This is a fantastic question and one that I have struggled to find an answer to myself. The claim is always that shirts, up to some point in the 19th century, were considered undergarments and not to be seen. I think the wikipedia entry for shirts, or maybe lapels, states that letting a little shirt show was initially a rather risque and suggestive move (that I like to compare to the deliberately visible underwear seen on men with sagging trousers).
However, searching through historical photos and portraits, I have yet to find some distinct trend or missing link transitional point. I sometimes suspect that the idea that lapels evolved from tunic collars is apocryphal.
I do hope that someone is able to answer this better, and ideally with some example images.

 

This is a fantastic question and one that I have struggled to find an answer to myself. The claim is always that shirts, up to some point in the 19th century, were considered undergarments and not to be seen. I think the wikipedia entry for shirts, or maybe lapels, states that letting a little shirt show was initially a rather risque and suggestive move (that I like to compare to the deliberately visible underwear seen on men with sagging trousers).
However, searching through historical photos and portraits, I have yet to find some distinct trend or missing link transitional point. I sometimes suspect that the idea that lapels evolved from tunic collars is apocryphal.
I do hope that someone is able to answer this better, and ideally with some example images.

Try these:
This one is me, wearing full dress tropical uniform

Note that it has an upright collar, and is buttoned up to the neck.
This is Clark Gable, playing a British MN/RNR officer in the film "South China Sea" in a similar uniform jacket, but with the collar and lapels turned back

Rather more tailored, but one can see that the jacket is derived from the more formal original.

 

There are some jackets that do still, for functional reasons, have functioning buttoning-up lapels. I have a couple of jackets that have this feature.
The term 'formal dress', would I suspect historically have had a wider sweep than nowadays, and would include coats suitable for riding and field sports, the context in which the feature survives nowadays.

 

My guess is that this feature is entirely weather related and once we got heaters in cars and air conditioning inside buildings ...

Although there would be some practicality in the trip from the parking lot into the office. (and aesthetically it's a great element).

 

Just about every element on classic tailored clothes stems from practicality. I have seen jackets that have a button under the right lapel, but it makes the most sense on old-fashioned 4-button jackets so there's not a gap between the top button and the button at the top of the lapel.

The principle of a fastening lapel also determines the ideal lapel width. If you fold over single-breasted lapels and the buttonhole doesn't line up to where the button should be in relation to the edge, the lapels are too narrow or too wide.

 

When wearing a 'proper' tweed jacket in rainy ol' Blighty (or the PNW) you will on occasion be most grateful for the ability to button your lapels against the elements. I have at least one jacket that is so constructed, possibly two. And I'm going to get more!

 

Many years ago when I was in high school in Buenos Aires, I acquired a vintage British tweed sports coat. It did indeed have the extra button under the lapel. It was a eureka moment...so that's what the lapel buttonhole was for! In times of bad weather I was really grateful to have it. Since those halcyon days I have often added an extra under-lapel button to my sports coats. It makes sense in an emergency and in normal wear no one sees it. Practicality! That's what man clothes should be all about. And while we're already under the lapel, I once saw a lady in an old Hitchcock film mend the protagonists jacket and then replace the needle and thread back under the lapel. Has anyone else ever seen this? I think it was Foreign Correspondent but who knows. Anyway needle and thread under lapel and always with you? Practicality!

 

I like this image, though I'm not sure how accurate the article is:

 

Hmmm, I could do with a jacket like that . . .

 

However, searching through historical photos and portraits, I have yet to find some distinct trend or missing link transitional point. I sometimes suspect that the idea that lapels evolved from tunic collars is apocryphal.
I do hope that someone is able to answer this better, and ideally with some example images.

Agree. I've never seen an illustration of a civilian in a tunic style coat that could/would be turned down to a "modern" style. You'll see some multi-buttoned cassock-style coats c.1700s (I think), but always worn fully buttoned.

 

Another historical fact about the lapels is that during the WWII period, suits are cut without lapels to save fabrics!? So at that point in time that lapels were deem decorative and can be reduced if required.

 

Another historical fact about the lapels is that during the WWII period, suits are cut without lapels to save fabrics!?

No lapels? Fascinating. I've read that to conserve fabric in the civilian sector, vests and cuffs went away, and lapels got narrower. But this is the first time I've heard that lapels disappeared altogether. Can you post any photos of these lapel-less suits? I'd love to see them. Thank you.

 

Another historical fact about the lapels is that during the WWII period, suits are cut without lapels to save fabrics!?

No lapels? Fascinating. I've read that to conserve fabric in the civilian sector, vests and cuffs went away, and lapels got narrower. But this is the first time I've heard that lapels disappeared altogether. Can you post any photos of these lapel-less suits? I'd love to see them. Thank you.

I'd be very interested to see these lapel-less suits too. I've never heard of this before or seen any evidence of this.

 

No lapels? Fascinating. I've read that to conserve fabric in the civilian sector, vests and cuffs went away, and lapels got narrower. But this is the first time I've heard that lapels disappeared altogether. Can you post any photos of these lapel-less suits? I'd love to see them. Thank you.

IIRC that appears in the book "One Hundred Years of Menswear, 2012 edition" by Cally Blackmen. In the 1930-39 section or later, the lapeless suit was shown in one of the menswear show in the picture. Unfortunately, I cannot find that page on the net, nor do I have access to the book. If you are willing to check your local library, you might be able to find this book and see the picture yourself.

---------------------------------------------

EDIT: found the picture on page 63 at this website: https://www.thedandyproject.com/2012/08/picture-books.html/

Times of war forced clothing manufacturers to be pragmatic and utilitarian. On the right page, upper left shows a practical, inexpensively made plaid flannel jumpsuit, and on the right, a suit made without lapels or pocket flaps-features that were considered superfluous at the time. That lapel-less jacket wouldn't be out of place at a Damir Doma or Siki Im show today.

Looking at the upper right corner and you can find such suit.

 

Agree. I've never seen an illustration of a civilian in a tunic style coat that could/would be turned down to a "modern" style. You'll see some multi-buttoned cassock-style coats c.1700s (I think), but always worn fully buttoned.

Yet if you look at my post above you'll see an example of how a tunic style jacket could evolve into a modern style with lapels, which suggests that what Tempest argues might be apocryphal clearly isn't.

 

Another historical fact about the lapels is that during the WWII period, suits are cut without lapels to save fabrics!?

Thank you for the image! Very interesting. You are kind of correct. But please allow me to make you more correct by amending your above-quoted statement as follows:

"At one point in the 1930s, at least one lapel-less suit was modeled in at least one fashion show. Considered extremely fashion-forward for the time, it never caught on anywhere, either during or after World War II, nor was the lapel-free style ever mandated by any government fabric-ration regulations. Never making it into the mainstream, it remained a novelty and died as suddenly as it appeared."

 

....

"At one point in the 1930s, at least one lapel-less suit was modeled in at least one fashion show. Considered extremely fashion-forward for the time, it never caught on anywhere, either during or after World War II, nor was the lapel-free style ever mandated by any government fabric-ration regulations. Never making it into the mainstream, it remained a novelty and died as suddenly as it appeared."

Actually, from a classical style POV, this is indeed correct. However, in many fashion-forward *designers* jacket, lapelless is indeed a style on its own. If you google "lapelless jacket" from Google image search, you can find many contemporary results of such jackets. LMGIFY: https://www.google.ca/search?q=apoc...kDXcQ_AUICSgC&biw=1161&bih=820#tbm=isch&q=lapeless+jacket&imgrc=6BTr4H3Oxnq5QM:

Back to the OP's question, the point I was trying to highlight is that as early as WWII that the lapels were deemed decorative and could be eliminated. So maybe it had been considered as early as then that the lapels need not be designed to be *closable*.

 

"At one point in the 1930s, at least one lapel-less suit was modeled in at least one fashion show. Considered extremely fashion-forward for the time, it never caught on anywhere, either during or after World War II, nor was the lapel-free style ever mandated by any government fabric-ration regulations. Never making it into the mainstream, it remained a novelty and died as suddenly as it appeared."

Here we see such a suit being worn.

 

The point I was trying to highlight is that as early as WWII the lapels were deemed decorative and could be eliminated. So maybe it had been considered as early as then that the lapels need not be designed to be *closable*.

Got it. Thank you!

 

Yet if you look at my post above you'll see an example of how a tunic style jacket could evolve into a modern style with lapels, which suggests that what Tempest argues might be apocryphal clearly isn't.

Oh, it could, if the stiffness of the collar allowed it. I should have said "a civilian in a tunic style coat that ever actually was then turned down by wearers, as a fashion". Neither Tempest nor I have seen illustrations of such.

 

Thank you for the image! Never making it into the mainstream, it remained a novelty and died as suddenly as it appeared."

Ditto the "Mod" period, early sixties, a number of "British Invasion" bands wore lapel-less suits, same result.

 

Here we see such a suit being worn.

And look how he ended up.

My earlier comment was in reference to civilian suits, because it was in response to Searching Best Fit's observations about lapel-free "suits." Military uniforms: the design of them is all over the map. Anything goes with them.

But you are right: some World War II Italian military uniforms were sans lapel.

 

^ It seemed an interesting historical oddity; clearly not simply a question of economising on cloth (or perhaps it was? - perhaps he wished to set an example?).

It's certainly worth considering why lapels have been retained, since their presence seems almost exclusively an aesthetic matter, yet manifesting in a wide variety of ways.

 

First I'll note that if one looks at any "portraits of the Presidents" image collection, it is clear that going back to George Washington, in pre-Napoleonic time, there was never a coat buttoned up to the neck. There is no scarcity of images showing "redcoats" and other doimilitary uniforms wi
It is of interest that on the spacing from the lapel button hole to the top (not really used) buttonhole is about the same as the spacing between the other buttons.
The most convincing "missing link" that I've seen is the Union Army Sack Coat, which I always see with the collar folded down when the top button is fastened.

 

Well I live in a small city where walking a lot isn't just normal it's necessary in order to get to some places. I'll wear the Barbour "Beacon" sports jacket from time to time and if caught in a shower I'll pull up the collar and close the tab. There are a couple of tabs actually as it's designed to be closed when need be.

 

First I'll note that if one looks at any "portraits of the Presidents" image collection, it is clear that going back to George Washington, in pre-Napoleonic time, there was never a coat buttoned up to the neck. There is no scarcity of images showing "redcoats" and other doimilitary uniforms wi
It is of interest that on the spacing from the lapel button hole to the top (not really used) buttonhole is about the same as the spacing between the other buttons.
The most convincing "missing link" that I've seen is the Union Army Sack Coat, which I always see with the collar folded down when the top button is fastened.
View attachment 16346 View attachment 16348

The neck on the high collar of early uniforms was usually closed by hooks and eyes, as was the jacket I illustrated earlier.
Here are examples:

In this case the lapels are also closed by hook and eye.
In this one the jacket front is buttoned: