What ho?

Combining two aliases to one?  Is that cricket?

Welcome..

Cheerio.

Many thanks, chaps.  Be back to discuss J.Simons, Soho in the 50s and other good things a little later...

Russell - a trip to J.Simons very entertaining and should reach a wider audience; hats off to Alex Roest for his enthusiasm...

Just by way of introduction, I'm older than Big John Gall, have taken the modernist stance of renouncing alcohol and tobacco (though have not become a vegan, like Ken Lovegrove, or even a vegetarian), and my father was wearing Ivy way before I was - and he still is.  I'd like to discuss with someone the relative lack of co-ordination to be found amongst the students on 'Take Ivy'...

Hmm, I wonder, Alex, if those guys were a. unaware of Ivy as a kind of 'in' thing at all and b. knew they were going to inherit the earth because of their superior education so went in for a very dressed down look.  I think as Europeans we can't help but be influenced by the mod/early skinhead take on Ivy - subverted ultimately into something crass and stereotypical - and it takes a massive effort of will on our part to unbend.  Now, here's the rub.  In spite of my advancing years I still, when the mood takes me, dress like a college boy, but in a co-ordinated fashion.  And this is because I'm working class, English and conscious of being an Englishman wearing American duds.  I guess they're not self-conscious because they're in their time and place, but where I really draw the line is at the big guy in - what? tweed jacket and madras shorts?  Overall, though, is it 'Ivy' or is it 'preppie'?  Does it much matter?  The lines seem to blur.  Jeff in J.Simons often seems to me to dress 'preppie' - wasn't that a term of abuse as early as 'The Catcher In the Rye'? - and I always love his look: understated, co-ordinated, effortless.  As to texture, right, I go in for belt/shoe co-ordination; but, on the plus side, I guess most ot the 'Take Ivy' guys were in cotton, wool or cashmere.
The Japanese take I cannot relate to, I'm afraid - too obsessive for my liking.  No, I'm basically with you: smart over sloppy, but I do like the guy in the slicker, chinos and loafers walking in the rain and - for different reasons - the girl in the dress (not Ivy but hey, she's very pretty). 
Some hit upon a middle way, which I like: casual-comfortable: the academic look, like the natural shoulder/leather patches and buttons Brooks tweed jacket I just bought.  As for the sporty guys, check the tongues on those trainers!

Yeah, we're on the same wavelength alright, chetmiles. Their attitude was a different one I think and as I've stated many times before they come across as very square, which I'm sure they also were. The middle-class aspirational side of it means sweet FA to me. I should mention I don't consider myself to be working class and it means very little to begin with in my country anyway, that sort of thing. I still think it's a good thing for one to want to make progression as a person, rather than trying to impress the bloody neighbours, family, colleagues or whatever. What's the sense in that ? Goes against the grain with me big time....

I can relate to the British take on it however, I suppose that's obvious. That relatively understated look with the fanatical attention to detail. That's where I like to think I come from more than anything.

Enjoyed your post a lot and that BB's number sounds the biz BTW. I like to wear that kinda stuff too, occasionally, yet people will never mistake me for an academic. I can't help but being slightly subversive me 

Moose, as I get older I aim that way myself:  Alan Paine cashmere v-necks in dark blue and grey, Paul Stuart crew neck in dark green.  This guy on the J.Simons community board has a point, I think: quite sombre (?) colouring.  Clashing colours?  Hmm, I'd have to think about that one, wearing my madras jacket almost always with a white Brooks OCBD and faded 501s, Weejuns and sockless.  Patrick seems to be able to carry off a look I simply could't, but then he looks far more distinguished than I...