3-piece... DB jacket with DC waistcoat. Too much or awesome?

[BellyTank]

LOOK!

Just an aside- observe the apparent high buttoning on the SB jackets.
I don't just mean the top button is high- the button-group is high.
I like that. That's the old way.


B
T

 

[Creeping Past]

I think the waistcoat with DB combo is practical if you're working. Take the jacket off, remain smart and tailored without it. You won't always be standing around for group photos, or clutching cocktails. Ask Gittes.

And yes to high, tight grouping of SB buttons. They give a portly chap some refinement, recognising the belly, plus a bit of high-enhancement, helping to mitigate same. They also add elegance to the outfit of a slimmer man, accentuating relative height.

 

[Howard Hughes]

WAISTCOATS

Hello All.

The waistcoat was "invented" so that the wearer could remove his jacket without showing his braces/suspenders, which were considered underwear and were not to be exposed in public.

I attend many "1940's" themed events in the UK and the number of chaps who think their braces must be seen to be period correct is amazing.
If someone was digging thier garden then yes, they would remove their jacket and expose their braces, but not in public.

fftopic:
Also, the number of men who insist on wearing their Trilby, cap, head-dress, etc..., indoors, even whilst eating, or at a dance, and whilst dancing is incredible. It is extremly bad manners and should be discouraged with vigour.

Poodletip
HH.

 

[BellyTank]

I think the waistcoat with DB combo is practical if you're working. Take the jacket off, remain smart and tailored without it. You won't always be standing around for group photos, or clutching cocktails. Ask Gittes.

And yes to high, tight grouping of SB buttons. They give a portly chap some refinement, recognising the belly, plus a bit of high-enhancement, helping to mitigate same. They also add elegance to the outfit of a slimmer man, accentuating relative height.

...the bottom button of the jacket roughly coinciding with the "high" waist
of the trousers..

The "high buttons" thing is observed in many "fashion" illustrations of the
day but more difficult to find and point out from actual photos,
when trying to convince otters.
The otters are a tough crowd.

We can see that the higher buttoning creates a higher jacket "waist"
and a longer skirt. Can't we?
The Gentlemen (in SB jackets)in the photo seem to be wearing styles
of the earliest '30s, or earlier.

High trou' = high buttoning jacket.

It seems that the tight/high buttoning, from the '10s/'20s,
started to loosen up a little, through the later '20s and 30s and by
the '50s, we had almost what we have today('60s and '70s freak fashions ignored).


B
T

 

[Edward]

I believe there's an issue with getting a waistcoat cut for a suit after the suit was made, unless it's cut from the same bolt as the suit it may not match exactly.

This is true. This is also one of the reasons that Saville Row suits cost what they do, as tailors there are, uniquely, as I understand it often in possession of a bolt of cloth many years later - it is, to my knowledge, possible to go back and have the matching trousers or whatever recreated years later and for it to match (assuming no long term fade etc in the jacket). Generally, the result from trying to match something from a different bolt will be equivalent to the effect of wearing a navy blazer with navy trousers and attempting to pas it off as a suit. When wearing waistcoats with a two-piece, I find it much preferable to go for a complementary colour rather than attempt to match them.

Hello All.

The waistcoat was "invented" so that the wearer could remove his jacket without showing his braces/suspenders, which were considered underwear and were not to be exposed in public.

I attend many "1940's" themed events in the UK and the number of chaps who think their braces must be seen to be period correct is amazing.
If someone was digging thier garden then yes, they would remove their jacket and expose their braces, but not in public.

fftopic:
Also, the number of men who insist on wearing their Trilby, cap, head-dress, etc..., indoors, even whilst eating, or at a dance, and whilst dancing is incredible. It is extremly bad manners and should be discouraged with vigour.

Poodletip
HH.

Agreed..... and I would suggest (with reference to another thread elsewhere) that this is the point at which it becomes costume rather than clothing.

 

[Orgetorix]

The waistcoat was "invented" so that the wearer could remove his jacket without showing his braces/suspenders, which were considered underwear and were not to be exposed in public.

Utter rubbish. This is an anachronism, introducing attributing a garment to a 20th century convention when it in fact goes back centuries earlier.

The vest has its origins in the 17th century, when the court of Charles II set formalized rules for court dress after the Restoration. The modern waistcoat which is worn with a suit is a direct descendant of that garment. Why Charles decided to adopt it history doesn't record, but I'm certain it had nothing to do with covering his braces.

 

[benstephens]

...the bottom button of the jacket roughly coinciding with the "high" waist
of the trousers..

The "high buttons" thing is observed in many "fashion" illustrations of the
day but more difficult to find and point out from actual photos,
when trying to convince otters.
The otters are a tough crowd.

We can see that the higher buttoning creates a higher jacket "waist"
and a longer skirt. Can't we?
The Gentlemen (in SB jackets)in the photo seem to be wearing styles
of the earliest '30s, or earlier.

T

Hi BT, it goes a little further as well. Becasue of the higher buttons, the skirt is longer but the jacket itself is not out of balance and too long like modern jackets. Hence, it gives a chap longer legs. The problem with a lot of modern jackets I see worn, they are ever so long, and that with the buttons lower really stunts the legs.

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[avedwards]

Utter rubbish. This is an anachronism, introducing attributing a garment to a 20th century convention when it in fact goes back centuries earlier.

The vest has its origins in the 17th century, when the court of Charles II set formalized rules for court dress after the Restoration. The modern waistcoat which is worn with a suit is a direct descendant of that garment. Why Charles decided to adopt it history doesn't record, but I'm certain it had nothing to do with covering his braces.

Isn't it possible that the waistcoat was transferred to suits in the 19th and 20th centuries to hide braces though?

 

[benstephens]

This is true. This is also one of the reasons that Saville Row suits cost what they do, as tailors there are, uniquely, as I understand it often in possession of a bolt of cloth many years later - it is, to my knowledge, possible to go back and have the matching trousers or whatever recreated years later and for it to match (assuming no long term fade etc in the jacket). Generally, the result from trying to match something from a different bolt will be equivalent to the effect of wearing a navy blazer with navy trousers and attempting to pas it off as a suit. When wearing waistcoats with a two-piece, I find it much preferable to go for a complementary colour rather than attempt to match them.

Edward, this is indeed true. My grandma worked for Hunt and Winterbottom, a cloth supplier to Saville Row. She always said the distinguished the customer, the fewer suits they would have, but the more cloth they would have for that suit. She said it was not unusual on some suits to have the Arms replaced when the elbows wore out many years latter, again, depending on fade.

Kindest REgards

Ben

 

[Ethan Bentley]

It does seems like you would have a lot of material at the front, I have a three piece DB which I think is very nice. When in the office I often used to take off the jacket. Nice and comfortable for the tube though.

 

[Orgetorix]

Isn't it possible that the waistcoat was transferred to suits in the 19th and 20th centuries to hide braces though?

Not really. There wasn't really a point where vests were "introduced" to the lounge suit, as though it was some sort of innovation. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, men wore waistcoats because men had always worn them--with frock coats and morning coats, and before that with day tail coats, and before that with the 17th-18th century ensemble of breeches, coat, and waistcoat.

By the 20th century, probably nobody would have said that they wore waistcoats because of Charles II. They might have said that they wore them to cover their braces, though I doubt it. They probably would have just said it's what people had always worn. And in any case, you can't make the argument that they were "invented" to cover one's braces...any more than you can argue trousers were "invented" to cover one's underpants.

 

[avedwards]

Not really. There wasn't really a point where vests were "introduced" to the lounge suit, as though it was some sort of innovation. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, men wore waistcoats because men had always worn them--with frock coats and morning coats, and before that with day tail coats, and before that with the 17th-18th century ensemble of breeches, coat, and waistcoat.

By the 20th century, probably nobody would have said that they wore waistcoats because of Charles II. They might have said that they wore them to cover their braces, though I doubt it. They probably would have just said it's what people had always worn. And in any case, you can't make the argument that they were "invented" to cover one's braces...any more than you can argue trousers were "invented" to cover one's underpants.

But perhaps waistcoats continued to remain in fashion to cover braces, even if they were not introduced for this reason? After all, they went out of fashion at roughly the same time belts took over from braces.

 

[Geesie]

Also at roughly the same time that heating and air conditioning became standard everywhere.

 

[BellyTank]

Hi BT, it goes a little further as well. Becasue of the higher buttons, the skirt is longer but the jacket itself is not out of balance and too long like modern jackets. Hence, it gives a chap longer legs. The problem with a lot of modern jackets I see worn, they are ever so long, and that with the buttons lower really stunts the legs.

Kindest Regards

Ben

Absolutely. I'm aware of the aesthetic good- the high-buttoning jacket is something I've attempted to explain before but not had a good example to illustrate my meaning. I've been told "no, not really" before.

