6 ms·

Happy Birthday to the Suit

56 points by Andrew_Quentin 16y ago

edge17 16y ago
that was enlightening
Mz 16y ago
I love fashion history. There is so much social history tied up in it. Excerpts: Savile Row was inhabited largely by surgeons before the tailors moved in during the 19th century, and their influence can be seen in the “surgeon’s cuff”. On the most expensive suits the cuff buttons, which mirror the pips of military rank, can be undone, allowing the sleeve to be rolled back. This let surgeons attend patients spouting blood without removing their coats—an important distinction that set them apart from shirt-sleeved tradesmen of the lower orders. Surgeon’s shirts, with detachable cuffs, are still made to order by London tailors. And: Colours and cuts come—the fashion a decade ago was for four-button jackets—and go. Yet the modern world has transformed the suit’s interior. Pockets for train and bus tickets appeared with the commuter. Pen pockets and pockets for mobile phones have followed. Mr Munday has fielded inquiries about internal pockets to hold an iPad. No problem, he says. They are not so very different to the large “hare” pockets on the inside of field coats worn by country gents that will hold birds and rabbits felled with a shotgun.
- mbesto 16y ago
  Form follows function.
Umalu 16y ago
Interesting history of the suit. But while the article sees a future for the suit, to me the suit is history. Suits once denoted upper class, and sumptuary laws prevented lower classes from looking upper. Now suits denote lower middle management in an old economy company. No one aspires to that. Jeans, sweats and t-shirts are the new class separator, indicating which of us have earned the freedom from having to wear suits.
- alex_c 16y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but that seems like a pretty Valley-centric view to me - or at least, limited to industries where appearances are less important than results.
- p_nathan 16y ago
  I don't know of any larger-business CEOs besides Jobs who dresses casually. Certainly the execs(mid-size company) in my company always have a suit on in public/semi-public appearances. Could you cite your assertions please?
- fecklessyouth 16y ago
  I hope the last two clothing items were jokes. Though what you wear is somewhat a matter of taste, suits far outpace sweats and t-shirts in portraying a man's body. A nipped waist, slightly padded shoulders, and straight legs will always make a better impression.
  - lsc 16y ago
    sure, it makes you look more physically attractive; nobody is arguing with that. But, looking nice is not always an advantage. Given no other information, are you going to hire the programmer who obviously puts a lot of effort into his appearance? or the programmer who does not? I mean, I know people who answer both ways. Some people think looking nice is a sign of respect... but others assume that if you put that much effort into your appearance you must be covering up for incompetence.
    - fecklessyouth 16y ago
      "Employee" is probably a better example than "programmer." This topic seems dedicated to workwear as a whole, not a specific field. Nevertheless, how we present ourselves is inevitably influenced by what other people think of us. The amount of influence differs by situation. Though a programmer might dress in jeans and a T-shirt, he surely combs his hair. Sure, our perceptions of appropriate dress change by the decade or so. But there's a difference between lowered expectations of what's appropriate (business casual instead of business) and no expectation. I think the later is what you're suggesting, that opinions of us are less influenced by our dress. The former may be happening; but as others have stated, all fashion is cyclical. The later is, in the absolute sense, impossible. In the relative sense, it may sway, just like fashion, but we will always dress based on what other people will think, even if its to a lesser degree.
andreyf 16y ago
Relevant? http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- mdda 16y ago
  Naturally, this could be a clever PR campaign - and I would be more suspicious, apart from it appearing in this edition of the Economist : The Christmas Economist is a special two-week version : the content of a regular issue makes up about 50%, the other 50% consists of special multi-page articles written by staff writers when the urge took hold (but were too long to put into a regular edition). This is somewhat akin to Google's 20% time : The writers are given an opportunity to publish pieces that they've written for the love of writing. Of course, this could be my own rose-coloured glasses (I've been a religious Economist reader for 15 years).
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - jamesbritt 16y ago
    "The writers are given an opportunity to publish pieces that they've written for the love of writing." Wow. For Christmas I bought the wife a subscription to The Economist. I wanted something to wrap, so I picked up the current issue at Barnes&Noble (surprisingly, neither Walgreen nor Safeway had it). It happened to be the year-end double-issue. I saw the suit article; now I'm curious about the other articles, since I bet their authors have made them interesting by virtue of their own enthusiasm.
johnohara 16y ago
As a younger man, I worked in the concrete construction business for exactly 10 hours. In the morning, we unloaded and placed an entire truckload of foundation forms by hand. In the afternoon, we dug out the ground for a new garage pour, by hand. Then, a full truckload of gravel showed up, and we spread it, by hand. I fell asleep in the truck on the way back to the yard. The next day, the owner approached me, gave me $100 dollars cash, and thanked me for my service. That was it. Career over. I spent the $100 on a new suit. I didn't know what I was going to do for a job, but I knew I wanted that suit as my work clothes.
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  To clarify, you quit, or he fired you because you fell asleep?
j2d2j2d2 16y ago
I used to work for Bear Stearns. I was thinking of quitting before the crisis hit but had to stay and watch after the day our stock value dropped to $2 a share. By the time I left I really hated working there. I tell some of the story here: http://j2labs.net/blog/2010/jan/11/economies-pools-and-piss/ http://j2labs.net/blog/2010/jan/11/economies-pools-and-piss/ Anyway, when I moved out of the apartment I had, near Wall St, I threw out my suits. I told myself I'd never take a job that required a suit. The suit felt like a hollow nod between business men that the appearance of success was to be regarded just as highly as the ability to succeed. I'm less hostile to suits today, but I much prefer to do business with the types of people that also don't like wearing them.
- niccl 16y ago
  Most of the time I work as a contract software and hardware engineer. I usually wear Jeans and a T-shirt for that. Sometimes I take a short contract doing my old job of management consultant. Then I tell the client I'll wear a suit if they want me to, but I charge $30 per hour more if I do (around a 20% premium). I make it clear that they get the same advice and analysis no matter what I wear. Every client has paid the extra. I'm sure it says something about something, but I'm not really sure what.
  - cynicalkane 16y ago
    I really have to disagree with this attitude. Suits are the great equalizer of clothing. They're designed to downplay the wearer's bodily proportions, and it's very hard to look bad in one. Most people can't tell the difference between a cheap suit, well-tailored, and an expensive one. The suit-and-tie pattern visually draws the eyes toward the wearer's face. Aside from these things, they have very little detail, and that's why they were the post-Depression standard businesswear in America, replacing things like morning coats and top hats and stripey pants. Computer guys usually don't wear suits because they don't want to spend the extra time and money on them. That's fine. But it should be understood that the typical business casual getup is often visually more distracting than a suit, and does not emphasize the face over the body like a suit does. You'd be better off just charging everyone $30 extra, and always wearing the suit.
bediger 16y ago
Another PR Hit for Men's Wearhouse, eh?
- tomjen3 16y ago
  If it was, I do not mind. It was an interesting article of the kind that we want on hn. It should not matter who wrote it.
CallMeV 16y ago
I watched a TV documentary a few months back, which took a look inside the various tailors' establishments of Savile Row. Consider this: back then, these shops were the startups and entrepreneurs of their day, coming to the street with a few bolts of cloth and next to no money in their hands, spotting the needs of the customers and moving in to sell them a product specifically suited to their needs. The age of many of these stores speaks volumes of their capacity to read the market over the decades. Anyone who's ever set up a business and wanted it to last could do well to look at these businesses' example.
johnyzee 16y ago
The Suit is Back!

