The London Lounge

It seems standard to have a buttonhole on the lapel of an SB suit. What are your thoughts re: having no buttonholes? Does it make the suit look "bespoke?" Or does it make the suit look unfinished? What purpose does the buttonhole serve?

On a DB suit, would you recommend one buttonhole on one of the lapels? Or a buttonhole on both lapels? Or none?

Thank you.

bry2000 wrote:It seems standard to have a buttonhole on the lapel of an SB suit. What are your thoughts re: having no buttonholes?.

It is akin to an abdomen without a navel.

It seems standard to have a buttonhole on the lapel of an SB suit. What are your thoughts re: having no buttonholes? Does it make the suit look "bespoke?"

In Flusser`s book "Clothes and the man" there is a picture showing a certainly well made glen plaid suit made by Dunhill tailors which (as far as I remember) does not have a lapel button hole at all; certainly an odd look. On the other hand my tailor sometimes wears a SB jacket (probably made by himslef) that sports two (!) button holes on the lapel (one upon the other)!

bry2000 wrote:It seems standard to have a buttonhole on the lapel of an SB suit. What are your thoughts re: having no buttonholes? Does it make the suit look "bespoke?" Or does it make the suit look unfinished? What purpose does the buttonhole serve?

On a DB suit, would you recommend one buttonhole on one of the lapels? Or a buttonhole on both lapels? Or none?

Thank you.

It is far from unusual for provincial tailors- frequently one man bands - to omit the lapel button hole on an SB jacket. I used to use such a man - he was doing full bespoke but in explanation he said that this was simply a house style which went back to his grandfather.

It was actually seen as a marker for a bespoke suit.

Some bespoke tailors particularly in Italy do not put laplel button holes
on jackets unless the client specifically asks for them. One
explanation given is that without the button hole, the shape/width
of the lapel can be altered as styles change.

Richard3 wrote:On the other hand my tailor sometimes wears a SB jacket (probably made by himslef) that sports two (!) button holes on the lapel (one upon the other)!

One for a watch, one for a boutonniere. Of course, if they are there, they ought to be in use...

I am a bit confused with this topic! I always thought that a DB should have one buttonhole on each lapel- I have always to remind my tailor to put both of them. Now in Jean Gabin´s pictures from the "Parisian style" topic I can only see one buttonhole in his DB suits (at least those with light colours). Could this possibly be a trademark of a tailor?
Jannis

Jannis wrote:I am a bit confused with this topic! I always thought that a DB should have one buttonhole on each lapel- I have always to remind my tailor to put both of them. Now in Jean Gabin´s pictures from the "Parisian style" topic I can only see one buttonhole in his DB suits (at least those with light colours). Could this possibly be a trademark of a tailor?
Jannis

I am sure there is some variation here - at least one button is merely vestigial and the one that is used is placed, shaped and used differently from its functional ancestor. My Dege suits always have two and when Raphael made me a DB suit, he said he would use two as that is the “English” style. I got the impression that he was acknowledging that there are other styles as well. I am happy with two and it seems correct to me as the original coat would have had two rows of buttons to fasten. That said, one would be fine if that is your preference. So would none if that were your choice, although at some point doing away with vestigial details takes you into a new form of costume.

My understanding of the historical importance of the button hole on the left lapel on a SB coat is because of the way it was evolved. The SB coat has its heritage in the Ghillies, which were like Nehru Jackets - with collars which stood on its own, sans revers. I believe it was King George who had the collars turned down to where the second button was, and as a result, there would be the top button still hidden behind the right lapel, and a button hole on the left. This first SB coat had very short lapels, and was characteristically buttoned very hig.

DB had a military heritage, and does not share the same roots.

The absence of lapel buttonhole/s could be a bespoke hallmark, individual taste etc. On a related note, I have seen several prominent people in bespoke suit without breast pocket.

When I was young and poor (hmmm . . . some things change, some don't), I had a cheap suit that lacked a buttonhole in the lapel. Perhaps because of the unhappiness connected with the memory of that cheap suit, the mere sight of a buttonholeless left lapel has always repelled me.

Chipp used to not prefer boutonnieres-- a real risk, cutting a hole in a nice lapel.

Kilgour tends not to put them in their Shanghai suits unless requested. Even then, they are more the "Q-Tip" variety than the straight London buttonhole that I prefer. Not a keyhole, but not really straight, either. It's one of a few things that keep the cheaper suit looking just a little cheaper to my taste.

kolecho, a suit without a breast pocket draws too much attention to itself...and cannot be considered elegant to my eyes, and I think many of us here.

I came across a fairly nice dinner jacket (double-breasted) with no buttonholes. As I'd like to wear a boutonniere, would you recommend I have one (or two) holes added? I hope this would be a relatively simple procedure, but I'd hate to see any harm done to a nice jacket...

majestatis626 wrote:I came across a fairly nice dinner jacket (double-breasted) with no buttonholes. As I'd like to wear a boutonniere, would you recommend I have one (or two) holes added? I hope this would be a relatively simple procedure, but I'd hate to see any harm done to a nice jacket...

Shouldn't be a big deal-- if you know someone good. If you live around London it shouldn't be too hard to find someone who can be trusted to put in a good handmade buttonhole. If you don't, or even if you do, ask to see their work first.