trapped
New in Town
- Messages
- 29
- Location
- VintageVille
I have no idea? Anyone?
-
The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
What Does It Mean To Dress CASUAL In The 1910s And The 1920s And The 1930s And The 1940s?
- Thread starter trapped
- Start date
tropicalbob
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,954
- Location
- miami, fl
That's a huge question. I suppose you'd have to begin by narrowing it down to when, in what country, and what class of people. My grandfather and his generation, mostly WWI Doughboys, were never to be seen in public without a jacket, tie, shined shoes, pressed trousers, and hat. One way, I suppose, of approaching the question would be to look at photos of sporting events. I can remember going to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx in the fifties and seeing a forest of fedoras and ties, but noticing that in the bleachers there were more sport shirts and zippered jackets. It'll be interesting to hear some responses from other members.
trapped
New in Town
- Messages
- 29
- Location
- VintageVille
When? 1910s. 1920s. 1930s. 1940s.
Where? New York. Boston. London. Paris.
Which CLASS? Out of the FIVE most recognizable classes. I guess the TWO most prominent ones. THE MIDDLE MIDDLE CLASS. THE UPPER CLASS.
Anyone? I really love to know all of your opinions.
Where? New York. Boston. London. Paris.
Which CLASS? Out of the FIVE most recognizable classes. I guess the TWO most prominent ones. THE MIDDLE MIDDLE CLASS. THE UPPER CLASS.
Anyone? I really love to know all of your opinions.
Dirk Wainscotting
A-List Customer
- Messages
- 354
- Location
- Irgendwo
I think it's fair to say that standard 'off duty' clothes for most men for quite 50-odd years was shirt and flannels/old trousers, probably topped off with a jacket if you weren't at home.
However.... as tropicalbob indicated there are differences for region, country, class, age etc. In the 50s especially the ability to not wear a tie casually really got going. The concept of casual wear definitely has a different meaning than today. People can 'dress casually' nowadays in situations that would have been unthinkable between the 30s to the 60s.
However.... as tropicalbob indicated there are differences for region, country, class, age etc. In the 50s especially the ability to not wear a tie casually really got going. The concept of casual wear definitely has a different meaning than today. People can 'dress casually' nowadays in situations that would have been unthinkable between the 30s to the 60s.
Nick D
Call Me a Cab
- Messages
- 2,166
- Location
- Upper Michigan
A third the population in some of the world's most populous cities over nearly half a century? Narrowing down might be, upper class England in the 20s. Even that's fairly broad, considering how much changes over a decade. You can get a general idea from searching though photos from the period.
I don't believe the concept of "casual" was the same then as now. In western countries, most men wore a suit, tie, trousers, hats coats and jackets on most occasions. Everyone would dress up as much as they could afford. Then there was also work, military and sporting wear which had a specific purpose. Wearing a naked vest, leather jacket, smoking jacket or a woollen pullover could have been considered casual wear I guess.
I don't think even the most forward futuristic thinking minds of the early 20th century would have dreamed that most 21st century fashions for both rich and poor worldwide would be based on humble work, farm, sporting, miltary and even underwear from the 20's and thereabouts. Would have been an unbelievable concept for anyone to grasp.
I don't think even the most forward futuristic thinking minds of the early 20th century would have dreamed that most 21st century fashions for both rich and poor worldwide would be based on humble work, farm, sporting, miltary and even underwear from the 20's and thereabouts. Would have been an unbelievable concept for anyone to grasp.
Last edited:
Edward
Bartender
- Messages
- 24,789
- Location
- London, UK
I remember my own father, who was born post-war (he'll be seventy in 2016), being mystified back in the late eighties when my brother and I gravitated towards our own fashion norms, largely (moreso and for longer in my case) culled from the local army surplus store. "Back in my day," he'd say, "people only bought things like that for rough work, or because they were too poor to afford clothes from anywhere else." He never objected to it as such (it was my mother always got paranoid notions that it would get me shot), but never got it either.
- Messages
- 16,870
- Location
- New York City
My grandfather born late 1800s, fought in WWI always wore a tie and suit or tie and sport coat. To him, casual dressing, if it existed at all was a sport coat in a "casual" material like madras or seersucker and leather loafers not leather lace-up dress shoes. And here's the thing he wasn't rich (was all but poor) and he didn't care much about clothes, it was just, to him, the way you dressed. When I was a kid, and he and men of his generation were in their 70s, almost all of the ones I knew had a similar attitude. They just didn't do casual dress in anyway similar to how we think about it. This very unscientific sample I'm referring to is of men in the NY Metropolitan region who were in the what I guess was called the "lower middle class" and maybe some in the "middle class," but it didn't feel class based to me looking back, it was just a cultural norm they seemed to all have.
Almost all that FF has said about his grandfather applies to my father (born 1895, fought in WW1, died 1962). That generation, as FF has said, simply "didn't do casual dress". So the sample may not be as unscientific as it appears, because of great similarities on different continents.
jdbenson
One of the Regulars
- Messages
- 213
- Location
- Cincinnnati, OH
If you search for images of "1940s crowds" or "1950s crowds" you'll get a ton of images of what people wore in public - everything from suits & ties, to trousers and shirt sleaves...
Edward
Bartender
- Messages
- 24,789
- Location
- London, UK
I'd agree completely - I'd also suggest that it's no coincidence that caual wear as we know it became increasingly dominant as the cult of youth took over Hollywood and entertainment mainstream culture more broadly.
JimWagner
Practically Family
- Messages
- 946
- Location
- Durham, NC
In the U.S. I'm thinking the change occurred mostly after WWII and the growth of suburbia and this new thing called leisure time. Prior to that the more formal dress was more of a city thing and less of a country thing. In the country it was a Sunday thing mostly. Suburbia is located somewhere between the two.
Leisure activities in suburbia don't really involve night life, clubs, theater, etc. where formal dress was required.
Leisure activities in suburbia don't really involve night life, clubs, theater, etc. where formal dress was required.
Metatron
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,536
- Location
- United Kingdom
These are screenshots from movies, but I think they are fairly representative of reality in the 1930s-1940s:
Casual
Dressed up
Casual
Dressed up
If you are an Italian hunk you can get away with this:
Casual
Dressed up
Casual
Dressed up
If you are an Italian hunk you can get away with this:
