[William Kazak]

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!

 

[Charles Dana]

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.

 

[rl1856]

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.

 

[Bump]

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.

 

[DaveS]

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.

 

[Charles Dana]

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.

 

[CC3]

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.



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.



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.



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.

The swastika is an old Sanscrit symbol. My family once owned a 1st edition (or near 1st) of all of Kipling's writings (disintegrated in the damp basement). Each book had a swastika on the spine. It's sad the Nazi's appropriated this ancient symbol. People need to understand that it was the symbol of a culture, and not from the 20th century.

 

[CC3]

Ok, not sure if this will ruffle some madras feathers, but humor me...

I spent about half my life in the Northeast (college and post) around the communities and subcultures that gave rise to this fashion. I'm just going to say it: they're douches. They're generally awful people. And not just the young ones either. The parents can be as bad as the cliches.

I've never understood why the style they espouse is one people aspire to. Shallow people I can see, but in my experience in vintage menswear, collectors are much warmer, more aware of history and their surroundings, and all around decent than your average folk. So it's a huge confusion point for me.

(Even in the 80s, it was almost always the a-hole in the movies who wore this style.)

When I went to school it was practically a linear relationship- the more nantucket red and boat shoes and club ties, the more arrogant, cold, callous, unpleasant/drunk, misogynistic, downright sociopathic, etc. Coming from a much warmer environment (emotionally-speaking), to me this whole community and their behavior were pretty abhorrent, and certainly nothing to aspire to.

Even the arguable patron saint of the style, ol' JFK himself, was ethically a piece of s^%$.

So I don't get it. To me this all seems like decent, informed, insightful people chasing just the opposite.

What's the appeal?

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.

 

[JLibourel]

The swastika is an old Sanscrit symbol. My family once owned a 1st edition (or near 1st) of all of Kipling's writings (disintegrated in the damp basement). Each book had a swastika on the spine. It's sad the Nazi's appropriated this ancient symbol. People need to understand that it was the symbol of a culture, and not from the 20th century.

I always thought Sanskrit was a language. I didn't know it had symbols. I only had two semesters of Sanskrit in college but wish I had had the opportunity to learn more of that noble tongue. The fact is the swastika was a very ancient and popular solar symbol with extremely widespread distribution. It was very popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For a while I attended a lovely big Episcopal church dating from the 1920s, the entire floor of which was decorated with swastikas. Several other countries in the 1920s (Finland and Estonia, I think) adopted the swastika as a military insigne. A pity it was so besmirched by being adopted by the cruel Nazis. Coincidentally, I am reading through a decaying set of Kipling's writings published in the 1890s that I rescued from my old family home, and the books do have a swastika on the cover. What an amazing, prolific and knowledgeable man old Rudyard was!

 

[Vecchio Vespa]

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.

 

[William Kazak]

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.

I like your exec's musings about Church's black cap toe as their choice. I have two pairs of Church's black cap toe shoes. One pair I wore at my wedding many years ago with navy trousers that I had a satin ribbon stripe and an ivory shawl collar dinner jacket as Bogart wore in Casablanca. I had a pleated front formal dress shirt and a silk pink bow tie that I tied by myself. As a wedding photographer, I knew a lot about wedding looks. Pleasant memories. She divorced me after seven years! I used to purchase from Church's shoes on Wabash in Chicago. Sadly they disappeared when the hotel there did a street facing makeover of the storefronts. The manager Terry had enough and retired. Wear what you like is fine advice

 

[Hayek]

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.

 

[Theoden]

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.

 

[Charles Dana]

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.

 

[Cyril]

Ok, not sure if this will ruffle some madras feathers, but humor me...

I spent about half my life in the Northeast (college and post) around the communities and subcultures that gave rise to this fashion. I'm just going to say it: they're douches. They're generally awful people. And not just the young ones either. The parents can be as bad as the cliches.

I've never understood why the style they espouse is one people aspire to. Shallow people I can see, but in my experience in vintage menswear, collectors are much warmer, more aware of history and their surroundings, and all around decent than your average folk. So it's a huge confusion point for me.

(Even in the 80s, it was almost always the a-hole in the movies who wore this style.)

When I went to school it was practically a linear relationship- the more nantucket red and boat shoes and club ties, the more arrogant, cold, callous, unpleasant/drunk, misogynistic, downright sociopathic, etc. Coming from a much warmer environment (emotionally-speaking), to me this whole community and their behavior were pretty abhorrent, and certainly nothing to aspire to.

Even the arguable patron saint of the style, ol' JFK himself, was ethically a piece of s^%$.

So I don't get it. To me this all seems like decent, informed, insightful people chasing just the opposite.

What's the appeal?

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.

 

[Corcovado]

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

 

[Vecchio Vespa]

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!

 

[Theoden]

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.

Oh my! I corrected it.

 

[Vecchio Vespa]

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.

 

[rwaldron]

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).