# Vintage Esquire Illustrations: Alpha to ? ? ?



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The next issue of Esquire published after the initial September 1933 issue was the January '34 issue, with which Esquire became a monthly publication. These are the illustrations from that issue of Esquire going forward.




























To be continued:

Edit: Link to AAAC post with illustrations from the very first Esquire issue, September 1933 -

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/threads/vintage-esquire-the-first-issue.240192/


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧

Pic 1: "Since galoshes have become so effeminate, he-men have been getting their feet both wet and cold by way of futile and subtle protest*. But the white musher overshoe ought to end that phase." Clearly, the "white musher overshoe" (WTF) didn't have quite the future Esquire projected.

Pic 2: I know it's a "sports" outfit, but there's quite a bit going on in the footwear and sock area / love that they still managed to work in a cocktail scene / the "out the door" view is some talented illustration work.

Pic 3: The drape on that full-cut DB herringbone suit is fanfreakin'tastic. And, once again, cocktails!


*Not really sure this sentence works grammatically as the adjective "protest" awkwardly refers back to / somehow tries to modify men agreeing with the effeminate view of galoshes. One has to twist the words a bit to get there.


----------



## ItalianStyle (Mar 13, 2017)

Fading Fast said:


> Not really sure this sentence works grammatically


Well, the sentence definitely works better with 'galoshes' than with goulash - the beef stew...


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

ItalianStyle said:


> Well, the sentence definitely works better with 'galoshes' than with goulash - the beef stew...


I think spellcheck got me (but maybe I just got it wrong), but I should have caught it either way - and have changed it now - thank you.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: "Since galoshes have become so effeminate, he-men have been getting their feet both wet and cold by way of futile and subtle protest*. But the white musher overshoe ought to end that phase." Clearly, the "white musher overshoe" (WTF) didn't have quite the future Esquire projected.
> 
> ...


As a boy, this wet weather footwear would have been described as rubbers. However this particular model is identical to a scaled-down version of the higher shafted galoshes that were also standard for winter snow.

Pay particular note to the metal closures; they closed in such a way that they were secure against any force, possibly excepting nuclear detonations. Combined with their metal edges, they were ingeniously designed to assure lacerated hands when being opened.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes the January 1934 issue's illustrations. BTW, illustrations of this sort gave rise to the colloguial term _fashion plate_ for someone who is dressed well. There was also once an expression, _dressed like a page out of Esquire_, though it's been many years since I've heard it used.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> Pay particular note to the metal closures; they closed in such a way that they were secure against any force, possibly excepting nuclear detonations. Combined with their metal edges, they were ingeniously designed to assure lacerated hands when being opened.


Oh, yeah, been there, done that. Good for peeling fingernails, too. Seems those boots had some other name but it escapes me now.

And the "collegiate" item seems as far away as Camelot....the original.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Prior to our move south, I recall having a pair of those old buckled goulashes in the garage of our 'Hoosier' home, but alas, since the wife and I began our encampment in Camelot, I have not seen them. Sadly, as seems characteristic of life, old friends...left behind!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

phyrpowr said:


> Oh, yeah, been there, done that. Good for peeling fingernails, too. Seems those boots had some other name but it escapes me now.
> 
> And the "collegiate" item seems as far away as Camelot....the original.


Should you think of the term, I'd be interested in learning it. Could be regional. I know in my household they were only ever galoshes.



eagle2250 said:


> Prior to our move south, I recall having a pair of those old buckled goulashes in the garage of our 'Hoosier' home, but alas, since the wife and I began our encampment in Camelot, I have not seen them. Sadly, as seems characteristic of life, old friends...left behind!


And not only were they invulnerable to ice and snow, their weight and construction might also allow you to fend off a bear attack! irate:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are the illustrations for Esquire February 1934 -




























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are the final two illustrations from Esquire February '34.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Esquire, March 1934. With this issue, Esquire introduced "fabric pictures." These were composed of actual cloth, arranged against a wash background and then photographed. Sadly, they lack the richness and inspirational nature of the better drawings. But I'm including them for the sake of accuracy among those offered. -



























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ you said it well - the fabric pics lack the spirit and verve of the illustrations. They are a real letdown.

Too many to point out, but in your last several posts, the illustrations of the tie meeting the collar have been particular impressive as in the two examples below. My God these illustrators had talent.

The guy on the right in this one:









And this guy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ you said it well - the fabric pics lack the spirit and verve of the illustrations. They are a real letdown.
> 
> Too many to point out, but in your last several posts, the illustrations of the tie meeting the collar have been particular impressive as in the two examples below. My God these illustrators had talent.
> 
> ...


I'm glad you enjoy them!

I think many of the collars might be pinned, though I haven't read the accompanying text. While there were some longer collars, collars in that era tended to be smaller, and well suited to the smaller knots that were tied.

I actually have a shirt quite similar to red-ish check, and a rust wool tie that harmonizes in a very similar manner. But my shirt has a Brooks BD.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

And a bonus Laurence Fellow's illustration in an Interwoven ad. Not his best, those commissioned for ads became better as the years rolled on. Hope he got paid.

And I gotta love the kaleidoscopic variety that they once offered.










That concludes the March 1934 issue.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are from April '34, the 5th published issue of Esquire -
























Bonus Interwoven ad. I like the art layout, and imaginative sock pairings -









To be continued:


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

These ads certainly lend credence to the claim that the 30s were the golden era of men’s style. The full cut of the trousers looks much more flattering than the low waisted slim fitting trousers favored by many today.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Cowtown said:


> These ads certainly lend credence to the claim that the 30s were the golden era of men's style. The full cut of the trousers looks much more flattering than the low waisted slim fitting trousers favored by many today.


I agree that the cuts were flattering, but sometimes the illustrations exceeded reality. While I particularly like the cut of the trousers in general, those that hewed too close to the original voluminous _Oxford Bags_ were more problematic. And the illustrators cleaned them up in depicting the cut. Some of the actual trousers were cut with a leg almost straight from the knee to the cuff, and so wide that the cuff would virtually cover the shoe. Such could only be worn acceptably by the very slender, and preferably, those who were taller. On any normal person they had the effect to shortening the leg dramatically.










The illustrators kindly made their figures taller , but they also gave their trousers a good deal more tapper in general, and particularly from knee to cuff. It's what I prefer, and find most flattering as it tends to emphasize leg length.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes the illustrations for the Esquire April '34 issue.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Don't think there was a 30s were the golden era of men’s style. Some people like something, and if they are persuasive writers (like manton), many will believe them who will persuade others, others, others... If those ideals were so good, they never would've been left. The sloppy drape coats of numerous variations are far from pristine. They were a modern art of the day. Some were glad to see them gone. They had a time. Some tailors didn't like them, because they were to simple. Like modern clothes of today, people were clearly having fun with them. Some were very outlandish. Being in the history books doesn't make them better. There were more tailors making them. Todays modern clothes only a few tailors are making them (few good examples). Each area of clothes is an art that has to be understood so one can enjoy them.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I agree that the cuts were flattering, but sometimes the illustrations exceeded reality. ...The illustrators kindly made their figures taller ...


Are you implying that most men aren't 6'8" tall with a 48" chest, a 32" waist (a typical 16" drop) and a lantern jaw? I run into guys who aren't named Aaron Judge who look like this ⇩ all the time. Heck, I look like that right before I'm jarred out of my latest daydream.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Are you implying that most men aren't 6'8" tall with a 48" chest, a 32" waist (a typical 16" drop) and a lantern jaw? I run into guys who aren't named Aaron Judge who look like this ⇩ all the time. Heck, I look like that right before I'm jarred out of my latest daydream.
> View attachment 24943
> View attachment 24944


Wait! Let me find a mirror! 

Ah, no . . . . sigh!!!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Sloppy!? 














































Lord, I wish I could be sloppy too!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Fantastic stuff. In fifth pic down, Gable's vest and jacket clash a bit, IMHO. Outfit still looks good overall, just wouldn't pair that jacket and vest as my first choice. 

And Gary Cooper, third down, might actually be a real-life instantiation of the Apparel Arts measurements and "square jaw-ness."


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Fantastic stuff. In fifth pic down, Gable's vest and jacket clash a bit, IMHO. Outfit still looks good overall, just wouldn't pair that jacket and vest as my first choice.
> 
> And Gary Cooper, third down, might actually be a real-life instantiation of the Apparel Arts measurements and "square jaw-ness."


Yes, Cooper was quite the coat rack!

These are from Esquire May '34 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

OK, *I* can draw this *well!* ic12337:
*















*
To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

On paper, I wouldn't have gone with the white-collar shirt with a white three-piece suit, but darn it, it works.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> On paper, I wouldn't have gone with the white-collar shirt with a white three-piece suit, but darn it, it works.
> View attachment 24966


When it's your yacht, *everything* works! :icon_cheers:

But truly, that's one of the things I enjoy most about these illustrations. Text not-with-standing, it seems likely to me that many of the choices in the ensembles we see painted are products of the illustrators' talent and taste, and in the case of several, they're quite exceptional. So for me, it offers both insight and instruction of the possibilities for putting one's self together. There's little to be lost by experimenting, but a world to gain.

Why be dull?









Bonus ads -



















This concludes Esquire, May 1934.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

The Churchwell brothers have incredible style and look like they could have been featured in the vintage Esquire issues.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Cowtown said:


> The Churchwell brothers have incredible style and look like they could have been featured in the vintage Esquire issues.


And as distinguished professionally, as sartorially! Dr. Andre remains at home with Vanderbilt, while Dr. Keith was purloined by Yale.

Perhaps when they retire, they'd consider doing America a favor and underwrite a haberdashery dedicated to their style! 

Edit: And I've got the name; Chruchwell's! Couldn't beat it with a stick!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are from Esquire June '34 -


























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Really interesting text with this one as it discusses the merger of Town and Country. Also, noting that the sweater is "short waisted," I assume the writer is conveying that when using a sweater to replace a traditional suit vest, a short-waisted one is better as it more closely mimics the suit's vest's look.









And another guy with a 16" drop from his 48" chest to his 32" waist all on his 6'8" frame - these guy were a dime a dozen in the '30s (in the pages of Apparel Arts and Esquire).

My dad was born in '24, was 6'4" and a 50L with a 40"-46" waist (depending on where in his weight gain/loss cycle he was) and he was an absolute giant for his day based on all the pictures I've seen and what I know of average heights and sizes from that period.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 24988
> 
> ⇧ Really interesting text with this one as it discusses the merger of Town and Country. Also, noting that the sweater is "short waisted," I assume the writer is conveying that when using a sweater to replace a traditional suit vest, a short-waisted one is better as it more closely mimics the suit's vest's look.
> 
> ...


Part of the appearance of the sweater's length is the deliberate distortion of height we've been discussing, but in general sweaters were worn shorter, and snugger than is now common. And waist length sweaters also tended to be knit with wider ribbing at the waist, which is something I'd like to see more of as I think it's more flattering.

The wild physiques we see depicted are unrealistic, either then or now. But I have to think some of it was also an attempt by the illustrators to depict the shoulder enhancing, and waist diminishing properties of that cut.

Certainly your dad was a very big man for the era. When I came along in the late '40's and grew to a full adult height of 5'10", that was average. But with guys getting bigger, and mother nature's revenge, I'm now a shrimp!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Part of the appearance of the sweater's length is the deliberate distortion of height we've been discussing, but in general sweaters were worn shorter, and snugger than is now common. And waist length sweaters also tended to be knit with wider ribbing at the waist, which is something I'd like to see more of as I think it's more flattering.
> 
> The wild physiques we see depicted are unrealistic, either then or now. But I have to think some of it was also an attempt by the illustrators to depict the shoulder enhancing, and waist diminishing properties of that cut.
> 
> Certainly your dad was a very big man for the era. When I came along in the late '40's and grew to a full adult height of 5'10", that was average. But with guys getting bigger, and mother nature's revenge, I'm now a shrimp!


I'm 6'1", 150lbs and started life as a very tall (tallest kid in my grammar school class), then "average" tall in high school and college and even in the workplace for the first twenty or so years. Now, I'm not-much-more-than-average height in any group with a number of guys under 30. But heck, with a 6'4" father and 5'3" mom (who is probably shorter as, I'll bet, she lies about her height as does almost every short person), I could have fallen out anywhere on the height scale, so I won't complain about the height I got.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I'm 6'1", 150lbs and started life as a very tall (tallest kid in my grammar school class), then "average" tall in high school and college and even in the workplace for the first twenty or so years. Now, I'm not-much-more-than-average height in any group with a number of guys under 30. But heck, with a 6'4" father and 5'3" mom (who is probably shorter as, I'll bet, she lies about her height as does almost every short person), I could have fallen out anywhere on the height scale, so I won't complain about the height I got.


I believe it's still fairly much a genetic crap-shoot what traits you get and how they're expressed. Sounds like you kind of split the difference between your mom and dad when you account for sexual dimorphism. Taller and slender ain't a bad way to go.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Great series of illustrations. The first pic, in these most recent offerings, I would caption "Gettin rich," and the second and third would be titled "Living rich!" LOL. These illustrations you offer incite so many enjoyable mental excursions. Thank you for posting them.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ (two post above)

1st pic: Wow, this text would not make it past the identity-politics police today - it's very jarring to our modern ears. I've always liked the white-collared pink dress shirt - there's a playful juxtaposition there. As to architecture, I love that they used to do so many "internal" windows in those days.

2nd pic: Interesting that they called the small pocket on the suit jacket a "cash" pocket as, today, most of us refer to it as a "ticket" pocket. Also, just another 6'8", 48" chest, 32" waist Apparel Arts man.

3rd pic: still hating the fabric pics



eagle2250 said:


> ...These illustrations you offer incite so many enjoyable mental excursions. Thank you for posting them.


Ditto


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Great series of illustrations. The first pic, in these most recent offerings, I would caption "Gettin rich," and the second and third would be titled "Living rich!" LOL. These illustrations you offer incite so many enjoyable mental excursions. Thank you for posting them.


Glad they're enjoyable, you're very welcome, Sir!



Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ (two post above)
> 
> 1st pic: Wow, this text would not make it past the identity-politics police today - it's very jarring to our modern ears. I've always liked the white-collared pink dress shirt - there's a playful juxtaposition there. As to architecture, I love that they used to do so many "internal" windows in those days.
> 
> ...


This was 1930's America, and is actually a rather mild reflection of public attitudes and perceptions. Rich of itself as history, and an inspiration for further exploration.

The term "section gang" loosely recalled to mind something about railways, but required further investigation to be fleshed out. And this then led to the rich term *Gandy Dancer, *which I've heard used in passing.

I am endlessly amused by how in the era of instant Internet billionaires so many of us are able convince ourselves that we are the product of nobility or business magnates of the past, when we know that the overwhelming majority of Americans and the rest of the world earned its livelihood only from the sweat of its brow! 

https://www.folkstreams.net/film-detail.php?id=101

Agree about fabric pictures, but I really like the ensemble I think think this one was attempting to depict.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Glad they're enjoyable, you're very welcome, Sir!
> 
> This was 1930's America, and is actually a rather mild reflection of public attitudes and perceptions. Rich of itself as history, and an inspiration for further exploration.
> 
> ...


I, too, like the ensemble in the fabric pic - but only under protest as I hate the fabric-pic idea and execution.

I am the product of two people who crawled from the wreckage of The Depression, one with little more than the tattered clothes on her back. The closest to royalty we get in my family is to that same person - my mother - a secretary / book keeper who had a Royal typewriter (a monstrous 1930s thing that I used for high school and college papers).

As a fan of books and movies from the first half of the 20th Century, the attitude toward homosexuality in the text was, as you note, far from extreme, which just shows you how much things have changed in a, historically speaking, short period of time.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I, too, like the ensemble in the fabric pic - but only under protest as I hate the fabric-pic idea and execution.
> 
> I am the product of two people who crawled from the wreckage of The Depression, one with little more than the tattered clothes on her back. The closest to royalty we get in my family is to that same person - my mother - *a secretary / book keeper who had a Royal typewriter *(a monstrous 1930s thing that I used for high school and college papers).


:laughing: :laughing:



Fading Fast said:


> As a fan of books and movies from the first half of the 20th Century, the attitude toward homosexuality in the text was, as you note, far from extreme, which just shows you how much things have changed in a, historically speaking, short period of time.


Significant attitudinal evolution. Some of it good, others, not so much.









And this is what to wear when crewing for your yacht club! :happy:

















And a bonus ad -










This concludes Esquire June '34.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

The text to this is enlightening - as we've chatted about before, the '30s thought nothing of wearing suit jackets and trousers as separates. Heck, Esquire encourages it.

Also, any maybe it's just my screen, but the text says his trousers are light grey but they look white to me. Anywho, I love the white bucks w/ red soles (nice if they had a real revival) - which, apparently, are very current because they are unlined. Was the general population back then that much more engaged and informed about these clothing details as, today, when I mention things like that or fabrics or collar length, I get blank stares from most people?

And let's spend a moment acknowledging "her." I didn't live in the 1930s (I'm not quite that old, thank you), but I know a come-hither look when I see one. And if I missed it from her outfit and languid repose, the dangling cigarette would have been a big red siren. Just MHO, but he doesn't have a shot with her.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25019
> 
> 
> The text to this is enlightening - as we've chatted about before, the '30s thought nothing of wearing suit jackets and trousers as separates. Heck, Esquire encourages it.
> ...


That's a host of provocative observations and musings, Sir! 

1. You certainly can wear a suit jacket with odd trousers if it's the right jacket, and the right trousers, and you're particularly adept at what you're doing. Three conditions which are most often not only not met, but foreign concepts to the poor souls attempting it.

I didn't reread the text, but recall the jacket as gabardine and the trousers flannel. Gabardine can be, and was then, most often a more casual and sporting cloth, not far removed in milieu from the flannel. And they wore flannel with darn near *everything*, at least judging from this documentary evidence. Looks good in this instance. Though the trousers certainly *do* look white/cream, not light grey. From my readings, Arnold Gingrich, the editor, actually wrote much of these descriptions, statements to the contrary not withstanding. And it wasn't uncommon for he, the illustrators and the printers to be somewhat at odds.

2. I think your observation about the details are spot on. But I doubt that era's Everyman was any more attuned, but rather that there was a much greater number of makers, often with peculiar details they thought best, and Esquire seeks to educate the reader.

3. The gal? Not my type!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the July 1934 issue of Esquire -


























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧

Pic 1: I'd estimate 7'2", 46" chest, 33" waist and a Tom Collins in hand. He doesn't stand up from that chair, he unrolls.

Pic 2: Isn't he suppose to have a "man" take care of the customs inspection for him? And I want one of his Gladstones - he has two.

Pic 3: First fabric pic I don't hate - also, note the high-waisted pants and love the brown suede with the black-and-white houndstooth (I'm guessing) trousers.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: I'd estimate 7'2", 46" chest, 33" waist and a Tom Collins in hand. He doesn't stand up from that chair, he unrolls.


I thought he somewhat resembled a preying mantis!



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 2: Isn't he suppose to have a "man" take care of the customs inspection for him? And I want one of his Gladstones - he has two.


Customs officials frown upon packing a man to bring with you.



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 3: First fabric pic I don't hate - also, note the high-waisted pants and love the brown suede with the black-and-white houndstooth (I'm guessing) trousers.


Thank goodness! Plenty more a'comin'!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧

Pic 1:

What I always thought was called the "throat tab" on a jacket, Esquire calls "an extension tab at the slit of one lapel" (I win for English Comp 101 brevity). Could it be that the "throat tabs" I've seen are almost always a separate piece of cloth attached to the jacket's collar with a button as opposed to the "extension" being, well, an extension of the collar's material?
And, referring to buttoning up the "extension," what scenario / way is this helpful: "...a feature that has its points when you put on the jacket immediately after a session of exertion under the summer sun, obviating the necessity of a muffler"? Are they possibly saying it is so cold in the summer that you want to cover up your neck after playing tennis to prevent a chill? (Not bloody likely during a summer day in Newport.)
Finally, did you notice this nice backhanded compliment to every club that isn't Newport or Southhampton, "At Newport and Southhampton and among the fashionable minority at all the other summer resorts..." Biting old-school WASP putdown if ever there was one.
Pic 2:

Guy on the right: what animal is about to choke him to death and are those espadrilles on his feet?
Pic 2 & 3:

They've definitely upped the artistic effort to bring some life and visual appeal to these fabric pics versus their earlier ones.
Don't know how I really feel about the last guy's mustache, but you have to appreciate the attempt.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1:
> 
> ...


- I've seen it done both ways. I sometimes like it as an added touch of rusticity, and once had some quasi-sport/outdoor jackets on which it could be put to good use.

Esquire was significantly aspirational, and guys reading this could image themselves there while skipping around their pot-holed, asphalt municipal court! 

- Yes, that scarf indeed has a life of its own. But I think they're tennis shoes.

- I think Gingrich got tired of paying Fellows, et al, and had his kids get busy with the construction paper. Fortunately, fabric pictures only survive a few more issues.

But I like the 'stache!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Another incidence of grey flannel and tan jacket -



























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> - I've seen it done both ways. I sometimes like it as an added touch of rusticity, and once had some quasi-sport/outdoor jackets on which it could be put to good use.
> 
> Esquire was significantly aspirational, and guys reading this could image themselves there while skipping around their pot-holed, asphalt municipal court!
> 
> ...


Best news - fabric pictures soon to say adieu. Sometimes you just gotta pay up.

I thought the vamp on the sneakers was high up for espadrilles, but the kinda rope bottom and lack of visible laces (I guess they are slip-on tennis sneaks) led me astray.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Best news - fabric pictures soon to say adieu. Sometimes you just gotta pay up.
> 
> I thought the vamp on the sneakers was high up for espadrilles, but the kinda rope bottom and lack of visible laces (I guess they are slip-on tennis sneaks) led me astray.


Perhaps. But as likely Gingrich's kids' dexterity with scissors just might not have been up to the task.

And since you've expressed you disappointment with learning that fabric pictures will soon come to an end -










And footwear of the era -









And a bonus ad, just because I like the outfit depicted -









And that concludes the July '34 issue.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are from August '34 -


























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

The outfit on the guy sitting is Apparel Arts perfect. I might not want to wear it (maybe I would if I lived an Apparel-Arts and not Fading-Fast  lifestyle), but I love that it takes so many disparate elements, thinks real hard and puts them all together in a way that works elegantly.

All good there, but what the heck, even then, did people go to the beach that dressed up and sit in a hammock chair? Clearly, they had invented bathing suits by then, as per his companion. Also, considering Fellows skills, why did he make it look like the man is talking to himself or his twin?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25089
> The outfit on the guy sitting is Apparel Arts perfect. I might not want to wear it (maybe I would if I lived an Apparel-Arts and not Fading-Fast  lifestyle), but I love that it takes so many disparate elements, thinks real hard and puts them all together in a way that works elegantly.
> 
> All good there, but what the heck, even then, did people go to the beach that dressed up and sit in a hammock chair? Clearly, they had invented bathing suits by then, as per his companion. Also, considering Fellows skills, why did he make it look like the man is talking to himself or his twin?


I think the inspiration that the best of these illustrations offer if possibly their best attribute. It's not necessary to attempt to imitate the precisely, rather they're instructional in helping see new ways of putting ourselves together.

I know I've seen photos of guys in jackets and ties on the beach from the 20's & 30's, so I don't know if it's that far fetched, though I suspect it was just as likely just a thematically chosen setting in which to set down this handsome ensemble.

Not too long ago I finished reading a biography of Ulysses Grant who spent many summers in Long Branch NJ with his family, and I've seen numerous photos of he and others on the beach fully dressed. And I think by the era of this illustration, it may not have yet become as odd a concept as it seems now.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This is an ad with an illustration by Leslie Saalburg who many, along with Fellows, consider the best illustrators to have painted for Esquire and Apparel Arts. I think it's dandy, so I'm offering it both as the entire ad, and just the illustration.



















And so that all their fans aren't disappointed, we have a fabric picture! :happy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes the August '34 issue of Esquire.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic 1: I love how often bars and cocktails are worked into AA/Esquire illustrations

Pic 3: Before I even started my weekend getaway, I'd be broke buying the clothes I needed for it (voice in my head: "screw it, too much effort and money, I'll just stay home"). Although, I do want that gladstone.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: I love how often bars and cocktails are worked into AA/Esquire illustrations


It was a cynosure of sophistication and glamour, polished to a blinding sheen by the endless notoriety granted via prohibition, only one year departed when this was published. And so it remained up through the '60's.



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 3: Before I even started my weekend getaway, I'd be broke buying the clothes I needed for it (voice in my head: "screw it, too much effort and money, I'll just stay home"). Although, I do want that gladstone.


In an era when a gentleman changed his clothes, what, 6 times a day? You couldn't afford to be poor! :happy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are from the September 1934 issue of esquire.



























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic 1: While I have my favorites (the top two), every single one of those outfits is impressive. If the movies from the 1930s weren't evidence, I'd be skeptical that a world somewhat close to these illustrations every really existed. 

Pic 2: The shirt and suit fight each other IMHO. I'm glad you said these annoying fabric pics are going away soon

Pic 3: College sure was different back then. That suit had to be a bit much to take in fully unfurled. I like the ticket pocket on the overcoat (and, I'd say, we have evidence that it was called either a cash or ticket pocket - i.e., the term was used interchangeably with regards to this type of pocket - based on the text).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: While I have my favorites (the top two), every single one of those outfits is impressive. If the movies from the 1930s weren't evidence, I'd be skeptical that a world somewhat close to these illustrations every really existed.
> 
> ...


While a reflection of some individual's life, for the majority, what we see was largely aspirational and inspirational. And while the more flamboyant and well-heeled college students of the era did wear similar items, I think a little artistic license is exercised in depicting them.



























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad by Fellows and Sharp -









Illustration cropped -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

The ads are quite good, but versus the AA or Esquire illustrations, IMHO, a bit too busy. My guess, Fellows and Sharp gave Interwoven what it wanted.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> The ads are quite good, but versus the AA or Esquire illustrations, IMHO, a bit too busy. My guess, Fellows and Sharp gave Interwoven what it wanted.


+1!



























That concludes September's 1934 Esquire.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Usually, I just want my clothes to look half as good as the clothes on the men in these illustrations look, but in this case, I just want my life - for one day* - to feel as successful as the man's life in this illustration appears to be.

* Heck, whom am I kidding, I'll take half a day.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25207
> 
> Usually, I just want my clothes to look half as good as the clothes on the men in these illustrations look, but in this case, I just want my life - for one day* - to feel as successful as the man's life in this illustration appears to be.
> 
> * Heck, whom am I kidding, I'll take half a day.


And just think, he's still at *work!*


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> And just think, he's still at *work!*


Work, for me, is part of a successful life. It all comes down to what your work is and how good you are at it. My guess, he's pretty darn good at a pretty engaging career.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Work, for me, is part of a successful life. It all comes down to what your work is and how good you are at it. My guess, he's pretty darn good at a pretty engaging career.


Nah!

Queue John Houseman; "He made money the old fashioned way - he *inherited* it!"


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are from Esquire October 1934.


























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic 1: Love the suit, shirt and tie, but not crazy about the vest with it. Just an aside, but the first two sentences of the text are a bit clunky.

Pic 2: Great job of pulling off three patterns with lines in them / not sure the very light trousers work that well


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: Love the suit, shirt and tie, but not crazy about the vest with it. Just an aside, but the first two sentences of the text are a bit clunky.
> 
> Pic 2: Great job of pulling off three patterns with lines in them / not sure the very light trousers work that well


That much tonal contrast isn't for everyone, or every occasion.

Agree about the text, and while reading it realized that this suit isn't dark grey as I thought, but rather lovat, a grey-green, though it's more common to find it in a lighter tone.

This issue has a lot of coats. Here are some of them.


























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic 1: What, no gladstone? The Neanderthal. 

Pic 2: "I am a big loud coat, get out of my way!"

Pic 3: Still hate the fabric pics, (in sotto voce) but love that grey herringbone suit.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: What, no gladstone? The Neanderthal.


Yeah! 



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 2: "I am a big loud coat, get out of my way!"


I remember coats like this from my boyhood, perhaps they were a bit older by that time, but still worn by men each winter. They were thick, heavy and marvelously warm! At a time when winters were uniformly cold and life included a fair amount of time outdoors in a tie and jacket. The big pattern was less obnoxious than it might seem, and had the virtue of typically offering enough pattern scale contrast to harmonize with the smaller scale patterns of many suits .

In '71 or '72 I purchased a thick black and white herringbone tweed from HSM, and it was a nice warm coat, though not nearly as thick as this. DB with a belt in back. Not bad!



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 3: Still hate the fabric pics, (in sotto voce) but love that grey herringbone suit.


Yup, very nice suit!

More coats -


























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This does it for October '34.









A beloved fabric picture! 










And a bonus ad. While it may not offer ultimate sartorial inspiration, I love the illustration and its mood.










And that concludes Esquire October 1934.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

For the historical-clothing-details guys amongst us (I, sadly, find this stuff way too interesting for my social skills), check this out.

From the text of the below pic: "Top off with leather watch guard strap in the breast pocket."

It was "a thing," for a time, to wear a watch attached to your lapel by a strap and then dropped into the breast pocket of your suit jacket or sport coat. You almost have to enlarge the pic to see the strap.









And proving that it really did happen, look at this picture of the almost-always sartorially sharp Fred Astaire:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> This does it for October '34.
> 
> View attachment 25236
> 
> ...


Pic 1: Love the suit, but despite the glowing text, do not like that shirt with it. All it needs is a white shirt and the outfit would be killer.

Pic 2: Still not liking the "fabric" pics, but have to admit, this one is creatively done.

Pic 3: Agree with you - love the illustration. It's very "Saturday Evening Post" / Rockwell-like.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> For the historical-clothing-details guys amongst us (I, sadly, find this stuff way too interesting for my social skills), check this out.
> 
> From the text of the below pic: "Top off with leather watch guard strap in the breast pocket."
> 
> ...


Really cool! Thanks for noticing that and pointing it out. I did not.

Guess it makes sense, as I've read that men didn't begin wearing wristwatches until after WWI. And I suspect more than few still preferred their pocket watches and this offered a snazzy way to carry them.

And interestingly, it's become something young I-gents seem to currently enjoy experimenting with.



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 1: Love the suit, but despite the glowing text, do not like that shirt with it. All it needs is a white shirt and the outfit would be killer.


I like the shirt, I think not least, because it reminds me of one I had my shirtmaker make. Mine was a hairline red stripe which gave the appearance of pale light red, as distinct from pink, and I had him do it with a white spread collar. Got a lot of compliments on it, including from rather conservative gentlemen.



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 2: Still not liking the "fabric" pics, but have to admit, this one is creatively done.
> 
> Pic 3: Agree with you - love the illustration. It's very "Saturday Evening Post" / Rockwell-like.


I find it warm and droll, possibly Thomas Nast.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Really cool! Thanks for noticing that and pointing it out. I did not.
> 
> Guess it makes sense, as I've read that men didn't begin wearing wristwatches until after WWI. And I suspect more than few still preferred their pocket watches and this offered a snazzy way to carry them.
> 
> And interestingly, it's become something young I-gents seem to currently enjoy experimenting with.


Thankfully, my girlfriend finds details like that cool as, otherwise, I think it's just we here at AAAC that find this stuff interesting. Astaire is always a go-to guy for '30s style.



Flanderian said:


> ...I like the shirt, I think not least, because it reminds me of one I had my shirtmaker make. Mine was a hairline red stripe which gave the appearance of pale light red, as distinct from pink, and I had him do it with a white spread collar. Got a lot of compliments on it, including from rather conservative gentlemen.....


I think the shirt is fine, I just don't like it with that suit. I can see it with a light or medium grey suit. It could also be interesting with a tan summer poplin.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Thankfully, my girlfriend finds details like that cool as, otherwise, I think it's just we here at AAAC that find this stuff interesting. Astaire is always a go-to guy for '30s style.
> 
> I think the shirt is fine, I just don't like it with that suit. I can see it with a light or medium grey suit. It could also be interesting with a tan summer poplin.


As mine had a white spread collar and French cuffs, it was rather dressy, and could be worked into a rakish formality. I liked wearing it with a silver tie and navy chalkstripe DB, among other choices.

These are from the November 1934 Esquire issue. Something for the sportsmen!

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad -










That concludes the November 1934 issue.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the December 1934 issue. This issue inaugurates their holiday issues during which the plates prominently feature a variety of gift recommendations, which none-the-less offer sartorial insight, but with fewer painted fashion illustrations. And these recommendations are also carried over into the January issue in many years.

Note the droll illustrations offered at the bottom of the page on many of these. I find them delightful!

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Hard to believe he'd also need a blanket to stay warm with that coat, suit and scarf.









⇧ Guy in the lower right-hand corner: In my next life, I want his jawline (I have his shirt and tie, just missing the superhero jawline). I'll take the shoes to the left as well.









⇧ At the bar again, I see. I assume the mustard intimates there are big-soft pretzels there as well?









⇧ Other than sheer whimsey, I'm at a lost to explain these bottom-of-the-ad doodles. Could it be to make the "regular" guy know these clothes are for him? I'm just guessing.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25285
> 
> 
> View attachment 25287
> ...


Largely whimsy. They each have a theme, and some themes continue from the left side page, to the right. Nothing side splitting, just a wink. 

And no fabric pictures this issue!


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> Largely whimsy. They each have a theme, and some themes continue from the left side page, to the right. Nothing side splitting, just a wink.
> 
> And no fabric pictures this issue!
> 
> ...


Just realized that one of the plates above was a dupe from an earlier post, so I deleted.

Here's one in place.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

There are only two remaining plates from the Dec. '34 issue -

















Bonus ad -










That concludes the December 1934 issue.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1935.

This is an oft reproduced Fellow's masterpiece -









And more stuff you once might have purchased.


















What some undoubtedly know, but others less concerned might not, is that Esquire was the first "modern" men's magazine. And while sartorially originated, it included great fiction from the best writers of the time, along with "lifestyle" articles complete with things to buy. And it also included pin-ups and risque cartoons. Sound familiar? Yes, 30 years later another publication imitated many essential elements, but with a willingness to publish actual nudes; Playboy.

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

More from January '35.

Heading north -

















You don't wear a tie when you ski? I thought everyone does! 









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1935.
> 
> This is an oft reproduced Fellow's masterpiece -
> 
> ...


First pic: Other than, based on scale, that he's 8 feet tall, I want his life. And staying with the scale issue for a moment, that drink wouldn't fill up one of his molars.

Pic 2 & 3:

I love the helpful graphic with the number key (I'm not proud of myself).

Re #36 - "Cigarette case that opens like a roll-top desk" How much do you want to see, in person, how that looks and works?

Fun to see so many classic like #20 or #18 when they were still new(ish).

Would be cool to see a price list with the items.



Flanderian said:


> More from January '35.
> 
> Heading north -
> 
> ...


Pic 1: For the woman, I don't think Hurd could have worked the feline aesthetic any harder. She might be a lot of things, but fun to just hang out with probably isn't one of them - but that's not what she's about.

