# Participate in major newspaper trad story



## CMC (Aug 22, 2006)

Good afternoon. Andy has given me his blessing to post this thread. I'm a freelance style writer (LA Times, L'Uomo Vogue, Robb Report) and the webmaster of Dandyism.net. I'm on assignment for the San Francisco Chronicle, doing a major feature story on trad, which I became interested in after discovering this forum. I'd like this forum and its members to be a primary focus of the story, since as far as I know this is the largest gathering of trad aficionados on the Internet.

I've been following the forum fairly closely, but I would like some fresh answers on the origin of the term "trad" and how it differs from "preppy," plus any other basics you deem necessary.

I'm also looking for a number of sources to participate in the story through telephone interviews. I'm interested in both men who come from a traditional trad/prep background and those who've come to it later in life. You will likely need to be photographed, and San Franciscans are especially encouraged to participate.

Here are some questions to get the discussion going:

1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal?

2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?

3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?

4) Is trad conservative?

5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear?

6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group?

7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.?

Thank you.

Christian M. Chensvold
christian[at]dandyism.net


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

_ 1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal?_

I didn't... but it's timeless, easy, and doesn't get people's noses out of joint.

_ 2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?
_
Clothing style, but implied are basic things like decent manners and familiarity with the English language.

_ 3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?_

Absolutely. We are a nation of fat, poorly-dressed, ill-mannered morons.

_ 4) Is trad conservative?
_
Only in the sense the style looks back in time at what is perceived, quite naively, as a sort of golden age when men were men, collars rolled and you knew what was what. Then you had the goddamn hippies and it was all shot to hell. Harrumph.

_ 5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? 
_
Maybe, if you're determined to find such meaning.

_Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear? 
_
No. Look at the Hollywood hotshots. A liberal immersion in used motor oil and an inability to shave seem to be the ultimate male signifiers.

_ 6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group?
_
I sure hope not. Next thing you know, the New York Times will get hold of it - always the kiss of death.

_ 7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.?
_
Because they have nothing better to do than fart around with this stuff. It's silly, and I'd guess at least half the posters here know it perfectly well.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*This should be really interesting*

Christian,
Frankly, I have mixed feelings about your writing project. Not that trad isn't a subject worth writing about, but that the likely impact of your piece will be:

1. A sudden faddish jump in interest in trad clothing, leading to "dilution through familiarity and abuse" and too much attention. Ultimately what has been a quiet source of satisfaction to those who maintain this most understated of styles will become the subject of public comment and misunderstanding.

2. We are likely to see a great jump in members on this forum. Not a bad thing, but new members, especially those whose interests may be self-serving or at cross-purposes to those who have been around here a long time, could cause some of us to leave.

A final point--I think your questions are useful. I also think you'll find many answers here, often written between the lines. Seek out that old thread started by Harris. It is now the mother of all trad threads and probably around twenty pages long. An interesting read.

When I have time I hope to respond to your questions. Like I said, this thread should be fun, even if your article is never published.

Markus


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

I have nothing to add to what Patrick has already said.


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

I'd like to put my opinion out there as one of the few, the proud, the young Trads. 

At 18, I've only been able to embrace trad over the last couple of years, but it still feels like second nature to me. Perhaps that's due to what is the essence of "Trad dress"...timeless, simple (to a degree), and nonchalant. I receive a good deal of ribbing from my peers because I like to wear green and red trousers and sweaters covered with woodland critters. I've learned to chuckle inwardly, because I know there is nothing wrong with my attire. In the end, I know that what I wear is simply and authentically American.


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Connemara said:


> I receive a good deal of ribbing from my peers because I like to wear green and red trousers and sweaters covered with woodland critters.


Look, I hate to tell you, but this isn't trad










:icon_smile_big:


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Patrick06790 said:


> We are a nation of fat, poorly-dressed, ill-mannered morons.


C'mon, Patrick. He didn't ask you to write his lead sentence for him. Let him earn his money.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

While I don't disagree with the premise, I don't believe that one of the tenets of trad clothing is physical fitness. We're merely talking clothing here. Trad works for all body types/shapes, I say!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> 1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal?


I came to Trad the old-fashioned way -- by my father drilling the idea into me from birth that there is one and only one set of clothes that is acceptable. All doubt is erased by reference to this list of clothes. If it's not on the list, it's not in the closet.

I'm pretty sure he got the idea from his father. I did not know my grandfather, unfortunately, but I am told that the most casual he ever got was one time when he rolled his shirtsleeves. As the story goes, it was in July, sometime around 1950, and he was grilling something.



> 2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?


It is certainly a set of values. In fact, I'd say it is more significant as a set of values than anything else.

The values it represents are:

(a) that family matters a great deal -- one learns these manners of dress at home, and children generally dress exactly like their parents (the only difference being that the sizes are smaller).

(b) lack of excessive ostentation and ornamentation, which is part of a general emphasis on reserved demanor and understatement. However, plaid pants at Christmas parties are excepted.

(c) focus on the long-term -- clothes are supposed to be made to last forever. The permanence of style is a testament to the fact that the clothes will be suitable today and 40 years from today, or even 80 years from today, although my son (now 3) will have to be the one carrying on the tradition by then.



> 3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?


Yes, but it is still alive in a few isolated communities around the country. It may not be mainstream, but that is because of insidious influences like TV and movies that promote anti-Trad values (and clothes) for their own financial gain. They can all go straight to hell.



> 4) Is trad conservative?


Yes, thank God. (I mean that in the social/cultural/personal sense, not the political sense. Discussion of politics is unseemly.)



> 5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear?


No, they cannot be so divorced.

Yes, Trad clothing signifies a connection to the American upper-middle class. Of course, class signifiers include clothes, but as in all cultures, they also include manner of speech, the subject of one's concerns, interests and hobbies, schools attended, and an understanding of certain alcoholic drinks.



> 6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group?


Is this a trick question?



> 7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.


These things matter a great deal.

And to answer your question: an older Volvo, something that hunts or can at least catch a tennis ball, and yes, please, with tonic and a lime.


----------



## Larchmont (Jan 2, 2005)

Christian:

While I thought my first comment should be that I would like to see Andy or a moderator post that this is an acceptable use of this forum I will instead welcome the questions as interesting and at least potentially informative.

I would think that forum members would not be the primary focus of the story if it to be about “trad” but it is your article. My first suggestion is to use the search function extensively as there are volumes about defining (and not defining) trad.

I will be happy to participate through this forum for the story on background. Birth, marriage and death are the only times I would like my name to be in print. 

On to the questions.


1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal?

I cannot answer this one since dad, grampa, and great grampa all dressed the same. The 70’s were a bad time, but that is probably a low point of many things other than trad. No silver spoon was delivered to my house upon my birth but my silver baby cup does sit tarnished on my bathroom sink holding Q-tips.

2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?

Clothing style. Values that may be attributed to trad were from my upbringing. Parents, nuns, friends, and siblings all added to my set of values. The fact that I was wearing khakis during most of my life does not attribute to my values. (not sure I used “attribute” correctly but I am not a freelance writer.)

3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?

No. Walk into a Blockbuster wearing khakis and a blue OCBD and you will feel so mainstream that people will assume you work there.

4) Is trad conservative?

In dress, yes. In everything else, no.

5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear?

No. While it may be hard to find, there are many primary schools that have dress codes / uniforms that are trad. The goal is to flatten the curve so all students are relatively equal, blurring the lines so to not distinguish the scholarship child from the trust fund child.

And, no. Hip Hop, Armani, Members Only, Gotti, Miami Vice -> all invoke class signifying images. A bunch of blonde men on Cape Cod in the 50’s and 60’s playing touch football while wearing khakis and OCBD’s may have been class-signifying but I think it was the political dynasty thing and not the clothes that immortalized those images.

6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group?

I do not know. I know I can spot a Brooks Brothers cordovan tassel loafer from across a room but it does not mean that we are in a secret club.

7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.?

For laughs. Get a copy of the OPH and see where making fun of yourself can be captured for all ages.


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

Chensvold said:


> Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?


Our common denominator, it seems, is that we all value civility and independence yet our DNA is cursed (or blessed) with tribalism. For every trad who might be caught up into consumerism or fashion or living a warped "anachronistic" hobby of trad, there are ten more who are frugal and prefer simplicity. A lot of us can look in our closets and find clothes we've had for 20 years ... and feel great about it.

Because values and politics are cousins, there's something else implied: That is, where do we fall on the political spectrum? Because we never talk politics on the forum (for obvious reasons), it's not easy to tell, but I'd guess we're spread pretty evenly, from left to right (or right to left), indifferent to wonkish. That said, count me as a McGovern Democrat and Nancy Pelosi fan.


----------



## MichaelB (Dec 17, 2004)

*I'd like to read the article when it appears.*



Chensvold said:


> Good afternoon. Andy has given me his blessing to post this thread. I'm a freelance style writer (LA Times, L'Uomo Vogue, Robb Report) and the webmaster of Dandyism.net. I'm on assignment for the San Francisco Chronicle, doing a major feature story on trad, which I became interested in after discovering this forum. I'd like this forum and its members to be a primary focus of the story, since as far as I know this is the largest gathering of trad aficionados on the Internet.
> 
> I've been following the forum fairly closely, but I would like some fresh answers on the origin of the term "trad" and how it differs from "preppy," plus any other basics you deem necessary.
> 
> ...


Good luck with the writing--looking forward to it.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Christian, I thought you were still running around nekkid (or nearly so) on Tahiti. Are you back?


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

JLibourel said:


> Christian, I thought you were still running around nekkid (or nearly so) on Tahiti. Are you back?


I'm beginning to wonder if he ever went. And feeling a little disillusioned.


----------



## Kimo (Sep 16, 2005)

1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal? 

The look is attractive, solid, classic, subtle and unusual. 

2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values? 

As fashion is an expression of values, my answer would be “yes” . Values expressed are investment for quality, classic American style, simple silhouette, comfort without sloth, upscale without flash, and subtlety. And above all it is masculine. In a thinking way. 

3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture? 
Yes- although Trad may be making a contemporary comeback. 

4) Is trad conservative? 
Yes. Except for it’s beloved go-to-hell aberrations, it is strictly old skool, what’s worked before, what still is workin’ sort of deal. New avant garde looks are in opposition to “trad”. 

5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear? 

Class connotations cannot be divorced from trad. However beware that your connotations may be out of date. Today it begins with a eye for quality, classic silhouette, and a recognition that once upon a time, Men’s fashion in America had it right. 

6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group? 

I don’t wear Trad in order to be a part of a group- in fact I wear it to be more of myself (and to reflect where I’ve come from).

7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.? 

Like any group of enthusiasts who share similar tastes in haberdashery- they like to share tips in other realms in order to further their appreciation and enjoyment of life.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

_1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal?_
It's an attempt to pull one's self away from trendy fashion while still remaining stylish.

_2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?_
Traditional values are admirable, but the clothes I wear and the lifestyle I choose are not directly related.

_3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?_
Me being here and answering questions on this board about style runs counter to the mainstream. Most people are so obsessed with 'comfort' and 'individuality' (somehow marketed as same but put into action as bland conformity) that they're convinced that dressing badly somehow makes them an individual. I am not one of those people.

_4) Is trad conservative?_
From a political standpoint, no. From a practicality standpoint, yes.

_5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear?_
I'd divorce them, because trad's basic elements are accessable to just about anyone. You can even do trad at Wal-Mart if you choose.

_6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group?_
In a way, yes, but not really. It commodifies things too much by making us like the Goths, Preps, NASCAR Dads, et cetera. Trad has a larger umbrella than most buzz-worthy subcultures and isn't as tied to lifestyle marketing. My version of trad may be a lot different than yours, though we may both shop at Brooks Brothers.

_7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.?_
The rest of the world is not like AAAC. We're a family here, but that doesn't mean that everyone who dresses trad is part of our world.


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

^ nice.


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

I've posted a lot recently about the cultural, social and historical implications of trad, and haven't too much to add. The shortest possible definition of trad is that it is what preppy was before the Preppy Handbook and Ralph Lauren commodified a look that had been known as good taste, or simply couth. Naming the style exposed it to scrutiny, inspired many less than inspiring immitations, and in my opinon, created the situation we have today, where, to paraphrase Michael Brooks from BoBos in Paradise, it is more prestigious to look like Franz Kafka than to look like Paul Newman. Preppy now has nothing to do with prep schools and tiny colleges in the Northeast, and is used by suburban high schoolers as an umbrealla term for all sorts of crass middle class commercialism and any vaguely clean cut 'rich kid'. Trad clothes are made of heavier materials, boxier cuts, and tamer colors (GTH pants excepted) than most of what passes for preppy today. Trad is a blue blazer and a repp tie. You really need to slog through the Big Thread; all of this has been said much better before. 

I also want to add that a far more interesting article might be one about the network of stores and makers who sell almost exclusively traditional clothing. Talk to Cable Car in San Fran, O'Connell's in Buffalo, J. Press, The Andover Shop, Quoddy Trail, Alden, Bill's, Mercer and Sons and Ben Silver. I don't consider my story anything worth telling, but these merchants and the way that small stores in once traditional cities like Cable Car have survived (I'm guessing trough the internet, how very untraditional), and the way Ben Silver has stepped in to fill a role that Brooks Brothers held for at least 100 years, as arbiter of taste to the upper middle class, is fascinating. As them about how things have changed how they have grown through the internet. As much as I try not to fetishize the free market, this story is about economics. It is about people who noticed that after the 80s preppy revival died down, places like Brooks Brothers and L.L. Bean shipped production overseas, changed well-loved styles and dropped quality to maintain the market share that the preppy boom had given tham. There was a demand for a certian no frills, but very high quality clothing in classic American styles. Perhaps the demand isn't as great as it once was, but clearly, it is still here. It took some time, but companies like Bill's have come into existance, and Ben Silver has taken on a new role. Also, the internet allows people from all over the world learn about little stores they never would have heard of before. I knew most of the trad "rules" before I came to this site, but I didn't know where I could get a an Oxford cloth shirt like the ones Brooks used to make, now I have Mercer. I also knew about most of the stores, having shopped at Andover, J.Press, among others, but I never would have found O'Connell's without this site. While I'm a bi-coastal guy and always been in reasonably trad circles, this site also helps connect people who never would have found out about this stuff with places where they can get it. Trad afficianado I may be, but I think the story of the merchants of trad is far more interesting than anything I could tell you.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I can't imagine an article coming from this, no two members of this forum will ever actually agree on what is "trad". I doubt it really exists outside of this forum, in any quantifiable form. When we spot "trads" on the street, are we really just projecting our own fantasies?


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

*i'm being kind of random*



Doctor Damage said:


> ... no two members of this forum will ever actually agree on what is "trad". I doubt it really exists outside of this forum, in any quantifiable form. When we spot "trads" on the street, are we really just projecting our own fantasies?


I'd bet the marketing people at Brooks Brothers or J Press or Ben Silver would disagree that trad doesn't exist in a quantifiable form. It's worth millions to them every quarter.

I don't know who said it so perfectly (somewhere here), but you know trad when you see it. When it comes to describing or defining trad, I think this trad community agrees far more than it disagrees. I also think we find things to pick a part ... otherwise, we wouldn't have much to go back and forth on. It's often the contrarians (or curmudgeons) that make this place interesting.

Within trad, there's plenty of room for personal style and quirks and pet peeves and interpretations... the last thing I want is the feeling of wearing period costume or trying to re-enact the days of my grandfather.

btw, good post septa.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal?

It's a very strong, distinct aesthetic, and you like it or you don't. Like anchovies.

I also have a deep fascination with all mid-20th-century Americana, and trad clothing is a way to practically indulge that interest in everyday life.

I just love the look of the stuff, and the way I look when I'm wearing it.

2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?

It's strictly a clothing style for me. It's "values" are aesthetic ones: understatement, subtlety, retro, etc. I also love its selective Anglophilia--taking the the best English style has to offer (tartans, regimental stripes, tattersalls, flannels, etc.) and "Americanizing" it with comfort and a degree of informality that is nonetheless always "correct."

And it makes you look smart.

3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?

Yes, sadly. I can't understand the mass population's failure to realize that everything--I mean everything--looked so much better fifty or sixty years ago. Phones, cars, clothes, billboards, everything. 

4) Is trad conservative?

Yeas and no--it's classic, but hardly any contemporary pillars of conservatism wear it. Politically? I couldn't care less.

5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear?

I hope so. Whenever class considerations enter into it, the subject becomes uncomfortable or downright ugly. I think those out to impress with their social status have left trad behind--they're now in Kiton and Brioni, or in bespoke stuff. Hardcore trad has almost an eccentric, absent-minded professor quality to it today, I think.

6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group?

Ick. A very distasteful notion. I don't associate with people based on dress code.

7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.?

It's a goof. I suppose there are some sad, insecure people who are trying to conform to some class fantasy and are unsure of their own taste, but that has to be a tiny minority.


----------



## York (May 4, 2006)

*Answers*

1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal?

Although several of the older members of my extended family are fairly "trad," I only realized that their manner of dress was part of a broader style when I matriculated at a small New England liberal arts college in 2000. I didn't know the "trad" look by that name until I found this site last year. While I'm not purely trad, I appreciate the style because I find it aesthetically appealing, and associate it with understated modesty, moderation, tradition, stoicism, and public service. In short, it's very New England, and I am a New England native who appreciates the region and its values.

2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?

Trad is undoubtedly associated with certain values. Politeness, modesty, a certain degree of stoicism, traditionalism, intellectuality. Some here might disagree, but I am of the opinion that a loud, slick personality is just as untrad as a loud, slick suit.

3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?

Yes. Trad is opposed to two of the major strains in American culture: On the one hand, it rejects the mainstream consumer culture that embraces everything big, loud, tacky, and garish: SUVs and McMansions; MTV; Fox News; People Magazine; megachurches. On the other hand, it also rejects the artificial bohemianism of ironic, cynical hipsters, who adopt an attitude of perpetual detachment and look longingly towards Europe. (In other words, trad isn't cool.)

4) Is trad conservative?

Absolutely. Trad is traditional. But it isn't necessarily politically conservative. For one thing, much of what passes for political conservatism today is more radical than traditional. (George H.W. Bush is trad; his son certainly isn't.) Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a liberal, was one of the great trads. And I'm a Democrat, for whatever it's worth.

5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear?

It depends what you mean by "class." If you just mean economic class, then no, trad certainly isn't the most class-signifying clothing you can wear. If you want everybody to know you're really rich, buy a mink coat, a Rolex, a sleek Armani suit, a red Ferarri, and a giant house in Malibu. If you mean social class, then the answer is more complicated. Thankfully, the days when "trad" might have meant "white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant" are behind us, and today one can be very trad and come from any ethnic, national, or religious background. It's just a style of dress and a state of mind.

6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group?

No, not at all. I only have a couple other friends who are at all trad, and they are only trad unconsciously. None of them read this board, to my knowledge, although they would appreciate some of the sentiments expressed here. I also feel no need to conform to the rules of trad as laid out by various posters on this board. It's more that I tend to appreciate their aesthetic sensibilities.

7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.?

For the same reason that somebody who is a pacifist is more likely to support abortion rights, I would imagine. If you have a "trad" outlook on the world, you're likely to appreciate the same sorts of things that other trads do. Old tweed blazers, boxy Volvo station wagons, and spaniels don't necessarily have anything in common, but I think you can see why somebody who likes one of the above might have an affinity for the others.


----------



## knickerbacker (Jun 27, 2005)

As a resident of San Francisco and a contributor to AAAC's trad forum, I'll bite. I've sent the thread starter a PM and will see what develops.
More on this later.


----------



## MichaelB (Dec 17, 2004)

York said:


> 1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal?
> 
> Although several of the older members of my extended family are fairly "trad," I only realized that their manner of dress was part of a broader style when I matriculated at a small New England liberal arts college in 2000. I didn't know the "trad" look by that name until I found this site last year. While I'm not purely trad, I appreciate the style because I find it aesthetically appealing, and associate it with understated modesty, moderation, tradition, stoicism, and public service. In short, it's very New England, and I am a New England native who appreciates the region and its values.
> 
> ...


A glass to your health, York! Well said. To those amongst us who deplore the "big, loud, tacky and garish" times we live in, a kindred spirit is always welcome.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Chensvold said:


> 2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?
> 
> 3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?
> 
> ...


I've been thinking long and hard about this and I'd like to address these 4 points as a group. They're quite worrying frankly. There was a time when you'd describe a man as conservative and know a lot about him. He's a solid guy. Doesn't spend recklessly. Faithful to his wife and family. Good member of the community. Probalby a church goer but not necessarily. Good worker. Dependable. What you couldn't tell with ant certainty was his political beliefs.

Now when you describe someone as conservative you immediately draw one of two responses: 
1. Good, he's one of us. 
2. Die in a fire with all your Republican friends. 
It doesn't mean the same thing any more. The meaning of the word in American culture has changed. This makes it difficult when we start to describe clothing, which by it's very nature is apolitical, as conservative especially when we start to try and assign a value set to the wearer of said clothes. 
The trad we discuss here is clothes. Sometimes other objects such as cars, boats, pens, dogs (can we call them an object?) and wifes (which we certainly cannot call an object) are discussed. Sometimes we're serious like when we discuss pleats and darts. Other times we're quite silly like when we discuss the proper hobby livestock for an aspiring country squire. We don't talk politics. Trad trancends politics. 
Those 4 questions above are all charged questions. The answers create a profile of a person that is seperate from the clothes. That may be what you're looking for as an author but it does a disservice to the clothing and the wearers. By doing that you're going to inevitably create a profile of a Trad. That profile will come across in your article and now you'll help to create an association between a clothing style and a type of person that does not exist. Trad is a big house. In the past it was even bigger than it is today and there's no reason it can't be agian unless it gets associated with a certain tribe of person. You've already got guys on here (or the main board at least) that won't wear bow ties because of the negative connotations with Tucker Carlson. Just one guy has taken a perfectly good item of clothing and charged it with political energy to the point that some people feel that they can't wear it. Don't do that with trad. Don't associate it with the cultural or political leanings of the wearers that you find on this message board. You'll fail to capture the full depth of the people that choose this style for themselves. Articles that attempt to bridge the gap between clothes and the people that wear them do nothing but drive people away that like the clothes just for the clothes and attract people looking for a way to build status within a group. The best thing you could do would be to leave any modern social connections out of a discussion of trad. Discuss the clothes. Discuss the history of the clothes. Discuss the future of the clothes. Don't try to make it something that it's not.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

familyman said:


> You've already got guys on here (or the main board at least) that won't wear bow ties because of the negative connotations with Tucker Carlson. Just one guy has taken a perfectly good item of clothing and charged it with political energy to the point that some people feel that they can't wear it.


Or because we realized, long before we had seen Tucker Carlson, that bow ties made us look like a stuffed animal with a bow under its chin at the local cards-and-gifts shop.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

Amen to that, Family!

Let's leave class out of it. The men on this board are as diverse socially, politically and otherwise as is the whole of America. But we are united by a love of the particular type of clothing which has (on this board anyway) come to be known as trad.

My two cents as a newer member here:

The trad tenets:
other than GTH clothing, quality, basic clothes that have remained dignified and acceptable for the last 50 years or so and will remain so for the next 50 years. when wearing trad, one is dressed appropriately for any situation - from a tailgate to a party. often Made in America.

OCBD, sack navy blazer, bills khakis, gray flannel trousers, penny or tassel 
loafers, repp ties, bow or regular, shetland sweaters, boat shoes, grosgrain watch straps and belts.

One poster said trad is appearing (to others) a bit formally dressed for casual events and casually dressed for formal events.

any type of clothing that is 'fashionable' is not trad.

anything one would wear and then cringe to see in a photograph 2 years later is not trad.

not to say there is not a bit of style in trad - but it is usually not ostentatious. a flash of color in an argyle sock, grosgrain ribbon belt or watch band - a pocket square or bow tie.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*Familyman, you knocked the ball out of the park with this one.*



familyman said:


> I've been thinking long and hard about this and I'd like to address these 4 points as a group. They're quite worrying frankly. There was a time when you'd describe a man as conservative and know a lot about him. He's a solid guy. Doesn't spend recklessly. Faithful to his wife and family. Good member of the community. Probalby a church goer but not necessarily. Good worker. Dependable. What you couldn't tell with ant certainty was his political beliefs.
> 
> Now when you describe someone as conservative you immediately draw one of two responses:
> 1. Good, he's one of us.
> ...


I nominate this for best post of the year.


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

Familyman, 
That is an excellent post. You perfectly sum up how the meaning of conservative has changed. Very well said.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

I want to add one small thing, which you (Christian) may already be aware of given your background.

In California, not so very long ago, or at least in certain parts (up north, mostly), "trad" (or whatever we wish to call it now) was the expected way for men to dress. This was certainly true in my family, and among the friends and associates of my parents and extended family. We fit the "trad" demographic not at all, not by even a single criterion. I don't recall even being aware, at the time, that there was anything regional or class-based or "Ivy league" about this way of dressing. Yet I never questioned that this was the ONLY way to dress. It was the AMERICAN way to dress. It was the way my father, grandfathers, uncles and seemingly everyone else dressed. Shirts were oxford cloth button-downs. THE dress shoe was a cordovan wing-tip; second, a tassel loafer; third a penny loafer. Throw in dirty bucks, and your feet were covered. Alden or J&M. Ties came from Robert Talbott of Carmel, long before they went Italian and seven-fold: all repp stripes (right over left, the American way) and neat prints. Everyone had a blazer, a three-roll-two sack. When you got your first suit, it was the same model, but in solid gray. Pleated dress pants were considered anathema, as I discovered after I saw them on a TV character and asked my mother to buy some for me; she refused. Etc. There were even little trad haberdashers in most of the college towns. In college, day-to-day, the guys dressed like slobs. For any occasion that required a tie, we were pretty much all trad.

Keep in mind that I am talking about business and otherwise "dressy" clothes here. Casual clothes were much more subject to the whims of fashion. There were no Natucket reds or anything like that, that I can recall. Yet even with respect to casual clothes, the preppy look (dumbed down, I suppose) was widely seen. I believe the first time I heard the term "preppy" was when I saw Lisa Birnbach interviewed by Jane Pauley on the Today Show. I never owned the book, but it was very popular with some, especially teenage girls.

Why this should have been so, I don't know. In looking back, the best explanation I can conjour up is that we were all aping (the older ones more conciously, the rest of us unconciously or unknowingly) the old San Francisco upper class, which was at the time breathing its last heady breaths as California's almost hereditary ruling elite. (Old joke: Members of the Jonathan Club run California; members of the California Club own California; members of the Pacific Union Club ARE California.) Old San Francisco society and the business community were extremely trad. So much so that, in 1977, Molloy wrote in _Dress for Success _that the dress codes for San Francisco and Boston were identical. I think he got that right. Time was, you could have shot the entire Brooks catalouge in four locations: the corner of California and Montgomery, the Pac Union Club, the St. Francis Yacht Club, and the Olympic Club. The other influence, I think, was the huge contingent of Ivy Leaguers and Northeasterners who ended up on the faculty and in the administration at Stanford and especially at Berkeley and set the cultural, social, and sartorial tone for those places. They were respected back in the day, and their influence rippled outward. That, and the students took their style home with them.

Things were different down south, however. There was, and is, a trad contingent in Pasadena, San Marino, and (less and less) Hancock Park. But downtown and on the West Side, anything goes (and went). I remember the first time a family member had to do some major business down there. He partnered up with one of those monster downtown L.A. firms. His associate wore nothing but Hermes ties and Italian suits. Confidence in the trad was shaken. Envy slithered into the garden.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*Manton, very nice piece.*



manton said:


> I want to add one small thing, which you (Christian) may already be aware of given your background.
> 
> In California, not so very long ago, or at least in certain parts (up north, mostly), "trad" (or whatever we wish to call it now) was the expected way for men to dress. This was certainly true in my family, and among the friends and associates of my parents and extended family. We fit the "trad" demographic not at all, not by even a single criteria. I don't recall even being aware, at the time, that there was anything regional or class-based or "Ivy league" about this way of dressing. Yet I never questioned that this was the ONLY way to dress. Shirts were oxford button-downs. THE dress shoe was a cordovan wing-tip; second, a tassel loafer; third a penny loafer. Throw in dirty bucks, and your feet were covered. Ties came from Robert Talbott, long before they went Italian and seven-fold; all repp stripes and neat prints. Everyone had a blazer, a three-roll-two sack. When you got your first suit, it was the same model, but in solid gray. Etc. There were even little trad haberdashers in most of the college towns. In college, day to day, the guys dressed like slobs. For any occasioan that required a tie, we were pretty much all trad.
> 
> ...


I nominate this for second-best post of the year. Such effortless imagery.

Nice.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

I agree with whoever said that there's a lot of light-making behind what has become something of a phenomenon (albeit amidst a tiny online community). If you look and listen very, very closely, you can see and hear the tongue-in-cheekness of and behind the "Trad this" or "Trad that." Even the apparently strident defenses of a supposed "Trad orthodoxy" might, upon a microscopic inspection, appear to be they are: bit--if only just a bit--of lampoonery. There's wee bit of jest and folly amidst the confessed seriousness, and without a doubt the better examples are the posts which have to do with Trad this-or-that, including dogs, cars, and, if memory serves, haircuts. Bad haircuts.

It's almost impossibe to hear the chuckles behind the defenses of the origin of the word "Trad" or promotion of certain "trad approaches toward mashing potatoes" or whatever. 

But if you listen very closely, you'll hear them. Some chain-yanking going on, no doubt. What might at a first glance seem to be serious is actually satire. This is not to detract from the reality, but the element of fun-poking is essential.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Harris said:


> What might at a first glance seem to be serious is actually satire. The element of fun-poking is essential.


Oh now you went and spoiled it - jeeze - just give it all away. Glad we weren't in skull and Bones together - :devil:


----------



## Smudger (Jun 11, 2005)

*Trad*

Christian,

Growing up in the 1950's in the South, we all dressed in a conservative style for which we did not have, or at least I never heard, a name. All the boys seemed to be dressed very similarily. I dressed like my father and I still have some of his clothes that I continue to wear. In the mid-60's , fashion went beserk and soon the disco-double knit purgatory came into vogue. I felt a little like Ronald McDonald in double-knits, bell-bottomed trouses and high-heeled shoes and sideburns so I drifted back to what my father wore.....weejuns, khakis, and ocbs. I wore repp and regimental ties in medical school when it was not required and have continued to wear ties as much as possible as I wish to convey to people that I am responsible, I work hard, have conservative cultural values, and I am law abiding. Now, whether or not those conclusions will be reached by others is another debate. It was not until the OPHB came out that I learned of the label "preppy". I am not sure where the term "trad" originated, but it seems to harken back to the post WW2 era when all the returning G.I.s wore their military issue khakis to college when the G.I. Bill allowed them to do so. Whati s definitely not trad are the following: tattoes; piercings ;hip-huggers; torn bluejeans; flip-flops; anything with Abercombie and Fitch on it, and above all, wearing pajamas to classes. A male member of the Republican Party with earings is a oxymoron. Having impecciable manners is also an important part of being "trad". IMHO, having a well-rounded education is immensely important!!! One should not pontificate about what de Tocqueville said unless you have, indeed, read his works. Having a sense of history is important and being a Britannio-phil is a must. In sports, good sportsmanship should be paramount and alternative sports at the college level are very "trad". It is better to follow lacrosse at Hampden-Sydney than to follow " Gianormous University's" professional football team. In summary, it is not easy to define "trad" as it can mean many things to others, but, for what it is worth, these are a few thoughts I wish to share.

Bill


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

Don't forget the Japanese. Now those folks know Trad. Hell, they don't know it - - they own it.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

As someone who is peripheral to the Trad culture, my observation would be that there are two types of Trads:

The first would be what I call Conscious Trads: Men who dress in this manner actively seek a certain look. They also in all probability identify with the subculture and lifestyle such apparel symbolizes (something not infrequently exploited by Ralph Lauren and Brooks in their advertising).

More interesting to my lights are the Unconscious Trads. These are men who dress in this manner because that's how they learned to dress early in life. It's their idea of looking good, and that's how their tastes run. There is no conscious decision to conform to a "look," much less a lifestyle. My boss, who attended a New England prep school and whose father was a professor of classics at some northeastern university, is a good example of this. When I twitted him about dressing "Trad," he was bemused. He remarked, "Well, I don't think too much about what I get, I just always bought my good clothing at Brooks Brothers." (Nuff said.) My father-in-law is another good example of this. He was totally New England raised and educated (Exeter and Harvard). He has been, as was his father before him, a longtime Brooks customer. On one of my most recent visits to him he was complaining that J. Press ("J. Squeeze," as he prefers to call it) had sent him a grossgrain watchband in the "Princeton colors." I took a close look at it and assured him the watchband was not orange and black but orange and navy. Fussing about a J. Press grossgrain watchband--how much more Trad can you get? But he doesn't see his style as any kind of philosophical statement, lifestyle choice or anything of the sort. It's just what he is--Trad to the bone...and without even thinking about it.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Smudger's excellent post brings something to mind:

It might be helpful/beneficial to watch, or (if you've seen it before) re-watch a film that's received much attention from this forum's members: Metropolitan. Written and directed by Whit Stillman. Lots about the decline of standards--both sartorial/aesthetic and otherwise--and how at least a few among a certain generation lamented such a decline. A shallow interpretation of the story is that it's about WASPs watching as social privileges slip away. Stillman has two characters in particular--Nick Smith and Charlie Black--offering insights into the importance of maintaining certain standards and values, even as they're easily mocked or dismissed as archaic. At one point the disappearance of detachable collars is grieved; the response is that "more than detachable collars" is being talked about. That's it in a nutshell: the tragic loss of certain traditions.

The "villain" is a gent named Rick Von Slonecker. He's portrayed by Stillman as the most nose-in-the-air aristocratic of the bunch. His "aristocracy" is actually a reverse (and thus lazy) snobbery in disguise: he claims to not take much of anything seriously, including the preservation and maintenance of something so (for him) trivial as the NYC debutante season. He presents himself as "above it all"--not at all preoccupied with anything that the upper middle-class (read: self-conscious and striving) bourgeoisie take seriously, including everything that the uber-traditionalist Nick Smith applauds and exalts. Nick Smith plays bridge not because he likes bridge. In fact, he doesn't like bridge. He plays in the name of preserving and maintaining a convention that is, according to the values he cherishes, worth preserving and maintaining.

I wonder if a subtle message of the film is that the easiest (and worst?) thing to be is a Rick Von Slonecker--someone who, whatever their class or station in life, dares to mock or ridicule the seriousness with which a minority strive to safeguard certain time-honored traditions that have importance if only because they define a certain community. Nick Smith disappears eventually, but not before revealing Von Slonecker as a "scoundrel" and converting a formerly leftist-leaning leveler named Tom. Interesting. The self-consciousness and even noble fear that mark the striving of the very bourgeois Nick Smith are revealed to be rather heroic, while The ennui-drenched aristocratic tone of Von Slonecker is portrayed as rude, and, further, just plain spiteful.

The film has received praise from modern-day conservatives, both cultural and political. Easy to see why. It was also a hit among a few in a certain border state that may be either Southern or Mid-Atlantic (depending on the map), where certain values, traditions, and ways of life are disappearing. More than a few people can identify with the effort to preserve and maintain certain traditions and standards that have stood the test of time.


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

Harris said:


> The film has received praise from modern-day conservatives, both cultural and political.


Huh? Metropolitan recieved praise all the way around. It's a classic. No reason to politicize. In fact, it sounds like an attempt to co-opt something that's not there.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

https://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_urbanities-a_great_conservative.html

https://www.slate.com/id/2136426/

https://www.frieze.com/column_single.asp?c=311


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

*No offense to those to the manner born, but...*



JLibourel said:


> As someone who is peripheral to the Trad culture, my observation would be that there are two types of Trads:
> 
> The first would be what I call Conscious Trads: Men who dress in this manner actively seek a certain look. They also in all probability identify with the subculture and lifestyle such apparel symbolizes (something not infrequently exploited by Ralph Lauren and Brooks in their advertising).
> 
> More interesting to my lights are the Unconscious Trads. These are men who dress in this manner because that's how they learned to dress early in life. It's their idea of looking good, and that's how their tastes run. There is no conscious decision to conform to a "look," much less a lifestyle. My boss, who attended a New England prep school and whose father was a professor of classics at some northeastern university, is a good example of this. When I twitted him about dressing "Trad," he was bemused. He remarked, "Well, I don't think too much about what I get, I just always bought my good clothing at Brooks Brothers." (Nuff said.) My father-in-law is another good example of this. He was totally New England raised and educated (Exeter and Harvard). He has been, as was his father before him, a longtime Brooks customer. On one of my most recent visits to him he was complaining that J. Press ("J. Squeeze," as he prefers to call it) had sent him a grossgrain watchband in the "Princeton colors." I took a close look at it and assured him the watchband was not orange and black but orange and navy. Fussing about a J. Press grossgrain watchband--how much more Trad can you get? But he doesn't see his style as any kind of philosophical statement, lifestyle choice or anything of the sort. It's just what he is--Trad to the bone...and without even thinking about it.


I'm struck by your post, as from my perspective the exact opposite is true.

I keep thinking about the movie "The Talented Mr. Ripley"--Ripley is a self-hating opportunist who worms his way into the gilded life of rich kid Dickie Greenleaf, appropriating Dickie's tastes, mannerisms, and, ultimately, his identity.

Ripley is a complex, tragic, fascinating character. His outsider status allows him to profoundly appreciate the accoutrements of Dickie's lifestyle that that the priviliged princeling--like one of Fitzgerald's "careless" rich--takes for granted. Dickie has the charm, the ease, the pedigree...and that's about it.

"The Talented Mr. Ripley" (great title--those without resources must rely on talent, creativity, invention) is a hell of a yarn; "The Complacent Mr. Greenleaf" would be a complete snooze.

I relate a little to Ripley--my devotion to the trad style was motivated not by self-hatred, but by disgust for the anti-intellectual, uncultured, strip-mall hellhole of a midwestern town where I had the misfortune to spend my teen years. If dad and granddad had always shopped at Brooks (we hear this one a lot), I doubt I would get the same thrill I do now strolling through the flagship. I got there on my own, guided my own interest and will.

Give me the insecure John O'Hara over the mandarin William Buckley, perceptive Nick Carraway and dreamy Gatsby over smug Tom Buchanan, touchy Tom Townsend over the diffident Charlie Black. It's when the outsider with an agenda enters the picture that the story gets interesting.


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

Harris said:


> https://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_urbanities-a_great_conservative.html
> 
> https://www.slate.com/id/2136426/
> 
> https://www.frieze.com/column_single.asp?c=311


I'm no expert, but my opinion is that Stillman's films are sociological, not political. My apologies if I struck a chord.


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

Ripley is a self-hating opportunist who worms his way into the gilded life of rich kid Dickie Greenleaf, appropriating Dickie's tastes, mannerisms, and, ultimately, his identity.

I'm not sure about this...I thought it was evident that Ripley was gay and had horrible taste. I cite the scene where Ripley is visited by Freddie (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). Freddie takes a look around the apartment and can't believe it belongs to Dickie noting the over the top sculptures and the heavy "Louis the whatever" of the entire room. 

Ripley was self hating but he stuck to his own tastes.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

"I relate a little to Ripley--my devotion to the trad style was motivated not by self-hatred, but by disgust for the anti-intellectual, uncultured, strip-mall hellhole of a midwestern town where I had the misfortune to spend my teen years. If dad and granddad had always shopped at Brooks (we hear this one a lot), I doubt I would get the same thrill I do now strolling through the flagship. I got there on my own, guided my own interest and will."
--Brownshoe

I think there's nothing at all wrong with this, so long as it doesn't lead to an immediate suspicion that the only appropriate way to "get there" is through one's "own interest and will." I should think that if/when talk of learning about clothes and traditions and manners from forebears is quickly dismissed as myth-making and caricature-creation, it reveals more about the one doing the dismissing--the cynic--than the reflection upon what's been learned. The sense of outrage toward a culture marked by fathers who would dare pass on such things to sons: it's odd.


----------



## sweetness360 (Dec 13, 2005)

tintin said:


> I thought it was evident that Ripley was gay and had horrible taste.
> 
> 
> > Not to stray too far from clothes, but this is evident in the sequel Ripley's Game with John Malkovitch. Ripley owns a beautiful villa in tuscany but the locals lament that he has overrestored it and ripped out its soul. I'd definitely recommend the sequel for an entertaining movie, if not as lavish as the first.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

I was also going to recommend watching Metropolitan, at least twice. The second viewing will allow you to dive into it a bit more. The movie itself, like trad, is a bit timeless. It could have been placed nearly anytime from 1950-1990. One reviewer critiqued it, saying the characters sat around having pretentious conversations (the conversation at the table about French cinema and the Surrealists all being a bunch of social climbers). Such a conversation would not be out of place here (several times, members of this board have at the same time been watching the same shows on CSPAN or PBS).

Read the sticky thread "Photos of American Trad men". Perhaps permission from one of these great photos can be granted for publication. Looking at it I found out I have worn almost the exact same outfit as Lincoln Chaffee and didn't even know it (Brooks poplin sack suit, yellow button down, Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders regimental tie). 
Read these threads as well:
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=51246&highlight=trad
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=54116&highlight=tnsil

Here are some questions to get the discussion going:

_2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?_
Both. That tradition and the status quo is there for a reason and is to be appreciated (Audrey Rouget from Metropolitian would echo this). That paying more up front for quality that will last, and a style that will last, is worth it. If it's a trend that will have passed in two seasons anyway, why care about quality? If you plan to wear it a decade from now, it makes good sense that it's good quality and conservatively styled.

_3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?_ While trad has an upper-middle class background (because it's impolite to say you're rich), it is against conspicious consumption, which is wasteful. There isn't much bling-bling at J.Press.

_4) Is trad conservative?_
Politically, no. But most of us don't find William F. Buckley pretentious, and we like the fact that John Bolton wears 3 button sack suits, rep ties, button down collars and Alden tassel loafers to the UN infront of the world's diplomats. How American of him.

_5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear?_
Loafers, flat front chinos, button down collar shirts, and blue blazers, taken individually, aren't necessarily class-signifying. Together, maybe, I don't know. I think a closet from the Harley Davidson boutique and a $20,000 motorcycle that rides in a trailer is more class signifying than a Brooks Card.

_6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group?_ I don't understand the question really, but it is nice to see someone who's top jacket button is turned under the lapel and know they are "one of us". Today it means, for whatever reason, that thier suit and thier tastes are part of the small minority that care about certain things. It means they probably also think modern ties are too wide and that loafers are always appropriate.

_7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.?_ Much of it is in jest, but any group of people that share one interest in common, will often share many other interests. Older mid-size SUVs (Jeep Wagoneer, Grand Cherokee, assorted Land Rovers), retrievers, spaniels, pointers, and setters useful for hunting (that ride in your SUV), and Gordon's, if you're asking me.

As an aside, I am one of the members here that is (well) under 30 years old.

Also, while no one here will probably publically volunteer to participate in an interview (that wouldn't be very trad), more would probably participate if politely and privately asked. Having to be photographed, and being far from San Fran, will preclude many though.


----------



## FerrisBueller (Sep 23, 2006)

Harris said:


> I agree with whoever said that there's a lot of light-making behind what has become something of a phenomenon (albeit amidst a tiny online community). If you look and listen very, very closely, you can see and hear the tongue-in-cheekness of and behind it all. Even the apparently strident defenses of a supposed "Trad orthodoxy" might, upon a microscopic inspection, appear to be they are: bit of lampoonery. There's jest and folly amidst it all, and without a doubt the better examples are the posts which have to do with Trad this-or-that, including dogs, cars, and, if memory serves, haircuts.
> 
> It's almost impossibe to hear the chuckles behind the defenses of the origin of the word "Trad" or promotion of certain "trad approaches toward mashing potatoes" or whatever.
> 
> But if you listen very closely, you'll hear them. Some chain-yanking going on, no doubt. What might at a first glance seem to be serious is actually satire. The element of fun-poking is essential.


Interesting. But you must admit there is much entertaining material in abounding in past posts. Case in point:

My father had and used (pejorative) words for the men who "left the fold and tried to look like that Irish bootlegger's overly fashionable grandkid" (JFK). He wasn't talking just about the move from a sack to a heavily padded darted two button. Indeed, he was referring to an entire mindset--an attitude and approach. A style of living, and, more than that, a way of being. The people who don't get the existential aspects of the "Trad thing" can b**ch and whine all they want about all the "Trad this" or "Trad that" topics that seem to replicate (here at AAAC) ad infinitum. Fine. Let 'em. Funny.

The other day I heard a story about an old hippie who bemoans the "lack of authenticity" among young, modern-day, wanna-be hippies: "They don't tie-dye their own shirts and they don't have an appreciation for Beat poetry! They prefer 'modern' bands to the Dead, and they've never sat behind the wheel of a VW van."

The incessant and perhaps irritating laments of crusty, old-fogey Trads like myself aren't so different from those expressed by the old, burned-out, Jerry Garcia-loving hippie. To be sure, a lot of approaches toward life--even the "liberal", Dead-following, Birkenstock-wearing sort--are grounded in a tradition of some kind. When the tradition begins to fade, self-indulgent reminiscence becomes inevitable. Call it grieving.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

Not sure if you still need sources, but drop me a private message. I'm a 22-year-old college student who considers himself a modern trad.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Harris said:


> "I relate a little to Ripley--my devotion to the trad style was motivated not by self-hatred, but by disgust for the anti-intellectual, uncultured, strip-mall hellhole of a midwestern town where I had the misfortune to spend my teen years. If dad and granddad had always shopped at Brooks (we hear this one a lot), I doubt I would get the same thrill I do now strolling through the flagship. I got there on my own, guided my own interest and will."
> --Brownshoe
> 
> I think there's nothing at all wrong with this, so long as it doesn't lead to an immediate suspicion that the only appropriate way to "get there" is through one's "own interest and will." I should think that if/when talk of learning about clothes and traditions and manners from forebears is quickly dismissed as myth-making and caricature-creation, it reveals more about the one doing the dismissing--the cynic--than the reflection upon what's been learned. The sense of outrage toward a culture marked by fathers who would dare pass on such things to sons: it's odd.


I agree completely--

Didn't mean to suggest that the "conscious trad" approach, as defined by Mr. Libourel, was in any way better or more authentic than the unconscious product of tradition--just more interesting to me.

Sorta like:

"Jed, why are you a farmer?"

"Family's been farmin' this land for 9 generations. Never questioned it."

"Fine. Julian, why are you a farmer?"

"Well, after 20 years as an exotic dancer/diamond smuggler..."

That said, I will be delighted if my son chooses to emulate me.


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

tintin said:


> Ripley is a self-hating opportunist who worms his way into the gilded life of rich kid Dickie Greenleaf, appropriating Dickie's tastes, mannerisms, and, ultimately, his identity.
> 
> I'm not sure about this...I thought it was evident that Ripley was gay and had horrible taste. I cite the scene where Ripley is visited by Freddie (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). Freddie takes a look around the apartment and can't believe it belongs to Dickie noting the over the top sculptures and the heavy "Louis the whatever" of the entire room.
> 
> Ripley was self hating but he stuck to his own tastes.


True--but Tom was still finding his way, and you know he adores his "gaudy" furnishings, and put a lot of care into his selections, whereas Dickie probably never gave his possessions a second thought. Tom wanted Dickie's agency--the resources to pursue his love of art, music, culture. That's what makes the character so interesting--the capacity to truly appreciate beauty coexisting with the ruthlessness to kill and plunder to get it.

Not sure how his homosexuality is relevant.

That scene in which Freddie confronts Tom is wonderful: Freddie as the worst case scenario of privilege and breeding, an arrogant, entitled boor who uses his class a blunt weapon, abusing Tom's new piano just to make the arriviste squirm. Theses could be written on the class implications flying around in that sequence.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Brownshoe, I understand what you're saying about the self-consciousness involved with choosing and/or deciding upon American Trad(itional) as one style among many. 

It's that kind of self-consciousness that makes (to borrow from Stillman yet again) Nick Smith and Charlie Black so endearing. It also contributes to what I hope is becoming more obvious: that once that level of self awareness/consciousness is acheived, the inevitable result is parody. Or lampoonery. The joke is not on people who seem/appear to take such things as "trad cars" and "trad dogs" overly seriously. Indeed, I think they get the joke and are having fun with it, even the maintenance of a supposed orthodoxy. The joke, rather, is on people who believe that such discussions are actually being taken terribly seriously. Again, one has to listen closely for the tongue-in-cheekness of it all: it's definitely there, even if subtle. The chuckles abound.

Even if certain tastes and preferences can be passed along from one generation (father) to the next (son), it seems unlikely that any modern-day young person goes with American Trad(itional) by accident. I would guess that nowadays it's mostly a conscious and intentional decision to buck trends that dominate the scene (such as what one might see in GQ magazine or at the local Nordstrom or on Savile Row)--to rebel and "stand out" a bit. To be unique. All of this lends itself to parody. "Look at how distinct I am and differently I look than most other people" is, I would think, the makings for good parody.

I can only hope the playful, self-mocking element--the banter--doesn't get suffocated by the more technical "just clothes" discussions related to such topics as the made-to-measure process and fusing and stitching and differences between shell cordovan and calf and width of cordoroy wales and so on. Just when you think it's all about Horween shell and the quality of Southwick's flannel offerings, somebody ligthens the mood by offering a post like "Trad flip-flops" or "Trad way to use a fork" or "Trad approach toward allowing pink OCBD collar to ascend through shetland crew collar" or "Trad towns in Texas" or "Trad brands of saltine crackers" or "Trad way for Trads named 'Bif' to spread mayonnaise" or whatever. Laughable stuff.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

My dear Harris, not to criticize mind you, but 'Biff' is spelled with two f's. I know from personal experience. A regional variation perhaps, but then if a man doesn't say what he means he will never mean what he says - LOL - :devil:


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

My most sincere and Tradly apologies, mpcsb, old chap/bean/lad/boy/spoon. If an apology could be pink and green madras...well, this one certainly is.

Thus the need for another forum topic: "Tradly ways to spell the name that's usually spelled 'Biff,' taking into account the Trad mores of various Trad regions in the Trad universe."

A mouthful, but surely worth it. We'll get to the bottom of this "Biff" thing, after all!!


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

Harris said:


> I can only hope the playful, self-mocking element--the banter--doesn't get suffocated by the more technical "just clothes" discussions related to such topics as the made-to-measure process and fusing and stitching and differences between shell cordovan and calf and width of cordoroy wales and so on. Just when you think it's all about Horween shell and the quality of Southwick's flannel offerings, somebody ligthens the mood by offering a post like "Trad flip-flops" or "Trad way to use a fork" or "Trad approach toward allowing pink OCBD collar to ascend through shetland crew collar" or "Trad towns in Texas" or "Trad brands of saltine crackers" or "Trad way for Trads named 'Bif' to spread mayonnaise" or whatever. Laughable stuff.


Excellent!! A great point to emphasize. And while some people appear to be perfectly earnest, it doesn't make their commentary or questions any less funny.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

*Harris...*

Well played, as usual.
Cheers


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

manton said:


> I want to add one small thing, which you (Christian) may already be aware of given your background.
> 
> In California, not so very long ago, or at least in certain parts (up north, mostly), "trad" (or whatever we wish to call it now) was the expected way for men to dress. This was certainly true in my family, and among the friends and associates of my parents and extended family. We fit the "trad" demographic not at all, not by even a single criterion. I don't recall even being aware, at the time, that there was anything regional or class-based or "Ivy league" about this way of dressing. Yet I never questioned that this was the ONLY way to dress. It was the AMERICAN way to dress. It was the way my father, grandfathers, uncles and seemingly everyone else dressed. Shirts were oxford cloth button-downs. THE dress shoe was a cordovan wing-tip; second, a tassel loafer; third a penny loafer. Throw in dirty bucks, and your feet were covered. Alden or J&M. Ties came from Robert Talbott of Carmel, long before they went Italian and seven-fold: all repp stripes (right over left, the American way) and neat prints. Everyone had a blazer, a three-roll-two sack. When you got your first suit, it was the same model, but in solid gray. Pleated dress pants were considered anathema, as I discovered after I saw them on a TV character and asked my mother to buy some for me; she refused. Etc. There were even little trad haberdashers in most of the college towns. In college, day-to-day, the guys dressed like slobs. For any occasion that required a tie, we were pretty much all trad.
> 
> ...


Manton, this is an excellent post. It reminds me of stories my mother told me about growing up. She lived in a suburb south of Seattle, along the water, that was filled with the sort of colonial revivals and tudors that people used to live in all over the country. Now it has quite deteriorated. While her upbringing as the child of two Ivy league educated parents, one of whom was a pediatrican and medical professor, can only be described as genteel, her family was decidedly not part of the Lakeside School/Rainer Club/Highlands/Broadmoor/Laurelhurst Old Seattle elite (rojo, you are a seattleite, no? please, correct me on the details if I'm botching things). Yet, things were quite trad in thier house. My grandmother ran a tight ship and allowed no pleats or darts collected early american antiques (with the odd piece of continental religious art) and when it came time for my mother to plan her wedding, finished the whole job in a morning, famously offering my mother four choices for her wedding announcement (crane's, one wording, two fonts, on white or ecru paper), one place to get married, and an organist who only played Bach--and only Bach. I only ever remember my grandfather in brogues or monkstraps from Church's, grey flannels, an ocbd and a repp tie. Most of this was purchased at the Puget Sound area's now closed trad bastion, Albert Ltd. My grandmother's outlook was so victorian that on any slightly formal occasion when I was, as she put it "below the age of reason," she insisted I wear short grey wool trousers and knee high cable knit socks. Save the insistance on short pants, even in the less prestigious South End of Seattle my grandparents were not exceptional in their tastes and outlook. Tennis, skiing, repp ties, natural shoulder clothes and a shingle style summer house were simply considered good taste, not an east coast affectation. While Seattle probably wasn't ever quite as trad as San Fran, it still was the sort of place where one could grow up and not know that the style we now call trad was anything more than the only way to dress.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

"Excellent!! A great point to emphasize. And while some people appear to be perfectly earnest, it doesn't make their commentary or questions any less funny."--zignatius

Yes. And it's odd that someone couldn't or wouldn't see how an earnest appreciation of a style and (dare I say it) lifestyle that one learned from friends and/or family can compliment a sense of light hearted fun about the whole thing. I stand by how, when, where I learned about American Traditional clothing--during the Reagan era, from family, at a wonderful small men's shop...and elsewhere in a community. I love the style and everything that it represents for me, my family, and others I've known. And yet, at the same time, I can appreciate the humor in the Trad this-or-that (fill in the blank) posts. A defense of what certain traditions and values mean to a particular community doesn't conflict with privilege to laugh about them occasionally. No art here; if anything, chronicles. Reflections upon real history, including a father who had much to teach. And not just about clothes.

There's surely some political and cultural stuff going on amidst this discussion, and some of it's transparent. Listen, for instance, to the cries of those who insist upon Trad being "for everyone." Why the unrelenting insistence upon something that should be obvious? It may speak to insecurities.

A person who learned to appreciate American Traditional clothing in a rather (culturally, aesthetically) "conservative" community and also at equally "conservative" schools among Southern gentlemen will not fully understand the affiliations entertained by someone who borrowed it from the covers of jazz album covers...or, in the case of one, Andover Shop windows and old New Yorkers. I now know this by experience. I should have learned it earlier. My mistake. So much gets lost in communication and translation. The cultural stuff is key. Like other things, a matter of context.


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

^ Yes. The cultural context -- at least the stories -- of trad attire add the spice and soul and depth ... and fun. 

Your post, Harris, also made me think of something else: On one hand, I'm surprised no one's attempted to describe or map the far-reaching spectrum of trad attire, from WASP to Yiddish, elegant to rumpled, conservative to bohemian, preppy to sophisticated, Main Street to Hamptons, elite to populist, U.K. to USA, New England to Dixie, The Four Time Zones, etc. On the other hand, it's ridiculous (not to mention being a chore). And why blanket the art with bad science? 

p.s., Harris, your posts often place you as a "man among boys." I mean that with respect ... toward everyone.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Thank you, sir.


----------



## CMC (Aug 22, 2006)

Thank you all for your input. I'll post new questions as they come up. 

Harris, may I interview you by telephone? Sorry to make this overture in front of everyone, but your profile doesn't have messaging capabilities.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

dopey, do you mean Hemingway's Cohn? Not sure what you mean exactly. Maybe the defense of outdated values? If so, probably right.

Mr. Chensvold, for better or worse, I'm afraid I have little more to offer. Actually nothing more at all to add to all that's been said. That's the truth. There are now so many AAAC forum members/posters who offer top drawer feedback that more posts from me seem unnecessary. I think the answers you've already received to your questions reflect the spectrum of views represented amidst the forum members. From the shade of brown of Horween ravello to the size of Mercer collars, these gents here know their stuff. 

Best of luck with the article.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

One thing I've been pondering lately is the liklihood that college students were probably wearing an extreme version of traditional American clothing. Students throughout time and space have always worn certain clothes or clothes in a certain way as a form of rebellion, and have always been innovators to some extent. So possibly "Ivy League" clothing not only developed it's unique format on campuses, but it was probably never representative of what Americans were wearing, even if the basic clothing elements were shared. So which is "trad"? The old "Ivy League" clothing that Boyer talks about? Or the mass standard-business-dress that Manton talks about? And from which did the OPH "preppy" style come?


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

These have been great posts, but perhaps a dose of reality is in order: I doubt the newspaper will accept a story that relies primarily or exclusively on quotes from an internet forum. The author likely needs to do interviews and get real names in order to satisfy basic journalistic standards. This is not to say that anyone should agree to be interviewed (that's a very personal decision), but a newspaper article (as contrasted with, say, a magazine piece or a blog entry) probably wouldn't make the cut without real names and real (as opposed to virtual) quotes.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

1) If you've come to trad later in life, what is the nature of the appeal?

Came to it, as many, through upbringing.

2) Is trad primarily a clothing style to you, or a set of values as well? If the latter, what are those values?

Yes of course it's a set of values. All clothing is meant to identify you with a group, mentality, etc. Trad says "I am comfortable with myself and the community in which I was raised. I see no need to rebel, attract special attention or try to create some new bold statement about myself or the world through my manner of dress."

3) While trad was once quite mainstream, do you now consider trad and your own tradliness to be in opposition to mainstream American culture?

"Everything is in opposition to something. There are so many streams going all the rime I am not sure you can simplify it to say Trad is in opposition to 'mainstream." 'Mainstream' is a pretty vague term in this age.

4) Is trad conservative?

Yes of course...going by the dictionary definition:

1.	disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.	traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

5) Can class connotations be divorced from trad? Aren't trad clothing staples the most class-signifying clothing an American man can wear?

To an extent, but people are pretty savvy at reading irony and sarcasm in things too. Look how trad is coopted by the hip hop community sometimes. I think while there is a trad style, there is also a trad intent in the wearing of that style which can be variously understood. But in this day an age I think it would be false to say trad is simply a way to show your economic class. It's not nearly that simple anymore [if it ever was].

6) Is trad becoming like a subculture with a certain look to which you should conform in order to be considered part of the group?

'Becoming'? if this question means what I think it does...trad has been that way for a long time. If you are asking has trad moved from a collectively agreed upon pinnacle of dress to the indulgence of a small band of fetishistic luddites...perhaps...in a way.

7) If it's not a subculture with its own breviary of tastes, then why do so many people as what is the appropriate trad car, dog, gin, etc.?

Oh sure it is...you want to make sure you understand what is out there and what the proper historical tradition is. But while history is obviously important to trad, I don't think it can be the ONLY thing without all of us beginning to look like cartoon characters. You don't want to look like you are in a movie from the 1940s [or whatever time period] but like you UNDERSTAND the historical context and are still wearing clothing like a living breating person in 2006. That is a vital concept [at least for me].

But geez I really don't think any of this was discussed in such depth before the internet. The internet in general has unleashed an uninhibited obsessiveness for all manner of interests. I think, all in all, this is good as it allows people to go as far as they wish and understand so much more about things. With regards to clothing...we all appreciate being able to understand what is meant by 'the best' and how specifically that is achieved, intended and understood.


----------



## Spooter (Jul 15, 2006)

Harris said:


> I wonder if a subtle message of the film is that the easiest (and worst?) thing to be is a Rick Von Slonecker--someone who, whatever their class or station in life, dares to mock or ridicule the seriousness with which a minority strive to safeguard certain time-honored traditions that have importance if only because they define a certain community. Nick Smith disappears eventually, but not before revealing Von Slonecker as a "scoundrel" and converting a formerly leftist-leaning leveler named Tom. Interesting. The self-consciousness and even noble fear that mark the striving of the very bourgeois Nick Smith are revealed to be rather heroic, while The ennui-drenched aristocratic tone of Von Slonecker is portrayed as rude, and, further, just plain spiteful.


You Go Harris!:icon_cheers: :teacha:

Though of course Whit has proclaimed, several times, that the message of the film is a gentle ridicule of all the characters....:icon_pale: :icon_smile_big: :devil:

Cordially,

Spooter


----------



## Spooter (Jul 15, 2006)

Harris said:


> A person who learned to appreciate American Traditional clothing in a rather (culturally, aesthetically) "conservative" community and also at equally "conservative" schools among Southern gentlemen will not fully understand the affiliations entertained by someone who borrowed it from the covers of jazz album covers...or, in the case of one, Andover Shop windows and old New Yorkers. I now know this by experience. I should have learned it earlier. My mistake. So much gets lost in communication and translation. The cultural stuff is key. Like other things, a matter of context.


I totally agree!:drunken_smilie:

Though I went to a public high school in New Jersey, I credit my summers working as a stock boy at a fine old Trad Shop with all I needed to know about Trad and a whole way of life that I've adopted.:icon_saint7kg:

Cordially,

Spooter


----------



## Spooter (Jul 15, 2006)

Harris said:


> "Excellent!! A great point to emphasize. And while some people appear to be perfectly earnest, it doesn't make their commentary or questions any less funny."--zignatius
> 
> Yes. And it's odd that someone couldn't or wouldn't see how an earnest appreciation of a style and (dare I say it) lifestyle that one learned from friends and/or family can compliment a sense of light hearted fun about the whole thing. I stand by how, when, where I learned about American Traditional clothing--during the Reagan era, from family, at a wonderful small men's shop...and elsewhere in a community. I love the style and everything that it represents for me, my family, and others I've known. And yet, at the same time, I can appreciate the humor in the Trad this-or-that (fill in the blank) posts. A defense of what certain traditions and values mean to a particular community doesn't conflict with privilege to laugh about them occasionally. No art here; if anything, chronicles. Reflections upon real history, including a father who had much to teach. And not just about clothes.
> 
> ...


Oooops!:crazy:

Hi Harris! I was going to respond to the part of your message where you said that you could "explain all your contradictions," but unfortunately you've edited that part of your post. I was hoping that you could put an end to ceasely (and annoying) cries of your your detractors.

For instance, on the word Trad:



> First off: Heard it, as you write, "from" the gents at Eljo's? Well, I guess "from" works. Not really, though. "At" works better, eh? I heard the phrase tossed around in the shop. Not often.
> 
> I've never claimed that my father or any of his friends (or anyone who worked at Eljo's, although I wouldn't be surprised if Billy Roberts had something to do with it) "made up" or "invented" or even "discovered" the phrase. I do claim what I know is true:_ that's the place where I first heard it_.


and



> _I was lucky and/or blessed to know and learn from a father who had
> a passion for quality clothing--a certain style he and others called
> "trad" that's been both praised and ridiculed among members of this
> board. He was my teacher. Certainly he had many, many hobbies, but
> ...


(here's the thread for you: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=57894&page=3&highlight=trad+usage)

I talked to Miles and Trent (I've been a fan of Eljo's for ages, and whenever I can, I still like to patronize their wonderful shop as I did in the old days), and they claim to never have heard the word Trad.

Furthermore, elsewhere, you claim to have bought your Ben Silver otr American Blazer with working buttons. I contacted Mr. Prenner, because I wanted a blazer just like yours, but he claims that Silver has never carried or stocked a blazer (otr) with working buttons. Bob Prenner, as you might know, is the owner of Silver. He's a wonderful gentleman. I knew him from the days when the shop I worked for used to order brass buttons from him. Silver's main business, immediately before they branched out, was metal buttons. They still do a pretty good business in them too!:icon_cheers:

Help:crazy: :crazy:

Maybe one day I can learn your secrets.and that my quest to be initiated into traddom isn't just :deadhorse-a:

Cordially,

Spooter


----------



## FerrisBueller (Sep 23, 2006)

Originally Posted by *Harris* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=427797#post427797 
_A person who learned to appreciate American Traditional clothing in a rather (culturally, aesthetically) "conservative" community and also at equally "conservative" schools among Southern gentlemen will not fully understand the affiliations entertained by someone who borrowed it from the covers of jazz album covers...or, in the case of one, Andover Shop windows and old New Yorkers. I now know this by experience. I should have learned it earlier. My mistake. So much gets lost in communication and translation. The cultural stuff is key. Like other things, a matter of context._


Spooter said:


> I totally agree!:drunken_smilie:
> 
> Though I went to a public high school in New Jersey, I credit my summers working as a stock boy at a fine old Trad Shop with all I needed to know about Trad and a whole way of life that I've adopted.:icon_saint7kg:
> 
> ...


I think many of us who do not hail from auspiciously Trad backgrounds would like to hear more about the conservative cultural underpinnings of the clothing style.

Harris - I wish you would reconsider Mr. Chensvold's request for an interview. Being that you spawned what is now such an enlightening forum, I for one, would love to learn more. Inquiring Trad minds want to know more!

Ferris


----------



## tsweetland (Oct 2, 2006)

Dressing this way was certainly not handed down to me by my family, and I did not grow up in an environment where anyone dressed "trad." I went to public school and a public university. I have no ties to any tradition of dressing. Now that I'm an adult with a wife and a job, I don't want to look like a slob or a hungover college student. I dress this way because it's neat, clean and stylish and I take a certain amount of pride in what I look like. That's it.


----------



## CMC (Aug 22, 2006)

Thank you all once again for your input. Some interesting interviews have already come from this, and I'd like to put out one more query for those willing to share their thoughts in a telephone interview. I'm specifically looking for those of you who've discovered trad later in life (not part of your upbringing), and what about the style and the values it represents appeals to you. PM me or e-mail me at christian[at]dandyism.net.


----------



## FerrisBueller (Sep 23, 2006)

Harris said:


> And why would you "adopt" a lifestyle that you didn't grow up with/around?


Uh oh, I did not realize it was a closed club. I somehow thought we were discussing clothes.

Ferris


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

"FerrisBueller":

It's not. But if someone is questioned about the influence of family and friends, then I figure it's okay to question someone about other potential influences that would prompt such a change--influences, by the way, that they mention. It's not a club, and openness prevails. I ask the question sincerely, genuinely curious about spooter's journey. 

And, to be fair, we weren't discussing just clothes. The questions asked in the original post go beyond clothes, and several posts since have as well.

You mentioned (in your first post) that when you grew up, you learned from your "trad father that when dressing up, a man could wear (1) a White Shirt (preferred), (2) a light Blue Shirt, or (3) a university or candy striped Blue and White Shirt." Am I allowed to ask what else your "trad father" taught you, or whether or not the rules regarding shirts might be characterized as a form of trad orthodoxy? Is it okay to ask how your father was "trad" and how/when/where he learned to appreciate the style? For some (not me; mind you), it might be easier to doubt that you had a "trad father" at all. But if what you're saying is true, then I can empathize. And would sincerely enjoy hearing more.

But, to the question of clothes that you asked elsewhere, Ben Silver isn't recent to Charleston or the South, unless you consider the early 80s "recent." Maybe it is.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

THe second floor is this rugged mountainwear shop or something like that, some outdoor clothes. I guess the women's department is long gone. 

William is a salesperson I truly respect. He didn't come from Trad background, at least I don't think so. But he sure knows a WHOLE lot.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Untitled, yes, that's right. The running/outdoors shop. Wasn't around until a few years back. Probably arrived about the same time that Starbuck's across from Mincer's arrived. Is that still there?

William is a gentleman. He loves talking about clothes, but he's equally pleased talking about church and family. I used to love listening to him talk (proudly, in a good way) about his daughter going to Harvard. Very different from hearing Billy talk about recent parties and his travels abroad. I think he took a bit of time off to visit/travel w/ his sister in Germany.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

Who's "Untitled"? 

Starbuck's, Mincer's are both still there, so is Bodo's! Now the running/outdoor shop has taken over Eljo's first floor.  Across Eljo's is Take it Away, a sandwich shop, tasty stuff. 

Harris, it's probably about time for you to come visit Charlottesville, don't you think so? You can check out the new Eljo's!


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Oops. Sorry, Un_tilted_.

I'd love to see the new spot over on B.R. I remember the shop they had on B.R. back in the 90s (while they kept the Elliewood shop). Pre Barnes & Noble and Talbot's days. Lots of good sale stuff. Huge selection of grosgrain watch straps and embroidered trou.

Have you found Bodo's? I did not attend UVA but dated a few girl Hoos. Bodo's was a favorite of all. Somehow we never ended up at The White Spot...gee, wonder why?


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

There are three Bodo's in Charlottesville, a great breakfast place. It could be a good thing that you didnt end up at the white spot, I doubt you'd like the greasiness.


Harris, i bet you've read this:



Maybe the OP should interview him?


----------



## FerrisBueller (Sep 23, 2006)

Harris said:


> "FerrisBueller":
> 
> It's not. But if someone is questioned about the influence of family and friends, then I figure it's okay to question someone about other potential influences that would prompt such a change--influences, by the way, that they mention. It's not a club, and openness prevails. I ask the question sincerely, genuinely curious about spooter's journey.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that perhaps a litmus test was being proposed.

Questions are fine with me. I would say that my father dressed conservatively in order to fit in and not stand out. He followed some old rules in order to "look respectable" - white shirt, blue shirt, or striped shirt. Perhaps he was not very "trad" as defined afterall. No illustrious background, no secret handjive, no "old sport-o" talk, no trad pedigree going back generations.

Did he have values - sure. He worked hard and was a good father. He dressed well in then "ivy" fashion, but not richly or showy. My guess is that he did not pay much attention to clothes, other than to make sure that his were in line with what his peers were wearing (unlike me, apparently  ). Middle class? Guilty as charged.

Ferris


----------



## Spooter (Jul 15, 2006)

FerrisBueller said:


> I would say that my father dressed conservatively in order to fit in and not stand out. He followed some old rules in order to "look respectable" - white shirt, blue shirt, or striped shirt. Perhaps he was not very "trad" as defined afterall. No illustrious background, no secret handjive, no "old sport-o" talk, no trad pedigree going back generations.
> 
> Did he have values - sure. He worked hard and was a good father. He dressed well in then "ivy" fashion, but not richly or showy. My guess is that he did not pay much attention to clothes, other than to make sure that his were in line with what his peers were wearing (unlike me, apparently  ). Middle class? Guilty as charged.


Hi Ferris!:icon_smile_big:

Your post really resonated with me, and gave me the idea to post my own story:idea: like you I had a father who was not "trad" in many of the senses defined here. But he dressed in the then "Ivy" style, got the "Princeton" haircut (we were after all in New Jersey!), had an opportunity to do very well (relatively) for himself as a union foreman working on the building boom of the N.E. Corridor (hence the trips up north from Jersey to N.E. trad shops!). I guess in the back of my mine, being from Jersey, "Princeton" loomed large in my mind. Maybe overshadowed every vista to which I would turn. Taken against the all, unlike you we weren't "middle class", but we were sure trying to get there. Later in college, I had a roommate and friends who tutored me in what many here consider the Trad style. And, needing money, worked as a stockboy a few summers at trad shop. Those insecurties & that history for another time.

Cordially,

Spooter


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Spooter said:


> Hi Ferris!:icon_smile_big:
> 
> Your post really resonated with me, and gave me the idea to post my own story:idea: like you I had a father who was not "trad" in many of the senses defined here. But he dressed in the then "Ivy" style, got the "Princeton" haircut (we were after all in New Jersey!), had an opportunity to do very well (relatively) for himself as a union foreman working on the building boom of the N.E. Corridor (hence the trips up north from Jersey to N.E. trad shops!). I guess in the back of my mine, being from Jersey, "Princeton" loomed large in my mind. Maybe overshadowed every vista to which I would turn. Taken against the all, unlike you we weren't "middle class", but we were sure trying to get there. Later in college, I had a roommate and friends who tutored me in what many here consider the Trad style. And, needing money, worked as a stockboy a few summers at trad shop. Those insecurties & that history for another time.
> 
> ...


"spooter",

It's interesting how you're rather skilled at borrowing from certain parts of posts I've offered in the past, and (again, skillfully), deciding to engage in a bit of lampoonery. Or maybe mockery. Maybe another description of what you're doing is more appropriate. Others alerted me to the cleverness and subtlties of what you've been doing. I didn't catch it as soon as I should have. I guess maybe I'm just slow.

I'm not at all sure what qualifies as "trolling", but I can't help but wonder if you have crossed the line. Maybe; maybe not. You've been among the very few who have referenced another website where some jabs--unfair ones-- have been taken at me, and you've rather consistently called the integrity of what I've written (and know to be true) into question. It may be that you post elsewhere and have decided to take up a cause of attacking me/my posts. That's a decision for you to make--up to you--but I'm not interested in participating.

If, in talking about my own life, I have offended you in some way (I guess I have), then I can only express regret and hope you'll move beyond the approach you're taking. I can only suspect that the the targets (for the future) will include further mockery of my deceased--your clever mockery of my use of the word "sainted" by using the angel icon--father and a wife who (not from "Jersey") was lucky and blessed to attend Princeton and my (wee bit admittedly) knowlege of shops where both I (and, yes, my Dad) shopped. Whatever targets you find to "take aim" at, I hope you--and, as the moderators and others read this, they--will understand if I do not wish to take the bait. I have offered more of/about my life than perhaps I should have, but I thought I was among people who respected what others offered about themselves. If you suspect that any part of it isn't true and, as result, continue to do what you've been doing, then, of course, that's your choice. It seems like a waste of time, but, again, it's your choice. I've offered the truth about myself here--a wonderful life--and I guess now it has become target pratice for you.

If your goal was to drive me away from the forum out of fatigue at seeing yet another post that mocks the truth I've shared about my Dad or shops I love or towns I've lived in and enjoyed...well, again, that's your choice. Maybe you'll succeed, after all. If that bit of victory for you is what it's going to take to bring a halt to this, then fine. I suppose the fine art of trolling takes many forms, including a clever ridicule of the details that other posters have offered about their lives.

Again, sir, I'm sorry that any posts of mine would prompt anyone to take this sort of approach--the one you're taking.

I offer this sincerely and cordially.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

All this sharing just makes me so warm and fuzzy. Allow me to share one. When I was a child we had a real mutt of a dog named Poots. I know it's not very trad to have a mutt or to name it Poots, but he was just so gaseous. I can't remember how he wormed his way into our life, but we were all very embarrassed to have him around. It was all one could do to even be in the same room with the wretched creature.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

_This is venturing too far into the realm of bad taste. Let's keep things pleasant._

_AlanC_
_Trad Forum Mod_

_Edit; (do I post this here?) I agree. Sorry.----Allen_


----------



## zignatius (Oct 8, 2004)

^ This is getting weird. I'm not sure what your point is Allen, but it comes across as mockery. If you're trying to add some levity, it missed. Harris could've easily walked away, but instead decided to extend a hand, address the skullduggery, and make himself vulnerable ... not to mention -- to be old fashioned -- protect his honor. I don't know the history between Harris and Spooter, but I can usually tell one someone is earnest and sincere. And I also believe people should be called out on their b.s.

To the moderator and/or other insiders of this club: should I simply mind my own business? Am I making inferences that simply aren't there?


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

zignatius said:


> ^ This is getting weird. I'm not sure what your point is Allen, but it comes across as mockery. If you're trying to add some levity, it missed. Harris could've easily walked away, but instead decided to extend a hand, address the skullduggery, and make himself vulnerable ... not to mention -- to be old fashioned -- protect his honor. I don't know the history between Harris and Spooter, but I can usually tell one someone is earnest and sincere. And I also believe people should be called out on their b.s.
> 
> To the moderator and/or other insiders of this club: should I simply mind my own business? Am I making inferences that simply aren't there?


 
Great! Let's get on with the proceedings. 

I say we put a big fence around the yard and those found guilty, we banish to the other side. That's what we ended up doing with ol' Poots. Sometimes when the wind blew just right, you could still smell him-rotten I tell you.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Oh, can it. There are a couple of major league goofballs on another forum who have apparently devoted their lives to unmasking Harris, and all I can do is wonder - why? Is there some sort of prize?

But please don't import this garbage here. It's tedious and stupid and gets otherwise reasonable people all in a lather - over nothing.


----------



## Tuck (May 4, 2006)

Patrick06790 said:


> Oh, can it. There are a couple of major league goofballs on another forum who have apparently devoted their lives to unmasking Harris, and all I can do is wonder - why? Is there some sort of prize?
> 
> But please don't import this garbage here. It's tedious and stupid and gets otherwise reasonable people all in a lather - over nothing.


I could not agree more. What difference does it really make? Remember what most of us have heard "if you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all."


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

Patrick06790 said:


> Oh, can it. There are a couple of major league goofballs on another forum who have apparently devoted their lives to unmasking Harris, and all I can do is wonder - why? Is there some sort of prize?
> 
> But please don't import this garbage here. It's tedious and stupid and gets otherwise reasonable people all in a lather - over nothing.


AMEN. Let's stick to the clothes and fun.


----------



## Spooter (Jul 15, 2006)

Allen said:


> When I was a child we had a real mutt of a dog named Poots. I know it's not very trad to have a mutt or to name it Poots, but he was just so gaseous.


:icon_smile_big:

Hi Allen!

My name goes back to some ribald college humor! :icon_smile_big: So you're more right than you know!:icon_smile_wink:

Cordially,

Spooter


----------



## Spooter (Jul 15, 2006)

Harris said:


> "spooter",
> 
> It's interesting how you're rather skilled at borrowing from certain parts of posts I've offered in the past, and (again, skillfully), deciding to engage in a bit of lampoonery. Or maybe mockery. Maybe another description of what you're doing is more appropriate. Others alerted me to the cleverness and subtlties of what you've been doing. I didn't catch it as soon as I should have. I guess maybe I'm just slow.
> 
> ...


Hi Harris,

Thank you for your honesty!:icon_smile_big: I'm not sure why you think you've offended me but I say in all forthright honesty myself that you're a great teacher. I love reading through the old threads and learning so much about Trad:teacha: Unfortunately, you deleted a couple of your other posts on this thread, but I hope I don't step on your toes when I say that your not the only one who knows Eljo's or has a Princetonian for a wife. If you like, I'm sure she'd be more than happy to have her alumni membership verified. PM me and I'll send you her last name and you can check the directory. Unfortunately, I'm no longer in Jersey or maybe we could meet at one of the local events, though there are several chapters:crazy: as you well know! As for that "other" website, I found it from your post. You spoke highly of a few of the users over there, of their knowledge of things Trad. Be that as it may, I prefer this place:icon_smile_big:

I don't apologize for being from Jersey or having a dearly departed father. He was a great man. He worked hard and served his family, friends, and church and union all his life. He was a saint. Or as close to it as can be. Though he'd best the last one who'd want anyone to remember him that way.

As for the Trad origins thread or your comments on Ben Silver's "working buttons" blazer, I think that sometimes the internet can get the best of people. It was only after your extolling the benefits of the blazer that I searched Silver for it, even taking to Mr. Prenner, who's a great guy by the way. Your content of your old threads on the subject kept changing, and I guess it was just my earnestness in seeking out this exact same blazer that made me ask you repeated questions about the blazer. I'm sorry if those questions made unconfortable. I think what happened, and I don't blame you, is that you kinda got carried away and were a little fanciful with the truth on this as well as the origins of "trad".

But that's okay. We all recreate ourselves. I know that my embrace of trad is "aspirational," and like you said, "so be it". I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I ignore our detractors who do have a problem with it. It's their problem, not ours!:icon_smile_big: I feel the same about my life as you do about yours. It is "wonderful," and I can say in all honesty that we are indeed "blessed". Huzzah!

In sum, I want to offer you my most cordially wishes,

Spooter


----------



## Spooter (Jul 15, 2006)

paper clip said:


> Let's stick to the clothes and fun.


A wonderful idea!:teacha: :idea: :icon_cheers:

Cordially,

Spooter


----------



## FerrisBueller (Sep 23, 2006)

I have been traveling for a while. Does anyone have any updates on Mr. Chevsvold's article? It would be great to see Trad get some mainstream attention. I cannot help but think that some clothing stores (J. Crew) are paying attention to this website and the Trad "movement".

And yes, let's not let this thread go back to questioning anyone's Trad bona fides. I would like to personally welcome all of the residents of New Jersey :icon_smile: 

Ferris


----------



## Spooter (Jul 15, 2006)

FerrisBueller said:


> Does anyone have any updates on Mr. Chevsvold's article?


Hi Ferris:icon_smile_big:

I'd love to know how the article is coming along too.



> And yes, let's not let this thread go back to questioning anyone's Trad bona fides. I would like to personally welcome all of the residents of New Jersey :icon_smile:


Thanks Ferris!:icon_cheers: Next time your in Jersey, a drink in Princeton is on me!:thumbs-up:

Cordially,

Spooter


----------

