The claim "..., preppy was about rebellion." is so absurd and demonstrably inaccurate that one has to ask oneself whether the author really thinks it or wants to advance a certain narrative. Preppy and Ivy were never "for everyone", at least not in the sense that it's not about clothes, but a lifestyle. A lifestyle that the majority is unable to lead for many reasons. Probably you can no longer write such facts in the current climate, if you don't want to get a reprimand from the editor-in-chief. I don't want to get political, but I think this kind of historical misrepresentation, which I've been reading a lot lately, is problematic.

I think Skipper raises some interesting points here.  I'm indebted to him for bringing this to our attention.  It can be debated.  Would even the notion of 'Ivy League' in England (mostly parts of London) been realistic until the ending of coupons for clothing?  A bald statement.  Now, the London-based Jewish families, post-war, were building on something, yes?  We can read interviews that refer back to this.  We can read about what is still known, I suppose, affectionately, as 'the rag trade'.  Did not John Simons emerge from this background?  Gee?  Austin?  But they all needed elbow room, and that probably wasn't to be had until the return of a Conservative government and the eventual abolition of rationing.  An author like Donald Thomas has a good deal to say on this subject.
Then, not much further into the fifties, we have the invention of 'the teenager'.  Money to spend on Edwardian suits, Italian shoes, coffee, ice-cream, records, Coca-Cola etc. etc.  Perhaps even a scooter.  John Simons, however, was aiming at something higher than that.  In London.  He was tapping into a world that was half fact, half fantasy.  Trips abroad for families were still relatively uncommon.  So was basic car ownership.  Everything American (and continental) was exotic, 'other-wordly).  So, tap into that.  Unusual clothing for an unusual customer.  'Sussed' - to use that rather awful phrase.  'Ivy League'.  Not, I don't think, 'preppie'.  Different, later perhaps, connotations. 
We're 'Talking Ivy'.

Nothing party political intended; just historical fact.  I agree about 'England' and 'JS'.  The forum should, ideally, be broadened. 
Certainly no-one in the US would recognise any of that nonsense as anything to do with 'Ivy League'.  But you and I - and most of the others at the moment - are products of that 'popular' (sometimes unpopular!) culture.

'Sloane'.  'Young Fogies'.  An interesting point.  On another thread, posted quite recently, our Gibson mentioned the disdain that type of 'rugger-bugger' shopper would have been greeted with at the Richmond Ivy Shop.  Buying RL perhaps, Viyella and Timberland.  I was reminded of this when eyeing each of those three names yesterday.  I live in a former textile town turned trendy.  Point: these public-school types presumably had the money.  There were a few - not many - at the university I attended who did that awful tweed/jeans/brogues look.  Plenty of others wore rugby shirts, the appeal of which is lost on me.  Not many wore Burberrys' (if any), Barbour or any kind of raincoat/countrywear.  The English are generally appalling dressers.  Even on a rainy October day they'll paddle around in ugly shorts and flip-flops.  RL is still considered quite dressed up.

When the JS worship got out of hand before there was a thread on here titled a contrarian view of JS .

Yes, I was just refering to the AUS post earlier, which I agree with.

A 'Contrarian View', yes, by Kingstonian, an old Ivy shopper, I think.  He's now Elsewhere, but with the same matter-of-fact observations. 

Other threads will drop hints that Russell Street offerings did not always please.  Haggar shirts, for example.  I remember walking up Camden High Street, to meet the family at the tube before eventually going to that great Italian place on Parkway (customer served lamb:  'Haven't got any mint sauce, have you, old boy?') and finding a couple of very acceptable shirts at about a fiver apiece.  Pure luck.  Some charity shop or other.  Lots of RS stock did not do it for me.  I'd long lost interest in 'Arrington jackets by then.

I'm not the moderator.

But I'm not.  And have no intention of being so.

AFS - I apprecoate your keenness, if it wasn't for your first posts back 12/13 Sept the forum wouldn't be as active. You did seem to be the reviver and the main topic  instigator/thematic curator though for sure.  Don't stop your enthusiam which brings a lot of energy to the forum.

To avoid what happend in the silly IS vs TI era and USA and UK being divided, it's helpful to avoid us becoming too narrow.  It can also need some space to breathe between the topics.

The issue can sometimes be that Talk Ivy becomes a home for general discussion and then people scratch their heads at the forum/us/whatever and say 'but that's nothing to do with it.'  I've been there in that situation as the person it's said to quite correctly.

Last edited by An Unseen Scene (2021-10-06 09:21:00)

'The claim "..., preppy was about rebellion." is so absurd and demonstrably inaccurate that one has to ask oneself whether the author really thinks it or wants to advance a certain narrative. Preppy and Ivy were never "for everyone", at least not in the sense that it's not about clothes, but a lifestyle. A lifestyle that the majority is unable to lead for many reasons. Probably you can no longer write such facts in the current climate, if you don't want to get a reprimand from the editor-in-chief. I don't want to get political, but I think this kind of historical misrepresentation, which I've been reading a lot lately, is problematic.' (Skipper)

That may well be true to a certain extent, nonetheless there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that from around 1955 to 1967 a hell of a lot of males in the US were wearing a hell of a lot of ivy clothing. The majority of whom did not have an ivy lifestyle, nor were they trying to fake or aspire to one. They were comfortable, practical, fashionable clothes. Admittedly with certain connotations that made them appeal to intellectuals/creatives, who were more likely to get photographed than the man in the street.

On that point, I remember people talking about the commercial recreation of cheaper, often locally branded Ivy style without the university associations.  ClipperCraft and the like. Classic brands like Sero aren't BB and J.Press etc.

Last edited by An Unseen Scene (2021-10-06 09:24:18)