TL;DR (too long; didn't read):
- Men wore hats daily for centuries until the rise of the automobile made them impractical, and a cultural shift away from outdoor living removed the functional need entirely.
- The waistcoat disappeared because fabric rationing in two world wars reduced its production, and improved indoor heating removed its primary practical purpose.
- Suspenders were replaced by belts because lower-rise trousers — introduced to save fabric during World War I — required belt loops rather than the high waistband that braces depend on.
- In every case, the decline of a classic menswear habit was accelerated by war, technology, or a shift in where men spent their time — not simply by changing taste.
Traditional men's grooming and style explained: why so many classic menswear habits disappeared
Traditional men's grooming and classic menswear habits have a track record that most modern products can only dream about. The straight razor dominated for over 10,000 years. Men wore hats every single day for centuries. The waistcoat was a wardrobe essential across every class and continent. Suspenders held up trousers reliably for 300 years. And then, within the span of a few decades, almost all of it disappeared. Not gradually — rapidly. Within a single generation in most cases.
So what actually happened? The easy answer is that times changed, tastes shifted, and men moved on. But that explanation doesn't hold up when you look closely. These weren't passing menswear trends — they were deeply ingrained daily habits that millions of men had practiced their entire lives. Habits that stubborn don't collapse on their own. Something has to push them.
And when you look at the history of the straight razor, the history of men's hats, the decline of the waistcoat, and the disappearance of suspenders, the same forces keep appearing. War disrupts supply chains and creates new habits in millions of men simultaneously. Technology removes the practical need for an existing solution. A shift in where men spend their time — from outdoors to indoors, from walking to driving — makes a previously useful item redundant. And cultural icons stop modelling the old behaviour, so younger men never pick it up in the first place.
This guide covers each of those stories in detail. The history of the straight razor and why barbershop shaving culture collapsed in under a hundred years after 10,000 years of dominance. Why men's hats survived the Industrial Revolution but couldn't survive the automobile. What killed the waistcoat after it had been every man's daily wardrobe staple for over two centuries. And why suspenders — genuinely superior to belts in almost every practical way — were replaced by an inferior option that most men don't even question. Understanding why these traditional men's style habits disappeared tells you something important about how menswear actually changes — and what it takes to bring any of it back.
Why men stopped wearing hats and how the automobile ended a centuries old style habit
In 1925, approximately 35 million hats were produced in the United States alone. That works out to roughly one hat per man per year — and the average man at the time owned between three and five. The fedora, the homburg, the bowler, the newsboy, the flat cap, the straw boater — all of them in regular rotation, all of them worn without question whenever a man left his house. By 1970, the total US population had more than doubled. Hat sales had fallen to under 2 million. Walking around in that decade, you were lucky to spot one man in a hundred wearing one.
That collapse — from universal habit to near extinction in under 50 years — is one of the most dramatic disappearances in the history of traditional men's style. And unlike some of the other habits on this list, hats didn't fall because something better replaced them. They fell because the conditions that made them necessary stopped existing.
For most of human history, men spent the majority of their time outdoors. In 1870, the average man spent 10 to 14 hours outside every day — farming, travelling, working in conditions where protecting the head from sun, rain, and cold was a practical daily requirement. A hat wasn't an accessory in the modern sense. It was functional equipment. The bicorne and tricorne hats of the 1700s, the top hat of the early 1800s, the bowler and the fedora of the late 19th century — each evolved to meet the needs of men who were genuinely exposed to the elements for most of their waking hours. By 1900, hat sales peaked at over 42 million in a single year in the United States.
Then the shift began. Factory jobs, service industry work, and the rise of white collar office employment moved millions of men indoors. By 1970, the average man spent less than an hour outside per day. The practical argument for daily hat wearing had evaporated. Men who had spent decades wearing hats continued the habit out of routine. But the new generation entering the workforce in the 1960s and 70s had no such attachment — and no particular reason to develop one.
