Here’s a theory: In less politically-correct, more turbulent times, men carried pistols tucked into the cummerbund. In order to get to the pistol quickly, the button was left undone to facilitate getting to the weapon.
Welcome to the board, yada yada, a link to the column being discussed is appreciated, etc. Why do men keep their bottom vest buttons unbuttoned?
I like the last theory, myself.
Ridiculous. One does not wear a cummerbund AND a vest. Besides, leaving the bottom button loose is a direct result of the MODERN six-button vest, which is much longer in the front than the classic four- or five-button vest (which is long in the back and short in the front so that a man might sit without wrinkling his vest or bend over without exposing his belt).
Ridiculous. One does not wear a cummerbund AND a vest. Besides, leaving the bottom button loose is a direct result of the MODERN six-button vest, which is much longer in the front than the classic four- or five-button vest (which is long in the back and short in the front so that a man might sit without wrinkling his vest or bend over without exposing his belt).
The story I have always heard was the one Cecil repeated about Prince George, Prince of Wales who later became King George IV. However, Cecil has missed the point of the story. The Prince was not absent-minded in leaving his bottom waistcoat (vest for you americans 
button undone. He was a fat man and could not comfortably fasten it. This Prince’s circle of friends paid great attention to clothing (Beau Brummel was a part of the group) and so this little habit was soon noticed. Others began to leave theirs unfastened not out of adherence to fashion but rather out of courtesy - if everyone left the bottom button open, Prince George could neither be embarrassed about this admission of his own corpulence, nor could he be mocked for it.
I’ll add my support of satinix’s explanation. This is the story I heard more years ago than I’d care to admit. I couldn’t remember which of those king guys was the subject of the discussion but it was in deference to his"condition" that the tradition was born and has endured.
Yes, Nametag, you’re right. A cummberbund and a vest would be redundant (like posting twice 
). But, still, the button is left undone for quick retrieval of the gentleman’s pistol, whatever he stuck it into.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!
I’ve heard two reasons for this; the first agrees with Cecil, namely, you leave it unbuttoned because it’s difficult to sit down with it buttoned (espoused by my wife). The second was given by no less an expert than Hugh Heffner, writing in tThe Playboy Forum about twenty five years ago. Heff’s opinion was, there was no hard and fast rule, if you can button it over your stomach, feel free to do so, if you’ve gone a bit paunchy, leaveing it unbuttoned is better looking than stretching the vest.
The front of the waist is not a comfortable place to carry a pistol, unless it is a tiny Derringer. And even then, you’d be likely to have an unfortunate accident trying to remove it in a hurry, button or no button.
I used to be involved in the men’s wear business years ago, and Santinix has it exactly right.
Clothing niceties and details were paid great attention by upper-class men in those days, as were manners.
Even as recently as the twenties and thirties, the Duke of Windsor likely had enormous influence on details of sartorial style
BTW, a properly-made vest will have the last button and buttonhole offset in such a way that if it is buttoned, it won’t look right.
Whatever the origin of the custom, it’s always interesting with movies to see if the actors commit a gaffe with the last button. A surprising number do, despite all the costumers that are on the set.
Interestingly, vests were a big fashion trend in the 1970s. The reason they began to disappear in the eighties had nothing to do with demand. As costs crept up, eliminating the vest was the simplest way for manufacturers to hold their price points.
This simply illustrates the problems of relying on hearsay or tradition. In this case, there is little doubt that this story is one which is usually associated with the future Edward VII, not the future George IV. (A Google search produces an isolated example of the George IV/Prince Regent version against dozens for the Edward VII version.) If hearsay is the only evidence, the case for Edward VII seems far stronger.
The problem however with the Edward VII version is that the unbuttoned bottom button had clearly become an issue too early for Edward VII (born 1841) to have been the key influence. Here is an extract from chapter fourteen of Dombey and Son, published between 1846 and 1848.
It is, of course, possible that tradition originally did link the story to the Prince Regent and that it was only later changed to Edward VII, but equally one can argue that, if such a basic part of the story is almost invariably retold incorrectly, the rest of the story may well be wrong as well. Without a specific cite for the George IV version, I would incline towards scepticism.
From the diary of Samuel Pepys, October, 1666:
The King in question is Charles II. By the 1800’s, vests were much shorter, and fads involving leaving the top unbuttoned, or the bottom, changed frequently, as APB’s quote attests. It’s worthy of note that it had not yet become de rigeur to unbutton the bottom. Paintings of George IV as prince regent (ca. 1810) show a slim man, unlikely to need the relief suggested. Later, as king, he was indeed corpulent and gouty, and at least one painting of the time still shows a fully-buttoned waistcoat cut straight across the belly. Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria, was also slim as a young man, and only modestly large as king. An 1863 photo shows him with his wife, wearing riding clothes (I think). His vest is slightly rounded at the bottom, and fully buttoned. Other photos are difficult to make out, but as a young man he seems to have favored a top-buttoned coat and an ample vest, which may or may not have been buttoned all the way.
As I’ve said before, the modern long-fronted (even swallowtail-fronted) vest came into its own in this century, and I’d guess that leaving the bottom unbuttoned happened pretty much spontaneously, as is had always been an option, even with shorter vests.
I meant, of course, “…in the 20th century…”