Esquire’s Complete Golden Age Illustrations:

[Flanderian]

It's a shame that Fellows tucked this suit under a coat as its material and pattern look fantastic.
View attachment 269165


While, individually, the sweaters and socks look nice in the "sweater-and-socks sets" (half way down on the right), it's too matchy-matchy for me. I do like the contrast collar and cuffs on the front sweater though.
View attachment 269166

I hadn't particularly noted the suit's cloth. It certainly does look interesting. I've seen Fellows depict some sharkskin weaves similarly, but the apparent perpendicular orientation more likely suggests a check with an overcheck.

Agree about the matching issue. This degree of matching first appeared in some Arrow and Manhattan shirts adds perhaps 5 or 6 years earlier.

 

[Flanderian]

These are the January 1942 illustrations.

 

[Flanderian]

These are Esquire's February 1942 illustrations. It's a short collection. Guess they may have had other things on their mind as they put it together.

 

[Fading Fast]

Is that a bathing suit she has on or the world's smallest dress (with no visible means of support)? Regardless, a cigarette in one hand and a cocktail in the other argues that, while he's just arriving, she's already started the vacation.

No, no, no, no and no. Adults should not wear matching outfits. Heck, even the Scotties are horrified.

 

[Flanderian]

Is that a bathing suit she has on or the world's smallest dress (with no visible means of support)? Regardless, a cigarette in one hand and a cocktail in the other argues that, while he's just arriving, she's already started the vacation.
View attachment 269453


No, no, no, no and no. Adults should not wear matching outfits. Heck, even the Scotties are horrified.
View attachment 269454

A swimsuit, though the lady appears to have no visible means of support.

 

[Flanderian]

These are Esquire's March 1942 illustrations.

 

[Flanderian]

It's a shame that Fellows tucked this suit under a coat as its material and pattern look fantastic.
View attachment 269165


While, individually, the sweaters and socks look nice in the "sweater-and-socks sets" (half way down on the right), it's too matchy-matchy for me. I do like the contrast collar and cuffs on the front sweater though.
View attachment 269166

Demonstrating that a questionable matching frenzy need not be confined to current accessorizing, why stop at tie and PS, or even socks, when you can also match your underwear?! (From Esquire March 1942.)

 

[Fading Fast]

Demonstrating that a questionable matching frenzy need not be confined to current accessorizing, why stop at tie and PS, or even socks, when you can also match your underwear?! (From Esquire March 1942.)


View attachment 269550

Oh my, that is just not a good idea.

 

[Flanderian]

And April 1942.

 

[Fading Fast]

One of the odder development in the, now, last twenty-plus years has been men moving away from traditional raincoats and rain boots/shoes/rubbers. A good raincoat (as pictured below, the longer the better), an umbrella and a pair of rubbers is a pretty darn good way to walk through a rainstorm without getting your clothes and feet wet.

When I started working in the '80s, one of your goals was to acquire the basic rain stuff - coat, rubbers umbrella - as they worked. Then, by the end of the '90s (as biz casual took hold), rubbers gave way to either LL Bean (or similar) boots or just wearing your shoes and letting them get wet. I moved to the former as the latter made no sense to me.

Then, as time went on, men started giving up the raincoat in exchange for barn coats or Barbour jackets (the latter work, but are short) or, again, nothing. The umbrella still has currency, but traditional raincoats and rubbers are not popular at all. Often times, I'll see men sitting in the office with wet feet and clothes, but if you ask them about buying raincoats or boots, they look at you kinda funny.

I don't get it. Why did so many men decide that basic rain gear no longer makes sense? When I leave the office and it's raining, I'll see men darting this way and that with, yes, an umbrella, but just a suit and biz shoes on, no raincoat or protection for their shoes. How come a raincoat and either rubbers or boots does not make sense to them?

A pretty strong echo of actor Walter Pidgeon.

 

[Nobert]

I don't get it. Why did so many men decide that basic rain gear no longer makes sense? When I leave the office and it's raining, I'll see men darting this way and that with, yes, an umbrella, but just a suit and biz shoes on, no raincoat or protection for their shoes. How come a raincoat and either rubbers or boots does not make sense to them?

Most likely because it entails more than two minutes of consciously attending to one's attire. I think for most men, that comes under the category of asking for directions, the color pink, and noticing dirt.

