Yes, didn't mean to be rude about our chums oop north!

However, as you say Alex these various 'exotic' pieces of casual wear (and many more besides) were availble in London and the South East from around 1975/6.  My local guy began selling Armani, Ciao, Falke, etc in 1976 and by the late 70s these items were 'standard issue'.  I suppose a working class lad from Liverpool would not have encountered them until he found himself in Europe on a footie trip.  I do understand just how attractive everything would have seemed to those supporters.

The London take on all of this was more of a middle class thing.  The gear was featured in Men in Vogue, Harpers & Queen and had a very upmarket feel.  It was not a 'Scally' phenomenon in the south of England and the book may be right in suggesting that football supporters in London did not take to it as quickly as those in the north.

My reason for mentioning the Regency period of the early 19th century was really to show that throughout 'recent' menswear history there has been a tendency for the movers and shakers to take former sporting wear or even workwear and to turn it into something trendy.  For the Casuals book to claim that this particular movement was like nothing before is just crap and shows a complete lack of understanding of where we have all come from.

And it is relevent to the title of this thread - as you say the London take was Modernist and the northern take was like the more commercialised mod.

....and I have probably overreacted just because of my own prejudices about the North of England!

But the fact remains that a book of some 290 pages about a movement that really was nothing new or special seems a bit of a con.

just another bump...

My whole reason for trying to do a Modernist forum was for this very point. Cause I really don't care about Mod, as much as what influenced early Mods/Stylists. That's not snobbery it's just down to taste. I didn't like 90's Mod, 80's revival doesn't mean much, and even the first wave doesn't appeal to me greatly. But it does sometimes reflect what I do really like.

What many have the bug for is mid-century Modernist popular culture. Which explode in the period we all talk about, before that  Modernism was out on the fringes of day to day life, waiting in the wings, where the weird and wonderful dared to tread. And slowly those thoughts, principle and aesthetics became mainstream.

Last edited by Oo Bop Sh'bam (2011-10-23 13:36:49)

I'm working backwards!

In actual fact, the committed Modernists on here are relatively few and far between.  Some, at least, take their cue from John Simons, who knows his stuff about art and design etc.  This forms part of a theoretical position about Ivy dressing which runs deeper than some might imagine.

For Modernism, I suppose, think 'democratization' - a point the American 'Trads' and 'Preps' never seem to grasp.

Yeah it goes deep, and sometimes you think, what's the point in holding on, it didn't obviously answer all the questions we have. But there is ultimately something at the root. Does it look good? how can it look better? Pretty vacuous, but when you receive joy through something, then maybe it is worth pursuing it.

I don't get hung up on a button down or a dart in a jacket, if someone want's to look on me and say he isn't Ivy, it isn't a big problem, but I know why those things are important, but I'm not going to govern myself by other people's terms, even if I on the whole agree to them. Clothes should have one rule, does it look good? I personally feel many other styles look good, and I'd prefer to be the sum of my influences that a slave to a rule. Of course that doesn't mean I look better for it, it just means I'm always looking for my own voice.

Last edited by Oo Bop Sh'bam (2011-10-23 13:55:22)

The prime example is when Jim said a break should be governed by a trousers width. He hit the nail on the head when it comes to rules. What's important, no break or the trousers looking right? I have to dress people everyday, and the rule is what works on them is what works, it is nothing pre-determined by a rule. If you look at life that way, you'll never see anything as it is.

I think we just got out of sync, and I started on a different point. I get what you're saying completely Andy, and this sums it up well for why we have disdain for other clothes obsessed types at the moment.

''For Modernism, I suppose, think 'democratization' - a point the American 'Trads' and 'Preps' never seem to grasp.''