To be honest, most people who went to a preparatory school tend to be fairly sedate in their clothing. They might say, wear a pair of trousers they bought last year, a shirt that belonged to their older brother, a blazer that belonged to their father and a tie they saw in a discount shop. I spent two years at a private school where most of the students wore very basic options, as there was no uniform. If I had worn a jacket and tie, I would have been asked, "Why the church clothes".

I will admit to spending time in government sponsored schools. People who aspire to be preppies tend to be louder in style than people who actually went to a preparatory school.

Tom

 

Jack Wills is big over here, especially amon the younger population. From my experience, British preppers are far from 'sedate' and commonly have a proclivity for bright trousers, boating blazers and repp ties. Much of what's worn, however, would be more American than Brit in my experience.

 

Anthony,

That's interesting. My first hand knowledge comes from a school in Alberta. That school actually had a very strict dress code. Most students wore jeans and had one or two pair, meaning novelty clothing wasn't an option. It was partially tuition, and partially the fact that many of the students came from families who were agricultural and didn't really have a reason to own bright trousers or clothing you couldn't clean the pig sty with. I am the son of a factory owner, and I will also admit, was a bit monied, but Dad didn't let me buy anything that wouldn't fit in.

I remember coming back from an overnight outing at a Christian Bible camp. Somehow a pair of somebody else's jeans had got packed away with my kit. I naturally refused to open my kit even when a teacher came over and ordered me to. I wasn't about to air my dirty laundry, especially not in public.

The boy explained to me that it was an accident, but aside from the shorts he was wearing, he didn't own any pants other than those jeans and his Church clothing. Imagine that, a boy with only one pair casual pants!

At least in my experience jeans and a button-up shirt tended to be fairly standard, with black chinos and a white dress shirt for band concerts, picture day and special events.

Once I got into government school, the aspiring prepsters tended to wear RL Polo, GAP, Tommy Jeans and Calvin Klein. It was bright colours and guys would buy five identical pair of trousers just to maintain uniformity. I never actually wore most of that stuff, but they counted me among their number, because I would wear ties, sweaters and button-downs.

In university, it was mainly the hipster crowd that wore bright clothing. For my friends and I it was GAP khakis, a white OCBD or spread collar, a necktie or bow tie and Rockport shoes. If it was possible, we'd wear jackets, but it wasn't part of our unofficial dress code. University is that time when people can retire their old habits and be as bohemian as they choose. My friends were far from bohemians, but our clothing was also sedate, and we stood out not by force of colour, but by character and motivation.

 

Thanks for elaborating on that. I suppose this difference stems at least partly from the cultural divide. From what I've seen of this country (ie not that much, I spent 3 months in Vancouver twice), it's pretty casual. I lived in North Van -a fairly well-off upper middle-class near-woodland suburbbb- for a while and was known as 'the guy with the suits'.

What I was talking about -and realistically the only thing I'm knowledgeable enough to discuss- is UK prep (as in wealthy public school attire.) As I attend one of the elitist (in the worst sense of the term) universities in Britain I can observe this on a daily basis. The tendency is hard to explain, but here is very roughly how it goes: the wealthy elite tends to dress down with expensive clothing. 'Conservative' brands are often favoured -Thyrwhitt, Lewin, Harris Tweed, Barbour, etc- but worn with an air of fierce negligence. Loose-fitting shirts are often worn with two buttons undone, wild hues are substituted to rational colour-coordination (today I saw salmon trousers with a tan jacket and a red square). On a sidenote, this is often combined with fuzzy, unkempt locks for both genders. Interestingly, the trimmest ones here are usually Continentals and Americans. There are many of the latter here, and, interestingly, the sartorial habits of their best-dressed often influence their British fellows.

 

I would assume that Lacoste is still a thing. Probably also Barbour, too. Jack Wills, as mentioned is a good bet - there's one right in Georgetown if you're so inclined, seeing as you live in Leesburg. I bet that Canterbury's of New Zealand might also be a good one to check out. For whatever reason, I imagine that British kids adhering to the traditional American Prep style would appreciate a good rugby.

 

Regarding the British brands, a few that spring to mind are Hackett, Lyle and Scott and Henri Lloyd, although the latter 2 are probably better know for their sporting associations.

 

Jack Wills also launched a sister brand called Aubin & Wills to appeal to the more mature Prep as he/she graduates and joins the rat race. But to be fair, over here A&F is the only store with lengthy queues outside it every Saturday morning.

