The London Lounge

The Frock Overcoat or Albert Top Frock

In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the frock coat established itself as the correct form of daywear full dress coat, displacing the dress coat to the status of evening wear.

It should also be made explicit that the word ‘coat’ does not traditionally denote outwear or an overcoat for outdoor wear. Tails coats such as the morning coat (day wear tail coat) and the dress coat (evening wear tail coat) are both coats, but are not outerwear. Coats can therefore be distinguished as either overcoats or ‘undercoats’ – although the latter archaic expression was used only in the early 19th century. The frock coat is an ‘undercoat’, and the top frock is an overcoat.

It is interesting that the frock coat may have evolved from a type of overcoat. Between 1820's to 1840's, a particular subtype of frock coat existed called the surtout that was half under-coat and half over-coat (Cunnington & Cunnington, The Handbook of English Costume in the 19th Century). Here is an example from an original 1854 Parisian fashion plate I have in my possession:




Notice that the wearer is wearing only a waistcoat underneath the coat, thus making it an undercoat, which is nonetheless three quarter length in a manner more typical of overcoat. It has features that are half undercoat and half overcoat.

As the frock coat became established as the Prince Albert for wear with daytime full dress, an overcoat known as either a “top frock”, or the “frock overcoat” emerged, cut to be worn over the frock coat. Cutting manuals state that a little measure should be added to the proportions of the client’s frock coat to make this overcoat.

It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that the frock coat is not an overcoat or outerwear. When outerwear was worn, the frock overcoat served this role:



As you can see, the wearer has on a shirt, a waistcoat, a frock coat and over that he wears his final outer layer, the frock overcoat. The fact that it is indeed an overcoat is further highlighted by the fact that the garment has a velvet collar in a manner still commonly seen on Chesterfield coats today. Other characteristic features of the frock overcoat were that it often (but not always) had outer side pockets. In other respects, the basic cut and proportion of the frock overcoat are usually largely identical to that of the frock coat, although it is always cut to be a little longer than the frock coat underneath so as to fully cover the undercoat.

In this plate, it takes a little careful study of the coat to determine if it is a frock undercoat or a frock overcoat:



The things that give it away as a frock overcoat (or Albert top frock) are that it has a velvet collar and the sleeves lengths are slightly on the longer side. Although the chest welt could occasionally be found on frock coats, it is much more common on top frocks. It is also notable that the construction of the vent is identical to that of standard body coats worn as undercoats such as dress coats or morning coats.

In this illustration, the frock overcoat has side pockets – a feature never found on frock coats:



Sometimes, the frock overcoat had vents constructed differently to that of the undercoat:



The fashion plate also shows the above figure from the front - in the centre of the following three figures:



Seen from the front it is clear that the figure wears both a frock coat and frock overcoat. This demonstrates that the figure on the right shows off from behind, a method of the construction of the vents unique to the frock overcoat.

This old German text describes in detail the construction of what it calls a Gehrock-Paletot or frock overcoat:



Notice the way that the back panel is cut without a centre seam, and how the waist seam has been extended all the way around to meet at the centre back (between the buttons at the letters 'c' and 'a').

One AA/Esquire illustration that has engendered enormous confusion is this one. The wearers are in morning dress, and the overcoat of the figure on the right is described as a “paddock coat”.



Let us investigate in detail as to whether an error has been committed in calling this overcoat a “paddock coat”. The only detailed reference that explains what a paddock coat is found in Cunnington. The Cunningtons explain that some people in the late 19th century differentiated between the paletot and the paddock coat. The paletot properly had a side body, whereas the paddock coat lacks it. Cunnington states that the paddock coat is:

A long overcoat without a seam at the waist, made D-B or S-B and fly front

However, in common usage the term paletot was used for both. The important point is that the paddock coat (and paletot) was a sports overcoat that lacked a waist seam, and was never considered formal enough to wear with morning dress.



Let us look carefully at the illustration in concern:



It is quite clear that this is a body coat. The 6x3 construction is identical to a frock coat except for the outer pockets – just as would be expected from a frock overcoat. Also, a frock coat is worn with morning dress – and morning dress is depicted in the illustration. The velvet collar is another typical feature of a frock overcoat.

