Prince Charles and balance of his suits

[pchong]

Hi all,

Pondering on the balance of the coat length, button stance on HRH Prince of Wales' DB suits. Here are some illustrations:



In the picture above, I have drawn a line to indicate what I guess to be the top of his collar, another line showing the tip of his coat from the back, and the tip of his trousers. It is quite clear that the balance is such that the coat length is almost exactly half that of the suit silhoutte. Seems perfect to me.

The picture below shows the button stance, the grey square indicating the buttons.



Do fellow loungers feel the button position is slightly low? The middle grey horizontal line approximately divides the coat into two.

Final picture is an experiment in Photoshop. What if we raise his button position such that the middle button is just a tad below the mid-point of the coat. Results seem more pleasing to my eye.



Which one do you prefer?

[ryan]

I have no idea what might be classically correct, but to me the original positioning looks more comfortable.

The original has the buttons sitting at a point approximating the golden ratio, which to my design eye is a more pleasing place for them to be.

It also looks like they'd be sitting with the bottom row on the hips and the top row on the waist, which is probably a coincidence but somehow seems like an approriate marker for them.

[pchong]

interesting ryan...if we do a rule of thirds (golden mean?) and divide his suit into 3, the buttoning position is right at the upper middle. Playing with the image again gives us the following. Charles' suit does follow the rule of thirds.



Regarding the classical proportions, I use the following picture, I believe from Esquire 1939 or so. This drawing shows the coat being exactly half the distance from rear of colar to bottom of trousers cuff. And the button point exactly mid-point of the coat.



Of course, these porportions are only guidelines, the suit must always be tailored to fit our body, and look right on us.

[DFR]

Whilst noting both veiws the thirds rule works and looks better - the 'half' rule from Esquire looking far too contrived. Simply becuase it was a fashionable way of the 1930s does not confer legitimacy upon it in the 21st century.

Of greater concern with HRH's suits is the way he leans on ths ide jacket pockets which almost always have a depressed appearance - and indeed make him look scruffy beyond measure.

If he does not want flaps, he needs to find something else to fiddle with apart from his cuff links (his other common trait).

It is surprising his cutter has found no way round that.

[preobrazhensky]

The Golden Mean is a principle of proportion; it is more than a shortcut to dividing a quantity in a satistfying manner and will not really help in this if the user has no greater understanding. It is an interesting mathematical quirk rather than a observed truth.
The number does not quite relate to thirds. Rather, it is determined through an inter-relation of parts whereby the smaller is to the larger as the larger is to the whole. The number is irrational (I think) but often rounded to 0.618..., sometimes expressed 1.618... These two numbers are so similar due to the intrinsic property of the Mean.
What I hope is clear from this, is that The Golden Mean should not be used to determine one division of a whole. This is futile as the resulting parts will bear relation to eachother only in one aspect. The Golden Mean needs to be applied as a subdividing principle to the entirety of a quantity, or not at all. And even this does not guarantee good results as users can be variously apt in geometry, and also, more importantly, various in taste.
It may be used to guide the already sensitive artisan, as a way in to the work, but it will never be a substitute for good judgment.
It would be an interesting experiment to see a jacket with every proportion determined by The Golden Mean.
Please be wary though as the competent geometrician can make any maths conform to his previous idea.

[ryan]

It's is a very common tool in everything from cinematography to web deisgn and while it is just a tool, I find that as you push things around and use your "judgement" you quite often end with an aproximation of this naturally occuring proportion.

That being said a suit is there to fit the body it's wrapping and any mathematical method of determining it's cut is bound to conflict with individual phsique at some point.

However, I stand by my initial assertion: the original image, approximating the golen ratio in both the suit as a whole and internally to the jacket, is more asthetically pleasing. The higher button stance shown in the 30s image simply looks "wrong" and uncormfortable to me. Almost like it's trapping the wearer.

NB: My original observation regarding the golden ratio occured after the descision that I preferred the lower button stance. It was an attempt to reason why I prefered one to the other.

[preobrazhensky]

Ryan, I agree with you about pretty much all of this. Sorry if you felt my entry was directed at you, it wasn't. Rather, it was meant to warn against casual employment of this complex property, in order to bypass the tricky business of making definitive aesthetic choices. Some people will get good results with it, some will get bad, and the same goes for those who ignore it. All I meant to say is that it is no guarantee.
Yes, balance achieved through resolution of gentle and calculated asymmetry is always more rewarding than the foreceful impact of obvious and equal oppositions. This does not necessitate any particular ratio though.
I very much agree with your previous entry regarding anatomy. As in architecture, where a pilaster on the exterior may reflect, in decorative form, the structural basis of the building (e.g. a supporting collonade in the interior), so the details of clothing may for specific anatomy. This is, as far as I am concerned, the most essential point of decoration in any media. Done well, it brings the functional into the aesthetic, without denying or concealing the original structure. This is what distinguishes decoration from mere ornament (which too has its place).
I also agree with your preference in button stance.

[King Arthur]

Personally I like to look at the rules of balancing as an outline (rather than a rule)
I find that the perfect balance is what is becoming on the Gentleman in question.
I'm of the opinion that it takes skill to take the rules of elegance and use them but
adjusting them to fit the Gentleman.

[alden]

I prefer to see the DB buttoned at the bottom of the ribcage as in this illustration.

[manton]

I prefer to see the DB buttoned at the bottom of the ribcage as in this illustration.

I agree. That looks perfect. My latest DB suit's button stance mirrors that very closely.

But Michael, there is a ticket pocket on that city suit! Americans love their ticket pockets ... it took months of ridicule from T4phage for me to start going without them ... still learning ...

[TVD]

The ticket pocket comes, and goes. One moment it is a sign of true bespoke (especially on the continent, like the working buttons on a sleeve), the next an affectation on anything other than covert coats and hacking jackets - to which it must be confined by virtue of its rural origin.

I have it on every coat with welted pockets (dinner jackets excepted). Not because of any adherence or opposition to any rules, whatever they maybe, but for practicality's sake: it holds my change, and thus enables breast and trouser pockets to be less full and more svelte. The great advantage of bespoke is that your pockets are in the same place, no matter what you are wearing.

As far as the ideal shape of the DB is concerned, I like the early 1930s look (high buttoning point, far apart buttons) as rather nicely illustrated on the dustjacket of Hard Amies's book. I have been trying for some time to raise the buttoning boint of my 6x2s, as well as widening the horizontal distance between buttons. Both cutters I use appear reluctant to the point of being recalcitrant. Maybe they are trying to tell me something. I am eagerly awaiting one suit where I pushed one of them as far as he would allow.

[ryan]

To me it give's the same feeling as seeing someone with their pants up around their ears. It looks unformfortable and confining. Having said that I certainly can't judge the actual comfort without trying on both versions.

If it were a 4 button DB would the buttons sit in the middle of the 6 button position? ie, the 4 button bottom row between the 6 button bottom & middle rows and the 4 button top row between the 6 button top & middle rows?

[pchong]

I agree with Mr. Alden, especially his post of the AA picture above that the balance is just right. If I make a visual judgement, it looks like the button point is almost exactly half the length of the coat. And the coat is almost half the length of the entire suit silhoutte.

[alden]

To me it give's the same feeling as seeing someone with their pants up around their ears. It looks unformfortable and confining

Comfort is one the primary reasons for having clothes handcrafted to fit well. If the suit fits and if the construction is not overdone with padding, then the garment will be comfortable. Plus or minus a half or three-quarters inch in button point is not going to suddenly make a good suit unpleasant to wear. One may not like the aesthetics, but a well made suit will be comfortable no matter.

[ryan]

Point well taken.

:)