Use of Color in Victorian Men's Coats

[jruley]

(deleted by original poster)

[couch]

Very interesting indeed. I'm hardly expert on the sociology of dress in this period, but I had always thought that it was the death of the Prince Consort, Albert, in 1861 and Queen Victoria's subsequent mourning (she continued to dress very soberly the rest of her long life) that really began the change in tone. One would expect that wedding and formal dress, which always draw on the cachet of conservative (i.e., slightly archaic) forms, might well preserve some aspects of Regency and early Victorian style (the dark colored coat with light trousers and white weskit and neck linen) after day dress for business and civil service had already become more sober. This hypothesis seems to accord reasonably well with the dates in your examples, at least.

[Sator]

Quite right - in the early Victorian years the colours typical of Georgian/Empire period style such as bottle green or mulberry were still popular before black (or at least charcoal grey) became the predominant colour of morning, frock and dress coats. The young Disraeli is reported to have worn a bottle green coat to the House of Commons in 1837 but later reports comment only on a black coat. As for Dickens, he was widely considered something of a middle class pretender, a 'gent' but certainly not a 'gentleman'. He was criticised for wearing excessively gaudy colours. He probably caught this habit from a botched attempt at aping the extravagant style of Count D'Orsay.

Well before the D'Orsay era, Beau Brummell had already frowned upon anything other than dark monochromes, and when D'Orsay died in 1852, this short lived period of extravagance ended, whereupon the pendulum swung back the other way and the monochromatic severity of the mature Victorian style set in. Early in the Victorian era women too still wore green wedding dresses so it is little surprise that gaudy colours such as burgandy were permissible in men's wedding coats. And while there are reports of 'mulburry' being a fashionable colour in certain seasons they were certainly not worn with trousers of a matching colour. Suits with a matching top and bottom were only a feature of court dress.

Colours reflected the social mood of the time. In the early 19th C the mood was one of greater license - sexual license, wanton gambling and drinking were standard fare. In women's fashion it was said that "nakedness clothes a women best" and highly revealing thin muslin dresses were all the rage. D'Orsay might wear a "sky-blue satin cravat, yards of gold chain, white French gloves, light drab great-coat lined with velvet of the same colour, invisible inexpressibles [trousers], skin coloured and fitting like a glove and two glorious breast-pins attached by a chain" (Letters of Jane Welsh Carlyle, 1839).

The Victorian era ushered in a totally different mood which stressed the importance of social order, family and sexual license along with heavy drinking were frowned upon. The transformation in Disraeli's dress from the young man in the bottle green coat and extravagantly gaudy silk waistcoat, trying hard to dress a la D'Orsay, to the older statesman dressed in the black coat reflects this social change. At this point, the wearing of bright colours was frowned upon as being morally lax - or worse effeminate (homosexuality being regarded as criminal and the influence of the devil).

[Sator]

I have just looked up Cunnington and Cunnington as to what standard wedding attire was during the 19th Century. Keep in mind that this by no means reflects standard everyday dress but pertains only to wedding ceremonies.

1820-30s: A blue coat with gilt buttons... (World of Fashion, 1824)

1835: 'Dressed in light blue coat...' Dickens, Sketches by Boz

1840-50s: White blue dress coat with velvet collar... Black pantaloons

Early 1860's: Frock coat, blue, claret, or mulburry-coloured with or without velvet collar. Trousers of pale drab or lavender doeskin.

This is suitable for the bridesgroom or for any gentleman attending. Unfortunately invisible green and even black frock coats are occasionally seen at weddings but both are inconsistent with the occasion except in the case of the marriage of clergymen. Minister's Gazette of Fashion, 1861

Late 1860's: Short frock coat of blue diagonal, velvet collar. Dove-grey angola trousers

1870-80: Blue frock coat (morning coat gaining ground)

1880-90: There is no set style nowadays. The Tailor and Cutter, 1886.

1890-1900: Black frock coat faced with silk

Once again, I repeat that the colourful blue coats worn for weddings for much of the 19th C were clearly meant specifically for weddings. It is a far cry from suggesting that brightly coloured wedding coats with matching waistcoat and trousers (so called 'ditto suits') were ever worn in everyday settings. I stand by my assertion that in the mid/late Victorian and Edwardian era, amongst the middle to upper classes anything other than a black (or at least charcoal grey) morning or frock coat was regarded as foppish, effeminate and morally questionable.

[Baron Kurtz]

I was under the impression that Disraeli was mocked quite thoroughly in Parliament for his "dandy" dress and affected mannerisms. This shaming led to his adoption of the sober dress of his fellow MPs. Certainly that is how it was portrayed in the TV movie of his life featuring the immortal (:shock:) Lovejoy.

I wouldn't put too much store by how Dickens (a notorious, and wonderful caricaturist) dressed his characters - or any other author of fictions; descriptions from literature should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

So i pretty much concur with Sator.

'Course, if prevailing trends or proprieties the particular era don't bother you - as they tend not to bother me - all power to you.

bk

[jruley]

(deleted by original poster)

[Sator]

Yes, I have seen just one reference to navy being acceptable as a colour for a frock coat in a text. I have never seen it in real life or even in a fashion plate. The vast majority of texts mention only charcoal and black.

The trouble with old coats is that it is hard to tell sometimes if it is indeed the original colour. However, black does fade to a greenish colour.

Still, this is far from evidence that 'anything goes'. Nor does this suggest that navy was widely considered an acceptable colour, especially given that it remains uncommon compared to black. You might find a hot pink modern lounge suit but what you say to a future dress historian who concluded this was a typical colour for an early 21st century lounge suit?

[jruley]

(deleted by original poster)

[Sator]

Well, you've seen it now. In fairness this was the only colored wool coat of the period at that year's Conference.

However, a related question is this: Why did so many black coats survive? Is it because they were so common, or because they were most likely to be saved? If the latter, were they saved because they were the wearer's "best" coat and least often worn, while his "common" colored ones were worn until discarded?

Pardon me, rather than being so rude I should really thank you for posting that picture because it is truly a fascinating example which raises interesting questions as you mention. How on earth one would go about researching how common dark blue/navy was in that latter 19th C is a fascinating project on its own. Of course one still harbours nagging thoughts in one's mind about the possiblity that the original coat was a very blackish midnight blue when it was new.

The other thing is that Beau Brummell favoured "dark blue" for his dress coats. It is interesting that within a couple of generations this colour was to fall so steeply out of favour. I also find it curious that the word 'navy' is never encountered in descriptions of Brummell's coats - or any coats of the period. The names used for colours themselves seem to change with time.

[jruley]

(deleted by original poster)