https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/fashion/j-press-preppy-shopping-new-york.html
Last edited by Classic (2019-06-10 15:30:36)
To be historically accurate, I don't believe TNSIL ever was close to full penetration of the suit buying public, even at its height in the 60s. Nixon I don't think was ever in a sack, Reagan neither. So even then it was for a specific subset: young (back then), college-educated (or wanted to appear college-educated). And even in the 60s I think TNSIL denoted a privileged, well-educated, East Coast background...not altogether different from today.
Last edited by fxhmail (2019-06-14 02:58:41)
It seems to me that there is little political mileage in dressing in a certain way. Many politicians are ditching ties or even jackets when being interviewed or meeting the public. To a sartorially challenged general populace the subtle differences between the Ivy/trad look and mainstream menswear would pass unoticed.
This thread is technically too political, but it's interesting and civil, and it's related to Ivy and clothes generally, so I'm not moving it to NSFW as of yet... I'm enjoying this convo, thanks all
Last edited by fxhmail (2019-06-17 03:50:53)
Many strange-looking people obviously dress according to deep convictions that are not shared by on-lookers - they clearly do not know how they actually look, but are satisfied with what their clothes make them feel and believe about their looks. These people may be the true originals, even though they are certainly not the best appreciated. The famous messages of dress, the well-known language of clothes, is very often not doing any communicating at all; a good deal of it is a form of private muttering.
Anne Hollander