When did people start wearing vests/waistcoats with tuxedos?

[Queue]

I was pondering classical formal wear style instead of studying for my comprehensive exams and was curious when people started wearing vests/waistcoats instead of a cummerbund with a tuxedo of that was always an acceptable alternative.

Thanks!

 

[Tomasso]

The vest preceeded the cummerbund.

 

[MisterGrey]

Like Tomasso said. The cummerbund came about as a concession to tuxedos being worn in warm to hot climates.

 

[Queue]

Then may I ask the question in the other direction? When did the shift from vests to cummerbunds occur/begin?

 

[Braxton36]

My feeling is that the cummerbund is a late 19th and early 20th century idea and that vests were more of a 19th century convention. However, I have seen vests up and through today - albeit they are purists or downright oddities. I have a black silk vest... but.... I'd probably never wear it.

 

[lairddouglas]

Vest/Waistcoat V Bund

Chicken and Egg. The Bund is the twentieth century outgrowth of the military sash.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The waistcoats go back to the later 17th century.

 

[dhermann1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding at this point, after a couple of years of study of the Formal Wear Primer thread, is that if you want to be traditional (and as a result actually look classy instead of dopey) a cummerbund should only be worn with a single breasted white dinner jacket, any lapel style. The acceptable colors being only black or maroon/burgundy.

 

[Tomasso]

a cummerbund should only be worn with a single breasted white dinner jacket

A cummerbund can be worn with a black SB DJ.

 

[Edward]

Yes, cummerbund may be worn with either. I think I remember reading somewhere that burgundy was the "proper" colour with the white jacket, and black with the black..... but that may be splitting hairs.

A waistcoat, on the other hand, should only be worn with a black jacket. The concept of the white / ivory coloured jacket was that it was a concession to warmer climates/seasons, therefore it makes little sense to add an extra layer over the back and shoulders.... instead, the cummerbund performs the function of covering the waistband).

(This, of course, all presumes a sb jacket).

 

[dhermann1]

Just as an aside, I've seen pictures lately of men wearing tuxes, with neither cummerbund or waistcoat, sitting with their jackets open. Guess what comes spilling out all over the waistband. GUTTTT!!!
Very unsightly.
Other pet peeve on the subject: tux trousers with big breaks in the front. Tux trousers should have no break above the shoe.
All this I have learned here at the Fedora Lounge!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

IMO, a small break is acceptable for any pair of trousers, be they formal or casual.

.

 

[Evan Everhart]

I was pondering classical formal wear style instead of studying for my comprehensive exams and was curious when people started wearing vests/waistcoats instead of a cummerbund with a tuxedo of that was always an acceptable alternative.

Thanks!

Waist-coats were regularly worn and socially required from about the 14th century onwards as the pourpoint which was meant to be a layer of clothing beneath the tunic or cotehardie to be worn when the others were not worn as for field work as the shirt itself was felt to be underwear and hence indecent when worn alone. Furthermore, the pourpoint provided greater warmth as the entire world especially the European continent was much colder then. Aside from the above, the pourpoint was meant to have chauses and split hosen pointed or laced to it so that they would not fall down or have to have a constricting belt arrangement worked up with the braies or under-shorts.

By the 17th century, the waist-coat had become an integral element of men's-wear. Waist-coats predate the kammarband though, waist-sashes and sashes worn diagonally across the breast were worn decoratively over the actual coat long before the kammarband was imported to the West from India by the British.