There is certainly much overlap, the the Preppy Handbook does not describe (except in the most oblique terms) the European experience with the Ivy/Jazz look, and it's too recent to describe (fully) the US Ivy League look of the 50s/60s. Pre-war Ivy League style was all about Anglo clothing, whereas after the war it became much more uniquely American.

I don't know how far to go.
It's all a bit dodgy anyway.
Too difficult to come to a conclusion, since so few of us 'were there', and even those who were there are usually only familiar with their own personal experiences (and not the 'broad sweep'). I do not mean to belittle recollections; no, those are extremely valuable, but must be understood as only tiny pieces in a larger puzzle.

However, there are not enough people are out there researching these topics. Without research they are just talking about their own biases, or desires, and mistaking those for facts.

Perhaps the most useful 'source' out there was that old scan from MIT, or someplace, that was a guide to college style (Horace has it, I believe). Also, more recently posted here on FNB, the guide to the business traveller. Both were contemporary.

*****

Overall, I believe we (who, yes, spend too much time worrying ourselves with these things) see enough differences, both in details, timeframes, and attitudes, to insist on marking out categories, even if it's ultimately an intellectual game.

Although, that is how human brains make sense of things, so maybe it is okay.

*****

Ivy for everyone!

TV

I'd rather die than be awkward...

But why is your question this way round?

Let the "Trads" defend their position, not me.

They are the ones with the newly made up name & "orthodoxy" for their style on the Net.

The Ivy League style is alive and well & does not need reviving.

"Trad" has come along as the young pretender.

Let it defend its self.

It's "orthodoxy" has no historic basis.

It is merely a seductive story for the ill-educated in this style. It feeds into people's fantasies about "Preppy" & Ralph Lauren & long afternoons on Long Island.

Cling to it if you must and mark yourself down in the eyes of those who know and love the classic American tailoring style.

Your choice.

I'd rather that you were well informed and actually interested in this style of clothing than deluded to the bone.

All the best...

God speed.

t.

Still unwilling to do it.

Keeping it about the clothes, you cite two clothes related issues with the "internet trads":  bow ties and baggy pants.

Bow ties:  I get that you take issue with "A. Squire" who tends to wear bow ties exclusively.  Indeed, his is a unique style, certainly not Ivy.  Probably something along the lines of Southern Traditional.  But there are plenty of 4-in-hand ties depicted over there; furthermore, do bow ties really not fit into the Ivy canon? 

Baggy pants:  Not sure whom you're referencing.  The trousers depicted there seem fine to me. 

So, let me attempt, again, to engage you on the clothes.  Here is a list of items that the "trads" at AAAT would consider "trad":

The sack suit (natural shoulders, no darts, two or three-roll-two button, plain front and cuffed trousers)
Sack odd jackets in navy blue with brass buttons or tweed.
Plain fronted khaki cotton casual trousers
repp silk ties (bow and four-in-hand) in traditional stripes and patterns
oxford and broad cloth shirts in button down, point, or club collars
penny and tassle loafers, etc. 

Of this list, which are in conflict with the Ivy style?


Best,

T to the B

The bottom line is that Terry Lean needs to give us specs on Ivy Clothes and how they differ from THE CLOTHES of Trad (and Preppy).  It seems that so far he has been mostly unwilling to do this.  This debate can go no further until he does so.  Step up to the plate, Mr. Lean! (forgive the American expression)

As for TV's point that Ivy was worn in the late 50s/early 60s by more than the American elite, I agree. But I would argue that Ivy had few of the connotations in America that Mr. Lean associates with it.  If Trad is a 2004 internet interpretation of Ivy, Lean's is a British take on Ivy, not an American one.  He should remember this when he pontificates.  His take on American Ivy is just as much an interpretation of the style as anyone else's, and a foreign one at that. 

Emerson was right in suggesting that American culture needed no other affirmation than from itself.  Ivy League Style is American--not Japanese or British, although it was reinterpreted in these places.  Furthermore, the roots of Ivy League Style are in the American Northeast, among the WASP elite, even though middle class Americans came, in time, to aspire to the look.  Insofar as the "Trads" have this right, they understand more about Ivy Style than Mr. Lean and his comrades.

"your beloved Coolidge"

I like that phrase.
I do like Cooly it's true.

Perhaps a look into the etymology of the term "Ivy League Style" would be helpful at this point?  Who came up with it?  Maybe Horace and his old New Yorker ads can be helpful here.  It seems to me though that the name itself points to its origins as an American phenomenon of Northeastern WASPs.  Mr. Lean would at least have to admit that, in general, the term "Ivy League" has few proletarian connotations, at least in America.