I wear a gray wool sport coat with elbow patches when I travel, because it has pockets and even when shabby looks respectable - plus it keeps out the chill and rain. I have gotten my money's worth. In Ireland I bought a wool vest to go with it, but don't have much opportunity to wear that and worry I won't get my money's worth. I have decided to just wear it more often, and suddenly wondered "Is it also proper to leave the bottom button of a vest unbuttoned? I think so, but I don't know."
Then it occurred to me that I was taught to leave the bottom button of a suitcoat unbuttoned 65 years ago, and have long since forgotten who taught me that. Is it even true? Was that only the fashion around 1960 and I just never stopped? Search engines and AI are great for this kind of question. I am pleased to report that my instinct was right and the gentleman does leave the bottom button unbuttoned, both vest and coat.
5 comments:
It is proper, and has been since about the Victorian age; whether it was Prince Albert or his son who instituted the practice, and just why that prince preferred to leave it undone, seems to depend on the storyteller.
Indeed there are still other theories about it; my favorite is the horseback theory, which I can affirm both as an occasional rider of horses and a regular rider of motorcycles. Vests work better mounted with the last button undone; and a visible public reminder of one's equestrian origins would have fit with the self-image of the gentry of the era.
https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/waiscoat-button/
I read a passage in a book decades ago asserting that Victoria’s son, Prince Edward, was a notorious rake and as his girth increased the ladies began referring to him as “Prince Tum-Tum”. According to the passage it was Edward who started the fashion of leaving the bottom button open, mainly for his own comfort which, of course, became fashionable once he became king. No idea whether this is correct.
A century or more ago, it was said that a man should not undo the bottom button on his vest until he had made a million dollars. I don't know if this was a status symbol, relief for his paunch, or a sign that he was now beyond the dreams of avarice. I've lost my citation for this piece of trivia, but I remember it clearly.
$54,160 in 1926 would have been equal to a million dollars today, so I think most of us qualify.
I suppose you could run the numbers the other way, and say that you need to make a million 1926 dollars; that'll cut down on the number of people so entitled.
Post a Comment