Hair cuts

[Flat Foot Floey]

Of course it is the same

 

[jkingrph]

They were all under hat. How you tell?


Personally, I think it was just short on the back and sides. Off the ears, trim the sideburns and parted either on the right or left.

Until the 1960's the short-back-and-sides was the basic haircut of the twentieth century. Remember when the Beatles came out and they were considered so "long haired"

Some small town barbers are the best. Some include a shave and this one I used to visit gave a quick massage on your back before letting you get up from your chair. It was first class all the way. And, "the guys" would sit and discuss guns, politics, war, farming, etc.

A great place to visit in London is D.R. Harris & Co. who manufactures perfumes and lotion. I am frustrated with the men's hair care products that are only found in the states. Too much technology for my tastes.

I am, however, greatful that Brylcreem and Hair Oil are not the trend. It must have ruined some good fedoras.

I am getting a G.B. Kent & Sons brush for the holidays. Very expensive but very long lasting and perfect for keeping that haircut in check.

Cheers,
Pyro.

I had one of those "60's" haircuts. Had to join the air force iin 69 ( dodging the draft) so still shorter for basic, then starting to grow it out and OCS cuts it off again. I stayed active duty as an officer for ten years so it remained close on sides and back, then ten years later rejoined active reserves. Honestly It had been like that so long it stayed that way and still does, except much much thinner on top nowdays. There is still enough on sides and back to make my hat too tight if I go too long between haircuts.

I do like my small town barber, plenty of talk about politics and guns abound there.

I agree about hair care and shaving products. I have been ordering strickly on line for the last few years now. Double edge blades, Clubman Eau de Portagul for the hair, shaving cream from either T&H or Trumplers. Last year I played around and picked up some nice looking old shaving brushes, for the handles and replaced the brush knots.

 

[Connery]

one of the first things i noticed about Boardwalk Empire's costume/styling was that Jimmy Darmody's hairstyle looked too modern. it was just about believable in the first (pilot) episode, then the undercut got more severe which made the long hair on top hang over it in a distinctly 1980s 'edgy' new-wave sort of way. i like the cut, but it's not a 1920s accurate cut.

Oh!!! is that so? Well herringbonekid .... we will have to agree to disagree in this one. It is very believable in my opinion.

To prove it here is the man Douglas Fairbanks Jr with an almost identical haircut. Is he having a 1980s "edgy" new wave too?

Here is another picture of Douglas Fairbanks Jr.

Some men did keep the top longer for other reasons such as Marcel Waves like James Cagney

Cagney's sides look pretty severe here as well.( so does the rest of himlol)

 

[HadleyH]

^^^

Jimmy's long top rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eusa_clap

 

[HadleyH]

Here we have another perfect example of the 1920s haircut we were talking about, very short on sides, very long on top.

Silent film actor Richard Dix

front shot and all slicked down

 

[Twill]

All these cuts look different against the boardwalk cut. There's fade, especially in the crown and back. The Darmody cut literally looks like they grabbed all the hair on the top, cut it all the same length, and shaved the sides. Its a disconnected new wave/modern hair cut. The authentic vintage cuts seen here are very different, especially in the back. There are no stringy long pieces in the back, there's fade.

 

[HadleyH]

All these cuts look different against the boardwalk cut. There's fade, especially in the crown and back. The Darmody cut literally looks like they grabbed all the hair on the top, cut it all the same length, and shaved the sides. Its a disconnected new wave/modern hair cut. The authentic vintage cuts seen here are very different, especially in the back. There are no stringy long pieces in the back, there's fade.

Ohhh look!!! .... the hairsplitter brigade is back! lollollollol ~~~

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

The difference is not about the lenght on top and not the shortness in the back but about the fade. It's only a small area but it is there. Maybe some people did wear it this way but it is not "nailing down the typical haircut of the 1920s" It's easier to shave an undercut than to do a proper fade. Maybe that's why the haircut is so popular.

 

[HadleyH]

The difference is not about the lenght on top and not the shortness in the back but about the fade. It's only a small area but it is there. Maybe some people did wear it this way but it is not "nailing down the typical haircut of the 1920s" It's easier to shave an undercut than to do a proper fade. Maybe that's why the haircut is so popular.

Good observation, thank you Flat Foot Floey.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Thanks. But I think Twill did say the same thing in other words.

All these cuts look different against the boardwalk cut. There's fade, especially in the crown and back. The Darmody cut literally looks like they grabbed all the hair on the top, cut it all the same length, and shaved the sides. Its a disconnected new wave/modern hair cut. The authentic vintage cuts seen here are very different, especially in the back. There are no stringy long pieces in the back, there's fade.

 

[HadleyH]

^^^

Your graphic in red helped me to understand what you were talking about..... that millimeter or so of hair that can make or brake :eeek: a 1920s haircut for some!


(not for me though! )

 

[Twill]

Thanks. But I think Twill did say the same thing in other words.

Thank you, sir.

 

[Connery]

All these cuts look different against the boardwalk cut. There's fade, especially in the crown and back. The Darmody cut literally looks like they grabbed all the hair on the top, cut it all the same length, and shaved the sides. Its a disconnected new wave/modern hair cut. The authentic vintage cuts seen here are very different, especially in the back. There are no stringy long pieces in the back, there's fade.

The difference is not about the lenght on top and not the shortness in the back but about the fade. It's only a small area but it is there. Maybe some people did wear it this way but it is not "nailing down the typical haircut of the 1920s" It's easier to shave an undercut than to do a proper fade. Maybe that's why the haircut is so popular.

^^^
This is all a very interesting read gentlemen. As you can see from my avatar such advice falls to the wayside. Nevertheless, categorizing or labeling with such nuance does not detract or add to the style from a pedestrian observer like myself. I like what I like and that is pretty much it.

F. Scott Fitzgerald

 

[HadleyH]

great photo Connery! Thank you!

_____________________________________

bring out the magnifying glass Flat Foot Floey and Twill ... let's start measuring fast!!! every lil millimeter counts gents!!!!!lol

______________________________________



here Wallace Reid leading male star of the teens and 20s is copying Boardwalk Empire or is it the other way around?

 

[Two Types]

I am not going to get involved in the ongoing discussion on what makes an authentic 1920s haircut. However, this shot of Johnny Weissmuller (circa 1922) shows real sign of the close cut with an overhang. Whilst not as closely cut at the sides as the cut being argued about, it is certainly reminiscent of the cut favoured by so many young men of the
1980s whose haircuts harked back to the pre-war years.

In the back of my mind there is the notion that the extreme cut with overhang was particularly favoured among sportsman who wanted the comfort of no hair around the neck and ears, but who still wanted plenty of 'body' on top.

 

[Connery]

Hymie Weiss~~~ haircut in the 1920's "front" and "side" view.

Weiss was known to say, "You take a picture of me and I'll kill you."

 

[HadleyH]

I am not going to get involved in the ongoing discussion on what makes an authentic 1920s haircut. However, this shot of Johnny Weissmuller (circa 1922) shows real sign of the close cut with an overhang. Whilst not as closely cut at the sides as the cut being argued about, it is certainly reminiscent of the cut favoured by so many young men of the
1980s whose haircuts harked back to the pre-war years.
.............

In the back of my mind there is the notion that the extreme cut with overhang was particularly favoured among sportsman who wanted the comfort of no hair around the neck and ears, but who still wanted plenty of 'body' on top.

I agree with you Two Types!

the same happened with him ... who went on to Hollywood to become him ...John Wayne

and him Johnny Mack Brown who played for the University of Alabama football team, but his good looks and powerful physique saw him brought an offer for motion picture screen tests that resulted in a long and successful career in Hollywood.

 

[_RAGNAR_]

The heavy undercut with long top is completely authentic to the prewar period and through the war especially in Europe. In the USA the military cut has always had a much shorter top and faded sides, which took over as the standard men's haircut after the war. In European armies it was far more prevalent to let the hair grow as long as possible. The heavy undercut is from home and barracks grooming in most cases. It's easy to grab the clippers and do it yourself. Then every second or third haircut you hit the barber and get a proper fade if you want.

Right now I have a #2 around the ears and back and almost seven inches on top. Faded all the way up the sides. In two weeks I'll run the clippers around the sides and back again with a #2 and there will be a slight undercut, the next haircut more, and then back to the barber.

There is nothing "modern" about it, it's as old school as it comes.

 

[_RAGNAR_]

It's pretty obvious in the above pictures that the undercut is at the width of a set of clippers. As far as the hair hanging over the back that's going to happen if the guy doesn't get to a barber every month, or if even he does and that's the way he likes it. It's not like there was one standard cut then any more then there is now.

Barber at Rudys in the Greenwood part of Seattle told me yesterday that my hair was totally old school gangster, and it had a heavy undercut and all kinds of hair hanging over the back. If she thought it looked 20-30s that's good enough for me.

 

[HadleyH]

It's pretty obvious in the above pictures that the undercut is at the width of a set of clippers. As far as the hair hanging over the back that's going to happen if the guy doesn't get to a barber every month, or if even he does and that's the way he likes it. It's not like there was one standard cut then any more then there is now.

I wholeheartedly agree

" It's not like there was one standard cut then any more than there is now. "