or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Critique needed for fitted-cut suit in 21 oz twill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Critique needed for fitted-cut suit in 21 oz twill - Page 3

post #31 of 41
Those shoes...
post #32 of 41
Everyone seems to be talking around it, and Foof caught it, but you can't make a two-button jacket fall like a one- or a three-button. The first three examples you show as inspirations are all one-button jackets. They button at the natural waist and the quarters open from there giving a balanced silhouette. On your two-button jacket, the bottom quarters can't open until they've cleared the second button. Because the natural waist divides the two buttons, the front on your jacket is more closed than that on the models. If you want to get closer to your inspiration jackets, you are going to have to go to a single or three-button jacket. A two will never look the same. It is this different buttoning stance that makes the inspiration jackets appear to have greater waist suppression. Just nipping the waist more won't fix it.
post #33 of 41
Thread Starter 
^So I'll definitely be taking out the bottom button and cutting out a larger space between the quarters... but should I lower the button stance as well? I'm also worried about costs... I can't imagine it'd cost that much to cut open the quarters, but lowering the button stance would take a lot of alteration work no? and could go wrong, creating new wrinkles?

What about reducing the circumference of the skirt around the bottom of the jacket? Maybe that would have the dual beneficial effect of reducing the large size of the jacket below my waist that looks off-balanced, and making the waist suppression look less extreme...

The final problem I have is visible in the side view... because I have a stick-out stomach when I'm standing straight, the fabric sticking out from the lapel roll and the jacket in general just looks too much... if the alterationist can, should he take out the lapel roll and make it flat?
post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wideknot View Post
Everyone seems to be talking around it, and Foof caught it, but you can't make a two-button jacket fall like a one- or a three-button. The first three examples you show as inspirations are all one-button jackets. They button at the natural waist and the quarters open from there giving a balanced silhouette. On your two-button jacket, the bottom quarters can't open until they've cleared the second button. Because the natural waist divides the two buttons, the front on your jacket is more closed than that on the models. If you want to get closer to your inspiration jackets, you are going to have to go to a single or three-button jacket. A two will never look the same. It is this different buttoning stance that makes the inspiration jackets appear to have greater waist suppression. Just nipping the waist more won't fix it.

This is just not true, a two button jacket is often cut so that only the top button is meant to be buttoned, therefore can be cut exactly the same as a one-button jacket. In this particular case it looks like the tailor cut it with the intention of buttoning both buttons, but that's not really normal.
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguis Mortuum View Post
This is just not true, a two button jacket is often cut so that only the top button is meant to be buttoned, therefore can be cut exactly the same as a one-button jacket. In this particular case it looks like the tailor cut it with the intention of buttoning both buttons, but that's not really normal.

A two-button jacket that is "cut exactly the same as a one-button," but such that "only the top button is meant to be buttoned," will have the button stance look peculiar. If the top button of your proposed jacket falls at the waist (unlike the normal two-button stance where it falls above), where it must for the jacket to hang as those on the OP's models, then the bottom button will fall quite far below. Also, In this proposed jacket, because the quarters are quite open, the bottom button would never fall to a closed position. It would look like the upper buttons on a DB - there only for decoration. Frankly, I've never seen such a jacket. Got any pics?
post #36 of 41
I think Wideknot is right. We often treat the bottom button as though it cannot be buttoned, because around here, many of us like open quarters. Problem is that few RTW makers offer those very open quarters, so they're achieved instead, by the impecunious iGent, by wearing a coat slightly too snug around the waist, or maybe with a shortish back balance, allowing the quarters to swing open in a way they weren't exactly meant to do. Obviously a single-button jacket would be cut slightly differently than a two-button. Then again, didn't Foo have his 1-buttons altered to 3-roll-2s? How did that work?
post #37 of 41
Thread Starter 
Do these movie stills help with anyone's analysis?

still would like someone's thoughts on the costs/risks of lowering the button stance with an alterationist.

post #38 of 41
That's a new one. Intriguing. It seems obvious that the heavy horizontal creasing across the small of your back is an effect of a too erect pose. When you're standing in a more relaxed, natural position, as in picture #8, the back looks fine. That said, the cut of the jacket makes your posterior look rather large -- if that's an artefact (or even if it isn't), it may not be the most desirable effect. Either your shirt collar is faddishly high or the jacket's collar is a bit low, or both. And alterationist is one of the sillier neologisms I've come across. I wouldn't mind if it died a quick death.
post #39 of 41
lordosis is a bitch (at least for getting clothes to fit correctly).

the front-back balance issue does not seem egregious here, by any stretch. i'd just have them let out the back a bit and take in the sides (or, since it's already quite tight, not take in the sides quite so much as the back is let out). oh, and shorten the pants.

they did a nice job with the scye/sleevehead/sleeve, though. that's usually the other big problem area when tailors encounter very erect posture.
post #40 of 41
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by literasyme View Post
Either your shirt collar is faddishly high or the jacket's collar is a bit low, or both.
it's faddishly high, i just didn't have my lower shirts with me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sfnapolifan View Post
the front-back balance issue does not seem egregious here, by any stretch. i'd just have them let out the back a bit and take in the sides (or, since it's already quite tight, not take in the sides quite so much as the back is let out). oh, and shorten the pants.

let it out from the center back seam you think?

it is true literasyme that the creases go away when i consciously try to stand with less of a sway back... but I won't always be able to remember to do that.

Can an alterationist just unsew the button, place it a little lower, and iron the lapels to it?

Other than that I'm thinking of shortening the jacket by 1 or 2 cm and opening up the quarters... and of course fix the trousers.
post #41 of 41
Quote:
Can an alterationist just unsew the button, place it a little lower, and iron the lapels to it?

a) re. alterationist

b) How is that supposed to work? The tailor can't move the buttonhole on the other side, can he? You'd just wind up with a mismatch between button and buttonhole.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Critique needed for fitted-cut suit in 21 oz twill