[Vecchio Vespa]

On the Fashion Forum Flanderian kindly pointed out the subtlety of Trad versus traditional or classic. The light came on. When I began work in the mid-1970s at the Fed all of the older men wore slightly baggy two button suits with pleated trousers with lots of break, starched pointed collar shirts, and muted, patterned ties. I wore tassel loafers, glen plaid suits that had plain front pants with no break, OCBDs, and neats. When I got sick of regulating bank holding companies and went to work for one in Houston, the men were usually about thirty years younger than the folks at the Fed. Their typical look was pinstriped two button suits, still pleated pants with lots of break, still pointed collars, and neats. I wore 3/2 suits, OCBDs, tassel loafers, and paisley or striped ties. After I moved to Austin I experienced the workplace transitioning to casual. My co-workers wore pleated Docker without cuffs, casual leather belts, lace up shoes with long vamps and Italianate moc toes, and plaid sport shirts. I wore plain front cuffed khakis with 1 3/4” cuffs and no break, surcingle belts, LHSs, and OCBDs. The point of this is that for my entire career I have worked with people who all dressed the same. They wore clothing that was traditional, but not clothing I would buy. They had their alterations done, all the same, but I had mine done differently. Now as I am at retirement age I see some people dressing up for work, but they all seem to wear tighter suits and go cuffless. I have not seen a pair of tassel loafers at work for twenty years. The occasional button down is pinpoint, never Oxford, and has two back pleats rather than one box pleat. The point is they are all apparently following their “tradition,” and accordingly they are traditional, but I just wouldn’t be comfortable or happy dressing the way they do! Thanks, Flanderian!

 

[Doctor Damage]

Thanks for posting. Those are interesting observations and I always find it valuable to hear about the evolution of clothing modes as seen and experienced by regular folks over time. One thing I have learned is that how we see the past is rarely accurate, and that goes for clothing too. Hopefully some of our other older members will share their stories too.

 

[Charles Dana]

On the Fashion Forum Flanderian kindly pointed out the subtlety of Trad versus traditional or classic. I have worked with people who all dressed the same. They wore clothing that was traditional, but not clothing I would buy. The point is they are all apparently following their "tradition," and accordingly they are traditional, but I just wouldn't be comfortable or happy dressing the way they do! Thanks, Flanderian!

TK167's comments summarize why I don't really like the term "Trad." It's a confusing word because casual observers reasonably assume that it is simply a truncated form of "traditional." But the definition of "traditional clothing" covers a lot of territory: it means one thing to a working-class person who grew up in Kansas in the 1970s and something quite different to an upper-middle-class person who came of age in New England in the late 1950s-early 1960s.

Even the father of the "Trad Forum" himself--Harris--when using "Trad" to encapsulate the Ivy-ish clothing that he likes, did so in an offhand manner; he said that his style was "Trad or whatever you wish to call it." Clearly, he didn't have his heart set on any one particular label.

What iGents now refer to as "Trad" clothing is indeed traditional attire--but it's merely a narrow subset of traditional attire, not the universe of traditional attire. I'd prefer that the subset be called something less misleading, such as "Ivy-inspired" clothes. However, the label "Trad" is the genie that has left the bottle, and it's not going back.

(Before there was "Trad," and before there was the "Ivy League Look," the clothing industry--and its advertisers--referred to our type of clothes as "the collegiate style"...or the "relaxed university look"...or "the natural shoulder style"... or the "three-button natural shoulder look.") Three buttons. The jacket had to have three buttons. That was the "correct" look on campus. (It's amazing how many ads for college clothes in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s used the word "correct" to describe the advertiser's merchandise. Well, maybe not so amazing. Before maturity really kicks in, fitting in with your crowd is extremely important to you. The last thing you want is to look different.)

 

[Vecchio Vespa]

TK167's comments summarize why I don't really like the term "Trad." It's a confusing word because casual observers reasonably assume that it is simply a truncated form of "traditional." But the definition of "traditional clothing" covers a lot of territory: it means one thing to a working-class person who grew up in Kansas in the 1970s and something quite different to an upper-middle-class person who came of age in New England in the late 1950s-early 1960s.

Even the father of the "Trad Forum" himself--Harris--when using "Trad" to encapsulate the Ivy-ish clothing that he likes, did so in an offhand manner; he said that his style was "Trad or whatever you wish to call it." Clearly, he didn't have his heart set on any one particular label.

What iGents now refer to as "Trad" clothing is indeed traditional attire--but it's merely a narrow subset of traditional attire, not the universe of traditional attire. I'd prefer that the subset be called something less misleading, such as "Ivy-inspired" clothes. However, the label "Trad" is the genie that has left the bottle, and it's not going back.

(Before there was "Trad," and before there was the "Ivy League Look," the clothing industry--and its advertisers--referred to our type of clothes as "the collegiate style"...or the "relaxed university look"...or "the natural shoulder style"... or the "three-button natural shoulder look.") Three buttons. The jacket had to have three buttons. That was the "correct" look on campus. (It's amazing how many ads for college clothes in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s used the word "correct" to describe the advertiser's merchandise. Well, maybe not so amazing. Before maturity really kicks in, fitting in with your crowd is extremely important to you. The last thing you want is to look different.)

I agree. In my mind Harris describes the Ivy look and, when we left our various hallowed halls and got serious jobs, the 1970s "next phase" of that look. However, when I see posts on the trad board, especially older advertisements, they often are the clothing more of the Eisenhower era. To me the signals are starched white pointed collar shirts and fairly narrow and subdued ties, often with tie clips. I recall the Hathaway campaign of the mid-1960s. I believe they were preaching the acceptability of colored shirts after six. My dad was very much an Ike era trad and didn't start wearing brighter ties or colored shirts until well into the later 1960s. So in that sense he was a trad who experimented. I'm so rooted in the"look" of places like O'Connell's that experimenting in dressier clothing has been quite rare. In the sixty or so years this has been my mode of dressing the only experimentation I recall would be bright Nikes for casual wear and a few Vineyard Vines ties.

 

[Oldsarge]

Coming of age in the late '50's-early 60's, I remember an ad from one of the shirt companies, possibly Hathaway, that showed a strongly striped dress shirt. It said something along the line of, "This isn't your father's dress shirt but it might be your grandfather's!" It appealed to me. My father wore grey two piece suits with white shirts and (probably) pointed collars. It was a school teachers' uniform. My grandfather, who was a bit of a dandy, sported really wild tropical pattern ties with naked ladies hidden inside. I was with Grandpa! However, my own workplace wardrobe was purely utilitarian. A successful classroom is messy. Get used to it. I lived in an environment of whiteboard/overhead projector ink, plaster, watercolor . . . you name it. So I wore polo shirts and Levi's.

It was only after I retired that I could begin to develop a more stylish mode of dress. Ivy League doesn't do much for me, radical UC '60's kid that I was. However, certain icons attract. OCBD (but not white!), blue blazers, corduroy or tweed jackets--these are okay. Are they Trad? I don't care, but I like them.