# What is "Trad"?



## NCJackson (Dec 19, 2008)

"Trad" seems to be used in many different ways here. What _exactly_ does it mean? English country clothes? The Ivy League Look? Preppy? All of the above? Could someone steer me towards a thread that clears this up?


----------



## chacend (Mar 4, 2008)

At the top of the forum is the HOF threads folder which should clear things up for you. Also linked below. As for your multiple choice question above, Ivy would be the closest answer.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=61481


----------



## NCJackson (Dec 19, 2008)

Yeah, I see that. Let me open it up a bit then. Is there a thread with members _personal_ definitions of "Trad"? If not, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

I believe most of us are referring to TRADITIONAL American clothing. Alot of the look is similar to English clothing, and was made popular in PREP schools hence the word "preppy". The look was also rampant in Ivy League schools in the heyday, hence the term IVY LEAGUE


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

There is not one thread that's going to get you there (although the American Trad thread has probably the most info packed into it). For a long time, many months before I even joined, I did nothing but search and read old threads. It's the only way to come to a basic understanding.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

I should add that despite spending such time searching, I am still learning much more than I am actually contributing. Searching by the keyword "trad" may not help you much, but what will is to filter many varied searches by the Trad Forum.

This is almost always what I do. I decide, you know, I could use some _blank_. Well, what are the best _blank_? And what _blank_ fit into the Trad aesthetic? So I search for _blank_ and filter it so that I only receive results in the Trad Forum.

I do the above when considering anything, belts, shoes, trousers, etc.

This is not to say one should base all of one's sartorial decisions on the results of such searches. It is more important to be one's self and to be honest to one's self. But the above approach will greatly contribute to one's understanding of the subject.


----------



## Mississippi Mud (Oct 15, 2009)

Coleman said:


> There is not one thread that's going to get you there (although the American Trad thread has probably the most info packed into it). For a long time, many months before I even joined, I did nothing but search and read old threads. It's the only way to come to a basic understanding.


That's essentially what I did. During an recent illness, which lasted far longer than I anticipated, I spent several hours at a time reading the archives here. I owe the board a debt because it kept my mind elsewhere.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

The answer to the question "what is Trad" would be easy if there were a consensus, but there is not, so one is directed to read numerous older threads, none of which actually provides all that much general guidance. I'm going to paste here something I wrote recently in the "trad staples" thread:

____
_I've been here for a long time, and I still don't know what anyone means when they describe a person as "a Trad" or a car or whatever as "Trad". Or life choices as "Trad" or "not Trad".

The clothing called "Trad" on this forum appears to be an interpretation of Ivy League style, with some modifications, concessions to modern times, accounting for regional preferences, etc. Because it incorporates components of Ivy League clothing, it is of interest to those who wear the older (but not "original") style. But it isn't the same thing.

Regarding the perpetual identity crisis: it seems to me that this often stems from unfortunate attempts to link modern "Trad" to the high-WASP culture that was once strongly, and is now weakly, associated with Ivy League style._
____

If pressed for a quick definition, I would say that "trad" is a nostalgic, cherry-picked look back at Ivy League clothing and WASP culture, and an attempt to characterize this selective history as natural and complete rather than artificial and selective. I say this not to be derogatory, but rather explanatory.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

NCJackson said:


> Yeah, I see that. Let me open it up a bit then. Is there a thread with members _personal_ definitions of "Trad"? If not, I'll leave it at that.


If nothing else, it means proper grammar and punctuation. Sorry. But, sheesh.

Sorry if I'm pissy about Canada losing to the U.S. in hockey.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

This is, as I understand it, the opening post on this Trad forum:

"Hello to all. I'm Harris--not to be confused with "A Harris," whom I believe has been a forum member for some time.

"I live in the Northeastern U.S. and tend toward the American Look. Or trad or whatever you wish to call it. Sack suits, tassel loafers, shetland crewnecks, Harris Tweeds, madras, etc.

"I am interested in knowing how many forum members have stuck with this look--the J. Press-Brooks-Andover Shop crowd.

"Harris"

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=34490

It clearly describes if not defines "trad", as intended for use on this site, as "Sack suits, tassel loafers, shetland crewnecks, Harris Tweeds, madras, etc." This is my _personal_ understanding of trad, which is virtually synonymous with "Ivy League" but deviates a great deal from "preppy".

I appreciate the quotation from Taliesin, but don't agree entirely. You can see a pretty strong correlation between the above understanding of trad and the photos in Take Ivy or the American Trad Men thread. As for the sociology, the phrase "Ivy League" was used at least by 1957 to speak, with respect to clothing, of a look that had pushed far beyond the bounds of eastern universities. See the recent thread with the year 1957 in the header--with its references to Ivy League in the Milwaukee Journal. It had already broken free of any implications of WASP establishment--though I've seen nearly a century old photos of African American (I assume) students at Ivy League institutions. I failed to detect any obvious differences between the clothing of WASPs and non-WASPs in those photos.

NCJackson, welcome to the discussion. And Mississippi Mud, I trust you've made a full recovery from what was ailing you. Sorry to hear of your illness.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

NCJackson - I second the suggestion of beginning with the American Trad thread which begins with the post by Harris. Taliesin's post also sums things up fairly well.

I think that Trad essentially takes the Ivy league look, or the most commonly worn (3/2 jackets with natural shoulders and flat front trousers) and blends it with preppy elements as depicted in the OPH.

I do disagree with the assertion that Trad encompasses every traditional item of clothing. If you do read some older posts on the forum you will see this issue discussed _ad naseum_.


----------



## randomdude (Jun 4, 2007)

I believe this is a pretty good introduction to what is Trad.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

randomdude said:


> I believe this is a pretty good introduction to what is Trad.


WASPy.

This discussion is endless. Thank the Brethren that we don't have FNB/Russell Street here right now.

Read. Lots.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Functionally, Trad is just internet short hand for "the kinds of clothes that they sell at J.Press and a few other independent stores like O'Connell's Clothing in Buffalo, Andover Shop in Cambridge, and Cable Car Clothiers in SF plus the type of shoes manufactured by Alden." If you want to know what kinds of clothes those are, just look at the websites of those places.

[Those are not the only places, necessarily, that you might get this type of clothes, but you can pretty quickly figure out what Trad is shorthand for.]


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

The thing that really bothers me about the trad debate is the classism that gets mixed in. There is a definitely a strain of trad that consider themselves heirs to the preppies of yore. Wasp 101 is the worst offender in this, and that blog really illustrates how trad can devolve into pretension and snobbery over anachronistic clothing. I think trad is at its best when its focus is on simple, handsome and well made clothing- traditional values in clothing, rather than simply emulating the uniform of dying out upper class. I like to think of trad as an unfussy and unpretentious look, albeit a sometimes eccentric one.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Youngster said:


> The thing that really bothers me about the trad debate is the classism that gets mixed in. There is a definitely a strain of trad that consider themselves heirs to the preppies of yore. Wasp 101 is the worst offender in this, and that blog really illustrates how trad can devolve into pretension and snobbery over anachronistic clothing. I think trad is at its best when its focus is on simple, handsome and well made clothing- traditional values in clothing, rather than simply emulating the uniform of dying out upper class. I like to think of trad as an unfussy and unpretentious look, albeit a sometimes eccentric one.


Good post. I understand completely when you mention Wasp 101, but don't quite understand why you would denigrate "emulating the uniform of dying out upper class". That would be better IMO than emulating gangster wear, prison garb, 1960s hippies, and about 95 per cent of the things that have passed for style in the last 40 years.

In my experience, the adult version of the genuine "upper class" doesn't exactly line up with what passes for modern preppy, or what you see in the Smirnoff Tea Party ads. My old school, Ivy League, establishment type friends dress rather like George H.W. Bush, which is to say, with dignified understatement. Moreover, they always look comfortable whatever the setting and whatever the attire. In this, they tend to wear "simple, handsome and well made clothing- traditional values in clothing" with the result that they appear "unfussy and unpretentious".


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

I suppose I was rather unclear. I don't really mean to denigrate the upper class so much as I mean to denigrate the emulation. I identify with trad because it is based on practical values- values which will remain relevant in our time and beyond that. Strict emulation of a bygone era limits creativity in dress and tends to separate us from modernity. I like trad a lot better when it is mixed with a few modern elements. 
Besides all that, I personally go for a for a more "yeoman" trad. Something less aristocratic and more hard-working middle class. As such, horse-bit loafers and regatta blazers will never be essential trad for me. I'm more a fan of the more versatile and long wearing staples, with a fair bit of outdoor wear thrown in.
Anyway, you don't have to buy history wholesale; just take what jives with you and fill in the rest.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Youngster, 
I see what you mean. Funny thing, while I might be more sympathetic to emulating the "aristocratic" set (no doubt for personal-history reasons), I too wouldn't wear the items you mention.


----------



## NCJackson (Dec 19, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> If nothing else, it means proper grammar and punctuation. Sorry. But, sheesh.
> 
> Sorry if I'm pissy about Canada losing to the U.S. in hockey.


Are you really callin' me out on my grammar? Have you been to the internet before? *Sorry, but, sheesh.*


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> If nothing else, it means *proper* grammar and punctuation. Sorry. But, sheesh.
> 
> Sorry if I'm pissy about Canada losing to the U.S. in hockey.


You mean of course correct grammar! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I like this



AldenPyle said:


> Functionally, Trad is just internet short hand for "the kinds of clothes that they sell at J.Press and a few other independent stores like O'Connell's Clothing in Buffalo, Andover Shop in Cambridge, and Cable Car Clothiers in SF plus the type of shoes manufactured by Alden." If you want to know what kinds of clothes those are, just look at the websites of those places.
> 
> [Those are not the only places, necessarily, that you might get this type of clothes, but you can pretty quickly figure out what Trad is shorthand for.]


----------



## NCJackson (Dec 19, 2008)

It's just interesting because I would never wear anything tweedy or GTH, but I do wear sack suits, trim chinos, knit ties, penny loafers and so on. I prefer straight collars with suits but OCBDs for sport shirts. I just think of 'em as American classics.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Trad is a box inside of a box.

The big box is called Ivy League. 

One dimension is made up of English clothes and fabrics; tweed, tartan, shetland wool, club ties, etc. If you find yourself in a tailored Savile Row suit with a loud shirt and cufflinks, you've probably left the box. The second dimension is made up of Americana. Old U.S. military wear, workwear, athletic wear, etc. If you look like a Depression-era coal miner or a WWII G.I. on leave, you've probably left the box. The third dimension is made up of Go-to-Hell and "preppy" clothes, loud re-distillations of the old Ivy look. If you look like a Polo model, you've probably left the box. Near the center of the box is J. Press.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> I like this


Thanks. Philosophically unsatisfying definition due to its tautological nature ("Trad is clothes sold at trad shops. Trad shops are storest that sell trad clothes.") But at least its useful.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

katon said:


> Trad is a box inside of a box.
> 
> The big box is called Ivy League.
> 
> One dimension is made up of English clothes and fabrics; tweed, tartan, shetland wool, club ties, etc. If you find yourself in a tailored Savile Row suit with a loud shirt and cufflinks, you've probably left the box. The second dimension is made up of Americana. Old U.S. military wear, workwear, athletic wear, etc. If you look like a Depression-era coal miner or a WWII G.I. on leave, you've probably left the box. The third dimension is made up of Go-to-Hell and "preppy" clothes, loud re-distillations of the old Ivy look. If you look like a Polo model, you've probably left the box. Near the center of the box is J. Press.


This is hard to follow w/o an actual diagram. (Is Ivy League a four dimensional box?) You should definitely draft one. Please mark all the boxes and dimensions. I believe that StyleForum is having a best sartorial graphing contest with a March 1 deadline, so time is of the essence if you want to enter.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Tautological, perhaps -- but it's concrete and empirically verifiable ("go see the clothes for yourself") which in discussions like these is extremely useful and refreshing



AldenPyle said:


> Thanks. Philosophically unsatisfying definition due to its tautological nature ("Trad is clothes sold at trad shops. Trad shops are storest that sell trad clothes.") But at least its useful.


----------



## Sarge6 (Mar 29, 2009)

Near as I can tell, "Dart" spelled backwards.


----------



## CMC (Aug 22, 2006)

OK that's funny.


----------



## Joe Tradly (Jan 21, 2006)

Trad is this conversation.

If you really want to know, go to J Press.

JB


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

AldenPyle said:


> This is hard to follow w/o an actual diagram. (Is Ivy League a four dimensional box?) You should definitely draft one. Please mark all the boxes and dimensions. I believe that StyleForum is having a best sartorial graphing contest with a March 1 deadline, so time is of the essence if you want to enter.


Hmmm... maybe like this.

Ivy League is a room. The floor and ceiling are made out of English style. You look to your left and to your right, and you see the two walls of Americana. Behind you and ahead of you are GTH/Preppy. In the middle of the room is a comfortable couch called J. Press. There's a discolored bit on the floor where Brooks Brothers used to be, but someone has gone and moved it off somewhere...

Now take that room and close the walls in a little, and you've got Trad; basically a very particular interpretation of Ivy League.


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

^^^^^ Well done.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Very well said.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

I like the vagueness.

To me there are a number of very distinct types of trad practiced here, always in combination with each other, off the top of my head:
-waspy, country club trad
-conservative, new england yankee style (perhaps what I'm most familiar with)
-the more Charlston-style, formal southern trad
-casual, tailgate southern trad (tucked polos, sunglass straps and, shorts)
-straight up preppy trad
-Ralph Lauren trad
-anglo influenced trad
-OPH style, very 70s/80s campus trad
-for that matter the more 40s-60s campus trad
-LLBean heavy, Maine trad
-Jcrew influenced, hipster-type trad/americana/ whathave you


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

Some good posts, but I still think of* trad* as the more general term, encompassing the many style that we appropriate from *tradi*tion. The ivy league look is just one of them, and even then one that has changed a great deal between decades (though far less than fashion at large). Lets us not trap ourselves in boxes- there can be so much to trad if you don't take it all so literally.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

katon said:


> Hmmm... maybe like this.
> 
> Ivy League is a room. The floor and ceiling are made out of English style. You look to your left and to your right, and you see the two walls of Americana. Behind you and ahead of you are GTH/Preppy. In the middle of the room is a comfortable couch called J. Press. There's a discolored bit on the floor where Brooks Brothers used to be, but someone has gone and moved it off somewhere...
> 
> Now take that room and close the walls in a little, and you've got Trad; basically a very particular interpretation of Ivy League.


So you're saying that if you push Anglophilia or GTH or Americana to an extreme, then it no longer becomes "Trad" but then becomes "Ivy League". But if you then push it a little more, then it becomes something else? For example, pink pants are trad; pink pants embroidered with yellow frogs is ivy league; and pink pants embroidered with yellow frogs and a green shirt is something entirely separate? That makes no sense, but what else could you mean?

Let me just emphasize that I don't see anything useful about a clearly delineated definition of "Trad." The pragmatic aspect of the term is that it serves as a rubric for a somewhat coherent internet conversation. I doubt any definition beyond "the kind of clothes they sell at J.Press, O'Connells etc" offers anything useful to anyone.

On the other hand, I like a well-turned analogy for its own sake. I just don't think this is one.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

katon said:


> Trad is a box inside of a box.
> 
> The big box is called Ivy League.
> 
> One dimension is made up of English clothes and fabrics; tweed, tartan, shetland wool, club ties, etc. If you find yourself in a tailored Savile Row suit with a loud shirt and cufflinks, you've probably left the box. The second dimension is made up of Americana. Old U.S. military wear, workwear, athletic wear, etc. If you look like a Depression-era coal miner or a WWII G.I. on leave, you've probably left the box. The third dimension is made up of Go-to-Hell and "preppy" clothes, loud re-distillations of the old Ivy look. If you look like a Polo model, you've probably left the box. Near the center of the box is J. Press.


LOL....and J. Press is the true Trad's sartorial holy ground, in which the aisles are covered in a robust tweed, the walls in a pastel colored Sea Isle cotton knit, the ceiling in a soft blue heather Shetland and a host of (perhaps) original Yuppies can be heard softly singing in the background, "Swing low, sweet John Alden; with a new pair, of shell cordovan (Long) Wings; and and an OCBD from the Brothers Beek, in which, I may be carried on home!" 

PS: Indeed, katon has offered an very graphic and (I think) useful description of what we call Trad! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> I like the vagueness.
> 
> To me there are a number of very distinct types of trad practiced here, always in combination with each other, off the top of my head:
> -waspy, country club trad
> ...


I am not disputing your characterization of various looks which appear on this forum, but that is quite a big tent for Trad. It seems that almost anything one could wear would qualify. Could we have JAB Trad?, a Hickey-Freeman Trad?

I learned from a former teacher that the most important part of a painting is the frame because it delineates what is on the cavas and what is not. I am not suggesting an entirely rigid definition, but an anything goes approach does not seem to work either.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> I like the vagueness.
> 
> To me there are a number of very distinct types of trad practiced here, always in combination with each other, off the top of my head:
> -waspy, country club trad
> ...


Under this approach, "trad" is what you call your clothes when you want to link them to a 'movement' or perceived 'worldview'. An effort to create an underlying rationale for aesthetic choices in order to make those choices feel endorsed and above criticism.

Using the extreme but illustrative example of GTH clothing, it would go like this: "You can make fun of my lobster trousers, but that's because you don't know that they are Trad. Your ridicule is evidence of your ignorance."

This functions as a substitute for the class confidence that enabled some Ivy League types to wear garish GTH clothing in the 50s and 60s.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Personally I try to filter any worldview out of my clothing choices. Only an educated eye is able to see that I'm participating largely in an Ivy League look. Most people just think I look dressed up, but not in a boxy businessy way, and not in a uber-slim hipster way, and not in a floral British way.

The vagueness is partly what I go for. And I do think of this vagueness as part of my own "trad" definition. 

And when it comes to jackets, I will choose natural shoulders over any other detail. I love the way natural shoulders look and feel. I don't think this connotes any kind of worldview to anyone whatsoever....


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I wear what I like, and I make sure it fits. That way I'm comfortable, women smile at me and they call me "sir" at the gas station.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Patrick06790 said:


> I wear what I like, and I make sure it fits. That way I'm comfortable, women smile at me and they call me "sir" at the gas station.


At first I thought it was the smiling women who called you sir, which is more or less the way they treat me and it means, alas, I'm an old man. Then I saw it was "at the gas station" you were called sir, which means you go to trad gas stations (is there a thread on this?), i.e. one where someone who may or may not call you sir pumps your gas. Excellent. It gives someone employment and your trad clothes don't smell of petrol. Anyway, to illustrate rather than explain, I'd say what William F. Buckley, Jr., who was white but neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant, wore. If you disagree with his politics, as I do but admire his over-the-top (definitely not WASP) use of language, then what his heathen profs wore when he was learning about God and Man at Yale.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Nobody pumps gas for you anymore, except in New Jersey.

Mostly I buy cigars at the gas station. Parse that.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

And the women buying cigars at the gas station smile at you: Sup dawg.


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

Patrick06790 said:


> I wear what I like, and I make sure it fits. That way I'm comfortable, women smile at me and they call me "sir" at the gas station.


And what do women call you outside of the gas station?


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

I think Talisien is on the money- trad is just a worldview or aesthetic. Making such a point of delineating it's exact parameters and taxonomies is only evidence of a closed though process. Don't forget that folks who wear Ed Hardy are often just as sure of their sartorial choices as you are. Examine your underlying rational. Style is subjective and though it seems obvious that we trads have a "better" take on style than the do the masses, the insulated forum culture and prevalence of group think is liable to lead many of us to ridiculousness. Remember that Beau Brummel observed that a well dressed man does not turn heads. I say that a well dressed trad should not be so trad as to appear costumed in the eyes of his peers. As I noted before, the Ivy look changed from decade to decade, and the sack cut was main steam in the 60s. Us trads are it's stylistic decedents, but we are not bound to it immutably. Indeed, mutability is what keeps the look alive. Languages die when academies try to regulate them; do not regulate our less it become irrelevant. Trads, look not to the past; but look to the future!


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Youngster said:


> Making such a point of delineating it's exact parameters and taxonomies is only evidence of a closed though process. Examine your underlying rational. I say that a well dressed trad should not be so trad as to appear costumed in the eyes of his peers. Trads, look not to the past; but look to the future!


Another good post, but with a few points that I would question. What is wrong with a closed thought process? Does it mean something besides "finished", as in "I have thought about this long enough to have made a decision"?

What are "exact parameters" vs inexact ones? Is the shirt worn by the lead singer of the Monkeys on the DayDream Believer video trad? No. Because it doesn't fit the parameters. So are you saying we should go with inexact parameters, as in "I know it when I see it"? If so, then why do we get so many "is this trad?" threads? And why come to a website to learn more about it? (p.s. I prefer the Daydream Believer Literal video on youtube).

I have an "underlying rationale". It is largely, but not entirely, to dress in a distinctly American way in a foreign country. It is costume to my peers, but then to them so is wearing a suit or sport jacket. In fact, their lecturing in shorts, t-shirts and thongs is costume to me. Most people on the trendy streets where I live wear mostly black: it is the uniform (though don't tell them that) and is costume to me. In the end, what can you wear that isn't costume? It is all costume, and almost always has a tribal element. I suspect we're here because it adds a new dimension to our tribalism.

"Trads, look not to the past; but look to the future!" Nice slogan, but I have no idea what it really means. I certainly look to the past for my old J Press and BB items, and look to the fading memory of my grandparents for models of social grace and sartorial quality, ease and comfort. They weren't trad in the sense we use it, but they modeled its virtues.

I hope this doesn't sound critical. I'm enjoying the chance to think and talk through the issue.


----------



## chiamdream (Aug 7, 2009)

The only thing everyone seems to agree on: Trad is hiding new shoes from your wife.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

^:icon_smile_big:!


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

:icon_cheers::icon_cheers::icon_cheers:



chiamdream said:


> The only thing everyone seems to agree on: Trad is hiding new shoes from your wife.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

EastVillageTrad said:


> And what do women call you outside of the gas station?


"Linus."


----------



## Mississippi Mud (Oct 15, 2009)

P Hudson said:


> NCJackson, welcome to the discussion. And Mississippi Mud, I trust you've made a full recovery from what was ailing you. Sorry to hear of your illness.


Thanks for the concern, P Hudson. Yes, I've made a full recovery. However, my pocketbook continues to suffer due to this board.


----------



## NCJackson (Dec 19, 2008)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> I like the vagueness.
> 
> To me there are a number of very distinct types of trad practiced here, always in combination with each other, off the top of my head:
> -waspy, country club trad
> ...


This is what I was really asking about. I see these as very different styles and sometimes I wonder _which_ "Trad" someone is talking about sometimes.


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

I'm very much enjoying this discussion, academic as it is. Though if tire of me, just tell me to shut it.
I would like to address P Hudson in particular:

Inexact parameters: I'm mostly talking the historical sort. I think that we judge items by their old context, not their intrinsic qualities. Take the raccoon coat; it was just just as much a part of the Ivy League as polo coats, but nobody calls the raccoon coat trad. Is it that they were popular a few years to early? Just because it is Ivy, does not make it trad.

Underlying rational: I think that there is a universal rational that can subjectively asses the tradness of any item. Trad items are the ones that have stuck around because they are well made and versatile. RM Williams boots have nothing to do with the Ivy League, but they go just as well with bills khakis and Shetland sweaters because they embody the same traditional values of quality and workmanship. Akubra hats and Tweeds can look good together for the reason. So can Red Wings and Barbours. There is an underlying set of values that make the items trad. The endless "is this trad" posts are inevitable because the uninitiated only know what trads do wear, but not why they wear it.

Look to the Future: No style of dress has ever been static. There is always new clothing being made and we should not limit ourselves from it. If we assess "tradness" by item and not by whether or not it was worn historically at a given time and place, I think we will find that we have more clothing options than we imagined. Brooks Brothers was always know for innovation. I'm certain that you all have already found clothes that do fit into the cannon but seem to look just right with your trad clothes. 

p.s.- I just re-read the thread through, and good God, has this even gotten esoteric. Harris, what has thou wrought!


----------



## mualphapiper (Dec 13, 2009)

I'm a newbie here, but I'd like to chime in with my thoughts. So far in this thread, we've made a big deal about the _differences_ between the various schools of Ivy Leage/Trad/Anglo Trad/etc. but I think it might also be well to find some common ground. I find three unifying elements to the "Trad" aesthetic:

1. A preference for high quality, durable and genuine materials, natural in almost all cases, and, over all, possessing an innate beauty. Pinpoint cotton (must-iron), the tweeds, twill, madras, hard wearing leather (thank-you, Horween!) and so on. These are the materials that, with proper care, look better as years go by, rather than degrading until no longer attractive.

2. The judicious incorporation of functional, well designed and attractive articles from the working world, foreign countries, and the military. From the first, duffel coats, moleskin shirts and redwing boots, from the second, Barbour coats, tartan ties and tweed shooting jackets (foreign assuming one is in the USA) and in the third case, pea-coats, khaki pants (Bills!), chukkas and more.

3. The incorporation of classic pieces of clothing and accessories which have endured the test of history in terms of aesthetic durability. Here we avoid the vagaries of seasonal fashion. The darted jacket can, on occasion may be attractive, well made and well fitted. In the American narrative, however, we will find it as a fixture of impermanent fad fashion. Thus we prefer the soft-shouldered sack coat, with its universal, enduring good looks and natural flattery of the masculine form. 
______

The result of this is the "Trad" preference for the relaxed Ivy League look rather than the fashion-forward style of Madison Avenue (even in cases where it may use traditional/historical articles) and the comfortable woolen style of British Country side in the place of Savile Row.

Just an AAAC newcomer's two cents. I apologize in advance if I have it all wrong.

MAP


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

chiamdream said:


> The only thing everyone seems to agree on: Trad is hiding new shoes from your wife.


ROFALOL! There have never been words more true, spoken! :thumbs-up:


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Chiam is absolutely right and, apparently, an absolute riot.


----------



## NCJackson (Dec 19, 2008)

I like these broader definitions- natural materials, quality craftsmanship, an American style rooted in a variety of sartorial traditions rather than fashion and fads- but it does beg a question: Does the low quality of, say, contemporary Bass Weejuns make them less "trad" than Alden LHS mocassins? Is "Trad" a look or a set of values?


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

NCJackson said:


> Does the low quality of, say, contemporary Bass Weejuns make them less "trad" than Alden LHS mocassins? Is "Trad" a look or a set of values?


I had a theory about this, and I still believe the answer is both or either and to different people. I think this multiple definitions posing as one scenario is the reason arguments arise most often on the forum.

Repost from the Philosophies of Trad thread:



Coleman said:


> The three mindsets, or philosophies of Trad, that I think I recognize are these:
> 
> Trad is an Aesthetic - I think the most simple expression of this mindset might be, "If it looks Trad, it is Trad." A gent of this mindset would favor the style of Trad most of all, and if a product has the right look, it would generally be considered a part of the canon.
> 
> ...


----------



## goplutus (Jun 4, 2005)

*If Esquire says so...*

12 Styles of American Man
Slide 10 - The Trad:
Also Known As: The New Englander, the professor.

Dress code: Tweed blazers, button-down oxford-cloth shirts, rumpled khaki chinos. 
First known sighting: The original J. Press shop in New Haven, Connecticut, 1902. 
Recent sighting: Hipster coffee shop near you. 
Hall of Famers: Miles Davis, George Plimpton, John Updike. 
Signature accessory: Knit tie. 
Bragging rights: Wearing the same pair of khakis for fifteen years. 
Cause for stress: Hole in the crotch of said khakis. 
Pickup line: "I like your cardigan." 
Favorite book: The Stories of John Cheever. 
On his iPod: Talking Heads. 
In his driveway: 1983 Mercedes Benz S-Series. 
In his closet: Three-button wool herringbone blazer ($265) by J. Crew; cotton shirt ($30) by L.L. Bean; cotton tie ($95) by Gant; cotton trousers ($98) by Dockers; leather belt ($45) by J. Press; leather loafers ($495) by Prada; glasses ($405) by Tom Ford.

Read more: https://www.esquire.com/style/fashion-story/american-men-style-0310#ixzz0gUblnqwg

Not sure the actual pieces depicted fit the bill...


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

goplutus said:


> In his closet: Three-button wool herringbone blazer ($265) by J. Crew; cotton shirt ($30) by L.L. Bean; cotton tie ($95) by Gant; cotton trousers ($98) by Dockers; leather belt ($45) by J. Press; leather loafers ($495) by Prada; glasses ($405) by Tom Ford.
> 
> *Not sure the actual pieces depicted fit the bill*...


They don't, but since it's in Esquire, I'm not at all surprised.

Prada? Tom Ford? Dockers...?  Sounds like the rest of it was ripped off from the OPH. These guys don't even have a clue.


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Esquire's article is more geared to the hipsters currently wearing Trad as fashion, not style. They get some of it right (at least some of the key elements, tweed, khakis, etc.), although they generally cut it all slimmer and a bit more like Thom Browne. It's not likely they'll ever have an interest in anything other than the aesthetic and probably won't be wearing it in 2-3 years.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Coleman said:


> It's not likely they'll ever have an interest in anything other than the aesthetic and probably won't be wearing it in 2-3 years.


So much for achieving the apparently sought-after crotchless-15-year-old-khakis look. Of course, you can always buy the pre-shredded version at J. Crew...


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Coleman said:


> I had a theory about this, and I still believe the answer is both or either and to different people. I think this multiple definitions posing as one scenario is the reason arguments arise most often on the forum.
> 
> Repost from the Philosophies of Trad thread:
> 
> ...


I don't really get this. "If it looks Trad, it is Trad." This is circular. What looks "Trad"? Who decides? What looks "Trad" that might arguably not be "Trad" to someone else?

"If it was Trad, it is Trad." What was "Trad," and who decides? Are things that were not called "Trad" in the past now "Trad" because they are retroactively labelled as such?

"The concepts of quality and durability as equal to the aesthetic". Quality and durability are certainly not unique to "Trad." Brioni suits are very well made and can be durable, depending on the fabric. So how does this preference separate "Trad" from other aesthetics?


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

They all take a set, static style as a given (one that doesn't actually exist, I know). Trad is an Aesthetic requires only that an object falls into the style visually, Trad is a History requires that an object falls into the style visually and historically, and Trad is a Philosophy requires that an object falls into the style visually and is a quality product. All of it is overly simplified for discussion, and I'm probably not intelligent enough to articulate it well. Those participating in the thread at the time seemed to understand what I meant.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Taliesin said:


> I don't really get this. "If it looks Trad, it is Trad." This is circular. What looks "Trad"? Who decides? What looks "Trad" that might arguably not be "Trad" to someone else?


Well, as Trad is a particular interpretation of the Ivy League look favored on this message board, I suppose the obvious answer would be, the members of this board. Where they get their rationale is beyond me. :icon_smile_big:

However, this isn't especially unusual. I can say that with Ivy League, it can be (and has been at times) schismed into many tiny boxes, much like Trad; back in the day, different Ivy League schools had their own signature looks. For instance, here's an opinion from 1939:


Men Can Take It by Elizabeth Hawes said:


> HARVARD men would wear baggy, worn-out tweeds, frayed shirts, and scuffed shoes. After graduating, they would head directly to 'Rogers Peet' in NYC and buy new (but not stylish!) wardrobes. Any Harvard undergrad who wore clean, neat clothes was deemed an outsider, probably the son of immigrant Italians or Jews.
> 
> PRINCETON men were more fashion-conscious, but followed their own herd. That is, they'd all wear the same "new" thing.
> 
> ...


And another from 1957:


Notes From Underground: The Vagabond" said:


> "If it was Trad, it is Trad." What was "Trad," and who decides? Are things that were not called "Trad" in the past now "Trad" because they are retroactively labelled as such?


Well, sometimes things are only clear in hindsight. A lot of things that are particular to the look don't become clear until you go back into the archives.



Taliesin said:


> "The concepts of quality and durability as equal to the aesthetic". Quality and durability are certainly not unique to "Trad." Brioni suits are very well made and can be durable, depending on the fabric. So how does this preference separate "Trad" from other aesthetics?


Well, I wrote this a while ago, but I think it's still fairly true. Maybe more accurate for Ivy League than Trad, but as one is a subset of the other...



> The trad look follows the same basic tenets as most classic looks: timelessness, understatement, lineage, personal status, putting others at ease.
> 
> The difference is in priorities.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Well said Katon.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

katon said:


> Trad is a particular interpretation of the Ivy League look favored on this message board.


I think this answers the OP's query better than anything else.


----------



## NCJackson (Dec 19, 2008)

It's the practical answer, sure, but I like the philosophical examination of the subject and don't mind anyone pursuing it.


----------



## HistoryDoc (Dec 14, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> ROFALOL! There have never been words more true, spoken! :thumbs-up:


Hid some from my wife yesterday. :icon_smile:


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm just getting a feel for these terms myself, and I'm learning that I'm not all that Trad, after all--too fond of darted jackets with double vents, apparently. Still, these traditions are not all that traditional: is a definition "the style of 'Ivy League' in the 50s, (which go through the mid-60s)" adequate?


----------

