# Trad ain’t no Ivy League!



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Thus spake Wikipedia.

"Controversially, in a recently revised form, a version of this style is sometimes promoted and marketed online (and elsewhere) as "American Trad" or simply "Trad," although there are marked differences between the two styles. *'Trad' is* *considerably narrower in scope than the original Ivy League style."*

)

I betcha the collective knowledge of this forum could turn this article into something spectacular.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

...or into something truly contentious and absurd, which would be my choice:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Take the bait if you wish, but don't expect to win. That article's a proxy battlefield for an ongoing board war.


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

I got 3 sentences into that entry and found:

"It is epitomized by the sack suit which is defined as being a 3-to-2 (3 buttons with the top button "rolled" back to reveal only two usable buttons) blazer without darts and a single "hooked" vent."

Let's play "count the errors" on that one.


----------



## Bricktop (Feb 10, 2010)

/grabs popcorn


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> "Controversially, in a recently revised form, a version of this style is sometimes promoted and marketed online (and elsewhere) as "American Trad" or simply "Trad," although there are marked differences between the two styles. *'Trad' is* considerably narrower in scope than the original Ivy League style."
> 
> )


Speaking purely as an outside observer who is not a die hard proponent of either, this looks to me to be a fairly accurate statement; at least it does if I'm to use my observations growing up in the 1950's and 60's in comparison to what I read in this forum. My assumption is that this forum is a fair representation of what is "trad" these days.

It appeared to me at the time that many, if not most, of the guys wearing what we are calling "Ivy League" style clothing back then were simply wearing the clothing that was most commonly found in retail stores back in the day. I'm not saying that they didn't like a particular style, but most would just as easily wear other styles that they liked also.

I know that when I was in school the guys weren't wearing 3/2 sack jackets and penny loafers because they were married to that style. There was simply a lot of it in the stores and they were selecting jackets in patterns and colors that they liked rather than a style of jacket. Obviously this didn't apply to everyone, but it did to more than one might imagine today.

Conversely what I see today are guys who seem to try so hard to imitate what they see in old pictures that they become somewhat restrictive in their choices of clothing. This is why we see threads about what is the most trad dog or underwear.

I brought this same idea up in the other forum a few days ago. It seems that many there think that if they don't wear the "classic and timeless" clothing that Cary Grant wore in the photographs they aren't well dressed; however, they are ignoring that Cary Grant also wore some clothes that were fashionable in his day, but wouldn't be today. I think my comment was that even Cary Grant wasn't Cary Grant every day.

This isn't meant as a negative at all, but I do believe that many of the modern day "trads" are more narrowly focused in their choices than were the guys who wore the stuff in the beginning. Just an observation, nothing more. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I agree that the combined efforts of many of this board's greatest participants could deliver a stunningly detailed account of Trad. HOWEVER, I would not be interested in reading this theoretical Wikipedia entry unless there was a random KitonBrioni WAYWT entry right in the middle. Only then would it be truly authentic.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> "in a recently revised form"


Revisionist Jihadi Trad? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> try so hard to imitate what they see in old pictures


But what if one *is *the guy in the old picture? In fact, just plain old?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> But what if one *is *the guy in the old picture? In fact, just plain old?


OK, then you (or should I say we) are excused. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

I think Cruiser's got it on the money. Take Ivy as a book shows us that, despite it's former price of admission, Ivy clothing was kind of a mish mash of what was prevalent at retail.

I think the article in Ivy Style on olive as a mainstay color (informed by Bruce Boyer) shows this most clearly. While I enjoy trad things (but fall distinctly into the "preppy" school), I really just enjoy wearing this style of clothing.

Ultimately (deride me if you will), I sort of aspire to pursue a 70-80 aesthetic of prep with a little Take Ivy thrown in. Trad orthodoxy is nice, but ultimately I'm a person wearing clothes, not some kind of trad policeman.


----------



## leisureclass (Jan 31, 2011)

^^ I agree as well. It's not about rules. Take Ivy is all over the place. With the English translation in the new edition we also learned that all the photos with people in ties were taken on Sundays only, you know, for church.

You also bring to mind one my favorite blogs, Heavy Tweed Jacket, it was a perfect document of everything you're speaking to, a lack of stiff rules, 70s and 80s preps. Anyone out there know what happened to him? Was thinking of it this morning when I put on marled wool socks with my Tretorns (something I saw on HTJ once).


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

I understand people's previous points, but I'm not so sure the Wikipedia entry is good. (I am, however, certain that I don't care about the accuracy of the Wikipedia article!)

Check out the trad WAYWT thread. One routinely sees pictures that break the "purist" rules: darts abound, as do 2-button jackets, and other purported heresies. And this is the TRAD forum, the supposed mothership of trad. It doesn't seem terribly restrictive to me.

If anything, the folks on FNB are far more restrictive, and they seem to disdain the label "trad" in favor of "Ivy League."

