Chap’s New Formal Line Sparks Storm of Controversy

12 Comments »

Comment by The Earl of Essex — November 4, 2009 @ 1:19 am

I say, this wouldn’t be connected in any way with The Chap moving down to that illustrious town in East Sussex, named Lewes, would it?; No, I thought not. Please excuse me whilst I wash my mouth out with carbolic soda, and retire to the Library with a large Malt, and the Webley.

---

Comment by Phyll Smith — November 6, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

When, oh when are you going to branch into swimming attire? It’s still easy enough to buy golf, shooting, tennis or polo wear? But swimming? I’ve been instructed by my physician to swim three times a week and can’t find anything seemly at all. How about finding us something suitable for mixed bathing?

---

Comment by Jack Hammergun Sothcott — November 21, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

Dear Smith,
Please send a cache of however many mixed bathers you deem appropriate to Hammergun Hall immediately (send the bill care of account ‘Hammergun’, Fortnum & Mason, Piccadilly S.W.). Ensure each mixed bather is female with a suitably impressive silhouette.

---

Comment by Albion — November 23, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

The waistcoat comes to us on the highest authority, so following the images of true men in the films “The First Great Train Robbery” and “The Thirty Nine Steps” (late seventies version, not the Hitchcock one) then high and visible should be the garment. If you are a Geovictwardian, that is. Otherwise, anything goes……..

---

Comment by M Churchill — November 25, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

What is right and what looks good are often two different things. During my travels I have read that Fred Astaire, after seeing the Duke of Windsor’s white waistcoat, requested that one was made for him. His reasoning was that because the white of the waistcoat did not show below the tails it did not cut the body in half and instead elongated the leg; something every gentleman aspires to. On a personal note I have never seen a picture of a man with his waistcoat showing under his tails that did not look like a prat, George Bush for example, and likewise every man who keeps his whites hidden above his jacket front will always look, as Antongiavani tells us, like an Adonis.

Flusser, who is often quoted over these issues has a nice image in his book of a gentleman suffering ‘the vapours’ as a result of seeing the white of someone’s waistcoat.

I will not even have a wisp of white showing under my tails for the Chap Ball. But I may look like a prat as well.

I have no idea what a Weskit is.

---

Comment by Sir Wolstan — November 26, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

Thank heavens someone has seen fit to point out that visible waistcoat-age (“weskit” is the correct pronunciation but not the correct spelling) was considered perfectly acceptable during the nineteenth century and that the notion of having the coat fronts worn long enough to cover the waistcoat is a relatively new one. To suggest, as so many seem to do, that the latter is ‘right’ and the former ‘wrong’ seems unecessarily Manichaean to me.

In short, I personally regard the matter as one of personal taste, in which respect it sits alongside shawl collars versus peaked lapels on a dinner-jacket or wing versus full collars on the dress shirts worn with black tie. Neither is ‘right’, so shoose whichever you prefer. As a chap of short torso and long legs I prefer to wear my white tie waistcoat rather long for aesthetic reasons, and whilst the waistcoat is not visible below the coat when standing perfectly still and with my arms by my sides, the least movement or raising of the arms reveals it instantly.

---

Comment by Sir Wolstan — November 26, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

Apologies all, “shoose” should of course read “choose”.

---

Comment by M Churchill — November 27, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

I will add an addendum to my earlier statement. Huge Laurie can often be seem with a slip of white below his tails in a few episodes of Jeeves and Wooster and he does look very good.
And yes, if one knows what will make them look good and what will not then have as much vest showing as he or she needs. I still, however, maintain that those treading the white tie path for the first time would not fail to impress by keeping their vest bottoms hidden.

---

Comment by Sir Wolstan — November 28, 2009 @ 10:05 am

Admirable sentiments, Mr Churchill.

---

Comment by Digby Snaffles — November 28, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

Indeed the ‘weskit’ could protrude below the cut. However that was in the Regency era (when the dress coat was double-breasted and worn closed) before being relegated to evening wear and superseded by the frock coat for morning dress.

This contradiction of conforming to what is deemed historically correct will no doubt become apparent when these very people wear pleated trousers. There is of course nothing wrong with doing so but fitted dress trousers are traditional and I must say more in lieu with the fitted coat), whereas pleats are a hangover from the ’30s fad for trousers with a fuller cut.

Breeches are of course even more traditional. Are we to suppose we can pick & mix what we do and do not like from what was considered de rigueur? So let us not be so dismissive or pedantic.

Besides, the real criminals are those who will embrace dull clichés, like the wearing of monocles, reducing what should be elegant dress to costume, to a point of becoming tacky parody. The real way to stand out from the crowd is with excellence of fit and cut. A waistcoat that protrudes below the dress coat front openly advertises that it is either cheap rental attire, or else something carelessly cobbled together rather than being made to be worn with that particular coat.

---

Comment by M Kingsland — December 30, 2009 @ 11:49 pm

After spending an hour or so looking at old fashion plates from the 19th & 20th century, I can find surprisingly little support for displaying an inch or two of the waistcoat beneath the coat.
Those few times in the 19th century when it was deemed ideal, or at least acceptable; the waistcoat and trousers (or breeches) were either both of the same colour or the waistcoat was a highly patterned midtone.

The only period I’ve found so far where it was thought ideal to have the band of white between the black coat & trousers was the USA in the 1920s.

Apart from these anomalies the standard appears to be to have the sides of the waistcoat covered.

---

Comment by M Kingsland — January 1, 2010 @ 12:10 am

Re: my comment on 1920s white tie in the USA.

After looking more closely at the fashion plates, I can see that those weren’t so much bands of white under the front of the tailcoat as they were sharp white wedges.
The waistcoats were sometimes cut long in the front, but angled back to a standard length at the sides.
The ideal for this style of cut seems to have been for the waistcoat to eventually visually disappear at about the same place the cuttaway front stops.

Although this has to my eye quite a pleasing appearance, I imagine that the formal ready to wear of the time and mixing and matching of various different pieces might have made it a tricky effect to manage.
The ill-fitting result would often be those hip/waist widening bands of white under the coat front.

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website