Yes, the waistcoat/vest was part of a 'gentleman's dress in the 18th Century, it was, apparently colder than now and a thick 'top coat' was worn when walking out. The pockets were difficult to access, hence the need for waistcoat pockets.
View attachment 591115View attachment 591120
In tropical areas, or a hot summer's day, the top coat was often removed or not worn at all, especially in suitable climates. The soldier wore one too. In the 19th century and for many cavalry uniforms, the tailed coat and waistcoat was replaced by a 'shell jacket' without tails and buttoned up to the neck.
View attachment 591116View attachment 591117View attachment 591118
.......................................................................Before Crimea...................................................After Crimea
For the infantry there was a similar jacket, called a 'coatee', but still with tails to match the fashion of the day. A cotton or woollen shirt was worn beneath this jacket. Most countrys retained this dress until the middle of the 19th Century, the Crimean War being a real turning point, not only for Britain, but for many others too. Greatcoats were issued too - almost the same design for a hundred years or more and across all countries, substituting for a blanket in many armies.
There then followed the 'fatigue jacket' as well as the much more elaborate Dress Tunic worn with a shirt beneath with 'more discrete' and lighter uniforms for foreign use - the dreaded 'khaki'. It was often referred to in the British Army as 'Foreign Service Field Order' They would have worn the scarlet jacket for a European war.
View attachment 591119View attachment 591121
The nearest armies had got to camouflage before was, 'rifle green' for rifle or light infantry units for the very same reason - to make them harder to see. The Civil War was on the change too but, as I have certainly mentioned, it was a sort of halfway house in many aspects - and you rarely changed your uniform during a war or conflict in those days!
Brilliant post here. This is the general evolution of military uniforms over that century. The 1850s-70s in particular has always been an interesting one for me; as shown on other posts of mine, there is plenty of influence in dress uniforms ever since, from the post-Crimea patterns. As to uniform change; Civil War uniforms certainly changed a lot literally; those many entirely custom, one-off unique unit uniforms of 1861 for the most part lasted much less than you'd think. Uniforms in general were constantly needing replacement, with greater supply and issue than say, had been typical 50 or 100 years earlier. Uniforms in general didn't exactly all last anywhere near the year though, while Napoleonic or Revolutionary-era issued uniforms were expected to last much longer per issuance.
As another side note:
Yes, the waistcoat/vest was part of a 'gentleman's dress in the 18th Century, it was, apparently colder than now and a thick 'top coat' was worn when walking out. The pockets were difficult to access, hence the need for waistcoat pockets.
A topcoat is more or less syonymous with a form of overcoat, it's just a heavy, larger coat worn for cold weather. (Though sometimes it also just refers to an ordinary
frock, or
justacorps - that 18th century progenitor to the frock coat - i.e. literally just the coat on top as oppose to a waistcoat.) These are of course, for keeping warm, i.e. they are not summer wear. It would be quite a generalization to say all or most topcoats had difficult pockets to access - they were designed with huge ones - with waistcoats realistically appearing not out of necessity for more space to store objects, but entirely out of fashion - which does not necessarily need a meaning. They became a trend and spread, infamously from Charles II through the rest of the Western world - although they had existed with the French court beforehand. In the latter 17th through early 18th centuries, a "veste", "vest", "waistcoat" etc. often contained sleeves as in various surivivng examples - the discussion is well and good but it must be understood that this early period sees what is more or less just a
smaller justacorps being worn beneath a regular one.
(
On that note - in a mere 7 days from the time of typing, we will see the 360th anniversary of King Charles' resolution "declaring" the fashion, according to Samuel Pepys' diary in 1666!)
Anyways - Which is what "waistcoat" could definitely refer to between the 1660s and 1760s. Not rare to be sleeved. Partially, probably answering the thought here:
I've been wondering why men wore waistcoats regardless of weather (see picture "US Navy 100-Pounder Parrott Rifle Number 260 of USS Mendota" post #4, Sep. 1, 2026). Looked up history of. Seems to have started early in world history as a padded jacket worn under a breastplate, to protect the body from the hard edges of the cuirass. Charles II of England decreed in Oct. 1666 that the waistcoat (pronounced weskit) was thenceforth to be part of correct men's dress. By this time, it had become an often sleeveless, short, body-fitting garment of luxurious cloth, showing off the status of its wearer. Samuel Pepys, at that time, called it a vest. It was still popular in the mid-1800s (see the threads "Question About Confederate Waistcoats" and "Making a Commutation Waistcoat!"), probably because of its mandatory-status-symbol history. I can't think of any other reason for wearing such a garment. It can't be helpful to circulation, since it concentrates the body's heat where it is already greatest - at the torso. To promote proper health, it would be far better to clothe the limbs as much as, if not more than the torso.
In this period rather than necessarily, explicitly being sleeveless it certainly, and often came in sleeved variations, many indiscernible from working jackets of the day. this relationship continues into the 18th century.
I've been wondering why men wore waistcoats regardless of weather (see picture "US Navy 100-Pounder Parrott Rifle Number 260 of USS Mendota" post #4, Sep. 1, 2026). Looked up history of. Seems to have started early in world history as a padded jacket worn under a breastplate, to protect the body from the hard edges of the cuirass. Charles II of England decreed in Oct. 1666 that the waistcoat (pronounced weskit) was thenceforth to be part of correct men's dress. By this time, it had become an often sleeveless, short, body-fitting garment of luxurious cloth, showing off the status of its wearer. Samuel Pepys, at that time, called it a vest. It was still popular in the mid-1800s (see the threads "Question About Confederate Waistcoats" and "Making a Commutation Waistcoat!"), probably because of its mandatory-status-symbol history. I can't think of any other reason for wearing such a garment. It can't be helpful to circulation, since it concentrates the body's heat where it is already greatest - at the torso. To promote proper health, it would be far better to clothe the limbs as much as, if not more than the torso.
Read somewhere that there was a mini-ice age in the 18th Century and that it was colder back then.
As a final note - all of the ones I am making here are intentionally brief - I see many posts and statements within posts assuming a certain level of heat or intention of trapping heat here; my sources are few in this post - but the veracity of many of my statements I can assure are true; so, as another such statement - which is easily verified by half of the Revolutionary Wars-era reenactors out there,
who also tailor, or a museum curator/collection archivist or a similar profession with direct access to any original garments or knowledge beyond surface levels in the actual tailoring of the day - 18th century clothing is often unlined.. I.e. most of those nice long justacorps, whether the fat-cuffed fashions well known to the Golden Age of Piracy and French & Indian War-era or later American Revolutionary War, late-18th century styles -
they are all much less structured than typical coats a century later let alone today. This matters significantly. They are not overheating you for the most part; they were designed with everyday use in mind, that real people are wearing. Suits today may be a mess but the tailoring is not static. A 3-piece suit of 1770 complete with justacorps/frock, waistcoat and breeches may as well have as many layers as plenty of certain suit jackets today have. These are very breathable, and I think this is hard to imagine for anyone who has not worn accurate clothing or is imagining themselves wearing a modern suit as a reference for the comfort to expect.
I won't elaborate and go into the history of linings, which I could do of course... instead:
Now - fast-forward to the
1860s - waistcoats are much more related to those of today than the world of 100 or 200 years earlier. They are often a couple inches beyond navel height (21st century waistcoats seem almost
18th century in length whenever I see them now!).
Here is a waistcoat made about a decade prior to the Civil War, c.1850s with quite a high cut typical to this era, much shorter than is typical anymore 1861-65 that I am restoring for instance:
The trousers here are some generic light wool reproductions I own with no hose lining. The morning frock coat is a British 1866 pattern, that most memorably was described as having been popular for the past 3 years or so (i.e. c.1863 - the cut very similar to various famous images from nearby then - i.e. Lewis Carroll's images of
Dante Rosetti and family in October 1862 show Dante sporting a coat made to a very comparable pattern & James Tissot's 1864-65 painting of the
Marquis of Miramon & family shows a similar pattern was used. In this coat in particular I extended the proportions of the lapels greater than the pattern among other alterations to my own design.)
The shirt is a textured flannel cotton. The cravat a 20" handmade satin-silk substitute material. The coat, entirely structured complete with heavily padstitched canvas, at least two internal layers including a cotton patterned interlining and mostly handmade and has a padded, quilted lining with layers of cotton batting in the foreparts. Plus some reinforced pockets I sewed patterns into with double the strength of normal pockets (As to not need replacing anytime soon.)
This was within a week of July 4th within the United Kingdom - this particular image was taken around midday, along with various others nearing 33 degrees Celsius - aka, ~91 degrees Fahrenheit. In a house and town with no air conditioning in sight outside of certain office buildings, brick houses made to keep heat in.
And this still was bearable. In fact, I felt
cooler wearing than not wearing the coat. None of this is magic - or heat stroke - easily explainable coming from someone with an intimate understanding of what is actually in these garments.
This is because of many things - to condense it, the
construction of what was being worn. A concept I think I briefly mentioned in the post mentioned way back at message #1 on this thread - something again, anyone with actual contact with, or tailoring knowledge of the period will tell you, is that it is not at all rare for the back pieces of many typical frock coats to either be entirely unlined or have nothing but outer coat fabric and lining back there, even when the front pieces are highly structured.
This lets the vents more or less function as actual
vents and regulate heat, for air passes through the structured, open front (which resists much of the effect of wind and weather), and easily passes through the back. It turns you into your own air conditioning, really.. if that makes any sense. While if the coat is closed, I do not get too hot - for the heat again, escapes through the unequally, much less structured back pieces.
Likewise, finally linking it directly to the topic -
waistcoats/vests remember them? Bear with me. The backs are not
only a plainer, typically cotton (or
polished cotton) to save fabric, (i.e. this beautiful silk here is best used in the front where it will be seen) but also because of much the same logic and construction as mentioned before. This is a very
unstructured waistcoat, but whether structured or not, the tailoring of the day typically includes again, a very thin, very discreet layer at the back - it might as well be a shirt. Many 18th century examples almost seem to be like shirts at the back! This directly complements a coat like the one I am wearing here, and means that at the back, there are actually very little layers when wearing the full deal... air easily passes through, as does heat. These clothes are NOT designed to keep you warm.
A heavy woolen waistcoat was.
An Overcoat was. A winter frock coat, or million other styles of coats to choose from by the 1860s, was. This is generally worn throughout the whole year as evidenced by documented photographs, and through my own trial, error and experience is very much breathable.
In short; People -
and tailors - were not stupidly wearing fashion for the sake of fashion. This is all designed in a way that makes wearing various layers actually wearable. In contrast many reproductions fall short, and in modern tailoring many waistcoats and suit jackets are insulated such that they can be very uncomfortable much of the time. Vests intended to be used as central body heating of course existed but I am talking about your generic, year-round clothes. I have worn
original coats and waistcoats to events in the heat and cold. I have worn the
farbiest reproductions in existence in the worst heat and cold. I have worn among the top % of reproductions in the heat and cold. I can tell you that a generic frock coat in countless 19th century photographs you have seen is pretty chilly at 5-60 degrees Fahrenheit. Poor quality mainstream reproductions are often quite hot and uncomfortable, and I pity any reenactor who has worn them and imagined the experience is anything like wearing realistic clothing, for cut and construction makes an incredible difference.
Some random side notes - as there is little structure to this post, which as per usual for me was never meant to last this long. Don't worry - it will be over by Christmas.
It was still popular in the mid-1800s (see the threads "Question About Confederate Waistcoats" and "Making a Commutation Waistcoat!"), probably because of its mandatory-status-symbol history. I can't think of any other reason for wearing such a garment. It can't be helpful to circulation, since it concentrates the body's heat where it is already greatest - at the torso. To promote proper health, it would be far better to clothe the limbs as much as, if not more than the torso.
Some random thoughts & mentions:
- Waistcoats are still very common into the 1920s (before ultimately lowering in popularity in that decade into the next - note that they are still fairly popular until the 50s!). I would not say this is so much a status symbol as just what is the fashion of the day. It had been a staple for 200 years; the 1860s meanwhile are closer to us by a fair chunk at only 156 years and 10 months ago now. Point being:
- I think color and extravagance was mentioned. There is a basic, word-of-mouth popular rule among the serious civilian reenactor crowd for the Civil War period - If you have but 1 coat, it should be black. If you have but 1 tie, it should be black. If you have but 1 shirt, it should be white. If you have but 1 pair of trousers they should be black. If you've one of most garments they should be a plain and dark color. The 1860s, and indeed much of the remainder of the century is very "drab" in practice. It is already visible in 1860s vs. 1850s mens' fashion plates, and holds true for the most part - fancy waistcoats are mostly gone, where they exist they are usually in fairly conservative or unusual - or very casual- fashions.
Unlike for most of the early 19th century, where evening wear was defined by an often
colorful waistcoat, over the 1840s and especially 1850s it eventually became what it has been ever since - white tie/black tie with correspondingly black or white (sometimes embroided) waistcoats and tailcoats (tailcoats being relegated to this role since the 1850s). A lot of 1860s fashions are defined by texture over color; i.e. black, dark shades of gray, green, blue and brown are for the most part the extent of typical coat colors.
But what made them desirable or luxurious compared to the color of prior generations was much more often, the textured, embroided or stamped buttons on the coat, the nice, subtle outline made by a silk
trim or more rare
piping, giving a neat
outline effect to a coat,
the very quality of the cut of the coat itself, or one of my favorite aspects - the texture of the fabric; in fashion plates and photographs alike, twills of all sorts are very popular in the 1860s for example. Pay attention to the fabric itself in the portraits of the Lincoln conspirators for example. Most of their clothing is not all that special. It is more than likely drab and lacking in color. Some are not even "properly" all that dressed. But the priorities of tailors, and opinions in styles can be seen in them. I incorporate it into my own projects - my coats are all drab colors, yet it is the buttons or texture of the coat fabric that does the most for the "luxury" and look of it all. Subtlety is a key feature.
That of course also adds more to the bits that do stand out, i.e. a watch chain or necktie all became that much more "special" in part of a look - they became the "statement piece" so to speak.
i.e. All representative of April 1865 and often attributed to being the clothing they were arrest in, in any case obviously made by July 1865 very latest:
The details on Portugese Captain Joao M. Celestino's cutaway civilian coat (not a pea coat as erroneously attributed at times). Accused of aiding the Lincoln assassination conspiracy over his quarrel with the actions of Seward.
David Herold, same clothing he wears in all photographs beyond his arrest.
Edmund Spangler.
George Atzerodt.
And as an another extra that comes to mind for a good example, James Blood:
Detail on one of his most famous portraits, almost certainly circa mid-1860s.
And countless others in my vast folder of several thousand images I do not have in front of me right now, of much less directly-coming-to-mind, common examples.
Textures are often drab in color, i.e. matching vest/trousers in a gray fabric - the selling point in the texture, not color.
Old Soldier's post is great but something to add that would be useful right here - the reason for the look of plenty of Navy and Army officers is ultimately to try and look like something resembling civilian fashion. Notice also the men wearing their pocket chains (and likely watches attached to them.) Detachable collars and neat little neckties. They are more or less just doing their best to stretch the boundaries of military-wear to look like civilian clothing - it's not a whole lot different to just wearing an Army Dress Uniform now, except if you added extra private-purchase fashionable bits to go with the look. No real purpose beyond fashion, just as those four-in-hands I see on so many Naval officers did nothing for practicality. Not
regulation, either.
It should also be potentially useful to view certain aspects by what they truthfully are - ultimately meaningless fashion... not every detail serves an actual purpose. I.e. breeches did nothing for someone who didn't own boots in the winter during the 17th or 18th centuries, while virtually every
new civilian coat made by the 1860s has lost the surgeon's (functional) cuffs so popular just in 1849, with there being zero need for fake, false cuffs; it is entirely fashion and anyone who tells you different does not know what a false cuff is! It has origins and reasons for existence, but they are evolutionary rather than functional.
Stayed tuned, might add more pieces here and there, images etc. if I can be bothered... I am a busy man, got a half-dozen additional coats on the way in the process of design and sourcing for the year into the next.
Bringing the