that was enlightening

Mz 16y ago

I love fashion history. There is so much social history tied up in it. Excerpts: Savile Row was inhabited largely by surgeons before the tailors moved in during the 19th century, and their influence can be seen in the “surgeon’s cuff”. On the most expensive suits the cuff buttons, which mirror the pips of military rank, can be undone, allowing the sleeve to be rolled back. This let surgeons attend patients spouting blood without removing their coats—an important distinction that set them apart from shirt-sleeved tradesmen of the lower orders. Surgeon’s shirts, with detachable cuffs, are still made to order by London tailors. And: Colours and cuts come—the fashion a decade ago was for four-button jackets—and go. Yet the modern world has transformed the suit’s interior. Pockets for train and bus tickets appeared with the commuter. Pen pockets and pockets for mobile phones have followed. Mr Munday has fielded inquiries about internal pockets to hold an iPad. No problem, he says. They are not so very different to the large “hare” pockets on the inside of field coats worn by country gents that will hold birds and rabbits felled with a shotgun.

mbesto 16y ago
Form follows function.

Umalu 16y ago

Interesting history of the suit. But while the article sees a future for the suit, to me the suit is history. Suits once denoted upper class, and sumptuary laws prevented lower classes from looking upper. Now suits denote lower middle management in an old economy company. No one aspires to that. Jeans, sweats and t-shirts are the new class separator, indicating which of us have earned the freedom from having to wear suits.

alex_c 16y ago
I don't necessarily disagree, but that seems like a pretty Valley-centric view to me - or at least, limited to industries where appearances are less important than results.
p_nathan 16y ago
I don't know of any larger-business CEOs besides Jobs who dresses casually. Certainly the execs(mid-size company) in my company always have a suit on in public/semi-public appearances. Could you cite your assertions please?
fecklessyouth 16y ago
I hope the last two clothing items were jokes. Though what you wear is somewhat a matter of taste, suits far outpace sweats and t-shirts in portraying a man's body. A nipped waist, slightly padded shoulders, and straight legs will always make a better impression.
- lsc 16y ago
  sure, it makes you look more physically attractive; nobody is arguing with that. But, looking nice is not always an advantage. Given no other information, are you going to hire the programmer who obviously puts a lot of effort into his appearance? or the programmer who does not? I mean, I know people who answer both ways. Some people think looking nice is a sign of respect... but others assume that if you put that much effort into your appearance you must be covering up for incompetence.
  - fecklessyouth 16y ago
    "Employee" is probably a better example than "programmer." This topic seems dedicated to workwear as a whole, not a specific field. Nevertheless, how we present ourselves is inevitably influenced by what other people think of us. The amount of influence differs by situation. Though a programmer might dress in jeans and a T-shirt, he surely combs his hair. Sure, our perceptions of appropriate dress change by the decade or so. But there's a difference between lowered expectations of what's appropriate (business casual instead of business) and no expectation. I think the later is what you're suggesting, that opinions of us are less influenced by our dress. The former may be happening; but as others have stated, all fashion is cyclical. The later is, in the absolute sense, impossible. In the relative sense, it may sway, just like fashion, but we will always dress based on what other people will think, even if its to a lesser degree.

andreyf 16y ago

Relevant? http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

mdda 16y ago
Naturally, this could be a clever PR campaign - and I would be more suspicious, apart from it appearing in this edition of the Economist : The Christmas Economist is a special two-week version : the content of a regular issue makes up about 50%, the other 50% consists of special multi-page articles written by staff writers when the urge took hold (but were too long to put into a regular edition). This is somewhat akin to Google's 20% time : The writers are given an opportunity to publish pieces that they've written for the love of writing. Of course, this could be my own rose-coloured glasses (I've been a religious Economist reader for 15 years).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  "The writers are given an opportunity to publish pieces that they've written for the love of writing." Wow. For Christmas I bought the wife a subscription to The Economist. I wanted something to wrap, so I picked up the current issue at Barnes&Noble (surprisingly, neither Walgreen nor Safeway had it). It happened to be the year-end double-issue. I saw the suit article; now I'm curious about the other articles, since I bet their authors have made them interesting by virtue of their own enthusiasm.

johnohara 16y ago

As a younger man, I worked in the concrete construction business for exactly 10 hours. In the morning, we unloaded and placed an entire truckload of foundation forms by hand. In the afternoon, we dug out the ground for a new garage pour, by hand. Then, a full truckload of gravel showed up, and we spread it, by hand. I fell asleep in the truck on the way back to the yard. The next day, the owner approached me, gave me $100 dollars cash, and thanked me for my service. That was it. Career over. I spent the $100 on a new suit. I didn't know what I was going to do for a job, but I knew I wanted that suit as my work clothes.

sliverstorm 16y ago
To clarify, you quit, or he fired you because you fell asleep?

j2d2j2d2 16y ago

I used to work for Bear Stearns. I was thinking of quitting before the crisis hit but had to stay and watch after the day our stock value dropped to $2 a share. By the time I left I really hated working there. I tell some of the story here: http://j2labs.net/blog/2010/jan/11/economies-pools-and-piss/ http://j2labs.net/blog/2010/jan/11/economies-pools-and-piss/ Anyway, when I moved out of the apartment I had, near Wall St, I threw out my suits. I told myself I'd never take a job that required a suit. The suit felt like a hollow nod between business men that the appearance of success was to be regarded just as highly as the ability to succeed. I'm less hostile to suits today, but I much prefer to do business with the types of people that also don't like wearing them.

niccl 16y ago
Most of the time I work as a contract software and hardware engineer. I usually wear Jeans and a T-shirt for that. Sometimes I take a short contract doing my old job of management consultant. Then I tell the client I'll wear a suit if they want me to, but I charge $30 per hour more if I do (around a 20% premium). I make it clear that they get the same advice and analysis no matter what I wear. Every client has paid the extra. I'm sure it says something about something, but I'm not really sure what.
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  I really have to disagree with this attitude. Suits are the great equalizer of clothing. They're designed to downplay the wearer's bodily proportions, and it's very hard to look bad in one. Most people can't tell the difference between a cheap suit, well-tailored, and an expensive one. The suit-and-tie pattern visually draws the eyes toward the wearer's face. Aside from these things, they have very little detail, and that's why they were the post-Depression standard businesswear in America, replacing things like morning coats and top hats and stripey pants. Computer guys usually don't wear suits because they don't want to spend the extra time and money on them. That's fine. But it should be understood that the typical business casual getup is often visually more distracting than a suit, and does not emphasize the face over the body like a suit does. You'd be better off just charging everyone $30 extra, and always wearing the suit.

bediger 16y ago

Another PR Hit for Men's Wearhouse, eh?

tomjen3 16y ago
If it was, I do not mind. It was an interesting article of the kind that we want on hn. It should not matter who wrote it.

CallMeV 16y ago

I watched a TV documentary a few months back, which took a look inside the various tailors' establishments of Savile Row. Consider this: back then, these shops were the startups and entrepreneurs of their day, coming to the street with a few bolts of cloth and next to no money in their hands, spotting the needs of the customers and moving in to sell them a product specifically suited to their needs. The age of many of these stores speaks volumes of their capacity to read the market over the decades. Anyone who's ever set up a business and wanted it to last could do well to look at these businesses' example.

johnyzee 16y ago

The Suit is Back!