# London "City" gents in the 1950s (photos) ...



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Recently I ran across the following photos of "City" men in London, taken in the 1950s.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*A gent?*

The first one seems to be wearing a quilted suit with flared trousers. Can he really be called a gent?

Trimmer


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Trimmer said:


> The first one seems to be wearing a quilted suit with flared trousers.


And white socks as well!!! Ouutch!!!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Obviously I shouldn't have put that photo first...


----------



## rick lombardo (Mar 4, 2006)

They love the bowlers....don't they. BRILLIANT


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

The first photo looks more like a fashion shot from the late 60's. Not only are the pant legs flared so are the jacket sleeve.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*Maybe a gent after all*

At least he is showing some shirt cuff and wearing a pocket square - unlike some of the others.

Trimmer


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

Still quite beautiful! Thank you!


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

This lot look so distressed that their bus stop is out of use they are contemplating jumping over the fence.

Trimmer


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*This is the End*

This one can see the (sartorial) End is coming. Soon it will be the Sixties and bowlers will disappear. 
In fact the bloke behind him is already experimenting with some 'mod' headgear.

Trimmer


----------



## Vettriano Man (Jun 30, 2005)

Actually, this one dates from the late sixties and is a fine example of the 'regency' influenced style that was popular for a short time - Note the flared sleeves! 

I well remember going with a schoolfriend to his tailor in Brighton for a fitting of his 'regency' suit in about 1968 and even the shirt worn with it had frilled cuffs. I believe the influence was created by the film 'On A Clear Day' which was set in the regency period and was filmed at the Royal Pavilion at Brighton.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

It's Fidel! Moonlighting as a London businessman! So _that's_ how he funded the revolution!


----------



## luk-cha (Apr 29, 2006)

get pics, perhaps you should do a search for the 30's and the 60's too for us to compare.


----------



## zegnamtl (Apr 19, 2005)

Doc. D

Great stuff!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

luk-cha said:


> get pics, perhaps you should do a search for the 30's and the 60's too for us to compare.


*Luk Cha*: Good point. Maybe I will expand this later, or do another thread, assuming I can find enough useful photos.

*Yachtie*: Shhhhh! You must not speak of such things.

*Everyone Else*: Okay, I deleted that first photo, which clearly does not fit the thead topic. I had thought the listing said "1958", but I know it did say he was a "city gent at his country home". Anyway, I'll dredge it out later.

Lots more photos to follow on Monday, some absolutely great ones.


----------



## comrade (May 26, 2005)

*Not Fidel, Old Chap!*

Yachtie, and Other Fellow Forum Memebers:

It is indeed a pleasure to share with you some of own
my (pop) cultural literacy: The bearded gentleman in the 
bowler hat sporting the trademark orchid in his lapel is none
other than legendary Armenian Oil-Magnate Nubar Gulbenkian.
"Mr Five-Percent" was one of the major players of his generation
in the oil game and a noted eccentric and bon vivant.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

*break?*

notice all the trouser lengths are no break. 
question, is this still the standard in england?


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*The trouser break*

Until I came here I thought a break was a sign that trousers were too long.

Trimmer


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Trimmer said:


> Until I came here I thought a break was a sign that trousers were too long.
> 
> Trimmer


I associate no-break with the 40s and early 50s (Oxford bags had no break). The break came back later - not sure when. You'd expect London businessmen to be conservative, so maybe they kept the no-break look longer. Interesting, though - does anyone know the history of the break?


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Trimmer said:


> This lot look so distressed that their bus stop is out of use they are contemplating jumping over the fence.
> 
> Trimmer


If you were living in post war Britain, labor nationalizing everything in sight, you might have considered taking a flyer in to the Thames.


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

a tailor said:


> notice all the trouser lengths are no break.
> question, is this still the standard in england?


