Fascinating Historical Lapels

[Sator]

Today, we have three types of lapels in common use on coats (though there are also minor variations on these as well) - the notch lapel, the peak lapel and the shawl collar.

It appears that this is a state of affairs which has largely reigned since the late 19th century. However, a study of men's coats prior to that reveals a spectacular variety of now extinct lapel types. Even within the same type of lapel the variation was enormous and render deviations from the norm, such as fish mouth notch lapels on modern coats, seems quite trivial.

Rather than go through the history of lapels in some sort of chronological order, in a way which would fascinate only dress historians, I thought I would share pictures of some of the more elegant lapels which history has forgotten.

Here is an example of how even a seemingly familiar type of lapel - a notch lapel - looks quite unfamiliar. Notice how on this frock coat from the 1820s how the angle of the notch is turned downwards. This is a characteristic of many lapels in this era. Even peaked lapels exhibit this feature.



Other features include the wider lapels with rounded ends and the functional button holes running down the lapels. The moon shaped breast pocket is also striking.

Here is another example of an early 19th century coat with the angle of the lapel notch pointed downwards. This time it is an M notch lapel on a 'pink' hunting dress coat:



Here is a famous picture of Beau Brummell in his dark blue dress coat with gilt buttons - and M notch lapels:



Here is a portrait by Ingres of Marcotte d'Argenteuil, painted in 1810. The coat has M notch lapels with a quite marked downward angle of the M's:



Although the M pointed downwards for most its history, in its last appearance in the 1870s (by then relegated exclusively to evening dress) the notch was pointed more horizontally to upwards, as on modern peak lapels:



The M notch vanishes after the 1870s never to be seen again. From then the tendency to relentless uniformity predominates.

Early 19th century coats sport some even more strikingly original lapel types which unlike the M notch, fail to survive the mid-century. Here is the square notch lapel:



Here it is again in a coat dating from the 1820s:



I cannot say I am particularly enamoured of the baggy 'cossack trowsers' then fashionable, but the coat with the strong V shaped formed by the buttons is quite striking.

Next, is my favourite amongst lapel types - the lark's tongue or thrush's tongue lapel. Here is a close up of a dress coat:



The overall effect is more like this:



Here is another coat with a more subtle thrush tongue lapel:



This coat, in a portrait by Ingres of Lord Grantham, shows another variation of the same lapel type:



This style of lapel suited the fashion for a strikingly high collar in around the 1820s.

Lastly, although not merely a type of lapel as a whole style of dress coat, the 1830s-40s enjoyed a fashion driven by the extravagant Count D'Orsay (the then reigning Arbitur Elegantiarum) towards a type of coat with the front of the coat swept open to reveal as much of the waistcoat as possible. Here is a famous picture of D'Orsay himself:



Here is an example of a fashion plate showing one coat swept open at the front - very much à la D'Orsay:



Waistcoats in the mid-19th century were often an extravagant affair of embroidered silks and velvets. They never caught on in America so that when Charles Dickens showed there up sporting this sort of waistcoat à la D'Orsay, they were horrified.

I hope you enjoyed the little historical tour.

[luk-cha]

great post sator - it is interesting to see all these different kinds of lapels i have also seen a shawl collar lapel on a 3 button coat too in a costume museum, where as todat we'd only assoc it with a DJ

[WA]

great post sator - it is interesting to see all these different kinds of lapels i have also seen a shawl collar lapel on a 3 button coat too in a costume museum, where as todat we'd only assoc it with a DJ

I've seen shawl lapels on regular coats before. Not often, but these were maybe 40 years or more ago.

Thanks for the pictures Sator.

[Brideshead]

To what do you attribute 'the tendency to relentless uniformity'. Why are we here (on Ask Andy) and in our lives generally so concerned about conforming? The Rules rule!

Do you foresee any change in this trend any time soon?

[Orgetorix]

Where one sees a "tendency to relentless uniformity," another might see, positively, an increased opportunity for achieving elegance through subtlety. When there's so much going on with menswear, the differences between the examples of thrush's tongue lapels above don't amount to much. When lapels have become restricted to just notches or peaks, the way those styles are brought off becomes much more important. Elegance becomes more difficult and perhaps more subjective, but I think it's fascinating the way that tiny changes in the shape and angle of a peak can entirely change the character of a garment.

[yachtie]

This still survives as a "Parisian lapel"


Like this from Mr. Guyot:



there even seems to be a little "M" there- probably due to the piping rather than by design. IMO some of the more modest lapels shown could work today- for risktakers.

[Holdfast]

Interesting thread. I quite like some of those lapels, but the lark tongue seems overly fussy to me.

[Sator]

To what do you attribute 'the tendency to relentless uniformity'. Why are we here (on Ask Andy) and in our lives generally so concerned about conforming? The Rules rule!

Do you foresee any change in this trend any time soon?

I did say "uniformity" rather than "conformity". The difference may be subtle but it does exist. This uniformity we have inherited seems to be a product of late Victorian conservatism. I do suspect that there was a pecking order of formality amongst lapels back in the early 19th C as well, but the main thing was the sheer variety of options available. Nonetheless, it was a variety within which rules still existed. For example, M notches seem to be more formal and so end up being relegated to evening full dress only after a while.

Alas, I cannot foresee the trend improving as skilled tailors become rarer, and mass production only encourages even greater uniformity. Gone are the days when tailors showed off their skill and imagination, to lead the way with the latest fashions. The sort of features which give 19th century tailoring such variety involve a huge amount of advanced tailoring skill and effort. Notice for example how much more work - handwork of course - there is on this coat:



See how the outer part of the lapel is cut separately (there is a tell tale seam running parallel to the outer edge of the lapels). There are also a row of handmade button holes running down the lapel edge.

[Sator]

This still survives as a "Parisian lapel"

Like this from Mr. Guyot:



there even seems to be a little "M" there- probably due to the piping rather than by design.

It was actually the thread showing some of Monsieur Guyot's lapels which inspired me to write this thread. Still, there isn't that marked downward slant to the lapels of the early 19th C. I am unsure if I really like the way lapels angle downwards at the time (more a /\ than the Guyot L). I think it looks rather droopy and sad.

I have sometimes thought that if ever I have my tailor make me a dress suit a subtle M notch lapel on a more upward to horizontal slant might be elegant. It is a style which has not been seen since the 1870s. Although some might regard it as being a faux pas to deviate from modern norms in full dress, I see it as a good thing when rooted in tradition, as any garment forced to freeze in its development over time is doomed to extinction.

[Sator]

I've seen shawl lapels on regular coats before. Not often, but these were maybe 40 years or more ago.

Yes, shawl lapels were once seen on a much greater variety of coats than one sees today.

This is an Edwardian dress coat with shawl lapels:



This is a Parisian fashion plate from 1836:



Notice also how the peak lapels on the coat worn by the man on the right have a downward slant.

Here is a photo by Paul Nader of the Prince of Sagan taken in 1883:



I have seen examples of morning coats with shawl lapels in fashion plates. Here is a frock coat from 1828:



Here is a pelisse from 1823:

[yachtie]

It was actually the thread showing some of Monsieur Guyot's lapels which inspired me to write this thread. Still, there isn't that marked downward slant to the lapels of the early 19th C. I am unsure if I really like the way lapels angle downwards at the time (more a /\ than the Guyot L). I think it looks rather droopy and sad.

I have sometimes thought that if ever I have my tailor make me a dress suit a subtle M notch lapel on a more upward to horizontal slant might be elegant. It is a style which has not been seen since the 1870s. Although some might regard it as being a faux pas to deviate from modern norms in full dress, I see it as a good thing when rooted in tradition, as any garment forced to freeze in its development over time is doomed to extinction.

I agree, the older lapel looks rather droopy. I'd think that a small M in the corner of the notch would 'fly' better today than the "lark's wing" (pun intended). Once one gets away from a straight gorge seam, the possibilites of alternate lapel geometries really opens up- a batwing peak being one end of the spectrum and the typical droopy notch being the other. Once innovation stops, and the kind of folks on these boards are, for the most part, the only ones interested enough in clothes to experiment with such innovations, we run the risk of being swept away in a tide of jeans and t-shirts.

[Andy]

Sator:

Great research and post! Thanks!

Really interesting history you've uncovered.

[AlanC]

This still survives as a "Parisian lapel"

Isn't that fairly similar to an 'Ulster' collar?

[DocHolliday]

Really enjoying this thread, Sator. I particularly like seeing the juxtaposition of historical drawings/plates with photographs.

[fauxpaspa]

I did say "uniformity" rather than "conformity". The difference may be subtle but it does exist. This uniformity we have inherited seems to be a product of late Victorian conservatism.

i think the uniformity had more to do with the industrial and scientific revolution than changing victorian mores. the former caused the money and power center to shift from the land-based aristocracy class who were primarily situated on rural estates to the newly minted mercantile class who were based in the financial capital of london, a city. the comparative isolation of the estates and different rural regions, and the irregular contacts bewteen its denizens would have enabled the great variety of styles that you show to flourish. it's no accident these often ornate designs are inspired by nature since they were worn by the landed aristocracy. the fancy neckwear, in particular, with its resemblance to the petals of a flower call attention to this.

when the business class began to eclipse the landed gentry, it was only natural that it would adopt a style suited to its own needs and tastes, and reflect its own mercantilistic values. gone went the ornate designs since a businessman must project a serious image. gone went the fancy neckwear since there were no such flora in english cities to recall. gone went the obvious rural elements like the close-fitting britches and long coat tails which were designed for riding a horse.

the fact that this new class lived in close proximity to each other and had regular contact - they lived in cities - only encouraged the process of creating uniform dress codes - and discarding outdated and quaint local fashions.

in other words, the ir had the effect that the information rev is now having on traditional cultures worldwide: it is killing and replacing traditional ways of life, including the great varieties of local dress found in what used to be relatively isolated cultures.

the darwinian revolution cast a similar fatal blow to the romantic zeitgeist of the age. people who believe that man has a special place in nature may very well try to imitate nature. but once one realizes that man is just another animal, a product of evolution like the slug or mole, then it seems rather ridiculous to dress him up as some paragon of unnatural beauty and virtue.

Alas, I cannot foresee the trend improving as skilled tailors become rarer, and mass production only encourages even greater uniformity. Gone are the days when tailors showed off their skill and imagination, to lead the way with the latest fashions. The sort of features which give 19th century tailoring such variety involve a huge amount of advanced tailoring skill and effort.

even if such skilled tailors existed, the zeitgeist of our post-modernist times would forbid them from creating such attire since no-one (save for a few on this board!) would want to wear them. that's why there has been so little change in mens fashion in the last 80 or so yrs.

maybe if science finds proof that god exists and humankind undergoes a total transformation will we see a dramatic change in fashion. i'm not holding my breath on this one.

[Sator]

Isn't that fairly similar to an 'Ulster' collar?

Good point actually. Even today there is more variety seen with overcoat lapels. However, that early frock coat is a coat - rather than an overcoat.

[Bob Loblaw]

I have a similar lapel on my german WW2 era coat:

[fauxpaspa]

I did say "uniformity" rather than "conformity". The difference may be subtle but it does exist.

in this case, conformity produced uniformity. businessmen rubbing shoulders with each other in london produced the expected results: the not-so well-to-do imitated the well-to-do out of both envy and necessity.

we see the same process working today.

[fauxpaspa]

an excerpt from an interesting article about british style

In the USA people dress in what one friend of mine referred to as “expensive conformity”. As a nation we seem to spend a lot of money to fit in and look like we are doing the right thing. We also seem to worry a lot about doing it wrong; comfortable that paying a certain amount makes it all very exclusive.

I think if you ask most Americans if they want to be an individualist or part of the herd, they will tell you almost every time they want to stand out. However, the supposed drive to be individual is belied by everyone heading for the same pre-packaged goods. Everything from clothes, to cars to girls has to look the same. To a certain extent Americans can get away with this, after all we have a country with 5 times the population and 50 times the land mass of Britain. In some ways, the British have no choice but to attempt to stand out because they see each other all the time, whereas the USA is still a place where you will rarely bump into someone and in some remote parts days without seeing another person.

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/...l-white-rabbit