Please study this picture taken in the late 1920s of the Duke of Windsor during a visit to Canada. Is the coat, the correct length, too short or too long?
Coat length
Gentlemen,
Please study this picture taken in the late 1920s of the Duke of Windsor during a visit to Canada. Is the coat, the correct length, too short or too long?
Please study this picture taken in the late 1920s of the Duke of Windsor during a visit to Canada. Is the coat, the correct length, too short or too long?
Last edited by alden on Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Definitely shorter than the vast majority of tailors would make today, and shorter than one would expect given the various methods of measuring coat length (e.g., thumb knuckle, collar seam to floor divded by two, etc.). But it nonetheless looks "right" on the duke, I think.
-
smoothjazzone
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:13 pm
- Contact:
Seems almost 1-1.5 inches shorter than if you were trying to get the jacket to cover half the distance from the shoe. But given that he was a shorter man and that the trousers have no break at all, the overall impact is to make him look taller and I agree with Manton that it does look right.
The one other thing to notice is just how much the jacket is cut open in the front -- the shape seems to do two things -- one, it maintains the diagonal lines formed by the lapels and combined with a lower button point makes an "x" shape in the front where the lower part of the "x" is smaller; this to me seems to make the person look slimmer and taller as well -- two, because the jacket is cut open so dramatically in the front, it makes it difficult for the observer to gauge that the jacket is indeed short.
The one other thing to notice is just how much the jacket is cut open in the front -- the shape seems to do two things -- one, it maintains the diagonal lines formed by the lapels and combined with a lower button point makes an "x" shape in the front where the lower part of the "x" is smaller; this to me seems to make the person look slimmer and taller as well -- two, because the jacket is cut open so dramatically in the front, it makes it difficult for the observer to gauge that the jacket is indeed short.
Yes, I think smoothjazzone hit it: The open quarters and the "X" effect and the short (or non-existent) break of the trousers all work in harmony on that suit.
Well it was a trick question: the coat is neither the correct length, too long or too short. The coat is clearly neither too short nor too long. So we might assume that it is the "correct" length but I am not sure the concept of "correct' length does us much good at all. The "correct" length measured in centimeters on one style of coat might be "incorrect" for another style.
What we are working to establish is "the length that for a given style of coat renders the image most harmonious and balanced", what we might call the "balanced length." The two button SB worn by Windsor in the photo is a perfect example of "balanced length."
Many writers on dressing have published rules about measures from the thumb, half the distance from this to that, the measure that covers the buttocks etc. that serve little use except as a very rough starting point. The proof of this can be seen in the above photo where a "correct" but "imbalanced" length of coat can be seen in the picture as well. Look carefully and study the dress of the man standing in the background to the right of Windsor. His coat arrives "correctly" at the knuckle of the thumb and yet the coat looks quite a bit too long on him. It looks like an overcoat it is so long.
If we compare the figures of Windsor and the man next to him we see striking differences in the styling of their dress. Our Monsieur Smoothjazz has been insightful in his exposition of two key components of Windsor's dress: the open quarters of the coat and lack of break on trousers. If we look at the other man, we see a coat that is cut with very closed front quarters and trousers worn too long. So the length of coat worn by the man is "correct" but imbalanced given the cut and styling of the garment, a situation aggravated by overly long trousers.
Elegance requires a simultaneous and all inclusive vision of balance. Its not a question of getting the coat right or the trousers but of making a harmonious vision of the two given a particular style.
If we look at an example of Windsor wearing a different style of coat, we will notice that the length of his coat has changed as the style has changed.
The DB coat worn by Windsor has once again found the "balanced length." The bottom of his DB would seem to measure closer to his wrist articulation than the knuckle of his thumb so many would say his coat length is "incorrect." But the coat length is balanced and that is what matters to sophisticated and knowledgeable dressers.
One thing I do notice among many bespoke dressers is a tendency to wear coats and trousers that are much too long. This is no doubt the result of trends in RTW fashion, and the writings of some misguided "experts." An overly long coat and trouser renders a heavy, dowdy, sacerdotal image. A "balanced" coat and trouser length is fresh, spry, agile. Study the examples of Windsor and Astaire to see this dynamic look.
