Dinner suit in midnight blue

[bond_and_beyond]

Many thanks Federico, much appreciated.

It has been a fairly smooth ride and I think it is quite close to what I imagined beforehand.
We went straight from basted fitting to this fitting, and from what I can see only minor tweaks are needed before it is finished.

I was suprised how substantial the cloth is, even though it is only 10oz. I'm glad I dodn't go for the 13oz.

I can't wait to wear it for the first time later in the fall.

BB

[Frederic Leighton]

[...] I can't wait to wear it for the first time later in the fall.

Thank you, BB; looking forward to reading more from you on that occasion! I like that it's less drapey than usual (from what I can tell from two pictures). I would say 1920's more than '30s, because of the close(r) fit of the coat, sleeves and trousers.

To say thank you for sharing the photos, let me provide some statistics based on five 1930's-1940's trousers from morning suit and dinner suit ensembles of about my size (34-36 in. chest) that I still keep in my wardrobe for reference for future projects:
* leg circumference at the hem: 19-21 in. - very generous (I usually go for 17);
* all dinner jackets have one buttonhole on the peak lapel.

Regards,
f

[bond_and_beyond]

Many thanks Federico. Will keep you posted

Interesting about your "vintage statistics". My trouser bottoms are usually 16 inches which I think is a good compromise. A new tailor I am trying is making the trousers with 16.5 inch bottoms, excited to see if that will make much of a difference.

Point taken on the lapel buttonhole, but I still can't bring myself to have one on my DJ as I loved the cleanness of the lapel as is. My tailor has said that if I ever change my mind I can come by and have a buttonhole sewn on. Who knows if I'll change my mind down the road

One thing I am still a little bit unsure of is the height of the peak on the lapel. It finishes just below the shoulder line. Any vintage statistics on that available?

BB

[arkirshner]

A number of sophisticated dressers have opined that the width of "ideal" trouser bottoms are 3/4 the length of the foot. Narrower exposes shoe laces.

[Concordia]

A number of sophisticated dressers have opined that the width of "ideal" trouser bottoms are 3/4 the length of the foot.

Is that when cut, or when worn?

[Frederic Leighton]

One thing I am still a little bit unsure of is the height of the peak on the lapel. It finishes just below the shoulder line. Any vintage statistics on that available?

A quick inspection revealed that the peak on the lapel always ends a minimum of 2 inches under the shoulder line, when the coat is on a common (=thin) wooden hanger. Hope that helps.

[bond_and_beyond]

A quick inspection revealed that the peak on the lapel always ends a minimum of 2 inches under the shoulder line, when the coat is on a common (=thin) wooden hanger. Hope that helps.

Many thanks Federico. Is that measured from the shoulder seam?

Thanks,
BB

[Frederic Leighton]

Is that measured from the shoulder seam?

You're most welcome, BB. It's a very rough estimate. With the garment flat on a table and measuring from the shoulder seam, those average 2 inches would actually be more. I measured with the coat on the hanger, vertically from the top end of the peak to the hanger/shoulder line (the shoulder seam is a fraction of an inch away). I put one of the coats on for a visual check and could tell the peak is quite below the shoulder line.

[Frederic Leighton]

Apologies for the double post. I took the coat out again to measure properly. This is the one that is closest to yours in style; English, early 1930's or late 1920's. Measurements:

vertical distance from lapel peak to shoulder seam (measured flat on the table): 3 inches
maximum lapel width: 4 inches
trousers circumference at bottom: 19 inches

[bond_and_beyond]

Apologies for the double post. I took the coat out again to measure properly. This is the one that is closest to yours in style; English, early 1930's or late 1920's. Measurements:

vertical distance from lapel peak to shoulder seam (measured flat on the table): 3 inches
maximum lapel width: 4 inches
trousers circumference at bottom: 19 inches

Many thanks again Federico. I find these measurements most helpful. As I used this photo as "inspiration" for my tailor I am not surprised that the peaks on my DJ go somewhat higher than that. I tried to measure the distance from the peak to the shoulder line on the photo in the link, using the lapel buttonhole for scale (which I believe is a standard 1 and 1/8th inch for Steed), and the vertical distance came out as 3/4 of an inch.

A number of sophisticated dressers have opined that the width of "ideal" trouser bottoms are 3/4 the length of the foot. Narrower exposes shoe laces.

In my case that would mean trouser bottoms of approx 16.5 inches which sounds reasonable.

Thanks,
BB

[couch]

Regarding trouser-bottom width, these guidelines show just how much art can be required from a really good tailor. I, for example have a fairly long foot for a man just shy of 6 feet in height: US size 12. It is also narrow (US A fitting, UK C). In periods like the present where extended toes are fashionable on shoes, if I wear a well-cut traditional last (not extended) the effect is reasonably elegant and within the mode.

So, as one tailor put it in gauging the trouser bottoms, "I don't want to give you big feet" by cutting them too narrow. However, with a 30-inch waist and an average rather than prominent seat, the standard width at the bottom (based on proportion to foot length, quoted above) comes close to yielding a leg that has almost no discernible taper from seat to hem--compromising the "line, line, line" that Michael rightly evangelizes.

So the skill of the cutter and trousermaker, becomes, if possible, even more important. It's even more crucial than usual to try to avoid any slack behind the knee or under the seat, which narrows the appearance of the middle to upper leg. I find heavier cloths help in this (as in so much else) as well--as does avoiding much if any break. But the craftsman is balancing all these factors and the best ones make the problem seem nonexistent.

I've also found that among my various trousers there is some variation in bottom width. No doubt this reflects different compromises by the different makers. I have the impression, but can't be certain without a tedious comparison, that my heavier linens, flannels, whipcords, cavalry twills, chinos, etc. are closer to the 3/4-of-foot norm or wider while my lightest worsted and linens are slightly narrower.

[arkirshner]

[...] I can't wait to wear it for the first time later in the fall.

Thank you, BB; looking forward to reading more from you on that occasion! I like that it's less drapey than usual (from what I can tell from two pictures). I would say 1920's more than '30s, because of the close(r) fit of the coat, sleeves and trousers.

To say thank you for sharing the photos, let me provide some statistics based on five 1930's-1940's trousers from morning suit and dinner suit ensembles of about my size (34-36 in. chest) that I still keep in my wardrobe for reference for future projects:
* leg circumference at the hem: 19-21 in. - very generous (I usually go for 17);
* all dinner jackets have one buttonhole on the peak lapel.

Regards,
f

The following may be of interest as an American counterpoint, from American Menswear from the Civil War to the Twenty-First Century, published by Texas Tech University Press, (US News ranks it 161 of US schools, not Harvard but high enough to have vetted its publications).

"Trousers were enormous all through the 1930's...Both pleated and plain front trousers were made with wide legs at twenty-two inches at the cuff, diminishing only an inch at the end of the decade."

The author does not note what size trousers were referenced. Going on to the 40s:

"[During the war] Trousers were made without pleats, cuffs, and tucks; leg widths narrowed to 22 inches at the knee, tapering to 18 1/2 inches at the bottom."

Regards,

Alan

[arkirshner]

A number of sophisticated dressers have opined that the width of "ideal" trouser bottoms are 3/4 the length of the foot.

Is that when cut, or when worn?

I believe it to be 3/4 as cut, resulting approx. 2/3 as worn.

Of course, as Couch's astute post of the 25th makes clear, any rule of thumb at best is but a starting point for an accomplished artist, craftsman or artisan.

[hectorm]

I have the impression, but can't be certain without a tedious comparison, that my heavier linens, flannels, whipcords, cavalry twills, chinos, etc. are closer to the 3/4-of-foot norm or wider while my lightest worsted and linens are slightly narrower.

My trousers follow that correspondence too, and by intended design.
And it has to do not only with the general cut of a heavier suit but also with the profile of the shoes one usually wears with them.
Double or rubber soles, ankle boots, Budapesters, etc. that you might wear with cords or tweed require more width at the bottom for balance.
Heavy linen trousers (one of my favorites) have to be wide for drape regardless of the heft of the shoes you wear with them.
But in the case of a dinner suit, I believe one should be very careful with the choice of a regular (wide) bottom since your pumps might look puny in them.
Finally, in a personal note I think that monkstraps and gommini go much better with reasonably narrower and shorter bottoms.

[bond_and_beyond]

Apologies for the double post. I took the coat out again to measure properly. This is the one that is closest to yours in style; English, early 1930's or late 1920's. Measurements:

vertical distance from lapel peak to shoulder seam (measured flat on the table): 3 inches
maximum lapel width: 4 inches
trousers circumference at bottom: 19 inches

My tailor measured the distance from the shoulder seam to the lapel peak as 2.5 inches (while I was wearing it) so it would seem I am not far off your 30s DJ.

BB