It is from the Robb Report, by a Mr. Eric Twardzik, who can write. It is worth the read. My objections to the article have nothing at all to do with Mr. Twardzic’s take, rather they have to do with Mr. Snyder’s take. In the first paragraph, Mr. Twardzik inadvertently points out the issue.
“Though diverse enough to conjure images of Kennedys and Black jazz musicians, this interpretation of Ivy differs from another you may have witnessed or even worn—one that starts with an OCBD, but features jeans instead of chinos, a puffer vest in place of a sport coat and definitely not a tie.”
Here, a few pictures for context before I get going:
Now, this is AN OPINION. It is A PERSPECTIVE. All perspective is opinion. All opinion is perspective. There are not many facts on which to discuss any of this. If you crave facts, math, science, those are your jam. Some people attribute this quote to the genius G. Bruce Boyer (whom I worship), some to Richard Eberhart. I am not sure to whom (oh look, a pronoun… twice!) credit belongs but the quote is spot on.
“Style is the perfection of a point of view.”
And what’s a point of view everybody??? An o-p-i-n-i-o-n.
Ok, enough of that. The beef is in marketing this as Heavy Duty Ivy. To label something Ivy, it at minimum has to be derivative. (This is an opinion folks, there is no definitive statistical variant we can apply to the subject to see whether it meets the empirical criteria of being derivative… ok now I really am done with that.) Can something be derivative of Ivy and emphatically exclude the tie?
That is like calling Tron Heavy Duty Baseball.
Ivy certainly exists without the tie. It just cannot emphatically do so.
The secondary disqualifier is the logo you see staring back at you. I don’t object to the placement of a logo. Well, wait. You science guys are gonna love this. So in keeping with Mr. Twardzik’s reference to the Kennedys:
And here are, in Mr. Twardzik’s words, Black jazz musicians:
You will note the absence of a giant logo. In fact, you will note the absence of a logo. How then, do these products conjure images? Well, they don’t. I like what Mr. Twardzik does, by making the conjuring of images a qualifier of a derivative, it is just that this line doesn’t do that.
Of course, logos are Ivy. Get ready, old image lovers. I am gonna blow your mind. An old image WITH a big logo.
So wait. One can successfully argue that Mr. Snyder’s take on Heavy Duty Ivy shouldn’t even be called Ivy because it isn’t derivative. I have old pictures as Exhibits A and B. OR… one can argue that big logos on the front of a sweater are pure Ivy, in which case Mr. Snyder has a very good point. I have old pictures as Exhibit C.
I guess one would have to conclude then, that despite the old pictures and historical references, it’s a matter of opinion.