The London Lounge

The soft shoulder is overrated and often a mistake. It actually looks poorly on 82% of men. We just don't know it. Or don't acknowledge it.

Because of its iconic status, many are tempted to try it, becoming covetous and desirous of an ever softer and rounder silhouette. This is natural given a bespoke aficionado's natural curious and adventurous bent. The problem is that most continue with it, adopt it unquestioningly and wear it exclusively.

However, once the curiosity is sated, it should be equally expected that a bespeaker be forthright and clear eyed when he faces his reflection in the mirror. And then be honest.

Friends, the soft shoulder is probably not for you.

Is it time to reassess the soft shoulder?

The soft shoulder can look childish, almost prepubescent. Round and not yet formed. Or elderly.

Self effacing, tentative, uncertain as if the wearer wished to melt in the background with a surfeit of modesty, apologetic.

It does sloped shoulders no favor. Nor bullish torsos. So few can wear it. Or should.

The soft shoulder is slovenly for a suit. It is not serious. It is not elegant. It is not meant for a suit.

Remember, in Napoli, the ancestral home of the soft shoulder, the elegant Neapolitan prefers a squared shoulder for his formal suits and this is what you will see in Naples. The rounded, soft shoulder is saved for daytime Summer wear and sports jackets. It perfectly suits the torrid Mediterranean climate there and frivolous, delightful pursuits. This is where it should stay.

And Scholte's silhouette, a military inspiration, was originally a decidedly masculine coat: slightly extended shoulders, swelled chest, nipped waist: meant to be a forceful, powerful silhouette. Not round and limp, flaccid, as often interpreted today. A Scholte shoulder did not shirk its duty of presenting the warrior with a formidable silhouette.

The soft shoulder, as tailored today, is often a gross exaggeration, a complement to the overstuffed shoulder, it bathes its wearer in roundness, a surfeit of cloth, both the antithesis of sprezzatura as both are sartorial conceits, each guilty of self consciousness though at opposite extremes. Indeed, I would call them a fashion, though a fashion followed by the bespoke crowd.

No, what is needed is a hard headed assessment of what looks good on each of us. As much as we may want to wear a particular silhouette, we just may not be able to. Face it manfully.

Friends, the squared shoulder is forceful, elegant and formal. The soft shoulder is not. The numerous photos of unfortunate round shouldered besuited men, otherwise beautifully dressed in the finest cloth, who I see pictured time and time again can be simply corrected if they looked at their reflections critically. We need openness and a willingness to accept, at least consider, that the squared shoulder coat may well be more suitable and attractive.

Yet the soft shoulder can be artful, louche, degage, the perfect silhouette. Who should wear it? And when?

It must be worn in its appropriate environment, with suitable intent and attitude, with proper cloth and in its proper context where elegance is not demanded but rather play contemplated, and casual insouciance called for. At such times, I put on a soft shoulder coat regardless that it is not the best looking silhouette on me. But it fits my mood of relaxation and casual pursuits and so, is the right choice. I view the soft shoulder as decidedly casual. To be chosen and preferred for sports coats alone.

But if I have something serious to talk about, with serious, dour, gray men, I'll put on a suit and I'll reach for a square shoulder suit every time. Or indeed, apart from business, even if a sports coat, if I want to feel sharp, elegant and indeed, well dressed, well, it must again be the squared shoulder. In contrast, the soft shoulder is weak, indeed, soft. While the squared shoulder is sharp, exudes, and indeed, instills confidence. It has a forceful, vital, masculine, rather than retiring, demeanour.

I know that the last thing many of you may want is an aggressive shoulder but this is a misperception. I know that putting on a square shoulder after you have become used to a round shoulder may be a shock. It may appear too aggressive, too noticeable. You may feel that it shouts. You may think that it does not reflect your personality, who you perceive yourself to be or your values of traditional, understated conservatism. You may be wrong.

And truth be told, the soft shoulder has become mythic, the object of endless discussion and desire. while the squared shoulder has received short shrift. How unfortunate.

Why is this? Why is it so difficult to cross the street from A&S to Huntsman? Figuratively. Both silhouettes have a long, venerable heritage, both are traditional and conservative, both have found favor among the best dressed men. The difference?: the square shoulder will probably look much better on you though it certainly may take a gigantic leap to even consider the possibility.

Certainly, the square shoulder certainly looks better on me than a soft, round shoulder. I know that. And though I would rather be at play than work, well, the squared shoulder suit is the more serious, elegant choice when that is called for. I'll save the soft shoulder for Via Filangieri and not Fatebenefratelli; it does not travel well to the city. Soft is a bit too rustic. Leave the round, soft coat to float lightly over the Bay of Naples like a dream while you enjoy a spritz. Each silhouette has its place and time.

Ofcourse, I most often want to dress casually. Who wants to dress sharply and at his best all the time? Or look his best? Or even to try? At these times, I'll reach for my softest, roundest, most comfortable sports coat. I wear it for me. I wear it to relax. But I don't confuse it for looking great on me. It doesn't. But it feels good and it satisfies me.

Who said that bespoke should look good? Certainly not the self-satisfied, soft shouldered warriors. But they have the privilege of looking any which way they please. Isn't it enough that it is their bespoke, unique creation? Yes, good, bad or indifferent.

uppercase wrote:Each silhouette has its place and time.

Hillel wrote:This is the whole Law; the rest is commentary. Now go and learn.

Eloquently written, UC.

But I still prefer the soft shoulder. Call me a victim.

Uppercase , I pretty much agree with everything you say . I agree that a strong unapologetic shoulder is the mark of the true gentlemans coat. A strong, straight shoulder and a haircloth chest , a nipped waist and perhaps a bit of a rope sleeve cap is hard to find these days. Thank you for your words..Frank

uppercase wrote:The soft shoulder is slovenly for a suit. It is not serious. It is not elegant. It is not meant for a suit.

Phooey.

Hmmmm .. These look nice ...

Plagiarism rarely copies what is easy and viewed as common, it goes for the high target of what is hard to get right. Look at any amateur talent show and you will see many more young women straining their voices in lamentable attempts at the Queen of the Night's second aria than singing any light-hearted and melodious canzonetta that is within their reach and accords to their timbre. On the other hand, we often see masters approaching popular tunes with such art that they take on a new meaning.
Any good tailor can make a decent structured shoulder and most will default to it unless otherwise instructed. Few will produce a masterpiece of a strong shoulder. Still fewer will obtain outstanding results with a soft construction, but that won't keep uninformed (or misinformed) bespeakers from requesting it. In many cases the mirage is not the soft shoulder for its own sake, but the desire to be like those one saw wearing a soft shoulder well, failing to realize that those envied charismatic characters know exactly what works for them (body and spirit) and know where best to have it made.
Saying a strong shoulder is more elegant than a soft one is like stating red wine is better than white: what kind of red? which white? with what food? now or next summer?
As with most things, the capital question seems to be not WHAT, but HOW. But if you feel the strong shoulder receives an unfair amount of attention (contrary to statistics), let's redeem it by showing good examples; that will offer prospective (or inveterate) dressers something to ponder before committing. So far I must (and am
delighted to) agree with Old Henry that the soft examples posted are hard to criticize in good faith.

old henry wrote:Hmmmm .. These look nice ...

Thanks, that's quite a compliment coming from you. I just measured the shoulder, pinched lightly between my thumb and forefinger at the sleeve head, on the suit I'm wearing today. It measures about 1/2 inch in thickness. The construction is exactly the same as those pictured above, but the cloth is 14+ oz. (The one's above are about 10 oz. and 12 oz., respectively.) Soft for sure:

Oldog:

That's the first pic i've seen of you in a SB jacket, very nice. Two words can best describe your outfits, elegant and inspirational.

Best Regards,

Cufflink79

oldog , that suit is subtle and stunning at the same time from tip to toe .. Sometimes I half-think things. I love that suit. See how the collar hugs so gently the neck....Harrisons is it ?Frank..

old henry wrote:Harrisons is it ?

No, mine. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Actually, I don't know the source, though I'm told that the RTW maker from whom I purchased all of these suits uses most of the usual British suspects for cloth.

Get some more ...

"Squared" vs. "soft" -- a provocative binary. There can be a lot in between, and for many silhouettes and occasions, elegance may lie there.

I do not think a square--meaning close to horizontal--shoulder, is always the best choice to project the kind of forcefulness, formality, and elegance you propose, UC., especially on men with naturally very sloped shoulders. A lean athletic build will usually have some trapezius development, and so a slight--not excessive--jacket shoulder slope will suggest a relaxed power. Too horizontal a shoulder line can suggest a hunched tension that lacks grace and is subliminally hostile to the onlooker.

When men who do not have naturally square shoulders wear jackets that pad them up to be very square, they may look decent until they move, and then the artifice becomes too obvious and loses its nobility: it tries too hard. It can be really embarrassing to witness a big blob of padding pointing at the ceiling when an arm is lifted.

If what you mean to suggest by "squared" is a shoulder in which the shoulder line meets the sleevehead with a perceptible angle rather than a single unbroken curve from shoulder through sleevehead, then I agree that this bit of definition does indeed lend some confidence, crispness ("sharpness" was your word), formality, and vigor to the presentation. But this can be done with very subtle components, on a shoulder that is far from horizontal. For me a key test is how much dimple is created between the top of the sleeve cap and the sleeve over the deltoid when the arm is lifted to the side. I like a subtle bit of roping, but with minimal shoulder padding or sleevehead wadding to cause the sleeve cap to lift, the dimple should be very small and as close to the top of the sleeve cap as possible. This, coupled with a reasonably high, well-cut armhole, allows the jacket to appear to move with, and thus to fit, the body, and this always forwards the impression of agility and power rather than restraint, entanglement, or falseness.

I agree that a very soft and loosely cut jacket suggests ease and leisure, and part of the reason is that such garments are inefficient, in the sense of potentially impeding rapid movement. The reason military tunics from the late 18th century on were cut so close with such high armholes is to permit the greatest freedom of action given the requirements of warmth in that era. Scholte, as you say, cut to project this silhouette, with a bit of shoulder extension (reportedly suggested by greatcoats, not tunics) to flatter the less athletic, but on the evidence of Windsor's clothes, he exercised considerable restraint in this--appropriately so.

One motivation you don't consider (this may belong in another forum) is that some "understated" soft-shoulder lovers may deliberately intend to downplay any impression of physical prowess. While I, and apparently you, ascribe more to the "mens sana in corpore sano" ideal, there are some who might seek a patrician ideal suggesting that, through birth or worldly success, they would never have to resort to significant physical exertion. If successful, this image can project its own kind of power, and the New England sack tradition partakes of this. Paradoxically, the robust Ivy crew athlete dressed in a jacket designed to obfuscate his physique (understatement) and kept the look after the physique declined and he rose in his career. As you say, he may not have "looked his best," but he looked like he belonged to a powerful social group, which mattered more to him, and to the aspirants who adopted the look.

So in this, as in so many other areas, I find myself drawn to the middle way, and I suppose that's one reason I remain a Poole customer. We've reached a pretty good compromise of fit, comfort, and élan. I'm also looking forward to receiving my first Steed tweed soon, and Edwin and I have been working toward a similar balance, though no doubt coming from a softer starting point.

Thanks for a provocative post.

i often prefer a soft shoulder, particularly with certain types of jackets but my shoulders are almost totally square even though im not especially broad shouldered.
i really liked Jeffrey d's recent roped shoulder jacket, but i think that look doesnt really work well on me.

although i do like real structure in the chest, unless its a summer suit..in which case i prefer as light a real canvas as possible as long as there is some

I agree that it isn't best in all cases, but I've been very pleased with this completely unpadded, unroped "blazersuit":

I'd appreciate any thoughts/criticism.