I think, but am not sure, that the 'city' suit has less of a break as it is a more formal style of tailoring based on the late victorian/edwardian suit. If you look at the non-bowler hatted men in the background in some of the pics, you'll see they are wearing wider trousers with a break, and I believe this was a more common, informal style based on Oxford bags. One does tend to see a very slight break on contemporary city suits.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Vettriano Man said:


> Actually, this one dates from the late sixties and is a fine example of the 'regency' influenced style that was popular for a short time - Note the flared sleeves!...


Looks like pure John Steed!


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

Great pics as ever, Doctor. Thank you.

What they again reveal is that men were more formally dressed in the Post-War years but not necessarily well dressed. As has been noted already, many were not revealing any cuff or sporting a pocket square. Some of the clothes look a little tired as well!

I can remember growing up in the late Fifties and early Sixties and most men looked (to my eyes) very much alike and very dull. Except one of my parent's friends. He was a wealthy widower in his late fifties and he always looked superb - often very sombre colours but lovely fabrics and cut, I recall. He really did stand out from the scruffy down at heel mob. This was in the relatively affluent southeast of England too.


----------



## Sir Royston (Nov 10, 2005)

*brilliant Images*

What a wonderful thread. Lovely to see these images.. now lets find some 1920's Shooting suit/tweed images to go with them!!


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Looking at these images makes it that much easier to understand the 1960s "Peacock Revolution" and its urge to slip, let us say, a colorfully striped T&A shirt underneath one of those oh-so-somber suits and ever-so-subdued ties.

I recall learning at the Imperial War Museum that rationing of various sorts (including food rationing) persisted in down-at-heels postwar Britain well into the 1950s (the factoid which sticks in my mind is that limits on the availability of bananas were not lifted till 1954).

The somewhat drab look of the men in these photos reflects the era then, I suppose. A British movie shot in color during that era (such as the original Ealing Studios 1955 version of _The Ladykillers_) does as well.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*An Englishman abroad*

This nice shot of Paris shows that the Englishman maintains sartorial standards even when travelling overseas.

Trimmer


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Trimmer said:


> This nice shot of Paris shows that the Englishman maintains sartorial standards even when travelling overseas.
> 
> Trimmer


Indeed, well spotted.


----------



## Daniele (Dec 28, 2004)

Trimmer said:


> Until I came here I thought a break was a sign that trousers were too long.
> 
> Trimmer


It is, actually..


----------



## Daniele (Dec 28, 2004)

Doctor Damage said:


> Looks like pure John Steed!


True, I like it. The flared sleeves were called 'butterfly cuffs'; a new-edwardian detail adopted by Mods since the late 50s, usually paired by cloth-covered buttons. A similar effect was (is) achieved by undoing all the 3 or 4 (working) cuff's buttonholes. 
I know that many will scream of shock and horror at the idea..;-)


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Few more, the last bunch of photos I have for this series. Note how the gent is not using his brolly, even though the two women are in the first photo; also note the nice covert coat in the second photo.





The gent below is described as "society fop and gatecrasher Francis Hadwen", photographed in 1952.


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

Is that a centre vent??



Doctor Damage said:


> Few more, the last bunch of photos I have for this series. Note how the gent is not using his brolly, even though the two women are in the first photo; also note the nice covert coat in the second photo.


Although my youth in England was long after the days of austerity and post-war make-do, there were enough of its vestiges around to make me homesick when I see these pictures.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Blackadder said:


> Is that a centre vent??


Seeing as how he's wedged in between two officers in uniform, it's a safe guess that he's probably a Guards officer in mufti, and as we know the military only does centre vents!


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

Doctor Damage said:


> Seeing as how he's wedged in between two officers in uniform, it's a safe guess that he's probably a Guards officer in mufti, and as we know the military only does centre vents!


I didn't know that, but it explains so much! Thanks!


----------



## Leon (Apr 16, 2005)

Interesting to see (not very deep) side vents on that covert coat.

Leon


----------



## Daniele (Dec 28, 2004)

Leon said:


> Interesting to see (not very deep) side vents on that covert coat.
> 
> Leon


Think it's cut more like a Car-coat, shorter and boxier than the 'typical' covert coat. I've seen something similar on old Apparel Arts drawings. Interesting cut anyway.


----------



## Goldrush (Apr 12, 2005)

yachtie said:


> It's Fidel! Moonlighting as a London businessman! So _that's_ how he funded the revolution!


Isn't that Nubar Gulbenkian, son of Mr. Five Per Cent? Sure looks like him.


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

the guy in the pic from the 60s has a bell cuff and bootcut trousers , this is the kinda stuff that gets me going , my new suit being made has a folded/double cuff sleeve on the suit jacket and 1 inch step bottoms on the trousers with a small button sewn on the seam above the shoe.

he looks like a model not a guy from the streets , probably advertising the new fashion influences taking hold in the early 1960s.

* read here *

https://www.stilemod.it/stilemod/approfondimenti/dettaglien.html


----------



## Windsurf (Nov 27, 2006)

Now get a photo of Men in suits from the late 60's London and put those two pictures side by side and see what a radical difference occured in a few short years. Bowlers gone, Nehru Jackets and Edwardian Suits everywhere, colors galore (cousin to Pussy Galore) and boths sexes wearing love beads. Damn that was a wonderful time. I wonder how we got here from there? :>(


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

in england, right from the victorian era to the 1950s, mens clothes were very stuffy and formal , all dark colours and modest cuts to the suit.

in the 60s suddenly we had a generation of post war baby boomers , teenagers reaching teenagehood in the 60s throwing off the shackles of previous austerity. 

bright colours were usually the province of the gay community but they suddenly became popular as clothes designers celebrated youth and vitality over austerity and old institutions.

'our lavender friends' have been at the forefront of fashion design ever since.


----------



## outrigger (Aug 12, 2006)

english_gent said:


> the guy in the pic from the 60s has a bell cuff and bootcut trousers , this is the kinda stuff that gets me going , my new suit being made has a folded/double cuff sleeve on the suit jacket and 1 inch step bottoms on the trousers with a small button sewn on the seam above the shoe.
> 
> he looks like a model not a guy from the streets , probably advertising the new fashion influences taking hold in the early 1960s.
> 
> ...


All very mod, I have a suit with vented trouser bottoms and a small covered button above the vent. A previous suit had stepped bottoms, and I've always considered having a turn back cuff. That said I tend to dress a bit more conservative now, hence the signature.


----------



## comrade (May 26, 2005)

*Goldrush*

Another fellow Californian with a mind cluttered with 
(pop) cultural trivia. See my posting:

Join Date: May 26th, 2005
Location: palo alto CA, USA.
Posts: 217

Not Fidel, Old Chap! 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yachtie, and Other Fellow Forum Memebers:

It is indeed a pleasure to share with you some of own
my (pop) cultural literacy: The bearded gentleman in the 
bowler hat sporting the trademark orchid in his lapel is none
other than legendary Armenian Oil-Magnate Nubar Gulbenkian.
"Mr Five-Percent" was one of the major players of his generation
in the oil game and a noted eccentric and bon vivant.

I haven't bothered to do the research, but I thought
Nubar himself had "earned" the sobriquet of "Mr. Five Percent"


----------



## Daniele (Dec 28, 2004)

Glad and flattered to see my drawings on AAAC...


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

Daniele said:


> Glad and flattered to see my drawings on AAAC...


i was delighted when i found that website with your pics.

the night before i had my first apointment with my tailor i was finalising the list of 'mod refinements' for my impending suit ... so had a mooch about with google looking for the things i had in mind.

up popped those drawings and they were 'tailor made' (although the steps on that pic look about 2 1/2 to 3 inches ) . :icon_cheers:

i thank thee !


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

a tailor said:


> notice all the trouser lengths are no break.
> question, is this still the standard in england?


 No it isn't.


----------



## Daniele (Dec 28, 2004)

english_gent said:


> i was delighted when i found that website with your pics.
> 
> the night before i had my first apointment with my tailor i was finalising the list of 'mod refinements' for my impending suit ... so had a mooch about with google looking for the things i had in mind.
> 
> ...


You're welcome! I'm happy the sketches have been of some help.

English Gent and Outriggers, are you Mods?


----------



## english_gent (Dec 28, 2006)

put it like this , i CRAVE 60s slim sharp suits , 2 inch lapels , supressed waist , skinny ties etc ....


----------



## outrigger (Aug 12, 2006)

Daniele said:


> You're welcome! I'm happy the sketches have been of some help.
> 
> English Gent and Outriggers, are you Mods?


Yeah, I'll always be a Mod.


----------



## Daniele (Dec 28, 2004)

That's GREAT!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

More city gents, unknown dates.







I am fascinated by the "silhouette" in these two photos, especially the last one.


----------



## ashie259 (Aug 25, 2005)

outrigger said:


> Yeah, I'll always be a Mod.


I see you're in Coventry, but have you or anyone you know had any experience of Luke's of Canning Town? Apparently they're very popular with the mods down here in the Smoke. I know there's been some mention of them here on AAAC, but I'd value your opinion as I'm thinking of using them for my next suit.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

This one doesn't look like a London tube train to me.

Trimmer


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Trimmer said:


> This one doesn't look like a London tube train to me.
> 
> Trimmer


Could it be the NYC subway before Giuliani cleaned it up and restored a degree of order to it? The refined figure of the man and the sorry look of the graffiti-besmirched subway car interior make for a sad comment of sorts on the vulgarity of modern life.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Could it be the NYC subway...


D'oh!!!
Sorry.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

*It wasn't Rudy*



PJC in NoVa said:


> Could it be the NYC subway before Giuliani cleaned it up and restored a degree of order to it? The refined figure of the man and the sorry look of the graffiti-besmirched subway car interior make for a sad comment of sorts on the vulgarity of modern life.


That is indeed a New York City subway interior. It wasn't Mr. Giuliani that cleaned up the subways. It was David Gunn, president of the NYCTA from '83 until '89 that did.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Mitchell said:


> That is indeed a New York City subway interior. It wasn't Mr. Giuliani that cleaned up the subways. It was David Gunn, president of the NYCTA from '83 until '89 that did.


Fair enough. From Wikipedia's entry on David Gunn:

"In New York City, most people consider his most notable achievement to have been the complete eradication of graffiti on NYCTA trains, a task most New Yorkers thought impossible."

Now if he could only bring back the wearing of bowler hats . . . .


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Fair enough. From Wikipedia's entry on David Gunn:
> 
> "In New York City, most people consider his most notable achievement to have been the complete eradication of graffiti on NYCTA trains, a task most New Yorkers thought impossible."
> 
> Now if he could only bring back the wearing of bowler hats . . . .


As long as no one sprays graffiti on mine.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Mitchell said:


> As long as no one sprays graffiti on mine.


Mitch, you're not that refined bowler-wearing gentleman in the picture, are you? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

More random city gents, dates and locations unknown.





This is a beautiful photo of a lost time.



Mrs L. Jennings making hats in the back rooms of Lock & Co., date unknown.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Mitch, you're not that refined bowler-wearing gentleman in the picture, are you? :icon_smile_wink:


Wish I were that skinny, glad I'm not that old.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Guards officers in mufti. Can anyone identify the regiments by looking at the ties? The "Gawds" tie is easy, but what about the one in the first photo?





Marching past and cheering the Queen Mum.





Everyone should recognize the young officer in these photos...


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Here's a recent photograph of some retired officers and Prince Philip at Sandhurst. Note the overcoats and bowlers; one is even wearing a topper!


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Here's a recent photograph of some retired officers and Prince Philip at Sandhurst. Note the overcoats and bowlers; one is even wearing a topper!


I'm probably being short-sighted here, but they all look like they are wearing bowlers to me?


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Goldrush said:


> Isn't that Nubar Gulbenkian, son of Mr. Five Per Cent? Sure looks like him.


Yes, it is Nubar Gulbenkian, in the top photo. I believe that he is "Mr. 5%", himself, and made the huge oil fortune. No telling if he had a son.

