Surely one can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of this style without subscribing to or embodying the beliefs and attitudes of those who wear its articles of clothing and footwear. To refuse to dress in this style, despite said appreciation, on account of such a reason as you give is as ridiculous as refusing to own a dog, despite wanting to, on account of the fact that Hitler liked dogs. And if you don't like the style, in addition to not liking those who wear it, then don't wear it. No one is forcing you to.

I also think you overestimate the degree to which those interested in this style are "douches." Some of them are, no doubt, but virtually all of them, even at its inception and heyday? To the contrary, I find it has a broad appeal, with those on the left and the right, snooty New Englanders and down to earth southern boys, captains of industry and humble writers, etc. all taking it on. It's arguably more popular in Japan than it is in America at this point. Are the Japanese all douchebags?

Lastly, expressions of Ivy style can be quite broad. It needn't entail wearing Nantucket reds, madras, and boat shoes at all. They are sufficient, but not necessary conditions.

 

Surely one can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of this style without subscribing to or embodying the beliefs and attitudes of those who wear its articles of clothing and footwear. To refuse to dress in this style, despite said appreciation, on account of such a reason as you give is as ridiculous as refusing to own a dog, despite wanting to, on account of the fact that Hitler liked dogs.

Looks like Godwin's law is fully in effect here. Well done.

Making the comparison to dog ownership, something neutral and without any distinct cultural basis, community, or history, is meaningless. No writer simply assigns their character a dog to infer a Nazi connection, but in plenty of depictions, when the Ivy-dressed guy walks on screen, the audience knows exactly what kind of character he's going to be. I can rattle off the movies and shows in which this is used, going back decades. Am I placing too much faith in fictional depictions? I saw the same thing play out before me in the real world.

And since you were to quick to the Nazi analogy, I'll pose this to you- the swastika was a fairly common cultural and religious motif before the second world war, used by Buddhists, Native Americans, and even the US Army's own 45th infantry division. Well that stopped real quick once a different cultural association set in. Today, you are no more likely to see people sporting swastikas because they just like the style than you are to see them wearing gray wool uniforms with jack boots or naming their sons Adolf. So clearly cultures and groups can affect an otherwise neutral item's meaning to society. You cannot tell me Ivy fashion exists in a vacuum as "dog ownership" does. Otherwise, again, why is it so often relied upon to convey a character's motivations, personality, and backstory? It does have meaning.

And if you don't like the style, in addition to not liking those who wear it, then don't wear it. No one is forcing you to.

Straw man. Where did I protest people forcing me to wear anything? I sought to understand people's interest in it despite them often being, personality-wise, the polar opposite of those who originated it, what they regularly stood/stand for, and how they act.

I also think you overestimate the degree to which those interested in this style are "douches." Some of them are, no doubt, but virtually all of them, even at its inception and heyday? To the contrary, I find it has a broad appeal, with those on the left and the right, snooty New Englanders and down to earth southern boys, captains of industry and humble writers, etc. all taking it on. It's arguably more popular in Japan than it is in America at this point. Are the Japanese all douchebags?

Yes, I will definitely grant you that one can't paint all in that broad stroke, but you basically illustrate my point here. People outside the regular confines of stuffy New England wear this all the time. My question then is the big why, when it does connote many opposing values and behaviors to the wearer's own. Maybe that connotation is the point on which we disagree.

The Japanese have long taken cultural elements, be they from New England, black hip hop culture, and yes, even Nazi fashion, without any regard for background and smashed them together to produce some wild combinations and effects, sometimes offensive and often detached from all original meaning. I guess when one doesn't know the history, there's no mystery to me. It's when one does, in this case, that I'm confused.

You can mock this reference, but urban dictionary is pretty damn good at capturing the zeitgeist. Look at the very first, most popular/up-voted definition for preps:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=preps

Come on, you know what I'm talking about. I certainly didn't make this stuff up.

Lastly, expressions of Ivy style can be quite broad. It needn't entail wearing Nantucket reds, madras, and boat shoes at all. They are sufficient, but not necessary conditions.

This I can see. Consider then my question more about the decidedly, unmistakably Newport/Greenwich/Martha's Vineyard fashion, not just nice blazers and slacks.

 

Your last posts bring up an interesting point. I'm thinking specifically of the swasitkas in Buddhist countries example and not having been to Newport/Greenwich/Martha's Vineyard. I wonder if a lot of this has to do with firsthand exposure.

Buddhist countries were for the most part removed from the scourges of the Nazi regime. And Japanese youth aren't taught nearly anything about WWII (by design). And there you have your swastikas and your Hugo Boss uniform infatuations.

Before I moved to the Northeast, I had never seen a pair of boat shoes, only knew of fleece from Old Navy's campy ads, had never heard of Brooks Brothers or the profession of investment banking. I wonder if, had I seen someone at the time dressed like Alex Keaton, I would have made any of the same associations I do now. I mean, I know said characters were shown in f- nope, I take this all back. Even then, specifically because of shows like Family Ties, movies like John Hughes teen comedies, etc., I knew what this style entailed.

In any case, perhaps it wasn't as severe. Perhaps you really have to be around this to get this. By the time I held the opinions I do now, I had been to most of the major New England cities and schools, Cape Cod, etc. etc. etc. Maybe this is all like dressing in cowboy style having not actually smelled steers up close .

 

I take it, then, that you have some experience living in the especially posh areas referenced? If so, I think you may indeed have a warped view of the style. I think it would be difficult not encountering privileged, out-of-touch narcissists.

 

Simple answer: it's aspirational.

The popular image of the douchey prep is entangled with privilege: people might aspire to the privilege while promising themselves they'll remain humble (Jenny in the block and so forth).

I suspect "Ivy Style" is actually a bit more behaviorally cross-sectional than media portrays (and even first hand experience can be subject to cognitive bias); I know I grew up dressing that way simply because I had no choice (as a kid, my parents bought my clothes), and as someone who actually did attend "prep school", we were pretty much all in sweaters and loafers yet ran the gamut from nerds (that would have been me) to popular kids, jocks, and so on, cool kids and douches, etc.

(I like to imagine I was a cool, preppy nerd? or at least not "douchey!")

But Ralph Lauren, for example, built an empire on aspirational dress: packaging prep and Ivy Style and selling it to all comers. Certainly, there's no shortage of Polo logos outside of Martha's Vineyard and environs.

DH

 

This makes sense, the aspirational side and the “but I can do it cleanly” aspect. I can certainly relate- I relish white tie dress and Lord knows that has its own connotations. And while the more yacht-rock version of Ivy/trad makes my skin crawl, older collegiate style is something I really enjoy and I assume can have its own negative connotations. Interesting stuff.

 

A lot. Both in school and in related activities (various trips, social functions, etc.)

 

…but again, by the same token, these are the same communities that gave rise to this and public perception is still, for the most part, based on their values (or lack thereof).

 

The entire premise of your original post assumes that one may clothe themselves to be like, and espouse the beliefs of a specific socioeconomic class.

Given the detail that you go into with the boys that wore Nantucket reds and boat shoes and club ties, frankly it seems to me that you have a sort of ax to grind. (Nantucket reds have always turned my stomach, but I have quite a stable of boat shoes and camp mocs.)

I "Aspire" to please myself in terms of the way I dress.

While I cannot claim to follow "Ivy style," "Preppy," "Trad," or any other clothing orthodoxy I've simply never been interested in following trends. Moreover, even with the social pressures of high school or college I never cared what other's thought of the way I dress. (Especially my shoes!)

I wore my father's hand me down U.S. Navy issue khakis and past their prime oxford cloth shirts when my high school and college classmates wore their Levi's 501's. (I actually liked 501's, I just didn't want to be like them.)

I wore my grandfather's freshly shined heavy wings in high school in spite of being occasionally ridiculed,....And the ridicule actually pleased me! Perhaps this demonstrates a personality flaw. (And that also pleases me.)

My 3/2 sack suits and jackets and collection of tweeds are purely for me. If I were the only human being left on earth I would happily continue to wear what I like.

 

Sorry, I don’t visit the Trad forum often but I’d like to chime in as I find this discussion very interesting.

I’ve read several articles over the years and it’s interesting how so much of male fashion has been aspirational, or at least inspired by adventure. Think safari jackets, leather flight jackets (not to mention other items referencing military) all the way down to sports jerseys.

My background is as far as you can get from Ivy League prep, but some of my favorite garments are my J Press blazers, tweed sport coats, OCBDs, ties, etc. I wear Press jackets for no other reason than the damned things actually fit and are flattering to my body shape. Very few if any people I interact with day to day would recognize the subtle differences in a sack jacket as opposed to your standard, darted jacket.

There are stigmas attached to everything. Do you like motorcycles? Whether it be a Harley or a 1000cc sportbike, you’ll be assumed by some in society to be a low quality individual if you ride either. I ride and for me it’s just transportation, not an image or a lifestyle.

 

My what a broad brush. Now you have gone and splashed paint all over us.

I grew up in some of those enclaves and certainly encountered some distasteful people, but I associate Nanny reds more with tourists than locals. Ditto for boat shoes. However, you asked, I believe, why people like traditional clothes. I do not wear reds, boat shoes, or many of the other gaudier cliches, but I love cords, khakis, OCBDs, Shetlands, camp mocs, LHS, surcingle belts, baggy U-trou, and slouchy old 3/2 jackets. Why? They are all very comfortable. They are easy to repair. They are made of natural fabrics which, at the end of life, will compost. They are not treated with forever chemicals. The making of many of them involves small American businesses, which I like to support.

I try to be kind and human and to avoid indifference to others. I can visit with someone down on their luck, encourage them, and help them along while I am dressed this way. So could any of us. I am curious, given your apparent antipathy, what attracts you to this forum?

 

You are a good man Vecchio.

 

Many thanks. You are as well. All in all I find the habitues of the Trad board to be an excellent lot. Happy Christmas!

 

The fashion-cycle is exhausting; people have been wearing clothes for millennia, and yet we need a new look every year? For a lot of folks, it starts from a desire for some way off the hamster wheel.

There are a few jumping off points, and some people land on a Trad/Ivy style, which is sort of two faces of the same look, why do people from other countries self-consciously adopt clothes from America (Trad, or the Mod-inspired look they adopted in the UK) and why would other Americans adopt clothes popularized by rich WASPs, despite the reputation for being unpleasant people?

For understanding Trad as an export style overseas, Tom Wolfe actually has a great essay on this, "The Mid-Atlantic Man". Paul Fussell approaches the same topic in a different joking way in his book Class, where American style in another country would fall under "Category X", a way to dress that side-steps a country's existing class system by borrowing a look from another country.

Understanding Ivy is a little harder. People come at it from many different angles.

In America there is a strong belief in "clothes make the man" and "fake it 'til you make it", that would seem a bit foolish in another country. Sometimes this can cause a crisis in American WASP-hunters as well, since even if someone has a new Yale degree and old J. Press clothes, what they don't have is a time-machine; they can only change what they do and wear, not what their parents or grandparents did and wore, which sort of collapses many of the ladders they had hoped to climb up.

However, the clothes themselves are very appealing because they are ready-to-wear. You don't need a tailor to wear an Ivy style and look OK. The clothes don't need to be new. They last a long time. They seem like a way off the fashion hamster wheel.

Another way to frame the question might be, "Why was the Lands' End catalog so popular?" They were masters of advertising back in the day, and although they started as a nautical catalog, the branding wasn't really preppy. Yet the clothes almost all fit in a Trad/Ivy framework.

Perhaps another fun way to frame it would be to compare two quotes, one from a 1995 Lands' End catalog essay, and another from William Gibson's Pattern Recognition:

Basics speak to our need and yearning for authenticity and simplicity. Technology seems to have invaded free time, not expanded it. With the mind cluttered, the body wants relief and a streamlining of stimuli. It's like wanting a bit of silence, peace amid the cacophony. With the wardrobe of basics, it is as if a benevolent dictator has offered us a way out of the stress of choice: we don't have to reveal so much...

Chinos came, in name and origin from China, where the lightweight cotton used for tropical military uniforms was imported. The authentic acts as a balm on the superficial; it provides continuity. Picasso wore chinos. Montgomery Clift wore chinos. My grandfather wore chinos.

Basics are not so simple if you listen to their language. They tear down walls. They build up promise. They imply possibility. They are social and political levelers. They are a collective whisper of "I have a dream..."

My God, don't they know? This stuff is simulacra of simulacra of simulacra. A diluted tincture of Ralph Lauren, who had himself diluted the glory days of Brooks Brothers, who themselves had stepped on the product of Jermyn Street and Savile Row, flavoring their ready-to-wear with liberal lashings of polo kit and regimental stripes. But Tommy surely is the null point, the black hole. There must be some Tommy Hilfiger event horizon, beyond which it is impossible to be more derivative, more removed from the source, more devoid of soul. Or so she hopes, and doesn't know, but suspects in her heart that this in fact is what accounts for his long ubiquity.

(Of course, Mr. Gibson has his own fashion releases.)

 

The fashion-cycle is exhausting; people have been wearing clothes for millennia, and yet we need a new look every year? For a lot of folks, it starts from a desire for some way off the hamster wheel.

There are a few jumping off points, and some people land on a Trad/Ivy style, which is sort of two faces of the same look, why do people from other countries self-consciously adopt clothes from America (Trad, or the Mod-inspired look they adopted in the UK) and why would other Americans adopt clothes popularized by rich WASPs, despite the reputation for being unpleasant people?

For understanding Trad as an export style overseas, Tom Wolfe actually has a great essay on this, "The Mid-Atlantic Man". Paul Fussell approaches the same topic in a different joking way in his book Class, where American style in another country would fall under "Category X", a way to dress that side-steps a country's existing class system by borrowing a look from another country.

Understanding Ivy is a little harder. People come at it from many different angles.

In America there is a strong belief in "clothes make the man" and "fake it 'til you make it", that would seem a bit foolish in another country. Sometimes this can cause a crisis in American WASP-hunters as well, since even if someone has a new Yale degree and old J. Press clothes, what they don't have is a time-machine; they can only change what they do and wear, not what their parents or grandparents did and wore, which sort of collapses many of the ladders they had hoped to climb up.

However, the clothes themselves are very appealing because they are ready-to-wear. You don't need a tailor to wear an Ivy style and look OK. The clothes don't need to be new. They last a long time. They seem like a way off the fashion hamster wheel.

Another way to frame the question might be, "Why was the Lands' End catalog so popular?" They were masters of advertising back in the day, and although they started as a nautical catalog, the branding wasn't really preppy. Yet the clothes almost all fit in a Trad/Ivy framework.

Perhaps another fun way to frame it would be to compare two quotes, one from a 1995 Lands' End catalog essay, and another from William Gibson's Pattern Recognition:





(Of course, Mr. Gibson has his own fashion releases.)

This is an excellent reflection. Hear, hear on avoiding the hamster wheel and MTM or bespoke (although I imagine MTM and bespoke are lovely, just too dear for me. Plus the RTW I have is just perfect for me.). Now to head upstairs to shave and shower and put on my Christmas day clothing: cords, an OCBD, a Shetland, a surcingle belt, and old Rancourt canoe mocs, same as most every day. Much as I have worn my post-short pants life, in fact. I enjoy growing old with my familiar things.

 

My own personal take is that while I may have begun wearing Ivy/Trad/ (choose your title), I now find that I am comfortable in the style fabrics, colors, etc and tend just to replace an item when it wears out with one almost exactly the same. Being from the South, I do not recall even being aware of Yale, New Haven, etc, etc. at the time some 60 years ago when I began to dress as I do. I guess I've never chased fashion and continue to replace items with the same as they wear out or become too large/small. Not a lot of thought goes into what to buy but over time, where to buy replacements has become harder and harder.

 

These comments are interesting to me. I have had boat shoes, loafers, a chalk striped flannel suit when I was younger, Jodhpur boots, cowboy boots. It has been fun to experience some of these over the years. In a Midwest practical sense, some of it worked and some of it I have left behind. Shetland sweaters are great for Midwest winters, I do not wear a shirt under a crew neck sweater. OCBD is something I am trying out now as I usually prefer point collars. I have leather Church's shoes. I have Sperry CVO shoes with leather or canvas on uppers and rubber bottoms. I have linen shirts and trousers for summer. I give praise to nautical blues and whites. Praise to my pleated and cuffed Lands End chinos. Midwest practical. Oh sure, I have two Burberry trench coats, a goatskin bomber jacket and a motorcycle leather jacket. Assorted jackets, assorted styles of jackets. Blazers work for me. Double breasted navy with brass buttons I like as well as linen and wool styles of blazers. It is nice to realize what works here in the Midwest. It is kind of a combination of Ralph Lauren, Lands End Trad, Ivy. Oh, did I forget to mention my lambswool crew neck sweaters!

 

I also had a sharkskin suit in sixth grade from Robert Hall that I wore to the sixth grade graduation dance!

 

Ivy League clothing is clothing. That’s all. It symbolizes nothing. It has no deep significance. Some writers in other websites devoted to Ivy style would have us believe that Ivy style encompasses much more than clothing; that it signifies a worldview—a compendium of sage, sober, enduring values that guide us as we live upstanding lives of integrity and service to others.

Flapdoodle. It’s just clothes.

What we regard as the typical “Ivy League look” may have gained traction among an elite group of snobs, bigots, and anti-Semites in the Northeast in the 1930s (and among some people who weren’t like that).* But the Ivy style spread beyond Ground Zero. Indeed, in the 1950s, clothing manufacturers and retailers, never ones to miss a new marketing angle, began heavily using the term “Ivy League” in their advertisements. Suits, shirts, chinos, sport coats—they were wonderful and “correct” because they were “Ivy League”!!

Men all over America bought what was being peddled—and peddled hard—because they liked the look. Then they kept buying because they liked the feel. Ivy style was becoming increasingly available, so why not buy it when it was time to refresh the wardrobe? (Not all of the clothes were Ivy, of course, but Ivy was evident on Main Street USA and it did sell.) While snooty folks were buying oxford cloth buttondown shirts and chinos in New Haven, middle-class high school kids and their fathers in the suburbs of Los Angeles were buying similar duds at JC Penny, Sears, and Montgomery Ward. Two-button, darted sport coats and suit jackets were also in style, but in those days, a fellow looking to buy a sport coat or suit could find a 3-roll-2 without looking—and without even knowing what it was. Some customers may have had a vague regard for—and may even have been in awe of—the elite universities where the style first became popular. But it’s the clothes the customers were after.

And now? Still just the clothes.

Not too long ago I was invited to a high school graduation ceremony at a private school here in California. I knew that jackets and ties—while not required—would be much in evidence. I wore a navy 3-roll-2 blazer, a blue buttondown pinpoint shirt, and a striped necktie, all from Brooks Brothers. (The tie was thrifted; the shirt and blazer purchased on deep discount.) I also wore tan gabardine cotton chinos from Bill’s Khakis. (The chinos cost me $32.00, purchased when Bills was having its change-of-ownership sale.) I thought to myself, “You’re not young. Far from it. Why are you dressed like a prep school kid? You never even attended an elite school. You were a public school kid all the way. What are you trying to prove?” Then I answered myself: “Times change. Prep school clothing is no longer just for the rich kids on the fancy-schmancy campus. It’s gone mainstream! Your outfit is neat and appropriate. It’s not a billboard saying you’re a bigot and a snob. You’re in the 21st Century. You’re still the awkward schlub you’ve always been, except over the years you’ve at least figured out how to dress like an adult before leaving the house. Maybe someday you’ll even learn how to act like an adult.”

