# Formalwear: the 1920s look



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

What do folks think about this look?

Dinner jacket
Wing collar shirt
Low gorge vest


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The skinny suit trend definitely did not start in in this decade.  The illustrations from 1920s catalogues depict the men as waifish with bigger heads... sort of the effect I'm getting from the picture above.


----------



## Desk Jockey (Aug 19, 2005)

That's the thing I do when called to. Still though, as a 20-something in black tie, get mistaken for the help by well-meaning folk with empty glasses.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

I don't like the low gorge vest.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

That is obviously a great look.

The problem in today's world is finding a wing collar that looks like that. I am sure the collar in the picture is a detachable stiff collar, which allows it to stand up tall, with great points. Today's low, floppy wing collars look bad.

Generally, I prefer a cummerbund. I know they are out of fashion, but they are much easier than dealing with a vest. The vest probably goes better with the more formal wing collar though.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Desk Jockey said:


> That's the thing I do when called to. Still though, as a 20-something in black tie, get mistaken for the help by well-meaning folk with empty glasses.


You should ask them if they see a tray in your hand.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

The low vest is proper for formal and semi-formal wear. The high semi-formal vest is a modern innovation/abomination.

The picture is striking.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I still think the jacket is a tad small for him...


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

AlanC said:


> The low vest is proper for formal and semi-formal wear. The high semi-formal vest is a modern innovation/abomination.


Agreed. I think it's the result of men wearing evening clothes during the day. The formal daywear waistcoats now creep into evening wear.


----------



## Joe Tradly (Jan 21, 2006)

Tom Buchanan said:


> Generally, I prefer a cummerbund. I know they are out of fashion, but they are much easier than dealing with a vest.


Second time I've read the words "out of fashion" on the forum today. Folks, this is the Trad forum. When things we love go out of fashion, we breath a sigh of relief. The cummerbund is a classic semi-formal look. Dinner jackets and their kit should not be moved by fashion.



AlanC said:


> The low vest is proper for formal and semi-formal wear. The high semi-formal vest is a modern innovation/abomination.
> 
> The picture is striking.


Agreed on all three points, Alan.

JB


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

Tom Buchanan said:


> That is obviously a great look.
> 
> The problem in today's world is finding a wing collar that looks like that. I am sure the collar in the picture is a detachable stiff collar, which allows it to stand up tall, with great points. Today's low, floppy wing collars look bad.
> 
> Generally, I prefer a cummerbund. I know they are out of fashion, but they are much easier than dealing with a vest. The vest probably goes better with the more formal wing collar though.


Shouldn't the points of the collar be BEHIND the tie bows? No matter, though. Turn down collar for me, regardless. And a cumberbund. Good to hear they're out of style.

Scott

p.s. Wonder if he has on patent leather pumps or some horrible, awful, terrible "business shoes"?


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

I've seen this look alot lately in alot of vintage photos, if I could find the shirt and vest I'd do it.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Naval Gent said:


> Shouldn't the points of the collar be BEHIND the tie bows? No matter, though. Turn down collar for me, regardless. And a cumberbund. Good to hear they're out of style.
> 
> Scott
> 
> p.s. Wonder if he has on patent leather pumps or some horrible, awful, terrible "business shoes"?


The points on a wing collar can go either in front or behind the tie. It is personal preference. I would guess that it is harder to tuck a detachable collar's wings behind the tie.

And just to be pedantic, I wrote that cummerbunds seem to be out of "fashion" not "style." Fashion comes and goes, style does not.

I think it could be argued that fashions within Trad change, but that is a post for another day. Even trad items cycle in and out.

I was actually thinking of the modern trend of men wearing no cummerbund or vest, which I think looks very bad and incomplete.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Tom Buchanan said:


> The points on a wing collar can go either in front or behind the tie. It is personal preference.


I too have noticed, in older pictures and drawings, that the points can go either in front or behind. Flusser writes that the points must go behind, and treats this as a rule rather than a preference. Others have picked up on Flusser's view, but the historical record contradicts him to the extent he's trying to present an open-and-shut case.


----------



## Bird's One View (Dec 31, 2007)

Jovan said:


> I still think the jacket is a tad small for him...


That is possible, but I think the coat is cut differently than a modern one. I have a dinner jacket made in 1926 that fits me very well and looks similar to this one. The shoulder measurement is quite a bit narrower than a modern jacket in my size. The armholes are inboard and small, providing notable freedom of movement. My shoulders extend into the sleeveheads whereas in a modern jacket the coat's shoulders often extend past my own. I like the look as well as the freedom of movement but I can see it taking some getting used to if one is more accustomed to extended shoulders as worn by Cary Grant.

This kind of shoulder will obviously not be popular with those wishing the jacket to enhance their natural shoulder width.

NB I realize that one can have a smaller armhole along with a slightly extended shouder and have much better freedom of movement than a modern RTW jacket; moving the armhole inboard as well does add a little extra though.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Oh, I know armholes from then are really fitted. I have a full dress coat that has to be at least from the '40s with really small armholes. Admittedly, I got it as a costume item because there are no matching trousers unfortunately.

What I'm talking more about is how the jacket is so fitted that it makes his head appear large. While that may have been "in," I don't think it does many favours for his physique.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Jacket and vest are fine; I personally prefer a turned down collar._ Chacun a son gout._


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Quite nice, although I'd prefer a pique front if I was going for the old-fashioned (was it then?) black tie look.


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

That look's a little too "band leader" for my taste. FWIW, I still like the early 60's take on formalwear:


----------



## The Louche (Jan 30, 2008)

I think the whole look is great. I think the jacket fits him well - I hate floppy jackets. Make mine trim. I also much prefer the idea of a vest to to a cummerbund, and this low cut example is very cool IMO. FWIW I don't mind the modern look that lacks both cummerbund and vest, either. I think it looks clean and sleek. The key is having a nice clean waistband on the trousers. Preferably grosgrain.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

*The Modern Look*

The modern look includes no waist covering (no waistcoat or cummerbund), long ties rather than bow ties, and jackets with notch lapels rather than peak lapels or a shawl collar. Put all that together and you're perilously close to being dressed in an ordinary black suit instead of evening wear.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

rojo said:


> The modern look includes no waist covering (no waistcoat or cummerbund), long ties rather than bow ties, and jackets with notch lapels rather than peak lapels or a shawl collar. Put all that together and you're perilously close to being dressed in an ordinary black suit instead of evening wear.


Exactly. Don't forget an ordinary white spread-collar shirt with French cuffs that does not take studs (why bother when the placket is covered by the long tie), and black (or in Daniel Day-Lewis's case, brown) business shoes that are not distinctly "formal" in any way.

The only two "formal" features that remain in the full expression of the Oscars/modern look are the black/white color scheme, and the satin or grosgrain fabric on the lapel. Really, at that point, why not just wear a black suit?


----------



## The Louche (Jan 30, 2008)

^ But I'm not in favor of the notched lapel, long tie, plain shirt, or business shoes. I just don't like cummerbunds and don't see the harm in leaving the waistcoat off either...


----------



## wessex (Feb 1, 2008)

Perhaps I'm just a ****, but my cumberbund rarely makes it through the evening still affixed. I certainly resepect tradition and what everyone has said, but if there is any serious, eating, drinking, dancing, temperatures over 80 degrees, etc. I disencumberbund. Better no cumberbund than a yucky vest (I mean prom-style the one displayed here is great).






Wow is sl0b really censored? Thats too funny.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

The Louche said:


> ^ But I'm not in favor of the notched lapel, long tie, plain shirt, or business shoes. I just don't like cummerbunds and don't see the harm in leaving the waistcoat off either...


Could be a slippery slope...


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

Given the rigidity and crispness of the shirt front in that photo, I wonder if it's actually a celluloid "dickey" (my, what an unfortunate name)- you know, the things that provided a cheap gag in Vaudeville and old Bugs Bunny cartoons.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Zot! said:


> Given the rigidity and crispness of the shirt front in that photo, I wonder if it's actually a celluloid "dickey" (my, what an unfortunate name)- you know, the things that provided a cheap gag in Vaudeville and old Bugs Bunny cartoons.


That would be the norm for starched, detached-collar shirts at the time; still used in formal (white tie) shirts.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

I once had a tuxedo from the 1920's. It didn't have a dickey. The shirt buttoned in the back and studs went through the bib that was part of the front of the shirt. The collar attached on the front and back. Not sure if shirts buttoning in the back was de rigueur or if it was just this shirt. The shirt was about as comfortable as wearing a cardboard box which probably explains the pained expression on the guy's face.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Most formal shirts used to button in the back, but as that requires the assistance of a valet they fell out of favor (not to be confused with being out of fashion or out of style). :icon_smile:


----------

