Life's Lost Little Luxuries #10: The Car Coat

Lady, you need a car coat!

 
Longer than a jacket, shorter than a coat and sporty first cousin to a topper, the car coat as a fashion piece appeared in the 1950s. There were car coats much earlier of course—long, protective "dusters" for both men and women in the early days of automobiling. With a post war economy that saw more cars in driveways, more errands run in them by the lady of the house and more young women behind the wheel, the car coat was not a fad but a necessity—a coat that would be comfortable and not bulky while driving a car.

 
I first had a car coat when I was in junior high. I had no driver's license, but a car coat was the thing to have. It was easy to throw on, looked right with casual clothing and could span the seasons. Made of less expensive fabrics than wool (typically gabardine, poplin or duck), it was a style that lived on for many years. We may still wear them, but hardly anyone calls it a car coat.

Classic vintage car coat

Not all car coats were deemed as such. A car coat could also be a barn jacket, stadium coat or a loden coat (preferably with toggles) . It was really about the length—From hip to 3/4 length, just not so long as to get in the way when you were behind the wheel. 

1965 car coats

The classic barn jacket

Car coats were modern. When she got hers my middle aged mother suddenly looked kind of hip. It was so unlike anything she had worn before. Hers was a beige chino Balmacan that was (shockingly) a little masculine. 

Today's Ralph Lauren version

So what have we learned? Sometimes a fad can become a staple after a name change. "Car coat" does sound a bit dated /fuddy-duddy. But that coat—casual and unrestrictive—is still going everywhere.

Thanks to DG for reminding me even a coat can have nine lives.

Stylish Streaming: "New Look"

 
If you expect a lovely romp through fashion, be warned. "New Look" (in 4 of the 10 episodes released at this writing) is about war. Not the war between competing fashion houses for the acclaim and the business, but WWII, that one.       

Spoiler alert not needed as we are dealing with real people and real events. The disclaimer "inspired by true events" should be warning enough that all we are about to see is not historically accurate. 

1930s Chanel designs

Chanel, 1930s

 I'm not a scholar of Chanel or Dior but have read enough on both of them to sense that sometimes in "New Look" inspiration went into the cornfield. No doubt two of the most recent books served as jumping off spots—Justine Picardie's "Miss Dior: A Story About Courage and Couture" on Christian and his sister Catherine, a member of the French resistance who paid a hefty price, and "Sleeping with the Enemy: Coco Chanel's Secret War" by Hal Vaughan.

The "New Look" of 1947

Christian Dior, same year

I might quibble that Chanel and Dior would appear in greater clarity if some effort had been made to give us background. Dior's family was comfortably well-off. His father had made it big in fertilizer. Chanel led a hardscrabble life to get where we see her here, a tale familiar to some but perhaps not all.

1930s Lelong designs

Lucien Lelong

More backstory on Lucien Lelong, Dior's employer, would have helped. Lelong was Chanel's rival as the premier French couturier in the 1930s. It's not entirely clear in "New Look" that he really was a good guy. When the Nazis threatened to move all the couture houses to Berlin, Lelong negotiated to keep them open and in Paris, saving hundreds of jobs. On the other hand Chanel had decided to shutter her business in 1939 (not mentioned in "New Look") and spent the rest of WWII living in the Ritz hotel.

Chanel's  character is the most unclear. The story begins in 1943 when she is 60. She might have been a great coquette in her youth, yet she is treated here as a femme fatale, especially by a much younger looking Nazi general. She also seems flummoxed by what is happening to her. What I've read is that if anything Chanel was determined, egotistical and above all a survivor. Wishy washy she was not.

Ben Mendelsohn as Dior, Juliette Binoche as Chanel

 
Early on we see Chanel grousing that her business partners, the Wertheimers, had run off to New York ahead of the Nazi invasion of France and "stolen" her company. She lobbied with the Nazis to get it back by agreeing to visit her old friend Winston Churchill in Madrid with a plan to end the war. In an earlier subplot Chanel has paid the Nazis a hefty ransom to release her captured nephew.

Churchill with Chanel, 1920s

 
In reality when they took over, Chanel asked the Nazis, who were seizing Jewish-owned companies and property, to give the company to her as it had been "abandoned by the Wertheimers". Unbeknown to Chanel, however, the Wertheimers had sold the company to a French Christian on the condition it would be sold back to them after the war, which it was. She was not pleased to learn this, but—believe it or not—the Wertheimers still own Chanel to this day.

And the Winston Churchill plot? Yes, it happened, but the trade off was in order to free her nephew. She went; Churchill wasn't there, but the nephew was released.

The viewer with only a passing interest may take "New Look"'s plot as gospel. I've no idea what we will see in upcoming episodes, but I think it's important to remember the difference between historical fiction and fictitious history.  

Suits are No Longer Fitting

When was the last time you saw a suit for sale? Was it back when department stores were still reliably profitable and "Suits" was its own department? What was the last suit you owned/wore? For some it may be "none". I think my last was brown tweed with a pencil skirt and faux fur collar that I bought at very deep discount in the mid '90s.

By suit I mean two pieces that match, top and bottom. I wear a lot of jackets because A) I am always cold and B) a jacket can hide a multitude of flaws. Besides, three pieces make an outfit. If you're a service professional, you probably wear a suit as do most politicians. But the rest of us? It would seem suits no longer fit our lifestyles.

VP with gravitas and killer heels

 
Suits took a while to become part of a woman's wardrobe. The Victorians had outfits for tennis, golf, riding, etc. as those activities became accepted pursuits for women. Sarah Bernhardt shocked the world in 1870 with her pantsuit (she also played Hamlet in tights), but it didn't catch on. Amazingly, one could practically wear this today...

I could; would you?

A suit was reliable. My mother sewed and always had two or three in her wardrobe, usually worn with a printed blouse that matched the jacket lining. She rarely wore a dress. A suit could be made to work for almost any occasion short of a wedding. Although I remember my last suit I don't remember the first, but I recall feeling very grown up.*

Diana knew how to be taken seriously

 
So what has happened?

Obviously we lead less formal, more relaxed lives. We aren't so inclined to "dress up" for certain roles as long as we appear presentable. Some would say we are into expressing our true selves 24/7. Others would say standards have slipped.

I volunteer with Dress for Success, where step one is outfitting a client with a professional looking outfit. The other day I looked at that room of carefully hung pants suits and skirt suits and wondered if they were not all a bit out of sync. Then as usual, when my client saw herself for the first time in a well fitting suit of her choice, I realized how a suit adds polish and gives confidence. When you show up for an interview looking business-like, you look like you mean business. 

That said we tell clients her new job may be "business casual" so don't be afraid to break that suit up and wear the jacket as a blazer and the pants/skirt with other tops. 

Will the suit return in force? Doubtful. Of course as soon as something is declared dead, someone resurrects it. Fashion is one planet where one never says never...

* Slight addenda here. I may not have remembered that first suit, but I did recall the photograph. Age 5-ish and looking tres chic. Thanks, Mom!