Authenticity in the Vintage World?

[Zemke Fan]

My 2.1 cents worth...

I only do a WWII USAAF impression. I am fortunate (as a 46L) to own a number of pieces from a West Point 1945 grad (three time all American footballer) who didn't seem to put much wear into his Class A uniforms. (Before the uniforms changed, anyway.) Compounding matters, I am a melon-head, but was finally able to find a tan wool summer crusher in 7-5/8 that still looks brand new.

BTW, Davep, that eBay youtube video is a scream!

 

[Miss Neecerie]

I don't re-enact.

I do vintage things for -fun-, and this means I'll be the one out there wearing the wrong decade of shoes rather then 'miss the social event I wish to attend' because I don't have the right shoes, etc.

Sure, I do try to get it close, but obsession is not fun for me...if i obsessed about vintage nonsense, it would be my -only- interest (if one is busy serving the vintage 'master'...one cant effectively serve other fun masters) and I like to think I do way more with life being interested in a billion other things at the same time. If nothing else, it makes me really good at trivia.

 

[Edward]

I've long been fascinated by the US Civil War / War of Northern Aggression (delete according to opinion and allegiance ), and may one day get into reenacting it. (I think in large part the appeal lies in the fact that there are many issues to which I can relate, and yet it carries none of the political baggage that many of the alternatives might over here). I have read Confederates in the Attic - it was actually loaned to me by a friend back in Ireland who is a Confed re-enactor, whom I know through the Rocky Horror community (now if you really want to know all about stitch-counters, there's a few folks there to whom I could introduce you! lol ).

Seems to me that in any community you'll find folks who go for something from a more general approach right through to the very pinnacle of accuracy, and all points in between. Alas, some of these will always be of a certain elitist bent, who will look down on newbies or those less knowledgeable or less financially able to sport the best (I've even actually heard the phrase uttered: "I can't tell you where I got this, because then you will be able to get one too and I'll lose my edge in the costume competitions." ) Fortunately, I don't find that to be the case in these parts. What I do wish is that I could find some sort of a guide to civilian clothing from the 30s through 50s.... I can mimic a passable period approach, but I'm not so hot on differences between the 30s and the 40s, for instance. I'd love to improve my knowledge and I have learned a lot from this site, I just wish there were some good books on civilian clothing I could look into, in the way that there are for military in certain periods. I suppose, though, this again comes down to the fact that it is simply such a wide field, unlike uniforms which are a reasonably contained thing.

As many others, I am amused by the reenactors who are convinced they are the most accurate thing going, yet fail to notice they're a good ten years too old / ten inches too wide for the part.... lol I know thinking about the WW2 era, as I have been recently, it has been on my mind that in a couple of months I will be beyond the conscription age for the early war period.

 

[Davep]

It's all about balance.. having those pushing the envelope of accuracy, helps raise the standards of the overall community. So people don't drift off and become lazy. So long as people understand accuracy and authenticity is a process and not a goal that is perfectly reached.

But that being said, authenticity is not something to be claimed for oneself or group, nor is it a prize to be won. And it is certainly not a certifcate to hang up in your window or post on your website.

Those who are quick to point out their achivements in authenticity are also the quickest to make excuses for when they are not.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Again.....those 'rules' in my opinion all apply to 'reenacting', not the great multitude of us who just have fun with vintage things...

Two totally different animals..and I understood your question to be more about the non-reenacting world.......

Once one steps past the boundaries of an event or battle that one is at to 'educate' others about the past......then its a 'lifestyle choice' if one is vintage all the time.

It becomes a subculture...just like goth or mod or punk or emo or hip hop gangster. And while membership in a subculture does tend to make its participants 'all seem and look and talk alike'.....there are no rules other then the self imposed ones.

And those self imposed rules are only 'valued and understood' within the culture...which is why the guy walking down the street who sees anyone in a suit and fedora, no matter what era, says 'hey....bugsy malone' or 'hey indy'.....

To them, there really -is- no difference between any two vintage looks, any 3 decades...etc..

 

[Dinerman]

I, too, thought you were asking about a non-reenacting situation. But you obviously seem to take your authenticity seriously and are quick to point it out.

If you are trying to be perfectly period accurate, remember that generally, someone would not be wearing clothes all bought in the same year. That is, someone in 1946, or 1938, or 1952, or whenever, would probably not be wearing a suit, shoes, shirt, tie, hat and whatever else, all purchased at the same time. You bought that new pair of shoes when your old ones wore out.

