# A Big Tent of Traditional American Style



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

We have an opportunity with the current state of the forum to come clean, to admit that Traditional American Style is not one man's laundry list but is in fact a big tent (I apologize for the somewhat ironic political reference, but the metaphor is apt). We can do this and become the greatest forum on Traditional American Style (and, in my opinion, become what we once were) or remain a mishmash of a style as gospel with A from pre-WWII Ivy, B and C from post-WWII Ivy, D from '70s Preppy, and E, F, and G from '80s Preppy but nothing else, nothing real, nothing honest.

It is my hope for the forum to return to honesty above all else, the honesty that Traditional American Style is vast, encorporating both loose and slim fits (but still particular and specific fits), the extremely casual (like jeans, a university sweatshirt, and canvas sneakers) and the formal (sack suits and repp ties), where an article of clothing can be _king_ (the sack suit, flat-fronted pants) but not _the only_.

My hope from fellow forumites is that we teach instead of decry, be honest when we are speaking of our own preferences that are not gospels and show why those preferences fit into the style but are not _the only _of the style. We need to be honest about the contemporary need for both casual and formal, for different (but still authentic) fits, the wiggle-room on the staples (sacks, flat-fronts, etc.). A man need not wear a tie everyday nor should he be wearing khaki shorts everyday. We should attempt to show when these things are truly called for and truly needed.

It is no wonder that some of our best posters to the forum are the most contradictory, decrying rules in one thread and then decrying an article of clothing in another. It is because we have created a fallacy of a style, one that has picked its fit from one point in the style, its clothing items from another, and its colors and patterns from yet another, but that allows none of the other elements from those same points in time. It is no wonder that some young men see it as an old man's style. It is because we have shown them in many ways that it is. It absolutely isn't! Young men pick up _Take Ivy _or even just Google Image _Take Ivy _and tell me any of those men couldn't fit in on a campus today. This style has something for all, and it can be done authentically for young and old, casual and formal, when we take the style and timeline as a whole. Young men need not pick the bones of the _Trad _laundry list but skew it all in terms of fit, color, etc, to make it work. Take the style as a whole and every and any man can find the fit, formality, _style _he needs.

Lastly,

I can't do this (not alone or even very much at all). I wasn't _there _(being born in '84). I've only grown to truly know and love this style in the last year (although I had unknowing impulses toward it for much longer).

We need to decide if what I've outlined above is what we want, or if it isn't. In my opinion, it'd make us the best (once again).


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I agree. Even before joining this forum I always associated American tradition with equal measures of invention and perfection. Whether in industry, cuisine, fashion, or otherwise, we devise new products or methods when the need arises and pluck the best from other traditions and alter them to suit us.

Unfortunately Trad has been built up by some as a monolith and I've paid enough attention to see that trying to crystalize any "movement" or "era" in such simple terms as said "list" is bound to be grossly inaccurate (See the History Channel).

Coleman's description of certain items being "king" but not "only" is well stated. In almost any historical photo of any era of the style of dress we celebrate, you can see alternative fashion in the very same frame. No point in time nor geographic region was homogenous enough to warrant the type of fervor over deviation from the sartorial mean.

Like rock & roll, the roots of Trad dress are varied and occasionally contradictory. There are influence of the British tradition, classic Americana (which always puzzles me vis-a-vis the scorn heaped on jeans!), and, most importantly it seems, the influence of how _students_ dressed a few decades ago. I wonder how willing certain grown men would be to look to today's campuses for fashion tips!


----------



## JDDY (Mar 18, 2006)

I think it's good to not put The Trad on a pedestal. Dressing well for yourself and looking and feeling right is the goal.

Also, if someone "decries" a look or clothing item as "not trad", the way to take it is not as an insult or saying you shouldn't wear that or it doesn't look good in the context of your life and how you want to wear clothes, but simply that it doesn't fit into that poster's view of trad. Trad is a style descriptor. My understanding of it, no more or less valid than anyone's, is that trad implies some understatement. So trad dress could get described as preppy, but preppy might not necessarily be described as trad. That means saying something doesn't look trad can be a useful comment. But I might be completely wrong there, it's just how I'm looking at it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I kinda prefered "One path to Trad" Coleman over "Big Tent" Coleman!!


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

^I'm up for even more of this. 

Seasoned forumites (those truly seasoned and here from the beginning) please weigh in. If I am a buffoon, say it. I won't take offence. I want to know where the forum stands on this, if my voice is warranted.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Also, taking _Trad_, the rule-based and very specific _Trad_, as one's personal style is perfectly acceptable, but if one is honest about the style and its history, it is obviously not _the only_.


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

From the title, I really though that this post was going to be about Mercer OCBD's! :icon_smile_big:

You know I'm with you on this one. Trad narrowly defined as "just ivy" or preppy or just 1940-1970. We have seen and have canonized trad from many different eras- the look had evolved and expanded. Why can we not expand in this era? 
We will never know what "trad" is, it's a useless word. But even TNSIL fails when we put it to the test (we can't wear sport coats all the time). Preppy is no good as a general term, and southern trad is rather geographically limited. Americana is certainly contested ground. But these are all legitimate versions of trad. 
I still think that what really unites trads is the love for a few key virtues- simplicity, versatility, quality and value. As long as it's those four things you can be assured that I'll consider wearing it- trad or not threads be damned!


----------



## Joe Tradly (Jan 21, 2006)

My goodness, Coleman, you're starting to sound awfully familiar.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

I am _not_ Russell_Street. But is he all wrong? I don't think so.

If I am accused of such again, I will ask those who have come to know me best, have conversed with me over PM, have sold to me, have seen my face before I deleted those pics to defend me.

Let's please talk about this honestly and not resort to rudeness. I invite you to call me a buffoon (but please tell us why), however, just not a Russell_Street.


----------



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

While this forum would appear to be for all intents about an enthusiasm for the "look" and those features that define it, a strong current of that enthusiasm is an appreciation for understatement and propriety--and often the sophistication it takes to expess those values when a garment calls attention to itself. What is to be avoided, it seems, are cliqueish "style rules" that are the feature of so many postmodern subcultures. It seems that going "trad" is sort of taking a stand for a set of values that the major currents of society dismiss or reject outright. Taken in that regard, style choices are only relevant in as much as they may express a general attitude towards social values.


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

GentlemanGeorge said:


> While this forum would appear to be for all intents about an enthusiasm for the "look" and those features that define it, a strong current of that enthusiasm is an appreciation for understatement and propriety--and often the sophistication it takes to expess those values when a garment calls attention to itself. What is to be avoided, it seems, are cliqueish "style rules" that are the feature of so many postmodern subcultures. It seems that going "trad" is sort of taking a stand for a set of values that the major currents of society dismiss or reject outright. Taken in that regard, style choices are only relevant in as much as they may express a general attitude towards social values.


I like what yer gittin' at Georgey boy!


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Coleman said:


> I am _not_ Russell_Street. But is he all wrong? I don't think so.
> 
> If I am accused of such again, I will ask those who have come to know me best, have conversed with me over PM, have sold to me, have seen my face before I deleted those pics to defend me.
> 
> Let's please talk about this honestly and not resort to rudeness. I invite you to call me a buffoon (but please tell us why), however, just not a Russell_Street.


I can attest from having plenty of dialog with Coleman that he is the genuine article and, like many who nurse a passion, cannot possibly spend so much time discussing it without their thoughts developing into a philosophy. I personally enjoy it when the threads turn momentarily from knit ties and dead-stock shirts to other tangentially related lifestyle topics as well as these more philosophical threads. Anyone who thinks they don't have a place here needs to remember that this is an internet forum for enthusiasts. Sometimes the water is deeper than others.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

I'll not police this thread anymore. I don't have the steam.

I do invite all PMs (I would in fact appreciate any and all) with arguments for and against what I've said if one is unwilling to post here. I want to learn as much as the next man.

^Thanks, Trip.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Coleman: you are obviously not a buffoon, and your more intellectualized efforts recently are of interest to many of us: I notice that your "throwing in the towel" thread has about a bazlillion reads and responses, despite the totally misleading title, which suggests I can't answer the bell, rather than I'm coming out swinging.:icon_smile_big:. Entertainment value aside, dubious "is it trad" issues don't lend themselves well to hair splitting: as far as I'm concened, if you wear it, it's trad, period. And that goes for many other regular posters, too. So get back to posting pictures!


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Coleman said:


> If I am accused of such again, I will ask those who have come to know me best, have conversed with me over PM, have sold to me, have seen my face before I deleted those pics to defend me.


The Big C has my support anytime.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

Lately, I seem to have proven myself sartorially insane, but should you wish my support, you have it. The key problem with our forum is as following, as I see it:

1. Many want a standard to hold things up against, so they may move away from the "standardless" time we are in. (Thus the "Is Noun Trad" forums).
2. To go from learner to enthusiast, one has to incorporate some rules, but improvise and make their own style.
3. The ultimate contributor to the forum is the one who makes his own way within this tradition - the big tent you speak of. But this path is the most difficult, as you have to have...style. Not everyone is capable of this. Perhaps not even I!


----------



## chacend (Mar 4, 2008)

Funny thing is, judging from pics Coleman adheres to "the rules" better than most around here. In my opinion, if someone like that says there is more room under the tent, there probably is. Bottom line is that most of us know Trad when we see it, sometimes you have no doubt that it is trad even with slight variations. You can see one guy with an OCBD and plain front khakis and think that guy looks all messed up, then walk down the street and see another gentlemen in the same outfit but for pleats and know that he dresses trad but chose the pleats because he knows they look better on him and he pulls it off. There is room for variation, you just have to pull it off with confidence. I don't know of anything more Trad than plain old American self-confidence.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I think I'm on the "small tent" side of the discussion. Can you wear whatever you want? Of course you can. But why then come to a forum devoted to trad clothing. If people come here to learn about American Trad, and if that includes anything Americans traditionally wore, then how can ANYTHING be excluded? If somebody starts a trend toward wearing toilet paper like a mummy, in 10 years would that then be American Trad? If not, why not?

I have to say that I just can't find the logic behind the discussion lately. Show me where I am wrong on this point: I would never go to a Mac computer site and say that Macs are great, but you can set them up to work exactly like a Windows '98 PC if you want, and there is nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't go to a fountain pen club and tell them that I have found a way to convert their pens to ballpoints.

So do we just leave it at "wear anything you want", but still come here to discuss clothes? Or do we say that we prefer some clothes to others? If we do that, on what basis do we like them more?

I'm not trying to start an argument, but it keeps coming up so I'm trying to understand the trend of the forum. I'll fly my colors for (1) Trad as TNSIL; (2) this forum as a Trad site--q.e.d., TNSIL. I'm not offended by posters who put up comments and/or pics that are, e.g., more preppy than Trad (if defined as TNSIL), and have no problem appreciating them, but I do wonder why they are here.

Now let me go squeeze into my made in USA Nehru jacket, bolo tie, Indian headdress and parachute pants. THAT would be a traditional American outfit with a modern spin.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

chacend got what I meant, exactly I'd wager.

P Hudson, it's hard to negotiate. It takes work. I'm tired. 

It's neither as exclusionary as you'd like but is likewise not as inclusionary as you'd suggest. It requires a real connection to the Natural-Shouldered/Ivy League Style tradition (which Preppies clearly do).


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Coleman said:


> It's neither as exclusionary as you'd like but is likewise not as inclusionary as you'd suggest. It requires a real connection to the Natural-Shouldered/Ivy League Style tradition (which Preppies clearly do).


Thanks for the reply. I can accept that as a meaningful starting point.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Maybe it's hard to pin down because Trad, as it's currently discussed, was essentially born here. Not literally, of course, since it's harkening back a few decades, but the time and place were not as monolithic as this forum would lead one to believe. You can't really point to a specific time when Trad was born, when Trad was the norm, etc. Nor can you point to a place where it originated. It's like trying to trace back jazz to a single origin or contain the genre within a single description. Hence you grant admission under a big tent, or you begin to splinter into sub-genres. (I.e. southern gentleman, ivy league, maine woodsman, british landed gent, etc. etc.). 

Now I've established myself as one of the most flagrant rule breakers around these parts, but had I not participated here I never would have considered a sack coat, never returned to the gold buttoned navy blazer, owned far fewer repp ties & bow ties, and would never EVER considered shell shoes. So what's better, that a Borrelli & Kiton wearing continental type absorb a culture and fully appreciate the traditions (and even adopt a few) or that he just kept on walking and went to the fashion forum to find our just how large a full windsor knot can be without ripping the cutaway collar from its seams?


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

:biggrin2:


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

LOL!

Thanks for the post, Trip. I obviously need to get a new example of best-dressed rulebreaker. I shouldn't sacrifice the same fellow over and over and for my own purposes .


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

For me the question is, "what is the essence of 'trad'?" Is slavish adherence to the "rules" sufficient, assuming that the rules are clear, known and unchanging? Is there a gestalt of trad? 

I don't think trad is about the rules and nothing more. It's not a uniform, well, the way uniforms are and formal attire is to a large degree. There is flexibility. I do agree that trad "requires a real connection to the Natural-Shouldered/Ivy League Style tradition". I suspect that trad shares some traits/aspects with minimalism. What I struggle with is a more complete understanding of trad's essence.


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

:idea:
You know what we need to fix all this don't you? Subforums. A whole load of subforums. A southern trad forum, a preppy forum, a hipster trad forum- that way we can have a REAL trad forum here. And all those damn kids can stay of my lawn
.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I usually do not wade into the philosophical but I did have a thought last night about this. I call it the little tent big top theory. Like anything else it is based on an acknowledgment that things exist in the physical sense but we give it meaning and that psychologically some people can handle or see more then others. My example is the Andover shop. We all agree that it exists. If I ask you to free associate what Andover shop do you see? What does your Andover shop look like? Is it one monolithic image or two to three distinct places depending on its time in history. Is it a Prep school outfitter? an Ivy league outfitter? a city store? Do you see it as a cool store that outfitted Miles Davis or more like Flusser who described it as 'what Pat Moynihan's closet must have looked like.' Is it a custom shop or do you see just rtw two button jackets? Is it sober gray flannel or patchwork Central. Is it a country store of cords Viyella and brushed sweaters? Can you embrace their artful pattern mixing can you abide the heavy Anglo side of thornprrofs, braces and Albert slippers? In some ways how much of the Andover shop you accept is how high your tent is. The Andover shop has many of the contradictions that people seem to wrestle with built into its image. At the end of the day it is all there in the Andover shop, how much of it you want is up to you.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

C. Sharp said:


> At the end of the day it is all there in the Andover shop, how much of it you want is up to you.


A "Cafeteria" Trad.

I see....


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Nice metaphor, C. Sharp.

I'll take it all .


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

A very nicely crafted and well thought out OP...thank-you, Coleman! Many of the responses have also been quite thoughtful. Eighty percent of the time, Trad to me is the OCBD, chinos and penny loafers, boat shoes or long wings I happen to be wearing that particular day. On most of the remaining 20% of the days, I might change the mix, deleting the OCBD and substituting a knit polo shirt. The ubiquitous 3R2, Sack, navy blazer; Tweeds and Shetland sweaters seem ever present in my life, depending on the seasonal temps we are experiencing. I must like clothes and shoes, because my closets seem always filled to capacity...and then some but, it remains pretty simple...just replications of a few basics. However, in these parts, I fear I must be a posseur because I really don't invest the intellectual or emotional energy into considerations of what constitutes Trad that is characteristic of many posting herein. I just buy and wear the clothes that I have been enjoying for pretty much all of my adult life!

Am I looking at things too simply or are there many who are looking for depths of meaning or reasoning pertaining to the subject of Trad...that are simply not there(!)? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Am I looking at things too simply or are there many who are looking for depths of meaning or reasoning pertaining to the subject of Trad...that are simply not there(!)? :icon_scratch:


No you are not. I think where problems arise is when someone discovers this forum and something sparks an interest and says I want to be a Trad then such person says I am a Trad and I like to wear X so that makes X Trad. The problem is that it is just about the clothes and nothing more.

I do applaud your efforts in starting this thread Coleman. I do think that the definition of Trad should not be so broad to include all forms of traditional American clothing. For example, in many parts of Texas cowboy boots, jeans, western shirt, and cowboy hat take the place of OCBD, chinos, and weejuns. The look is certainly traditional and certainly American, but I am not sure that it would fit within the definition of Trad although I believe there was someone a few years back who posted pics of cowboy trad.

However, I don't think that Trad should be so narrow so as to exclude minor styling details such as darts, pleats, 3/2 vs. 2 button etc.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Cowtown, you got me exactly too (and I agree with what you've said). 

Thanks for the help.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

This is the thread I _should_ have written first and only (maybe) in my two weeks of madness. This is me being 100% honest to what I believe, and my being coy in the other two threads is not a game I normally play or at which I am even very good.

I apologize for some game-playing on my part.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

Prix fixe or alacarte it's all yummy :icon_smile_wink:



WouldaShoulda said:


> A "Cafeteria" Trad.
> 
> I see....


