Theoretically speaking...

[Jovan]

Regarding things like armholes being better fitted back then vs. today and suits being made better in general, is it possible that we base these theories on just stuff that survived (and came into our hands) BECAUSE it was better made than the rest? The more I think about it, the more the devil's advocate in me is saying there really is no definite evidence for this theory besides photographs and films of people in these suits.

The whole thing that sparked this thought is that my friend claimed his grandfather's school blazer has pretty large, unfitted armholes.

Thoughts?

 

[Feraud]

The proof would be the actual articles of clothing that we own and wear.

Did I misread your post?

 

[Jovan]

Possibly.

...is it possible that we base these theories on just stuff that survived (and came into our hands) BECAUSE it was better made than the rest?

As for his claim, I'd love pictures but I usually trust what he says. Thing is, he may not have a clue what I'm communicating in text.

 

[dhermann1]

I think Jovan has a good point. It's like everything else. We only see the classic films. In the heyday of Hollywood in the 30's there were something like 360 films relesed each year. We would consider most of them unmitigated dreck. Just the best survive. I'm sure, given the whole nature of American commerce and culture, that there were tons of ill fitting shoddily made clothes in the past, and they're no longer around because they fell apart or were thrown out. This brings up the old truism that as much as we may enjoy looking at the past from our cozy modern perspective, the good old days were only good for some and not so good for others. We only try to preserve the best of what remains.

 

[Feraud]

Sure. There exists good and bad quality from every era.
Because there were lesser quality made goods in the past does not negate the fact (not theory) of good quality outfits.
I will say it again, the evidence of the cut and quality is what we have today. These are suits we can feel and wear.

Heck, I own mediocre department store quality suits from the 50/60s and they are nicely cut pieces. I am not talking bespoke items with a nipped waist and all the trimmings but good old fashioned off the rack suits. They were cut for the average man and fit a lot better than today's outfits.

I do not think we rely only on films and pictures.

 

[Mr. Rover]

I'm in the same boat as Feraud. A Hart, Schaffner & Marx suit is hardly considered a high-end garment (with the exception of their higher-end lines, i.e. their benchmade) , if I'm not misquoting my friend who used to work for Ralph Lauren. He said that it got so large because they would be the only store supplying suits in small suburban and rural towns for people to wear to Sunday Mass, Easter, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong?
Anyway, I have to say that from the 2 HSM pieces I've handled, they're armholes are cut better than anything off the rack today. I just bought a suit from Ralph Lauren Rugby (50% off...I couldn't resist) and the armholes are very low.
I do almost believe we believe this from old catalogues- Did someone post a Sears or a J.C. Penny catalog ad of different details available for MTM suits? Every detail, down to the canvassing, lining style, buttons, etc., was accounted for. I'm not saying that's not available from department stores or higher-end garment makers, like Oxxford, but the attention to detail and craftsmanship, even at different price margins, was extraordinary.
That is not to say everyone was a dandy back then like the movie stars and who we aspire to be- there's plenty of people's personal pictures of men in less-than-stellar clothes...but out of the dozens and dozens of pictures I've gone through of real people, most of the younger people, around our age Jovan, were pretty well tailored, especially compared to what's available today. But these kids weren't wearing Saville Row suits, like Sean Connery as James Bond- I believe Matt Deckard always loves using that picture of him checking the chandelier for bugs/wiring.

I can't really speak about armholes as much, as out of my dozen or so vintage suits, I've only really left 1/3 of them unaltered. Their armholes are very snug and fit well, while some of the altered pieces are hit or miss depending on how big the alteration was. The two of my suits that I can think of right off the bat as having the nicest armholes are from 1933 and the other from the late 40s/early 50s.
Some of them, regardless of armhole, have much wider degree of movement on account of the drape fit from the late 30s through to the late 40s. The extra material across the back and chest makes reaching forward or up a lot easier.

Sorry about the rant.

 

[surely]

When lamenting about the loss of quality from the good old days, we should remember the state of working conditions and pay for the tailors doing all that difficult work. It would also be nice for a greater appreciation that the standard we may try to emulate was that of the upper classes and gangsters during terrible economic times and a war.

I think that some may confuse quality with style.

 

[reetpleat]

Regarding things like armholes being better fitted back then vs. today and suits being made better in general, is it possible that we base these theories on just stuff that survived (and came into our hands) BECAUSE it was better made than the rest? The more I think about it, the more the devil's advocate in me is saying there really is no definite evidence for this theory besides photographs and films of people in these suits.

The whole thing that sparked this thought is that my friend claimed his grandfather's school blazer has pretty large, unfitted armholes.

Thoughts?

I see what you are getting at, but I don't think it holds`up to scrutiny. Because even a cheap suit might survive. I have seen many suits of varying quality. It isn't as if only the best of teh best survived.

Also, style and cut are not at all related to quality. they were a choice completly distinct from cut and style.

Of course, I did once see a very cheap vintage hat so unlike any others in how cheap and awful it was. And I speculated that a hat like that would not be around a`long time. But still, I think that was a rare hat becuae even a cheapo will get stuck in an attic and dug out fifty years later.

 

[reetpleat]

I think Jovan has a good point. It's like everything else. We only see the classic films. In the heyday of Hollywood in the 30's there were something like 360 films relesed each year. We would consider most of them unmitigated dreck. Just the best survive. I'm sure, given the whole nature of American commerce and culture, that there were tons of ill fitting shoddily made clothes in the past, and they're no longer around because they fell apart or were thrown out. This brings up the old truism that as much as we may enjoy looking at the past from our cozy modern perspective, the good old days were only good for some and not so good for others. We only try to preserve the best of what remains.

Disagree. While someone had to make a choice to remaster a movie to rerelease it, no one needs to consider a suit of high enough quality to dig it out of an old trunk. these days, with technology as it is, there are a lot of bad movies coing out and ending up on the shelves for a buck or two. They are a kick to see but we can definitely see the difference between them and the good ones.

I still say that we have good examples of all grades of clothing. they are of all good enough quality that we are hard pressed to tel lthe diffentece excedpt between the very best and the very worst.

As a comparison, we can see the difference `between an expensive car and a cheap car from the forties, but they are both pretty solid cars.

the idea of buying a cheap disposable piece of clothing was anathema to someone of the era. If you were poor, you bought a cheaper suit and wore it for longer than a rich guy ever would. But the poorer you were, the more you demanded that your suit be sturdy enough to last a while.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

You can't really base any judgments from Hollywood movies, of course. But in terms of general quality, yes, it was indeed better overall. The main thing is that most of the time and money saving "innovations" in terms of clothing manufacture had yet to come into widespread use. Artificial fibers were still new and hadn't come into widespread use as a substitute for wool, cotton, silk, etc. Those that had come into use were things like rayon, etc. which are far superior to polyester and later synthetics in terms of quality.

For instance, prior to WW2, many men both in the US and Europe had their clothes made-to-order from a local tailor. This rapidly died out after the war of course. Today few people even buy made-to-measure, much less true bespoke. But back then it was very common, thus resulting in better quality and fit "per capita."

Not only that, but the fact that suits were made for everyday wear required them to be somewhat durable even at the cheapest price point. A lot of the flimsy suits produced today would likely be seen as inferior even to the cheap suits in the 1930s.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the vast, vast majority of men in Britain in the 1930s-40s had never been into a tailor's shop. I suspect the same to be true of the US. (I base this on primary sources.) Custom made was almost entirely the province of the upper-middle to upper classes. Most men had to make do with off-the-peg - yes, it existed - or second hand, until the likes of Montague Burton introduced affordable made-to-measure (not bespoke) offerings. The notion that most people were walking around in bespoke garments is absurd. They simply couldn't afford it.

Most people lived in rags, or work clothes, and only had one "the Sunday" suit. The best suit most men would ever own was their demob suit at the close of WWII.

And talk about low quality! Many of the demob suits i see are truly garbage. The stitching is terrible, the linings are badly inserted, wonky shoulders etc. But: The armholes are high, the fabric is dense, and the cut is sublime.

bk