Coat length
Dear Sirs,
I would like to add one thing to your excellent comments.
Look carefeully at the Duke's picture: he seems to be the tallest men, while he is probably the smalles in reality; high trousers waist and "short" coat does make a difference. Maybe this is not for everybody, but it is perfect on him.
Giona Granata.
I would like to add one thing to your excellent comments.
Look carefeully at the Duke's picture: he seems to be the tallest men, while he is probably the smalles in reality; high trousers waist and "short" coat does make a difference. Maybe this is not for everybody, but it is perfect on him.
Giona Granata.
As usual, the discussions here are very good. I would like to weigh in with one point. We should, all of us, try to distinguish between those aspects of our orders that are dictated by style and abstract aesthetic choices and those that are functional. For example, for the average man, the length of cuff that shows on the sleeve is a bit of a choice of fashion. For those that are very long or short, the amount of cuff carries with it a bit more functional purpose. Similarly, a very tall man will be much less suited by shoe skimming trousers than he will by those that break. I apply this in some of my own choices. As someone of mildly below average stature, I would be guided to prefer my coats cut a bit shorter than “average.” Nevertheless, my stature is shortened because of a very short torso and average to relatively long legs. I need a longer coat to balance my appearance better. As for trouser break, I believe I am sufficiently close to average that reasonable break or skimming trousers don’t have much of a functional effect on my appearance. They are simply a matter of taste. My preference is a mild break, and that is what I typically choose. That choice is one that is purely a matter of style.
You have made some excellent observations. Let me suggest another way of looking at the subject of style versus function.
Whenever one thinks of the word "function" (and after a good dose of febrile shuddering), one thinks of things like the number of pockets, internal pocket dimensions and the like. What you have described as elements that perfect function as opposed to style are really elements you have thought about that render "balance" to your figure. In this regards, your research has been one intended to find the "elegant" solution, the one that coalesces function and style. If Courage can be defined as "grace under pressure", then Elegance is surely "grace with function." Or better said, "grace that makes questions of function vanish."
Your comments regarding short torso and long leg length, a structure that requires a longer jacket to be "balanced" are spot on. Conversely someone like Windsor, with a long torso and short legs (a common morphological trait among English aristocracy),is better served by a shorter coat. But this not because of function, but because they lead to better balance. Better balance means perfected function, aesthetics and style. You can pick the order, but these elements will all be there.
There are three major balance points in dress. They are 1.) the buttoning point that defines the amount of shirt/tie exposure and; 2.) sleeve length and the amount of shirt cuff showing; and 3.) trouser length and the amount of sock showing. For every stature, shape and disposition of man these balance points will be different. One tends to recognize imbalance more than its contrary state. A balanced vision (as per Brummel) goes unnoticed and imbalanced one shouts out to us. Its neither function or style, its balance or imbalance.
One reads rules saying that a tall person needs trousers with more break. And yet an overly long trouser obviates necessarily one major balance point. It doesn't matter if the person is tall or short. If the cuff extends too far onto the shoe, it renders an imbalance. It also doesnt matter what princely sum has been spent on the suit, the man with longish trousers will look like a vacuum cleaner salesman nonetheless. The same is true of sleeve length.
One reads that a tall person needs to show more shirt cuff. This can be true just as easily as it can be false. A tall or short person needs to show the amount of shirt sleeve that balances the amount of shirt/tie and sock that he chooses to show. The three balance points work together. When they are in balance they construct the "organic whole" that renders them invisible. When they are out of balance they jump out to the eye.
One of the goals of thelondonlounge is to try and define a language of Elegance, a language that will make it possible to go beyond the chatter to the real and essential core of the matter. To accomplish this one must help develop taste, the eye for balance, sensitivity to the quality that makes function, form, and style unite in a single and immediately comprehensible vision of masculine "Elegance."
Cheers
Whenever one thinks of the word "function" (and after a good dose of febrile shuddering), one thinks of things like the number of pockets, internal pocket dimensions and the like. What you have described as elements that perfect function as opposed to style are really elements you have thought about that render "balance" to your figure. In this regards, your research has been one intended to find the "elegant" solution, the one that coalesces function and style. If Courage can be defined as "grace under pressure", then Elegance is surely "grace with function." Or better said, "grace that makes questions of function vanish."
Your comments regarding short torso and long leg length, a structure that requires a longer jacket to be "balanced" are spot on. Conversely someone like Windsor, with a long torso and short legs (a common morphological trait among English aristocracy),is better served by a shorter coat. But this not because of function, but because they lead to better balance. Better balance means perfected function, aesthetics and style. You can pick the order, but these elements will all be there.
There are three major balance points in dress. They are 1.) the buttoning point that defines the amount of shirt/tie exposure and; 2.) sleeve length and the amount of shirt cuff showing; and 3.) trouser length and the amount of sock showing. For every stature, shape and disposition of man these balance points will be different. One tends to recognize imbalance more than its contrary state. A balanced vision (as per Brummel) goes unnoticed and imbalanced one shouts out to us. Its neither function or style, its balance or imbalance.
