[drpeter]

Here's an interesting take on how Ivy style might change and morph into new variations in the future.

http://www.ivy-style.com/two-guys-who-write-about-ivy-walk-into-a-bar.html

The article by John Burton is a response to a piece in GQ by Jason Diamond, which is referenced through a link you can click to get to it. Taken together, both pieces deal with how things have changed with regard to Ivy and Prep and other subcultures of dressing within those broad rubrics. They use terms like Degage and Dirtbag Ivy to characterize some of the new trends. I think Amalgamated Schools of Dressing might also suit these variations! It sounds both like a clothing company and a school of sartorial philosophy -- getting two birds with one loafer, LOL.

 

[Vecchio Vespa]

It was a thoughtful article but really talked more about terminology and culture than clothes. It raises a fascinating question for me. "What should an old white guy wear to avoid being accused of cultural appropriation, appearing to support objectionable movements like white supremacy, or engaging in simply unacceptable dressing by resorting to cargo shorts and band tee shirts?"

It also brought back a fun side of that mode of dress, rebellion. I loved working at places like the Fed and at a large bank and subtly flaunting rejection of the way everyone else dressed: 3/2 sacks instead of darted two buttons served as the canvas, pink or blue OCBDs instead of starched white broad cloth point collars, garish repps and paisleys were far more fun than navy neats, and brushed tassel loafers were so much more fun than spit shined (by someone else) J & M cap toe oxfords.

As clothing now has so many implications I find fraying, slightly high water, cuffed khakis, slightly frayed OCBDs, and ancient and slouchy ranger mocs to be likely the least offensive thing I can wear, but it is essential that any ironing (entirely optional) is done at home, avoiding any basis to accuse me of overdressing.

As regards the use of the word preppy, the first time I heard it was in Love Story.

 

[fishertw]

I still take exception to"preppy". I grew up wearing traditional clothing and still do. I am offended by being considered to be new to the game. Like you, frayed khakis, unironed shirts and ranger mocs are the norm.

 

[drpeter]

I agree with Tom. I too have not liked the term "preppy". There's a faint whiff of disrepute in the term that somehow devalues the clothing and perhaps the subculture. Maybe it was created to poke fun at the attitudes fostered by those who might soon become part of the ruling class. Rather like the word "toff" in England used in a derogatory way to characterise a rich, well-dressed person belonging to the upper classes.

I do however realize that there are ways in which one's clothing can reflect Ivy culture and yet not have anything to do with it. I have pointed out that my wearing of (and great liking for) khakis is related to my Indian background rather than any East Coast connections -- of which I only have one, an older brother who lived in Boston most of his life and went to Tufts and worked at MIT, and dressed in any old fashion he pleased, LOL.

 

[Fading Fast]

Clearly wearing certain slogans, etc. could be insulting and wearing things or assembling an outfit to obviously and intentional provoke anger in others is wrong, but I'm not going to worry about those who have now decided to define everything in a political way so that a basic shirt or combination of clothes considered "Ivy" or "Preppie" or whatever is believed inappropriate because of a hypersensitive political group who, IMO, are really passive-aggressive bullies.

I think, I too, first heard the word "Preppie" in "Love Story." Since the word originated to describe clothes worn by kids who went to a prep school, a literal interpretation today would miss the large audience who now wear the clothes. But to be fair, words quite often grow well past their original meaning. I like "Ivy" better, but that, too, originated with a type of school, but has since outgrown that meaning.

 

[127.72 MHz]

The best any of the so called fashion observers have ever received from me is a roll of my eyes.

The only label that I will put on my very specific taste in clothing it is one that hasn't been coined by the self appointed critics. (I'll go with classic American,.....At least until some pseudo-intellectual coins the phrase.)

I am condescendingly amused by someone who would include terms like "Degage" and "Dirtbag Ivy" in their thought process.

To think, somewhere there is a singular individual who found time to actually coin these terms.

