I want to broach an interesting subject – at least interesting to me. Some while back I ran across the following question: what is the difference between classic style and preppy style?At first I thought, “Well, that’s pretty easy…” However, when I tried to actually talk it out, I realized that actually the line is finer than at first glance.
While both classic and preppy styles both have the same general source – traditional New England “Ivy League” influences – their primary difference can be best described as attitude.
Where classic style is polished, neat, even orderly, preppy style is a sort of coastline casual. The preppy ethos, best inscribed in the 1980 classic “The Official Preppy Handbook,” is refined irreverence. Preppies essentially seek to bring down the formality of their real or imagined prep school sartorial codes while at the same time keeping them intact.
They do things like layer a blue blazer – the very symbol of proper decorum – under the proletariat functionality of a foul weather slicker. Why? Because they like to sail of course; and if you’re one of them you’ll understand the sartorial irony. Then you’ll also discover you have the same alma mater and go have a G&T at the club.
That, in its essence is the core of the preppy persona: democratized privilege. Let others know you are special, a little blue blooded; but don’t be tacky about it.
On a personal note, this is where I think so many people go wrong with the style today. With the abundance of corduroy, tartans, tweed and waxed canvas, a lot of people seem to lose their head. Top to bottom “prepped out” looks silly. As with most fashions, trying too hard makes you look very sad, not cool.
Well, if that’s my version of preppy than you might think my idea of classic style is less about Martha’s Vineyard and more like lounging Harry’s Bar (the one in Venice, not the one in Paris). Not quite, let’s try Gramercy Tavern; classy and polished but not too snooty.
I make the distinction because when we talk about dressing classically, it is easy to drift into a discussion on formality. While the two are compatible to me they are still mutually exclusive: a bespoke suit is certainly classic, but you needn’t wear a bespoke suit to dress classically.
Classic style also does not hold itself to a particular psychological place like preppy’s clubby-old-school-cum-windswept-sports world. Classic style is more of an approach to dressing. That said, I do agree with a friend's recent observation that real classic dressing goes back to the idea of English propriety, the precursor to American preppy. So, classic dressing is, in a sense, a more pure form of sartorial expression.
OK, that was a little heavy - I need a drink.
Anyway, when I think of classic style I immediately envision men like George Clooney and the all-time Mr. Classic, Gary Cooper (apologies to J. Hackett). These gentlemen are great examples of defining a sense of individuality within the context of classic dress. None of them look like drones or waiters; there is no sense of stiffness or over-formality. Their styles are elegant but relaxed, well-structured but at the same time seem very comfortable, although without the sand-between-your-toes look of American preppy.
Some men, like Hugh Grant seem to straddle the line between classic style and preppy style. By no means affected, Grant can carry of both looks quite naturally and is a great individual to emulate if you are going for that man-about-town/off-to-the-club look.
Clean lines and traditional bones define the classic outfit. Other keystones include excellent fit, complementary color palettes - often earth tones these days - trim rather than loose silhouettes, and a certain degree of simplicity. No ties with sailboats scattered all over; a charcoal turtleneck rather than a lumpy fisherman’s sweater.
So, while the two styles share common roots, there are some of the differences to look for. Understanding these differences will give you a better handle on getting dressed in the morning.
Classic looks will make you feel urbane and polished; ready for a martini at the bar or a drive to the country in your vintage Bugatti. Preppy will have you out in the bay in a 48 foot Hinckley, hauling in the lines and admiring the new tear in your khakis – just what you wanted.
The two looks are worlds apart to me. Although many preppy staples have become "classic." American classic, anyway. Ralph Lauren continues to bridge the gap by marrying the two influences -- the classic influences Purple Label, and the preppy, Polo.
ReplyDeleteGood topic. I could go on and on, but look at the fabric that Gary Cooper's suit is made of!
Whereas you get to the contemporary essence of preppy style -- irony and irreverence within otherwise classic style -- I think you've missed it's origin, intent, and therefore heart. By no means do I agree that preppyness is about democratization.
ReplyDeletePrep style originated in prep schools, which is to say by prep *kids*. Back in the day, the Andovers, Exeters, and St. Paul's of New England all had uniforms to reinforce their conservative/classic ethos: blue blazers, button down oxfords, school ties. But wherever you have teenagers forced to bear even the least mark of a domineering spirit you engender sanctimonious rebellion for its own sake, which in this case of 1950s prep schools is flouting the dress code just shy of earning Saturday detention. You don't wear your foul weather gear over your blazer because you're a blue-blooded American demonstrating your accessibility without appearing tacky; you do it because you're a wise-mouthed elitist who smugly tells your Latin professor, technically speaking, you haven't broken any rules so there's nothing he can do about it. And of course it's sailing gear, because your father does own a yacht, you're guaranteed acceptance into an Ivy League college, and even your idiot roommate like George W. Bush has a good shot of becoming President of the United States. That is, Preppyness is a sort of rebellion (rather than mere casualness), but certainly not a disavowal of prerequisite privilege.
With that in mind, preppyness today is an attempt to affect that young privilege, which is so beyond reality for most of us that the "top to bottom 'prepped out' look" can only appear a disingenuous gimmick. Especially so when done by full-grown adults instead of the teenagers who introduced it. It's necessarily contradictory -- to be cool and conservative, privileged and irreverent, youthful and worldly -- and only someone lacking in the majority of those qualities could see them as compatible. Which is all to say, more often than not, preppyness simply is tacky.
Wow - great comments, thanks!
ReplyDeleteEasy: While I won't deny that the looks are in many ways dissimilar, to me they have the same DNA, just executed differently. It's kind of like separating twins at birth and having one grow up in Greenwich, CT, and the other in Manhattan (the East side, of course). Like you, I could go on about this subject for hours, because more than most fashion topics, the preppy thing has such an interesting social context as well.
Matey: Very well argued. Let me clarify a few of my own points. I absolutely agree with your historical context of the roots of preppy style. The focus on uniformity of style and propriety, decorum and class distinction are very much at the core of the preppy ideal. But, like so many ideas that seek to create a bubble of exclusivity, the prep school look and lifestyle have moved beyond their original sphere of influence.
When the Preppy Handbook was written by Lisa Birchach, herself a Yale grad, it was intended to be both a send-up of the "true" prep culture as well as a tongue and cheek education for those looking to emulate the life. When I used the term "democratization," I did not men that preps are out to spread their love of J. Press blazers, Bloody Marys and Hotchkiss class reunions with average folk. Rather, I meant it more along the lines you indicated: that the original intent behind what is commonly accepted to be preppy "fashion" is the result of taking a particular lifestyle and required uniform and playing with it. The original audience for the rebellious "foul weather gear over the blazer" look were other preppies and their families. As this this type of style came into it's own, the look spread and was absorbed into popular culture through a variety of social and commercial channels.
Though I am the proud and relatively well-adjusted product of a public education and non-Ivy League university, a fair percentage of my family attended New England prep schools and gold plated colleges. Due to my father's education, I also grew up with a strong association to a top tier Ivy League school. I myself didn't go there of course, but that's OK. I'm not bitter. Anyway, my point is that I have been a close-in observer to some of the "authentic" aspects of preppydom and I cannot disagree with your conclusion that at it's core, true preppiness is based on privilege, exclusion, nepotism and money.
The great thing though, is that it has not stayed that way. If you walk through Harvard Yard or Yale's Old Campus, you don't see too many George Bush's anymore. They are still there of course, along with Skull & Bones, and all the other legacy kids who don't officially exist. But the majority of what you do see is from every other demographic out there. The prep thing is still strong, but has been modernized along the way; just like everything else in life. It's been co-opted by J. Crew and , god forbid, Abercrombie & Fitch. Remember when that used to be a classy store?
Preppy in it's truest sense is still alive and well but, and this is my personal take on things, as a lifestyle and not as the cultural force it once was. For many blue blood families, it's more a way of life and sense of tradition.
As for the overdone and ridiculous style too many adopt, kids and adults, I absolutely agree. It looks awful, tacky, and just dumb. But I also don't like the idea of social strata - the argument that one class of people should never seek to change. If that is a look or type of life you really want to emulate - go for it, but just do it well. Don't be a caricature.
Thanks again for your comments and I hope this wasn't too much of a ramble.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Chris - Thanks for the quote on today's Men's Flair. Not to be easily pacified (or maybe because I'm the wise-mouthed elitist), I'd like to point out that Andover was actually a Yale feeder, Exeter a Harvard feeder, which is why their colors are blue and red, respectively, and why they have the oldest high school rivalry in the country.
ReplyDeleteThanks again.
Matey - you are absolutely correct and may have sentenced me to family excommunication. My mother's line leads back to one of the founding families of Andover and a cousin of mine recently graduated from its hallowed halls.
ReplyDeleteI had meant to link Hotchkiss to Yale and Exeter to Harvard; somehow Andover wound up in there. I'm getting over the flu and not completely up to speed.
Thanks for catching it!
BEING PREPPY IS NOT A TREND! YOU ARE BORN PREPPY .
ReplyDeleteSHAW HIGHLAND