Much talk about the 'Romantic' view of Ivy yesterday and nobody was buying it !

The consensus was that it was either niavety or salesmanship.

But then I was amongst clothes people and so the verdict was predictable. The curse of talking about clothes to people actually know about them... 

Another little coda to this discussion was what poor journalism / scholarship / thinking it is not too look at the context of anything said and question it - We all found that very hard to believe. That's beyond niavety, we decided, and had to be deliberately done to pursue the agenda of the individual concerned - Usually a financial one.

The traditional US tailoring look came from established firms, notably Brooks Brothers, borrowing lots of english ideas but essentially straight from the business world of the eastern states. The 'ivy' most of us like is the style of the 50s and 60s, a time when, due to increasing affluence, the whole population were starting to dress more casually away from the workplace and young people were able to develop their own styles of dress. This often led to the mix of casual and formal items that can be seen in the pages of the oft reviled 'Take Ivy' e.g. a tailored jacket with 5 pocket trousers, sports shirts with blazers etc.  Now somewhere along the line this subverted or watered down formal style came to be seen as the way to mark yourself out as being 'hip', 'cool', 'in with the in crowd' or whatever. Whether that originated on campus or in Greenwich Village, or simultaneously, I dont know, probably the latter I suspect.

Fashion was far more organic in the 50s and 60s, trends came up from the streets. Often this involved using what was available i.e. conventional items and wearing them in an unconventional way. Young people got their ideas from a much narrower field, far example, there were only a few TV channels with just the odd program that catered for them, often ideas came from seeing what a certain crowd was wearing and larger numbers emulating it.

The concept of shadowy marketing men directing everything behind the scenes is as flawed as the romantic view of elite east coast college students dictating the course of fashion from their rarified establishments. Consumerism, although very much underway,was not as highly developed then as it is now, when young people seem to wear what is dictated to them by manufacturers and labels. Doubtless Ralph Lauren does a team working on what the fashion will be in five years time but I don't think that was happening in 1960, the market just wasn't big enough yet.

For me the intention is just to question any answer I see being put out there. Such is the nature of discussion & debate.

The whole business about talking about clothes is that you do have to actually talk about clothes - Items which were designed, marketed and sold - THAT is the basis of any clothing conversation. Only after those three steps do they go out in the world and things happen to them culturally.

You can't put whatever culture you want (Mod or Trad or Campus) before the clothes.

First there was the schmutter and then there was the baggage.

You simply can't escape the fact that without the clothes none of the rest would have followed. And the clothes were... designed, marketed and sold.

Brooks revolutuonised the WASP wardrobe with brand new products in America. Before that SHOP there was none of any of this.

So celebrate the culture of Ivy league Menswear - Celebrate the culture of retail !

We're only here for the beer !

Last edited by Goodyear welt (2013-02-10 07:10:29)

There must have been some idea of the future in the marketing, the 50s being a modernist paradise and the time of space age bachelor pads, Hifi's and stereophonic sound.

Only flaw is, no fookers wearing it any more, bar a few. It clearly isn't now a timeless look as anyone who wears it (in the context of the term "Ivy" on this forum) looks like a throwback to the 50s/60s. I don't think thats a bad thing but it does look like clothes from a past period.

^^That much is true, but the cultural references run deep and are ingrained in the pysche of Western man: it remains classic, unlike Teddy-boy fashion of the 50s and this is because the proportions and aesthetics were just right

I am living in the future, but from a boom period perspective.

Last edited by 4F Hepcat (2013-02-10 08:36:17)

GW- Nothing is new in terms of style though. Everything is a throwback. Take your own comments on the other thread about Henry's jacket being a good length for a modern jacket.  I agree it is a length you would compare to say modern fashionable Brooks Brothers. In fact apart from the length the differences between it and modern BB are small.

I think it's the way we wear the items that can make them often look retro. Not the items themselves. I do think Ivy is timeless. The classic cuts will always look good even if they do not fit with modern fashion. The fashion of today doesn't really enter into whether something is timeless or not.

Anyway, the whole timeless thing was just to sell clobber, innit?

Mehbey?

Last edited by Liam Mac (2013-02-10 08:48:05)

Me neither. But would he stand out, by looking decidedly retro or old fashioned? He would look boring to some and subtle to others but I don't think many people would see that as a deliberate retro costume.

^ If Zach sells them they must be!

Just playing folks.