thick versus thin MOP buttons

[zjpj]

I am considering whether, on future shirt orders, to opt for thick MOP buttons. All of the shirts I own have thin. I like the thin T&A buttons and similar looking buttons very much, but am open for a change.

Is the button choice simply one of English tailoring (thin) versus Italian tailoring (thick)?

On a side note: how do the thick buttons hold up? chipping, etc.?

thanks, looking forward to the discussion

[Guest]

I personally prefer the thick ones, 4mm - 16pt. They are more substantial on a bespoke shirt in my mind; anyway, the hold good; pay attention that buttonholes has to be sized accordingly.

I do not know if the button choice simply one of English tailoring (thin) versus Italian tailoring (thick)? I do not believe.

[BenedictSpinola]

I also prefer thick MOP buttons. They just look and feel right to me.

Spinola

[T4phage]

Well, count me in as a fan of thick MOPs!

[nick]

Moi, aussi.

[zjpj]

Well, sounds pretty overwhelmingly in favor. I was afraid they would chip more easily when being washed. Looks like my next shirt order will be with thick. Thanks for the input.

[Lookingtoimprove]

While I'm rapidly becoming a fan of thick MOP buttons, I do think there is still a place for thin(ner) MOP buttons. I think thick MOP buttons would look odd on certain (styles of) shirts.

Mark

[Cruz Diez]

Dear members,

Interesting discussion.

I generally prefer buttons that are 3 mm thick for the front placket, and 2 mm buttons for the collar band and cuffs. At the collar band, in order to fasten it, it is necessary to apply considerable tension to the mating components. As buttonholes are one of the most delicate parts of a shirt, I've noticed that thinner buttons put less strain on the buttonholes and are easier to insert, at the areas of the shirt subject to the highest strain.

Also, when looking at buttons, I don't look for the thickest varieties, but rather for the most attractive natural colors, depth of shine, and shape.

Cheers,
Miguel

[zjpj]

Thinner for collar sounds like a clever idea.

[BirdofSydney]

It may also be worthwhile thinking about the fabric of the shirt - in a very pillowy, soft garment, particularly without a front placket, thick buttons may appear somewhat "submerged" in the material. I imagine this would happen with royal oxfords, or anything with a heavy weave to it. In this case, a thin button may be preferable.

I myself prefer all my shirts with thick buttons, and without plackets, to create the most elegant appearance when worn without a tie. This will usually be the case on a summer evening, or conversely a winter evening when I attempt to channel Alain Delon by wearing a rollneck knit under a shirt with a black jacket. A look requiring confidence, but most rewarding if pulled off. When I can locate ascots of suitable quality, of course, I will wear these with an open shirt in slightly warmer climes.

Regards,

Eden

[T4phage]

It may also be worthwhile thinking about the fabric of the shirt - in a very pillowy, soft garment, particularly without a front placket, thick buttons may appear somewhat "submerged" in the material. I imagine this would happen with royal oxfords, or anything with a heavy weave to it. In this case, a thin button may be preferable.....

Eden, I am a bit lost trying to picture this image... A 'lush, pillowy' fabric to me would be more along the lines of a cotton/cashmere blend rather then a royal twill or oxford. I have shirts in both types of fabric but don't see how it would 'submerge' a thick MOP button, regardless of whether a placket is present or not. Could you please explain further.

Regards,
Jan

[mathew]

Better bespoke shirtmakers will sew a shank under the buttons. The highest shank I've ever seen used for a button on a shirt was on Leonardo Bugelli's shirt!

[mathew]

Ever notice how Borrelli uses (or at least used to use, on most shirts) 16L, 3.5 or 4mm buttons on the shirt front and cuffs (if barrel cuffs), smaller(14L?), slightly thinner buttons on the sleeve plackets, and a (16L?) thin, flat button for the collar?

[BirdofSydney]

Mea culpa for not being quite clear, Jan. The cloth that I know as royal oxford is a somewhat softer version of the oxford fabrication, with the differing warp/weft cotton. I understand them to be rather soft, though I don't tend to wear them myself. Perhaps it was a bad example. Some brushed cotton (perish the thought of me wearing one) shirts are quite soft, but a cashmere blend would certainly do it.

But, yes, the consumption of buttons into the fabric is never a good look i feel. I expect it would happen more in a shirt with no placket, as there are fewer layers of cloth to add stiffness.

Regards,

Eden