Regency Costume (Men's) Help!

[MSTarot]

The 'whole nine yards' is timed about the first world war. It was the length of the belt of .303 ammunition used in a Vickers machine gun. The expression is an admonishment to give it ALL.


The Shoulder sash is actually part of the blanket carried when on the march.
It was, at one time, part of the material that made up the kilt and was, naturally, in the wearer's tartan. (or so I recall being told by a scots military expert!.

Yes the shoulder sash was a blanket. But the whole nine yard part, I think, goes back a bit further than 1917.

http://www.kilts-n-stuff.com/celtic-history/great-kilt-history.html

My lady wife has been trying to get me into a kilt for the longest time. There is a custom in the SCA for the ladies to kilt check the men to see if they are Regimental under their kilts. I don't know if it's just from a desire to do this to me herself or to see it done to me by another lady that has her interested in seeing me in a kilt.

My legs are far too white.

 

[ishtat]

It is a fob. Later on, but not in this period, fob watches were attached to them.

They were fashionable among dandies who might have one or several, but several would be considered vulgar display. They are a relic of the sword belt for attaching a slim dress sword.

It is possible that they were taken as an indication that the wearer is entitled to wear a sword i.e. is a gentleman, but swords were no longer worn in polite society except when in military uniform.

Og, I'll disagree that the fob was necessarily a relic of the sword belt. The earliest reference to a fob is about 1580 when it was a pocket located in the waistband of breeches, later trousers. It was for valuables, particularly money. As the dress or short sword was not yet redundant it made sense for this pocket to be located on the right side - opposite to the sword.

With regard to the waltz, that did not become really popular in England until post 1815 wheras Pride and Prejudice was written well before that. I suspect that fobs, fob ribbons (often exquisitely decorated) and later fob chains had been right sided ornament for some time.

How's that for pedantry. Perhaps we require one of Miss Heyer's hero's quizzing glasses to get to the bottom of it.

I have a gay friend who wears and uses a quizzing glass every day. It's an amazingly expressive extension of his personality

 

[oggbashan]

Kilt?

My mother's maiden name suggests that her male relations would be entitled to wear a kilt.

I won't for two reasons:

1. My family research of my mother's ancestors has found no evidence that any of them were Scots. There is a Welsh grandmother (everyone should have a Welsh grandmother) but all the rest are English until the family tree gets back into the 15th Century. Then there is a Spaniard from Pamplona, some relations from Provence in Southern France, and some from what is now Germany.

Of course, even for me, once the family history gets back into the 15th Century, proving the links becomes more and more problematic and the accounts are dubious.

2. It is considered socially unacceptable to wear your mother's clan tartan. My father and his ancestors have no trace of Scots descent anywhere, so I could only offend Scots people by wearing my mother's tartan, or refrain from wearing a kilt.

 

[3113]

Og, I'll disagree that the fob was necessarily a relic of the sword belt. The earliest reference to a fob is about 1580 when it was a pocket located in the waistband of breeches, later trousers. It was for valuables, particularly money. As the dress or short sword was not yet redundant it made sense for this pocket to be located on the right side - opposite to the sword.

With regard to the waltz, that did not become really popular in England until post 1815 wheras Pride and Prejudice was written well before that. I suspect that fobs, fob ribbons (often exquisitely decorated) and later fob chains had been right sided ornament for some time.

Okay, so it started out a pocket. That's useful and makes sense, but how does a pocket turn into a fob, an ornament dangling from a ribbon that serves no purpose? I mean, if it serves the purpose of indicating rank or position or wealth in some way, that's fine. But how does it do that? And who gets to wear such? And when?

 

[oggbashan]

Okay, so it started out a pocket. That's useful and makes sense, but how does a pocket turn into a fob, an ornament dangling from a ribbon that serves no purpose? I mean, if it serves the purpose of indicating rank or position or wealth in some way, that's fine. But how does it do that? And who gets to wear such? And when?

That's one of the quirks of fashion. Fashion was, and is, often used to show that one didn't/doesn't need to work to earn. A gentleman would wear fashionable clothes to demonstrate his wealth. A lady would wear impractical clothes that required a maid to help her dress.

Only people of substantial means could keep up with the trends of fashion.

Pockets (and fobs as pockets) were much earlier than the Regency period. A pocket was a small bag attached to the belt and generally worn inside the clothing. Women of the Regency period carried small reticules (a very small handbag). When the crinoline became fashionable, pockets were worn inside the distended skirt with a slit for access.

Gentlemen of the Regency period didn't need pockets. Anything they needed could be carried by their servant.

Why do men wear ties? What purpose do they serve? OK, some are signs of association e.g. Old School tie, Regimental tie, but they are useless pieces of clothing that indicate something perhaps that one doesn't work in a factory.

A Regency fob is like a modern necktie. It is useless, but means something to those who wear them.

PS. I, as Henry VIII, wear a large cod piece. It is useless but a sign of wealthy fashion. It is no indication of the size of the member behind it.

 

[3113]

Even silly and useless fashion has some reason behind it

That's one of the quirks of fashion. Fashion was, and is, often used to show that one didn't/doesn't need to work to earn. A gentleman would wear fashionable clothes to demonstrate his wealth. A lady would wear impractical clothes that required a maid to help her dress.

Og, I understand this. I'm pretty well informed when it comes to fashion. But see, that's the thing, I'm well informed enough to KNOW that even the most ridiculous, useless and even detrimental fashions start out somewhere with some reason behind them. Maybe even a good reason. Like something on shoes which protected them when the roads were bad, but as pavement came and this protection stopped being needed, it became a fashion statement. It's material no use for protecting, but good for indicating wealth and style.

Other things start off as statements in and of themselves. The woman whose garments lace up the back shows that she has servants. In a time when people venerate the Roman Empire, some take to wearing dresses that are their version of togas; in one-upmanship attempts, the outfits go to farther and farther extremes (aka, the Empire waist gets higher, the material thinner and more transparent). Eventually, there is a backlash. Meaning fashion goes in the opposite direction. Skirts billow out and become fancy, waist lines go down and down and down.

Thus the *reason* for a fashion may simply be as a backlash to a prior fashion. Puffed sleeves as a reaction to straight sleeves or straight sleeves as a reaction to puffed sleeves. But it didn't just happen randomly, out of thin air. A man doesn't just attach a piece of metal to a ribbon, hang it from his pants and suddenly everyone else is doing it. Even rulers start fashions because of something--like wanting to hide some flaw or show off some good feature and so they wear something that then becomes the fashion.

There is ALWAYS a reason behind the fashion even if it serves no useful purpose. Like ties, something that started off useful (keep the neck warm and protected) and turned into ways of indicating rank, association, etc. There was a code in how they were tied, and they went through many "backlashes" in regards to length and width. Which is all to say: I *get* that the regency fob is useless and a fashion statement. That doesn't tell me how or why it started which is what I'm after. Even the most useless item of fashion has a start and a reason behind it...even if that reason was that it started off as a joke.

 

[R. Richard]

That's one of the quirks of fashion. Fashion was, and is, often used to show that one didn't/doesn't need to work to earn. A gentleman would wear fashionable clothes to demonstrate his wealth. A lady would wear impractical clothes that required a maid to help her dress.

Only people of substantial means could keep up with the trends of fashion.

Yes, look what happened to Beau Brummel.

 

[oggbashan]

I've been doing some digging around.

I'm not as informed as I should be, because most of my former library on fashion is now in the Calais museum.

But:

1. The ribbon (fob) could be worn to hold a watch. The watch was too valuable and fragile to have on display. The fob ribbon was pulled to extract the watch.

2. Gentlemen had seals, or sometimes signet rings, to authorise a document. A sealed document could be a draft on a bank, so you could think of a seal or signet ring as the Regency equivalent of a pin number for a credit or debit card. The seal (or signet ring) could be on the inside of the trousers, attached to the fob. That could be instead of, or with the watch. Seals were very valuable because they were the means of identifying the user.

If the fob ribbon was to hold the seal or the watch it would make sense for the the fob ribbon to be on the right side for a right handed man.

I haven't found an illustration of a man wearing a fob AND a sword belt. Perhaps one exists. Too many of the illustrations on the net are not contemporary but from movies or re-enactment societies.

Fobs appear to come with the change from knee breeches to trousers. Initially trousers were for informal day wear only, and knee breeches were for formal occasions and evenings but during the Regency period trousers became more acceptable.

Fobs were a short-lived fashion in this form. Later trousers had side pockets and therefore a fob was unnecessary.

 

[3113]

Fobs appear to come with the change from knee breeches to trousers. Initially trousers were for informal day wear only, and knee breeches were for formal occasions and evenings but during the Regency period trousers became more acceptable.

Fobs were a short-lived fashion in this form. Later trousers had side pockets and therefore a fob was unnecessary.

Okay. Thank you. Now it's starting to make sense. So what you're saying is that the fob for holding a seal or watch took the place of a pocket during the time when knee breeches were in their last fashion phase and styled too tight for pockets. As trousers came in, the fobs remained. But vanished as the trousers, loser than the knee breeches (now relegated to formal occasions and/or old folks sticking to old styles) and able to have pockets took over.

Curious that the fob migrated from dangling on down the right leg into the right pocket (one presumes) and then on up to the waistcoat where we have the familiar chain and fob hanging from a button with watch in vest pocket.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Curious that the fob migrated from dangling on down the right leg into the right pocket (one presumes) and then on up to the waistcoat where we have the familiar chain and fob hanging from a button with watch in vest pocket.

Fob chains across the stomach weren't for gentlemen, but for those (shudder) in trade.

Gentlemen changed to more expensive wrist watches.

 

[3113]

Fob chains across the stomach weren't for gentlemen, but for those (shudder) in trade.

Gentlemen changed to more expensive wrist watches.

Ah. Very important distinction, thank you. Though, of course, with the rising middle class and the advent of Dickens whose best selling stories focused primarily on those middle classes, those with pocket watches became far more iconic as "Victorians" than the gentlemen with wristwatches.