1920s suits

[Edward]

That's what I always say when confronted by animal-rights activists about wearing fur: 'I'm just being slightly absurd, but with a sort of casual, off-hand luxuriousness'

Guaranteed to work every time!

I'd never buy new fur made from an animal whose flesh wasn't eaten (that's where I draw the line. I'm no vegetarian, but I can't abide the notion of taking from nature and wasting anything we can use), but that said it seems a sin to me to let vintage furs rot unworn. Wasteful. TBH, though, I think the real reason I wouldn't be likely to wear fur today is less the stereotypical, shrill extremist end of the animal welfare movement, and more that the image it calls to mind most readily for me is the likes of Puffy Dad (or whatever the hell he's calling himself this week) and that whole culture of conspicuous consumption. I make no attempt to justify this nor claim it is in any way logically consistent with my own dandy leanings, but there you have it.

My favourite fur-coat line is from Hedwig and the Angry Inch.

"'What poor, unfortunate creature had to die so that you could wear that?'

"'My Aunt Trudy.' I replied."

 

[herringbonekid]

 

[splintercellsz]

1920s 3 Piece Middishade 'Blue Serge Suit'.

Was purchased between 1921-1928. Used as a wedding suit in 1928.

Marked as a 38, but fits on the tighter side. The trousers are cuffed. As you can see, the rear suspender buttons are on the outside. If you want more photos, tell me of what, and I will take them for you!

Being worn

 

[herringbonekid]

blue serge; we were just talking about it in the suitings thread. what width are the trouser hems (i'm guessing about 9.5") ?

 

[Two Types]

I rather like the dark jacket/waistcoat combined with white trousers. it seems rather a stark contrast, although i suppose it could be dark blue jackets and cream trousers which wouldn't appear so extreme.

 

[herringbonekid]

1923:

I rather like the dark jacket/waistcoat combined with white trousers. it seems rather a stark contrast, although i suppose it could be dark blue jackets and cream trousers which wouldn't appear so extreme.

from the book 'Roaring 20s Fashions: Jazz'...

'white flannel trousers paired with dark suit jackets were such a popular combination that Men's Wear noted it was "almost a uniform".'

 

[splintercellsz]

I'm going to come out, and say I am a complete idiot. What are trouser hems (I don't know the terms for clothing as of yet).

 

[herringbonekid]

bottom of the trouser... ankle width.

 

[splintercellsz]

Thanks, HBK!

The ankle width is roughly 8½"

Cuff is 1 1/2"

They fit nice in the waist, but I may have to look into different trousers if I want to wear this before I out grow it, as the original trousers are a bit short (they sit a little longer than the ones in that Rule regarding Love drawing above, but are definately not resting near my shoes like I am used to). Looks like high-waters. Was that the style... or?

 

[herringbonekid]

8.5" would put the suit most likely in the earlier half of the 20s (unless they've obviously been narrowed later in their life).

 

[herringbonekid]

Looks like high-waters. Was that the style... or?

yes, early 20s trousers were frequently worn an inch and a half above the shoe, but if you don't like the look don't do it.
it's an aquired taste and most can't hack it, especially since it looks (whisper it)... modern and hipster-ish.

 

[DamianM]

funny right!

it Looks modern and hipsterish yet its a style that is 90 years old

Those guys think they are being original but they have failed

 

[Rudie]

Thanks, HBK!

The ankle width is roughly 8½"

Cuff is 1 1/2"

They fit nice in the waist, but I may have to look into different trousers if I want to wear this before I out grow it, as the original trousers are a bit short (they sit a little longer than the ones in that Rule regarding Love drawing above, but are definately not resting near my shoes like I am used to). Looks like high-waters. Was that the style... or?

Why don't you get your clothes altered by a tailor? There is probably enough seam allowance to lengthen the trews an inch or two. And if not you could always get false cuffs.

 

[splintercellsz]

They do not look to be altered at all. The seller said the suit was purchased (the original owner's daughter believed around '21). It was used in '28 for his wedding, then worn all the time as his working suit (he was a banker).

Here are the cuffs:

Now that you said that, HBK, I think I can deal with it. Here are two photos. I don't think it would look as bad with dress boots though.

 

[DamianM]

Probably was worn with dress boots. you see it a lot in older images and its a great look.

here is a theory
Where the ankles high to prevent them from getting dirty in a growing city/town where there was no pavement since cars were still coming on the scene?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Nope. Just fashion; just like today.

I'd wager that the VAST majority of men, like today, were wearing trousers of conservative width (as defined at the time) and conservative length just on the top of the shoes.

 

[DamianM]

I believe vintage fashion was balanced as design and function. Today's fashion fails as it is only for either function or design but not both.

It would explain the high waters well

I mean there were a lot of dirt roads and you wouldn't want to get your pants really dirty or dragging on the rocks

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I think you're valourising vintage style leaders a bit too much. The only "function" of a pair of trousers is to cover the legs and provide pockets to carry things. By the teens and 20s, menswear - especially for young men - was firmly in the grip of the trend merchants that continues to this day. Looking at archive footage and pictures, the high water trousers (think Thom Browne) were very much in the minority. Were there a solid functionality argument, most men would have been wearing them. They were not.

Sure, it would explain the high water pants, but there's no evidence for it. I could equally well suggest that the high water pants were to prevent raccoon nibbling. Pretty feisty those midwestern raccoons.

 

[splintercellsz]

Why don't you get your clothes altered by a tailor? There is probably enough seam allowance to lengthen the trews an inch or two. And if not you could always get false cuffs.

I do, most of the time... but since this suit is a bit on the heavier side, that will have to wait until I see how much the Army builds me up. Sadly, I forsee a huge selling/trading of the wardrobe coming after basic...

 

[DamianM]

I think you're valourising vintage style leaders a bit too much. The only "function" of a pair of trousers is to cover the legs and provide pockets to carry things. By the teens and 20s, menswear - especially for young men - was firmly in the grip of the trend merchants that continues to this day. Looking at archive footage and pictures, the high water trousers (think Thom Browne) were very much in the minority. Were there a solid functionality argument, most men would have been wearing them. They were not.

Sure, it would explain the high water pants, but there's no evidence for it. I could equally well suggest that the high water pants were to prevent raccoon nibbling. Pretty feisty those midwestern raccoons.

The theory can't be dismissed since there is no solid evidence either.
Yes that is the function of pants but the function of keeping them high in dirt roads to keep them from getting dirty or frayed make's sense.

In L.A. dirt roads where around until the 30s.