 

[Vecchio Vespa]

I agree with Tom. I too have not liked the term "preppy". There's a faint whiff of disrepute in the term, that somehow devalues the clothing and perhaps the subculture. Maybe it was created to poke fun at the attitudes fostered by those who might soon become part of the ruling class. Rather like the word "toff" in England used in a derogatory way to characterise a rich, well-dressed person belonging to the upper classes.

I do however realize that there are ways in which one's clothing can reflect Ivy culture and yet not have anything to do with it. I have pointed out that my wearing of (and great liking) for khakis is related to my Indian background rather than any East Coast connections -- of which I only have one, an older brother who lived in Boston most of his life and went to Tufts and worked at MIT, and dressed in any old fashion he pleased, LOL.

Yes, it feels very much like "toff." I also dislike Ivy because it seems that appropriating Ivy if you are not an Ivy League alumnus/alumna is weird. To me it is simply classic American, no matter why you like khakis. Of course it runs the gamut from khaki Dockers and an inexpensive permanently pressed button down to nice JDs or Bills and a well ironed Gitman or Mercer, but it is pretty much the uniform of anyone much over forty-five! It can be worn like a sloppy eighth grader whose mother buys his clothes or like a photo shoot on SWNE. It s also a fun reality that it is easily enhanced by adding or substituting elements from other traditions. To those who think jeans and a tee shirt are the perfect blank canvas, I say nope, khakis and a button down. Wear it with a flannel over shirt and black Chucks, and you can run with the hipsters. Add a repp tie, a blazer, and loafers or desert boots, and you can be overdressed in 98% of the settings you will encounter these days. If you start with jeans and a tee shirt, you can only get to 85-90%.

Edit: Given that @127.72 MHz came up with classic American as I was composing this, maybe it is time to shift our terminology.

...nah.

 

[Corcovado]

I read the article, and the article in GQ it was referring to, and I looked at the Instagram pages mentioned therein. My thoughts, which are not worth much since I'm just a Snopes trying to pass for a Compson:

Dirtbag seems like a poor choice of word. To me, a dirtbag is first and foremost a person of low character. Maybe the idiom is received differently in places like NYC. The author seems to just mean casual or even sloppy. I would point to photos in Take Ivy of young men wearing their clothes in a sloppy or insouciant style. It's nothing new.

I'm confused by the GQ writer who says, "Think: a striped blazer and schoolboy shorts with a pair of socks that almost go up past the ankles" and links to this photo:

http://instagr.am/p/CTSD3j8rZgZ/
I only managed a B in gross anatomy but I feel like I can say that the man's socks actually cover his ankles and extend to the lower calf. I will add that he looks terrible, and more foppish than "dirtbag."

"Think: t-shirt, jeans and a dad hat, but with a three-button blazer."

( http://instagr.am/p/CTWz0j4pqPj/ )

This guy looks terrible too. Some blazers go well with jeans, but the double breasted variety is not working here. I will at least give him credit for not furthering the trend of jackets which are cut too high. Unfortunately, he goes to the other extreme, and the length of the jacket ends up drawing attention to his short stature. It's not flattering. He looks more like a kid who got into his dad's closet.

As far as a "renewed appreciation for bengal stripe," I am reminded of how, from time to time, the fashion world declares that "voluptuous women are back in the style," whereupon all the men remark that as far as they're concerned they never went out of style in the first place.

 

[Vecchio Vespa]

I read the article, and the article in GQ it was referring to, and I looked at the Instagram pages mentioned therein. My thoughts, which are not worth much since I'm just a Snopes trying to pass for a Compson:

Dirtbag seems like a poor choice of word. To me, a dirtbag is first and foremost a person of low character. Maybe the idiom is received differently in places like NYC. The author seems to just mean casual or even sloppy. I would point to photos in Take Ivy of young men wearing their clothes in a sloppy in insouciant style. It's nothing new.

I'm confused by the GQ writer who says, "Think: a striped blazer and schoolboy shorts with a pair of socks that almost go up past the ankles" and links to this photo:

http://instagr.am/p/CTSD3j8rZgZ/
I only managed a B in gross anatomy but I feel like I can say that the man's socks actually cover his ankles and extend to the lower calf. I will add that he looks terrible, and more foppish than "dirtbag."