Yes, this style of dressing required less effort decades ago, because retailers prominently featured it anyway. Thus one must now make more of a conscious effort to dress in the TNSIL style. But it seems as if most forum members have no problem incorporating aspects of other styles into their wardrobes. Personally, I don't think people on the forum aim to look like they are wearing a costume.


----------



## CMC (Aug 22, 2006)

One of the great ironies in the critiques of "trad" from FNB is that no group is more narrow or restrictive when it comes to this style than the English and their J. Simons orthodoxy. They may go for different stuff (the cool side of things, like desert boots, etc.), but overall their point of view is far narrower, as it always is with a zealous vintage-inspired clique that bears a strong resemblance to a youth music-fashion tribe.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

^ Yes, I prefer the Japanese approach: have fun with it! It took me a while to realize that _Take Ivy _isn't really about the clothes.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

This is going to be an interesting thread...


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

^^ I do agree that this will be an interesting thread. 

I am not sure that I agree that Trad is more restrictive than the Ivy League style; different, yes, but not necessarily more restrictive. Whether or not the particular style is restrictive depends upon how one chooses to define it. While many choose to criticize our friend Russell at FNB, he is correct in that Trad as term did not exist prior to 2004. The trouble has been defining what is or is not Trad. Some have promoted a narrow definition (3/2 no darts or pleats) since that was the most pand others take a bigger tent approach. Lately it seems anything can qualify as Trad. 

I also don't that Trad was necessarily intended to equate to the Ivy League style, but incorporate many of its elements as well as others.


----------



## CMC (Aug 22, 2006)

So this is going to be an interesting thread? Let's see:

Cowtown, how can you agree that trad is a 2004 Internet creation, but then refer to it as if it's something "real" with statements like "I am not sure that I agree that Trad is more restrictive than the Ivy League style"?

So you're saying it is something real, just post-2004? It can certainly be "real" even as the style of an Internet community, the trouble is that from what I've seen the Internet community has been unable to agree on exactly what it is.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

CMC said:


> So you're saying it is something real, just post-2004? It can certainly be "real" even as the style of an Internet community, the trouble is that from what I've seen the Internet community has been unable to agree on exactly what it is.


Yes that is what I am saying. The original post by Harris in the American Trad thread references the J. Press-Brooks-Andover Shop look which all certainly existed prior to 2004. I believe Harris had a narrow intention of what the look encompassed in his mind which was just his take. Others who considered themselves "Trad" who wore darts, pleats, and other items not within the narrow definition wanted acceptance as Trads or sought to argue that anything traditional equated to Trad. Hence, there has been no agreed upon definition which is why I think it less restrictive than Ivy League style since it contours are amorphous.


----------



## TDI GUY (Oct 26, 2008)

I'm not sure it is accurate to say that the term "Trad" did not exist before 2004--though it did take on new meanings after its association with this forum.

Toshiyuki Kurosu - one of the authors of Take Ivy - credits himself with being the first to use the term....in 1966.

Here is an excerpt from his interview with tintin/The Trad:

"*When was the first time you heard the word 'Trad' used and do you have any idea where it came from?*

T.K. - I was the one that used the word 'Trad' in the media for the first time in 1966. The word 'Traditional' existed but it was difficult to pronounce and rarely used in Japan. I was looking for a short word that was easy to remember and I found the expression 'Trad Jazz' in a jazz book."

I seem to recall that the term was in circulation pre-2004 in other circles as well, but I don't have references at the moment.

One wonders what Harris' own reference point was for using the term.


----------



## TDI GUY (Oct 26, 2008)

It is also interesting to compare what is said/debated in the forum about what constitutes "Trad" with a) what is displayed in the WAYWT thread (as Sir Cingle mentioned), and b) what is sold in the thrift exchange. The latter two threads - which probably receive more traffic than any others on the forum - obviously take a much looser definition of Trad.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Being, apparently, the same age bracket as Cruiser, I agree that this was what was available at the time. I remember shopping with my parents at a department store for a suit to wear to my high school graduation, and every one was a sack with hooked vent. I kind of noticed the vent because of its, let's face it, off-kilter stance. And I did notice flat-front versus pleated pants. But that's about it, except for madras, this was the South, hot as hell and (bleeding) madras was where it was at. Later I heard the words "natural shoulder" and noticed that my jackets had little padding there. As for darts, I had no idea what they were. Shirts had to be button-down but that's all I knew about them. All the details I've learned in this forum, about half a century after going shopping for that suit. Trad, then, it would seem, is an obsessively (not a pejorative, obsession is fun) self-conscious version of the sartorial attitude we used to call Ivy League.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I have to take issue with the statement trad as a term did not exist before 2004. Trad was the way the Japanese described their devotion to ivy. I know that Alan Flusser was familiar with Japanese trad and American Ivy. He connected the two when speaking about the Andover Shop. In "Style and the Man", 1996, Flusser describes the Andover shop in this way "Inside,it looks the way I imagine Pat Moynihan's closet might: chock full of colorful "trad" threads, a typical selection of Ivy League shirts, trousers, and jackets." In this case trad=ivy.