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

El_Abogado said:


> For me the question is, "what is the essence of 'trad'?" Is slavish adherence to the "rules" sufficient, assuming that the rules are clear, known and unchanging? Is there a gestalt of trad?
> 
> I don't think trad is about the rules and nothing more. It's not a uniform, well, the way uniforms are and formal attire is to a large degree. There is flexibility. I do agree that trad "requires a real connection to the Natural-Shouldered/Ivy League Style tradition". I suspect that trad shares some traits/aspects with minimalism. What I struggle with is a more complete understanding of trad's essence.


The guidelines set out in everyone's favorite gag book, The Official Preppy Handbook, can probably be modified a bit for understanding the basics of a Trad look.  Here's my understanding, anyway.



> *ONE -- CONSERVATISM* Preppies wear clothes for twenty-five years and no one can tell the difference. The fabrics, the cuts; the colors are the same, year after year after year. A kilt from 1958, a ten-year-old tweed overcoat, three-button suit bought in 1940 can all be worn until they fall apart.


This is an exaggeration. If you look at Ivy styles from the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, there is a certain family resemblance, but there's recognizable variation. I think the important thing to take from this is that it is, relative to many other styles, fairly slow-changing. It adds items cautiously and drops them regretfully. One of the chief complaints aired on this forum is that it is a backwards-looking style. I think it's important to understand the hallmarks of items that are part of the look already, to understand when new items have the right characteristics.



> *TWO -- NEATNESS* (Except for a brief period of rebellion during secondary school.) Preppies' shirts stay tucked in,through all kinds of strenuous exercise. Shoes are polished. Socks stay up. Sweaters are patched the moment holes appear in the elbows.


Add college to secondary school, and this might be a bit more true.

A lot of this also historically falls along school lines. Elizabeth Hawes, in her 1939 book Men Can Take It, suggested that Harvard folks were more likely to celebrate the frayed and scuffed, while Yalies and Princeton folks were more polished.

There's also the post-war GI influence, which can't be ignored.

I think the thing to understand here would be that generally clothes aren't intentionally neglected, but with repair being the impulse rather than replace, over time clothes tend to become a bit ratty. The "distressed" look is a byproduct of having well-made clothes that have been continually cared for and repaired; it shouldn't be the point in itself.



> *THREE -- ATTENTION TO DETAIL* Subtleties of cut, weave,or color distinguish the merely good from the Prep. A small percentage of polyester in an oxford cloth shirt or a lapel that's a quarter of an inch too can make all the difference. Cuff buttons on a suit jacket that can actually be unbuttoned are the hallmark of the natty dresser. Everything matches - some Preppies go so far as to change their watchbands every day.


As something of a homogeneous style, Trad suffers as other homogeneous styles do from the glorification of minor differences. Lapels can be (and have been) all over the place, as ideally lapels should ala Flusser, "extend to just a fraction less than the halfway mark between the collar and shoulder line" which depends on the dimensions of the person wearing it. However, it's also common to go by the rule of thumb that lapels should be the same width as the tie. As the standard English regimental width is 3 1/4 inches, the assumption is that that should be the lapel width as well, no matter the size of the jacket.

As for matching, I'd argue that contrast is the name of the game, but that things tend to be purchased in sets; that is, you might _own_ a matching seersucker shirt and shorts, but you'd never wear them together.

The hostility towards polyester has to do with context. What is it in there for?



> *FOUR -- PRACTICALITY* Prep clothes are sensible: rain clothes keep you dry; winter clothes keep you warm; collars are buttoned down so they don't flap in your face when you're playing polo. Layering is a natural response to varying weather conditions.


This is a bit tongue in cheek. However, it's also the main door through which synthetics have tried to sneak into the style.



> *FIVE -- QUALITY* Everything in the wardrobe should be well made. Fine fabrics and sound construction are taken for granted, hand tailoring is not unusual. Preppy clothes are built to last, since they certainly won't go out of style.


This (along with the Anglophilia below) helps explain the focus on U.S. and U.K. goods. Another context to consider is the idea that a quality product deserves fair compensation, and should not have any hidden costs, such as environmental or ethical ones.



> *SIX -- NATURAL FIBERS* Wool, cotton, and the odd bits of silk and cashmere are the only acceptable materials for Prep clothes. They look better. They require professional maintenance. They are more expensive. They are key.


This is exaggeration. The style has been testing synthetics for the past 50 years. Silk linings or no linings may be ideal, but rayon linings can be found in abundance. Silk grosgrain for belts and watchstraps may be the goal, but even hard-liners like O'Connell's sell nylon grosgrain watchstraps. Patagonia polyester fleeces made out of recycled soda bottles have been quite popular, despite their synthetic origin. The trick is to go back to #4: What's it in there for? Is there a very good reason that isn't related to cost-saving?



> *SEVEN -- ANGLOPHILIA* The British have a lot to answer for: Shetland sweaters, Harris tweeds, Burberrys, tartans, regimental ties.


The important thing to remember is that it is an Anglophile style, but not an English style. This is especially true in the tailoring. A Trad/Ivy look is not a "tailored look", even when produced by tailors.  What do darts, pleats, and padded shoulders have in common? They were all originally visible signs of tailoring. This also helps explain the long-standing arguments over fit. Clothing should fit, but where? Waist and inseam only? Thigh? Calf? Ankle?

The Anglophile standard is also a good guideline for expanding your own style without leaving the Trad look entirely. For instance the Trad standard may be no pleats, but if you insist, consider English style (forward) rather than Italian style (reverse). English style forms the floor and ceiling of the look.



> *EIGHT -- SPECIFIC COLOR BLINDNESS* Primary colors and brilliant pastels are worn indiscriminately by men and women alike, in preposterous combinations. In some subcultures, hot pink on men might be considered a little peculiar; Preppies take it for granted.


