[PorterSq]

I'm not concerned with the ethnic heritage of the people who make the clothes I buy. I just tend to prefer that my stuff is "made in USA".

Fair enough, but I don't think we're on the same page. Paperclip was saying that he likes his stuff made in the USA and I pointed out that a number of trad items were well within the "trad canon" that are NOT from the USA (e.g. Irish sweaters, tweed from the UK).

Now, if you tell me that you like Irish sweaters and tweed, but only when they're made in the USA, that's different than the point Paperclip and I were going back-and-forth on. If, however, you tell me that foreign-made stuff is OK as long as it's a tweed, Irish sweater, or the like, then that puts you in the same camp as P.C.

Either way, I'm truly not trying to make a moral judgment. As a fiscal conservative who believes in laissez faire economics, I disagree with promoting "Made in the USA" consumer goods (unless there is some unique reason they can ONLY be made here or the USA industries can provide the same quality at a better price than an overseas competitor). However, I certainly recognize that there is another side to that argument and respect it.

 

[babycatcher]

Welcome to the Catch-22 of AAAC: you can only be trad if you effortlessly dress in trad clothes; you can't be effortless if you're taking the time to read and post on forums like AAAC.

Embrace the hypocrisy.

I dont see it that way, at least not quite. I went to prep schools and such, and have dressed pretty much the same way for most of my adult life (I will tend to block out the late 1980s though).

Now, I am at a point in my life where I want to invest in a wardrobe that is uniformly of high quality. Like any investment, I want to be well-informed before I take the plunge. That is where AAAC paid off for me.

For example, before AAAC, I wore J&M Ski Mocs. I could have gone on buying a new couple of pairs every 2 years and then tossing them in the garbage when they were worn, but I learned of the Alden 986. I can come up with dozens of similar examples. My "look" is pretty much unchanged to 99% of the people I meet, but I know the difference now, and that matters. As a bonus, and probably the the main point when I really think about it, the stuff I have now wears longer and is more comfortable. It feels more "substantial" when I wear it because it is better made.

The rules are interesting, and when they tend to flatter how I look, I follow them; when then don't, I won't. Darts and pleats don't scare me if they look better in a garment, at least when its on me.

 

[AldenPyle]

In the 1950's and early 1960's, there was a recognized and widely adopted style of dress that was referred to as the Ivy League style in the mid 1950's and the "natural shoulder" style in the late 1950's and early 1960's. There were a number of distinct characteristics of that style including natural shoulders (of course), unshaped chest, straight hanging lines, flat front and cuffed trousers. All of these characteristics are the same as the details that "trad" is supposedly obsessed with. You can call these characteristics "rules" or not, as you like. There were other styles available, of course, so people who wore this particular style were clearly making a choice. Moreover, it can be seen from uncounted ads from this period that these distinguishing characteristics were a selling point for clothes of this style. Consider this ad from an 1955 issue of the Cornell Daily Sun.

Note, this is not an ad in a fashion magazine or Esquire. Just an ad from a run of the mill independent haberdashery targeted at the average student in the campus newspaper. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that afficianados of this style knew exactly what they were looking at and that these details were important to them. Or, at the very least, that people trying to make money selling clothes thought it was important to them.

 

[P Hudson]

I don't get this idea that Made in the USA is a requirement of it being trad? American roots?

I disagree. How about fine sweaters made in Ireland, tweeds from the UK and oilskins from Australia? None of them are American-made or have US roots, yet I suspect people here would say those are quite trad. So...is it really about being "made in the USA?"

I'll reply to this since it seems like my words may have sparked the interchange. I wrote "clothes with American heritage if not roots" to concede that a lot of things I'm happy with are not necessarily American made, like a Harris Tweed, which has become part of American heritage. I live in Australia, where people drink tea as part of their British heritage, even though the tea comes from Ceylon and other places. When I was growing up in the US, kids at school of a certain colour would tell me, "you're so white". I never knew how to respond. I suppose something was indicating a European background. Now I wear my tweed jacket and Barbour coat and somehow people still recognise me as an American.

The reason I chose my wording, and why I choose my clothing, is that living in another country I have become increasingly aware of my identity as an American and am happy to express it in what I wear (and as I wrote earlier, esp during a time of war and strong anti-American sentiment). I could imagine that others wish to celebrate their respect for their IVY League heritage, or "traditional values" in a world losing its moorings, or something similar. That's up to them. I've stated my reason.

Since the issue was raised, I suppose I would add that I'd like to support the few American firms that remain. I don't care if an Asian or an Arab person makes my clothes, as long as they are treated right by their employer and spend the money in a way that helps the US economy. For that to happen, it seems to me they need to be "ma[king] in the USA". I'm keen to see the Anderson Little blazer, because no matter who actually puts them together, I think it reflects some of these values.

 

[wessex]

Merry Chrismas & Happy New Year!