The next question is whether the fact that they American authors call it a "paddock coat" could reflect a difference in the usage between British and American English. The Cunningtons always use British English. However, examination of texts from Croonborg (New York-Chicago, 1907) reveals no mention of a paddock coat. However, he does call an overcoat with a body coat construction like a frock overcoat a “double-breasted surtout”.



In British English, the word surtout became just another name for a frock coat after the 1850s. Salisbury (New York, 1865) likewise mentions no paddock coat and also calls such an overcoat version of the frock coat a "double-breasted surtout":



(Notice that Salisbury’s pattern has separately cut lapels, whereas Croonborg shows a one piece front, as was becoming fashionable around this time. Also, note the presence of the centre back seam and that the waist seam does not extend all the way to the centre back)

It seems that in American English the word surtout became restricted to describing a frock overcoat, whereas surtout became an alternative phrase for a frock undercoat in British English after the 1850's. The divergence in the usage of the term “surtout” argues for the origin of the later Victorian frock coat from a coat that was half overcoat and half undercoat. Nonetheless, it is clear that there was never a historical precedent in American English to call a double-breasted body overcoat a “paddock coat”.

It there was finally one last thing that must cast grave doubts on the term “paddock coat” in this usage, it must surely be the fact that a “paddock” would be a most peculiar place to wear such a formal full dress garment. The name automatically implies a country styled casual garment rather than a formal city garment.

The only logical conclusion is that the writers have made a rare mistake in this instance. The American writers in AA/Esquire should have called it a surtout. It is perhaps related to the fact that the garment had become increasingly rare at the time of printing, and the writers were unfamiliar with the correct terminology. At the time of writing, both paddock coat and frock overcoat were becoming extinct and the difference between them may have been lost on the authors.

The next question is where such a garment could be worn. Originally, the frock overcoat was strictly worn only with daytime full dress and could not be worn in the evening, when an opera cape or Inverness cloak was required. However, this 1902 British dress chart makes it clear that it increasingly became acceptable to wear a frock overcoat with evening full dress:



Purist would have likely objected to this detail on this chart, insisting instead that a proper overcoat devoted to evening dress be worn such as an Inverness cloak or opera cape, which was loosely fitting to avoid disturbing the dress clothes underneath.

However, the frock overcoat remains - even to this day - a bit too formal a garment to wear with a lounge coat. In the daytime, the bare minimum level of formality would be that of a morning coat. The Chesterfield is much more suitable and a better match with the modern lounge coat. To reflect this American tailors used to call a Chesterfield an "over-sack" and a lounge coat a "sack coat" - terms which merely reflect their construction without a waist seam, so that they were not close fitting "body coats".

Those interesting in bespeaking a frock overcoat, should consider having a frock coat made up first. Once satisfied with your tailor’s pattern for the frock coat, a small measure can be added to the pattern of the overcoat. The above patterns from Salisbury and Devere may be used as the basis of your overcoat. Being a body coat it is cut to follow the contours of the body closely. There are two show buttons on the back, as is usual with body coats. The vents may be finished in the previously discussed manner with a back panel lacking a centre seam, and the waist seam extended to meet at the centre back, according to taste. Further details of this alternative method of construction can be found here:



The most typical colour would be black, but the suggestion to use dark navy is an interesting and highly tasteful one.

Dear Sator,

Yet another encyclopedic post - very interesting!
I would like to make a few notes on the reproduction of the table with the appropriate dress for various occasions:
- always white shirts, except with sport dress. Ou sont les neiges d'antan...
- the DB lounge coat appears only as a SPORT dress alternative (apropos previous debates on its level of formality)
- for full evening dress, the waistcoat is to be SB if white (pique) and DB if black. Is the latter of alternative still worn today?
- what would a Raglan Chesterfield look like? Any different - perhaps in cloth and colour - from what we understand today to be a Raglan?
- waistcoat for informal (semiformal today) dress always in same cloth (!)
- informal (dinner suit) evening trousers may also have no braid.

