Complex Numbers

In-Vesting

Time for another clothing-related prompt from "Journalistic Intentions"  [18+]. Unlike earlier prompts, this time, the RNG gave me something I've actually heard of.

Waistcoat

Now, here's a refreshing change: a name for an article of clothing that actually makes linguistic sense. Sort of. Except that "waistcoat" and "vest" are synonyms. And also, some sources claim the name is a pun: the vest was made from the waste material from tailoring the jacket and pants, hence, waste-coat. As it hugs the waist (not to be confused with a cummerbund, which is worn around the waist), the pun was really inevitable.

I've long been operating under the assumption that it's a "vest" when it's the outer layer of an outfit, and "waistcoat" when it's worn as, say, part of a three-piece suit. Three-piece suit is, itself, a misleading phrase, as one almost always also wears socks, shoes, a shirt, and a tie, making it, at the very least, a seven-piece suit. Not to mention underwear (bottom and top) (optional), cufflinks, a belt or suspenders, a hat (some of us still wear them), and my favorite, the pocket square. Though I'll grant that you normally buy those accessories separately, with the trousers-waistcoat-jacket part sold as a unit.

That assumption turns out not to be the case.

Of course, it's possible to have trousers, waistcoat, and jacket be of different materials, colors, and patterns. But then it's not a three-piece suit, is it?

Look, I know more about traditionally men's fashion than women's. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

As an aside, I mentioned up there that "vest" is effectively a synonym for "waistcoat." This isn't strictly true. In the UK, a "vest" is what we Yanks unfortunately have taken to calling a "wife-beater," from the stereotype of the man wearing only a sleeveless undershirt who engages in domestic abuse. This is, of course, not the only fashion-related linguistic trap between US and UK English. "I'm wearing pants" has a whole different meaning, too.

Adding to linguistic confusion is that "to vest" is a verb that has several meanings, including "to put on clothes." Whether those clothes involve waistcoats or not.

All of which is to say that even in this relatively simple case, nothing in fashion is as straightforward as one might think.

For example. I've been wearing suits (occasionally) (yes, I own suits) since I was a kid, and it took me until like 2019 to discover that you're not supposed to close the bottom button of a waistcoat. I knew about that rule with jackets, but no one told me about vests.

As an engineer, this really annoys me beyond all reason. While I understand, intellectually, the idea of nonfunctional junk on clothing (the rivets on a pair of Levi's served a purpose once, but nowadays they're just tradition, for example), why make it look like you're supposed to button something when you're not?

The only answer I can come up with is that they do it as a visual kind of shibboleth: if you don't conform, then those in the know have yet another reason to look down upon you.

Which is why I love pocket squares. They make excellent gags.