Frankly, Adam, I think at your age you can still afford to experiment.  I'm 50 this year, Paddy's 60 - I hope he won't mind me revealing that - even Jim's now old enough to be your Dad.  We just have to move in different directions, you know?  'Mod' was often very colourful early on, and I think there was a very specific reason for that.  Elms expressed it quite well IMO in "The Way We Wore": colour in the midst of drabness.  But we're talking, very often, quite strict rules here - ask John, Jeff or Ken the next time you're in the shop.  Muted means understated: it must.  Sometimes, if I want to play around, I'll add a Tootal scarf - but it still has to be burgundy or dark green.  Add these thoughts of yours to my thread, will you?  Let's kick it around a bit and see who we can get to chip in.

A very fair point, ISR!

The tootal scarf is a wonderful thing! Very fun and cool when the young guy wears it, and also a very welcome addition to the older chap's get up!

I get the understated cool thing, and really dig it myself - paisley in large ammounts is yuck, i don't much care for mohair and tonic suits are mostly pretty distressing.

I'd be interested to know how much colour the JS lot wore in the 50s/early 60s etc.

I remember Chetmiles once posted in the "Ivy League Style for Today"  something like a white college cardigan(Harvard, was it?), button down in some colour or other,  jeans and keds.

THAT was fun!

Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-05-29 12:43:32)

Furthermore, this has a heritage.

Patrick Uden:  "It wasn't buying for buying's sake.  Everything had to have a deep meaning, a double meaning". 

Everything has to be specific: 'considered': sourced because no fucker else has it.  That's why Harringtons, to me, are dead in the water, and a three-piece tweed suit has far more appeal.

The 'fun' lies in 'the knowledge'.

Just sitting here with the remains of a kebab and pondering this. 

'Esquire', circa 1960, made references to Ivy style but didn't get too emphatic about it.  Rather, it advised its readership how to go about dressing in order to do business - citing President Kennedy as a shining example in his grey or blue suits and muted neckwear - and enjoy its leisure time: 'fun time', in fact.  But it was very much 'on parade on parade, off parade off parade': conformist in the city, a little more free and easy at the beach or in the mountains.  But never the twain should meet.  It was quite clear, then, and from their point of view, that a Hawaiian shirt, say, was a 'fun' item, but only for a week or so.  The rest of the time you were expected to be conservatively co-ordinated and no arguments.  Flash forward to John Simons' taking what the Americans took for granted and twisting it out of context - but still at least some of his customers would expect to wear a suit and tie to their jobs.  He serves lawyers as well as pop stars, remember?  That's where the shop still scores: you can buy a jacket and trousers that will take you anywhere or a lime green polo shirt and shorts strictly for 'fun'.  Me, I just like changing my mind every once in a while.

And my handle.

Seriously, take Jim's story.  'A Trip to J.Simons'.  He talks of doing 'The Knowledge' somewhere in there.  The journey, for some, from Brooks to the Andover Shop to Chipp to Press etc. etc.  If we were native New Yorkers - or Bostonians - the entire aspect would be different.  But, as it was pointed out recently, some Americans look to traditional English for their inspiration (which may account for the bloody awful hats in the Andover Shop catalogue).  It'll seem different again to, say, 1966 or Hank.  I guess!!