Memorize it and take it to your tailor next time.
What we are working to establish is "the length that for a given style of coat renders the image most harmonious and balanced", what we might call the "balanced length." The two button SB worn by Windsor in the photo is a perfect example of "balanced length."
Many writers on dressing have published rules about measures from the thumb, half the distance from this to that, the measure that covers the buttocks etc. that serve little use except as a very rough starting point. The proof of this can be seen in the above photo where a "correct" but "imbalanced" length of coat can be seen in the picture as well. Look carefully and study the dress of the man standing in the background to the right of Windsor. His coat arrives "correctly" at the knuckle of the thumb and yet the coat looks quite a bit too long on him. It looks like an overcoat it is so long.
If we compare the figures of Windsor and the man next to him we see striking differences in the styling of their dress. Our Monsieur Smoothjazz has been insightful in his exposition of two key components of Windsor's dress: the open quarters of the coat and lack of break on trousers. If we look at the other man, we see a coat that is cut with very closed front quarters and trousers worn too long. So the length of coat worn by the man is "correct" but imbalanced given the cut and styling of the garment, a situation aggravated by overly long trousers.
Elegance requires a simultaneous and all inclusive vision of balance. Its not a question of getting the coat right or the trousers but of making a harmonious vision of the two given a particular style.
If we look at an example of Windsor wearing a different style of coat, we will notice that the length of his coat has changed as the style has changed.
The DB coat worn by Windsor has once again found the "balanced length." The bottom of his DB would seem to measure closer to his wrist articulation than the knuckle of his thumb so many would say his coat length is "incorrect." But the coat length is balanced and that is what matters to sophisticated and knowledgeable dressers.
One thing I do notice among many bespoke dressers is a tendency to wear coats and trousers that are much too long. This is no doubt the result of trends in RTW fashion, and the writings of some misguided "experts." An overly long coat and trouser renders a heavy, dowdy, sacerdotal image. A "balanced" coat and trouser length is fresh, spry, agile. Study the examples of Windsor and Astaire to see this dynamic look.
Memorize it and take it to your tailor next time.
I've always thought the thumb knuckle test was singularly useless. Yet I am continually surprised at how many tailors use it.
Collar to the floor divided by two is not so useless, however. It generally results in a balanced-looking silhouette, on most men whose trunk-to-legs ratio is more or less average. However, it will result in a coat that is longer than Alden is discussing above.
I tend to think that shorter coats are good for most men, for the reasons Alden stated, and because they lengthen the leg line. But I do think that a coat must in all circumstances cover the buttocks. There is something "feminine" to my eye about a coat that does not. I suppose if the trousers were cut so that the eye could not tell where a man's buttocks ended, then a coat that did not cover them might not look bad. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a thing, however.
Collar to the floor divided by two is not so useless, however. It generally results in a balanced-looking silhouette, on most men whose trunk-to-legs ratio is more or less average. However, it will result in a coat that is longer than Alden is discussing above.
I tend to think that shorter coats are good for most men, for the reasons Alden stated, and because they lengthen the leg line. But I do think that a coat must in all circumstances cover the buttocks. There is something "feminine" to my eye about a coat that does not. I suppose if the trousers were cut so that the eye could not tell where a man's buttocks ended, then a coat that did not cover them might not look bad. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a thing, however.
Dear Michael and members,
It is to me refreshing to see such example of a garment that is harmonious and pleasing to the eye, yet breaks some of the widely-divulged "rules". I personally feel turned off by rules. They can, potentially, set a reasonable starting point, but thankfully, clothes are much more complex, interesting, and transcend any list of prescribed, and limiting, rules.
It reminds me of a tailor who told me, upon my inquiry, his opinion on the "rule" on amount of exposed shirt cuff. It is widely accepted that 1/2 " of cuff should show if a man is 6 ft. tall, more or less, and adjusted in direct proportion to the height or the customer. However, the tailor said he does exactly the opposite: he prefers shorter cuff exposure for taller men and longer exposure for shorter men. After looking myself, his approach, which appears counter-intuitive at first, started looking more harmonious to my eye than the more popular approach. Again, it may be that I like breaking some rules now and then!
Cheers,
Miguel:D
It is to me refreshing to see such example of a garment that is harmonious and pleasing to the eye, yet breaks some of the widely-divulged "rules". I personally feel turned off by rules. They can, potentially, set a reasonable starting point, but thankfully, clothes are much more complex, interesting, and transcend any list of prescribed, and limiting, rules.
It reminds me of a tailor who told me, upon my inquiry, his opinion on the "rule" on amount of exposed shirt cuff. It is widely accepted that 1/2 " of cuff should show if a man is 6 ft. tall, more or less, and adjusted in direct proportion to the height or the customer. However, the tailor said he does exactly the opposite: he prefers shorter cuff exposure for taller men and longer exposure for shorter men. After looking myself, his approach, which appears counter-intuitive at first, started looking more harmonious to my eye than the more popular approach. Again, it may be that I like breaking some rules now and then!
Cheers,
Miguel:DA vexing issue which I am revisiting at present. Just took delivery on an A&S DB that, by some measures, is a little short. Maybe 1/2 inch, certainly at least 1/4. I get that conclusion literally from a rule of thumb. The jacket bottom gets close to the bottom of my thumbnail but doesn't go at all beyond, which some of my favorite jackets do.
I've also started work with a few A&S alumni who are "correcting" that feature-- we'll see which version looks better. I suspect that the slightly longer jacket will be much more appropriate on a 3-button model than on the DB, where the extra length could be though of as optional at best.
Unrelated to jacket length, but touching on some other points raised, I also had a final try-on at Louis Boston of one of the Oxxford Bespoke 2000 jackets/trousers. Such a different world they live in! The trousers are, I suspect, about 1" too long. We'll know for sure when I get button on the braces and start living in them. But the tailor measures to the back of the shoe-- his rule for cuffs seems to be that the trousers should go 3/4 of the way from the top of the back shoe (the counter?) to the top of the sole/heel. This leaves an impressive lump of fabric over the shoelaces. Now, in contrast to some on the forum, I happen to think that trouser break is desirable. But...
At this point, the tailor and the salesman ganged up on me and gave a ridiculous rationale for handling it this way. Did you know that if someone not rail-thin should show sock while performing contortions, people are likely to say "Wow, he looks fat"? Neither did I.
And I was pretty sure that the jacket sleeves had been specified to show shirt cuff-- not 1/2 inch, but a little. Guess what. And looking around the store, where do you suppose all the salespeople and returning customers were wearing their jacket cuffs? Right again. Obviously, I forgot to overrule the staff memo that requires cutting sleeves on the far outside of the chalk mark.
Too bad, for the jacket is otherwise an astonishingly good fit, and a much more attractive style than the usual Oxxfords. But at a 50% premium to Savile Row prices, and a similar delivery time, I don't really think that a cashmere blend jacket should be fit only to wear with knit shirts.
If the Londoners stay on their toes, they should retain a steady order flow.
I've also started work with a few A&S alumni who are "correcting" that feature-- we'll see which version looks better. I suspect that the slightly longer jacket will be much more appropriate on a 3-button model than on the DB, where the extra length could be though of as optional at best.
Unrelated to jacket length, but touching on some other points raised, I also had a final try-on at Louis Boston of one of the Oxxford Bespoke 2000 jackets/trousers. Such a different world they live in! The trousers are, I suspect, about 1" too long. We'll know for sure when I get button on the braces and start living in them. But the tailor measures to the back of the shoe-- his rule for cuffs seems to be that the trousers should go 3/4 of the way from the top of the back shoe (the counter?) to the top of the sole/heel. This leaves an impressive lump of fabric over the shoelaces. Now, in contrast to some on the forum, I happen to think that trouser break is desirable. But...
