Depending upon the exact time-period you're referencing, you may be suffering from an observation bias. Remember that, prior to the advent of roll-film by George Eastman, photography was an expensive and time-consuming process involving artisan work and dangerous chemicals (it involved dangerous chemicals after that too, but could be practically done at an industrial scale by someone other than the photographer).

The result of this is that, prior to about 1900, snapshots basically didn't exist and, unless a photographer was interested in documenting the lives of the lower and middle classes for some reason, few photographs of them existed at all. Those that did were pretty invariably in their best clothes for the same reason that oil paintings are of people in their best outfits -- you don't go to the expense of hiring a photographer or painter and not dress up for the occasion. Heck, people still dress up for professional portraits today too; things haven't changed that much.

To that end, I'd challenge your assumption that American adults dressed all that formally in public and suggest that, instead, they were photographed in formal attire.

I have a followup question - did WW2 mark a shift in mens casual wear?

I usually don't post unless I have something more substantial to contribute, but I do remember reading a post/article about how men returning from WW2 continued to dress in the fashion that they did overseas. Tshirts, bomber jackets, etc... men brought home trends that took hold in the 50s and are still a major part of men's fashion to this day.

Is there any truth to this compelling idea?

I've been asked by a mod to repost my comment as a top level post rather than a reply:

A good book to read is Bruce Boyer's True Style. One of his main points he makes is that, prior to the mid-20th century, "fashion" came from elites, royalty, etc, but the mid-20th century saw a democratization of fashion. Mostly in "work wear" becoming mainstream. Denim jeans, once used by gold rushers, became "cool" thanks to the influx of western films and tv shows, the leather jacket and white t shirt became cool because of Marlon Brando and James Dean, etc. While it's still movie icons, and on a level elites, who are setting this standard, the choices of style and fashion came from the bottom up. So blue collar workers and young people, and what they wore, became fashionable for actual elites and it became difficult to look good without embracing these trends. In contrast to previous parts of history, where, say, kings and queens set the standard, which was almost always unobtainable for the lower class. Top down.

More examples are sweat shirts and hoodies, originally made for workers in cold weather, then made famous in the realm of athletic wear by Rocky. Boots and trench coats, used primarily by soldiers, post-WWII now settling into normal life with some of their old gear. Boots made for construction workers that were built to protect from injury and to last through years of abuse became preferable to younger people who didn't want to wear dress shoes when they went out to make music, protest, etc. As another comment said, the 60s were a time of rapid cultural changes.

Boyer also talks about stuff like "ivy style" which was that middle ground between working class and formal elite wear. This was how various groups met in the middle, dressing down so as not to appear too snobby and out of touch (suits and tuxes), but falling into a similar type of "uniform" that still projected social class (avoiding worker wear). Lower class young men who aspired to go to ivy league schools and move up in the world could affordably dress in the ivy style to better fit in. Khaki was a common color because of the huge surplus of khaki cotton leftover after WWII. The GI Bill helped countless young men go to college and the ivy style exploded in popularity as that middle ground of clothing/class.

That's another big part of the book that ties into the "democratization" idea, that in the 20th century, people made the choice of what social class that wanted to project. 20th century clothing can make us class chameleons and people from all rungs of the ladder wanted to, and were able to, change.

I strongly recommend Boyer's book, he gets into much more dense detail. The book primarily somewhat of a "how to" for menswear, but he weaves the history of every part of contemporary clothing, from shorts to italian influences to the history and function of the "English country house look." The chapters on work wear and ivy style (and how it was uniquely American, east coast, and how it tied into the changing times) are particularly relevant to this topic.

Until there are responses to this question, here are the ones I got when I asked the /r/AskHistorians, Did Men REALLY dress as well as portrayed in European and US cinema, '40-'60s? If so, how did this work, what coping mechanisms did they use and how different were mens' clothing budgets/usage compared to today's?

Thanks again, amazing contributors to AskHistorians!

Hello everyone,

In this thread, there have been a large number of incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments, including many asking about the deleted comments, which merely compounds the issue. As such, they were removed by the mod-team. Please, before you attempt to answer the question, keep in mind our rules concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed, and posters who break the rules of the subreddit admonished as applicable.

Also, this is a reminder it can often take time for a good answer to be written.

Thank you!