"Think: t-shirt, jeans and a dad hat, but with a three-button blazer."

( http://instagr.am/p/CTWz0j4pqPj/ )

This guy looks terrible too. Some blazers go well with jeans, but the double breasted variety is not working here. I will at least give him credit for not furthering the trend of jackets which are cut too high. Unfortunately, he goes to the other extreme, and the length of the jacket ends up drawing attention to his short stature. It's not flattering. He looks more like a kid who got into his dad's closet.

As far as a "renewed appreciation for bengal stripe," I am reminded of how, from time to time, the fashion world declares that "voluptuous women are back in the style," whereupon all the men remark that as far as they're concerned they never went out of style in the first place.

Faulkner would be proud of your insightful comments.

 

[katon]

It was a thoughtful article but really talked more about terminology and culture than clothes. It raises a fascinating question for me. "What should an old white guy wear to avoid being accused of cultural appropriation, appearing to support objectionable movements like white supremacy, or engaging in simply unacceptable dressing by resorting to cargo shorts and band tee shirts?

Uniforms tend to store associations for people. Someone wearing a particular uniform is associated favorably and negatively to not only others wearing it but also those who have worn it in the past.

If the net impression of the past and peers is good, the wearer gains a halo effect. If it is bad, the wearer grows horns.

I think the best one can do is rehabilitation. Positive interactions slowly but surely wear away at negative first impressions. If the bad impression took many years to build, a good impression may take many years to restore.

If the person decides to solve this through wearing a new uniform, but others feel that person is wearing it as a disguise, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, they will react negatively, even if they like the new clothes generally and the wearer too is a fan.

I think this tends to cause conflict because there seems something a little un-American about the idea that anyone can peg a person by their clothes and say, "Those aren't his clothes, he's faking it!" rather than "Fake it 'til you make it".

That's a harder problem, but I feel the best thing there is to try to meet in the middle. Fashion tends to divorce clothes from context. Even people who are big believers in Clothes Make the Man can feel strange in their clothes when there is no context at all. "I've got on boat shoes, but why? I live in a land-locked state and don't own a boat. I've got a navy blazer with buttons from my school, but I had to have the buttons special-ordered, they never sold them on campus when I was there because nobody ever wore navy blazers... what's the point of this, exactly?"

That doesn't mean that if a person wants to wear a style that they shouldn't wear it, but rather that grounding a style in one's own personal experiences both fights accusations of it being a disguise or costume and makes a person feel more comfortable in the clothes they want to feel comfortable in. A certain maker of blazer buttons still sells custom sets from "The School of Hard Knocks" for people who want to wear a blazer with school buttons but who didn't graduate from school. Maybe a hiking sole would be a better choice for a hiker than a boat sole. I guess this is where ingroup and outgroup style meets personal style.

 

[AldenPyle]

Good news. Preppy is back in fashion.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/preppy-style-history-11634760184

 

[drpeter]

I think @katon makes some very good points. I think there are two functions in clothing style: Signalling membership in some social group or other, and expressing a particular view of oneself, as shown through clothes.

The former function is part of human social organization, so that people in a specific time and place dressed in very similar ways to demonstrate group cohesion of some sort. In its most rigidly defined form, such cohesion is seen in military uniforms. But many organizations can be almost as rigid, for instance the IBM dress code of the mid-twentieth century (navy or grey pinstripe suit, white shirt, wingtip shoes and a necktie).

The latter function is demonstrated by great individual variation in clothing. It is the developing of a signature style which makes observers say that a particular person has a distinctive appearance, even when the overall effect is that of belonging to a group. Consistently wearing a bowtie, or suede shoes, or a trilby, are all ways in which one might try to establish an individual style. This style evolves from one's own life and experiences. But it may also evoke in others a rather different set of assumptions about one's style. The example I gave in my OP about why my wearing khaki has nothing to do with preppy style illiustrates this general point.