All right, have to put in something...it is a repeat, but so are several assertions above.

Insisting that there is only the "Harris look" is incorrect,yes.


Stating, however, that the classic Brooks Brothers look, from the 50s onwards, is the 3-2 with flat fronts is pretty convincing.

It's not that they didn't sell suits with pleats (have some)

Or darts (don't have but have seen, I remain steadfast in my hatred of all but the most subtle darts)

And indeed, I generally favor non-buttondowns, not of oxford cloth, with my winter suits especially, so I am not entirely orthodox myself.


But the Harris Suit: that is pretty much the staple "346" suit.

I am not arguing for an orthodoxy, as I once argued on a forum whose very title was devoted to discussion of said 3-2 flat look.

But it seems now the pendulum has swung. 

It is sensible and correct for all of us to admit that the Ivy look is broader than Harris's definition to start the American/Trad thread.

But it would be equally sensible to admit that the Harris Look is the most common offering of Brooks brothers until about 10 years ago, that Brooks Brothers is probably the most popular Ivy store, and that that look therefore was probably the most popular variation on the look.

I still also hold that the 2 button darted jobs at Brooks with extra shoulder padding, as well as high button three buttons with no roll at all, are not naerly as determinedly Ivy League as Brooks's 3-2 style, even if worn with tasteful, traditional accesories.

Having just found a nice old navy flannel for this winter at Jr. League with a Langrock label, also with the 3-2 roll, no pleats, and the 1.75 inch cuffs, while there's no rigid orthodoxy to entering the Ivy look, and Paul Stuart is surely a valid purveyor (indeed even for someone who copies only OPH, Stuart is listed therein, I have just found)...my closet is, I think, overwhelming evidence that the Harris Look remains at the core of the Ivy League look.  If it was featured prominently by Brooks, Press, Henry Miller, Stackpole, Langrock...there must be something to it.

I don't vote for re-enactment styling.

I don't vote for mindless orthodoxy refusing to admit that Brooks and others had variations which are perfectly wonderful looking.

But the Harris look itself, however it may be misused with preening poses, tied to dreams of higher-class aping that can't be achieved with clothes alone, or as a political tool of neoconservatives or New Southers,  the look is still a legitimate one, and not a creation.

Last edited by Coolidge (2007-08-09 17:35:49)

I wonder if the 10 year old Harris read it over his papa's shoulder?

Probably not, he was still down in Alabamy at that age.

For those with an interest, the Press winter catalog is up on the web site and in the stroes. Well, it was cold in Connecticut yesterday.

The catalogue is twice the size and offers half the stuff of recent ones. They must have fired the designer. All the odd stuff is out
    Funny but there was a mention of J.Press the New York Times in a front page article today. OK, the mention came in the continuation on Page 12. and not a compliment. Very odd. I have no idea why the story was a news story.