What's your opinion on wide notch-lapels? Tom Ford/70s type wide.

Flusser discussed lapels in proportion to the suit, so the breadth of your shoulders should play a role in the decision. I forget the exact formula, but I believe he said the lapel should extend 4/10 of the distance to the shoulder. So the broader the shoulders, the wide of a lapel would look acceptable.



VinnyMac said:

+1 The large lapels make me think of old man clothes.

Click to expand...

Yes - when you see a really old man in a suit with wide lapels it tends to draw compliments.

On a related note, are PRL suits fused or half-canvassed? I know they're made by Corneliani, and are recent (a year or two).



MattSF said:

Flusser discussed lapels in proportion to the suit, so the breadth of your shoulders should play a role in the decision. I forget the exact formula, but I believe he said the lapel should extend 4/10 of the distance to the shoulder. So the broader the shoulders, the wide of a lapel would look acceptable.  

Click to expand...

20" shoulder = 4" lapel

I'm down with that.

One man's narrow is another man's wide.

However, skinny lapels are a far greater evil than wide lapels.

4" isn't actually wide, as someone else pointed out, unless you have the frame of a 12-year-old girl.

There's no way you can call 4" lapels a fad. Timeless tailors like Liverano and Solito make up suits with far wider lapels as standard. Solito's might even be more like 6".
3" is also far too narrow, verging on skinny.

I also don't subscribe to the Flusser Formulae. Proportion is obviously important, but it's logically fallacious to choose styling based on your body shape.

You guys are hung up on this definition thing when the OP specified that he was talking about lapels that are wide, not 4-inch lapels that fall halfway across the chest. The pictures he posted are pretty definitively wide.

I had a couple of those Garrisons that I got rid of with one of the reasons being the wide lapels. I still have one which I quite like:

Loathing said:

I also don't subscribe to the Flusser Formulae. Proportion is obviously important, but it's logically fallacious to choose styling based on your body shape.

Click to expand...

Without going back to the book, I believe Flusser gave an acceptable range of widths based on the proportions the man, so that for a 20" shoulder, for example, an acceptable range of lapels could be 3 1/4" to 4" or so. I forget the exact numbers, but it was basically a formula to get to an acceptable range of lapel widths for your body type, not necessarily a scientific calculation.

The first picture in the OP actually looks fine IMO. The second, not so much...



DocHolliday said:

You guys are hung up on this definition thing when the OP specified that he was talking about lapels that are wide, not 4-inch lapels that fall halfway across the chest. The pictures he posted are pretty definitively wide.

Click to expand...

He started it

A bit wide is better than a bit narrow.



mafoofan said:

A bit wide is better than a bit narrow.

Click to expand...

That's what she said.

But in all honesty one should always play to his body's proportions. I also feel the shape of the shoulder plays a part in the width of a lapel one should go for. Whether sloped or square could affect the whole overall aesthetics.

Go big or go home. Skinny lapels are for babies.

I don't like superfluous fabric on a jacket... unless it's my lapel.

Verniza said:

But in all honesty one should always play to his body's proportions. I also feel the shape of the shoulder plays a part in the width of a lapel one should go for. Whether sloped or square could affect the whole overall aesthetics.

Click to expand...

Exactly, the lapels would be based on your body proportions.

Superfluous said:

Go big or go home. Skinny lapels are for babies.

I don't like superfluous fabric on a jacket... unless it's my lapel.

Click to expand...

Isn't all the fabric in all your jackets Superfluous fabric?

That's it. That's the whole joke. I'll be here all week.