Ivy Trendwatch: Abercrombie’s Elements of Ivy Collection
July 20, 2011
The Ivy trend has officially reached the cash-grab phase: Abercrombie & Fitch — which once sold tweed sportcoats and other authentic Ivy-style items — has released a new collection for teenyboppers entitled “Elements of Ivy.”
The web copy reads: “Distinguished from the rest and exceptional by every standard, Elements of Ivy is a collection of collegiate classics.”
“Distinguished from the rest?” Certainly not from the rest of the brand’s clothing. — CC
Although I am probably far beyond either the Ralph Lauren Rugby or the current Abercrombie & Fitch target demographic (I am 64), the Rugby and A&F items that I have bought actually fit me, whereas so much of the other stores’ products seem to be made for a non-existent customer demographic, pregnant men.
I have worn the same size for almost 50 years, and I have noticed over the years that some store’s sizes have become larger and larger, with today’s Medium being what used to be a Portly Large.
There also seems to have been a substantial decline in quality and an even more substantial increase in price (far beyond the Cost-Of-Living increases). This relates to Brooks Brothers in particular, when I compare the quality and the price of things that I bought at Brooks Brothers in the 60’s and early 70’s to what Brooks Brothers offers today.
I still go to work wearing Brooks Brothers clothing that I bought in the 60’s and 70’s. I last bought a suit at Brooks Brothers in 2001. The fabric in the trousers came apart after a few months. I recently tried to buy a shirt at the Brooks Brothers store in the Century City (West Los Angeles) mall. The staff (none of whom were wearing neckties or jackets) were involved in discussions amongst themselves and I must have been invisible, so I finally gave up.
Pretty unspired stuff. I wouldn’t turn my nose up at A&F if they had something decent to offer. Ernest Hemingway and Teddy Roosevelt would roll in their graves if they saw some of this stuff.
Regarding RoyRPlatt’s comment . . . There was an article, perhaps Wall Street Journal, a few months ago talking about how men never admit their true size either consciously or unconsciously. They took various size clothing from different brands and compared the actual size to the advertized size. In other words, they basically stated that the average man who thinks he is a 34-inch waist (maybe he was in his teens and college) is probably a 36-inch waist now, so clothing companies compensate.
Kip: Nobody over 22 should be in A&F. When I was a freshman in high-school, back in 1998/99, the brand was very upscale and still exclusive. It wasn’t at every shopping mall. There were still some decent things then. I have a couple great heavy knit sweaters that to this day are in great shape and I wear in the winter. I’d say it went downhill circa 2001 or so, when it became mass-market and could be found at just about every shopping mall.
As not everyone has gotten bigger, why has what used to be called “Husky” in Boy’s clothing and “Portly” in Men’s clothing now become the standard sizing for some manufacturers? Why didn’t they just keep the old sizing? A 40 short jacket from Brooks Brothers today is bigger than a 42 regular jacket was in 1965. Why don’t bigger people just buy bigger sizes? I end up having to buy smaller sizes and/or wash things in hot water to shrink them to their labeled size. Anyone using a tape measure can determine their actual size, as inches are still the same as inches were at any time in the past.
Of course, the present A&F has, other than the name, NO resemblance to the great store that once occupied much of a block on Madison Ave., and had a fabulous collection of sporting goods.
Ivy has offically jumped the shark.
Although I am probably far beyond either the Ralph Lauren Rugby or the current Abercrombie & Fitch target demographic (I am 64), the Rugby and A&F items that I have bought actually fit me, whereas so much of the other stores’ products seem to be made for a non-existent customer demographic, pregnant men.
I have worn the same size for almost 50 years, and I have noticed over the years that some store’s sizes have become larger and larger, with today’s Medium being what used to be a Portly Large.
There also seems to have been a substantial decline in quality and an even more substantial increase in price (far beyond the Cost-Of-Living increases). This relates to Brooks Brothers in particular, when I compare the quality and the price of things that I bought at Brooks Brothers in the 60’s and early 70’s to what Brooks Brothers offers today.
I still go to work wearing Brooks Brothers clothing that I bought in the 60’s and 70’s. I last bought a suit at Brooks Brothers in 2001. The fabric in the trousers came apart after a few months. I recently tried to buy a shirt at the Brooks Brothers store in the Century City (West Los Angeles) mall. The staff (none of whom were wearing neckties or jackets) were involved in discussions amongst themselves and I must have been invisible, so I finally gave up.
That collection should be titled “Weakly reminiscent of elements of Ivy”
@David
Saying “jumped the shark” jumped the shark about four years ago.
@Roy, any brands you recommend?
Jumping the shark jumped the shark when the Fonz jumped the shark. I’m just hoping that mainstream brands get off the bandwagon soon, that’s all.
And it’s ironic that A&F used to be a PITA brand.
I would assume the adage “no one over the age of 25 should be caught dead in Abercrombie & Fitch” would apply to a brand extension.
Roy,
I’m 50. Shirts are too big now? If anything it’s the other war round.
Pretty unspired stuff. I wouldn’t turn my nose up at A&F if they had something decent to offer. Ernest Hemingway and Teddy Roosevelt would roll in their graves if they saw some of this stuff.
*uninspired
Trad at its lamest. Nice to be able to keep ypour weight down Roy but the reason that clothes are geting larger, is that we are. Shop vintage then.
Regarding RoyRPlatt’s comment . . . There was an article, perhaps Wall Street Journal, a few months ago talking about how men never admit their true size either consciously or unconsciously. They took various size clothing from different brands and compared the actual size to the advertized size. In other words, they basically stated that the average man who thinks he is a 34-inch waist (maybe he was in his teens and college) is probably a 36-inch waist now, so clothing companies compensate.
Kip: Nobody over 22 should be in A&F. When I was a freshman in high-school, back in 1998/99, the brand was very upscale and still exclusive. It wasn’t at every shopping mall. There were still some decent things then. I have a couple great heavy knit sweaters that to this day are in great shape and I wear in the winter. I’d say it went downhill circa 2001 or so, when it became mass-market and could be found at just about every shopping mall.
As not everyone has gotten bigger, why has what used to be called “Husky” in Boy’s clothing and “Portly” in Men’s clothing now become the standard sizing for some manufacturers? Why didn’t they just keep the old sizing? A 40 short jacket from Brooks Brothers today is bigger than a 42 regular jacket was in 1965. Why don’t bigger people just buy bigger sizes? I end up having to buy smaller sizes and/or wash things in hot water to shrink them to their labeled size. Anyone using a tape measure can determine their actual size, as inches are still the same as inches were at any time in the past.
@ Reader: Spot on.
The “collection” looks like anything else they have to offer.
Of course, the present A&F has, other than the name, NO resemblance to the great store that once occupied much of a block on Madison Ave., and had a fabulous collection of sporting goods.
I just got some A&F sweatpants for playing tennis when it gets colder. It’s an in-joke, but I’m probably the only one who thinks it’s funny.