Show off the sports coats.

[BellyTank]

Baron, to use the Sartorial vernacular;
...that jacket is a great big spunk, Mate!

B
T

 

[mike]

what do you think of my new db jacket?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Nice jacket. Fits you well. And a nice combo with the solid trousers.

Glad to see a jacket that's not too long! (not particularly you; just generally people wear 'em too long.)

bk

 

[mike]

Nice jacket. Fits you well. And a nice combo with the solid trousers.

Glad to see a jacket that's not too long! (not particularly you; just generally people wear 'em too long.)

bk

thanks! any other suggestions on what sort of pants to pair it with as it's orphaned otherwise? by the way, the pants aren't as long as some of those pictures show them to be, I wasn't wearing suspenders, just quickly put em on to show here.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Striped jackets are difficult. They have a terrible tendency to look like orphaned jackets, independent of what you do with them.

bk

 

[mike]

Striped jackets are difficult. They have a terrible tendency to look like orphaned jackets, independent of what you do with them.

bk

do you think maybe some charcoal or even black pants might take the eye away from the difference of material between jacket/pants...? I have some high waisted probably 50's pants that aren't pegged that I thought might be able to mix well... :eusa_doh:

 

[luvthatlulu]

Mike...

That looks like a very nice jacket but, judging only from the first two photos, it appears to me to be about 2-3" too short in length (hands in pockets pictures--all bets are off). Ideally, the coat bottom should lie in the curve of your fingers at rest (give or take a little for personal taste), but definitely should not be so short that almost the entire pant fly is exposed to public scrutiny! DB jackets were worn shorter decades ago...but never that short, I'm afraid.

Now, I know you mentioned that the pants were not hanging properly in the photo. Try them again with the suspenders you mentioned and, if the same problem still exists, I'd recommend recycling that jacket thru eBay.

Sorry...you asked...and I was reluctant to say so, but felt someone had to say it.

 

[mike]

That looks like a very nice jacket but, judging only from the first two photos, it appears to me to be about 2-3" too short in length (hands in pockets pictures--all bets are off). Ideally, the coat bottom should lie in the curve of your fingers at rest (give or take a little for personal taste), but definitely should not be so short that almost the entire pant fly is exposed to public scrutiny! DB jackets were worn shorter decades ago...but never that short, I'm afraid.

Now, I know you mentioned that the pants were not hanging properly in the photo. Try them again with the suspenders you mentioned and, if the same problem still exists, I'd recommend recycling that jacket thru eBay.

Sorry...you asked...and I was reluctant to say so, but felt someone had to say it.

lol no problem! I certainly appreciate honest opinions! but with these new pictures.. is this still too short..?

 

[luvthatlulu]

It's better, but I'm still afraid so, Mike.

Let me draw your attention to the second photo. Notice anything odd?

1. The crotch of your trousers is still exposed.

2. Compare the waist of the jacket to your natural waist--a little too high.

3. Now, let your eyes follow the line of your trouser leg up to the bottom of the jacket. Then, start at the shoulder of the jacket and let your eyes follow the line of the jacket down to the bottom. See a difference? Long legs on a chorus girl are great, but not on a man in a jacket and trouser. A 1 3/4 - 2" cuff would break up that difference and help some.

It's the problem in 1. above that concerns me the most. The jacket is just a hair too short in my opinion...and that's all it is, my opinion.

Still, it's a nice looking jacket and the high-waisted trousers are great, too, by the way.

 

[Jovan]

Personally, this doesn't bother me that much. But you're talking to a guy who likes the slightly short jacket styles of the '50s and '60s.

 

[Tomasso]

Sorry Mike, but I'm afraid that I'll have to concur with just about all that Lululover said.[huh]

The exception being this:

Ideally, the coat bottom should lie in the curve of your fingers at rest (give or take a little for personal taste

This often repeated measuring technique, while occasionally accurate, is not applicable across the board. Jacket length should be fitted to one's body regardless of their arm length as men of the exact same height can have arm length variances of several inches. (Note: Once one has determined their proper jacket length, they can then use the point where the jacket hits their hand as future reference).

IMO, a jacket should at the very least cover your rear end (which will cover your crotch as well).

I would much prefer the technique of measuring a man from the collar seam of their jacket down to the floor and then dividing in 1/2. Still not perfect but loads better than the former.

 

[luvthatlulu]

One more thing: The sleeves of the jacket are currently just a little too long. Isn't it always funny that the jacket can be short and the sleeves still be long?

Anyway, I wanted to tell you if you do decide to keep the jacket and want to shorten the sleeves (and you should), don't fall into the trap of going with the 1/2"-of-shirt-cuff-showing rule. Because the jacket already appears short, too much white shirt cuff will accentuate the problem (think "Alfalfa" in The Little Rascals). Opt for a very discreet amount (@1/4") of shirt cuff showing instead.

Minor fit problems can always be diminished with the proper application of camouflaging eye-trickery!

 

[luvthatlulu]

Sorry Mike, but I'm afraid that I'll have to concur with just about all that Lululover said.[huh]

The exception being this:
This often repeated measuring technique, while occasionally accurate, is not applicable across the board. Jacket length should be fitted to one's body regardless of their arm length as men of the exact same height can have arm length variances of several inches. (Note: Once one has determined their proper jacket length, they can then use the point where the jacket hits their hand as future reference).

IMO, a jacket should at the very least cover your rear end (which will cover your crotch as well).

I would much prefer the technique of measuring a man from the collar seam of their jacket down to the floor and then dividing in 1/2. Still not perfect but loads better than the former.

Tomasso is absolutely correct...which is why I said "Ideally" rather than elaborate further. I'm glad he did.

 

[Tomasso]

Being a bit off on jacket length isn't nearly as noticeable on a suit as with a sportjacket/odd trouser combo (especially when there's a wide color discrepancy between the two).

 

[Mike in Seattle]

That looks like a very nice jacket but, judging only from the first two photos, it appears to me to be about 2-3" too short in length (hands in pockets pictures--all bets are off). Ideally, the coat bottom should lie in the curve of your fingers at rest (give or take a little for personal taste), but definitely should not be so short that almost the entire pant fly is exposed to public scrutiny! DB jackets were worn shorter decades ago...but never that short, I'm afraid.

That's what I had always heard - bottom of the jacket to the curve of the fingers. And I guess there's some leeway on that based on wearer's build and how the jacket looks, but to my eye, it's a little short in the body. It looks a little less obvious in the second set of photos (leaning against the wall, unbuttoned) and of course, our looking at it in photos, we're focusing on certain things. If you're out and about wearing it, and in motion, the average person on the street probably isn't going to notice the same things that we are.

 

[luvthatlulu]

That's what I had always heard - bottom of the jacket to the curve of the fingers. And I guess there's some leeway on that based on wearer's build and how the jacket looks...

The "bottom of the jacket to the curve of the fingers" rule is only a good starting or reference point. As Tomasso correctly pointed out, that rule must be flexible enough to accommodate individuals with longer than normal or shorter than normal arm length. But the basic concept remains the same:

If the bottom of the jacket ends dramatically higher than the hand when at rest, the person wearing it appears to have--for lack of a better metaphor--"ape arms". If the jacket ends dramatically lower, it's "alligator arms".

A knowledgeable tailor will therefore bend this "rule" to minimize those effects without settling on a jacket so short the crotch or buttocks are exposed, or so long as to appear clownish, just for the sake of having the jacket resting in the curve of the fingers.

 

[resortes805]

Baron,

I used to own that jacket! I sold it early last year on ebay...I'm glad you ended up with it!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Did you sell it to someone in the UK?

bk

 

[resortes805]

Did you sell it to someone in the UK?

bk

Yup! I had held onto in hopes that I could have it reproduced in my size. Alas, the bills were due so I put it up for auction.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I hope you got more for it than i paid . . .

Was there loose stitching at the pocket-tops and at the top of the box pleat when you sold it? Or has a clumsy-handed chap wearing a jacket too small for him - very possibly inebriated - had a-hold of it.

bk