3 buttons with lapels rolled to second

[Scot]

Thank you gentlemen. It took a while to get going but the discussion has been most interesting. It seems to me that it is entirely a matter of taste. I am not convinced - yet!

[gherrmann]

Absolutely. Mr. Parker at Poole and his coatmaker have successfully made to my instruction that the top button and buttonhole be exactly edge-on to the facing viewer when the lapel rolls through them. The curve is a beautiful thing to see. One is tempted to rhapsodic comparisons with boat hulls and raptor wings . . . .

If, perchance, you happen to have a photo of the coat you describe that you are willing to post, I would be most appreciative. This sounds precisely like something I am envisioning in my head for a future project.

Regards.

[Greger]

The problem with this is that a buttonhole is often unsightly on the wrong side of it; when we make that style we reverse the top buttonhole to account for this. A natural 3b which had rolled over to the second would expose the ugly back side of the buttonhole. I am curious about something- has Sator or any others ever seen reference to this style in any cutting manuals? I never have.

There are two ways of doing this top button. 1) Do it once from both sides. 2) Be extremely careful so it looks the same from both sides if doing it once. The latter method you might want do it a bit looser. And do you use two strands of gimp or button hole twist on bothsides in place of gimp.

Cuts depend on some factors such as where the roll line is and how the collar is cut. I believe one method is to have the roll line at the top button but use the collar to start the roll lower, which creates a larger roll.

[radicaldog]

If, perchance, you happen to have a photo of the coat you describe

You can see a version of a 3-roll-2.5 in this coat of mine:

http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/vie ... php?t=8286

It isn't a particularly good example of that solution, in fact the gentleman who cut it is no longer my tailor, but still. [/quote]

[storeynicholas]

If, perchance, you happen to have a photo of the coat you describe

You can see a version of a 3-roll-2.5 in this coat of mine:

http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/vie ... php?t=8286

It isn't a particularly good example of that solution, in fact the gentleman who cut it is no longer my tailor, but still.

[/quote]
I still find it very difficult to get past the mask...
NJS

[Scot]

If, perchance, you happen to have a photo of the coat you describe

You can see a version of a 3-roll-2.5 in this coat of mine:

http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/vie ... php?t=8286

It isn't a particularly good example of that solution, in fact the gentleman who cut it is no longer my tailor, but still.

[/quote]

I'm afraid I still don't see how this looks more attractive than a two button coat with softly rolled lapels.

[radicaldog]

http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/vie ... a39267f04d

Well, the difference in immediate visual impact is admittedly a small one, to be measured in quarters of inches. Yet it seems to me that a 2b with such softly rolled lapels would look somewhat affected, whereas the top button 'justifies' the soft roll to the second and makes the coat look like a lived-in 3b.

Moreover, you can still button the top button when needed. I know this is frowned upon in some English circles, but it's perfectly acceptable in Italy, and for good reasons -- in fact I don't hesitate to do it here in Albion.

[Scot]

http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/vie ... a39267f04d

Well, the difference in immediate visual impact is admittedly a small one, to be measured in quarters of inches. Yet it seems to me that a 2b with such softly rolled lapels would look somewhat affected, whereas the top button 'justifies' the soft roll to the second and makes the coat look like a lived-in 3b.

Moreover, you can still button the top button when needed. I know this is frowned upon in some English circles, but it's perfectly acceptable in Italy, and for good reasons -- in fact I don't hesitate to do it here in Albion.

I can't think of anything more "affected" than having a coat made to look "lived-in"

[radicaldog]

I can't think of anything more "affected" than having a coat made to look "lived-in"

I have at least two lines of reply:

1. Well, there is a difference between being affected and looking affected.

2. And there is still the added versatility of a third button. Basically, if you want long lapel lines, but don't like 2b and don't like to see the reverse of buttonholes, then your only option is a 3 roll 2.5. This style also happens to look lived-in, which is an added bonus. But you don't choose it because it looks lived in.

[marcelo]

1. Well, there is a difference between being affected and looking affected.

I thought this was of those features to which Berkeley’s dictum esse est percipi would truly apply.

[storeynicholas]

1. Well, there is a difference between being affected and looking affected.

I thought this was of those features to which Berkeley’s dictum esse est percipi would truly apply.

Marcelo - This is difficult to understand - and I shall get mixed up - as I a still reading your paper on Grotius.
NJS

[radicaldog]

Marcelo

I thought this was of those features to which Berkeley’s dictum esse est percipi would truly apply.

I suspected from your comment on Bernard Williams in another thread that we might be colleagues!

Anyway, whilst of course the question at hand isn't that of realism, I would say that the difference between being affected and looking affected exists in so far as:

- One may be affected but manage to disguise it;
- One may look affected by accident.

It's quite a pedestrian point, really. My second line of reply to Scot is the one I would really go for.

[marcelo]

1. Well, there is a difference between being affected and looking affected.

I thought this was of those features to which Berkeley’s dictum esse est percipi would truly apply.

Marcelo - This is difficult to understand - and I shall get mixed up - as I a still reading your paper on Grotius.
NJS

This line, I had suggested, can hardly be drawn, for appearing, in this case, almost amounts to being – something vaguely reminiscent of Berkeley’s theory according to which reality consists exactly in being perceived, in appearing as the object of someone’s perception. But I think Radicaldog has already explained his point.

[marcelo]

Marcelo

I thought this was of those features to which Berkeley’s dictum esse est percipi would truly apply.

I suspected from your comment on Bernard Williams in another thread that we might be colleagues!

Anyway, whilst of course the question at hand isn't that of realism, I would say that the difference between being affected and looking affected exists in so far as:

- One may be affected but manage to disguise it;
- One may look affected by accident.

It's quite a pedestrian point, really. My second line of reply to Scot is the one I would really go for.

Yes, I do hope so! I had the good fortune to attend a conference by B. Williams over ten years ago, in Frankfurt.
Now I should perhaps apologize for the detour from the actual subject matter of this thread.

[radicaldog]

Yes, I do hope so! I had the good fortune to attend a conference by B. Williams over ten years ago, in Frankfurt.

As it happens, Williams was my PhD supervisor's supervisor. Sadly the great man passed away just a few months before I would've had a chance to meet him.

OK, end of digression. And apologies. By the way, just to bring this back within the LL's remit: judging from the pictures and from accounts by those who met him, Williams wasn't 'only' a great philosopher, but also a good dresser, and certainly carried himself very well.