The people, yes; but it had to be pretty hardcore: the way I dress now when I'm wanting to 'show out': full-on Ivy.  The shoes are just so important, wingtips being a touch more emphatic than loafers.  I like what I call my USAAF look: beginning with the haircut, ending with the cordovan.

I live in Louisville, Kentucky. The town has a lot of nice history and of course yesterday was the focus of a lot of attention with the Derby.  Most of the residents tend to avoid suits and even sport coats unless the occasion requires it. Any compliments on my clothes seem to come from weird sources. A lot of the black kids love any type of crepe sole boot, no matter what else you are wearing with it. Older ladies seem to enjoy any kind traditional dress, and hipster kids think I am being ironic if my tattoos are visible. I don't know how different it is elsewhere. I grew up in rural Florida, and went to the University of Florida literally up the road from where I grew up. I've mentioned before these clothes started out for me as my rebellion against both "normal" folks and the uniform clad "scene" types, now it's just what I wear. If you don't fit in the obvious southern frat uniform (chinos,ralph lauren, croakies) , or a cliched preppy outfit (d-ring belts, patch madras) people just can't seem to wrap their mind around it.

Patch Madras seems to be everywhere around here this year. A lot of girls wearing dresses and skirts. A lot of guys wearing the shorts. I've seen the d-ring belts on some guys too. I've always thought they were a bit feminine all though I like surcingle if the color is muted. A lot of Topsiders this year, as well. It's a damn shame too, I do like my white and my navy pairs. I tend to stick to bluchers and camp mocs because of it.

Nice. I was sort of wondering if someone was going to comment on that after I typed it. You will have to forgive my chauvinism, living about three miles away from Churchill Downs, it would be redundant to refer to it as the Kentucky Derby.

Last edited by ScarletStreet (2009-05-03 14:42:06)

Part 2.

I'd like to know a whole lot more about the availability of Ivy clothing in England before 1962: about the shops John Simons, Jeff Kwintner, Patrick Uden and others either worked for, shopped in, or both.  So: Gee, David's, Austin's, to name the three most obvious ones.  This strikes me as a far more exciting period than the 60s in total.  Did the same type of customer shop at, say, Gee and Vince?  Did Vince, in fact, ever attract anyone who was Ivy-leaning or was it truly a pre-Carnaby peacock place?  Were guys like Richmond Hill aware of Vince?  Or were they still a bit too young?  In the dark days of Uniqlo, outsourcing and Ivy Lite at Brooks it's good to know these things.

You either get UK Ivy or you don't.

Okay.

The Americans evidently don't. 

The continentals are, well, continentals.  (But Daniele is Italian and therefore of The Brotherhood). 

It helps to be London.  East End is probably best, closely followed by Stamford Hill, Stoke Newington and that bit around Finsbury Park where John Gall mutters darkly under his breath every time he sees Hewitt). 

Okay.  Let's not dwell too deeply in the past, but lay down some basic guidance.

Ivy is not Ivy just because you say it is, it has to have pedigree. 

Some Ivy is actually 'Americana'.  Most of us own a bit. 

Ivy is not 'skinhead' and 'skinhead' is not Ivy.

Natural fibres next to the skin are essential: cotton, flannel, lambswool etc.  Mixed fibres may be acceptable in some outerwear, e.g. macs and trenchies, but cotton is always to be preferred. 

Everything should ideally be made in a civilised country (or, failing that, the United States). 

Austin's, David's, Clothesville, The Ivy Shop, Squire, Village Gate and J. Simons are pilgrimage sites and ever will be. 

Oh, and Cecil Gee, the 'Mingo, Rays and that ace coffee bar that used to be in Old Compton Street where Quentin Crisp hung out in the day.

Here endeth the lesson.

(Awaits shit storm).

What I don't get is sentimentalism, didacticism and extremism. I'm not convinced these are necessary parts of the UK scene. As an outsider, I would be happily corrected. In all fairness, I don't get the sense that the British scene is as cohesive or as one-minded as you present it CM. Frankly, I think a lot of the British posters rile a bit. The thing I keep hearing from you guys is that people like JS had a remarkable singularity of vision and an eye for a definite style. It would seem that you can either choose to swallow the rules he came up with wholesale or instead find inspiration in his vision. He hasn't gone and closed up shop b/c Brooks aren't what they used to be or that Weejuns are no longer US issue. Again, correct me if I am wrong but he has adapted and found other items that represent that same vision. In other words, if Sero is no longer attainable, BD Baggies may not be Troy Guild but they can work.

For me CM, your vision has too much of the orthodox about it and an orthodoxy too frequently grounded in things that are pretty much unobtainable. I've got nothing against vintage but I think that there is a still a lot of new stuff out there that works fine--Madras at O'Connell's, tweed at Andover and slim-fit OCBDs from BB are all great.

For the record, I do find something attractive in Jim's comments about the magic of the old stuff. I agree w/ that. But as a guy in his late 20s, I find that magic in brands that are still alive today.

As always, this is not intended to be insulting. You draw a hard line in the sand CM. A case has to be made for the alternative.

Last edited by Decline & Fall (2009-05-07 09:46:01)

Last edited by Prof Kelp (2009-05-07 09:46:04)