1927 British Menswear IN COLOR

[Feraud]

Indeed, the coloured fashion plates of 1927, accordingly are rather appealing and interesting as almost a curiosity accordingly as so much of the colour of men's wear till then and since has been coloured exclusively by dark blues, dark browns, grays (mostly dark), black, and dark green pared with white shirts. Most extra-ordinary.

Actually the availability of color is not really a curiosity nor extra-ordinary at all in meanswear as shown in the '27 plates and forward.
Please review the stickies at the top of the Suit room. I guarantee it will be a learning experience. Good show all, carry on.

 

[Evan Everhart]

.



Below are some color pages from a 1927 Welch, Margetson & Co., Ltd. London department store catalogue (not mine). "Welch, Margetson & Co. offered very fine quality menswear starting in 1832, and they had a flagship store at Moor Lane, London."


Fascinating to see what was being marketed to London men in the late 1920s ...




Shirting fabrics.

Evening shirts. Surprise, surprise: you could wear a wing collar with a pleated bosom shirt. (Thank the Prince of Wales for that.)

Foulard silk necktie fabrics. Nothing staid about these!

Braces (suspenders). Then as now, London men favored a bit of pink.

Men's sweaters. Like the 1970s, only without the acrylic.

Over-the-calf socks. Make today's choices seem dull by comparison.

Pajamas. Note the variety of styles. Whatever happened to them?

.

I have here quoted Marc Chevalier's exceptional example of catalogue illustrations from the late 1920s, but this comment is not particularly meant for him, but for the whole forum, especially for those individuals who have been posting most recently, I mean it for them as will be illustrated. This is a really great topic and posting Marc! Thanks

The 1920s, the period discussed upon this particular sub-forum is being discussed here in the context of the above magazine illustrations. Now, these most certainly illustrate a great deal of colour! Why we may ask ourselves? Because the 1920s were a decade of unprecedented financial success for all levels of society; everyone was getting richer than Croesus! This era was also a period of social upheaval, women were fully feeling and beginning to exercise their political and yes, financial independence more, especially in America, people were throwing off the shackles of the social strictures of the upper-class ruled and vastly more traditional Victorian world, people has also become more familiar with loud and at first brightly coloured (they fade as they are worn in the Sun-light and rain as they are naturally dyed) Scotch traditional fabrics; tweeds, and they became a great fad. Any showing of colour was seen as a break with the what were then and probably still thought to be over-strict ways of the Victorians and were accordingly endorsed. People felt free in rebelling as most had become more used to rebelling against social strictures anyhow due to prohibition which really caused the majority of people to for once question the status quo set by those in power (Prohibition was an American institution but the supplying and smuggling of alcohol was a truly widespread and world-wide occupation which further pushed the bounds of societal respect for rules) We must keep in mind that there are always loud, bright, and crazy styles which present themselves and are embraced and endorsed by the masses during social upheaval; take the 1960s for the most obvious example. However, this embrasure of colour does not last. It did not last; the Stock Market Crash hit and began the Great Depression. Men sobered up, so did their styles, again, just as they had after Albert's death during the Mourning era. These things are cyclic, but they always return to darker colours, and even during periods when the upper classes have worn bright colours, the working classes have not, and the middle classes have not worn them so extensively. This is obvious when looking through old photographs and clothing catalogues.

That said, these clothes are extra-ordinary, lavish, luxuriant and admirable in many ways! Some of those shirtings in more loud patterns look as though they'd make excellent cravats.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.



Evan, do come to the Cicada Club. www.clubcicada.com

.

 

[Feraud]

But..... the color continues as constantly shown in the examples availabe in AA, and the various department store catalogs through the 30s and 40s...

 

[benstephens]

I still think, as I posted earlier that we must look at the influence of class on this disscussion.

The working and lower middle classes certainly would not have afforded the luxury of a huge amount of colour. Most suits made for this demographic would have been offered in a few shades, mainly consisiting of Navy Blues, Browns and greys.

Below is a scan from a catologue aimed at the lower middle classes. You will see the choice of suiting material is very limited. The date of this is 1936.

On contrast, I have scanned a copy of tailoring news. This would have been for tailors and interested customers. This is aimed much more at the bespoke market, and it is is interesting to see the much fancier cloths being used for the clothing.

I believe however, if we were to look away from the city, and into the leisure activities we would see a much greater range of colours, from the seaside to the golf course etc, perhaps more so than we see now, where perhaps the distinction between work clothing and leisure clothing is much less. As time changed the lower middle classes were able to enjoy leisure time, the amount of clothing owned by people would have increased, and this clothing would have been kept primarily for leisure time, so would not have needed to be functional in colour, where as before, one suit would have had to be a work suit, a best suit and a leisure suit. This would have led to the propogation of much more colourful clothing.

Shirts certainly were away even the lower middle class men would have expressed themselves in colour. Shirts had and were availiable in many different shades and were VERY popular.

We have also to rememeber that the 1920s was quite exceptional as the colourful clothing was a reaction for many to the horrors of the Great War, and we see a lot of outlandish styles and colours through out this decade (Oxford Bags, stripey blazers etc) as people embraced the new and tried to throw away the previous decades horrors.

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[Dinerman]

The majority of suits may not have come in the brightest colors, but I would argue that accessories did.

The vast majority of my '20s-'50s ties are quite colorful, some examples are almost eye-searingly so. The patterns on some of the '20s and '30s ones would be easy to mistake for '70s psychedelic designs if it weren't for the construction and tags. I had a canary yellow NRA tagged tie, but it fell apart because the previous owner had worn it so much.

I deal in vintage hats. Rusty orange ribbons are not terribly uncommon on hats from the '30s from what I've seen and owned. I had a mid '30s Dobbs with a light tan felt and original reddish purple band. I have a '20s hat by the Aetna hat company in turquoise felt trimmed in black, another from the same era in green. I sold Mossant/Gelot fedora which was entirely purple.

Evan, as Feraud says, look through the many catalog scans on this site. You may learn something.

Vibrant color was not something rare at all.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

There was a time when colors for fabrics came directly from vegetable or mineral dyes. Some of these dyes were very expensive. The richer you were, the more variety of colors and hues you could obtain; and to show off your status, you'd go for the most 'expensive' colors.


As chemistry improved and dyes became cheaper to produce (and sell), people of lesser means gained access to colorful clothing, drapery, linens, etc. By the mid 1920s, this was well under way. If the poorer classes continued to wear standard blue, brown, grey and black, it was only because they were long accustomed to --and comfortable with-- doing so.


Even today, poor urban people in Chile tend to wear very drab-colored, conservatively-cut outfits, though they certainly have access to color.


.

 

[Feraud]

The majority of suits may not have come in the brightest colors, but I would argue that accessories did.

Good point. Given a dark gray, blue, or black suit you can walk around looking like a peacock with the right accessories.

benstephens has a good point to consider in the issue. Class distinction, and we can add country of origin, profession, sex, etc. should play a part in our understanding of what people wore in the past.

I try to never state equivocally what people (which people exactly?) wore or as we have had come up in threads assumptions of what people thought.
What interests me on these matters are what was available to then put in it's particular social context.

 

[benstephens]

If the poorer classes continued to wear standard blue, brown, grey and black, it was only because they were long accustomed to --and comfortable with-- doing so.



.

Marc, I still believe a lot of the choice would have been functionality as well. Certainly the poorer class people would have had to have much more wear out of a garment, hence a dark colour would mean it would need to be laundered less, and would tend to continue look passable.

However, I do believe habit would have played a very big part. Certainly, many older people continued to wear the fashion of their youth. However, my point certainly has never been that clothes were not colourful, but, we do not see huge amounts of colourful clothing for the above mentioned reasons.

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Marc, I still believe a lot of the choice would have been functionality as well. Certainly the poorer class people would have had to have much more wear out of a garment, hence a dark colour would mean it would need to be laundered less, and would tend to continue look passable.

True. :eusa_clap

.