Pocket Square question

[Guest]

Dear Sirs,

I always wear a pocket square with my bespoke coats, a white linen one or a silk printed.

My question is: if you have an overcoat with a breast pocket, do you also wear a pocket square there? Or is it just too much, a pocket square with the overcoat, and another one with the coat.

In the case you dress one, or suggest to dress one, will you dress a white linen, or also a silk one depending on the outfit?

[manton]

If I had an overcoat with a breast pocket, I would wear a pocket square with it.

[Mark Seitelman]

I have seen some movies from the 1930's and 1940's where the hero has a hankerchief in his overcoat pocket.

Believe it or not, I recall Bud Abbott wearing a fantastic overcoat in "The Time of Their Lives." I believe that he sported a hankerchief.

If you wear s hankerchief, I recommend that it be cotton and poke-out no more than 1/2 inch from the pocket. I wouldn't have it stand-out.

A reliable guidepost would be some of the films of that era.

My overcoats don't have pockets, therefore, I do not have to confront the situation.

[Guest]

Thanks for the answers. I'm planning to have an overcoat with a breast pocket, so I was just curious.

Dear Mark, the people you are talking about, do you remember they had both pocket squares, coat and overcoat?

I remeber a film with Mastroianni, he had both.

I wait answers from other members as well.

[Mark Seitelman]

From the 1920's to early 1960's, a cotton hankerchief was de rigeur on all leading men in film. If they sported a hankerchief in the overcoat, they always had one in the suit pocket.

During this golden age of mens dress in films, men generally wore solid white pocket squares. Therefore, I would stick to either white cotton or linen or a cotton one which has mostly white in it (e.g., a white with a color border of navy or burgandy).

[ccox]

Dear Mr. Jona,
I concur. If the pocket is there, dress it with a square. For the overcoat, I would stick to white in linen, or silk if it is an especially fancy coat.

The breast pocket might also be a snazzy place to store your gloves with the fingers poking out. Although this might be considered too eccentric to be elegant.

Regards,
Chris Cox

[Marion]

I think you're going about this the wrong way. In the world we live in putting something decorative in an overcoat breast pocket would be eccentric and over-dressing. There's nothing wrong with eccentricity or over-dressing, they are just hard affectations to pull off well.

If you're wearing a dark blue overcoat, sure, put something white and linen in there. But I don't think many of you are wearing dark overcoats. (For years, I've wanted a dark blue coat with an Astrakhan collar; but wearing that would be wearing a costume and only stars can get away with wearing costumes.)

Most likely, your coat is some shade of brown and I think you're best off putting your gloves in that breast pocket. The leather is a nice match for the heavy wool--and it's a terrific place to keep your gloves always at hand but never in the way.

I'm a die-hard on this principle: Gloves go in breast pockets--even with heavy wool suits and sport jackets in those in between months.

(Bonus tip: I'm also big fan of wearing a warm suit with a hat, gloves and scarf--but no overcoat--in October and March. That's sprezzatura!

[Mark Seitelman]

I saw some newsreel footage of Douglas Fairbanks wearing a a white cotton or linen hankerchief in his overcoat breast pocket. It was a mid-grey DB overcoat with a self collar.

I saw this in a PBS documentary on Mary Pickford which I recommend.

Fairbanks died in the mid 1930's. The program also shows him in other smart, classic clothes.

Cheers!

[Collarmelton]

In midtown Manhattan one often sees both handkerchiefs and gloves stored in overcoat breast pockets. In my opinion, gloves placed in a breast pocket is too studied a gesture, as is a paisley silk pochette. I think, however, that a most understated elegant look is a white handkerchief folded so that only a small neat triangle shows above the breast pocket on a dark grey or navy blue doublebreasted overcoat. The tiny point of brightness shows up quite nicely, but not ostentatiously, against the somber dark background of the coat, and the triangle shape is in keeping with the angles of the coat's long lapels (perhaps I've thought too much about this).

Max

[alden]

Like Marion I do like heavier suits, hat, and umbrella sans overcoat.

When you must or want to wear one, Max's advice is very sound. Just don't go hat shopping with him...right Mark?

Cheers

[manton]

Count me among those who prefer to go without an overcoat whenever possible. It needs to be almost freezing before I put on a coat. Otherwise a heavy 3-piece flannel suit keeps me plenty warm.

[Mark Seitelman]

Dear Michael:

Yes, Max's advice is sound on matters satorial.

Max works in a very dangerous part of town. His office is the epicenter of luxury mens shopping district. Brioni, Turnbull, and Oxxford are on the next block. He has a bespoke clothier in his office building's basement as well as H. Herzfeld around the block.

I'm downtown in a safer part of town with fewer temptations. (However, Hickey Freeman is slated to move into my building.)

[edhayes]

I think you are all right, gloves in a topocat pocket are useful and attractive, personally, I always wear pocket squares and often wear Hermes pochettes as a square, Anthony T has wonderful squares.
For one thing, why else have that pocket in a suit? And, for another, it is another opportunity to add color and interest to what one is wearing. Lastly, so few people wear them that we must.

[alden]

One of my favorite Hermes pochettes was a motif entitled "chasse en Indes" or "a hunt in India." I have a few of them, the colors are superb and the design very masculine. I am a buyer if you find any out there.

Pocket squares skillfully worn are a pleasure to the eye. And we do need to wear them to set an example for the others as Ed has pointed out.

[Mark Seitelman]

Bravo to Messrs. Hayes and Alden.

To quote Allan Flusser, a pocket square is not a luxury but a primordial need.