Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:19 pm
I believe you are measuring at the correct places, B&B*. However, note that the collar "stand" or height of the collar band (either including the height of the folded-down top leaf or not, depending on your convention) is usually different (and lower) at the front, where you are measuring, than at the center back of the collar. I believe (please correct me if I misunderstand, Frank) that the two-inch shirt collar height Frank refers to, and the subsequent discussion of how much shirt should show above the jacket collar, are using the center back of the collar as their reference point.
My and Michael's contention that most guys with average to long necks wear shirts with too-low collar stands, while including the back stand, derives more obviously from the front stand where you are measuring. The reason is that many shirts, even RTW shirts, have adequate back stands that taper too much by the time they reach the front. Most U.S. button-down shirt collars have, until quite recently, had a standard back stand of 1.75 or 1 7/8 inches (OK for an average neck stature) but fell to one or one and an eighth inches or so in front. Many current collars have reduced the back stand to 1.5" or less—inadequate for most men and jackets.
This along with lack of tie space leads to all the ills Michael has described so well. The low default front stand allows manufacturers to accommodate guys with prominent Adam's apples or shorter necks and so "fits" more people (same principle as the the low RTW armhole). But if the neck circumference of the shirt is accurately sized, even a fairly prominent Adam's apple can comfortably be accommodated in a front stand that's a quarter-inch or more higher than the default. In this measurement, a small change makes a big difference.
Another thing to note in Michael's collar is that the top edge of the collar band in front continues the full height of the collar band a good way as it extends out past the edge of the leaf to create tie space before making a fairly sharp round corner down the front edge. It doesn't start sloping downward immediately after it passes the front edge of the leaf. This has a couple of effects. First, the overlap of these band edges doesn't leave a V of skin pressing against the top of the tie knot in the tie space, so skin oil and perspiration don't stain the ties over time. Second, the overlap of cloth behind the tie reinforces the integrity of the collar band's vertical structure, helping to keep the position of the tie knot and collar points stable over hours of wearing.
The diagonal angle of the single buttonhole in his shirts without two-button collars assists this stability: any stress on the collar, whether from shrinkage or movement of the neck in activity, causes the button shank to slide upward so that the stress stays high in the collar, helping to keep it from gapping or rolling down. Kind of like a Ban-Rol waistband in trousers, but for shirt collars.
I remember Manton once saying that his pet peeve was shirt collar bands showing above tie knots. I now see this everywhere. The cause appears to be (counterintuitively) low front collar bands with inadequate tie space, leading to knots that won't stay in place and hang limply, so the weight of the blades loosens the knot even more over time—a vicious circle.
*In case the hook on your tape slides, you'll get more accurate results measuring between marks on the tape—start at 1 cm and then subtract 1 from your measured value. Also, make sure the bottom of the band on the left and right sides of the shirt are exactly aligned when you measure the tie space—in your photo the buttonhole side is angled down noticeably, affecting the tie space measurement. It looks to me that, on balance, your front stand is probably a little less than 4 cm (probably about 1.5 inches instead of 1.574 inches). Your tie space measurement looks pretty close since the tape extends a bit beyond the join with the leaf, which offsets the shortening effect of the front band angling downward—somewhere between 0.5 and 0.6 inches.