I think Public Jestering could have been written for either of you.

Much of this thread is complete bollocks.  But pay attention to JFMs original posting.  Absorb the effect his words had on The Guv'Nor.  He was almost certainly referring to Pad and Jim in this context although I'd stake my shirt on the same attitude prevailing with TRS and his Liverpool 'Mod Monk' chums.  And this is important.  And significant. 
Earlier today, in a 'retro' shop (not entirely devoid of interest) I examined a few items of 'vintage' clothing.  It was overpriced and no-one could possibly have worn, say, an ancient (yellow) Rocola shirt in this day and age for anything other than a fancy dress party where bottles of Blue Nun were the preferred drink.  A Crombie (£45) was a museum piece.  Anyone wearing most of this gear would be altogether self-conscious - thus negating the effortless way of dressing of the Old School Ivy crowd.

Before we know where we are someone will be suggesting wearing a suit without a tie is Ivy League instead of reminding the beholder of a certain type of witless TV presenter.  A suit, whether unstructured or otherwise, must be worn with proper footwear, be it lace-up or slip-on.  To claim anything else is mere foolishness and leading the style by the nose away from its roots and towards what is nothing more or less 'trendy' dressing.

The currently missing Yuca BTW remains, I think, a purist.

I agree about 'Take Ivy'.  They just wore what they bought and what they bought was readily available by then.  They often give the impression of being late for a nine o'clock lecture.

^ Probably so, yes.  But denim shorts are for fit teenage girlies. 
On the other hand, I've seen quite a few Boom Years images that do nothing for me.  Hasn't everyone?

Of course if you have any aspiration towards an Ivy look then you need to stay within certain parameters, maybe a certain 'feeling' would be better than a prescriptive word like parameter. But walking around in a sharply creased Brooks plain grey two piece, crisp white shirt, silk repp tie and polished longwings just doesn't fit in with anything that most people do these days. Much as I applaud that look and admire it, anyone wearing it in all but the most limited fields of work or leisure activity would stick out like a sore thumb and come across as being rather eccentric.

Strangely a crisp white shirt, worn open necked with sharply pressed chinos and polished longwings would probably attract positive comments. The point being that for certain items of clothing a dash of casualness is needed for them to fit into day to day life. This concession to reality doesn't mean you have to start wearing a football shirt when you take your wife out to dinner.

Like it or not, we have to wear our clothes in the modern world. So rules about what you must wear with a suit are about as relevant as the rules for dodo shooting contests. 'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men', a quote which is often attributed to Sir Douglas Bader, but in fact he nicked it from Harry Day the WW1 Royal Flying Corps fighter ace.

I think clothing, or style genres must be allowed to progress in much the same way as music does. Otherwise it becomes a relic.

I would use Teds as an example, but that evolved so far that the name went. Into a very healthy scene mixing rock’n’roll and rockabilly style and music with swing sounds and a loose 40’s/50’s look. They know and respect their history, but aren’t stuck in it, like skinheads tend to be. There never having been much room for manoeuvre as far as acceptable clothing and music tastes goes on that scene.

We’re lucky in that ivy style clothing offers so many variations, in summer or winter. American, English, Continental. Town, country or beach. Day or night. Work or weekend. As simple and basic as the look appears, once you start digging, it’s difficult to grow bored.

If JS closed up shop and acceptable boom years stuff stopped popping up on ebay, I’d like to think people would, like me, still find their way to the style and adapt it to their own day to day needs.

Well. I was trying to say that certain genres of music have progressed and changed over the years.

The most modern soul is not a lot like Motown or Stax. But is still unmistakably soul. It’s not for me to say whether it’s better or worse, but it has progressed.

I don’t know a lot about jazz, but do know that it’s followed a similar path. Taken much more diverse twists and turns than most genres along the way. Still jazz is jazz and it’s stayed alive snd relevant.

Music in the style of, I don’t know, Gilbert and Sullivan? Or chamber music? just got left behind as a museum piece.

Someone once said - and it's true (I think Alvey will bear me out on this) - that the real trouble with jazz is, there's so much of it. 
A woman I was conversing with on Saturday afternoon: 'I don't like jazz'.  But what exactly did she mean?  What and how much, I wanted to ask her, have you bothered with?  I grew up with it.  It was always around me.  But get someone to listen to Ellington, followed immediately by Sun Ra, or 'Potato Head Blues' or 'Jeepers Creepers' followed immediately by 'The Fables Of Faubus' or 'Bemsha Swing' confusion might well arise.  I mean, some like hard bop.  I don't.  I can even get by without much in the way of bebop.
No: it's a major subject.