I got it...  I got it...  I got it...

I ain't got it...

One Trick Pony wrote:

I got it...  I got it...  I got it...

I ain't got it...

And I have to say that using BoO's login here is very poor form.

First Chens bans BoO from posting here & then uses Boo's name for his schtick after he was called on his 'CMC' & 'Sick O'Fanatic' names?

Very poor.

Russell_Street wrote:

One Trick Pony wrote:

I got it...  I got it...  I got it...

I ain't got it...

And I have to say that using BoO's login here is very poor form.

First Chens bans BoO from posting here & then uses Boo's name for his schtick after he was called on his 'CMC' & 'Sick O'Fanatic' names?

Very poor.

Agreed.  The hallmark of a complete twat.

APPROPRIATOR.

Staceyboy wrote:

This is turning into one HELL of a thread and a smile has spread accross my face for the first time today. Respect! to you all. There are more identities going on here than in a re-run of "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers". Pretty soon I'm going to have to confess to actually  being 'Adam', 'Cheeky Monkey', 'Patrick' and Uncle Jim himself!
And to my good friend OTP, strong drink will always coax me into revealing secrets - if indeed secrets they may be!

Staceyboy

I am Hoace and Tony V!

So who were "Protagoniste"? "Taung Child"? "A Renfrewshire Arsehole" and "I Heart Harvard"?

Long_Playing wrote:

APPROPRIATOR.

Aye.

Done with skill this could have been a rather good troll...

We all respect BoO & so his name does/did matter.

The fact that BoO has thrown his name away now shows how little he cares about all this forum stuff. So let Chensvold play - It's all great fora fun!

Who will he be next?

The whole thing should be consigned to the dustbin of history.  It was worthless.  Oh, maybe it meant something in London but it was of questionable value elsewhere.

Amazing thread "chums".

^It's the only way to get him to reveal his thrifting sources.

Shelly Hamilton wrote:

You make a few good points, as OTP has already said, but I am not sure, if you really got, what it was all about... I think that you have to understand Gibson Garden's post in the context of what was going on here, and in some other forums... He didn't get angry for no reason, and I'm sure that he could care less about what someone else thinks about a vintage ad for a blazer!

GG doesn't hate the "Mods" (I don't know him personally, but if I got it right, his roots are in this "scene", too)...

  He's probably just pissed off, when certain people who didn't "do the knowledge" come to JS or write some stuff on the net like "Oh, this is boring, old-fashioned, bland..." whatever, or "it's baggy", "the lapels are too wide", "this is a bad cut" etc... It's always the same stuff! So, it is these people that aren't tolerant in the first place... these wiseguys who have just seen Quadrophenia and come here with their 1964-66 "Mod" stereotypes of Carnaby Street and The Who in mind...
....but this MB is not about Swinging London style, it's about the Ivy League Look! So, in a way, dismissing an ad like this one, is a little bit like going on a forum for... say, "fly-fishing" and saying that harpoons are better... maybe this was a bad example... well, it's like going to a forum for "Northern Soul" and saying that you don't like these sounds because their not "funky", whatever... it's just missing the point...

There is a Mod/Ivy crossover, but not all of the Ivy League clothes are "Mod clothes" and certainly not all of the Mod styles are Ivy League style... No way! By 1965/66 the term "Mod" was almost a meaningless marketing term, that was applied to anything that was in fashion...

I remember, when a certain "Style councillor" came here, and dismissed heavy Brogues and chunky Loafers, while he was advocating to wear thin soled Brogues by a small Italian company catering for the Mod revival scene specifically... He also defended electric blue Mohair as a serious business suit... and he wasn't exactly respectful, but my point is that he wasn't talking about the Ivy League style....

I'm not saying that adam is like this (I'm sure he's not), but some of those "Mods" are way more intolerant or one-track-minded than all of the hardliners over here!


So, in a way, this post from GG was just a reaction... If I got him right, he isn't a style dictator like this Manton at AAAC used to be.... He is just saying, that this ad is an essential, typical example of an Ivy League jacket, and if you don't like it, you probably don't have a clue about "The Look"... I don't think it was directed against someone specifically.... Of course, it's a little harsh, the way he said it, but adam was cool with it, and I think the post that you just quoted here, explains a lot about why he couldn't stay calm... It's his passion and he loves the Ivy League style and there's a lot of personal history involved.... If he simply said, that he liked the jacket, he wouldn't have got his point across... In the end, it was just talking TACHELES, and sometimes you need to speak this language... It's not a secret code like Polari, it's a language that everybody can understand...

Of course, clothes are just a matter of taste in the end, but if it is about the Ivy League Style, it is a very specific taste, it's an aesthetic with certain rules.... Jim is right when he compares it to Savile Row... You couldn't go to a Mayfair tailor and ask for a Tonik suit with a 4-button jacket and skintight trousers with 14" bottoms and frogmouth pockets...

However, saying this, I don't think Ivy League is just an upperclass thing...

Especially, with the London crowd it is not! Nevertheless, there is a certain elitism, but the Americans usually don't see the difference...

The i-Gent/ "Trad" elitism of AAAT and the curriculum is all about "old money" aspirations, the "good old times", Yacht clubs and about pretending to be a New England Brahmin, whatever...

The "London Ivy" crowd's elitism is about passion (I know I repeat myself), it is about being "sussed", being "in the know", about getting hip, maybe in an obsessive way, but it's only about the aesthetic... nothing more...

that's the difference.... as far as I understand it....

... but I'm not a Londoner and I'm not as hardline as John Gall and Jim, I have to add...

Anyway, nice that you joined in the discussions, once again, BoO! I really like your contributions! And I also hope that Paul and Lewis will be back here, too.... If they didn't like "The Look", they wouldn't have come here in the first place, I guess....


(we're all running in the Special Olympics here, anyway)



Cheers, Shelly

Amidst all the laughter yesterday this fantastic post got a little lost I thought... So -


Bump!

One Trick Pony wrote:

Rarely can the innocent posting of a vintage ad have raised such a shit storm.  It's been like Gorbals Mick and the Expenses Scandal all over again.  Good job the 'Daily Telegraph' hasn't become embroiled.