As the territory of the Ivy League style expanded, the link between the people who first sported that clothing and the clothing itself became more and more attenuated. Now? That link is severed. My blazer, chinos, Shetland sweaters, and repp neckties don’t signify that I aspire to be a compulsive adulterer or that I exploit my household staff. They mean that I prefer to wear clobber that has stood the test of time and that will continue doing so.

Don’t overthink this.

It’s just clothes.

___

* That the clothing worn by some of the less tolerant members of America’s aristocratic class had been made and sold by a relatively large percentage of Jewish merchants is an irony that is not lost on me.

 

Like it or not, we are an aspirational society. Eastern WASPS were regarded as the American Aristocracy, and become subjects to be emulated. The WASPS derived their lifestyles from the UK and Europe...education, professional and leisure pursuits, attire and so on. At one time aspiration meant improvement of one's standing in society through education, professional choices, who one married and many other conscious decisions intended to move the person along a path towards greater social cachet. What is interesting in the context of this thread is that aspiration causes one to take proactive steps to separate from a humble background, while seamlessly fitting into a "better" environment. Stand apart from the crowd, while also blending into the crowd. This process also implies a degree of underlying insecurity- where do I fit in, do I stand out (for the wrong reasons).

Regarding issues of rank and ethos, marketers have long tried to exploit the human desire to set oneself apart and appeal to insecure vanities. Madison Avenue was very quick to understand that few wanted to be an anonymous member of the wrong crowd, preferring instead to to seek ways both overt and subtle to blend into the right crowd. In fact, most have some modest desire to be "on top" whether it be socially, professionally etc. Adapting the mufti of those who you wish to emulate is an age old tradition. Trad/Ivy was derived from what was worn by the Wasp aristocracy, and became the default wardrobe choice for the upwardly mobile professional male from the early 50's to the early 70's. My observation is that advertising and TV mediums depict people as either of the moment, or just slightly ahead of the curve. Subjects need to considered as representative of where the public may be (in the present) or where they want to go (in the near future). Portraying men as Trad/Ivy was an implied way of saying this person is ahead of you, or at the vanguard of the group, and you want to be like this person (by using our product.....). When times changed, so did the messages put out by Madison Avenue, beginning the slow decline of Trad/Ivy from mainstream life.

So blame it on the media.

 

Dear Brother,

You have been artfully indoctrinated in a set of beliefs and attitudes which have via selection bias have validated by your perceived experience.

Open your mind, think for yourself, and stop characterizing entire groups of people as douches and such.

One of the insights of post-modernism (RIP) which eludes shallow thinkers like Gibson is the hollowness of the idea of authenticity itself, which has never existed. It is pointless to excoriate the current age for lack of authenticity. It should instead be excoriated for lack of innovation.

Ivy clothes do tend to fit better, or did while they existed.

The people whom you characterize as douches are not as they are because of the clothes they wear, but because they are denizens of the soi-distant elite environment which they inhabit, which you for a while at least seem to have shared.

 

Ok, this thread is one of the best laughs I've had in quite some time!

We were raised on the East Coast in NY and CT. My late father was an Ivy League grad (Cornell '49). He wore all the so-called trad attire (except Nantucket Reds), and was the opposite in every way of the persona described by the OP, as were any of his peers that I ever met.

Personally, I've never understood this fascination with "trad." My take is that you were either raised with this, in which case you don't give it a thought, or you were not. I was amazed when I came here in 2011 to find out there was even such a thing as "trad," and that so many people seemed so obsessed with this. What is the most trad shoe, sock, watch, tie, underwear, hamburger, and on and on.

 

Thank you, DaveS—and a belated “Thanks!” to Vecchio Vespa—for providing a counterweight to the generalizations expressed in the opening post. The two of you have added much-needed perspective.

 

My opinions, filter at will (I never expect anyone to agree).

“Traditional" (or sibling, “preppie”, there is a difference) taste arises in upbringing. But it can change ... to “trendy”. When I returned to the “world” after years (some will identify with this phrase), men’s styles had changed: mostly straight collars, wide ties, wide lapels, bell bottoms, no cuffs, squarish toed shoes, monk straps … pleats, then no pleats. I changed to this, esp after chosen custom clothes stopped fitting. After a few years I reverted to “trad”.

Traditional clothes are generally produced with better fabrics, better construction, more enduring lines (more so now). Aside from ‘continental’ Italian suits and shoes mirroring British styles, I’m unaware of high quality in what passes in the men’s department. In an era where the average man wears fashionable shoes of poor construction, stiff ties that don’t hang well (if a tie), shirt sleeves too long, and ill fitting, mass produced suits department store merchandise is not impressive. Stores, e.g. Nordstrom, Macy’s, have gone to designer departments emulating women’s departments. I admit designers can be good for some items. I bought an unconstructed Peter Millar blazer made in Romania from Nieman’s, very nice garment. It’s interesting that my spouse who was a CPA, manager, bank VP, corporate officer, always judged by men’s shoes, poor shoes she declined the date.

In old age I like (and mostly miss) traditional British style men’s clothes, not carried except in men’s stores (O’Connell’s my current choice). However, I admit Italian suit fabrics and construction are top quality from top makers (at top prices). I wouldn’t buy any ties except for Ferrigamo and Hermes. Trad clothes are ones that endure, wear ‘em until they wear out. You decide what works for you, and I suggest not choosing your measures by opinions on a region of the country. Men’s stores in the deep south are more ‘trad’ than most in the north, San Francisco same. If you like something, wear it, if not, don’t.

 

I love the bank officers reference. Ages ago I was General Counsel at Texas Commerce In Houston. The execs wore black Church's cap toes and Hermes ties, the loan officers wore black J & M with brogued cap toes (back when J & M was a good brand) and nice subdued foulards, and I, the New Englander, wore Alden tassels in No. 8 and favored repps, challis, and Irish poplin. The bond crew, of course, wore Gucci bits and Ferragamo ties. It was a bunch of rules as hard and fast as school in the 1960s.

 

My father was an extremely "trad" dresser (I distinctly remember seeing the J Press and Brooks Bros. catalogs lying around the house as a child) but didn't really come from that background. Though he did grow up in the NYC area and this was just the way to dress when you got a professional job and he became abut of a clotheshorse.

I can think of many other people I've met who have dressed in a more or less "trad" style (college professors, friends, coworkers, others) but do not have a trust fund or a building named after them ant Amherst College. The style long ago jumped far beyond the narrow blue blood elite to just be a way of dressing which has very wide appeal. The sorts of people you describe are likely a minority of the folks who actually dress this way now.

Personally I like this style because it's practical, timeless, and easy. I might start off wearing a white OCBD with just ties and jackets, then wear it more casually untucked with shorts as it wears out. I can wear a navy blazer with gray dress trousers or jeans. Boat shoes on a boat or with khakis. It tends to be a bit dressy but still relaxed in informal situations and a little casual in formal situations. The clothes often get better as they age.

I think that there is a tendency in this community to try to view trad clothing as a set of commandments; I don't agree with this, you need to play around and find your own style. But it's a pretty good foundation to work off of.

 

Big Brother,

I think most of the folks here have given you very good reasons why people would still want to dress this way.

I'll add some of my own thoughts:

1. Ivy/Trad/Prep is a subset of standard Anglo-American style and fashion. There a only so many options available with slight variations.. Nantucket reds are chinos. Are chinos pretentious? Most retailers will sell a variety of colors of chinos: khaki, olive, grey, etc. A few will carry something salmon colored and call it lobster bisque. Oxford cloth button downs, crew neck sweaters, Navy blazers and tweed sportcoats are pretty ubiquitous on both sides of the pond. It's an alternative to jeans, track suits, motorcycle jackets, fleece, t-shirts and hoodies.
2. Prep is part of the American canon of dressing. It cycles through every few years on the runway with variations and collaborations. There is a podcast series by a fashion influencer examining the influence of Ivy Style in our culture. The Smartest Fashion Podcast Explores Ivy Style—And Asks if Prep Is Back
3. It grew beyond the NE establishment in the 1950's and was, essentially what all clothing manufacturers made from 1955-1967 all across the country.
4. The Official Preppy Handbook was a tongue in cheek, snarky, tribute (hit-piece?) to WASP culture as it looked in 1980. It was written by an insider, but it was clearly an aspirational book. Its runaway success made prep a fashion craze for the next decade. Several brands like J Crew and Tommy Hilfiger were created to capitalize on this fashion trend. It also just happened that all the villains of teen sex comedies in the 1980's were preppy douches as you put so well. Judd Nelson, Ralph Macchio, and Nicolas Cage were the rough and tumble outsider with a rich, preppy nemesis. The caricature items like nantucket reds, madras, boat shoes, are a small piece of the Trad canon.
5. On it's own merit - cotton and wool are more comfortable than polyester and the overall dressed up informality (compared to English style) is signature Americana and somehwat attractive. Shorts with camp mocs or canvas tennis shoes and an oxford cloth button down or polo shirt vs. shorts with flip flops and a t-shirt. Chinos with a navy blazer, repp tie, a button down shirt and penny loafers vs a worsted suit with a spread collar, ferragamo tie, cuff links, and oxford shoes. Dress up the informal, dress down the formal - that's the American contribution to global fashion. Hey I like jeans and leather jackets, too ;-)
6. Being well dressed and well put together transcends Trad/Prep. I'd rather wear a v-neck sweater and a sport coat with a pocket square to work than simply a hedge-fund-bro patagonia fleece vest over my dress shirt. I'm prep/trad, but I don't think I come off as douchey.
7. Being middle aged, I'm going to dress more like George Clooney than Justin Bieber.

 

Chinos with a navy blazer, repp tie, a button down shit and penny loafers….

I like Ivy-inspired attire as much as anyone on this forum. However, the man whose doo-doo is button-down is taking this Trad thing a little too far.

Bob Newhart’s career took off with the release of his beloved 1960 album “The Button-Down Mind of Bob Newhart.” Thanks to Theoden, we now have a clue as to what Newhart’s lesser-known follow-up album was called.

On a serious note, I commend Theoden for his superb contribution, which—despite his surprising disclosure about the button-down style—is insightful from beginning to end. It was a pleasure to read.

 

In any age where men's professional dress norms remain intact, there is always the prospect that some may hold to those norms as a means to simply increase their power or their capacity to run scams on people - or merely to be a jerk to people. Your argument is intriguing and cannot be automatically dismissed. I think we must take up the issue of sample: Would a wide look across the population actually reinforce your thesis? I have some doubts. I come from the field of sociology, and I remember years ago in the Graduate School cubes (TA offices) some interesting humor about the Faculty Lounge posted on a wall. One part of it was the inverted dress codes sometimes found: Faculty have a very mixed reputation at best, and someone was suggesting that dressing really bad was one of the means by which faculty reveal themselves to be brilliant. After all such a genius wouldn't think about, much less be bound by, norms of professional dress or even mere aesthetic principles. However, when I look across the faculty Lounge of my career, i would suggest the worst dressers were actually the ones most likely to be jerks. It definitely wasn't an automatic relationship, but that is the tendency in my own estimation.

 

In the South we dress in our own version of preppy/trad and we're not imitating or referencing people in New England.

 

And we are, for the most part, friendly and polite!

 

Comfort! I had just been doing chores in jeans and a denim shirt. When I was finished and had cleaned up I put on some khakis and a soft and billowy OCBD. The difference in coolness and comfort was significant.

 

I grew up in the deep south, and have never made it to an Ivy League campus. The closest I've been is a Layover in New York. Nevertheless, I tend to dress in this style mostly. I found my way to this particular variety of dress through a "buy it for life" mentality. Durable, versatile, eternal clothing has financial and sustainability benefits. Further, button down collars and blue blazers may have originated in the Ivy League bastions, but they are standard wear in most business and social settings down here (and We are rarely accused of being inhospitable or cold).