Last edited by Tyto (2007-06-21 08:53:56)

The sheer lack of information on the Ivy look--its historical provenance, where to find the stuff, which items traditionally work work well together, the differences in cuts and fabrics used by different makers, photos of wearers of the look past and present, etc.--makes AAAT an invaluable resource for anyone interested in the subject.  There is a goldmine of good information there that far outweighs the nonsensical, aspirational, armchair sociology stuff, which is indeed lame, but ignorable.

And who cares what the agendas of the posters are, anyway?  So what if some are trying to learn "rules" out of insecurity or some misguided fantasy of upward social mobility?  Do you condemn a library because some patrons check out the books for what are (in your opinion) stupid reasons?

The relationship between FNB and AAAT reminds me of the "cool" AV nerds who were into cyberpunk and heavy metal snickering at the "lame" nerds who were into Dungeons & Dragons and Billy Joel.  In the final analysis, we're all nerds about this stuff.

I came here angry, you know.  But I rather like it now that I've moved from reader to occasional poster.  I am a frequent participant at AA, and frankly, I can hardly keep up with one forum, let alone two, AND do my job. 

Actually, the only thing I really wanted to get across here was what Brownshoe has said so eloquently about the baby and bathwater.  There is good stuff that goes on there, sometimes really good stuff.  And then there's crappy stuff.  Most of the regulars have gotten pretty good at sniffing out the crap.  Some continue to pander to the "is this trad" set, but for the most part, the regular crowd doesn't get into that stuff.  AK stays away from Trad, which is nice, and our "mods" are, I think, kinder and gentler than others (come on, AlanC?  He's a teddy bear.). 

There's no sense in rehashing MY definition of "Trad", as I think we hashed it out pretty well in Tradly's thread here.  I concede, and I think Brownshoe and others of the "good guys" would as well that the word "Trad" is Japanese in etymology, and has been adopted by a new group of sack suit wearers that probably got it's start somewhere around the turn of this century (I think that it was around before 2004, I know you disagree, TL, but it's giving Harris a lot of credit to say he brought about the word "trad").  "Trad", as it is discussed there is based on the sack suit with natural shoulders and no darts.  yadda, yadda, yadda (see previous of my posts to fill in the yadda).  "Trad" espouses more "Preppy" than the style it's based on, the Ivy League style. 

Some do it well, some do it poorly, some adopted it from dear old dad, some are new to it, some are aspirational (the clothes will make them upper middle class), some could care less, some think the sack suit makes them part of a club, some like the way it fits on them.  It's a forum, with lots of members, and lots of differing view points. 

Often, you guys focus on the bathwater.  The dirty, dirty bathwater.  But there's a good looking, innocent, young baby in there, made up of a group of regulars who bring lots of different perspectives (and sources, and styles, and ideas, and history, and jokes) to the table.  There's no sense in naming them, because if you've read around there for a little bit, you know of whom I speak.

Brownshoe and I have not spoken about this, but I suspect that he--like me--approaches FNB much more easily now that we've had these conversations.  You guys focus on the bathwater too much.  And I'll concede that some days there's more bathwater than there is baby.  But the core group over there is well-meaning, and enjoys talking about the clothes, just like you all over here. 

Ok, enough about babies and bathwater.

I take showers.


Trad, trad, trad to the Bone

Out on a limb:

The bathwater is "Trad". The baby is the real deal.

Would that fly?