Orginal Penguin by Munsingwear

[Shirtmaven]

I hope some one at PEI (Perry Ellis RIP) reads this.
The polos were the best of the crap.

Just finished Wiliam Gibson's book "Pattern Recognition" The "Coolhunter Cayce P would have hated the pneguin logo.

Carl

 

[shoreman1782]

matador -

Penguin has only recently (past 3 yrs., maybe?) made an effort to be "cool" by resurrecting their older designs/color schemes. In fact, I believe someone still makes an entire Penguin line of golf-ish and corporate logoed stuff (my gf's old UPS Store uniform was Penguin/Munsingwear). Before that they made an effort to distance themselves from the 70s stuff. Your polo was probably pre- or just non- effort to look vintage.

Get Smart -

Quality/fit are in the eye of the wearer, but all the vintage "Grand Slam" and Penguin stuff I've ever seen has been in crappy shape, with junk poly or poly blend fabrics...

I think it's interesting that unlike many other resurrected labels, I don't think penguin was ever cool in the first place.

 

[mrprlover]

Brad Pitt is also helping out the whole Penguin thing. Apparently he's been seen wearing the same old brown Penquin Polo time and time again.

I think he also wears that stuff in Fight Club.

e

 

[ken]

Harsh dude.  No, actually the difference is that the vintage shopper is actually looking for something unique and has to rely on his own tastes and the guy who buys the Original Penguin at Urban is just someone whose tastes are dictated by a bunch of boardroom guys who themselves rely on "cool hunters" (yes, there is such a term) who observed what the vintage shopper was doing in the first place.  In other words, the first is an original.  The second is relying on the tastes of the original and buying an overpriced, highly marketed, mass produced, and often crappily made version of the original.

I forgot clothes in the 70's were designed by carefree 20-somethings who would later have films produced about them in the form of 'Dazed and Confused.' C'mon, man... a boardroom guy is a boardroom guy, whether he was born in the 30's or 60's. Just because you're wearing clothes that somebody dictated to be 'cool' 30 years ago doesn't mean you're not as much of a tool as the kid wearing clothes that are dictated to be 'cool' now.

 

[LA Guy]

Just because you're wearing clothes that somebody dictated to be 'cool' 30 years ago doesn't mean you're not as much of a tool as the kid wearing clothes that are dictated to be 'cool' now.

Sure it does, because you have a different set of sensibilities than people did in the 60's or 70s, and have to sift through things yourself and decide what is still relevant to your personal style after all these years.

 

[Lydia]

Since my favorite clothes used to be a pair of $2 tight-ass poly bellbottoms and a orange 70s leather jacket, I've got to weigh in.

For me, buying vintage is mainly an issue of fit and price. I wouldn't look down on people who buy the new immitations.

I found similar pants but in wool from Gucci for 490 dollars, but they were still kind of loose.

I don't know about penguin but the old lacosse polos had a slimmer fit than the new ones, therefore I choose the old.

Still, often I find that new reinterpretations of the old stuff often use better fabrics. This is natural if they're going to be charging a lot more.

The new designer velvet jacket use higher quality velvet than most of the vintage ones.

I guess the main stream, none-designer, stuff in the 1970s was just cooler.

By the why, I've noticed that it is a well-established truth that menswear sucked in the 1970s. An embarassing time of gaudiness and vulgarity that we'd best erase from our (though I wasn't alive) photo albums.

I disagree. I think it was a time when men were allowed to enjoy style, rather than being strapped in the constrictive straightjacket of either a suit or a pair jeans. Let's face it: the emphasis on subtlety and "taste" doesn't exactly make the streets exciting. And for most men, the fear of "gay" and the conformist nature of modern style, makes things downright boring. Thank god women are allowed some sartorial freedom.

 

[esquire.]

Is there a Penguin store in NYC upper west side, around 80s or 90s street? I remember buying a Penguin Polo about 5 years ago there, before they become tres chic. I thought it was a Penguin store, but don't know if my memory is poor or if it moved.

 

[misterbowles]

Quote:

Just because you're wearing clothes that somebody dictated to be 'cool' 30 years ago doesn't mean you're not as much of a tool as the kid wearing clothes that are dictated to be 'cool' now.
Sure it does, because you have a different set of sensibilities than people did in the 60's or 70s, and have to sift through things yourself and decide what is still relevant to your personal style after all these years.
I'm with LA Guy 110% on this one.

 

[Shirtmaven]

I doubt that there was a Penguin store on it's own back then. These Single brand type of stores are a more recent trend.

I saw a TV show last night that was filmed in Britan. One of the actors was wearing a navy polo with white trim. The penguin logo looked huge. And stupid

Carl

 

[faustian bargain]

there's some brand that is making shirts now that are parodic of the logo fetish, i saw a picture of one with an absolutely huge crocodile on it, like 3" or so. kindof funny, for about 2 minutes.

 

[shoreman1782]

fb-

Was that in the NYT supplemental? I thought it seemed a good idea, but then realized no one would get it. Plus, I have a few gen-u-ine Lacoste shirts and I don't think they'd get along...

 

[faustian bargain]

yes, i think it was in the NYT men's fashion supplemental. either that or the latest 'vitals', since those are the only two clothes-related periodicals i've read recently. re. whether anyone would get it - i guess it depends on your milieu...probably more of an urban indie hipster thing, you know, people who crave irony.

 

[ken]

Quote:

(LA Guy @ Mar. 17 2005,18:13) Quote Just because you're wearing clothes that somebody dictated to be 'cool' 30 years ago doesn't mean you're not as much of a tool as the kid wearing clothes that are dictated to be 'cool' now.
Sure it does, because you have a different set of sensibilities than people did in the 60's or 70s, and have to sift through things yourself and decide what is still relevant to your personal style after all these years.
I'm with LA Guy 110% on this one.[/quote] So you're saying people from that period were intrinsicly cooler than people now, clothing designers included? Is that the difference in sensibilities you're talking about? OK, maybe. I will contend they were probably more laid back back then. But I don't know how that realizes itself through a shirt. As to the second part, I don't think it makes a lick of difference what era the clothes are from. You've still got to sift through things yourself and decide what is relevant to your personal style when you're buying new, right? Why do people who do it at thrift shops have more style than those who do it at malls?

 

[Brian SD]

Why do people who do it at thrift shops have more style than those who do it at malls?

I would say, because if you find an item that works for you at a thrift store, you're likely never going to see it on another person in your life. A a mall may have, say, 1500 mens items in a store. Of those 1500 mens items, 300 are actually different items, the other 1200 are different sizes or variations of those 300 items. In a thrift store, all 1500 items would be different except in the most basic category (t-shirts, jeans, trousers, etc)

I would not say that I think the people in the 70s were cooler than people are now. It's pieces of 70s clothing that made it through to '05 and are now endearing bits of the past instead of something in every man's wardrobe.