I'm likely going to order a bespoke jacket or two as summer approaches. I've so far only had one made, and while I really love the jacket, it's not as comfortable as my Borrelli jackets. My main problem with it is the armhole. I would like to understand the problem as much as possible so that I can be very specific when talking to my tailor. I would like to get the pattern exactly right on my second attempt.
When I was being measured for this jacket I specified that I wanted high armholes, and I got them, but there's something wrong and I'm having trouble putting my finger on it. Last night I measured the circumference of both armholes and they're essentially identical. I'm pretty sure that my problems aren't due to the armhole on the bespoke being too low because they're at approx. the same height.
I wish I could post pictures but I can't at the moment. The problem is this: when I move my arms up or forward, the fabric presses against my arm at the area where deltoid is joined to the humerus. This pulls the jacket up if I raise my arms too much (I can't do the Fred Astaire pose). To be perfectly explicit, the jacket is pulling up from the top of the sleeve as opposed to the bottom of the armhole as a result of it being too big.
The borrelli obviously has neapolitan sleeveheads whereas the bespoke does not. Could this simply be a case of not enough fullness built in to the sleevehead? Or is it perhaps the shape or exact position of the armhole that's to blame? Could it be that the shoulder needs to be extended a little bit? After all, the only thing I directly compared was circumference.
Both jackets are cut very slim and have a very clean back. Originally the back was too tight on my bespoke, but it was let out and it made a big difference.
One more little gripe with my bespoke is that above the breast pocket is a small indentation. While it doesn't affect my comfort, it has become particularly bothersome to me because I really notice it now (I didn't notice it at first). It's concave where it should be convex.
Do any of you more experienced guys have thoughts on either one of the problems with my bespoke jacket? Much appreciated!
armholes compared: my Borrelli vs. bespoke
-
Mark Seitelman
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
I cannot address why you are having the problem.
However, it seems to me that you like Borrelli more. From my brief try-ons, Borrelli makes a fine, fine garment.
However, it seems to me that you like Borrelli more. From my brief try-ons, Borrelli makes a fine, fine garment.
Wearing a borrelli is like wearing a sweater. I really can't imagine a much better fit. Perhaps on my next bespoke I'll raise the armholes just a fraction of an inch further, but I would like to solve my little problem first. Hopefully, I can get some pictures up in the near future.
More experienced members will have greater insight, but I've seen a sometning like this on a suit jacket, so I'll share my observations.
If when you begin to lift your arms, the jacket immediately rises, supported by sleeve cloth suspended across both upper deltoid areas, then it appears there is simply not enough cloth to make the circumference of the arm/body at this area. Imagine a horizontal loop of string or a tape measure circling your body across the outside of the upper arms. If it is snug enough not to slide down, then when you raise your arms, it will ride up. There are several dimensions affecting this snugness in a jacket--or put another way, several ways the tailor can create "movement ease" or restrict it, each of which involves style and fit choices.
Mr. Alden has recently opined in another article that in current Savile Row practice, more tailors are inclined to cut the shoulder width (to top of sleevehead) too narrow than too wide. If perfectly judged, a shoulder that meets the sleeve exactly at the point where the arm begins its downward curve can be quite elegant (often with just a bit of roping). The sleeve will curve slightly outward as it falls, in a smooth arc than can seem more organic than the straighter fall from a projecting shoulder. But this convexity requires adequate fullness in the sleeve head if it's not to pull tight from from to back across the upper arm. If the shoulder is cut too narrow, the sleeve would almost have to be "puffed" to compensate; alternatively the jacket fit would be too "neat" and restrict movement. So shoulder width is one variable, and fullness across the sleeve head is a second.