Yes, but with reservations. Because of the limited nature of the look, color is one of the only areas where there's fun to be had. However, the standard work-a-day color scheme is a sober one (but still with contrast; a fellow in a charcoal Shetland, a red Wallace buttondown and khakis is not matching, but the color scheme is still grounded). Day-glo colors are fun colors for fun times; it's looking ridiculous with a grin, rather than trying to look superior with a sneer.



> *NINE -- THE SPORTING LOOK* Even if they've never been near a duck blind or gone beagling, Preppies are dressed for it. Rugged outerwear (snakeproof boots, jackets that will keep you warm at 60 degrees below zero) and hearty innerwear (fishermen's sweaters and flannel-lined khakis) are de rigueur in even the most sophisticated suburbs.


Tongue-in-cheek. Ruggedness is a key aspect of the look. The quest for ruggedness introduced sportswear to the look in the 30s (tennis & golfwear), military gear to the look in the 50s (khakis & chambray), and workwear gear in the 70s (brown duck, jeans, workboots). It's also partially responsible for the love of rustic Scottish items and textiles instead of simply the more polished English ones. There has always been a bit of phoniness in the whole thing; wannabe outdoorsmen trying to prove themselves against the wild, guilty college kids trying to show solidarity with the working poor. But it is still a definite part of the look. It is also constantly in tension with the next point below.



> *TEN -- ANDROGYNY* Men and women dress as much alike as possible and clothes for either sex should deny specifics of gender. The success of the Lanz nightgown is based on its ability to disguise secondary sexual characteristics, while the traditional fit for men's khakis is one size too big.


Exaggeration, but worth considering. (Also another context to examine the full-cut crowd from.) Double brushed shetlands that look like ladies mohair sweaters, Keds & cashmere cardigans, and the whole kindly-but-a-bit-emasculated old man look I tend to associate with Fred Rogers. The idea here is that these things tend to put others at ease, make them seem more human. It's hard to feel threatened by a person wearing what appears to be a pink ladies sweater, after all. 

This also sometimes combined with the practicality guideline from above. If one's Bermuda shorts are getting wet, the solution is shorter shorts; gender norms are not put into consideration.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

Katon,

I thought about posting those without citing the source to see how many people agree. I think there is tremendous overlap between the book and rules people are trying to come up with for themselves that I have seen expressed in past threads.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Trad is just a shorthand phrase meaning "the kind of clothes sold at J. Press and the remnants of the old independent campus shops that used to dot the country." It has no meaning beyond that. No social meaning. No particular meaning relating to your personal comportment, ethics, or relationships. Obviously.

But it also has no additional sartorial meaning either. You are not the member of some ridiculous style tribe who's look has a set of rules that need to be decoded based on an elaborate philosophy or an intense reading of history. You are simply the owner of some items of apparel that fit or don't, are comfortable or aren't, and match well with your other clothing or don't.

Here's an example. Are jeans trad? Can't seem them at Press or Andover Shop or Cable Car. Therefore, the answer is no, they are not trad. But so what? Do jeans look good with a Shetland sweater or a tweed sack sport coat. I think so. You may disagree. Lets debate. But the tradness of jeans is of next to no import for the argument. The reason is that we are not members of some common grouping who's dress is governed by some set of principals called tradness. 

Heres another example. Are shorts trad? Of course, the answer is yes, they sell them at Press, O'Connells, etc. Should a grown man appear in public wearing shorts. I think so. You may disagree. Lets debate. But the tradness of short is of next to no import. 

Trad is not a big tent. It is a very small shop. But that smallness isn't really a limitation on your personal options in getting dressed.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Thanks for the posts, gentlemen.

katon, I've got nothing to add. I love what you've written.

AP, I'd say you could be correct if we want Trad to be one point on the timeline (and that point being now, the most recent incarnation of the style). If we'd rather Trad be the whole timeline, I'd disagree, and I don't think the only thing that matters is what the staple shops sell (although it is certainly a strong argument for an item's inclusion I don't think it is likewise an argument for an item's exclusion). What the wearers of the style wear is also very important in the discussion.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

I wasn't going to come rallying to its defense, but it's come up a bit lately. I'm pleased to see that extensive quote from the OPH, and here's why:

https://www.ivy-style.com/preppy-evangelist-the-lisa-birnbach-interview.html

This quote was the best:
"IS: Which leads me to this: In discussion of the OPH on blogs and message boards, people seem to fall into two camps. Perhaps because they work in fields like finance and probably didn't do too well in their humanities courses, they're not very sensitive to textual nuance. So they either take the book literally - which in a sense it can be taken, if it's accurate - or they dismissively say it's a "satire," as if therefore the book does not portray something real. But there is certainly a middle ground, for in order for something to even qualify as satire it has to be scathingly accurate. What was your intention with the OPH tone-wise?

LB: The intention going in was a loving irreverence, and I don't think it could have worked another way. If it had been too straight it would have been obnoxious, and if it had been too irreverent it would have been sophomoric."

There's more truth than silliness in the OPH largely because it was a loving examination of that world. One shouldn't go skiing in 501s. Certain things are obvious. Wearing a Lacoste with an OCBD, then a Norwegian, then a Barbour? Madness, unless it is cold. One OCBD on top of a Polo? Doable.  But overall, it's not as much of a joke as people make it out to be, as that material came from somewhere, and even that which is mocked had a kernel of truth.


----------



## djl (Feb 6, 2006)

AldenPyle said:


> Trad is just a shorthand phrase meaning "the kind of clothes sold at J. Press and the remnants of the old independent campus shops that used to dot the country." It has no meaning beyond that. No social meaning. No particular meaning relating to your personal comportment, ethics, or relationships. Obviously.
> 
> But it also has no additional sartorial meaning either. You are not the member of some ridiculous style tribe who's look has a set of rules that need to be decoded based on an elaborate philosophy or an intense reading of history. You are simply the owner of some items of apparel that fit or don't, are comfortable or aren't, and match well with your other clothing or don't.
> 
> ...


+1000. Not sure why there's been such a big push on the forum lately for "Trad" to be expanded. Trad is what it is. The fact that people who wear trad clothing also wear other items doesn't necessitate an expansion of the definition.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

I suppose it depends on where you are standing - inside or outside the tent. To outsiders, Trad must seem narrow and dull, but to those inside, there is a world of variety - Gant and Sero shirts, original Willis & Geiger, bleeding vs. modern madras, Brooks old vs. Brooks new, J. Press anything all the time, etc.

I don't think we're "expanding" the tent so much as enjoying what is already in it. Each man must make his own decisions about what to wear and what rules to break. We dress for ourselves, which is why we don't need the "Is blank trad" conversations anymore. If it is, it is. If it's not, it's not. We'll discuss it as it comes, and each must make the decision for himself. There is no final arbiter of Trad to appeal to, unless Bruce Boyer suddenly hops on the fora.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

djl said:


> +1000. Not sure why there's been such a big push on the forum lately for "Trad" to be expanded. Trad is what it is. The fact that people who wear trad clothing also wear other items doesn't necessitate an expansion of the definition.


It's no new "push." It's an identity issue Trad's had since the inception of the forum (and I'd say it's the one that causes the most arguments and unpleasantness). Is it the whole tradition or just one point on it? It can (and probably should) be discussed, but, like many have shown, it shouldn't be our main discussion. I likewise don't think it need be a discussion involving ungentlemanly discourse, so I like how this thread's developed.

The best thing I think we are all in agreement on is that Trad is not a lifestyle; it's a style.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Coleman said:


> Thanks for the posts, gentlemen.
> 
> katon, I've got nothing to add. I love what you've written.
> 
> AP, I'd say you could be correct if we want Trad to be one point on the timeline (and that point being now, the most recent incarnation of the style). If we'd rather Trad be the whole timeline, I'd disagree, and I don't think the only thing that matters is what the staple shops sell (although it is certainly a strong argument for an item's inclusion I don't think it is likewise an argument for an item's exclusion). What the wearers of the style wear is also very important in the discussion.


Sorry. There's no we, no wearers of the style, no insiders, deciding what the rules and identity of Trad are. Its not a club. If you want a bogus communal experience, follow a baseball team.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Pink and Green said:


> I suppose it depends on where you are standing - inside or outside the tent. To outsiders, Trad must seem narrow and dull, but to those inside, there is a world of variety - Gant and Sero shirts, original Willis & Geiger, bleeding vs. modern madras, Brooks old vs. Brooks new, J. Press anything all the time, etc.
> 
> I don't think we're "expanding" the tent so much as enjoying what is already in it. Each man must make his own decisions about what to wear and what rules to break. We dress for ourselves, which is why we don't need the "Is blank trad" conversations anymore. If it is, it is. If it's not, it's not. We'll discuss it as it comes, and each must make the decision for himself. There is no final arbiter of Trad to appeal to, unless Bruce Boyer suddenly hops on the fora.


When you had all the dimwits suggesting "Tradliest" names for your baby daughter, that was pretty funny. I'll give you that.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

AldenPyle said:


> Sorry. There's no we, no wearers of the style, no insiders, deciding what the rules and identity of Trad are. Its not a club. If you want a bogus communal experience, follow a baseball team.


I feel what you've said is both true and false (or at least parts of it are true and parts false), but I'm going to have to think about it.

My aim is certainly not rules (quite the opposite in many respects), but I do think Trad (the word) has an identity whether we want it to or not (and we can attempt to define, but not create, it, or not).


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

I think it's important to remember too that Trad is just a word (one many of us feel is a little absurd, and a few of us even hate), and as a word it signifies its definition, bit it isn't its definition.

I guess what I'm asking is this, do we want Trad to signify the whole tradition or just one point in time of that tradition? And I'm also saying that I honestly feel that if we were to allow it to signify the whole tradition we would be removing a lot of the contention of the place. 

Anyway, I'm already tired due to this for the day. I do thank respondents. You've given me things to think about.


----------



## djl (Feb 6, 2006)

Coleman said:


> It's no new "push." It's an identity issue Trad's had since the inception of the forum (and I'd say it's the one that causes the most arguments and unpleasantness). Is it the whole tradition or just one point on it? It can (and probably should) be discussed, but, like many have shown, it shouldn't be our main discussion. I likewise don't think it need be a discussion involving ungentlemanly discourse, so I like how this thread's developed.
> 
> The best thing I think we are all in agreement on is that Trad is not a lifestyle; it's a style.


As you'll see from my join date, I've been here since the inception of the forum. Every once in a while an influx of new posters come in and want to re-define what "Trad" means and steer the direction of the forum to match. You'll note, as has happened yet again with these recent threads, that many of the founding posters of the forum who have the best grasp of what "Trad" is (a group in which I do not include myself) stay out of the discussion, because they know it will ultimately fade away again.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

I think we are all well aware of who the players are in this discussion (regardless of join dates and post counts).

A number of our greatest posters have contributed to this thread (some for what I'm saying and some against it). I appreciate what they've said and thank them for contributing (again, regardless of join dates and post counts).


----------



## djl (Feb 6, 2006)

Coleman said:


> I think we are all well aware of who the players are in this discussion (regardless of join dates and post counts).
> 
> A number of our greatest posters have contributed to this thread (some for what I'm saying and some against it). I appreciate what they've said and thank them for contributing (again, regardless of join dates and post counts).