It is true that Capital Letter Trad did not exist until this forum. To this day I do not know Harris's intentions for using the word were. It certainly has provided red meat for devotees as well cadre of Trolls. We have about seven years of a tortured parlor game that to often really obfuscates a truly interesting history of the New Haven/ York outfitters and there role in the history of American menswear.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

As far as _Ask Andy_ goes, the world is divided into "Trad" and "Fashion." For Trad, I'm content with applying the famous definition of pornography, 'I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.'


----------



## CMC (Aug 22, 2006)

Well said, Chief, and "tortured" is a good word for the parlor game, as it's largely been one disturbed individual playing solitaire.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Beware. You are entering a cul-de-sac. The entrance/exit closes upon entry, and the circle is filled with snarling dogs, razor wire, and weirdos. The unwary traveler is doomed to wander here — forever.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

words of wisdom.


----------



## CMC (Aug 22, 2006)

But this forum is moderated. That makes all the difference.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ah, but just try adding something to the Wiki thing. 

I only escaped by having my computer break down. For nine months I only had Internet access at the office, and since I try to spend as little time there as possible, I was unaware of what was happening in cyberland. 

As a matter of fact, it's not a bad policy. When my current machine gives up the ghost I might not replace it.

Anyway, yes, moderation certainly helps.


----------



## Mazama (May 21, 2009)

*The money line*

Once again Cruiser provides us with a succinct, memorable line: "Even Cary Grant wasn't Cary Grant every day."

Cruiser and I grew up in the same era and - in my case at least - in a distinctly non-Prep environment but wore "those clothes" every day and have the same memory of why we, as well as most everyone else, did so.

The blog "The Ivy League Look" (https://www.theivyleaguelook.blogspot.com/ ) illustrates Cruiser's point by posting vintage mens' clothing ads from the 1950-60s that show how ubiquitous "those clothes" were.

I've seen group photos of off-duty 20-something U.S. Navy enlisted sailors in civvies at "Sayonara parties" in Japan circa 1965-1970 that look virtually identical - apart from the Japanese neon signs and young women - to photos of "trad" fraternity brothers at parties on U.S. college campuses of the same era.


----------



## SartoNYC (Feb 22, 2005)

Anyone been on an Ivy League campus lately?????


Ivy ain't trad.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CMC said:


> Well said, Chief, and "tortured" is a good word for the parlor game, as it's largely been one disturbed individual playing solitaire.


I'd hate to get "trad" in charades!!


----------



## R0ME0 (Feb 10, 2010)

Interesting thread indeed. That's why I call anything that is trad or Ivy League- *preppy*.

Polo, Brooks Brothers, and other preppy brands call their style preppy.

Maybe Harris was from Japan or read Allan Flusser's books and there's where he picked up the word. He never actually posted a picture of himself or spoke about his personal life but he sure knew a lot about preppy (trad) clothing.

I remember that once several years ago someone said that anything he considered preppy was trad. Harris told him that trad and preppy weren't the same style but everyone here and including Harris claim to wear some pretty preppy stuff.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I used to find myself defending, to the last word, "Ivy League" as the proper term. But AAAC's definition of Trad seems to include a whole lot of things that you didn't necessarily see in '60s Ivy League schools. For example, I can't recall seeing Nantucket Reds, Sperry Top-Siders, and CERTAINLY not L.L. Bean Rubber Mocs or Norwegian sweaters in Take Ivy or any other pictorials of Ivy League schools. So, I've relented. Guess I'm just that weak. 

Preppy is a bit of a loaded word these days. If you call your style or yourself preppy, many may look at you as if you're suddenly an elitist snob. Not saying it's right, but all throughout middle and high school "prep" or "preppy" were Undeniably Bad Things where I lived.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Jovan said:


> But AAAC's definition of Trad seems to include a whole lot of things that you didn't necessarily see in '60s Ivy League schools. For example, I can't recall seeing Nantucket Reds, Sperry Top-Siders, and CERTAINLY not L.L. Bean Rubber Mocs or Norwegian sweaters in Take Ivy or any other pictorials of Ivy League schools.


Ah, the Sixties! Top-Siders and wool socks were a crew thing, something you didn't see much of beyond the boathouse. I wore 'pink jeans' in the summertime at South Padre Island TX. I learned, much later, that these were Nantucket Reds.

I don't think Top-Siders really become ubiquitous on Ivy League campuses until the early Seventies, along with down vests, Norwegian sweaters, Maine Hunting Shoes, straight-legged Levis, and coeds. Did the women from Abbott and Miss Porter's, Smith and Wellesley make these items popular at Harvard and Yale? I had one friend who owned a pair Nantucket Reds when I was in college, but he spent a lot of time in Martha's Vineyard. No one else wore them. They must have been a specialty item into the early Eighties.

When did clogs on guys become popular? I saw a lot of that in the mid-to-late Seventies.


----------

