I've been looking at the paintings of John Quidor a lot recently, and it has me wondering to what extent Quidor is representing the clothing of an earlier time period or his own. I am generally aware that Quidor lived at a time when the 17th and 18th century standard male dress of breeches and hose was being replaced with something more approaching the modern trouser. However, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, many men still wore the older style. Did works like the one that I linked above closely replicate how Peter Stuyvesant and other upper-class men of the time dressed? Are they actually closer to English or American dress of that or later time? Any insight you can offer is much appreciated.
In this painting, Quidor represents Rip van Winkle et al. in clothing of the earlier 1780s: cutaway coats with tails and lapels, widely open over a hip-length waistcoat; tight breeches ending just below the knee; flat black shoes fastening with a wide rectangular buckle. So in a sense, he is both representing an earlier period and his own, because by 1839 this would read as quaintly old-fashioned, showing that the story is an historical piece, but only placing it a generation or two back rather than in the 17th century. (And, in fact, the sign over the tavern yard appears to show George III.)
Prosperous Dutch colonists of the later 17th century dressed much like their counterparts across the sea. In the earlier years of the colony, they wore short doublets with long basques, topped with either a ruff or a flat falling collar, and fuller breeches; by the time of its transition into New York, they were wearing long coats with no lapels, long (often sleeved) waistcoats, and either a falling collar or tied cravat. Compare Quidor's scene with this one by Hals of 1628.