And, quite the car.

Pic 2 & 3:

The sporting look was still evolving, but the second one isn't bad. It has more of a '50s aesthetic to it and is not dandyish like the first one (the guy in green).

Great observation about "Esquire" being a progenitor to "Playboy."


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> First pic: Other than, based on scale, that he's 8 feet tall, I want his life. And staying with the scale issue for a moment, that drink wouldn't fill up one of his molars.
> 
> Pic 2 & 3:
> 
> ...


I really have no information about the illustrator named Hurd beyond his illustrations. And while, IMO, his work never rivaled Fellows or Saalberg, his work at this point was still competent and possessed a certain measure of style. Later in his career, I find it becomes overly crude and generally falls apart.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Heading south -









Note collar worn outside jacket, and more casual potential of a semi-sport suit. -
















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

When you go, what to wear when -
















That concludes January '35.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Heading south -
> 
> View attachment 25329
> 
> ...


⇧

Pic 1: Despite the text alluding to a tan camel-hair topcoat for summering in Palm Beach, even the not-really-alive guy in the illustration was smart enough to pass on wearing or carrying a camel hair coat in Florida as he didn't want his two-dimensional self bursting into flames.

Pic 2: You have to love a time when the roll of your suit jacket's lapel could convey an insouciant attitude toward your attire - i.e., this guy is the rebel of his day (he's the 1930s Marlon Brando in a white T-shirt, jeans, black-leather motorcycle jacket menacingly wielded a trophy in one hand). And, be it the 1930s, '70s or today, I still don't think an open-collared shirt works well with a suit.

Pic 3: Let's leave all-legs-and-arms man and his rope-tied espadrilles aside and focus on Fellows' female masterpiece: You don't have to see her face* to know it is arrestingly beautiful in a quietly angular and aloof manner with coruscating blue eyes as it's all conveyed by her long, lean athletic back, swan-like neck and blunt-bobbed blonde hair (nary a strand out of place). And if all she is, isn't conveyed by the backless dress, Fellows provides the final clue with a peak at her not-completely-visible, but says-it-all, high-heeled red shoe (back when that signaled more than an affinity for color). The man is a genius illustrator.

*Odds say she's the woman in the first pic.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: Despite the text alluding to a tan camel-hair topcoat for summering in Palm Beach, even the not-really-alive guy in the illustration was smart enough to pass on wearing or carrying a camel hair coat in Florida as he didn't want his two-dimensional self bursting into flames.
> 
> ...


#1. In an era when wool flannel was ballyhooed as perfect for beach wear and athletic endeavors, I guess it's not to surprising to find camel recommended for Palm Beach! 

#2. Style can transcend genre. 

#3. Last night I watched _*Topper Returns* _with my child bride, () and she not only enjoyed it but remarked upon the glamour and bearing of the female characters. Fantasy though it may be, not all was hell for ladies in the pre-lib era! (And you can be certain I better open the door for her! )


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the February 1935 issue of Esquire.

For sport -
















For this weekend! 








To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> #1. In an era when wool flannel was ballyhooed as perfect as beach wear and athletic endeavors, I guess it's not to surprising to find camel recommended for Palm Beach!
> 
> #2. Style can transcend genre.
> 
> #3. Last night I watched _*Topper Returns* _with my child bride, () and she not only enjoyed it but remarked upon the glamour and bearing of the female characters. Fantasy though it may be, not all was hell for ladies in the pre-lib era! (And you can be certain I better open the door for her! )


It's been a pretty long time since I've seen the Topper movies, but I remember liking the first one, "Topper," the best. The movies in the '30s that are set amongst the wealthy present a very glamorous world of black-tie dinners, V12 cars, European vacations, country clubs, etc. They made a lot of those types of movies, which, my guess, were enjoyed as escapism for the average American suffering through the Great Depression.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

In our discussions of the decline in hat wearing and serious overcoats, my contention has always been that it has both corresponded with, and been caused either partially or mainly by the abandonment of public transport by most. And a while ago, a friend brought the photo below to my attention. For those too young to have enjoyed this era,  it offers a graphic appreciation of what life felt like for many Americans.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> It's been a pretty long time since I've seen the Topper movies, but I remember liking the first one, "Topper," the best. The movies in the '30s that are set amongst the wealthy present a very glamorous world of black-tie dinners, V12 cars, European vacations, country clubs, etc. They made a lot of those types of movies, which, my guess, were enjoyed as escapism for the average American suffering through the Great Depression.


I agree that the first movie was the most enjoyable, and I also was very fond of the TV series that was made from it that I watched as a boy in the early '50's.






Yes, those films were all about glamour and escapism. Who wanted to watch Joe and Betty fight with one another as they lugged groceries up to their 5th floor apartment!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing February '35 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic 1: Really like the look of the suit jacket-shirt-tie-Fair Isle combination. I used to do the same type of combo regularly when I wore a flannel suit. The sweater vest (Fair Isle or other) with a suit and tie is rarely seen anymore, but one that garnered a lot of compliments (mainly from women).

Pic 2: That Glen Plaid suit had to be a lot to take in without the overcoat

Pic 3: Love the inside-baseball acknowledgement of Fellows' "angular...heroes." In general, I think narrow ties on stout men exaggerate their stoutness, but with the vest hiding most of the tie, the narrowness seems to work.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: Really like the look of the suit jacket-shirt-tie-Fair Isle combination. I used to do the same type of combo regularly when I wore a flannel suit. The sweater vest (Fair Isle or other) with a suit and tie is rarely seen anymore, but one that garnered a lot of compliments (mainly from women).
> 
> ...


Dressing down the suit has become almost a lost art. And little could do it better than a beautiful Fairisle carefully chosen. Or a nice fine quality sleeveless cardigan will work with most suits, even worsteds.

A bit of color added to an otherwise sober ensemble can be just the right thing. I also recall the jewel-tone satin vests which became somewhat fashionable with those sober worsteds from the late '50's through early '60's among more sophisticated sartorialists.

When I see photos of many young I-gents on various blogs who've put themselves together with many different patterns and colors, I really enjoy it when it's done well. But more often, and for most of us, including just one rakish item in our ensemble often works better. While having many balls in the air at one time is exhilarating when done well, I am left to wonder if knowing what to edit might be even the greater art.

I agree entirely about the narrow tie. Frankly, some of the sartorial advice Esquire offered, is, IMHO, just plain mistaken. As a thickly built young man in the early '60's with a 46" chest, I can testify that *those 1 1/4" ties were not flattering!*


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad -










That concludes Esquire February 1935.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire's March 1935 issue -


























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

For sport -



























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad. Lovely painting by Saalburg. Lots of talon ads working to convince wearers that this newfangled gizmo called a zipper could actually be preferred to buttons for your fly! 









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧

Pic 1: Sans the cap, this would be a perfect outfit to wear today to look sharp and styled with confidence, but without being costumey or loud (I'd go with a quieter sport coat, but it is not necessary).

Pic 2: I want his overcoat

Pic 3: Agreed, that is an outstanding painting. Separately, in my perfect world, all men's trousers are button fly.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: Sans the cap, this would be a perfect outfit to wear today to look sharp and styled with confidence, but without being costumey or loud (I'd go with a quieter sport coat, but it is not necessary).


I'd wear it *with* the cap!



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 2: I want his overcoat


I wish I still had the one I had like it! (More significantly, that it still would fit. )



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 3: Agreed, that is an outstanding painting. Separately, in my perfect world, all men's trousers are button fly.


There are other ads making the case for the superiority of the zipper. I'll include one if I come upon it. Button flys are artful, but I'm unsure of there practical advantages. (And I've had occasions in my life when they would have been disastrous! )


















That concludes Esquire March 1935.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I...I wish I still had the one I had like it! (More significantly, that it still would fit. )....


Nowhere (not even close) as good as the Esquire one, but I did thrift this Pendleton coat last year. For a modern coat, it has a heavy, thick and well-built old-world feel:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-are-you-wearing.48726/page-5027#post-1858340


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Nowhere (not even close) as good as the Esquire one, but I did thrift this Pendleton coat last year. For a modern coat, it has a heavy, thick and well-built old-world feel:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...-are-you-wearing.48726/page-5027#post-1858340


Mine was HSM from Wallachs, purchased circa 1971.

A better than adequate quality coat in the era when as an any day experience you could walk into a quality men's store, pay a little more than the least costly options, and get a competent, well made in the U.S.A. article of tailored clothing.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire April 1934.

More sportsmen!









(A bit of theme music for Uschi and Conrad! )






















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

From the text:

"...somebody loves a fat man."
"Chubby, on the left..."
"Tubby, on the right..."
Jeez, just one sharp elbow after another.

Guy on the right looks great.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25487
> 
> From the text:
> 
> ...


Ah, Gingrich of the silver tongue! 









What you wear for semi-formal daywear!









What you look like if you're Raggedy Andy and wearing a tailcoat as formal daywear.









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ from the middle pic, #10, "A pair of black shoes with grey cloth button tops."

It seems today we call those button boots. To be sure, the boots today seem to have much more substantial uppers, but I'm not sure that is what has driven the appellation change. 

So, I guess, two questions. Has the name changed / were they commonly referred to as "shoes with cloth button tops" back then or, even back then, was there a distinction made between shoes with a cloth top and boots with substantial uppers?

And how common were they - shoes or boots with button tops - as I've seen them in old ads and in movies, but not that frequently?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ from the middle pic, #10, "A pair of black shoes with grey cloth button tops."
> 
> It seems today we call those button boots. To be sure, the boots today seem to have much more substantial uppers, but I'm not sure that is what has driven the appellation change.
> 
> ...


Two good questions, to which I have no good answers.

I suspect that both terms may well simply be descriptive rather than definitive. Despite Esquire's purported knowledge and sophistication, one can sight the occasional naif description or observation revealing a lack of detailed knowledge or understanding.

You know, much like contemporary sartorial blogs!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The dickey, fine if you're an equestrian, otherwise consigned to the same bin as the matching tie and PS.

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

More than just a bonus ad, this is a much copied iconic illustration set in the illustrious Cloud Club, the swank eatery which once occupied an upper floor of The Chrysler Building.









Stuff to go a spotin'!









And a bonus ad advising you how to put it all together.








And that concludes the Esquire April 1935 issue.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

In my sad, empty life, I've seen way too many documentaries and read way too many books on famous NYC building, which has made the Cloud Club a go-to place in my fantasy time-travel world (where I'm actually able to become a member - hey, it's my fantasy world, I can do with it what I want). Kidding aside, there are several pics and even some okay film footage out there of that crazy incredible club.

So, all that said, I'm suspicious of that ad, as none of the pics or videos of the Cloud Club I've seen look at all like that. The CC was very forward-looking (for the '30s) Art Deco; whereas, that ad looks very traditional men's club. I'm no expert and have learned to be reserved in my criticisms as, who knows, maybe that style was a part of it somehow, but as noted, I'm, at least, a bit doubtful.

These are common images that I've seen of the club:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> In my sad, empty life, I've seen way too many documentaries and read way too many books on famous NYC building, which has made the Cloud Club a go-to place in my fantasy time-travel world (where I'm actually able to become a member - hey, it's my fantasy world, I can do with it what I want). Kidding aside, there are several pics and even some okay film footage out there of that crazy incredible club.
> 
> So, all that said, I'm suspicious of that ad, as none of the pics or videos of the Cloud Club I've seen look at all like that. The CC was very forward-looking (for the '30s) Art Deco; whereas, that ad looks very traditional men's club. I'm no expert and have learned to be reserved in my criticisms as, who knows, maybe that style was a part of it somehow, but as noted, I'm, at least, a bit doubtful.
> 
> ...


And I think you're right to be suspicious of Saalburg's club. It doesn't match any of the photos I've seen of the original either. And since I'm too lazy to look it up again, I think I recall the actual club's decor being somewhat debated, that it mixed both Art Deco and more traditional elements in its decor in a manner not pleasing to some critics. I think I may have read it was the product of several individuals with disparate preferences. And what we see in the ad may simply be Saalburg's idea of what he would have preferred.

I think in your fantasy life you do well to spend as much time as possible in your own *personal* Cloud Club. In my fantasy life I'm back in the Weisbaden Spielbank. It's far more enjoyable to lose one's money in an actual palace!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire's May 1935 issue.



























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad. Gotta sell them linings!









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

This ⇧ outfit has grown on me. I even like the grey oxford with yellow stripes shirt that I initially didn't - seems a truly inspired choice, not just different to be different (which Esquire does now and then). While I like it, bowties are attention grabbers today; but swap it out for a tie, and this outfit, in NYC anyway, would look elegantly casual, but not attention grabbing.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25541
> 
> This ⇧ outfit has grown on me. I even like the grey oxford with yellow stripes shirt that I initially didn't - seems a truly inspired choice, not just different to be different (which Esquire does now and then). While I like it, bowties are attention grabbers today; but swap it out for a tie, and this outfit, in NYC anyway, would look elegantly casual, but not attention grabbing.


It's an inspired ensemble. But contains some things I either can't or won't wear. I just don't like the bar style bow ties with which Esquire and AA of the period were so enamored. Butterflies, or long ties only. As a boy, I and everyone else wore mainly or exclusively porkpie hats. They look dreadful on me. Same goes for grey shirts. In my shirtmaker days I had them do black and white cloth rather than grey and white. The greater tonal contrast made all the difference for me, though the shirts still looked as much grey as black when being worn. I've had grey hair for 35 years, and a complexion that borders on olive.

Though I do like shirts with grey of themselves, and on a fellow with the right coloring they are splendid. Guys with medium brown, sandy or red hair seem to do well with it.

Would love a gabardine suit of this style and color if I had any chance of getting enough wear of it. Once had one from the original Jos. A Bank made at their Baltimore factory. It was a good suit! Gabardine cloth of a weight you don't see anymore.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad. Lookin' stylish at Lord and Taylor!










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad. The virtue of zippers, more Saalburg -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Lord and Taylor's Ad, re the suit: "...and of course, pleats." Pleats vs. flat fronts are clearly a perennial sartorial battle with whomever is on top at the moment claiming all but divine status. (And that's one heck of a herringbone suit.)

Saalburg Ad: Wonderful illustration, awesome looking three-piece suits and, since we can see the building outside the window, we know this clubby-looking room isn't claiming to be in the Chrysler Building's Cloud Club .


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Lord and Taylor's Ad, re the suit: "...and of course, pleats." Pleats vs. flat fronts are clearly a perennial sartorial battle with whomever is on top at the moment claiming all but divine status. (And that's one heck of a herringbone suit.)
> 
> Saalburg Ad: Wonderful illustration, awesome looking three-piece suits and, since we can see the building outside the window, we know this clubby-looking room isn't claiming to be in the Chrysler Building's Cloud Club .


I find it remarkable how stylish and fresh the clothing in the 83 year old Lord and Taylor ad still looks. I'd wear the whole shebang tomorrow, as is. Lord and Taylor was an upper middle quality department store at the time. Translating it into current dollars, that's a $635 suit which was considered a not insignificant amount of money to pay for a RTW suit. Over the last 15 to 20 years the menswear market has become much more polarized between overpriced so-called luxury items, and disposable mass market dreck. The shirt costs $2.65. In the late fifties I can recall a discussion with my mother concerning the excessive cost of $3.99 for a shirt. By the mid sixties, a decent dress shirt could still be had for $5.00 to $7.50.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I find it remarkable how stylish and fresh the clothing in the 83 year old Lord and Taylor ad still looks. I'd wear the whole shebang tomorrow, as is. Lord and Taylor was an upper middle quality department store at the time. Translating it into current dollars, that's a $635 suit which was considered a not insignificant amount of money to pay for a RTW suit. Over the last 15 to 20 years the menswear market has become much more polarized between overpriced so-called luxury items, and disposable mass market dreck. The shirt costs $2.65. In the late fifties I can recall a discussion with my mother concerning the excessive cost of $3.99 for a shirt. By the mid sixties, a decent dress shirt could still be had for $5.00 to $7.50.


When I started working in NYC in the early '80s, I "discovered" Lord and Taylor as it had an outstanding men's department on the tenth floor of its flagship store on 5th Avenue.

It was - just as you described it - an upper-middle quality store. The prices were, usually, a bit less than Brooks and Macys (which was a better store then), for similar Ivy/Trad clothes.

I have a distinct memory of buying an olive poplin summer suit there on a season-ending close-out and having to wait until summer the next year to wear it. Pre internet, it was one of my go-to stores for classics.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad by Saalburg -









That concludes Esquire May 1935.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Great freakin' look. I'd prefer a higher collar - mock or turtle - on the sweater, but still, just classic.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25591
> 
> Great freakin' look. I'd prefer a higher collar - mock or turtle - on the sweater, but still, just classic.


I was struck by the same impression. A simple classic combination of elements that look great together. I find many of these illustrations both inspirational and instructive.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire June 1935.

















Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Other than the hat, the kid's outfit still works fine today.

As you noted, it's amazing how fresh / still quite wearable today those '35 L&T clothes are.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25598
> 
> Other than the hat, the kid's outfit still works fine today.
> 
> As you noted, it's amazing how fresh / still quite wearable today those '35 L&T clothes are.


It does. And his "dad" is the archetype older character Fellows and others depict in many of their illustrations, including a carefully trimmed mustache reminiscent of Gable's and others.

Recently my wife picked up some DVD's at her church's thrift shop and we're enjoying watching a series of _Bulldog Drummond_ B movies that are great fun for me. They're bad, but fun because they're high energy and even the actors don't take them seriously but instead have fun with their characters.

The title character is portrayed in this series of Drummond films by John Howard, seen in the photo below, and reminding me quite a bit of the "dad." His character is a WWI hero who becomes a playboy amateur detective. And in real life Howard subsequently enlisted as a naval officer in WWII and then won both the Navy Cross and the french Croix de Guerre for action when taking command of a damaged mine sweeper off Sardinia.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire June 1935 -









For your wedding -









Goodies for the groom -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> It does. And his "dad" is the archetype older character Fellows and others depict in many of their illustrations, including a carefully trimmed mustache reminiscent of Gable's and others.
> 
> Recently my wife picked up some DVD's at her church's thrift shop and we're enjoying watching a series of _Bulldog Drummond_ B movies that are great fun for me. They're bad, but fun because they're high energy and even the actors don't take them seriously but instead have fun with their characters.
> 
> The title character is portrayed in this series of Drummond films by John Howard, seen in the photo below, and reminding me quite a bit of the "dad." His character is a WWI hero who becomes a playboy amateur detective. And in real life Howard subsequently enlisted as a naval officer in WWII and then won both the Navy Cross and the french Croix de Guerre for action when taking command of a damaged mine sweeper off Sardinia.


I agree with your synopsis as - much like "The Saint" movies from the '30s and '40s - they are done in a lighthearted way where, for me anyway, the window into the style of the period - clothes, cars, architecture, argot - is as much (sometimes more) fun than the movie itself.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire June 1935 -
> 
> View attachment 25606
> 
> ...


Oddly I find myself loving/absolutely intrigued by the formal wear shots, although I have not worn my military or civilian formal wear since migrating South! Might I be missing such lost opportunities? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Oddly I find myself loving/absolutely intrigued by the formal wear shots, although I have not worn my military or civilian formal wear since migrating South! Might I be missing such lost opportunities? :icon_scratch:


To my surprise, a quick looks suggests that there still are some cruises where evening wear is worn. Ask Mrs. Eagle to pack her gowns, find such a cruise to the Bahamas where gaming is featured, break the bank, and return with enough loot to sponsor a pair of Yohei Fukuda footwear!

:happy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

For Eagle's day time cruise wear -

















Stuff you'll need -








To be continued:


----------



## Adriel Rowley (Jul 20, 2018)

Glad to come back to reading five pages.

Two very interesting things I find and I am thankful for Flanderian for posting so many images.

One, 2x6 coats, which thought 2x were not existent until the '80s. Could someone take a 2x4 that is rampant and then correct it through replacing and adding two buttons to create a proper six button?

Second, the plethora of single monk shoes, or in other words, monk shoes at all existing before the current times. Some reason I had this impression and glad was wrong as have a hankering for a pair to be an alternative to oxford shoes for suits (been wearing loafers for years).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> To my surprise, a quick looks suggests that there still are some cruises where evening wear is worn. Ask Mrs. Eagle to pack her gowns, find such a cruise to the Bahamas where gaming is featured, break the bank, and return with enough loot to sponsor a pair of Yohei Fukuda footwear!
> 
> :happy:


My friend, I am continually impressed by your ability to come up with a creative resolution for the purchasing dilemmas I experience, as a direct result of your wonderful postings. However, I do sense, perhaps, a fatal flaw in the logic of your present suggestion. Any suggestion that involves deep water cruising and my purchase of another pair of $4K to 5K footwear (I'm still being reminded, on a recurring basis of the Alligator Western Boots, that I eventually sold for pennies on the dollar:crazy, would in all probability result in my 'swimming with the fishes' before the end of that cruise! I think I will simply continue to enjoy these classic postings you offer and keep my feet and whatever footwear I may be wearing on dry land. There has just got to be a less risky excuse for future wearing of my Tux and/or Mess Dress uniform? LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> My friend, I am continually impressed by your ability to come up with a creative resolution for the purchasing dilemmas I experience, as a direct result of your wonderful postings. However, I do sense, perhaps, a fatal flaw in the logic of your present suggestion. Any suggestion that involves deep water cruising and my purchase of another pair of $4K to 5K footwear (I'm still being reminded, on a recurring basis of the Alligator Western Boots, that I eventually sold for pennies on the dollar:crazy, would in all probability result in my 'swimming with the fishes' before the end of that cruise! I think I will simply continue to enjoy these classic postings you offer and keep my feet and whatever footwear I may be wearing on dry land. There has just got to be a less risky excuse for future wearing of my Tux and/or Mess Dress uniform? LOL.


But, but, but . . . ! 









Think of all you're missing!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

More Esquire June 1935 -


























Bonus ad: Illustration by Laurence Fellows. Including it as grieving for the departed F. R. Tripler. Nothing fashionable or flashy, everything stylish and fine quality. At 47th and Madison. With a gentleman who knew his profession always there to open the door for you and greet you. Suits from $920 to $1,748 in today's money. A lot of money during the Depression, and even now.










That concludes Esquire June 1935.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Espadrilles and variations - like that canvas rope sole shoe - definitely had a moment in the '30s. As to the upper-left-most image, I have this to say - "uh huh," that's it. Lower right - love that jacket.

Regarding the Tripler ad, when I was a Wall Street newbie in the early '80s, I would do the "circuit" on Madison (& just off Madison) of Press, Brooks, Stuart, Gorsart and Tripler (plus Alden, A&E, Church's and J&M when J&M was still a real shoe store) well before I could afford anything but Gorsart - and Press and Brooks on sale (which was twice a year at season end, not every other day like now).

Tripler and Stuart were well past my budget, but I loved the clothes, could appreciate the quality and style - and in Tripler, a sense of connection to the past (Stuart always felt a bit more _fashiony_ - I don't mean that derisively, just factually).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25641
> 
> Espadrilles and variations - like that canvas rope sole shoe - definitely had a moment in the '30s. As to the upper-left-most image, I have this to say - "uh huh," that's it. Lower right - love that jacket.
> 
> ...


A pair of canvas rubber-soled espadrilles made in Italy or Spain, purchased at Saks Fifth used to be an annual purchase. Served a summer as casual footwear, and the balance of the year as slippers before they wore out.

Most of my purchases from Triplers were comparatively minor. I still have wool challis ties and ascots from them that I wear. And tucked away some wool, and some cotton OTC hose with clocks.

But Paul Stuart was my passion, though it's been quite some time since I visited. It's a long way from the store I began doing business with 47 years ago. And I must confess, with great fondness and respect for the many AAAC members who still relish it, that I feel it's gone off the rails, particularly since Cliff Grodd's passing. I have no confidence in the way it is being taken by the lady fashionista now at its helm.

Call me a misogynist, but I'm terrified of women from the fashion industry who "modernize" and "bring into the mainstream" menswear firms, such as was done for Burberry, once one of the finest sources for men's fittings. (Remember the store on 57th?) I suspect she may succeed at making it more profitable, but at the expense of making far less enjoyable for those of us rooted in the classics.

Now when surveying Paul Stuart my feelings are best captured in the clip below -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> A pair of canvas rubber-soled espadrilles made in Italy or Spain, purchased at Saks Fifth used to be an annual purchase. Served a summer as casual footwear, and the balance of the year as slippers before they wore out.
> 
> Most of my purchases from Triplers were comparatively minor. I still have wool challis ties and ascots from them that I wear. And tucked away some wool, and some cotton OTC hose with clocks.
> 
> ...


And, yes, I fondly remember the classic Burberry store on 57th, which is now just a fashion store with the name Burberry attached (and an obnoxious proclivity to whore its famous tartan plaid out for the last John's dollar).

Sadly, I had no idea I was walking through the twilight of classic menswear's epicenter back when I was lusting after all those clothes I couldn't afford on Madison. At the time, those stores felt like sartorial firmament, but clearly, the foundation was crumbling.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> And, yes, I fondly remember the classic Burberry store on 57th, which is now just a fashion store with the name Burberry attached (and an obnoxious proclivity to whore its famous tartan plaid out for the last John's dollar).
> 
> Sadly, I had no idea I was walking through the twilight of classic menswear's epicenter back when I was lusting after all those clothes I couldn't afford on Madison. At the time, those stores felt like sartorial firmament, but clearly, the foundation was crumbling.


Superb description of the era and the milieu!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the July 1935 issue of Esquire -

























To be continued:


----------



## Adriel Rowley (Jul 20, 2018)

Flanderian said:


> More Esquire June 1935 -
> 
> View attachment 25637


When the term oxford fabric is used, are they meaning the same casual fabric of today?

I have this concept from somewhere casual oxford fabric shouldn't be worn with a suit. If so, is this true?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire July '35 -


























To be continued:


----------



## Adriel Rowley (Jul 20, 2018)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire July '35 -
> 
> View attachment 25679


Now understanding not to be part of the conversation, so please excuse me, though be brief. Find interesting now a 2x4 DB shows up.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire July '35 -
> 
> View attachment 25679
> 
> ...


First pic: Really like the tan suit on the guy in the background on the right

First and second pic: Great background detail, in particular, the first one has just enough to fully put you in the scene without overwhelming the main point - the center guy's outfit.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Feeling blue -









Bonus ad with George Shepherd illustration -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This particular illustration might better be titled, dressing so as to prove that one is not a cowboy, and under no circumstances should be allowed near a horse. 










Bonus ad -










That concludes Esquire July 1935.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire August 1935 -


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Adriel Rowley said:


> When the term oxford fabric is used, are they meaning the same casual fabric of today?
> 
> I have this concept from somewhere casual oxford fabric shouldn't be worn with a suit. If so, is this true?
> 
> Thank you in advance.


Oxford is a weave.


----------



## Adriel Rowley (Jul 20, 2018)

WA said:


> Oxford is a weave.


Thank you so very much for the reply and help! Much appreciated! :amazing:

I thought I knew that and was clear. Are there not several? A casual (not sure how differs), Pinpoint, and Royal.

My understanding is picture is of a Royal Oxford, thought would love to be corrected as have this and a white which are my favorite dress shirts (pain to iron though requiring the hottest temperature) and would like to eventually "replace" as don't fit me as well after my growth spurt at 27 and a half years of age plus increased size of the pex muscles.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Matching your Fair Isle sweater and socks is a bad, very bad, idea.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Matching your Fair Isle sweater and socks is a bad, very bad, idea.


Don't we all!? 

Though seriously, what is the chance of even *finding* a decent matching pair? I've got Fair Isle sweaters, and Fair Isle socks, but am happy that the socks just match each other!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Adriel Rowley said:


> Thank you so very much for the reply and help! Much appreciated! :amazing:
> 
> I thought I knew that and was clear. Are there not several? A casual (not sure how differs), Pinpoint, and Royal.
> 
> My understanding is picture is of a Royal Oxford, thought would love to be corrected as have this and a white which are my favorite dress shirts (pain to iron though requiring the hottest temperature) and would like to eventually "replace" as don't fit me as well after my growth spurt at 27 and a half years of age plus increased size of the pex muscles.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Very interesting and useful. Thank you.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

That concludes August 1935.


----------



## Adriel Rowley (Jul 20, 2018)

Appreciate the plethora of information, will keep me busy for a few minutes. 

Interesting a causal shirt be worn with a suit in the '30s.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire September 1935 -

Love the cocoa brown striped suit. I know the text calls it mouse, I call it cocoa. Note shoes that can't be worn, are. Keyed to tie.









And love everything on this page -

















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧

Pic 1: While I'm not a brown-suit or vertical-stripe-suit guy (I'm 6'1", 150lbs, vertical stripes make me look like a pipe cleaner with arms and legs) and not a fan of black shoes and ties with brown - in a very confident way, that suit (with its red and white stripes - Holy Cow!) works.

It announces itself - and how - but it works. That said, If I could have anything on that page, my choices would be, in order, the blonde, the gladstone and, then, the raincoat.

N.B., Love the kid's pin collar and brown-suede shoes

Pic 2: Clearly, being illustrated on the right side meant full-on dressing. That said, for the guy on the right, the checked, same-color-as-the-suit shirt is, IMHO, not a good choice as it makes everything too busy and monochromatic.

Pic 3: Gotta chuckle at the pistol lighter.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic 1: While I'm not a brown-suit or vertical-stripe-suit guy (I'm 6'1", 150lbs, vertical stripes make me look like a pipe cleaner with arms and legs) and not a fan of black shoes and ties with brown - in a very confident way, that suit (with its red and white stripes - Holy Cow!) works.
> 
> ...


Never been plagued by being too tall or slender! 

Ten or Fifteen years ago I would embrace either ensemble with gusto. Now, a little long in the tooth. When you're young you grow up, when you're old, you shrink down!

:happy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Matching your Fair Isle sweater and socks is a bad, very bad, idea.


Yes. I never do this kind of thing. Too obvious.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire September 1935.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Flanderian said:


> Never been plagued by being too tall or slender!
> 
> Ten or Fifteen years ago I would embrace either ensemble with gusto. Now, a little long in the tooth. When you're young you grow up, when you're old, you shrink down!
> 
> :happy:


At 57 I'm looking for a little shrinking to start,...


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> At 57 I'm looking for a little shrinking to start,...


I've lost two inches from my full adult height, all of it after the age of 60. So the good news is you may yet get to participate!  Enjoy being able to reach the upper shelves while you can!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the Esquire's October 1935 issue.










__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content


















To be continued:


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Wonderful illustrations. I could brouse through volumes of these high quality images.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> Wonderful illustrations. I could brouse through volumes of these high quality images.


Thanks, I'm glad you enjoy them! They give me a lot of pleasure also.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ That overcoat looks bullet proof and, having felt some in thrift stores (never, God forbid, in my size), it probably was.

Love how white bucks were regular worn with suits, dress trousers, etc., back then.









⇧ Based on them calling the guy in the upper left "tubby," it is clear Americans were a lot thinner back then (sadly, a Depression will do that).









⇧ Wonderful use of a turtleneck. I'm surprised Esquire and Apparel Arts weren't stronger advocates for them, but maybe they preferred pitching a shirt and tie (with tie bar) as that was more stuff to sell.


__
Sensitive content, not recommended for those under 18
Show Content









⇧ "cased sandwich box and flask -" genius, combining two of my favorite things in their own elegant traveling case.



Flanderian said:


> I've lost two inches from my full adult height, all of it after the age of 60. So the good news is you may yet get to participate!  Enjoy being able to reach the upper shelves while you can!


Ah, something to look forward to. Kidding aside, I'm probably down about half an inch (thankfully, yet to effect my clothing) and my and my girlfriend's parents (three still with us, all in their 80s) are all down at least two inches. For her parents, that takes her Dad to 6'5" (!), her Mom to 5'10" (!) and my mom to 5'0" (she's become really tiny).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 25840
> 
> ⇧ That overcoat looks bullet proof and, having felt some in thrift stores (never, God forbid, in my size), it probably was.
> 
> ...


White bucks and saddles seem to have been a virtual emblem of college and younger school kids. Evidently, the term *white shoe *as a socioeconomic tag, as in white shoe law firm, originates from that era.

T-necks pop up now and again, perhaps my favorite comes later when worn with a Saxony suit.

Hey, shrinkin' ain't no laughin' matter!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continued from Esquire October 1935 -
























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These continue Esquire October 1935 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad -










That concludes Esquire October 1935.


----------



## Adriel Rowley (Jul 20, 2018)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Based on them calling the guy in the upper left "tubby," it is clear Americans were a lot thinner back then (sadly, a Depression will do that).


Can say both my Grandmothers did not agree being overweight was good. My one went further to talk down about them, saying they have mental problems and looked down on them. Even my Brother though for some reason not her husband who his weight was caused by cancer. Point being, do not think pre 1950 people were very accepting of those different, be it weight, condition, color, et all.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Adriel Rowley said:


> Can say both my Grandmothers did not agree being overweight was good. My one went further to talk down about them, saying they have mental problems and looked down on them. Even my Brother though for some reason not her husband who his weight was caused by cancer. Point being, do not think pre 1950 people were very accepting of those different, be it weight, condition, color, et all.


Your anecdotal experience and mine - re older options of weight - was very different. My dad and his friends - most born in the '20s and '30s joked about "fat" people - and made fun of each other - in a lighthearted way without rancor or any real negative judgement.

And since they were a mixed ethnic group - German, Italian, Irish, Jewish, Greek immigrants or the children of immigrants - they also joked and jokingly insulted each other in a very friendly way (and in a way that would horrify today's PC crowd).

My dad had lifelong friends of all those backgrounds that were thick as thieves but would "insult" each other all day long about their ethnicity, weight, baldness and everything else - it was a different culture, but not one of rancor or asperity.

I am not - at all - questioning your experience, just noting how different mine was.

I also had one full-on WASP grandmother on one side who struggled through the Depression, so to her, a full-figured person just meant they were fortunate to have enough food.

She passed away in the early '70s, but even then - and she was never heavy - she thought the obsession of the young with being thin (which existing in the '70s) was a bit crazy as her framework was we were all lucky to have enough to eat.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Your anecdotal experience and mine - re older options of weight - was very different. My dad and his friends - most born in the '20s and '30s joked about "fat" people - and made fun of each other - in a lighthearted way without rancor or any real negative judgement.
> 
> And since they were a mixed ethnic group - German, Italian, Irish, Jewish, Greek immigrants or the children of immigrants - they also joked and jokingly insulted each other in a very friendly way (and in a way that would horrify today's PC crowd).
> 
> ...


I'm unable to find my anecdote alluded to in which I paint a different picture? :icon_scratch: And should you have any expectation of consistency or logical recounting of my personal history, allow me to disabuse you! 

While in company, propriety would reign. In the bosom of the family and among intimates comic insults and mock vitriol was unceasing. My Uncle Charlie, was my *Fat* Uncle Charlie. A police lieutenant whose girth and its consequences were a source of endless comedy to all, not least himself.

I am reminded to this day of him paying a casual late afternoon visit to my mother, his sister, after first having "relaxed" at a tavern with several of his professional associates. All of us seated in the kitchen, a mouse was foolish enough to decide it was a good time for a stroll. My mother hollers, "A mouse!" Upon which my uncle grabs a broom and begins swatting violently at it. The sight of this 6', 250+ lb man unsteadily chasing a mouse around the kitchen table while attempting full length, over-hand swats with a broom is something that I cherish to this day!   

Rest assured that all the behavior you recount, and more, was fully on display among my family and their associates during my childhood.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I'm unable to find my anecdote alluded to in which I paint a different picture? :icon_scratch: And should you have any expectation of consistency or logical recounting of my personal history, allow me to disabuse you!
> 
> While in company, propriety would reign. In the bosom of the family and among intimates comic insults and mock vitriol was unceasing. My Uncle Charlie, was my *Fat* Uncle Charlie. A police lieutenant whose girth and its consequences were a source of endless comedy to all, not least himself.
> 
> ...


Hi, my comments were not (intentionally) directed at you or one of your posts, but instead, they were directed to this post by our new friend Andriel Rowley:



Adriel Rowley said:


> Can say both my Grandmothers did not agree being overweight was good. My one went further to talk down about them, saying they have mental problems and looked down on them. Even my Brother though for some reason not her husband who his weight was caused by cancer. Point being, do not think pre 1950 people were very accepting of those different, be it weight, condition, color, et all.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Hi, my comments were not (intentionally) directed at you or one of your posts but instead they were directed to this post by our new friend Andriel Rowley:


Ah!

Not a bother, a fond trip down memory lane ensued.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the November 1935 issue of Esquire.

























To be continued:


----------



## Adriel Rowley (Jul 20, 2018)

Not sure why, but just got notification...



Fading Fast said:


> Your anecdotal experience and mine - re older options of weight - was very different. My dad and his friends - most born in the '20s and '30s joked about "fat" people - and made fun of each other - in a lighthearted way without rancor or any real negative judgement.
> 
> And since they were a mixed ethnic group - German, Italian, Irish, Jewish, Greek immigrants or the children of immigrants - they also joked and jokingly insulted each other in a very friendly way (and in a way that would horrify today's PC crowd).
> 
> ...


You know, makes sense.

I remember as a teen about 15 visiting cousin and her son. Her husband Slim had the largest Victrola collection IIRC, at least in Nevada. Sadly by the time I got a chance, him and but two were all that was left. Dad had the son put on a wax cylinder light hardily poking fun at all those ethnic groups. Now I see it here too, so there was a variation.

My thought is Oma, who raised me, grew up in Kern County which back then didn't have the population mix of a big city, was mostly white, some of Mexican decent, but didn't see a black person until went to San Fran when about 25. All those farmers working hard manual labor bet were thin. All our family has very high metabolism (some with hypoglycemia) so many were thin (though a newspaper articles describing my murdered great uncle as "husky" and "broad shoulders" which surprised me). The Kliewers were hard working folks though the generations barely making ends meet.

BettyAnn came from an affluent family in white suburbia. Thus, probably gave her a superiority complex. Do know she had to be in charge, admitted it herself spontaneously out of the blue to the whole family while applying makeup in the cabin vanity area.

I didn't know being thin started in the '70s, does make since the way the thighs have a slimmer cut. Myself guilty of this, but been very overweight and scared of going back. I did recently drop from 178 pounds to 170 measured yesterday. I am 6'-2" and medium bone structure so feel I belong between 160 and 165, though did put on muscle so also need to consider how the waist fits, between a 32 and 33 actual inches.


----------



## Adriel Rowley (Jul 20, 2018)

Fading Fast said:


> Hi, my comments were not (intentionally) directed at you or one of your posts, but instead, they were directed to this post by our new friend Andriel Rowley:


Thank you for the complement. Glad making friends, means doing better. Cheers. :beer:

By the way, my name is difficult to spell.


----------



## Adriel Rowley (Jul 20, 2018)

Odd this didn't post.



Flanderian said:


> I am reminded to this day of him paying a casual late afternoon visit to my mother, his sister, after first having "relaxed" at a tavern with several of his professional associates. All of us seated in the kitchen, a mouse was foolish enough to decide it was a good time for a stroll. My mother hollers, "A mouse!" Upon which my uncle grabs a broom and begins swatting violently at it. The sight of this 6', 250+ lb man unsteadily chasing a mouse around the kitchen table while attempting full length, over-hand swats with a broom is something that I cherish to this day!


:laughing:

So I take it the mouse survived?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are also from the November 1935 issue of Esquire -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes the November 1935 issue of Esquire.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are also from the November 1935 issue of Esquire -
> 
> View attachment 25895
> 
> ...


Top pic, bit of a foreshadowing of James Bond.



Flanderian said:


> View attachment 25901
> 
> View attachment 25902
> 
> This concludes the November 1935 issue of Esquire.


Top pic, always amazed, looking back, that there was a time (and I lived through it and remember it) when cigar smoking was quite common inside.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Top pic, bit of a foreshadowing of James Bond.


The text identifies the illustrator as Williamson. Seems a less commonly used artist. Don't have any further information on him, but, nice work!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The December 1935 issue of Esquire was unusual in not containing any actual illustrations, but only 4 pages of tasty goods for the gentleman. Undoubtedly, there's an interesting story behind this, but we'll just assume that the editor was too hung over to put in enough time to arrange it.

Here are the four pages of interesting items that were presented.


































That concludes the December 1935 issue of Esquire.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> The text identifies the illustrator as Williamson. Seems a less commonly used artist. Don't have any further information on him, but, nice work!


It's funny, you've posted so many of these illustrations (thank you - great stuff and kind of you to make the effort for all of us to enjoy) that I immediately recognized that it wasn't a Fellows' work.

Fellows goes for a more stylized look - a more idealized, even heroic, view of man - and one I love; whereas, Williamson (based on this one illustration) seems to be going for a "softer" more realistic look.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> It's funny, you've posted so many of these illustrations (thank you - great stuff and kind of you to make the effort for all of us to enjoy) that I immediately recognized that it wasn't a Fellows' work.
> 
> Fellows goes for a more stylized look - a more idealized, even heroic, view of man - and one I love; whereas, Williamson (based on this one illustration) seems to be going for a "softer" more realistic look.


Thank you very much! 

In general, I agree with you concerning Fellows. His certainly is the reputation, along with Saalburg's that has had the best shelf life. And there's an indication that it was also possibly the best regarded illustrators among the general public at the time.

But as the issues progress, some similarities with other illustrators may be seen. And early in his work, it was far less dissimilar to that done by Louis Hurd than it eventually became. IMHO, Hurd's later work isn't great, and at the same time Fellows grows continually more confident and adept at his style which, to the best of my knowledge, he didn't adopt before doing such illustrations.

Eventually, another fine illustrator/artist, Robert Goodman's style becomes sufficiently similar to that of Fellows that I can't tell at a glance which it is without looking further. It seems to me that as time passes Goodman either deliberately imitated Fellows' style, or at least the style in which Fellows worked. Goodman had one of the longest runs with Esquire, and changed his style several times during the time he did illustrations for them.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the January 1936 issue of Esquire -

What to wear at the corner bar!









What you got for Christmas -








Where you went for your winter holiday! :happy:









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

When headin' south -









Left over goodies -

















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from the January 1936 issue of Esquire -
> 
> What to wear at the corner bar!
> 
> ...


Pic one: She is one long lithe thing. Fellows does a heck of a job capturing her lines and femininity with just shading to her white dress. He had a talent for more than just drawing men.

Pic three: As you noted a post or two back, Saalburg was Fellows' only real competition. You can feel the atmosphere at those tables in the background - that's no easy thing to convey.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Pic one: She is one long lithe thing. Fellows does a heck of a job capturing her lines and femininity with just shading to her white dress. He had a talent for more than just drawing men.
> 
> Pic three: As you noted a post or two back, Saalburg was Fellows' only real competition. You can feel the atmosphere at those tables in the background - that's no easy thing to convey.


In discussions of Saalburg, I've often read him described as "the most painterly."


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The morning after the night before -









What you pack headin' north -









What you pack headin' south -









What you look like when you get there -









That concludes Esquire January 1936.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire February 1936 -


















Bonus ad -








To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧

Top Pic: To my eye, the suit's stripes and the tie's clash. Sure, you could play around with the scale of the tie's stripes, but Occam's Razor says go with a foulard or any not-a-stripe tie. Fellows likes his blondes.

Pic 2: I've had more than one editor who would have never let that copy go to print.

Pic 3: Love the train scene, but it could have been a bit less dark. I know the artist is trying to highlight the socks, but come on; it's pretty bright outside and those are big windows.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing February 1936.

Our weather forecast for Thursday -









Where it actually does some good! 

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Top Pic: To my eye, the suit's stripes and the tie's clash. Sure, you could play around with the scale of the tie's stripes, but Occam's Razor says go with a foulard or any not-a-stripe tie. Fellows likes his blondes.


A close thing; some stripes and stripes can look good, I'd need to see these in the flesh.

And:
Don't we all! irate:



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 2: I've had more than one editor who would have never let that copy go to print.


But when the writer *is* the editor, as Gingrich was reputed to have been, it's all much simpler! 

But what about that coat!? PETA aside? A magnificent thing, which would make the cold irrelevant, but I cringe to think of the price! 



Fading Fast said:


> Pic 3: Love the train scene, but it could have been a bit less dark. I know the artist is trying to highlight the socks, but come on; it's pretty bright outside and those are big windows.


What, it doesn't remind you of LIRR!? 

Most folks don't have furniture like that in their home, much less their train.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> A close thing; some stripes and stripes can look good, I'd need to see these in the flesh....


Stripes on stripes can work - all rules can be broken (how else could the rule be proved) - they just don't in this case, IMHO.



Flanderian said:


> ...But when the writer *is* the editor, as Gingrich was reputed to have been, it's all much simpler! ...


And a good example of why writers shouldn't be their own editors (straight out, my writing has been improved dramatically by outstanding editing)



Flanderian said:


> ....What, it doesn't remind you of LIRR!?
> 
> Most folks don't have furniture like that in their home, much less their train.


I love trains and would love to have seen the Golden Age of train travel. In the early '80s, when I started commuting into NYC, I'd take Amtrak which was still running some older trains with beautiful leather seats and an Art Deco bar car (that I might have had a drink or two in once or twice ).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Stripes on stripes can work - all rules can be broken (how else could the rule be proved) - they just don't in this case, IMHO.
> 
> And a good example of why writers shouldn't be their own editors (straight out, my writing has been improved dramatically by outstanding editing)
> 
> I love trains and would love to have seen the Golden Age of train travel. In the early '80s, when I started commuting into NYC, I'd take Amtrak which was still running some older trains with beautiful leather seats and an Art Deco bar car (that I might have had a drink or two in once or twice ).


I've found that an intelligent and simpatico editor can offer both improvement and instruction. Though unfortunately, if lacking those qualities, it's a bad fit. These days I'm pleased if I can just remember the word I'm trying to find, and don't garble the syntax to the extent of being unintelligible.

I *really, really* envy your time in an Art Deco bar car! 

Passenger trains remain the most romantic means of transportation, even long after their hay-day. When I lived in Germany 50 years ago they were still the most common form of Intercity transportation. Comfortable, prompt, frequent and inexpensive.

The Hauptbahnhof, or main train station, always in the center of the city within walking distance of the downtown, or a short taxi ride at worst. Still remember my night rides to Wiesbaden for an evening at the Spielbank, with the trip back assured via a return ticket purchased while still solvent.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I've found that an intelligent and simpatico editor can offer both improvement and instruction. Though unfortunately, if lacking those qualities, it's a bad fit. These days I'm pleased if I can just remember the word I'm trying to find, and don't garble the syntax to the extent of being unintelligible.
> 
> I *really, really* envy your time in an Art Deco bar car!
> 
> ...


Almost every August, we take Amtrak up to Saratoga for a short vacation where the train ride is part of the appeal.

For an extra $20 each, we upgrade to business class which has wider leather seats with extra legroom and is its own car with a steward who comes through occasionally. Far from a Fellows' illustration, but very comfortable and with incredible views of the Hudson as it runs along the former 20th Century Limited's famous "Water Level" route.

With girlfriend-provided snacks, a good book and plenty of time spent watching the scenery go by - it has a bit of a Golden-Age feel and is a great way to start and end a vacation.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Almost every August, we take Amtrak up to Saratoga for a short vacation where the train ride is part of the appeal.
> 
> For an extra $20 each, we upgrade to business class which has wider leather seats with extra legroom and is its own car with a steward who comes through occasionally. Far from a Fellows' illustration, but very comfortable and with incredible views of the Hudson as it runs along the former 20th Century Limited's famous "Water Level" route.
> 
> With girlfriend-provided snacks, a good book and plenty of time spent watching the scenery go by - it has a bit of a Golden-Age feel and is a great way to start and end a vacation.


That sounds absolutely delightful!

Especially to a destination like Saratoga whose resonating history makes it all the more enjoyable.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire February 1936 -



































This concludes the February 1936 issue of Esquire.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustration are from the March 1936 issue of Esquire.

This first one is one of my favorite ensembles. This is a sporting suit, not intended for business wear, and IMHO a well chosen turtleneck with such a glen plaid Saxony is an absolutely smashing look.









This illustration with its distinctive expressionist influenced style has been identified as having been done by Ruth Grafstrom, the only female illustrator to have done sartorial illustrations during that period for Esquire.










Bonus ad. (Love those zippers! ) -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic One: Could not agree with you more as that is an outstanding outfit. Odd that the usually punctilious editors made no mention of the turtleneck or shoes. The shoes, to my eye, look leather; whereas, I think suede would work better with the feel of the outfit. 

Pic Two: I like the way she captured the skyline, but as you note, her expression-influenced style, IMHO, diminishes the appeal of the usually crisply illustrated clothes. And, fyi, for NYC fans, that location is just North (twenty or so paces) of where Barbara Streisand first spots Robert Redford at the end of "The Way We Were."

Pic Three: In all my reading about the Waldorf (one of my favorite NYC hotels), I've never come across "The Lounge," but the Waldorf did change the names of some of its restaurants (it has several), so it's possible it existed, but the famous ones - Oscars, Peacock Alley, the Bull and Bear had those names at least back to the '30s. That said, while I don't recognize the name or the exact location, the souring '30s Art Deco architecture does reflect the Waldorf well, but my guess, just like the earlier "Cloud Club" we chatted about, there's plenty of artistic "license" being taken here.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic One: Could not agree with you more as that is an outstanding outfit. Odd that the usually punctilious editors made no mention of the turtleneck or shoes. The shoes, to my eye, look leather; whereas, I think suede would work better with the feel of the outfit.


That's a canny observation. Could be that turtlenecks were more common, and pairings less narrow. Or it could simply be Arnie being droll.



Fading Fast said:


> Pic Two: I like the way she captured the skyline, but as you note, her expression-influenced style, IMHO, diminishes the appeal of the usually crisply illustrated clothes. And, fyi, for NYC fans, that location is just North (twenty or so paces) of where Barbara Streisand first spots Robert Redford at the end of "The Way We Were."


While not wishing to seem a misogynist, Ms. Grafstrom's illustrations are among my least favorite. My understanding is that the illustrators of the period were all free lancers, and as can already be seen, the editors strove to keep the look of the publication fresh and novel, hence your beloved fabric pictures!  (Hold your hat for claymation coming up next! )



Fading Fast said:


> Pic Three: In all my reading about the Waldorf (one of my favorite NYC hotels), I've never come across "The Lounge," but the Waldorf did change the names of some of its restaurants (it has several), so it's possible it existed, but the famous ones - Oscars, Peacock Alley, the Bull and Bear had those names at least back to the '30s. That said, while I don't recognize the name or the exact location, the souring '30s Art Deco architecture does reflect the Waldorf well, but my guess, just like the earlier "Cloud Club" we chatted about, there's plenty of artistic "license" being taken here.


When I was doing business extensively in Manhattan a little more than 20 years ago, The Waldorf was my favorite spot to cool off a bit and contemplate the universe. Loved the interiors of the public spaces!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

29F. Snowing. Yup, it's coat season!

Continuing the March 1936 issue of Esquire -



















And since we are fully aware of member Fading Fast's fondness for _fabric pictures_, we offer for his delectation, _Claymation!_ (Or something? :icon_scratch

:happy:














To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> ... (Hold your hat for claymation coming up next! )...


Oh dear God, please make it stop.



Flanderian said:


> ...When I was doing business extensively in Manhattan a little more than 20 years ago, The Waldorf was my favorite spot to cool off a bit and contemplate the universe. Loved the interiors of the public spaces!


The Waldorf and the Plaza are special places as they are hotels that used to know how to attract New Yorkers to their bars and restaurants. The Plaza's Oak Bar and the Waldorf's Bull and Bear were two of my favorite bars in the '80s and '90s - nothing touristy about them. They were "Old New York" in the best meaning of that term.

Unfortunately, both hotels have been sold to foreign buyers - I have no issue with that overall - but the new owners do not understanding how to keep and attract a local clientele. Instead, they turned the hotels into combination condo and hotel rooms geared toward foreign investors and lost the New York feel of the places along the way.

Whereas, the very urbane and cosmopolitan New Yorker Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) in "North by Northwest" would have a drink at the Oak Bar, no modern day Thornhill would do the same.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Oh dear God, please make it stop.
> 
> The Waldorf and the Plaza are special places as they are hotels that used to know how to attract New Yorkers to their bars and restaurants. The Plaza's Oak Bar and the Waldorf's Bull and Bear were two of my favorite bars in the '80s and '90s - nothing touristy about them. They were "Old New York" in the best meaning of that term.
> 
> ...


Losing the things that made them special. It's happening everywhere. 

J. Press, Brooks, Paul Stuart.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire March 1936-

Like the shirt. Very Flanderian circa 1991! 









I don't make the news, I just report it -

















To be continued:


----------



## Hebrew Barrister (Oct 1, 2017)

The writing fascinates me as much as the pictures. What a different time - they truly didn't give a flying rat's posterior about all kinds of things that today would be considered rather offensive. 

Personal note - I much prefer the more accepting respectful discourse that the media today (well, most of it anyway) aims to distill in people. So, my comment above is not "I want us to revert to that", it is amusement at how different things were.

The style back then was slick though.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Hebrew Barrister said:


> The writing fascinates me as much as the pictures. What a different time - they truly didn't give a flying rat's posterior about all kinds of things that today would be considered rather offensive.
> 
> Personal note - I much prefer the more accepting respectful discourse that the media today (well, most of it anyway) aims to distill in people. So, my comment above is not "I want us to revert to that", it is amusement at how different things were.
> 
> The style back then was slick though.


No doubt about it, male chauvinism ran riot! (Before being corrected by Newton's Third Law!? )


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing March 1936.

This is the Fellows illustration that was chosen to grace the cover of the book; Men in Style -

















Fellows illustration upper right corner for F. R. Tripler -









Gorgeous Saalburg painting -










That concludes Esquire March 1936.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Good cover choice as so much is over-the-top awesomeness here. I'm not even a croc-shoe guy, but I love every single thing about the outfit of the guy sitting on the desk. And the overall picture is so testostorone-infused '30s masculinity that you have to love it for its unbridled gumption.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 26035
> 
> Good cover choice as so much is over-the-top awesomeness here. I'm not even a croc-shoe guy, but I love every single thing about the outfit of the guy sitting on the desk. And the overall picture is so testostorone-infused '30s masculinity that you have to love it for its unbridled gumption.


You mean you don't spend the early afternoon sitting on your desk in your crocodile shoes playing with your fly rod!?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire's April 1936 issue.

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> You mean you don't spend the early afternoon sitting on your desk in your crocodile shoes playing with your fly rod!?


Excuse me.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Flanderian said:


> You mean you don't spend the early afternoon sitting on your desk in your crocodile shoes playing with your fly rod!?


Forget the desk! Where's the river! Swirling around me I hope with a nice fish on the end of the line.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Excuse me.


Er . . . .


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> You mean you don't spend the early afternoon sitting on your desk in your crocodile shoes playing with your fly rod!?


What Fading Fast does with his fly rod--and where and when he does it--is none of our business.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Charles Dana said:


> What Fading Fast does with his fly rod--and where and when he does it--is none of our business.


Provided he doesn't fold, spindle or mutilate.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire April 1936 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

These pages of tasty illustrations make me want to rush down to Walgreen's and peruse the latest issue of Esquire.

On second thought....


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Charles Dana said:


> These pages of tasty illustrations make me want to rush down to Walgreen's and peruse the latest issue of Esquire.
> 
> On second thought....


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Bonus ad. When America still made shoes! 









That concludes Esquire April 1936.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the May 1936 issue of Esquire.









I don't make the news, I just report it, and I'm afraid it's claymation time again.  Ignoring the unfortunate comparison between it and a Fellow's illustration, it does succeed in giving an impression of what a white linen vest might look like, as was recently queried, on this portly old gent. And he's not the worse for it.









I am happy to report that this useful illustration complies with all my personal prejudices,  excepting the "generous" break.









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic One: Nice to see an illustration of the man who owns London (or looks like he could)

Pic Two: Claymation - no, just no

Pic Three: Tailors used to tailor your suit and shirt collar just that way (lower left) without asking - now you sometimes have to push them to do it that way


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic One: Nice to see an illustration of the man who owns London (or looks like he could)
> 
> ...


+1.

It's seems as if an awful lot of know-how has been lost in the menswear business in just about every aspect, tailors being among the most significant. Things that were once taken for granted are now a struggle.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing May 1936 -

Bonus ad with another fine Saalburg illustration.









And cropped -

















And  -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire May 1936 -

















Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic one: I've seen some older men using that type of "seat" up at Saratoga racetrack - looks very uncomfortable. 

Pic two: How super-cool is that "leather fitted case for cocktail and liquors?" 

Pic three: I know what I think the pencil test is, but it has nothing to do with shoes. I assume, in this context, it's suppose to show the quality of the craftsmanship by not rolling off the sole or something?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic one: I've seen some older men using that type of "seat" up at Saratoga racetrack - looks very uncomfortable.
> 
> ...


I've seen collapsing seats on a stick sold by various and sundry for a long time. But I think being narrow of beam is a prerequisite.

Thanks for the explanatory conjecture regarding the pencil test, as I hadn't a clue. Yes, *very* different!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Esquire May 1936 -

















Bonus ad -









That's it for Esquire May 1936.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are from Esquire June 1936 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire June 1936 -

















Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These are from Esquire June 1936 -
> 
> View attachment 26360
> 
> ...


Pick one: why leisure sailers took to wearing captain caps back then is a mystery and an oddity, but boy was it popular (you see it in the movies from the era all the time).

Pic two: Kudos to the unnamed artist who portrayed sexual frisson in one frame. Also, love his suit, that jacket drapes wonderfully on him.

Pic three: I'm intrigued by the gaberdine one / also, love how popular white bucks once were.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire June 1936 -

The first is a lovely illustration by Saalburg that has been much reproduced. It vividly depicts blazers as the term was used in its original sense. A rather good Wikipedia entry discussing the term's origin, and the garment in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blazer










Bonus ad -

So-so art work, but an ad illustration that has also been much reproduced for the multitude of pocket and other jacket treatments nicely depicted.










That concludes Esquire June 1936.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire July 1936 -


























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire July 1936 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

More Esquire July 1936 -

























That concludes Esquire July 1936.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire August 1936 -

Burmah shade! 

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Guy on the left - note the pocketwatch connected by a strap to the lapel's button hole (I am disproportionately intrigued that that was once a thing).

Guy on the right - the suit, shirt and tie could be worn just that way today.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Indeed, fashions may pass, but style is timeless!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 26494
> 
> Guy on the left - note the pocketwatch connected by a strap to the lapel's button hole (I am disproportionately intrigued that that was once a thing).
> 
> Guy on the right - the suit, shirt and tie could be worn just that way today.


I've read that wristwatches weren't being worn prior to WWI. As this is only 20 years later, I suspect they were not yet ubiquitous. This presents a snazzy alternative to wearing your pocket watch in a vest pocket.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire August 1936 -

































This concludes Esquire August 1936.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire September 1936 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Not Esquire. It's titled "Hart Schaffner & Marx, 1940."

Love his suit, the shirt's collar (is it a tab or is there a collar bar involved?), the way his paper folds and that train (looks 20th Century Limited to me - see second pic of said train as evidence):


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Not Esquire. It's titled "Hart Schaffner & Marx, 1940."
> 
> Love his suit, the shirt's collar (is it a tab or is there a collar bar involved?), the way his paper folds and that train (looks 20th Century Limited to me - see second pic of said train as evidence):
> 
> ...


Wow! That's a gorgeous illustration! Looks like one of the illustrators from Esquire/AA. Looks a little like Fellows, but perhaps more like Robert Goodman.

What a fabulous train! Your observation sent me scurrying to Wikipedia-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Limited

A beautiful era and train.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This continues Esquire September 1936 -

















Bonus ad -








To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Wow! That's a gorgeous illustration! Looks like one of the illustrators from Esquire/AA. Looks a little like Fellows, but perhaps more like Robert Goodman.
> 
> What a fabulous train! Your observation sent me scurrying to Wikipedia-
> 
> ...


Being a bit of a train buff (that looks worse in writing than when I said it in my head), I'm a big fan of the 20th Century Limited as it was the United States' premiere luxury overnight passenger train.

Its owner, the New York Central, spent lavishly (despite losing money on it) to keep it the marque name in premium train tavel for decades. If there is a train that fits the Fellows' world - it would be the 20th Century Limited.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Being a bit of a train buff (that looks worse in writing than when I said it in my head), I'm a big fan of the 20th Century Limited as it was the United States' premiere luxury overnight passenger train.
> 
> Its owner, the New York Central, spent lavishly (despite losing money on it) to keep it the marque name in premium train travel for decades. If there is a train that fits the Fellows' world - it would be the 20th Century Limited.


Though I've not traveled often enough by train, I think of travel by great trains as a positive contribution to the world's joy and contentment. A civilizing influence. Pity there isn't more.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire September 1936 -
















Mentioned before, but as a point of interest, Polo Ralph Lauren copied the homespun orange-ish tweed tie below in the 90's exactly. (And I bought it! )








Bonus ad -









That concludes Esquire September 1936.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Though I've not traveled often enough by train, I think of travel by great trains as a positive contribution to the world's joy and contentment. A civilizing influence. Pity there isn't more.


I love train travel. While I haven't done any of the fancy luxury train extortions, I've used Amtrak up and down a good chunk of the East Coast and, despite Amtrak's challenges, it is still the most civilized way to travel. I can only imagine what it was like in the Golden Age of train travel.

While Europe and Asia decided to invest in trains as their main form of post-WWII travel infrastructure, we in the US chose highways. There is no un-ringing of that bell, so no matter what we do, we'll always have an addled national train system.

More 20th Century Limited images:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I love train travel. While I haven't done any of the fancy luxury train extortions, I've used Amtrak up and down a good chunk of the East Coast and, despite Amtrak's challenges, it is still the most civilized way to travel. I can only imagine what it was like in the Golden Age of train travel.
> 
> While Europe and Asia decided to invest in trains as their main form of post-WWII travel infrastructure, we in the US chose highways. There is no un-ringing of that bell, so no matter what we do, we'll always have an addled national train system.
> 
> ...


That's beautiful!

Reminds me that when I began flying in the '60's, as often as not, I'd be wearing a suit and tie. Seems another time now.

Though absent its glamour, I wonder if any of the Trans Canada rail tours might offer a bit of a similar thrill.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> That's beautiful!
> 
> Reminds me that when I began flying in the '60's, as often as not, I'd be wearing a suit and tie. Seems another time now.
> 
> Though absent its glamour, I wonder if any of the Trans Canada rail tours might offer a bit of a similar thrill.


I've looked into it and think they would if one is open minded about it. Using Amtrak as an example, while they are no Fellows' images, the train cars are a meaningful step up from today's commuter trains which, in decor, are closer to subways or buses than trains.

Most Amtrak trains seat two by two and are either new or well-maintained older trains (the Saratoga line uses older coaches that have wonderfully wide and comfortable leather seats, the new Acela trains are modern but very clean and comfortable).

Amtrak is government run - so not a model of efficiency, but they've been doing it long enough (and have had enough feedback), that they do an okay job and the staff - surprisingly, for gov't workers - are usually pretty pleasant (versus, say, the DMV).

Add in that they usually have a bar and snack car, wide windows and that it is easy and pleasant to board and store luggage (the opposite experience of anything to do with an airplane) and you don't dread your trip but actually look forward to it.

From what I can tell on-line and from the few people I know who've ridden the Canadian long-distance trains, they are a step up from Amtrak, but no return to the Golden Era. Hence, if you set your expectations ahead of time and go in with a good attitude, you can have a great experience with an echo of a more elegant age.

Right now, we have a lot of demands on our time from work to caring for elderly parents, but at some point, we plan on doing one of the Canadian trips. Our briefer Amtrak runs have been that pleasant - read a book, nap, have a cocktail, watch the world go by, don't feel hassled - that we think a few days on a Canadian train would be a nice part of longer vacation.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I've looked into it and think they would if one is open minded about it. Using Amtrak as an example, while they are no Fellows' images, the train cars are a meaningful step up from today's commuter trains which, in decor, are closer to subways or buses than trains.
> 
> Most Amtrak trains seat two by two and are either new or well-maintained older trains (the Saratoga line uses older coaches that have wonderfully wide and comfortable leather seats, the new Acela trains are modern but very clean and comfortable).
> 
> ...


Thanks for such a thorough and delightful description.

I've only traveled once on Amtrak, from Newark's Penn Station to D.C. While not at all luxurious, I still remember it as being both comfortable and quick.

NJTransit on the the other hand -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Thanks for such a thorough and delightful description.
> 
> I've only traveled once on Amtrak, from Newark's Penn Station to D.C. While not at all luxurious, I still remember it as being both comfortable and quick.
> 
> NJTransit on the the other hand -


NJT is awful - and always has been (at least since the '80s). Depending on when you took Amtrak, it might be better as I think it's improved since the '90s/early'00s - although, the last few years has seen a slight downtick.


----------



## FiscalDean (Dec 10, 2011)

With Amtrak, a great deal depends on the route. My wife and I take the Hiawatha from Milwaukee to Chicago at least once a year and while it's not quick it is acceptable. My wife and a friend took the train they call the "City of New Orleans" to Memphis a couple of years ago. This is an overnight train arriving in Memphis fairly early in the morning and was not a particularly pleasant experience. Between the passenger in the next seat eating his onion sandwiches and the inebriated passenger across the aisle losing his dinner, she did not enjoy the trip.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

FiscalDean said:


> With Amtrak, a great deal depends on the route. My wife and I take the Hiawatha from Milwaukee to Chicago at least once a year and while it's not quick it is acceptable. My wife and a friend took the train they call the "City of New Orleans" to Memphis a couple of years ago. This is an overnight train arriving in Memphis fairly early in the morning and was not a particularly pleasant experience. Between the passenger in the next seat eating his onion sandwiches and the inebriated passenger across the aisle losing his dinner, she did not enjoy the trip.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire October 1936 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

FiscalDean said:


> With Amtrak, a great deal depends on the route. My wife and I take the Hiawatha from Milwaukee to Chicago at least once a year and while it's not quick it is acceptable. My wife and a friend took the train they call the "City of New Orleans" to Memphis a couple of years ago. This is an overnight train arriving in Memphis fairly early in the morning and was not a particularly pleasant experience. Between the passenger in the next seat eating his onion sandwiches and the inebriated passenger across the aisle losing his dinner, she did not enjoy the trip.


Ugh, I've never had anything remotely as bad as that experience. I've been told - and your wife and her friend's experience might support it - that Amtrak "ups its game" for the Northeast Corridor, so I might not be a good read of Amtrak's non-East-Coast service.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This continues Esquire October 1936 -


































This concludes Esquire October 1936.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ A very truthful statement from Esquire about how the fashion-world's hamster wheel works:

_When the tab collar finally gained mass acceptance it was only to be expected that it would soon lose caste among those who set the fashions for the rest of the world to follow. _​


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ A very truthful statement from Esquire about how the fashion-world's hamster wheel works:
> 
> _When the tab collar finally gained mass acceptance it was only to be expected that it would soon lose caste among those who set the fashions for the rest of the world to follow. _​


I'm hoping that the hamster wheel turns again before I high-five GHWB. Not that I have any plans to buy one, but *there's virtually no jacket cut I've seen in American RTW that I would buy! *

The above cut was believed to idealize the male physique. A quickie analysis is a broad shoulder with little padding, a generous lapel with a lowered gorge but high button stance, and a suppressed waist. Some drape at the shoulders and chest with a generous fit. Many of these elements are the exact opposite of the contemporary cut, so we have mutually exclusive theories of their effect on the male physique.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Re-above -

Some tweaks to Jung Yul Park's Neapolitan derived cut as practiced at Seoul's B&Tailor would possibly be closest to my sweet spot.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire November 1936 -


























To be continued.

I especially like the ensemble directly above on the left. The shirt reminds me of my shirtmaker days when white collared shirts with ecru bodies were a staple of my wardrobe. Ecru, as with most shades, isn't a color but a range of colors, and ranges from near tan to pale yellow. I learned that the yellower end of the spectrum tended to flatter my coloring, and such shirts will harmonize well with virtually any tie and suit, and add interest without being too blatant.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Love his ⇧ suit and would have said the scale of the herringbone is exaggerated, but I've watched a lot of film noir movies and people really were wearing some seriously big-scaled herringbone suits back then. For example, take a look at Robert Young's suit in the two below shots form the 1947 movie "Crossfire" (best pics I could find):
























⇧ I think she's my favorite Fellows' woman that I've seen him draw.









⇧ I always like the colored shirt with a white collar and cuffs combo. I've always had a few light blue ones in my work wardrobe since the '80s.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This continues Esquire November 1936 -

















Bonus ad -








To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 26608
> 
> Love his ⇧ suit and would have said the scale of the herringbone is exaggerated, but I've watched a lot of film noir movies and people really were wearing some seriously big-scaled herringbone suits back then. For example, take a look at Robert Young's suit in the two below shots form the 1947 movie "Crossfire" (best pics I could find):
> View attachment 26609
> ...


Robert Young's suit is marvelous!

Larger scale herringbones were once something men didn't shrink from.

And more robust cloth in general is in short supply. While not as large scale as that illustrated, I'm very fond of the robust herringbone tweed in Cleav31's jacket, which I believe is part of a suit.

https://cleav31.tumblr.com/image/179787435604


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire November 1936 -

Town -









Country -









Bonus ad -









That concludes Esquire November 1936.


----------



## DaveS (Dec 11, 2011)

What a treat, Flanderian - Thank you!

And Happy Holidays!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

DaveS said:


> What a treat, Flanderian - Thank you!
> 
> And Happy Holidays!


And to you as well, Sir! 
:beer:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Fellows left out the brief conversation these two exchanged as they were passing:

Brown suit: _Hi, isn't it nice to be handsome, rich and well attired?_

Grey topcoat: _It sure is._

Brown suit: _Good day._

Grey topcoat: _Good day.

_


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 26651
> 
> Fellows left out the brief conversation these two exchanged as they were passing:
> 
> ...


The aspirational nature of Esquire at its origin was a lesson not lost to Playboy a few decades later. Doubt Esquire originated this concept, but they certainly did a lot to advance it.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire December 1936. Evidently Arnie didn't feel like paying any of his illustrators for this issue, but rather struck a no doubt lucrative business arrangement to recommend goods as gifts.

Still it offers an interesting and enjoyable window on the goods as then available to readers.


























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> The aspirational nature of Esquire at its origin was a lesson not lost to Playboy a few decades later. Doubt Esquire originated this concept, but they certainly did a lot to advance it.


Thankfully, marketers today would never pander to those emotions.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire December 1936. Evidently Arnie didn't feel like paying any of his illustrators for this issue, but rather struck a no doubt lucrative business arrangement to recommend goods as gifts....


Since the illustrations returned, methinks the feedback to this ploy must not have been favorable. It would be fun to see some of the not-published letters to the editor Arnie received.

As you note, the edition has a lot of fun stuff for us to look at today. However, I miss the illustrations.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Thankfully, marketers today would never pander to those emotions.


Exactly! 



Fading Fast said:


> Since the illustrations returned, methinks the feedback to this ploy must not have been favorable. It would be fun to see some of the not-published letters to the editor Arnie received.
> 
> As you note, the edition has a lot of fun stuff for us to look at today. However, I miss the illustrations.


Fortunately they do, but not until January, as this format becomes the norm for Decembers to follow.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire December 1936 -




























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire December 1936 -



























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire December 1936 -

This was presented a two page layout, and I don't see a simple way to crop it into two single pages without affecting its contextual content.



















Pour madame -










Bonus ad -









That concludes Esquire December 1936.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire January 1937 -


























I wouldn't mind some of this stuff!

To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ All fun stuff, but without the Fellows (or others) illustrations and the, kinda, tongue-in-cheek commentary, the magazine feels flat.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Advertisements for the various accessories available for purchase makes for a more interesting spread, as we undertake our visual examination(s) and consider how it all compares to present day offerings. It rather clearly reveals that as things change, so much remains the same.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ All fun stuff, but without the Fellows (or others) illustrations and the, kinda, tongue-in-cheek commentary, the magazine feels flat.


Arnie heard you, and apologizes for his digression into base commerce! 



eagle2250 said:


> Advertisements for the various accessories available for purchase makes for a more interesting spread, as we undertake our visual examination(s) and consider how it all compares to present day offerings. It rather clearly reveals that as things change, so much remains the same.


It's remarkable to how similar the merchandise layouts are to the catalogs of my youth and beyond. I have some Paul Stuart catalogs from the '70's and '80's that even contain similar ones, and aren't the worse for it!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This continues Esquire January 1937 -

























That concludes Esquire January 1937.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ last pic. That radio is another example that accurate scale meant nothing to Fellows, but why should it have - he had the skill to ignore scale and still make it all work beautifully.

Also, I think that's the same woman from two pages back, i.e., my favorite Fellows woman.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ last pic. That radio is another example that accurate scale meant nothing to Fellows, but why should it have - he had the skill to ignore scale and still make it all work beautifully.
> 
> Also, I think that's the same woman from two pages back, i.e., my favorite Fellows woman.


I agree about Fellows and scale, but some of the cabinetry used for radios in the era was huge and elaborate. Perhaps they wished to emulate some of what was used for phonographs in an earlier era. I grew up in a home with my grandfather's Victrola which was easily 4 1/2 feet of mahogany, felt and brass.

Must be his sister!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire February 1937 -

























To be continued:


----------



## ouinon (Jun 28, 2015)

Such elegance in these old illustrations! Everyone's 7ft tall with trim little waists and bird-like ankles (with the occasional very pointed references to "gentlemen of girth"). Funny writing too.

The fabric pictures in the earlier issues are so charming! Their plasticine counterparts a bit less so, but still neat.


----------



## ouinon (Jun 28, 2015)

Flanderian said:


> The aspirational nature of Esquire at its origin was a lesson not lost to Playboy a few decades later. Doubt Esquire originated this concept, but they certainly did a lot to advance it.


I recently watched the Hugh Hefner miniseries on Prime called "American Playboy" and learned just how much of an influence the earlier years of Esquire had on him and his magazine! He used to work for Esquire but was disillusioned by what it had become, and so he created his own magazine about urban gentlemen's interests. I haven't read Playboy myself but I'm not sure it has as many fashion articles or cocktail guides today as it did in those initial issues.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire February 1937 -
> 
> View attachment 26749
> 
> ...


Middle pic: you can feel the grandeur of the restaurant - well done. As to the text, that's a lot of thought for most men to put into their shirt collars - and talk about the fashion wheel, you'd be tossing a lot of shirts each year to play that game.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

ouinon said:


> I recently watched the Hugh Hefner miniseries on Prime called "American Playboy" and learned just how much of an influence the earlier years of Esquire had on him and his magazine! He used to work for Esquire but was disillusioned by what it had become, and so he created his own magazine about urban gentlemen's interests. I haven't read Playboy myself but I'm not sure it has as many fashion articles or cocktail guides today as it did in those initial issues.


I had never read that, and find it very interesting. Thanks for adding that information!

:beer:



Fading Fast said:


> Middle pic: you can feel the grandeur of the restaurant - well done. As to the text, that's a lot of thought for most men to put into their shirt collars - and talk about the fashion wheel, you'd be tossing a lot of shirts each year to play that game.


Grand spaces like that are something largely lacking except for urban centers, and less common everywhere.

Through the years Esquire offers a lot advice for dressing, and while it's all of interest, I don't find that it's all valid, IMHO.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire February 1937:

Off on holiday -

(Sorry, yes I realize that much of Charlie Peters' work for Esquire is regrettable. )









Ah, that's better!


















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> ...Grand spaces like that are something largely lacking except for urban centers, and less common everywhere....


As you reference, NYC has many restaurants on that scale and on the right day - a day you're feeling like a hero in an Ayn Rand novel - they are wonderful to go to. The emotion you experience walking in is uplifting in a way only grand-scale architecture can do. If you're looking for intimate and cozy, these are not the places.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Not at Fellows' level, but a fun illustration none the less:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Not at Fellows' level, but a fun illustration none the less:
> View attachment 26778


I think that's very *nice* art work! Thank you!

In later issues of Esquire, I've archived a number of Arrow ad's, both for the art work, and the ensemble marketing of coordinating ties, PS, etc. There's another retailer of the era, Contempo, that offers even more complex ensembles with good art work, and I'll be including their better examples as well.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire February 1937 -










Bonus ad -

Lovely Fellow's illustration, and wouldn't it be nifty to still have socks like this available. I know there's been an ugly sock contest among some retailers in recent years, but many of these actually look good!










This concludes Esquire February 1937.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> View attachment 26747


Thinking back to our discussion of Fellow's real tendency to distort scale, and the rather large appearing radio in the above illustration, I just happened upon a photo from the period that might offer a better appreciation of the monumental cabinetry sometimes employed -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Thinking back to our discussion of Fellow's real tendency to distort scale, and the rather large appearing radio in the above illustration, I just happened upon a photo from the period that might offer a better appreciation of the monumental cabinetry sometimes employed -


Cool radio and you are spot on in that they were making some really big radio cabinets in those days, but still,








To be fair, I'm sure there were some super-huge cabinets out there, but that radio could serve as a casket, with room to spare, for the icy blonde wrapped up on the sofa.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Cool radio and you are spot on in that they were making some really big radio cabinets in those days, but still,
> View attachment 26784
> 
> To be fair, I'm sure there were some super-huge cabinets out there, but that radio could serve as a casket, with room to spare, for the icy blonde wrapped up on the sofa.


Looks like you could live in it!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire March 1937 -

















Bonus ad. Arrow coordinated shirts, ties & PS. Too matchy-matchy? Sometime, but nice art work anyway.









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Looks like you could live in it!


It looks a touch bigger than my first New York City apartment.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> It looks a touch bigger than my first New York City apartment.


:laughing: :laughing:

The last time my wife and I stayed over in the city, our "closet" was roughly 2'X3'X10" deep.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1937 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire March 1937 -



























That concludes Esquire March 1937.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire April 1937 -

























To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

My Sunday meeting clothes do not rise to quite that level of fancy, but those are indeed, impressive rigs! Keep those vintage ads coming.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> My Sunday meeting clothes do not rise to quite that level of fancy, but those are indeed, impressive rigs! Keep those vintage ads coming.


Natürlich! :beer:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire April 1937 -

These three plates are ads from a single retailer named Contempo Fashions. I'm offering them all as I feel they offer an attractive depiction of interesting clothing. But their significance is actually deeper.

First the artwork and layout are very nicely done, and the clothing itself is handsome and typical of better offerings from the period. Additionally, it is an example of ensemble marketing where a retailer pre-coordinates items which can be mixed or matched to produce an aesthetically coherent whole. Lastly, the price demanded for each item invite interesting comparisons on a steady-money basis with costs today.

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Agreed, some very well thought out and aesthetically attractive ads. Note the mid pic has a large-scale herringbone suit like we've talked about before.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Agreed, some very well thought out and aesthetically attractive ads. Note the mid pic has a large-scale herringbone suit like we've talked about before.


It does indeed, and I'd be pleased to have one like it.

I find all of the pairings at least interesting, and most, appealing. I enjoy the pairings in the bottom plate particularly well and would wear many of them today. It's not dissimilar to the way I like to pair items. I generally don't find the monotone pairings now fashionable likable. By contrast, those in the bottom right of the plate work far better for me as the colors are rich and the matching of shades are much more grownup.

In honor of this, I will attempt some similar shade and tone pairings when taking my wife to an early dinner today!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire April 1937 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire April 1937 -

(I'd like one of each, please! )
















Bonus Arrow ad -









That concludes Esquire April 1937.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire May 1937 -

















Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ first two pics, the writer might have thrown a couple back before providing that text - quite a lot of silly flourish. 

The ad - so had Van Heusen purchased the Kenton Shirt company? Also, interesting - and it makes perfect sense - that when collars were separate, they were also though of as, almost, separate items and purchases.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire May 1937 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ first two pics, the writer might have thrown a couple back before providing that text - quite a lot of silly flourish.


Arnie sometimes waxes poetic, other times, purple! 



Fading Fast said:


> The ad - so had Van Heusen purchased the Kenton Shirt company? Also, interesting - and it makes perfect sense - that when collars were separate, they were also though of as, almost, separate items and purchases.


I don't know! My guess is that it was a brand name for a U.S. shirtmaker who were hooking themselves onto the Anglophile phenomenon. Did Van Heusen have an interest? A co-marketing agreement? No idea.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Left to right: white shoes (not bucks, but a good echo of them) with grey pants - yes! / There's our girl again - languid as heck / Love the gaberdine suit and the jauntiness of its angled pockets (plus the bowtie).

In my day, we'd say those guys are working her hard, but I'm sure that's not what they say today, but whatever they call it, the boys are still doing it and the girls, especially when its two on one, are still acting blasé.


----------



## FiscalDean (Dec 10, 2011)

I'd hate to see the reaction to that caption today. In an era where a radio station can't play "Baby It's Cold Outside"Times have certainly changed.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 26931
> 
> Left to right: white shoes (not bucks, but a good echo of them) with grey pants - yes! / There's our girl again - languid as heck / Love the gaberdine suit and the jauntiness of its angled pockets (plus the bowtie).
> 
> In my day, we'd say those guys are working her hard, but I'm sure that's not what they say today, but whatever they call it, the boys are still doing it and the girls, especially when its two on one, are still acting blasé.


You make me realize that absent a similar gabardine suit my life is unexpectedly lacking! 



FiscalDean said:


> I'd hate to see the reaction to that caption today. In an era where a radio station can't play "Baby It's Cold Outside"Times have certainly changed.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

FiscalDean said:


> I'd hate to see the reaction to that caption today. In an era where a radio station can't play "Baby It's Cold Outside"Times have certainly changed.


Interesting how some modern music seems to get a pass from that type of judgement.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire May 1937 -









Bonus ads -

















What you should wear to the coronation -










That concludes Esquire May 1937.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Note to self, I do not own enough gray wool dress trousers.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Note to self, I do not own enough gray wool dress trousers.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire June 1937 -

The answer to the oft asked question, what should I wear for my wedding? -









And a suggestion as to what to pack for the honeymoon.









Bonus ad -

For more casual wear -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire June 1937 -


















Bonus ad -

Another Contempo ad, ensemble marketing -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire June 1937 -

























Bonus ad with great Charles Fox illustration -









This concludes Esquire June 1937.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire July 1937 -

They contain some art work which is not among my favorite. But it's what was there, and there is also some historical interest for those who're noting the various illustrators used by the publication during this period.

















The two illustrations above are from Ruth Grafstrom. I think her impressionistic style is interesting aesthetically, but dislike it from the perspective of actually depicting the clothing. To the best of my knowledge she was the only female illustrator of men's styles used by Esquire during the period.

The following illustration is by Charlie Peters. He once did some good work, but I guess Esquire didn't pay well, as his work fell apart as he continued to sell work to them. This is actually one of his better pieces aesthetically from that specific time, but it still doesn't present the clothing very attractively.









To be continued:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Like the camping fishing page.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire July 1937 -
> 
> They contain some art work which is not among my favorite. But it's what was there, and there is also some historical interest for those who're noting the various illustrators used by the publication during this period.
> 
> ...


Agree completely. I like her illustrations as art just not in a magazine focused on clothing where details are critical. Peters' work (at least based on this one illustration) reminds me of early LL Bean ads - I wonder if he did any work for Bean?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Agree completely. I like her illustrations as art just not in a magazine focused on clothing where details are critical. Peters' work (at least based on this one illustration) reminds me of early LL Bean ads - I wonder if he did any work for Bean?


I don't know if he did any work for Bean. C. F. Peters (Charles Frederick.) was born in 1882 and passed in 1948. One source lists him as mainly a comics and cartoon illustrator. I'd be surprised if he wasn't self taught. Considering his age at the time of these Esquire illustrations I think he brought an older perspective, and while I find his work generally crude, some portray a nice sense of place and character.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire July 1937 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire July 1937 -

















Bonus ad -









That concludes Esquire July 1937.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ last pic, I've seen enough pics from the era to know that men (and women) did go to the beach in their regular clothes and sit in the sand like that, but it still seems odd, especially with the ladies in their bathing suits.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire August 1937 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire August 1937 -

Gitty 'ap!
























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This illustration was left over from Esquire August 1937 -









And it concludes Esquire August 1937.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Great look on the guy on the left. For the right event, it could still be worn today (with the white bucks bringing some vintage punch).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Great look on the guy on the left. For the right event, it could still be worn today (with the white bucks bringing some vintage punch).
> View attachment 27068


I'd wear it! Natural fitting. Akin to TNSIL of later renown.

And I like The Captain in the DB grey striped suit above also. You know you're cool if you can carry off navy Topsiders with grey striped wool suit.!

irate:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire September 1937 -

(Charlie Peters. )
















Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> ...And I like The Captain in the DB grey striped suit above also. You know you're cool if you can carry off navy Topsiders with grey striped wool suit.!
> 
> irate:


Your point is spot on, but they look like espadrilles to me - regardless, he pulled off a not-suit-shoe owing to having the perfect mise en scène to do so.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Your point is spot on, but they look like espadrilles to me - regardless, he pulled off a not-suit-shoe owing to having the perfect mise en scène to do so.


Could be but I'd still go with the then extant version of Topsiders. A number of photo layouts from the era have featured navy canvas shoes with natural or white rubber soles closely akin to the Topsiders which were my normal summer footwear from 25+ years ago.

I went back and reread the text and realized the suit's cloth is flannel, which I should have suspected. At the time it was treated as casual cloth, even being recommended for beach wear and tennis.

Looked for a similar proper shoe, and came upon one from Sanders, which if the sole and welt were trimmed more closely, might serve.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire September 1937 -

















Bonus ad -

(Brooks Brothers, oh, where art thou!?)









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire September 1937 -

















Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire September 1937 -

















Bonus ad -










And that concludes Esquire September 1937.

And to all, a good night!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire October 1937 -

















Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire October 1937 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire October 1937 -

Bonus ads -

This 3 page spread for retailer Contempo appeared in this issue. They advertised their items as coordinated ensembles that could be mixed or matched. But I also find many of the individual items worthy of interest independently, and the art work rather nice.



























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire October 1937 -


















Bonus ads, both of which I believe to be by Fellows -


















That concludes Esquire October 1937.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Been off-line for a few days (girlfriend's parents have some, um, er, technology issues), so too many to respond to, but re last several posts ⇧, love all the large herringbone patterns.

Also, re the just-above post, interesting that zip-front cardigans were being promoted by the '30s, but seemed to all but lose out to button ones in popularity until it all fell apart in the late '60s.

Thank you for taking the effort to post all of this for us Flanderian.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire November 1937 -









Bonus ads -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Been off-line for a few days (girlfriend's parents have some, um, er, technology issues), so too many to respond to, but re last several posts ⇧, love all the large herringbone patterns.
> 
> Also, re the just-above post, interesting that zip-front cardigans were being promoted by the '30s, but seemed to all but lose out to button ones in popularity until it all fell apart in the late '60s.
> 
> Thank you for taking the effort to post all of this for us Flanderian.


You, Sir, are very welcome!

:beer:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire November 1937 -

















Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire November 1937 -

























Bonus ad (Great Fellows illustration) -









That concludes Esquire November 1937.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The December 1937 issue of Esquire contained no fashion plates. It consisted entirely of items for sale, most ads. Fortunately, some were both attractive and informative, and I offer those I liked here -


















My late, much lamented F. R. Tripler -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are from the December 1937 issue of Esquire -

Brooks ad from when Brooks was still Brooks.









Gifting -










That concludes December 1937.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire January 1938 -

North?









Or south?

















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 
First pic: I want the wagon
Second pic: I want the tan suit (lower right) 
Third pic: I want the drink (love planter's punch)

N.B. Second pic - note FF's top vote for combo that should be brought back - grey flannels with white (red-soled) bucks.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> First pic: I want the wagon
> Second pic: I want the tan suit (lower right)
> Third pic: I want the drink (love planter's punch)
> ...


Agree on all counts!

Wonder how much a woody of that vintage in new condition might cost these days!?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This is the balance of the January 1938 Esquire illustrations. Evening wear, accoutrements for same, and gifts.

































That concludes Esquire January 1938.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1938 -

Up -









Down -









Sideways -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing February 1938 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing illustrations from Esquire, February 1938 -

















Bonus ad: An early Hart, Schaffner and Marx ad. Long a reliable brand and maker of quality tailored clothing. Not the most costly, or best, but generally solid and reliable quality. Furnished many suits for business for me through the years. Eventually evolved into Hartmarx. In that guise the corporate bean counters administered the coup de grâce in the late '80's or early '90's to two fine and venerable retailers they had collected through the years; F. R. Tripler on Madison, and Roots in New Jersey.









That concludes February 1938.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ The "peasant slippers" are a curio - hadn't seen those before 

Didn't know (or remember) that HS&M owned and killed Tripler and Roots, both stores I knew. It's been a long, slow, relentless and painful death of the old-guard clothing world.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ The "peasant slippers" are a curio - hadn't seen those before
> 
> Didn't know (or remember) that HS&M owned and killed Tripler and Roots, both stores I knew. It's been a long, slow, relentless and painful death of the old-guard clothing world.


Such slippers were unknown to me as well, though I'm well qualified to wear them!

I believe there may have been other retailers involved, but these two hit me hard, as both were mainstays for my purchases. Being more assessable, I did more business with Roots. I still have things I purchased from them 40 years ago, including a tweed bucket hat and a walking stick purchased at their flagship store in Summit prior to their expansion. Perry Root was a man of impeccable taste with a nose for quality. At the time, it rivaled Paul Stuart in terms of style and quality of merchandise.

Such retailers are now largely gone in our area fallen victim to giant, faceless (And most often tasteless and graceless!) retail giants of capital in search of huge returns; quality and style be damned!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the March 1938 issue of Esquire -

















Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The short sleeved sport shirt seems a bit odd, paired with the skiing themed ad. Perhaps those 1938 dudes were made of somewhat sturdier stuff than we 'prima-Donna' metro males of today?


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Such slippers were unknown to me as well, though I'm well qualified to wear them!
> 
> I believe there may have been other retailers involved, but these two hit me hard, as both were mainstays for my purchases. Being more assessable, I did more business with Roots. I still have things I purchased from them 40 years ago, including a tweed bucket hat and a walking stick purchased at their flagship store in Summit prior to their expansion. Perry Root was a man of impeccable taste with a nose for quality. At the time, it rivaled Paul Stuart in terms of style and quality of merchandise.
> 
> Such retailers are now largely gone in our area fallen victim to giant, faceless (And most often tasteless and graceless!) retail giants of capital in search of huge returns; quality and style be damned!


At the time - mid '80s - that I "discovered" those stores, they were out of my price range other than a smaller item on deep sale, but I loved window-shopping them. Hadn't thought about Roots in years, but it represented, to me, what adult men wore.


----------



## derum (Dec 29, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1938 -
> View attachment 27382
> 
> To be continued:





Flanderian said:


> Continuing February 1938 -
> View attachment 27397
> 
> To be continued:


I love the detail in these. Even the orientation of the repp tie stripes are geographically correct. Right shoulder to waist for the USA, left shoulder to waist for the UK.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> The short sleeved sport shirt seems a bit odd, paired with the skiing themed ad. Perhaps those 1938 dudes were made of somewhat sturdier stuff than we 'prima-Donna' metro males of today?


Good eye!

At the time downhill skiing was in its infancy as a sport in the U.S., and there was a lot of variation in the clothing worn and recommended, as other illustrations published by Esquire amounted to the wearing of suits, and photos from the period support that it was not uncommon.

Never been to the western snow regions, but have been told by natives that there can be a fresh evening snowfall, and by the next afternoon it can be pushing 60F. Very different from the East. Perhaps that offers some insight.



derum said:


> I love the detail in these. Even the orientation of the repp tie stripes are geographically correct. Right shoulder to waist for the USA, left shoulder to waist for the UK.


Verisimilitude R'Us!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are a continuation from Esquire, March 1938 -

























To be continued:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Out west here the spring can have fresh snow or be icy in the morning, and slushy later in the day. This one lady slipped into her string bikini a little to early and fell sliding on the ruff ice getting a little scraped up. Powder in the morning and sunburn in the afternoon. We used lots of sun tan lotion. Be hotter up there than in town 4,000-5,000 feet lower next to the salt water. Baker Ski Area can have 20 feet of snow pack by June and by September through October blueberries and huckleberries ripe for good eating. Skiing used to open up in late October or early November. This year it was very late opening, halfway through December. Seems like one ski season it got about 5 feet of snow. That was a very poor year. Nowadays, they always close early. Maybe Whatcom county puts on a Ski to Sea race a week or two after the ski season ends. The original Slush Cup was up there too. That is, when a little pond melted enough to have a slush cup. People who should have known how to market it didn't, and did there best to shut it down.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1938 -


























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire March 1938 -

















That concludes Esquire March 1938.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire April 1938 -

















Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Second pic: the collarless jacket makes an appearance.

With, perhaps, the most famous one of these (to my taste) horrible fashion mistake having been worn by Cary Grant in "The Philadelphia Story."


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Second pic: the collarless jacket makes an appearance.
> 
> With, perhaps, the most famous one of these (to my taste) horrible fashion mistake having been worn by Cary Grant in "The Philadelphia Story."
> View attachment 27498


Good eye! I assumed it was a cardigan sweater, and until I looked more closely, also thought it had a shawl collar.

Agreed, collarless jackets are very unappealing!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing April 1938 -

















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I believe I may still have me one of those one legged field seats featured in the first photo. I'll have to try to find that little treasure!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> I believe I may still have me one of those one legged field seats featured in the first photo. I'll have to try to find that little treasure!


But should you attempt to use it in the Floridian swamps, might you not sink up to your *** in alligators!?!?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire April 1938 -

















Bonus ad -










This concludes Esquire April 1938.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1938 -










Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1938 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1938 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Really like the last pic - very good not-Fellows' illustration.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Really like the last pic - very good not-Fellows' illustration.












Robert Goodman was one of more formally trained illustrators that Esquire used having graduated from Parsons. And he actually worked in a variety of styles that evolved over his time with them. He certainly had one of the longest tenures beginning in the earliest issues and continuing until his passing in '48. In '45 he had become their art director.

Among the styles he employed, some are frank imitations of the style Fellows worked in. But considering his entire contribution, I think he should be considered to be about on a par with the more regarded Fellows and Saalburg.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1938 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, May 1938 -


















This concludes Esquire, May 1938.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from the June 1938 issue of Esquire -

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

1st pic: I'm good with everything other than the pink shirt lower right. 

2nd pic: Love the pencil sharpener

3rd pic: Great pattern on the suit, is there (I think there is) a more specific name to it than windowpane as it looks to small to be called a windowpane?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> 1st pic: I'm good with everything other than the pink shirt lower right.
> 
> 2nd pic: Love the pencil sharpener
> 
> 3rd pic: Great pattern on the suit, is there (I think there is) a more specific name to it than windowpane as it looks to small to be called a windowpane?


#1. A colored shirt body such as the red shirt body with white collar on the semi-formal day wear, AKA, stroller, AKA Stresemann was a common convention for the era. I rather like it! But then I once had my shirtmaker make a shirt with a similar effect composed of closely spaced hairline red stripes topped by a white spread collar. Wore it to a wedding with a chalk stripped navy suit and light solid grey silk satin tie and was told I looked elegant.

#3. I agree! And if it has a different name, I don't know it. I actually didn't even notice it was checked until you drew my attention to it. Darker lined patterns on lighter grounds are now very uncommon, and in fairness, I think often don't succeed, but this one most certainly does. Think I remember a Paul Stuart Sammy from 12 or 15 years ago in a similar cloth.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1938 -

















This concludes Esquire, June 1938.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1938 -









Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, July 1938 -









In my neighborhood when a boy, you had to have favorites, as in a favorite car, baseball team or cowboy. My cowboy was William Boyd's Hop Along Cassidy. Fellow on the left reminds me of a more duded up version of same. Though I can't imagine any actual cowboys seeing someone dressed like this, even in 1938, and not laughing their *** off.

Stuff you want -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1938 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Last pic - superimposed Sean Connery's 1960's head on the man's body and that illustration could be an ad for a James Bond film.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Last pic - superimposed Sean Connery's 1960's head on the man's body and that illustration could be an ad for a James Bond film.


It would!

In fact, I think it may have been. :icon_scratch:

Edit: I think there may have been a very similar scene in _Thunderball_. We'll have to ask Matt, I know he would know.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing July 1938 -


















That concludes Esquire, July 1938.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> It would!
> 
> In fact, I think it may have been. :icon_scratch:
> 
> Edit: I think there may have been a very similar scene in _Thunderball_. We'll have to ask Matt, I know he would know.


I've mentioned this before, but we at AAAC need a "Matt Signal" like the "Bat Signal" for emergencies just like this where we need Matt to weigh in. Andy, if you are reading this, maybe in the next software upgrade we can add a Matt-Signal button.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I've mentioned this before, but we at AAAC need a "Matt Signal" like the "Bat Signal" for emergencies just like this where we need Matt to weigh in. Andy, if you are reading this, maybe in the next software upgrade we can add a Matt-Signal button.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1938 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

No one in real life ever looks better than the people in an "Esquire" illustration.

And since the exception proves the rule, here's the exception:

Cary Grant carrying off a similar look better than the "Esquire" illustrations.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> No one in real life ever looks better than the people in an "Esquire" illustration.
> 
> And since the exception proves the rule, here's the exception:
> 
> ...


Archie is dandy!


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> I've mentioned this before, but we at AAAC need a "Matt Signal" like the "Bat Signal" for emergencies just like this where we need Matt to weigh in. Andy, if you are reading this, maybe in the next software upgrade we can add a Matt-Signal button.


I'm here! Sean Connery wore the ivory dinner jacket in two Bond films: Goldfinger and Diamonds Are Forever. The dinner jacket in Goldfinger is the famous one, with the red carnation. The biggest difference would be that he only wore single-breasted dinner jackets, and the one in Goldfinger had narrower lapels. The bad guy in Thunderball wore an ivory double-breasted jacket, but with the more typical shawl collar, Bogey style. Roger Moore is the only Bond to have worn the ivory dinner jacket in the double-breasted style, but with 6 buttons and a much leaner cut it looks a lot different than the photo here.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Matt S said:


> I'm here! Sean Connery wore the ivory dinner jacket in two Bond films: Goldfinger and Diamonds Are Forever. The dinner jacket in Goldfinger is the famous one, with the red carnation. The biggest difference would be that he only wore single-breasted dinner jackets, and the one in Goldfinger had narrower lapels. The bad guy in Thunderball wore an ivory double-breasted jacket, but with the more typical shawl collar, Bogey style. Roger Moore is the only Bond to have worn the ivory dinner jacket in the double-breasted style, but with 6 buttons and a much leaner cut it looks a lot different than the photo here.


Splendid! Thanks Matt!

Do you seem to remember a scene in _Thunderball_ somewhat similar to the illustration in which Bond disembarks a boat in a canal to enter a casino? I seem to, though it may also just be a pastiche of my mind assembled from bits of memory.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Matt S said:


> I'm here! Sean Connery wore the ivory dinner jacket in two Bond films: Goldfinger and Diamonds Are Forever. The dinner jacket in Goldfinger is the famous one, with the red carnation. The biggest difference would be that he only wore single-breasted dinner jackets, and the one in Goldfinger had narrower lapels. The bad guy in Thunderball wore an ivory double-breasted jacket, but with the more typical shawl collar, Bogey style. Roger Moore is the only Bond to have worn the ivory dinner jacket in the double-breasted style, but with 6 buttons and a much leaner cut it looks a lot different than the photo here.


Fantastic - your wealth of knowledge is incredible. Thank you. Hopefully, Andy will have the Matt-Signal ready for release with the next software upgrade.

But for now, the citizens of Gotham can sleep well knowing that you are watching over all the sartorial concerns and history of their fair city.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Splendid! Thanks Matt!
> 
> Do you seem to remember a scene in _Thunderball_ somewhat similar to the illustration in which Bond disembarks a boat in a canal to enter a casino? I seem to, though it may also just be a pastiche of my mind assembled from bits of memory.


Bond wears a midnight blue mohair dinner suit with a shawl collar in Thunderball when he's getting off the boat. Only the bad guy wears an ivory dinner jacket.

https://www.bondsuits.com/emilio-largo-the-white-double-breasted-dinner-jacket/


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Matt S said:


> Bond wears a midnight blue mohair dinner suit with a shawl collar in Thunderball when he's getting off the boat. Only the bad guy wears an ivory dinner jacket.
> 
> https://www.bondsuits.com/emilio-largo-the-white-double-breasted-dinner-jacket/


Thank you Matt! Your scholarship is inspiring!

:beer:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1938 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, August 1938 -

















Bonus ad with Fellows illustration -










That concludes August 1938.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Thank you Matt! Your scholarship is inspiring!
> 
> :beer:


Thank you!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1938 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> ...Bonus ad with Fellows illustration


Great ad and it successfully addresses one of my pet peeves - the man is wearing light-colored socks with his light-colored pants and white bucks. Many times, in that era, you'll see light-colored pants and white bucks worn with navy or black socks - it drives me nuts. The guy on the far left looks so much better for having on light socks. Maybe it took a sock company to final get it right.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, September 1938 -

















Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, September 1938 -









One of my favorite Fellows' illustrations. A black and white version was included in the book, _Men in Style_. -

Edit: Perhaps I should have read the attribution first.  Not by Fellows at all, but Robert Goodman. Still, I maintain this was a time in Goodman's work when his style was quite similar to Fellows'.

















This concludes Esquire, September 1938.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1938 -









Bonus ad. Included to illustrate another example of ensemble marketing and some of the rather nice harmonies suggested.

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

One I missed from Esquire, April 1938. Like it particularly well, so I'm sticking it in here.

Bonus ad -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1938 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1938 -

















To be continue:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1938 -

























That concludes Esquire, October 1938.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ first pic, quite the cardigan.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ first pic, quite the cardigan.


Yes! And quite practical.

I maintain that if they were good enough for Arnie, they're good enough for us!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1938 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1938 -

(That's Oldsarge in the lower right corner! )

















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire, November 1938 -
> 
> (That's Oldsarge in the lower right corner! )


And, apparently, Oldsarge stole our dog:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> And, apparently, Oldsarge stole our dog:
> View attachment 28039


Handsome fellow!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1938 -

























That concludes Esquire, November 1938.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Esquire, December 1938 offered a paucity of illustrations, and none of those drawn. (Did Arnie miss a check to Fellows, Saalberg et al?)

In its entirety -

























That concludes Esquire, December 1938.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1939 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ kudos to the illustrator on the smoke curling up from the pipe.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ kudos to the illustrator on the smoke curling up from the pipe.


A nice touch!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, January 1939 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1939 -

















Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Quite the flowery prose in pic one. Great illustration of the passengers in the cruise sock ad.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Quite the flowery prose in pic one. Great illustration of the passengers in the cruise sock ad.


Agree on both counts. Can't quite make out the illustrator's signature, but I like the work. Have enjoyed the Interwoven ads in general, which is why I've included many. They employed many of the same illustrators used by Esquire, and I consider their layouts fresh and attractive in general, and they also reveal the cornucopia of choice in hose available in that era.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, February 1939 -


















Don't cha' love the knobby knees!!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Agree on both counts. Can't quite make out the illustrator's signature, but I like the work. Have enjoyed the Interwoven ads in general, which is why I've included many. They employed many of the same illustrators used by Esquire, and I consider their layouts fresh and attractive in general, and they also reveal the cornucopia of choice in hose available in that era.


The ad illustrations can be as impressive as the magazine ones. To your point about variety, I'm amazed (or used to be, now getting to expect it) at the huge options in shoe types that were available in the '30s. To wit, the twine sandals, canvas crepe-sole shoes, saddles, canvas rope-sole shoes and blue canvas rubber-sole ones in the three pics above.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> The ad illustrations can be as impressive as the magazine ones. To your point about variety, I'm amazed (or used to be, now getting to expect it) at the huge options in shoe types that were available in the '30s. To wit, the twine sandals, canvas crepe-sole shoes, saddles, canvas rope-sole shoes and blue canvas rubber-sole ones in the three pics above.


Spoiled for choice, but I still don't think I'd sport those strap-on espadrilles!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1939 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Spoiled for choice, but I still don't think I'd sport those strap-on espadrilles!


You definitely need a lot of confidence to pull off that look.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> You definitely need a lot of confidence to pull off that look.


Or something . . . .


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1939 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1939 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1939 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Love to see a swatch of the fabric for that coat on the right.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Love to see a swatch of the fabric for that coat on the right.


