30s SB Peak Lapel Belted Back size 40R!

[LuckyKat]

Don't miss this one!
30s SB, Peak Lapel, Grayish-blue w/ red triple pinstripes as well as redish-white windowpane...no tags... asking $175

40R
sleeve: 24" (+3)
top of collar to bottom of jacket: 27.25"
2 button closure

PM me for inquiries &/or questions.

 

[fluteplayer07]

You know I can't pass this up... I'll take it!

 

[repeatclicks]

Man, that's a short jacket!

 

[LuckyKat]

Man, that's a short jacket!

Considering it's age (mid 30s) its relatively appropriate length.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I don't know about that; that's pretty damn short "from the top of the collar".

bk

 

[LuckyKat]

As I was saying...it's not that short (for a mid 30s jacket)...it falls half-way down the backside, unlike a 40s coat that would fall over the backside...

 

[Guttersnipe]

LuckyKat is correct, 30's suit jackets in general - and belt-backs specific - tend to be shorter than suit jackets for later periods. That's the quintessential 30's fancy-back silhouette. . . I'd be all over this if I didn't already have a virtually identical one!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Insanity.

That jacket above is far too short for the model.

A properly fitted jacket has never been intended to end halfway down the buttocks. If it does, it means the jacket is too short for the wearer. It does not follow that that's how belted back jackets were cut in the 1930s. None of my belted back jackets are any shorter than a normal suit jacket of the same size. Are you guys claiming that 1930s suit jacket would generally not cover the buttocks of the 1930s man that bought it? To quote Albert Camus completely out of context: an absurd proposal.

Check the scans of the rear views (as examples only; i've never seen a catalogue promote a jacket as short as the one above).

 

[Feraud]

As I was saying...it's not that short (for a mid 30s jacket)...it falls half-way down the backside, unlike a 40s coat that would fall over the backside...

That jacket is way too short.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Nobody said anything about the model!!!

I was talking about the Jacket! Don't believe me? Here's a picture a dated, dead-stock mint, unaltered belt-back I own; in fact it's so mint I couldn't bring myself to have it altered in, so I'm saving for when I'm old and fat. Note the length of the sleeves in comparison with the length of the back:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I don't believe the generalization.

Yes, that's understood (Re: the model). But the only possible conclusion is that that is an irregular jacket, not that that jacket is the archetype of 30s jackets vis a vis length. (I'm glad you bring up "unaltered". Check out the jackets in a modern menswear store - MTM jackets arrive with the arms at maximum length. Much easier for a tailor to shorten than lengthen. I think that's a possible explanation for the *apparently* anomalous length of these jackets.)

I mean, the conclusions above are like saying that wearing a hat a size too small means that "hats were tight back then".


bk

 

[repeatclicks]

Hard to disagree with two identical jackets the same length.... [huh]

 

[Baron Kurtz]

It's like saying that because Oliver Hardy's ties were absurdly short, that all 1930s ties were worn that short.

It just doesn't hold up to even the mildest level of scrutiny. I am actually very surprised to see these jackets. I have come across only one jacket this short with reference to the arms, and it has obviously been shortened (the tailoring is terrible).

It is simply not reasonable for anyone with any experience of 1930s clothing to believe that suit jackets in the 1930s were cut this short by design. When 99% of jackets found in vintage stores are seen to be cut to fall below the line of the buttocks, it is not reasonable - and in fact it's disingenuous (particularly with reference to this thread) - to suggest that the standard cut of an era is anything other than that.

bk

 

[fluteplayer07]

Now I'm very .

 

[LuckyKat]

I still think in the earlier periods of the 30s we saw shorter jackets than in the 40s & later periods. You can't go off of what you see in just the movies or just in advertisements. If you've watched a lot of home movies and film of that sort you would see the difference.

Plus, it SOLELY depended on the preference of the person & some people prefered the jackets at certain lengths...we even saw this in the 40s & 50s where a lot of jackets were longer. But not everyone did that. So, because not EVERYONE had long jackets in any era & because a lot of people had custom work done in those days, there's no telling what is "right" on "wrong" based on just pictures.

 

[LuckyKat]

And just because you don't see certain things in vintage stores, doesn't mean it's not true. Belted Back coats specifically, were made for sportswear, so naturally they would wear out before a normal business suit.

 

[LuckyKat]

All in all it is 100% about the wearers OPINION & comfort...no one elses.

 

[benstephens]

I agree with Baron, We must be careful of these generalised statements about mens wear in the 1930s. I do not think the Baron is stating these very short jackets existed, but they were not at all common. I have come across probably three, where the arms seem a lot longer compared to the body. However, I suspect most were made for people with short bodies long arms.

In general, catalogues and films give us a clue about the prevailing style of the time, that is not to say that everybody would have followed that. Contemporary photographs and film can then lead us to a better understanding of what was actually worn, and, using this I have to say I rarely see jackets quite this short. A good place to start looking is the Getty archive, where you can put in a date range and then search using keywords such as ‘crowds’, ’races’ etc. This gives a good snapshot of the average way people dressed, and I feel that you will have to search quite a long time before you find such a short jacket being worn. So one can make the conclusion that from the evidence namely Photographs, catalogues and the items found in vintage clothing stores that jackets like this existed but were rare and out of the ordinary.

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[Guttersnipe]

I think,perhaps, what we have here is a case of Americans and Englishmen being "separated by a common language," so to speak. For instance, I know that we certainly don't throw terms like "disingenuous" around lightly in California. I do however very much appreciate the cordial tone of benstephens's response (you sir always raise the bar for the FL).

My formal education is in economics/statistical mathematics and consequently my thinking patterns are shaped as such. Whenever possible I couch my terms in a manner keeping with my Aristotelian logical and scientifically methodological training, but perhaps I was not entirely clear in what I said before. However, if you read my post I used the term tend, as in "we tend to see a correlation between length and age;" correlation does not necessarily equate to causation, but rather shows an observable pattern.

When one observers a correlation in properly formatted data sets there are only four possible explanations:
1) X causes Y
2) Y causes X
3) Sometimes X causes Y and sometimes Y causes X
4) Z causes X and Y (e.g. there is a lurking variable, and the Baron is suggesting)

I was speaking of a tendency based off of first-hand observations of "archaeological evidence" in the form of suits that can concretely be verified as dating to EXACT period in general, and single-breasted, peaked lapel, two-button, belted-back suit jackets, that all date within a five or six year period and are all American in origin, in specific.

The dimensions of the jacket I posted above are: Sleeve 25" Length: from nape of neck: 28"

Here is yet another jacket, that fits the above criteria, and has similar dimensions (Sleeve: 24 1/2" Length: from nape of neck: 28 1/2"):

So, as you can see from my "cited" evidence, there is clearly an observable pattern and, therefore, to make an observation of tendency is nowhere near generalization.

 

[Wash In Lux]

I'll have to agree that even for 30's, that is very short. A 30's movie that comes to mind where you'll see someone wearing a suit very short like this is Alice Adams. Think the movie's from about 1935. Kate Hepburn's brother has a suit that doesn't come close to covering his bum. Haven't seen the movie in years but, I definitely remember thinking how unusual it was. The only thing I can think of is the family was supposed to be very poor so wardrobe chose an ill fitting suit. Which fits along with the story line and Kate Hepburn's dress which was supposed to be a laughing stock.
Excellent movie if you've not seen it.