[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Free Show | Home]

Why did people basically wear a suit 24/7 in the old days?

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 54
Thread images: 8

File: IMG_6701.jpg (132KB, 741x915px) Image search: [Google]
IMG_6701.jpg
132KB, 741x915px
Why did people basically wear a suit 24/7 in the old days?

I have photos of my ancestors from the 1900s farming by hand in vests and collared shirts
>>
because they only had one outfit
>>
because photos were rarer so people would dress up. the trend of wearing suits all the time really only came after the 1860s or so. before that people had worn tunics since the dawn of time. in the victorian era it was mostly rural workers and fishermen who still wore tunics but they didnt go away for a long time
>>
>>12397304
>because photos were rarer so people would dress up
>>
>>12397343
yeah. it wouldn't be common that a picture would be taken, so you would dress in your best clothing and look your best.
>>
>>12397352
he obviously meant wealthy city dwellers, who dressed formally every time they went out, regardless of whether or not a camera was involved

idiot
>>
>>12397187
because those were normal clothes for them. like we wear jeans and tees, they wore suits - that's why 'high class' suits and outfits were so much more luxurious then than though, for example an all-white tuxedo. now one can wear a simple black suit to the same sort of events, though a simple black suit was once a symbol of the simple worker (why Lenin wore a black suit, he wanted to appeal to the working class)
>>
>>12397372

This is what I'm interested in, like even middle class guys wore coat and tie daily
>>
>>12397187
they didnt really have t shirts and jeans like we do now
they made their own clothes which often were made into collared shirts and slacks
>>
Easily mass-produced clothing wasn't a thing back then. Clothing was tailored to be one a kind, fit for the recipient, so it follows that the clothing people had would be of high quality.
>>
File: suit.jpg (138KB, 455x1567px) Image search: [Google]
suit.jpg
138KB, 455x1567px
we can bring it back
>>
>>12397653
yeah, quality of clothing in general went WAY down after the industrial revolution, and even more so after synthetic fabrics were invented. imagine all your clothes being cut and sewn from a whole hand-woven piece of cloth, either thick and durable or incredibly fine and light.
>>
>>12397368
"Formally" is not the word you want. "Formal" means a morning coat.

Suits used to be much more practical garments, with variations that we don't see today. For instance, the jacket could be buttoned up all the way against the cold, rather that this bullshit "lapel" thing permanently ironed flat.

The "suit" survives in offices where people are very conservative about any risk of looking sloppy to their customers, as simply a vestige of old-fashioned style from cold climates. It has no relevance today. Simply obsolete.
>>
there are a very large amount of adults nowadays who wear suits the majority of their lives nowadays too. if you were out of highschool you would be aware of this.
>>
File: suithistory.jpg (157KB, 900x271px) Image search: [Google]
suithistory.jpg
157KB, 900x271px
>>12397187
From a technical viewpoint: Knitting machines didn't really become useful until the end of the 19th century. That's why the clothes were woven, not stretchy. From a viewpoint of pattern construction this meant you needed button closure for pretty much everything, to effectively put it on and of. Although this is not directly a reason for suits it explains why they had little other clothing available to them.

From a social viewpoint: People had different ideas about nakedness and society in general was much more formal and strict. This applies to women and men alike. Showing skin beneath the neck was frowned upon. High closing garments were therefore the norm (think: dress shirt). It's also a little easier construction wise because having a low neckline on a woven shirt will fray more easily and chafe uncomfortably after a while.

Also what this guy says >>12397299:
Everyday suits are pretty versatile. Together with coat and boots you could pretty much wear the same garment year round. This was less of a concern for wealthier people, but I remember my grandfather telling me that back in the days, people simply had only one suit. It's hardly comparable to our fashion orientated world of today.
>>
>>12398089

Yeah, maybe in the City of London. Try seeing what the average pleb wore back then compared to now.
>>
>>12397679
pls no
>>
>>12397831
>"Formally" is not the word you want.

i know exactly which word i want pedantic fuckface. the word formally is perfectly used here.
>>
>>12398313
ur mom lmao
>>
>>12397679
This looks great. Imagine him in nowadays regular clothing or some kind of shitty streetwear and he looks like your typical idiot sperg. While even he can look like a relevant movie character in a suit like that. It broadens one's shoulders and gives strong geometric frame to your legs so you can look great even if you don't have perfect phisique. I can see why it was fashionable for a long time. And the suit seems to have great fabric you don't see in nowadays clothing. I guess suits like that but modernized in some way can make a comeback in the future.
>>
>>12397187
people had more self respect
>>
>>12398603
this. dont dorget to match your pocket square and your penis pouch like a gentleman *puffs on pipe*
>>
File: faschi.jpg (184KB, 736x452px) Image search: [Google]
faschi.jpg
184KB, 736x452px
>>12398240
I agree with everything except with the part were they weren't fashion oriented.

I think on the contrary, they had one outfit and they made it count.
>>
>>12398603
in the 1800s people would wash monthly, piss in a bucket underneath their bed, throw their shit on the street, and owned 1 set of clothes
>>
>>12397679
Reviewbrah is uniquely fashionable man.
>>
>>12397299
This, the reason you're supposed to let your sleeves peek out from under your jacket is because you'd have multiple shirts so letting it get dirty or torn was better than your jacket
>>
>>12399753
Literally me.
>>
>>12397679
I don't understand how the FUCK he found a suit this fucking well-fitting at the goddamn Goodwill. Every time I see the pic I get more boggled by it. It's baffling.
>>
suits weren't the most formal thing you wear during those time
it was either the frock coat (victorian and early edwardian era) and white tie or black tie (after the 50's)
and the suit cut were radically different, there's no such thing as worsted or barathea lined super 190 performance wool, it was simple material and most of the suit were sack suit so they're much more comfortable than the suits we had today
>>
>>12397679
I love his view on his style. It mad me realize I need to stop being so self conscious about that I wear. I mean he found his thing and it works perfectly for him.
>>
>brogues were invented to drain while working on marshy ground

But then vulcanized rubber was a little ways off I guess.
>>
>>12399753
People owned one set of clothes because they couldn't afford more and took care of their excrements in the most hygienic way possible in a crowded city (which was the minority of the population btw). And the part about not washing is partly a myth and more applicable to the 17th/18th century. People probably BATHED very little but washed body parts regularly.

Also, people care a lot more about their reputation when your social environment is small and your livelihood depends on the goodwill of others much more than today.
>>
>>12398240
70's is the best suit
prove me wrong
>>
suits look fucking stupid, who the fuck wears a suit anymore? some fag on wall street? some corporate coo....donald trump?


every guy in a suit looks like a try hard idiot.

times have changed people
>>
Would it be correct to assume that before the 1920's, pants had a tapered silhouette? They look much slimmer on pics than everything 1930-1960
>>
>>12400942
Nah
'20s is wide, up to absolutely straight leg, unless it's a DJ

>>12400778
Welcome back when you're over 18, kid
>>
>>12398240
1900, 1910, 1980 are best.
>>
>>12397679
he looks fly as fuck
>>
>>12400778
have you ever applied for a real job?
>>
>>12397187
It's just traditional European clothing, it was something natural.
it died out in the mid 40s though, when the humanity killed itself.
>>
>>12400778
I feel bad for you, kiddo!
>>
>>12398240
Did this really need a 2012 suit
What changed in these two years
>>
>>12397712
Sounds like pleb shit, just like raw denim, thick, tough, uncomfortable and unflattering. No thanks I don't want to wear a thick ass wool sweater my mum knit.
>>
>>12400025
>he had it tailored and was photographed in the suit after it was tailored shopping for more suits
>>
>>12400778
Supreme vetements usually what my dad pays for
>>
File: beauty-marks.jpg (127KB, 452x480px) Image search: [Google]
beauty-marks.jpg
127KB, 452x480px
>>12398240

>the 1666 one

18th century aristocracy core revival when?
>>
File: IMG_2460.jpg (49KB, 648x348px) Image search: [Google]
IMG_2460.jpg
49KB, 648x348px
>>12404011
Tips*
>>
>>12404035
>revival
>aristocracy
pick one
>>
>>12400054
Pretty much, yeah. If it was just up to me I'd probably wear a suit & tie 24/7 but I just worry too much about people thinking I'm a pretentious asshole
>>
>>12404035
Not before the return of the monarchy and the ascendancy of Emperor Donald I.
(Actually, emperor titles were a thing of the 19th century, except for the holy roman emperor title which was mostly a formality during the 18th century...)
>>
File: hair 2.jpg (17KB, 320x343px) Image search: [Google]
hair 2.jpg
17KB, 320x343px
>>12403924
>skipping the 70's suit

the 1970's one is the most EFFAY

PROVE
ME
WRONG
>>
Most of them were made of wool, which was like the denim of the time. Durable common material which would last a while, even poor people had them.
However during WW2, wool became a luxury fabric and eventually denim replaced it.
>>
>>12404062
>I just worry too much about people thinking I'm a pretentious asshole
Just do it, bruh
Supreme and RICK makes a man look infinity times more pretentious than a suit.
>>
>>12397368
But did you read the OP? Because he specifically references farmers.
Thread posts: 54
Thread images: 8


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/


If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site.
This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived.
If you need information for a Poster - contact them.