# What's the difference between preppy and trad?



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

As a teenager, I get the former far more often obviously, but everything I see here seems to fall under the category "preppy" as well (age group taken into consideration as well). Yet somethings on this forum that are a little more outlandish, but nevertheless preppy, such as leather flip flops, or blazers with seersucker shorts, or random bow ties with polos, or popped collars (or even layered popped collars) absolutely get sneered at. What's the consensus on this difference? They both seem to claim a similar heritage within the ivy league/southern aristocrat stereotypes. Both share a great disdain for anything nouveau riche. 

disclaimer: I do not endorse nor practice all of the listed exclusively preppy practices.


----------



## cglex (Oct 23, 2006)

Eighties versus new milleneum lingo is the only difference I can discern.


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

cglex said:


> Eighties versus new milleneum lingo is the only difference I can discern.


Is trad new millennium? I have read here it is not; the Preppy Handbook was published in 1980 after all. Both are dated terms.


----------



## Peat (Jun 18, 2006)

"Preppy" or "Prep" to me means certain specific ways of dressing. I recall the term used a lot in the 70s and 80. I think its used a fair bit less these days. I believe the term originates with "prep school" or something like that.

When I think of the term "trad" I think of a much broader term or category. The prep look could be trad, but not all trad looks would fit neatly into our view of the prep look.


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

Peat said:


> "Preppy" or "Prep" to me means certain specific ways of dressing. I recall the term used a lot in the 70s and 80. I think its used a fair bit less these days. I believe the term originates with "prep school" or something like that.
> 
> When I think of the term "trad" I think of a much broader term or category. The prep look could be trad, but not all trad looks would fit neatly into our view of the prep look.


I don't know, by the hipsters that run my school, the word preppy gets tossed at me quite a lot... It's definitely still prevalent. Like I said though, aren't there looks that are exclusively preppy? Especially in the slightly more obnoxious direction? And doesn't preppy come with it's own life style connotations? Sailboats out of Annapolis, summer houses in East Hampton, navy blazers and brass buttons and a stiff upper lift befitting only a Brit?


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

Preppy is a subset of trad. All things prep are definitely trad, but there are things which are specifically American and specifically trad which are not preppy. I would say Red Wing boots are a great example.

But here:



Very trad but preppy--not so much.


----------



## hsw (Dec 23, 2009)

Probably mythical terms as Ralph ?Lifschitz/Lauren from Bronx (likely not a product of elite HS or elite colleges) created illusions of WASP fashion of some bygone era; sold a lot of threads/rags to gullible masses; and pocketed a billion or so as he laughs about the irony of it all:icon_smile:

Consider that Greenwich's (and Manhattan's) wealthiest guys today are a bunch of often Jewish hedge fund founders, many of whom are products of suburban public schools; colleges like Harvard/Wharton, etc; and grad schools like GoldmanSachs....and don't wear ties to office (or anywhere else)...and haven't for yrs, much like their tech brethren in SiliconValley who have similar mundane HS but elite college backgrounds...


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Age and waistline


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Preppy is the Ralph Lauren/J. Crew interpretation of the Ivy League look, a catch-all for the clothing popular on Ivy League campuses in the years just before World War II until some time in the recent past, how recent depending on the temperament of whom you ask. Staple clothiers for the Ivy League look are J. Press, Brooks Brothers, and (depending on what one thinks of the 1970s) L.L. Bean.

Trad is basically a subset of the Ivy League look favored by folks on the internet. It tends to focus more on the post-war look of the 1950s and early 1960s, often ignoring the pre-War Savile Row influenced look, the slim-fit modernist 1960s Ivy League, and the rustic 1970s Ivy League, but with a weakness for 1980s Preppy color-schemes and GTH clothes, a part of the Ivy League look that Preppy fixated on. Trad also seems to have more of a Southern influence, due to the large number of folks from the Southern United States who enjoy the look.


----------



## Memphis88 (Sep 10, 2008)

Henry346 said:


> As a teenager, I get the former far more often obviously, but everything I see here seems to fall under the category "preppy" as well (age group taken into consideration as well). Yet somethings on this forum that are a little more outlandish, but nevertheless preppy, such as leather flip flops, or blazers with seersucker shorts, or random bow ties with polos, or popped collars (or even layered popped collars) absolutely get sneered at. What's the consensus on this difference? They both seem to claim a similar heritage within the ivy league/southern aristocrat stereotypes. Both share a great disdain for anything nouveau riche.
> 
> disclaimer: I do not endorse nor practice all of the listed exclusively preppy practices.


Layered popped collars and bow ties with polos?

People really do that stuff?


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Memphis88 said:


> Layered popped collars and bow ties with polos?
> 
> People really do that stuff?


Absolutely not.

No person would do such a thing.

I cannot speak for those I do not consider people; however, and must thereby assume that at some time, some obnoxious and deeply troubled individual has done so.

OP,

There are countless threads on this subject. I'd recommend you do some casual reading with the search function to see what others have to say on this interminable subject.

I'd also recommend you read the responses to my own "Rainbow Sandals and a New Generation of Trad" thread- and the importance of not trying to assimilate the two (terms).


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Here are some (but not all!) of the previous threads on this topic:

Trad v. Preppy https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=46897&highlight=preppy+trad

Preppy v. Trad
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=79355&highlight=preppy+trad

Trad vs. Preppy
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=67758&highlight=preppy+trad

Trad =? Preppy
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=44746&highlight=preppy+trad

Trad Versus Preppy
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=37134&highlight=preppy+trad


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Memphis88 said:


> Layered popped collars and bow ties with polos?
> 
> People really do that stuff?


If you search ("bow tie" polo) in Google image search, these two pictures appear in the very first row of the first page of results. To quote Dave Berry, "I am not making this up."


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

rojo said:


> Here are some (but not all!) of the previous threads on this topichttps://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=37134&highlight=preppy+trad


Seriously. Geez, doesn't anyone use the search function here?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

phyrpowr said:


> Age and waistline


Yeah.



katon said:


> Preppy is the Ralph Lauren/J. Crew interpretation of the Ivy League look, a catch-all for the clothing popular on Ivy League campuses in the years just before World War II until some time in the recent past, how recent depending on the temperament of whom you ask. Staple clothiers for the Ivy League look are J. Press, Brooks Brothers, and (depending on what one thinks of the 1970s) L.L. Bean.
> 
> Trad is basically a subset of the Ivy League look favored by folks on the internet. It tends to focus more on the post-war look of the 1950s and early 1960s, often ignoring the pre-War Savile Row influenced look, the slim-fit modernist 1960s Ivy League, and the rustic 1970s Ivy League, but with a weakness for 1980s Preppy color-schemes and GTH clothes, a part of the Ivy League look that Preppy fixated on. Trad also seems to have more of a Southern influence, due to the large number of folks from the Southern United States who enjoy the look.


Oh yeah.


----------



## Valkyrie (Aug 27, 2009)

I like the idea of preppy being a youthful subset though the difference really doesn't matter. However, "preppy" easily devolves into parody, "trad" not so much.

Trad includes some things, I think, that preppy doesn't. For instance, the much beloved longwing, always the subject of two or three current threads here, worn with everything from suits to jeans here, is trad, i think, but not preppy. Neither Brooks Brothers or Polo/RL sell it (they both sell the shortwings [?], dressy with a more loafer-like profile) and longwings get slapped around a bit in the OPH (FWIW), but they remain the most tradly of footwear, obviously beloved of well-dressed men for generations.

The British Barbour coats seem to be similar.

Just a couple of observations.


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

I have a question from ye experts about how this pertains to me actually. I'm Chinese by blood--just gonna put that out there (Though I can trace Qing Dynasty nobility in said blood). However at the age of 4 I moved to Orange County then at age 7 to Wexford Pennyslvania--both very affluent, white, upper-middle/upper class neighborhoods. I was raised just like anyone else. All my friends wore RL polos, so I did too. Our button downs were all BB. My parents simply appreciated classic tradness and saw it as a way to continue what we should have, but could not have in China. My summers were at a Lake Erie lake house sailing (not boating). I could count the number of brands my family would consider clothing me with on one hand. Sperry's were worn because they were comfortable. And then I moved to New York city at age 15, and stubbornly continued this trend in the face of a far greater diversity.

Does this make me a wannabe even though I personally made no deliberate efforts at preppiness? Does it make my parents? Even though we're technically "good breeding," whatever that means, and simply settled wherever we felt most comfortable.


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

*Henry...*

..'Preppy' is a derogatory, condescending term used to describe someone who wishes to be seen as part of the 'Upper classes', but lacks the status (if it can be called that), or lifetime achievement to be 'genuine'. See also: Poseur.

'Trad' lacks the 'attuitude', and tends to describe someone who's tastes run to the traditional and who basically can pull it off without looking like a total jackass. It's a fine line, to be sure, but basically one has to be comfortable in one's own skin, and be able to exude a certain self confidence.

Most teenagers tend to be such an insecure group that wearing anything other than whatever is dictated by the norms of that group tends to be greeted with derision (at best) and outright abuse at worst. Hang in there, as you get older, at least the cretins amongst us either keep it to themselves, or make fools of themselves by actually saying out loud that there's no point in being rich unless you show it off.

Until then, be yourself, if not during school hours, then at least on your own time.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

hsw said:


> Probably mythical terms as Ralph ?Lifschitz/Lauren from Bronx (likely not a product of elite HS or elite colleges) created illusions of WASP fashion of some bygone era; sold a lot of threads/rags to gullible masses; and pocketed a billion or so as he laughs about the irony of it all:icon_smile:
> 
> Consider that Greenwich's (and Manhattan's) wealthiest guys today are a bunch of often Jewish hedge fund founders, many of whom are products of suburban public schools; colleges like Harvard/Wharton, etc; and grad schools like GoldmanSachs....and don't wear ties to office (or anywhere else)...and haven't for yrs, much like their tech brethren in SiliconValley who have similar mundane HS but elite college backgrounds...


It's been a while since we've had a post with a creepy, subtle anti-semitic tone. Congrats on reviving it, HSW.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Henry346 said:


> I have a question from ye experts about how this pertains to me actually. I'm Chinese by blood--just gonna put that out there (Though I can trace Qing Dynasty nobility in said blood). However at the age of 4 I moved to Orange County then at age 7 to Wexford Pennyslvania--both very affluent, white, upper-middle/upper class neighborhoods. I was raised just like anyone else. All my friends wore RL polos, so I did too. Our button downs were all BB. My parents simply appreciated classic tradness and saw it as a way to continue what we should have, but could not have in China. My summers were at a Lake Erie lake house sailing (not boating). I could count the number of brands my family would consider clothing me with on one hand. Sperry's were worn because they were comfortable. And then I moved to New York city at age 15, and stubbornly continued this trend in the face of a far greater diversity.
> 
> Does this make me a wannabe even though I personally made no deliberate efforts at preppiness? Does it make my parents? Even though we're technically "good breeding," whatever that means, and simply settled wherever we felt most comfortable.


Relax, quit thinking about it, and wear what you like. Just make sure it fits.


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

Patrick06790 said:


> Relax, quit thinking about it, and wear what you like. Just make sure it fits.


As usual, Patrick's got it right.

+1.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

PorterSq said:


> It's been a while since we've had a post with a creepy, subtle anti-semitic tone. Congrats on reviving it, HSW.


It's instructive. He was being preppy.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

boatshoe said:


> It's instructive. He was being preppy.


Oh, snap! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

boatshoe said:


> It's instructive. He was being preppy.


Good call, Boatshoe, but it was even more than that, I think: it's _instinctive_, not instructive. An ol' boy Fence Club preppy like HSW can't help feeling superior to [cringe] Jews.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Sorry guys. It's been fun talking tweeds and shell cordovan, but I now know the joys of 9 polo shirts and a chin-strap beard. See you on the other side...


----------



## chacend (Mar 4, 2008)

I think that would be nine POLE-Ohs

Am I the only one who noticed the logo, or as usual am I the only one uncouth enough to mention it?


----------



## chacend (Mar 4, 2008)

Henry346 said:


> I have a question from ye experts about how this pertains to me actually. I'm Chinese by blood--just gonna put that out there (Though I can trace Qing Dynasty nobility in said blood). However at the age of 4 I moved to Orange County then at age 7 to Wexford Pennyslvania--both very affluent, white, upper-middle/upper class neighborhoods. I was raised just like anyone else. All my friends wore RL polos, so I did too. Our button downs were all BB. My parents simply appreciated classic tradness and saw it as a way to continue what we should have, but could not have in China. My summers were at a Lake Erie lake house sailing (not boating). I could count the number of brands my family would consider clothing me with on one hand. Sperry's were worn because they were comfortable. And then I moved to New York city at age 15, and stubbornly continued this trend in the face of a far greater diversity.
> 
> Does this make me a wannabe even though I personally made no deliberate efforts at preppiness? Does it make my parents? Even though we're technically "good breeding," whatever that means, and simply settled wherever we felt most comfortable.


Actually Henry I think this just reaffirms your Trad status. A Prep would only have worn these things as an affectation and certainly wouldn't have persevered.


----------



## DownByTheRiverSide (Oct 25, 2009)

I think you should stop fretting over this and enjoy your clothes. Be yourself and dont worry over whether a certain word fits you or not.

Explore, have fun, and take a few chances here and there. Dont be afraid to try something of which you're not completely sure. Keep what you like; throw away the rest. You'll perhaps go down a few roads that you may well look back on with a bit of a shiver (I know I did) but none of it is worth worrying over. You must truly do this if you are to know your own style. Do not concern yourself whether a certain element or two fall strictly with the boundaries of a word. 

Do what you want. Explore, have fun, be yourself. You are young and your taste will settle itself out after a few years, at least for the most part. And certainly no one would want to become totally stagnant to the point he never changed or added a new dimension to his dressing repertoire.

Mr Shakespeare's line has always made great sense to me. "This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."

Best of Luck to You !!


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

This is an interesting subject. The best writing on "trad", "ivy league" and "preppy" style currently available on the internet, by far, is to be found on the Ivy Style website, run by noted style-meister, journalist and preppy historian Christian Chensvold.


----------



## kforton (Oct 26, 2005)

Trip English said:


> Sorry guys. It's been fun talking tweeds and shell cordovan, but I now know the joys of 9 polo shirts and a chin-strap beard. See you on the other side...


I think that's 11 shirts.


----------



## D&S (Mar 29, 2009)

Trad style, as discussed on this board, strikes me as more self-conscious than what is generally termed preppy, leaning (even more heavily) towards the archaic at the expense of practicality. Wearing a button-down over a turtle neck under a Norwegian sweater under a Barbour (all wrapped in a muffler), despite being the more "trad" attire on a cold winter day, seems affected compared to the "preppy" solution of wearing a button-down under a Patagonia fleece under a Patagonia or Mountain Hardware down jacket. It seems to me that preppy is the inherited, natural style and that trad is the affectation, not the other way around.


----------



## Reptilicus (Dec 14, 2004)

*This may help*

https://theivyleaguelook.blogspot.com/search/label/1980

If you haven't been here before you are in for a treat.-JC


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

D&S said:


> Trad style, as discussed on this board, strikes me as more self-conscious than what is generally termed preppy, leaning (even more heavily) towards the archaic at the expense of practicality. Wearing a button-down over a turtle neck under a Norwegian sweater under a Barbour (all wrapped in a muffler), despite being the more "trad" attire on a cold winter day, seems affected compared to the "preppy" solution of wearing a button-down under a Patagonia fleece under a Patagonia or Mountain Hardware down jacket. It seems to me that preppy is the inherited, natural style and that trad is the affectation, not the other way around.


IMO fleece and trad don't mix, nor do tech fabrics as occasionally worn by preps.

But the bigger difference is that virtually everybody I know who was "preppy" in the 1980s saw it as a transitory fashion that, when replaced with something else, was easily discarded--this was true of friends, movies, and fashion magazines. I suspect the same will happen this time around. Trad on the other hand, as worn by the likes of a Moynihan or Buckley, continues despite the vicissitudes of fashion.

With respect to "a button-down over a turtle neck under a Norwegian sweater under a Barbour", nothing could for me be more practical, since that is what is in my wardrobe, has been for the last 35 years, and will be for the next 35 if I make it that long. Practical to my mind means just opening a wardrobe door and choosing, as opposed to making a trip to the mall.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

chacend said:


> Am I the only one who noticed the logo, or as usual am I the only one uncouth enough to mention it?


Pure class with a matching price.


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

gman-17 said:


> Preppy is a subset of trad. All things prep are definitely trad, but there are things which are specifically American and specifically trad which are not preppy. I would say Red Wing boots are a great example.


I would also add that "preppy" is almost exclusively casual clothing. About the most dressy thing I can think of that is really preppy is a blue blazer. Trad also encompasses business dress, i.e. 3B sack suits and wingtips.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Zot!,

Are you saying that the beat-up blazer, khakis, frayed OCBD's, and Top-siders I wore at boarding school don't count as appropriate business wear?! :icon_smile_big:

I think you're absolutely right, though, regarding the casual limitations of prep-style. Fortunately some of us "preppies" will grow up and gradually merge into the trad style... Supposedly... At least that's what seems to be happening more and more each day... 

So here's my question- If I wear all of the "standard" prep items, including but not limited to: Weejuns, Top-Siders, Wallabees, Bit loafers, LLBean Boot Mocs, OCBDs, Polos, Ribbon, Surcingle, and Engine-Turned belts, chinos and jeans, Patagonia down and fleece jackets, LLB Norwegians, and a soft side part... But also "trad" staples such as: Sack blazers, Harris Tweed, Bow ties, the Four-in-hand almost exclusively, Alden penny's and tassels, Shaggy Dogs, flat fronts + cuffs, LLBean Totes, a Timex on one of several ribbon bands, and a strong appreciation for well-made American goods... What am I? (I think the answer is "me.")

P.S. OP- I'm half-Chinese. Although I can't claim any lineage to the Qing dynasty, my Heilongjiang-based bloodline did make my father 6'2 and me just under 6'4 (without any help from the shorter European side.) Ha! 
Zhu ni xin nian kuai le!


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

AdamsSutherland said:


> Zot!,
> 
> So here's my question- If I wear all of the "standard" prep items, including but not limited to: Weejuns, Top-Siders, Wallabees, Bit loafers, LLBean Boot Mocs, OCBDs, Polos, Ribbon, Surcingle, and Engine-Turned belts, chinos and jeans, Patagonia down and fleece jackets, LLB Norwegians, and a soft side part... But also "trad" staples such as: Sack blazers, Harris Tweed, Bow ties, the Four-in-hand almost exclusively, Alden penny's and tassels, Shaggy Dogs, flat fronts + cuffs, LLBean Totes, a Timex on one of several ribbon bands, and a strong appreciation for well-made American goods... What am I? (I think the answer is "me.")


I agree that your first answer is "me". But I think your list of preppy items is, generally, at the point where prep and trad intersect (with one or two exceptions). That is to say, almost all the prep things you mention fit into a 1960s image of Ivy League look. IMO where prep deviates is in its self-conscious element which is typical of the nouveau riche. It says, "I have arrived at some sort of WASPy success". Trad, inasmuch as it makes a statement, makes it more quietly.

This difference is illustrated by shirts with alligators and polo players on the chest versus shirts w/o logos but with a perfect collar roll. I don't mean to merely place certain makers in one camp. Some of my tradliest items, lacking in preppiness, are by RLP. I think the difference is one of attitude.

Did I just make my comment so nebulous as to be worthless?


----------



## WilliamMMLeftfoot (Jun 14, 2009)

*Reply to Adam Sutherland*

Adam,

Just because you went to boarding school, doesn't make you a "preppie." Boarding schools nowadays are largely meritocracies. Perhaps you were even there on a scholarship. Anyway, If you have read Class by Paul Fussell or Class by Jilly Cooper, I'm sure they would both place you as Upper Lower Class (Perhaps Middle Class). From what I've gathered, I would agree with them.

SORRY - NO TIME TO READ YOUR REFERENCES. NEXT TIME YOU WANT TO MAKE A RACIAL ARGUMENT, QUOTE YOUR SOURCES.

Before you reply that I'm an idiot, please skim those books. It will be manifestly evident, why I've said what I've said. I'm not being critical of your clothes, because you seem to be able to dress well, but when we are talking about preppy and social class, it's an all together different matter.

Also, I largely agree with D&S's post. All though, obviously, not under all circumstances.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

WilliamMMLeftfoot said:


> Adam,
> This is all aside from the fact that you are not even *********.


Gee-zus *****

Don't feed flaming and stay off the religious references.


----------



## D&S (Mar 29, 2009)

The Caucasian comment is a bit insensitive but there is some truth to it, though even Fussell (I don't know about Cooper) refrains from tackling the topic of race in his otherwise no-topic-is-taboo book. Class and race is a whole other matter that is beyond the scope of this thread.

Just to add to my above post, the people I know who are from the trad-est backgrounds would often be considered preppy, not trad, by the members of this forum. Without giving away too many specifics, I remember staying with a college acquaintance at his house in one of the richest towns in the country and meeting his dad, a 65-ish graduate of some junior boarding school (I don't remember which one), a top boarding school, and a big-three Ivy who popped the collar of his Lacoste shirts (hardly a trad practice, as defined here) and drove a Porsche SUV (not prep or trad, just flashy), among other cars. And the purpose of my visit, to take a train into New York to see a rap concert with his sons, was probably the farthest thing from trad.

This is the reality in the 21st Century. No one lives exclusively within strict class boundaries of tastes, dress, and interests anymore.

In short, the time when "trad" was the style of dress for the elite in this country is over - they've moved on to preppy. Not to say that preppy style is never affected, but trad is even more so.


----------



## WilliamMMLeftfoot (Jun 14, 2009)

Cooper does tackle race. But this is a highly sensitive board, so we ought to use a lot of euphemisms, be positive, and wish everyone a nice day :icon_smile: But anyway, the difference between trad and preppy is that a "preppy" has no problem wearing logos. fleece, t-shirts, sports shoes, and flip flops. Regarding D&S's comment about affection, I'm not entirely sure trad is more affected than preppy. I think the judgement would have to be made on a case by case basis. And also D&S, you can't say "no one . . . " rather, relatively fewer.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

He's baaaaaaaaack! Relentless and intractable, aren't we?

WilliamMMLeftfoot,

First things first. My name isn't Adam and my username doesn't suggest that. I respectfully ask that you refrain from trying to address me as such. I think we've gone over this before, to no avail, but it's a new year.

Secondly, I must credit you for your clever approach to this new round of trolling. I had thought you disappeared, but it looks like you've been patiently waiting to strike. Your timing and approach is impeccable; I was concerned about using that term/spelling and am not entirely surprised that someone commented on it. While your past remarks relied on sarcastic mockery in an attempt to induce feelings of inadequacy, frustration, and annoyance, your new method of condescension through the application of others' published opinion and claimed objective analysis is a little more inspired and credible. I would certainly like to hope, you, after having read one of my posts that randomly mentioned Rand or Objectivism, aspired to produce some sort of irrefutable argument for my inferiority, the security of which is provided by any sort of defense requiring that I declare myself a hypocrite. This is what every attempt at insult or injury aspires to, it forces the recipient to accept and submit to defeat by virtue of rationally acknowledging reality. Furthermore, since you are not directly suggesting your own superiority and your reference is an objectively presented analysis that abstains from indicating preference, then based on the presented comments, you aren't doing anything wrong. Yes, it is obnoxious, but any attempted denial or retaliation on my part would just be ignorant and in opposition of reality. This whole thing really is a tremendous accomplishment.

Fortunately I'm less concerned with classifications of title and supposed self-worth, especially from any number of strangers on-line, and more concerned with myself and the objective aspects of my life.

I would have been less surprised by such a response if I had posted this 3 years ago, but that's irrelevant. 

It's always a risk, assuming such comments are of genuine concern, that shared personal information will eventually be used as ammunition for a diatribe. This is even more true, apparently, on such a site as AAAT, one that is dedicated to the discussion of a clothing style that is, arguably, inextricably associated with certain American socio-economic classes. I should not be so naive to think that AAAC is too benevolent and nurturing of an environment to avoid blunt discussions regarding "classes", or apparently "castes" as you, Fussel, and Cooper maintain. 

These discussions require the sharing of unpleasant, albeit somewhat comprehensible (in this case), statements and definitions relating to class. Also expected then, are associated demonstrations of superiority and/or pretense. These are not solely performed by self-adulation and histrionic peacocking. Instead, as in this case, they are passively achieved, although no less conspicuously, through degradation and assaults on an individual's confidence and ego.

What strikes me as rather curious is this demonstrated protectiveness over certain class-related terminology/nomenclature, claims to heritage, and apparently in this case, the ever-eroding fortification against any sort of racial dilution of that which is apparently only allowable and inherently possessed by a select few through an overreaching, self-justified perversion of primogeniture-inspired divinity. Based on my limited understanding of the Fussell class delineation, which I believe you treasure and maintain like any other objective truth confirmed by your logic and reason, and your demonstrated concern, then you are likely Middle Class, too. The Upper Class, as described, are too far removed and disinterested to be concerned with pigeonholing others. Do I have that part right?

This is on the internet where we are all relatively safe and anonymous, identifiable only by our IP address and random bits of shared information. This is fortunate as it provides each one of us the ability to share our thoughts, opinions, and knowledge. It provides each one of us means through which to attain enjoyment and entertainment. Unfortunately these conditions enable, and sometimes encourage, difficult and negative, unproductive behavior. That's fine too. I personally value forums such as these, not just for the information relevant to clothes, but also because these side conversations allow myself and others to articulate ourselves in a variety of productive, and unproductive, ways.

Lastly, you are more well-read than I am and I'm glad you're able to share with me two works that seem like fascinating reads. I look forward to picking up copies of both. I also think you're a complete nuisance, but that's just an opinion.

Note: I didn't take time to edit this as I am a student and do have other things to do with my time.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Boatshoe,

That may be the best reply I have ever seen on a forum. Well done.

AdamsSutherland, 

I'm not sure it was worth the trouble, but that was a fine post. Reasonable and articulate.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

(To Adams)
Well done sir, well done.

To our friend late of China: We may not agree on all aspects of Trad, but I myself would find racism to be disgustingly anti-Trad.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

preppy = highschool and undergrad
trad = graduate school and beyond


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

kabbaz said:


> Don't feed flaming and stay off the religious references.


Sorry. Didn't mean any religious offense. I was using at as an intensifier.


----------



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

As much as the forumites want Trad to be something special and different, it isn't. Trad is just a new name for Ivy League/Preppy. Think of it as Preppy for the computer literate.

Preppy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preppy

Trad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trad

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


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Wikipedia is now a credible source for definitions of ambiguous terms?

Let's not obfuscate the differences any further.

Pretty soon someone will come along and say American Trad and Amjack are related.


----------



## D&S (Mar 29, 2009)

What is AmJack?


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I believe it stands for American Jackass.


D&S said:


> What is AmJack?


----------



## D&S (Mar 29, 2009)

That's considered "a look"? Wow.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

D&S said:


> This is the reality in the 21st Century. No one lives exclusively within strict class boundaries of tastes, dress, and interests anymore.


Not true. Many people do.


----------



## D&S (Mar 29, 2009)

Bog said:


> Not true. Many people do.


_No one_ is not defensible, I suppose, but you can't deny that some things cross class lines altogether - football, horse races, and drinking cheap beer at the beach (but only when done by young people) are three things that come to mind.


----------



## TradMichael (Apr 13, 2006)

tinytim said:


> As much as the forumites want Trad to be something special and different, it isn't. Trad is just a new name for Ivy League/Preppy. Think of it as Preppy for the computer literate.


I respectfully disagree, and fairly loathe popped collars, external logos, and sunglasses indoors. I don't know if the AmTrad entry is still available for reading anywhere (if so we should perhaps archive it here) but absolutely none of the exemplifiers of the form that it gave were preps or preppies at all. Preppy is surely a subset of the look and there seem to be plenty who follow the OPH look well but the two are not synonymous.

The phrase "American traditional" to describe the look was used in _Time_ magazine back in 1986. I'm pretty sure this forum was not around yet. In Japan they were talking about AT before that, like in '83 or so, in describing Lauren's extreme popularity there---the Japanese at the time were hungry for the "American traditional look," as the Japanese business press had put it then. AmTrad was mentioned in _Forbes_ in the '80s (in reference to what Joseph Abboud was doing at the time). And even "American" does not always hold: there've been trads from Great Britain on here with their own definite idiosyncrasies---trad but not AmTrad.

That said, I don't personally care for the portmanteau "AmTrad," and "American Traditional" almost sounds too plain to describe it, even though that's just what it is. It's probably not enough of a buzzword as say Goth or Punk or something (probably because the latter are strongly connected to music and "scenes"), so therefore the whole thing remains fairly obscure. Ivy / Ivy League / Take Ivy / Trad Ivy or whatever is certainly a big part of it (and sounds much better than AmTrad, IMHO) but at first blush it doesn't seem fair to make it synonymous, either---unless it's assured that all country squires and urban gentry are definite alums (or at least try to make it look so).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

D&S said:


> _ ..._ and drinking cheap beer at the beach (but only when done by young people)


Hey, I take umbrage to that, UMBRAGE I say!!

I'm almost 50 and STILL enjoy my Yeungling and Rolling Rock at the beach!!


----------



## D&S (Mar 29, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Hey, I take umbrage to that, UMBRAGE I say!!
> 
> I'm almost 50 and STILL enjoy my Yeungling and Rolling Rock at the beach!!


Wasn't talking about Yeungling and Rolling Rock... think Natural Light and PBR


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

TradMichael said:


> Ivy / Ivy League / Take Ivy / Trad Ivy or whatever is certainly a big part of it (and sounds much better than AmTrad, IMHO) but at first blush it doesn't seem fair to make it synonymous, either---unless it's assured that all country squires and urban gentry are definite alums (or at least try to make it look so).


I really liked your post, TradMichael, but didn't quite follow your last sentence. This forum has seen countless pieces of evidence that "the Ivy League Look" had gone mainstream by the late 1950s, and so retailers in Indiana or Wisconsin could advertise something as Ivy League not because of associations with particular universities* but because of specific features (e.g. sack, lack of pads, flat front and back buckles on trousers, etc.). By then Ivy League had absorbed all sorts of features from the country squires and urban gentry who had nothing to do with the universities of the Ivy League. In other words, those features, as I suppose was true of all Ivy League features, had come from elsewhere and become Ivy League. I believe the main source of English and Scottish inspiration was the Duke of Windsor, esp on his US trip in the 1930s.

The label Ivy League works even if the connections with the universities of said "Ivy League" are a bit tenuous. But then, French Fries are not French, and German Potato Salad is not German, and German Shepherds are Alsatian, and for that matter, English royalty at the moment is German and Greek (except for Diana's boys--the only English blood since 1066).

I fear that I have gone off topic.

*in the same way that I don't assume anymore that a male with his trouser waist positioned at his thighs in public has been in prison.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Blimey! But this thread is an education in itself for this Irish-Londoner!

My tuppence worth (2 cents:icon_smile_wink, when I first encountered the term "preppy" in London shops in the 80s, it was all tennis shirts with chinos and blazers and was immediately a look I interpreted as American-student. More than that I don't know.


----------



## TradMichael (Apr 13, 2006)

P Hudson said:


> I really liked your post, TradMichael, but didn't quite follow your last sentence. This forum has seen countless pieces of evidence that "the Ivy League Look" had gone mainstream by the late 1950s, and so retailers in Indiana or Wisconsin could advertise something as Ivy League not because of associations with particular universities* but because of specific features (e.g. sack, lack of pads, flat front and back buckles on trousers, etc.). By then Ivy League had absorbed all sorts of features from the country squires and urban gentry who had nothing to do with the universities of the Ivy League. In other words, those features, as I suppose was true of all Ivy League features, had come from elsewhere and become Ivy League. I believe the main source of English and Scottish inspiration was the Duke of Windsor, esp on his US trip in the 1930s.
> 
> The label Ivy League works even if the connections with the universities of said "Ivy League" are a bit tenuous. But then, French Fries are not French, and German Potato Salad is not German, and German Shepherds are Alsatian, and for that matter, English royalty at the moment is German and Greek (except for Diana's boys--the only English blood since 1066).
> 
> I fear that I have gone off topic.


I don't think you have at all. Great post. If the Ivy look had gone mainstream by the 50s (and concerning Indiana or Wisconsin, I'm sure the look was equally represnted at Notre Dame and Marquette or wherever as it was at Yale, or Boston University), then I'd have to say the label works. I still see it differing from preppy significantly (1950s pics of students in penny loafers and cardigans would be called "Ivy" or "American traditional" but probably not "preppy"); preppy seems very much a certain period to me, late 70s and early 80s, Izod and all that. Are there high school people today who consider their style to be "preppy"? If so, what is it?

Incidentally Wikipedia now says that "trad" is a "controversial" "recently revised" "narrower" "online promoted" "version" of Ivy style.


----------



## Henry346 (Oct 31, 2009)

TradMichael said:


> I don't think you have at all. Great post. If the Ivy look had gone mainstream by the 50s (and concerning Indiana or Wisconsin, I'm sure the look was equally represnted at Notre Dame and Marquette or wherever as it was at Yale, or Boston University), then I'd have to say the label works. I still see it differing from preppy significantly (1950s pics of students in penny loafers and cardigans would be called "Ivy" or "American traditional" but probably not "preppy"); preppy seems very much a certain period to me, late 70s and early 80s, Izod and all that. Are there high school people today who consider their style to be "preppy"? If so, what is it?
> 
> Incidentally Wikipedia now says that "trad" is a "controversial" "recently revised" "narrower" "online promoted" "version" of Ivy style.


Well what I do is generally pastels. We love ocean blue, nantucket red, lime green, kelly green, etc. Striped or checkered button downs under or independent of sweaters (generally solid or argyle). Polos also go under sweaters sometimes. We wear chinos and khakis of multitudes of colors with some cords as well. Boat shoes and Penny loafers. Polo would probably be the most popular with Brooks brothers running for a close second, brand wise. Lacoste polos and some of their shoes are fine, but personally I don't like a lot of the rest. Ties are similarly pastellish colors sometimes with animals and other symbols on them. Seersuckers are common. Striped pants are common as well. Some madras I guess. Surcingles or ribbon belts. And this is not including lifestyle choices.


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

I really prefer the term trad because it's so much less tied to class. I'm a Jeffersonian at heart, and I really do believe that we should be inspired by the idea of the yeoman- not the aristocrat. While I do love to add preppy flourishes to my wardrobe, the real idea behind traditional dressing (imho) is that is should put quality and practicality first. The traditionally garb of the American working class, middle class and upper class all appreciate quality in their own way, and there is no reason that we cannot borrow from each one. Although Red Wing boots and J. Press suits should not be worn together, there is no reason that they should not be in the same closet.
-Just my 2 cents.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

TradMichael,

Search for a thread I started a while back on Rainbow Sandals and A New Generation... or something to that effect.

It documents how I described the prep look as I understood it in high school.


----------

