Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a lot of people are confusing"class" with "old money".

Old money defines class. You can be high class without being old money, but only by being accepted by old money.

I disagree.

Paris Hilton is old money. Class pp?

Paris Hilton is not old money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like a lot of people are confusing"class" with "old money".

Old money defines class. You can be high class without being old money, but only by being accepted by old money.

I disagree.

Paris Hilton is old money. Class pp?

Anonymous wrote:The upper class know when to cut their losses--Felicity Huffman

The working class/middle class don't necessarily--Lori Loughlin

Anonymous wrote:No tattoos, proper grammar, no smoking, well fitted and tasteful clothes, shoes not down at the heels, well spoken and thoughtful, not reactionary or too loud in appearance or demeanor, everyone in family has at least a Bachelor's, ability to discuss politics or world dynamics without getting personal or overly hysterical, limited and tasteful FB/special media posts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No tattoos, proper grammar, no smoking, well fitted and tasteful clothes, shoes not down at the heels, well spoken and thoughtful, not reactionary or too loud in appearance or demeanor, everyone in family has at least a Bachelor's, ability to discuss politics or world dynamics without getting personal or overly hysterical, limited and tasteful FB/special media posts

Lots of upper class folks in worn shoes, especially among the waspy horsy types.

Lots of people beyond upper middle class that smoke. It’s almost like a bell curve.

Er, no. Smoking is an indicator that someone has no class. Regardless of the income/wealth level. You can't buy class, and a smoker doesn't have it.

Everyone has a socioeconomic class. That's what we are discussing here. Not "is this classy?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if that Stickley poster had just said “dining table and chairs” instead of “dining set” the past five pages could have been avoided????

Why didn’t you just tell her that she shouldn’t use the phrase “set” instead of making her think the problem is her furniture.

Yes--amazing isn't it?

Reminds me of Nancy Mitford's U vs. non-U. Update on her observations from the 1950s.

https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-language

Um way to bury the lead, she published it in a CIA-funded literary magazine??

Lede. Bury the lede.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget Mormon rich and influencer culture!

Some of those people make serious coin doing that.

...I grew up around some pretty affluent Mormon families. I have relatives who are big donors to BYU.

It is a world unto itself.

Can the Stickley posters shut up for a sec? I wanna hear this.

Anonymous wrote:This thread went from almost jumping the shark to fascinating again. What's fascinating to me is the extent to which people say they don't care about class, but then get offended to hear that something they like or do is MC. Maybe "class" is too value-laden of a term.

A lot of these subtleties, like whether you prefer to buy furniture in a set or have inherited and accumulated pieces individually, are things that tell you something about a person's family history. My parents are not WASPs. But we have been "well off" and considered a "good family" for multiple generations. In practical terms, for many people that translates to not having to furnish a household from nothing in a short period of time. And it's also reflected in taste preferences. To me, it just seems normal to buy each piece of furniture separately, and that's the look I prefer. IMHO, the Stickley set someone posted is perfectly lovely, it's just not to my taste to have matching chairs and table. I can't explain why.

I don't know what to say. If I were to describe my family, until recently I would have said upper echelons of UMC, because my parents work in professional jobs. But I've always noticed subtle differences between my parents preferences and those who were similarly well-off but didn't have the same multi-generational background of privilege. And I notice it between me and my friends and colleagues, most of whom did not grow up like I did. It in no way impacts whether I like or respect any of these people. It's just different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Even buying a "set" with matching table and chairs (which is what I assumed you meant by "dining set") is a class marker. It's silly, maybe, but it is what it is. My parents did not inherit a lot, but they never bought sets. And they mixed-and-matched estate pieces with custom furniture. E.g. their dining room furniture is a mix of antique chairs that have been reupholstered and a custom dining table (Henredon and Baker, I think, but I'm not sure).

So your parents furniture doesn’t match (and is probably looking worn). What about YOUR furniture? You’re an adult. Time to stop talking about what your parents have

Not sure why the hostility. My parents have 12 matching, antique dining room chairs (two with arms) that are reupholstered. I think the patina might be original, but either way the finish is almost perfect. They paid quite a premium for that at auction. PP asked a question about why people were suggesting that a "dining set" is a class indicator, and I'm explaining. I don't think it's better...it just is what it is.

The majority of my furniture is new or used but not antique. I like cleaner lines than what my parents like. But I also don't like matching sets (maybe because of how I grew up), so the pieces have been purchased individually. Like Stacey and Clinton from WNTW, they don't match, they "go".

I don't really care about any of this, but I am aware that people notice these things. And it is a class advantage to have been raised in a certain way that defines your tastes etc. That advantage matters more in some settings than others. If it doesn't matter to your life or job, NBD. But it matters in politics, so it matters to a lot of people in DC.

You can learn all this “classy” stuff from an ikea catalogue. They don’t do sets either.

Aaaand the trolls have arrived.

Lord Guess, anyone can buy antiques down the street, woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if that Stickley poster had just said “dining table and chairs” instead of “dining set” the past five pages could have been avoided????

Why didn’t you just tell her that she shouldn’t use the phrase “set” instead of making her think the problem is her furniture.

Yes--amazing isn't it?

Reminds me of Nancy Mitford's U vs. non-U. Update on her observations from the 1950s.

https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-language

Um way to bury the lead, she published it in a CIA-funded literary magazine??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Even buying a "set" with matching table and chairs (which is what I assumed you meant by "dining set") is a class marker. It's silly, maybe, but it is what it is. My parents did not inherit a lot, but they never bought sets. And they mixed-and-matched estate pieces with custom furniture. E.g. their dining room furniture is a mix of antique chairs that have been reupholstered and a custom dining table (Henredon and Baker, I think, but I'm not sure).

So your parents furniture doesn’t match (and is probably looking worn). What about YOUR furniture? You’re an adult. Time to stop talking about what your parents have

Not sure why the hostility. My parents have 12 matching, antique dining room chairs (two with arms) that are reupholstered. I think the patina might be original, but either way the finish is almost perfect. They paid quite a premium for that at auction. PP asked a question about why people were suggesting that a "dining set" is a class indicator, and I'm explaining. I don't think it's better...it just is what it is.

The majority of my furniture is new or used but not antique. I like cleaner lines than what my parents like. But I also don't like matching sets (maybe because of how I grew up), so the pieces have been purchased individually. Like Stacey and Clinton from WNTW, they don't match, they "go".

I don't really care about any of this, but I am aware that people notice these things. And it is a class advantage to have been raised in a certain way that defines your tastes etc. That advantage matters more in some settings than others. If it doesn't matter to your life or job, NBD. But it matters in politics, so it matters to a lot of people in DC.

You can learn all this “classy” stuff from an ikea catalogue. They don’t do sets either.

Aaaand the trolls have arrived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The upper class know when to cut their losses--Felicity Huffman

The working class/middle class don't necessarily--Lori Loughlin

+1. Huffman is from an upper class family that knows when to quit and make a quiet exit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No tattoos, proper grammar, no smoking, well fitted and tasteful clothes, shoes not down at the heels, well spoken and thoughtful, not reactionary or too loud in appearance or demeanor, everyone in family has at least a Bachelor's, ability to discuss politics or world dynamics without getting personal or overly hysterical, limited and tasteful FB/special media posts

Lots of upper class folks in worn shoes, especially among the waspy horsy types.

Lots of people beyond upper middle class that smoke. It’s almost like a bell curve.

Er, no. Smoking is an indicator that someone has no class. Regardless of the income/wealth level. You can't buy class, and a smoker doesn't have it.

Everyone has a socioeconomic class. That's what we are discussing here. Not "is this classy?"