Well, it might have been nothing but a piece of lazy writing on Turnbull's part.  I suspect, for him, the terms 'Ivy League' and 'Prep' might have been interchangeable.  It conjures up images of roadsters, hip flasks and raccoon coats: affluence and privilege before 1929-32 (and on to the war): nothing much to do with any of us: the heady mix of NYC, Italy, Paris, Soho, jazz, 50s movies etc. tends to be what we've allowed to enter our feverish minds, is it not?  I can't ever see me looking to the pre-war period for sartorial inspiration in a big way, much as I love 30s movies.

Beautiful Edith wrote:

Well, it might have been nothing but a piece of lazy writing on Turnbull's part.  I suspect, for him, the terms 'Ivy League' and 'Prep' might have been interchangeable.  It conjures up images of roadsters, hip flasks and raccoon coats: affluence and privilege before 1929-32 (and on to the war): nothing much to do with any of us: the heady mix of NYC, Italy, Paris, Soho, jazz, 50s movies etc. tends to be what we've allowed to enter our feverish minds, is it not?  I can't ever see me looking to the pre-war period for sartorial inspiration in a big way, much as I love 30s movies.

He wrote it in '62, no ?

Pre- stylised skinny lapel 50s Ivy was very much like the 30s look.

Fair play, he just used the jargon of his day.

Is it fair to say Ivy is now more the design, than the time, place, and education.

woofboxer wrote:

I read this 'New Ivy' as making your style from what's available out there these days.

As opposed to what - time travel?

My point is: you've pointed out the obvious flaws in Jimmy's concept, then extended it into something that is so vague as to mean nothing more than what already existed.  New ivy means wearing ivy in the 21st century? Fine, but it's not what Jimmy started this thread for, and it hardly seems to require a name.

Yuca wrote:

woofboxer wrote:

we might be in at the start of the next big thing in mens style!

The masses and/or the 'in crowd' are never going to want to emulate either of us.  And good for them.

That's for sure!

New Ivy:

So exclusive, you can't buy it anywhere, except for maybe two stores in the world.
So subtle in its code, its inherently invisible.
So astoundingly accurate in its historicity that it stands outside of history.

Ivy in '32 was superb, but can it truly compare to THE look of ivy in mid-late September of 1896? It's all been downhill since then.

These proportions returned by Brooks Brothers,J Press, Cable Car Clothiers, and the others Ivy retailers in 70s (maybe the only thing that not return was the undarted double breasted sack....or maybe not)...



So Ivy in 70s was "new Ivy"?
Well probably yes; nothing is really new.
But i  understand the point,and i think that a ivy-30s inspired collection can be a very interesting thing.
You can see that in 30s proportions of these suits and coats were not "baggy"...were not much different from early 50s Ivy clothes.
Differences with the boom years?
Well,not skinny lapels and dark skinny ties or poly-cotton stuff.
Different patterns and combinations: for exemple no (or few) madras coats and many white flannell trousers with blue,gray or tan coats ( today you can wear a lightweight glen urquhart sack coat with white linen trousers,for exemple).
The undarted double breasted sack,with patch pockets and flaps could be recovered and seem brand new (imagine it in check seersucker,for exemple).
Can work,is a original idea..but requires a deep knowledge of matter.
If at the today Brooks Brothers had taste and cleverness,they would have done and would the new (and original) Ralph Lauren.

Yuca wrote:

Jimmy Frost Mellor wrote:

TODAY's Ivy is alive & well. The best America now has is all Vintage.

That doesn't mean much; can anyone, anywhere compete with Brooks from the 50s/60s?

Jimmy Frost Mellor wrote:

So how new is New Ivy ?

Not remotely. It's just classic Ivy which doesn't pay any attention to all the crap since

Sounds perfect, count me in.  But to not pay 'any attention to all the crap since' involves ignoring your new invention.

Before I begin to ignore it, I will add that most of us on here are not from London, and do not buy most (any in my case) of our clothes there.

Apparently new new ivy is the latest thing; it involves buying things I post in the 'For sale' thread.  A few people on here are definitely itk.

1) Ivy as a living style is what we should all we aiming for, but it has to actually be Ivy - Which involves ignoring all the Jivy & Preppy cul-de-sacs of the classic look. Competing with 50s/60s Brooks? - That's absolutely not what its all about. The very notion of there being a competition is alien to me. There can be benchmarks to be observed, but the idea of it being like some kind of game of football (or whatever) is lost on me.

2) You want to make a point, I know, but my new invention, as I say, is nothing new at all - But it would be a breath of pure fresh air when compared to what is on offer today (with only a few exceptions). I think you should investigate John Simons a bit more. And they do do mail order for when you can't come down to visit the shop.

woofboxer wrote:

JFM it's not just about London.  You can't have a style that's just built around Chiltern street, excellent as JS's may be. It doesn't matter where you are now because of the internet and internet shopping. look here, we're all talking to each other.

I think it's a mistake to dismiss J Press out of hand, there's still plenty to delight the ivy fan in their New York store even though their best days are in the past, they are still streets ahead of Brooks. Plus The Andover Shop still beats the ivy drum in much the same way as JS does here, if The Andover is good enough for Zac it's good enough for me.

I enjoyed your blog piece on how to assemble an ivy look for 400 quid. I read this 'New Ivy' as making your style from what's available out there these days.

Okay so lets nail our colours to the mast: rename the forum TALK NEW IVY !!

I see London as the nexus of my new idea. It's my idea & I come from London so it's a London idea !

The blog piece on Ivy for £400 was an unrelated thing for a different demographic.

All you say about the US is true. But your POV on it, as you are not an American, is not an American idea. If you were a Londoner you could claim it as a London idea.

Not sure I'll do much online with New Ivy so the forum remains the same. This is just another talking point here for now. N.I. as an idea in the menswear industry is a far more interesting thing to play with. 'Snake Oil Jim'... 

Yuca wrote:

My point is: you've pointed out the obvious flaws in Jimmy's concept, then extended it into something that is so vague as to mean nothing more than what already existed.  New ivy means wearing ivy in the 21st century? Fine, but it's not what Jimmy started this thread for, and it hardly seems to require a name.

To call it 'flawed' is very simplistic as I presented it as a paradox from the start: A new thing that wasn't remotely new.

Mr. Woofboxer's take on New Ivy is indeed not new, it's just what's current. My idea is more for the future -