I was saying that the skirt is longer, due to the "waist position" being higher-
not that the skirt is longer, making the jacket longer, or because the jacket is longer.
It matches the high-waisted trouser and the classic aesthetic advantage.


B
T

 

[Orgetorix]

But perhaps waistcoats continued to remain in fashion to cover braces, even if they were not introduced for this reason? After all, they went out of fashion at roughly the same time belts took over from braces.

This may possibly have had something to do with it, though I doubt it and it's getting away from Howard Hughes' original argument, anyway. I still say that the main reason men wore waistcoats into the mid-20th century was simply that they and their fathers and grandfathers had always worn them. I think covering braces had little to do with it.

And, actually, now that I think about it, I think the reverse is more likely--that braces came to be seen as "underwear" because they were always covered by one's waistcoat, and not the other way around.

 

[avedwards]

This may possibly have had something to do with it, though I doubt it and it's getting away from Howard Hughes' original argument, anyway. I still say that the main reason men wore waistcoats into the mid-20th century was simply that they and their fathers and grandfathers had always worn them. I think covering braces had little to do with it.

And, actually, now that I think about it, I think the reverse is more likely--that braces came to be seen as "underwear" because they were always covered by one's waistcoat, and not the other way around.

I may well be wrong. All of what I said was a guess anyway. Whatever the reason, I like waistcoats although I cover a belt rather than braces with my one three piece suit. While this may sound like a faux pas, I assure everyone that my waistcoat covers my belt completely by extending to below my waistline.

 

[Edward]

I may well be wrong. All of what I said was a guess anyway. Whatever the reason, I like waistcoats although I cover a belt rather than braces with my one three piece suit. While this may sound like a faux pas, I assure everyone that my waistcoat covers my belt completely by extending to below my waistline.

Certainly no faux pas; in my opinion, one of the great misconceptions popularly held in vintage enthusiast circles is the notion that braces are somehow automatically more "period correct" than belts. Seems to me that between movies (think Bogart, especially), fashion plates and actual photos of real people from the GA period, plenty of men preferred belts over braces.

The vest has its origins in the 17th century, when the court of Charles II set formalized rules for court dress after the Restoration. The modern waistcoat which is worn with a suit is a direct descendant of that garment. Why Charles decided to adopt it history doesn't record, but I'm certain it had nothing to do with covering his braces.

Entirely correct, of course. Though however it came about, the point that it was considered a 'cover' for the 'underwear' of braces by the GA is valid.

Hi BT, it goes a little further as well. Becasue of the higher buttons, the skirt is longer but the jacket itself is not out of balance and too long like modern jackets. Hence, it gives a chap longer legs. The problem with a lot of modern jackets I see worn, they are ever so long, and that with the buttons lower really stunts the legs.

Ben, I have noticed this in many modern jackets I have tried on. I wonder is the increased length in modern jackets the reason why sleeves have become longer also? A modrn 42R, if well cut, is a flattering fit on me, but all too often the sleeves are edging far too far towards my knuckles off the peg; might this be a designer's attempt to balance out the longer body?

Edward, this is indeed true. My grandma worked for Hunt and Winterbottom, a cloth supplier to Saville Row. She always said the distinguished the customer, the fewer suits they would have, but the more cloth they would have for that suit. She said it was not unusual on some suits to have the Arms replaced when the elbows wore out many years latter, again, depending on fade.

Kindest REgards

Ben

Ben, nice to have this confirmed. I imagine this is part of what one pays for were one to go with a suit from the row (if only!) as compared to most alternatives.

And, actually, now that I think about it, I think the reverse is more likely--that braces came to be seen as "underwear" because they were always covered by one's waistcoat, and not the other way around.

I have not thought of it that way before - that certainly is logical.

 

[Wolfmanjack]

Back to the topic: 3-piece DB

Please allow a digression back to the original topic (partly, at least).

Have a look at this link 15-tips-for-single-dames

Quite apart from the rather crass advice to the ladies, look at the absolutely swank 3-piece, Glenurquhart plaid DB suit the lady's escort is wearing. Beautiful!

I would date these photos to just before WWII; Do others agree?

 

[Tomasso]

I've seen Hugh Laurie as Bertie Wooster with a double breasted jacket and what is obviously a double breasted waistcoat underneath

I love his trousers.

 

[Nick D]

I love his trousers.

I love that suit, but it's a single breasted jacket, not double. I only seem to remember Laurie wearing a double breasted suit a couple times in Jeeves and Wooster, but it's been a while.