Likely bulletproof! 

What, 30+oz?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, March 1938 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> This concludes Esquire, March 1938 -


If I can choose only one thing in this pic, and excluding blondes, I'm going for that piece of luggage.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> If I can choose only one thing in this pic, and excluding blondes, I'm going for that piece of luggage.


Yes, that's one handsome gladstone! Paul Stuart was selling a very similar one, and so was Roots. Forty years ago.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ absolutely gorgeous looking luggage.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ absolutely gorgeous looking luggage.


Yes it is! All vintage pieces.

But as handsome as leather luggage is, I've only ever had one piece, and must confess luggage of other materials may be more practical for my purposes.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Yes it is! All vintage pieces.
> 
> But as handsome as leather luggage is, I've only ever had one piece, and must confess luggage of other materials may be more practical for my purposes.


I have a few leather pieces and they are, as you note, not really practical - much heavier than the new materials and they aren't really designed to meet the needs of modern travel. That said, I've owned this one for fifteen or so years and, practical or not, I love it:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I have a few leather pieces and they are, as you note, not really practical - much heavier than the new materials and they aren't really designed to meet the needs of modern travel. That said, I've owned this one for fifteen or so years and, practical or not, I love it:
> 
> View attachment 28160
> View attachment 28161


Wow, that is beautiful!

Despite the limitations imposed by air travel, that's still entirely practical for road trips and such.

And *nothing* has more style!

I'm still using Orvis Battenkill luggage acquired 25-30 years ago when it was still made in the U.S.A. by the original J. W. Hulme. *Extremely* heavy but supple forest green canvass that is reinforced with equally heavy oiled dark brown leather and fitted with heavy gauge brass fittings. It was advertised as having a lifetime guarantee, about which I scoffed at the time. But I'm now trying to think of a male relative that might appreciate it to whom I can pass it on!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Wow, that is beautiful!
> 
> Despite the limitations imposed by air travel, that's still entirely practical for road trips and such.
> 
> ...


I own the small, medium and large version of the Battenkill bag (I don't think they make the version I have any more as it's rectangular in shape with large zipper compartments at the ends, but I only see the more rounded duffle now) as well as the backpack and dopp kit - it is indestructible and only looks better as it weathers. I bought mine in the late '80s and early '90s.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

When just reviewing my image archive, I found that I discontinued posting Esquire, April 1938 before completing it, and omitted quite a few illustrations. I'll include them here.

Continuing April 1938 -










Bonus ad -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I own the small, medium and large version of the Battenkill bag (I don't think they make the version I have any more as it's rectangular in shape with large zipper compartments at the ends, but I only see the more rounded duffle now) as well as the backpack and dopp kit - it is indestructible and only looks better as it weathers. I bought mine in the late '80s and early '90s.


That's what they termed their club bag. I also have their original offering of that model which was then only offered in one size, which I believe roughly equal in size to the medium size you reference. I think they introduced multiple sizes a year or so later. They also introduced an actual gladstone bag of similar size shortly afterward which was only available for a year or two. Thought of picking one up, wish I had. 

Additionally I have a large garment bag type piece which they termed a travelling wardrobe, or some such. Can hold 3 or 4 jackets or coats and trousers. Has four inner pockets and 3 outer pockets as well. Packs a bunch! Both pieces travel well and can be stowed anywhere.

The pieces I, and I believe you have were manufactured by J. W. Hulme and it was all U.S.A. made. J. W. Hulme has now gotten into fashion, and the items don't look the same. It leaves me to wonder if it was acquired and moved production off-shore.

Shortly after Orivis dropped them as a manufacturer, Orvis turned to cheap and very inferior off-shore manufacture. I unfortunately bought a piece, and it was garbage by comparison, and not very useful. I think they may have better quality now, but it's not like the original Hulme.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> That's what they termed their club bag. I also have their original offering of that model which was then only offered in one size, which I believe roughly equal in size to the medium size you reference. I think they introduced multiple sizes a year or so later. They also introduced an actual gladstone bag of similar size shortly afterward which was only available for a year or two. Thought of picking one up, wish I had.
> 
> Additionally I have a large garment bag type piece which they termed a travelling wardrobe, or some such. Can hold 3 or 4 jackets or coats and trousers. Has four inner pockets and 3 outer pockets as well. Packs a bunch! Both pieces travel well and can be stowed anywhere.
> 
> ...


Interesting. At the time, I accumulated those pieces ("club bag" sounds correct) over several years as I wanted to invest in luggage for life, which, it turned out, I did.

I have bought other luggage over time because, well, like with clothes, my enthusiasm for this stuff exceeds my needs. I don't remember the gladstone, but wish I could see it.

I might even have a Battenkill garment bag - much more substantial than a simple sleeve (but not as big as wardrobe you reference) as it holds about two suits - but am not sure as some of our luggage has been stored away for so long that I no longer remember every piece that I have.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I have bought other luggage over time because, well, like with clothes, my enthusiasm for this stuff exceeds my needs.


And as one ages, the discrepancy grows even greater. Having a footwear wardrobe I'm already certain never to wear out, I'm battling a yen for a pair of Spanish boots.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This a continuation of the Esquire, April 1938 illustrations previously omitted in error -

Pigskin anyone? A little surprised to see pigskin footwear. My past familiarity with pigskin would suggest it would not be particularly well suited.









Bonus ads: From Contempo. Another example of their marketing coordianted ensembles. Decent art work. I wouldn't mind some of this stuff now. Note safari/bush coat. A classic then and still.


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This is a continuation of the Esquire, April 1938 illustrations previously omitted in error -









Bonus ads -

The shirt, tie and PS set. Nice try, but such are rarly a good idea -









Brooks when it was -









This concludes Esquire, April 1938. Really. I think.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are Esquire, April 1939 -

Easter morning -









Time to repair to your club -









Bonus ad; your home away from home! (Nice Saalburg illustration.) :happy:









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1939 -

(For the Sport!)

























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1939 -

Socks and shoes!










Bonus ads -


















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Me spies a desert boot in the lower left of pic one, which dates them back to, at least, '39. I'm pretty sure I've seen them in mid '30s movies, but this is clearly dated evidence.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Me spies a desert boot in the lower left of pic one, which dates them back to, at least, '39. I'm pretty sure I've seen them in mid '30s movies, but this is clearly dated evidence.


Term it what one will, dessert boot or simply chukka . . . . it's a classic!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1939 -

















Bonus ad -

When Brooks was Brooks.









This concludes Esquire, April 1939.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1939 -

The not so old man and the sea! 









When you've dried off, you'll need some of this stuff -









Bonus ad. More Brooks goodies! See anything *you'd* like!? I like the shoes, tweed's nice too!









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, May 1939 -

_*The World's Fair of 1939*_ consumed much of America's attention when it opened. It was "modernism" burst into full flower, and a gathering place where many of the forces of the gathering storm of WWII strutted their stuff. An uncle took my older sisters to visit. I did not attend.

















What to pack -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> ...


When I started on Wall Street in the '80s, other than for the brown shoes, which would have been black, the outfit on the guy on the left was pretty standard fare spring through summer.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> When I started on Wall Street in the '80s, other than for the brown shoes, which would have been black, the outfit on the guy on the left was pretty standard fare spring through summer.


That was when such a tie was dubbed a "power tie." Before that it was just a cheerful yellow tie with navy spots! The "power tie" and "power dressing" shtick and those who traded on the concept nauseated me. I had always enjoyed a tie like this, and had at least a couple variants in my wardrobe which I then became embarrassed to wear.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> That was when such a tie was dubbed a "power tie." Before that it was just a cheerful yellow tie with navy spots! The "power tie" and "power dressing" shtick and those who traded on the concept nauseated me. I had always enjoyed a tie like this, and had at least a couple variants in my wardrobe which I then became embarrassed to wear.


There was a lot of stupid marketing of clothes in the '80s - even trad icon clothes - which only got worse with the release of "Wall Street" and Michael Douglas in his exaggerated corporate "raider" getups.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> There was a lot of stupid marketing of clothes in the '80s - even trad icon clothes - which only got worse with the release of "Wall Street" and Michael Douglas in his exaggerated corporate "raider" getups.


Exactly!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The illustrations are from Esquire, May 1939 -

To illustrated the principle "Not all change is improvement" we have an example of how I would *not* wear a hat!

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, May 1939 -

The illustration below features a suit with jacket cut as Paddock cut in which there are only two buttons, with both intended to be buttoned.

















That concludes Esquire, May 1939.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1939 -

Another Paddock suit.

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, June 1939 -

















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Those advertisements are still working. The illustration with that classic canoe really makes me long for the good old days...canoeing down the Au Sable river, fishing for our dinner as the mood struck! Those were indeed good days.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Those advertisements are still working. The illustration with that classic canoe really makes me long for the good old days...canoeing down the Au Sable river, fishing for our dinner as the mood struck! Those were indeed good days.


Glad you enjoy them!

Bring back any memories? 










As it happens, the particular illustration you mention, and the one with it, are part of the editorial content of the magazine, rather than from ads.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing illustrations from Esquire, June 1939 -









Bonus ads -

Grey tone. Don't know the illustrator, but I like it.









Another booze ad, but with a marvelous Saalburg illustration -









That concludes Esquire, June 1939.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> ...Grey tone. Don't know the illustrator, but I like it.


Agreed, wonderful illustration and I, too, like the grey tone.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The illustrations are from Esquire, July 1939 -



























To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Glad you enjoy them!
> 
> Bring back any memories?
> 
> ...


It's been 45+ years, but indeed, your picture brings back many good memories. Thank you.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> It's been 45+ years, but indeed, your picture brings back many good memories. Thank you.


:beer:

:beer:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1939 -










Stuff they thought would appeal -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This is a continuation of Esquire, July 1939 -

Bonus ad, calling Fading Fast! A lovely illustration aboard a train.










More stuff Arnie thinks you might want.



















And some of it I wouldn't mind.

This concludes, Esquire, July 1939.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ You couldn't be more right: '30s men's clothes + '30s train travel = my little heaven. 

The guy in the tan suit is sporting some cool socks.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ You couldn't be more right: '30s men's clothes + '30s train travel = my little heaven.
> 
> The guy in the tan suit is sporting some cool socks.


Can you believe *I* missed the socks!? :icon_study:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1939 -

















Bonus ad: nice stuff from Brooks, I'd wear it now -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic one: Love the "pincheck" pattern

Pic two: The entire gaberdine suit outfit is outstanding and love the use of grey flannels in the lower outfit

Pic three: I agree, I'd wear everything or almost everything now


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic one: Love the "pincheck" pattern
> 
> ...


I'm very fond of the pin-check also. And I've always enjoyed Madras plaid ties as colorful hot weather options with more casual suits.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, August 1939 -

OK, this is where things get a little weird. 

When Arnie decided to hire Dali to do the sartorial illustrations!










Now tell me if you saw these two characters walking down the beach you wouldn't walk the other way!









Arnie's inner cowboy again asserts itself!









And that concludes, Esquire, August 1939. (It gets *HOT* in the summer! )


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1939 -

























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Crochet ties, reverse calf shoes (and boots) and, as always, grey pants were in, in '39.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Crochet ties, reverse calf shoes (and boots) and, as always, grey pants were in, in '39.


Wore my charcoal flannels today! Harris Tweed herringbone jacket that reads dark brown except in direct sun light, but is actually gold and black with green accents. Went full on _Creatures Great and Small_: Oversize Blackwatch tartan BD, a cotton PS in a much smaller complimentary tartan, John Comfort wool challis tie in rust with a small paisley in ecru, blue and green, a navy sleeveless cardigan and Cheaney Howard R model penny loafers.

Excepting the shoes and cardigan, everything is 5 to 25 years old. I know the tie is about that old, and I haven't found an excuse to wear it in several years. Makes me realize I have far more wardrobe of which I'm really fond, than opportunities to wear it, which then begs the issue, why could I possibly need more?  

Oh, and forgot the tan pigskin suspenders/braces which I haven't worn in at least 10 years. 

The Cheaney Howard's are rapidly becoming my favorite footwear. I'm essentially lazy, so loafers suit me well in both name and nature. The super comfortable last, exceptional build quality, dark tan grain leather and Dainite sole checks all the boxes I had. Rare for any purchase to deliver to that extent.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, September 1939 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Wore my charcoal flannels today! Harris Tweed herringbone jacket that reads dark brown except in direct sun light, but is actually gold and black with green accents. Went full on _Creatures Great and Small_: Oversize Blackwatch tartan BD, a cotton PS in a much smaller complimentary tartan, John Comfort wool challis tie in rust with small geometric figures in ecru, blue and green, a navy sleeveless cardigan and Cheaney Howard R model penny loafers.
> 
> Excepting the shoes and cardigan, everything is 5 to 25 years old. I know the tie is about that old, and I haven't found an excuse to wear it in several years. Makes me realize I have far more wardrobe of which I'm really fond, than opportunities to wear it, which then begs the issue, why could I possibly need more?
> 
> ...


That outfits sounds incredible. Any chance of a pic? I love when I end up wearing clothes whose age can be counted in decades.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> That outfits sounds incredible. Any chance of a pic? I love when I end up wearing clothes whose age can be counted in decades.


Thank you, you are too kind! 

Sorry no digi! Luddite you know.

And while I enjoy the artful offerings of those members who elect to post their own photos, I've never wished to do so. Rather, I'm simply pleased to learn by the example of Upper Crust and others.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1939 -



















Bonus ad, more nice Brooks' stuff -








This concludes Esquire, September 1939.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Thank you, you are too kind!
> 
> Sorry no digi! Luddite you know.
> 
> And while I enjoy the artful offerings of those members who elect to post their own photos, I've never wished to do so. Rather, I'm simply pleased to learn by the example of Upper Crust and others.


Upr is possibly the closest thing we have to Esquire of the '30s today; plus, he actually exists. 

Love the BB ad above; it feels less frenetically salesy than today's ads.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Upr is possibly the closest thing we have to Esquire of the '30s today; plus, he actually exists.
> 
> Love the BB ad above; it feels less frenetically salesy than today's ads.


I grew up on similar ads, and 60 years later still prefer just an attractive photo and simple, ample description. For me, that is what is most pleasing and encourages the greatest enthusiasm.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1939 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1939 -


















Bonus ad, I believe by Fellows -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

1930s or today, you are not quietly entering a room in that suit. You need the presence and confidence of an Upr Crust to pull it off (I do not have sufficient amounts of either quality):








⇩ Looks Fellows to me too. Also, heck of a nice-looking grey suit:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> 1930s or today, you are not quietly entering a room in that suit. You need the presence and confidence of an Upr Crust to pull it off (I do not have sufficient amounts of either quality):
> View attachment 28548
> 
> ⇩ Looks Fellows to me too. Also, heck of a nice-looking grey suit:
> View attachment 28549


Love glenchecks including those with over-plaids, but that cloth would be a bit too much for me.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1939 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Is this the beginning of the corduroy suit?

That's a great looking scarf.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 28584
> 
> Is this the beginning of the corduroy suit?
> 
> That's a great looking scarf.


I don't know about it being the beginning, but it's an awfully nice one. I love corduroy suits! The quintessence of casual, and casual 'R us! And it goes so well with tweed, Fair isle, etc. Warm, comfortable and durable if properly made from quality cloth! Very little not to like.

And the Fair isle knit scarf is a perfect compliment. Five or six years ago Press had nice ones in couple different colorways. Thought about it, and wish I had.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1939 -


















That concludes Esquire, October 1939.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Quite the scale of the houndstooth in the suit in the lower pic on the guy on the left. Once again, you ain't walking into a room quietly in that outfit.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Quite the scale of the houndstooth in the suit in the lower pic on the guy on the left. Once again, you ain't walking into a room quietly in that outfit.


Yup, no kidding!

My hope being that in the flesh it was slightly more discreet.

I find the pairing the pairing of the right checks and plaids can be very appealing, and it's the overall impression made by this rig that most interests me.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1939 -









Footwear and hose to pair!










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1939 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1939 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1939 -









Bonus ad, Brooks when Brooks -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1939 -










Bonus ad -










That concludes Esquire, November 1939.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^It was just a mere two decades later that I could be found in the field taking all manner of wild game, but not dressed as formally as pictured above. Although, the Keepers jacket, breaches and Wellies rig certainly has considerable appeal! :beer:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Love those early Brooks Brothers ads. Also, the football player on the sock is pretty neat and I tend to shy away from that type of stuff, but for some reason, I like that one.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^It was just a mere two decades later that I could be found in the field taking all manner of wild game, but not dressed as formally as pictured above. Although, the Keepers jacket, breaches and Wellies rig certainly has considerable appeal! :beer:


What, you mean your club didn't conduct driven shoots across moor and grasslands!? 



Fading Fast said:


> Love those early Brooks Brothers ads. Also, the football player on the sock is pretty neat and I tend to shy away from that type of stuff, but for some reason, I like that one.


The U.S. world of socks prior to the '50's was a vastly different and amazing place. In addition to what I think we might safely term novelty sport patterns, the kaleidoscopic variety of colors and patterns would astound, as well as the surprising percentage one might consider tasteful.

I remember my father disposing of dress socks in the later '50's that he hadn't worn in years, and both their variety and quality are very impressive to me from my current more mature vantage.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The December 1939 issue of Esquire was sartorially impoverished.  It contained only two illustrations, which I offer here -



















And that slender offering concludes Esquire, December 1939.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1940 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, January 1940,

Headin' South -










Bonus ad, and a very nice one! -










That concludes Esquire January 1940.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1940 =

(No ski bums here!)


















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ The navy sweater with white collar and cuffs is fantastic. The sitting woman's matching shirt and usherette-cap is a bit much, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised from a woman wearing a mitten with a large heart design .


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ The navy sweater with white collar and cuffs is fantastic. The sitting woman's matching shirt and usherette-cap is a bit much, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised from a woman wearing a mitten with a large heart design .


I was going to make some wise-*** comment about ladies' preferences, then I remembered the matching tie and PS sets some guys like to wear.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, February 1940 -

Westminster dog show.








Bonus ad-

Putting on the dog? 










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, February 1940 -

Headin' south:

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, February 1940 -


























This concludes Esquire, February 1940.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1940 -









Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1940 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1940 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

My dad was 40 when I was born in '64 and most of his friends were five to fifteen years older than he was (it just was that way). That crew would go to the Jersey shore looking not at all like the Esquire men pictured above (I did not grow up in that world, for sure), but they did wear dress shoes and dress socks with shorts to the beach - crazy, but the guy sitting in the chair reminded me of them. They'd also have on old dress shirts and zinc oxide on their noses - like the older men in any period movie from the '50s or '60s. And they'd simply unbutton the dress shirt and let it hang at their sides when they were "getting some sun."


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Assuming the only way to get a tan that deep and that consistent, given my own propensity to poach in the sun, I must ask...They had spray on tans back in the 1940's? :icon_scratch: The middle aged men I saw at the beech in the 1950's may have still been wearing buttoned sport shirts, walking shorts and leather dress shoes, with socks, but they sported blotchy red sun tans, as I seem inclined to do! LOL.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Assuming the only way to get a tan that deep and that consistent, given my own propensity to poach in the sun, I must ask...They had spray on tans back in the 1940's? :icon_scratch: LOL.


I have two skin colors, Casper-the-Friendly-Ghost white and boiled-lobster red. Since discovering that as a kid, I have never "sunbathed" again. That said, I've been in Florida and have seen many older men and women whose skin looks almost like mahogany wood from all the sun they've absorb throughout their lives. You must see that on a regular basis - no?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Indeed
we do regularly encounter bronzed beach beauties and gentlemen, such as you describe, but alas, the look is frequently flawed with a heavily grained and well worn texture, as might commonly be found in the construction material of an old and well used saddle. In my case the endgame effect is more like the surface appearance of a badly prepared bowl of (lumpy) cream of wheat. The sun in the deep south can be a shockingly fickle companion! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Assuming the only way to get a tan that deep and that consistent, given my own propensity to poach in the sun, I must ask...They had spray on tans back in the 1940's? :icon_scratch: The middle aged men I saw at the beech in the 1950's may have still been wearing buttoned sport shirts, walking shorts and leather dress shoes, with socks, but they sported blotchy red sun tans, as I seem inclined to do! LOL.





Fading Fast said:


> I have two skin colors, Casper-the-Friendly-Ghost white and boiled-lobster red. Since discovering that as a kid, I have never "sunbathed" again. That said, I've been in Florida and have seen many older men and women whose skin looks almost like mahogany wood from all the sun they've absorb throughout their lives. You must see that on a regular basis - no?





eagle2250 said:


> ^^Indeed
> we do regularly encounter bronzed beach beauties and gentlemen, such as you describe, but alas, the look is frequently flawed with a heavily grained and well worn texture, as might commonly be found in the construction material of an old and well used saddle. In my case the endgame effect is more like the surface appearance of a badly prepared bowl of (lumpy) cream of wheat. The sun in the deep south can be a shockingly fickle companion! LOL.


As a youngster with a so-called Mediterranean complexion, I used to tan great. But have avoided the sun . . . .










for the last 30 years, or so, knowing its issues.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1940 -


















This concludes Esquire, March 1940.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1940 -









Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1940 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1940 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ (top pic): I like the idea of the yellow vest with the grey flannel suit and blue tie and shirt, I just think a knit vest would have looked more harmonious and still brought the pop of color.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ (top pic): I like the idea of the yellow vest with the grey flannel suit and blue tie and shirt, I just think a knit vest would have looked more harmonious and still brought the pop of color.


Paler yellow is one of my favorite shades for clothing. My motto is that pale yellow goes with everything, because it almost literally does. It tends to be both harmonious and to introduce a bit of brightness without being too aggressive. And because it's innately flattering to my coloring, I enjoy the opportunity to wear it.

I agree about a sleeveless cardigan or V-neck sweater. This cut of the vest is gimmicky without really offering any improvement.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1940 -

In the islands -









Bonus ad:

Nunn Bush was once one of the fine quality American shoemakers. Here's a nice look at some of the styles they offered for summer -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ With a little tweaking (today's Millennials think visible socks are kryptonite) the kid with the bike's outfit looks pretty modern.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ With a little tweaking (today's Millennials think visible socks are kryptonite) the kid with the bike's outfit looks pretty modern.


Would be almost entirely contemporary.

1939 marked a change in Esquire's illustrations when both some clothing and the way in which it is depicted began to look more contemporary. This strengthened with each succeeding year.

In the top illustration below the jackets' have less drape, and the trousers aren't quite as full. The two golfers could literally have been transposed to the early '90's and not looked out of place.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1940 -


















This concludes Esquire, April 1940.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> ...The two golfers could literally have been transposed to the early '90's and not looked out of place.


Agreed, the guy on the left, in particular, could have walked onto a golf course in the '90s and not raised a single eyebrow.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1940 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, May 1940 -










Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

3 pics up - love the insanely large-scale herringbone, it would be great to see a real pic of that material

2 pics up - too much sole, despite Esquire's attempt to sell it as having "heightening" benefits

1 pic up - love the style of these BB ads


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> 3 pics up - love the insanely large-scale herringbone, it would be great to see a real pic of that material
> 
> ...


Agree on all counts.

The shoes are comical. Delightful and instructive as vintage Esquire is, discretion must still be employed. They will often jump on the band wagon of novelty, as has happened here. A less extreme version of these for casual wear would be great. With a dressy suit, not really!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, May 1940 -

















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
That is one good looking pair of chukka boots in that last illustration. The BB Sports coat is not too shabby either!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> That is one good looking pair of chukka boots in that last illustration. The BB Sports coat is not too shabby either!


The one in the Brooks' ad, I assume?

If so, it's interesting that they don't use the chukka boot to describe it. I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't a term first employed in marketing by American makers or retailers, like ascot.

It's certainly a nice boot, when the term nice could be applied to virtually anything purchased at Brooks along with the term pricey!  And if factual, it also states it employs veldtschoen construction, which is equally impressive.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Indeed...
I was posting in response to your post #560 and didn't take the time to realize that there were intervening posts...Sorry. 

I really do enjoy reviewing these vintage ads...seems to remind me of simpler/better times!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Indeed...
> I was posting in response to your post #560 and didn't take the time to realize that there were intervening posts...Sorry.
> 
> I really do enjoy reviewing these vintage ads...seems to remind me of simpler/better times!


Glad you like them! They give me a lot of pleasure too.

I decided to post this series in the realization that I'm not getting any younger, so if any of this inspires, informs or simply entertains those who come after me, I consider that a net good for society.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire, May 1940 -
> 
> View attachment 28920
> 
> ...


Really, really, really want to see a swatch of that tweed suit. Also, love sweater vests with "contrasting" neckline, armholes and waistbands.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, May 1940 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Really, really, really want to see a swatch of that tweed suit. Also, love sweater vests with "contrasting" neckline, armholes and waistbands.


A favorite for sweaters for me too. It's a classic, and that's the problem. Classic isn't fashionable at the moment. Though Brooks actually had a variety perhaps 10 years ago, before the fashionista coup became terminal.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, May 1940 -









Bonus ads -


















That concludes Esquire, May 1940.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1940 -

And the winds of change are blowing! After the first illustration, the editor has opted for a very different look for the fashion plates.

















Illustrating that all change is not necessarily improvement.

To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, June 1940 -









More new Esquire format; the first live model fashion plate -









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, June 1940 -



















This concludes Esquire, June 1940.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1940 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, July 1940 -


























This concludes Esquire, July 1940.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1940 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, August 1940 -


















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I've always been a sucker for a nice pair of new Ranger Mocs, which I assume is what is pictured in the lower left corner of the first illustration. Consider them an absolute necessity for an active, outdoor lifestyle!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I've always been a sucker for a nice pair of new Ranger Mocs, which I assume is what is pictured in the lower left corner of the first illustration. Consider them an absolute necessity for an active, outdoor lifestyle!


That's what they look like. Likely their granddaddy's. Note 1"+ thick crepe soles, I remember them from boyhood.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, August 1940 -










A tutorial. As with all such thing, really more of a jumping off place for thought -










This concludes Esquire, August 1940.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Those tutorials are helpful - and I mean that sincerely - but I've reached the point where I can't read them (in, literally, my mind drifts as I try) as I find it's too much to take in at once and I'm not going to study it (as I would have thirty years ago when I was learning this stuff). 

Maybe someone taped that one to the inside of his closet, but otherwise, it would be hard to use in a practical way. As noted, I get their value, but I can't abide them much anymore.

Love his Glen Urquhart plaid jacket - is "Urquhart" a term I should know as it's not jumping out from my memory at all?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Those tutorials are helpful - and I mean that sincerely - but I've reached the point where I can't read them (in, literally, my mind drifts as I try) as I find it's too much to take in at once and I'm not going to study it (as I would have thirty years ago when I was learning this stuff).
> 
> Maybe someone taped that one to the inside of his closet, but otherwise, it would be hard to use in a practical way. As noted, I get their value, but I can't abide them much anymore.
> 
> Love his Glen Urquhart plaid jacket - is "Urquhart" a term I should know as it's not jumping out from my memory at all?


40 or 50 years ago, I would have digested that and committed it to memory! Now, it's largely internalized. The problem with such is two fold: first, there are too many exceptions, and some of the most appealing options often lie there, and secondly, such charts, recommendations, etc., are often inconsistent one from the other. Esquire has published many prior to this. I included this one mainly because it was available on a single page.

I like the outfit, but not the illustration. Interesting as an artistic effort, the items paired don't look great as depicted, IMHO. Glen check, striped shirt and emblematic tie? Great if done right, but not as depicted.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> 40 or 50 years ago, I would have digested that and committed it to memory! Now, it's largely internalized. The problem with such is two fold: first, there are too many exceptions, and some of the most appealing options often lie there, and secondly, such charts, recommendations, etc., are often inconsistent one from the other. Esquire has published many prior to this. I included this one mainly because it was available on a single page.
> 
> I like the outfit, but not the illustration. Interesting as an artistic effort, the items paired don't look good as depicted, IMHO. Glen check, striped shirt and emblematic tie? Great if done right, but not as depicted.


I agree, as I didn't think the outfit really worked, but I like the jacket (and the grey-blue pants with it). I've seen outfits with four pattens that work fine, but in this one, the stripe shirt feels like one too many to me and, while the text says the shirt's stripes are blue, they look rust to me, which is also too much. As Upr would say, there can only be one star on stage in an outfit at a time.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I agree, as I didn't think the outfit really worked, but I like the jacket (and the grey-blue pants with it). I've seen outfits with four pattens that work fine, but in this one, the stripe shirt feels like one too many to me and, while the text says the shirt's stripes are blue, they look rust to me, which is also too much. As Upr would say, there can only be one star on stage in an outfit at a time.


I love glen checks, and the more sedate versions play almost like a solid. When I attempt this combination, the glen check is subdued and background, the shirt the boldest element, and the tie diffused and subtle. So in order of impact, shirt, tie and suit with hopefully a harmonious contrast in intensity between each element.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1940 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, September 1940 -










School kids. (Just like your local school! 










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, September 1940 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, September 1940 -



















That concludes Esquire, September 1940.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1940 -










The chart below offers recommendations for fit. Useful, but conditional; some are simply preferences, others, dependent on circumstance.

But interesting none-the-less -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1940 -

Not my favorite art work, but you gotta dance with the gal you've got.



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Agree on the artwork. Like the sweater with the contrasting collar though.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Agree on the artwork. Like the sweater with the contrasting collar though.


I like it all, pretty much, stylistically. Only a problem with its depiction.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1940 -

Like this work a bit better!

Hat's: how to wear 'em,










And care for 'em!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Not as a replacement for Fellows (not even a consideration on that front), but as a quirky, fun "aside," the illustrations for "Service Your Hats" are well done.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Love both the hat illustrations and the article on servicing our hats. The advice offered in the "Service Your Hats article is timeless...both entertaining and useful!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Not as a replacement for Fellows (not even a consideration on that front), but as a quirky, fun "aside," the illustrations for "Service Your Hats" are well done.


I agree, very nice illustrations for their purpose. Entirely different from the fashion plates



eagle2250 said:


> Love both the hat illustrations and the article on servicing our hats. The advice offered in the "Service Your Hats article is timeless...both entertaining and useful!


The advice is particularly useful as hats have become such a rare commodity, and consequently, knowledge of their proper care largely forgotten.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1940 -










Note the shirt worn by the fellow on the left. The contrasting white collar is on a shirt body described as sand dune, which I'll would more aptly describe as a shade of ecru, and it well illustrates one of my favorite shirt combinations. Both flattering and versatile, it is here worn very much in the manner in which I wore mine.










That concludes Esquire, October 1940.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1940 -










How you dress for the festive season -









To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Questions.....
not yet asked, but already answered...and so well! Thank you.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Questions.....
> not yet asked, but already answered...and so well! Thank you.


You are very welcome, Sir!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1940 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1940 -










A world of shoes and socks; why be dull?


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Nice to see Fellows back at it. You can spot his brilliant work with little effort.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Nice to see Fellows back at it. You can spot his brilliant work with little effort.


Yes, though as the years progressed, his seemed to be less inspired by the fashions of the '40's.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1940 -








Bonus ad, Brooks like ya mean it! irate:









That concludes Esquire, November 1940.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The Brooks ad is enticing/tempting...particularly the shooting jackets. But alas, I doubt they have any old stock that is quite that old!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> The Brooks ad is enticing/tempting...particularly the shooting jackets. But alas, I doubt they have any old stock that is quite that old!


Likely the parents of the folks working there weren't around yet!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, December 1940 -










Bonus ad: A once-upon-a-time quality NYC department store -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire, November 1940 -


More than the men, she is iconic 1940s looking even in her nearly knee-length risqué skirt.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> More than the men, she is iconic 1940s looking even in her nearly knee-length risqué skirt.


She does! And I'm old enough to remember women dressing very similarly at the very beginning of the '50's. Particularly the furs. There wasn't a single woman who if she didn't have one, didn't want one. Even my mother had a small fox stole (Scarf?) despite modest means.

And the most wonderful gift was a full length fine quality fur, which could cost as much as a car. Lot's of off color humor as to their acquisition.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, December 1940 -



















This concludes Esquire, December 1940.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, December 1940 -
> 
> View attachment 29325
> 
> ...


Would you look at the prices listed in that second illustration? Clearly the style(s) of the garments and accessories is not the only thing we miss about those "good old days!" Five dollars fro a brand new pair of penny loafers! :happy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Would you look at the prices listed in that second illustration? Clearly the style(s) of the garments and accessories is not the only thing we miss about those "good old days!" Five dollars fro a brand new pair of penny loafers! :happy:


I can recall a discussion with my mother as a boy as to which pair of shoes I would be receiving from Thom McAn. Would they be those priced at $5.00, or the ones I wanted for $8.00? Guess which ones I got? 

Those prices must be considered in the context of when a reasonably well paid man might be earning $45 or $50 a week.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I can recall a discussion with my mother as a boy as to which pair of shoes I would be receiving from Thom McAn. Would they be those priced at $5.00, or the ones I wanted for $8.00? Guess which ones I got?
> 
> Those prices must be considered in the context of when a reasonably well paid man might be earning $45 or $50 a week.


I've looked into this from time to time and clothing (trying as one can to hold quality constant) is less expensive relative to the average income today versus the past (say '40s or '50s, but, pretty much, any time).

Qualitatively, this makes sense as closets are much fuller today than back then, but again, the hard thing is keeping quality constant. To wit, where closets less full then, but comprised of better-made clothes?

While there are more discount stores today, there were plenty of modest-priced clothing stores back in the day - it's not as if everyone was shopping at Brooks and Paul Stuart (you could just ask my dad, if he was still alive).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I've looked into this from time to time and clothing (trying as one can to hold quality constant) is less expensive relative to the average income today versus the past (say '40s or '50s, but, pretty much, any time).
> 
> Qualitatively, this makes sense as closets are much fuller today than back then, but again, the hard thing is keeping quality constant. To wit, where closets less full then, but comprised of better-made clothes?
> 
> While there are more discount stores today, there were plenty of modest-priced clothing stores back in the day - it's not as if everyone was shopping at Brooks and Paul Stuart (you could just ask my dad, if he was still alive).


My scatter-shot cost comparisons over time suggest the cost differentials are all over the place, more for some items, less for others.

But I've come to the same conclusion regarding quality and cost in the current market, there's a vast ocean of dreck, a pinnacle of obscenely priced so-called luxury goods of decent quality, and a paucity of middle quality, which comprised the vast majority in that era. Rather like society as a whole!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1941 -

*North*









*South*








To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The illustrations may come from a magazine dated in 1941, but those summer rigs reflected in the second illustration could still be worn in central Florida and the wearer would not stand out in any less than complimentary! That must be style, as I've heard it is timeless!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> The illustrations may come from a magazine dated in 1941, but those summer rigs reflected in the second illustration could still be worn in central Florida and the wearer would not stand out in any less than complimentary! That must be style, as I've heard it is timeless!


+1! Would certainly wear some of that stuff this summer.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1941 -

















Bonus ad -










That concludes Esquire, January 1941.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1941 -

Beach day! :happy:










*Not* beach day -










To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Once again, there seems not a thing in those 1941 illustrations that could not be worn, without undue notice today...except perhaps the white french cuffed shirt. Paraphrasing, methinks those french cuffs are indeed "a thread too far!"


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Once again, there seems not a thing in those 1941 illustrations that could not be worn, without undue notice today...except perhaps the white french cuffed shirt. Paraphrasing, methinks those french cuffs are indeed "a thread too far!"


Odd. Looks like some sort of beach jacket. Would be more discernible in the flesh.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, February 1941 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, February 1941 -

Back north!

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, February 1941 -









Actual gents illustrate resort wear










This concludes Esquire, February 1941.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Esquire should know that it can't show real people in clothes in the same issue it has illustrated people in the clothes - the real people can't compete.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Esquire should know that it can't show real people in clothes in the same issue it has illustrated people in the clothes - the real people can't compete.


Indeed the artistic license granted the illustrators allows a degree/range of visual enhancement(s), not available to those real people having their pictures taken in their respective resort kits. A photograph can make our respective human frailties Oh-So-Obvious to those happening to look at the photos! LOL.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed the artistic license granted the illustrators allows a degree/range of visual enhancement(s), not available to those real people having their pictures taken in their respective resort kits. A photograph can make our respective human frailties Oh-So-Obvious to those happening to look at the photos! LOL.


It's a variation on Cary Grant's greatest line implying the difference between a screen persona and real life:


_Everyone wants to be Cary Grant. Even I want to be Cary Grant._


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Esquire should know that it can't show real people in clothes in the same issue it has illustrated people in the clothes - the real people can't compete.





eagle2250 said:


> Indeed the artistic license granted the illustrators allows a degree/range of visual enhancement(s), not available to those real people having their pictures taken in their respective resort kits. A photograph can make our respective human frailties Oh-So-Obvious to those happening to look at the photos! LOL.





Fading Fast said:


> It's a variation on Cary Grant's greatest line implying the difference between a screen persona and real life:
> 
> 
> _Everyone wants to be Cary Grant. Even I want to be Cary Grant._


All true. But in fairness to those departed ancients, these are unposed snap shots of no special art. And even as is, I would be delighted to be as well turned out!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1941 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ I believe you posted a pic of a herringbone overcoat yesterday in the "Tweed" thread that, while lighter in color, reminds me of the coat above owing to the bold scale of the herringbone pattern.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1941 -









Arnie gets snazzy -


















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire, March 1941 -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And not one puffer coat .


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1941 -

Da plane! Da plane!









Soda jerks? 









After hours -










That concludes Esquire, March 1941.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great illustration overall and love the clothes.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire, March 1941 -
> 
> Da plane! Da plane!
> 
> ...


I didn't realize that Mr O'Rourke was so young or that Tatoo was so short because he was sitting in the sand. Egad...was Ricardo Montalban ever that young? LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1941 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1941
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice to see Diana Prince, Wonder Woman's alter ego, out at the stables on a day off from saving the world.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
But, but, they should have put the Polo Boots on her! Yes, no? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> But, but, they should have put the Polo Boots on her! Yes, no? :icon_scratch:


Not that I'm ever against a woman putting on a pair of leather boots, but I think the artist didn't want to break the line of that incredibly long leg we spy peaking out, off to the right.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> But, but, they should have put the Polo Boots on her! Yes, no? :icon_scratch:


:icon_scratch: :icon_scratch: :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1941 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire, April 1941 -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Three outstanding outfits.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> :icon_scratch: :icon_scratch: :icon_scratch:


LOL. That pair kind of scares me! :crazy: Someday I have to watch that movie.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. That pair kind of scares me! :crazy: Someday I have to watch that movie.


Good movie! Great performance from the actor who does the character referenced in the title, and also a cute boy-girl love story, for cornball romantics like me , or, your lady.

Edit: Oh, and it is shot in Trickers' shoe factory, with some of their staff as extras! :happy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1941 -










Bonus ad -










To be continue:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1941 -



























That concludes Esquire, April 1941.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1941 -









Bonus ad. From the appearance of this Brooks ad, it looks like things were in motion well before Pearl Harbor.









To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I wish Brooks Brothers uniform issues had been available in the late 1960's...at least not for the USAF. Perhaps we could have avoided those 100% polyester versions.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I wish Brooks Brothers uniform issues had been available in the late 1960's...at least not for the USAF. Perhaps we could have avoided those 100% polyester versions.


My enlisted Class A's were badly butchered poly/wool potato sacks. Possibly the most unflattering garment I've ever worn. Fortunately, I only had to wear them about a dozen times during my enlistment. The Green Monster at Lackland (The only thing _not_ lacking was land! ) had a variety of inventory with some guys actually getting issued left over all wool uni's, which were a better looking rig.

Now if the Brooks of the depicted era had been my tailor instead, I might of been far more inspired!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations continue Esquire, May 1941. I know some look as if they were cut off, but that's actually how they were printed.



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Not as nice as most of the recent Esquire illustrations you've been posting. As you imply, they look sloppy and choppy. Also, have to note that casual man in his tan short-sleeve sport shirt and brown trousers, based on his bugged-out eyes, has definitely noticed the well-constructed blonde before him.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Not as nice as most of the recent Esquire illustrations you've been posting. As you imply, they look sloppy and choppy. Also, have to note that casual man in his tan short-sleeve sport shirt and brown trousers, based on his bugged-out eyes, has definitely noticed the well-constructed blonde before him.


Yes, this is the era where the editor evidently decided he needed to give a "modern" look to many of his illustrations, and they're not the better for it. But I'm continuing to post them all for the the time being for anyone who might be interested in having a complete catalog from each issue. Though within a couple/few years they got to the point where they no longer were of sufficient interest for me to collect them. And even in this cartoonish state, there's still items I find of interest or appeal.

Didn't notice the bug-eyed gent! That's been a gag that's run in the actual cartoons with which each issue was also amply provided.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, May 1941 -

















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, May 1941. If there's another page to the bottom illustration, I don't have it.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> This concludes Esquire, May 1941. If there's another page to the bottom illustration, I don't have it.


Not at Fellows level, but a darn fine illustration.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1941.

Who says you can't wear Topsiders with a tie!? (Note the exile! )










I think he needs a drink! 









To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, June 1941 -









Should title this next one; "Come on in fella, you're gonna love it!" 









To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Fellows is the man - the backgrounds in both pics are fantastic. That man has a future as an illustrator .


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Mon chapeau -


















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The illustrations featuring collections of hats from yesteryear, incites me to go shopping for a new lid! Summer is coming...perhaps a Panama is in order...or should that be 'on order?' LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, June 1941 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1941 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Concluding Esquire, July 1941 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1941-

Theory -









And practice! 










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, August 1941 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1941 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Though personally not a fan of the 'Twinkie' approach to wardrobing for men and their women, I must concede those are two mighty fine illustrations! However, in the interest of full candor, I must also tell you the wife absolutely loves the Twinkie effect...and so the war of the will(s) continues. LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Though personally not a fan of the 'Twinkie' approach to wardrobing for men and their women, I must concede those are two mighty fine illustrations! However, in the interest of full candor, I must also tell you the wife absolutely loves the Twinkie effect...and so the war of the will(s) continues. LOL.


For a minute there, you had me at a loss! Twinkie!? McGregor!?

And then it took me a moment to realize the lady's jacket was of the same cloth as her gent's. Hadn't even considered it. 

Didn't you have some personal history with McGregor, or was that another sportwear manufacturer? Some nice casual jackets in that ad, wouldn't mind several of them currently!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> For a minute there, you had me at a loss! Twinkie!? McGregor!?
> 
> And then it took me a moment to realize the lady's jacket was of the same cloth as her gent's. Hadn't even considered it.
> 
> Didn't you have some personal history with McGregor, or was that another sportwear manufacturer? Some nice casual jackets in that ad, wouldn't mind several of them currently!


Indeed, I have worn a few McGregor jackets over the years, but I think you may be recalling my association with the Woolrich Woolen Mills. I attended Woolrich Elementary School, within sight of the Mill complex and the Company store and during my college years I worked at the Woolrich Mill during summer breaks and other breaks from my classes. Most of my work hours were on the loading dock, but I also had the chance to labor as a cutter's assistant. Those were indeed the days, my friend! Thanks for asking.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, I have worn a few McGregor jackets over the years, but I think you may be recalling my association with the Woolrich Woolen Mills. I attended Woolrich Elementary School, within sight of the Mill complex and the Company store and during my college years I worked at the Woolrich Mill during summer breaks and other breaks from my classes. Most of my work hours were on the loading dock, but I also had the chance to labor as a cutter's assistant. Those were indeed the days, my friend! Thanks for asking.


Ah, yes, Woolrich! I did indeed confuse the two brands. And coincidentally, there's also a McGregor Pa. It's nearer Pittsburgh, though I don't know if it originally had anything to do with the sportwear line.

My first job was also on a loading dock, we loaded and unloaded semi-trailers and freight cars by hand. Though the product was charming, as depicted below, I'm not sure I would characterize that summer before school as good times!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This series of illustrations is from Esquire, September 1941 -



















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> This series of illustrations is from Esquire, September 1941 -
> 
> View attachment 29891
> 
> ...


By George, that fellow in the lower half of the first illustration appears to be standing proud, with a classic and iconic Woody. I'll bet he could put his pedal to the metal and really burn the rubber off of that beast!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> By George, that fellow in the lower half of the first illustration appears to be standing proud, with a classic and iconic Woody. I'll bet he could put his pedal to the metal and really burn the rubber off of that beast!


Naughty Eagle! :icon_saint7kg:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Naughty Eagle! :icon_saint7kg:


:icon_scratch: Huh?? Why I'm confused:devil:? The classic "Woody" was even memorialized by the Beach Boy's in one of their songs (Kokomo), way back when. Why I am almost embarrassed to say that even I had a 'not so classic' Woody, from 1978 to 1981...a 1978 Chrysler Le Baron Town & Country station wagon! LOL.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^


Flanderian said:


> Ah, yes, Woolrich! I did indeed confuse the two brands. And coincidentally, there's also a McGregor Pa. It's nearer Pittsburgh, though I don't know if it originally had anything to do with the sportwear line.
> 
> My first job was also on a loading dock, we loaded and unloaded semi-trailers and freight cars by hand. Though the product was charming, as depicted below, I'm not sure I would characterize that summer before school as good times!


At risk of digging my hole even deeper (no pun intended), my first job wasn't on the Woolrich Woolen Mill's loading dock, but rather stretching tails (my "oldest profession, not to be confused with "the worlds oldest profession")......as a furrier's apprentice. Most of my time was spent stretching Australian Possum Tails, which were then sewn into strips in 100 foot rolls and sold to the textile industry to line the facing edges on the shuttlecocks of their looms. Jeez Louise, it's just so easy for a well intended innocent such as myself to be so misunderstood! LOL.


----------



## London380sl (Apr 17, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> :icon_scratch: Huh?? Why I'm confused:devil:? The classic "Woody" was even memorialized by the Beach Boy's in one of their songs (Kokomo), way back when. Why I am almost embarrassed to say that even I had a 'not so classic' Woody, from 1978 to 1981...a 1978 Chrysler Le Baron Town & Country station wagon! LOL.


Some people have their minds in the gutter.:beers:

A "woody" is also slang for an erection. With that in mind go back and reread your original post. It's disgusting! Absolutely disgusting:lol:.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> 
> At risk of digging my hole even deeper (no pun intended), my first job wasn't on the Woolrich Woolen Mill's loading dock, but rather stretching tails (my "oldest profession, not to be confused with "the worlds oldest profession")......as a furrier's apprentice. Most of my time was spent stretching Australian Possum Tails, which were then sewn into strips in 100 foot rolls and sold to the textile industry to line the facing edges on the shuttlecocks of their looms. Jeez Louise, it's just so easy for a well intended innocent such as myself to be so misunderstood! LOL.


Hmm . . . , possum tail?!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, September 1941 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Hmm . . . , possum tail?!


Indeed! Australian possums typically have rather heavily furred tails of considerable length. The fur on the leading edge of a looms shuttle will prevent the cotton and/or wool threads from wearing as they are woven into cloth. Enough of this.

Getting back to the thread topic, the illustrations in your post #680 provide a splendid glimpse into life back in 1941...the good old days! Thanks again.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed! Australian possums typically have rather heavily furred tails of considerable length. The fur on the leading edge of a looms shuttle will prevent the cotton and/or wool threads from wearing as they are woven into cloth. Enough of this.
> 
> Getting back to the thread topic, the illustrations in your post #680 provide a splendid glimpse into life back in 1941...the good old days! Thanks again.


Got some compliments from an attractive 30-something today! :happy:

She wished her grandpa dressed as well . . . .


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1941 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1941 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1941 -

Mon Chapeau II -



















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Those illustrations are the 'Tops' in more ways than one! Not a one in those pictured that could not be easily worn today!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Those illustrations are the 'Tops' in more ways than one! Not a one in those pictured that could not be easily worn today!


Definitely!
Flanderian style is at 10 O'clock. :happy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Concluding Esquire, October 1941 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Concluding Esquire, October 1941 -


Darn handsome outfit.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1941 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1941 -

















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Great captions under each of the two illustrations in the post above. I must tell you, I find browsing through these vintage Esquire edition illustrations much more enjoyable than perusing their current magazine offerings!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

I am pleased you enjoy it!

These illustrations conclude Esquire, November 1941 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Just noting, in the top pic, when that lovely lady, presently engrossed in her magazine, unfolds herself - based on her exposed leg length vis-a-vis the gentleman - should be (at least) 6'5" tall.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL...That's a small hill for a mountain climber!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL...That's a small hill for a mountain climber!


But what a hill!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, December 1941. Stuff intended as holiday gifts that no doubt were eclipsed by events.



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ #31, a Kodachrome locket - never saw one of those before.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, December 1941 -










Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
2nd illustration, bottom row-center: Dressing Gown or bathrobe? Both my Blackwatch Tartan and my cotton terry robes are Brooks Brother's designs, but I would be hard pressed to consider either of them to be "Dressing Gowns!" :crazy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, December 1941 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1942 -

Puttin' on the Ritz!









The livin' is easy -








To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Purely from an engineering point of view, away from God's work, it's hard to see what's keeping the upper front of that fine young lady's (the one with the ankle bracelet, cocktail in one hand and cigarette in the other*) dress in place.


* For some reason, I'm reminded of the Sheryl Crow line, "I'm not the kind of girl you take home" from "If It Makes You Happy," but I have no idea why.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Concluding Esquire, January 1942 -

Stuff!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Do you think it's too late to order the Spaniel book ends?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
At the quoted prices, how could one pass up that "automatic rifle?" In any event, something tells me it is a semi-automatic firing action. Looking closely at those ads, the thing I miss most about "the good old days" is the prices!


----------



## London380sl (Apr 17, 2009)

Too bad you didn't have today wage rates back in 1941. If you factor in the inflation rates from 1941 to 2019, a dollar in 1941 = $17.91 today.

I'll be curious to see how things will change in the next few issues as this, or possibly the February issue, would have been the last peace time issues of Esquire.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Do you think it's too late to order the Spaniel book ends?


Give it a try! 



eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> At the quoted prices, how could one pass up that "automatic rifle?" In any event, something tells me it is a semi-automatic firing action. Looking closely at those ads, the thing I miss most about "the good old days" is the prices!


Would be nice.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are the only illustrations from Esquire, February 1942 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ First pic - a bit of the same look Cary Grant was sporting in "To Catch a Thief" that we talked about recently.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ First pic - a bit of the same look Cary Grant was sporting in "To Catch a Thief" that we talked about recently.
> View attachment 30140


It does.

And if wondering why the February 1942 issue contained so few illustrations, (Other than yours truly missing them! ) it is likely this issue was being prepared for publication some time around 12/7/41, and minds were otherwise occupied.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1942 -









Bonus ad -









To be continued:


----------



## ItalianStyle (Mar 13, 2017)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ First pic - a bit of the same look Cary Grant was sporting in "To Catch a Thief" that we talked about recently.
> View attachment 30140


I remember watching this movie many years ago (when I was a teenager with no interest in clothes... probably didn't even buy my own...) and thinking "Isn't he too old to pull off that look?"
Was that just an early example of 'ageism' in me...? 
I still don't think he can pull it off...


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

ItalianStyle said:


> I remember watching this movie many years ago (when I was a teenager with no interest in clothes... probably didn't even buy my own...) and thinking "Isn't he too old to pull off that look?"
> Was that just an early example of 'ageism' in me...?
> I still don't think he can pull it off...


Sounds like your opinion hasn't changed, so I'd say not ageism, just how you see it.

I'm in the other camp as I think he pulls it off marvelously - but I admit to being of the view that Cary Grant can do almost no wrong.


----------



## ItalianStyle (Mar 13, 2017)

Don't get me wrong... I'm a big Cary Grant fan myself.

Probably just how movies were made back then. The male 'action hero' was typically older (mid 40s?) than in today's movies, whereas the typical female 'dame in distress' was as young as they are in modern movies.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Particularly like the helpful illustration demonstrating how the "slit" cut into the side pockets allows one to access one's keys without opening the coat.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Particularly like the helpful illustration demonstrating how the "slit" cut into the side pockets allows one to access one's keys without opening the coat.


A useful feature, once common. I know my 25+ year Burberry includes it. Possibly my Brooks also. Sadly, neither gets a lot of wear any longer, as I'm mostly in casual clothing.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Concluding Esquire, March 1942 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1942 -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1942 -


⇧ I know we're pretty much about men's clothing here, but had to note the odd choice of espadrilles with long ties for the red-dress lady's shoe choice.



Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire, April 1942 -


⇧ Lot of good stuff in here, shame it's so small that, even enlarged, it's hard to read and really see.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ I know we're pretty much about men's clothing here, but had to note the odd choice of espadrilles with long ties for the red-dress lady's shoe choice.
> 
> ⇧ Lot of good stuff in here, shame it's so small that, even enlarged, it's hard to read and really see.


Those espadrille like things were big in that era.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> View attachment 30263
> 
> 
> View attachment 30264
> ...


Re the "Esquire Correct Color Guide," for my small brain, some things are better done with a few facts and the rest driven by a feel based on experience.

I've been reading color guides / color wheels / color theory about clothes for over thirty years and really don't remember but a few high level things (and my eyes gloss over anytime I read anything more than three sentence long on the subject), but I have received enough compliments on my attire (and request for guidance from others) to believe I must be doing okay on the color-harmonizing front.

With good natural light, I can toss clothes onto my bed, "see" what colors / hues / tones work well and (most of the time) get it right (or, at least, okay), but darn if digging into that color-wheel stuff doesn't hurt my head.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Re the "Esquire Correct Color Guide," for my small brain, some things are better done with a few facts and the rest driven by a feel based on experience.
> 
> I've been reading color guides / color wheels / color theory about clothes for over thirty years and really don't remember but a few high level things (and my eyes gloss over anytime I read anything more than three sentence long on the subject), but I have received enough compliments on my attire (and request for guidance from others) to believe I must be doing okay on the color-harmonizing front.
> 
> With good natural light, I can toss clothes onto my bed, "see" what colors / hues / tones work well and (most of the time) get it right (or, at least, okay), but darn if digging into that color-wheel stuff doesn't hurt my head.


+1.

Some really nice illustrations and outfits, but most of the rest is drivel.

Most people can wear, and pair, most colors, if they know what they're doing.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Flanderian said:


> +1.
> 
> Some really nice illustrations and outfits, but most of the rest is drivel.
> 
> Most people can wear, and pair, most colors, if they know what they're doing.


Yes, that. And to FF prior.

Great illustrations tho. But the info's a load and apparently Blacks weren't worth mentioning.


----------



## London380sl (Apr 17, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1942 -
> View attachment 30234
> 
> To be continued:


The war has finally crept onto the pages of Esquire. I suspect there is a 3-4 month lag between concept and print date. My prediction is by the fall of 1942 we will start seeing more of the war effort in the pages of Esquire.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

London380sl said:


> The war has finally crept onto the pages of Esquire. I suspect there is a 3-4 month lag between concept and print date. My prediction is by the fall of 1942 we will start seeing more of the war effort in the pages of Esquire.


We will indeed!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Does this mean I should pull the old uniform out of storage and try to squeeze into it for Easter services. Egad, I'm not at all sure that, for the first time in my life, it might not fit acceptably well. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that I would come off looking like five pounds, stuffed in a three pound sack! That is just unacceptable.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Does this mean I should pull the old uniform out of storage and try to squeeze into it for Easter services. Egad, I'm not at all sure that, for the first time in my life, it might not fit acceptably well. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that I would come off looking like five pounds, stuffed in a three pound sack! That is just unacceptable.


It's all that gator on a stick!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1942 -



























To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Continuing Esquire, April 1942 -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks more "Guys and Dolls" than Yale to me.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Looks more "Guys and Dolls" than Yale to me.


And so it does!

By this time fashion was moving on to a much less nuanced approach to men's attire, often with bigger dimensions and details, bright colors and bold patterns.

Much of the '40's and early '50's were part of the same sartorial era, and Guys and Dolls was produced in 1950 from Damon Runyon's louche characters observed and conceived by him during the '30's and 40's.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes April, Esquire 1942 -

Love this ensemble! A tour de force.









Both Chipp and Press still offered a more subtle version of "sandwich" striped herringbone Shetland when I first learned of them in the early '70's.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Don't often hear the term "sandwich stripes," but that jacket in the lower illustration is rather memorable.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Don't often hear the term "sandwich stripes," but that jacket in the lower illustration is rather memorable.


While I've seen boldly striped tweeds, what I think of as sandwich stripes is better typified by item C in the Chipp catalog from '77.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> While I've seen boldly striped tweeds, what I think of as sandwich stripes is better typified by item C in the Chipp catalog from '77.
> 
> View attachment 30331


I need to see one in person. I love herringbone, but am not sure how I feel about striped herringbone.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I need to see one in person. I love herringbone, but am not sure how I feel about striped herringbone.


I remember them from my boyhood, and tasteful cloth versions such as Chipp sold had the virtue of two vertical patterns to aid one's appearance where needed.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustration are from Esquire, May 1942 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, May 1942 -


















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
....and which if any of those options would not be easily wearable today? Proof, for sure, that men's style endures.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, May 1942 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1942 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ really good illustrations. You can feel the '40s style starting to take over from the '30s. 

Top pic, love the luggage and the two sets of gams.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, June 1942 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, June 1942 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustration are from Esquire, July 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, July 1942 -









Stuff -










Bonus ad -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I think the incidence of men wearing brown suits/jackets/odd trousers may be starting to pick up, as time goes by. So much information in this last offering, it was almost overwhelming...or perhaps just tempting? LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I think the incidence of men wearing brown suits/jackets/odd trousers may be starting to pick up, as time goes by. So much information in this last offering, it was almost overwhelming...or perhaps just tempting? LOL.


Feel free to shop to your heart's contentment! I shall forward your funds to their appropriate destination.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, August 1942-


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

These last few postings have make me feel even more nostalgic in wishing for a return to yesteryear. But, to be fully honest, the scenarios depicted are before my time, of members of what history has termed "The Greatest Generation!"


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> These last few postings have make me feel even more nostalgic in wishing for a return to yesteryear. But, to be fully honest, the scenarios depicted are before my time, of members of what history has termed "The Greatest Generation!"


I know that you also grew up in the wake of WWII, and it colored much of my early life, and I suspect, yours.

The illustrations from Esquire and most other media of this period were part of nearly universal patriotic propaganda of the era. It's even part of the ads -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ a few look pretty good (the guy in the lower left, for example), but Esquire, back then, was about selling the fantasy and these guys, overall, look too much like real life. I want my Fellows' world back.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ a few look pretty good (the guy in the lower left, for example), but Esquire, back then, was about selling the fantasy and these guys, overall, look too much like real life. I want my Fellows' world back.


Don't we all! :icon_cheers:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, September 1942 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Really good illustrations, but too small print to see the artist - do you know who it is?

Particularly love the top one.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Really good illustrations, but too small print to see the artist - do you know who it is?
> 
> Particularly love the top one.


The signature of the top illustration is too small for me to read either. But the first letter looks as if it might be an "H." The only two Esquire illustrators of which I'm aware whose signature began with a H are Hurd and H. K. Runnette. This is definitely not Hurd's work. But I know nothing about Runnette beside his name and that he apparently worked in a style similar to the illustration at issue, as shown in the one below attributed to him. For that reason I suspect it is he.










The bottom illustration may well be Fellows, or possibly Saalburg, as it is unsigned.

As fashions progressed during this era, my sense is that Fellows found them less interesting, as his efforts seem less inspired.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, September 1942.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> The signature of the top illustration is too small for me to read either. But the first letter looks as if it might be an "H." The only two Esquire illustrators of which I'm aware whose signature began with a H are Hurd and H. K. Runnette. This is definitely not Hurd's work. But I know nothing about Runnette beside his name and that he apparently worked in a style similar to the illustration at issue, as shown in the one below attributed to him. For that reason I suspect it is he.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Smart reasoning and, as you note, the style looks right for it to be a Runnette.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Put my name on the items hung up in the tree in the second illustration and retitle the caption to read 'Eagle had a marvelous Christmas!' Everything in that picture is still wearable in 2019. LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Put my name on the items hung up in the tree in the second illustration and retitle the caption to read 'Eagle had a marvelous Christmas!' Everything in that picture is still wearable in 2019. LOL.


It is in my book too. I've been eyeing up that bandanna/neckerchief and today wore one of only two silk ones I have as the day is damp and chilly. It's decent quality, and is paisley in royal, white and rust, and I wore it with a denim shirt and my yellow raincoat, and wouldn't you know, two different ladies complemented me on my appearance. Must confess I like wearing such neckerchiefs better than ascots as the result always looks more casual, and once I knot the darn thing, it stays that way.

I have little doubt those ladies were thinking, "I wonder how my grandpa would look wearing that!?"

Remember as a geezer: _*My family is only happy that I can still dress myself, and have not yet soiled my trousers!
*_


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are Esquire, October 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## London380sl (Apr 17, 2009)

As I predicted the war effort is beginning to show up more and more in the pictures and ads in the late summer. I expect we will a much more pronounced emphasis over the next two years as America shifts to total war.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

London380sl said:


> As I predicted the war effort is beginning to show up more and more in the pictures and ads in the late summer. I expect we will a much more pronounced emphasis over the next two years as America shifts to total war.


You will indeed!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ the blue herringbone suit is a beaut.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ the blue herringbone suit is a beaut.


Would love to have one, the check jacket too!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I seem to recall some airline's stewardesses wearing a uniform design that was very similar to what the gentleman's lady is wearing. They also wore similar overcoats and a pillbox hat to top it all off! Now which airline was it? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> I seem to recall some airline's stewardesses wearing a uniform design that was very similar to what the gentleman's lady is wearing. They also wore similar overcoats and a pillbox hat to top it all off! Now which airline was it? :icon_scratch:


Pan Am? Back in ancient times? When you and I were young?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, October 1942 -


----------



## London380sl (Apr 17, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> Pan Am? Back in ancient times? When you and I were young?


 Good guess. The pic is from the, sadly short lived series Pan-Am, but the uniforms are from the early to mid 60's.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Clearly the lovely Pan AM ladies I saw back in the 1960's left a definite mark on my young and impressionable mind.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Clearly the lovely Pan AM ladies I saw back in the 1960's left a definite mark on my young and impressionable mind.


If you enjoy film, and have yet to see it, I heartily recommend the film, _*Catch Me if You Can!









*_


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1942 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Outstanding illustration and the author knows New York. It was very common for Wall Streeters, right after work, to take the subway up to the bars around Grand Central (which is where the Biltmore was located), have a few pops and, then, hop on the commuter train home to Greenwich, etc.

This way, the commuter took one leg of his commute out before having a few cocktails, knowing that the next leg - the railroad to the suburbs - would be less stressful than the crazy of the subway (and he could keep drinking in the bar car ).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Outstanding illustration and the author knows New York. It was very common for Wall Streeters, right after work, to take the subway up to the bars around Grand Central (which is where the Biltmore was located), have a few pops and, then, hop on the commuter train home to Greenwich, etc.
> 
> This way, the commuter took one leg of his commute out before having a few cocktails, knowing that the next leg - the railroad to the suburbs - would be less stressful than the crazy of the subway (and he could keep drinking in the bar car ).


Delightful!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1942 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The illustrations you have most recently offered are featuring the wardrobe items that are of the most consistent interest to me! Thanks.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> The illustrations you have most recently offered are featuring the wardrobe items that are of the most consistent interest to me! Thanks.


You are very welcome, sir! :beer:

But we both must thank the nice folks at Esquire for having the good taste and kindness for publishing them in the first place!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, November 1942 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, November 1942 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Given the lady's hat, are we in Holland? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Given the lady's hat, are we in Holland? :icon_scratch:


Not unless your name is Schicklgruber! 

Maybe Holland Michigan! 

My guess is some sort of nurse's or service worker's uni.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are the only two illustrations for Esquire, December 1942 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Top pic: 

- Santa's comment is a pretty darn good one

- The ties/shirts/etc. in the square above her head could be in your Paul Stuart thread


Bottom pic: 

- Police, etc. - a different time when domestic violence could be used for comedy


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
...but what else is there to say when caught crawling out of a persons chimney/fireplace in the middle of the night, even if you are wearing a red suit. I guess, "stick em up" might be another option! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are all the sartorial illustrations from Esquire, January 1943 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1943 -


















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1943 -



















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^"hugger-muggers?" Def: Confused, disordered, secretive
You sir, are expanding my vocabulary...but to what end? LOL. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1943


That is one great outfit and illustration. The "flash" of plaid from the coat is perfect.

Love the bold herringbone suit and I want the briefcase with the travel stickers (there's a better / more accurate name for them, but can't think of it now - anyone?).

However, I suggest he change his travel plans from flying to taking the train as he had two non-stop luxury train options to Chicago then: The 20th Century Limited or The Broadway Limited.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> That is one great outfit and illustration. The "flash" of plaid from the coat is perfect.
> 
> Love the bold herringbone suit and I want the briefcase with the travel stickers (there's a better / more accurate name for them, but can't think of it now - anyone?).
> 
> ...


Perfect, thank you!

You're enticing me to add railway travel to my agenda by reminding me how pleasant and enriching it can be. Entirely unlike NJT, which is closer akin to a holding cell at Rikers, except that it's usually broken and late
.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, February 1943 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Perfect, thank you!
> 
> You're enticing me to add railway travel to my agenda by reminding me how pleasant and enriching it can be. Entirely unlike NJT, which is closer akin to a holding cell at Rikers, except that it's usually broken and late
> .


The only civilized travel and the only travel I've truly enjoyed is train travel. With a little luck - Amtrak can be a decent experience especially in the Northeast where it has its "high-speed" (not really, but pretty fast) Acela service that covers all the major cities and many others.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Perfect, thank you!
> 
> You're enticing me to add railway travel to my agenda by reminding me how pleasant and enriching it can be. Entirely unlike NJT, which is closer akin to a holding cell at Rikers, except that it's usually broken and late
> .


I haven't done such since 1976 or perhaps it was 1977, but a cross country jaunt by rail is an incredible way to travel. We should all have a chance to experience a sleeper car and dining on a train at least once in our lives!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1943 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ I know Hitchcock was making films since the '20s and was successful from the '30s on, but I didn't think he became a household name until the '50s, but clearly from the top pic's text, he was a household name by '43.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ I know Hitchcock was making films since the '20s and was successful from the '30s on, but I didn't think he became a household name until the '50s, but clearly from the top pic's text, he was a household name by '43.


I think it was his TV show that made him known by my generation, but before TV, there was only movies and radio. Looking through his filmograhpy, I see titles of films from the '30's & '40's I've heard discussed, suggesting that they had brought him renown by that period. Among them -

The Man Who Knew Too Much - '34
39 Steps - '35
The Lady Vanishes - '38
Rebecca - '40
Suspicion - '41

And on it goes!

These apparently were milestones among popular entertainment which also garnered much critical praise.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I think it was his TV show that made him known by my generation, but before TV, there was only movies and radio. Looking through his filmograhpy, I see titles of films from the '30's & '40's I've heard discussed, suggesting that they had brought him renown by that period. Among them -
> 
> The Man Who Knew Too Much - '34
> 39 Steps - '35
> ...


Clearly he was and for the movies you note.

I'd add to the list another one of his I like from that era "Foreign Correspondent" from 1940.

The clothes in it are incredible too:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Clearly he was and for the movies you note.
> 
> I'd add to the list another one of his I like from that era "Foreign Correspondent" from 1940.
> 
> ...


Terrific stills *and clothes!
*
Thanks!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, March 1943 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

They are not at Fellows' level, but I've enjoyed the style/artistry of the recent illustrations very much.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> They are not at Fellows' level, but I've enjoyed the style/artistry of the recent illustrations very much.


Agreed, I find the actual clothing, and illustrations of it, less enjoyable as the '40's progress, but these are very nice illustrations.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1943 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, April 1943 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Two things from the above pics - one, it's really clear how much more popular bold herringbone was as a pattern in the '30s and '40s (and really '50s, but Flanderian hasn't taken us there yet) than it is today. That's a shame.

And, two, based on the top pic, it's clear that the dining car is where the pretty women hang out. Other than that she looks like she has a small pillow on her head, I'm leaning toward the one sitting, but there's nothing wrong with the one standing either.

Oh, and about the guy hitting on the standing one - that's a heck of an outfit he has on.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
.....and perhaps he is the object of the illustration's caption, "Tall, Dark and Drafted," enjoying one last breath of freedom, before going off to defend it!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> .....and perhaps he is the object of the illustration's caption, "Tall, Dark and Drafted," enjoying one last breath of freedom, before going off to defend it!


He's selling hard; she does not look like she's buying though. I am familiar with that look from my long-ago single days.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Two things from the above pics - one, it's really clear how much more popular bold herringbone was as a pattern in the '30s and '40s (and really '50s, *but Flanderian hasn't taken us there yet*) than it is today. That's a shame.
> 
> And, two, based on the top pic, it's clear that the dining car is where the pretty women hang out. Other than that she looks like she has a small pillow on her head, I'm leaning toward the one sitting, but there's nothing wrong with the one standing either.
> 
> Oh, and about the guy hitting on the standing one - that's a heck of an outfit he has on.


I think I only have a year or two left in my archive as fashions progressed further from my sweet spot as time marched on. And it's not simply a matter of preference, but the illustrations themselves declined markedly as the publication entered the '50's. A lot more photo layouts, which I think you may have correctly observed just aren't quite as inspiring.

But for a couple pair of Vass . . . ? 



eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> .....and perhaps he is the object of the illustration's caption, "Tall, Dark and Drafted," enjoying one last breath of freedom, before going off to defend it!


Betcha he looks a lot different once his DI's are finished with him! :devil:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are all the illustrations from Esquire, May 1943 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

We (well, I) often note how the '30s and '40s (and '50s) were the era of the large-scale herringbone pattern. Flanderian's generous posting of these Esquire illustrations confirms that almost daily.

Just today, I caught some of 1937's "The Awful Truth" on TCM with a young Ralph Bellamy (yup, one of the "old guys" from "Trading Places") wearing a large-scale herringbone sport coat. Unfortunately, I could only find a few pics and none that really show the scale off well (if you enlarge the screen, it helps a bit).

Still, it's just more proof that large-scale herringbone was common back then.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> We (well, I) often note how the '30s and '40s (and '50s) were the era of the large-scale herringbone pattern. Flanderian's generous posting of these Esquire illustrations confirms that almost daily.
> 
> Just today, I caught some of 1937's "The Awful Truth" on TCM with a young Ralph Bellamy (yup, one of the "old guys" from "Trading Places") wearing a large-scale herringbone sport coat. Unfortunately, I could only find a few pics and none that really show the scale off well (if you enlarge the screen, it helps a bit).
> 
> ...


Gorgeous!
And I bet you could wear it for arctic exploration! irate:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

That sport coat qualifies as natural fiber body armor.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

As you guys note, that sport coat is not super hundred something thread count. That there is tweed - thick and tightly woven wool meant to, as Eagle implies, stop a small caliber bullet.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1943 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing illustrations from Esquire, June 1943 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, June 1943 -










Bonus ad -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are the only two illustrations from Esquire, July 1943 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ That might be Fellows' weakest effort so far - it looks as if he wasn't really trying. Heck, I like the illustration below his better and we know, when he wants to, he can put almost any other illustrator to shame.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These are the only two illustrations from Esquire, July 1943 -
> 
> View attachment 31302


"Nothing nude under the sun! :icon_scratch:??? Well that certainly wasn't true back in the mid 1970's on a couple of California beaches near Lompoc/Vandenberg AFB, CA. I may have been the only occupant of said beaches with even a stitch of clothing on, as I stood there in my chinos and pale blue sport shirt! Although my compadre did strip down to his "tightie-whities" in his effort to fit in, perhaps proving the wisdom of 'not ever allowing the inmates to leave the asylum! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ That might be Fellows' weakest effort so far - it looks as if he wasn't really trying. Heck, I like the illustration below his better and we know, when he wants to, he can put almost any other illustrator to shame.


Agreed. Fellows' work was far less inspired as the 40's rolled on.



eagle2250 said:


> "Nothing nude under the sun! :icon_scratch:??? Well that certainly wasn't true back in the mid 1970's on a couple of California beaches near Lompoc/Vandenberg AFB, CA. I may have been the only occupant of said beaches with even a stitch of clothing on, as I stood there in my chinos and pale blue sport shirt! Although my compadre did strip down to his "tightie-whities" in his effort to fit in, perhaps proving the wisdom of 'not ever allowing the inmates to leave the asylum! LOL.


Skinny dipping is a fine American tradition! 

And not American alone. I can recall watching a documentary about the last Russian Czar, and in a brief clip, to both my astonishment and adolescent delight, his entire family had gone swimming sans togs. Evidently the custom then and there, and no one thought a thing.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1943 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, August 1943 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The gentleman wearing the Safari Jacket is a particularly handsome look for those of us inclined to explore in the great outdoors.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> The gentleman wearing the Safari Jacket is a particularly handsome look for those of us inclined to explore in the great outdoors.


Agreed! One of my favorite illustrations. Would, and still could, wear it in a heartbeat! :icon_cheers:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are Esquire, September 1943 -



















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Reminds me of the days
when I would don a coat and tie on those occasions I took the wife out for a nice dinner. Alas, other than when we go out to eat after Sunday Services, I don't seem to do that anymore. Am I getting old or just getting lazy...or have times changed? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Am I getting old or just getting lazy...or have times changed?


Yes! 

Mentioned to my wife last evening that when I undertook a holiday in London as an impoverished young GI in 1970, as often as not I would be wearing a suit or jacket when visiting Mayfair or a theater despite my age and meager circumstances. Just as I would for commercial travel by air. And that was fairly much the norm.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, September 1943 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Lower pic, gentleman to the left. Not as close as I remember, but I thought there was a Cary Grant pic out there where he echoed that outfit:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Lower pic, gentleman to the left. Not as close as I remember, but I thought there was a Cary Grant pic out there where he echoed that outfit:
> View attachment 31390


I think Grant looks significantly better than the illustration! Great duds, great coat rack.

Among many things note the depth of the cuff. Everything old is new again. Now grant had long legs, but surprisingly, though I have barely any, I have found that counter-intuitively deeper cuffs offer a better leg line than shallow ones. They seem to accentuate the vertical when being worn. This happenstance after many years of believing the opposite.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I think Grant looks significantly better than the illustration! Great duds, great coat rack.
> 
> Among many things note the depth of the cuff. Everything old is new again. Now grant had long legs, but surprisingly, though I have barely any, I have found that counter-intuitively deeper cuffs offer a better leg line than shallow ones. They seem to accentuate the vertical when being worn. This happenstance after many years of believing the opposite.


Agreed, one of the few times real life looks better than Esquire. But, honestly, Cary Grant isn't real life, he's, well, Cary Grant.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Agreed, one of the few times real life looks better than Esquire. But, honestly, Cary Grant isn't real life, he's, well, Cary Grant.


To quote the man, "Everyone wants to be Cary Grant. Even *I* want to be Cary Grant."


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1943 -









Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1943 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, November 1943 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ "Boots, boots everywhere..."
But, but where are the boots? I see only low quarter designs. Now a nice pair of Dehner Wellingtons...an arguable, but still unauthorized uniform boot...would nicely make sense of that caption!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are all the illustrations from Esquire, December 1943 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Great looking leathers and waxed cottons!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are all the illustrations from Esquire, January 1944 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1944 -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When casual dressing / dressing for a hobby didn't mean being sloppy.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1944 -
> 
> View attachment 31545
> 
> ...


I am struck by the humorously accurate applicability of the captions beneath those illustrations. Thought provoking, for sure!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, February 1944 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Even during war, Esquire is where successful, glamours people go to do successful, glamours things with other successful, glamours people.

Me, I was just picking lint off my shirt sleeve  - that never happens to Esquire people in Esquire world.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Even during war, Esquire is where successful, glamours people go to do successful, glamours things with other successful, glamours people.
> 
> Me, I was just picking lint off my shirt sleeve  - that never happens to Esquire people in Esquire world.


As one of the first, or perhaps even the very first _men's lifestyle magazine_, it's more like the place where schlubs like me go to *imagine* themselves as successful men doing glamorous things with successful, glamorous people!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

"The wind that sweeps Germany." A rather interesting and historically accurate play on words!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes the illustrations from Esquire, March 1944 -










Bonus ad -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Not mentioned in the write up as it wasn't a civilian "thing" at the time - but that looks like a heck of a peacoat.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Not mentioned in the write up as it wasn't a civilian "thing" at the time - but that looks like a heck of a peacoat.


A time when the real deal was simply the norm.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, April 1944 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Based on the last three pics, clearly, blondes were in for '44 (but who are we kidding, when aren't they?).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Based on the last three pics, clearly, blondes were in for '44 (but who are we kidding, when aren't they?).


^^









Having been a natural blond back in 1972 when we first met and remaining a blond to this day, SWMBO tells me you are spot-on with that last observation! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, May 1944 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1944 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, June 1944 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Getting Trained up...
The helmet being worn by that young machine gunner recruit was definitely made by the lowest bidder! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Getting Trained up...
> The helmet being worn by that young machine gunner recruit was definitely made by the lowest bidder! LOL.


I thought he might have got stuck playing the Wehrmacht!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, June 1944 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
"Thatched for summer?" Well put...almost poetic.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1944 -










Stuff -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, July 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1944 -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's as if Fellows wasn't really trying with this one. Fine for the average illustrator, but not even close to Fellows' better work.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> It's as if Fellows wasn't really trying with this one. Fine for the average illustrator, but not even close to Fellows' better work.


I feel the poor fellow has lost heart with the fashions of the day. I can recall reading a report that even Joe Leyendecker was a fan, and had encouraged his work.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Regardless of the artistic quality of the illustration, I suspect their must have been a copy of the Esquire July 1944 magazine lying around the house when I was born, a few years later, because I am sure it was that very pair of 'over-blown' Khaki Shorts that convinced me that I should never, ever wear shorts outside of the protective walls of the nest! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, July 1944 -










Bonus ad -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL.
Considering the illustration(s) from Esquire July 1944, in the post immediately above, it occurred to me that while we might be veterans, at our present age many of us are also "yardbirds!" Egad. Is it so? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL.
> Considering the illustration(s) from Esquire July 1944, in the post immediately above, it occurred to me that while we might be veterans, at our present age many of us are also "yardbirds!" Egad. Is it so? :icon_scratch:


Puzzled by your construction, as the only version with which I was familiar was the Charlie Parker variant, I consulted *The Font of All Wisdom* -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yardbird

And now having done so, while still puzzled, am *delighted* to report I seem not to fit into any!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^My friend, when you are right, you are right. I should have consulted Wikipedia to iron out the uncertainties, but according to the paragraph under the caption, "yardbirds and veterans," I think we both may qualify as yardbirds.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing illustrations from Esquire, August 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This illustration concludes Esquire, August 1944 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Summer Solstice, eh? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ I'm just going to note that blondie there might have some trouble actually peddling the bike in that tight skirt.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ I'm just going to note that blondie there might have some trouble actually peddling the bike in that tight skirt.


Artistic license? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1944 -

While I'm not as fond of the fashions from this period compared to a decade earlier, I do think the idea of offering actual photos of cloth swatches with the illustrations, offers an advantage.



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, September 1944 -










Shirt jackets ain't never a bad idea! :icon_cheers:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Pendleton Board shirts and Topsters..."Summer style cycle?" Perhaps in the upper reaches of Canada, but certainly not here in the central Florida!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Pendleton Board shirts and Topsters..."Summer style cycle?" Perhaps in the upper reaches of Canada, but certainly not here in the central Florida!


From Esquire to old movies, it appears that people just wore more clothes in the summer in the '20 to mid-'60s (and earlier, I just don't pay much attention to pre-'20s clothing). I assume it was do, in large part, to the period's cultural norm of a more-modest approach to dressing.

There were exceptions - you'll see some not-modest bathing suits on women and guys in shorts and T-shirts in old pics, etc. - but those outfits were in the minority as, in general, you'll see a lot of clothes on men and women even in the summer.

And, like the Pendleton you note, some of those clothes were heavy - for example, men quite often wore long flannel pants to play tennis.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
....or perhaps it is just further proof that global warming is a present day reality...yes, no?


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ....or perhaps it is just further proof that global warming is a present day reality...yes, no?


I won't touch the politics of that one, but global warming advocates claim about one to two degrees in the 20th Century: If it's 88 or 90 degrees, flannel is still to freakin' hot to play tennis in .


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

The illustrations are from Esquire, October 1944 -

Pairings -










Bonus ad on a more casual theme -










To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I can't help but wish that present day retailers could take a look at the illustration captioned "abc of colors" and realize that the 1944 approach to advertising is the right way and the way they ought to be doing it today. :teacha:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> I can't help but wish that present day retailers could take a look at the illustration captioned "abc of colors" and realize that the 1944 approach to advertising is the right way and the way they ought to be doing it today. :teacha:


I agree completely (the lack of thoughtful advertising also partially explains why so few young men know how to put an outfit together), but I will admit this - I can't read more than a sentence on color coordinating clothes without my mind wandering (yet I'll happily read books on clothing history and style).

I find that, for me, color wheels and all that jazz are like trying to think about all the things you need to do to ride a bike versus just doing it. I'm more effective letting my instincts / my "eye" (hopefully, honed by years of experience) drive the color coordination both within the outfit and to my own hair color and skin tone versus trying to think my way to a solution using rules, etc.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I agree completely (the lack of thoughtful advertising also partially explains why so few young men know how to put an outfit together), but I will admit this - I can't read more than a sentence on color coordinating clothes without my mind wandering (yet I'll happily read books on clothing history and style).
> 
> I find that, for me, color wheels and all that jazz are like trying to think about all the things you need to do to ride a bike versus just doing it. I'm more effective letting my instincts / my "eye" (hopefully, honed by years of experience) drive the color coordination both within the outfit and to my own hair color and skin tone versus trying to think my way to a solution using rules, etc.


+1.

Also, some of these *systems *are simply mistaken. Most others; simplistic, incomplete or rife with exceptions. While it can be helpful to the initiate, it can not substitute for _*rock of eye*_. To extend your analogy, there should come a point in your learning when you take the training wheels off.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1944 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1944 -
> 
> View attachment 32149
> 
> ...


Ah! A blast from the past...travel by bus. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, but I don't recommend it. However, travel by train...now that is a special kind of luxury! :happy:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1944 -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How much does Drew echo her aunt's looks:









N.B., Trains exist to balance out busses in the transportation cosmic universe.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Ah! A blast from the past...travel by bus. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, but I don't recommend it. However, travel by train...now that is a special kind of luxury! :happy:


Still remember my bus trip from Lackland to Keesler! 



Fading Fast said:


> N.B., Trains exist to balance out busses in the transportation cosmic universe.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

This concludes Esquire, October 1944 -










Bonus ad -










At the ballpark! :icon_cheers:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 

Pic One: The kid's football getup is awesome

Pic Two: They really had no shame back then either; they were just somewhat less obvious

Pic Three: Love the baseball stadium (dugout / classic uniforms) - first I've ever heard of "Kerry" blue.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> Pic One: The kid's football getup is awesome
> 
> ...


When men's fashion was both more classic and changed less, makers often differentiated their merchandise from one year, to the next, with a different color scheme, to which copy writers would assign fanciful names. Kerry blue likely being one such. Apparently borrowed from the redoubtable terrier of the same name, which has a grey coat, which in some dogs can have a slightly blue cast -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> When men's fashion was both more classic and changed less, makers often differentiated their merchandise from one year, to the next, with a different color scheme, to which copy writers would assign fanciful names. Kerry blue likely being one such. Apparently borrowed from the redoubtable terrier of the same name, which has a grey coat, which in some dogs can have a slightly blue cast -


*Terrier*: Listen Flanderian, I like you and all - thanks for posting all those wonderful Esquire illustrations and custom-made Japanese shoes - but enough is enough. I'm not blue, I don't have a blue tint or hue or what-have-you. We have a thing called libel and my lawyer (a thoughtful English Springer) says you're on shaky ground here.

*Fading Fast*: Well, technically, AKC does list you as a blue Terrier and notes that your coat does give off a shade of blue.

*Terrier*: Who invited the skinny guy into the conversation - eat a sandwich and get back to me.

*Fading Fast*: (sniff, sniff) I was just trying to help

*Terrier*: (cutting him off) Yeah, whatever dude, when I want your help, I'll call

*Fading Fast*: I'm going home.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1944 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> *Terrier*: Listen Flanderian, I like you and all - thanks for posting all those wonderful Esquire illustrations and custom-made Japanese shoes - but enough is enough. I'm not blue, I don't have a blue tint or hue or what-have-you. We have a thing called libel and my lawyer (a thoughtful English Springer) says you're on shaky ground here.
> 
> *Fading Fast*: Well, technically, AKC does list you as a blue Terrier and notes that your coat does give off a shade of blue.
> 
> ...












Now were he like my granddog, a Jack Russel who I think may be related to the Tasmanian Devil, he'd be too busy chasing any critter that moves, wrangling cats (He must live with 4! ) and eating worms from the backyard to have much concern over such issues.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Now were he like my granddog, a Jack Russel who I think may be related to the Tasmanian Devil, he'd be too busy chasing any critter that moves, wrangling cats (He must live with 4! ) and eating worms from the backyard to have much concern over such issues.


Our Springer, on the contrary, is quite proud of his black-and-white fur, far superior - he tells us - to the liver and white fur that many Springers have. And don't even get him started on the tri-colored Springers. But don't get me wrong, for all his pretensions, he'll dive head first into any old half eaten chicken wing discarded on the sidewalk.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Our Springer, on the contrary, is quite proud of his black-and-white fur, far superior - he tells us - to the liver and white fur that many Springers have. And don't even get him started on the tri-colored Springers. But don't get me wrong, for all his pretensions, he'll dive head first into any old half eaten chicken wing discarded on the sidewalk.


How's he feel about squirrel-cicles?


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> How's he feel about squirrel-cicles?


As noted, his putting on airs goes out the window when his inner feral dog comes out. Hard to look to-the-manner born when nibbling on a dead pigeon.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> As noted, his putting on airs goes out the window when his inner feral dog comes out. Hard to look to-the-manner born when nibbling on a dead pigeon.


Well, you still know he's a gent if he wants to share it with you!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Well, you still know he's a gent if he wants to share it with you!


And he would, to wit, he brings us his toys for us to play with.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, November 1944 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Middle pic - nicely done illustration. The way the artist captured the shine on the floor is outstanding and the decor, overall, is high Art Deco hinting at the Mid-Century Modern to come - bravo, nice piece of work. And if it was me, I'd have forgotten what I came in to buy and would just be chattin' up the blonde taking the order.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Agreed, but
dropping down to the third and final picture in the post, when and where did people ever dress like that at football games? I can state with certainty that those filling the stadium at Penn State football games in the mid to late 1960's and early 1970's did not...and that was a fair cross section of humanity! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Agreed, but
> dropping down to the third and final picture in the post, when and where did people ever dress like that at football games? I can state with certainty that those filling the stadium at Penn State football games in the mid to late 1960's and early 1970's did not...and that was a fair cross section of humanity! :icon_scratch:


From pictures and movies of the period, I'd say '30s and '40s still saw the adults and, quite often, the students dressed that way - as hard as it is for us to believe today.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Agreed, but
> dropping down to the third and final picture in the post, when and where did people ever dress like that at football games? I can state with certainty that those filling the stadium at Penn State football games in the mid to late 1960's and early 1970's did not...and that was a fair cross section of humanity! :icon_scratch:


But where were you in November '44!?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are all the illustrations from Esquire, December 1944 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1945 -










Bonus ad (Starting to feel like my boyhood!) -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Not Fellows' best, but even his B-game is still pretty darn good. (Love the car.)


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustration are from Esquire, January 1945 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, January 1945 -










Bonus ad -










To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Awesome Deco edges to Ms. Moneypenny's desk.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I feel compelled to admit never having heard of McCurrach Golden Shuttle Ties, but at $2 to $7.50 a pop one couldn't go to far wrong with an assortment of those arguably handsome beauties! My favorite is the one in the center that looks like it has some kind of leaves on it! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, January 1945.

Stuff to buy! (74 years ago!)


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are all the illustrations from Esquire, February 1945 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1945 -



















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
One look at those arguably caddish smiles on the men in the lower illustration gives one pause to consider which one of those old goats might actually get lucky? LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> One look at those arguably caddish smiles on the men in the lower illustration gives one pause to consider which one of those old goats might actually get lucky? LOL.


You are more observant than me!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, March 1945 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, March 1945. All ads, but worth it -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Women should get back to wearing those long leather kidskin gloves that cover their forearms...very sexy!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1945 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, April 1945 -




























To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, April 1945 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Botany 500...now that is indeed a blast from my past, though I can't say with any real certainty that I ever owned one of their suits. Are they still in business? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Botany 500...now that is indeed a blast from my past, though I can't say with any real certainty that I ever owned one of their suits. Are they still in business? :icon_scratch:


Yes, and no. The name still exists, but the original business is long gone. It's just another "empty name" from the era when America actually made stuff. It was an aspirational brand in my world.

Wikipedia -
_
"Botany 500 was a brand name owned by the Botany 500 Group of New York. Their men's suits and sport coats were manufactured in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by H. Daroff and Sons, who were contracted with Botany Mills of Passaic, New Jersey to produce products and later bought the firm outright. Their plant was located at 23rd and Walnut Streets during the 1940s and '50s and beyond. Until 1945, it was located in the Pitcairn Building at 1027 Arch Street. They also produced another line called Worsted-Tex that had the image of the head of a German Shepherd dog on its label. The office, on the first floor of the plant, had a stuffed German shepherd standing guard. The seventh and topmost floor contained the top coat design department and a fabric cutting floor.

*Decline[edit]*

Daroff and Sons and the Botany 500 group went bankrupt in August 1973. An attempt was made to turn the company over to another company, named Cohen and Sons, which was still operating profitably. Because of resistance by the company's employees, Cohen backed out of the deal by the end of September. When Daroff finally closed its doors in December 1973, Cohen and Sons bought the Botany 500 name and assets for $4 million. They planned to keep the labels, marketing, sales, and distribution of Botany as a separate Botany 500 line.

With the garment business taking a downturn during the second half of the decade, the Botany and Cohen and Sons operations ceased production in 1986. The building was sold in 1989 for $1.75 million. Manufacturing under Botany 500 name was then outsourced to foreign companies"_


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ I believe I've mentioned this before, but I remember seeing "Mr. So-and-So's wardrobe provided by Botany 500" quite regularly in the credits of newscasts, talkshows and gameshows in the '70s.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ I believe I've mentioned this before, but I remember seeing "Mr. So-and-So's wardrobe provided by Botany 500" quite regularly in the credits of newscasts, talkshows and gameshows in the '70s.


You certainly did, as I recall that too.

They weren't a bit shy of ballyhooing the brand. Pity it didn't yield better rewards, it was decent stuff.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1945 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Top pic: I think that young lady stole her 10" waist from the women over in the "Cool Illustrations from the '50s" thread. 

Both pics: Reminds you of how much more common bold patterns in men's suits were back then versus today.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1945 -

(Note that Ike's blouson had made it into civie wear!)



















To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
That is a great knock-off of the iconic Eisenhower Jacket . The caption for the first illustration is particularly appropriate.."Civilian Battle Jacket!"


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> That is a great knock-off of the iconic Eisenhower Jacket . The caption for the first illustration is particularly appropriate.."Civilian Battle Jacket!"


Saw photo and film of Patton wearing a similar one too. Makes a lot more sense if you're going to be crawling in and out of a tank hatch.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1945 -



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, May 1945 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ if your jaw is square enough, your hair thick enough and your shoulders wide enough - a bowtie can look quite powerful on a man.

I've got one of the three, but that ain't enough to carry off a bowtie.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ if your jaw is square enough, your hair thick enough and your shoulders wide enough - a bowtie can look quite powerful on a man.
> 
> I've got one of the three, but that ain't enough to carry off a bowtie.


I only have relatively broad shoulders, but I seem to be able to pull off bow ties, albeit possibly in an ancient, professorial mode  .


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

upr_crust said:


> I only have relatively broad shoulders, but I seem to be able to pull off bow ties, albeit possibly in an ancient, professorial mode  .


You do it with panache.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1945 -










Love this outfit! The tie reminds me of one I once had from Paul Stuart. (Wish I still did! )










To be continued:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Whatever the source of inspiration for that tie was, it is still a PUT (AKA: Pretty ugly tie)! Although I do rather like the rest of the gentleman's rig. Real Style is timeless.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Whatever the source of inspiration for that tie was, it is still a PUT (AKA: Pretty ugly tie)! Although I do rather like the rest of the gentleman's rig. Real Style is timeless.


I think Aesop may have something to do with it! Not your cup of grapes, hmm . . . ? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Please note; I posted the above two illustrations as originating in Esquire, June 1944, but had actually skipped June, and begun July. I've corrected the accompanying notes. These are the final two illustrations from July 1945. In a succeeding post, I will go back and pick up June, and then resume with August 1945.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are all the illustrations from Esquire, *June* 1945 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1945 -

I like those socks a lot better than the chrome yellow ascot. But there's no excuse for that shirt. (And I think Fellows knows it too, but as his job is to illustrate fashion, he's done his job. )



















To be continued:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, August 1945 -

Like these socks too! (Socks with clocks what rocks! )










Off duty -










OK, now this shirt I like! Properly worn in the proper context. Heck, I think I've got one like it! :beer:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Girl in the halter top - not bringing home to mother

Girl in the tennis whites - bring home

Girl sitting, bottom pic - don't care what mother thinks

Fellows left his A-game back in the '30s. 

Diamond pattern sport coat - it's a shame that it's a pattern that seems all but lost / combined with his kitschy tie, he personifies '40s (into the '50s) style. 

Love the helicopter model.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

I work from home and have TCM on in the background, which currently has 1936's "After the Thin Man" playing. 

If you want to see the Esquire pages in action from their actual era, you couldn't do much better than watching this (or almost any "Thin Man") movie.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Fellows left his A-game back in the '30s.


Well put, sadly. 



Fading Fast said:


> Diamond pattern sport coat - it's a shame that it's a pattern that seems all but lost / combined with his kitschy tie, he personifies '40s (into the '50s) style.


I'll leave the kitschy tie, but sure would like a tweed like that!



Fading Fast said:


> I work from home and have TCM on in the background, which currently has 1936's "After the Thin Man" playing.
> 
> If you want to see the Esquire pages in action from their actual era, you couldn't do much better than watching this (or almost any "Thin Man") movie.


They don't get any better!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1945 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, September 1945 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, September 1945 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Guy fiddling with the radio - super neat outfit.

Soldiers returning from war is mentioned; little did they know then that would be the beginning of the unraveling of the college-kids-lead-men's-style meme. Just interesting to note with the benefit of hindsight.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

If the illustration were presenting present day activities, rather than 1945, those two gentlemen listening to the radio would be fiddling with their respective iphones and the top of that bookcase would be available space for whatever they chose to put there!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Guy fiddling with the radio - super neat outfit.
> 
> Soldiers returning from war is mentioned; little did they know then that would be the beginning of the unraveling of the college-kids-lead-men's-style meme. Just interring to note with the benefit of hindsight.


The illustrator is Robert Goodman, a Parsons grad. During his career he displayed a variety of styles in his illustration, at different times resembling both Fellows and Saalburg. By 1945 he had become the artistic director of Esquire, and frankly I don't really care as much for his later work. Sadly, this talented young man was to pass only 3 years later from walking pneumonia.



eagle2250 said:


> If the illustration were presenting present day activities, rather than 1945, those two gentlemen listening to the radio would be fiddling with their respective iphones and the top of that bookcase would be available space for whatever they chose to put there!


Bongs?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Oddly I have always been, at once, attracted to and repelled by the Dude's cardigan! Go figure.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1945 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1945 -


----------



## jerry_in_motown (Nov 14, 2011)

I seem to recall the men's store I frequented in the 1970's carried Kuppenheimer.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

jerry_in_motown said:


> I seem to recall the men's store I frequented in the 1970's carried Kuppenheimer.


It was an upper tier make. Solid stuff, pleasantly conservative.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Continuing Esquire, October 1945 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ I'm trying to find the right word - the word that has the proper balance and nuance to express how I feel about Esquire using pictures instead of illustrations - oh, I think I found it: I HATE it.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ I'm trying to find the right word - the word that has the proper balance and nuance to express how I feel about Esquire using pictures instead of illustrations - oh, I think I found it: I HATE it.


_"Oh, the days dwindle down to a precious few . . . . "_


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1945.

By special request from Fading Fast -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1945.
> 
> By special request from Fading Fast -
> 
> ...


Thank you kind sir.

In the second pic, my first choice is the blond with the riding crop - her friend looks to be wearing the once popular, now all but gone, diamond weave pattern as seen here on Leslie Howard:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Thank you kind sir.
> 
> In the second pic, my first choice is the blond with the riding crop - her friend looks to be wearing the once popular, now all but gone, diamond weave pattern as seen here on Leslie Howard:
> 
> View attachment 33316


Do you prefer all of your women equipped with riding crops? 

I recall Leslie Howard as being consistently one of the most smartly elegant men in film. And that tweed is easily a 12 out of 10! :icon_cheers:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, October 1945 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1945 -

(Ahh . . . . geezers! Starting to feel at home. )


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1945 -
> 
> (Ahh . . . . geezers! Starting to feel at home. )
> 
> ...


An illustration with which so many of us herein might easily identify!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> An illustration with which so many of us herein might easily identify!


+1!

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1945 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, November 1945 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are the only illustrations for Esquire, December 1945 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ grumble, grumble and grumble - end of comment.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Wasamatta, you don't like fat guys!? 

Good news, your misery is soon to come to an end!

You've obviously discerned the same trend in Esquire's illustrations that I did when collecting them; originally inspiring and instructive, they've largely grown less so. I stopped archiving in May of '46.

Though, if any should have a particular interest, I'd be happy to entertain it.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1946 -

Is this illustration Hollywood, or *very* Hollywood!? 










For late shoppers, I guess. :icon_scratch:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
It is a beautifully done illustration, but frankly the only styling details that interest me are the garments being worn by the lady being hit upon! The gents look like a couple of flamers. LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, January 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Second pic, I can't quite make out the name (the text gets too fuzzy when I enlarge it), but Esquire is calling - the what we know as - a Pea Coat something else. Does anyone know what that name is?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Second pic, I can't quite make out the name (the text gets too fuzzy when I enlarge it), but Esquire is calling - the what we know as - a Pea Coat something else. Does anyone know what that name is?


:icon_scratch: The text reads "The gob is squared away in a Navy regulation rig known as a pea jacket,"

I enlarged it from my archived file, and there the text is clear enough to be read, though not ideal.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> :icon_scratch: The text reads "The gob is squared away in a Navy regulation rig known as a pea jacket,"
> 
> I enlarged it from my archived file, and there the text is clear enough to be read, though not ideal.


Well then, Pea Coat is close enough. Thank you sir - appreciate the effort on my behalf.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Well then, Pea Coat is close enough. Thank you sir - appreciate the effort on my behalf.


Quite welcome, no bother at all!

👍


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These photo illustrations are from Esquire, February 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, February 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Middle pick, both the man and woman could dress that way today and, at a nice summer hotel/resort/island/etc., not stand out at all. My girlfriend basically has the woman's outfit in her closet today.

I know the word means different things to different people, but to me (so my opinion, not some cosmic fact), her clothes (and, basically, his) are _classics_ that have stood the test of time.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Middle pick, both the man and woman could dress that way today and, at a nice summer hotel/resort/island/etc., not stand out at all. My girlfriend basically has the woman's outfit in her closet today.
> 
> I know the word means different things to different people, but to me (so my opinion, not some cosmic fact), her clothes (and, basically, his) are _classics_ that have stood the test of time.


Very true!

The classics may get reworked to a degree, but they persist in some form, irrespective of fashion.

I do like the gent's pale yellow trousers for resort wear. One of my favorite shades for items because of its soft hue and ability to coordinate with most other colors.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Ah, illustrations again. Best dressed of them all is the dog - love the insouciance of an irregular pattern of spots.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1946.

The Lord giveth -










And the Lord taketh away.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, March 1946 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Indeed, back in the day the right hat could make it all work for a gentleman, but alas, these days the best one can hope for is a sly smile and a surreptitious "nice hat!" I'll take that.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Indeed, back in the day the right hat could make it all work for a gentleman, but alas, these days the best one can hope for is a sly smile and a surreptitious "nice hat!" I'll take that.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These are all the illustrations from Esquire, April 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1946 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The illustrations in the two posts immediately above this are some of the very best you have posted!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> The illustrations in the two posts immediately above this are some of the very best you have posted!


Thank you! Glad you liked them.

I like some better than others. I work with what I got!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> The illustrations in the two posts immediately above this are some of the very best you have posted!


Good ones, especially as they become rare. I also liked the pic of Niven - one of my favorite actors.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Good ones, especially as they become rare. I also liked the pic of Niven - one of my favorite actors.


Me too. David Niven always looked well dressed!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, May 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ only missed thee on the quiz.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ only missed thee on the quiz.


Very impressive! You can handle my portfolio anytime!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Very impressive! You can handle my portfolio anytime!


I don't know - maybe knowing a lot of minutia about 1940s men's clothing is not something to be proud of.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1946 -










Beautiful illustration in the ad below -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1946 =


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1946 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Very nice! Over the years, I've purchased more than a few Hart Schaffner & Marx suits and cannot remember ever being disappointed. Though from what I read in these parts, I'm not sure that would be the case with their current day offerings?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Very nice! Over the years, I've purchased more than a few Hart Schaffner & Marx suits and cannot remember ever being disappointed. Though from what I read in these parts, I'm not sure that would be the case with their current day offerings?


Great suits for business! Looked good and wore good. Their Gold and Silver Trumpeter lines offered even better cloth and more hand tailoring.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1946 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Is the fellow wearing the spectators also sporting an ascot in combination with a maroon Pendleton Board shirt. It appears to potentially be so. In any event, as the ad tells us, "The fabric is the soul of the clothing!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Is the fellow wearing the spectators also sporting an ascot in combination with a maroon Pendleton Board shirt. It appears to potentially be so. In any event, as the ad tells us, "The fabric is the soul of the clothing!


You betcha bippy! :happy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, June 1946 -



















Edit: Jimmy Stewart was one heck of a coat hanger!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1946 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I do believe the gentleman, supported by his "driver" and wearing the blue/white gingham check shirt, is wearing a Tillley's Endurable LT5 hat, to keep the sun off! Did Tilley Endurables exist way back in 1946? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I do believe the gentleman, supported by his "driver" and wearing the blue/white gingham check shirt, is wearing a Tillley's Endurable LT5 hat, to keep the sun off! Did Tilley Endurables exist way back in 1946? :icon_scratch:


I'm old, but I'm not *that* old! :icon_saint7kg:

But if not, certainly at least its cousin in one form, or another.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations conclude Esquire, June 1946 -
> 
> View attachment 34020
> 
> ...


The top illustration looks right out of 5th Avenue in NYC in the '40s. I have all but no doubt that he used it as a model.

The second pic - of one of my favorite actors - shows the "something special" quality of actors. Most of Esquire's shots of real people feel flat and uninspiring, but this one of Stewart, like the one of Niven a page or so back, are inspiring - like an illustration came alive.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> The top illustration looks right out of 5th Avenue in NYC in the '40s. I have all but no doubt that he used it as a model.
> 
> The second pic - of one of my favorite actors - shows the "something special" quality of actors. Most of Esquire's shots of real people feel flat and uninspiring, but this one of Stewart, like the one of Niven a page or so back, are inspiring - like an illustration came alive.


Laurence Fellows was by the time of this illustration in his early '60's. And I believe may well have then resided in Manhattan. By this time Robert Goodman, a fellow illustrator, had become director of Esquire, and he *did* live at 88th & Madison.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Laurence Fellows was by the time of this illustration in his early '60's. And I believe may well have then resided in Manhattan. By this time Robert Goodman, a fellow illustrator, had become director of Esquire, and he *did* live at 88th & Madison.


Great color.

That sorta squarish curly-cue on the awning is still common for many of the older 5th Avenue buildings.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ She and her incredible sunglasses are the star of the top pic.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire July 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, August 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are Esquire, August 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, August 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 15 of 20, I think I did better last time.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ 15 of 20, I think I did better last time.


Not bad! 👍


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Not bad! 👍


Especially since I have no idea what lightweight rayon used for men's shirts in 1946 is call - WTF.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Especially since I have no idea what lightweight rayon used for men's shirts in 1946 is call - WTF.


It's a measurement of the thickness of yarn as weight. One denier would be 1 gram per 5.6 miles of length. Anything less than 20 denier is usually considered sheer, so 1 denier should be virtually gossamer.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> It's a measurement of the thickness of yarn as weight. One denier would be 1 gram per 5.6 miles of length. Anything less than 20 denier is usually considered sheer, so 1 denier should be virtually gossamer.


Cool that you had that info in your hip pocket. And I thought Esquire had simply misspelled the currency of Kuwait.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Cool that you had that info in your hip pocket. And I thought Esquire had simply misspelled the currency of Kuwait.


The magic of the Internet at my finger tips! 👽


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1946 -
> 
> View attachment 34347


Having gone to college in the'80s, where anything beyond jeans and T-shirts or sweatshirts was dressing up for most of the students, every once in awhile, I'm still stunned by these illustrations and discussion of what college kids wore. If there wasn't indubitable evidence that kids did dress this way, I'd be suspicious. Oh, and I want the kid on the right's suit.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Having gone to college in the'80s, where anything beyond jeans and T-shirts or sweatshirts was dressing up for most of the students, every once in awhile, I'm still stunned by these illustrations and discussion of what college kids wore. If there wasn't indubitable evidence that kids did dress this way, I'd be suspicious. Oh, and I want the kid on the right's suit.


With, or without, the argyles!? 

Though a particularly well chosen pair of argyles with a tweed suit can be marvelous. A bow tie too, though I'd likely look for something a bit brighter to accent this tweed.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> With, or without, the argyles!?
> 
> Though a particularly well chosen pair of argyles with a tweed suit can be marvelous. A bow tie too, though I'd likely look for something a bit brighter to accent this tweed.


The argyles are my least-favorite part of the outfit, but I like them.

I get the color thing and have done that, but I also like the all-colors-of-the-same-hue look. But heck, if I had the suit, all sorts of variations are possible.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ top pic.

It's nice that the woman doesn't have the creepy ogling-the-man look so common of the era (see pic below that one, for example), but she does look like she just saw a space ship land and is more confused by than scared of it.

Also, to scale, I'd say her waist is an anatomically impossible 8" - 10".

N.B. Re bottom pic, was there really a time men wanted padding in their sweater shoulders? Not very TNSIL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ top pic.
> 
> It's nice that the woman doesn't have the creepy ogling-the-man look so common of the era (see pic below that one, for example), but she does look like she just saw a space ship land and is more confused by than scared of it.
> 
> ...


And Jimmy Stewart's taller, skinnier brother! :happy:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> And Jimmy Stewart's taller, skinnier brother! :happy:


Good call on Stewart. I also get a very slim Walter Pidgeon.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1946 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I've worn perhaps six or eight pair of saddle shoes in my life, but none featuring a black saddle on a white shoe. While the design is perhaps unisex, the color combinations are not! Although I am clearly in no position to comment on societal expectations in 1946.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I've worn perhaps six or eight pair of saddle shoes in my life, but none featuring a black saddle on a white shoe. While the design is perhaps unisex, the color combinations are not! Although I am clearly in no position to comment on societal expectations in 1946.


I think you have to be under the age of 20 for it to make any sense.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, September 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, September 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧

*1st Pic*: Love the architecture of the room - those windows are insane. (I think I "stole" this pic for the "50s Illustration" thread at some point.)

*2nd Pic*: One of my favorite lesser-known-today actors of the Golden Era (love him in "The Fountainhead" and "East of Eden," for example).

*3rd Pic*: I'll take the quiz later and report my results.

And here's a fun connect of pic 1 and pic 2 - check out Massey's office in "The Fountainhead:"


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> *1st Pic*: Love the architecture of the room - those windows are insane. (I think I "stole" this pic for the "50s Illustration" thread at some point.)
> 
> ...


Massey was a superb actor. I remember watching him as Lincoln when I was a boy and thinking he looked more like Lincoln than Lincoln. His character colors my perception of the historical figure to this day.

Love his dress, would wear as is. (If any such could be found, which it couldn't, and I could afford it, which I can't!) If that suit isn't the product of a London tailor of the era, I'll eat his narrow brimmed hat!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> ... thinking he looked more like Lincoln than Lincoln....


Well said.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1946 -










I'd wear below, as is!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ I bought an original of that ad on Ebay earlier this year:








It is in perfect condition - but since it's in cellophane right now (haven't framed it yet), the pic doesn't do it justice.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1946 -
> 
> View attachment 34555
> 
> ...


The first illustration is one of the most effective ads that I've seen. Everything about it speaks to the simple straightforward message being transmitted...this coat will keep you dry! As for the second illustration, I've got to find me one of those ties...stunning.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> The first illustration is one of the most effective ads that I've seen. Everything about it speaks to the simple straightforward message being transmitted...this coat will keep you dry! As for the second illustration, I've got to find me one of those ties...stunning.


J.Press does not have that exact knit tie, but it has similar ones as it's upped its game in knit ties over the past year or so.

https://jpressonline.com/collections/neckwear


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Thank you for the source on the ties. As you opined, J. Press has certainly upped it's game with the tie selections, both knit and otherwise!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Thank you for the source on the ties. As you opined, J. Press has certainly upped it's game with the tie selections, both knit and otherwise!


O'Connell's has the colorway, but a different width stripe -

https://www.oconnellsclothing.com/Atkinsons-Silk-Knit-Necktie-Stripe-Navy-with-Yellow.html
https://www.oconnellsclothing.com/Silk-Knit-Ties/


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ I bought an original of that ad on Ebay earlier this year:
> View attachment 34586
> 
> It is in perfect condition - but since it's in cellophane right now (haven't framed it yet), the pic doesn't do it justice.


That's marvelous art work to have acquired!

Any framing I do henceforward will be D.I.Y. I had not had anything framed in over 20 years, and my wife acquired a couple inexpensive $20 something prints. We both thought they would look very nice framed, so we took them to our local chain framing shop. Price? They wanted $638!!!! 



eagle2250 said:


> The first illustration is one of the most effective ads that I've seen. Everything about it speaks to the simple straightforward message being transmitted...this coat will keep you dry! As for the second illustration, I've got to find me one of those ties...stunning.


Agreed!

As for the 2nd, no interest in the young lady? I might buy her an ice cream cone, pat her on the head, and urge her to be a good girl!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> That's marvelous art work to have acquired!
> 
> Any framing I do henceforward will be D.I.Y. I had not had anything framed in over 20 years, and my wife acquired a couple inexpensive $20 something prints. We both thought they would look very nice framed, so we took them to our local chain framing shop. Price? They wanted $638!!!!


Thank you

That's crazy even by crazy NYC over-priced standards. But not wanting to pay more to frame it than it cost - it cost (from memory) $15 - is probably why I've just let it sit on the self.



Flanderian said:


> As for the 2nd, no interest in the young lady? I might buy her an ice cream cone, pat her on the head, and urge her to be a good girl!


If we're talking about the girl from the ad I bought, what I like about her - beside her insane cuteness and classic clothing - is that she's not fawning at the guy, but looks smart. If anything, he looks a bit confused.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> If we're talking about the girl from the ad I bought, what I like about her - beside her insane cuteness and classic clothing - is that she's not fawning at the guy, but looks smart. If anything, he looks a bit confused.


Far too long in the tooth to do other than make silly jokes about attractive young ladies, but I can remember a time when such young women so attired were truly quite fetching! Rather the counterpoint of the sedate outfit, and a young, oops! That's enough! :icon_saint7kg:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1946-


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Top pic: If I can only have one thing, I want the car (and, if only two, then the dog also).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Top pic: If I can only have one thing, I want the car (and, if only two, then the dog also).


I had a "Woody" once. It was back in 1976 and it was a Chrysler Estate Wagon, with all that good looking wood trim on the doors and the tail gate. But alas, after several years it became increasingly apparent that the wood trim was fake, nothing but wood stained plastic...that bleached noticeably in the Missouri sunshine! I've never had a Great Dane, but our youngest daughter and her family do. Does that count? LOL.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ I bought an original of that ad on Ebay earlier this year:
> View attachment 34586
> 
> It is in perfect condition - but since it's in cellophane right now (haven't framed it yet), the pic doesn't do it justice.


The ad casts a spell, the woman has witch's fingers._ Calculus_ is coven talk for potions.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, October 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Oddly, not the best pic to show off Cary Grant's ability to wear clothes really well.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Oddly, not the best pic to show off Cary Grant's ability to wear clothes really well.


Agreed, seen better. Many. But you take what they give 'ya, and *like* it!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Mr. Grant at one of his sartorial peaks - wearing his suit from "North by Northwest"


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Mr. Grant at one of his sartorial peaks - wearing his suit from "North by Northwest"
> View attachment 34761
> View attachment 34762
> View attachment 34763


Very Cary, very '50's! 👍


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, October 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1946 -

(What!? You don't take a shotgun to work!? It's the ideal solution to sartorial critics!)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1946 -
> 
> View attachment 34807
> 
> ...


LOL. Mrs Eagle took a little more convincing of my charms, than just a Stetson Fedora. Anachronistically, my chapeau was referred to as a c___t/err...make that a flight cap, but it went well with the rest of my suitor's rig and the ride was not a bicycle built for two, but rather a Dodge Challenger R/T, with Ram Air and a turbo charger! :devil:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Mrs Eagle took a little more convincing of my charms, than just a Stetson Fedora. Anachronistically, my chapeau was referred to as a c___t/err...make that a flight cap, but it went well with the rest of my suitor's rig and the ride was not a bicycle built for two, but rather a Dodge Challenger R/T, with Ram Air and a turbo charger! :devil:


I think I literally wore my Class A's only half a dozen times. The final time being on my flight to McGuire on New Year's Eve for separation. When I went to find my class A's I remembered I had loaned my service cap to another Airman and never gotten it back. All I had was my flight cap. I can't remember why, but not being flight crew, I vaguely remembered it wasn't regulation to wear a flight cap with Class A's. Oh, well, I felt no one would take the bother to court martial me on New Years Day. 

Of far greater concern, our overloaded charter flight barely made it off the runway at Rhein Main. We had limits on the weight of luggage we were allowed. But because this flight was composed mainly of those getting discharged, they were waving luggage* two or three times* the limit aboard!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, November 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, November 1946 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ 15 out of 20 - I believe my score is slipping (possibly, in this case, as I know so little about formal wear).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ 15 out of 20 - I believe my score is slipping (possibly, in this case, as I know so little about formal wear).


Still pretty darn good! 👍


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, December 1946 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^It may be just me, but it appears the McGregor crowd seems to be having a better time than the Kupperheimer connectors? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^It may be just me, but it appears the McGregor crowd seems to be having a better time than the Kupperheimer connectors? :icon_scratch:


I don't know about that! I'd park the pipe, and invite the young lady home!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I don't know about that! I'd park the pipe, and invite the young lady home!


I'm with you - if an illustration of a woman form the '40s can be your type, she's it.

Life gives us few moments more fun than connecting with a pretty girl you've just met.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, December 1946 -

(The first might be titled, Geezer in a Nice Coat! )


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, December 1946 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1947 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Two up ⇧, That herringbone overcoat is insane.

One up ⇧, That suits pattern is awesome

It's amazing how much more interesting men's suits and coats were back then.

Today, in the diminishing number of stores that sell traditional suits and coats, it's mainly a sea of navy, grey (and, lately) brown/tan with no or very subtle patterns.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> View attachment 35137
> View attachment 35138
> 
> 
> Two up ⇧, That herringbone overcoat is insane.


Thought it might be up your alley!



Fading Fast said:


> One up ⇧, That suits pattern is awesome
> 
> It's amazing how much more interesting men's suits and coats were back then.
> 
> Today, in the diminishing number of stores that sell traditional suits and coats, it's mainly a sea of navy, grey (and, lately) brown/tan with no or very subtle patterns.


Suits have become a rarity, and I suspect makers don't want to take many chances deviating from the lowest common denominator. But that cloth sure is nice. Described in the text as a fancy pattern worsted, the pattern looks very much like herringbone and definitely has some texture. The stripe is obviously black or charcoal. The ground color neutral. Under magnification I'd call it granite in an actual sense in being largely grey with a slight green and tan cast as well.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1947 -

(Glad to see Eagle once launched his own clothing line! Armani, who!?)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL,
Oh I do so wish I could make that claim! Good looking threads,though.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL,
> Oh I do so wish I could make that claim! Good looking threads,though.


Would you wear the tie!? 

My father and uncles had similar ones.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ Indeed, 
there was a time when I would have, but alas, I just don't wear a lot of ties these days!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1947 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
There was a time when I could strike a pose such as seen in the first illustration on Friday nights in the Fall, but truth be known, I suspect it was the shoulder pads rather than my shoulders filling out the jersey! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> There was a time when I could strike a pose such as seen in the first illustration on Friday nights in the Fall, but truth be known, I suspect it was the shoulder pads rather than my shoulders filling out the jersey! LOL.


Since the figure at issue is very much early Schwarzenegger, I suspect that to be true of us all!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, January 1947 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Top pic: While I really like the cigar smoker's outfit, my favorite thing in the pic is the bar itself (no surprise as it's considered one of the world's favorite bars). When I have some real brass in pocket, that's the type of place I like to do my drinking.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Top pic: While I really like the cigar smoker's outfit, my favorite thing in the pic is the bar itself (no surprise as it's considered one of the world's favorite bars). When I have some real brass in pocket, that's the type of place I like to do my drinking.


Definitely pre-Clam Broth House!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, January 1947 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1947 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1947 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1947 -

















[/QUOTE]

⇧ Love the illustrations, but not sure they and their accompanying text really fit Esquire's mission.

⇩ Certainly not the way this one does








To scale, I'm guessing about an anatomically impossible 8" waist on the Hitchcockian blonde ice queen.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1947 -
> 
> View attachment 35370
> 
> View attachment 35371


⇧ Love the illustrations, but not sure they and their accompanying text really fit Esquire's mission.

⇩ Certainly not the way this one does
View attachment 35373

To scale, I'm guessing about an anatomically impossible 8" waist on the Hitchcockian blonde ice queen.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed!

The first set of illustrations are part of Esquire revamping itself to market the publication to recently returned GI's whose main focus is moving up in the world. So it offers men to whose achievements they might wish to aspire.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, February 1947 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, February 1947 -










You should ace this one, FF!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Well I got seven out of eight right on that quiz. Does that mean I passed? :icon_scratch: LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Well I got seven out of eight right on that quiz. Does that mean I passed? :icon_scratch: LOL.












But we'll have to check with Dr. Forward, he's the sage! :teacha:


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Seven of eight like Eagle, but I got lucky on one that I narrowed to two and took an "educated" guess that I got right.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Seven of eight like Eagle, but I got lucky on one that I narrowed to two and took an "educated" guess that I got right.


👍👍👍


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1947 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

*Top pic:* I'm confused by this "The...jacket is in brown sharkskin with barely perceptible stripes in the bird's-eye background."

I thought sharkskin was a type of weave and bird's-eye was a different type of weave - is that not correct? If correct, how can a suit be both sharkskin and bird's-eye?

@Matt S








*Bottom pic:* From the position of her feet, if she takes another step, it looks as if our comely blond is about to topple over, which would undermine the perfect picture of poise she's created.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> *Top pic:* I'm confused by this "The...jacket is in brown sharkskin with barely perceptible stripes in the bird's-eye background."
> 
> I thought sharkskin was a type of weave and bird's-eye was a different type of weave - is that not correct? If correct, how can a suit be both sharkskin and bird's-eye?
> 
> ...


You are correct that a jacket cannot be both birdseye and sharkskin. But sharkskin is not a weave, just a pattern. Sharskin is created by alternating black and white yarns in both the warp and weft. Usually the weave is a 2x2 twill but sometimes it's a 2x2 hopsack. The pattern you get looks like jagged diagonal lines. Birdseye is both a weave and the pattern you get by arranging the colours in a certain way in the weave. This cloth is clearly birdseye Like sharkskin it's usually a semi-solid cloth. Perhaps they are using "sharkskin" to refer to a generic semi-solid, though that would be unnecessary.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Matt S said:


> You are correct that a jacket cannot be both birdseye and sharkskin. But sharkskin is not a weave, just a pattern. Sharskin is created by alternating black and white yarns in both the warp and weft. Usually the weave is a 2x2 twill but sometimes it's a 2x2 hopsack. The pattern you get looks like jagged diagonal lines. Birdseye is both a weave and the pattern you get by arranging the colours in a certain way in the weave. This cloth is clearly birdseye Like sharkskin it's usually a semi-solid cloth. Perhaps they are using "sharkskin" to refer to a generic semi-solid, though that would be unnecessary.


Matt - thank you, as always, very impressive.

I'm struggling a bit with the specific difference between a pattern and a weave - if you have time, could you explain the exact difference? Thank you.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1947 -


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> Matt - thank you, as always, very impressive.
> 
> I'm struggling a bit with the specific difference between a pattern and a weave - if you have time, could you explain the exact difference? Thank you.


A weave has to do with the arrangement of how the yarns cross over each other. A weave would be a plain weave, a 2x2 twill weave, a 3x1 twill weave, a satin weave, a birdseye weave, a 2x2 hopsack weave, cavalry twill, etc. Weaves can create patterns, but if the cloth is all a solid colour you don't see much of a pattern. Weaves create textures more than patterns. I have a white-on-white stripe shirt that has an interesting pattern woven into the cloth, even though the shirt is solid white. In most cases you just get a different texture from a different weave, and most weaves in solid colours produce textures that read as plain rather than patterned. Sometimes the size of the yarns in the warp is different from the size of yarns in the weft to give a weave a different texture. Serge, flannel and gabardine are all usually woven in 2x2 twill weaves, but the size of the yarns, the type of yarns, or the finishing may be different, which gives these wool cloths much different textures. There are many aspects that go into a cloth.

Patterns are created by using different colours. Sharkskin, nailhead, houndstooth check and Glen Urquhart check are all typically woven in a very ordinary 2x2 twill weave. It's the way the colours of the yarns are arranged that gives them a pattern or, in the case of the finer patterns, a visual texture. A pattern is not created by a special weave, though certain weaves are necessary to be able to weave certain patterns. There are glen checks woven in 2x2 twill, 2x2 hopsack and plain weaves, but they all turn out slightly different even if the general effect is the same. A birdseye weave can achieve a birdseye pattern, as long as the yarns are arranged a certain way. If you take a birdseye weave and put black yarns in the warp and white yarns in the weft, you will not get a birdseye pattern but some small triangles instead. There's a very specific way the dark and light yarns need to be arranged in a birdseye weave to achieve that classic pattern.

Does this explain it? I know there's a lot going on here.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Matt S said:


> A weave has to do with the arrangement of how the yarns cross over each other. A weave would be a plain weave, a 2x2 twill weave, a 3x1 twill weave, a satin weave, a birdseye weave, a 2x2 hopsack weave, cavalry twill, etc. Weaves can create patterns, but if the cloth is all a solid colour you don't see much of a pattern. Weaves create textures more than patterns. I have a white-on-white stripe shirt that has an interesting pattern woven into the cloth, even though the shirt is solid white. In most cases you just get a different texture from a different weave, and most weaves in solid colours produce textures that read as plain rather than patterned. Sometimes the size of the yarns in the warp is different from the size of yarns in the weft to give a weave a different texture. Serge, flannel and gabardine are all usually woven in 2x2 twill weaves, but the size of the yarns, the type of yarns, or the finishing may be different, which gives these wool cloths much different textures. There are many aspects that go into a cloth.
> 
> Patterns are created by using different colours. Sharkskin, nailhead, houndstooth check and Glen Urquhart check are all typically woven in a very ordinary 2x2 twill weave. It's the way the colours of the yarns are arranged that gives them a pattern or, in the case of the finer patterns, a visual texture. A pattern is not created by a special weave, though certain weaves are necessary to be able to weave certain patterns. There are glen checks woven in 2x2 twill, 2x2 hopsack and plain weaves, but they all turn out slightly different even if the general effect is the same. A birdseye weave can achieve a birdseye pattern, as long as the yarns are arranged a certain way. If you take a birdseye weave and put black yarns in the warp and white yarns in the weft, you will not get a birdseye pattern but some small triangles instead. There's a very specific way the dark and light yarns need to be arranged in a birdseye weave to achieve that classic pattern.
> 
> Does this explain it? I know there's a lot going on here.


Thank you - that is incredibly helpful - I think I got it. I'll need to read it again to "own" it, but it made sense to me on my first time through.

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out.

You have a very impressive amount of knowledge.

A follow-up question:
I assume from the above that herringbone is a pattern not a weave or is it both a weave and pattern as I've seen tone-on-tone herringbone which, based on your explanation, seems weave-like (like your tone-on-tone white shirt), but off course, herringbone also comes in all types of colors, meaning, more like a pattern?


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> Thank you - that is incredibly helpful - I think I got it. I'll need to read it again to "own" it, but it made sense to me on my first time through.
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to write all that out.
> 
> ...


Herringbone is both a weave and a pattern. When you weave it all in one colour, as I have in both a solid navy suit and a solid white shirt, you get the pattern in the weave because the weave has so much visible texture. You don't genuinely get the pattern unless you weave different colours in the warp and weft. With tweeds you commonly see black in one direction and cream in the other. This creates more of a pattern than just the weave alone in a solid colour.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, March 1947 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

1947 was somewhat before my time for wearing suits and I did greatly enjoy wearing them, but to be honest, I can't remember ever wearing a suit around the house...not even in the library (read as: in front of the bookcase). Although, that is quite the handsome illustration! Welcome back.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> 1947 was somewhat before my time for wearing suits and I did greatly enjoy wearing them, but to be honest, I can't remember ever wearing a suit around the house...not even in the library (read as: in front of the bookcase). Although, that is quite the handsome illustration! Welcome back.


Thank you!

And somehow, the gracious lady's attire does not succeed at reminding me of ma's house dresses and apron.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, March 1947 -


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Bravo!

Honestly, I could be content paging through these wonderful illustrations for hours.

Good to have you back Flanderian.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations conclude Esquire, March 1947 -
> 
> View attachment 35862
> 
> ...


Does Stetson still own Mallory Hats? The only question I missed on The Fashion Quotion quiz was #6, the question on the perfing design on a Wing Tip. Who would have thunk it?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Does Stetson still own Mallory Hats? The only question I missed on The Fashion Quotion quiz was #6, the question on the perfing design on a Wing Tip. Who would have thunk it?


The best information I have is that Mallory was purchased by Stetson in 1946. In turn, Stetson is now a product of Hatco Inc. out of Garland, Texas. While I haven't specifically looked for new Mallory hats for sale, I don't recall having come upon any. I believe the brand may no longer be made.

Edit: Here's an entertaining and rather extensive history of Mallory hats 👍 -

https://bernardhats.com/hat-companies/mallory-hat-company/


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> Bravo!
> 
> Honestly, I could be content paging through these wonderful illustrations for hours.
> 
> Good to have you back Flanderian.


Thank you! 👍


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1947 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1947 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ "It's a man's world?" ................
perhaps it was back in 1947, but as the father of two daughters, I am somewhat pleased to observe that that tide seems to have moved substantially in the other direction. 

Nice suit on the guy up top. It would still fit nicely into one's wardrobe today!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Nice suit on the guy up top. It would still fit nicely into one's wardrobe today!


My reaction too!

And I'd infinitely prefer its cut to what's now being sold. Even my wife has begun to complain about men's tailored clothing via questions like, "Why is his jacket/pants so tight and pulling like that?"

To quote the immortal Cuffdaddy, "Don't wear your pants like a girl!"


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1947 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧

*Top pic*: the best part is the way the artist captured 5th Avenue in the background - the "wedding cake" top of the building on the far right and, closer in, the stylish women with their WASP waists are insanely NYC in the '40s.

This will sound crazy, but I think the artist is looking north on 5th with the first all-but-effaced building on the right being St. Patricks and the building all but "not there" with the flag jutting out on the left being Rockefeller Center.

*Bottom pic:* I like bold herringbone as a pattern so much, I even like it in floors . Can you make out the glen urquhart plaid referenced in the text - I can't.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧
> 
> *Top pic*: the best part is the way the artist captured 5th Avenue in the background - the "wedding cake" top of the building on the far right and, closer in, the stylish women with their WASP waists are insanely NYC in the '40s.
> 
> ...


I think you're spot on about the perspective of the illustration! :beer:

Under magnification, it looks as if the suit under the dark grey herringbone coat may be a very dark glen plaid.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I think you're spot on about the perspective of the illustration! :beer:
> 
> Under magnification, it looks as if the suit under the dark grey herringbone coat may be a very dark glen plaid.


Next time, I'll pay up for the better quality screen . Kidding aside - thank you.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Next time, I'll pay up for the better quality screen . Kidding aside - thank you.


Quite welcome, Sir!

Guess there's some advantages to being a Luddite with a desk top with a 24" monitor!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Quite welcome, Sir!
> 
> Guess there's some advantages to being a Luddite with a desk top with a 24" monitor!


My 15" laptop can't compete.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Quite welcome, Sir!
> 
> Guess there's some advantages to being a Luddite with a desk top with a 24" monitor!


Who are you calling a Luddite? I prefer being seen as a "Traditional!" LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, April 1947 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, April 1947 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire May 1947 -










And this is a scene for member Fading Fast -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1947 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1947 -
> 
> View attachment 36126
> 
> ...


That is no fair weather golfer pictured in the first illustration....he is clearly prepared to brave the elements! But alas, down here the elements include sharing the course with gators and water moccasins. If the decision in mine to make, I'll stick with the activities pictured in the second illustration.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> That is no fair weather golfer pictured in the first illustration....he is clearly prepared to brave the elements! But alas, down here the elements include sharing the course with gators and water moccasins. If the decision in mine to make, I'll stick with the activities pictured in the second illustration.


Proper central Florida golfing attire -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, May 1947 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Enchanting is the first word that comes to mind when looking at the illustrations above. Doesn't sound like a very manly response, but there it is! Perhaps I should go with socially Target Rich patterns of behavior.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Enchanting is the first word that comes to mind when looking at the illustrations above. Doesn't sound like a very manly response, but there it is! Perhaps I should go with socially Target Rich patterns of behavior.


I agree. As we've chatted about, it's selling-the-clothes-through-lifestyle fantasy - Ralph before Ralph.

I don't believe I've ever had a "garden party _tête-à-tête -_" my life doesn't work that way - but would not have minded meeting Miss straight-back-posture woman (she is in full command of her casualness).

I have to admit though, I have been to "21," which is kind of a life-is-better-here place (and charges full freight for the privilege).

The best outfit though goes to the Dalmatian.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Enchanting is the first word that comes to mind when looking at the illustrations above. Doesn't sound like a very manly response, but there it is! Perhaps I should go with socially Target Rich patterns of behavior.


_"And may their first *child* be a *masculine child!*" _


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> _"And may their first *child* be a *masculine child!*" _
> 
> View attachment 36166


_Everything in life can be analogized to "Godfather 1," "Godfather 2" or "Jaws."_

This public service announcement brought to you by the Fading Fast Company - manufacturers of useless information since 1964.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I have to admit though, I have been to "21," which is kind of a life-is-better-here place (and charges full freight for the privilege).


I believe _*21 *_has gone through many iterations, and I seem to recall they underwent a major renovation perhaps 15 years ago. No?


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I believe _*21 *_has gone through many iterations, and I seem to recall they underwent a major renovation perhaps 15 years ago. No?


You are correct, I'd have said ten years, but maybe it's been that long. They installed a bar in what used to be a kinda sitting area immediately to the right when you come in. The also fixed up the upstairs and "glammed" up the wine cellar room. But thankfully, they left the heart and soul of 21 unchanging - the bar room.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, May 1947 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It has been said that highly successful, exceedingly handsome men have traditionally worn HSM suits during their civilian working years. Indeed the garments do present "smooth lines" as heralded by the caption under the first illustration, but alas, as the years pass those lines do seem to grow a lot longer! LOL.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> It has been said that highly successful, exceedingly handsome men have traditionally worn HSM suits during their civilian working years. Indeed the garments do present "smooth lines" as heralded by the caption under the first illustration, but alas, as the years pass those lines do seem to grow a lot longer! LOL.


Sure, sure, suits, lines, aging, but the real story is that it's 1947 and it looks like the blonde is in charge - reviewing the paperwork with feminine poise, but also steely eyed. Is she buying the car for HSM-clad boy-toy there in front?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> Sure, sure, suits, lines, aging, but the real story is that it's 1947 and it looks like the blonde is in charge - reviewing the paperwork with feminine poise, but also steely eyed. Is she buying the car for HSM-clad boy-toy there in front?


Well.........truth be known, the blond is still in charge!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1947 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1947 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These Illustrations are from Esquire, June 1947 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These Illustrations are from Esquire, June 1947 -
> 
> View attachment 36315
> 
> ...


A cruise, captured very nicely in six very artful illustrations.....and it didn't cost us a cent!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, June 1947 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ It's all but gone and the tie seems to slipstreaming behind, but losing the bowtie as a normal part of a man's attire was a loss.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ It's all but gone and the tie seems to slipstreaming behind, but losing the bowtie as a normal part of a man's attire was a loss.


It is! I propose that we might wish to begin a Society Of Protection of Ties, or SPOT, (Members of which will, of course, be known as Spots, or referred to simply as Spotty.) which promotes their wear for its simple pleasure and enrichment, and to annoy all the right people! 
I would dearly love to sport either get-up worn by the bottom two gentlemen, in toto! :happy:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, June 1947 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations conclude Esquire, June 1947 -
> 
> View attachment 36339
> 
> ...


A rather quaint presentation of the illustrations, for sure, starting with a collage titled , "A Man's World" and closing with a collage that could arguably be considered as 'the end of a man's world!' Bye gawd, a real man ought to be able to spit occasionally, once in a while utter the colorful invective, and regularly fall asleep on the couch without hearing about it! We call her SWMBO. Yes, no? LOL.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations conclude Esquire, June 1947 -
> 
> View attachment 36339


Astaire is one of the great dressers of the 20th Century. It's not that I liked everything he wore or how he put everything together, but he - like Cary Grant - mainly stayed within the basic suit/sport coat/shirt/tie construct, yet somehow, still managed to expand its boundaries and make it his own.

Whereas, Grant was gifted with being Grant - handsome, well built, that voice, that hair - Astaire hit from a much more distant tee, but still he looked incredible in his clothes despite his reed-thin body. Perhaps proving that every weakness has a strength, that same body had a fluidity - an etherial grace - that makes the clothes come alive on him.

After you have the basics down, watching Grant and Astaire movies is a great way to take your wardrobe to the next level. Not by rote imitation, but by understanding how important tailoring your clothes to your body, and not to fashion's demands, is - also, how important it is to recognize what does and doesn't work for you. It's that "next level" of understand that leads to sartorial elegance.

Regardless of all their differences, one thing I've tried to learn from both Grant and Astaire is to be in control of your body - to move with a fluid ease and lightness. Despite Grant's size, he never looks heavy or plodding. There's nothing epicene in how either of them move, but their seemingly effortless control of their bodies make their clothes look so much more natural and comfortable on them.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Astaire is one of the great dressers of the 20th Century. It's not that I liked everything he wore or how he put everything together, but he - like Cary Grant - mainly stayed within the basic suit/sport coat/shirt/tie construct, yet somehow, still managed to expand its boundaries and make it his own.
> 
> Whereas, Grant was gifted with being Grant - handsome, well built, that voice, that hair - Astaire hit from a much more distant tee, but still he looked incredible in his clothes despite his reed-thin body. Perhaps proving that every weakness has a strength, that same body had a fluidity - an etherial grace - that makes the clothes come alive on him.
> 
> ...


Missed this the first time 'round! And absolutely on target, IMO. Fabulous Freddy is now too often overlooked, though in his era, his sartorial accomplishment were more greatly prized. 👍


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1947 -


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1947 -


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> These illustrations are from Esquire, July 1947 -
> 
> View attachment 36717
> 
> ...


Who, pray tell, on this side of a mental hospital would be seen in public wearing that beach rig featuring those walking shorts. An abomination to the eyes of any sane onlooker! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Who, pray tell, on this side of a mental hospital would be seen in public wearing that beach rig featuring those walking shorts. An abomination to the eyes of any sane onlooker! LOL.


Why, Mr. 1947 of course!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> Who, pray tell, on this side of a mental hospital would be seen in public wearing that beach rig featuring those walking shorts. An abomination to the eyes of any sane onlooker! LOL.


As a kid from New Jersey, I spent my share of summer days at the Jersey shore - a place not to be confused with any combination of elegance and beach going. Back in the '70s, the older men sported some, to my '70s kid's eye, crazy outfits.

Matching "beach" jackets and shorts and shorts with black socks and dress shoes where not uncommon for the older men. My generation didn't wear "beach" jackets, but they were a thing with the prior generations.

Take a look at super cool James Bond in 1964's "Goldfinger" in this pool-side getup:









Now, his nemesis in the same movie wore an outfit that plenty of older men were still wearing in the '70s at the Jersey shore:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> As a kid from New Jersey, I spent my share of summer days at the Jersey shore - a place not to be confused with any combination of elegance and beach going. Back in the '70s, the older men sported some, to my '70s kid's eye, crazy outfits.
> 
> Matching "beach" jackets and shorts and shorts with black socks and dress shoes where not uncommon for the older men. My generation didn't wear "beach" jackets, but they were a thing with the prior generations.
> 
> ...


LOL. It appears that the ever manly James Bond is wearing what the ladies, back in the late 1950's and early 1960's called a 'cotton-terry Romper!' Say it isn't so, Joe?


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. It appears that the ever manly James Bond is wearing what the ladies, back in the late 1950's and early 1960's called a 'cotton-terry Romper!' Say it isn't so, Joe?


And let's not forget this getup from the Duke. They all have their off days:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Fading Fast said:


> And let's not forget this getup from the Duke. They all have their off days:
> View attachment 36758


Point well made and noted! However, I must tell you, I once took a young lovely to the beach (well, it was really just a stretch of sand along the Susquehanna river) who wore a outfit very similar to Mr Bonds. Looking back on that experience will never be the same, as I visualize Connery's mass of chest hair and those hairy legs .  At least the Duke shaved those parts! LOL.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

On this hot, sultry day, :cold: what could be better than to revisit Esquire, July 1947 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

⇧ Combining guessing, instinct and, on a few, confidence, I stubbled my way to a 210. :icon_scratch:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> ⇧ Combing guessing, instinct and, on a few, confidence, I stubbled my way to a 210. :icon_scratch:


Not bad! Not bad at all!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

These illustrations conclude Esquire, July 1947 -


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

1. Thank you Flanderian for an incredible thread - it's been a wonderful trip and your efforts in posting all these pics are very much appreciated. 

Which leads to:

2. Is this the end of our travels through Esquire?

If it is, thank you again for a wonderful trip.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> 1. Thank you Flanderian for an incredible thread - it's been a wonderful trip and your efforts in posting all these pics are very much appreciated.
> 
> Which leads to:
> 
> ...


You are very kind and generous. :beer:

More on the topic of your questions, anon.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> You are very kind and generous. :beer:
> 
> More on the topic of your questions, anon.


Well hurry up, my friend. Some of us are biting our nails in anticipation! :icon_scratch:


----------

