Yeah.
I've pulled his leg over the social class business long enough, poor bloke.
He does have nice taste in clothes.

We still don't need leaders or dictats I don't think, but we do need those who love that Amrican Traditional TNSIL style pulling together.

I'm sure some role can be found for the other guys too...
I wonder what attrcted them to 'Trad' in the first place?
I suspect it was that class element. Everybody wanted to lay claim to being a part of that lifestyle of good taste and good breeding. Especially being asociated with good breeding.

If we just keep it about the clothes then we'll keep the wannabes out I think you'll find.

I think "Trad" may be lost to us as a useful identifier.   The title of this thread is most appropriate.

Many varied styles are traditional.  People see that there is a style called Trad and think "This is me" before they even begin to understand how the term is (or was) defined.  I know this because it happened to me. As it stands now, I think that a new poster could read the Trad forum for months on end and never come to understand that Trad means something very specific.  That may be lost.

It is a little ironic because before the separation of the Trad forum from the Fashion forum, there were true defenders of the Trad. "That's not Trad" was a very common expression.  Once the schism occurred, inclusivity became the norm and it became impolite to point out that something wasn't trad.

So again, the problem with Trad is simply that the word has too much appeal.

Long live "Ivy".

LW

Here Here!

And as a symbolic gesture of both Christmas cheer and adherence to true Ivy, I shall throw a velvet smoking jacket onto the yule log.

Cheers,
Trip

What's in a name? The desire is to go back to the original? You might mean Brooks and Chipp in the late '50s and early '60s or Norman Hilton slightly later. As Horace and Ken C Pollock point out (and they were there), they just don't make 'em like they used to. The times they are a changing. So how do you go back? This is, incidentally, my wife's accusation ("your clothes seem to come to you by a time machine").

Last edited by stylestudent (2006-12-13 10:08:38)

Actually, I'm not that old.  I hope I didn't give that impression.  Pollock's got a few years on me.  My knowledge of that period (50's) comes from other guys, examples of their gear, a few things I've inherited or see family photos of, talking with a few shop owners who've got old pieces in the tailoring rack that are still being awaited pick-up forty years later!  And of course my recent browsing of old New Yorkers, and postings from helpful souls such as Harry & Co.

I'm quite interested in how a classic English look lets you get away with a lot more than a classic American look...

As you mention, LW, there are elements of the Classic 20th Century American style that you need to avoid or risk looking a little funny if you take them too far.

Play around with classic English style & you're a lot safer. Even plus 2's & plus 4's can be done in the right context.

But dress like Pee-Wee Herman and you'll pay for it.

http://www.paul-reubens.net/cpg1.3.3/cpg133/displayimage.php?album=74&pos=19

Life, eh?

Last edited by Terry Lean (2006-12-14 09:45:59)

http://www.paul-reubens.net/cpg1.3.3/cpg133/displayimage.php?album=74&pos=15

I'm not entirely happy with that shoulder line.

One for the Modculture site:

http://www.paul-reubens.net/cpg1.3.3/cpg133/displayimage.php?album=73&pos=91

Jam shoes!