Tolerate. Yes that’s the word for it. On a sliding scale.

RL use both the logo in one colour, which I can deal with. And one ‘coloured in’ which I really don’t like. Plus of course anything big pony.

Brook’s is the worst. All kinds of wrong. Too much information squeezed into a tiny area and still manages to look like an abattoir’s shop sign.

I quite like the one’s that are embroidered in the same colour as the clothing. Hardy Amies’ is fairly subtle.

I don’t think I’ve got anything where I’d rather have it without a logo.

Also, I never saw any good reason for that little flourish of signature check plain shirts have on the inside of the collar. Aquascutum do it.

I believe we see the Lacoste in a couple of 60s classics - The Odd Couple, where Jack Lemmon sports a lemon one. And Goodbye Columbus - I think both characters wear Lacoste in their tennis match. I think Brooks' 'wretched sheep' first appeared in the 70s. Gant also did it on their Ivy shirts in the mid-60s, a G discreetly sewed into the fabric  near the locker loop. If it's discreet and 'in the know' it can work OK, but in general it is a sure sign of mass market naffness.

The one that got to me was when Burlington, manufacturer of the glorious multicoloured fluffy argyle so beloved of the BCBG French students emerging from the Charles De Gaulle Lycee in South Kensington in the 1980s, started inserting those gold studs into the socks in about 1989 to distinguish them from copies. They can be removed but not without severe hassle and the risk of hosiery mauling.

I stopped buying the Burlington socks because of that stupid stud. Never understood why they did this.
Some Clarks desert boots now have the name stamped on the outside of the boot. What bright spark decided to do that?

Quoddy started to stamp their loafers (!!) - not just the boatshoes & camp mocs too.
It´s only the crocodile that i´ve no problems with. Maybe because it always has been there?
The old Burlington´s were really great. Meanwhile it´s not just those studs, their quality is a mere shadow of themselves too.

Back to the logo, I've just picked up a hefty biography of Truman Capote.  There he is, on the front cover, wearing a seersucker jacket and, I guess, a polo shirt - with what appears to be a frog wearing a crown on it.  Anyone know the make?

"Anyone know the make?" Vineyard Vine, I think.
I picked up a nice Gant flannel shirt with GANT on the locker loop some years back that ensures it is always worn under a sweat or sweater. I still like the Lacoste and Paraboot logos. Maybe it's just the bottle green colourways. Forty years ago I looked like a walking advertising  board. Now if there's a label on it - bar the two mentioned - I look the other way...

Just digging into my - growing dim with age - I seem to recall Lacoste appearing in a film noir/thriller: 'Kiss Me Deadly', with Ralph Meeker - around the mid-50s?

I would like to think that Woof is right about skinheads.  But have those associations, as with the Harrington jacket, really faded away? 
I also believe that, for many in the UK, breaking away from that original image has been sometimes difficult.  Ivy in the UK has sometimes - often - had a hard edge to it that makes it, well, 'un-Ivy'. 
Refer yourself to postings like that of TRS when Gibson Gardens on ''Yale' in 'Manhattan''.  Then there are his terse observations on 'mods' at Russell Street, dismissing the tweed jackets. 
I'm not a hundred per cent serious about Fred Perry, but JS evidently stocked bits of it - presumably back in the 80s.

Yes the skinhead associations of harringtons are long gone so long as not some deliberate heritage check. My sons both in their early 20s wear them and would barely know what a skinhead is. It is now long ago apart from to us oldies.

I think too often the mentality of UK Ivy is entirely set between about 1957 and 1985. Things move on. Soon all the Skinheads left will be pensioners. These scenes we recall are now just heritage fashion for future generations to play with. Skinheads are now as far away as the Charleston or Swing was to me as a kid.

I wouldn't wear FP in USA right now - at all

Last edited by An Unseen Scene (2022-02-07 09:37:01)

It had sinister connotations in some of the small towns between Derby and Nottingham, fifteen to twenty years ago, where the British National Party and other peculiar organizations held (modest) sway.  Visiting German boneheads were apparently keen to take the brand back with them as something of a status symbol. 
Lacoste also ended up getting something of a bad press and was copied.  I think the genuine article had mother-of-pearl buttons.  I haven't thought of wearing either for quite some years.

I think logos come down to the item and when you wear said item.

I don't mind the polo player as I wear a lot of Ralph shorts, t shirts and chinos when on holiday but I would avoid anything with logo in a restaurant or bar in the evening.

I associate logo's with sporty clothing and on the more casual end of the spectrum.

The one thing I hate though is logo's on dress shirts. A few years ago I guy I worked with used to wear logo'd Ralph shirts with a spread collar and tie. Awful.