It pains me to say this, but I reckon the UK Ivy tradition goes so far and no further. A suit jacket with shorts? Bermuda shorts? Not on the Isle of Dogs, sweetheart. Remember how McQueen was thought to be a fag because he ambled around Manhattan in Bermudas? We've already seen some slight questioning of Madras and seersucker - neither of which disturbs me in the least - but that suit, brought to us courtesy of BoO, no, no... too faggy... I'm even dubious about linen trousers (though not, oddly, about jackets or suits); don't ask me why, they just seem more suitable for the ladies.
I guess we have to remember that, in its overground sense, Ivy has often been worn by London Girls Ball games blokes. I'd be interested in soliciting the opinions of Chris H, Kingstonian, Brideshead and others on this...
Seersucker is too Colonel Sanders. Madras is only for shirts. Tartan jackets and trousers indicate American tourist.
London only took some American stuff. Bow ties were never popular.
Everybody seems to wear shorts now in all weathers, so Bermudas would not be that big a deal. I am of an age when shorts were for dodgy scoutmasters and vegetarian eccentrics. Moving into long trousers was a rite of passage - not one you would look to reverse.
Bears out my overall thinking, Kingstonian. I wore shorts for the first time as an adult last year in Italy, and my naked lady leg tattoo drew some funny looks. (Pushing 50!).
I'm not saying that every aspect of UK Ivy has been pared down and muted, of course, but that depends on your definition of UK Ivy. I wouldn't want to push the Girls Ball games side of it too hard, but all the older guys I knew were crombie/Harrington/Fred Perry/Sta-Prest/ brogues, boots and loafers types. Or a tonik suit and porkpie hat. That's DCFC Pop Side.
Interesting points. Seersucker and Madras would appear to be dividing points in the UK. I have been asked "What 'are you'" (in italics) when sporting a seersucker suit in London. I've also had someone give me a dead-leg when wearing the relatively sombre combo of stone poplin suit/navy tennis shirt/cordovan Yumas.
Character building indeed.
Last edited by Natural Sole Brother (2009-04-13 15:44:10)
Evidently a yob of no taste: the Yuma is a beauty. A dead-leg! The ensemble, NSB, sounds tasty, very tasty. My Madras jacket, seen infrequently thanks to our variable Derbyshire weather, draws puzzled looks but no actual violence. Always a first time for everything.
I have an old white Robert Bruce cable-knit sleeveless vest with a dinky little belt. Maybe that'll lead to something.
When I was 17 I bought a blue/green check madras jacket from Austins and wore it around town regularly. Forty years later I got a J.Press seersucker jacket from John Simons, this has hung in my wardrobe unworn since then.
For me seersucker and madras is great for shirts only. I have always worn khaki shorts on holiday in the USA, but not so often here.
Last edited by Chris_H (2009-04-13 04:32:13)
Chris, your input is much appreciated. Was the wearing of a madras jacket in tune with the times? I've seen photographs of Georgie Fame in some interesting gear, some of which I think came from Austin's. I'd wear a seersucker suit if I could afford one. I had a fantastic Austin Reed seersucker half-sleeve from a charity shop and wore it until the collar split wide open and the missus insisted it be binned. I miss it still. The madras shirts have already had an airing: one is seriously bleeding vivid! Shorts remain a bit iffy, I agree, but Jeff in John's looked great last summer in shorts and sweatshirt: very relaxed and subtle.
Interesting - why is madras great for shirts but a bit dubious for shorts? Why is one colour good up top but not down below? I allow myself the luxury of owning one orange Sero, but would never think of wearing the colour below the waist. Some mods did, though, didn't they, circa '62?
Seersucker & Madras for shirts is indeed best although I do have shorts in both fabrics which I mainly wear with very plain polo shirts.
I have an unwearable Brooks Seersucker suit (although I have worn it) & wear the jacket much more than the trou. (although still very infrequently).
A muted Madras tie can be nice with a poplin suit...
I can go along with the shorts/polo shirt combination quite happily now that I am almost wholly divorced from my Fred Perry/Harrington roots; wanting, some of the time, to look like an American (or my idea of one). Madras ties I can't quite get into, being a Rooster knitted or Paul Stuart stripy rep type of guy.
Last edited by Alex Roest (2009-04-13 05:26:48)
My Italian sandals have drawn a few derisory comments, Alex!, although they are still kicking around the house. I have beautiful soft loafers that are now pretty much falling apart, but they were a bargain when I bought them.
I have to admit I was totally unaware of the Italian view of shorts around town, and certainly got plenty of funny looks in Rome! By the time we got to Venice it was raining, so I was in chinos.
I've an Italian colleague I've often discussed the 'town' topic with, chet. I've also noticed BTW that people in Belgium ( and in the south of The Netherlands really ) tend to dress up when going into town just like in Italy. It's the sort of aesthetic I can appreciate just like visiting the barber's regularly and being cleanshaven and well groomed anyway.
Where to draw the line is a difficult one whatsoever to get back on track as ones behaviour would normally constantly change. One of the main things I'd say is there should always be room to have a little fun, apart from that often discussed individual note. Or perhaps including just that. I do know I like to blend in more and more however so I keep aiming for ever more subtle ways of doing that. I suppose it's firmly connected with another personal rule of mine which says to never wear more than one item at a time that's basically a standout one i.e keep the rest of the outfit as sober as possible and it'll work fine
Last edited by Alex Roest (2009-04-13 06:19:46)
Sound principles, Alex.
Dressing well in England is relatively uncommon. My ancient Brooks Brothers overcoat, with its velvet collar, draws comments from elderly homosexuals (who would have dressed well in their day) and toothless women over 50. The average youngish English male, in his three-quarter length trousers and shopping mall shirt, has no desire to stand out from the crowd. The rugby shirt, IMO, is the scabbiest garment imaginable.
Last edited by bandofoutsiders (2009-04-13 08:51:04)
Agreed - and you have my sincere apologies. There is more to UK Ivy, though, than just Ivy (if that makes sense), with lots of crossing over from this look into that. It isn't set in stone. But the suit set me thinking of the big guy in the 'Take Ivy' shots. It's hard to explain - and sometimes confusing for us Brits, I think - but our style is often dictated (whether we like it or not) by our own youthful selves - we can't help comparing. That's why, for a lot of us working class types, Baracuta and Perry still pop into our heads, even if we've given up on wearing the stuff.
The most interesting people here are those who dislike the Internet, including JS himself.
We can be fanatical about not appearing poncy, that's true - applies to all sorts of things, not just clothes, e.g. food and drink. Sausages = geezer - cous-cous = poncy - beer = geezer - Bacardi and Coke = poncy.
Just saying. I don't drink or smoke.
Kingstonian is, broadly speaking, quite correct. On the other hand, we do tend to look up (some of us) to the Graham Marsh/Blue Note vibe.
Didn't Otis wear green Levis cords?
Conservatism is the key word here. A white polo neck might look a bit Roger Whittaker-ish, if you take my meaning. Or poncy.
As for having your trousers breaking halfway up your shin bone, Paul Weller looked an arse, and I can't believe the great Desmond Dekker looked much better.
Hard Bop, please - this gives the wrong impression. Most of us went to schools where any hint of brown hatting was kicked brutally into the long grass.