A motivational poster from the 1920s. By modern standards, nearly any city worker would "look the part", even if they didn't in the 1920s. Experts on occupations maintain this advice is still correct today.
We've had several threads on this topic, but it might be interesting to just look at it as a general topic. If a person was to transport themselves back to a city, in the year
2014, one of the first things they'd probably notice is that they were under-dressed. The standards of dress in 1914, and for that matter 1924,
1934, 1944, 1954, and 1965, were much higher. It wasn't until the mid
1960s that this really began to change. What's up with that?
Exceptionally well dressed, pre World War One, New York Lawyer. This fellow, who is wearing bespoke everything, isn't dressed in a fashion that greatly departs from the standard for his occupation and era, but it is clear that everything he is wearing is exceptionally well made. Woman behind him is dressed as per standards of the era.
Clearly, earlier eras were a much formal time. It's interesting, in that context, to note that the society was, at the same time, much more rural. A fairly substantial number of people in the early 20th Century, for example, were either right off the farm, or only one generations removed.
Newspaper vendor, circa 1920s. This photo is a bit unusual as the vendor is an adult, at at time at which this occupation was typically occupied by rough and tumble children. He's turned out in suit and tie, and the suit is correctly buttoned leaving the bottom button unbuttoned, a sign that he knows the standard for wearing it (the bottom button on a man's suit is never supposed to be buttoned).
Formal wear extended to nearly every town occupation. It was simply expected. Occupations that we would be surprised to find wearing suit and tie today, did then. Storekeepers, office workers, nearly everyone with a town job, dressed up by today's standards.
George M. Cohan, playwright and composer, dressed to the business standard of today. Now, a person of his vocation would be just as likely dressed to shock.
Dressing to shock simply didn't occur, until the 1920s. At that time it started to come in with youth of that period, who began to wear some eccentric clothing, some of which was regarded as fairly scandalous at the time. Flappers wore short skirts, by 1920s standards, and men and women of that age adopted the raccoon coat as sort of symbol of rebellion.
Mary LaFollette, age 25. I don't know if the daughter of "Battling Bob LaFollette", the "Wisconsin Bolshevik" was a flapper, but this raccoon coat is truly remarkable.
Youthful rebellion continued on in clothing styles into the late 1930s and early 1940s, with the Zoot Suit, a style that came out of California and spread to other urban areas of the nation. Paradoxically, by modern standards, the Zoot Suit was, in fact, a suit. It was more suit, if you will, that other suits, being longer and baggier. So, in that earlier era, even youth aiming to shock didn't dress down, they dressed up.
Dancing Zoot Suiters. Apparently the photographer was so fascinated he forgot to include the heads of the dancers in the photograph.
Inklings of change in standards crept in by the 1950s, but it wasn't really until the social rebelling of the 1960s that things really changed. The average high school student of the 1940s and 1950s probably had at least one nice set of clothing. A young man probably at least owned a tie, and many probably owned suits. By the time I went to high school in the 1970s, I didn't know how to tie a tie, and as noted, I didn't own a suit until I was in my last year of undergraduate studies at the University of Wyoming.
Men supervising irrigation project, 1914. The men from the office are, here, all turned out is suit and tie, something that would be unlikely to see today.
Up until some point in the 1960s, most people dressed on a daily basis in a fashion that would be regarded as fairly formal today, but now mostly simply do not. Most storekeepers, unless in a type of market, or selling a very upscale product, will not dress so formally on a daily basis. Most office employees aren't so formally attired either. Even in law offices, which people imagine to be a white collared world, on an average day many lawyers aren't dressed up. This is even true in some of the old style "white shoe" firms of the East, I'm told.
Firefighting class. Probably around World War Two. Everyone in this class has a tie on, and a couple are wearing very nice suits.
So why the formality?
I truthfully can't say, but it's very evident. And not only is it evident, but it was universal, from the old to the young. Indeed, in any one era, contrary tot he movie depictions we see, dress varied very little by age. Young men in their mid teens can be found wearing the exact same style of suit and cut of shirt as men in their 80s.
One of the reasons might be that people simply had fewer changes of clothes and so less room for experimentation. We tend not to appreciate it now, but in prior eras people had changes of clothes, to be sure, but not nearly as many.
Washing clothes was also difficult up until the washing machine was perfected, which really wasn't until the mid 20th Century. Because of that, clothes tended to be wool, which is wears long if kept well. Once washing machines came in, cotton pushed out wool everywhere, as it's really easy to machine wash.
Heating conditions in early 20th Century and late 19th Century buildings are sometimes cited as a reason, as the heating plants of those buildings simply wasn't that efficient, and therefore during the winter, they were cold. Conversely, however, during the summer they were hot, and people were still pretty dressed up, so that seems to be at least a questionable claim.
Another reason may actually be because this was a more rural society, and this was true not only in the US, but everywhere in the Western world. People moving from farms to cities may have wished to somewhat disguise that fact by means of their dress. Likewise, people who had blue collar jobs may not have wished to appear to be social inferiors to those with white collar jobs, in a society that was then somewhat more class conscious. Indeed, just recently in our local paper a fellow was spotlighted who attends all of the local NCHS basketball games very well dressed, and upon being interviewed it was revealed that he'd worked in labor in Detroit, where he "was dirty all week" so he dressed up on the weekends. A photograph of him did show a very well dressed man, something that would be unusual in that setting here.
Finally, it seems there was just something in the 1960s that broke the back of the old formality. That may be good or bad, or both, but it seems to have occurred.
Is this good or bad, or is it just something that "is"? Well, I'd probably be a hypocrite if I commented very much. I don't dress and suit and tie everyday, or even most days. And some days I go into the office in pretty informal attire. Nonetheless, some aspect of this is bad. For one thing, it disrupts the "uniform" of certain occupations. Every occupation has a mental image associated with it, and when people don't match it, it can disrupt things about that, oddly enough. And Americans have become perhaps the sloppiest attired people on earth. Not only do a lot of people not recognize any distinctions in clothing, they have no self respect as to what they wear. When people start showing up at markets in the jammies, something has gone amiss.
Related Threads:
Clerical Standards of Dress.
Postscript
I guess as an illustration of this trend, the last couple of weeks there's been a orthopedic surgeon with an advertisement in the newspaper showing him dressed in a canvas work type shirt and jeans.
He's not dressed sloppily, or any such thing, just extremely informally. Almost like what I'd expect of geologist spending a day in the office, given that it's basically an outdoor profession. This sort of change in standards is quite pronounced, as even as recently as the 80s or 90s, we'd expect to see a doctor dressed in whites or with a dress shirt and tie.
Postscript II
The other day I went up to the mall (a dreaded experience for me) to try to buy a shirt. While there I noticed all the nice khakis at Penny's and realized that I'd recently retired a couple of pairs and that my remaining pairs are getting a bit tired. So I bought two pairs.
Actually, I bought chinos, as opposed to "khakis", as that describes the sort of semi dress trousers that I bought. "Khaki" is actually a color, although the phrase routinely is used to depict a style.
I don't know exactly when cotton khaki trousers came to be business wear, but they are. In some areas of the country they're casual business wear, and in others they're actual business wear. I wear chinos, which are the type of trouser you normally think of in this category, a fair amount as they're generally dressy enough for work most days, and they're easy to wash, not being wool. But they are an aspect of the trend discussed above.
Chinos were originally a type of trouser issued to soldiers for summer wear. Up to World War Two, and even up into it, the U.S. Army issued a cotton khaki colored uniform for field and garrison use.
I truthfully can't say, but it's very evident. And not only is it evident, but it was universal, from the old to the young. Indeed, in any one era, contrary tot he movie depictions we see, dress varied very little by age. Young men in their mid teens can be found wearing the exact same style of suit and cut of shirt as men in their 80s.
One of the reasons might be that people simply had fewer changes of clothes and so less room for experimentation. We tend not to appreciate it now, but in prior eras people had changes of clothes, to be sure, but not nearly as many.
Washing clothes was also difficult up until the washing machine was perfected, which really wasn't until the mid 20th Century. Because of that, clothes tended to be wool, which is wears long if kept well. Once washing machines came in, cotton pushed out wool everywhere, as it's really easy to machine wash.
Heating conditions in early 20th Century and late 19th Century buildings are sometimes cited as a reason, as the heating plants of those buildings simply wasn't that efficient, and therefore during the winter, they were cold. Conversely, however, during the summer they were hot, and people were still pretty dressed up, so that seems to be at least a questionable claim.
Another reason may actually be because this was a more rural society, and this was true not only in the US, but everywhere in the Western world. People moving from farms to cities may have wished to somewhat disguise that fact by means of their dress. Likewise, people who had blue collar jobs may not have wished to appear to be social inferiors to those with white collar jobs, in a society that was then somewhat more class conscious. Indeed, just recently in our local paper a fellow was spotlighted who attends all of the local NCHS basketball games very well dressed, and upon being interviewed it was revealed that he'd worked in labor in Detroit, where he "was dirty all week" so he dressed up on the weekends. A photograph of him did show a very well dressed man, something that would be unusual in that setting here.
Wisconsin farmer on a Saturday night, 1940s. Note that while he's pretty stripped down at the time of the photo being taken, he had been wearing a three piece suit.
Finally, it seems there was just something in the 1960s that broke the back of the old formality. That may be good or bad, or both, but it seems to have occurred.
Is this good or bad, or is it just something that "is"? Well, I'd probably be a hypocrite if I commented very much. I don't dress and suit and tie everyday, or even most days. And some days I go into the office in pretty informal attire. Nonetheless, some aspect of this is bad. For one thing, it disrupts the "uniform" of certain occupations. Every occupation has a mental image associated with it, and when people don't match it, it can disrupt things about that, oddly enough. And Americans have become perhaps the sloppiest attired people on earth. Not only do a lot of people not recognize any distinctions in clothing, they have no self respect as to what they wear. When people start showing up at markets in the jammies, something has gone amiss.
Related Threads:
Clerical Standards of Dress.
Postscript
I guess as an illustration of this trend, the last couple of weeks there's been a orthopedic surgeon with an advertisement in the newspaper showing him dressed in a canvas work type shirt and jeans.
He's not dressed sloppily, or any such thing, just extremely informally. Almost like what I'd expect of geologist spending a day in the office, given that it's basically an outdoor profession. This sort of change in standards is quite pronounced, as even as recently as the 80s or 90s, we'd expect to see a doctor dressed in whites or with a dress shirt and tie.
Postscript II
The other day I went up to the mall (a dreaded experience for me) to try to buy a shirt. While there I noticed all the nice khakis at Penny's and realized that I'd recently retired a couple of pairs and that my remaining pairs are getting a bit tired. So I bought two pairs.
Actually, I bought chinos, as opposed to "khakis", as that describes the sort of semi dress trousers that I bought. "Khaki" is actually a color, although the phrase routinely is used to depict a style.
I don't know exactly when cotton khaki trousers came to be business wear, but they are. In some areas of the country they're casual business wear, and in others they're actual business wear. I wear chinos, which are the type of trouser you normally think of in this category, a fair amount as they're generally dressy enough for work most days, and they're easy to wash, not being wool. But they are an aspect of the trend discussed above.
Chinos were originally a type of trouser issued to soldiers for summer wear. Up to World War Two, and even up into it, the U.S. Army issued a cotton khaki colored uniform for field and garrison use.
Summer field uniform, just prior to World War Two, and early in World War Two, featuring cotton khaki colored shirt and trousers.
Relatively early in the war, field uniforms advanced and the Army quit using khakis for field wear, having gone to various "olive" colored uniforms for that instead. But the cotton khaki uniform kept on keeping on as a semi dress item.
U.S. Army physicians, World War Two, wearing summer khaki garrison uniform.
As a result of this, a lot of khaki chinos were made in World War Two, and the recently discharged servicemen took them into the clothing short post war world, where they became pretty standard wear for a lot of men. As they were not jeans, they passed muster in those places where you couldn't wear jeans, which was a lot of places, and became semi dress trousers.
Textile worker carrying a load of Army chinos during World War Two.
So a sort of field uniform that could be worn in garrison, evolved into a sort of work sort of casual item for men who worked in offices, which is wear they are today.
They're quite common now, although I may wear them more than some others in my line of work I know. And its interesting to see how you can get ones that vary from really cheap in price to very expensive in price. A company called "Bill's Khakis" specializes in making chinos that match the original GI ones, but at a much more expensive price, which I guess shows how things have gone in the U.S. Still, they don't have universal approval. One judge I'm aware of has a local rule prohibiting the wearing of khaki trousers in court and doesn't even like to see them being worn in the courthouse.
No comments:
Post a Comment