The London Lounge

I notice shirts worn by better dressed men often have the placket showing on the outside. Even though I appreciate the look and order it on my casual shirts, I can't help but finding the placketed front somewhat disturbing on a dress shirt. For instance in the way the placket often pops up from behind the tie knot showing some lost little piece of 'line'. So I wonder what can be the reason for having an outside placket on a dress shirt. Strength? Convention? Love for detail?

T.K. wrote: So I wonder what can be the reason for having an outside placket on a dress shirt. Strength? Convention? Love for detail?

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but I believe that the placket on a dress shirt mimics the starched stiff or pleated front that you would find in the more traditional formal shirts (evening dress, white or black tie). Since shirts were originally considered "underwear" some substance or adornment was required to make them visible particularly under a bow tie where more shirt is shown. Therefore I think that a placket belongs perfectly well with a dress shirt.

I think most white tie shirts actually have plain fronts. The placket is more associated with less formal black tie rigs, perhaps with shawl collars.

Concordia wrote:I think most white tie shirts actually have plain fronts.

Yes. The correct full evening dress shirt has a plain front edge. It has a stiff front/bib (usually starched marcella), attached stiff collar and should be worn with a waistcoat. All this is already more than enough and a placket on top would be out of place.

With a bow tie the placket front looks very good indeed. The likeness to a cap toe oxford comes to mind. I have been wearing a couple of new shirts to work this past week, some with a placket front, and I am starting to appreciate the detail more and more/

For whatever reason, I generally get plackets on my buttondown shirts and plain fronts on my dress shirts to be worn with a tie.

Isn't the placket front standard for most Jermyn Street shirtmakers? I know it's standard for Turnbull and Asser and Harvie & Hudson at least..

Slewfoot wrote:For whatever reason, I generally get plackets on my buttondown shirts and plain fronts on my dress shirts to be worn with a tie.

I also follow this arrangement, and find the plain front quite pleasant for a dress shirt, in the sense that "less is more".

bond_and_beyond wrote:Isn't the placket front standard for most Jermyn Street shirtmakers?

It certainly is the standard for English day-shirts. You probably won't find a single ready-to-wear shirt with a plain front on Jermyn Street. The shirt with the plain front is far more popular in France and Italy.

In Jermyn Street, the plain shirt-front is called a "French Placket".

Rolf

These LL exchanges are provocative.
So far I have never stopped to think that at the middle front of my shirt I had 5 layers of cloth one on top of the other. The placket on the button-hole side is made either by folding the cloth out and around itself twice or by adding a separate piece to the shirt, also two-fold. And on the button side there is again a fold of the same width of the placket. 5 layers! Certainly not bullet-proof but substantial indeed.

hectorm wrote:These LL exchanges are provocative.
So far I have never stopped to think that at the middle front of my shirt I had 5 layers of cloth one on top of the other. The placket on the button-hole side is made either by folding the cloth out and around itself twice or by adding a separate piece to the shirt, also two-fold. And on the button side there is again a fold of the same width of the placket. 5 layers! Certainly not bullet-proof but substantial indeed.

If it makes you feel embarrassed you can always hide the placket by wearing a nice 7 fold silk tie and maybe a double breasted jacket.

hectorm wrote:These LL exchanges are provocative.
So far I have never stopped to think that at the middle front of my shirt I had 5 layers of cloth one on top of the other. The placket on the button-hole side is made either by folding the cloth out and around itself twice or by adding a separate piece to the shirt, also two-fold. And on the button side there is again a fold of the same width of the placket. 5 layers! Certainly not bullet-proof but substantial indeed.

Not only that you'll often find a layer of interlining either fused or unfused sandwiched between all the layers.

Placket-less shirts are in my opinion significantly more elegant, though I own both types. Especially for shirts worn with a tie.
The cleanliness of lines and the fact that even a well-stitched, well-ironed placket will never press as flat and even as a palcket-less front have something to do with it.

Is everyone talking about the same thing? A 'placket' is often a panel that hides the buttons on a shirt (sometimes on pleated evening shirts), or an overcoat, or hides the entry to a pocket inside a woman's skirt. However it is also applied to shirt fronts which have a narrow raised panel through which to button the shirt, the buttons remaining visible. The first type of placket is a bit of a fashion statement on anything except an evening shirt. The second type on a day shirt is, surely, a matter of personal taste?
NJS

This last is helpful to ensure that we are all speaking to the same question. My understanding is that the front placket of a shirt, and 99% of OTR shirts have them, is a panel which may or may not hide the buttons. All of my shirts have them and I ask my shirt maker to make them with no lining. My standard dress shirts have button through plackets, and the few black tie shirts that I own have front pleats and plackets which conceal the buttons. IMO this gives a clean and elegant look and I never have to trifle with shirt studs. This last type could even be a good option for dress shirts worn with bow ties.
T.K. and Luca seem to be saying something else, that a dress shirt worn with a long tie would be better with no placket at all, merely a single fold of material with the button holes sewn through. A small detail perhaps, but my initial sense is that they are right.