A Bum Wrap: The Eton Jacket and Its Origin--UniformMarketNews.Com

Ever wonder how different styling options became industry norms?  Take, for example, one of the more commonly desired apparel offerings, the eton jacket. 

In the mid 15^th century, Henry VI (the “scholar king”) firmly established the English educational system.  One of its most notable schools was Eton College, (pronounced “eton” as in cretin, not “eton” as in futon).  Located on the Thames River in southeast London and across from Windsor Castle, some of the most accomplished Britons in history have been educated there, including the Duke of Wellington, author Percy Bysshe Shelley, and Prime Minister Sir Robert Walpole.   Despite the presence of several fine English academic institutions, Eton stands above the rest in many categories, particularly in terms of its uniform.

Believe it or not, the precursor to the eton jacket was the medieval monk’s robe.  Originally, children in “public schools” (which were actually fee paying private schools) wore their own clothing, paid for by their families.  The charity schools—whose students were comprised of children from hospitals, orphanages, and the streets—were filled with ragamuffins who had nothing to wear; hence, the clergy provided them with cassocks from the monasteries that not only kept the children warm but visually eliminated their economic differences.  Remember, women were not a part of this equation because they were not given formal schooling until more recent times.

Ironically, as England became more prosperous and powerful, the upper classes found themselves with elitist schoolboys who had become arrogant and unruly bullies.  By the 19^th century, in the interest of greater discipline, decorum, and financial equanimity, the notion of also putting the public schools in uniform was instituted.  At Eton, the waistcoat, shirt and now-famous collar, short jacket, and accessories were introduced. 

“College” in England refers to secondary school education.  Initially at Eton College, the junior class members (also presumed to be those boys who were less than 5’4”) were made to wear the all-around short jacket, while the older classmates wore the longer morning coat: waist length in front with tails behind. 

However, there were two problems with the double-style coat system: first, there were many upper classmen who were too short and as a result were not allowed to wear the more adult waistcoat even though they were seniors; second, the longer waistcoat with its tails that covered one’s rear end was a lot warmer than the skimpy junior level jacket that had become known as “the bum freezer.” 

Ultimately, the early 20^th century solution was to eliminate the short Eton jacket so that all the boys wore a single outfit: the morning coat or waistcoat with the now-famous look of the collar, vest, top hat and tie.  More recently, Princes William and Harry wore the required Eton outfit. 

Interestingly, outside the College, the Eton suit with the shorter jacket became the standard for boys of all ages in English society, and the fashion spread to the United States, as well.  It should be noted that several of the English colleges had similar uniforms; but it was Eton’s (rather than Harrow’s, for example) that caught on. 

There is no one designer for the specific Eton College uniform; the question of the short jacket’s evolution is bound up with the history of the garment, the styling of a short formal jacket, and the name of the College.  Similar garments were worn throughout Europe once pants became the preferred mode of men’s dress.

As a particular garment, the modern eton jacket (now with a lower case “e”) became a part of the regimented repertoire for military dress, cruise ships, hotels, for special groups and clubs, and even for assistants such as waiters, butlers, and doormen in private homes or restaurants. 

With ever-increasing affluence, particularly in Western culture, the eton jacket found its place in more formal society and became a sign of class distinction.  Interestingly, worn by both the working classes that served the upper classes, and by the upper classes themselves, the degree of hierarchy was identified only by a particular jacket’s trim: the basic style remained unaltered.  During the latter part of the 20^th century, couturier designers even presented the eton jacket with a skirt as a smartly tailored suit for well-to-do women. 

Today’s Eton Jacket: A Must-Have for Customers

Today, we in the uniform industry find our customers wanting etons, many of them not knowing what they are or how an eton is defined, other than as a short jacket that is at once formal but utilitarian.  

Etons are now 1-button, or a chain-link 2-button: they are double breasted or single, with 2 buttons or 3.  Some have built-in false vestees, some have false cummerbunds attached.  They come lined or unlined, with various types of collars, contrasting or self lapels, with pockets or none.  There are braid, epaulets, shoulder straps, chevrons, and even scalloped yokes for western wear. There is the West Point jacket which is a military stand collar version of the eton.  Some etons have pointed bottoms, some have rounded edges, some are squared off.  They come in all sorts of designs and fabrics—polyester, poly wool or wool, even poly cotton or brocades.

But the basic style is still the same.  It is the short jacket—a waistcoat without the tails—used for the original purposes of identity, deportment, and uniformity, that was named by the headmasters at Eton College all those years ago. 

Debra Hindlemann Webster is owner of Custom Uniform Company, a manufacturer of high-quality, American-made custom uniforms.  The company has been serving individuals, groups, theme parks, corporations, offices, military, hospitality, entertainment centers, and many other businesses with unique custom apparel for more than 70 years.  Visit WWW.CUSTOMUNIFORMCOMPANY.COM  or email them at DEB@CUSTOMUNIFORMCOMPANY.NET  to learn more. 

Teddy Roosevelt & Illegal Immigration, 1907

Catwalker/Shutterstock.com

One of the tragedies of today’s world--since the last third of the twentieth century--is that we have become adversarial towards one another regarding issues and values that used to be common for all of us.  It used to be that the ideas we now fight over were once givens; and on some of those "givens," our foundation as a nation was built.

The below isn't about obliterating original family, culture, religious heritage, and/or customs.  Our ancestral traditions and beliefs give us history, tradition, and personhood.   The below is about patriotic unity and duty.  It is about chauvinism and nationalism--love of one's country. 

American society also consists of an ancestry of families, culture, heritage and customs that matter; we must not forget that America itself is an entity with traditions, a language, schools, literature, style, values, societal norms and mores that represent our own culture.  These attributes of our everyday life are equally as important as those that we inherited from past generations across our borders and the seas.   If we want to preserve our nation and all it stands for, American values must matter most to each of us. 

America is and always has been the leader of the free world. While not perfect, it stands alone in protecting the rights of others, everywhere.  This is a part of who we are as Americans. 

Nowhere in the world has a society/civilization existed where revolution was led from within--the colonies against England--and where, when the battles ended and leadership taken, was power then given to the people in an orderly fashion, to rule with laws.

George Washington, our first leader, was president for 8 years; he stepped down willingly in order to let others serve--unheard of until that time and still unique in most countries of the world, today. 

America has laws: a constitution, with a bill of rights for every citizen in this country.  Our entire framework is built on the holiness of law.  To defy the law is to defy a major premise of western civilization, and one of the major defining differences between humanity and the animal kingdom.  

Many countries have followed our lead; very few have had the spirit, the determination, the know-how to reach the potential and achieved greatness of America.  

We are by definition a society of immigrants, and we are multi-cultural in origin.  However, when immigrants and multi-culturalists become more invested in themselves and their separate individual rights with regard to their own personal practices, rather than the collective meld of our American heritage, then we are no longer a country with a united common purpose, but a pool of undefined rudderless riff-raff, instead. 

Assimilation is a slippery slope.  The good news is that we learn to get along with others, and appreciate an array of habits and perspectives.  The bad news is that it allows us to become ripe for others to conquer; for us to become another identity under another flag--with other values and other foci.  To deny or ignore this reality is to deny and/or ignore all of human history and human nature.  It will always be about the survival of the fittest. 

The price of freedom is responsibility--not only to us, but to our nation and fellow Americans who, despite so many challenges and imperfections, all these years have fought, worked, and kept our country whole.  Our national motto: E Pluribus Unum—out of many is one; not the other way around. 

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907:  "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.  

But, this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...  There can be no divided allegiance here.  Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.  We have room for but one flag, the American flag...  We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...   And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Dave Hindlemann, 1916-2006: Obituary for Made To Measure Magazine

We are losing the irreplaceable generation of heroes who helped make our country and our world a better place.  Americans born in the first decades of the last century are largely responsible for one of the most incredible periods in human history. Everyone pitched in and did his/her proud part to enrich the fiber of our nation. People were not afraid of work; success was by the sweat of the brow.  Dave Hindlemann epitomized this irreplaceable World War II generation:  Idealistic, striving--a robust group of men and women--Rosie the Riveter, GI Joe, and Uncle Sam; the remarkable disciplined vigor that made our country the best and the brightest.

In 1916 New York City, where a kid made a living by the seat of his pants, Dave Hindlemann, entrepreneur, began at the age of 10 by juggling 3 paper routes and an elementary school career.  Whether it was his first bicycle, a Model T Ford with a crank which he bought for $50, or his upgrade to a roadster with a gear shift and a rumble seat, Dave always paid his own way.  He grew up in Mount Vernon, NY, where his dad was a contractor in the garment business.  The Wall Street crash with its domino effect destroyed elder Harry’s own career when his clients went bankrupt.

The family headed West.  Dave abandoned his full scholarship in engineering at Syracuse University, apprenticing with his father in a small Denver-based clothing factory, instead.  Working by day, coaching at a rec center and taking business courses at night, six-feet four-inch 20 year-old Dave Hindlemann started his first company in 1936, Pioneer Wholesale Tailors (later Bell Tailors). 

“I’ve never regretted owning my own business,” Dave emphasized.  “I never go to sleep at night worrying that the next morning some executive will tell me my job has been abolished.”  For many years, it was one of the best known local suiting stores, and when the War came, it was requisitioned by the US government to manufacture military uniforms. 

Dave served in Europe under General George S. Patton.  He was an acting major when the War ended, and he distinguished himself by earning two bronze stars, an oak leaf cluster, and letters of commendation for his bravery in battle.

Subsequently, he was commissioned by the Allied Forces to go to Germany, where he was put in charge of the garment factories that made clothing for the newly released concentration camp prisoners.  He joked that the garments were made in 2 sizes:  too big, and too small. 

 

When 1946 came, the soldiers returned home—not to proprietous pinstripe suits, but to open-collar shirts, slacks, and sport-coats: custom tailoring for the masses had become a thing of the past.

Dave adapted the wartime uniforms his company had made to marching bands, parochial schools, and ceremonial groups.  His firm became one of the larger band uniform houses in the country as he converted from the cost-prohibitive woolens to the new technology of synthetics, and as his tailoring shop became a factory of mass-production:  Five or six tailors mushroomed to 50 or 60 sewing professionals. 

For those individuals who couldn’t or didn’t want to come into the shop to work, he set up contract agreements for sewing professionals who worked in their homes—a good 30 years before “outsourcing” and “contractors” were considered viable means of labor.  Bell Tailors became Bell Manufacturing Co.  “Flexibility is everything“ Dave noted.  “If you can’t change with the times, you get left behind.”

In 1981, he turned 65 and he gave up the high overhead and stresses of operating a large factory, downsizing to a smaller shop and staff— Custom Uniform Company—again modifying as budgets for band uniforms got smaller and society changed focus.

 

Today, after 23 years in partnership with his daughter, Deb Webster, Dave’s “smaller” business is more challenging than ever.  All styles of custom-designed garments are manufactured for national distribution as cut & sew, private label, and under the Custom Uniform Co. label.  Inventory also includes ready-to-wear garments when a customer desires a more generic item.

He used to say, “I like being a big fish in a small pond.  We can make small quantities, lots of different things.  It’s fun.  Having fun is more important than making the most money.  If you don’t enjoy coming to work every day, you’ll never be a success at what you do.”

Married for over 59 years, Dave and his wife, Phyllis, had 3 children and 4 grandchildren.  Without hesitation he stated, “Family has always been first.  Even in the early years I always tried to make time for my family.” 

Proud that his business would succeed him, Dave felt that his greatest impact had been the production of a quality product.  “We’ve always had very conscientious quality control.  Delivering a good product to the customer, learning as much as I can about things as I go: that matters to me.  I like to learn from people, ideas, and products.”

He had an engineer’s mind, and he used it to manufacture garments for over 70 years by drafting patterns and creating high quality garments.  He helped to set the standards for men’s suiting, for the military, and for band uniforms that are still maintained today.  As one colleague said of him when he was in his 80’s, “Dave has forgotten more than most people knew in the first place.” 

“So many things have changed,” Dave would reflect.  “It used to be a handshake was a man’s word.  Now, it’s about contracts and money—cut and dried.  The personal element is missing.  I’m fascinated by all the technological developments, but I sometimes question our priorities and our values—that objects have become more important than people.”

Dave Hindlemann worked 5.5 days a week and he stayed present in the shop until age 90 when he passed away in November, 2006.  “When a wise man dies, a library burns to the ground.”

Paved With Good Intentions: Article for Intermountain Jewish News

I just read your article about the funding challenge for special education in Jewish day schools: $162,000 needed for 11 disabled children; that's almost $15,000 per year, per child. What I want to know: What is the expenditure per child for regular education Jewish day school students, and how many regular education children are there proportionate to these 11 special needs children?

The February 16th article states that this money is specifically for an "inclusive" special education population (children who are included in regular education classrooms with assistance--wherever, whenever, however, with whomever is necessary to bring their individualized learning experiences in line with regular education students).

While inclusion is beneficial for many students, several become overwhelmed and/or frustrated: Some children don't have the cognitive or sensory abilities to participate in the inclusive environment, no matter how many devices or teaching aids are provided; others are not emotionally or behaviorally equipped to handle the rigors and/or pressures of a regular education classroom.

Regular education students and teachers may become negatively impacted in inclusive classrooms because their own teaching and learning capabilities are not patterned for complex special education needs; time that could be spent forging ahead with mainstream academic concepts is traded for accommodation to adaptive learning by the included population. Development of social skills, acceptance, understanding individual differences, are of utmost importance: However, to what extent must academic excellence be sacrificed for their sakes?

Certain state and federal civil rights/special education laws do not bind private schools: They are not enforceable in these classrooms. Hence, while the spirit of Jewish day schools may be to provide "equal opportunity and access under the law," its legal teeth are missing. The good news for special education funding is that not every legality or expenditure has to be met; the bad news for students who are disabled is that not every legality or expenditure has to be met.

The Bush Administration wants to allow federal funding to be funneled towards religiously sponsored benevolent programs. This might be ideal for financing special education in Jewish day schools. However, federal funding mandates federal law enforcement. This necessarily means that along with additional moneys in the Jewish day school coffers, all children must be granted the same rights, privileges, and denials as public school students: To the letter of the law. The very best of intentions and positive educational goals for the disabled may become slippery academic, legal, financial slopes, as private schools have to comply with public education guidelines.

Given there is a genuine desire to allow disabled Jewish children access to an "equal and appropriate [private] education," no matter individual learning requirements or disabilities, these schools would have to carefully evaluate and provide for the specific needs of each child, no matter the cost, no matter the placement in regular, inclusive, mainstream, or self-contained classrooms. Bound by the same rules, private schools would have to provide at an enormous cost, all of the same services that public schools already offer for free.

There must be licensed, accredited special education programs, teachers, para-professionals for every diagnosed disability; evaluative testing, access to medical therapies and learning specialists; psychological evaluations, special education coordinators, augmentative learning curricula, assistive technology; legal staffs for possibilities of mediation, due-process, lawsuits for violation of student and/or parental rights.

Special education is not for the feint of heart. It is not simply a matter of doing a good deed, or writing a check. It is an enormous political, legal, medical, and professionally trained academic undertaking. If the Jewish day schools wish to dedicate themselves to this task in addition to their other priorities, so much the better. But if they do so on the sole basis of good will and the best of intentions, funding will be the least of their difficulties, and all students and teachers alike will be the worse for the endeavor.

Clergy vs. Individuality: Article for Intermountain Jewish News

There have been recent instances of local upset because our rabbis chose to speak their minds publicly.  Like authors, publishers, actors, politicians, and business owners, rabbis have higher visibility and are able to reach more people at once.  They also have a greater responsibility for their public actions and statements.  However, our unique system of government allows freedom of speech for any U.S. citizen; and it is part of a rabbi’s job description to utilize the pulpit, speaking his/her mind on issues felt to be important to Judaism and/or the Jewish community. 

It is wrong to insult, to make negative ad hominem remarks about members of the clergy for speaking and/or doing as they think best (when couched in a responsible and well documented format) in the interest of individuals, the Jewish community, society at large.  It implies a kind of censorship, and it demotes rabbinical leadership to a level of a “rubber stamp” mentality, whereby a rabbi must have permission from the congregation or the community before committing to a point of view.

Denver has a very unique Jewish population: Our diversity of beliefs and practices demands an extraordinary sense of cooperation and respect from our leaders and lay people.  We all need to support one another’s right to express an opinion—so long as that right does not infringe upon another’s—whether we agree with that opinion or not.

Jewish tradition is steeped in argument and debate; dialogue and contradictions are fundamental to Judaic culture.    Talmud, rabbinical Judaism, is the cornerstone of our belief system.  Within that structure, discussions and disagreements abound.  There are not only dissenting opinions and commentaries, but whole schools of learning that differ with one another. 

If our teachers support Gay rights, then we have an obligation to examine why Jews who are in the minority have a responsibility to support Gays, who are also in the minority: If our teachers support a more aggressive Israeli effort against the Palestinians, then we have an obligation to our fellow Jews in Israel to consider more carefully, both sides of the coin.

But to attempt to admonish our religious leaders with attacks of character, merely because we have a personal disagreement with them, is inappropriate.  Individuals are entitled to disagree with each other.  They are also entitled to thoroughly dislike one another.  They are not, however, entitled to insult and demean, merely because of a difference in viewpoint, when that perspective is one of credible intellectual diversity.