I didn't mean to disparage anyone for their join date or post count (you've posted >4x what I have in 1/4 the time). I was just pointing out as an observor over the life of this forum that this debate is cyclical, and tends to be driven by newer posters who get frustrated that there isn't "more" to the discussion.

Personally, I'm all about discussing whatever - jeans, shorts (but not jean shorts), etc. I just don't think there's any driving reason to try to bring everything under the "trad" banner. People who wear trad clothes wear other things too. Nothing wrong with discussing them.

There will frequently be a similarity of opinion on non-trad clothing among people who share a common taste for clothing that is trad. Thus, people who wear sack suits, OCBDs, tassels, pennies, etc. will probaby find common ground on things like bathing suits, shorts, raincoats, whatever. So there's value to discussing it - but not in the vein of "What is the most trad [bathing suit, shorts, raincoats]?"


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

On re-reading a couple of my comments I realize a couple things may seem contradictory, that we cannot create a new definition but that we can choose a definition.

I don't believe they actually are, and I'll attempt to explain why.

The two definitions exist, have existed the life of the forum. They don't like each other; they have caused some members to not like each other. Those definitions are the whole tradition and a point on the timeline of the tradition. Since they have been allowed to both stay, they cause most of our fights and turn many of us against each other.

I am simply attempting to boot one of those definitions, the idea that what we're on about it here is just one point on the timeline of the style. Part of the reason I want to do this is because I think the one point definition helps create the fallacy of a Trad identity, it causes more bickering than the other, and I just think it's a less meaningful definition. 

I am not attempting to create any new definition. I am attempting to affix one definition, the whole tradition, to the signifier Trad. I think it would improve the place.

Yes, there will still be disagreement on if this or that fits into the tradition, but it will be more meaningful, less stunted, and will make a helluva lot more sense.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

djl said:


> So there's value to discussing it - but not in the vein of "What is the most trad [bathing suit, shorts, raincoats]?"


I agree, and that's exactly what I'm trying to get rid of. The definition as a point in time creates the idea that for example a loose fitting OCBD is more Trad than a slimmer fitting one, because we are letting what _some_ of the most respected originators of the forum said is the _most_ Trad be the definition.

I in fact agree with almost all of what you've just posted.

Thank you.


----------



## djl (Feb 6, 2006)

Coleman said:


> I agree, and that's exactly what I'm trying to get rid of. The definition as a point in time creates the idea that for example a loose fitting OCBD is more Trad than a slimmer fitting one, because we are letting what the most respected originators of the forum said is the most Trad be the definition.
> 
> I in fact agree with almost all of what you've just posted.
> 
> Thank you.


Agreed, but I think the point of contention is a significant one, and is what causes the consternation. I believe we should recognize what "trad" has meant and continues to mean to those who started the forum (which AldenPyle delineated fairly well, and Harris's seminal "Trad" post sums up nicely), and also recognize that there will be items discussed on the forum that aren't necessarily "trad" under that definition but are of interest to those who wear trad clothes.

You want to expand the definition of "trad" to include those things. I suppose it's ultimately a point of semantics, but the board over the past couple of weeks has demonstrated that it's a hot button issue.

Obviously posters can keep hashing it out, but history suggests that the result will be that the dispute eventually flames out, with nothing much changed, and some posters getting their feelings hurt and moving on, which isn't a win for anyone (well, some might argue that point).


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

^I agree, djl (although I don't think it was the only definition in the beginning; remember, Trad almost died where it started and for the same reasons).

We have to decide what we want (or we don't). We can keep allowing the same contentions to fester every six or so months.

You also make a valid point in that deciding now (or ever) may be pointless. It may just work for a moment and then still go back to its old ways as soon as we look the other way. 

My hope is still, I think, an admirable one.

Thank you sincerely for your responses.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

C,

I like what you're trying to do with this discussion (you must have been an English major :icon_smile but I'm getting the feeling that your shoveling against the tide or, as Patrick once said about trying to define "trad," attempting to wrangle cats. What I mean is that very few posters, at least from my perspective, are working from an ossified definition of "trad" as the "Take Ivy" period, but have already implicitly adopted your "timeline of trad" approach that incorporates looks and fits from a variety of "periods," "sub-styles" (e.g. "1980s preppy", etc.), and shops (Press, Andover, O'Connells) For example, I clearly like variety in my suits/sport coats and am willing to toss in the occasional GTH item that might be defined as "preppy" or wear Anglophile items (Barbour, Gloverall, etc.), but I attempt to blend them into some kind of coherent whole that may or may not be defined as "trad". As for fit and cut, I see a healthy variety in the WAYW thread and feel like most forumites are fairly accepting of such differences. At least no one has attacked me for my penchant for trim "sack" sport coats and suits. In the end, I like the people on this forum and enjoy the kinds of clothing that get discussed here and whether it's "trad" or not is of rather little significance to me. 

As for newbies, it seems to me they will always enter the forum and become attracted to the name and seek to fit the various implicit and explicit definitions of "trad," but as they mature in the forum (oldsters as well as youngsters) they must discover what suits them best and if it falls under the "big tent" then they'll stay around, but if not they'll move on to other clothing fora.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Cardinals5 said:


> (you must have been an English major :icon_smile


LOL! It's true---I confess!----and one of the worst sort.

I agree that in a sense we've adopted what I'm talking about without ever talking about it (at least not for a while). While discussions on things considered Trad by some and not by others (those things that were worn at some point in the style and not in others or in different ways) can often get heated, when someone shows up in the same things in WAYW it is rarely met with hositility and is often even complimented.

I do feel in not discussing it, ever, we are all and always walking on eggshells, and that's something I hoped to eliminate. I hoped we could wear our X and talk about it too (and without the mention of _if _or _how _Trad X is but with more mention of where it fits), I suppose.

I am not so naive to hope that I will change all or even most minds that think differently (or that we will ever get rid of all our absurdity; I've got more than enough of my own). I just hope I've reached a few, enough, I guess.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Just saw this discussion and thought I'd throw in my two cents. I agree with the OP that it is time to expand the definition of trad beyond the limitations which this forum has placed. While I'm as fond as anyone of wearing 3/2 rolls, khakis, OCBDs, top siders, longwings, etc., I see no reason why this forum should not expand to celebrate other iconic American styles such as Levi's or even Frye harness boots. In fact the recent spate of threads asking "Is X Trad?" is likely an indication that there is a demand for this forum to find other topics to discuss. With clothing discussions limited to such a narrowly defined style, it seems that these threads concerning other aspects of a supposed Trad lifestyle may truly be the cry that many posters are tired of the same discussions over and over again and are seeking something new.

I say open it up. There is a great deal of Traditional American Styles that can be discussed and its not inconceivable for one to remain generally trad while incorporating aspects of those styles. The iconic Gary Cooper went back and forth from 3/2 roll suits to cowboy hats and nobody batted an eye. Indiana Jones is a modern representation of classic American style and he goes from tweed suits to a leather jacket and fedora.

I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I agree with the OP. We can expand the tent and find new areas to discuss in relation to Traditional American Style.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Bradford said:


> the recent spate of threads asking "Is X Trad?" is likely an indication that there is a demand for this forum to find other topics to discuss. With clothing discussions limited to such a narrowly defined style, it seems that these threads concerning other aspects of a supposed Trad lifestyle may truly be the cry that many posters are tired of the same discussions over and over again and are seeking something new.
> 
> I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I agree with the OP. We can expand the tent and find new areas to discuss in relation to Traditional American Style.


I've been enjoying this discussion, and appreciate Bradford's contribution, but I disagree with parts of it. I would argue that the "is X Trad" threads proliferate because some think that there is a defined look and want to know if something fits within its parameters. This then gave way to some troll threads. I don't think they proliferate because people just want to discuss something else.

As I've stated several times before, I wear trad because (1) it is at least in part what I grew up with, and (2) I'm going for a distinctly American look. It, for me, DOES relate to identity. I'm not here just because I prefer a certain type of lapel roll (though I do prefer it). Living overseas for a long time, and esp. during the wide-spread anti-Americanism of the golf war, even in a friendly country (I'm not looking for political commentary here), I suppose subconsciously I wanted people to know that I am American and not ashamed of it.

There is a look that people in Europe and Asia at least recognize as distinctly American--classic American. Levis and Frye (I prefer Redwing) boots sure doesn't say it. They are, in themselves, far too ubiquitous to communicate much. And I wasn't about to wear a cowboy hat. That would have been downright cartoonish on me.

Maybe at least in part I wanted (again subconsciously) to communicate that if you're going to discuss life in the US, which a lot of people who have never visited are willing to do, someone in the room might call you on it if you venture into total nonsense.

This attitude, furthermore, meshes perfectly well with my desire to support American businesses and American manufacturers. That used to be a common sentiment on this forum, but seems to have lessened of late.

I don't really expect anyone here to care about my decisions or context. I'm just saying that I have a reason that goes beyond mere elements of clothing. I suspect a lot of people here do as well. For some, it might relate to the fact that elements of Trad are at the moment in fashion.** Of course, the more we see of something, the less it communicates. I'm not equipped to discuss the psychology of wearing fashionable clothes, but it surely relates to more than elements of clothing.

That last comment might be considered by some an insult (I'd feel insulted if someone said it to me). That is not my intent, so I'll apologize in advance. I'm just saying that what adults wear is sometimes (usually?) grounded in who they are, that we are not unaware of symbols. I'd be surprised if we considered this controversial in a different environment.

**I watch PBS's Newshour 5 nights a week--haven't seen many men without a decently rolled button down collar for some time, usually with a rep tie. And I don't just mean Shields and Brooks.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

djl said:


> As you'll see from my join date, I've been here since the inception of the forum.


I don't understand. Your join date is Feb 5th, 2006. Harris, AlanC, JLibourel, and I began the "trad" discussion on this forum more than a year earlier, on Sept 14, 2004. See original thread here:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?34490-American-Trad

Other than that, I agree with what you say.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Y'all may want to click this.


----------



## djl (Feb 6, 2006)

rojo said:


> I don't understand. Your join date is Feb 5th, 2006. Harris, AlanC, JLibourel, and I began the "trad" discussion on this forum more than a year earlier, on Sept 14, 2004. See original thread here:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?34490-American-Trad
> 
> Other than that, I agree with what you say.


Correct me if I'm wrong (it's entirely possible I'm misremembering), but I thought the actual Trad Forum was begun later, after I had joined. The discussions on the main forum re: Trad, which you linked to, certainly pre-date my joining.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

I think you are right. As I recall, the trad discussions began and started to overtake the main forum, so they were eventually spun off into their own sub-fora. 

And yes, my join date is after the initial discussion as well, however, as a longtime member of SF, I was around from the time Andy started this place, just lurked for a while before I decided to set up my official profile.


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

I honestly think that most of this is just the result of folk getting their panties in a bunch. There is no coherent way to define trad- so get over it- there is room for everyone. The problem is mostly that too many folk make stupid posts- no new definition of trad will keep people from being idiots. 
As for the the expansion of the term- narrowly defined, there would be nothing to discuss. An expanded definition will keep this forum active, fresh and vital. We don't have to turn this into a streetwear forum- we just need to give others a chance. So long as we are talking about traditional American clothes, I don't give two hoots if the sell it at JPress or not. 
C'mon patriots- united we stand and divided we fall. We all love traditional American clothes, so lets just keep it together and be helpful instead of catty.


----------