And then good luck with dating. Hardly anything has a definite date printed in it. Just about all of it can be dated within a few years, but you have to know what you're looking at.

Personally, I don't try to be period accurate. Most of what I wear is vintage, but I wear what I like, regardless of whether it would h ave been worn together originally. It's not a big deal to me if that means a '30s tie with a '40s jacket, a '50s hat and '60s shoes. I wear vintage because I like the way it looks, fits, and the history that goes with it, not because I'm trying to create a full on impression of another time.

 

[Davep]

I was interested, to what extend, the "concept of authenticity" was handled or addressed in the vintage world. Which has been covered and discussed. And as this discussion has progressed, to compare the two.

The reenacting world seems to have rules, where the vintage world does not. There also seems, there is cross over of both groups members, which may also lend to establishing the improvement of the "look".

I guess it comes down to the fact reenactors are part of a group where in the vintage world you are individuals.

 

[Guttersnipe]

....That is, someone in 1946 would probably not be wearing a suit, shoes, shirt, tie, hat and whatever else, all purchased at the same time. You bought that new pair of shoes when your old ones wore out....

Actually, you would probably find MANY people who bought entirely new wardrobes in 1946. Many WW2 veterans had been in the service so long that by 1945-46 they didn't have any civilian clothes what so ever.

I know I've said this before in other threads, but the idea expressed by the post-war "bold look" spoke not just to fashion, but also to optimism, bright colors, bold patterns, lavish materials. The influence of the depression and the war were profound; people had gone for years wearing threadbare drab clothes. There is an underlying reason beyond economic recovery why so many department stores popped up after the war.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

snickers....

ok....so one year out of the 30 years that vintage folks -cover- (20's, 30's, 40's) people might have bought a whole new wardrobe....

But I suggest that despite the optimism and recovery etc....that much like -always-....only the middle class and up got to partake in a whole new wardrobe, even in 1946.

oh wait....as a generality, no one would 'imitate' the downtrodden masses now anyhow........

 

[Fleur De Guerre]

Poirot is a bit like that, it makes me laugh, every perfect deco house, flat, piece of furniture, car and item of clothing came spontaneously into being in 1936, and no one owns anything older!

 

[LizzieMaine]

If you are trying to be perfectly period accurate, remember that generally, someone would not be wearing clothes all bought in the same year. That is, someone in 1946 would probably not be wearing a suit, shoes, shirt, tie, hat and whatever else, all purchased at the same time. You bought that new pair of shoes when your old ones wore out.

Exactly so. This was especially the case during the Depression/wartime/immediate postwar era -- the vast majority of people had no choice but to make do with whatever they had, and this might mean a melange of styles going back ten years or more. This was especially true of "good clothes," things that cost a lot of money like suits or coats -- most people expected to get much more than one season's worth of wear out of them, and wartime and postwar shortages only made this worse. Only the most profligate people -- or black marketers -- would be going around in 1946 in top-to-toe perfectly-matched magazine-plate fashion. A recently demobbed vet might *want* new clothes, but an awful lot of them were going around in a mix of prewar outfits and demilitarized uniform parts for some time after the war. The latter became so much of a problem that the Army seriously considered a complete redesign of its uniform because so many workingmen were toiling away in leftover military wear.

To be perfectly period authentic, one should have resoled shoes, turned collars and cuffs, darns in their stockings, perhaps a close-but-not-quite-perfectly-matched button or two on their coat, and maybe even a garment or two that have been cut down and resewn from older items.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Lizzie is right.



Our version of 'vintage' is about equal to the SCA's version of the Renaissance....all nice and clean and prettified for modern consumption.

 

[Chasseur]

I used to do 18th Century trekking re-enactment in college. One of the problems at least in the black powder re-enactment community was that as time goes on there were "fads" so at various times large numbers of the participants all seem to be clones of each other. Except instead of just doing it to be "cool" we are doing to be "period accurate".

For example in the 70s and 80s it was early 19th Century "buckskinning" everyone was a mountain man and had a percusion cap Hawkin rifle, a fur hat and LOTs and LOTS of fringe leather gear. Then in the 1990s there was a 18th Century trekkiing movement and everyone ran arround with a smooth bore flintlock (probably a Tulle fusil de chasse or a smooth rifle), breech cloth and leggins, nut dyed shirt, and looked like an extra from "Last of the Mohicans." etc.

While later movements have tended towards more historical accuracy than the earlier ones, there is this strange sense of uniformity tends to make things artificial. As Dinnerman and Lizzie well say there would be a mixture of things, not everyone looking like all their gear was circa 1756 or 1946 etc.

 

[Foofoogal]

fftopic: a bit off topic but isn't this the way with all vintage and antiques. Take carnival glass originally. It was the poor mans Tiffany and the wealthy wouldn't be caught dead with it so later was sold by the trainloads to carnivals so hence the name. Depression glass was given away at movies, in soap boxes etc.
While I know glass people who will fight you over things like who made WOM and the clarity and mintyness of glass others could care less and mix and match it with new items.
I am somewhere personally in between and cringe when I see older glass and antiques not being appreciated. I love the history and the fact someone enjoyed these pieces and are now dead.
I get a wee bit scared more and more as I see it being not appreciated more and more. I can see why there is very little left over from the Civil War or whatever.

 

[FinalVestige79]

It all boils down to this Re-enacting is a hobby and being vintage is a lifestyle choice like Miss Neecerie said. There is no mistaking the two...vintage-people don't do 1st person impressions, we don't put ourselves in static displays for all to see, we don't recruit. We do educate though, ourselves and other vintage people. The only improvement is within the individual and his/her personal taste and what fulfills them. There doesn't need to be a ringleader that decrees authenticity or any set rules...we do this for ourselves not for anyone else. I think Widebrim's signature is the best example. "Dress for yourself first. Then perhaps for others."

Some people are more keen to literally recreating an era in their life like Forgotten Man. He doesn't come from a reenactor background, from what I know he has a lot of friends in the 352, maybe the authenticity standards rubbed off on him. [huh] Again, its just a matter of personal choice and personal taste and what fulfills you. And it is a subculture...I like it because it brings like minded people together on a subject that for the most part is historically based and we all help each other...you wont see trash talking here hardly ever. Coming from a reenactor background, I like to look my best from work clothes, suits, or just a nice sweater for home. Whatever I'm comfortable with. Authenticity doesn't rule over the vintage life-style like it does in reenacting. Which is also great! Although we still have our stitch nazis!

I was interested, to what extend, the "concept of authenticity" was handled or addressed in the vintage world. Which has been covered and discussed. And as this discussion has progressed, to compare the two.

The reenacting world seems to have rules, where the vintage world does not. There also seems, there is cross over of both groups members, which may also lend to establishing the improvement of the "look".

I guess it comes down to the fact reenactors are part of a group where in the vintage world you are individuals.

 

[Guttersnipe]

snickers....

ok....so one year out of the 30 years that vintage folks -cover- (20's, 30's, 40's) people might have bought a whole new wardrobe....

But I suggest that despite the optimism and recovery etc....that much like -always-....only the middle class and up got to partake in a whole new wardrobe, even in 1946.

oh wait....as a generality, no one would 'imitate' the downtrodden masses now anyhow........

Ok, let's talk working class then. People of all classes, by an large, had fewer clothes then folks today. Working class guys in the 40's didn't usually own more than one or two suits.

Speaking as a guy who's worked blue collar jobs all my life, I'm telling you, workwear doesn't last for 20-30 years if you actually wear it to work in. Especially when you only have two or three pair of every thing (which was common in the golden era).

The idea that the post war boom only benefited the middle classes is ahistorical, unless you are talking about very specific socioeconomic groups certain regions of the country. The wartime boom in wages, combined with government price controls aimed at fighting inflation caused an unprecedented upward mobility for working class people in the US. The data on GDP growth from 1945-1960 also says "folks were buying a lot of new stuff."

$200 thousand-million in 1940
$300 thousand-million in 1950
$500 thousand-million in 1960

 

[Davep]

Also after the war a lot of servicemen and others moved to the west coast, and shed their east coast clothing. The war displaced a lots of people not just returning GI's. The war also pushed a lot of home coming servicemen into college. The government wanted servicemen to go to school because there were no jobs for them. All of this affected clothing trends and decisions.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Ok, let's talk working class then. People of all classes, by an large, had fewer clothes then folks today. Working class guys in the 40's didn't usually own more than one or two suits.

Speaking as a guy who's worked blue collar jobs all my life, I'm telling you, workwear doesn't last for 20-30 years if you actually wear it to work in. Especially when you only have two or three pair of every thing (which was common in the golden era).

True, but at the same time when you talk work clothes, you're talking an absolutely glacial progression fashionwise. Examine the "Hercules Workwear" sections of Sears catalogues from, say, 1937, 1947, and 1957, and the differences in style are miniscule from decade to decade. The major change was the introduction of the Eisenhower-style jacket as a work garment, and this wasn't entirely a wartime-postwar thing -- similar jackets had been worn by filling station attendants and the like even before the war years.

The actual military-issued Ike jacket, for what it's worth, was a major component of postwar civilian workwear -- which was a major factor in its being eventually dropped as a regulation item, since it became so common to see roadside work gangs wearing the jackets that it detracted from the uniqueness of the item as a distinguishing article of uniform.

The idea that the post war boom only benefited the middle classes is ahistorical, unless you are talking about very specific socioeconomic groups certain regions of the country. The wartime boom in wages, combined with government price controls aimed at fighting inflation caused an unprecedented upward mobility for working class people in the US. The data on GDP growth from 1945-1960 also says "folks were buying a lot of new stuff."

$200 thousand-million in 1940
$300 thousand-million in 1950
$500 thousand-million in 1960

I don't think anyone disputes the overall figures -- in fact, I'd go so far as to say the "middle class" as Boomers remember and idealize it didn't really exist in the United States as a dominant demographic force *until* the postwar boom, and for that matter, well into the mid-fifties.

But we were specifically discussing the immediate postwar years - 1946, in particular. Those years were still times of shortage and frustration for many consumers as industries were still working toward reconversion. The OPA, for example, didn't stand down until May of 1947 -- and for many, many items it was still a matter of waiting for them to finally trickle down to the retail level. The big boom in consumer spending didn't really pick up steam until after the recession of 1948-49.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

We were also discussing -what- people chose to 'emulate' in their vintage dressing.

And I would wager that the number of people that -accurately- emulate a working class person -all the time-, here at the FL or even in the wider vintage community is very small. Much smaller then the overall vintage community.

Why?

Because this is -all- to some great extent...make believe. It is not 1942...or 1946....or 1937. We get to pick to dress how we want...and trust me, the vast majority are picking a more middle class image....which allows us to go to spiffy formal events and play dress up. What -fun- fun is it to stay home and mend things when you could be out pretending to be posh at the Cicada club....etc

And even if one is picking a more pedestrian image, you are surely spending -way- more money (on ebay or flea marketing or even custom work) to look lower class, then any lower class person back then would. So again....you are not actually living -that- life.

And the size of our collective vintage closets is not 'to period accurate' either...

So again...its the ren faire approach....glorify what we like (collecting clothes, the music, dancing, etc) into -more- then it was then, while summarily closing our eyes to the stuff we don't want to deal with....

Which is all fine, but as long as one is not pretending to live an -accurate- vintage life....There are about 3 people worldwide I know who are doing that....budgets included.

 

[pdxvintagette]

I think that this has all been very sidetracked. The question regards IMAGE, not lifestyle. I live in vintage clothing in a vintage house with vintage things, but I don't live a very vintage lifestyle.

HOWEVER. My clothing is NOT costuming. I live in vintage 365 days a year. I wear 50's tops with 50's skirts and stilletto heels. I wear 40's workwear with wedges and 40's rayon dresses with cuban heeled pumps. It is a personal style preference, but it is NOT make-believe.

Guttersnipe is a good friend, and one of the most put together vintage fellas I know. He wears vintage inspired workwear daily, again, as a personal style preference. And I will tell you, I don't know personally another gentleman who look quite so sharp when it is time to head out at night, whether he chooses an early 40's suit and two tone specs or an early 50's suit and white bucks.

I don't like mixing vintage. Personally. I respect that others wish to do so, but would like to remind them that this is a MODERN way of wearing the items.

Someone my age (28) in 1947 would NOT be wearing pieces from their 1937 wardrobe, the clothes they were wearing as a young co-ed about to graduate high school. And at 38, in 1957, I can't see them choosing to match their ten year old shoes with their new cocktail dress.

OH - and while I would adore an evening listening to music that I like at the Cicada and dancing - one of my favorite hobbies, I also have evenings sitting at home repairing my vintage! Actually, more of them than I would like. It is vintage, after all, and that cotton thread just doesn't last.

But it is all moot in relation to the MAIN question: do you cut corners, or are you 100% authentic? I wear as much authentic as I can (I even have 40's day of the week underwear), and get quality reproductions when I have to - shoes and jeans, mostly. I never mix eras. Others DO, but for some reason on the lounge, feel they have to "back it up" with this idea that people back in the day mixed as well. It really isn't the case, but if you're happy wearing that way, that is what counts. I don't, and won't, but I respect that you appreciate the item and want to wear them your way.

Cheers,
Julie