Interesting find, or just a poor garmet?

[Guest]

I was at a mens store that I frequent for their RTW sport shirts yesterday and I came across an interesting jacket. It is a 'silk seersucker' jacket with an extremely soft construction, and some nice details. I won't be so crass as to mention the price, but it was pretty much identical to that of a Brooks Brothers linen sportcoat; which is to say that while it isn't expensive by any stretch of the word, one could not call it cheap either.

What makes me wonder about the jacket is that it should have some details that a truly 'cheap' one wouldn't, such as working exterior flap pockets, three interior pockets, lapel button hole, and a truly nice fit. It is, of course, fused, but the lapels have a nice roll to them and the jacket feels nice enough that I took the trouble to feel the front just to see if was fused. However, there is one extremely visible shortcoming to the jacket that surprises me. Not only are there no fake buttonholes around the buttons (even this would surpise me at this price), but there is no cuff. The sleeve is one continuous loop with three buttons sewn on. As I understand it, even the very lowest end jackets out there sold to youth who couldn't care less will have a cuff of sorts with buttons sewn on, sans faux button holes.

What this long winded post boils down to is the question in the subject line. Is the jacket an intersting find, or is the sleeve issue unforgiveable? It seems odd that it would have so many good details that are not obvious to the eye, yet it would lack such a conspicuous one as the cuffs. I would appreciate some thoughts on whether there is any legitimate reason for this, aside from simply cutting costs in a most unintelligent way.

At any rate, I bought it with the intention of bringing it to my tailor so he can scoff at it, and then maybe make a cuff for me. Normally I would never buy off the rack, especially from an unheard of manufacturer; but, it was fairly unusual (though probably mass produced) and happened to fit me quite well with a minor adjustment of the (cuffless) sleeves.

If anyone is interested in it, I will post pictures in the next day or two.

I posted in the anonymous forum mainly because I don't deem this worthy of The Dressing Room; however, who wants to admit to buying a coat without cuffs?

Thank you very much for your consideration, gentlemen.

[Guest]

The sleeve is one continuous loop with three buttons sewn on.
At any rate, I bought it with the intention of bringing it to my tailor so he can scoff at it, and then maybe make a cuff for me. .

To my way of thinking, a cuff is like a vent. The material on the top overlaps that on the bottom. If this jacket only has a seem where the two lengths of cloth merely join, then the tailor would first have to take the bottom of the seem in, which would make the sleeves narrower. It would be interesting to learn how you get on at the tailors. It might have been better for the maker to have not sewn on the buttons at all.

[Guest]

I think you're right, creating a cuff would be no simple matter. Upon looking at it more closely, it ocurred to me that were he to take in just the bottom of the sleeve the cuff would be angled from pulling the material across. So it seems that the entire length of the sleeve would have to be narrowed. There is room for this- the jacket has ample room for french cuffs that I would never where with it- but I am not sure what narrowing the sleeve would do to the shoulder. I suspect it would look 'belled' if that's the right word. I'll see if he thinks it can be done without ruining the jacket.

Perhaps I will just have the buttons taken off and call it fashion foward.

[Guest]

From your description this sounds like an informal sportscoat bordering on a shirt jacket.

The shirt jacket has almost no interior construction and no shoulder pads. It is almost like a shirt. It dispenses with a few of the regular details since it is a more informal, knock-around garment that you wear when shopping for groceries, going to the hardware store, picking-up the kids, etc. It's not intended for for a formal wedding or garden party.

Borrelli makes a shirt jacket. Oxxford is introducing one this fall. The other makers probably have their own variations.

The big question is whether you like it and whether it looks good on you.

[Guest]

It isn't quite a shirt jacket as there is some shoulder padding and structure to it, but it is definitely quite casual. I think that you make a good point though -if I like it and it looks good, then it's perfectly suitable for casual use. Plus, a silk jacket is always nice in the summer.

[Guest]

From my experience it is a mere shortcut employed to cut down production time (read “cost”). Ornamental details are alotted a large part of the manufacturing time budget, often without adding any functional / practical value. A jacket with fake cuff buttonholes can very well be worn without any inconvenience. If the vent is not meant ever to be unbuttoned, why not do away with it completely? - but why then put in buttons so as to suggest a traditional cuff vent, without even fake buttonholes… Perhaps the next step is the “fake jacket” - actually a pullover with all details painted on.
I once commissioned a suit to a tailor whose services I had not used before and, on the second fitting, I was surprised to discover the very cuff treatment you described. He tried to justify it with the argument that this way the free, overlapping corner of the vent is prevented from getting caught (against the edge of a table for instance, when sitting at one) and with time turn into a dogear (!). It’s a pitty he used all that creative energy to produce fanciful explanations rather than quality work. At that stage it was no longer possible to make a proper cuff vent, as there was not enough fabric in the seam allowance to overlap the sides (I’m afraid that’s your case, too). I faced two options: take the sleeve buttons out completely (which looked odd on an otherwise classical suit coat) or put in fake buttonholes - which I would not have chosen after all had I imagined that he’d use a machine to sew them (“more neat”, he explained).
My advice: forget about changing the cuff design (not possible), get a good embroideress to handsew a nice set of fake buttonholes and, if anyone admiring their beauty wonders about the unusual cuff design, candidly explain that the silk is much too delicate to leave the upper part of the cuff vent free and exposed to accidental damage

[Guest]

Sounds like a perfect solution, and I rather think I like the dogear explaination. I had considered adapting one of my favourite lines from The Importance of Being Ernest ("I can hardly eat muffins in an agitated manner. The butter would probably get on my cuffs") in order to come up with an excuse for them. Now I can espouse the advantages of doing away with cuff vents as a ventless sleeve will neither dogear on a table nor will it dip into your buttery muffins.

G.S.

[Guest]

people only see what they know, dear G.S. In case they are noticed however, the consequences of sartorial bunburrying must be addressed in a most imaginative manner: the more far-fetched the explanation, the more you'll perplex your interlocutor which will give you the opportunity to maneuver the conversation to a new course before he has a chance to come around...

[Guest]

people only see what they know, dear G.S. In case they are noticed however, the consequences of sartorial bunburrying must be addressed in a most imaginative manner: the more far-fetched the explanation, the more you'll perplex your interlocutor which will give you the opportunity to maneuver the conversation to a new course before he has a chance to come around...

[Guest]

people only see what they know, dear G.S. In case they are noticed however, the consequences of sartorial bunburrying must be addressed in a most imaginative manner: the more far-fetched the explanation, the more you'll perplex your interlocutor which will give you the opportunity to maneuver the conversation to a new course before he has a chance to come around...

[Guest]

Thrice to thine and thrice to mine
And thrice again, to make up nine.
Peace! the charm's wound up.

... I didn't mean to charm anyone, I just inadvertently hit the "Submit" button three times after receiving error messages...

Costi

[Guest]

Now that's a good explanation, Costi! And it made my idly reading this thread worthwhile.