As a reenactor across the 16th/17th century period you were detailing a lot of my regulars and I am deeply disappointed that you believe people were not washing their undergarments. Their outer woollens would indeed be brushed and aired rather than washed to increase the lifetime of the item, but linens that sat close to the skin would be regularly washed and many techniques used to keep them clean and bright
We can actually learn a bit from the wigs. The powder acted as a form of dry shampoo, keeping the scalp clean without interfering with the hair's natural oils. Wet shampoo will dry out the hair oils, which is why it ought not to be used excessively, and why conditioner is applied alongside it. And the pomade used alongside the powder was so effective, we still use it today in one form or another. I've heard lawyers in England describe the feeling of wearing a wig as providing anonymity. It will make a younger man look older and more dignified, but blur the age of an older man, making him look wise. Wearing it today would make you stand out like a sore thumb, but in a context where others are wearing it, much like Black Tie, it would make every man feel as though he is well-attired and respectful of the event. And, Preston, regarding the wig, I think you can pull it off, ha ha.
Linen and hempen undergarments were washed *very* regularly and completely sanitized (by boiling) at least seasonally. There's a number of in-depth videos available on 18th century laundering practices, and Abby Cox has a video on how disgusting modern laundry is, by comparison. There are also numerous videos on sponge baths and how not submerging yourself in a kettle-heated bathtub every day does not equate to never washing. This is all widely available information. But to reiterate - undergarments were changed out frequently and laundered often. It's the other (usually woolen garments, frequently lined with silk or fur) garments that get reworn and don't get washed very often, except spot cleaning. And honestly, how often do you launder your suit jackets? I feel like this is an area where people wearing classic menswear really ought to get it in a way that people wearing t-shirts on bare skin might not.
In my country it was common for households to use cotton diapers up untill the 1980s. They were economical and only needed to be washed and boiled to be reused. Heck, some people do it nowadays too.
"...not submerging yourself in a kettle-heated bathtub does not equate to never bathing." So true! People have such an odd obsession with this thing. You really only need to bathe or shower daily if you're working long hours in dirty or physically demanding work. For the majority of us who aren't sweating profusely the entire day, these rituals are just overkill. It wouldn't be so bad if people weren't so uptight about this thing, with people acting like if you even shower every other day, you're some sort of dirty pig. It isn't even healthy to shampoo your hair daily! I'm just not sure what sort of filth or immense odor people assume they're getting by being in an office and car all day.
Are you trying to say that people in the XVIII century were cleaner than us? I don't think so! Also, who had the time and resources (plenty of wood) to boil water just to "sanitize" some garments? Really clean people must have been very scarce as the prevailing idea was that bathing or washing was no good for your health.
I sanitize my kitchen sink and tools by boiling water (scalding). Actually, I think boiling undergarments or bed linen will come back as diseases are evolving and spreading very fast (as seen during CoVid).
I won't defend the mass market polyester of the 1970s but I do think the tailoring has merit. A sort of playful hyper-masculine take on the suit that is probably closer to the classic 30s silhouette than our modern stuff. I'd take flares over anything described as skinny to be honest.
1. Why don't we like the chaperon? I quite like the look! 2. I am curious about your source for the origin of the chaperon. I've seen the same explanation for its origin presented as a theory by Jason Kingsley on RU-vid, so I would be curious to know if he was the source of that (perhaps he deserves accreditation in that case) or perhaps both GG and he got the idea from the same place, or some different other places, etc. I only mention because, as far as I recall, Kingsley presented the idea as a product of his own personal speculation, so if indeed it was, I feel he deserves a shout! 3. Small point, but during the discussion of breeches, Preston is discussing court uniforms, whilst the image depicts what I understand to be the men-at-arms at the House of Commons.
A couple of historical footnotes: The term "Powder room" derives from the fact that wealthy people often had a closet devoted to powdering their hair so that said powder wasn't drifting all over the bedroom. Second, before the discovery of germ theory in the early 19th century, people thought disease was carried by bad odors. It was not practical for people to take full baths, and at times people did believe that dunking oneself in a tub of water. That's not surprising given that this would have been dunking yourself in tub of , at best lukewarm water in a poorly heated room. They were concerned about body odors and sponged off important areas on a regular basis. That is what a wash basin and pitcher (for hot water) is used for. While nice outer clothes made of expensive fabrics were rarely ever washed, the long undershirts, intended to protect their outer clothing were washed as often as people could afford to do so. Wearing an obviously stained shirt was a distinct mark of social inferiority.
Breeches and stockings were absolutely epic, I don't get why you put them on the list. Very aesthetically pleasing items. They may look feminine from the more modern perception of masculinity that was solidified in the 20th century, but when you look outside of that - it's rather very pretty stuff.
@@Bebronyoukh GG have in recent years toned down the snobbery and endorsed individuality. Instead of "This is the proper way and every other way is wrong", it's "This is what we consider best, take from it what you like, but it's no gospel (unless it's black or white tie)." It's not clickbait in the sense that they don't deliver what's in the title, but the whole video is meant to get views with its sensational attitude. I do understand why they did it, but it's sad they had to do it.
If you enjoy wearing breeches and stockings, we applaud you! The video is meant as a fun way of looking back at historical menswear in the same way we all look back at old photos of ourselves and go "wow, did I really used to wear that?!"
In my country it was common for households to use cotton diapers up untill the 1980s. They were economical and only needed to be washed and boiled to be reused. Heck, some people do it nowadays too.
I disagree that breeches and stockings were a fashion fail. They even sorta made a comeback in the 1920's for sports wear, although with looser fit pants. I think they're a more stylish alternative to modern day shorts. Although the 1700's version with a frock coat was a very different look from the modern suit, I've always thought that was a neat looking style. Otherwise I agree with this list.
I love this thanks for the playful video!! Who knew that watching a RU-vid could change my fashion game for the better?! Thanks to Gentlemans Gazette, I'm finally stepping up my style game and feeling like a true gentleman. Keep the videos coming!
I don't mind the breeches and knee high stockings, but, the codpiece... I don't need that glaring out at me all the time! This codpiece thing was news to me! How did it get the name? Do barristers in the UK still wear powdered wigs when trying a case? This was so much fun Preston! Thank you very much! Lisa
Codd is Old English for a pouch or sack (which by Middle English is ... the kind of sack a fella's balls come in). So, a codpiece is a piece of clothing for one's codd!
Etiquette consultant here: Shirts are still considered underwear today. There is a story of a Savile Row tailor who had a new hire. Tailors would remove their jackets to work. One of the tailor’s assistants had to send a message to another tailor across the street. He ran outside in his shirt and was berated by his tailor to never be out in public without his coat. Also, the reason we wear military style trousers today is because the Duke of Wellington was wearing his battle trews and was not let into a party, because he was not wearing the appropriate dress breeches at the time. After that, royal decree shifted from his experience gradually taking over the contemporary style.
I wouldn't call all of these "fails". Coifs were functional and served their purpose well, breeches and stockings were actually subtly elegant in the 18th century IMO and not that uncomfortable, ruffs are comparable to modern neckties and cravats (although the larger ones looked too showy and unpractical), and tie-on glasses don't seem that difficult to handle (especially if you know how to fasten your own cummerbund). Codpieces, poulaines and the nether-above-upper-hose look were definitely gaudy, and wigs were a tad too fussy to work with, though. Also, the idea that people were so unhygienic in the past is erroneous, people did clean their bodies and under garments regularly. Just because germ theory wasn't realized yet, it didn't mean people didn't see the value of cleanliness.
Hi guys, massive fan for a long time. The "old money aesthetic" is becoming increasingly popular on many platforms like tiktok and youtube shorts with people aiming to achieve a classy, sophisticated but also very relaxed look usually with a classic country style shirt, knit sweaters, tweed and wax jackets and gilets (body warmers) for winter looks; alongside loose and unbuttoned linen shirts and shorts for the warmer climates, all from different brands. Can you address this style in your next video and give us some tips or do's or don't's? This would be helpful for the younger, more discerning gentleman who is exposed to such content on the daily. Also, would be great to have a video all about hunting style, its history and origins and rather nifty inventions and changes to garments in this subsection of menswear!
The dress has been _the_ default unisex clothing for humanity for most of its history. Many cultures worldwide have a men's clothing style that could be considered a dress in different circumstances. For example: The toga, chiton, kilt, kurta, poncho, yukata/kimono, sarong, justacorps/cassock/habit, boubou, gho, deel, fustanella, thobe/thawb, etc... Even the 18th century long coats worn by the most prominent men of the period were called "frock coats" because they resembled "frocks" or dresses. Even the basic word for putting on clothing of any type is to "dress."
This might be sacrilegious for this channel but... we might need to face the fact that the necktie will be on a list like this in the near future. The necktie serves no practical purpose. It's now merely a decorative tradition that doubles as a status symbol - which is the endgame of all of those other fancy but useless status symbols on this list. At least the cravat served to protect your skin from your collar and vice-versa. Moving it to the outside of your shirt material defeated that functionality. I suppose a necktie covers up your shirt buttons, but that also is merely aesthetic.
Sorry but you quaff a tankard of ale. The head cloth is pronounced as Koif. Having worn most of these I can say that they're no more ridiculous than kippers ties, ripped jeans or winklepickers. They're just a fashion that goes a little too far.
People of these historical times would probably consider the modern men's suit plain and unembellished- as we're in a period of minimalism with western mens fashion at the moment. Throughout the past thousand years there's been a wax and wane of maximalist to minimalist styles. For example the Tudor ruffs with great slashed breeches began to give way to the knee high stockings and the ancestors of the modern trousers and shirt collars when the Puritans with their more conservative way of life were in charge. After that was the rise of the Tricorn with the Stewarts reign, which became huge wigs and long coats in the Georgian times. But by the end of the Georgian period, the wigs became smaller again, the suits figure hugging. This went through the Victorian age where the waistline dropped and the embellishments became few until finally landing on the styles which we've kept through several Windsor reigns- from after Victoria's death to the present. What we have today is just a visual few steps away from those things, and without the past what we wear and consider fashionable might be very different. Consider China or Japan, who's style of dress has evolved without western influence up until the Edo period (japan) and the clothes were built mainly upon straight squares wherein the signs of class were the quality of the embellishments on the fabric or the amount of layers one could afford was a far greater indicator of style and class. If we went in a time machine to them, to the ancient Romans, to the Elizabethans, they wouldn't drop to their knees praising our modernity and grace. They'd probably consider Us wearing strange garb from a far off distant culture, and wonder why we have squares of fabric in our pockets and knots around our necks with no gold or pearls to be seen save for maybe around the wrist. Anyway, the past is not so long ago and the future is not so far ahead haha, remember the foundations because nothing was made in vacuum, despite how in many other ways we are advanced. I wonder what our great grandchildren will laugh and point at if they saw pictures of us.
9:58 - D. Pedro II lived in the 19th century and the use of that kind of collar was just for ceremonial purposes. During his life he was known for his quite sober and discret way of wearing.
A fail today is not tucking in your shirt. It is lazy, looks either like a dress if too long, or you are hiding the fact that you have a belly. It is also a waste of a good belt or cinch trouser waistband.
Looking good. Actually thought lace would have made the list. There is a BBC children’s show called horrible histories which features sketches mocking the trends. In one sketch wigged Prince Regent George IV gets news from his man servant. Sire: I am afraid I have bad news. George IV: powdered wigs are not coming back?! He then shows off the padding to show off his ‘manly’ calves. Another sketch has a modern fashion guy redressing medieval and Georgian men with his bossy charm. At least you do not need to wear white make up and rouge to be aristocrat or permit bloodletting to get that pale complexion. Haha
Don't start making powdered whigs! Or I guess I shouldn't care. Make them if you want. If you can sell them, good for you. I might buy ties & socks from you if and when I can afford them. I do like how you have different tie lengths & the short ones are perfect for short men like myself.
I heard a theory that codpieces back then were used as a means to... ease the discomfort caused by one funny disease, the one Al Capone had. Also a funny historical fact regarding wigs, the king of Lithuanian-Polish Republic(that's the most direct translation from both Lithuanian and Polish btw), Michal Korybut Wyszniowecki actually had to get an approval from the country's parliament to wear a french style wig.
I had quite a laugh. This was without doubt the best episode ever, and rather educational too, who knows when one might decide to rattle up the faithful cogpiece again. Everyone will instantly know they are no devoted followers of the gentlemans gazette, that'sfor sure. Chapeau lads!👏👏👏
A note to whigs/Perücken. Years ago i was invited to a meeting of coin collectors. As Special Guest the Direktor of württembergian coin cabinet appeared . He showed a number of Taler coins from late 17th century, which had been produced by order of the same württembergian Duke. Most of the coin pictures showed his face and head with ,modern' french whig. But one coin picture showed him in Armour and with german style short cut natural hair. The coin was produced in wartime, and the Duke wanted to show: I am a brave german noble, who protects Germany against the French.
Nothing compared with what we women had to put up with just to fit in socitys trending , small feets , no waist, no head above,big inplants where ever on the body, putting on my weil now, Love history lessons with Mr. Preston , I will go back to the leaves some ancient folks wore..before they were thrown out from paradise...... funnny pfotos 😄what will tomorrows designer come up with, something for space , who will laugh or wonder why.....we dress for succses.......
as others have said under clothing was washed very regularly and one of its functions was to protect the outer garments which were more costly and made of largely on washable fabrics like silk and wool. Linen and then cotton shirts were certainly washed as well as underpants and under breechrs. I've worn these things for a great length of time myself and can testify that it's perfectly clean and comfortable and nobody regardless of time., Wants to stink.
Do not quit your day job to become a fashion historian. Your “information” was nothing more than a mass of ignorant stereotypes regurgitated with out any research into the truth which is EASILY available on the internet now a days. A gentleman should know better. Think about the myths perpetrated on the clothing you are genuinely knowledgeable and passionate about and how wrong they are.
Dear Gentlemen! Could you make a video where you discuss about shirts from Seidensticker (Germany)? In my opinion, they produce well fiting shirts with a quite high quality. I really like them. Thank you!
Best one I heard was that the tudor ruff was invented by Queen Elizabeth 1 to hide her Adams apple cos she was actually a dude!...and the thick makeup to hide the 5o'clock shadow lol🤣
You can't really fail in fashion in most cases. It's just a popularity contest and what is popular changes. It's ultimately arbitrary aside from practical considerations like ability to move, how easily you can wash something, how durable an item is, how expensive it is, etc. I go with what is popular enough in my time that is also practical in the ways i mentioned. If something becomes popular and is very expensive, i don't bother with it. If it's affordable enough and actually good quality while not making me stand out too much, then fine. Clothing doesn't matter much to me. I only follow a channel like this to see what trends there currently are. So i don't have to think much about it.
This one, sadly, I didn't enjoy so much. I'm a bit disappointed as I expected better quality of research from you tbh. I don't see why we would need another "people back then were soo dumb, we are today soo much smarter"-bs. History of fashion is first and foremost very interesting, because it shows us what solutions people back then with their resources found. As a second step we can give our opinion , if we like it or not, but I would rather know a bit more on why they were doing it this way. I.e. check out videos by Abby Cox and Nicole Rudolph, if you want to learn more.
Well. I don’t know. I don’t agree with some things. I have late 18th century and regency clothes and breeches are okay. There were roomier breeches and tighter breeches (for more formal occasions). But all had quite much space in in the back. Try to look to the original pieces. I wear breeches for historical events, balls and dance in them and the. Much more comfortable than modern skinny fit trousers.... especially jeans.
In 2150: "historical fashion mistakes of the 19th and 20th century. 1, the bowtie. These strips of fabric, often in bright patterns and colors were tied in a knot around ones neck similar to a collar. It was popular in the late 19th to early 20th but was still worn up into the mid twenty first century. I's quiet certain we can all be glad these are no longer worn.
I disagree with most of these choices powdered wigs are beautiful and all fashion from the 17th and 18th centuries is rather beautiful also Breeches and stockings are quaint and sweet as well but I do love most other vids on this channel but this one is not exactly aligned with my opinion.
The darker side of the story concerning powered wigs is Louis XIII went bald from syphilis so he started wearing wigs. The Stuart Charles II also starting wearing wigs for the same reason.
some controversial takes but it’s ok love you anyway preston this is a W in my bookk 😩😩😩😢😢❤️🧀👍🤮🎉🎉🎉🔔🔔‼️‼️👍❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️😍😍🥰🥰♒️🔯🔯♍️✡️♐️🔯♋️🖤🖤🤍💕💔💞🏹🏹☕️☕️❌⭕️❌⭕️❌⭕️❌⭕️