 

[PorterSq]

In the 1950's and early 1960's, there was a recognized and widely adopted style of dress that was referred to as the Ivy League style in the mid 1950's and the "natural shoulder" style in the late 1950's and early 1960's. There were a number of distinct characteristics of that style including natural shoulders (of course), unshaped chest, straight hanging lines, flat front and cuffed trousers. All of these characteristics are the same as the details that "trad" is supposedly obsessed with. You can call these characteristics "rules" or not, as you like. There were other styles available, of course, so people who wore this particular style were clearly making a choice. Moreover, it can be seen from uncounted ads from this period that these distinguishing characteristics were a selling point for clothes of this style. Consider this ad from an 1955 issue of the Cornell Daily Sun.

Note, this is not an ad in a fashion magazine or Esquire. Just an ad from a run of the mill independent haberdashery targeted at the average student in the campus newspaper. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that afficianados of this style knew exactly what they were looking at and that these details were important to them. Or, at the very least, that people trying to make money selling clothes thought it was important to them.

I've seen these ads, and understand what you're saying. I think you're responding to a slightly different point than the one I was trying (perhaps poorly) to get at. I say that what is "trad" has been totally mythologized by AAAC. What people wear now and call "trad" (needlepoint belts, grosgrain watchbands w/ Timex, pink oxford shirts, Alden 405s) has nothing to do with the look in those ads. Indeed, I suspect a pink OCBD would be as foreign to those guys in the 1950s-60s as pleated pants a and a darted suit.

Let be be finale of seem.

 

[AldenPyle]

1954

 

[PorterSq]

Fair enough. Now do a search for darted blazer and pleated pants and let me know if you get any hits.

One swallow does not a summer make.

 

[PorterSq]

Check this thread, discussing a 1956 J. Press ad for PLEATED pants: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=49091

Almost any argument can be proved looking at only some of the evidence. Here, however, I think when one looks at ALL the evidence, it supports the idea that trad is a myth (how else do you explain the store that bests embodies "trad "at the time that best embodies "trad" selling the product that is the antithesis of what people claim IS "trad?").

Or, to paraphrase W.S.:

Let be be finale of seem, the only trad is the trad of our pipe dreams.

 

[Jim In Sunny So Calif]

I've seen these ads, and understand what you're saying. I think you're responding to a slightly different point than the one I was trying (perhaps poorly) to get at. I say that what is "trad" has been totally mythologized by AAAC. What people wear now and call "trad" (needlepoint belts, grosgrain watchbands w/ Timex, pink oxford shirts, Alden 405s) has nothing to do with the look in those ads. Indeed, I suspect a pink OCBD would be as foreign to those guys in the 1950s-60s as pleated pants a and a darted suit.

Let be be finale of seem.

Of the items and during the time period that you mention, I remember wearing the watch bands and pink OCBD shirts. The shirts also were avaible in ecru and, of course, blue. I don't remember about yellow. I bought a lot of my shirts from Lew Ritter's in Westwood Village, CA. They would send the shirts to a shirtmaker in Beverly Hills to be tapered for an additional charge of either $1.50 or $1.75.

In the 60's I bould one white OCBD from BB, but did not care for it as it was huge and I was thinner and they charged $1.00 extra for a pocket.

If I had a Timex, it would have been only because it was a cheap watch and not because of any status that brand had. I mostly wore a Hamilton which I still have, but don't wear much anymore.

I did not know a lot about shoes, but did have some A-E shoes because they were sold by Mark's Boot Shop in Westwood Village. I expect there were a number of good shoes made in this country during that time period.

 

[Pale Male]

PLEATS at PRESS!

Trads can make their religion as wacky as they please, this is America after all.

I would just note that in the early 80's it was damn-near-impossible to find a pair of pleated flannels. I spied a pair in one of the York Street windows, ran back to the room, and with Best-Ever-Roommate dashed back to Press. We each bought a pair -- same size too -- though his were let out and mine were taken in. Perfect mid-weight flannel in a lovely not-too-light-but-not-too-dark gray. Probably my favorite pair, ever. And as a side note, certainly made in USA of British flannel. Possibly not made by "white people" but not made in sweatshops by near-slave labor. Perhaps nothing to be proud of, but clearly nothing to be embarrassed about. But then I'm not a Free-Market-Fundamentalist, I'm just an Episcopalian.

And until a few years ago, Anglo-inspired meant made in the UK, or at least the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. No surprise -- Yarvton merely copied Oxbridge though not slavishly.

 

[windsor]

Jim of sunny SC makes a good point on designers and their names of apparel. I recall reading in some book on menswear that if you purchase a suit from a well known department store you are always better off with the store brand. The store will not put its name on a piece of junk, but suits sold there with a designers name on them can be and often are, just that. I think this was in Molloy's book. I still see in thrifts, suits from long defunct department stores. Some went out of business in the 50's or 60's but some of those store brands did have quality in them and have held up over the years.

 

[White Birch]

If it's such a narrowly defined subset, how come people still argue about what it is after several years of AAAC and several thousands of posts?

Are Timex watches trad? How about Timex watches on grosgrain straps? Alden 405s? Needlepoint belts? Pink oxford shirts? If so, based on what?

Further, what about 1950s "trad" fashions that look goofy now? For example, are there any among us wearing pants that are so short they don't even tough the top of the shoe? That's what THEY wore, so far as I can tell.

