# Trad and Effort



## heimskringla (Nov 2, 2008)

Do forgive me if this has been beaten to death already. However, in following this forum for the last few months, I have come to a conclusion about what attracted me to the 'trad' style in the first place.I enjoy the apparent effortlessness involved--except most of you put quite a lot of effort in to dressing in a particular way.

Much like GHWB I grew up in a family in which it was normal for men to dress in this particular style; plain front trousers, a properly fitting jacket, and a presentable pair of shoes were de rigeur for the men in my family, even after we ceased to have an abundance of wealth. My grandfather certainly had a favorite haberdashery or two, but I never recall him fussing over whether or not his jacket had darts or a rolled lapel. He always insisted that a gentlemen must never try too hard to dress well, because in doing so he was likely to appear pretentious. There's a certain austerity in that statement, I suppose, but that particular ideal is one that many older "WASP" families cherish deeply.

I suppose that what I'm saying is that I find it very difficult to fuss quite this much about what I'm wearing; I prefer a sack cut when I have the opportunity to wear one, but I wore a darted 2b charcoal suit last Friday evening (to a business casual dress dinner) and received a number of compliments. I also don't feel awkward when appearing without a jacket on a day-to-day basis; I enjoy them, but if it's too warm and humid, I'll dispense with the jacket. I wear a tie when the mood strikes, but I'm more comfortable in the heat with the first button of my collar undone.

I wear an OCBD and plain front khaki trousers on a daily basis. They look good; I can meet with students and administrators informally dressed this way. I don't have to spend too much time considering what I'll wear in the morning; I own 14 OCBD shirts, one polo, a pair of loafers, a pair of slip on Sketcher's, and a pair of captoe oxfords. I rarely experience a moment of indecision when the available choices are light blue, French blue, white, ecru, and pink.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Ah, but you were to the manner born. That might not be the case of many (or most) who fuss so much about dressing 'trad'.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

I was not familiar with the style of dressing that we call Trad until one day when I was in the Army that I saw a couple of fellows in my company who were from the Upper East Coast (I think) dressed that way and I knew that when I became a civilian that was the way I wanted to dress.

We did not have much need for tailored clothing where I was stationed and could wear any civilian clothes when off duty except for denim. The Army got that right 50 years ago and today most restaurants are unable to do so alas.

All I had in the way of 'dressy' clothes was a sort of tweed like jacket, gray trousers, a knit tie, and tassel loafers. I think I was trying to model my dress after Jack Web in the old Dragnet series.

When I got out of the Army I found a number of shops in Westwood, Calif. that sold what was called Ivy League if we called it anything.

We who shopped there did not have to fuss about such things as the number of buttons, pleats, darts, side vents, or other such details because the clothing only came one way. Probably the biggest decisions were whether to wear a button down, which was the most popular, a tab, or a straight collar. I think there were a few club colored shirts around too.

If it seems that we fuss about details today, I suggest that it is because there are so few shops that sell the type of clothing that we fancy. I believe that even Brooks might be selling more darted suits than sacks.

There is certainly nothing wrong with a two button darted jacket like the one you wore, but it is not the look I choose for myself.

If one only has a few solid colored shirts, I suppose it would eliminate most indecision when getting dressed. I had no indecision on what to wear when I was in the service, but it did get a bit boring. 

Cheers, Jim.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

heimskringla said:


> Do forgive me if this has been beaten to death already. However, in following this forum for the last few months, I have come to a conclusion about what attracted me to the 'trad' style in the first place.I enjoy the apparent effortlessness involved--except most of you put quite a lot of effort in to dressing in a particular way.
> 
> Much like GHWB I grew up in a family in which it was normal for men to dress in this particular style; plain front trousers, a properly fitting jacket, and a presentable pair of shoes were de rigeur for the men in my family, even after we ceased to have an abundance of wealth. My grandfather certainly had a favorite haberdashery or two, but I never recall him fussing over whether or not his jacket had darts or a rolled lapel. He always insisted that a gentlemen must never try too hard to dress well, because in doing so he was likely to appear pretentious. There's a certain austerity in that statement, I suppose, but that particular ideal is one that many older "WASP" families cherish deeply.
> 
> ...


Welcome to the Catch-22 of AAAC: you can only be trad if you effortlessly dress in trad clothes; you can't be effortless if you're taking the time to read and post on forums like AAAC.

Embrace the hypocrisy.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*other related areas of focus on this board. It's not just a matter of style.*

1. back in the day, the only resources comparable to this board were face-to-face conversations with one's family, friends, peers and the guys who worked in the local clothing store. Nowadays, this board may be more accessible and relevant than the face-to-face conversations noted above.

2. for me, it's not just a question of "trad" vs. non-trad (or whatever we want to call it). It's mainly a sensitivity to the great loss of quality and workmanship that pervades most of what is available for sale these days, in any market but very especially with respect to clothes. I tend to prefer and treasure the well-made, in whatever area of life we're talking about. In many cases this leads me towards the past, rather than the contemporary. for example, a new car may be marvelous, it may perform better than those of the past, but I'm likely to see it as somewhat devoid of character. I realize this is a highly personal and subjective matter, whether we're talking about clothes, saddles, rifles or automobiles.

3. for those who don't care about tracking down three-button sacks, I say congratulations. It will make your life much easier to be able to go down to any men's store or men's department in one of the big chains and pick up whatever they're selling. I don't even necessarily find that such clothes are always ugly. I just don't care for them.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I agree with the above comments.

-- In most things -- professions, art, craft, however humble or fine -- seeming effortlessness is part of mastery, even though underneath the surface, those legs are paddling like crazy. But does the audience really want to see the dancer's face straining? 

There's nothing wrong with taking effort to make things seem effortless.

-- As mentioned above, clothes are a much bigger challenge today. There are exponentially more choices contriving to bewilder the picture. Even more signfiicant is our throwaway culture. 

A few decades ago, if a guy needed a pair of decent, versatile, and durable shoes, he might just pick up some penny loafers. Even at a modest price, those shoes were well made (in the USA, even!) with good leather. Today the same quality shoe must be sought after through a maze of confusing choices, and a much greater price.

Today, most people just buy stuff that lasts a year or two and then throw it away. That wasn't always the goal.


----------



## DixieTrad (Dec 9, 2006)

heimskringla, your point is well taken. I think one of the fundamental differences between your grandfather's time and today is that in his time, a man could typically rely on his clothier(s) to give him guidance so that he did not have to really think about what he wore. Traditional clothiers "stayed the course" - Brooks was Brooks, Press was Press. This was true of the many small clothing stores throughout the East and the Southeast. This guidance was not necessarily even verbal, but a clothier knew his customer and knew what his customer felt comfortable wearing. Any changes were introduced gradually, if at all, and stayed within a fairly narrow spectrum.

Another key difference is that young men (boys) learned to dress by emulating fathers. There were no designers, stylists (God help us), or GQ magazine. The sixties brought about radical change, with young men wanting NOT to look like their fathers. Now we deal with fathers wanting to dress like their sons. I am, at 47, amazed at men my age who turn to their sons for clothing advice. 

I tire of the "Is this trad?" questions found here, but at least there are young men seeking the "way". I do greatly appreciate the tips on where to find certain articles of traditional clothing. The purveyors are dying off, and every new find is a help!

I am no TNSIL purist, mostly due to budget and resource constraints, but I do appreciate a place where ideas, resources, and advice can be shared.


----------



## The Louche (Jan 30, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> Welcome to the Catch-22 of AAAC: you can only be trad if you effortlessly dress in trad clothes; you can't be effortless if you're taking the time to read and post on forums like AAAC.
> 
> Embrace the hypocrisy.


The OP makes a very good point. And I find it true that at the (wealthy east coast) roots of Trad/TNSIL men gave only a bit of thought to their clothing and had relatively few items. _Somehow_ they always seemed to have looked quite good and had consistency in the items they did own (all 3/2 sack jackets for some reason, all shirts were button-downs for some reason, etc.). I will always be confused as to how such a non-chalance can result in true style. Hell - a lot of these guys even looked great in stuff that was handed down from their fathers and presumably didn't fit perfectly, was shiny, frayed...

But the points made about the relative lack of information in those days are definitely true. Maybe if they had the internet they would be more fastidious.

As to the line quoted above - and this highlights my confusion about how fastidious and good results may be mutually exclusive - what do you have to say about all of the very dapper Brits from years ago. SR customers are most certainly concerned with detailing, etc. By default.

I'm still confused by this whole topic


----------



## bluemagic (Oct 11, 2008)

It's the same thing with manners; just because you weren't born with them doesn't mean you can't learn them (even if it takes much exertion).


----------



## The Louche (Jan 30, 2008)

bluemagic said:


> It's the same thing with manners; just because you weren't born with them doesn't mean you can't learn them (even if it takes much exertion).


Yea but somehow it seems to cheapen your style when you've put effort into in certain peoples eyes. You always here people say that a look is contrived or someone "looks like they are trying too hard"...


----------



## logicalfrank (Oct 16, 2008)

I really like the clothing on this section of the site but I get kind of turned off by what sometimes seems like an overwhelming list of restrictions to this style of dress. I think, for some people, finding these exact styles is part of the fun and that's why we here about the restrictions so much. As for me, I let the trad style influence what I wear but not dictate it.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Good OP. I came here after searching for some time for a distinctly American take on non-fashion. By that I mean (1) clothes with American heritage if not roots, (2) made in the US, and (3) not subject to the vagaries and trends that define fashion. Trad works for me according to these criteria. My purposes include supporting the US economy, defining myself on foreign shores--during a time of war and rampant anti-American sentiment--as an American (but hopefully avoiding the "ugly American" thing), simplicity of combining elements (I don't choose my clothes in the dark, but I could without fear that they won't match) and not worrying about what is in and out of style.

My biggest worry when it comes to Trad is that now that "preppy is in" there will be a time when people look at what I'm wearing and say "That is so 2008".

I am for the reasons cited self-aware about my clothing, but not to the point (I hope) of excessive self-consciousness once I'm out the door.

Oh yeah, and my feet feel better since I started wearing quality American shoes.


----------



## heimskringla (Nov 2, 2008)

Mm. Dapper Brits and my grandfather don't have much in common; my grandfather grew up in a time when ostentation and "foppishness" as he liked to call it were frowned upon for members of his social class.

Despite the rather advantageous start I received, I grew up in a household of very modest means; We certainly couldn't afford to purchase the latest styles of clothing, and I was quite content to dress in polos and khaki trousers or shorts of similar make. My brother on the other hand felt disenfranchised by my mother's inability to procure the latest and greatest fashions, and he did everything he could to do so himself--even turning to theft in his teens and early 20's in order to do it.

I will never object to purchasing quality items over purchasing what is readily available but poorly made or simply currently fashionable. Even the inexpensive Old Navy OCBD's that currently comprise much of my day to day wardrobe will last for at least a couple of years--although I intend to replace them sooner rather than later; they fit a student budget at the moment.

I don't suppose I took issue with the quest for quality items, but I personally don't care to give the style a very rigid definition. If you want to be trad, be trad. Approach life with simplicity, frugality, and a stoic demeanor and everything else will follow.


----------



## heimskringla (Nov 2, 2008)

P Hudson said:


> My biggest worry when it comes to Trad is that now that "preppy is in" there will be a time when people look at what I'm wearing and say "That is so 2008".
> 
> I am for the reasons cited self-aware about my clothing, but not to the point (I hope) of excessive self-consciousness once I'm out the door.
> 
> Oh yeah, and my feet feel better since I started wearing quality American shoes.


I'm quite pleased people have managed to take something positive from a thread fueled by multiple gin & tonics  I really don't care _what_ people have to say about my wardrobe. This has essentially been my "style" since I was 8 years old; it was essentially my grandfather's style; it was the style many of his friends and successful associates wore.

I'm presentable; I rarely have to worry about being over or under dressed for my workday or social gatherings after. Not to mention that women around my age seem to admire my 'style' when compared to that of men in my age group who wear the latest fashions. I've dated more than a few women whom I would consider out of my league and they've all complimented my sartorial sensibility; granted, charm, intellect, and random eccentricities all played a factor.

Do your best not to fall into the trap of putting too much stock in other people's opinions of you. They'll probably end up replacing their entire wardrobe within the year, and you can use the spare cash to dote on your charming partner or other pursuits.


----------



## Reddington (Nov 15, 2007)

P Hudson said:


> My biggest worry when it comes to Trad is that now that "preppy is in" there will be a time when people look at what I'm wearing and say "That is so 2008".


I don't think you'll have to worry about that. Take a look at this post by rojo (https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=859348&postcount=13). It appears preppy has been 'in' about every year for the past decade.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

The Louche said:


> The OP makes a very good point. And I find it true that at the (wealthy east coast) roots of Trad/TNSIL men gave only a bit of thought to their clothing and had relatively few items. _Somehow_ they always seemed to have looked quite good and had consistency in the items they did own (all 3/2 sack jackets for some reason, all shirts were button-downs for some reason, etc.). I will always be confused as to how such a non-chalance can result in true style. Hell - a lot of these guys even looked great in stuff that was handed down from their fathers and presumably didn't fit perfectly, was shiny, frayed...
> 
> But the points made about the relative lack of information in those days are definitely true. Maybe if they had the internet they would be more fastidious.
> 
> ...


I think a good portion of what is "trad" is mythology invented by members of this board. Not trying to knock you Louche, but these ideas you have about how East Coast establishment guys dressed in the 1950s...are these personal observations that you made in the 1950s? If not, what's the source?

Speaking only for myself, I never even heard of a 3/2 sack until I came on this board. "OCBD" is a term that I don't think existed before AAAC, and if you look at old pictures of, for example, the Kennedys, they wear plenty of clothes during what many here would say was the "golden age" of trad that don't fit into what folks here would define as trad.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

heimskringla said:


> Do forgive me if this has been beaten to death already. However, in following this forum for the last few months, I have come to a conclusion about what attracted me to the 'trad' style in the first place.I enjoy the apparent effortlessness involved--except most of you put quite a lot of effort in to dressing in a particular way.
> 
> Much like GHWB I grew up in a family in which it was normal for men to dress in this particular style; plain front trousers, a properly fitting jacket, and a presentable pair of shoes were de rigeur for the men in my family, even after we ceased to have an abundance of wealth. My grandfather certainly had a favorite haberdashery or two, but I never recall him fussing over whether or not his jacket had darts or a rolled lapel. He always insisted that a gentlemen must never try too hard to dress well, because in doing so he was likely to appear pretentious. There's a certain austerity in that statement, I suppose, but that particular ideal is one that many older "WASP" families cherish deeply.
> 
> ...


Let be on record as saying that:
1.) I like clothes
2.) But I don't spend a lot of time thinking about them
3.) I follow _this_ forum because the members seem like sharp fellows and I can't stand the nattering about the latest fads and fashions found in the other forums (I get enough of that at work each day)

With that in mind, I think far too many people think way too hard about what they wear, and what attracts me to this trad idea (though I haven't a sack-suit in the closet) is not what people are wearing, but their attitude towards what they wear.

Wear what you like (as long as you don't look like an idiot) and wear it well.

Someone once said the best dressed men choose an outfit carefully, then put it on and forget all about it.

Well said, says I.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

PorterSq said:


> I think a good portion of what is "trad" is mythology invented by members of this board.


Sorry, but that's just nuts.



> I never even heard of a 3/2 sack until I came on this board.


And that means it was invented here? Give me a break.



> "OCBD" is a term that I don't think existed before AAAC


And "EVOO" probably didn't exist before Rachael Ray. Nonetheless, Italian chefs have been cooking with it for a long time.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

I am interested in men's clothing, which, I suppose, is obvious since I post here. One aspect of men's clothing that does not interest me in the least is what is in fashion or what is likely to be in fashion. I am happy to leave fashionable garments and this season's hot color to the women.

I started buying tailored garments in the 1950's and if they still fit, I can only think of one suit that I have owned that I would not happily wear today. What we call Trad looks good to me, but one of it's beauties is that it continues to look good over the decades without the blessing of some designer.

Many of us who like Trad clothing might be interested in who the maker of our tailored clothing is, but we don't need no steekin' designers.

Yesterday I went to the optometrist to inquire about a new pair of single vision eyeglasses for computer use. I just wanted a sturdy pair of frames and there were certain design elements, but not many, that I wanted.

He showed me a number of frames that were $260.00 before the cost of lenses. Why so much? They all had some designers name on them. He finally showed me a pair of non-designer frames that looked good to me and were only $99.00 including lenses and that price difference is the effect that I think designers have on goods.

I do have one pair of glasses that I really like and that I have had for about 10 years that had a designer's name on the temple, but my optometrist at the time was able to remove the name with a little acetone before I bought them.

I hope you will excuse my rant, but increasing the price of goods because they have a designer's name on them is a pet peeve and happily not something we need with Trad clothing.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

I have many thoughts on this thread, first & foremost was whether or not I should even bother to reply. Bottom line for me, dress however you like, but if you want to dress Trad (or whatever you call it) there are some "rules" to follow.

Brian


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

I just read Topsider's post above mine and I agree with all of his comments.

Before I came to Andy's I might not have known I dressed in a Trad style, but both I and the shop where I buy tailored clothing knew I dressed in a Traditional style. Same thing I think - just a handy abbreviation. 

3/2 sacks have been around for decades.

OCBD is another handy abbreviation and I have no idea about it origin, but the garment with a box pleat predates me and I have been around a pretty long time.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

heimskringla said:


> I'm quite pleased people have managed to take something positive from a thread fueled by multiple gin & tonics  ...


Gin or no, you write elegantly...and with the seasoned voice of an older man. Yet I gather from your posts that you're a student in your twenties or thirties. 
All I can say is, :icon_hailthee:!


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> I think a good portion of what is "trad" is mythology invented by members of this board.


I disagree. Seems to me that "trad" is a specific style _inspired by_ the Ivy League look of the 50's and 60's and the preppy look of the 80's. Few people around here, from what I've read, actually want to claim that _everybody_ in the 50's and 60's exclusively wore 3/2 sack jackets, flat-front pants with big ol' cuffs, oxford cloth button-downs, penny loafers, etc. Most, rather, agree that the above were commonly worn at that time, and that particular style is the basis of this forum.

No, "trad" isn't just a re-branding of Ivy campus fashion from mid-century, but a rather narrowly defined subset of that fashion. Therefore, no mythology.


----------



## The Louche (Jan 30, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> I think a good portion of what is "trad" is mythology invented by members of this board. Not trying to knock you Louche, but these ideas you have about how East Coast establishment guys dressed in the 1950s...are these personal observations that you made in the 1950s? If not, what's the source?
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I never even heard of a 3/2 sack until I came on this board. "OCBD" is a term that I don't think existed before AAAC, and if you look at old pictures of, for example, the Kennedys, they wear plenty of clothes during what many here would say was the "golden age" of trad that don't fit into what folks here would define as trad.


You make a good point Porter. I guess I get sucked into some delusions about "the way it were" from reading these boards. I have no actual basis for comparison as to what East Coasties wore inthe '50s other than here-say (both pre- and post-AAAC/T). I do know that my granfather went to Penn Law around 1950 and he dresses quite trad by the definitions of this board (not spot on bu damn close); the pictures I've seen from him through the years indicate that he and his friends maintained this style as well. He's actually a perfect example of someone who seems to nail it everytime - almost as if by accident.


----------



## Larsd4 (Oct 14, 2005)

The main effort in dressing trad is in acquiring a trad wardrobe that fits. Earning the money, selecting clothing from J. Press, Andover Shop, O'Connell's, et. al., having the clothing fitted correctly, and disposing of all non-trad items are the necessary but difficult steps. Once you've done this, everything you don is trad. You're a trad. Now it's effortless. 

There are several lists of trad wardrobes on this board. For ten or fifteen thousand dollars, a guy could outfit himself for five years using these lists. He'd be done. 

I'm betting more than a few board members who've disappeared over the years have pretty much accomplished the hard part and have moved on to other pursuits...blogging, fly fishing, hunting, sailing, the perfect martini. 

For the rest of us, still building the wardrobe or obsessed with improving it minutely, we have this board.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

wnh said:


> No, "trad" isn't just a re-branding of Ivy campus fashion from mid-century, but a rather narrowly defined subset of that fashion. Therefore, no mythology.


If it's such a narrowly defined subset, how come people still argue about what it is after several years of AAAC and several thousands of posts?

Are Timex watches trad? How about Timex watches on grosgrain straps? Alden 405s? Needlepoint belts? Pink oxford shirts? If so, based on what?

Further, what about 1950s "trad" fashions that look goofy now? For example, are there any among us wearing pants that are so short they don't even tough the top of the shoe? That's what THEY wore, so far as I can tell.

This is all based on mythology, and that mythology is fueled by the collective creativity of folks on AAAC. I suspect not more than 5% of this board is old enough to remember details of what people wore in the 1950s, and I suspect less than 2% went to an Ivy League school (and I'm guessing 0.1% went to an Ivy League school IN the '50s). The "inspiration" for the trad look is an image that I suspect no one here has experienced. Therefore, folks create a mythology to fill the gaps.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> If it's such a narrowly defined subset, how come people still argue about what it is after several years of AAAC and several thousands of posts?
> 
> Are Timex watches trad? How about Timex watches on grosgrain straps? Alden 405s? Needlepoint belts? Pink oxford shirts? If so, based on what?


"Narrowly defined" relative to the whole of 1950's and 1960's style. That is, "trad" isn't 1950's and 1960's style, but inspired in large part by certain aspects of that style. There seems to me to be little arguing here among the more established members. Those questions, for example, almost exclusively come from newer members who are just discovering the style. Further, from the threads I've read in which people reveal such things, very few members dress exclusively trad, opting instead to pick those things that work for them and disregarding those things that don't. So these debates over, for example, whether pink oxfords are trad are not between "trad1" and "trad2" but between "trad1" and "semi-trad1" and "kinda-sorta-trad1" and so forth.



> Further, what about 1950s "trad" fashions that look goofy now? For example, are there any among us wearing pants that are so short they don't even tough the top of the shoe? That's what THEY wore, so far as I can tell.


That's the sort of question that sparks useful discourse around here, in my opinion. Much more interesting than "can I wear a Timex and still label myself 'trad'?" nd that may be an area where it's not exactly trad, but it's not necessarily anti-trad either. Again, I'd say the "trad" style is drawn in part from 1950's style, but not all of 1950's style. That particular decade wasn't immune from fashion excess, and it's only fitting that trads should reject certain aspects of the 1950's style, specifically those aspects that don't fit into a 'classic' (a relative term, I know) style.
Are high-water pants trad? Perhaps not. Can they work in a trad wardrobe? AldenPyle seems to make it work.



> This is all based on mythology


It's not based on mythology, because people actually wore these things. 
I agree that there is a lot of mythology floating around here. Not _everyone_ in the 1950's wore exclusively 3/2 sack suits with flat-front trousers and 1 3/4" cuffs, paired only with white or blue OCBDs and a Brooks repp or foulard tie. But a lot of people did. When we try to equate "trad" with 1950's Ivy League style, we're in error. But when we acknowledge that trad is drawn from 1950's style, without being entirely dependent on it, I think we're correct. In short, trad is what it is.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

wnh said:


> That is, "trad" isn't 1950's and 1960's style, but inspired in large part by certain aspects of that style. There seems to me to be little arguing here among the more established members...When we try to equate "trad" with 1950's Ivy League style, we're in error. But when we acknowledge that trad is drawn from 1950's style, without being entirely dependent on it, I think we're correct. In short, trad is what it is.


Respectfully, I think this is incorrect. The first statement that I take issue with - that "more established members say" is what I believe logicians call an appeal to false authority. Illogic like this is what makes the myth exist. Being a "more established" member of this board is meaningless without some bona fides. Find me a member of this board that went to Cornell in 1958 and who was into fashion then, as he is now, and I'll listen to him about the way things used to be and ought to be now. By contrast, show me a 20-something from the midwest who went to a state school who has read a bunch of posts on this website and has access to his dad's credit card to buy at Brooks Brothers and I'm not going to give deference to his statements about the way things "used to be."

Second, I agree "trad" is drawn from the 50's style...but that's not that helpful when you try to say what trad "is." I'd have a hard time thinking of any piece of clothing in our society that I couldn't somehow analogize to something available in the 1950s.

In other words - to my thinking - the only thing that bridges that gap is an invented mythology.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

wnh said:


> It's not based on mythology, because people actually wore these things.


Maybe we're defining mythology differently. I'm defining it as adding a significance that doesn't inherently exist. The GHWB attire thread is a perfect analogy: some people say he's a perfect trad because there are old pictures of him wearing OCBDs and 3/2 sacks. OK, fair enough. Now, for every one of those pictures, I can find you 10 in which he's wearing a point collar, pleated pants or a darted blazer. What's mythological is that wearing a 3/2 or OCBD has some special cultural significance or that the 1950s wearers of them really cared either way whether their jacket was darted.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

I was a 1950 wearer of what we now call Trad (I think) and at the time I did not know there was such a thing as a darted jacket - perhaps I was just not very observant.

I graduated from UCLA which is probably as far from an Ivy League school as one can be.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> Respectfully, I think this is incorrect. The first statement that I take issue with - that "more established members say" is what I believe logicians call an appeal to false authority. Illogic like this is what makes the myth exist. Being a "more established" member of this board is meaningless without some bona fides. Find me a member of this board that went to Cornell in 1958 and who was into fashion then, as he is now, and I'll listen to him about the way things used to be and ought to be now. By contrast, show me a 20-something from the midwest who went to a state school who has read a bunch of posts on this website and has access to his dad's credit card to buy at Brooks Brothers and I'm not going to give deference to his statements about the way things "used to be."


I should have qualified my "more established" designation. But first, let me go back to what I see as the definition of trad, from my time reading this forum. Some trace the usage of "trad" back only to 2004, with the creation of this forum on Ask Andy, while others refer to Alan Flusser using the term (though I'm not sure exactly where) as well as its use in Japan, apparently as a reference to a certain traditionally American style. Whenever the term was created, it seems the meaning is essentially the same: something of a shorthand for the traditional natural shoulder Ivy League look, though more narrowly defined.

"Trad" is not the same as "classic American style," though it fits somewhere on the continuum. "Classic American style" certainly allows for darted jackets, uncuffed pleated trousers, etc. A simple charcoal business suit with a darted jacket and pleated trousers is no less classic American than its cousin with a 3/2 sack jacket and flat-front trousers. But, the latter is defined as "trad" while the former is not. To be honest I'm not certain why, but that's how it's defined, around here at least. And I think that's the point of this forum: to allow a space for members to discuss the ins and outs of a relatively small niche style.

So, back to my appeal to the "more established members." By that I didn't mean those with the most posts, or those who are oldest, but simply those who know the trad style. They don't have to know all the ins and outs of what people wore in the 50's, because that's not what trad is. It is, again, based in part on what was worn in the 50's (and while you almost certainly could connect anything available today to that decade, it _was_ the heyday of the Ivy League look in America and so is especially relevant here), but you can look all around the internet and find photographs of men in sack jackets and penny loafers and madras shorts and so on from those years, so there is, to my mind, no need to have lived it to know how the style should be now.

Anyway, I think we're both approaching this from two different points, so it seems we're just going around in circles. My basic point, I think, though perhaps I have misplaced it somewhere along the line, is this: "trad" is a sort of composite style that has cherrypicked some stuff from the 50's, some from the 60's, probably some from the late 40's, some from the 80's, and will probably continue to do so as 'new' things arise. Or maybe not. Maybe "trad" is so narrowly defined that very little gets in, while considerably much is left in the close-but-no-cigar category. Whatever the case, I'm tired of thinking about it for the moment.

At the end of the day, I'd say that I favor a classic American style. Some of it's trad, some of it isn't. (I don't mind darts, for example, so long as a jacket has a natural shoulder.) Or maybe the definition of "trad" does allow for the darted natural shoulder jacket and my understanding of "trad" is wrong. Either way, I wear what I like, and it works.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

P Hudson said:


> .....a distinctly American take on non-fashion. By that I mean (1) clothes with American heritage if not roots, (2) made in the US, and (3) not subject to the vagaries and trends that define fashion...simplicity of combining elements (I don't choose my clothes in the dark, but I could without fear that they won't match) and not worrying about what is in and out of style.
> 
> I am for the reasons cited self-aware about my clothing, but not to the point (I hope) of excessive self-consciousness once I'm out the door.
> 
> Oh yeah, and my feet feel better since I started wearing quality American shoes.


I agree with all of the above. Well stated!


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

seriously guys, just wear whatever looks good on you...

jpress trousers fit me like crap, so i dont buy pants from them and get them from corneliani and incotex, two italian brands...

meanwhile i like their shaggy dogs...

and darted jackets really dont look bad...same with forward pleated trousers.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

I don't get this idea that Made in the USA is a requirement of it being trad? American roots?

I disagree. How about fine sweaters made in Ireland, tweeds from the UK and oilskins from Australia? None of them are American-made or have US roots, yet I suspect people here would say those are quite trad. So...is it really about being "made in the USA?"


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> I don't get this idea that Made in the USA is a requirement of it being trad? American roots?
> 
> I disagree. How about fine sweaters made in Ireland, tweeds from the UK and oilskins from Australia? None of them are American-made or have US roots, yet I suspect people here would say those are quite trad. So...is it really about being "made in the USA?"


True - I guess I'd say - traditional items from their traditional maker/country of origin rather that items made in a country that is totally foreign to such items, even if 'commissioned' from a US or traditional maker.

However, the bulk of regular wear items can be sourced in the US - shirts (BB OCBD), shoes (Alden/AE), suits (Southwick), jackets (Southwick), outerwear (Sterlingwear) ..... and anything sold by O'Connells seems to be true to its traditional country of origin.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

I am 100% NOT accusing you of anything, but it seems to me that the distinction between what foreign stuff is OK and what isn't is whether white people make it.

Not a lot of people around here talking about their Peruvian poncho.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

Untilted said:


> seriously guys, just wear whatever looks good on you...


C'mon, Tilt, there wouldn't BE an AAA*T* if everyone did that....folks read and post here because they like the particular style of clothing that is (most often) discussed here. There are parameters of this style, be it "Trad" or TNSIL or Ivy League, to be learned and understood. Not everyone has to "obey" each and every rule, but there are rules......


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

ACtually, I hope people like Paper Clip, Untilted and Patrick - my three favorite dressers by a lot on this site - continue to post as much as ever.

One of my daily highlights is seeing what you fellows are wearing every day and getting ideas from it.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> I am 100% NOT accusing you of anything, but it seems to me that the distinction between what foreign stuff is OK and what isn't is whether white people make it.
> 
> Not a lot of people around here talking about their Peruvian poncho.


I'm certainly not taking any of this personally and am enjoying this exercise in refining my arguments.:icon_smile_wink:

Peruvian pima cotton is good!

I guess there are two parts to this calculation:

I like items that are traditionally made in that country (irish/english/scottish wool sweaters, jackets, socks, english shoes, swiss cotton, watches) etc. and not those made by makers solely to take advantage of a much cheaper cost of labor (a suit/shirt/pair of shoes made in China by an "American" brand).

However, just because an item is made in its country of origin (peruvian poncho, Italian skinny suits or italian thin soled pointy black shoes) doesn't make it traditional in the style that is discussed on this board.

I guess I'm saying, I like items in the traditional american style (even though they may not be made in this country) that are made in their traditional countries of origin.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm not concerned with the ethnic heritage of the people who make the clothes I buy. I just tend to prefer that my stuff is "made in USA".



PorterSq said:


> I am 100% NOT accusing you of anything, but it seems to me that the distinction between what foreign stuff is OK and what isn't is whether white people make it.
> 
> Not a lot of people around here talking about their Peruvian poncho.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Joe Beamish said:


> I'm not concerned with the ethnic heritage of the people who make the clothes I buy. I just tend to prefer that my stuff is "made in USA".


Fair enough, but I don't think we're on the same page. Paperclip was saying that he likes his stuff made in the USA and I pointed out that a number of trad items were well within the "trad canon" that are NOT from the USA (e.g. Irish sweaters, tweed from the UK).

Now, if you tell me that you like Irish sweaters and tweed, but only when they're made in the USA, that's different than the point Paperclip and I were going back-and-forth on. If, however, you tell me that foreign-made stuff is OK as long as it's a tweed, Irish sweater, or the like, then that puts you in the same camp as P.C.

Either way, I'm truly not trying to make a moral judgment. As a fiscal conservative who believes in laissez faire economics, I disagree with promoting "Made in the USA" consumer goods (unless there is some unique reason they can ONLY be made here or the USA industries can provide the same quality at a better price than an overseas competitor). However, I certainly recognize that there is another side to that argument and respect it.


----------



## babycatcher (Apr 6, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> Welcome to the Catch-22 of AAAC: you can only be trad if you effortlessly dress in trad clothes; you can't be effortless if you're taking the time to read and post on forums like AAAC.
> 
> Embrace the hypocrisy.


I dont see it that way, at least not quite. I went to prep schools and such, and have dressed pretty much the same way for most of my adult life (I will tend to block out the late 1980s though).

Now, I am at a point in my life where I want to invest in a wardrobe that is uniformly of high quality. Like any investment, I want to be well-informed before I take the plunge. That is where AAAC paid off for me.

For example, before AAAC, I wore J&M Ski Mocs. I could have gone on buying a new couple of pairs every 2 years and then tossing them in the garbage when they were worn, but I learned of the Alden 986. I can come up with dozens of similar examples. My "look" is pretty much unchanged to 99% of the people I meet, but I know the difference now, and that matters. As a bonus, and probably the the main point when I really think about it, the stuff I have now wears longer and is more comfortable. It feels more "substantial" when I wear it because it is better made.

The rules are interesting, and when they tend to flatter how I look, I follow them; when then don't, I won't. Darts and pleats don't scare me if they look better in a garment, at least when its on me.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

In the 1950's and early 1960's, there was a recognized and widely adopted style of dress that was referred to as the Ivy League style in the mid 1950's and the "natural shoulder" style in the late 1950's and early 1960's. There were a number of distinct characteristics of that style including natural shoulders (of course), unshaped chest, straight hanging lines, flat front and cuffed trousers. All of these characteristics are the same as the details that "trad" is supposedly obsessed with. You can call these characteristics "rules" or not, as you like. There were other styles available, of course, so people who wore this particular style were clearly making a choice. Moreover, it can be seen from uncounted ads from this period that these distinguishing characteristics were a selling point for clothes of this style. Consider this ad from an 1955 issue of the _Cornell Daily Sun_.








Note, this is not an ad in a fashion magazine or Esquire. Just an ad from a run of the mill independent haberdashery targeted at the average student in the campus newspaper. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that afficianados of this style knew exactly what they were looking at and that these details were important to them. Or, at the very least, that people trying to make money selling clothes thought it was important to them.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> I don't get this idea that Made in the USA is a requirement of it being trad? American roots?
> 
> I disagree. How about fine sweaters made in Ireland, tweeds from the UK and oilskins from Australia? None of them are American-made or have US roots, yet I suspect people here would say those are quite trad. So...is it really about being "made in the USA?"


I'll reply to this since it seems like my words may have sparked the interchange. I wrote "clothes with American heritage if not roots" to concede that a lot of things I'm happy with are not necessarily American made, like a Harris Tweed, which has become part of American heritage. I live in Australia, where people drink tea as part of their British heritage, even though the tea comes from Ceylon and other places. When I was growing up in the US, kids at school of a certain colour would tell me, "you're so white". I never knew how to respond. I suppose something was indicating a European background. Now I wear my tweed jacket and Barbour coat and somehow people still recognise me as an American.

The reason I chose my wording, and why I choose my clothing, is that living in another country I have become increasingly aware of my identity as an American and am happy to express it in what I wear (and as I wrote earlier, esp during a time of war and strong anti-American sentiment). I could imagine that others wish to celebrate their respect for their IVY League heritage, or "traditional values" in a world losing its moorings, or something similar. That's up to them. I've stated my reason.

Since the issue was raised, I suppose I would add that I'd like to support the few American firms that remain. I don't care if an Asian or an Arab person makes my clothes, as long as they are treated right by their employer and spend the money in a way that helps the US economy. For that to happen, it seems to me they need to be "ma[king] in the USA". I'm keen to see the Anderson Little blazer, because no matter who actually puts them together, I think it reflects some of these values.


----------



## wessex (Feb 1, 2008)

Merry Chrismas & Happy New Year!


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> In the 1950's and early 1960's, there was a recognized and widely adopted style of dress that was referred to as the Ivy League style in the mid 1950's and the "natural shoulder" style in the late 1950's and early 1960's. There were a number of distinct characteristics of that style including natural shoulders (of course), unshaped chest, straight hanging lines, flat front and cuffed trousers. All of these characteristics are the same as the details that "trad" is supposedly obsessed with. You can call these characteristics "rules" or not, as you like. There were other styles available, of course, so people who wore this particular style were clearly making a choice. Moreover, it can be seen from uncounted ads from this period that these distinguishing characteristics were a selling point for clothes of this style. Consider this ad from an 1955 issue of the _Cornell Daily Sun_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've seen these ads, and understand what you're saying. I think you're responding to a slightly different point than the one I was trying (perhaps poorly) to get at. I say that what is "trad" has been totally mythologized by AAAC. What people wear now and call "trad" (needlepoint belts, grosgrain watchbands w/ Timex, pink oxford shirts, Alden 405s) has nothing to do with the look in those ads. Indeed, I suspect a pink OCBD would be as foreign to those guys in the 1950s-60s as pleated pants a and a darted suit.

Let be be finale of seem.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

*1954*


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Fair enough. Now do a search for darted blazer and pleated pants and let me know if you get any hits.

One swallow does not a summer make.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Check this thread, discussing a 1956 J. Press ad for PLEATED pants: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=49091

Almost any argument can be proved looking at only some of the evidence. Here, however, I think when one looks at ALL the evidence, it supports the idea that trad is a myth (how else do you explain the store that bests embodies "trad "at the time that best embodies "trad" selling the product that is the antithesis of what people claim IS "trad?").

Or, to paraphrase W.S.:

Let be be finale of seem, the only trad is the trad of our pipe dreams.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> I've seen these ads, and understand what you're saying. I think you're responding to a slightly different point than the one I was trying (perhaps poorly) to get at. I say that what is "trad" has been totally mythologized by AAAC. What people wear now and call "trad" (needlepoint belts, grosgrain watchbands w/ Timex, pink oxford shirts, Alden 405s) has nothing to do with the look in those ads. Indeed, I suspect a pink OCBD would be as foreign to those guys in the 1950s-60s as pleated pants a and a darted suit.
> 
> Let be be finale of seem.


Of the items and during the time period that you mention, I remember wearing the watch bands and pink OCBD shirts. The shirts also were avaible in ecru and, of course, blue. I don't remember about yellow. I bought a lot of my shirts from Lew Ritter's in Westwood Village, CA. They would send the shirts to a shirtmaker in Beverly Hills to be tapered for an additional charge of either $1.50 or $1.75.

In the 60's I bould one white OCBD from BB, but did not care for it as it was huge and I was thinner and they charged $1.00 extra for a pocket.

If I had a Timex, it would have been only because it was a cheap watch and not because of any status that brand had. I mostly wore a Hamilton which I still have, but don't wear much anymore.

I did not know a lot about shoes, but did have some A-E shoes because they were sold by Mark's Boot Shop in Westwood Village. I expect there were a number of good shoes made in this country during that time period.


----------



## Pale Male (Mar 24, 2008)

*PLEATS at PRESS!*

Trads can make their religion as wacky as they please, this is America after all.

I would just note that in the early 80's it was damn-near-impossible to find a pair of pleated flannels. I spied a pair in one of the York Street windows, ran back to the room, and with Best-Ever-Roommate dashed back to Press. We each bought a pair -- same size too -- though his were let out and mine were taken in. Perfect mid-weight flannel in a lovely not-too-light-but-not-too-dark gray. Probably my favorite pair, ever. And as a side note, certainly made in USA of British flannel. Possibly not made by "white people" but not made in sweatshops by near-slave labor. Perhaps nothing to be proud of, but clearly nothing to be embarrassed about. But then I'm not a Free-Market-Fundamentalist, I'm just an Episcopalian.

And until a few years ago, Anglo-inspired meant made in the UK, or at least the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. No surprise -- Yarvton merely copied Oxbridge though not slavishly.


----------



## windsor (Dec 12, 2006)

Jim of sunny SC makes a good point on designers and their names of apparel. I recall reading in some book on menswear that if you purchase a suit from a well known department store you are always better off with the store brand. The store will not put its name on a piece of junk, but suits sold there with a designers name on them can be and often are, just that. I think this was in Molloy's book. I still see in thrifts, suits from long defunct department stores. Some went out of business in the 50's or 60's but some of those store brands did have quality in them and have held up over the years.


----------



## White Birch (Sep 26, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> If it's such a narrowly defined subset, how come people still argue about what it is after several years of AAAC and several thousands of posts?
> 
> Are Timex watches trad? How about Timex watches on grosgrain straps? Alden 405s? Needlepoint belts? Pink oxford shirts? If so, based on what?
> 
> ...


Having been to a few graduations of my cousins and friends at Ivy League schools, specifically UPenn, Princeton, and Yale. I can note that a lot of the older sirs are wearing either a point or button down (30%/70%) collar of a simple color. The majority are wearing un-darted jackets with a roll, soft shoulders, and single vent. 95% are wearing un-pleated trousers with no break. They also seem to have progressed from loafers into laced oxfords. I haven't seen any Timex/grosgrain's, most were brown croc straps with a simple round gold face. Men in between 35-50... same features, more darts, slight break, more check shirts, more "brooksy"

My highschool teachers also dress "trad"..

Obviously! "Trad" is a subset of "Ivy League style", because not everyone came from the same catholic background and attended the same schools with uniforms and churches. And not everyone summer'd at CC or in ACK...

Obviously most of it got mixed when they came to college...

Also, about this effort thing... it take's large amounts of effort to do something "effortlessly". Look at ice skaters, dancers...

There is no mythology, you just haven't been to the right places. Trust me.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> Check this thread, discussing a 1956 J. Press ad for PLEATED pants: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=49091


In the period after 1954 or so, the "Ivy Look" was a youth oriented style that put a heavy emphasis on the very same styling details that the "Trad" purists (one of which I am not) do. That's no myth, as I am sure you must admit. Prior to that time, odd trousers with English style forward pleats were certainly worn on Ivy League and other campuses and for many years may have even been considered THE correct university style. In fact, I wouldn't at all be surprised if, circa 1950, most dress pants at Press and other similar stores were pleated nor that they remained in stock in later years.

For any so called tradition, be it clothing or Thanksgiving or engagement rings or whatever, there is a natural tendency for people to exaggerate an unchanging continuity of customs and no doubt at various times participants on this forum have fallen prey to this tendency. You can call this mythology if you want, but this mythology has been part of the natural shoulder style almost since its inception perhaps because, youth oriented though it might have been, the natural shoulder look always styled itself as a throwback to pre-war styles. Consider this ad that the same store ran in the campus paper in 1960









To whatever degree that "Trad" is BS, its a line of BS with a long pedigree.


----------



## Pale Male (Mar 24, 2008)

*"Effortlessly" with a great deal of effort...*

Nobody worked harder than that Style Icon Fred Astaire.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

White Birch said:


> Having been to a few graduations of my cousins and friends at Ivy League schools, specifically UPenn, Princeton, and Yale.
> ...
> There is no mythology, you just haven't been to the right places. Trust me.


FWIW, I'm a graduate of UPenn, then went on to grad school at Georgetown. Outside of HYP, you're not going to get much more of a snobby/eastern elite group than with the crowds at those places.

My observation: that the crowds at Penn and G'town, including the old timers (I too attended plenty of graduations), dress just about the same as everyone else.

Maybe I "haven't been to the right places" as you suggest. Wouldn't be the first time...


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> In the period after 1954 or so, the "Ivy Look" was a youth oriented style that put a heavy emphasis on the very same styling details that the "Trad" purists (one of which I am not) do. That's no myth, as I am sure you must admit. Prior to that time, odd trousers with English style forward pleats were certainly worn on Ivy League and other campuses and for many years may have even been considered THE correct university style. In fact, I wouldn't at all be surprised if, circa 1950, most dress pants at Press and other similar stores were pleated nor that they remained in stock in later years.
> 
> For any so called tradition, be it clothing or Thanksgiving or engagement rings or whatever, there is a natural tendency for people to exaggerate an unchanging continuity of customs and no doubt at various times participants on this forum have fallen prey to this tendency. You can call this mythology if you want, but this mythology has been part of the natural shoulder style almost since its inception perhaps because, youth oriented though it might have been, the natural shoulder look always styled itself as a throwback to pre-war styles. Consider this ad that the same store ran in the campus paper in 1960
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I follow. This ad indicates the store has a "trad" department that is separate from the rest of the store. But the trad store's featured item is a corduroy suit. I don't think a corduroy suit is what the folks here consider trad, do you?

I think this ad supports my theory that what is "trad" to folks on AAAC has very little to do with what was once called "trad" (or, put differently, what folks call "trad" here is just some mythology).


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

PorterSq said:


> I think this ad supports my theory that what is "trad" to folks on AAAC has very little to do with what was once called "trad" (or, put differently, what folks call "trad" here is just some mythology).


:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

Man, what I wouldn't do for a lovely 3-piece corduroy suit....maybe one day, maybe one day. :icon_smile_big:

Pining for corduroy,

CCC


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Topsider said:


> :icon_headagainstwal


:stupid:


----------



## White Birch (Sep 26, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> I'm not sure I follow. This ad indicates the store has a "trad" department that is separate from the rest of the store.


Seems you follow quite well... Porter

Cord Suit, what a wonderful idea. If only I could find an event to wear one...


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Where were you cord suit fans when the membership of this board was nearly universally panning them and insisting they're not trad at all?

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=57868&highlight=corduroy+suit

White Birch has an excuse - he was looking for a date for the junior prom (should've gone with a more standard BB suit than the cord...). However, the rest of you fans had your chance to step up and missed it...


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

I really don't want one. It was an attempt at humor. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

PorterSq said:


> :stupid:


:deadhorse-a:


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I can't tell if that is ass-kissing or beating a dead horse.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> Where were you cord suit fans when the membership of this board was nearly universally panning them and insisting they're not trad at all?
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=57868&highlight=corduroy+suit
> 
> White Birch has an excuse - he was looking for a date for the junior prom (should've gone with a more standard BB suit than the cord...). However, the rest of you fans had your chance to step up and missed it...


Did you manage to even read that thread? I just did, and counted 9 members who voted in favor of a corduroy suit, 6 who voted against (7 if you count kitonbrioni, which I did not do), and 2 who made comments that didn't seem to indicate which way they were leaning. At least two of those 6 negative votes seemed to be due in large part to a negative association with the corduroy suit from the 1970s, not a vote against corduroy suits as a whole.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

WNH, you're kidding, right? This board is full of people who spend hundreds of dollars on a single pair of shoes (how trad!.../sarcasm) and, with a straight face, advise each other to buy $500 blazers. Yet, when it comes to a thread on cord suits, a total of 3 out of 24 participants own one. Of the 24 posts on the thread, about half said, outright, cord suits are awful. The other half don't think they're so bad...but barely any actually own one.

The point I was making is that what "trads" wore in 1950 is totally different than what "trads" wear today. That's supported by the fact that in a discussion on this board about cord suits, barely 10% (3 of 24) have one.

Capice?


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Topsider said:


> :deadhorse-a:


Come on, topsider: you may disagree with me, but you've got to give credit where it's due. The "I'm with stupid" icon was perfect given your icon...


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

PorterSq said:


> WNH, you're kidding, right? This board is full of people who spend hundreds of dollars on a single pair of shoes (how trad!.../sarcasm) and, with a straight face, advise each other to buy $500 blazers. Yet, when it comes to a thread on cord suits, a total of 3 out of 24 participants own one. Of the 24 posts on the thread, about half said, outright, cord suits are awful. The other half don't think they're so bad...but barely any actually own one.
> 
> The point I was making is that what "trads" wore in 1950 is totally different than what "trads" wear today. That's supported by the fact that in a discussion on this board about cord suits, barely 10% (3 of 24) have one.
> 
> Capice?


I think 3-piece tweed suits are most certainly trad, and I'm sure the vast majority on this forum agree, but I don't own one, nor, I imagine, does the vast majority on this forum. Since when does majority ownership become the test of whether or not something is trad?

Your original claim regarding corduroy suits was that they were "nearly universally" regarding as un-trad, when in actuality they weren't. Further, only 19 members commented, not 24; there were 24 posts, but some members posted more than once. As I stated above, 6 of 19 respondents said no to cord suits--in large part due to negative associations with the 1970's. Six out of 19 is a meager 31%, which in my math is a minority.

"Trads" in the 1950's did wear different things than "trads" wear today, namely darted suits and pleated trousers, but I'd argue that "trad" then and "trad" now are two different, though related, things, today's "trad" being a refinement of the "trad" of a few decades ago.

Anyway, this is all silly and fruitless, though perhaps a little entertaining. I should really find a better outlet for my time.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

As usual, WNH, you're being reasonable. 

I give. You win.

This comment you made is one I found particularly agreeable:

"Trads" in the 1950's did wear different things than "trads" wear today, namely darted suits and pleated trousers, but I'd argue that "trad" then and "trad" now are two different, though related, things, today's "trad" being a refinement of the "trad" of a few decades ago.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

PorterSq said:


> Come on, topsider: you may disagree with me, but you've got to give credit where it's due. The "I'm with stupid" icon was perfect given your icon...


I'm not sure what you're suggesting, that you think I'm stupid? Correct me if I've misinterpreted.

If that's what I'm supposed to give you credit for, don't hold your breath.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Topsider said:


> I'm not sure what you're suggesting, that you think I'm stupid? Correct me if I've misinterpreted.
> 
> If that's what I'm supposed to give you credit for, don't hold your breath.


No, topsider. I wasn't intending to call you stupid, I was intending to mock your use of an emoticon.

If you don't think using an emoticon is childish and dumb, then I'm afraid you're beyond my assistance.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

PorterSq said:


> If you don't think using an emoticon is childish and dumb, then I'm afraid you're beyond my assistance.


----------



## HistoryDoc (Dec 14, 2006)

Re: effort. It took effort at first. Now these clothes are just the clothes in my closet. Effortless for a couple of years now...


----------



## wessex (Feb 1, 2008)

Although I typically disagree with PrterSq, I can see where he is coming from. For example, where did the obsession with pocket squares on this board come from? I could be wrong, but I don't think kids in the 50/60s carried anything but a white hankie - and they certainly certainly didn't go to great lengths to display it from their breast pocket. Maybe AP can cite an ad/article that says otherwise.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

HistoryDoc said:


> Re: effort. It took effort at first. Now these clothes are just the clothes in my closet. Effortless for a couple of years now...


Hear, hear! This is the major benefit to this type of wardrobe. Simplicity of dressing! No "new" fashion items to keep up with.

I bought and bought for about my first 2 years, and now that I have a great base, I have hardly bought anything this past year, yet I love everything I'm wearing each day.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I too have reached the "very little effort" phase. Took me 6 months (from 0 to 60), but I'm there.

This is a weird thread. 

Evidently we've established that if a "trad" in today's world were to wander science fictionally onto a 1955 college campus, nobody would recognize what he was wearing. And he himself would be vastly confused. Everyone would be exclaiming "Mein Gott! What kinds of clothes are THOSE?" 

Occasionally, 50 years ago, some newspaper would run an "ad" showing outlandish futuristic clothing, but only as a college prank.


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> This is a weird thread.
> 
> Evidently we've established that if a "trad" in today's world were to wander science fictionally onto a 1955 college campus, nobody would recognize what he was wearing. And he himself would be vastly confused. Everyone would be exclaiming "Mein Gott! What kinds of clothes are THOSE?"


I don't think I follow. My point from before--and I'm assuming it's my point that you're drawing from--was that, while on this forum we bestow the virtues of sack jackets and flat-front pants, and point to much of the 1950's as our inspiration, many well-dressed men back then weren't the owners of wardrobes with _nothing but_ sack jackets and flat-front pants. Today's "trad" who traveled to the 1950's would fit in perfectly, but perhaps the average 1950's Ivy Leaguer who traveled to today's trad forum wouldn't.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, mind you, it's just that we seem to have established here a spectrum of clothing that is more narrow than a general "classic American" or "Ivy League" style. I'm actually of the opinion that this is a good thing, since how many of us would even know what a sack jacket was if they weren't so exclusively discussed on this forum?


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

wessex said:


> Although I typically disagree with PrterSq, I can see where he is coming from. For example, where did the obsession with pocket squares on this board come from? I could be wrong, but I don't think kids in the 50/60s carried anything but a white hankie - and they certainly certainly didn't go to great lengths to display it from their breast pocket. Maybe AP can cite an ad/article that says otherwise.


I started buying Trad suits in the mid 50s and as I recall did not wear pocket squares until some time in the 70s for whatever that is worth. I don't think many others wore them much before the 70s either, but I could be wrong.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Jim In Sunny So Calif said:


> I started buying Trad suits in the mid 50s and as I recall did not wear pocket squares until some time in the 70s for whatever that is worth. I don't think many others wore them much before the 70s either, but I could be wrong.


If you look at "The Trad's" scans of Take Ivy Chap. 3, which focuses on pictures of well-dressed NY businessmen ca. 1966, you see about 50% of the pictures show people wearing pocket squares which is markedly lower than what you see on the Trad WAYWN thread. But I would also say that it was much much higher than what I would see walking down the street today in downtown Washington D.C. on my visits to that city. Note that D.C. is a more formal city than all but a handful of US cities.

So the best that you could say would be that pocket squares were probably more characteristic of those days than today,perhaps to the extent of having a mildly retro affect. Personally, I dismiss all of the little rules on gentlemanly dressing (always match your socks with your pants, always button your jacket when standing etc.) and probably "always wear a pocket square" falls in that category though I also like them a lot so I usually wear them. I would say that the long chest of the sack especially benefits from a square but to each his own.


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

The pocket square has most certainly been on the decline for the past 40 years and is only now seeing resurgence in the general public due to magazines such as GQ adn Esquire. The pocket square and hat probably lost popularity due to JFKs disregard for them.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Don't get me wrong, we all have our myths (except, cliche would have it, the clinically depressed) and no one has a perfect, crystal clear view of what people wore when or (more importantly) how that connects to their current sense of style. But I do think the evidence is overwhelming that in the 1950s and 1960's, there was a large group of people who cared about the details of the cut of their jacket and pants and that flat front pants and sack jackets were actively sought out. People really did wear OCBD's (pink or otherwise) with their grey flannel sack suits and their shell cordovan shoes and with their khaki chinos. People really did care about the correct roll of their button-down collar. People really did wear ribbon belts and madras jackets. And, moreover, that contemporary observers really did identify all of those things together as a coherent, namable style. This style was adopted by only a minority of American's in general, though a newspaper article I posted from the Harvard Crimson said that 90% of students at Harvard wore this style there.

Its also equally true that fashion, on Ivy League campuses and elsewhere, before and after the heyday of the natural shoulder style has fluctuated between more and less constructed jackets, slimmer or fuller cuts, pleated or plain front trousers. It may be somewhat true that people associated with places like Princeton or Yale have clung more tightly to less constructed jackets than has the general population. However, I think its true that the natural shoulder style adherents have always exagerated how traditional the style really was. This was the point of posting the two ads from Irv Lewis'. The same shop that was selling Ivy League style as "new" in 1955 was selling the same things as "Trad" in 1960.


----------



## Beefeater (Jun 2, 2007)

Thomas Hart said:


> The pocket square has most certainly been on the decline for the past 40 years and is only now seeing resurgence in the general public due to magazines such as GQ adn Esquire. The pocket square and hat probably lost popularity due to JFKs disregard for them.


I wore a pocket square (plain white, crisp fold) with a navy suit (tailored to fit, 1/4 shirt cuff showing) to a wedding last month. About 5 women came up to me and said I looked like I was on a TV show called "Mad Men." Somewhat flattering. I've never seen the show, but I've heard of it and get the 50s (or is it 60s?) reference. Funny thing was, I looked around the room and I was the only one there with a pocket square and the only one with what seemed like a decently fitted jacket. Of course, it was in Austin, TX.


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

Beefeater said:


> I wore a pocket square (plain white, crisp fold) with a navy suit (tailored to fit, 1/4 shirt cuff showing) to a wedding last month. About 5 women came up to me and said I looked like I was on a TV show called "Mad Men." Somewhat flattering. I've never seen the show, but I've heard of it and get the 50s (or is it 60s?) reference. Funny thing was, I looked around the room and I was the only one there with a pocket square and the only one with what seemed like a decently fitted jacket. Of course, it was in Austin, TX.


Is Austin known as a badly dressed city? 
Anyway, sounds like an excellent suit, and lucky you being the best dressed man there.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

I respect PorterSq's perspectives but reading through this thread after a week or two away from the forum, my opinion is that AldenPyle has proved his point, and, moreover, proved it with hard evidence.

FWIW, if PS had used the term "glamorized" or "romanticized" rather than "mythologized," I might feel different.

On a lighter note, I still own a stud set from the venerable Irv Lewis.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

this is a primary quesiton here - people want to look like they were born into trad, or want to look like they dress effortlessly, but most weren't born into it, nor is it effortless. it is a very interesting question.



heimskringla said:


> Do forgive me if this has been beaten to death already. However, in following this forum for the last few months, I have come to a conclusion about what attracted me to the 'trad' style in the first place.I enjoy the apparent effortlessness involved--except most of you put quite a lot of effort in to dressing in a particular way.
> 
> Much like GHWB I grew up in a family in which it was normal for men to dress in this particular style; plain front trousers, a properly fitting jacket, and a presentable pair of shoes were de rigeur for the men in my family, even after we ceased to have an abundance of wealth. My grandfather certainly had a favorite haberdashery or two, but I never recall him fussing over whether or not his jacket had darts or a rolled lapel. He always insisted that a gentlemen must never try too hard to dress well, because in doing so he was likely to appear pretentious. There's a certain austerity in that statement, I suppose, but that particular ideal is one that many older "WASP" families cherish deeply.
> 
> ...


----------



## SCsailor (Jul 2, 2008)

This thread has been an interesting read. It highlights a certain tension on this forum. There are those who say that "trad" is a defined set of rules, and there are those that say "trad" is simply classic American style. I tend to agree with the latter. I like sacks and I like darts. I keep both in my closet and don't really prefer one over the other. I think classic american style evolves, but retains the most important common elements. 

I also don't believe you need a tradly pedigree to pull it off effortlessly. You just need confidence. I go from amused to annoyed by the way some in this forum not so subtlely announce their tradly heritage.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

SCsailor said:


> ...I go from amused to annoyed by the way some in this forum not so subtlely announce their tradly heritage.


Actually, I don't see too much of that here. But I do think it can become necessary to present your bona fides when the argument is proposed that the trad/Ivy/TNSIL style of dressing is a "mythology."


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

SCsailor said:


> This thread has been an interesting read. It highlights a certain tension on this forum. *There are those who say that "trad" is a defined set of rules, and there are those that say "trad" is simply classic American style.* I tend to agree with the latter. I like sacks and I like darts. I keep both in my closet and don't really prefer one over the other. I think classic american style evolves, but retains the most important common elements...


Incidentally, I would have thought that AldenPyle would have settled this question with his posts from Irv Lewis men's store earlier in this thread. I don't think he's proposing that trad is a defined set of rules, but he certainly is demonstrating that it is -- and was -- more prescriptive than simply "classic American style."


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> this is a primary quesiton here - people want to look like they were born into trad, or want to look like they dress effortlessly, but most weren't born into it, nor is it effortless. it is a very interesting question.


I'm curious--who says they want to look like they were "born into trad"? What is this statement based on?


----------



## SCsailor (Jul 2, 2008)

Sartre said:


> Actually, I don't see too much of that here. But I do think it can become necessary to present your bona fides when the argument is proposed that the trad/Ivy/TNSIL style of dressing is a "mythology."


This thread began with a post by someone who found it necessary to present his "bona fides"


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

This is the birth of trad elitism!

I am more trad than you and have been trad for longer and you sir are a poser!


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

SCsailor said:


> This thread began with a post by someone who found it necessary to present his "bona fides"


Actually, it was me that used the term "bona fides" and you're misrepresenting the context. As a starting point, the discussion was well under way when a member of this board, who is 18 years old and a college freshman, wrote a post that was pretty in-your-face about what it meant to be trad in the 1950s.

I responded that the opinion of someone with no bona fides (i.e. an 18 yr old kid who doesn't remember the 80s, let alone the 50s) isn't influential on me when it comes to understanding and appreciating what people used to wear.


----------



## White Birch (Sep 26, 2008)

Why is it in your face? I was simply stating what I observe of peoples' clothing. do you feel sub-par PorterSq? 
I have learned some interesting things about the quality of different clothing... but I must end my tenure on this board. Luckily, I won't have to do this when I'm 40. Peace bros


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

wnh said:


> I'm curious--who says they want to look like they were "born into trad"? What is this statement based on?


my own personal opinion. I get the feeling that most of the people who want to dress trad here deep down wish that they had been born into it. but of course I may be wrong.


----------



## SCsailor (Jul 2, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> Actually, it was me that used the term "bona fides" and you're misrepresenting the context.


No, I am not. That comment had nothing to do with any of your posts. I was referring to the post that started this thread and the author's inclusion of sentences such as the following:

"Much like GHWB I grew up in a family in which it was normal for men to dess in this particular style"

"even after we ceased to have an abundance of wealth"

"My grandfather certainly had a favorite haberdashery or two, but I never recall him fussing over whether or not his jacket had darts or a rolled lapel. "

and

"that particular ideal is one that many older "WASP" families cherish deeply"

My point, more of an observation, was twofold. One, there is some degree of tension on this board between those who insist "trad" is essentially a uniform and those who think it is more broadly classic american style.

Two, there are those on this board who feel some obligation to describe their tradly heritage. It's nice, I suppose, but doesn't add to the discussion. Sometimes I find it amusing, other times I think it's annoying. I know I am not alone in that. So, the thrust of my initial post was simply that this amusing thread nicely illustrates the two primary areas of tension amongst forum members.


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

^^Without those with WASP heritage trad would not exist. I do agree however, that unnecessary reminding does take away from the conversation and can be rather annoying.


----------



## heimskringla (Nov 2, 2008)

SCsailor said:


> No, I am not. That comment had nothing to do with any of your posts. I was referring to the post that started this thread and the author's inclusion of sentences such as the following:
> 
> "Much like GHWB I grew up in a family in which it was normal for men to dess in this particular style"
> 
> ...


I think you misunderstand my point, SC. I think that my upbringing probably gives me less "trad heritage" than someone without "credentials."


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

heimskringla said:


> I think you misunderstand my point, SC. I think that my upbringing probably gives me less "trad heritage" than someone without "credentials."


How could your upbringing possibly give you _less_ trad heritage?


----------



## Beefeater (Jun 2, 2007)

Thomas Hart said:


> Is Austin known as a badly dressed city?
> Anyway, sounds like an excellent suit, and lucky you being the best dressed man there.


Just a very casual city, probably no more or less than any other university town. It's still got strains of alternative ethos that make it ok to wear Birkenstocks to a nice restaurant and no one seems to mind (I saw this at Trio, the restaurant inside the Four Seasons, where we stayed).

It was this way during my undergrad days at UT and most of the 90s when I lived there. Wearing a decent suit and accoutrements is definitely an exception there rather than the rule. But it's ok, I don't take it that seriously as I'm usually too nostalgic when I'm back, which is rare. . .


----------



## Thomas Hart (Dec 1, 2008)

Beefeater said:


> Just a very casual city, probably no more or less than any other university town. It's still got strains of alternative ethos that make it ok to wear Birkenstocks to a nice restaurant and no one seems to mind (I saw this at Trio, the restaurant inside the Four Seasons, where we stayed).
> 
> It was this way during my undergrad days at UT and most of the 90s when I lived there. Wearing a decent suit and accoutrements is definitely an exception there rather than the rule. But it's ok, I don't take it that seriously as I'm usually too nostalgic when I'm back, which is rare. . .


It is very much a problem for liberal trads, such as I, to find a place where the populace is well dressed and share your views. Civilization is on the decline...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Let the record show that my sartorial heritage is purely "poor house threads", which evolved to and presently remains what most in these fora might call TRAD. I honestly don't buy and wear what I do because it's TRAD but rather, because it's comfortable, it's stylishly stable (meaning it won't seem garishly out of place, next year!), and it remains wearable long enough to represent good value. An onlooker could easily conclude that I am better dressed than my parents, grandparents and great grandparents (beyond that, I really don't know) and that I have passed this "Preppy" style on to my children and am working on the grand kids. However, I sincerely hope I haven't inadvertently victimized my progeny with the twisted sense of privilege/elitism that seems reflected in a number of the earlier posts to this thread. Some of us might do well by taking a look in the mirror and saying to ourselves, "get over it!"


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> my own personal opinion. I get the feeling that most of the people who want to dress trad here deep down wish that they had been born into it. but of course I may be wrong.


Fair enough. I feel that way to a certain extent, if only so I'd have started with a decent wardrobe instead of having to build one from the ground up.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

wnh said:


> Fair enough. I feel that way to a certain extent, if only so I'd have started with a decent wardrobe instead of having to build one from the ground up.


I sort of feel this way as well, however, I feel that I've 'earned' and 'owned' my current (and future) wardrobe choices by coming to them through a process of trial, error and natural selection, brought on by membership on this board.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Nothing wrong with trying hard as long as no one can tell. One has to put in some effort when wearing an internet developed style.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ...However, I sincerely hope I haven't inadvertently victimized my progeny with the twisted sense of privilege/elitism that seems reflected in a number of the earlier posts to this thread. Some of us might do well by taking a look in the mirror and saying to ourselves, "get over it!"


With respect, I can find only two people in this thread who referred to their backgrounds, and only one of those two could be perceived to have been obnoxious.

I _like_ it when posters provide some context for their opinions. Not in an obnoxious way, of course.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^Thank-you Sartre, you raise a good point. My post, that you reference, was offered in response to perhaps a half dozen posts, out of the 100 or so that comprised this thread (at that point). While my gut feeling is similar to that expressed by SC sailors comments regarding the opposing tensions that seem inherent in this forum, the vast majority of posts, herein, have been constructive and quite interesting. As another poster intimated, the fact some feel it necessary to present their "bona fides/credentials" as a precondition to achieving effortless Tradliness (my words, not the other guy's!), just pushes all my hot buttons...perhaps an over reaction on my part. Thanks again Sartre and apologies to all, if you feel I over reacted.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

PorterSq said:


> FWIW, I'm a graduate of UPenn, then went on to grad school at Georgetown.


You need to look at the elementary school level rather than the college level. Harvard has not been a particularly trad place for quite some time.



PorterSq said:


> The "inspiration" for the trad look is an image that I suspect no one here has experienced. Therefore, folks create a mythology to fill the gaps.


Just minutes away from Porter Square... Hundreds and hundreds of people come together for certain alumni reunions and believe me, 90% are wearing trad, no inspiration or mythology needed.


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

Bogdanoff said:


> You need to look at the elementary school level rather than the college level. Harvard has not been a particularly trad place for quite some time.


This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from _Annie Hall_:

"Harvard makes mistakes too, you know. Kissinger taught there."


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Bogdanoff said:


> Just minutes away from Porter Square... Hundreds and hundreds of people come together for certain alumni reunions and believe me, 90% are wearing trad, no inspiration or mythology needed.


No, believe ME: if you think 90% of the people at Harvard reunions or graduation are wearing trad, you're 100% wrong. I know this from personal experience, having attended some of each variety of celebration as a guest. This is not to say that there's not some trad at these events - in fact, I believe I've personally posted about having observed Harvard reunions and how there was *some* trad. But if you think it's what everyone, nearly everyone, or even a majority of Harvard alums wear, then I guess we attended different Harvard reunions/commencements.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I wonder if certain board members have disappeared due to this type of sniping, which seems to be on the increase here.

I know I'm getting tired of it.


----------



## heimskringla (Nov 2, 2008)

The sniping is pretty ridiculous at this point; I certainly had no intention of starting a row. It was never a question of whether or not I had "trad credentials" or "I'm more trad than you are," but more a comment from someone who is essentially an outsider looking in about the sheer amount of effort that went in to what appeared to be a simple, minimalist style.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

PorterSq said:


> No, believe ME: if you think 90% of the people at Harvard reunions or graduation are wearing trad, you're 100% wrong. I know this from personal experience, having attended some of each variety o


Did you read my posts above? I repeat, Harvard has not been trad for quite some time, look at the elementary or secondary school level.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Bogdanoff said:


> Did you read my posts above? I repeat, Harvard has not been trad for quite some time, look at the elementary or secondary school level.


I did read your post, but I have to ask: did you? Here's your quote:

"Just minutes away from Porter Square... Hundreds and hundreds of people come together for certain alumni reunions and believe me, 90% are wearing trad, no inspiration or mythology needed."

So, when I was writing, I was specifically responding to your post where you said that said that at Harvard reunions, it's 90% trad.

Look, it's clear to me that you're trying to pick a fight, so I'll let it go. All I'm saying is that from personal experience, I disagree. I've actually been to Harvard reunions and I've actually seen how fellows from the so-called glory years of trad dress. If you disagree, then so be it, but don't tell me my first-hand observations are incorrect just because you say so.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

PorterSq said:


> So, when I was writing, I was specifically responding to your post where you said that said that at Harvard reunions, it's 90% trad.


Well, nowhere did I say these were _Harvard_ reunions. I spoke of reunions of people that went to school together since the first grades of elementary school, that are more than 99.99% pure trad.

Now, since you are obsessed with Harvard, take a look around at club alumni dinners. Some of those dress codes ensure that there is a certain final word on subject.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Come on, Bogdanoff, don't be a jerk.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

PorterSq said:


> Come on, Bogdanoff, don't be a jerk.


I beg your pardon? You insist, after being told repeatedly, not to read in the word 'Harvard' into my posts, and then proceed to insult me? A very charming individual you are indeed.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Bogdanoff and PorterSq: Gentlemen, stand at ease...please! Such acrimony is unproductive.


----------



## heimskringla (Nov 2, 2008)

I think this thread has run its course and perhaps it should be closed.


----------

