Esquire’s Complete Golden Age Illustrations:

[Flanderian]

Outstanding suit, but the illustrator lost control of scale as the child shrunk to the size of the man's arm - no wonder he didn't sign it.
View attachment 258010

Uh-huh.
View attachment 258011

The Gentleman in the center is very 1930s movie gangster chic.
View attachment 258014

I couldn't find a signature of an illustrator for the top illustration, but as I mentioned, more than a few were self taught. C. F. Peters was primarily a cartoonist by profession. And others, notably including Fellows, often exaggerated proportion and scale for effect. Could be Oxner, Goodman or even Fellows' work, though he seemed to signing all of his by this time.

The second accords with Mr. Fellows' interests.

And darn well dressed gangsters they were! What I'm most surprised by in these Lord & Taylor illustrations, is that while fashions changed, 60 years later, the style of their illustrations were still almost identical.

 

[Fading Fast]

I WFH (and have since '12, not a pandemic thing) with TCM on, on mute in the background 90% of the time.

Today in the 1945 movie "Yolanda and the Thief" (I've never seen it) I noticed that Fred Astaire and Frank Morgan were wearing "Esquire" like outfits. They looked like they could have stepped out of one of the illustrations @Flanderian posts for us here.

Sorry, these were the best pics I could find.

 

[Flanderian]

In the city where I live, this attire would not raise a single eyebrow. Not infrequently you can still see guys dressed exactly like this. There are several shops downtown where I could buy this outfit in an instant (although it wouldn't be cheap.) But what I really want is a loden cape.

Thank you! It's very satisfying to learn it's still appreciated. I think of authentic Loden Cloth rather as an Austrian national treasure due to appearance and properties. Once has a blouson jacket made from some, but as I had bought too small a size I had to pass it on. Marvelous stuff, though!

A traditional cape would most certainly be a beautiful and treasured garment. The only person I've seen actually wear one in the U.S. is Rosemarie von Trapp. I've long gone on holiday to the area in which she lives in the U.S. and encountered her a couple times around and about. Already a venerable woman 10 or so years ago, she is still with us now at the age of 92.


Edit: I was mistaken, while Rosemarie von Trapp most certainly is still resident in Vermont, it was her half-sister Maria von Trapp who I encountered. She passed in 2014 at the age of 99.

 

[Flanderian]

I WFH (and have since '12, not a pandemic thing) with TCM on, on mute in the background 90% of the time.

Today in the 1945 movie "Yolanda and the Thief" (I've never seen it) I noticed that Fred Astaire and Frank Morgan were wearing "Esquire" like outfits. They looked like they could have stepped out of one of the illustrations @Flanderian posts for us here.

Sorry, these were the best pics I could find.
View attachment 258066 View attachment 258067 View attachment 258068

Fast Freddie?

Astaire has always looked as if he had just stepped out of vintage Esquire.

 

[Flanderian]

These are the illustrations from Esquire's August 1935 issue.

 

[Flanderian]

These are the illustrations September 1935 Esquire.

 

[Tiki Tom]

This is such a great thread. And it changes my perception of Esquire Magazine in the 1930s. The first issue was in October 1933 and it cost 50 cents per issue (roughly equivalent to $10 dollars today). So it was not cheap. By the images shared in this thread (thank you!) its clear that its target audience was the moneyed set and those who aspired to be in the moneyed set. It’s very interesting that Esquire became a success exactly while the Great Depression was going on. It is also fascinating that Ernest Hemingway wrote articles that appeared in 28 of the first 33 issues of the magazine. Of course, his “brand” was articles about the manly world of big game hunting, marlin fishing, boxing, boozing and bullfighting. An interesting juxtaposition when viewed against the backdrop of all these illustrations featuring posh gentlemen in “just so” high fashion; a little bit precious, a little bit dandyish. In fact, in “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” first published in Esquire Magazine in August 1936, Hemingway bemoans the moneyed set (even saying the "rich were dull") and has his protagonist complain about how his rich wife ruined him as a writer. Dashiell Hammett was another contributor to the magazine who was also known for his hard-boiled characters who had little to do with “fancy” behavior. But somehow, I guess, Esquire Magazine’s internal contrasts worked, creating the image of the sophisticated man of action that appealed to the readership. Esquire was co-founded by Henry L. Jackson, who handled the fashion content, and Arnold Gingrich who reeled in the literary talent. Maybe the fact that their focuses were so different was a lucky accident. Or maybe it was a well thought out marketing strategy from the start. It Kind of reminds me of Playboy in the 60s/70s… the juxtaposition of James Bond suaveness with, um, more working class content. Anyway, hats off to Esquire Magazine in the 30s. What a cultural touchstone. I imagine that, at the time, there were those who loved it, and those who wouldn’t go near it with a ten foot pole.

 

[Flanderian]

This is such a great thread. And it changes my perception of Esquire Magazine in the 1930s. The first issue was in October 1933 and it cost 50 cents per issue (roughly equivalent to $10 dollars today). So it was not cheap. By the images shared in this thread (thank you!) its clear that its target audience was the moneyed set and those who aspired to be in the moneyed set. It’s very interesting that Esquire became a success exactly while the Great Depression was going on. It is also fascinating that Ernest Hemingway wrote articles that appeared in 28 of the first 33 issues of the magazine. Of course, his “brand” was articles about the manly world of big game hunting, marlin fishing, boxing, boozing and bullfighting. An interesting juxtaposition when viewed against the backdrop of all these illustrations featuring posh gentlemen in “just so” high fashion; a little bit precious, a little bit dandyish. In fact, in “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” first published in Esquire Magazine in August 1936, Hemingway bemoans the moneyed set (even saying the "rich were dull") and has his protagonist complain about how his rich wife ruined him as a writer. Dashiell Hammett was another contributor to the magazine who was also known for his hard-boiled characters who had little to do with “fancy” behavior. But somehow, I guess, Esquire Magazine’s internal contrasts worked, creating the image of the sophisticated man of action that appealed to the readership. Esquire was co-founded by Henry L. Jackson, who handled the fashion content, and Arnold Gingrich who reeled in the literary talent. Maybe the fact that their focuses were so different was a lucky accident. Or maybe it was a well thought out marketing strategy from the start. It Kind of reminds me of Playboy in the 60s/70s… the juxtaposition of James Bond suaveness with, um, more working class content. Anyway, hats off to Esquire Magazine in the 30s. What a cultural touchstone. I imagine that, at the time, there were those who loved it, and those who wouldn’t go near it with a ten foot pole.

Thank you for this additional history concerning Esquire's origin. And for the added insight exploring aspects of its historical place among periodicals.

While my memory isn't as sharp as I might wish, I do recall reading what must now be 25+ years ago that managing editor Arnold Gingrich was something of a one-man-band in its early days, performing various roles, including writing the copy for the fashion plates I think most of us enjoy. The long running Esquire mascot Esky, pictured below, was in fact, a caricature of Mr. Gingrich. If my recollection is correct, I think it was suggested he not only wished to put imprint his personality upon the publication, but that he was a bit tight-fisted with expense.

I think it's likely that Esquire's lavish aspect wasn't successful despite occurring during the Great Depression, but in part because of it. This era spawned the most lavish examples in many fields in addition to dress such as autos; and most films of era, particularly those from Hollywood, featured beautiful people elaborately dressed living abundant, exciting lives. I have read that counter intuitively difficult financial eras engender the most lavish forms, while those from better times tend to austerity. Who wants to go to a movie to see other people with no money trying to scrape by and not being able to find work?

That Mr. Hefner's early Playboy borrowed liberally from Esquire's original format is obvious, right down to the center fold which would shortly appear in the same issues of Esquire from which some of these illustrations will come.

While contemporaneously there may seem to be a cultural conflict between the dandy and machismo, at the time, these two aspects were usually viewed as complimentary. I.e., those from less elevated circumstances, aspired to them, and even among the working class, dressing well was usually considered a manly art.

 

[Flanderian]

These are the illustrations from Esquire October 1935.

 

[Flanderian]

This is the balance of the October 1935 illustrations.

 

[Flanderian]

These are Esquire's illustrations for November 1935.

 

[Fading Fast]

This is such a great thread. And it changes my perception of Esquire Magazine in the 1930s. The first issue was in October 1933 and it cost 50 cents per issue (roughly equivalent to $10 dollars today). So it was not cheap. By the images shared in this thread (thank you!) its clear that its target audience was the moneyed set and those who aspired to be in the moneyed set. It’s very interesting that Esquire became a success exactly while the Great Depression was going on. It is also fascinating that Ernest Hemingway wrote articles that appeared in 28 of the first 33 issues of the magazine. Of course, his “brand” was articles about the manly world of big game hunting, marlin fishing, boxing, boozing and bullfighting. An interesting juxtaposition when viewed against the backdrop of all these illustrations featuring posh gentlemen in “just so” high fashion; a little bit precious, a little bit dandyish. In fact, in “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” first published in Esquire Magazine in August 1936, Hemingway bemoans the moneyed set (even saying the "rich were dull") and has his protagonist complain about how his rich wife ruined him as a writer. Dashiell Hammett was another contributor to the magazine who was also known for his hard-boiled characters who had little to do with “fancy” behavior. But somehow, I guess, Esquire Magazine’s internal contrasts worked, creating the image of the sophisticated man of action that appealed to the readership. Esquire was co-founded by Henry L. Jackson, who handled the fashion content, and Arnold Gingrich who reeled in the literary talent. Maybe the fact that their focuses were so different was a lucky accident. Or maybe it was a well thought out marketing strategy from the start. It Kind of reminds me of Playboy in the 60s/70s… the juxtaposition of James Bond suaveness with, um, more working class content. Anyway, hats off to Esquire Magazine in the 30s. What a cultural touchstone. I imagine that, at the time, there were those who loved it, and those who wouldn’t go near it with a ten foot pole.

Thank you for this additional history concerning Esquire's origin. And for the added insight exploring aspects of its historical place among periodicals.

While my memory isn't as sharp as I might wish, I do recall reading what must now be 25+ years ago that managing editor Arnold Gingrich was something of a one-man-band in its early days, performing various roles, including writing the copy for the fashion plates I think most of us enjoy. The long running Esquire mascot Esky, pictured below, was in fact, a caricature of Mr. Gingrich. If my recollection is correct, I think it was suggested he not only wished to put imprint his personality upon the publication, but that he was a bit tight-fisted with expense.

I think it's likely that Esquire's lavish aspect wasn't successful despite occurring during the Great Depression, but in part because of it. This era spawned the most lavish examples in many fields in addition to dress such as autos; and most films of era, particularly those from Hollywood, featured beautiful people elaborately dressed living abundant, exciting lives. I have read that counter intuitively difficult financial eras engender the most lavish forms, while those from better times tend to austerity. Who wants to go to a movie to see other people with no money trying to scrape by and not being able to find work?

That Mr. Hefner's early Playboy borrowed liberally from Esquire's original format is obvious, right down to the center fold which would shortly appear in the same issues of Esquire from which some of these illustrations will come.

While contemporaneously there may seem to be a cultural conflict between the dandy and machismo, at the time, these two aspects were usually viewed as complimentary. I.e., those from less elevated circumstances, aspired to them, and even among the working class, dressing well was usually considered a manly art.

View attachment 258326

Interesting conversation gentleman.

As a fan of old movies, I concur with @Flanderian's comments as there were a lot of movies made in the Depression about the rich doing rich things. To be fair, there were also stories about the working class, the poor and, of course gangsters, but my unscientific opinion is that movies about the wealthy - like "The Thin Man" series - were the most popular followed closely by gangster pics which also showed plenty of high living.

My grandmother was a typical Depression story, husband died at the start (heart attack not helped by economic struggles) lost their modest home to the bank so she had to move into a tenement with her young son (my dad) and truly just scraped by. Her one "luxury" was going to the movies (okay, and ice-cream) and she didn't want to see "The Grapes of Wrath," (as she said, she lived enough poverty and didn't need to see it - paraphrasing). She enjoyed the movies about the wealthy at play and she loved the gangster pics.

She died when I was still pretty young, but our one activity together was going to the movies. And it was none of this kid-movie stuff; I saw pictures like "The Valachi Papers" with her when I was seven - she wasn't a coddling or warm grandmother, her life had been too tough for that. I wish I could go back and ask her, but from the little she said and what my dad told me, I think the movies about the rich were escape for her from her day to day.

 

[Tiki Tom]

I completely agree that people in the 1930s enjoyed light stories about the rich for the escapist reasons that you Both mention. Reminds me that I once read an analysis of the P.G. Wodehouse Jeeves & Wooster stories. The critic pointed out that Wodehouse never showed/mentioned a disabled WWI veteran, even though Britain was crawling with them at the time. He knew that his readers did not want such reminders of reality. As for Hemingway, the famous exchange with F Scott “Hem, the rich are simply different from you and me.” “Yeah, Scott, they’ve got more money.” Is probably apocryphal. Despite his earthy writing, Hem liked to pal around with rich celebrities as much as the next public figure. And a big part of why he dumped Hadley for Pauline was probably that Pauline was loaded. In later years, Mr Gingrich said Hemingway was the best friend that Esquire Magazine ever had. So, yeah, focusing on the moneyed set was not a bug of the magazine, it was an intentional feature.
As I said, I thoroughly enjoy these illustrations. The other day I caught myself thinking “Well, men’s fashions haven’t really changed that much over the years.” Who am I kidding? While, yes, you do still see suits out there, they are more the exception than the rule and the concept of “casual wear” has almost gone so far that it has become a parody of itself. The picture above with the subtitle about “casual evening wear” shows how wide the chasm has become!

 

[Fading Fast]

I completely agree that people in the 1930s enjoyed light stories about the rich for the escapist reasons that you Both mention. Reminds me that I once read an analysis of the P.G. Wodehouse Jeeves & Wooster stories. The critic pointed out that Wodehouse never showed/mentioned a disabled WWI veteran, even though Britain was crawling with them at the time. He knew that his readers did not want such reminders of reality. As for Hemingway, the famous exchange with F Scott “Hem, the rich are simply different from you and me.” “Yeah, Scott, they’ve got more money.” Is probably apocryphal. Despite his earthy writing, Hem liked to pal around with rich celebrities as much as the next public figure. And a big part of why he dumped Hadley for Pauline was probably that Pauline was loaded. In later years, Mr Gingrich said Hemingway was the best friend that Esquire Magazine ever had. So, yeah, focusing on the moneyed set was not a bug of the magazine, it was an intentional feature.
As I said, I thoroughly enjoy these illustrations. The other day I caught myself thinking “Well, men’s fashions haven’t really changed that much over the years.” Who am I kidding? While, yes, you do still see suits out there, they are more the exception than the rule and the concept of “casual wear” has almost gone so far that it has become a parody of itself. The picture above with the subtitle about “casual evening wear” shows how wide the chasm has become!

Up until the early '90s, you would have been correct as, back then, men's fashion was still dominated by the suit-tie-collared-shirt construct as it came together in the '30s (maybe '20s). So, it had a heck of a seventy-year run. And, to be sure, it's still part of the game today, but (get ready for it) fading fast.

And its fall seems to be speeding up. In the last several contemporary TV shows and movies I've watched, I've noticed that the good guys either don't wear suits or wear modern-cut ones without ties; whereas, the bad corporate guys (are there any other in Hollywood's view) wear looser fitting grey or navy suits with ties.

 

[Flanderian]

Interesting conversation gentleman.

As a fan of old movies, I concur with @Flanderian's comments as there were a lot of movies made in the Depression about the rich doing rich things. To be fair, there were also stories about the working class, the poor and, of course gangsters, but my unscientific opinion is that movies about the wealthy - like "The Thin Man" series - were the most popular followed closely by gangster pics which also showed plenty of high living.

My grandmother was a typical Depression story, husband died at the start (heart attack not helped by economic struggles) lost their modest home to the bank so she had to move into a tenement with her young son (my dad) and truly just scraped by. Her one "luxury" was going to the movies (okay, and ice-cream) and she didn't want to see "The Grapes of Wrath," (as she said, she lived enough poverty and didn't need to see it - paraphrasing). She enjoyed the movies about the wealthy at play and she loved the gangster pics.

She died when I was still pretty young, but our one activity together was going to the movies. And it was none of this kid-movie stuff; I saw pictures like "The Valachi Papers" with her when I was seven - she wasn't a coddling or warm grandmother, her life had been too tough for that. I wish I could go back and ask her, but from the little she said and what my dad told me, I think the movies about the rich were escape for her from her day to day.

I completely agree that people in the 1930s enjoyed light stories about the rich for the escapist reasons that you Both mention. Reminds me that I once read an analysis of the P.G. Wodehouse Jeeves & Wooster stories. The critic pointed out that Wodehouse never showed/mentioned a disabled WWI veteran, even though Britain was crawling with them at the time. He knew that his readers did not want such reminders of reality. As for Hemingway, the famous exchange with F Scott “Hem, the rich are simply different from you and me.” “Yeah, Scott, they’ve got more money.” Is probably apocryphal. Despite his earthy writing, Hem liked to pal around with rich celebrities as much as the next public figure. And a big part of why he dumped Hadley for Pauline was probably that Pauline was loaded. In later years, Mr Gingrich said Hemingway was the best friend that Esquire Magazine ever had. So, yeah, focusing on the moneyed set was not a bug of the magazine, it was an intentional feature.
As I said, I thoroughly enjoy these illustrations. The other day I caught myself thinking “Well, men’s fashions haven’t really changed that much over the years.” Who am I kidding? While, yes, you do still see suits out there, they are more the exception than the rule and the concept of “casual wear” has almost gone so far that it has become a parody of itself. The picture above with the subtitle about “casual evening wear” shows how wide the chasm has become!

Up until the early '90s, you would have been correct as, back then, men's fashion was still dominated by the suit-tie-collared-shirt construct as it came together in the '30s (maybe '20s). So, it had a heck of a seventy-year run. And, to be sure, it's still part of the game today, but (get ready for it) fading fast.

And its fall seems to be speeding up. In the last several contemporary TV shows and movies I've watched, I've noticed that the good guys either don't wear suits or wear modern-cut ones without ties; whereas, the bad corporate guys (are there any other in Hollywood's view) wear looser fitting grey or navy suits with ties.

Thank you, gentlemen, for these interesting and enjoyable observations. I had to look up the Fitzgerald/Hemingway quote concerning the rich, because I had heard or read several different accounts as to it's origin. Evidently it is a direct quote from Hemingway's short story The Snows of Kilimanjaro in which the first person narrator of the story attributes the remark to Fitzgerald, and the rejoinder to himself. So it might well have been a report of an identical or similar exchange between Fitzgerald and Hemingway, as the rich was a theme that seemingly obsessed Fitzgerald.

I've known several truly rich, though far more poor.l (Hobo's anyone!? ) And while any generalization is always deadly, my observation is that one of its two classes is more typically populated by fairly kind, pleasant, public spirited, unpretentious men and women, not uncommonly quite generous, and often characterized by a near total disinterest in Money. This is the Old Money. Usually by the second generation, and almost always by the third, the characteristics I've described have become common. What striving there is, is more likely to be for distinction in a particular field, or public service.

New Money is an entirely different creature: Here we find The Master's of the Universe, the corporate pirates, the Bernie Madoff's and the insatiable politicians. While often portrayed as a laudable American paradigm, my concerns about their collective behavior extend far beyond whether they wear suits.

 

[Flanderian]

These are Esquire's illustrations for December 1935. Beginning with this issue, December issues were virtually devoid of fashion plates, and are replaced by a few sparse pages of items available for sale. And as we progress, their true nature as essentially advertising becomes evident. But they are what they are.

 

[Fading Fast]

Thank you, gentlemen, for these interesting and enjoyable observations. I had to look up the Fitzgerald/Hemingway quote concerning the rich, because I had heard or read several different accounts as to it's origin. Evidently it is a direct quote from Hemingway's short story The Snows of Kilimanjaro in which the first person narrator of the story attributes the remark to Fitzgerald, and the rejoinder to himself. So it might well have been a report of an identical or similar exchange between Fitzgerald and Hemingway, as the rich was a theme that seemingly obsessed Fitzgerald.

I've known several truly rich, though far more poor.l (Hobo's anyone!? ) And while any generalization is always deadly, my observation is that one of the two classes is more typically populated by fairly kind, pleasant, public spirited, unpretentious men and women, not uncommonly quite generous, and often characterized by a near total disinterest in Money. This is the Old Money. Usually by the second generation, and almost always by the third, the characteristics I've described have become common. What striving there is, is more likely to be for distinction in a particular field, or public service.

New Money is an entirely different creature: Here we find The Master's of the Universe, the corporate pirates, the Bernie Madoff's and the insatiable politicians. While often portrayed as a laudable American paradigm, my concerns about their collective behavior extend far beyond whether they wear suits.

⇧ Good stuff. I ran trading, strategy and investment teams for several private banks over the years and met many ridiculously wealthy people. For perspective, I also grew up in pretty modest surrounding and also built investment platforms for the (political term used, not mine) underserved where I went into the communities to meet with the people we were trying to help. The goal was to get them to start saving even a few dollars a paycheck or $50-$100 a year as these were people of very limited means.

This could quickly get political and contentious which is against the policy of FL, but I think it is fair to say that my experience has taught me that simple categorizations or generalizations of either group is way off the mark. It's why I cringe when I hear "the rich" or "the poor" used by a politician. That's it, trying not to cross any lines.

As the the Fitz/Hem quote, I think you a correct as this https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:F._Scott_Fitzgerald is pretty much the story I remember reading over the years about that famous "exchange."

 

[Flanderian]

As to the issue of current modes of dress, I've observed the following: the general trend of fashion over hundreds of years has progressed from the more, to the less elaborate. But viewing it solely from a current perspective is likely misleading as this progression has been anything but linear. Rather, it has been characterized by periods of change, then retrenchment, in roughly 20 year cycles; the more extreme the liberalization, the more extensive the restoration. Let's not forget that the '70's era of tie-dyed shirts and bell bottom jeans was followed by the mid '80's with a return to traditional forms with the business suit including, braces/suspenders, and all the other kit again becoming the style paradigm.

The suit is not the only aspect of a more traditional aesthetic. And it's now more than 100 years old, so change is inevitable, though the exact nature of the change most certainly can't be learned from present fashion. As a generality, men tend to hold onto some form of the aesthetic of their youth for their entire lives. My grandfather was born during the Grant administration and insisted until his demise on the eve of Pearl Harbor that any many who didn't wear high buttoned shoes, "Wasn't a real man."

As to my own preferences;p my suits now sit idle, though were I still in business I'd darn sure find a good excuse to wear them, and do so with both pleasure and a lack of concern. Sport jackets are still in play, and I love wearing them I continue to take pleasure whenever the mood or opportunity is offered. I was tutored in my early sartorial journey by the venerable U.S. men's retailer, Paul Stuart. (Sadly what it was, not what it has become.) Examples of some ensembles I'd happily still emulate.

 

[Flanderian]

These are the illustrations for Esquire, January 1936.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Then as now: it helps if you are quite slim!

BTW, I just visited the website of the current incarnation of Esquire Magazine. Oddly enough, I don’t think I have ever visited it before. Doesn’t seem too bad. After a ten minute look, my main comment would probably be that it is hard to tell the difference between genuine style advice on the one hand, and them just trying to sell stuff on the other. (Same as it ever was, eh?) The one article I read was littered with “buy it now” buttons, which made me wary. Other than that, the magazine seemed o.k., but not wow. I guess I’ll add it to the list of periodicals that I scan regularly, and see if it passes the test of time.

Who owns it now? Does it have any link to its golden era, other than its venerable name? And that it is generally a men’s magazine?