One reads rules saying that a tall person needs trousers with more break. And yet an overly long trouser obviates necessarily one major balance point. It doesn't matter if the person is tall or short. If the cuff extends too far onto the shoe, it renders an imbalance. It also doesnt matter what princely sum has been spent on the suit, the man with longish trousers will look like a vacuum cleaner salesman nonetheless. The same is true of sleeve length.
One reads that a tall person needs to show more shirt cuff. This can be true just as easily as it can be false. A tall or short person needs to show the amount of shirt sleeve that balances the amount of shirt/tie and sock that he chooses to show. The three balance points work together. When they are in balance they construct the "organic whole" that renders them invisible. When they are out of balance they jump out to the eye.
One of the goals of thelondonlounge is to try and define a language of Elegance, a language that will make it possible to go beyond the chatter to the real and essential core of the matter. To accomplish this one must help develop taste, the eye for balance, sensitivity to the quality that makes function, form, and style unite in a single and immediately comprehensible vision of masculine "Elegance."
Cheers
Dear Mr. Alden,
this article explain very well how, int he world of masculine elegance, there is no "rule". I mean, there is no rule that can drive you safely to destination, without danger. It's all about experience, try and see. No shortcut to elegance; and for everyone a different path. I read "taste", when you say Balance; and there is not handbook or course for taste; still there is experience and practice of taste that can nourish it.
Giona Granata.
this article explain very well how, int he world of masculine elegance, there is no "rule". I mean, there is no rule that can drive you safely to destination, without danger. It's all about experience, try and see. No shortcut to elegance; and for everyone a different path. I read "taste", when you say Balance; and there is not handbook or course for taste; still there is experience and practice of taste that can nourish it.
Giona Granata.
-
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:56 am
- Location: New York
- Contact:
If a person is height-challenged, a shorter coat, accompanied by a higher rise trouser, gives the impression of the wearer being taller. This is well illustreted in Bruce Boyer's book. there is a photograph of Fred Astaire in a 3 piece suit leaning against a door. Take a look at how tall he looks in this image due toa shorter jacket and a higher rise trouser.
leonard
leonard
Concordia -
I'd like to know more about your A&S bespoke experience. Would you have time to respond to a PM enquiry?
I'd like to know more about your A&S bespoke experience. Would you have time to respond to a PM enquiry?
This is perplexing. I'm taller than average but have come (courtesy of, chiefly, Michael and this forum) to think that I may have had my suit coats cut too long. Do I risk appearing even taller if my coat be cut shorter in future (with, of course, a proportionately higher rise cut for my trousers)?Leonard Logsdail wrote:If a person is height-challenged, a shorter coat, accompanied by a higher rise trouser, gives the impression of the wearer being taller. . . .
YHM.charle22 wrote:Concordia -
I'd like to know more about your A&S bespoke experience. Would you have time to respond to a PM enquiry?
-
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:56 am
- Location: New York
- Contact:
I think you will.RWS wrote:This is perplexing. I'm taller than average but have come (courtesy of, chiefly, Michael and this forum) to think that I may have had my suit coats cut too long. Do I risk appearing even taller if my coat be cut shorter in future (with, of course, a proportionately higher rise cut for my trousers)?Leonard Logsdail wrote:If a person is height-challenged, a shorter coat, accompanied by a higher rise trouser, gives the impression of the wearer being taller. . . .
-
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:14 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Ah, yes. And one of the reasons I avoid two-button single-breasted suits.Matt Deckard wrote:
This is a most interesting and accurate study on the part of Mr. Alden.
My experience has been that if you actually measure coats of different styles, you will find that some coats that look too short on a wearer are actually longer (sometimes by as much as 1-2") than another coat that appears the right length. There are a number of different factors that contribute - gorge height, buttoning position, pocket placement, shape/width of the shoulder, waist suppression, etc. As has been said, in the end the decision has to be made by the eye, not by any rule,.
My experience has been that if you actually measure coats of different styles, you will find that some coats that look too short on a wearer are actually longer (sometimes by as much as 1-2") than another coat that appears the right length. There are a number of different factors that contribute - gorge height, buttoning position, pocket placement, shape/width of the shoulder, waist suppression, etc. As has been said, in the end the decision has to be made by the eye, not by any rule,.
I am not a particularly tall person, about average height. My coats are cut barely long enough to cover my rear. Generally the gorge is higher (even higher than the Duke's on the front page), high cut armholes, and a high buttoning point. I find that this combination gives an illusion of height.
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:34 am
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
With regard to the first photograph posted, the open cut of the inferior aspect is that of what you Yanks would term a «kilt jacket». As referenced by others, jacket length varies significantly and is something of a personal taste matter. Recall, in this case 1920, frock coats were still in use whose length approached the knees. The party in question was notorious for his personal «innovations» with style of dress and appearance.
As for the correct form of address of the primary personage duscussed in the 1920 photograph, he is The Pronce of Wales. HIs usage of «Duke of Windsor» began after his abdication as Edward VIII.
As for the correct form of address of the primary personage duscussed in the 1920 photograph, he is The Pronce of Wales. HIs usage of «Duke of Windsor» began after his abdication as Edward VIII.
Coat length is always a good discussion. I have it from an authority on the subject that US tailors like to cut coats a bit longer than their SR or Italian counterparts. Have any of you experienced this phenom?
Cheers
Cheers
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests