Just re-evaluation John Simons comments on this subject re UK Ivy. 
     It may be a blindingly obvious thing to say, so I apologise well in advance, but I guess the American advertising industry was hard at work in this area from the immediate post-war period on.  The 'Ivy League' this and the 'Ivy League' that.  There's even some kind of old trade card, showing 'Ivy League' boy and girl on the left, glowering greaser and chick on the right, on offer as a 'collectable'.  Not wildly appealing, IMO. 
     The 'Esquire' guide I've referred to is steeped in Ivy tradition, with any number of gestures towards an Anglo heritage, e.g. in choice of knitwear; but is keen to see its readership 'graduating': from Shetland, chinos and white bucks to grey suits and 'proper' shoes.  Golf jackets for golf, tennis shirts for tennis, ski jumpers for the slopes. 


Whereas...  the mass-marketing gives the impression of golf jackets simply being worn as 'leisure-wear', out and about, and so here come the links with the UK tradition of taking out of context.  'Esquire' emphasises the democratic but collective nature of the look, at least in terms of suits, and is four-square against individualism - a stance I cannot see finding much favour with Mr. Roest and any number of others. 
The more I looked at it the more I felt dissatisfied with the 'Don't Stand Me Down' look.  The shoes are good, but the overall effect is...  hmm...  Well, that's our Kev for you...  Monochromatic?  (Mind you, I rarely, even these days, wear a suit and tie, although I have a very nice Norman Hilton sack in summer-weight)... 

So there you have it.  I want nothing to do with 'Trad'.  'Preppy' I can live with so long as it's some kind of Diane Keaton lookalike waving a racquet around.  We come inevitably back to 'Ivy', whether its rigid Madison Avenue rulebook, glossy advertising or John Simons and co. viewing it through a prism.