Esquire’s Complete Golden Age Illustrations:

This is part 1 of 2 of Esquire, December 1948.

Retail goodies!

Flanderian said:

In mass fashion, the two trends that competed to replace the Bold Look were Ivy (TNSIL) and what American retail called Continental. Both were mid-20th Century minimalist aesthetics, and very much in reaction to the over-sized Bold Look. The so-called Continental look attempted to imitate Italian tailoring, while the Ivy attempted to imitate what was being worn at Northeastern schools. And Ivy largely won out, and became the dominant fashion for about a decade.



And a much happier new year to you all, gentlemen!

Click to expand...

I've always been a bit confused as to the Continental style, what makes it what it is. What I used to think it was turned out to be Ivy League. This is probably at least in part from trying to learn from those quickie, history-of-fashion overviews that you find in books on menswear or sartorial-themed websites.

A Happy New Year to you as well.

Nobert said:

I've always been a bit confused as to the Continental style, what makes it what it is. What I used to think it was turned out to be Ivy League. This is probably at least in part from trying to learn from those quickie, history-of-fashion overviews that you find in books on menswear or sartorial-themed websites.

A Happy New Year to you as well.

Click to expand...

I can understand why from a distance in time the two styles might not be that easy to differentiate as both were more similar to each other than to the prior loose-fitting cuts with very broad lapels, etc. Both Ivy and Continental styles employed a minimalist aesthetic and a closer fit, and differed mainly in detail, nuance and attitude. And different brands within each style would employ their own view of exactly how the trend should be interpreted. And since both were initially intended for younger men, a third style for the more general market existed that was a more generous cut and might incorporate styling elements from each.

In general the Continental style was close fitting but not to the ludicrous degree of current fashion. It was slimmed down and intended to look sleek and minimalist. Trousers were tapered to very narrow hem and worn cuffless. They had a shorter rise and usually were secured via side tabs rather than a belt with loops. Jackets were shorter, snug, with very narrow lapels, a high button stance, some waist suppression, flapless, often angled pockets. They typically had shorter side vents or were ventless. Shoulders were firm and built up, but narrow. Sleek cloth like sharkskin, often with an iridescence, was employed. The photo below of the singing group The Four Seasons offers a fair representation of the style.





Ivy, while also more closely cut than Bold Look inspired fashion, but tended to be fuller than Continental, and design elements were more generous. Trouser rise was higher, they were fuller cut and typically worn with belts and worn cuffed. While tapered, they were not very narrow comparatively. Jackets were longer, fuller, and had little waist suppression and a center vent. Lapels were broader though button stance was also typically high, though not as high as the Continental style. Pockets were typically flapped, and the flaps in proportion with the lapels. Shoulders had little padding and tended be soft but not as narrowed as the Continental style. The cloth chosen might typically be flannel or unfinished worsted. The end result might ideally look something like the photo below.

Part 2 of 2 of Esquire December 1948.

These are Esquire's January 1949 illustrations.














Retail goodies you didn't buy in December.











A very handsome suit in any era.





When looking up the definition of the term Personal Style, you may find only the photo below as complete explanation.

Surprised to see those late ‘40s references to the lower side flared/“bold knight” bow tie. I had thought that the teardrop style tie originated the 1970s. I much prefer the proportions from the ‘40s! You keep teaching me new things Flanderian. Thanks again.

Faux Brummell said:

Surprised to see those late ‘40s references to the lower side flared/“bold knight” bow tie. I had thought that the teardrop style tie originated the 1970s. I much prefer the proportions from the ‘40s! You keep teaching me new things Flanderian. Thanks again.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you find it interesting and enlightening, but it's essentially Esquire offering the lesson, and I am but a humble reporter.

This is part 1 of 2 of Esquire, February 1949.

Part 2 of 2, the balance of Esquire February 1949.














Curly!?

Believe it or not, that’s the “Believe It Or Not” guy!

Faux Brummell said:

Believe it or not, that’s the “Believe It Or Not” guy!

Click to expand...

Striking similarity!

Taking out the first paragraph completely, the rest of the piece has some good advice that still holds today.

Fading Fast said:

Taking out the first paragraph completely, the rest of the piece has some good advice that still holds today.
View attachment 298602

Click to expand...

Yes, that first paragraph appears deliberately offensive, though I'll flatter its writer that it was intended with a good-humored wink!

But the balance is largely spot on, as very few women can successfully dress men, and the opposite is equally true, irrespective of how brilliantly they are able to put themselves together. The only notable exceptions being some of the brilliant costume designers of theatrical productions. Even most clothing designers seem to be less successful with one sex than the other.

Here are Esquire's March 1949 illustrations.

The American moccasin writ large. Had never heard of them, but they're not bad looking casual shoes.

Part 1 of 2 of Esquire, April 1949.

Nice

Was surprised to still see knickers in 1949.

Fading Fast said:

Nice
View attachment 299299

Click to expand...

Very!

Tiki Tom said:

Was surprised to still see knickers in 1949.

Click to expand...

Me too.

Part 2 of 2 for Esquire, April 1949.





Return of the double-barrel sport suit!

These are the illustrations from Esquire, May 1949.