View attachment 269588

In regards to the above, I feel compelled to weigh in. In my experience, double-breasted, patterns and wide trousers; all true. Bow ties, also a good horizontal element. Spread collars and Windsor knots I'm not so sure about. If you're thin in the face a Windsor can compete with your head for dominance. And I don't like my head dominated. Ask any of my junior-high teachers.
The hat thing I think is also more about head shape than overall physique. I know that I don't like the way I look in porkpies. A bit too Sheckie the Card.
(Sorry, I don't usually go on about 'thin guy' problems. A lot of the stuff about vertical stripes being slimming and horizontal the opposite has been debunked of late, and it provoked me to a response).

 

[Flanderian]

One of the odder development in the, now, last twenty-plus years has been men moving away from traditional raincoats and rain boots/shoes/rubbers. A good raincoat (as pictured below, the longer the better), an umbrella and a pair of rubbers is a pretty darn good way to walk through a rainstorm without getting your clothes and feet wet.

When I started working in the '80s, one of your goals was to acquire the basic rain stuff - coat, rubbers umbrella - as they worked. Then, by the end of the '90s (as biz casual took hold), rubbers gave way to either LL Bean (or similar) boots or just wearing your shoes and letting them get wet. I moved to the former as the latter made no sense to me.

Then, as time went on, men started giving up the raincoat in exchange for barn coats or Barbour jackets (the latter work, but are short) or, again, nothing. The umbrella still has currency, but traditional raincoats and rubbers are not popular at all. Often times, I'll see men sitting in the office with wet feet and clothes, but if you ask them about buying raincoats or boots, they look at you kinda funny.

I don't get it. Why did so many men decide that basic rain gear no longer makes sense? When I leave the office and it's raining, I'll see men darting this way and that with, yes, an umbrella, but just a suit and biz shoes on, no raincoat or protection for their shoes. How come a raincoat and either rubbers or boots does not make sense to them?
View attachment 269815


A pretty strong echo of actor Walter Pigeon.
View attachment 269816 View attachment 269817

If one were still dressed in traditional business attire, (Not necessarily a winning assumption. ) a 15 minute walk from a train station on a cold, wet November day would cement your argument about the value of same.

 

[Flanderian]

Most likely because it entails more than two minutes of consciously attending to one's attire. I think for most men, that comes under the category of asking for directions, the color pink, and noticing dirt.




In regards to the above, I feel compelled to weigh in. In my experience, double-breasted, patterns and wide trousers; all true. Bow ties, also a good horizontal element. Spread collars and Windsor knots I'm not so sure about. If you're thin in the face a Windsor can compete with your head for dominance. And I don't like my head dominated. Ask any of my junior-high teachers.
The hat thing I think is also more about head shape than overall physique. I know that I don't like the way I look in porkpies. A bit too Sheckie the Card.
(Sorry, I don't usually go on about 'thin guy' problems. A lot of the stuff about vertical stripes being slimming and horizontal the opposite has been debunked of late, and it provoked me to a response).

+1.

 

[Flanderian]

The illustrations from May 1942. Very fond of the 3rd one down.

 

[Flanderian]

These are Esquire's June 1942 illustrations.

 

[Fading Fast]

Interesting that, despite very noticeable shoes - brown and white saddles with red soles - the text makes no mention of them. Always nice to a see a woodie in the background.

This is how slim fit should be done. It's also how a bow tie can be worn quite "un-ironically." That said, the scale seems to be off on the Godzilla-sized piece of luggage.

 

[Flanderian]

Interesting that, despite very noticeable shoes - brown and white saddles with red soles - the text makes no mention of them. Always nice to a see a woodie in the background.
View attachment 270057


This is how slim fit should be done. It's also how a bow tie can be worn quite "un-ironically." That said, the scale seems to be off on the Godzilla-sized piece of luggage.
View attachment 270058

Perhaps the saddle shoes were once so common place as to not draw notice. I have one surviving pair of saddle shoes, and when I wore them the other day my wife observed that when she was a little girl they were commonly referred to as "Catholic shoes" because black and white saddles were part of the girl's uniform of a nearby parochial school, and she had wished she had a pair.

Agree entirely concerning the brobdingnagian luggage, and surprising too, as Esquire's eventual art director, Robert Goodman, was typically meticulous with his illustrations. Interesting too because throughout his work in Esquire, he experiments with several styles of illustration. At one point, he appeared to be consciously imitating Fellows.

 

[Flanderian]

Here are the July 1942 illustrations for Esquire.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Looks a bit like David Niven in Uncle Tom’s Cabana.

 

[Flanderian]

Looks a bit like David Niven in Uncle Tom’s Cabana.

You're right! Remarkably similar.