Yesterday at "Die, Workwear!", this caught my eye:
"Rubinacci only makes coats with one or three buttons. Mariano, the current proprietor of the house, is adamantly against two-button designs. To him, a three-button achieves a closer fit and looks more elegant, and single button is just practical. But a two-button? It does neither. You’ll never find a two-button Rubinacci jacket because he refuses to make them".
This reminded me of a similar riff by Hardy Amies in "The Englishman's Suit":
"I don't know where the two-button jacket came from ... The trade loved the front coat with its deep V opening to the waist. There was room for the fat man."
And later:
" This [the three-button coat], my dear friends, is the classic English gentleman's single- breasted coat. Many gentlemen have never given it up. It has immense style because you never do the top button up; you leave it open to match that below the waist - which you can't do up for reasons outlined above. The art of dressing is knowing just how nonchalant you can be: you want to leave as many buttons undone on your coat (those on your trousers are another matter) as you can before untidiness sets in. With the centre button fastened, your whole body is in proportion - you are giving the maximum amount if length you can to your torso and legs."
That point was picked-up in Paul Fussell's excellent book titled "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System":
"The general principle here is that the two-button suit is more prole than the three-button Eastern-establishment model. Most presidents have worn the two-button kind before, and when they assume the leadership of the Free World, they feel obliged to change, now affecting the three-button suits and resembling the Chairman of the Board of Chase Manhattan Bank."
Of course, Fussell's wrote that in the early 80s, so let's put aside the fact that his observation regarding American presidents is likely outdated.
There's also the point that - for those who occasionally wear bow ties - less shirt at the torso allows the bow to look better. Not relevant, of course, for those of you who don't wear bow ties.
So what are the arguments against the three-button coat? Our own Manton argued recently (although I can't quite remember where) that the three-button simply wraps a man in too much cloth at the torso and makes him look shapeless (or something to that affect). I remember that striking me as odd; couldn't one say the same thing about a double-breasted coat?
I will concede that the two-button coat's deep V likely enhances the illusion of height and slenderness. It would, after all, stand to reason. But if you're already slender and "not short", then you probably don't need this visual assistance.
I have a few Ralph Lauran Black Labels which are, of course, two-button coats, but the five single-breasted suit commissions I've made have all been three-button save for one one-button. Same for the two navy blazers I have had made.
So what are your arguments for - and against - the three-button?
Edited by J. Cogburn - 6/14/12 at 6:45am
"Rubinacci only makes coats with one or three buttons. Mariano, the current proprietor of the house, is adamantly against two-button designs. To him, a three-button achieves a closer fit and looks more elegant, and single button is just practical. But a two-button? It does neither. You’ll never find a two-button Rubinacci jacket because he refuses to make them".
This reminded me of a similar riff by Hardy Amies in "The Englishman's Suit":
"I don't know where the two-button jacket came from ... The trade loved the front coat with its deep V opening to the waist. There was room for the fat man."
And later:
" This [the three-button coat], my dear friends, is the classic English gentleman's single- breasted coat. Many gentlemen have never given it up. It has immense style because you never do the top button up; you leave it open to match that below the waist - which you can't do up for reasons outlined above. The art of dressing is knowing just how nonchalant you can be: you want to leave as many buttons undone on your coat (those on your trousers are another matter) as you can before untidiness sets in. With the centre button fastened, your whole body is in proportion - you are giving the maximum amount if length you can to your torso and legs."
That point was picked-up in Paul Fussell's excellent book titled "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System":
"The general principle here is that the two-button suit is more prole than the three-button Eastern-establishment model. Most presidents have worn the two-button kind before, and when they assume the leadership of the Free World, they feel obliged to change, now affecting the three-button suits and resembling the Chairman of the Board of Chase Manhattan Bank."
Of course, Fussell's wrote that in the early 80s, so let's put aside the fact that his observation regarding American presidents is likely outdated.
There's also the point that - for those who occasionally wear bow ties - less shirt at the torso allows the bow to look better. Not relevant, of course, for those of you who don't wear bow ties.
So what are the arguments against the three-button coat? Our own Manton argued recently (although I can't quite remember where) that the three-button simply wraps a man in too much cloth at the torso and makes him look shapeless (or something to that affect). I remember that striking me as odd; couldn't one say the same thing about a double-breasted coat?
I will concede that the two-button coat's deep V likely enhances the illusion of height and slenderness. It would, after all, stand to reason. But if you're already slender and "not short", then you probably don't need this visual assistance.
I have a few Ralph Lauran Black Labels which are, of course, two-button coats, but the five single-breasted suit commissions I've made have all been three-button save for one one-button. Same for the two navy blazers I have had made.
So what are your arguments for - and against - the three-button?
Edited by J. Cogburn - 6/14/12 at 6:45am
