Formal Wear Primer

[Marc Chevalier]

The only drawback is that they require assistance to don.

Not really. On the vintage shirts at least, the backs had only two buttons: one near the top, and one near the bottom. They were easy enough to self-button.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Here's a link to the clearest photo I could find of this shirt's back: http://www.tias.com/image.html?s=ht...em.cgi?itemKey=3923865214&store=/stores/guyco


A close-up: http://www.tias.com/image.html?s=ht...em.cgi?itemKey=3923865214&store=/stores/guyco

 

[Tomasso]

Ahhh, I see. That snap seems like it would make it easier.

 

[Rathdown]

Yes. Furthermore, the front remains 'sealed' with no risk of gaps. Also, the studs can be inserted in advance, 'small end' first -- without denting the starched surface around the bib front's buttonholes.

Absolutely! I know this next bit probably won't be of any importance to most, but they also prevent any decoration worn at the neck from slipping behind the opening of the shirt front. (And thank you for the ebay tip.)

 

[Midnight Blue]

Intersting; I've never seen a back-buttoning shirt, although I used to haunt the vintage clothing shops regularl. I'd like to see a picture of one if anyone has one?

check out http://www.blacktieguide.com/Vintage/Vintage_Shirts.htm

 

[Marc Chevalier]

check out http://www.blacktieguide.com/Vintage/Vintage_Shirts.htm

Those are great examples, Midnight Blue!

By the 1930s, most back-buttoning shirts had backs that opened completely from top to bottom, whereas earlier models opened from the top to about 3/4 of the way down.

 

[Midnight Blue]

Those are great examples, Midnight Blue!

By the 1930s, most back-buttoning shirts had backs that opened completely from top to bottom, whereas earlier models opened from the top to about 3/4 of the way down.

Thanks for the info. How did you find this out?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Thanks for the info. How did you find this out?

From advertisements in Men's Wear, Apparel Arts, Esquire, etc. Also from patent applications.

 

[sproily]

I was unhappy with my shirt front so I decided (with a little help) to make myself a detachable shirt bosom.

I made one before this and it buttoned on. I find it much more attractive without buttons, and the first one was a bit of a failure so I did this.

It buttons at the collar and to the trousers. The wings on the sides are for special suspenders (I've yet to make them, shops were closed, couldn't buy elastic)

Looks good without them, too.

 

[fluteplayer07]

I am really confused about the proper usage of formal stud sets. As I take it, a full dress shirt takes two collar studs; a longer stud to fasten in the front; and a squatter, but otherwise identical, stud to fasten the back of the collar. Then there are three studs to fasten the front placket of the shirt, I used to think these were simple round studs, but recently I've noticed some are sold with clips in the back... They remind me of miniature tie clips. Then there are four additional studs, that look like the regular round ones, that are used to fasten the front of a waistcoat (I'm speaking in the context of white tie, by the way). And finally, the pair of cufflinks. So what exactly are the shirt placket studs supposed to look like? Clips, or studs? And how do I attach them? Are the collar studs, placket studs, waistcoat studs, and cufflinks all supposed to match? Just the collar and placket? Three out of four? Does it matter?

Anybody with a strong background in vintage formal wear that could help me out?

Thanks!

 

[sproily]

The ones that have a button and a hairpin looking thing fasten the waistcoat, while the ones to fasten the shirt are screw-action studs (+ also ones with a sort of bar at the back). There are different collar studs, the one on the front is longer and the one in the neck, as you said, "a squatter."

 

[Tomasso]

That looks fantastic! Well done!

 

[sproily]

Thanks! I understand they were thought of as the "lazy man's choice" and were seen as bad as pre-tied bowties at the time. I can't exactly see why, though.

 

[Salieri]

This is my white tie kit as it stands at the moment:

The shoes aren't perfect but, to be honest, I can't justify buying a new pair of shoes just for the very few opportunities I'll get to wear this.

 

[dhermann1]

Re: Shirtless shirt bosoms. Wasn't there an Edward G. Robinson movie where his life is ruined because he's at a formal stag affair, and all the men there jokingly decide to remove their tailcoats? And Eddie won't do it because he doesn't have a real shirt. And they shun him for being a spoilsport or something? Anyhow, it was obviously considered irretrievably declasse to wear one of those things. Meh. Times change.

 

[Rathdown]

I am really confused about the proper usage of formal stud sets. As I take it, a full dress shirt takes two collar studs; a longer stud to fasten in the front; and a squatter, but otherwise identical, stud to fasten the back of the collar. Then there are three studs to fasten the front placket of the shirt, I used to think these were simple round studs, but recently I've noticed some are sold with clips in the back... They remind me of miniature tie clips. Then there are four additional studs, that look like the regular round ones, that are used to fasten the front of a waistcoat (I'm speaking in the context of white tie, by the way). And finally, the pair of cufflinks. So what exactly are the shirt placket studs supposed to look like? Clips, or studs? And how do I attach them? Are the collar studs, placket studs, waistcoat studs, and cufflinks all supposed to match? Just the collar and placket? Three out of four? Does it matter?

Anybody with a strong background in vintage formal wear that could help me out?

Thanks!

I have worn white tie since 1963 (I was 16), and I can assure you that until quite recently everything was handed down from elder uncles and cousins! I finally outgrew my 1938 evening clothes about four years ago...

Shirt Studs: generally speaking they should be gold, circular, and about 5mm in diameter; round (or half round) pearls of about the same size are also acceptable. How they attach to the shirt front varies from manufacturer to manufacturer-- some have threaded posts and screw-on backs, others use tiny split rings, and others have a spring loaded wire fastener.

Collar Studs: these are never seen, and do not have to match anything (but always carry a spare of each!).

Cuff Links: plain gold cuff links, either oval or round work best. They may be engraved with your monogram, or crest, or a discrete floral motif. Enameled cuff links, or those set with stones of any sort should be avoided.

Waistcoat Buttons: Usually these are self covered. Gold buttons may be worn, but if so, they should be engraved rather than plain.

NOW... in the real world about the only thing to studiously avoid are black studs with white tie (you'll look like a waiter) and clunky, "Las Vegas", cufflinks. I still adhere to the custom of not showing my watch when in formal attire, but a thin gold dress watch with a black leather band has become acceptable... in some circles.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Then there are three studs to fasten the front placket of the shirt...

In the U.S. in the 1920s, shirts worn with white tie tended to have only one placket stud, whereas shirts worn with black tie usually had two studs. In the '30s, shirts for black tie started appearing with three studs, and some men began wearing the two-stud shirts with white tie.

Then there are four additional studs, that look like the regular round ones, that are used to fasten the front of a waistcoat (I'm speaking in the context of white tie, by the way).

There were also four additional studs for black-tie waistcoats. (Stud sets for white tie tended to be of white mother-of-pearl; stud sets for black tie were usually of onyx, or smoky mother-of-pearl.)

Are the collar studs, placket studs, waistcoat studs, and cufflinks all supposed to match?

The placket studs, waistcoat studs, and cufflinks are supposed to match. The collar studs are a separate item: they could be made of wood, bone, celluloid, brass, mother-of-pearl and brass, sterling silver and pearl, or gold-plated. Years ago, a collarless shirt bought new from a store (or picked up from the laundry) usually came with a wood, bone, or celluloid collar stud on the front. Men would buy cheap hollow brass collar studs from dime stores, and more expensive solid brass, mother-of-pearl, silver, or gold-plated collar studs from department stores and haberdasheries.

 

[Rathdown]

Re: Shirtless shirt bosoms. Wasn't there an Edward G. Robinson movie where his life is ruined because he's at a formal stag affair, and all the men there jokingly decide to remove their tailcoats? And Eddie won't do it because he doesn't have a real shirt. And they shun him for being a spoilsport or something? Anyhow, it was obviously considered irretrievably declasse to wear one of those things. Meh. Times change.

Quite true. The removable "quick change" shirt front was invented for waiters and footmen who, due to splashes and spills, might require an immediate change of shirt front. The cheapest ones were made out of laminated paper, while the more expensive shirt fronts (costing between 35c and 50c) were washable cotton. No gentleman would be caught dead in one if it could be avoided.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The cheapest ones were made out of laminated paper, ...

And they can still be purchased here: http://www.amazondrygoods.com/collars/barkley.html

 

[Salieri]

While that does look very neat and crisp and you've obviously made an excellent job of it, quite aside from whatever abstract issues of propriety and acceptability come up, I think it loses something with the lack of placket and studs. The bisection of the shirt by the placket provides a kind of axis for the neat symmetry of the waistcoat and coat, excising it just somehow doesn't look quite right.