Can I be a fan of preppy style?

It's a bit silly but I like the colors and the casual air.

Discovering "Trad" helped me to learn about the Ivy League style.  I was vaguely aware of it and certainly didn't grow up with it.  The more I have learned, the more I enjoy and have shifted clothing purchases accordingly (Press and O'Connells over RL and Neiman Marcus).  I have found that the 3/2 sack can have what I appreciate it suits (natural shoulders with some waist suppression).  However, I do appreciate other elements of Trad such as the more colorful aspects of preppy.  I also enjoy pleated pants and double cuff shirts as well.

Definitely a fan of the look. I like calling it trad. Just a name. A neighbor of mine, from Boston, told me I looked very New England the other day. He can call it that if he wants. Won't get an argument from me.

I'd like to take a little poll about Traditional/Classic American style if I may -

Are you a 'Trad' or a Traditionalist?

- They are very different things you know.

Press the Red button now.

- Flux!

l don't mind the Ivy League style l see in the old black and white pictures. Looks quite masculine. But when l see a bunch of drips on forums wearing rags and girly men wearing colourful butterflys and multi colours on their  belts, l just laugh and roll my eyes. As i've said, Ivy photo's look great. AAAT = big clown boys playing dress ups.

Last edited by The_Shooman (2008-06-30 08:02:15)

My Kinda guy from the Ol' PM service:


"Your point about the variety inherent in the clothes is, of course, well-taken, and something I've tried to say myself: the markers have tended to vary by locale and, to some extent, taste.  I myself have always cared more about shoulders, lapels, and cuffs than about darts and pleats.  No doubt this is inherited from my dad (who owned, I might add, several Brooks wool-blend glen-plaid suits back in the 70's); these were the details he cared about and he taught me what to look for.

"Trad" is, of course, its own style -- whether one likes the style or not -- but it could be a jumping-off point for a broader look at late-century American clothes.  Sadly, though, the Internet being what it is, Trad needs its rules to prevent the encroachment of other styles at either end of the spectrum.  I don't begrudge the Trads their rules, but as we've discussed before, they do not equal either the historical look in all its permutations, nor a truly workable wardrobe for today. (This puts the Trads in the uncomfortable position of either denying the Continental-cut suits and Levis in their closets, or worse, proclaiming them, like penitents in search of an indulgence.)  But I understand your desire to look deeper and to have a more nuanced appreciation, one that transcends "preppy" (though preppy is part of the look, too).

Me, I wear what I always wear.  Sometimes I get tired of my clothes and wish I had more imagination, but like the man says, I am what I am.  I like well-worn khakis and old oxfords, faded polos and beat-up Weejuns.  I like good cigars, going sockless, and watching my kids play in the yard at twilight.  I like a grilled steak, jazz on the stereo, and a bottle of Napa cab.  I like going fishing, but don't care much if I catch anything.  I don't like spending time with people who are overly impressed with themselves, or feel they've got something to prove."


What's not to like about a guy like that?


My kind of people.  Join us!

Anything to oblige, Mike. Here is a voice from the South:

"Alright, Mr. Frost-Mellor, I’m in.  Like Longwing, I’m not sure I really qualify, but I am very interested in what you have to say.  Your remarks on being a “traditionalist” really hit home because I have described myself in the very same way, both often and recently. 

Frankly, I could never see myself as “Trad”: I can’t even type it without quotation marks.  Nobody I know would have the slightest idea what I was talking about, and I still don’t know what it means myself.  I have enjoyed the AAAT forum in the year or so I have participated, but it is certainly much diminished since I first ran across it.  The long-time practitioners of traditional American dress have fallen away, and the frequent posters seem to be youngsters who don’t have any idea what they’re talking about. 

I am very interested in your ideas on the day-to-day viability of Ivy League style in the early 21 Century.  The Sports Illustrated adverts that Tony Ventresca has been posting are really incredible stuff, but I think those skinny silhouettes and lapels would look as archaic as  frock coats and top hats for mainstream wear today.  Derivatives of that look, ala J. Press, sure.  But the real stuff, (unless you’re recreating The Dick Van Dyke Show) no way.

In the Southern US, the vestiges of the Ivy Style are as strong as anywhere I know of.  But it’s been influenced by the preppy craze of the 80’s and an organic white bucks and bow tie element that I think is uniquely Southern.  Men become indoctrinated in the style not through attendance at Ivy League schools, but through the Greek systems at the large, primarily State-operated universities.  I am a product of that environment, and I recognize Longwing and Tucker as products of that environment as well, and there are others.  Moreover, I’ve noticed time after time that the folks who dress like I do in my hometown tend to have similar interests in history, historic preservation and genealogy.  In short, traditionalists."

Members of cultures with national dress will know: The 'rules' of the look are always a combination of folklore, fashion  and romantic fantasy.
Does any of this sound familiar?

And, is it a bad thing?