/fa/ - Fashion

based. Are you an early, mid, or late 1700s person? I'm partial to the cut of coats c. 1750 but 80s and 90s stuff is interesting as well

>>15383073

>>15383081

>>15383073
OP here, personally I'm a huge fan of the mid to late era styles. Stuff from Louis XV and XVI's reign is where its at. I really like>>15383085.

>>15382951

literal shit era

>>15383393
cool. I personally find 18thc french stuff a bit overworked- the comparatively sober english style is more to my taste.

>>15383546
some reference for anyone interested in making anything themselves

>>15383550
Photos from an 18thc menswear blog about interior construction of fall front breeches

>>15383555

>>15383562

>>15383567

>>15383503
literal shit post. See pic.
>>15383546
I love the grandeur and the style of rococo. I like english style but I think nothing compares to the french.

>>15383570

>>15383572
it is grand, but post-1789 it ends up looking a bit foppy. Its also quite visually confusing and to me obscures the niceness of the cuts and lines from the time.

>>15383579

>>15383613

>>15383617

>>15383625

>>15382951

Although it is of a much more humble cloth, in natural greyish-tan linen, I own a long length 1780s-1790s style of square-bottom waistcoat. My length would have existed during those decades, and perhaps as early as the late 1770s, when the flat-bottom waistcoats were getting reintroduced, usually shorter than the ones with v-shaped bottoms. I think mine is perhaps a few inches too long to be representative of early 1800s styles of lengths, which tended to become even shorter than before.

>>15382951
>>15383736
Some of the flat-bottomed waistcoats could be slightly longer than the example I first showed, as well. One might never notice early 19th century waistcoats that long, even though they would most likely have the flat-bottom style in common. In fact, after the 1790s, no decade since has produced waistcoats of such length. Modern waistcoats are still generally on the shorter size, even though many are available in "men's tall" sizing.

>>15383579
>foppy
I'm admittedly sympathetic to Dandyism. My issue with english cuts is they aren't as good as the century that came before it and they aren't as good as the stuff that came the century after. It's in this middle ground of wanting to be like their continental counterparts and yet be egalitarian but it comes off plain and counterproductive in my eyes. Like>>15383736 could be improved if it just had a little more flair.

>>15383988
>Like>>15383736 could be improved if it just had a little more flair.

What do you think of this, then?

the 1780s-1790s were especially /fa/ imo. Both stylish and elegant

There is nothing more enjoyable than listening to something someone is passionate about, good thread op. I don’t know if this is accurate but I like this

>>15384105

>>15384109

>>15384094
That's excellent. That's a perfect balance. What do you think of this? It's from Louis XVI's era

>>15384112

>>15384115

>>15384113

I like that suit, it is a very fine one for an aristocrat or even a wealthier middle class man to wear, but I am more inclined towards humble cloths. Here is George Washington's 1789 inauguration suit, which is of brown wool. That is more according to my tastes.

>>15384118
It's facinating to see how the fashion evolved dusting those two decades. From Chemise a La Reine (>>15384112) evolving to >>15384118 and then again evolving to the risque fashion of post-revolutionary France (pi related) which would then again evolve into regency fashion

>>15384105
Marie Antoinette was a genius in terms of fashion. She really set the bar high.
>>15384107
Thanks anon and yes that is accurate. The purple and flowers work in a unique way.

>>15384120
I should add that I have never seen any of the usual 18th century reenactment suppliers do their own version of that particular brown suit. I would like to see if anybody makes that cut, which is distinct from what typically gets passed around in today's reenactment circles as usual Revolutionary Era (American and French) cuts for coats.

>>15384126
she really had great taste

>>15384120
You might be interested in this then. It's still got that aristocratic look but I think it has a humbleness to it.

>>15384133

>>15384137

>>15384135

Yes, that is also something that pertains to my interests of 18th century clothing. The cut of that coat even resembles Washington's example, yet it looks longer.

>>15384138

>>15384141

>>15384133
The sad fact is she would've been beloved by the masses if she had been in any other era of french history.

>>15384147
yeah she was a sweet lady...Part of the reason she wore more simple dresses than previous times was to cut down the dress budget so the moeny could go to those who needed it. But in the end it was too little to late, at the wrong place at the wrong time

>>15384139
I'm glad you like it. Now if you could summarize my taste, this would be it. Elegant, Flashy, and unapologetically indulgent.

>>15383741
Yes, the lengthiness of 1790s waistcoats in contrast to the coat looks very odd to my eyes. I think I prefer the concurrent look with either a longer closure or shorter waistcoat- its just more balanced. I think it might also be a result of museum curators cobbling together disparate items, as a lot of portraiture doesn't include the difference

>>15383736
where do you get your 18thc waistcoats? do you make them yourself?
>>15383988
I see it as more a more balanced expression of the elegance of cut of the time. With continental ornament you get both a sense of pretentiousness and a lack of clarity. It's like walking around Versailles- any one piece would work wonderfully but its a whole room of it and you really can't breathe.

>>15384107
I think thats a 1770s or 80s court suit. A fan of the purple

>>15384273

>>15384277
I love the back of this one

>>15384279

>>15384280
time for breeches

>>15384287

>>15384302

>>15384306

>>15384310

>>15384316

>>15384270
>where do you get your 18thc waistcoats? do you make them yourself?
I bought a natural linen one from Townsend, in their 1790s-1820s flat cut, but the cut is longer than average for that broad era, and it looks like one of these below.
>>15383736
>>15383741

>>15382951
EXCUSE ME YOU WHITE PRIVILEGED SCUM DON'T YOU KNOW BLACK FOLX WERE OPPRESSED BY YOUR KIND IN THE 18TH CENTURY SO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LIKE ANYTHING FROM THAT TIME OR YOU'RE A RACIST (EVEN MORE OF A RACIST BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY INHERENTLY RACIST) #BLM

>>15383572
Lol as if you’d be a noble if born in that era. No idiot you’d be a pleb just like everyone else and youd probably love a shit life. But is the fashion amazing? Oh yes, yes it is

>>15384602
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlzgDVLtU6g

You gave me a reason to post Charles Guislain. I miss that lil' nigga like you wouldn't believe

I always liked beauty patches and ruffled shirts but idk how they could work as part of a modern fit

>>15384270
>more balanced expression of the elegance of cut of the time.
I made the point that I'm not a huge fan because I think it generally fails at balance. Ornamentation is either at bare minimum or none at all. Like>>15384277 looks and feels drab. If you're required to sacrifice style then what's the point? You say ornamentation goes too far in continental. As a response to that, I say that egalitarianism goes too far in english.
>With continental ornament you get both a sense of pretentiousness and a lack of clarity.
I find there's nothing wrong with being indulgent for a little while. And I think>>15384164 and >>15384133 have good clarity.
>It's like walking around Versailles- any one piece would work wonderfully but its a whole room of it and you really can't breathe.
Versailles is a masterpiece in my opinion. A perfect showcase of elegance and style. But obviously we have different ideals on fashion.

>>15384612
The amount of seethe in this post is off the charts.

>>15385638
Everything is carefully and ornately crafted but there is, trust me on this, no space. It feels like a collapsing ormolu mantelpiece. And I would disagree w.r.t balance- the skirted coats and breeches are a very balanced silhouette where the components work well together, in opposition to, say, 17th century equivalents (subjective opinion ofc).
>>15385156 just wear them with modern items. Extremely simple.
>>15385649 based

>>15384394
Thank you. I was considering their range and I liked the look of their french fly breeches. Their shirts are a bit deficient though. I'm considering doing up a trial shirt in a nice length of (inaccurate) lightweight cream silk, to try and get the construction right.
>>15384602 The bit you're doing isn't particularly funny, but one of the attractions, for me, to the 18th century and the early 19th is the revolutionary attitude. Didn't go far enough, of course, but as they say the material conditions weren't developed enough

>>15386460
Forgot to add why I said that- oppressed peoples existed at the same time, so we can look back on their struggles as a precursor to our own. BLM riots can trace their history back through MLK and Malcom X to John Brown and Frederick Douglass and the initial slave revolts of the 1700s in Haiti and elsewhere

>>15386460
>Thank you. I was considering their range and I liked the look of their french fly breeches. Their shirts are a bit deficient though. I'm considering doing up a trial shirt in a nice length of (inaccurate) lightweight cream silk, to try and get the construction right.

I also think that their shirts are a bit hit or miss, unless they are the linen or osnaburg ones. I have opted to buy a 100% linen (heavyweight linen) shirt from Darcy Clothing, instead. The site told me that this kind of shirt spans from 1700 (possibly as far back as 1675 or 1650?) through 1880 (maybe only a few men wearing shirts of that style by then, old timers or very old fashioned folks).

>>15386608
I doubt 1880 unless for work shirts. shirts fom about 1860 onwards buttoned all the way down the front. I do think Darcy offer different shirt styles for both elizabethan and victorian periods thru to the 20th century

>>15386723
OK, I was looking at a description for their striped version of the 18th century shirt when it said up to 1880. It actually says up to 1800 for the white/off-white ones.

>>15386723
>>15386744
This is the shirt that I'm talking about, and the era they list it as:

>Era: 1700-1880

>>15386451
>the skirted coats and breeches are a very balanced silhouette where the components work well together, in opposition to, say, 17th century equivalents (subjective opinion ofc).
Funny enough, I prefer their 17th century style. Their 18th century just doesn't do it for me. Can you post a couple of English cuts you enjoy? I might appreciate it myself.

>>15386888
certainly!

>>15386959

>>15386961
Later decades are generally better at this, but increasingly the cut of the clothes don't disguise but rather reveal the form of the body. Excess fabric in the form of folds, pleats, and so on is rather more about adding gravity and weight than the distortions you get from, say, the 16th century silhouette of doublet and virtually spherical breeches.

>>15386748
yes, that makes sense. You would still have had similarly cut workers shirts til even the 1930s at the latest, they've got great range of motion and are simple to put on.

god curse brummel for ruining mens fashion

>>15387008
people ascribe too much importance to Brummell imo. the fashion changes were happening even in the late 1780s and were more a response to economic and social developments than any one guy, no matter how well-dressed.

fucking kino era

>>15386959
>>15386961
I really like the contrast between the red and gold. The minimalist attitude actually helps it here.This>>15386963 is interesting as well.

>>15387008
Brummel had the ethos of "wear whatever you want" though. He is considered a dandy for a reason

>>15387008
>>15387089
Brummell single handedly saved the world from faggot ass fops like yourself.

>>15389413