Bop - you often conflate the sack (sacque) jacket as used to describe the natural shoulder/BB/ hanging jacket with the sack (sacque) jacket = any shorter jacket than the frock coats etc. Easy to do but it leads to all sorts of confusion.

There has always been sack jackets - (shorter unshaped) even when men wore frock coats, it just that the sacque was not acceptable, it was a work jacket or workers' jacket or informal, not worn by gentlemen.

Sacque (sack) has been used to describe garments that hang from the shoulder, that is - essentially - not fitted tightly to the body - there has been - and still is - a womens (sacque) sack dress - it used to describe a dress that hung from the shoulder and was NOT waisted. A sort of house dress, at home dress, a dress for getting about as you are dressing - even for  women the sacque (sack) was informal and casual and for wearing at home. (The definition of a sack dress has now changed and can be waisted)

The sacque comes from the centuries old obsession with DRAPE in clothes. The Greeks, the old history ones not the current broke ones, talked about drape. How a cloth /clothing draped - FROM THE SHOULDERS in particular.

The "ivy" (bb/natural/ madison ave/ ) shoulder /jacket is related to the drape - the hanging from the shoulder is important.

To suggest it somehow came from a bunch of wealthy students in a corner of USA (or jocks in California) is curious.

I'd refer you to my father's memoirs  which show that essentially the BB look was invented by my family in Australia in around 1880 and by clever marketing I associated it with a bunch of universities in USA. The rest is history - or marketing.

I have a grey DB and it was a mistake.  I liked the fabric and it fits well, but it just doesn't look good.  I don't know why.  The more I wore it the less I liked it.  It still gets use though because I don't have a 30 suit closet and no one has yet spat on me for wearing it.

Last edited by Russell...Street (2013-08-22 06:35:56)

... Just one more thing: Look at the ad posted by fxh! College was just an interesting market. Advertising is always targeting young people, too.

And regarding the movie Monkey Business, yes, that was a typical college outfit, but men of all ages would wear sportscoats and blazers as well as suits. It's just that Joe College would have more occasions for his herringbone Tweed and grey flannels and his navy blazers and chinos combinations. For special occasions he would wear his Oxford grey flannel three-piece or a light weight two-piece summer suit. Whereas the average businessman would wear his sober dark suits during the week and wear his sportscoats and blazers on the weekend, for relaxation, sports etc... And if you could afford it, you could even take your off duty look in the week.

And yes, formby, right, let's bring the thread back on topic! It can be very elegant.

I have two plain grey ones, a dark grey and a medium one, both Brooks from the 1980s, and if that counts as a third, a very dark charcoal grey, almost black one with a lovat paisley butterfly lining, very skinny with a 60s campus store label. Too skinny for work. 16" trouser bottoms, uncuffed.

Last edited by Russell...Street (2013-08-22 07:07:17)

"a faux jew and german musician", Mr. Bop ?

Not sure I think you should say that.

You often resort to jibes... Is it because your argument feels shakey to you ?

'Faux Jew' I take the greatest exception to. Did you really need it in your attempt to prove me 'wrong' ?

what are the different positions in this endless debate?


Bop, it seems, is taking the term Ivy Look literally and suggests that the look originated on Ivy League campus.

I suppose that it all goes back to a footnote in Tony Ventresca's frontpage essay on the Updated American suit, a quote from Antongiovanni's The Suit. I haven't read it, and I think I won't.

Topstitcher and me (and everybody else except bop) on the other hand argue that it was a look that was introduced by Brooks at the turn of the century, their house style (hence number one sack suit, not number nine). The look was worn by businessmen and college boys alike, it wasn't just school clothes. It was copied by many other companies, some of them positioned themselves more strongly in the college market. The term Ivy League look wasn't used before the late 1930s.

Bop also suggests that it was only sports clothes. Because he has seen a photo of some dudes with tennis rackets in blazers, bd shirts, white ducks and bucks from 1920.

It seems that he confuses the general adoption of the (lounge/ sack) suit in the western world with the particular evolution of the Brooks no. 1 suit and East Coast style...

I also think that he takes the word "sports" in sports clothes too literal.

Last edited by Russell...Street (2013-08-22 08:19:10)

You are very fond of telling me what my point is. No idea why. Does misrepresenting me add to your argument in some way ?  I think you subtract from your point with each abusive post.

And you keep on being wrong about me. Trust me. I know my own opinions better than you can guess at them.

My point is to do with the wider culture of what was to become 'Ivy', which does actually contain your point as a subsection. Ditto Chens & Harris.

My point is that it comes from a bigger picture than just the campus. It was a greater evolution than just Jocks and Students. It's also greater than an 'entitled' social class perspective (Chens) and also from a 'start-at preppy-and-work-backwards' perspective like Harris.

Your POV is like the 'Preppy' POV - You say these were just the clothes of college boys, 'Preppy' says that they were the clothes of school kids in origin. How do you stand on the 'Preppy POV ?  It's partially right like you are. But is it the whole story ?

People often play the 'social class' card against me with hostile and sneering derision, so let me, for once, play it back to you for the first time...  And I hope the last time, as I loathe 'class'.

- Your POV on the upper social classes is an outsider's view. Just like Chens & Harris. You don't have any real knowledge of how people operate higher up the social scale in the context that we are talking about.  The 'Posh' are Slobs !   Only those lower down imbue their choices with formality and 'correct' wear.

You have swallowed a load of marketing (Just like Chens & Harris) and taken it to represent reality. And that's just lazy 'research'.

Dressing down is 'Witty' up the social scale.  Most cultures have this.

The adoption of working class clothes by THE ELITE has a fine old pedigree. There are endless examples... The Fair Isle sweater is a great example, but the habit had been going on for ages before. To be so rich you can afford to wander around in 'crap' off duty is a great upper class delight. You have nothing to prove and so you can just indulge your taste.

Your idea that those higher up lived in frock coats 24/7 is a joke.

- But I do value & enjoy our chats.

Best,

Jim.

Im not sure jim even made a point there?