1930's styles are still going strong 70 years later.

Steve

 

1930's styles are still going strong 70 years later.

Steve

Another reason why not to chase the moment. Stay classic and you'll never go wrong. In the end it will cost less too.

 

Like women's styles, men's styles are subject to a cycles; just less often. Stated another way, the life cycle for men's clothes are longer. So, while 30's styles may be popular now, that's only because they've come back around since they began to fade in the post-war period.

If we look back at the styles of the 60's, 70's and 80's, you can see the variance in lapel and widths, the full v.s. narrow pant, pleat v.s. no pleat, slanted v.s. straight cut pockets, and cuffs v.s. no cuff. The number of buttons (2 v.s. 3) also goes in cycles, as does the roll on a three button (whether to the second or third button), and the width of pants cuffs.

I prefer the 30's look myself, primarily because of the drape. Contrast this to the close-to-body neapolitan fit, which is more reminescent of the 60's (do-***) suits (think Temptations and Rat Pack).

In my view men are far more practical and less fickle than women. For example, men are less likely to succumb to the whims of a designer who, like hair stylists, are moved by an artistic "muse" to justify his "mood" or "creation" of the season (and thus stimulate a new revenue stream).

Its the same impulse/distinction that causes women to chase diet fads, one after another, while men just chug along and try to manage their steak and alcohol intake with a meaningful workout regime (or not).

 

If we look back at the styles of the 60's, 70's and 80's, you can see the variance in lapel and widths, the full v.s. narrow pant, pleat v.s. no pleat, slanted v.s. straight cut pockets, and cuffs v.s. no cuff. The number of buttons (2 v.s. 3) also goes in cycles, as does the roll on a three button (whether to the second or third button), and the width of pants cuffs.

I prefer the 30's look myself, primarily because of the drape. Contrast this to the close-to-body neapolitan fit, which is more reminescent of the 60's (do-***) suits (think Temptations and Rat Pack).

I think that there are a variety of classic styles available. The rat pack style is as valid today as yesterday. Perhaps the only difference may be in ties or shirt color but the cut of the suit is still right for the right man. While there are certain fads as to lapel width, pleats vs. none, etc. a classic style has been kept alive for the last 70 years.

 

With men's clothing, "fashion" tends to come into play most often in terms of extremes. As Flusser points out, the template has long been established; it's varying too much from that -- wide lapels, short jackets, low gorge, etc. -- that dates a garment. Hard to go wrong with the classical proportions.

I still wear some of my grandfather's jackets from 60 years ago, and there's little about them to reveal their age.

 

Whether I'm in style I cannot say...but I can tell you that I am wearing suits made for me two decades ago.

 

Another reason why not to chase the moment. Stay classic and you'll never go wrong. In the end it will cost less too.

But, things do change-at some point.

The style of mens clothing from 1930 to now has been fairly stready with a few slight changes over time, more or less meandering from slimmer to fuller and back and such. But, keep in mind, the style did change between what men wore from 1900 and things took a big change from sometime in the 1800's to 1900.

At somepoint there will be a change-for better or worse.

Perhaps we should consider how past change has come about and why.

 

The "classic" style circa 1930-40 did the most to enhance the male physique, with slight variations to suit individual body types. Those principles/rules still apply irrespective of fashion.

Speaking for myself, I am only interested in garments that enhance my appearnace and offer a timeless quality. The philosophic statement " All things return to the mean" applies here. No extremes...never calling undue attention to what one is wearing.

 

But, things do change-at some point.

The style of mens clothing from 1930 to now has been fairly stready with a few slight changes over time, more or less meandering from slimmer to fuller and back and such. But, keep in mind, the style did change between what men wore from 1900 and things took a big change from sometime in the 1800's to 1900.

At somepoint there will be a change-for better or worse.

Perhaps we should consider how past change has come about and why.

Singer's sewing machine most likely had the largest impact on clothing in the 1800's

 

Why why why why why why why why why why do people follow trends in suits rather than always sticking to a middle of the road silhouette that is based on the proportions of the human form instead of the whims of some twit designer? Why?


Your suits are the Bond Fund of your wardrobe portfolio. You don't take risks there, you don't get cute. if you buy a 'latest fashion' suit buy it for one event or season or specific purpose.

Otherwise, invest heavily in 'safe' wardrobe stocks in your suit portfolio. If you want to play with trends then do something trendy with a shirt (sorry Alex) or tie (sorry me). These items are the wardrobe stocks where you can dabble in the occasional risky choice that pays huge dividends in making an outfit stand out as 'current' without risking your longterm sartorial solvency.

WHY WHY WHY WHY....

Ok, sorry, rant at end now.

Meanwhile, analyze your frame, try various 2-3 button jackets that are in proportion (nothing stands out about the cut, balanced) and determine what works well for your body and then get classic suits for your frame.

 

1930's styles are still going strong 70 years later.

The 30's style is timeless.:icon_smile_wink:

 

There was a 'buddy film' with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, the title of which I cannot recall. They had robbed a train and spent a few decades in prison. The film is more sad comment on how society became imprisoned. Burt and Kirk looked better than anyone in fedoras, suits and flashy art ties from the 40s. I want that.

 

...men are less likely to succumb to the whims of a designer who, like hair stylists, are moved by an artistic "muse" to justify his "mood" or "creation" of the season (and thus stimulate a new revenue stream).

Oh bull. Muse, mood and the need to create have nothing to do with it. The need for change from a clothing designer's view is to make people buy. That is why designer have a love hate relationship to menswear-they love the classic styles as much as we do, and they love that mens clothing is structured and the traditions, or they love busting up the structure and traditions for fun (it is much more fun to be distructive than creative, even for a creative)-but they hate that men do not like to change.

Let me put it another way, I read once that the average man changes his hair style upto 3 times in his life time. We are also deathly brand loyal when once we find something that works and get bent out of shape if the formula to some haircare product is "improved". We are stick in the muds by nature.

That said, now and then, things do change. Either we forget and then have to reinvent (usually plagiarizing from another source-another culture or time) or rethink things.

While in a way, mens style has remained the same seemingly for a long time, the cycles of fashion (width and fullness, etc.) have sped up due to the need for makers to sell things to stay in opperation, the sped at which they can make things, and the nature of improvements in communication and travel (designers all over the world can read the same press on the same day, they can fly to shows in Milan or NY, etc. this did not happen before the industrial revolution).

So, there is less change in mens clothing, but yet more change in mens clothing than ever before.

 

Meanwhile, analyze your frame, try various 2-3 button jackets that are in proportion (nothing stands out about the cut, balanced) and determine what works well for your body and then get classic suits for your frame.

(Bold-face mine) All good points, Chuck, and your portfolio analogy is, I think, a really good one. Can you elaborate a little on what you mean by a "classic" suit? For example, should we look for one that has a sort of average lapel width, button stance, gorge height, etc., etc.? What defines "classic" here?

 

There was a 'buddy film' with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, the title of which I cannot recall. They had robbed a train and spent a few decades in prison. The film is more sad comment on how society became imprisoned. Burt and Kirk looked better than anyone in fedoras, suits and flashy art ties from the 40s. I want that.

TOUGH GUYS

 

Timeless? I'm not so sure.

I know that a lot of people in this forum consider 1930's clothes to be the ultimate in elegance, style, what have you. Still, it's hard to say that they're timeless. I suspect that if you wore a 1930's suit to almost any gathering of relatively well-dressed people--people who take care with their dress, know how to choose and wear flattering clothes, and have cnosen good quality clothes--you would still stick out. Maybe some people would think you look better than the crowd, maybe not, but people probably wouldn't think your suit was purchased this year.

Wasn't that the point of that Kirk Douglas movie--they did stick out because of their old clothes.

I also suspect that most men--again, well-dressed men-- wouldn't consider buying clothes made precisely in the style of most of the recent decades. If not the 30's, then let's say the 50's or 60's; you don't see a lot of those really narrow lapels and ties around these days, now do you?

That's my suspicion, anyway.

 

I know that a lot of people in this forum consider 1930's clothes to be the ultimate in elegance, style, what have you. Still, it's hard to say that they're timeless. I suspect that if you wore a 1930's suit to almost any gathering of relatively well-dressed people--people who take care with their dress, know how to choose and wear flattering clothes, and have cnosen good quality clothes--you would still stick out. Maybe some people would think you look better than the crowd, maybe not, but people probably wouldn't think your suit was purchased this year.

I agree. Although it's fine to see that 1930s as the decade in which great style was established, I don't think most forumers would feel comfortable today in a suit actually made in the 1930s. So, just what is it about the 1930s esthetic that is "classic" and worth capturing in today's offerings?

 

(Bold-face mine) All good points, Chuck, and your portfolio analogy is, I think, a really good one. Can you elaborate a little on what you mean by a "classic" suit? For example, should we look for one that has a sort of average lapel width, button stance, gorge height, etc., etc.? What defines "classic" here?

Read Flusser's books. And Manton's, of course.

 

then let's say the 50's or 60's; you don't see a lot of those really narrow lapels and ties around these days, now do you?

Yes, you do. Tom Browne, Boateng, BB new Firzgerald line, etc.

Will those look dated in a few years? Well Tom Browne more than likely will-but the others play off clothing from the late 50's and early 60's, a looks that I think never really went away, but rather was not as popular.

Another example is the Roman style suit, it's been around since the 1950's and yet, it still exists, though it does seem to have evolved a bit (someone, correct this newby if I am wrong, I'm still learning my history).

What does represent a real change rather than a trend is what has happened to Italin suits. In the last few years Italians started putting four buttons on their suit jackets, then a few years later double vents where there were none. If you look on ebay for italian suits, you can start to tell vintage this way (though I do not know when the two change happened you can see button change came first and later the vents). This change, I get the gut feeling is for keeps.

 

I agree. Although it's fine to see that 1930s as the decade in which great style was established, I don't think most forumers would feel comfortable today in a suit actually made in the 1930s. So, just what is it about the 1930s esthetic that is "classic" and worth capturing in today's offerings?

You wouldn't be comfotable in one of these?

More here:

Outside of the rise in the pants perhaps being higher (but they did use braces) and the shoulders and chesting looking a bit exagerated in some of the images, the suits do not look that different than todays.

Anyway, it's 70's polyester and 80's excess in fullness that would scare me way more than anything else.

 

Those would have weighed a ton, but they sure do look good, don't they?

 

Errr.... perhaps the pants have change a bit more than I thought since the 30's:

And man, did they love those pagoda shoulders and all sorts of different jacket back styles.

 

I want to be a tough guy; Rat Pack thin, Lancaster and Douglas confident, Grant elegant. I'm going down to the supermarket with a piece of cardboard " will work for your grandfather's closet."

 

I remember one day we spent with my father in the early 60's while he was going through his closet and using a razor blade to cut the belts off the back of all his pants. They were probably from the early 50's or late 40's.

 

I remember one day we spent with my father in the early 60's while he was going through his closet and using a razor blade to cut the belts off the back of all his pants. They were probably from the early 50's or late 40's.

From the link I posted about Silhouette & Detail above it almost looks like men's trousers have changed more dramatically than the jacket. The pants in that link almost look Victorian (especially with such a high back). Can one of our clothing experts tell if this is common for the period.