Originally Posted by TimelesStyle
I'm saying heinously low by today's standard. Were he wearing a timelessly elegant garment that he'd been using for 20 years, I'd give him a pass. However the rest of the outfit suggested that it was nothing more than current, OTR crap. And if you'll notice, back when lower lapels were the norm, nobody was even wearing two-button, peak lapel jackets for any purpose, let alone black tie. It was mostly the fact that he went for a "modern" tux that had skinnier peak lapels, two buttons and no waist covering (or braces) and then threw on a lapel stance not seen since 1992.
Fair enough, and it certainly is low by the SF iGent standard, which favors what Doc H aptly calls "batwing peak lapels." I was asking: why should we think that standard the right one? This is style forum, not iGent fashion forum. Just because it's against iGent fashion doesn't in itself make it unstylish.
I think the problem with Clooney's peak lapels is the skinniness. It's at dramatic odds with the length of the shoulder line, and the eye goes back and forth between lapel and sleevehead, instead of settling pleasantly on the face, as it would with a wider peak lapel.
"back when lower lapels were the norm": the 30s and 40s, perhaps? Anthony Eden wore 2BPL all the time, and was considered by London elites to be very well dressed, if a bit conspicuous.
(I admit that the gorges on Eden's PLs were not low.)