Oh, I think he gives a big shit for what some think.

Oh right. You are talking about the use of the word Prep. I don't see any link to what we know of Prep in that ad.. other than the use of the word.

Most Ivy Leaguers at the time may have went to Prep School, you're right, but that doesn't mean that they wore Prep style in Prep school then became Ivy at College, does it? Hoffman wore the Ivy look. You may think he looks preppy... but it's all Ivy. Also, I'd say that when I talk about Ivy, I talk about the style and only the style. I'm not talking about what schools they went to.

Hoffman may have looked more Ivy than McQueen in that pic but so what, he also looked more Ivy there than McQueen did in 'Papillon'. These are films and they are put into costume.

Hadn't he basically finished College, not Prep school?

nah mate, it was 100% wool. But the lining did spark when you took it off.

Last edited by Leer R. (2011-11-10 15:52:13)

^ Different colour choices.  Nasty, nasty.

If you mean in terms of the Preps choice of colours, I agree. Bad pastels(are there good pastels?) and too much of the contrasting non neutrals. Makes it all look very 'festive'.

Yes, thinking it over again I was referring to a look quite different from the OPH image and those pictures of dorks we've seen on the BSC thread.  Still not 'Ivy', though, IMO - a little too knowing and calculated.  Definitely a contemporary American thing - non-transferable (perhaps) to the UK.  It seems to me that Elmore Leonard, as well as Grisham, provides these descriptions in his books.  Maybe it was (is?) the last gasp of something.

I always associate the emergence of the visible logo as being a big part of Prep and it seems to coincide with it's emergence in the late 70's and 80's. Something about celebrating the brand(with all it's connotations) and not the clothes seems very preppy to me.

I'm surprised the term PITA is even being mentioned, why give it validity?

Last edited by 12BarBlues (2011-11-11 12:28:14)