Clothing Variances

[Mission]

As I was out walking this morning, musing on this and that I got to thinking about the way people dress today, particularly when you compare older folks with younger ones. If you were re-enacting this era in some distant time, you might look at a picture of a rapper and decide that people wore their pants on their hips, possibly with their boxers poking out the top and offensive t-shirts. The aged rarely dress like this (that I've noticed) and seem often to resort to comfortable clothes, mostly non-descript slacks, sweaters and collared shirts.

Which all leads me to wonder... wouldn't there have been variences in clothing amongst folks of different ages and stations in life? (By which I do not mean different classes, which we have pretty well established to be the case.) As folks got older, I would think they would tend to worry less about what they congnoscienti are wearing in court and more about what works best and wears easiest. A lot of the drawings I've seen seem to focus on the younger, higher classes. But what might a regular, older, less-fashion conscious person wear?

[Guest]

If you were re-enacting this era in some distant time, you might look at a picture of a rapper and decide that people wore their pants on their hips, possibly with their boxers poking out

When I was a kid (back in the 60's) that style was popular for awhile..... (I never wore my trousers like that, it looked just as stupid then as it does now) So that style has come in and out a kid's fashion a few times that I know of..........

Just a quick thought....

OK,we are reenacting Pyrates from (about) the 1720's... so the closest references we have are pictures (by someone that might never have seen what they were drawing...so they faked it...) and discriptions of sailors from the period.... But we are reenaction a specific group from the period.

Now what If we were reenacting bikers from the 1980's... would we wear a black leather jackert, jeans, heavy boots and a chain on your wallet, or colorfull (cafe racer) leathers, Or just an old Army Field Jacket with a helmet? (think of the fun we could have over wether or not they wore helmets...)

[jendobyns]

As I was out walking this morning, musing on this and that I got to thinking about the way people dress today, particularly when you compare older folks with younger ones. If you were re-enacting this era in some distant time, you might look at a picture of a rapper and decide that people wore their pants on their hips, possibly with their boxers poking out the top and offensive t-shirts. The aged rarely dress like this (that I've noticed) and seem often to resort to comfortable clothes, mostly non-descript slacks, sweaters and collared shirts.

Which all leads me to wonder... wouldn't there have been variences in clothing amongst folks of different ages and stations in life? (By which I do not mean different classes, which we have pretty well established to be the case.) As folks got older, I would think they would tend to worry less about what they congnoscienti are wearing in court and more about what works best and wears easiest. A lot of the drawings I've seen seem to focus on the younger, higher classes. But what might a regular, older, less-fashion conscious person wear?

So, are you asking if you have a well worn 1700 coat, and the event date is 1720, and you are 40, could you have a coat you had worn in your 20's?

Or are you asking if people had things made in the fashion of their youth because it's what they like and are comfortable wearing?

The answer to either is yes. As long as the clothing from your younger days is still intact, that is.

There is evidence in inventories (of a prominent early VA gentleman, for example) and art work for this.

[Mission]

No, I am curious if older people wore a different, more comfortable style of clothing than the fashion plates that are posted here when we start talking about some aspect of clothing style for a particular period in time.

Take a close look at what people today who have left the Athlete and Warrior phases of their life and gotten to the point where they don't care so much about external trappings. They wear simple, comfortable clothes. Wouldn't it make sense that this would be true in any period where fashion was an important consideration? (Forgive me, but I am being philosophical regarding clothing. There's no real goal to my bringing this up, I just thought of it yesterday morning while I was out walking.)

[Littleneckhalfshell]

I know that with women, there was always the concern as to what they were wearing at Court or what is the latest from Paris, etc. Not to leave out the men, in some time periods, the 1700's one of them, it was important to show a proper leg (I think I heard that Ben Franklin was noted for this).

But then, just as now, the common working man wore what was required of him by his job, employer, or just makes common sense for the job at hand. If you are not an aristocrat or upper management, you make due with what you have or can lay your hands on. Sure, there will always be those few that want to be roosters and cock-a-dodle-do, but for the most part I don't think there was that much change fashion wise for the common man or at least it was not as sudden and if they were aware of the change in fashion, it was not always within a common mans means to throw away perfectly servicable clothing and buy new.

[Mission]

Excellent point. I was not taking the necessity of the times into account. The suit of sailor's clothes that Jen Dobyns found a link to in the Museum of London seems to bear that out. And in Emily Cockayne's book Hubbub: Filth, Noise, and Stench in England, 1600-1770 she says,

“Poorer citizens rarely bought new items of clothing, but made do with second-, third- and fourth-hand clothes. The second-hand market was a thriving one.” (Cockayne, p. 77)

Still I wonder what those who could afford new clothing wore as they got older and had less interest in the latest fashions.

[jendobyns]

Well, in an instance of one well off man (either a Carter or Lee of early Virginia), who could afford pretty much anything he desired, he had coats cut in the fashion of his youth in his inventory when he died, which was well into his 80's iirc. If you can contact N. Hurst Tailor via FB he can give you more details. The photos on Neal's page are well worth the look, he has some amazing stuff.

There are people now days who insist on being up with the current trends well into their old age, and others who couldn't care less even in their youth. Same goes for back then. If you look in period family group portraits that contain several generations you could see variations in fashion between the oldest and youngest in the group. And there are instances where fashionable clothing is altered to make adjustments to accommodate reduced mobility in infirmity (George III's waistcoat at Kew, for example). Also garments in a fabric that was fashionable for a previous generation being re-made into something new.

Basically, there is a huge range of possibilities here. Fabric was expensive and labor was cheap. Clothing was recycled, repurposed (fashionable gown fabric being used to line vestment cloaks), sold on, passed down, inherited, and so on. It all depends on the individual, their tastes and needs. Mother's beautiful bizarre silk gown? It may become a waistcoat, jacket or lining sometime after she is done with it. But as a garment, it's still in circulation well after the fabric is fashionable. Grandfather is still wearing suits made like he wore when he got married, because he pays the tailor to make them that way (no slave to modern off-the-shelf fashion changes here). Mother still wears her old fashioned stays, even though the line of fashion has changed. Etc. Unlike today's clothing, where what is available in the stores pretty much dictates what you wear, people weren't forced to change their style if they didn't wish to do so. In fact if anything, it was harder to stay on top of trends if you didn't have the coin to do so or weren't clever with a needle and thread.

As for court clothing, there are rules that govern what can be worn. Which explains some really odd looking gowns of the regency period that have big hoops under them--the rule specifying the use of hoops didn't keep up with fashion. And cut steel buttons (a late 18C thing, very sparkly) on men's suits that still show up on some garments even fairly recently (court or livery, I don't remember which right now).

So does that help?

[silas thatcher]

i think half shell and jen dobyns summed things up fairly well...

[Mission]

Yes, Jen, that is most enlightening. I'm not really looking for help with anything, I was just throwing a topic out there to generate some discussion. (If Michael wasn't helping me with my clothes, who knows what I would be wearing? Probably stuff bought at Ren Faires... )

I particularly like your statement, "There are people now days who insist on being up with the current trends well into their old age, and others who couldn't care less even in their youth."

I think we tend to focus too narrowly at times on certain styles and wondered if there wouldn't be variances in styles then as there are now. I don't think our psychology is all that different now from what it was at that time, although our experiences certainly are. It also occurs to me that clothing made today may not last as long, although I have no proof for that. It may just be that they were more willing (due to necessity and upbringing) to patch and re-patch and re-use old material as you say.

[silas thatcher]

from what i gather ( read- i know some, but not everything ) for the general common man, new clothes were a bit of a luxury that few could afford...so patch and repair was necessary...like mission, i have no idea if a good pair of wool breeches can last 10 or more years, or even 20 with regular use...but patching and repairing wasn't needed on new clothes, it was needed on old clothes... exactly how old ?? don't know...

would it be feasible to surmise that some may have been wearing clothes that were from a fashion 20 years ago ?? were the clothes indeed that old, or maybe they were of newer cloth in an old, comfortable, that's what i want, it was good enough back then it's good enough now style ??

heck, granpa still wears his "old fart" clothes...

hair styles, language, actions and behaviors, tools, furnishings, personal belongings, etc., can all fit into that category of being old or up to date...at work ( electrician ), i prefer, when i can, to wear a button down oxford type shirt with long sleeves... the same type of shirt i grew accustomed to in high school ( looooong ago it seems ) the last 20 years, i only wear top siders for shoes... haven't had a pair of sneakers since i was a kid...i wear shoes, work boots and pants until they are literally past due... am i being frugal, a cheap@ss, just don't care, don't like to waste ?? don't really know... none of our cars are new... all have 120xxx miles plus.... one project car i have is 1 year older than i am ( 62 vw bug )

my personal example of clothing variance now... benjamin frankiln was known to "dress down" for a person of his status... " old fart" clothes ?? the spanish were known to hold on to styles the rest of the world gave up years ago.... new styles probably are/ were for those that can/could afford them and even gave a rat's @ss about changes in styles...other wise just keep wearing what one can afford or want to wear....

[jendobyns]

Yes, Jen, that is most enlightening. I'm not really looking for help with anything, I was just throwing a topic out there to generate some discussion. (If Michael wasn't helping me with my clothes, who knows what I would be wearing? Probably stuff bought at Ren Faires... )

I particularly like your statement, "There are people now days who insist on being up with the current trends well into their old age, and others who couldn't care less even in their youth."

I think we tend to focus too narrowly at times on certain styles and wondered if there wouldn't be variances in styles then as there are now. I don't think our psychology is all that different now from what it was at that time, although our experiences certainly are. It also occurs to me that clothing made today may not last as long, although I have no proof for that. It may just be that they were more willing (due to necessity and upbringing) to patch and re-patch and re-use old material as you say.

Sorry 'bout that, wasn't meaning "help" literally.

Definitely agree that we can tend to focus too narrowly sometimes.

Oh, another thing I forgot to mention, is the turning of clothing. When one side got too worn, clothing would be re-made turning the inside of the fabric out, giving it a fresher face. Considering how much of the clothing was lined, this makes a lot of sense and would give a second life to fabric that we would tend to discard.

Clothing back then wasn't laundered as frequently, and some things were just brushed and spot cleaned rather than washed. And clothing that was washed wasn't washed by machine, but by hand, something that is only required for the most delicate of items in our modern times (Ok, I'm not going to consider dry cleaning here). So it's wearable life probably was longer. Then there are the qualities of wool and linen fibers. Much more durable than cotton and some silks, as long as bugs don't get to it (a problem a good housekeeper would know to avoid). I have been told that a lot of our linen is now processed with machines that also process cotton. The linen is chopped to fit the machines, thus loosing a lot of the properties that go into a long staple fiber. I have twenty year old shifts that have lasted longer than my son's five year old shirts, so there may be something to that. Really makes it hard to make comparisons to our reenacting clothing-vs-extant garments in some ways.