Role of Brown Suits in the Golden Age

[Dick Ireland]

Hi Fellas,

When I began building a business wardrobe a few years ago, I picked up a few brown suits and I tend to wear them a lot because my wife says brown suits me (no pun intended).

However, reading here and there about sartorial history, it seems like brown suits were not considered appropriate for business wear back in the day.

Would some knowledgable person care to expand on that for me, or give their opinion on its validity today? I know the rules have loosened in everything today but I like to take the wisdom of past generations as a guide so this interests me and may influence how I dress in the future. Thanks.

-Dick

 

[Dinerman]

I believe this was more of a rule in England than it was in the US.

 

[herringbonekid]

However, reading here and there about sartorial history, it seems like brown suits were not considered appropriate for business wear back in the day.

weren't and still aren't. just look at estate agents; light grey, mid grey, dark grey and navy, but you'll wait a long time until you see an estate agent in brown (in the UK; i can't speak for the rest of the world).

 

[Two Types]

It depends on your business: if your business is based around agriculture, brown was always more acceptable. If you went to cattle markets you'd see earth shades everywhere. So brown might not be acceptable in a bank but it would be acceptable in a seed merchants.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

Malloy's Dress for Success said no brown suits or shoes UNLESS you were a really big guy. Brown made you less scary somehow.

FROM MEMORY so cut me SOME slack.

 

[Tomasso]

However, reading here and there about sartorial history, it seems like brown suits were not considered appropriate for business wear back in the day.

I don't know where you read that brown was inappropriate in the US in the Golden Era because it was a perfectly acceptable option. Maybe not for weddings, funerals and such but certainly in business.

 

[Tomasso]

Malloy's Dress for Success

Lot's of nonsense in that one.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Lot's of nonsense in that one.

Definitely. Choosing your clothes based on 70s/80s pseudoscience is just silly.

I don't know where you read that brown was inappropriate in the US in the Golden Era because it was a perfectly acceptable option. Maybe not for weddings, funerals and such but certainly in business.

I've read a number of Apparel Arts and Esquire editorials that recommend brown suits for fair/ruddy complexions and auburn/red hair and there is no mention of them being exclusively for the weekend or county.

It was during the late 50s and early 60s that the cloths considered acceptable for business began a decided narrowing in terms of pattern, color, and weave.

 

[Dick Ireland]

I don't know where you read that brown was inappropriate in the US in the Golden Era because it was a perfectly acceptable option. Maybe not for weddings, funerals and such but certainly in business.

I'm really relieved to hear it. I like my charcoal and navy, but I get a lot more variety is I can wear my browns, too. Thanks!

 

[Captain Lex]

I find it extremely amusing that this issue is complicated to resolve using primary sources because the photographic evidence exists in grayscale. But it seems to me like that catalog illustration says it all!
However, given that the principle *was* introduced circa 1960s and is still in effect in the UK, I'm very interested in hearing its origin.

 

[Stanley Doble]

It seems that England had stricter rules on business dress than the US especially London. A brown suit, soft hat or tweeds may have been correct in the country or village but in the city the bowler and black or blue suit was de rigeur. The old rules were thrown aside by the younger generation in the sixties. What is considered correct or otherwise today, I have no idea.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I'm really relieved to hear it. I like my charcoal and navy, but I get a lot more variety is I can wear my browns, too. Thanks!

and:

It seems that England had stricter rules on business dress than the US, especially London. A brown suit, soft hat or tweeds may have been correct in the country or village but in the city the bowler and black or blue suit was de rigeur. The old rules were thrown aside by the younger generation in the sixties. What is considered correct or otherwise today, I have no idea.

In England, the rule that browns should not been seen in the city pretty much was, and is, still in effect. Today, brown suits really aren't correct for office wear in the US either. In the age of business causal, it is very uncommon for US companies to require suits and ties. If a firm does require its employees to wear suits, it is safe to assume the intent of such a dress code is to maintain a conservative appearance. In San Francisco's Financial District, where I work, I rarely see suits in colors other than blue, gray, or black. At my firm, pinstripes and glen checks are even pushing it ...

I find it extremely amusing that this issue is complicated to resolve using primary sources because the photographic evidence exists in grayscale. But it seems to me like that catalog illustration says it all!
However, given that the principle *was* introduced circa 1960s and is still in effect in the UK, I'm very interested in hearing its origin.

The origin of uniformity in suitings is in the inherent uniformity of the garment itself. Prior to the 50s, the suit was not considered a formal mode of dress. It was considered they everyday form of dress for men who didn't work in professions which required specialized clothing (i.e, men who wore uniforms to work, like police officers, or blue collar workers, who need to wear cast iron workwear, etc.). As such, there was a lot more variety. In the 60s, as suits began to be regarded as clothing worn specifically for a certain type of person for a specific purpose (to work in an office), they became the defacto uniform of the male officer worker.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

I am rather glad that I can wear a brown suit and don't get mistaken for a banker. I wear it for my own pleasure not as a uniform.
In my job people would be fine with business casual.

 

[Mario]

I happen to have a certain penchant for brown/beige or earthy tones in general and never ever hesitated to live out this passion of mine right in the thick of the city. Has anybody noticed?

 

[Shangas]

I think a brown suit with light pinstriping is very nice. I wish I owned such a suit.

 

[JonnyO]

I think a brown suit with light pinstriping is very nice. I wish I owned such a suit.

Like this one? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-men...NuZfYyuedSZUBkGZx4MQ5pM=&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

 

[Shangas]

Something like that, yes. Although that particular one is a bit long for me.

 

[filfoster]

John Malloy's book "Dress For Success" killed brown suits because he wrote that brown and green suits tested poorly except for the American Mid-West. (Insert joke about us here).

I don't own one yet but Hardwick has one at www.menssuitseparates.com that is tempting, in a dark brown/grey pinstripe.

 

[Tomasso]

I'm especially partial to brown chalk stripe flannel.....

 

[kiwilrdg]

I do not know if it had any effect on the acceptability of brown suits but before the next time I go to an event in the mountains of Virginia I plan on getting a brown suit. The reason is simple, Iron rich earth. The red soil gets into the welt of my black shoes and looks terrible.

I do know this had an impact on how the interiors of houses were painted. Base boards were black in Northern areas with loamy black soil but in the areas with iron/clay soils the base boards were painted reddish brown.

Since there is a lot of iron in the Mid-West I think that might have some bearing on it.