Saturday, September 29, 2012
The Seven Deadly (or at least mildly annoying) Sins of Preppy Dressing
Prep is a mature, timeless, American style with British roots. However, there are seven highly-overlapping areas where many people go against the spirit of the classic Prep aesthetic. Here they are.
1. Cheap construction: Using flimsy material and shoddy stitching; using stiff cardboard-like leather to replace high quality leather in a briefcase, shoes, or a belt; having no extra fabric on a jacket so, for example, the sleeves can’t be let out when passed on to the next generation. Funnily enough, cheap construction may be the cardinal sin. Cheap construction restricts activities, and reuse. Cheap construction keeps clothing from being passed on. And cheap construction on expensive items is morally indefensible.
2. Lazy derivative design: bland knock-offs; tasteless patterns; khakis and oxfords missing key details. Many vendors knock-off their own designs to replace the originals.
3. "Preppy with a twist" or "updated classics": adding trendy details; the sartorial equivalent of fan-fiction.
4. Foppery: looking like someone stepped out of a glossy catalog; wearing impractical items such as high heels on the dock; everything too new; dressing to be seen, not to do anything. A self-test is, would you wear it if no one was looking?
5. Iconography: loudly wearing iconic images or brands; copying the look without copying the passion, such as loving the image of a boat more than being on a boat; showing off a brand of clothing because the brand is popular (but often past its prime).
6. Sycophancy: using clothes to try to ingratiate oneself to a target group. It makes everyone in the target group uncomfortable and embarrassed (it does work, however, to ingratiate oneself to other sycophants who want to ingratiate themselves to the same target group).
7. Reactance/ eclecticism: proudly opposing one set of rules by adhering to another set of rules by people who view themselves as "the type who doesn't follows rules". A meta-trend today is eclecticism. People add elements of preppy with discordant other styles in an attempt to be ironic and individualistic, not realizing how trendy they are actually being. It is the equivalent of putting modern art in Monticello.
Preppy clothes should be perfect for smart, productive people who don't want to have to think about clothing. But while this used to be true, so many vendors have embraced the short-term cashing-out strategy of tricking people and passing off shoddy goods and costumes; so regretfully, more thoughtfulness today is necessary.
All of these points have been better stated in T. S. Eliot's famous dictum: "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
92 comments:
Thank you Muffy. Says it all-----Richard
Wow- this ought to become a permanent link on I can't tell you how many websites.
I always though that with regard to "foppery", at least in advertising, the real purpose was to cram as many items as possible onto a given model so as to maximize exposure density, no matter whether they should actually be worn together in the real world. Same goes for garish color combinations- in advertising copy, at least they make you notice. The reader can then decide if, for example, orange cords are "edgy" or just plain ugly.
The RL Big Pony (according to the man himself in a Forbes interview) came from the fact that they needed to make the pony larger so the logo on the ballboys could be seen on TV at Wimbledon and the US Open.
A common RL trope is also to combine high and low, formal with casual, such as a suit jacket with sweatpants. The only folks I've ever seen dress this way, besides RL employees, are college students who didn't do laundry.
What I find so wonderful about this list is that it seems to apply not just to preppy clothes, but to much of life in general. And of course it seems to be going against the grain of so much of contemporary life.
As usual, so eloquently stated my friend.
I adore this post and stand behind it 100%. Now, if only we could get more people to read and adhere to these few basic principles....Oh how lovely it would be.
Using clothing to target a group is just sad! The idea that people dress to establish cliques is so Jr. High! Sure, people all doing the same things tend to wear similar things. But to try to insinuate oneself into relationships based on wardrobe? Sad, sad, sad! I know many a prep who has many a non-prep friend!
Well said Muffy and thank you!
Finally! Someone has said it. I'm glad it was you.
Muffy-
Yes, your list does apply to many if life's accoutrements.
Perhaps you have already listed the quintessential prep wardrobe for a female and a male? I would love to know how to guide my son to invest in classics as he is asking to build his wardrobe. He is in University and in a fraternity. I think this frat is the preppiest of them all.
Some of my classic prep items have stood the test of time. I do need a new Barbour Jacket....
pve
Well said!!
I believe much of this information should be provided to LL Bean and Brooks Brothers. Then again, I wonder if they'd bother to read and heed its sage advice.
Both of these legacy brands claim to be interested in customer comments, but from my own experience, when one posts a review they don't like, they censor it or refuse to post it. I am a top reviewer at the BB site and have had at least three of my reviews rejected for even the slightest degree of critical commentary and while I was angered, I was also saddened because I realized that they really weren't interested in what loyal customers thought.
Paul Connors
While I cannot agree more with this post I immediately thought of Fred Casselberry and Kiel James Patrick as glaring offenders. It is puzzling to me you've associated yourself with these two pretenders.
@Thomas - I really don't know Fred. I only met him once two years ago. Kiel and Sarah are incredibly nice; I genuinely like, and wear often, their bracelets; and their tie is one of my husband's favorites.
I was just telling my daughter how silly I thought it was that Ralph Lauren puts out jodhpurs for over a thousand dollars and you know they aren't meant to be worn on a horse! I can buy the same thing through Dover Saddlery for under a hundred. Same goes for all the riding boots on the market-- I think it looks so silly for people to walk around in them when they've never ridden in their life! This is what drew me to your blog-- I was realizing that people wear all kinds of clothes for specific activities but never live a life that actually includes them!
Muffy, I seriously think you should consider starting your own clothing company. You know so much more than most of them out there. I can't believe you wouldn't be successful!
I love it. Especially #6.
I wholeheartedly agree with most of your list, except the bit about eclecticism. Some of the most interesting, creative people I have met are the types who wouldn't mind putting modern art in a traditional setting.
I don't wear khakis (though I am from India where the "khaki" originated), since it does not suit my skin tone. I live in black pants and dark denim.
Eclectic? Incongruent? Maybe. Since "preppy" has become more multicultural and diverse in its appeal, it is going to become more eclectic. I think it would be richer for it.
I am far from a 'preppy' in any way as far as the term is used. When I started working for a large corporation I liked the look of some of the executives (I was in the mail room at the time) and used it for my own - Brooks Bros. A blazer, OCBD shirts, silk knit ties, khaki and oxfords. I am now retired but looking back at old photographs the look is 'today' while co-workers' outfits immediately put them in their time frame.
I remember once going to a business lunch at a trendy restaurant. Everyone was in black Armani except for one man who was head of a very large company and very important. Guess what? Brooks Bros.
It's sad now that Brooks Bros. seems to be making all the changes you have stated in your blog.
Lagunie
Muffy - I think you will offend a large number of garishly dressed, poorly behaved people who may have otherwise thought they were pretty cool! Thank you!
This is one of your best posts to date. That said, it seems like two through seven apply to your friend Fred Egan.
(Not expecting my comment to be published)
Based on my trip to NY today, I'd say the "meta-trend" right now is egregious, in-your-face UGLINESS. When someone wears a cocktail dress with motorcycle boots, what exactly is the "statement?" Ditto the ubiquitous black Spandex tights, now lacking anything over them to spare one the view of a bum bigger than my mare's. And, of course, those who Let It All Hang Out with their underwear on the outside. These people look like baboons, or maybe trying to get bred by one . . .
Three cheers, Muffy! Someone had to say it, and saying it took grit!
@Greenfield - "...a bum bigger than my mare's" - now that is funny!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "putting modern art in Monticello" if it is done well.
In fact there are few rules if one knows how to break the rules.
hello muffy:
i loved this post. i was wondering, however, if you can identify what the key details on khakis are. i am currently shopping for some replacements.
also, my favorite part of this was your personal litmus test: would you wear it if nobody was looking? this is such a good way to identify if i am dressing for myself or another. thank you so much!
My favourite is #3. "The sartorial equivalent of fan fiction." So true, and damn, I wish I'd said that. Beautiful.
Brooks Brothers now has men's suits that are not just woven in Italy, but manufactured there as well.
Another path they are following is that of the Thom Browne inspired styling. Since I no longer have a thin teenager's physique, the more classic styling of what used to be called "sack suits" is more to my preference. I also don't care for the latest style trend toward the narrower lapels and ties of the early 1960s. I have gotten used to 3 1/2 inch wide ties and somewhat more prominent lapels and I believe they look better on men with larger frames and physiques.
And as an informational aside, I suggest to my male friends that they re-consider buying suits and sports jackets at Jos. A Bank due to the fact that their suits are notoriously lacking in extra material so badly needed in alterations.
"Preppy with a twist" or "updated classics": adding trendy details; the sartorial equivalent of fan-fiction."
...With this line, you have officially become my hero!
Muffy, could some of these sins also apply to preppy life in general and not just clothes? I am specifically wondering about number three: "Preppy with a twist" or "updated classics." I recall you once writing on that blog that anyone can be preppy but then wouldn't new people wanting to adapt the lifestyle be "preppy with a twist?" For example, I attended public schools, not a prep school like Choate or Deerfield and I grew up in lower Manhattan, not New England. Does not this mean that I am "preppy with a twist?"
Let's see:
1. Cheap construction -- yep, mostly made in China
2. Derivative -- yes, riding on the coattails of Brooks, Izod Lacoste, Savile Row, etc.
3. Updated/with a twist -- check
4. Foppery (see any print ad by...)
5. Showing off the brand -- indeed, logos are plastered everywhere
6. Sycophancy -- no one has tried more to ingratiate himself to the prep/WASP classes to which he never belonged
Congratulations! You've just described Ralph Lauren to a tee.
Hi. I like what you say, but some of comments are kind of confusing me. Is preppy related to any specific race or social status? I have believed that the term preppy means more than that. It is about life style and values, which are full of practicality and gracefulness.
Anonymous 11:54 - I believe the phrases "Preppy with a twist" and "updated classics" refer very specifically to pairing highly trendy items or details with classic items. Nothing I can see on this list excludes anyone who doesn't want to be excluded.
Muffy - I believe over the years you have demonstrated through your pictures the viability of Ralph Lauren as part of a classic wardrobe, while acknowledging the wealth of bad as well. But I also noticed that you moved them fairly significantly to the right from your 2011 chart to your 2012 chart. However, I would say that they may be even worse than that, fully just a company shell, at this point. This list just confirms this.
I have to admit that I do wear Top Siders even though I do not go boating. I would go on a boat, I just really do not have the chance. That aside, I wear them because when I was little at the beginning of every school year my mother would buy me a new pair of Top Siders to match my school uniform (for the first and second grade they were blue, then I switched schools and they were brown). Memories. I would hope that would count as authenticity, somewhat. Good list.
Thomas said...
While I cannot agree more with this post I immediately thought of Fred Casselberry and Kiel James Patrick as glaring offenders. It is puzzling to me you've associated yourself with these two pretenders.
Thomas, just because someone doesn't dress they way you do isn't a reason not to associate with them. In her reply, Muffy didn't say Kiel and Sarah were preppy, she said they were NICE. I think that, in the end, sums up what is truly important.
Preppy clothes should be perfect for smart, productive people who don't want to have to think about clothing.
This is the litmus test anything I buy has to go through. I can't define myself as prep-by-origin, especially not being American. But a certain timelessness and long-term frugality is what I expect from my wardrobe.
Would I still wear it in 5 years? I ask myself this all the time. Then most of the current retailers selection gets a big NO! "Fan-fiction", as you call it. It's sad to see society wasting so much in clothes. On the other hand, the above question helps me choose so much quicker.
The above is a great Decalogue on what NOT to wear. Although as some said before, a bit of "eclecticism", smart enough, is something to be welcome. Otherwise, we would never have the incredible green&pink combination :)
The most interesting thing about this list, for me, is that it acknowledges that the wearer of the clothes is as important a factor as the clothes themselves in determining whether one comes off as sweet or saccharine, gracious or grating. A Burberry trench or pair of Gucci loafers can have wildly different impacts solely due to the person donning them.
I think some commenters may be interpreting #7 too broadly, which I read as criticizing a teenager-like sensibility of studied eclecticism. A wardrobe should reflect your past and present: hobbies, occupation, education, location, interests, travels, personality, family, etc. I think any wardrobe that is honest to those realities will contain items that may seem incongruous or add to a sense of eclecticism. But those personal factors seem, to me, to help avoid foppery and appearing costumed.
That's why it can seem like some basic breach when, for example, people don school or vacation spot-emblazoned gear for institutions they didn't attend or locations with which they have only passing familiarity. Or when "preppy" activities are engaged in self-consciously, and personal histories are re-cast (anonymous Catholic school transubstantiates into Prep School!). So an element of natural eclecticism in a wardrobe feels, in some way, like an act of honesty.
@Greenfield:
I've been educating myself on what's "on trend" via the numerous "style gurus" on youtube, many claiming to be "chic" and "preppy".
The emphasis seems to be on looking "edgy" and "fierce". Hence the motorcycle boots with the cocktail dress. The higher the heels the better. None of it is practical for me since I practice martial arts barefoot and my feet need to be wearing flats or nothing at all in order not to distort them.
But the emphasis seems to be "not to look like your grandma" and to "mix it up" in a way that is slightly discomfitting to me - grandma sweater with something your grandma wouldn't wear - like sequined tights.
I, for one, would love to dress like my grandma did and that's why "preppy" appeals to me.
I wish there were people like Ms. Aldrich posting "outfits of the day" on youtube rather than the teens and twenty-somthings who shop at Forever 21 and Abercrombie and Fitch.
pve design - For the start of a classic prep wardrobe, check out this entry: http://www.muffyaldrich.com/2011/07/basic-preppy-wardrobe-staple-essentials.html.
Greenfield...you stated my same thoughts about the tights. When did women stop wearing pants? While I agree with you about a mare's bum, I'm particularly repulsed by the women in their mid-late 40's who would look like they were in fabulous shape if they wore appropriate clothing. However, most (in my little part of the world) "dress" like their 15 year old daughters so everyone can gaze at their saggy little chicken fat fannies. It is NOT a good look.
*sara*
I noticed in many of the comments readers are disparaging retailers like Brooks Brothers, LL Bean, Ralph Lauren ... I think we need to be more understanding of these businesses. If the general public actually bought the stuff Muffy is espousing here, they would keep making and selling them. The sad fact is that people don't buy these things anymore. Any company that only sold these items would go out of business or sell so few that each piece would be rediculously expensive. So before we denigrate these retailers, we should understand it's not them, it's us. The world has changed, those that can't will go out of business. Unfortunately, those that can become Abercrombie and Fitch.
Seriously, I can't tell you how many stupid women were wearing heels at the steeplechase races yesterday. Clearly, they had no idea they'd be tromping around someone's farm for hours.
Looking around me when we shop, I can see that we are in the minority fashion -wise. My daughter (now 44) calls it the "classic look". I agree with the reader who said "would I wear it in 5 years?". I try to buy good quality, (getting harder to find), not trendy, clothing that will last for a long time. I don't find a woman wearing tight jeans and high heels or short shorts and a sweatshirt in the grocery store particularly attractive regardless of her age.
Thank you for the list, I'll check it from time to time as not to violate good taste.
Regarding #3 -- I would be perfectly happy if I never see another pair of high-heeled boat shoes or ruffled polo.
Bitsy
Bernie, I love the line, "those that can become Abercrombie and Fitch!" That said, I have no trouble joining in the chorus denigrating those retailers. I'd willingly pay more, because I'd need to buy even fewer things than I do now. The worst criticism ever levelled at me about my clothing is that it's "boring," which I can live with. I'm grateful to know I'll never see myself coming towards me wearing a badly constructed, overpriced blazer with a fake crest on it, worn by someone reeking of "designer" men's cologne.
A harsh list but true,
and a good reason why a true classic is a classic.
My son headed north with a few Items i brought, errr, 30 years ago to N.H. , quality and proper prep never go out of style.
example: my English Duffle coat kept me warm then and will do the same for him this winter.... great list!
Muffy,
I guess I can easily relate to most of your "seven deadly sins" despite being a European and hence by definition not a "true prep". I, for my part, am very happy that I can rely on quite a selection of handed-down clothes from my father as well as my father-in-law and his late brother, who all frequented different but equally established and reliable tailors and outfitters in different European countries. I therefore do not have to bother too much with the question of whether Ralph's stuff still is, or maybe never was appropriate. There is also still at least a small selection of true artisans and well-stocked haberdasher catering to the needs and tastes of the old-fashioned "good clothes should outlast at least three generations" crowd over here in Europe.
What I ask myself though is: Are you not very much feeding this fad for "updated preppy-ness" with your blog, despite your best intentions? While I appreciate a lot your reports on boat trips and visits to New England places I often wasn't aware of (but will now visit, too, on one or the other of my forthcoming trips to the US), I am not sure I would approve entirely of this frequent focus on which brands to wear or which to avoid. In my view, this kind of discussion is all rather non-U, to use a now quite outmoded British term, and gets you too close to your own deadly sins no. 5 and 6, doesn't it? Ignore the label discussions and bring on more boats, dogs and pictures of the countryside!
Best wishes, dE
'Should have included this in the first post- What does Clark wear with the new Shell Cordovan Aldens?..just curious. My "wing tip" Aldens work well w/ charcoal pinstripe BB suit or Navy blazer and classic gray flannels.
I'm sure Sarah Vickers is a wonderful person. But my daughter (15) says her skirts and shorts are way too short to the point of being indecent. I think of Preppy and Classy being interchangeable, and meaning that you dress appropriately for the occasion without being immodest or overdoing jewelry. I am an artist and I like to wear pieces that artists design- simplicity pairs well even if it's not pearls. But understatement reigns-- a woman's beauty should be what draws attention, not her clothing.
@The Viceroy,
I really enjoy all of the specifics on the blog including brands, items, even colors. I share your interest in all of the locations and activities (more of the golden retriever please), but I look to Muffy for commentary and pictures on clothes just as I look to others for their expert thoughts on brands of technology and brands of cars.
@Pigtown Design -- I was at Foxfield Races today and saw more or less the same thing. No heels, but plenty of other equally ridiculous footwear for that or any other venue. Sparkly ballet flats, for crying out loud! I know people have mixed feelings about its authenticity or lack thereof, but this is one situation where the riding boot trend makes a lot of sense!
@Courtney -- I agree with everything you said, but I would love to meet some of these preps who have non-preppy friends. Most of the ones I know personally give no quarter--indeed, the Episcopal church I attend is well-known for it. I have the greatest respect for these people, and I understand their position. But I can't say it doesn't hurt.
@ Bethany Hissong: About seven years ago I actually wrote (on a blog) a very similar comment regarding knee high boots. Then I moved to NYC and found that nothing is more practical in yucky city streets in the winter when one needs to look presentable for work. I'm not sure if you were referencing knee high boots or short lace up riding boots, but I just wanted to stand up in favor of my Fryes : ) (Sort of like Birkenstock- are they preppy? They meet many of the requirements...)
@LG Fryes are definitely classic American but I don't know about Preppy. In regards to boots- I meant that there are boots styled like competition riding boots that are so expensive and you can get the real thing (like Ariat) for half the price. (Though the real thing would not look appropriate on the street in the city.) I think tall boots are practical for messy weather. Jodhpurs, on the other hand, don't belong outside of riding. There's a lot of pretentiousness in fashion concerning those two items and plenty of more suitable clothing for street clothes.
As far as I know, when Muffy mentions about some specific clothes (such as barbour and pantagonia), I don't think she is trying to do iconogrphy or sycophancy. She is trying to show preppy spirit (again practicality & gracefulness) in them. When she says some brand is not preppy, she means, I believe, that it doesn't have that spirit in although it looks same in appearance.
Viceroy, intriguing comment. But this is a style blog as well as a lifestyle blog, so ignoring the dicta of the style itself (especially when the purveyors and stockists of said style are in a market-driven flux) might be a bit jejune. I think the material Muffy raises as discussion points are quite valid, even if some of the commenters might occasionally seem a tad "intense."
That said, I agree with you 100% that no one captures the beauty of the region in which she hangs her hat better than Mrs. M, and nothing makes me happier than her choice of photographs.
My wife and I belong to an Episcopal church and indeed, two family members are priests. There were some "true preps" who we got to know, one of whom was the best man at our wedding. He attended Sidwell Friends and graduated Bard College, 1940. He was old enough to be my father. He was a banker but occupation was never a topic among our friends not otherwise related to us.
He certainly dressed "preppy" but he was not a stylish person in the sense that it looked like he paid a lot of attention to his clothes. Yet everything he ever wore was perfectly suited to the occasion and I believe that happened without a moment's thought about it. In fact, I'd go so far to say that you probably wouldn't even have called him well dressed because you wouldn't have noticed what he was wearing, other than his unusual pullover dress shirts.
I think I learned more from him in a hour than I did in four years of college, at least about prepdom.
"Preppy clothes should be perfect for smart, productive people who don't want to have to think about clothing."
What?!?! Preps have in fact given an extraordinary amount of thought to the most minute details of a relative handful of very uncomplicated garments.
As a grandmother, I would like to comment about the virtual lack of appropriate clothing for young children. Yes, I am in a position to buy the classics, but they are not inexpensive. How do young mothers find clothing that does not have sayings/logos or other distracting print on them; and are not ridiculously expensive. Fortunately I saved many of the classics that my children wore.
I love this blog; it is one of the few that I look at almost every day, and I am extremely grateful to Mrs. Aldrich for expressing her opinions and sharing her experiences. With that said, I believe that #6 and #7 in this list are completely and harmfully wrong.
Regarding #6, Preppy dress is based almost entirely on inclusion and exclusion. Indeed, it exists primarily to identify a "target group" and to ingratiate that group to itself. I'll give you some examples. Why is Ralph Lauren preppy but J. Crew and Banana Republic are not? The clothes are the same junky stuff made in the same factories in China. But if you're staying at the Harvard Club and you walk in with your shopping bag after going to Ralph Lauren no one will bat an eye, while if you walk in with a J. Crew or Banana Republic bag people will wonder who you are.
Denim is another example. Preppies identify themselves with values such as "quality" and "craftsmanship," but the truth is often quite different. You might be accepted into preppy circles if you wear the terrible imported chinos that Bean offers but not if you wear a pair of jeans, even if they are beautiful, high-quality, handmade in America, etc.
Regarding #7, rather than shunning eclecticism, preppy dress thrives on it. For example, given the usual prep hatred of synthetic fabrics, who would have guessed that it is acceptable to wear a Patagonia fleece? (But not a North Face fleece!) Or, given the prep hatred of ostentation, who would have guessed that it is okay to wear pants covered in embroidered lobsters and to wear belts covered with nautical signal flags? Or, given the Preppy dislike of the color black and of informality, who would have guessed it is acceptable to wear black loafers on almost any occasion (but only if they are from Gucci)?
The prep wardrobe is relentlessly eclectic with virtually no rules at all. This is why, getting back to #6, it functions so well as an instrument of inclusion and exclusion. No one can understand the rules unless you grow up with them. If you were raised in this environment then you know that it is perfectly acceptable to wear an outlandishly loud Harris Tweed sport coat but it unacceptable to wear a dark-colored dress shirt; it is acceptable to wear a plaid tie and vest with your dinner jacket but it is unacceptable for a man to wear even a discrete earring; it is acceptable to wear a fleece jacket to a picnic but not acceptable to wear a basketball warm-up sweatshirt.
There is no rhyme or reason to these distinctions. And the appeal to terms such as "quality" and "style" and "tradition" obscures that fact that prep style, like all styles, is mostly arbitrary and eclectic, and mostly functions as a means to identify who's in and who's out. We do the world no favors when we wrap our prejudices in the flag in supposedly universal values.
I hope this note will be accepted in the spirit of respect and fun intellectual engagement with which it is offered.
Matt - You bring up many great points, but also perpetuate one point of confusion. I believe the operative word in #7 is "Reactance" - the rebelling against a set of rules - which leads to a forced and ironically trendy Eclecticism. Perhaps Muffy should have used an uppercase "E". This is a style popularized by the Carrie character in "Sex and the City" and has since (d)evolved. For example, seeing a Barbour coat over a ruffled shirt, leggings, and high heels is not a variation of preppy, but the opposite: either a trendy expression of mass faux creativity and individuality, or simply childish cluelessness and clumsiness. I will leave it to others to chew on the other issues in your appreciated comments!
What Anonymous 10:46 said.
Ralph Lauren does not seem genuinely preppy to me. While the stores are lovely in a stage-set sort of way, something about that pony logo has always bothered me. He is a very clever man (Ralph Lifschutz?), but the "brand" seems aspirational and not so authentic.
I've never seen Ralph on a horse! Driving a jeep yes!
Your seven deadly sins have been committed by so many "Ivy"/"Prep" brands - Ralph Lauren, Brooks Brothers, Gant and (under its new owners) Barbour.
Muffy:
While I agree with much of your observations, it is a n inexorable fact of contemporary capitalism that culture becomes commodified. Granted, this is hardly an original observation but my point is that our form of economy renders culture largely symbolic and there is no other way about it. Indeed, even your sharing through this blog projects what is a life-lived ( not "lifestyle") for you , but necessarily arrives through our corporate computers as a decontextualized spectacle (for many of us, I suspect).
Culture, in fact, has always had a character of theatre and continues to do so but the audience for it has expanded, changed, and no longer need pay to get in, as it were.
Note that this is not a criticism but only an immediate response to your post.
ps.: Even a former continental philosophy major can enjoy your blog and learn!
Not a comment about the blog nor about capitalism but many observations about culture are off the mark. Usually, they are simplifications, and while not entirely false, do not tell the whole story or even very much of it. A recent story in the Washington Post illustrates this very well.
Northern Virginia is not so much like the rest of the state and one writer went so far as to suggest there was a point beyond which you entered the "real Viriginia." He called it the "iced tea line." I don't know what he meant by that but it's just the rest of Virginia to us and for some of us, that's where we came from. Everyone else came from Pennsylvania, except for my wife.
I don't think culture is symbolic and hardly commodified (or packaged and sold in convenient take-home boxes), though it may be that some is, just like packages of wild rice from Minnesota. Much culture is underground and well rooted. It sometimes has been growing for a long time in fertile soil. Unfortunately, it sometimes reverts to "root stock," and sometimes it just goes to seed.
I think this would more accurately fall under the title "My Seven Deadly Sins That I Will Never Break" or something of the sort..
I have a great deal of respect for you-- but you and the others who have posted on this cannot define preppy, or any style for that matter. Style is something that is unique to everyone. 'Preppy' may wear similar clothes, but who are you to tell them they are not 'Preppy'. I think it's great when someone has their own twist on things-- style wise or not...
My opinion can be accurately summed as: Style is individualized, and different for ever person. One person cannot define a style.
All my opinion of course.
- Anonymous 11:39 AM.
We know who Muffy is: her influences, her taste, and her deep New England roots. And this article has been given a nod by both Richard Press and G. Bruce Boyer, both legends. Who, and I mean this seriously, are you? Share a bit more of your background, to let us consider your comments on what is or isn't preppy.
Two more points, one possibly echoing some previous comments:
1). Nothing proves that one belongs more than breaking the rules and getting away with it. At my very preppy University, the kids who came from the most authentic prep school backgrounds generally dressed exactly as they pleased, yet were still accepted without question by other graduates of the southern prep school circuit. (Yes, such a thing exists, and I acknowledge it may be different from the New England version.). If one doesn't seem to care about the rules, others assume it's because confidence is high that there will never be a question of acceptance. Hope that makes sense.
2). I actually really don't mind hipsters and such wearing preppy clothes ironically or as any other sort of statement because they still look better than women wearing tights as pants or the majority of what passes for street fashion on blogs such as The Sartorialist. Same goes for "mall preps"- they could look so much worse- at least they are clean looking and covered up, which is more than you can say for a lot of young American women.
LG - You lost me at: "If one doesn't seem to care about the rules, others assume it's because confidence is high that there will never be a question of acceptance."
LG - So "the kids" from "the most authentic prep schools" went to a "very preppy University" and "dressed exactly as they pleased" and "were still accepted without question" by people from other Southern prep schools? If you are trying to use an authentic example to illustrate a point, perhaps a few actual details would be useful.
Sorry- I have a three month old baby and sleep deprivation is doing me no favors. My point is that people who grew up within the set of people who stereotypically attend prep schools feel confident that they will be accepted- and they are- regardless of what they wear. They can get away with eccentricities of all sorts.
If anyone is feeling a little defensive because they think I am criticizing Muffy, I am not. See her post on Birkenstocks, which I referenced earlier. In my mind she does as she pleases because she is confident of where she belongs.
LG - I 'get you' and you are spot on.
To Chris from New Hampshire-
It shouldn't matter who I am... Just because Muffy has a well known blog doesn't make her automatically correct ( I don't know who the 'legends' Richard Press and G. Bruce Boyer are-- and to me, referring to people as 'legends' in style is ironically comical). You shouldn't need credentials to make a valid point. But if you still need to see some of my background then ask for details and I will provide-- but for now I don't see it as necessary. Also, the comment section is about discussion, not attacks (could have read your comment wrong due to the lack of inflection in text).
Now let me elaborate on my comment. Style is about expressing yourself, no? It is a way of non-verbal communication. Or at least that is how I see it. Given this, there should be no need, and no way, to establish "deadly sins" in style. Everyone who wants to consider themselves 'preppy' can. Obviously there will be roots in everyone's style, but we can't and shouldn't define style so black and white. LG's comment above is, while on a little different route, pretty damn accurate in my opinion.
- Anonymous 11:39 AM
Can one or will one wear certain clothes five years hence? I think that returns to the question of quality and by extension the next question is, will some of the actual garments discussed here last that long?
If they are of lower quality to start (as in much offered by Vinyeard Vines) would anyone have a reasonable expectation that they would even be serviceable five years on? I think not.
And yet, some of the same legacy brands that have been discussed here seem to have a curious mixture of high quality products and those that are noticeably less so. L.L. Bean comes to mind, as does my one time favorite Brooks Brothers.
From my own experiene I would not say that about J Press.
I was in both Bloomingdales and the Ralph Lauren store in the Short Hills, NJ mall this past weekend and I was stunned by the exorbitant prices for Lauren's products when juxtaposed by much of his men's clothing items that were almost all manufactured in CHINA, but carried ridiculous prices.
At least Lauren's men's shoes are almost all made in England, but they are still even more expensive than BB's shell cordovan tassel loafers and Blucher oxfords.
I suspect many of the fashions discussed here, including updates of true classics from all sources do not compare favorably in quality with their forebears as more and more manufacturers and merchants take repeated shortcuts to cut costs.
Anonymous 11:39 AM - You were presented with a piece of information. "Richard Press and G. Bruce Boyer are legends." This is my opinion, given I stated it, which may or may not be shared by others. What is most interesting to me is that you decided to embrace and even announce your ignorance rather than take the 30 seconds required to Google them. I get it. You are not the type of person who looks things up. If you do not know something, apparently it is not worth knowing. Next, you wrote, "Style is about expressing yourself, no?... Everyone who wants to consider themselves 'preppy' can." This to me is as intellectually weak as saying, "The purpose of a house is to express oneself... Everyone who wants to call their house a Federal style can." Or, "The purpose of language is to express oneself... Everyone who wants to call their language French can." Finally, of course all definitions are somewhat imprecise. The “Deadly Sins” model upon which this piece is jokingly modeled is not one of absolutes. Because you obviously don’t look things up, let me explain. There is a difference between overeating now and then, and true Gluttony, or taking a nap, and true Sloth. It is in the extremes, not the single instance, where the problems occur.
A very preppy young friend from Philadelphia once referred to his clothing as "gear" and that he detested the term "preppy style," when used by parvenus. I liked the term "gear" very much. Truly no other set of sartorial items elicits more of a response, pro or con, than preppy "gear."
In so many cases, by the time the beetle-browed get to their computers, brows furrowed, and type their screeds, pro or con, it's no longer about khakis or button-downs at all.
...AND, what Chris From New Hampshire said, far better than I could.
To Chris from New Hampshire...
You are right, I didn't look these 'legends' up. I don't intend to either. Their opinions are not of a concern to me because I am not conversing with them. I am not saying that your opinion is wrong, I just find it funny to attach the term 'legend' style-- something that I find personal. Which brings me to the route of the conflict-- besides the aggressive tones thrown around (admittedly from both sides). I see style as something personal and something that cannot be defined b a rigid definition, as you apparently see it. This is an opinion and I respect yours-- I hope you respect mine as well. Your example of my 'intellectually weak' argument is-- if I may use your term, ' Intellectually weak'. There are obvious differences. These problems you provided will never arise because no one would care to do these-- just as no goth would care to declare themselves preppy and if they did who would care or take notice? Also, as I recall, I said there will be roots in everyones style. Basically, just because someone wears something contradicting the 'seven deadly sins' doesn't and shouldn't by any means mean they aren't preppy.
I don't intend to respond, or even check back for your answer. This is, from what I can tell, going no where. It is doing nothing but adding negativeness to the world. You have your opinion and I have mine.
--Anonymous 11:39 AM
P.S. Please be respectful of others' opinions. Agree to disagree?
@Paul Connors:
Ralph Lauren quality is abysmal. A month or two ago I bought two cotton 1/4 zip sweatshirts - one RL, one some brand from Target. Both a very non-preppy black. Which one bled color like it was going out of style? The RL piece which cost five times more than the one from Target.
As for their shoes being made in England vs. China, does it really matter? Google "sweatshops in Leicester".
That's what baffles me about a lot of folks who claim to be devoted to America-made products. This is a general observation, not specifically directed at you. Preppy style freely embraces Barbour, Burberry, BMWs, but not Red Oxx or Not Your Daughter's Jeans. The latter brands are made in the U.S.A. and of good quality.
But they are always critical of things "made in China". To me, it's a technicality. Made outside the U.S. in China may not necessarily be in a sweatshop. And made in Britain may not necessarily be outside a sweatshop.
Anyway, coming back to RL, why do they have a lion and a crown on the ties of the U.S. Olympic apparel? Have they seen lions roaming on the mid-western prairies? Have they never seen bald eagles? Their buddies in the U.S. Olympic Committee did not see anything wrong with the tacky ponies on the jackets and lions and crowns on the ties.
Sucks to be them. I will never buy RL anything again.
Good Grief, Muffy! You sure got folks all riled up about their clothes - lol!
I, for one, just learned something new: fan-fiction! Who knew? I guess you did!
The last thing I want to do is continue this discussion, most has been said, except for the irony-- Preppy dressing allows one to focus on OTHER more important things instead of expressing oneself through their clothes, with the security that they are appropriately dressed for whatever that may be. They find their creative expression in other avenues. End of story.
To those who think there are no such things as "Style Sins:"
Oh yes there are! It's like porn--you know it when you see it. Hey, if you want to do "Annie Hall" or "Grunge" knock yourself out, go for hipster, ironic, whatever suits! But as far as the ~truly~ traditional is concerned, Muffy is the REAL "new Preppy Handbook," and 3/4 of the other "trad" style blogs out there read like self-conscious, OCD self-parody in comparison!
On another note, the Fall Bean catalog came and not a single women's Oxford buttons down. They have these big, floppy 70's-style collars. What the fruitbat? Straight into the recycling bin!
Quality and traditional style are what I hope to find in what I buy and wear.
I also prefer this style because it is classic and because it means I will not have to replace things every year as a slave to new fashions. I think we can all agree on that, especially those of us who are frugal, too. :-)
Then there is the simple fact that most of us dress this way because we do not have to give it much thought, if we think about it at all. I prefer not to call attention to myself and therefore these classic styles suit me (no pun intended) quite well.
@ Nutrivore:
Thank you for your comments. I didn't buy anything this past weekend at either RL or BB and I can't remember the last time I bought any of Ralph's junk. I was there on a reconnaissance mission and to determine if my suspicions were valid.
The reason I carped about Made in China is because given their historically low, low labor costs, that RL's prices and the attendant lack of quality are IMO completely unwarranted.
In addition, I believe that many of the illustrations using models are beyond ridiculous, furthering Ms. Aldrich's points in her list post here. From where I view what he offers, I think just about every item catalogued by Muffy applies to Lauren's products (as well as other makers and merchants).
So many others over recent months have lamented the lack of quality from such legacy btrands as LL Bean and even BB, that they can't all be wrong and I think these comments are proof that the writers know from whence they speak and are experts in their own right.
I think in this day and age, selective buying is now more key than ever and the expert opinions of other consumers are welcomed by all who seek product recommendations.
The irony is that in this day and age a strict adherance to dressing classically and in good quality basics is the exception, and may actually make one stand out rather than blend in...Or even be labeled an eccentric!
LG: Believe me, downtown in NY on a Saturday, we are almost as rare as passenger pigeons and unicorns!
This is NOT a positive trend.
Hopefully there will always be niche makers who cater to our increasingly rarefied market; in an age of mass-marketed "disposable" clothing, the chances are we're going to have to pay more than ever for our expectations; the good news is we can hand them down! In many ways, this is almost a return to the "bespoke" days which begat our ethos to begin with . . .
@Greenfield: The NY suburbs, where I live, are not much of an improvement.
@ Greenfield:
I saw some nice soft cotton button-downs at the G.H. Bass Outlet under the Heritage label. They had ginghams, tattersalls, etc. too. But you've got to look in the men's section. They are not OCBDs, but they feel wonderful.
I was wearing a Heritage Bass button-down (women's small) from four years ago. It's the softest most comfortable button-down I own. The size is identical to the men's slim fit small, except for the sleeves. If you're tall, you can wear the men's slim fit in your women's size. The women's Heritage button down had weird cuts with pleats and tucks in strange places and felt a tad rougher than the one I was wearing from four years ago. Plus, they didn't feel as lush as the men's shirt.
I aslo scored some gorgeous cotton sweaters in navy and grey (again from the men's section) and I just washed them. They held their shape well. (I got them for $34 each at the outlet store)
I've always loved the simplicity of preppy dressing. It's authentic, real, and always comfortable. Once you get the "hang" of doing it right, it's easy, and spotting the 7 deadly sins becomes somewhat of a game; much like "Find Waldo." Something we did see recently that was quite disturbing and very wrong: bling and fur boots......... at the local pumpkin patch. God help us. --Holly in PA
I'm fascinated by the ways in which many comments here-and under other posts- (d)evolve into arguments over "authenticity." RL and KJP: NO! Muffy: YES! It is also fascinating to see the evidence marshalled in support of posters' claims: bags brought into the Harvard Club (huh?), RL was, you know, Ralph Lifschitz, Catholic schools aren't prep schools. There seems to me quite a bit of anger that underlies these comments, anger toward individuals that, to the poster, are imposters. Yet, when others call them on this, that is, when other posters ask: so tell us what race/religion/education is qualified to define what is/isn't prep, they remain silent. Is the underlying, message, then, that only white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants who went to very specific schools are qualified to define the look/lifestyle outlined in these pages? Under one post a commentator suggested that the reason for the decrease in true preps on the Brown campus is because of Affirmative Action. Egad. The Kennedys draw particular ire and are deemed "mimics." To me, if you went to prep school, you are a prep no matter what you wear because we can't ignore the root of the term. If you didn't, you can still self-identify however you want. If someone has a definition of prep they'd like to propose, I'd be quite interested to read it.
If it takes you more than three minutes to decide what to wear for the day, you're not doing it right. When I get dressed in the morning, I look at the weather forecast, not the latest issue of GQ.
Hi, Muffy! I just wanted to say I really like this post and I really enjoy reading your blog. Even though my blog would most likely make you cringe (and I mean it), I quite enjoy gleaning your "preppy" clothing wisdom off of your posts. They are always a great reminder to me to dress with function, quality, and my own personal enjoyment in mind over the superficial gains of impressing others. Thank you! Although our styles are very different I know I can always learn something new from reading The Daily Prep. Thanks for teaching this big-city Southern girl a little about quiet New England life.
This was great, but it would have been even greater (or at least funnier) with picture examples [from ads, maybe?]
Regarding completely unpractical footwear: Every polo game in California I have ever seen. Which is why I prefer watching in England or Scotland.
I find it a little ironic that Muffy's blog is very much about the "born and bred" prep lifestyle, and that so many comments are about how to achieve this "look," where to buy the items that signal socioeconomic background and status.
Guiding one's son to invest in clothing that will permit him to fit in with his preppy frat? Really? If a preppy frat accepted him, he'll figure it out, I promise.
But even more troubling are the comments about faking it, the comments about women as big as one's mare, the smugness that seems to drip from some of the comments embody the exact opposite of the "preppy values" of graciousness and humility that Muffy seems to hold so dear. This, of course, is not a criticism of Muffy, but of the comments in response to her post.
That said, I like this post, but I wonder why. Because I know the rules? Because I know them because I grew up with them? Because I knowingly break some of them for the sake of dressing with creativity for the sake of my own joy? Because its comments reveal so much judgment and ugliness?
Post a Comment