Before I forget, Jay Butler is running 15% off the entire site today. Famous for the bit loafer, they do a great penny loafer too, belts, etc. My impression after wearing the bit loafers and the penny loafers is that everything Jay Butler sells is worth more than you pay for it. And the owner is another good guy here, I profiled him a while back. Go check the site out: Here.
In discussion about Ivy Style, you here the position put forward quite a bit that Ivy Style, because it had a period of prominence unfortunately labeled a Hey Day, that the style is outdated and anachronistic.
One of the ways that I manage my head (if you are new here, and since January approximately 2,800 of our daily readers are – if you are new here I had a depressive episode, I write about it every once in awhile, I manage myself without medication after being misdiagnosed and mismedicated about a million times) – sorry, one of the ways I manage my head is to seek clarity first, and the way that I seek clarity is to first ask if a thought is true.
Is it true that Ivy Style is dated? Not if you consider the following:
- Almost all of the elements of Ivy Style remain popular today. The penny loafer, the OCBD, khakis, even repp ties (amongst the tie wearing crowd), all prominently sold. You can walk into any mall, anywhere, and buy these elements.
- Part of the disconnect of the argument that Ivy has dated is that observers note that while you can walk into any mall and buy the pieces, there is no store marketing or banking on selling all these elements together anymore. I am talking stores in a mall, popular stores. Of course there are stores where you can put together an entire Ivy outfit (the Gap is one of them) but no mall stores market Ivy. And that is true, but irrelevant. The paucity of all-Ivy retailers is not a function of the dissipation of Ivy Style as much as it is a function of the gig retail economy and the function of hitting a trend instead of slowly building a business. You can’t buy spaghetti in a wine store, but that doesn’t meant that spaghetti and wine are outdated.
- The second disconnect of that argument is a knee jerk to the term Hey Day. And that position has grammatical merit, I suppose. If something has a Hey Day, by definition it cannot be as popular as it once was, right? Except ask Brooks Brothers if they sold more OCBD’s in 1963 or 1993. That’s why I never liked the term Hey Day. It implies a fade. Is Ivy the craze it once was? No. But that doesn’t make it anachronistic, it simply means the Ivy has become presumed. Chubby Checker released The Twist in 1960. In 1979, we were all playing Frampton Comes Alive. But in 1994 John Travolta danced The Twist in Pulp Fiction. The Twist hadn’t become anachronistic, it was a staple move of a gazillion other dance combinations. The Twist wasn’t a craze anymore, it had evolved into a fundamental.
- John Travolta is my generation’s Fred Astaire. It isn’t even close, and had he chosen that path, he would be in the same exact sentence. I grant you this might not be related to the argument, but it is true, and I support John Travolta wholeheartedly. I once saw him do an interview about his son Jett who had autism and whom Travolta kissed. And Travolta defended his love for his son with such authenticity. A good, good man who has seen a lot of loss.
If you reconsider the label Hey Day and you are willing to take a deeper dive into the I-don’t-see-it-at-the-mall mentality, if you accept the premise that just because Ivy isn’t seen everywhere doesn’t mean it isn’t seen anywhere, and if you are willing to walk a mall one time through and note the separate elements, you find two things:
1. I’m right about Travolta and
2. Ivy is not remotely anachronistic (ask J. Press and Todd Snyder), it isn’t dated, it owns a decent slice of the pie.