He was quite a famous character in London. The following quote is attributed to him:

"_The best number for a dinner party is two-myself and a dam' good head waiter_"

Perhaps one of our UK members has memories of him. He supposedly was truly, "One of a kind!".


----------



## Bertie Wooster (Feb 11, 2006)

Wonderfull stuff and yet somewhat depressing at the same time. This sort of retrospective just proves to us how far the collective sartorial standard has declined. :icon_pale: 
A couple of things:
1. The Armenian gentleman _is_ in fact the son of Mr 5% as previously stated. It was his father, Calouste who made the fortune in oil. He was IIRC one of the founders of Shell. 
2. Is that a detatchable collar HRH Harry is wearing ? Either that or it's just sitting kind of oddly on him. 
3. Is it just me or is all this making a pretty strong case for the Bowler / Coke as a viable piece of headgear. I mean to say, can we still wear one today on a daily basis as part of our regular, smart dress ? I for one would be more than game but am sadly still looking for just the right example in my size.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

Bertie Wooster said:


> 1. The Armenian gentleman _is_ in fact the son of Mr 5% as previously stated. It was his father, Calouste who made the fortune in oil. quote]
> 
> I stand corrected.
> 
> ...


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Anthony Jordan said:


> I'm probably being short-sighted here, but they all look like they are wearing bowlers to me?


You're quite right. They're all wearing bowlers. I must be going crazy.

DocD


----------



## Bertie Wooster (Feb 11, 2006)

rnoldh said:


> I stand corrected.
> 
> Do you know if Calouste was as flamboyant and well known as his son proved to be?
> 
> BTW: I fully agree with you about the decline in Sartorial standards. These pictures are wonderful stuff!


I gather he was quite the tycoon of his day, ammassing the fortune that would prove the foundation for his son's extraordinary lifestyle. Dapper chap too it would seem:


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

*Gulbenkian*



comrade said:


> Yachtie, and Other Fellow Forum Memebers:
> 
> It is indeed a pleasure to share with you some of own
> my (pop) cultural literacy: The bearded gentleman in the
> ...


Rumour has it that after he got to 70 his doctor suggested he take a virgin on every birthday as a way of achieving longevity!


----------



## outrigger (Aug 12, 2006)

ashie259 said:


> I see you're in Coventry, but have you or anyone you know had any experience of Luke's of Canning Town? Apparently they're very popular with the mods down here in the Smoke. I know there's been some mention of them here on AAAC, but I'd value your opinion as I'm thinking of using them for my next suit.


A couple of friends of mine use a tailor called Luke, not sure if it's the same person. Their suits are certainly very well made from what I've seen. The Address is Barking Road Plaistow, not sure if that's near Canning Town.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

https://imageshack.us


----------



## David Bresch (Apr 11, 2004)

Can someone explain to those of us who know nothing about London, the difference between City of London and London, and their respective tailors and dress?


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

David Bresch said:


> Can someone explain to those of us who know nothing about London, the difference between City of London and London, and their respective tailors and dress?


The City refers to the financial district, where dress is traditionally more formal, regardless of who one's tailor may be.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

rsmeyer said:


> The City refers to the financial district, where dress is traditionally more formal, regardless of who one's tailor may be.


More than that, the City is (or was for many centuries) its own political/corporate entity, comprising only a very small part (one square mile) of Greater London. Yes, it is the home of the finance industry, the Bank of England, Lloyd's, and other marquis institutions, as well as St Paul's cathedral and the Tower. It is also the oldest part of town, where the original Roman settlement on the Thames began. Most of "famous" and "tourist" London is not in the City but in the surrounding entities, such as the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, etc. The political situation changed ten or 15 years ago when London moved to a mayoral system with an elected mayor with powers over the whole area. I'm not sure what the exact political status of the City is these days.