There's also the angle of the armholes--if you imagine looking down from above on the jacket, the sleeve seams will likely either be roughly parallel lines from front to back, or angle inward slightly toward the back. If, as you say, you have a very slim cut with a very clean upper back, the armholes may angle inward to meet the back with very little ease (extra cloth) available to accommodate movement. Keeping the back clean at the center, but adding a little more drape at the upper blade (outer back), which would in effect straighten the axis of the sleeve seams a bit (as seen from above), might provide the extra circumference needed to accommodate movement --if as you say there's adequate cloth in the side below the armhole and in the sleeve at the bottom of the armhole, so that there's no restriction there. I understand this to be one of the great advantages leading to the fame of the "London drape" suit when it was developed in the thirties--that the cut combined an unfussy line at the blades with a deceptive amount of cloth to "ease" movement. So the upper back / armhole angle / degree of drape is a third variable.
All these, as I understand it, work together, and a style that manipulates one needs to compensate in the others. It's possible that small adjustments in all might solve your problem, or perhaps one is out of proportion to the others. In a slim, narrow-shouldered cut it would seem naturally more challenging to provide a great deal of ease--there may be limits.
Re Astaire: a tailor who claims to have examined one of the A&S tailcoats Astaire performed in told me that it had substantial drape at the blades and more cloth than usual under the arms to achieve the quiet shoulders and collar he demanded for athletic dancing. In motion, it looked supremely elegant. But apparently up close and at rest, the lines might seem less clean than we'd think. The tailor's point is that there's no free lunch--the ease has to come from somewhere, and the art is in concealing the art.
If when you begin to lift your arms, the jacket immediately rises, supported by sleeve cloth suspended across both upper deltoid areas, then it appears there is simply not enough cloth to make the circumference of the arm/body at this area. Imagine a horizontal loop of string or a tape measure circling your body across the outside of the upper arms. If it is snug enough not to slide down, then when you raise your arms, it will ride up. There are several dimensions affecting this snugness in a jacket--or put another way, several ways the tailor can create "movement ease" or restrict it, each of which involves style and fit choices.
Mr. Alden has recently opined in another article that in current Savile Row practice, more tailors are inclined to cut the shoulder width (to top of sleevehead) too narrow than too wide. If perfectly judged, a shoulder that meets the sleeve exactly at the point where the arm begins its downward curve can be quite elegant (often with just a bit of roping). The sleeve will curve slightly outward as it falls, in a smooth arc than can seem more organic than the straighter fall from a projecting shoulder. But this convexity requires adequate fullness in the sleeve head if it's not to pull tight from from to back across the upper arm. If the shoulder is cut too narrow, the sleeve would almost have to be "puffed" to compensate; alternatively the jacket fit would be too "neat" and restrict movement. So shoulder width is one variable, and fullness across the sleeve head is a second.
There's also the angle of the armholes--if you imagine looking down from above on the jacket, the sleeve seams will likely either be roughly parallel lines from front to back, or angle inward slightly toward the back. If, as you say, you have a very slim cut with a very clean upper back, the armholes may angle inward to meet the back with very little ease (extra cloth) available to accommodate movement. Keeping the back clean at the center, but adding a little more drape at the upper blade (outer back), which would in effect straighten the axis of the sleeve seams a bit (as seen from above), might provide the extra circumference needed to accommodate movement --if as you say there's adequate cloth in the side below the armhole and in the sleeve at the bottom of the armhole, so that there's no restriction there. I understand this to be one of the great advantages leading to the fame of the "London drape" suit when it was developed in the thirties--that the cut combined an unfussy line at the blades with a deceptive amount of cloth to "ease" movement. So the upper back / armhole angle / degree of drape is a third variable.
All these, as I understand it, work together, and a style that manipulates one needs to compensate in the others. It's possible that small adjustments in all might solve your problem, or perhaps one is out of proportion to the others. In a slim, narrow-shouldered cut it would seem naturally more challenging to provide a great deal of ease--there may be limits.
Re Astaire: a tailor who claims to have examined one of the A&S tailcoats Astaire performed in told me that it had substantial drape at the blades and more cloth than usual under the arms to achieve the quiet shoulders and collar he demanded for athletic dancing. In motion, it looked supremely elegant. But apparently up close and at rest, the lines might seem less clean than we'd think. The tailor's point is that there's no free lunch--the ease has to come from somewhere, and the art is in concealing the art.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests