Good gawd! What IS this man wearing?

[couch]

I tend to agree with Costi (and Astaire in general). But to elaborate on Costi's "only the eye can tell," there's the question of proportion in the total ensemble. A man with very long legs compared to his torso length (guilty as charged) may want (especially in suits) a jacket that falls a touch long—a little below the fork of the trousers. Conversely a man with short legs may want to shorten the jacket a bit to even the proportions. Someone with exceptionally wide shoulders compared to his waist might want a slightly longer skirt on the jacket to avoid looking top-heavy. Etc. But to my eye a jacket that doesn't mostly cover the seat (once known as a 'bum-freezer') risks looking feminine, since many women's tailored jackets end mid-seat or higher so the skirt doesn't emphasize hip width and make the garment look bottom-heavy.

Likewise, the style/silhouette of the garment has an influence. Hacking or riding jackets traditionally have longer skirts and distinct waists. A 1950s Brooks Bros.-style undarted jacket may just look one size too big to our eyes today if cut on the long side.

There was once a rule of thumb that the jacket skirt should end halfway between the top of the back collar and the trouser hem. I don't think that's very reliable, but it does suggest the rough ratio that looks traditionally balanced on a man with average leg-torso proportions. So fashion swings, such as the droopy exaggerations of the Armani "relaxed" look in the late '80s and '90s, or current exaggerations à la Thom Browne of the ultra-fitted and cropped look, which in diluted form influence mainstream ideas of what looks "normal" at any given time, tend to ebb and flow around that median.

It's also a fact that even many men who are quite fit lose some length in the spine in middle age and beyond, due largely to compression of the discs. This suggests that longevity of jacket and wearer might be served by erring slightly on the shorter side, and that those of us who began our bespoke journeys as younger men might monitor any nipped waists on our earlier commissions, adjusting if needed to avoid them sitting on the hips . . . .

[alden]

Couch has summarized things very well.

There are many posts in the Bespoke Forum about coat length. I have written a good deal about the subject and so have others.

This post about Style and Function contains many of my general ideas on the subject of balance that is the key to each individual's ideal coat length:

"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

[davidhuh]

Dear Michael,

well said, thank you. May I quote some Balzac, after what you just said?

• Le bien n'a qu'un mode, le mal en a mille. - There is only one way to do things well, but thousand ways to do things badly.

• Le principe constitutif de l'élégance est l'unité - The principle constituting elegance is unity.

• Il n'y a pas d'unité possible sans la propreté, sans l'harmonie, sans la simplicité relative. - No unity is possible without cleanliness, without harmony, without relative simplicity.

Cheers, David