To clarify matters some more : the general feeling on TI seems to be as described by 4F Hepcat which implies to me that one can't 'get it' if one chooses to wear a modern shirt w/a logo on it.....how vile ! My simple answer to such blatant nonsense ( as if it somehow can't be 'Ivy' to make such a choice ) has always been the two finger salute. Again, not aimed at anyone in particular but wholeheartedly meant nevertheless

Last edited by Alex Roest (2010-05-15 03:03:39)

We're all Evangelists, Jehovah Witnesses, Quakers, priestlty saints or voodoo magick alchemists out in the void trying to make sense of all the internet constructs, marketing hype and BS, in search of the real essence of Ivy.  But even in this, all we have is a post-modern construct, and what RL, AAAC, Chenners and all the Trolls instinctively now, that you can take what you want, add disparate elements to serve your own ego/cash flow agendas.

The iGent/Trad construct, is a case in point, a blank canvas, based in stylised romanticism, the fag end saudade of a nostalgic longing for a past that never really existed. Prime meat for the AAAC artisans to take advantage of.

Alex is right of course, in his assertion that it doesn’t matter the provenance of a shirt, so long as it a good and quality shirt. People will pay for provenance though, as the market for antiques and the price of vintage Rolex Submariners do attest.

I won’t buy RL shirts for a number of reasons, and Shamrockmonkey hits the nail on the head with saturation level of labels, here are my other reasons:
>Collar roll, absolutely crap. Cannot take a tie.
>Offshore production in third-world sweatshops.
>Oxford cloth doesn’t breath
>Broadcloths must be ironed straight from the wash
>Association with a marketing construct, that Oprah buys into so obediently well, “what you do is beyond clothes – its about life”. No its not.
>Overpriced and over here.

I have no problem with Lacoste. And I have to say, the RL vintage oxford cloths do have some very interesting stripes and colours that no one else has, period.

Now, if I was a young man without any bucks, I would have no option but to shop at Uniqlo, which stocks great Oxfords and Madras’s at very reasonable prices.

And none of us, have answered Quay’s question. I give in, I dunno, what’s the answer Quay, how did Ralphy boy do it?

Saying Ralphy isn't Ivy is a strict aesthetic point of view which ultimately deems the style obsolete.

Saying Ralphy is Ivy continued opens up a broad perspective on the sheer cultural impact of the style.

I hold both views.

^ Agreed on all points.

It's just that to me, the strict definition doesn't provide the whole story. Everytime I see a Ralphy clad frat type I think of how Ivy  continues to move people subconsciously, however twisted.

This is why Ralph Lauren et al are indeed more than just clothes and marketing, I think it's culture at large working here. RL continues to capitalize on that powerful post- WWII version of the American Dream, and people are still buying it. They are not just buying a polo sporting a horsey but a sense of a "better life". My warped little mind likes to think those old notions surrounding "democratic" Ivy are still working at the core of this.

Last edited by 1966 (2010-05-16 05:50:16)