Just a thought on the mind set of men and women at the turn of the last century.

[JRB]

My grandmother has a picture of her grandfather clamming in the low tide shallows of Greenwich bay, RI with several other men. They are all dressed in white linen jackets and trousers! My father told me they were also wearing white shoes as well. I'm all for wanting to look your best when out and about but that seems like major overkill to me.

[macwilkin]

I couldn't agree more.

Pointing out that in the past people weren't perfect does nothing to negate the argument--which had nothing to do with the objections--that people today are basically slobs with poor manners and habits. Wearing clothing which is condusive to only to mud wrestling and jogging does not make one more advanced than his forebears; it only makes him appear sloppy.

Surely one can see that a youthful pride in a slovenly appearance is not in any way socially or morally superior to all other choices of dress. I could point out that the crime rates, murder rates, and general civility were much better than today, but those facts have nothing to do with dress.

And I can assure you that dressing well was not restricted to the white collar classes or people of means in decades past. Even in the late 1800s, my grandfather's uncle, who was a carpenter, would don a suit to go to work. There, he would change into his work clothes, build whatever it was he was working on (and this without power tools, it was draw knives and hand saws), then he would change back into his suit before returning home. My grandfather the railroad engineer, never went to town with a coat and tie.

And the stated life expectancy of 1906 takes in to account the high rate of infant mortality of the day, so it gives a false impression that most folks died in their 40s. Fact is, if you made it past early childhood, you were likely to live well in to your 60s or 70s.

Kind of like today!

My grandfather was the same way, Jim -- an Iowa farmer who owned more than one suit for church, lodge meetings, etc.

I always think of Robert Burns in discussions like this; while Burns was most certainly a puir Ayrshire ploughboy with dung on his boots, he was also able to dress to the nines when needed when visiting Edinburgh, attending lodge, etc.

T.

[davedove]

I think a big part of it is the general understanding of "time and place." Too many people now feel that the same clothes will work in any situation. I will agree that perhaps sometimes previous generations may have taken it too far (e.g suits at the beach), but current generations have taken it to the opposite extreme (e.g. workout clothes anyplace except when you're working out).

Personally, since I most often eat in very casual restaurants, I don't dress up for eating dinner. But, if I'm going someplace special, I dress for it.

Some of the things that used to be done, like wearing a jacket and tie to a ball game, don't make much sense to me, but neither does wearing your ratty sweats when you going to the theater.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Dinner last night at The Southern Inn in Lexington, Virginia, proved to be a pleasant surprise in more ways than one-- not only were we able to get a table at 8:30 without having booked, virtually every gentleman over 30 was wearing a jacket. Those not in jackets were attired in what is sometimes called "smart casual"-- not a tee shirt or baseball cap in sight. Now whether this is due to Lexington being the home of both Washington and Lee University, as well as the Virginia Military Institute-- two institutions renown for graduating ladies and gentlemen-- I couldn't say. The final surprise was the meal itself-- absolutely superb food and first class service.

"Is this the end of an era," I wondered. "Or (more hopefully) the beginning of a trend?"

[O'Callaghan]

I think one of the reasons for greater formality in the past was ironically lack of money. Men were often expected to wear a suit even in quite menial jobs, and many or most couldn't afford a separate wardrobe for different occasions, so they owned a number of suits, perhaps only two if they were poor, or one if very poor, and each suit was gradually downgraded to be worn for less formal occasions as it slowly wore out, until eventually it might be worn for digging clams or WHY, and a new suit was only bought very infrequently if you were an ordinary working man. Frayed cuffs would be taken up, for example, to avoid purchasing a replacement.

This is quite well explained by George Orwell in one of his books. Possibly in the Road to Wigan Pier, but I'm really not quite sure which book it is. The people he described might have owned two suits and nothing else to wear atall, as I recall.

IOW, they didn't wear suits all the time because they loved formality, but because they couldn't afford anything separate for their leisure hours, but had no choice but to wear an old suit that they could no longer wear to work or to church. Of course, that doesn't apply to the more well-to-do, but the latter were more or less forced to wear suits or be taken for paupers.

[ronstew]

IOW, they didn't wear suits all the time because they loved formality, but because they couldn't afford anything separate for their leisure hours....

If they had leisure hours....