# 1990s Ivy League?



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

It seems like this style goes through boom and bust periods. Bust period Ivy, when it shrinks in on itself, is a tough one to understand sometimes. Through the help of blogs like Heavy Tweed Jacket, it's been a bit easier to understand what happened to the Ivy League look during the 1970s, but what do you figure happened to it in the 1990s? Norman Hilton & Sero shut down, Brooks taking a beating under Marks & Spencer, Jos. A Bank not fairing much better... J. Crew running U.S. sweatshops in Saipan, "imported" as a dirty word...

The era of Patagonia recycled fleece, New Balance sneakers, and Carhartt duck jeans. 

Thoughts?

Also, when do you think the look started on the upswing again? By the time Thom Browne was pushing for Brooks, probably. By the time Mad Men started airing, definitely. Before?


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

We were still riding the post-OPH preppy wave when I graduated college in 91. I think Nirvana came onto the music scene right around that time and seemed to usher in the grunge look for younger folks. I don't know that this is the sole reason, but is part of the reason for the shift.


----------



## oxford (Feb 24, 2008)

The Ivy League Universities these days are basically jeans-tee shirt-sneaks places within the student body and a good portion of the faculty. Ethnic diversity has had a lot to do with it as has the Peace Movements of the current establishment. Walk thru Harvard Square and you will witness it all. Also the Ivy Prep school like Choat have become the same type of Jeans- Tee Shirt- Sneaks places. Again look at the diversity of the students. We live in a World Order now and this order is certainly not Trad.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

oxford said:


> We live in a World Order now and this order is certainly not Trad.


Resist!!


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

oxford said:


> The Ivy League Universities these days are basically jeans-tee shirt-sneaks places within the student body and a good portion of the faculty. Ethnic diversity has had a lot to do with it as has the Peace Movements of the current establishment. Walk thru Harvard Square and you will witness it all. Also the Ivy Prep school like Choat have become the same type of Jeans- Tee Shirt- Sneaks places. Again look at the diversity of the students. We live in a World Order now and this order is certainly not Trad.


I think katon is talking about the Ivy League Style (what we basically call Trad here) as it was known in the '50s and '60s that goes through cycles of being popular as fashion and other times not ('80s Preppy is an example of one of the times it became popular once again). He's not talking about what actual Ivy Leaguers are/were wearing.

In fact, it is generally agreed that more non-Ivies wore the style even during the time it was known as Ivy League Style.


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

I started college in the fall of '91. Granted I was not at a traditionally tradly place, rather a midwestern Catholic university, but my recollection was that the grunge look was huge. Everyone was in flannels. The weather may have been a bit of a factor but for the most part that's what people wore. A few years later, when I was in grad school you started to see the emergence of what we might now deride as the "Euro" look. Monochrome shirt/tie combos, etc. I'll attest to the fact that grad students tend not to be the most stylish dressers, but that's what I saw a lot of (and unfortunately wore a bit myself).


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

oxford said:


> The Ivy League Universities these days are basically jeans-tee shirt-sneaks places within the student body and a good portion of the faculty. Ethnic diversity has had a lot to do with it as has the Peace Movements of the current establishment. Walk thru Harvard Square and you will witness it all. Also the Ivy Prep school like Choat have become the same type of Jeans- Tee Shirt- Sneaks places. Again look at the diversity of the students. We live in a World Order now and this order is certainly not Trad.


I don't know about the world order stuff, but I do think the hegemony of t-shirts/jeans is a basic statement of merit over elitism, genuineness over pretension, creativity over uniformity. Those are the supposed virtues of wearing kids clothing, and have been since the 60s. Only now am I starting to sense a shift away (maybe) from such rigid associations in the larger culture (not necessarily on campus, where I haven't been in an age), but there's a long way to go.


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

You wanna know what happened to prep in the 90's? RL and Tommy Hill. And a bunch of rappers and rap wanna be's (especially in New York) bough the hell out of that stuff. That alone drove Tommy to the bottom of the heap, and white folk pretty much stopped buying his stuff. 
When the 'lo boy look went out, it took a few years for designers to get back up on it. In the meanwhile, Harris founded trad, Thom made some tiny suits, and it all went from there.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Joe Beamish said:


> I don't know about the world order stuff, but I do think the hegemony of t-shirts/jeans is a basic statement of merit over elitism, genuineness over pretension, creativity over uniformity. Those are the supposed virtues of wearing kids clothing, and have been since the 60s. Only now am I starting to sense a shift away (maybe) from such rigid associations in the larger culture (not necessarily on campus, where I haven't been in an age), but there's a long way to go.


Maybe it's also a statement that $55000 a year for an Ivy doesn't leave much left over for the wardrobe.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Rambler, I doubt it. My guess is that money isn't keeping students from buying dressier clothes, which often enough are actually cheaper than the jeans, sneakers and t-shirts they're wearing.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

good point.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

In addition to the Seattle/Nirvana/grunge look, I'd also argue that the growth of new technology and the dot.com culture led to a decline in traditional dress. When you can make millions of dollars wearing jeans and t-shirts as work attire, where's the incentive to dress up? If I recall correctly, even bankers and lawyers generally moved away from suits and ties during the 90's and casual Friday expanded to take in the entire week.

As to when the trend started to shift back, I'd say part of it is just that the fashion industry is constantly shifting because it causes people to buy new stuff. The last great Preppy boom was in the 80's and its been long enough that people can look back at that decade in a nostalgic fashion. 

I've also seen numerous articles over the year in which the claim is made that when the economy gets rough, people move back to traditional styles. Considering that back when the economy was still strong (late 90's, early '00s) the idea of dressing up was the Regis Philbin solid tie worn with the same solid color shirt, it seems to me that designers really started moving back to traditional styles in the mid 00's when the economy started to get shaky.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> Rambler, I doubt it. My guess is that money isn't keeping students from buying dressier clothes, which often enough are actually cheaper than the jeans, sneakers and t-shirts they're wearing.


Maybe they just don't want to look just like their aging Hippie parents!!


----------



## JDDY (Mar 18, 2006)

"I don't know about the world order stuff, but I do think the hegemony of t-shirts/jeans is a basic statement of merit over elitism, genuineness over pretension, creativity over uniformity."

Yep Beamish. The irony of dressing in the slob uniform of everyone else as a statement of creativity and lack of pretension and is starting to catch on I think. 

I was in grade school through the 90s and started college in the late 90s. I'd say everything was basically the same as the 80s... Any new "preppy" items were extremely casual/sloppy items in my experience- white "The Game" hats beaten to hell or New Balance sneakers. Definitely more J Crew and mall store stuff as shops closed down. Britches and Britches Great Outdoors were popular in the DC area until they went out of business in the mid-90s, probably from competition from GAP and J Crew and IT dress codes.

Agree with the dot.com, grunge, and popularity of surf-skate wear in influencing the general decline.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

The prestige that ivy league schools once had as being "elite" has waned considerably since the rise of so much affirmative action. You can't with confidence believe that everyone is chosen because of intellect and family status -- although I do not deny that this still occurs. Nowadays, getting picked for an Ivy League school either means you're actually intelligent enough to go or you're a product of affirmative action in order to make their school look "good", "PC" and "diverse". 

Much of the move away from the original ivy league look is probably, in part, because of the modern white leftwing do-gooder mentality and aura of political correctness which subconsciously insists that the trad look is indicative of going back to a time when there was more elitism and less diversity (defined by skin color apparently?). 

Obviously that's just opinion and others may disagree...


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Bradford said:


> In addition to the Seattle/Nirvana/grunge look, I'd also argue that the growth of new technology and the dot.com culture led to a decline in traditional dress. When you can make millions of dollars wearing jeans and t-shirts as work attire, where's the incentive to dress up? If I recall correctly, even bankers and lawyers generally moved away from suits and ties during the 90's and casual Friday expanded to take in the entire week.
> 
> .
> Speaking for the world of finance that is certainly true. I used to see see financial analysts on tv dressed as if they were heading for the first tee. It had been a great bull market, and the message was clear: we're financial geniuses, we don't need to wear no stinkin' neckties. Filtered down to boardrooms around the country. Jeans and t shirts. Sure don't see that anymore.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Bradford said:


> In addition to the Seattle/Nirvana/grunge look, I'd also argue that the growth of new technology and the dot.com culture led to a decline in traditional dress. When you can make millions of dollars wearing jeans and t-shirts as work attire, where's the incentive to dress up? If I recall correctly, even bankers and lawyers generally moved away from suits and ties during the 90's and casual Friday expanded to take in the entire week.
> 
> .
> Speaking for the world of finance that is certainly true. I used to see see financial analysts on tv dressed as if they were heading for the first tee. It had been a great bull market, and the message was clear: we're financial geniuses, we don't need to wear no stinkin' neckties. Filtered down to boardrooms around the country. Jeans and t shirts. Sure don't see that anymore.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

chadwick said:


> The prestige that ivy league schools once had as being "elite" has waned considerably since the rise of so much affirmative action. You can't with confidence believe that everyone is chosen because of intellect and family status -- although I do not deny that this still occurs. Nowadays, getting picked for an Ivy League school either means you're actually intelligent enough to go or you're a product of affirmative action in order to make their school look "good", "PC" and "diverse".
> 
> Much of the move away from the original ivy league look is probably, in part, because of the modern white leftwing do-gooder mentality and aura of political correctness which subconsciously insists that the trad look is indicative of going back to a time when there was more elitism and less diversity (defined by skin color apparently?).
> 
> Obviously that's just opinion and others may disagree...


Yes, I'll disagree heartily with that, Chadwick. I agree that "elite" is not as applicable in a social sense. But I've spent enough time at Stanford, Harvard and MIT in the last 10 years to feel pretty confident in saying that virtually every kid there is brilliant in one way or another, and that AA has not precipitated the decline you describe, at all. Nor has their "prestige" declined, at all.


----------



## Caesars0331 (Jun 23, 2009)

yawn......

Last week it was "only whites" can wear traditional ivy/american clothing, now this week the minorities have ruined the reputation of schools.....
We get it, chad....



chadwick said:


> The prestige that ivy league schools once had as being "elite" has waned considerably since the rise of so much affirmative action. You can't with confidence believe that everyone is chosen because of intellect and family status -- although I do not deny that this still occurs. Nowadays, getting picked for an Ivy League school either means you're actually intelligent enough to go or you're a product of affirmative action in order to make their school look "good", "PC" and "diverse".
> 
> Much of the move away from the original ivy league look is probably, in part, because of the modern white leftwing do-gooder mentality and aura of political correctness which subconsciously insists that the trad look is indicative of going back to a time when there was more elitism and less diversity (defined by skin color apparently?).
> 
> Obviously that's just opinion and others may disagree...


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

chadwick said:


> The prestige that ivy league schools once had as being "elite" has waned considerably since the rise of so much affirmative action. You can't with confidence believe that everyone is chosen because of intellect and family status -- although I do not deny that this still occurs. Nowadays, getting picked for an Ivy League school either means you're actually intelligent enough to go or you're a product of affirmative action in order to make their school look "good", "PC" and "diverse".
> 
> Much of the move away from the original ivy league look is probably, in part, because of the modern white leftwing do-gooder mentality and aura of political correctness which subconsciously insists that the trad look is indicative of going back to a time when there was more elitism and less diversity (defined by skin color apparently?).
> 
> Obviously that's just opinion and others may disagree...


How exactly are you able to tell the difference between non-white kids at these schools who, in your words, are "intelligent enough" to be there and those that aren't?


----------



## rlx (Mar 16, 2007)

Ivy League colleges have embraced social and economic diversity for quite a long time. I attended Brown in the 1970's (along with the author of the OPH). At that time, I'd guess that no more than 25% of the students at the school dressed anything like those depicted in the OPH (although some of those depicted in the book were actually in my class).


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Therambler,


> Yes, I'll disagree heartily with that, Chadwick. I agree that "elite" is not as applicable in a social sense. But I've spent enough time at Stanford, Harvard and MIT in the last 10 years to feel pretty confident in saying that virtually every kid there is brilliant in one way or another, and that AA has not precipitated the decline you describe, at all. Nor has their "prestige" declined, at all.


It's quite clear that my case (or opinion for that matter) for the decline in prestige was inherent in the understanding that students may no longer be present over strictly qualifications as opposed to "social justice" factors inherent in the very real policies mandated by affirmative action. I would hardly deny that any of the students there are not brilliant or intelligent in their own right, merely that there may be a question as to whether or not they were picked solely because of themselves and their achievements or for a particular image that the school is trying to uphold. In other words, are some students being picked over others who may have equal or superior qualifications?

Doubts that a school is choosing students regardless of their race can cast a cloud on credibility, and hence the prestige that comes with saying "I went to harvard".

Caesar0331,


> Last week it was "only whites" can wear traditional ivy/american clothing


Not that what you're referring to has any relevance to this topic, but did I actually say what you claim or that they can only successfully wear it without appearing to be wearing a costume (in my opinion of course)?


----------



## Caesars0331 (Jun 23, 2009)

chadwick said:


> Caesar0331,
> 
> Not that what you're referring to has any relevance to this topic, but did I actually say what you claim or that they can only successfully wear it without appearing to be wearing a costume (in my opinion of course)?


First, what does this

"that they can only successfully wear it without appearing to be wearing a costume"

even mean?

and this

"Also, regardless of what anyone says (political correctness aside) or how they might want to take this, you can't be _anything other_ than white and not appear as though you're wearing a costume"

and this

"I think they look way too affected and loud for almost any regular occasion (similar in silliness to how ... a black person dressed "waspy""

Anyway, the vibe I get from your posts is pretty clear, but as you are fond of saying, "its just my opinion, of course"


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Caesars0331 said:


> First, what does this
> 
> "that they can only successfully wear it without appearing to be wearing a costume"
> 
> ...


For someone who claims to not know what I "mean" you seem rather confident in knowing _exactly_ what I "mean", so maybe you would like to explain just what "vibe" you seem to be getting? And btw I don't appreciate you taking my last quote out of context. It could appear pretty witch-hunty.


----------



## Caesars0331 (Jun 23, 2009)

chadwick said:


> Doubts that a school is choosing students regardless of their race can cast a doubt on credibility, and hence the prestige that comes with saying "I went to harvard".


LOL!!!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Coleman said:


> In fact, it is generally agreed that more non-Ivies wore the style even during the time it was known as Ivy League Style.


This is true. I grew up in the South in the 50's and 60's in a working class, blue collar community. Many, if not most, of the guys only owned one jacket and tie which was often referred to as their "Sunday clothes." With this background in mind, I scanned a picture out of my 1966 high school yearbook showing how many of the guys in this Southern working class community dressed when they put on their Sunday clothes. This guy was a year behind me in school.










Although hard to see in the picture, the jacket is tweed and the pants are khaki. Very common, yet few of us even knew what "Ivy League" was.

Also, for what it's worth, many of these guys later turned into the "hippies" that so many now decry for destroying men's attire. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Caesars0331 (Jun 23, 2009)

chadwick said:


> For someone who claims to not know what I'm meaning you seem pretty confident in knowing _exactly_ what I'm meaning, so maybe you would like to explain just what "vibe" you seem to be getting.


Actually, I was referring to the odd sentence syntax you use.

I read the forums every day. It seems odd, to me, that you and your posts are the only ones I remember having any sort of racial tone to them.


----------



## Caesars0331 (Jun 23, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> This is true. I grew up in the South in the 50's and 60's in a working class, blue collar community. Many, if not most, of the guys only owned one jacket and tie which was often referred to as their "Sunday clothes." With this background in mind, I scanned a picture out of my 1966 high school yearbook showing how many of the guys in this Southern working class community dressed when they put on their Sunday clothes. This guy was a year behind me in school.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cruiser, I agree. Going through my grandfathers old clothes (blue collar Detroit guy) I found a bunch of Hickey-Freedman, and other makers 3/2 sacks, khakis and a few GTH trousers, as well.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Caesars0331 said:


> Actually, I was referring to the odd sentence syntax you use.
> 
> I read the forums every day. It seems odd, to me, that you and your posts are the only ones I remember having any sort of racial tone to them.


Oh, well pardon my rudimentary prose.

But do enlighten me on your last comment, what are you suggesting? That there's something wrong with my take or that you find yourself disagreeing with me? Because I certainly don't have a problem with the latter!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Cruiser, nice post.

I believe the clothing style was properly not "Ivy League" but "Ivy," which has a broader application, a metonym for college. "Collegiate" was another name for it. Before that, "conservative," as opposed to "fashionable." The style Cruiser is referring to is what I would call conservative.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> This is true. I grew up in the South in the 50's and 60's in a working class, blue collar community. Many, if not most, of the guys only owned one jacket and tie which was often referred to as their "Sunday clothes." With this background in mind, I scanned a picture out of my 1966 high school yearbook showing how many of the guys in this Southern working class community dressed when they put on their Sunday clothes. This guy was a year behind me in school.


Ummm, was he an affirmative action placement or just getting ready for the Minstrel Show??


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

now that's funny!


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> This is true. I grew up in the South in the 50's and 60's in a working class, blue collar community. Many, if not most, of the guys only owned one jacket and tie which was often referred to as their "Sunday clothes." With this background in mind, I scanned a picture out of my 1966 high school yearbook showing how many of the guys in this Southern working class community dressed when they put on their Sunday clothes. This guy was a year behind me in school.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would say there is merit in the idea that dress codes which we now want to put into neatly defined categories were mostly just considered "nice clothes" back then.



> Ummm, was he an affirmative action placement or just getting ready for the Minstrel Show??


^*laughs*


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Um yeah Chadwick, I'll disagree with your opinions. You think black people can't wear trad clothing without looking like a costume? Wow. One of the preppiest guys I attended college with was a black guy whose dad worked for Aramco. He had lived in Saudi Arabia, gone to a prep school in Switzerland, traveled all over the world and looked more at home in trad/preppy attire than many people I know whose families came over on the Mayflower or even some members of this forum who like to post pictures of their latest trad attire but consistently look more like they're dressed for a costume party.

As for your assertion about Ivy schools going down in prestige because of affirmative action. I don't even know how to respond to that one.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Hey Brad, it's all good, I'm sure opinions can vary widely but to me it looks as silly as a white man in a mariachi outfit or an asian dressed in scottish kilt regalia (I'm referring to the full "ivy" look, not regular dressy clothing items such as a suit and tie which anyone can look classy in -- I also did not single out blacks, despite what our dear friend "caesars" might have everyone here believe, but rather anyone who isn't caucasian as a prerequisite). To each their own and I hope everyone dresses in what they want!


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

Judging by this forum's pictures, race is not so much an issue as is the horrible, debilitating issue of "lack of face."

Every day, Trads are struck down in their prime, generally being found well dressed yet headless in macabre scenes in bathrooms.

Police say the only lead is that they all have cameras in hand...


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Chadwick - apparently you've never seen pictures from the 50's or early 60's of Miles Davis, Charlie Parker or other African-American jazz musicians dressed in trad styles. Heck, maybe you haven't even seen Russell Simmons interviewed recently.

Tell me, are you here because Stormfront was missing a clothing forum?


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

^^^
To add to Bradford's response, just look at this ivy style blog:
https://theivyleaguelook.blogspot.com/

You'll notice many minorities wearing "ivy style" clothes.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

1) with respect to the OP, I think that pendulum swings of fashion explains almost as much as sociology.
2) To say that only whites (whatever that means--"white" has become a big tent) can wear trad or preppy without looking costumey strikes me as odd).
3) to deny that affirmative action has affected appraisal of specific institutions also strikes me as odd. It is a common enough topic of conversation in the academic world.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Bradford, I'm sorry you would wish to take this to an unthinkable level by maliciously associating me with a place like stormfront simply because I have a different opinion about what I think looks good on whom. I suppose you'd never think of a logically consistent idea that I hate caucasians because I don't think they look good dressed in a mariachi outfit. I do hope you learn to make better judgments and distinctions in the future.

zachgranstrom,

That blog, in my mind, proves my point. Especially the fake "1960" pictures. Everyone in a suit and tie looks great! https://akcdn.rugby.com/graphics/blog_image_gallery/1-11-10/UP-Jasmond.jpg


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

chadwick said:


> Bradford, I'm sorry you would wish to maliciously associate me with a place like stormfront simply because I have a different opinion about what I think looks good on whom.


You may not use that site, but your casual racism here and in other threads is rather appalling.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Bradford, I find your accusation of "my racism" incredibly (and classically) misguided. And I'm really not interested in feeding the nonsense.


----------



## JDDY (Mar 18, 2006)

Bradford said:


> Chadwick - apparently you've never seen pictures from the 50's or early 60's of Miles Davis, Charlie Parker or other African-American jazz musicians dressed in trad styles. Heck, maybe you haven't even seen Russell Simmons interviewed recently.
> 
> Tell me, are you here because Stormfront was missing a clothing forum?


If you don't think the jazz musicians like Miles, Parker, 'Trane, and guys like Ralph Ellison, looked sharp as hell you've got no style.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

JDDY said:


> If you don't think the jazz musicians like Miles, Parker, 'Trane, and guys like Ralph Ellison, looked sharp as hell you've got no style.


Allow me to clear up some misinformation (caused by out of context ramblings). When I made my comment originally I was referring to the wilder side of trad, as in the modernly perceived "ivy" clothing (particularly greens, reds, light blues etc etc), which I may not have explained in full detail. I believe people of any background or ethnicity can look classy and professional if dressed in traditional suit & tie & plain/neutral colored clothing (I even think blacks look better in tans and browns most of the time than whites -- omg I must be racist). Furthermore, in my original comments I made it clear that _most_ caucasians can't pull off the more blatant looks without appearing "costumey" either.

As for the individuals you've mentioned I've only seen pictures of them dressed in neutral suit and tie clothing, never the wilder side of "ivy" I was originally commenting on.

If you're wanting some examples of what I was referring to as costumey: 
https://akcdn.rugby.com/graphics/blog_image_gallery/1-11-10/UP-Jasmond.jpg

https://akcdn.rugby.com/graphics/blog_image_gallery/1-11-10/UP-Omar.jpg


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

"Also, regardless of what anyone says (political correctness aside) or how they might want to take this, you can't be _anything other_ than white and not appear as though you're wearing a costume -- even then it's almost too easy to pick out the ones trying waaay too hard (blatant lack of pedigree I imagine?)" - Chadwick

This comment?


----------



## phil ritchie (May 21, 2010)

chadwick said:


> Allow me to clear up some misinformation (caused by out of context ramblings). When I made my comment originally I was referring to the wilder side of trad, as in "ivy" clothing (particularly greens, reds, light blues etc etc), which I may not have explained in full detail. I believe people of any background or ethnicity can look classy and professional if dressed in traditional suit & tie & plain/neutral colored clothing (I even think blacks look better in tans and browns most of the time than whites). Furthermore, in my original comments I made it clear that _most_ whites can't pull it off without looking "costumey" either.
> 
> As for the individuals you've mentioned I've only seen pictures of them dressed in neutral suit and tie clothing, never the wilder side of "ivy" I was making an opinion about.
> 
> ...


I don't think that outfit is any more costumey on him than on a white man.

You appear to have serious race issues.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Bradford said:


> "Also, regardless of what anyone says (political correctness aside) or how they might want to take this, you can't be _anything other_ than white and not appear as though you're wearing a costume -- even then it's almost too easy to pick out the ones trying waaay too hard (blatant lack of pedigree I imagine?)" - Chadwick
> 
> This comment?


Yes, _that_ comment. Am I on trial for something?


----------



## JDDY (Mar 18, 2006)

phil ritchie said:


> I don't think that outfit is any more costumey on him than on a white man.


That's what I think too- I just think that looks like a costume in general. White guy would look equally ridiculous. Esp the second ensemble; it's like a walking cartoon of prep.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

phil ritchie said:


> I don't think that outfit is any more costumey on him than on a white man.
> 
> You appear to have serious race issues.


In short, I think certain caucasian men can pull off the occasional green and red chinos but I have yet to see someone of another race pull it off. Does that make it simple enough? Is anyone suggesting that the idea of whether or not someone looks good wearing a particular clothing style has anything to do with determining class or whether or not they are dynamic? Gawd, you'd almost think so with all of the absurdly uncalled for reactions in here! I suppose if I suggested a woman wouldn't look good wearing a suit & tie I would be a chauvinist. Sheeesh, is western society just programmed with these sort of reactions?

As an example:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Wbd-uMYmb_4/SLBZNLkytvI/AAAAAAAAC0A/fff4gs-9c_E/s1600-h/TakeIvy%2782_145.jpg
This, IMO, would not have an effortless look if it was found on anyone who isn't caucasian. I fail to see what's "criminal" about that opinion.



> That's what I think too- I just think that looks like a costume in general. White guy would look equally ridiculous.


With the particular outfits in question, I agree.

BTW, I just asked my partner what he thought and he agreed. At least I know now I'm not so "strange". Maybe I should ask a few of my friends for extra input. I do feel, however, that this has taken quite a bit of attention away from the original topic. The thread feels sabotaged.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Ummm, was he an affirmative action placement or just getting ready for the Minstrel Show??


Actually I blacked out the face because I haven't asked him for permission to post his picture on the internet and I wouldn't do it without his permission. The picture was taken from my high school yearbook, not the internet. I never black out my own face when I post a picture. I know you were joking but I thought I would clarify that anyway.:icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Pink and Green said:


> Judging by this forum's pictures, race is not so much an issue as is the horrible, debilitating issue of "lack of face."
> 
> Every day, Trads are struck down in their prime, generally being found well dressed yet headless in macabre scenes in bathrooms.
> 
> Police say the only lead is that they all have cameras in hand...


"Well dressed yet headless..."

Classic!!


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Bradford, as a side note I want to clarify that after reviewing my earlier comments I can see how they could be a matter of contention if they are being read a certain way, nevertheless I feel fairly justified in making them by virtue of the fact that I automatically perceive caucasians who are dressing in "hiphop" clothing as _trying_ to fit into black culture (hence, costumey). And by the same token of course, a black person _trying_ to dress "waspy" . Part of it probably has to do with the fact that black culture has roots in the creation of hiphop and Caucasian culture developed traditional "ivy" clothing - in the same way a variety of cultures have invented certain things which automatically creates a certain assocation. I firmly deny that I was responsible for the widely used, although offensive, epithets such as "oreo" and "******" to describe a certain perception of someone trying to be something they aren't. In fact, I would argue to say that a black person dressed "waspy" is likely to find _more_ derision from his fellows than from caucasians. In any event, I hope someone else in the future doesn't have to go through all this explaining simply because they state a frank opinion about what they think. Perhaps it's easy to distort realities because we want to have an all-inclusive idea of the world? As I stated earlier, clothing has nothing to do with defining social class -- and that, I believe, is at the heart of why you (and others) took offense to my comments.


----------



## HL Poling and Sons (Mar 24, 2006)

I think anyone who has to write an additional dozen-plus posts in order to distill or clarify the points he made in an earlier post should seriously reconsider participating in an arena in which the written word is the lingua franca.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Greater diversity, more people included, more ways of seeing. That's our collective inheritance. Chadwick, what you're describing is how YOU see things. But because we can't pretend to live in a closed universe, the meanings you associate with clothing might be very different to someone else. 

These days, more than ever, Anything Goes. And what you see may only be in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

> Greater diversity, more people included, more ways of seeing. That's our collective inheritance. Chadwick, what you're describing is how YOU see things. But because we can't pretend to live in a closed universe, the meanings you associate with clothing might be very different to someone else.
> 
> These days, more than ever, Anything Goes. And what you see may only be in the eye of the beholder.


I like your perspective! Perhaps you should sincerely think about why the reactions are so much more violent for the opinion I stated than if I were to have said "I don't think you can properly pull off being in a mariachi band unless you are mexican".

There truly is no difference _except_ for the stigma that has been created by western political correctness. "Greater diversity, more people included, more ways of seeing".



> I think anyone who has to write an additional dozen-plus posts in order to distill or clarify the points he made in an earlier post should seriously reconsider participating in an arena in which the written word is the lingua franca.


 Invite me to your planet some time. I've always wanted to live in a world of no misunderstanding.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

chadwick said:


> I like your perspective! Perhaps you should sincerely think about why the reactions are so much more violent for the opinion I stated than if I were to have said "I don't think you can properly pull off being in a mariachi band unless you are mexican".
> 
> There truly is no difference _except_ for the stigma that has been created by western political correctness. "Greater diversity, more people included, more ways of seeing".
> 
> Invite me to your planet some time. I've always wanted to live in a world of no misunderstanding.


Clothes mean different things to different people. More than ever (or for a long time.)

Chadwick, it's not a case of political correctness (who still uses the phrase?) to look out the window and see more diversity of all kinds (not just racial.) It's measurable and verifiable. For you to insist that non-white people look less natural or realistic in certain types of clothing is to put them in a box into which they do not deserve to be forced on any grounds. This was always true; the difference today is that they needn't accept it.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

chadwick said:


> I like your perspective! Perhaps you should sincerely think about why the reactions are so much more violent for the opinion I stated than if I were to have said "I don't think you can properly pull off being in a mariachi band unless you are mexican".


Just keep digging, it's interesting to watch how far you will go to justify your biases.

Additionally, having grown up in Tucson, Arizona and as former member of the Tucson Arizona Boys Chorus I can state that I have known several people who were not of Mexican or of any other Latin American heritage who went on to perform with various mariachi bands in the local community. They seemed to "pull it off" just fine. It's about being a musician and the ability to play various types of music.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Chadwick: The problem that I have with your response is that I am not a Caucasian man. In fact, I am a Mexican-American man who likes to wear the "trad" or "Ivy Style" look. So, it bothers me, when you respond that the "Ivy" look only looks good on Caucasian men. 




(I think next time you should think before you write.)


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

> Clothes mean different things to different people. More than ever (or for a long time.)
> 
> Chadwick, it's not a case of political correctness (who still uses the phrase?) to look out the window and see more diversity of all kinds (not just racial.) It's measurable and verifiable. For you to insist that non-white people look less natural or realistic in certain types of clothing is to put them in a box into which they do not deserve to be forced on any grounds. This was always true; the difference today is that they needn't accept it


Joe, if you actually believe what you are saying: that clothes mean different things to different people, then why is it hard for you to accept that I can have a different opinion? If we all agree (including myself) that we can see something differently then why the fuss? I equally insist that caucasians don't look as good in outfits that other races pull off really well -- you're wanting to make this a matter of me saying that one race is _better_ than another which I'm clearly not doing. I guess I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Is your "point" that I'm somehow _less_ entitled to have the opinion that I do simply because it does not agree with yours? I would argue that I am not the one who needs to do _any_ explaining whatsoever to justify myself other than trying to figure out exactly what you're getting at. Don't we already know that we disagree?

I'm sure if I wanted to go down to the level of pettiness I've been shown I might wish to remind you of this comment you made in another thread:

"_Gingham with shorts, don't do it. That's a secret look among *people with very dubious practices*_. Unless you share their point of view, in which case go crazy. *But yuck.*"(emphasis mine)---Joe Beamish

But I'm sure that could _never_ be interpreted by a witch-hunter as an unfair generality, snide or even remotely _opinionated_!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bradford said:


> Just keep digging, it's interesting to watch how far you will go to justify your biases.
> 
> Additionally, having grown up in Tucson, Arizona and as former member of the Tucson Arizona Boys Chorus I can state that I have known several people who were not of Mexican or of any other Latin American heritage who went on to perform with various mariachi bands in the local community. They seemed to "pull it off" just fine. It's about being a musician and the ability to play various types of music.


I have no issue with Gringos playing mariachi, I dig the music, but do they have to wear those crazy get-ups??


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

zach,

I'm sorry that bothers you --- people have given me many bothersome opinions before too. I'm sure some might have the idea that a gay person "can't" wear the "trad" look (as you guys call it) either and yet I've never had a problem naturally liking it nor would I ever consider going on the attack calling them a homophobe. You guys are seriously on a witch hunt and it's absolutely ridiculous. I'm the LAST person who needs a lecture on "diversity" and "acceptance". I was stating an opinion and that's what I think and there is no reason whatsoever for me to feel guilty about it.

bradford,



> Additionally, having grown up in Tucson, Arizona and as former member of the Tucson Arizona Boys Chorus I can state that I have known several people who were not of Mexican or of any other Latin American heritage who went on to perform with various mariachi bands in the local community. They seemed to "pull it off" just fine. It's about being a musician and the ability to play various types of music.


And if you want to dress up in a mariachi outfit, the more power to you! In fact, why stop there, dress in a kimono!


----------



## JDDY (Mar 18, 2006)

Chadwick- You are entitled to your opinion, but maybe you could be putting an excessive amount of focus on some sort of mythological history of things... Most items from this look are not really something to equate with a mariachi suit or kimono... pretty common stuff. To me, the guys in the pictures didn't pull it off to well but a white guy would look equally dumb styled up like that. Keep your mind open to the fact that your interpretation *might* be a little skewed and don't lock in any opinions.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Hadn't you heard? Chadwick backpedaled from his original assertion, now limiting his argument to GTH clothing. 

As follows: Non-white guys look less natural in GTH clothing, which is strongly associated with a very small group of (white) people in the NE. 

Chadwick is unaccustomed to seeing a person from population X wearing clothing strongly associated with population Y. Therefore he says people from population X look unnatural (or less natural) to him in such clothes. Fair enough, though hardly surprising. Whether he believes this to be a timeless, inherent mismatch I don't know. I hope not.

As for what we call "trad" -- along with many other styles -- it looks great on everyone. Thanks for posting the pic of Miles!


----------



## JDDY (Mar 18, 2006)

Well, I got that he narrowed the focus to GTH, but I want to emphasize that I'm pretty sure Miles Davis could pull off a pair of madras trou or the like. Maybe he wouldn't opt for some critter pants though... Emblematic horn, or boxing glove chinos? Ok I can't really see it... I think he was more of a GTH personality rather than dresser.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

Whether its full-on trad or just GTH attire, to me the underlying problem is that he made a sweeping generalization that anyone who is not of a caucasian background cannot wear this type of clothing. Had he stated that some people cannot pull off GTH or Trad wear, I would agree but that would be judging on an individual basis, not making an indictment of every other race. Perhaps it looks funny to him to see someone in a clothing style that he does not expect them to wear, but that merely exposes his limited perspective and perhaps his limited experience with the look.

I'll grant that some people cannot pull off either GTH or even trad, but it has nothing to do with their ethnic background and everything to do with their personal style. There are many anglo caucasians who do not pull off the look well either.

Additionally, what upsets me about this broadbased stereotyping is that it is exactly the same type of thinking that leads to the idea that you can't see a women or an ethnic minority in a corner office, serving as a CEO or for some people serving as President of the United States. I certainly don't know that Chadwick has those types of belief but by promoting the stereotypes as he is, that is exactly what he is endorsing.

And, finally, yes, I get that Chadwick is apparently gay. However, merely being a member of a group that has been discriminated against does not give you free rein to make these type of statements about other groups. In fact, you'd think it should make someone more sensitive to their words and thoughts.

P.S. If I am wrong and Chadwick is merely referring to his male business partner than I apologize.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

*Done in about 5 minutes for your viewing pleasure. The pictures will be deleted in about a week and replaced with headless versions.*



chadwick said:


> In short, I think certain caucasian men can pull off the occasional green and red chinos but I have yet to see someone of another race pull it off.
> 
> As an example:
> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Wbd-uMYmb_4/SLBZNLkytvI/AAAAAAAAC0A/fff4gs-9c_E/s1600-h/TakeIvy%2782_145.jpg
> ...


(my apologies for the hat, I've been wearing one all day. My reds are in the laundry basket at the moment and the unlined LHS were easier to pull out than the Weejuns. My pants are a little lower than they should be, but I'm 6'4 mind you, proportions are different. Other than that I think I got it pretty close, though. The book is "Class" by Paul Fussell which I have read since the last discussion about race and "the look" came up.)

Other than getting dressed just for this thread, it was pretty effortless. I'm half-Asian so that was easy enough. I didn't know about which jacket would have been more authentic, though. Tell me though, which sack makes me look more affected. I tried on three different ones for you (BB, Southwick, and J.Press.)

Chadwick,

Learn to articulate your thoughts, especially when approaching potentially sensitive subjects. While I personally don't take offense to your comments, I do find your mien offensive.

Now back to my Ethics paper.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

...but those aren't "green and red chinos".


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

PHudson,

Really?:icon_peaceplease:


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

AdamsSutherland said:


> Tell me though, which sack makes me look more affected. I tried on three different ones for you (BB, Southwick, and J.Press.)


Great pics. Putting aside Chadwick's strange musings on race and clothing, I think we should talk about your blazers since we rarely see three similar pics with different blazers.

I'd say the 1st blazer fits you best - great shoulders, nice sleeve length, and the collar hugs your neck well (Southwick?). 2nd blazer has pretty good shoulders, good sleeve length, but the neck looks like it's opening, which could just be an effect of your stance at that moment) (Brooks?). Third, shoulders look a bit too substantial for my tastes and the sleeves could use a touch of shortening, but otherwise good (recent Press?)


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Nice post, AS. As a blue blazer man, you should have one with 3 patch pockets, if you dont already. The other 3 look a lot alike. I've known Fussell for about 40 years: may I recommend _Doing Battle_, his autobiography. _Class_ he regarded as a bagatelle - he was a serious scholar. He took quite a few hits for it from offended readers who discoverd that their taste for something was hopelessly middle class. The cruelest thing he does in his hilarious list of social classes is omit "lower middle class," leaving the middle class with no one to look down on. A trenchant and hilarious book.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Thanks guys. 

Cards,

The order is BB, Southwick, Press. The first two have 2 patch pockets and I almost pulled the trigger on a 48L BB 3 patch pocket on the exchange a few months ago but I really didn't need it.

The BB (Brooksease) is my favorite and it has a little shape to it. I purchased it from the Exchange. It fits, but it shouldn't, as I measure 46-47" at the chest and it's a 44L (I had to check but I'm pretty sure I bought it thinking it was a 46L.) 

The Southwick was an ebay purchase for exchange prices and has even softer shoulders than the BB (if you pinch them it's marginally thinner) but the sleeves are a touch short. The neck fits fine, I'm pretty sure it's just my body position. 

Lastly, there's my first sack, the ENORMOUS J.Press Summerweight that I picked up almost exactly 1 year ago. At that point, I didn't know quite what I wanted out of a blazer as I'd grown out of my last one and was borrowing one of my dad's Lauren numbers. It's one thing to know the terms and how it should look in a picture, it's an entirely different experience communicating that to a tailor the first time.The JP 48L would have been great had I been able to fit the shoulders and arms, which were very small. The 50L was much better, but the arms were still too tight so we moved up to a 52L. I wore it out of the store after the minor and insufficient alterations were finished... I wish I knew then what I knew even 3 months after that purchase, especially about shoulders. Someday I'll have them reconstructed because the fabric is great, but until I'm willing to spend the money to have the sleeves shortened, waist brought in, and the shoulders re-done, my other two will suffice.

The Rambler,

I'll PM you a link to the infamous thread where Class was thrown at me... along with some other things.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Good stuff, AS - the BB does look the best (at least in these pics). I went through almost the same process with my blazers - mine (6, I think) all fit differently and have different features.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

AS - gotta admit, I really like the hat with the outfit. I know we're not supposed to like baseball hats, but it definitely tops off the GTH look and says, "I'm not dressed up, this is just who I am".


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

i agree, bradford. Was thinking the same thing.

I picked up a cream with navy lettering yankees ball cap at the game a few weeks ago, and I've been wearing it with a blazer now and then. Somehow I think it works while walking outside. I take it off indoors as should any gentleman.


----------



## oldschoolprep (Jun 21, 2007)

*A Well Intended Rant*

Many of you are on the mark with your perspectives that the Diversity Movement, Ethnic Obsession, Political Correctness and the Revenge of the IT Nerds played key roles in virtually decimating Traddom in post 1992 America. These same movements have also helped make America a better place albeit in some oblique and murky ways.

The horrifying 1992 images of Bill" What is the Meaning of Is?" Clinton and Albert Gore, the Crown Prince of the Tennessee Valley, dressed in Dockers and ugly plaid shirts and some Chinese made shoes, extolling the need for "Change in America" amongst the haybales at some broken down farm near Bumphuque Iowa was, in my opinion, the Waterloo for Traddom as we once knew it.

Time changes all things. Its been all down hill from there and then. Or maybe not as much as we think.

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs "Geek Chic" became the choice of the gameplaying corporate opportunists who were running the American manufacturing sector into the ditch to gain the harlot's promise of the "China Price". Instead of creating real value for customers, they obsessively became addicted to manipulating financial transactions into the allusions of creating real wealth. Why, they did not know how to innovate and create new forms of value. However, they could schneider up some clever new investment algorithms and scam them like crazy.

Look where that has gotten us -- virtually bankrupt with most of the great unwashed looking like a bunch off pierced, tatooed and waxed vagrants. People started showing up for work looking as though they were ready to change the oil in their cars, their remaining manners were tossed off the tailgates of their ugly ******* pickups and any guy who wore a J. Press suit, Gitman OCBD, Talbott rep and Alden tassel loafers was demonized as a sexist racist, homophobe, especially if he happened to be wearing a Trafalgar alligator strap on a monogrammed slide buckle. Damn those PETA 'holes.

Do not to despair. The current environment is a mixed blessing. Unfortunately the "Slob Look" still prevails across most of the country and will do so well into the future. Those of us who prefer crisp spritely Trad or Ivy League apparel are derided as arrogant, aloof or obsolete. So be it. People in America are entitled to their opinions, even the slovenly dressed morons. Their ignorance also indentures them to be wrong.

Unfortunately, many of the best Trad apparel and related Preppy gear manufacturers and retailers are GWTW. Wouldn't be great to pop on over to the local Trad or Varisty Shop and purchase a pair of USA made Sperry America's Cup boat shoes or a classic Linnett plaid Shetland sack sportcoat. I would if I could but I can't. Most of them went of business years ago.

In spite of this, we Trad optimists can and should look at the current state as a Darwinistic sorting process that leaves us few remaining Trads as the dedicated and cohesive band of individuals who derive our satisfaction from doing the right things as opposed to currying favor and popularity by being like everyone else.

Take a postive stand, do the right things and the rest will sort itself out. Then again, do any of us really care what some dimwitted slob thinks about the way we groom, dress and conduct overselves?

My prep school's motto is Be Worthy of Your Heritage. I took it heart when I arrived there 40 years ago and have tried to live it every day as a gentleman with principles and dignity. I am very proud of a large group of friends of every race, color, creed and ideology imagined by man.

More importantly, this same motto has also affected my behavior in another interesting way - I also don't give a damn about what others think about me.

Do the right things and things will turn out for the best.

I look forward to your candid unvarnished criticism.

Have a great Memorial Day weekend!


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Well done rant.


----------



## JDDY (Mar 18, 2006)

Things move in cycles. When the scale tips too far in one direction, there is usually a reaction, a correction and reversion to balance in whatever. And the freedom not to care what others think is a real blessing.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

"...the freedom not to care what others think is a real blessing."

That about sums it up.

(this could also be KB's motto!)


----------



## Beefeater (Jun 2, 2007)

Well put there, Old School.


----------



## JakeLA (Oct 30, 2006)

oldschoolprep said:


> Many of you are on the mark with your perspectives that the Diversity Movement... I look forward to your candid unvarnished criticism.
> 
> Have a great Memorial Day weekend!


Wow, that's the sort of rant one usually sees typed in all caps below a Yahoo News story.

Anyway, since you're so fixated on Al Gore's Chinese shoes, you must have forgotten that the reason we no longer have a domestic shoe industry is because Ronald Reagan killed it.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

I would go with the world order notion to some degree, if things are more casual. I don't agree that affirmative action has changed this, at least not in the past 20 years. My narrow reference is that of a Penn guy in the 70s, and recent time on campus tells me that things have not changed THAT much. The tee shirt and jeans percentage is not that much higher. Plenty of kids look just great. A minority patient of mine who is a Penn freshman giggled at my sack blazer and khaki Saturday uniform, indicating she had a sense of Ivy style after 9 months in Quakerdom.


----------



## chadwick (Apr 27, 2010)

Hope everyone had a great memorial. Happy to see the thread was thriving in my absence.

*AdamsSutherland*, are you needing some affirmation from me on your outfit? Perhaps if I were to say, for the sake amiability, that since you are half asian you can wear the clothing a little better than if you were full asian that would appease your self-image? Omg seriously, wear whatever you want and wear it proudly!

*Bradford*,
After all the smoke and mirrors I have yet to see you produce an excusable case for the notion that judging someone individually on appearance is somehow less deserving of outrage from an ethical standpoint than doing the same for a group of people, other than your avowed disagreement, even to the point of condemnation (which has been dutifully noted).

Lastly, if my patently absurd idea on this matter holds such little merit I fail to see why it warrants such an upset or even an entourage of rebuttal!



> In fact, you'd think it should make someone more sensitive to their words and thoughts.


 But then I suppose relying on stereotypes can't always be an accurate barometer for the diverse points of view humanity has to offer.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

This seems like a good place for these.

Patagonia's Synchilla Pile introduced, Spring of 1985:




Recycled Synchilla introduced, 1993:


(Both images from )

Were Patagonia fleeces part of the look before they introduced the PCR stuff? I'd imagine that the whole "recycled soda bottles" bit (along with the genuinely useful properties of the fabric) helped defuse the aversion to synthetics that tends to follow the look around.

Thoughts?


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

What would you say are the relevant items for talking about 1990s Ivy League?









U.S.-made patterned fleece Snap Tees?









U.S.-made Carhartt B01s?

(Both made overseas now...)









Perhaps the New Balance 996? (Or another model?)

Something else?

Too soon to look back?

Too far off the reservation? :biggrin2:


----------



## jwooten (Dec 19, 2010)

You say 1990's Ivy League, but it looks very similar to current southern fraternity dress to me.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I was at Yale through most of the 1990s, and the only things that I remember seeing a lot of were fleece jackets.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I was at Yale through most of the 1990s, and the only things a recall seeing a lot of were fleece jackets.


----------

