Clothes Maketh The Man?


No Minister  welcomes the news of money flowing through the rural economy and points to this story in The Herald.

I agree with the positve sentiments about farming but why do reporters mention the clothes?

If you passed him in the Fieldays’ crowds, chances are you wouldn’t have picked John Austin as someone who had just bought $800,000 worth of heavy farm machinery.

Dressed in a navy fleece jacket and open-necked shirt, Austin didn’t stand out from the record 131, 629 crowd who thronged to the Southern Hemisphere’s biggest agricultural hypermarket at Mystery Creek, near Hamilton.

Clothes also featured in this story on the sale of Colin & Vera Meads’ farm:

About 60 people trickled in to the auction, most of them friends and neighbours of Colin and Verna Meads. . .

So too was a low-key man from Piopio, who propped himself up on a stool beside a “leaner” table, directly opposite the auctioneer’s lectern.  He had taken his gumboots off at the door and was wearing only woollen farming socks, a rugged old pair of Canterbury rugby shorts, a Swanndri shirt that “you get for free with a bucketload of drench,” and a faded painter’s cap.

A few minutes later the unshaven man from the King Country backblocks had bought the farm for $1.425 million. Capital value was $1.615 million.

Were the reporters expecting a suit and tie? Or is there some sort of satorial snobbery which finds it difficult to understand that people who have to get their hands dirty at work are also successful business people? 🙂

%d bloggers like this: