What $35.00 gets ya these days...

[Baron Kurtz]

I must say, "*****e covers" is a term stolen from a certain Mr. B. Tank.

I shall refrain from using the term in future ...

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Call them "bakelite pasties"! lol

 

[Amapola]

Call them "bakelite pasties"! lol

Tassels! Pasties!

I just have to say, that as "Mrs. Cabinetman" I will never look at his suit the same!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I have an orphaned DB that looks just like that one. Charcoal grey with chalk stripes. High button stance etc. Undated, untagged.

bk

 

[Jake Sullivan]

Nice!!

Nice............Lucky........Classy.............:eusa_clap

 

[Cabinetman]

...though i am certain that this will be '36 or '39...
bk

If the Union Label is any indication at all, you, Baron, have it right. Here's what I found to be the case:

I became conufsed by the "80" in the lower right corner, then remembered the copyright in my tan suit (after I looked again). Went back to the charcoal and...hey, there it is.

So, are the union labels indicative of the year the actual suit was produced or just the label?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Well, that settles it. The charcoal double-breasted suit was made between 1939 and 1948. I'd narrow it down to between '39 and (at latest) '45.

The union label only indicates the period of years between one label and another. Union labels were not "updated" every year. For instance, there was no update between 1939 and 1949: suits made in, say, 1943 have the "copyright 1939" label in them.


.

 

[Cabinetman]

So, my tan suit probably shows a 1949 date? In person, it appears to be 1940, but if the label printing is accurate to your dating, Marc, it must be a "9" and not a "0".

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Those dates can be hard to read, but the answer is: 1949. Reason? Clothing union labels were not made with "copyright 1940" on them. Between 1939 and 1948, only one version of the label was made: it said "copyright 1939" on it. Then, in 1949, it was replaced by the label saying "copyright 1949". This version lasted until 1969, when yet another label appeared.

In short, your tan suit was made between 1949 and 1968.


.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The copyright 1949 label was used until 1968, surely. I have a 1968 dated hand tailored overcoat with the '49 union label. Then they moved over to that horrid plastic thing one finds in most jackets in thrift stores (the one where the print has often been rubbed off).

Now, to the 1949 label. I've been trying to find info as to when the numbers (on the right of the label) changed from red print to black print. The older garments seem to have the red numbers; the newer stuff the black numbers. This may be my imagination. Does anyone have any more info on this?

bk

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I must say also, that the '39 union label above is the most meticulously stitched example i've ever seen.

Who made the suit? I'll bet it was a high end maker, to take that amount of time over stitching in the union label ...

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The copyright 1949 label was used until 1968, surely.

Quite right. I just amended my previous post to reflect this. Thanks!

 

[Cabinetman]

Okay, so we'll say the charcoal is '39 to '45. What do you say about the tan? I understand no older than 1949, but it couldn't be much newer, could it?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Another beautiful suit!!

A good example ... Notice the nipp ... ahem, top buttons. They are much lower set than the charcoal number.

Describe the details of the suit - how is it lined? Are the seams finished with silk or rayon ribbon? How wide are the lapels? etc ... These things will aid with dating - all with the proviso that without a written or typed date what we say are guesses (however educated), for the reasons given above by various posters. The union labels get us to general dates. Specifics are almost impossible. There are suits from yesterday that look just right for 1930.

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

My guess is that the tan suit is from between 1949 and 1952.

Take a look at photos of the McCarthy hearings, or of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in general. (He was fond of wearing double-breasted suits.)

 

[Cabinetman]

A good example ... Notice the nipp ... ahem, top buttons. They are much lower set than the charcoal number.

Describe the details of the suit - how is it lined? Are the seams finished with silk or rayon ribbon? How wide are the lapels? etc ... These things will aid with dating - all with the proviso that without a written or typed date what we say are guesses (however educated), for the reasons given above by various posters. The union labels get us to general dates. Specifics are almost impossible. There are suits from yesterday that look just right for 1930.

bk

Hey, BK. The "Union Label" thread prompted me back to read yours and Marc's last few comments. Regarding details inside the tan, I will check on that this evening (I hope) and post, perhaps even with a picture or two.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

excellent.

bk

 

[Cabinetman]

Describe the details of the suit - how is it lined?

Skeletonly - Sleeves, shoulders and front. Actually, is that in fact skeleton-lined?

Are the seams finished with silk or rayon ribbon?

Yes, and beautifully-so, I would say.

How wide are the lapels?

Starting at the peak and following the line to the gorge is 5-1/2".

Both lapels have a button hole, too, if that helps.

And here are some pictures...

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Beautiful. I'd say 1945 to 1952.

.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Very nice indeed.

bk