There was an American poster on Facebook today who wrote that the longwing American brogue was not particularly 'Ivy'. In the UK I would say only people that like Ivy would wear Longwings.

Last edited by RobbieB (2022-02-14 11:52:25)

'There was an American poster on Facebook today who wrote that the longwing American brogue was not particularly 'Ivy'.'

Was that on IS? It would fit in well there, as the person who wrote it clearly has no idea whatsoever what they're talking about.

Yuca raises an important point about coherence.

I would sincerely hope they have a more coherent picture (setting 'Ivy Style' aside), but I'm not holding my breath, no, sir.  But the arrival upon the scene of Big Tony or someone like him would be welcomed by me.
Tasselled loafers are of course 'Ivy' but I haven't worn a pair in some years on the basis of less being more.

Perhaps tassel loafers weren’t a very good example as most of the ‘is this Ivy’ posts referred to things that weren’t… at all.

I like a bit of incoherence - helps to keep things moving, interesting and evolving, which I think is absolutely essential for any ‘scene’. If you could call UK Ivy, or Ivy League Style in general that. I personally wouldn’t. Without it there’s a danger of straying into re-enactment territory. Spending your weekends playing D-Day and arguing about the authentic way to tie your boots.

As things evolve there’s bound to be elements people take to or not. And devotees will naturally drop off or jump on board as it moves on.

If any of us were asked to write down five non negotiable ‘cornerstones’ of the look, we’d all write the same things. Worrying about what goes on around the edges of that core isn’t a worthwhile exercise for me.

If AFS decides to stick wholly to collegiate, he’s absolutely right.
If someone else wants to wear a chore jacket, a roll neck and paraboots it’s all good with me.

In the mid 80s, when me and my friends were at the absolute height of our Ivy obsessiveness, John Simons rather shocked us when he said to us, bedecked as we were in blazers, button-downs, chinos and Weejuns, "Nobody wants to  look like little Americans do they?". I think he was trying to challenge the narrowness of our interpretation because he could see that we did want to look precisely like little Americans. It was a wake-up call. The London look, the UK Ivy Look, has always been a real mixture of elements from the moment I first saw it on the streets - 50s rockabilly, 60s mod, 70s soul boy, cab driver chic, graphic designer minimalism, Tory boy trad - all these any many more have dipped in and played with Ivy. Authenticity is dead, if it ever absolutely existed. My God I'm sounding postmodern. There was a proper American Golden Age, no doubt about it, look in your old Esquires, and it was magical, but it was fleeting, and rather amorphous, and by 1970 had basically evaporated. John Simons always saw the natural shoulder look as more international, and adaptable, than the strictly old school, rather straight American blueprint of the style.

Last edited by Tworussellstreet (2022-02-14 17:38:41)

Yesterday Mrs W and I had an excursion to Pompey which included a visit to Gunwharf Quays outlets, mainly to satisfy her curiosity of course. I was wearing an LL Bean flannel button down with a large check pattern, chocolate brown Hertling cords, Paraboot Michaels, navy blue Dehen shawl neck cardigan, calf length biscuit colour Grenfell Balmacaan style raincoat and a brown tweed Stetson newsboy cap. I felt good in what I had on. Although the place was busy I only saw 2 or 3 other men who had made any sort of effort, including a tweed jacket and waistcoat combo with a wedding shirt and tie worn with faded jeans and scuffed tan colour pointy shoes, but I guess he liked what he was wearing too.

Of what I was wearing, only the LL Bean shirt and the cords would come within the strict definition of Ivy clothing. But I would probably have been registered by most of the people on here or anyone who shops at John Simons. Alvey’s remark about our agreeing on perhaps five items that form the cornerstones of the Look resonates with me, the rest is up to the individual. On that theme, whilst at Gunwharf I eschewed various purchases but I did succumb to a pair of Asic Gel Lytes, a classic trainer from the era before running shoes started looking like spaceships, very simple looking, white and navy blue with orange detailing.  When I tried them on I liked the look of them with what I was wearing ,so I kept them on.

Much as I revere John Simons, my hundred and thirty-odd mile distance from Chiltern Streets lends a certain amount of enchantment fused with stark realism.  His 'imprimatur' is certainly not enough, not for me, any more than it has been in dealing with various gentlemen who purvey 'antiques' and the like.  I was wearing American clothing before I'd ever come across the term 'Ivy League' and before I'd heard of John Simons.  So, to some extent, my mind was already made up.  Acquaintance with Mr. Simons led me more in the direction of artefacts than clothing.  Acquaintance with Mr. Garet - and, rather less so - with Mr. Lovegrove - led me in the direction of certain clothing choices: made me think and re-think.  Acquaintance with our TRS has been rather more complex - there is a good deal he and I disagree on and I would not attempt to emulate his style. 
Woof was evidently dressed for the weather, as one would expect.  If I should have to leave the house in the wind and pouring rain, instead of reading up on Robert Henri and John Sloan, a waxed jacket will be on my back - Ivy or not.

I believe there is so much cross over in menswear it's really hard to define Ivy or adhere to strict rules. Take for example Drakes. They sell a number of items that would appeal to many on here but the cut is far too fashion forward and the cost far too iGent.

If I had to classify my own wardrobe I see three strands of influence. They cross over because I choose to let them not because of any set of rules. As I've got older I tend to shop at fewer places and this again has a direct influence on my overall appearance.

There are certain things I love that are very Ivy in origin that are pretty tame and unnoticeable compared to what many guys I see wear. I tend to be obsessed with small details. For example, I really like flap pocket shirts and third collar buttons. Pop-over and pull-over shirts too. I would wear loafers all year round if the British weather permitted. On sports jackets I like big flapped patch pockets and a 3/2 roll.

Then there's things that were/are very British that have been appropriated by the Ivy League  such as shetland sweaters, college scarfs and surcingle belts that you don't tend to see that much over here.

Finally, there are bits and pieces of classic menswear such as, quality jeans, sea island Smedley shirts, suede chucka boots, deck shoes and plain grey sweatshirts that are pretty ubiquitous.

Whilst each strand could be expanded in it's own right and take you off into non-Ivy territory - such as adding a Belstaff jacket in under classic menswear - it's more to do with fit and how these things work together.

It's often easier to define what isn't Ivy as opposed to what is.

Yuca leaves me speechless with envy and admiration.  You see: a purist.  Were I on a similar mission I would be in poly/cotton sportswear, jeans and Converse.  Blending in a bit, you see.  The urban jungle and all that.  I still possess a foulard tie (very nice it is too) but cannot imagine ever wearing it again. 
I remember, many years ago now, the gentle, urbane farrago saying that in his neck of the woods (Portland, Oregon, I think) folks thought you dressed up if wearing a Shetland sweater.

My post was pure satire. The part about feral street urchins clad solely in black and grey sportswear is particularly redolent of the UK at present.