Cosmic injustice. But then... why isn't it a 40 L complete with trousers? ;)
A very thin basis.
I got this together with some other (mostly decrepit) Central European suits. Some certainly German, but some had labels from Poland/Warsaw and Czechoslowakia.
I just can't really convince myself...
Ok... as we are on the topic of really short 30's jackets. This one is probably from Poland.
Size 35 (on a 38-40 mannequin - sorry for the creased shoulders). 71 cm total back length. 41 cm shoulders.
Anyone interested in this Central/East-European specimen of unusual tailoring, PM me.
Hmm... the obvious explanation would be that there was a discrepancy between the advertised "fashion ideal" and reality.
Some more food for thought:
German periodical from July 1929:
75-76 cm back length for average height 174 cm.
Oct. 1930:
A DB in "English fashion" is shown: 76 cm back...
I checked several German-language publications (Internatioanle Moden, Rundschau, Schneidermeister, Zeitschrift für Modekunst and official guild booklets) from 1933-1940... their average body height is 175-176 cm (69 inches). With some seasonal variation (a bit shorter in Spring/Summer) they...
Ah, ok. It certainly appears to be an overall European (and influenced regions) fashion.
I thought your comment was meant in context of the "wrist rule".
But I'd bet that all of them had skirts about the length of the sleeve-end (where the wrist is supposed to be, give or take 1 cm)... but not significantly shorter than the sleeves.
These are BTW about the measurements of my brown chalkstripe three-piece posted before.
It has 25.5 inches...
Probably because they tend to be overly cheesy without very clever lyrics.
Also the musical style was mostly "old-fashioned" and similar to operette.
***
Here some bona-fide German/Austrian 1930-40's workwear:
Jacket (sz. 38) is a cotton/linen herringbone twill. Waistcoat is a charcoal-white...
I didn't want to suggest that "reaching the wrists" is or should be a "rule" cast in iron.
It's just what I personally think is a good looking proportion and my "rule of thumb".
I have several rather shortish jackets... they look right to me because they reach the wrists (where the hand bends)...
Thanks for the photos, Patrick!
I'll go out on a limb here and say that the chunky front buttons are not original to the coat.
They give me strong late 60's - 70's vibes - maybe the sportcoat was "updated" in that period with fancy buttons. Maybe others can chime in with their take on them...
I think the reason why jackets are usually shorter in the back is to allow for a good fit in sitting posture.
***
Rabbit, the right one is a good short length as it reaches your wrists. That's for me the deciding factor.
A well-fitting short jacket looks more dynamic and sportive than long...
Haha. Yes, I am neither old nor fat, but there is a thin line between short and too short.
It's about proportions, too. I have long arms and legs... therefore the jacket length ought to reach at least my wrists.
I will make photos of me wearing this suit and you can judge.
Nice combo Patrick. The color and collar latch are quite special.
Could you show a close-up of the buttons? They are quite unusual for US 30-40's wear.
Yes my most recent discovery.
I must have won the favor of the vintage goddess...
although she must have a sense of sadistic humor, as I currently tend to find too many short sizes (either in your or my size)!
I would have liked it better if the body was a bit longer than the sleeves.
My inseam is around 82 cms. 65 cm sleeves are minimum. 67 cm is ideal.
I have quite long arms and legs.
But the body is bloody short (total 71 cm).
The sleeves are good (65 cm), the legs work fine (after letting out).
I'd hate to pass this one on - it's my only non-sport notch-lapel (and even with waistcoat).
But if I get the feeling that it is way too short for me I'd just might have to.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.