Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Men's Clothing › Clothing fit of yesteryear
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clothing fit of yesteryear - Page 10

post #136 of 142
12/30/11 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

You precede your question with its answer.
Atlanta attorneys, 1950s:
tuttle.jpg
2010:
252494799_efd3132815.jpg

The most startling difference in these two photographs is not the fit of the clothes but the size of the respective subjects.

I have to believe it is hard, if not impossible, to find clothes that "fit" the way they have in decades past when you are of the size and shape these fellows were in 2010.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 142
12/30/11 at 3:27pm
Teh fattiez I tells you, teh fattiez. Self inclusive.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 142
12/30/11 at 10:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post

Are we on Brooks Brothers now or the general population? I thought the question was on the general population . What percentage of the population shopped at Brooks Brothers?

My guess is a very small percentage. It wasn't the price point necessarily.
It was also cultural/sociological. In the 50s and before, BB and the other
"Ivy League" tailors/ stores, eg. J Press, Chipp, Langrock, Paul Stuart,
Sills (bespoke) Dunhill Tailors (bespoke) Arthur Rosenberg and numerous
campus-convenient retailers, catered to a predominantly WASP Ivy- educated
Northeastern community. I came from a second generation immigrant family.
Definitely not WASP. My uncles, who were very successful entrepreneurs, wore
very expensive "sharp" clothing. One of them wore bespoke, not remotely
Ivy. My dad on the other hand, from a similar background, was a successful
professional who dressed from Rogers Peet and BB. He adopted the Ivy style
as his own. He looked old money, but was one generation removed from a dirt floored
hut in the old country.
Edited by comrade - 12/31/11 at 6:40pm
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 142
12/30/11 at 11:26pm
Something else to consider: changing demographics. Some 30%, 40% of this country (today) come from racial and ethnic ancestry that is not directly Western European. I think people here should think long and hard about that percentage and what it means. As someone of southeast Asian ancestry, surrounded professionally and personally by people of South American, Asian and African ancestry--right here in the ol' US of A--I was handed no "Western fit-and-finish" glossary to absorb and accept as my heritage. (In fact, my father has not worn the suit and tie, and his ancestors associated them not with respectability but with colonial oppression.) My perspectives and upbringing are my own, and everyone will have their own perspectives, but we all should consider that a significant percentage of the U.S. is going to have very different notions of what "fit" means, to reconcile against both modern trends as well as the heritage of other cultures that may be quite different. And, this percentage tends to have a much louder voice today than in the past. (Reference: all the vintage pictures of, well, male caucasian business men.)

Note: I am not trying to suggest racial drivers for "good fit" versus "bad fit" but instead remind everyone that the U.S. is still the world's great melting pot, and while a forum more or less focused on western european style trends is going to lament recent change while looking at the issue from a SF-centric point of view, clothing manufacturers and retailers have to satisfy a much broader market.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 142
12/31/11 at 4:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I have been wanting to post something regarding this for some time now and a post on Voxsartoria's blog finaly made me do it. For reference here is the post: http://www.voxsartoria.com/post/14869880592/scenes-from-brooks-brothers-1954.
Now we all know RTW in America used to be much better quality; This is a given at this point. There are two things that I have been recently wondering about having been watching older movies, (note: not even that old, I am talking 20-30 years old) number one, why has the fit of RTW declined so much over the past 20-30 years? And, when and why did the decline of knowledge of sales associates happen?
On fit: Whenever I see old photographs of people in RTW, or older movies (post period where they wore their own tailor made garments) the essentials, while not perfect, still seem to fit so much better than today's garments?

Don't think one can compare fit of garments seen in movies, new or old, to the fit of people's RTW garments in real life. Don't the movie studios have professional wardrobe departments, to ensure clothing/costumes fit properly and always look good on the actors/actresses.

I remember getting and having to wear ill-fitting sweaters and other things in the 1970s. Don't think much has changed has it?
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 142
12/31/11 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDT View Post

Don't the movie studios have professional wardrobe departments, to ensure clothing/costumes fit properly and always look good on the actors/actresses.

No the idea is the actors look the way the character is supposed to look.

320

That's not supposed to look good. It's supposed to look like a sleazy salesman.
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 142
12/31/11 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiego View Post

Something else to consider: changing demographics. Some 30%, 40% of this country (today) come from racial and ethnic ancestry that is not directly Western European. I think people here should think long and hard about that percentage and what it means. As someone of southeast Asian ancestry, surrounded professionally and personally by people of South American, Asian and African ancestry--right here in the ol' US of A--I was handed no "Western fit-and-finish" glossary to absorb and accept as my heritage. (In fact, my father has not worn the suit and tie, and his ancestors associated them not with respectability but with colonial oppression.) My perspectives and upbringing are my own, and everyone will have their own perspectives, but we all should consider that a significant percentage of the U.S. is going to have very different notions of what "fit" means, to reconcile against both modern trends as well as the heritage of other cultures that may be quite different. And, this percentage tends to have a much louder voice today than in the past. (Reference: all the vintage pictures of, well, male caucasian business men.)
Note: I am not trying to suggest racial drivers for "good fit" versus "bad fit" but instead remind everyone that the U.S. is still the world's great melting pot, and while a forum more or less focused on western european style trends is going to lament recent change while looking at the issue from a SF-centric point of view, clothing manufacturers and retailers have to satisfy a much broader market.

Interesting perspective. However, the changes which evolved into the current casual workplace seemed to have their origins in the
Counter-culture of the 60s and 70s, which were typically led by white middle class and even elite university attendees. I remember,
one of the Press family at the J.Press store in Manhattan lamenting in the early 70s that all the kids at Yale and Harvard- where Press had
stores, were wearing Army surplus. The generations-old tweed jacket uniform of campuses like these had been supplanted to a great
extent. I live very near Stanford U. The only traditional clothes one sees today are on Senior Faculty. The last "trad" clothing shop that served
this university closed about 15 years ago
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Men's Clothing
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Men's Clothing › Clothing fit of yesteryear