I was just reminiscing about my preppy high school days in Kansas.  We did think of ourselves as "preppy," more or less, but the palette was very conservative for guys:  you could wear any color shirt you liked, as long as it was white, blue, or yellow.  Pink and other "pretty" pastels were for girls.

It was really simple:  OCBD or polo in above colors.  University stripes were about as wild as patterns got. Crewneck wool sweaters in dark colors.  Chinos.  Bean mocs, penny loafers, and, yes, white-soled boat shoes.  Jeans and chucks on the weekend worn with above.  Flannel plaid shirts in the winter.  No red pants, critter motifs, patch madras, or anything of that ilk.  A very plain (practically Amish) approach.

We were fascinated by the OPH, as we related to it to a degree, but its East Coast Social Register slant was a million times more glamorous than anything we'd ever experienced in Kansas.  You know the illustrations of the Preppy types:  "The Cute Boy" and "The Good Old Boy"...that's what we looked like.  "The Aesthete," in the madras jacket and bow tie, was way too exotic for our scene, though I suspect I wasn't the only one who found it seductive.

We were amused when the OPH was released; most of the frat houses (and sororities) had a copy.  My memory is that it poked gentle fun at my social circle and the way we dressed, but didn't change the way we dressed.

What I did hate was that it temporarily transformed tad/prep/ivy league into trendy --- and I hope that even with my recent membership here it is known how I abhor trendy.

I guess what I'm trying to say with the above is enjoy it for what it is, a satire which is sometimes on the money, sometimes a caricature. 

I don't think there's any need to denigrate the book for what it is.  More often, I think it's pathetic how many people on certain clothing forums have gone beyond enjoying it and given its terms commandment like value. 


PS Brownshoe I should mention that several friends and I have had a good laugh about the "body types" too.