The automobile accelerated this dramatically. Early cars had no roofs, so hat wearing wasn't an issue. But as enclosed vehicles became standard in the 1920s and 30s, manufacturers lowered roof heights to reduce costs — and taller hats simply didn't fit. Men who drove to work every day found themselves removing their homburg or fedora every time they got in and out of the car. As the car became the primary mode of transport for most Americans, the daily friction of hat removal and replacement started to outweigh the habit. The hat stayed at home more often. Then it stayed there permanently.
Cultural icons finished the job. JFK appeared at his 1921 inauguration on a bitterly cold day in Washington without a hat — seen by millions of young men on television. Marlon Brando, James Dean, and the wave of Hollywood stars that followed wore nothing on their heads and looked sharper for it. The counterculture movements of the 1960s actively rejected the conservative dress codes of their fathers' generation, and the hat was squarely associated with that older world. Once young men stopped wearing hats as a group, the habit had no mechanism for renewal. The generation that would have passed it on had already abandoned it.
The rise and fall of the waistcoat and what the three piece suit lost when vests disappeared
In 1911, over 20 million waistcoats were sold in the United States in a single year. Every respectable man owned several — silks for summer and formal wear, heavier wools and tweeds for the colder months. The three-piece suit was not a special occasion outfit. It was the default. A man walking down the street in any major city in 1911 without a waistcoat under his jacket would have looked underdressed in the way that a man today without a shirt would look underdressed. By the mid-1950s, fewer than 10% of men were wearing them. By the 1970s, under 3%.
The waistcoat has one of the most precisely documented origin stories in menswear. It was decreed into existence in 1666 by King Charles II of England, who wanted to establish a distinctly English style in deliberate opposition to French fashion dominance at court. The original version was long — reaching past the knee — and elaborately decorated. By the 1700s it had shortened, and by the 1800s it had become a genuinely functional garment. Sleeveless and cut close to the body, it provided insulation to the torso without restricting arm movement. It kept the tie in place. It covered the suspenders underneath — which were considered near-underwear and not meant to be seen. And made from the same fabric as the jacket and trousers, it gave rise to the three-piece suit as the standard of formal dress.
The first serious blow came in 1914. World War I introduced fabric rationing across Europe and the United States. Civilian clothing production was cut back sharply. Military uniforms — designed for durability and economy of material — did not include waistcoats. For four years, the men who would have been buying and wearing vests were instead wearing uniforms that didn't require them. When the war ended and production resumed, the numbers recovered somewhat through the 1920s and 30s. But the percentage never returned to pre-war levels.
Then came World War II and another round of rationing. Again, uniforms without waistcoats. Again, millions of men spending years in clothing that didn't include one. When those men returned home in the late 1940s, they had spent the better part of a decade without wearing a vest. The habit had broken. And the practicality argument that had sustained the waistcoat for centuries was also disappearing — because by the 1950s, indoor heating had become commonplace across offices, public transport, and private homes. The insulation layer that a waistcoat provided was no longer necessary for most of the day.
There was also a structural problem that made the waistcoat increasingly difficult to buy. A well-cut waistcoat is one of the hardest garments in tailoring to get right. It has to fit the chest precisely, cover the meeting point of shirt and trousers at all times including when the arms are raised, and sit flat without bunching or gaping. Off-the-rack versions rarely achieved this. As the demand dropped, fewer manufacturers produced them, which made them harder to find, which reduced demand further. By the 1970s, if you wanted a properly fitted waistcoat, you needed to have one made.
The waistcoat survived in one specific context — formal wear. In black tie dressing, covering the point where the shirt meets the trousers remains a rule, and a proper waistcoat is the more formal way to achieve it. That narrow survival has kept the garment alive. And for men who wear a suit regularly, the three-piece option still does everything it always did — raises the V of the jacket opening for a more formal silhouette, adds a layer of visual interest, covers the suspenders if you wear them, and keeps the overall look polished when the jacket comes off. The case for the waistcoat hasn't changed. The habit around it simply never recovered.
Suspenders vs belts and why a change in trouser rise ended braces as a mens wardrobe essential
Suspenders outsell belts by a hundred to one in reverse today — but for most of recorded history, it was the other way around. Belts as a tool for holding up trousers have only existed for about a hundred years. Before that, for centuries, suspenders — also known as braces — were the only practical option available. And the reason most men don't wear them today has almost nothing to do with comfort, function, or aesthetics. It comes down to a single design detail on a pair of trousers that most men have never even thought about.
The history of keeping trousers up goes back much further than either suspenders or belts. Drawstrings, girdles, sashes — men used various methods for thousands of years. Suspenders in their recognisable form trace back to 1736, when a French ribbon manufacturer began producing decorative suspender straps connected to trousers via buttonholes. The X and Y back designs that are still standard today were introduced in 1822. By the Victorian era, suspenders were universal — worn by farmers, labourers, and industrialists alike, usually hidden under a jacket because they were considered close to underwear. A man of means would have a decorative pair in silk. A working man would have a durable pair in cotton or leather. But every man had a pair, because every man needed one.
The advantages of suspenders over belts are genuine and well-documented. Braces distribute the weight of the trousers across the shoulders rather than cinching around the waist — which eliminates the pressure points that build up across a long day of wear. For men with a broader midsection, suspenders work significantly better than a belt because there's no grip required at the waist at all. Men who wear them consistently report standing straighter and feeling more comfortable across extended wear. And for formal dress, a pair of well-made braces under a waistcoat is the correct and most elegant construction.
So what killed them? A trouser design decision made during World War I. Fabric rationing required manufacturers to find ways to use less material. One solution was to lower the rise of trousers — the measurement from the waistband down to the crotch. Lowering the rise saved approximately 10% of fabric per pair. Most shirts at the time were long enough to compensate for the lower waistband, so the change was functionally acceptable. But here was the problem: suspenders only work properly when trousers are worn at the natural waist. A lower rise puts the waistband below the point where braces can do their job effectively. And to hold up lower-rise trousers, manufacturers started adding belt loops.
Post-World War I, soldiers returned home comfortable in their lower-rise uniforms. Hollywood accelerated the shift — Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, and later James Dean and Cary Grant all appeared on screen wearing belts with lower-rise trousers. By the late 1930s, belt sales had roughly equalled suspender sales. By the 1950s, the belt had won. The 1980s produced a brief revival — the Wall Street power suit era brought suspenders back into fashion for a few years — but by the 1990s, sales were in freefall again.
The situation today is self-reinforcing. Walk into any mainstream clothing store and you will find trousers with belt loops and no buttons for braces. If you want trousers designed to be worn with suspenders — with the higher waistband and the button attachments that make braces work correctly — you essentially have to have them made. The design decision that started as a wartime fabric-saving measure has become so deeply embedded in how trousers are manufactured that most men don't even know it was ever any different. The suspenders didn't lose on merit. They lost because the trousers changed around them.
Custom tailored suits and classic menswear built to bring timeless style back into your wardrobe
Every habit covered in this guide disappeared for external reasons — war, technology, shifting demographics, design decisions made by manufacturers looking to cut costs. Not one of them fell because men decided they were bad ideas. The straight razor lost to mass distribution and military convenience. Hats lost to the automobile and central heating. The waistcoat lost to fabric rationing and then never recovered. Suspenders lost because trouser design changed around them. The items themselves were — and in most cases still are — genuinely superior options. They just got outmanoeuvred by circumstances.
Which means they can come back. Not as mass habits — that ship has sailed for most of them. But as deliberate personal choices made by men who understand what they're wearing and why. A three-piece suit with a properly fitted waistcoat still does everything it did in 1911. High-rise trousers with braces still distribute weight more comfortably than any belt ever will. A straight razor shave from a skilled barber is still one of the best grooming experiences available. These things didn't become worse. They just became less common.
At Westwood Hart, we build suits the way they were always meant to be built — from scratch, to your measurements, with construction decisions made for your specific body rather than for the average of a size chart. That means a three-piece suit where the waistcoat actually fits, where the trousers are cut at the natural waist and can be worn with braces if you choose, and where every detail from the canvas to the lining to the button choice is specified and confirmed before a single cut is made.
Our online configurator is where it starts. You choose the fabric, the construction, the style details, and the fit — and we build it around those choices. Whether you want a complete three-piece in a classic cloth, a two-piece in a modern fabric, or a sport coat that works across a range of occasions, the process is the same: a suit made for you, not for a mannequin. Head over to our configurator today and start building yours.
Frequently asked questions
Why did men stop using straight razors?
The straight razor's decline was driven by two things working together: the invention of the safety razor in 1901 and its mass distribution to American soldiers during World War I. Millions of young men learned to shave with a safety razor in the trenches and returned home having already formed the habit. The safety razor was faster, required no stropping or honing, needed no real skill to use safely, and the blade was simply replaced rather than maintained. For men entering the workforce in the 1920s, there was no compelling reason to learn a more demanding alternative.
What is the difference between a straight razor and a shavette?
A straight razor uses a fixed steel blade that is stropped before each use and periodically resharpened on a honing stone. A shavette uses a disposable blade that is replaced rather than maintained. Shavettes are popular with barbers because hygiene regulations in many regions require a blade that can be disposed of between clients. For home use, a shavette removes the maintenance requirement of a traditional straight razor while preserving the technique and the shaving experience.
Why did men stop wearing hats every day?
The primary reasons were the shift from outdoor to indoor work, the rise of the automobile, and a generational cultural shift. In 1870, men spent 10 to 14 hours outdoors daily — hats were functional protection from the elements. By 1970, that figure had fallen to under an hour. Cars with enclosed roofs made hat wearing inconvenient for daily commuters. And the postwar generation actively rejected the conservative dress habits of their fathers, with cultural icons like JFK and Hollywood stars appearing consistently without hats.
Why did the waistcoat disappear from everyday wear?
Two world wars broke the habit by removing waistcoats from military uniforms during periods of fabric rationing, taking millions of men out of the garment for years at a time. When those men returned to civilian life, the habit had broken. Improved indoor heating removed the practical insulation argument that had sustained the waistcoat for centuries. And as production dropped, quality off-the-rack options became scarce — if you wanted a properly fitted waistcoat, you needed it made, which pushed most men away entirely.
Are suspenders actually better than belts?
From a comfort and function standpoint, suspenders have genuine advantages over belts. Braces distribute the weight of the trousers across the shoulders rather than gripping the waist, which eliminates pressure points across a long day of wear. For men with a broader midsection, suspenders work significantly better than a belt. The reason most men don't wear them today is not that belts are superior — it's that modern trousers are designed with belt loops and a lower rise that makes suspenders impractical without specifically sourcing or commissioning trousers with a higher waistband and brace buttons.
What caused suspenders to be replaced by belts?
The shift began during World War I when fabric rationing led manufacturers to lower the rise of trousers to save material. Lower-rise trousers required belt loops rather than the high waistband that suspenders depend on. Post-war, soldiers returned comfortable in lower-rise clothing and Hollywood accelerated the belt's adoption through the 1930s and 40s. By the 1950s, belt sales had overtaken suspenders entirely. The design change that started as a wartime cost-saving measure became permanently embedded in how trousers are manufactured.
Can these traditional menswear habits be revived today?
Yes, but as deliberate personal choices rather than mass habits. The straight razor shave is available at specialist barbers and remains an excellent grooming experience. The three-piece suit with a properly fitted waistcoat is entirely practical for any man who wears a suit regularly. High-rise trousers with braces are achievable through made-to-measure tailoring. None of these options became worse over time — they simply became less common. The main requirement for reviving any of them is understanding what you're choosing and why, rather than following default habits set by wartime manufacturing decisions made over a century ago.