The Emperor's New Clothes

Often times a vintage collector will be called out for wearing "costumes". And to the average eye vintage clothing may look like costumes. The styling is different from what most people are use to but vintage is far from costume.

Speaking for myself, I don't consider vintage to be a costume. I live in 2010, own a computer (obviously), drive a vehicle less than ten years old and don't speak like an iGent. I'm modern throughout except for my taste in clothing because, quite frankly, modern clothing is terrible. I prefer the quality, styles and cut that vintage has to offer.

A few vintage collectors may fancy themselves as living in the 1930s and therefore wear a costume, but most do not.



So what exactly is a costume?

In part, it has to do with mindset. Like those few 'vintagers' who believe they are truly living in the Golden Era, costumes (the people wearing them) believe or at the very least act like they are something they are not. In order for there to be a costume there first must be something that is make believe. And mindset is the gateway through which something becomes an act.

On the other side of the viewing glass, the viewer's mindset is just as important as the wearer's. Movies and false notions of the Golden Era have shaped the viewer's mind into thinking that anything vintage looking or inspired by vintage is a costume: a fedora (any fedora) gets the ubiquitous Indiana Jones remark; a pinstripe double breasted suit becomes a gangster suit; full cut trousers transform into a zoot suit, etc. Rather than trying to learn about and understand clothing from the Golden Era and the folks to collect it, most Joes use their ignorance of the period as a crutch.



Physically, a costume is false. On the outside it looks pretty good, like the real deal. But inside, down to the details it is ugly. Costumes are thrown together with budget and ease of production in mind. Halloween costumes are flimsy. Most stage costumes are pieced together from what can be found.
And most importantly, costumes don't fit right. They're made to create a certain appearance and nothing more.



Here's where I might ruffle some feathers.
Rather than 'vintagers' being the ones wearing costumes, I argue that iGents and other folks who wear ill-fitting modern pieces are really the ones who wear costumes.
These are the trademarks of modern costumes: low armholes, paper-thin fabrics, horrible fits and cuts made by machines (off-the-rack) and even by a surprising number of modern tailors (made-to-measure and bespoke), and a super high price tag. All one must do to find such costumes is search the numberous online clothing fora.

So rather than seeing a different clothing style as a costume, first look and see if it meets the above trademarks of a costume. And if it does, rest assured that it's the emperor's new clothes.

Back to the Basics: Fit and Silhouette

If Fabric is the soul of the suit, then Fit and Silhouette are most assuredly a suit's mind and body, respectively. For without a mind a body is useless and without a body the mind is unable to express itself.

What does all that mumbo jumbo mean?
Fit and silhouette, while seemingly the same thing are two completely different ideas.

Fit describes the way a suit (or any garment for that matter) has been tailored, molded to the wearer's body. Simply put, Fit is the way a suit fits. A suit should ideally fit or wear like a second skin; if it doesn't then the suit has a poor Fit. One major thing that affects Fit are those pesky armholes, for if the armholes are not shaped and sized correctly to the specific customer then no amount of tailoring will help the rest of the suit fit right. A suit should fit the wearer in the shoulders, armholes, waist and hips.

Below is an example of a poorly fitted suit, courtesy of Thom Browne:

click to enlarge

Silhouette describes the outward appearance of a suit. This, unlike Fit, can vary from suit to suit according to the wearer's preferences. We see great variance of Silhouette throughout the Golden Era: from the slim and trim of the 1920s, the natural and trim of the 1930s and the big and bulky of the 1940s and early 1950s to the slim and trim of the 1960s, full circle.

Silhouette is affected by the amount of padding in the shoulders, the amount of waist suppression (or lack thereof) and the length of the jacket just to name a few. And, while a suit can be made to fit nearly any body shape, certain silhouettes can only go with certain body shapes.

For example, a heavy man cannot have a well fitted suit with the same amount of waist suppression as a skinny tall man can. The physics of it just will not allow it to happen.

click to enlarge

So, which is more important? Fit or Silhouette? I would have to say Fit. A well fitted suit with poor silhouette is still well fitted and will be comfortable for the owner to wear, even if it makes him look like a blimp. A poorly fitted suit with great silhouette will be too uncomfortable for a man to wear and it will become a hated thing, a uniform. That is the problem with suits today: they are poorly fitted and so uncomfortable that most men hate them and wear them only when they must.

Suits shouldn't be uniforms. They should have both Fit and Silhouette.

It's All in the Armholes

I was recently asked what the difference was between high and low armholes. There is much, like the difference between day and night.

Armholes can make or break a suit jacket. Unfortunately for us today most modern jackets fail when it comes to armholes. Suits today are made with low armholes. This means the armhole is larger and goes down further on the body of the jacket. Sure, low armholes make it easier to put the jacket on and take it off but try lifting your arms above your head and you're practically smothered by the jacket. The lapels bow out, the body spreads, the shoulders rise and the cuff moves down the arm. It's not very comfortable nor useful. And it's ugly.

Just take a look at this modern suit jacket with low armholes.

Unattractive and not very useful at all. Uncomfortable, infact.

Now take a look at this suit jacket from the 1920s/early 1930s with high armholes.

Vintage suits nearly always had high armholes. High armholes are cut higher under the armpit and don't deform the jacket when the arms rise. Truly high armholes might be a tad uncomfortable (tight under the armpits) at first for anyone who normally wears jackets with low armholes but they are amazed when they lift their arms and the jacket stays in place.

But high armholes are a lost art. Today practically no off-the-rack suits and very few custom jackets are made with high armholes. Perhaps this is due to the ease that low armholed jackets slip on and off (high armholed jackets are a bit more difficult, usually one arm at a time). Yet jackets are meant to be worn and if a jacket is uncomfortable or badly made (low armholes are a bad design) I do not want to wear it. I take it off. At least that part is easy thanks to the low armholes...

Low armholes are the main reason modern jackets just don't seem to fit even when they are well cut. A jacket that is perfectly shaped to your body will still feel weird and wear wrong if it has low armholes. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back to high armholes like back before armholes went bad in the 1960s.

That's why Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire were able to dance around all day and still be comfortable in their suits. It's all in the armholes.