At this point, the tailor and the salesman ganged up on me and gave a ridiculous rationale for handling it this way. Did you know that if someone not rail-thin should show sock while performing contortions, people are likely to say "Wow, he looks fat"? Neither did I.
And I was pretty sure that the jacket sleeves had been specified to show shirt cuff-- not 1/2 inch, but a little. Guess what. And looking around the store, where do you suppose all the salespeople and returning customers were wearing their jacket cuffs? Right again. Obviously, I forgot to overrule the staff memo that requires cutting sleeves on the far outside of the chalk mark.
Too bad, for the jacket is otherwise an astonishingly good fit, and a much more attractive style than the usual Oxxfords. But at a 50% premium to Savile Row prices, and a similar delivery time, I don't really think that a cashmere blend jacket should be fit only to wear with knit shirts.
If the Londoners stay on their toes, they should retain a steady order flow.
Thanks for the review of your latest creations.
My thought regarding the DB is that the length sounds good from your description, if you would like to email a photo I will do my best to advise you. Remember that a AS style coat will "come down" a bit with wear as it fits to your body. I like my coats to look just a bit short at first as they will "come down" to size with time.
The trouser and sleeve issue you raise is a bit vexing. For the life of me I cannot see a relation between showing sock and being fat. Trousers cut to rest on the shoe without break have always been my own choice. There are excellent precedents for this approach from some very elegant dressers as evidenced by the photos and illustrations shown on this site. Sleeves cut long are an inadmissible affront to Elegance.
Cheers
My thought regarding the DB is that the length sounds good from your description, if you would like to email a photo I will do my best to advise you. Remember that a AS style coat will "come down" a bit with wear as it fits to your body. I like my coats to look just a bit short at first as they will "come down" to size with time.
The trouser and sleeve issue you raise is a bit vexing. For the life of me I cannot see a relation between showing sock and being fat. Trousers cut to rest on the shoe without break have always been my own choice. There are excellent precedents for this approach from some very elegant dressers as evidenced by the photos and illustrations shown on this site. Sleeves cut long are an inadmissible affront to Elegance.
Cheers
Left over affectation from the days when they carried Armani and similar trendy stuff. Now it's gorgeous Oxxford patterns and Kiton, but some of the bad habits remain.
Oh well-- Steed are in the process of proving themselves capable of a nice 3-button, and I'd guess that Mssrs. Hitchcock (Sr. and Jr.!) and Mahon know how it's done, too.
Oh well-- Steed are in the process of proving themselves capable of a nice 3-button, and I'd guess that Mssrs. Hitchcock (Sr. and Jr.!) and Mahon know how it's done, too.
And that is an interesting observation re the "coming down" of the jacket. I don't know if there's enough of that to affect length, but the shoulders of this particular suit are crisper and more like standard SR than any that I remember from Anderson. As it's been quite a few years since I've taken delivery on the previous one, my memory is doubtless playing tricks. Naturally, a few wearings and the odd plane trip will force it to conform to my own shape, which can only encourage the whole package to droop in a pleasant sort of way.
Giving the salesman the benefit of the doubt (for good intentions, not actual knowledge), perhaps he meant that a largish belly will cause wasit-cut trousers to ride a little higher, thus showing sock ...? That's the best I can do.Concordia wrote:At this point, the tailor and the salesman ganged up on me and gave a ridiculous rationale for handling it this way. Did you know that if someone not rail-thin should show sock while performing contortions, people are likely to say "Wow, he looks fat"? Neither did I.
No, they definitely thought that socks are very much a horizontal interruption to the line of the leg-- killing any opportunity to create the illusion of length. They did not say what happens to one's apparent height when there is a bundle of flannel about one's ankles.
That probably explains why Windsor and Astaire, both small men, wore their trousers in this manner...they wanted to interrupt their leg line.
Excuse me for saying so, but you guys have to sort through alot of misinformation don't you?...of course, its not that much better over here...
Excuse me for saying so, but you guys have to sort through alot of misinformation don't you?...of course, its not that much better over here...
It's doesn't have the same effect if you don't believe it. But that still leaves you looking for places to shop.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests