I suspect that only ten years before this style was called "conservative style".
Infact the undarted sack with natural (crooked) shoulders came from 1890s and before.
Why in 20s is called "university style"?
I have a theory.
For some reason the university shops must be behind with new cuts.
Maybe the sons of elitè of the nation buy there,but let's face the reality; Princeton or New Haven were provincial places back then.
So when in 20s smart new yorkers dressed lounge suits from (or copied by) Saville Row and Bond Street,this old style was sold as "university style"....also because worn mainly by university men.
About Brooks,in 20s n-1 sack suit were not the only or main style sold by BB.

If the heretofore un-named executives of "marketing" used the idea of the campus to sell the clothes to customers both on and off the campus, then didn't they get their message across successfully? And if so, isn't the campus still to be credited? The job of the marketer was to solidify the link between the clothes and the campus, but if people bought the clothes because of this, wasn't it to feel a connection to the campus, not the marketer? And what other metric is there to assess or describe this phenomenon, short of getting into a time machine, short of mind-reading dead Princetonians? There is sales data somewhere, sure, but surely that isn't divorced from marketing either. People buy what they're sold and sellers market what they're selling. But good sellers also know to adapt to trends they see, it isn't an iron-fisted machine of trend-creation where you shove whatever you want down the throats of consumers. Crew neck shetlands selling better than V-neck cashmere? Next buying cycle you double the order of the former and halve the latter. Maybe in your catalog you feature the shetlands more prominently, but does that mean you deserve credit for starting a crew-neck shetland trend?

Last edited by The Thin Repp (2013-02-08 15:42:59)

Last edited by The Thin Repp (2013-02-08 15:59:02)

No indictment from me. Like you I work in menswear and so I thoroughly approve of the selling of schmutter. I just allow myself to be rather bald about the relaities of it all as I have nobody to please but the behind the scenes people I deal with. I don't even sell my Vintage range to the public but to shops instead.

I'm happiest dealing with clothing people as they know what's what. And most love me as there's no BS about me. Too many members of Joe Public live in a dream world when it comes to clobber. Great to sell to, but I wouldn't want to put up with all their silly talk.

Richard Press himself says that Jacobi took the Brooks style to New Haven. He was a businessman - Bravo !

Ivy fell from widespread popularity, but was certainly still sold and sold well in its own little niche market well up to 1990 when I was still spoiled for choice on my US shopping jaunts.

The problem with people who want to talk about clothes but who do not know the clothing industry is that they will forever talk in absolutes which make them look foolish to clothes people. 'It was all about this' and 'It was all about that' - Mr. Chensvold last night in conversation with a Facebook friend of mine (I can't post there!) very honestly admitted that he had a 'Romantic' view of the rag trade. I can promise you that that is a view the clothing industry does not share in reality, it just promotes it to sell its wares. To shift units. To improve the balance sheet.

If I'm selling you an Ivy jacket I will tell you that it is symbolic of Long Island afternoons that never ended, of crisp fall mornings crossing the quad to lectures, of meeting old Uncle George at The Club to talk about what to do post-Graduation. What do I care? I have jackets to sell. Mordechai and I have to get these babies sold or Miriam and Ruth with be kvetching again. Oy...

Is there any greater wistful dreamer than the clothing purchaser? I hope not or I'll never make any money. But I see no reason not talk about the fact that those dreams are manipulated and contrived for the financial gain of others - A fact which I heartily approve of.

Clothing is a business. It's about product. It isn't a twee little mirror held up to society which reflects all that is noble, aristocratic and good expressed in 'Certain configurations of cloth'. Who could possibly be so f*cking wet behind the ears ?

I'll go along with that, but the clothes come first. They have to be there for meanings to be grafted onto them.

Yeah I mean the second reason I buy old clothes, other than liking the style of many of them, is because they're typically cheaper and better than anything I could buy now, yes there are exceptions, but on the whole I find even cheaper brands like Sears are better.

I agree with all of that.

As got said on the  Ivy-Style blog last night always look at who's saying what and wonder why they are saying it. Chens is selling ads which rely on the 'romantic' marketing of Ivy & all his other talking heads in his 'Rise & Fall' essay also have a vested interest in the romantic marketing too.

The only note that I'd offer to your post above is that the fashion industry created and promoted the university links - They were the industriy's clothes after all. The Industry used the campus connection to sell clothes. That's the way round the world of commerce works.

J. Press TOOK the Brooks style to the campus (to use but one example) - It starts with the clothiers, not the college kids.


... You can romanticise Ivy as much as you like if you have a grasp of the realities of the subject. If you are just buying into all the marketing hype then you are a thick dupe or know full well what you are doing and are doing it for your own advantage. Personally I love Ivy and like any meanigful love that means loving the reality of it.. Like the fact that its an incerdibly contrived and manipulated style of dress.

I just like how it looks. That's as much as it means to me. It's clothes.