How did people in the 40s-50s casually dress? (Without Suits)

[Gabriel]

Hey folks!

Utmost apologies that I haven't responded for a few weeks. Been rather busy on other end of things and just recently got back on the lounge to read all of the new replies. After reading through some of these responses, I have some questions that I'll go ahead and condense all into one post. Please, and I strongly ask, if anyone else here has the answers to some of my questions I've asked others I'd highly appreciate any input folks could put in! Would really me and perhaps others out there.

You can find vintage orginals for lower prices than new clothes if you're patient. 1940s/50s trousers are not that difficult to find; waist-length jackets don't turn up every day, but you can still find them. Even WWII and post-WWII military garments which can often be found for very low prices might work for you. I have a WWII navy wool shirt of the USN that was converted for civilian use by cutting the length to the height of the waist and adding a knitted waistband. The drab olive WWII U.S. Army trousers and the airforceblue post-WWII USAF trousers make passable trousers for everyday use in my opinion. They're extremely durable, too, have a very nice cut and razor-sharp trouser creases. I think of them as an alternative to jeans.

@Rabbit, thanks for your response. In contrast to what you and everyone else have been saying, I think it's quite obvious to me at this point that if I'm aiming for a more vintage look, that high-waisted trousers/flannels (unless there is a difference) and I'd have the opportunity to buy vintage at my own accord. When you refer to
"waist-length jackets" are you referring to like the vintage greaser jackets that were prominent in the "Elvis era" or are you referring to something else? Most of the terms people are using here I'm very new to as I haven't really been accustomed to all that much besides casual-ware and on rare occasions the well-dressed moments.

Lastly, (and most importantly to me in this subject) if I wanted to pull off a vintage look with the standard waist-length trousers if I couldn't find high-waisted versions, would I still look legitimate? Legitimate in the sense that I would still look vintage but be able to 'mesh' a nice look while I wear my clothes at school?

There is a thread about college wardrobe which you will like too. Just don't hurry. You'll get better deals if you are patient and regulary watch ebay for while.

@Flat Foot Floey, after reading this response, I think I'm starting to comprehend that pulling off a vintage look doesn't always = MUST BE WEARING VINTAGE CLOTHES (although it certainly seems to help). In regards to the college wardrobe thread you linked me to, would you recommend me finding all of the vintage versions of these clothes that I can find on the internet, and then resort to visiting a place like old navy or a thrift shop for the leftovers complete my outfits?

Also, could you elaborate to me what the kids are wearing in this picture you sent me? I'd be interested in looking around for some of these clothes soon as I honestly find myself quite attracted to the look. This is how I start my ebay list, haha!

[/QUOTE]

^ This image specifically is actually one of my favorites as I like the way this man is dressed. The only thing I have a tiny distaste for is the v that is strongly 'echoed' within the sweater he is wearing. In any case, could you tell me what he is most likely wearing? To me it looks like a v neck sweater with an oxford dress shirt tucked under, and maybe a tie as well. However, I'm probably wrong and you'd likely know more.

From "The Grizzly" thread. These Grizzlies appeared to be popular casual jackets in the 30's/40's with mostly the younger set in the USA. Will work well with Denim.

View attachment 22402 View attachment 22403

@AdeeC, what is a 'grizzly'? Is a grizzly simply a 40s-50s jacket that folks wore that went along with a greaser look or was it something that was brought into popularity after world war 2?

Let's start with working with what you have already, or readily have access too.



Hold onto those oxford dress shirts and sweaters, you'll use them. But let's fine tune some of the buttoned shirts you can grab from Old Navy.

Grab some chambray shirts like these. You can wear them tucked in or out and consider rolling them up at the sleeve.
Same with some of their flannel shirts. Be warned, as these shirts don't have the prominent collars of 1940s and 1950s, but no-one will slight you for it.

As for slacks

@resortes, those buttoned shirts certainly do look a lot like the ones I bought from old navy, haha! If I wanted to be more specific in my vintage shirt selection, is their a category or list of brand named shirts that I could look for to go with my vintage look?

Secondly and importantly, what is the 40s-50s collar that you are refering to? I never really knew there was such a difference and I'm very interested to know what the right looking collar would be.

Again, if anyone here has the answers to some of my questions, I'd be thankful beyond measures if folks could help answer some of my questions.

 

[Gabriel]

Would also find it worth noting that I'm a follower of "Art of Manliness Blog" and am quite frequent with most of Brad's videos. Recently, I watched a video where he elaborated on how to build a minimal wardrobe while keeping clean looks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_Nmudpkks[video=youtube;W1_Nmudpkks]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_Nmudpkks[/video]

If anyone would want to add to what else I could do with this video, that would be appreciated.

 

[Rabbit]

Gabriel, about the waist height thing - the waist here refers to the natural waist. That's the part of the torso that constitutes the slimmest section if you have a flat stomach. The ribcage starts above that, and the hipbone start a bit below that. The position of the navel relative to the natural waist varies from person to person, but the navel is often a tad lower than the natural waist.

High-waisted trousers have the waistband covering the navel, so the waistband wraps around the slimmest section of the upper body - or if there is a tummy, then it wraps the tummy nicely instead of "cutting it off" and having it bulge over the waistband.
Due to the high rise, these trousers need room in the seat and thighs. That enables them to drape over the lower body, following its contours without sitting right on the skin. It makes for a pleasing figure without attracting too much attention to the precise built, or lack thereof.

Da Vinci's Vitruvian man with two black markings added, indicating the waistband height for high-waisted trousers and the height of modern low-rise pants.
In passing I'll note that high-waisted trousers cut the body according to the golden ratio pretty accurately, while today's low-rise jeans and trousers cut the body in two equal parts, more or less, assuming "standard" or normal body proportions.

Here is an admittedly rotten photo series of self wearing a Luxire trouser. This is a faithful replica of one of my 1940s high-waisted trousers. Note the contours and the height of the waistband. During the second half of the 50s, trouser hems would get narrower but the rest was still about the same.

As for jackets, a waist-length jacket would be a jacket that is made for wear with high-waisted trousers. The jacket hem still covers the trouser waist, so it's longer than the natural waist. The photos posted earlier in this thread showing shorter jackets could be generically termed waist-length jackets.

 

[AdeeC]

Hi Gabriel,, in respect to the Grizzly, it was very popular in the 30's and into the 40's. Combination fur/mouton and leather jacket. It was popular with teenagers and outdoor types. Then had a youthful sporty vigorous image. Today considered more on the wild side of vintage fashion. There is a comprehensive thread in the Outerwear sub forum.
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?24825-quot-The-Grizzly-quot
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?76624-Grizzly-Jackets-A-Fedora-Lounge-Guide

 

[Edward]

For waist length jackets, there are a lot of options. Baracuta first introduced what's now generally known as the Harrington style in the late thirties, and they've been popular in every decaded since. It seems to be mostly shops aimedc at skins and mods that are selling them these days, but they're also widely worn in lots of other subcultures (no least the rockabilly set, at least here in the UK, when it's too warm for leather). This is the sort of thing I mean:

Tend to come in a wided range of colours:

I've got a few myself, they work really well with denim or with collar and tie and slacks, as a mored casual alternative to a blazer. Depending on how you dress them, they can either have a kinda rockabilly look or be a bit more reserved (think casual Sinatra, ish....). A genuine Baracuta G9 will be silly money for the most part, for what they are, but if you shop around there are plenty of alternatives that are, imo, just as good but much cheaper. It's worth spending a bit more than buying thed very cheapest, though - I think the sweet spot, for me, is about GBP50-70 (I think that's around 75-100 in USD currently).

Another option is a 'Ricky' jacket - very similar to the Harrington type, but without the knits at the wrist / waistband. Plenty of originals still kicking around, also plenty of places that still make them. Everything from a fairly simple, one sober colour style to all sorts of bright colours with yolks and contrast panels:

Original fifties ricky type jackets are rising in price all the time, though there are a lot of reproductions on the market now. HeyDay in the UK make some which look nice, and Etsy seems to have a fair few people reproducing them at all sorts of prices. If you want a convincing 50s look as opposed to a modern run on the rockabilly / psychobilly thing, I'd avoid ones with "Jo's Garage" and other such livery / artwork on them.

Most Harrington types are made of cotton or polycotton (a good polycotton will look and feel little or no different, in my experience, but have just a little bit better rain protection) and have a brushed cotton liner, usually in a tartan pattern (most commonly, Baracutas aside, Royal Stewart). Not really a jacket for the Winter; I typically wear mine from around Easter through to late September. Too much in July/August normally, but still good on chilly evenings. Ricky jackets I've seen in all kinds of fabrics. I think in the states, wool-coton gaberdine was the most common, but really that cut of jacket looks great in just about anything. I've seen nice ones with a cotton or polycotton shell and an insulated liner, or similar jackets made in wool which are nice for cooler weather.

The Aero Waterfront would be a cracking option, though it might be beyond your budget at the minute. http://www.aeroleatherclothing.com/product-detail.php?id=907 I'm seriously tempted by a second one with a Winter lining.... With a bit of patience, you might be able to hunt out a vintage option that looks similar to this. FWIW, although the hipster thing is pushing up the prices, here in the UK, anyhow, there's still a lot of nice stuff kicking around from that "eighties does fifties" period. With care, some of these pieces can be picked up very cheaply, and totally look the part when integrated into a fifties-style wardrobe.

Actually, if I could find it with a real leather front rather than PVC, I'd be rather tmepted to buy one of the repros of the casual jacket Marty McFly wore in 1955...

 

[Stanley Doble]

They dressed normal. Now they dress like bums and fools.

 

[Rabbit]

Lastly, (and most importantly to me in this subject) if I wanted to pull off a vintage look with the standard waist-length trousers if I couldn't find high-waisted versions, would I still look legitimate? Legitimate in the sense that I would still look vintage but be able to 'mesh' a nice look while I wear my clothes at school?

Objectively, I'd have to answer that in the negative. From the 30s through the 50s, there simply were no low rise trousers around like we have them today, sitting almost on the hips. Sure, some trousers had a lower rise compared to the "standard" high waisted trousers, but those are not the same as today's low-rise suit trousers, chinos, jeans or whatever. Except for repros, the trousers of our day, even if the rise is a bit higher, usually have a totally different cut. Take the fly length, for instance. I have yet to see a new trouser with a fly and front/back rise as long as the 40s trousers had - again, excluding repros.

On the other hand, I've encountered folks who maintain that they've been dressing vintage-style for years, wearing the usual trousers of our day, accompanied by the longer waistcoats that go with those lower trouser rises, and feeling entirely authentic doing it - so I guess it depends on your own measure. Compared to what most folks wear nowadays, I must admit that whatever these vintage-style chaps are wearing does look at least reminiscent of vintage, if you look at it from the bright side.

If I were you I'd simply make do with whatever is at your disposal now and slowly replace the modern garments with vintage and repros and whatever you may find that comes close as you go along - there's no need to rush it.
For a start, unless you have a very large waist size (above 38" maybe), you'll be able to find one or two original 50s trousers for cheap soon - cheaper than any new ones, anyway.

 

[Seb Lucas]

^ This image specifically is actually one of my favorites as I like the way this man is dressed. The only thing I have a tiny distaste for is the v that is strongly 'echoed' within the sweater he is wearing. In any case, could you tell me what he is most likely wearing? To me it looks like a v neck sweater with an oxford dress shirt tucked under, and maybe a tie as well. However, I'm probably wrong and you'd likely know more.

[/QUOTE]



That's a cricket jumper - hence the team V colour.

 

[Benzadmiral]

From the Non-Shorpy thread:

The guy on the far right is wearing what I aim for in casual clothes.

 

[resortes805]

@resortes, those buttoned shirts certainly do look a lot like the ones I bought from old navy, haha! If I wanted to be more specific in my vintage shirt selection, is their a category or list of brand named shirts that I could look for to go with my vintage look?

Secondly and importantly, what is the 40s-50s collar that you are refering to? I never really knew there was such a difference and I'm very interested to know what the right looking collar would be.

I'm not sure what you are asking re: the first question. Are you looking for name brands for vintage shirts from the 1940s and 1950s? Or modern brands?

The second question is easy, 1940s and early 1950s shirts had larger pointier collars generally speaking.

 

[The Good]

The guy on the far right is wearing what I aim for in casual clothes.

Is that guy wearing a homburg, or a fedora? The brim has a pretty strong curl. The one in the middle right appears to be wearing a western hat, complete with a double-pocket shirt.

 

[Quetzal]

They dressed normal. Now they dress like bums and fools.

Exactly! Casual, since the Victorian period, is anything not a suit, which generally means a shirt (tucked in, of course), slacks, shoes, and a belt, throw a sweater (more of post-Great War notion) during the cold. Ties, straps, sport coats, hats, and the like are optional. Anything like this would have been considered "dressed-up" back in the 1990s and the 2000s; fortunately, the 2010s are going back to "normalcy" with the current fashion (it better stay), though of course the cuts of clothing are cookie-cutter (no originality/creativity since the 1970s, and most modern clothes are still based off of 1980s prints) and different, particularly in trouser rise and collar width.

However, there have always been those who think that they are "rebellious" by skipping the shirt and just wearing the undershirt (really, underwear) as the shirt, which led to the rise of T-shirts after the Second Great War. The wearing of workwear and military-based clothes, or denims and simple collared jackets (which can still be found, but are ridiculously long to accompany the now-very common long torso/short legs build), also rose, more so after the Second Great War than during the 1930s, when that nonsense began.

What SHOULD be considered casual, described above, ended in the 1980s for young people (the last decades of the Twentieth Century had Bow-Ties and Horn-Rims associated with nerds as hats were associated with old men. so one can imagine the thoughts that a tucked-in shirt-and-slacks combination would have received). No, the 1970s were NOT all about the polyester fashions; that's like saying everybody in 2012 wore skinny-denims and untucked plaid "flannel" shirts with a sweater. I can verify the former because I own and have seen many pieces of clothing from that era; just go to your local thrift store (when does everyone think that those half-lined wool suits were made?). Only adults who grew up in the 1950s and the 1960s still wore casual clothes until the "DOT-com" or "Casual" (really, careless) era in the 1990s. Now, they still dress like slobs, while more and more of those born in the "DOT-com" era are returning to normal standards.

-Quetzal

 

[Hal]

...Only adults who grew up in the 1950s and the 1960s still wore casual clothes until the "DOT-com" or "Casual" (really, careless) era in the 1990s. Now, they still dress like slobs, while more and more of those born in the "DOT-com" era are returning to normal standards...

Your analysis above is accurate and correct, I believe, except what I have quoted. Those who grew up AFTER the "cultural revolution" of the late 1960s (the "tipping-point" was, I believe, 1966 or 1967) may well still be "dressing like slobs" and this age-group certainly resents and scorns any "return to normal standards". But many in the older section of this group have never departed from the "normal standards".

 

[Claudio]

http://boomers-fifties-pinups.com/photos_1950s.html

Most of the pcitures shown in all these pages were college - adults and hardly teenage highschoolers. Think there is a difference worth keeping in mind. Also early 40's would be different to late 50's (all be it for a young teenager not that much). Canvas shoes (EASILY found both vintage or new ei Converse All Starts CHeck Taylors), pendelton palid shirts (worn with white tee underneath), gold, wind breaker jackets (a steal in thrift and vinatge shops), repro denims (admitingly more expensive to buy now), chinos chinos chinos! , penny loafers for a more college look, button down oxfords (again, more late 50's), over alls, you can buy new letterman jackets and use the colours of your school - these are still made to original specs (mostly), white sponge socks ... think if you are 16 - 18 yrs old you got it pretty easy as in every day street school life suits were marginal IMO. Again, most of the pcitures shown are of college - adults

 

[Claudio]

http://www.vsacustom.com/images/patch-placement.jpg

http://www.rustyzipper.com/shop.cfm?viewpartnum=285009-MM12782

http://www.rustyzipper.com/shop.cfm?viewpartnum=275059-MM12282

http://www.rustyzipper.com/shop.cfm...IZE=&ERA=1950&TYPE=Shirts&SEARCH=&GENDER=Mens

http://www.rustyzipper.com/shop.cfm...&TYPE=Jackets - Polyester&SEARCH=&GENDER=Mens

These are ideas and although one is 60's, it gives a concrete view of what style you should be looking for

 

[Claudio]

One super important aspect is get the hair styling and eye wear right too ... so many 'ruin' it by not curing these small details

 

[GHT]

Some white bucks for the spring and summer!

I have a pair, exactly like that, not so immaculate though. The shoes reminded me that in the late fifties, those shoes and bowling shirts were very popular.

As a small boy in the early fifties, I remember, that the sports blazer, open neck shirt worn with a cravat and flannels were very popular. it was quite common to see a gent wearing what we called a cricket jumper, it's a knitted sweater, worn with longsleeves or sleeveless, V-neck and often with an outline.

 

[The Good]

While these are closer to the styling of the late 1950s (Is the rise too low? They are advertised as being waist length) and the 1960s, these modern Lands' End pants seem good for those days you wouldn't care to wear wool pants, while having something that looks close enough. It would be a good idea to wear these with a rain or trench coat, for example, not having to worry about wool getting wet. They are not meant to be authentic reproductions of older styles, but they appear to look right for the later mid-century period. I think a lot of wool suits or dress pants made nowadays do not have a very woolly appearance anyway, so I wouldn't worry about wearing these 100% cotton ones in place of the real thing.

I recommend that you check out the two grey "heather grey ticking stripe" and the "steel heather" options, if you are interested. I ordered the former two months ago, and I just did the second one tonight. They sit just at or an inch below your navel, which is about the lowest most people have worn their pants until the late 1960s, or so. They also have a somewhat tapered or pegged appearance, which would be associated with the late '50s and '60s period as well.

http://www.landsend.com/products/me...ed-fit-no-iron-dress-twill-trousers/id_251715

The pants would look good worn casually, as well, with dress shirts, sweaters, or even polo shirts.

Above, I've shown the "tailored fit" pants. If you want the wider legged "traditional fit" option, then here it is below. They are less tapered, although I'm not sure if they are absolutely straight from the waist down.

http://www.landsend.com/pp/StylePage-426845_AG.html?CM_MERCH=REC-_-FPPP-_-GGT-_-1-_-426845-_-426855


As for authentic hair styling, I recommend that you use Brylcreem and Dax Wave & Groom, or instead of Brylcreem, Groom & Clean, which also helps to wash out hard, waxy pomades. If you are a purist fully committed to utilizing what a particular time period had to use, you should know that Groom & Clean only came around 1965, I believe, and I think 1955 for Dax. Brylcreem has been around since 1929, although their formula seems to have changed over the years, slightly, from what I've read. Is that true in anyone's experience, here?

 

[dudewuttheheck]

Agreed.

Same here. I live in Orange County and have been all over the greater Los Angeles area (nearly 20 million people), and most guys do not dress as well as the men in that photo. Shirts are almost never tucked (even I don't own a lot of shirts that can be tucked), almost nobody from the ages of 14-30 even owns a pair of slacks or chinos, much less do they wear them out casually, and most middle-aged men wear shorts or jeans. If they do wear slacks, they often wear them with sneakers.

Sad to say, but the people who dress the closest to the men in that photo that I have personally seen are either hipsters or old men in their 70s plus. I get weird looks for wearing chelsea boots and OCBDs to the supermarket for crying out loud! My brother started wearing untucked button downs with jeans and vans while in college and his friends got mad at him because they thought he dressed too formally for hanging out.

The shirts aren't all that different than the button downs that I see today, but how they are worn, the pants, the shoes, the fact that they are actually wearing belts sets them apart from 99% of men and young men today.

I have a picture of my grandfather from the 1950s and he is basically wearing what has already been stated here: tucked in polo or button down, loose flannel pants with a sharp crease, and what I believe were some sort of black and white stadium shoes or the like.

 

[F. J.]

Derby, maybe?

Is that guy wearing a homburg, or a fedora? The brim has a pretty strong curl.
[...]

I thought it might even be a bowler.