This is all based on mythology, and that mythology is fueled by the collective creativity of folks on AAAC. I suspect not more than 5% of this board is old enough to remember details of what people wore in the 1950s, and I suspect less than 2% went to an Ivy League school (and I'm guessing 0.1% went to an Ivy League school IN the '50s). The "inspiration" for the trad look is an image that I suspect no one here has experienced. Therefore, folks create a mythology to fill the gaps.

Having been to a few graduations of my cousins and friends at Ivy League schools, specifically UPenn, Princeton, and Yale. I can note that a lot of the older sirs are wearing either a point or button down (30%/70%) collar of a simple color. The majority are wearing un-darted jackets with a roll, soft shoulders, and single vent. 95% are wearing un-pleated trousers with no break. They also seem to have progressed from loafers into laced oxfords. I haven't seen any Timex/grosgrain's, most were brown croc straps with a simple round gold face. Men in between 35-50... same features, more darts, slight break, more check shirts, more "brooksy"

My highschool teachers also dress "trad"..

Obviously! "Trad" is a subset of "Ivy League style", because not everyone came from the same catholic background and attended the same schools with uniforms and churches. And not everyone summer'd at CC or in ACK...

Obviously most of it got mixed when they came to college...

Also, about this effort thing... it take's large amounts of effort to do something "effortlessly". Look at ice skaters, dancers...

There is no mythology, you just haven't been to the right places. Trust me.

 

[AldenPyle]

Check this thread, discussing a 1956 J. Press ad for PLEATED pants: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=49091

In the period after 1954 or so, the "Ivy Look" was a youth oriented style that put a heavy emphasis on the very same styling details that the "Trad" purists (one of which I am not) do. That's no myth, as I am sure you must admit. Prior to that time, odd trousers with English style forward pleats were certainly worn on Ivy League and other campuses and for many years may have even been considered THE correct university style. In fact, I wouldn't at all be surprised if, circa 1950, most dress pants at Press and other similar stores were pleated nor that they remained in stock in later years.

For any so called tradition, be it clothing or Thanksgiving or engagement rings or whatever, there is a natural tendency for people to exaggerate an unchanging continuity of customs and no doubt at various times participants on this forum have fallen prey to this tendency. You can call this mythology if you want, but this mythology has been part of the natural shoulder style almost since its inception perhaps because, youth oriented though it might have been, the natural shoulder look always styled itself as a throwback to pre-war styles. Consider this ad that the same store ran in the campus paper in 1960

To whatever degree that "Trad" is BS, its a line of BS with a long pedigree.

 

[Pale Male]

"Effortlessly" with a great deal of effort...

Nobody worked harder than that Style Icon Fred Astaire.

 

[PorterSq]

Having been to a few graduations of my cousins and friends at Ivy League schools, specifically UPenn, Princeton, and Yale.
...
There is no mythology, you just haven't been to the right places. Trust me.

FWIW, I'm a graduate of UPenn, then went on to grad school at Georgetown. Outside of HYP, you're not going to get much more of a snobby/eastern elite group than with the crowds at those places.

My observation: that the crowds at Penn and G'town, including the old timers (I too attended plenty of graduations), dress just about the same as everyone else.

Maybe I "haven't been to the right places" as you suggest. Wouldn't be the first time...

 

[PorterSq]

In the period after 1954 or so, the "Ivy Look" was a youth oriented style that put a heavy emphasis on the very same styling details that the "Trad" purists (one of which I am not) do. That's no myth, as I am sure you must admit. Prior to that time, odd trousers with English style forward pleats were certainly worn on Ivy League and other campuses and for many years may have even been considered THE correct university style. In fact, I wouldn't at all be surprised if, circa 1950, most dress pants at Press and other similar stores were pleated nor that they remained in stock in later years.

For any so called tradition, be it clothing or Thanksgiving or engagement rings or whatever, there is a natural tendency for people to exaggerate an unchanging continuity of customs and no doubt at various times participants on this forum have fallen prey to this tendency. You can call this mythology if you want, but this mythology has been part of the natural shoulder style almost since its inception perhaps because, youth oriented though it might have been, the natural shoulder look always styled itself as a throwback to pre-war styles. Consider this ad that the same store ran in the campus paper in 1960

To whatever degree that "Trad" is BS, its a line of BS with a long pedigree.

I'm not sure I follow. This ad indicates the store has a "trad" department that is separate from the rest of the store. But the trad store's featured item is a corduroy suit. I don't think a corduroy suit is what the folks here consider trad, do you?

I think this ad supports my theory that what is "trad" to folks on AAAC has very little to do with what was once called "trad" (or, put differently, what folks call "trad" here is just some mythology).

 

[Topsider]

I think this ad supports my theory that what is "trad" to folks on AAAC has very little to do with what was once called "trad" (or, put differently, what folks call "trad" here is just some mythology).

:icon_headagainstwal

 

[CrescentCityConnection]

Man, what I wouldn't do for a lovely 3-piece corduroy suit....maybe one day, maybe one day. :icon_smile_big:

Pining for corduroy,

CCC

 

[PorterSq]

:icon_headagainstwal

:stupid: