That's something I was going to ask about the original skins. I'm aware there were individual skins who were more into dancing than fighting, for example - or vice versa. Can you say the same about whole groups, though? I.e. would it be accurate to distinguish between, say, 'gang skins' who were into territorial warfare and probably a bit younger; older 'mod skins' who were dancing in the clubs, buying the records, and getting the girls; 'football skins'; etc... and that they're only viewed as part of the same, coherent youth cult in retrospect - even though they didn't actually have that much in common (aside from fashion)?
Or was it all the same 'melting pot'?
Someone recently put this theory forward to me. He compared it to the punk scene, where you get many different subgroups that don't really have a lot in common. Not sure if this has any merit.
In my area there were different types of skinheads but it was also the same melting pot. My mob dressed smart and travelled all over London to pubs and clubs and it wasn't unusual to get into fights when wearing a mohair suit but we didn't go looking for trouble. The Dagenham Heathway mob hardly left their manor and would only visit local pubs and working mens clubs. They would be wearing the jungle greens, officer boots etc. And would fight strangers coming into their territory. The same went for the Barking mob who hung around the Westbury Arms pub. My mates went to four or five different schools so we knew most of the other gangs. For us it was clothes, music, clubs and pubs, football and having a good time. The fighting did happen but only with similar groups and normally over girls or football. There was no paki bashing or picking on vulnerable groups in my area.