open spaces allow the woodwork to breathe.
    A nature mural on part of one wall, faded from decades of appreciation.
    Wabi sabi == a painted kitchen floor with user wear at the sink and stove.

    Automobiles need to be mobile for a valid portrait.
    *** Norwegian forest rallies come to mind, airborne sideways. Vikings exercising their Vikingness.
    *** Trophy Trucks messing about in Baja.
    *** Tatra 8×8 trudging up a rock-pile too steep to walk, stopping before peaking, the crew exiting the moon-roof to ‘moon’ mere mortals.

    Two of my female friends went with buzzcuts years ago.
    Indecently bare to the edge of nekkid-while-dressed.
    Neither use make-up or dangly jangles. Nor the tattoo abomination.
    Without all that distraction, each is inherently feminine. And inherently a lady… nothing to prove.

    For firearms, Kidd Rock built a Ruger 10-22 capable of one-hole groups (out to 300-yards?).
    I think each individual piece of machinery has an inherent beauty… as long as it functions as intended.
    ‘Not-beauty’ is the piles of confiscated firearms in Australia. For that criminal act, several somebodies need to hang.

  14. Re Interior Design: my house was built in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s so I guess I’ve already voted there
    Re Cars: I’ve owned all sorts of sports cars and they were murder to keep going, now I’m old and I value reliability, I tend to go for 4WD’s (though that 5l Mustang keeps calling)
    Re Guns: back in the day when we had pistols I was a big fan of black powder, specifically in a Remington 1858 in 44, (if you needed to shoot something, it stayed shot)
    Re Ladies: there really is no comparison between those two, they were made in different factories to different designs with a different end user in sight. I’m sure they both have lovely personalities but I’ve got to admit I prefer the older style and am not fond of tattoos (gilding the lily?)
    Re Mens Appearance: the first two guys look like sacks of shit tie up with string, they’ve taken no car at all about their appearance
    Re Food: It’s No. 2 all the way for me, sometimes I make a mistake and am served nouvelle cuisine in a restaurant (because I didn’t check) it usually means a sandwich when I get home
    Re Houses: I think my answer to Interior Design does for this one too
    It’s surprising how old-fashioned one can be

  15. Who manufactured that first automobile? Ford, Chrysler, Chevrolet? Fryslerlet? Change the badges and the tail lights and it could be a Challenger, Charger, Mustang, or Camaro. It looks so blocky it could be designed by the creator of Dick Tracy, who couldn’t do perspective because of a visual impairment.

Comments are closed.