or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › 100 years ago.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

100 years ago.

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

The silhouette of 1916,a century ago.

Fit is close,trousers slender.

The shoulders are small and naturals.

I think that today a man could go out in street in some of these lounge suits,merely changing shirt and removing the vest.

 

 

In 1916 none of these gentlemen could go around in a suit of a century ago (except that for a masked ball).

 

post #2 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by carpu65 View Post


In 1916 none of these gentlemen could go around in a suit of a century ago (except that for a masked ball).
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Well...





I agree with everything else you say, though.
post #3 of 18

White tie (or full dress) and the morning suit of 1916 were much different animals than the cutaway riding jacket of a century prior. To be sure, they are closely related items, but quite different.

 

ETA: This is in response to @Testudo_Aubreii 

post #4 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

White tie (or full dress) and the morning suit of 1916 were much different animals than the cutaway riding jacket of a century prior. To be sure, they are closely related items, but quite different.

ETA: This is in response to @Testudo_Aubreii
 

Quite different how? The dress suits (from 1906, to be fair) are DB swallowtail coats, as was the Mr. Darcy version from 1816. Yes, the dress suits are cut not to close, but otherwise they're the same (except they have a waist seam, which didn't come in until about 1835). The DB morning coat (from 1898, I admit) isn't as cut away at the hips as the Regency swallowtail or a dress coat, but otherwise is the same. All morning coats were riding coats in 1830s.
post #5 of 18

The differences are legion. Especially when considered in the context of men's clothing which lives and dies on the details. One of the biggest differences, though most overlooked, is the "M" notch in the 1816 jacket, which went out of style long before 1916. The high standing collar of the older jacket, too, would have looked out of place in 1916. The fit of the sleeve-head is a major giveaway on the 1816 jacket, as is the flat cut of the tails. Neither of these would ever be seen in 1916. The biggest difference, however, is in the color. You would never (NEVER) see a seafoam green tailcoat worn in polite society (or any other society) in 1916. Let's go on to the lower half. Nothing like those riding breeches and boots would be seen outside of a riding course in 1916. There are enormous differences, as you can see. 

 

The OP is quite right that the suits from 1916 would look more appropriate today than their counterparts from 1816 would in 1916. However, the suits from 1916 would still look dated today.

post #6 of 18

100 years ago today most people here will be peasants or blue collar workers doing farm work.  Not wearing black ties attending dinner parties.

post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

100 years ago today most people here will be peasants or blue collar workers doing farm work.  Not wearing black ties attending dinner parties.
Whereas today... most of the world's people are "peasants," or are engaged in farming, or (if they're lucky, in what's likely to be their opinion) toil in low level blue collar jobs. Vanishingly few are attending black tie dinner parties.

None of which makes "then and now" comparisons of formal and semi-formal attire in any way invalid, of course.
post #8 of 18
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post


Well...





I agree with everything else you say, though.

 

I mean lounge suits,not tailcoats,cutaway or frock coats.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post
 

100 years ago today most people here will be peasants or blue collar workers doing farm work.  Not wearing black ties attending dinner parties.

 

Some people yes,some people not.

post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by carpu65 View Post
 

 

I mean lounge suits,not tailcoats,cutaway or frock coats.

 

True lounge suits didn't appear until the late 1800s, so looking for examples in 1816 will be fruitless. Again, they have allegories in earlier wear, but the style itself did not yet exist. Noticing the differences are important, however. Otherwise you may simply see a cutaway jacket and assume that they are all the same, as Testudo apparently did. 

post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

The differences are legion. Especially when considered in the context of men's clothing which lives and dies on the details. One of the biggest differences, though most overlooked, is the "M" notch in the 1816 jacket, which went out of style long before 1916. The high standing collar of the older jacket, too, would have looked out of place in 1916. The fit of the sleeve-head is a major giveaway on the 1816 jacket, as is the flat cut of the tails. Neither of these would ever be seen in 1916. The biggest difference, however, is in the color. You would never (NEVER) see a seafoam green tailcoat worn in polite society (or any other society) in 1916. Let's go on to the lower half. Nothing like those riding breeches and boots would be seen outside of a riding course in 1916. There are enormous differences, as you can see. 

The OP is quite right that the suits from 1916 would look more appropriate today than their counterparts from 1816 would in 1916. However, the suits from 1916 would still look dated today.

These are all minor stylistic or silhouette differences, not differences in the cut of the coat. carpu's post suggested he was talking about true differences in cut when he counterposed lounge coats from 1916 to a swallowtail from 1816. There is a true difference in cut between a swallowtail and a lounge. There is very little true difference in cut between a Regency swallowtail and a modern dress coat.

I grant that there is one--no, two--true differences in cut. First, neither the dress coat nor the DB morning coat is so cut away at the fronts as to have the fronts hit at the belly button, cut away with a slight downward curve to the hip, and then continue a curving cut away to the tails. Second, having a waist seam, which the 1816 coat did not have, is also a major difference in cut.
post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post


These are all minor stylistic or silhouette differences, not differences in the cut of the coat. carpu's post suggested he was talking about true differences in cut when he counterposed lounge coats from 1916 to a swallowtail from 1816. There is a true difference in cut between a swallowtail and a lounge. There is very little true difference in cut between a Regency swallowtail and a modern dress coat.

I grant that there is one--no, two--true differences in cut. First, neither the dress coat nor the DB morning coat is so cut away at the fronts as to have the fronts hit at the belly button, cut away with a slight downward curve to the hip, and then continue a curving cut away to the tails. Second, having a waist seam, which the 1816 coat did not have, is also a major difference in cut.

 

The bolded statement is plainly untrue. These stylistic differences are precisely about the cut of the jacket and are major indeed. Just because both "fit" doesn't mean they are cut the same, as you go on to mention. I could go on ad-nauseum about the differences between the two eras but the simple question remains... "Would one look out of place wearing a suit from 1816 in 1916?" The answer to that is "Oh hell fucking yes". The OP's point, I think, is if you were to ask the same question about someone wearing a suit from 1916 in 2016 the answer would be "Yes, but less so". Could you get away with wearing a suit from 1916 today if you were to update the shirt and shoes alone? Yes, probably. The same cannot be said from the suit from 1816. This is 100% true and not up for debate from reasonable persons.

post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

The bolded statement is plainly untrue. These stylistic differences are precisely about the cut of the jacket and are major indeed. Just because both "fit" doesn't mean they are cut the same, as you go on to mention. I could go on ad-nauseum about the differences between the two eras but the simple question remains... "Would one look out of place wearing a suit from 1816 in 1916?" The answer to that is "Oh hell fucking yes". The OP's point, I think, is if you were to ask the same question about someone wearing a suit from 1916 in 2016 the answer would be "Yes, but less so". Could you get away with wearing a suit from 1916 today if you were to update the shirt and shoes alone? Yes, probably. The same cannot be said from the suit from 1816. This is 100% true and not up for debate from reasonable persons.

We are using "differences in cut" in two different ways. You are using it to mean "any visible differences in the outline and edges of the coat." That is the sense of "cut" which predominates when almost all tailored coats are lounge suits. Cut and silhouette are now commonly run together, because all lounges are cut in basically the same way. True, tailors have different systems of cutting lounges, but the same tailor is going to use the same cutting system to cut two lounge coats of different silhouette.

I am using "cut" in the sense in which it was used when body coats were live alternatives to the lounge. In that sense, it means "differences that require a different sort of cutting from the same tailor." You can alter a block pattern for a notch lapel to an M-notch without much problem. You can't alter a block pattern for a lounge coat to make it a swallowtail coat. You have to use a totally different approach to cutting the coat. In 1916, tailors and demanding patrons would not have considered the differences you mention to be differences in the cut of the coat. They would have thought them differences in what we now call silhouette, a useful term which wasn't widely available in 1916.

So I think you are running together cut and silhouette. You are right that men in 1916 wouldn't have worn a coat with a standard silhouette of 1816. But if you are also saying that they wouldn't have worn a suit with a standard cut from 1816, then--waist seams aside--the evidence is against you:



Apart from the waist seam, all you need to do here is lower the collar, turn over the top fronts to make lapels, swap the buttons, change the color, and voila:



And there were blue morning coats in 1916.
post #13 of 18
White tie is not dead yet.

I have pictures from my recent trip to Vienna in this thread.

http://www.styleforum.net/t/368997/the-state-of-white-tie

Here are pictures from the Quadrille Ball in NYC from January.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/31/fashion/20160205-bill-cunningham-evening-hours.html?_r=0

I have friends who went to a white tie ball at the Waldorf last week. Hopefully the NY Times pictures should show up weekend.
post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post


Apart from the waist seam, all you need to do here is lower the collar, turn over the top fronts to make lapels, swap the buttons, change the color, and voila

 

4 majors changes (I would suggest there are more, but let's assume that that's all there is to it). That's the whole point. The suits form 1916 would need no changes at all. I'm sorry, you have not made convincing argument to my mind.

post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by poorsod View Post

White tie is not dead yet.

 

Not by a long shot. Although, admittedly, it is a niche sort of thing these days. Hell, black tie is almost niche at this point. That being said, there are a ton of black tie events in even modestly sized cities if you look for them.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › 100 years ago.