![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Unmentionables
So there's been an ongoing conversation in my last post where helpful commenters have been posting what they know about Victorian men's undergarments, and I thought that *cough* purely for academic purposes, I'd post what I've gathered from those comments and from internet searching here.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
loupgarou1750 commented with this awesome information, the first I'd seen on this subject:
For roughly the 1st 3/4ths of the century, men's underwear was two pieces, typically made of cotton, wool or linen. The drawers were ankle length (obviously shorter than the trousers) or knee length (coming to a little below the knee.) The drawers laced up in the back, had drop fronts or a single button fly, and in the case of the short drawers may or may not have had a button closure at the hem. Undershirts were long sleeved or 3/4 sleeve, and looked more or less like a modern-day Henley undershirt. Made of same fabrics as drawers. Until the mid to late 19th century, underwear was handmade.
Late 19th century saw the advent of the union suit, one-piece, drop-seat, button fly, mass produced. The union suit was pretty much standard men's underwear until the 1930s.
Perhaps because I grew up in New England (or maybe it was just my family), I didn't know what a union suit was, so I went and looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently I've been calling union suits "long johns," even though according to Wikipedia, long johns are two parts (shirt and leggings) while a union suit is one.
loupgarou1750 also linked this incredibly useful pattern for men's drawers, with pictures, from the 1860's-1890's: Men's Drawers
www.gentlemansemporium.com says union suits "patented in mid 1850’s and became a Victorian wardrobe staple for the next fifty years."
From an article about "undergarment reform" in America:
Reformers turned their attention to undergarments, which could be modified without attracting ridicule. The "emancipation union under flannel" was first sold in America in 1868. It combined a waist (shirt) and drawers (leggings) in the form we now know as the union suit. While first designed for women, the union suit was also adopted by men. Indeed, it is still sold and worn today, by both men and women, as winter underclothing.
In 1878, a German professor named Gustav Jaeger published a book claiming that only clothing made of animal hair, such as wool, promoted health. A British accountant named Lewis Tomalin translated the book, then opened a shop selling Dr Jaeger’s Sanitary Woollen System, including knitted wool union suits. These were soon called "Jaegers"; they were widely popular.
This I found at The History of Men's Underwear at Manstouch.com. Most of the stuff I've found in articles just by searching seems to be about American fashion and not British... I'm not sure how much they overlapped.
In Victorian times men's undergarments were in two pieces and all undergarments were made by hand. Materials used were cotton through linen and even silk. In America, before the Civil War, from the waist down "drawers" were worn which were usually made of wool flannel, but could be of any fabric. The most common were knee length with a simple button overlap in front and a drawstring at the waist in the back. The preferred upper garment was a wool flannel shirt worn next to the skin.
The Industrial Revolution with the invention of water-powered spinning machines and the cotton gin made cotton fabrics widely available and saw the beginning of mass-produced underwear. For the first time, people began buying undergarments in stores rather than making them at home. The standard undergarment of this period for men, women, and children was the union suit, which provided coverage from the wrists to the ankles. The union suits of the era were usually made of knitted material and included a drop flap in the back to ease visits to the toilet. Because the top and bottom were united as a one-piece garment it received the name union suit. Hanes opened several mills producing 'union suits'. Originally made with ankle length legs and long sleeves, later versions were available in knee length versions with or without sleeves.
The name 'Long Johns', long skin-tight underpants, was actually first used for the long underwear issued to American soldiers during World War Two. The name is derived from the old boxing gear worn by John L. Sullivan, who was a boxer in the late 1880s, the height of his career being 1882-92.
From Revealing Men's Underwear:
By the Victorian era, undergarments were no longer were made of only linen. Cotton and silk became fashionable. In pre-civil war America, wool flannel underwear became an option. The most common underwear at this time was knee- length with a button overlap in front and a drawstring.
The Industrial Revolution permitted people to purchase underwear for the first time. The standard undergarment for men and women was the “union suit”. This garment originally covered a person from the wrists to the ankles and later became available in knee-length styles with or without sleeves. The union suit had a drop flap in the rear for convenience.
From Kalen Hughes, Romance Novelist (obviously this would be an important area to research!):
By the Renaissance men were wearing woven versions of both boxers and briefs (braies). By the Eighteenth century these had elongated to reach just below the knee (just like the men’s breeches) and were simply called drawers. They closed just like the trousers of the era, with either a button fly, or a frontfall, and they buttoned at the knee. Some men didn’t bother with drawers, they just tucked their shirttails over and under and called it a day. By the Victorian era trousers had replaced breeches, and men’s drawers also got longer (sometimes reaching the ankle). The Union Suit made its appearance in the 1890s (before which, some men wore a kind of chemise under their shirt, a layer of knit wool or cotton for warmth).
In a section amusingly titled "Getting His Pants Off," we find this:
When waistcoats and coats shortened in the late 1700s the closure was hidden by a flap that buttoned on either side like a bib (called a narrow fall or later, a broadfall as it widened). By the Victorian era men had returned to the classic front button fly which still endures today.
Finally, my Google search turned up a post on www.rootsweb.com that discusses Victorian men's undergarments in quite a lot of detail, but from the, er, tone of the post, I can't speak as to its accuracy. Adult matters may be discussed, it says.
And if you're really super-duper interested, there's always The History of Underclothes, by C. Willett Cunnington, available on amazon.com.
loupgarou1750 commented with this awesome information, the first I'd seen on this subject:For roughly the 1st 3/4ths of the century, men's underwear was two pieces, typically made of cotton, wool or linen. The drawers were ankle length (obviously shorter than the trousers) or knee length (coming to a little below the knee.) The drawers laced up in the back, had drop fronts or a single button fly, and in the case of the short drawers may or may not have had a button closure at the hem. Undershirts were long sleeved or 3/4 sleeve, and looked more or less like a modern-day Henley undershirt. Made of same fabrics as drawers. Until the mid to late 19th century, underwear was handmade.
Late 19th century saw the advent of the union suit, one-piece, drop-seat, button fly, mass produced. The union suit was pretty much standard men's underwear until the 1930s.
Perhaps because I grew up in New England (or maybe it was just my family), I didn't know what a union suit was, so I went and looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently I've been calling union suits "long johns," even though according to Wikipedia, long johns are two parts (shirt and leggings) while a union suit is one.
loupgarou1750 also linked this incredibly useful pattern for men's drawers, with pictures, from the 1860's-1890's: Men's Drawerswww.gentlemansemporium.com says union suits "patented in mid 1850’s and became a Victorian wardrobe staple for the next fifty years."
From an article about "undergarment reform" in America:
Reformers turned their attention to undergarments, which could be modified without attracting ridicule. The "emancipation union under flannel" was first sold in America in 1868. It combined a waist (shirt) and drawers (leggings) in the form we now know as the union suit. While first designed for women, the union suit was also adopted by men. Indeed, it is still sold and worn today, by both men and women, as winter underclothing.
In 1878, a German professor named Gustav Jaeger published a book claiming that only clothing made of animal hair, such as wool, promoted health. A British accountant named Lewis Tomalin translated the book, then opened a shop selling Dr Jaeger’s Sanitary Woollen System, including knitted wool union suits. These were soon called "Jaegers"; they were widely popular.
This I found at The History of Men's Underwear at Manstouch.com. Most of the stuff I've found in articles just by searching seems to be about American fashion and not British... I'm not sure how much they overlapped.
In Victorian times men's undergarments were in two pieces and all undergarments were made by hand. Materials used were cotton through linen and even silk. In America, before the Civil War, from the waist down "drawers" were worn which were usually made of wool flannel, but could be of any fabric. The most common were knee length with a simple button overlap in front and a drawstring at the waist in the back. The preferred upper garment was a wool flannel shirt worn next to the skin.
The Industrial Revolution with the invention of water-powered spinning machines and the cotton gin made cotton fabrics widely available and saw the beginning of mass-produced underwear. For the first time, people began buying undergarments in stores rather than making them at home. The standard undergarment of this period for men, women, and children was the union suit, which provided coverage from the wrists to the ankles. The union suits of the era were usually made of knitted material and included a drop flap in the back to ease visits to the toilet. Because the top and bottom were united as a one-piece garment it received the name union suit. Hanes opened several mills producing 'union suits'. Originally made with ankle length legs and long sleeves, later versions were available in knee length versions with or without sleeves.
The name 'Long Johns', long skin-tight underpants, was actually first used for the long underwear issued to American soldiers during World War Two. The name is derived from the old boxing gear worn by John L. Sullivan, who was a boxer in the late 1880s, the height of his career being 1882-92.
From Revealing Men's Underwear:
By the Victorian era, undergarments were no longer were made of only linen. Cotton and silk became fashionable. In pre-civil war America, wool flannel underwear became an option. The most common underwear at this time was knee- length with a button overlap in front and a drawstring.
The Industrial Revolution permitted people to purchase underwear for the first time. The standard undergarment for men and women was the “union suit”. This garment originally covered a person from the wrists to the ankles and later became available in knee-length styles with or without sleeves. The union suit had a drop flap in the rear for convenience.
From Kalen Hughes, Romance Novelist (obviously this would be an important area to research!):
By the Renaissance men were wearing woven versions of both boxers and briefs (braies). By the Eighteenth century these had elongated to reach just below the knee (just like the men’s breeches) and were simply called drawers. They closed just like the trousers of the era, with either a button fly, or a frontfall, and they buttoned at the knee. Some men didn’t bother with drawers, they just tucked their shirttails over and under and called it a day. By the Victorian era trousers had replaced breeches, and men’s drawers also got longer (sometimes reaching the ankle). The Union Suit made its appearance in the 1890s (before which, some men wore a kind of chemise under their shirt, a layer of knit wool or cotton for warmth).
In a section amusingly titled "Getting His Pants Off," we find this:
When waistcoats and coats shortened in the late 1700s the closure was hidden by a flap that buttoned on either side like a bib (called a narrow fall or later, a broadfall as it widened). By the Victorian era men had returned to the classic front button fly which still endures today.
Finally, my Google search turned up a post on www.rootsweb.com that discusses Victorian men's undergarments in quite a lot of detail, but from the, er, tone of the post, I can't speak as to its accuracy. Adult matters may be discussed, it says.
And if you're really super-duper interested, there's always The History of Underclothes, by C. Willett Cunnington, available on amazon.com.
no subject
If you click on the collections tab at the top, click on search collections and then put underwear in the search field you get this (http://collections.vam.ac.uk/indexplus/result.html?_IXFIRST_=4&_IXSS_=_IXFIRST_%3d1%26_IXINITSR_%3dy%26%2524%253dIXID%3d%26_IXACTION_%3dquery%26%2524%253dIXOBJECT%3d%26_IXMAXHITS_%3d15%26%252asform%3dvanda%26%2524%253dIXNAME%3d%26_IXSESSION_%3dmtb5396xNQt%26%2524%253dIXPLACE%3d%26_IXadv_%3d0%26search%3dsearch%26%2524%253dIXMATERIAL%3d%26%2524%253ds%3dunderwear%26%2524%253dop%3dAND%26_IXFPFX_%3dtemplates%252ft%26%2524%253dsi%3dtext%26%2524%253dIXFROM%3d%26%2524%253dIXTO%3d%26%2524%253ddelflag%3dy&_IXACTION_=query&_IXMAXHITS_=1&_IXSR_=58gPXEzYtC5&_IXSPFX_=templates%2ft&_IXFPFX_=templates%2ft) and this (http://collections.vam.ac.uk/indexplus/result.html?_IXFIRST_=5&_IXSS_=_IXFIRST_%3d1%26_IXINITSR_%3dy%26%2524%253dIXID%3d%26_IXACTION_%3dquery%26%2524%253dIXOBJECT%3d%26_IXMAXHITS_%3d15%26%252asform%3dvanda%26%2524%253dIXNAME%3d%26_IXSESSION_%3dmtb5396xNQt%26%2524%253dIXPLACE%3d%26_IXadv_%3d0%26search%3dsearch%26%2524%253dIXMATERIAL%3d%26%2524%253ds%3dunderwear%26%2524%253dop%3dAND%26_IXFPFX_%3dtemplates%252ft%26%2524%253dsi%3dtext%26%2524%253dIXFROM%3d%26%2524%253dIXTO%3d%26%2524%253ddelflag%3dy&_IXACTION_=query&_IXMAXHITS_=1&_IXSR_=58gPXEzYtC5&_IXSPFX_=templates%2ft&_IXFPFX_=templates%2ft) amongst others. I should mention that the British meaning of vest is undershirt, and what Americans refer to as a vest would be referred to as a waistcoat.
Hope that helps.
no subject
no subject
Certainly Union underwear is not something that you see in the UK, and I always saw it as a quintessentially American item of clothing, and rather synonymous with the frontier. And Hillbillies. Whether that was the case back then I don't know, but in the Victorian era America was seen as uncouth and uncivilised, so it's highly unlikely that there would have been any adoption of American fashion.
Also, wasn't union underwear basically worn all winter without being removed? I vaguely remember reading that the pioneers dealt with extreme low temperatures (which were far less common even in Scotland) by never taking of the underwear until spring. That wouldn't be the case so much in the UK, and certainly not for any Gentleman. Heaven forfend!
no subject
The Hillbillies-in-long-underwear thing, though, I've totally heard of that stereotype!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Love you! This is awesome!
no subject
no subject
Yes! *dances* I wasn't totally insane talking about drawstrings! *phew* But lord, EVEN MORE BUTTONS. As though the word "button" didn't show up in every single sex scene I write about a JILLION times, between jackets, waistcoats, collars, cuffs, shirts, boots and trousers. The unusual challenges of writing pre-central-heating erotica are many and varied, but mostly can be summed up by BUTTONS. *headdesk*
Something you could also mention, which I know from
no subject
The unusual challenges of writing pre-central-heating erotica are many and varied, but mostly can be summed up by BUTTONS. *headdesk*
AHAHAHA, I <3 you SO HARD. *giggles* I am of the distinct opinion that your treatment of buttons is so wonderful (read: hot) that cannot be made worse by the addition of more buttons.
I think you're right about the cuffs and collars (at least that they were detachable for washing). I know so much about Victorian laundry practices; it's kind of ridiculous ^^;;
no subject
I know so much about Victorian laundry practices; it's kind of ridiculous
And how many people will I ever meet in this life who could say as much? Just the one, like as not, so it's lucky that one is so utterly amazing <3<3<3
no subject
no subject
no subject
I have a friend who works in the costume dept of the V&A, but as he had a heart attack last week, I'll leave off picking his brain for now, poor lad. He would most def know though.
PS, the journal colour is kinda impossible to read
no subject
Do you mean my journal? On my computer, it looks like black text on a medium-light gray background, which I find easy to read myself, but I don't know about how it looks to other people.
no subject
no subject
no subject
This is the colour it look like to me
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
"Ack, someone's coming, throw this shawl over your head and pretend to be hysterical!"
BAHAHA, WIN XD That's seriously the best thing ever!