1940s British D/B Suit, GOODBYE!

[Marc Chevalier]

A last hurrah here before it goes on the auction block this Sunday evening. My eBay seller i.d.: crosby_square

1940s. Made in England. Size 41-42 Short. Interestingly, no buttonholes on the lapels. (Wartime regulations?)

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Any CC41 labels?

You're sure it's 40s? Maybe the bottom number would suggest 11th March 1959?

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

My very best guess (but still, in the end, a guess) is 1940s. There is no CC41 tag. How long were those tags used, I wonder?

Baron, have you ever seen a paper label like that one before? If so, were the bottom numbers a date?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Someone with a correct-era Burton's suit will be able to tell better. Most of the vintage Brit gear i've come across has a paper label, but often they're torn out. The jacket i have on today has a paper label. The date is the second number down.

I made the suggestion because that's the only number that could correspond to a realistic date for this suit (other than the 21581 which would be 21st May 1981).

Another interesting thin is the lack of suspender buttons on the outside. I mostly see them with exterior suspender buttons.

Apparently CC41 was used until 1952:

http://www.1940.co.uk/history/article/utility/utility.htm

But the jacket i have on today is marked 23-5-48 and has no CC41 label that i can find. [huh]

It's so hard when they didn't unambiguously date their work. Damn those Brit tailors!

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Interesting!

On these trousers, the brace buttons were on the inside of the waistband (but someone removed them).

Below are more photos. Perhaps they will help you further to identify its age:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

A rather modern-type Burton's label.

I reckon ye've got a newer older styled suit. (59 might be right).

Please, someone with a 30s 40s burton's garment, please post the old-type label. I know at least one person here has a Burton's suit from this era. The label is black on white and says "Montagu Burton, Edinburgh & London"

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Yes, that label on my suit vexes me. I have seen older ('30s/'40s) suit labels that looked weirdly modern; it's not always possible to date a garment by its label design. Still, a photo of an old Burton's label would really help to solve this dating conundrum once and for all.

It's A-OK if the suit turns out to be from 1959; it's just that the historian in me wants to know for sure.

 

[herringbonekid]

mr BK is correct....that is a later burton's label. the 40s ones look like this.....

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Thanks!!

I'm going to go with the 1959 date, then.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

V. fine suit, anyway.

Are the chalk stripes light blue, or is that just how it appears on my monitor?

bk

 

[herringbonekid]

not everything from the 40s had a utility (CC41) label in it. i don't know exactly why...but i've seen clothing that is a dead ringer for utility style that is label-less. obviously the labels could have been ripped out, but i don't think it's that simple.

i guess you could still buy non-CC41 clothing and furniture if you had the dosh.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Are the chalk stripes light blue, or is that just how it appears on my monitor?

The chalk stripes really are light blue.

 

[Cobden]

CC41 is post 1941 (civilian clothing 1941), but utility clothing still existed in 1940. I think a lot of the time the CC41 labels were removed, too. I have a Burtons suit which is utility, judging by one or two little things (no false cuff slit, one button on each cuff; single breasted three button), yet the lapels (wide peaked lapels) suggest it isn't. The label is the same as the 1940's one posted above.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

One odd detail about my suit is that it has no boutonniere hole on either lapel. At first I thought this was due to some wartime regulation: "Conserve buttonhole-making and thread for the war effort!"

 

[WEEGEE]

intersted

is this listed?

thanks,

WeeGee

 

[Cobden]

One odd detail about my suit is that it has no boutonniere hole on either lapel. At first I thought this was due to some wartime regulation: "Conserve buttonhole-making and thread for the war effort!"

The most obvious give-a-way that it isn't utility is the fact that it is double breasted!

I think it may just have been laziness or a fashion statement or some such...

 

[Baron Kurtz]

DB was allowed under the utility scheme. But waistcoats were not allowed with DBs. Were still allowed with SBs. I believe they were supposed to drop to 2 waistcoat pockets, but the ones i've seen have four. Jacket length was limited. Pocket flaps were considered wasteful frippery. No cuffs on trousers.

Funnily enough i have a utility SB with waistcoat (thankyou helpful FLounger). The waistcoat is DB with HUUUUUUGGGE lapels. Wasteful? Yes, i think so!

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... I have a utility SB with waistcoat. (Thank you, helpful Fedora Lounger.) The waistcoat is DB with HUUUUUUGGGE lapels.

Please please PLEASE show us photos of this suit, especially of the waistcoat! Thanks

.

 

[Cobden]

The actual restriction imposed in 1942 made insisted on SB suits, with a max of three buttons and three pockets, and no buttons on the cuffs; indeed, all suits had to conform to certain patterns as directed by the Board of Trade and the Utility Clothing Scheme; such designs were created by the Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers (who included Hardy Amis and Edward Molyneux, among others). Trousers were to have no pleats or turnups. Of course, prior to 1942 there was "utility" clothing, but there were no actual restrictions. And there were ways round it (having your tailor make your trousers too long, so you could put turnups in yourself being the classic example)

 

[Baron Kurtz]

This is one thing i've never understood. I was under the impression that DBs were disallowed also ... until i saw how many CC41 (and hand dated 1942 and beyond) were DB!

I can see how you would get away with the long leg and turn up home-job, but surely a little harder to mask a DB as SB (perhaps this is the explanation of the recent 1 1/2 breasts eBay jacket, Marc; an attempt to hide one's unpatriotic jacket breast extravagancies). And then to put the pac men into it! Claiming utility while blatantly disobeying the directives!

bk