 

There isn't really any such thing as a British "prep" style that I'm aware of. Youth culture is pretty universal, beyond the more extreme urban look found in some areas, most kids wear the same kind of stuff, a relatively new, and expensive, brand called "Superdry" is very popular. When we have a non-uniform day all the boys dress in a very similar casual style of t shirt, jeans of some kind and hoody, or "sports" clothes, football shirts, trainers, jogging/tracksuits that kind of stuff. The same style can be seen in Cambridge every weekend worn by kids up to about 20 or so.

 

I agree that there is no such thing as English prep and those aping the style will be looking across the Atlantic for inspiration. Some time ago there was the Sloane Ranger and perhaps there was some similarity. Chouan and Anthony Charton are right and among the privately educated young men a studied indifference to clothes while wearing yellow or red trousers and one of their father's old jackets is a caricature. One other brand to add to the list may be Fred Perry though perhaps that is more Mod.

 

I agree that there is no such thing as English prep and those aping the style will be looking across the Atlantic for inspiration. Some time ago there was the Sloane Ranger and perhaps there was some similarity. Chouan and Anthony Charton are right and among the privately educated young men a studied indifference to clothes while wearing yellow or red trousers and one of their father's old jackets is a caricature. One other brand to add to the list may be Fred Perry though perhaps that is more Mod.

I was going to ask, "Isn't "British prep" an oxymoron?" You've answered it.

 

One other brand to add to the list may be Fred Perry though perhaps that is more Mod.

Yep. Mod.

Musto as a yachting brand has branched out somewhat and is quite popular with the horsey set, their various liggers and hangers-on.... Worn by the older preppy set here...

Canterbury, not British in fairness, is another popular brand...

But, as already mentioned the 'look' has more of a mid-Atlantic/New England vibe and influence than anything else....

 

New & Lingwood have a lot of fun "preppy" stuff in the British vernacular, of decent quality/price ratio. Im not sure "preppy" translates very well to british menswear fashion. British dandyism is perhaps better? Boating blazers, skull & bones ties/scarfes/bows, fun trousers.

And they won't put you in chav territory. Their store on Jermyn street is excellent.





Enjoyable mix, preferably tempered by taste, like everything else.

 

I always thought "prep school" meant something very different in British English:

Prep School (US)=Public School (UK)
Prep School (UK)=Private junior high school (US) (I don't think we have an exact, concise equivalent)
Public School (US)=State School (UK)

 

Every time I read the title of this thread, my brain screams out, "Franz Ferdinand."

That pesky little "r."

 

I always thought "prep school" meant something very different in British English:

Prep School (US)=Public School (UK)
Prep School (UK)=Private junior high school (US) (I don't think we have an exact, concise equivalent)
Public School (US)=State School (UK)

That's about right. Except that Prep School in the UK is short for Preparatory School, a school that rich kids go to before they go to their Public School (If big, old, and established) or Private School (If it isn't). Rather like a private Junior School. In Cambridge there is St.Faiths, for example https://www.stfaiths.co.uk/ in Newmarket there is Fairstead https://www.fairsteadhouseschool.co.uk/ . Examples of Public Schools are Eton, Harrow, Marlborough and Ampleforth. Private Schools include the Perse https://www.perse.co.uk/ or The Leys https://www.theleys.net/ , both in Cambridge.

THere is no recognisable "Prep" or "Preppy" style in the UK that might be associated with students of such institutions. As has been pointed out above, kids have a sort of universal youth culture style up to their late teens, early twenties, when they become more individualistic, but there is no correlation between educational background and style of dress, not that I can see anyway!

 

I always thought "prep school" meant something very different in British English:

Prep School (US)=Public School (UK)
Prep School (UK)=Private junior high school (US) (I don't think we have an exact, concise equivalent)
Public School (US)=State School (UK)

Strictly speaking, there are no "state schools" in the UK (though certain newspapers use the term - no school is run by the British State). The correct term is "maintained" and it is the local authority (county or county borough) that maintains the schools in England and Wales. There are state-funded "academies" in England only (in Scotland the term "academy" means a maintained secondary school), but these have independent governing bodies which are very difficult to remove.

 

That's about right. Except that Prep School in the UK is short for Preparatory School, a school that rich kids go to before they go to their Public School (If big, old, and established) or Private School (If it isn't). . . . Private Schools include the Perse https://www.perse.co.uk/ or The Leys https://www.theleys.net/ , both in Cambridge.

Strictly speaking, there are no "state schools" in the UK (though certain newspapers use the term - no school is run by the British State). The correct term is "maintained" and it is the local authority (county or county borough) that maintains the schools in England and Wales. . . .

The correct terms in England are 'independent' and 'maintained' schools. Nowadays it is common to call all fee-paying ('fee-charging'?) schools 'private' schools, but until recently a 'private' school was a privately-owned prep school (i.e. for pupils up to 13) preparing for 'public' school ('public' in the sense of being charitable foundations etc). Independent secondary schools (i.e. post 11 or 13) like the Perse or the Leys were not 'private' schools, but there was no particular term for them other than 'fee-paying'.

 

I'm always amused that the profitable businesses that you refer to as "Public Schools" maintain the fiction that they are charitable organisations, usually by offering a couple of scholarship places, in order to maintain their beneficial tax arrangements.

 

I'm always amused that the profitable businesses that you refer to as "Public Schools" maintain the fiction that they are charitable organisations, usually by offering a couple of scholarship places, in order to maintain their beneficial tax arrangements.

But historically that is why they are called 'public' schools as opposed to privately owned establishments. Who is making the profits from these profitable businesses?

 

I'm always amused that the profitable businesses that you refer to as "Public Schools" maintain the fiction that they are charitable organisations, usually by offering a couple of scholarship places, in order to maintain their beneficial tax arrangements.

Quite a few sweeping statements. I went to a "public school" and there were far more than "a couple of" scholarship places. There also seem to be more than a couple at this well known public school
https://www.etoncollege.com/Scholarships.aspx

Also you said prep schools are for "rich kids". In my experience, that is also not really true, although it would certainly be true to say that rich kids are far more likely to be at prep schools than poor kids. Those many people in my acquaintance who send their children to prep schools are not particularly rich, at least not by todays standards, unless you and I have a very different concept of the word 'rich'. It seems to me that many people send their kids to prep schools at considerable sacrifice to their own standard of living, presumably they think the sacrifice is worth it but this would hardly count as rich.

If you find the manipulation of charitable status by public schools amusing, I am sure you will find the forthcoming morphing of the Academies into money-generating private enterprises hilarious. :icon_smile:

 

In answer to the OP, I would echo the consensus that there are not really UK 'prep' brands. The successful UK brands that exist seem to me to have been very strongly influenced by Ralph Lauren in the case of Hackett and Aubin & Wills, and Abercrombie & Fitch in the case of Jack Wills. They are imitators rather than originals.

There are some UK brands with a certain public school snob value such as New & Lingwood, Trickers and Cordings, but they are not really preppy brands of the US type.

 

Quite a few sweeping statements. I went to a "public school" and there were far more than "a couple of" scholarship places. There also seem to be more than a couple at this well known public school
https://www.etoncollege.com/Scholarships.aspx

Also you said prep schools are for "rich kids". In my experience, that is also not really true, although it would certainly be true to say that rich kids are far more likely to be at prep schools than poor kids. Those many people in my acquaintance who send their children to prep schools are not particularly rich, at least not by todays standards, unless you and I have a very different concept of the word 'rich'. It seems to me that many people send their kids to prep schools at considerable sacrifice to their own standard of living, presumably they think the sacrifice is worth it but this would hardly count as rich.

If you find the manipulation of charitable status by public schools amusing, I am sure you will find the forthcoming morphing of the Academies into money-generating private enterprises hilarious. :icon_smile:

Oh come on Mr H - let's keep things sensible. :rolleyes2:

Rich/poor it's not particularly difficult to get a feel for who is which side of the divide. Poor people do not send their children to prep schools. Can you guess why not?

 

Oh come on Mr H - let's keep things sensible. :rolleyes2:

Rich/poor it's not particularly difficult to get a feel for who is which side of the divide. Poor people do not send their children to prep schools. Can you guess why not?

I think I've already made that clear.The point I was making, among others, is that to describe the children sent to prep schools as "rich kids" is a mischaracterization. Surely you do not see the world as a dichotomy between 'rich people' and 'poor people' ???

 

Oh come on Mr H - let's keep things sensible. :rolleyes2:

Rich/poor it's not particularly difficult to get a feel for who is which side of the divide. Poor people do not send their children to prep schools. Can you guess why not?

That is largely true - however I think there is often a more varied social mix at prep schools than people imagine - in fact I would say there is often a much more varied mix than there is at state schools.

I speak as a parent who made the financial sacrifice Mr H mentions, but also (to correct a certain misconception about myself that was aired some time ago) as someone who was educated in the state system so can compare both systems, at least within the limited ambit of my own experience.

 

I think I've already made that clear.The point I was making, among others, is that to describe the children sent to prep schools as "rich kids" is a mischaracterization. Surely you do not see the world as a dichotomy between 'rich people' and 'poor people' ???

If you say so. :icon_smile_wink:

Whilst I do not personally perceive society as a clear schism, in my experience poor people are inclined to make precisely this delineation. And not without good reason, in fairness to them. Which is why I am faintly dubious of those in a very comfortable position dissembling their good fortune.