What do people generally feel about the post-war 40's Bold Look?

[MondoFW]

The late 40's are often associated with the wide football player shoulder suits, some say they were ill-fitting, baggy and zoot-ish. However, I know there is a strong following for the tailoring and garments of this period. I was wondering how you loungers felt about this trend. I have discussed vintage suits with many people, and a lot of them seem to have this pre-conceived notion that all vintage suits were like this, and that our ancestors dressed like crap, etc. I find this statement problematic in of itself, but I digress.

I own just a couple Bold Look suit garments, and I find that they don't look bad because the padding isn't too excessive. Some like them, some don't. What's your 2 cents?

EDIT: Silly me, I should include some pics of examples.

 

[Patrick Hall]

I think this discussion comes down to body type. I have learned through trial and error that an extended shoulder harmonizes my large head and slight body, but a shoulder that is also horizontally built up shortens my neck in an unappealing way. So the shoulder lines of post-war suits, like the examples you posted here, don't suit me. I do better with the more modest extensions of the late 30's/early 40's, achieved with a bit of wadding in the sleevehead. As long as it corresponds with the top of the trousers, I am more ambivalent about where the waist of the coat sits. I certainly don't like the really slouchy coats of the very late 40's/early 50's, but none of the examples you posted above are particularly offensive. They all button more or less at the natural waist.

 

[MondoFW]

I certainly don't like the really slouchy coats of the very late 40's/early 50's, but none of the examples you posted above are particularly offensive. They all button more or less at the natural waist.

I'd love to see a picture of what you mean here. If you mean a roomy waist, i see that in a lot of 50s jackets. Not a great look.

I agree with horizontally straight shoulders looking odd. The first example in the OP alleviates this slightly with the shoulder "incline". It also makes for a relaxed fit, and a cool one imo

 

[scotrace]

More on The Bold Look:

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/threads/april-1948-meet-the-bold-look.21943/

 

[Fading Fast]

Most of what I know about suits of any period comes, mainly, from old movies and, a little bit, from books.

As to the late '40s suits, in movies, many are cut much fuller than the images in the first post. I like those post-war '40s suits as a historical fact - they were the suits of that period, big, bold, broad shoulders, wide legs - basically - material everywhere, but like any extreme look (see the super skinny suits today), I think they are less than ideal aesthetically as they, overall, exaggerate and distort the human form.

I enjoy that that was once the look as it has a kinda post-war optimism, "we won and can now afford all this extra material," and I enjoy it in that context, but do not see it as a timeless look. As noted by Patrick Hall above, it works best on a specific body type, but even there, taken to its extreme (and it was many times), the material loses an elegant drape and seems to just fold everywhere in a distracting way. While the images in "Esquire" illustrations might look Superman-like, in real life (and even in movies on well-proportioned stars with access to top-tailoring talent) the suits quite often look like they are wearing the man.

One more thought, while I don't advocate following fashion trends (that is so not my life or wardrobe), if you choose to wear a "big" '40s suit today, owing to the prevalence of skinny suits / narrow cuts / natural shoulders / etc., today your look will stand out much more than, say, in the '90s when mainstream suits were being cut much larger.

 

[David Conwill]

The Bold Look suits make me look like a Film Noir heavy and I don't care for it (they might work better now that I've lost a bit of weight). They look good on some guys, though, and I have nothing generally against them. When I wore suits on the regular, I was a bigger fan of the "Mister T" look that started in 1950, and in fact I went out of my way to purchase the October 1950 issue of Esquire that introduced it.

These days I'm doing more of a pre-war casual/workwear look because I get dirty a lot and suits don't...uh...suit me...anymore very often. As with everything, I wear very little vintage because it's expensive and hard to find in larger sizes and I'm awfully hard on clothes.

 

[Wesslyn]

I like it. But then, I like all types of suits. From unstructured to bold. Heavy wool to seersucker, etc.
I've got a couple bold suits and I like them but often get too self conscious to wear them because bold post war is easily mistaken for ill fitting and tacky by not so savvy folks.

 

[MondoFW]

I like it. But then, I like all types of suits. From unstructured to bold. Heavy wool to seersucker, etc.
I've got a couple bold suits and I like them but often get too self conscious to wear them because bold post war is easily mistaken for ill fitting and tacky by not so savvy folks.

I'd love to see pictures. I don't know what kind of people you meet in your environment, but since my life revolves around people who don't know sartorial dress when they see it, I normally feel like I can get away with wearing garments that don't have a great fit. And perhaps they just don't notice the shoulder padding and puffed out chest because I'm not letting the garment wear me. With a bold suit, you gotta have a bold personality (or at least try to have one). I learned that just standing around like a chump, everyone will notice any flaw with your bold outfit.

 

[GHT]

I'd love to see pictures.

A couple of years ago I came across a family photo taken at London's Portobello Market, circa 1948.
It's a picture of me as a small child, with my mother and father. I was so taken with my Dad's suit I had a copy made.

 

[Fading Fast]

I recently watched 1948's "Romance on the High Seas" which is full of "big" suits, but when I tried to find movie stills that showed them, I struggle as most of the stills were closeups that hardly showed the suits. The below pics should give you some idea though. It's an okay movie - light, silly - but a great late '40s clothes-watching movie.

 

[Mathematicus]

In my opinion it is extremely easy to distinguish an ill-fitting jacket (namely, too big) from one which is purposely oversized.

In these movie stills, shoulders are strong, but never sag down; chest is cut full but again it doesn't show the extra material bunching at front. The extra ease was carefully put under the armpits, so that the front line remained clean but swelled.
When a jacket is too big either the shoulders hang in an unnatural way or the chest doesn't follow a clean line. Achieving the correct proportions is very difficult and, in my opinion, unlikely without a tailor who knows perfectly the look

 

[Fading Fast]

In my opinion it is extremely easy to distinguish an ill-fitting jacket (namely, too big) from one which is purposely oversized.

In these movie stills, shoulders are strong, but never sag down; chest is cut full but again it doesn't show the extra material bunching at front. The extra ease was carefully put under the armpits, so that the front line remained clean but swelled.
When a jacket is too big either the shoulders hang in an unnatural way or the chest doesn't follow a clean line. Achieving the correct proportions is very difficult and, in my opinion, unlikely without a tailor who knows perfectly the look

I think this ⇧ is a true and thoughtful analysis. And rereading my earlier post, I think I was a bit hard on the "big" suit look as, as Mathematicus notes, properly tailored they can drape and flow properly (as they do in the movie I took the above stills from). That said, even well tailored, I think they exaggerate / distort human body proportions in a less-than ideal way.

They look best, IMHO, on big boned and broad chested and shouldered men, as smaller men look somewhat overwhelmed in these suits. There's a similar thing going on today with the super-skinny suits where a very thin, tall person can kinda pull the look off, but most normal-sized men look "stuffed" into a shrunken suit. And big men, to be honest, just look silly in skinny suits.

I like more classic, less exaggerated proportions in clothes, but will admit, having watched "big" suits in the movies (and having paid close attention to the clothes in my recent viewing of "Romance on the High Seas" because of this thread), when everyone is doing it, it is a strong style that I enjoy seeing as it reflects a bold, confident time in men's fashion.

 

[Mathematicus]

[...] That said, even well tailored, I think they exaggerate / distort human body proportions in a less-than ideal way.

They look best, IMHO, on big boned and broad chested and shouldered men, as smaller men look somewhat overwhelmed in these suits. There's a similar thing going on today with the super-skinny suits where a very thin, tall person can kinda pull the look off, but most normal-sized men look "stuffed" into a shrunken suit. And big men, to be honest, just look silly in skinny suits.

Totally agreed on that. The "bold" suit can be appealing if properly tailored but of course it will cheat on the actual proportions. At some extent, however, every tailored garment does that.
I also agree that the forementioned bold look looks better on someone who already has a good size and height to pull off, requiring then only some minimal "tricks" to enchance the silhouette. As you say, the short, narrow shouldered man will look somewhat awkward even if the garment is well executed.

The statement I agree less is about skinny suits. Nobody looks good on skinny garments, first because looking "skinny" (the actual translation in my language means "skins and bones") is not healthy at all. Secondly, because this look aims to create the illusion of carrying a couple of sizes less: what man on earth wants to have smaller chest and shoulders? Who wants to have shorter legs? At least the bold look rises from meaningful premises!

As you say, balance and classic proportions are the key of a good fit. Slight variation on the ease given in certain parts of the garments are then a pure matter of style.

 

[Fading Fast]

Totally agreed on that. The "bold" suit can be appealing if properly tailored but of course it will cheat on the actual proportions. At some extent, however, every tailored garment does that.
I also agree that the forementioned bold look looks better on someone who already has a good size and height to pull off, requiring then only some minimal "tricks" to enchance the silhouette. As you say, the short, narrow shouldered man will look somewhat awkward even if the garment is well executed.

The statement I agree less is about skinny suits. Nobody looks good on skinny garments, first because looking "skinny" (the actual translation in my language means "skins and bones") is not healthy at all. Secondly, because this look aims to create the illusion of carrying a couple of sizes less: what man on earth wants to have smaller chest and shoulders? Who wants to have shorter legs? At least the bold look rises from meaningful premises!

As you say, balance and classic proportions are the key of a good fit. Slight variation on the ease given in certain parts of the garments are then a pure matter of style.

That's a fair criticism and my "defense" comes down to defining what "skinny" means in attire.

The true skinny extreme - extremely tight fit (that pulls everywhere), short sleeves and trousers (showing way to much shirt sleeve or sock), etc. - doesn't look good on anyone - agreed. But a thoughtfully executed very slim fit on a very thin and well-proportioned frame, where the length of the sleeves and trousers aren't exaggeratedly short and the jacket isn't silly short or tight, can look good in a youthful, healthy manner.

These two are good examples of what I mean. Neither is ideal (I'd prefer more a more classic fit and proportion), but since the cut isn't extreme (the sleeve, trousers and jacket length aren't ridiculously short, nor is the jacket overly tight), I think these guys look good for their frame and their youthful vibe.

 

[MondoFW]

More bold look:

Ralph Branca & Jackie Robinson, Feb 12, 1948

Humphrey Bogart (think this outfit was worn in The Barefoot Contessa (1954))

Johnny Hodges


These are some extreme examples, most of which I find horrendous, to be honest.

 

[Mathematicus]

The guy on the right in the first phot wears a badly fitting jacket. You see that from the wrinkles under his ribcage - a sign that probably the shoulders of the jacket are cut too square for him.
It's hard to tell from the pose, but look at the sagging chest in the second photo...
I find very elegant the third suit, but it would take some effort to make the jacket fit well in the waist (looks like it is quite big around midsection).

 

[Fading Fast]

The suit in the third pic, of Hodges, is, IMHO, a complete mess. Everything that we can see - the shoulders, the chest and the sleeve - look oversized / look like a poor fit. The suit is not a big but well-tailored suit on him; it's a suit that is straight-out too big for his frame.

 

[MondoFW]

The guy on the right in the first phot wears a badly fitting jacket. You see that from the wrinkles under his ribcage - a sign that probably the shoulders of the jacket are cut too square for him.
It's hard to tell from the pose, but look at the sagging chest in the second photo...
I find very elegant the third suit, but it would take some effort to make the jacket fit well in the waist (looks like it is quite big around midsection).

I noticed this too, i agree. Though, it's odd to see No. 42 reduced to "the guy on the right"

The suit in the third pic, of Hodges, is, IMHO, a complete mess. Everything that we can see - the shoulders, the chest and the sleeve - look oversized / look like a poor fit. The suit is not a big but well-tailored suit on him; it's a suit that is straight-out too big for his frame.

Yes, yes, yes. A Vintage Dancer article concerning 1940s hair fashion used this pic of Hodges for black hairstyles. I was reading it and several people were like, "You like this stuff? That's what people wore back then??" For every jazz musician, there were also some Charlie Chaplins (out of character), and people don't get it.

 

[Mathematicus]

The suit in the third pic, of Hodges, is, IMHO, a complete mess. Everything that we can see - the shoulders, the chest and the sleeve - look oversized / look like a poor fit. The suit is not a big but well-tailored suit on him; it's a suit that is straight-out too big for his frame.

I don't agree at all.

The shoulder line is perfectly straight, the collar is hugging, the lapels are sitting flat and with the right tension (not loosely hanging down). The chest is oversized but it is cut in a way to create a single big "bubble" around the armpit. The sleeve looks creased, of course, but that was the style. Moreover, the anxiety for a perfect creaseless sleeve is a modern thing, which usually pairs with total lack of mobility (less creases = smaller sleevehead = more constriction).

I wouldn't wear it, but I think it looks far better than many other examples.

 

[Fading Fast]

I don't agree at all.

The shoulder line is perfectly straight, the collar is hugging, the lapels are sitting flat and with the right tension (not loosely hanging down). The chest is oversized but it is cut in a way to create a single big "bubble" around the armpit. The sleeve looks creased, of course, but that was the style. Moreover, the anxiety for a perfect creaseless sleeve is a modern thing, which usually pairs with total lack of mobility (less creases = smaller sleevehead = more constriction).

I wouldn't wear it, but I think it looks far better than many other examples.

I'm not a tailor nor an expert - I'm just some guy with an opinion who thinks way too much about clothes. Hence, I respect your opinion and fully recognize that you might be completely right. So I'm just going to note what I see that makes me think the jacket is too large.

First, there is a pretty big divot just above the lapel with a rumple next to it that, IMHO, argues his body's shoulder isn't really going out far enough (or angled in a way) to support the suit's shoulder - even though, as you note, the top line of the suit's shoulder looks straight.

I think the suit's shoulder line could be held straight by padding, but the buckle I note is evidence that the overall cut is too big for his anatomical shoulder line. Additionally, the very big divot right where the sleeve start (below the seem that attaches the sleeve to the jacket) also indicates to me his shoulders are not wide enough, i.e., the round of his upper arm, which should be preventing / mitigating that, isn't able to because the shoulder of the suit jacket is coming out too far.

I agree and was surprised that the collar of the jacket fits him well (hugs his shirt collar), but the other factors noted above still convince me that the suit's shoulders are too big for him. I frequently have the tailor have to help me with the "collar is too big" problem in my suits and know that how I sit can sometimes hide it (especially if I pull the suit's front forward and in).

As to the chest, I think we see the same thing - a big bubble around the armpit - that we interpret differently. To me, that, combined with what I think (hard to tell definitively from the pic) is his left lapel bowing out over the right the lapel (where they meet), argues the chest is just too big.

Regarding the sleeve itself, I see too much rumpling, but you note that might just be the style / norm. The other thing that looks off to me - and causes the sleeve, to look too big on him - is how small his wrist looks versus the circumference of the sleeve. But I fully acknowledge my "feel" about the sleeve is just that, "a feeling," as maybe it should look that way, but to me it looks awkwardly oversized.

My last point is even squishier than my sleeve comments, which is that my first and continuing impression of the suit is that it looks as if he's wearing his father's suit; to wit, the overall appearance to me is of a suit that is just too big for his frame.

Let me close where I began. I am not any kind of an expert; I sincerely am not trying to "win" an argument or "prove" a point. I enjoy and learn from these discussions, so I wrote this post to explain all my reasons. If - as noted with the sleeve - I just don't really know how to judge fit, I'm cool with that.