Our attitude toward the Guild’s activities either above or below ground need to remain neutral in order to sustain the academic rigor of our investigations. We have indicated repeatedly that we have secured no “hard” evidence either confirming or denouncing the Guild’s basic existence. It is not our intention to bring unwanted legal scrutiny to individuals we feel may have links to the Guild either through their current associations or, as is more often the case, through their ancestral connections to the tailoring trade.
However, in order to better understand the merit and historical impact of the Guild’s dogmatic design ethic on the history of menswear development, we feel it is within our mandate to offer some indication of the character and geography of potential members.
In the event that this overview causes any difficulties for those featured or for the ancestors of those featured (in the case of historical records) we both apologize in advance and offer again that we have no substantive proof of actual membership. Our archive should not ever serve as “evidence” of membership by justice systems seeking to oppress these tailors or their estates (should they no longer be living).
In order to mitigate such a negative outcome we have elected to use pseudonyms or leave images as anonymous. We have also elected to present the localities of the featured tailors’ design activities as presented by the actual topographies involved without taking the extra step of offering place-names or addresses.
Regarding the Scissors
Shown adjacent to each designer appear an associated pair of shears. It is widely accepted that, as part of initiation into the Militant Guild of Rural Tailors, the initiate was required to trade-in his own scissors in exchange for a pair of the Guild’s symbolic brass-knuckle-shears. As can be seen in the juxtapositions offered here, there is some doubt as to whether the initiate was actually willing to give up his personal scissors in this exchange.
It would be understandable that such a tailor would be reluctant to forgo scissors on which his livelihood was dependent for a pair which promised to be impractical on several fronts. The fit to the new member’s hand, the “action” of the blades and the calibration of the hinge could easily represent functional handicaps. Moreover the brass-knuckle-shears with which they were replaced could not be used in front of the public.
The Research Group suspects that this accounts for the appearance of scissors outside the garment-making tradition. It is likely that initiates sometimes brought non-primary scissors (tin-snips, hair-cutting scissors, grape-scissors, editor’s shears, etc) to serve in the exchange.
We think this is why you see non-garment scissors included in various manifestations of the Tailor’s Crown which feature an assortment of old scissors handed in by these new members.