And (Londoners correct me if I am wrong) but the City used to have its own strong tailoring contingent, a bit less expensive than the Savile Row chaps and a bit more formal. They made banker's clothes, and that was it. West End tailors were considered a little more "fashionable" and elegant.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

manton said:


> More than that, the City is (or was for many centuries) its own political/corporate entity, comprising only a very small part (one square mile) of Greater London. Yes, it is the home of the finance industry, the Bank of England, Lloyd's, and other marquis institutions, as well as St Paul's cathedral and the Tower. It is also the oldest part of town, where the original Roman settlement on the Thames began. Most of "famous" and "tourist" London is not in the City but in the surrounding entities, such as the City of Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, etc. The political situation changed ten or 15 years ago when London moved to a mayoral system with an elected mayor with powers over the whole area. I'm not sure what the exact political status of the City is these days.
> 
> And (Londoners correct me if I am wrong) but the City used to have its own strong tailoring contingent, a bit less expensive than the Savile Row chaps and a bit more formal. The made banker's clothes, and that was it. West End tailors were considered a little more "fashionable" and elegant.


I believe that thru the 50's at least some of the bankers wore strollers to work-and always bowler hats and white shirts and dark ties.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

rsmeyer said:


> I believe that thru the 50's at least some of the bankers wore strollers to work-and always bowler hats and white shirts and dark ties.


Tribly told me that as late as the mid-70s you had to wear a morning coat and a top hat to the Stock Exchange floor.


----------



## jml90 (Dec 7, 2005)

These photos all make me want to get a Homburg. (Yeah, I still don't know about the Bowlers.)


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

manton said:


> I'm not sure what the exact political status of the City is these days.


It remains the same. The Mayor of London (as opposed to the Lord Mayor of [the City of] London has control over things like transport and highways, but the City still, for example, has its own police force with a distinctive uniform.

Londoners use 'London' to refer to the whole metropolitan (or London postal) area including the City. When they mean the City they just say 'the City' so there is no confusion. However, whereas the inhabitants of, say, Birmingham might talk about going into the city [of Birmingham] to do some shopping or whatever, Londoners would probably say they were going 'into town' or 'up West' - meaning the West End.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

Tell me a country where the seat of government is not in the capital city.

The answer is pretty obvious.

Now tell me another.


----------



## Braces (Apr 17, 2004)

*Bowler hats*

Bertie, you might consider trying Hornets at 2 & 4 Kensington Church Walk, off Holland Street, London. I bought my bowler hat there last September and they had a great stock then. They were extremely helpful and I recommend a visit when you're in West London.



Bertie Wooster said:


> 3. Is it just me or is all this making a pretty strong case for the Bowler / Coke as a viable piece of headgear. I mean to say, can we still wear one today on a daily basis as part of our regular, smart dress ? I for one would be more than game but am sadly still looking for just the right example in my size.


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

great photos, sad to say that nowadays you would be hard pressed to see a bowler in the City. Or at least I didn't when I was there last summer.


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

manton said:


> Tribly told me that as late as the mid-70s you had to wear a morning coat and a top hat to the Stock Exchange floor.


Until the Stock Exchange floor closed in the early 90s and computers took over completely, one still had to wear a top hat if he was selling gilt-edged securities.


----------



## Blackadder (Apr 3, 2004)

The City and Lower Manhattan/Wall St are remarkably similar in their histories. Both are the oldest parts of town, both became almost exclusively financial and commercial between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries, and residential life is now returning to both as old 20th century office buildings are retrofitted as flats.


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

*interesting*

Whats most interesting about the pics posted early in this thread is how lumpen most of the suits look. Like they'd been doing ten years hard labor and possbly didnt fit in the first place. Some of the cuts look surprisingly off the peg - as i suspect some of them were. A couple of shots were clearly photo/newsagency shots - trumped up with model (especially the dude outside his front door) in an outfit that seems plain wrong. But all serves to show that what the memory tells one and what photography can show are often not the same. I remember my first day trip to London in 1968 being struck how everyone in Westminster wore a bowler. 
As an addendum im amazed at how much divergence there is in the shape of the bowlers - some have wide brims some have shallow crowns, some the brims are wide and flatter others tight and curled. Some look too small....Harry's titfer looks the best to my eye...


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

Trimmer said:


> This one doesn't look like a London tube train to me.
> 
> Trimmer


That has to be NY. The trains to wide and theres not enough vomit in evidence.


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

nicksull said:


> That has to be NY. The trains to wide and theres not enough vomit in evidence.


Except it might be the City and Westminster or Circle line which has the oldest track and the biggest tunnels so roomier rolling stock.
Anyone identiufy the ads?


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Indeed, well spotted.


And the literary level....


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Crime Dog McGruff was an American campaign a while back-- for what or under whose sponsorship I can no longer remember.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

That's definitely an NYC train, one of the old "Red Birds" that used to run on the Broadway and Lexington Avenue lines. All of them have been retired, and sunk to the bottom of the ocean to serve as artificial reefs.

Also, I don't know when that pic was taken, but the MTA had pretty much defeated painted graffiti by 1990. "Scrachiti" is sadly another matter.


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

Now THAT is a brolly.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Doctor Damage said:


> Everyone should recognize the young officer in these photos...


Lessee-- he's the guy whose father had a thing going with Princess Diana, right?


----------



## comrade (May 26, 2005)

Doctor Damage et al:

The gentleman in the first photo wearing a grey or tan bowler,
bowtie, with a cane sitting in what I would guess is a race track
audience, I do not believe is British. I thought I recognized that 
the photo might be by Jacques-Henri Lartigue, who chronicled 
French society for eight decades, but I could not find it.
Also, on his right is the partial view of someone in uniform.
Neither the arm patch nor the part of the military cap that is
visible are typically British. The cap doesn't look French either.
Perhaps one of our erudite Forum members will solve the 
mystery.


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

The City of London is the oldest part of town, dating back to the Romans, and is the financial services capital. It is also a religious centre with St Pauls' cathedral and a large number of churches; and a lot of the old trades guilds are based there also. It has a lot of ancient rights and privileges (such as its own police force, Lord Mayor etc) which are jealously guarded.

Central London includes the Cities of London, Westminster (where Buckingham Palace and Parliament are) and Southwark (where the Globe Theatre is). 

When people talk about 'London' though, they generally mean 'Greater London' which is essentially a county (under the Assembly headed by 'Red' Ken Livingstone, the so-called Mayor of London) subdivided into London Boroughs. These include the Cities of Westminster and Southwark and the City of London (with some exceptions) and all the villages and towns which were swallowed up by London's development. So some places in Greater London are still semi-rural villages with open fields around them. 

In terms of dress, the old city rig of bowler hat and brolly is extinct. You very, very occasionally see elderly directors up for AGMs wearing them, but if you do see a man in a bowler hat in London it is more likely to be an off duty Guards officer, not a city gent. There used to be a number of good bespoke tailors in the city, but these have all gone I believe and only M2M outfits like Roderick Charles remain.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Lessee-- he's the guy whose father had a thing going with Princess Diana, right?


"You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment." <cough>


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Blackadder said:


> The City and Lower Manhattan/Wall St are remarkably similar in their histories. Both are the oldest parts of town, both became almost exclusively financial and commercial between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries, and residential life is now returning to both as old 20th century office buildings are retrofitted as flats.


My wife and I stayed with some friends who who had a flat overlooking Finsbury Square in the City of London. Very quiet on the weekend.

How about an official AAAC bowler?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

LondonFogey said:


> The City of London is the oldest part of town, dating back to the Romans, and is the financial services capital. It is also a religious centre with St Pauls' cathedral and a large number of churches; and a lot of the old trades guilds are based there also. It has a lot of ancient rights and privileges (such as its own police force, Lord Mayor etc) which are jealously guarded.


The arcana of the City, including its unusual political status, are just confusing enough to give real ammunition to the paranoid. If you dare, check out some of Lyndon Larouche's screeds on the City. It turns out that the City is the true ruler of the rest of Britain and the setter of U.S. foreign policy. Not only that, but the City is itself controlled by a coterie of Venetian bankers from the Renaissance.

That the unseen power behind world capitalism should have installed Lenin in power and encouraged Hitler to destroy most of Western civilization goes without saying.


----------

