The London Lounge

I saw The Big Sleep this weekend on TCM.

As usual, Bogart looked great. However, he had the lapel buttonhole in the right lapel rather than the traditional left lapel next to the pocket.

I have never seen this placement other than in this film. In fact, I never saw this placement on a suit. (I have often seen lapels without the buttonhole.)

Does anyone have an explanation for this unusual placement? Was it a characteristic carried over from the novel? Or was it a quirk of the costume designer?

Thanks.

I'll have to watch the film again. He did wear a double breasted suit in the movie as well, and with Doublr breasted suits of the day, a button hole was placed on each lapel.

If the single breasted had a button hole on the right side that would be very odd.

I did like the way his suit fit in the movie. Very fitted in the waist and back and bigger in the shoulders. Armholes cut high enough so bogart could put his hands behind his head and the jacket wouldn't rise. A very 40's suit. No flaps on the pockets, tie was short and didn't reach the belt.



Tight waist, no vents, wide lapels, full cut trousers, that's what I call 'Hollywood Trad'.

Looks like you are right... interesting.

Possible answer: I think there was a brief vogue in the 30s-40s (particularly amongst US tailors) to place the flowerhole on the wrong/opposite lapel on an SB purely to supply some "balance" to the (probable) pocket square in the outside breast pocket, ie. flower on one side, pocket square on the other.

Houndstooth

I like that - Hollywood Trad!

How about digging out some photos of good examples and showing us, Matt?

It's also possible that photo was flopped left to right -- although he's holding the cigarette in his right hand. The only way to tell for sure would be to see the actual garment. I have a late 1930s double breasted suit and it has lapel holes on each side. Although I have been tempted in my sillier moments, I've never worn it with two flowers

No, the photo is not reversed. The lapel buttonhole is correctly depicted as seen in the film.

Gentlemen:

Elsewhere on the lounge, recently i believe, there was some discussion about vents. I've just come off of a marathon of Thin Man movies. None of Powell's jackets in any of the movies 30s-40s were vented. This goes further towards the Hollywood Traditional model.

As a side note, i've always preferred no-vent jackets because it makes me "feel" less conscious of my somewhat sizeable backside.

I understand that Hollywood's preference for no vents in the 30's and 40's is premised upon a ventless coat as more slimming. Similarly, DB coats rarely had pocket flaps.

I have a pet theory (probably wrong!) on the ventless coats of the 1920s-40s, as follows.
Amongst other reasons they were designed this way in order to 'restrict' the wearer's ability to shove his hands into his trouser pockets and thereby to slouch. Or put another way, they were designed to facilitate a more elegant pose.

OK - probably wrong!!
Houndstooth

Phil wrote:It's also possible that photo was flopped left to right -- although he's holding the cigarette in his right hand. The only way to tell for sure would be to see the actual garment. I have a late 1930s double breasted suit and it has lapel holes on each side. Although I have been tempted in my sillier moments, I've never worn it with two flowers

It's easy to tell that the image hasn't been flopped: The breast pocket (and pocket square) are on the left side of the jacket; also the belt is buckled from right to left. All these would be reversed if the picture had been flopped