Costi wrote:Dear Sator,

Yet another encyclopedic post - very interesting!
I would like to make a few notes on the reproduction of the table with the appropriate dress for various occasions:
- always white shirts, except with sport dress. Ou sont les neiges d'antan...

Good point: when was, for instance, colour added to morning dress?

Costi wrote:- for full evening dress, the waistcoat is to be SB if white (pique) and DB if black. Is the latter of alternative still worn today?

Yes; I have one. You could even get them in RTW;

Oliver Brown still does a single breasted one.

Costi wrote:- waistcoat for informal (semiformal today) dress always in same cloth (!)

Well, in 1902 they would not have been yet at the stage of dressing up black tie with white waistcoats for the ladies etc. (they would have always dressed appropriately whenever possible). We still follow this one really in the evenings (I have never seen a white waistcoat with black tie, but I have seen black). I am rather surprised to see under "Business and Morning Wear" that the waistcoat matches a morning coat always. In 1902, the morning coat was not very recent (maybe in London, but not elsewhere), but could this still be a holdover from the black/matching waistcoats with frock coats of the late Victorian era?

Costi wrote:- informal (dinner suit) evening trousers may also have no braid.

Informal really meant it then. Consistently, as one formal style gets abandoned and the next one down promoted, it gains more formal features; cf. Edwardian notch lapels on what is now the top of the pecking order.

In fact, talking of encyclopaedic posts, I notice that the wikipedia overfrock article is a bit bare. Can I stick your post up there Sator (better than nothing)? The frock coat article is looking particularly good.

EDIT: picture from website obviously not DB; sorry for wacky text. Here is my own better illustration of this style:

A pretty good example of a white evening waistcoat with a DJ and black tie is on the founder of Buck's Club (Herbert Buckmaster) in the club portrait of him. There was also a specific evening top coat (I once had a vintage example) with silk lapel facings and silk buttons. The best illustration that I can immediately find is of Duff Cooper when British Ambassador to France. I will post it later.

There is one slight complication in the use of 'frock' because Alternative Court Dress was a variation on a theme of white tie and sometimes this was referred to in publications authorised by the Lord Chamberlain, as 'full frock' - since although it is abbreviated in front, the swallow-tail evening coat is in its construction, a type of frock coat.
NJS

Similar in construction, but apparently different. Wiki (i.e. Sator) says the tailcoat derives from the dress coat, which derives from the frock (a different garment earlier still), while the frock coat is similar in construction, but started off with no waist seam, and is of fundamentally different (military) origin.

That is a fascinating extra detail anyway. I suspect we are so muddled with our frocks, trying to neatly order our histories into timelines of development, and work out which 'family tree' the terms refer to at point in time, that we rather over-analyse a much less neat mingling. Why should we think that they paid attention to the original origins of a coat in the Regency, if they ended up being cut similarly?

Thanks sator for writing this short essay about the frock overcoat. Historical knowledge is usefull for us today because it makes us understand today's garments better.

Now, It may seem like a stupid question but, could you resume your long explenation of what coat/overcoat the man in the AA/Esquire illustration is wearing? I've read the explenation, but I don't really get what your conclusion is. Paletot, paddock, surtout, chesterfield, frock overcoat, frock (under)coat... So many terms it gets confusing. The waist line means it's an undercoat, right? But it's not a frock (under)coat, is it? If it is it breaks many rules of the classic frock coat. I also don't know how the writers got it wrong: is it that they thought the coat was something that it isn't (paddock), or that the name used in the 30s for that garment had wrongly changed into paddock, or what?

NCW - interesting that you mention the military because Gieves & Hawkes (whose founding businesses claim many innovations, including pith helmets) say that tail coats derive from RN officers' coats, dating from 1748. As for the photo which I pronised above on the diversion. Here is Duff Cooper in evening top coat:


And back on topic of formal top coats, here is Grand Duke Michael of Russia in a fur top coat - probably Imperial blue Russian sable. Such coats (in a wide variety of combinations - including persian lamb, musquash and mink were seen on men in the field - there is a photo of Churchill boar hunting with Coco Chanel in such a top coat (Getty image no. 2665814) - in the like of which he had also appeared on the steps of 10 Downing Street (Getty image no. 2665759)).
We mustn't forget that the fashion and etiquette guides were aimed mainly at the middle classes out on a spree because, for the ruling class, the repositories of wisdom on changing fashion were largely their own knowledge and that of their valets and maids. I certainly accept that these guides surely accurately reflect the fashions of the times but they reflect the actual practices in vogue rather than originally prescribe them and are not necessarily exhaustive.
Might I add my voice to the others that the meticulous development of sator's exposition, with patterns, plates and tables and explanation, be preserved in a readily accessible form - did RWS not mention a 'sticky'?

Grand Duke Michael:
[/img]

NJS

storeynicholas wrote:We mustn't forget that the fashion and etiquette guides were aimed mainly at the middle classes out on a spree because, for the ruling class, the repositories of wisdom on changing fashion were largely their own knowledge and that of their valets and maids. I certainly accept that these guides probably accurately reflect the fashions of the times but they reflect the actual practices in vogue rather than originally prescribe them.

Excellent remark, NJS, if I may. And so we return to ELEGANCE and TASTE OVER RULES, which is what the LL is about. The ruling class (if any!) today is unfortunately in no position to carry the function you describe. Valets and maids no longer exist with that meaning. Most fashion designers care about personal glory and commercial success; for them, an individual with personal tastes and some education on matters of dress is a dangerous rebel. Tailors know some things about dress, but they know more about clothes than dress. Except for a few good dressers out there, who carries on the flame of good taste? Who continues to create and combine cloths, cuts and accessories for an elegant look? Paying attention to dress has come to be regarded as a frivolous occupation. Indeed, fashion has made a frivolous whim out of a basic need to be well dressed. How many people understand how they can dress well (and what that means!) other than buying ready-made, labelled outfits? Perhaps this is not the best place to discuss it, but your remark just made me wonder...

Costi wrote:

storeynicholas wrote:We mustn't forget that the fashion and etiquette guides were aimed mainly at the middle classes out on a spree because, for the ruling class, the repositories of wisdom on changing fashion were largely their own knowledge and that of their valets and maids. I certainly accept that these guides probably accurately reflect the fashions of the times but they reflect the actual practices in vogue rather than originally prescribe them.

Excellent remark, NJS, if I may. And so we return to ELEGANCE and TASTE OVER RULES, which is what the LL is about. The ruling class (if any!) today is unfortunately in no position to carry the function you describe. Valets and maids no longer exist with that meaning. Most fashion designers care about personal glory and commercial success; for them, an individual with personal tastes and some education on matters of dress is a dangerous rebel. Tailors know some things about dress, but they know more about clothes than dress. Except for a few good dressers out there, who carries on the flame of good taste? Who continues to create and combine cloths, cuts and accessories for an elegant look? Paying attention to dress has come to be regarded as a frivolous occupation. Indeed, fashion has made a frivolous whim out of a basic need to be well dressed. How many people understand how they can dress well (and what that means!) other than buying ready-made, labelled outfits? Perhaps this is not the best place to discuss it, but your remark just made me wonder...

Thank you, Costi - I had amended my remark to accept that the guides did acccurately reflect the practices of the time (not just 'probably') and I also added that the guides are not exhaustive - indeed the option of the versatile fur top coat in the guide in this thread is omitted; maybe because those at whom the guide was aimed would probably not have seen it as an option for them. Because rules are, now, fewer and less observed, the importance of the LL (and similar places) is underscored. I agree with a remark, elsewhere, that the LLis the very best such place but, even if it were not, it would be, at the very least, first among equals. In the absence of rules (whether they are good or bad is a separate debate), all that we have left is historical references, the skill of sator and etutee to put the threads together for us and our own exercise of discretion as to what, for the time, place, occasion and company is suitable or tasteful. I think that, when there were more rules all, except the admired innovators, would have been regarded as frivolous in dwelling on (even agonizing over) the possibilities presented by each occasion. The whims of fashion are plainly frivolous and vapid - there is a mention recently that some SR firms are routinely putting in visible labels over the inner pockets now - but the fashion houses put the labels on the outsides. Borsalino hats are fine hats, no doubt, but do they really ever need to embroider the ribbon with their famous name? The hats speak for themselves. The need to be clean and well-dressed is, for many people, a normal human wish - otherwise there would not be fashion houses. Plainly, the days of white tie for dining every day in Cambridge colleges have gone and are not returning - the practice was suspended in WWI and I am sure did not revive. As clever and unfrivolous a man as Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch regretted the suspension because dressing for dinner (which, after all, is not just having a good feed) was a recognition of the 'chief civil ceremony of the day' - in company of others; an outward manifestation of their comity of purpose. This leads to the realization that those people really did live each day as though it might be their last, which is my main greatest ambition - the aim of being well-dressed should apply all the time even if I have to smile ironically as I consider what I am wearing now!
NJS

storeynicholas wrote:Plainly, the days of white tie for dining every day in Cambridge colleges have gone and are not returning - the practice was suspended in WWI and I am sure did not revive.

Unfortunately it did not. Our daily formals are only black tie optional, even at weekends. We only have white tie dinners a couple of times a term.

Going back to NJS' comment that the magazines "...reflect the actual practices in vogue rather than originally prescribe them", I can see his point, but I am not sure it is quite true. Flusser mentions somewhere that AA was instrumental in introducing new colours, through a process of consultation with designers to work out who should wear the colour, what articles should use it and where, how to combine it with other colours, and so on; then educating the retailers on how to sell it, and through large AA features the consumers on how to buy it; finally ensuring availability in shops roughly uniformly to avoid the fashion chicken-and-egg problem. It seems to me that they were capable of prescribing as well as describing. Were not Norwegian shoes brought to America specifically by Esquire as well?

The original comment still stands, of course; I see it that more education and less active engagement from those who would otherwise be style leaders were powerful conservative forces.

It is, to some extent, chicken and egg - as the magazines obviously, had some considerable influence but I was concentrating more on the tables, manuals and guides than on the magazines (although I did not make that very clear). The failure to revive white tie and the half-hearted black tie alternative probably owe as much to expense and practicality; the speed and pace with which we are determined to live as much as anything - but I am pleased that you plainly agree the point that communal dining involves a ceremony and (within reasonable limits); even regardless of the fine specification of the attire, long may that spirit continue! it is, though, cheering to know that white tie does, to some extent, endure.
NJS

Guille wrote:
Now, It may seem like a stupid question but, could you resume your long explenation of what coat/overcoat the man in the AA/Esquire illustration is wearing? I've read the explenation, but I don't really get what your conclusion is. Paletot, paddock, surtout, chesterfield, frock overcoat, frock (under)coat... So many terms it gets confusing. The waist line means it's an undercoat, right? But it's not a frock (under)coat, is it? If it is it breaks many rules of the classic frock coat. I also don't know how the writers got it wrong: is it that they thought the coat was something that it isn't (paddock), or that the name used in the 30s for that garment had wrongly changed into paddock, or what?

Sorry, I've been away for a few days.

Simple summary:

The American AA/Esquire authors should have called the overcoat a "surtout" (American English) rather than a "paddock coat".

If they were using British English they should have called it a "frock overcoat" or an "(Albert) top frock". AA/Esky were American publications and they probably would have used American English where the word "surtout" was used for a frock overcoat. There is no evidence that frock overcoats were ever called "paddock coats" in American English.

The waist seam is common to both frock coat and frock overcoat. Frock overcoats are usually made the same as frock coats. The only difference is that they are cut a bit larger/longer to fit over the top of the frock coat, and may have additional side pockets, and velvet collar. Paddock coats were a historical type of sports overcoat that lacked a waist seam.

This AA/Esky picture has all of the features of a frock overcoat or Albert top frock (double breasted surtout to Americans):



1. It has a waist seam like a frock coat
2. It is fitted through the waist like a frock coat (ie it is a body coat)
3. It is double breasted like a frock coat
4. Has side pockets like an overcoat
5. Has a velvet collar like an overcoat
6. Is worn with morning dress
7. Made a little larger/longer than the morning coat* underneath - ie the skirt and sleeves are longer than the undercoat so as to completely cover it

*by "morning coat" I also include frock coats ie any undercoat** worn with morning dress is a "morning coat".
** undercoat: any coat that is worn underneath an overcoat eg a sports coat, a lounge coat, a morning coat, a frock coat, a dinner jacket, a dress coat are all "undercoats". The expression "undercoat" is archaic but useful to indicate that the term "coat" does not necessary denote an overcoat. The word "coat" in the expression "to be dressed in a coat and tie" indicates that the wearer has on an "undercoat" - not an overcoat. However, the word "coat" in "Chesterfield coat" always denotes an overcoat. Therefore "coat" sometimes means an "undercoat" and sometimes an "overcoat".

Costi wrote:Dear Sator,

Yet another encyclopedic post - very interesting!
I would like to make a few notes on the reproduction of the table with the appropriate dress for various occasions:
- always white shirts, except with sport dress. Ou sont les neiges d'antan...
- the DB lounge coat appears only as a SPORT dress alternative (apropos previous debates on its level of formality)
- for full evening dress, the waistcoat is to be SB if white (pique) and DB if black. Is the latter of alternative still worn today?
- what would a Raglan Chesterfield look like? Any different - perhaps in cloth and colour - from what we understand today to be a Raglan?
- waistcoat for informal (semiformal today) dress always in same cloth (!)
- informal (dinner suit) evening trousers may also have no braid.

I agree you could spend hours discussing that chart. I would love to have a go at making a modern version of it too.

For evening full dress the modern view is that the waistcoat should always be white. I have one mid-1950s English publication that is highly authoritative and which states that: a black waistcoat should not accompany "tails" . The italicisation of "not" is theirs, not mine. Black waistcoats are really now no more than livery, and must not be worn by guests. It used to also be acceptable to wear either black or white ties with evening full dress. An 1880 etiquette books, the Complete Etiquette for Gentlemen states:

"a black tail-coat , waistcoat and trousers, and white tie, although presenting a sombre appearance, are the proper wear, and, unless where eccentricity is apparent, prevail at the dinner table and at evening parties (two items in this costume which admit of discretion among "men who dress" viz., the vest and tie, both of which may be either white or black, without any infraction of the laws of "bienseance". This however must be settled by the taste of the wearer, who should remember that black having the effect of diminishing a man's size, and white that of increasing it, it would, therefore be judicious for a person of unusual size to tone down his extra bulk by favouring black in both these articles....we, however must confess a decided partiality for a white necktie, at least; because although subject to the disadvantage of being "de rigeur" amongst waiters, it is nevertheless always considered unexceptional at any season or hour, in any rank, profession or capacity...."

Edward VII began the trend to wear white pique waistcoats with informal dinner clothes, and all subsequent accounts mention this as being correct. Informal dinner clothes really were a casual form of evening dress, so more leeway was permitted.

Down to the last time that alternative Court Dress was prescribed (1937), it included a dark or white waistcoat with full evening dress coat. The Duke of Windsor's full dress evening coat (Scholte 1938) is in the Met Museum of NY and is midnight blue with black facings and a single-breasted midnight blue waistcoat. The dark w/c was generally for winter wear and the white for summer season wear. It would be unusual to see the dark w/c worn today (except by hotel waiters et al). I am surprised to read that black tie has ever been named as an alternative with tails since it is the distinguishing feature of a waiter's dress - but maybe there were different practices in different places. As I mention above, the white w/c with DJ and black tie is evidenced by Herbert Buckmaster's portrait - but I have yet to see a photograph or portrait of someone (other than staff) wearing a black tie with evening tails. Moreover, I see that the date of the book sator cites is 1880, and, although Henry Poole had made the precursor of the DJ for the then P oW in 1860, its existence and use was not brought out to popularity (from beyond small private social functions) until
Mr Potter and the Lorillards brought the item to Tuxedo Park in October 1886. So there is something of a mystery here!
NJS

Here is a 1914 film on which you can observe a mixture of black and white ties with evening full dress:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... film&vt=lf

Here is an example from the 1870s of full dress with a black bow tie:



I wish I knew what that thin, somewhat longer bow tie was called. Whatever the case, the passing over of black tie and waistcoat with evening full dress into the realms of livery is a relatively recent phenomenon.