Showing Support

[dnjan]

I read in a different thread that by sometime in the 20's-30's it became acceptable for a gentleman to show his shirtsleeves in public (not have them covered by a jacket).

But one's suspenders were still generally covered by a waistcoat, at least in public.

My question, then, is when did it become acceptable for a gentleman to be seen in public with his suspenders (U.S. interpretation of suspenders) not covered?

thanks,

 

[AntonAAK]

Never.

 

[St. Valentine]

I don´t know when that happened but it surely must have been at the time when in fashion "anything goes" was widely accepted. Within the white collar work force showing your suspenders is reserved to the upper echelons, say a CEO or the like. At least this seems to be usual in the USA.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

A worker in the 30s wouldn't read Apparel Arts and worry if it is "acceptable". If the jacket would be in the way...off it goes. So it is also about class and stuff. But is it important for you? There are enough people who buy overpriced "workwear" and never work in them. They are certainly not "lower class" if they can afford more than 200 bucks on a repro jeans. There are also many swing dancers wearing braces to get a "vintage" look to their outfit. They just get to hot in a jacket and don't care for it.
I don't think it is bad...it is just your choice what you want to represent and to which circles you belong.

 

[Shangas]

I believe the person who made the assertion about which this thread was started...was...me.

I said that because in the 20s and 30s, views (and construction) of a shirt were changing significantly.

In Victorian times, it was considered very bad form to be seen in your shirt. Your shirt, even your best shirt, was seen as underwear. Walking down the street with your shirt showing was like walking down the street wearing boxer-shorts today. And ONLY boxer-shorts. It just WASN'T DONE. If you were in that situation, it was usually because you were a labourer doing heavy, heavy work (think navvies digging out the canals or something).

One of the reasons for this was because the shirt was washed pretty infrequently. You gotta remember that back then, you did every single stage of the wash by hand.

Boiling, soaking, soaping, washing, beating, washing, soaking, rinsing, soaking, rinsing, beating, rinsing, mangling, drying, starching, ironing...It was a process that literally could take days. Because of this, clothes were not washed until it was ABSOLUTELY necessary to do so, since once it was in the wash, it could be up to a week (or more!) until you'd be able to wash it again. Not like today where you can chuck it in the washing-machine, chuck it in the dryer, iron it, and wear it again tomorrow afternoon.

Because of this, shirts got very dirty (a lot of physical activity back then, walking and running everywhere). So for this reason, obviously, showing off your shirt was not permissible. It's like showing off your sweaty underpants.

To deal with this, shirts came with detachable cuffs and collars, of which some members on this forum are probably familiar with (I'm fairly sure there are even a couple of chaps here which wear them!). Cuffs and collars were changed on a regular basis. Every day, every second day, once a week...whenever necessary.

But in the 20s, shirts started being made with attached collars and cuffs. Around the same time, 1st generation electric washing-machines started coming on the market. Suddenly it was easier and faster to wash clothes. As the stigma around the shirt slowly began to fade away, people felt less...self-conscious, about wearing their sleeves in public. The shirtfront and back were still generally covered up. But his was partialy because people would wear a waistcoat for added warmth in winter (central heating not always being available/reliable).

I suspect that the whole 'braces, shirt and trousers" thing started in the 1950s. Rationing during the War really killed off the 3-piece-suit. The extra fabric needed to make waistcoats just couldn't be found. As fashions changed, so did how the shirt was worn. This last bit is just a theory, but it's what I think, anyway. It became acceptable because it was what people had to put up with/what fashion/necessity had led to.

 

[dnjan]

Yes, I fess up. I was too lazy to go back and reference the thread with the comment about shirts being shown in the 20's-30's.

Back to the current topic, Do you think it was a an aftermath of rationing all over, or just in your neck of the woods?

thanks!

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

If you are asking "for a gentleman" does this imply middle or upper class and older than 21? Also the situation would be "in public" maybe even "in town"?

If so ...I think AntonAAK is right.


But rockabilly teenagers fooling around in suburbs or a worker on the docks would be something completely different. There is another thread about dressing for the occassion. I think this is more important.

 

[dnjan]

I rarely dress "for occasion". (I'm old enough that I don't need to )
My question was more related to deciding if my own perceptions needed to be moderated/revised as well a to get a feeling for how I would be percieved by other gentlemen of different eras were I to "go about" without a jacket or a waistcoat.

 

[St. Valentine]

@Shangas: Very good read! One has to remind themselfs that the times when you only had one or two shirts are not that long gone! I find it particular interesting what the function, technical or historical background of a certain piece of garment or accessory was. People tend to forget that there was nearly always a functional reason behind every button, flap or material.

 

[BR Gordon]

Shangas, I believe that your analysis is pretty spot on. Necessity usually determines fashion. In the mid sixties I lived in a rural part of South America. We didn't have running water or electricity. Almost all of the men in my village wore a coat or at the least a sweater, even to do manual labor. As the laundry was all done by hand, including carrying the water, clothes were worn for much longer periods of time before laundering. Individuals still had pride in their appearance but the exceptions were different than what they are currently.

 

[YETI]

My question, then, is when did it become acceptable for a gentleman to be seen in public with his suspenders (U.S. interpretation of suspenders) not covered?

thanks,

When Mork and Mindy first aired on TV.

 

[dnjan]

Of course another advantage of keeping suspenders covered tis that nobody has to see those ugly metal clip-ons.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Don't forget the new popularity for belts since the 30s (?). The trousers changed the same time. Less fishtail-backs and a greater variety of belt loops.

So when people went out without their jacket there still would not have been suspenders/braces. Look at the summer issues of Apparel Arts. You see sport shirts worn without a suit jacket but no suspenders.

 

[Shangas]

BR Gordon, Valentine, you're both very welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Along the issue of not showing off your shirt, was the issue of what you wore OVER your shirt. There was this saying, it went: "No Brown in Town". It meant that all your nice tweeds, browns, light greys, linens etc, you kept for countryside/beachside/quiet village wear. In town, you wore dark blue, black, and dark grey. This was so that stuff like soot, ash, dust and other...products of city living...weren't so obvious if they should end up on your clothes.

Belts started in the 1910s. It was a holdover from military uniforms worn during the Great War. For a while, belts and suspenders held up your trousers, side by side, but eventually belts won out, as the world became more casual.