or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Open or closed quarters?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Open or closed quarters? - Page 2

post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by antirabbit View Post
Isnt that why better suit makers put much time and effort into the front of pants?

Can we get a pic (Manton) of what the ideal looks like?

Iammatt's Rubinacci coats get this right, I think.
post #17 of 53
Thread Starter 
This can be changed correct?
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by antirabbit View Post
This can be changed correct?

What? The openness of the quarters? Not really. I suppose you could cut away below the waist button, but there would still be another buttonhole in the way.
post #19 of 53
I don't think the openness of the quarters is something to be thought about in isolation. Certain cuts seem to look better with more closed quarters. The more columnar, Roman silhouettes, for example. Same for the straight and narrow 50s sack look.

In general, closed quarters tend to make a suit look a bit more formal and serious whereas the open quarters appear more dynamic.

Finally, consider the quarters in relation to the front/back balance. On cuts that are longer in front, open quarters look really good, and closed are a disaster. When the fronts are level or shorter, closed can look good.

All in all, I too prefer open.
post #20 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Iammatt's Rubinacci coats get this right, I think.
I also like them open, but don't know which ones you are talking about.
post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dokelroth View Post
I also like them open, but don't know which ones you are talking about.

He posts pics of himself in WAWN.
post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post
In general, closed quarters tend to make a suit look a bit more formal and serious whereas the open quarters appear more dynamic.

I actually like to talk about a 'cutaway' front on a lounge, just as on various types of morning coats and dress coats. The cutaway was always meant to be a sporting detail. Of course, originally it was purely practical for riding but aesthetically too, it does give any coat a more dynamic appearance - lounges included. Frock coats by comparison always look more serious because of the lack of the cutaway front.
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post
Finally, consider the quarters in relation to the front/back balance. On cuts that are longer in front, open quarters look really good, and closed are a disaster. When the fronts are level or shorter, closed can look good.

I'm not trying to be annoying - just trying to get straight what the term means but doesn't front-back balance refer to how well the jacket follows the chest & back (e.g. no bunching) rather that the relative lengths the front and the back (distance from the bottom edge to the ground).
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post
I'm not trying to be annoying - just trying to get straight what the term means but doesn't front-back balance refer to how well the jacket follows the chest & back (e.g. no bunching) rather that the relative lengths the front and the back (distance from the bottom edge to the ground).
I meant to avoid technical terms because few people, and certainly not me, know what they mean. Even if some people do know what they mean, others disagree about or are ignorant of the meaning, making the term useless for us non-tailors. In any event, I goofed. I meant to say relative length, comparing the front and the sides/back. And for the record, I have no idea whether I used the term correctly in the technical sense - I was thinking in English, not Tailor, and that is what came out.
post #25 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post
I'm not trying to be annoying - just trying to get straight what the term means but doesn't front-back balance refer to how well the jacket follows the chest & back (e.g. no bunching) rather that the relative lengths the front and the back (distance from the bottom edge to the ground).

That is my understanding.
post #26 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dokelroth View Post
I also like them open, but don't know which ones you are talking about.
For me, this has become the gold standard of how a jacket should look - I'm guessing this was the example Manton was thinking of:

Rubinacci
http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/...pic.php?t=6150


Here is another good example, IMO:

Don't know the tailor
http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/...p=16983&#16983
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post
I'm not trying to be annoying - just trying to get straight what the term means but doesn't front-back balance refer to how well the jacket follows the chest & back (e.g. no bunching) rather that the relative lengths the front and the back (distance from the bottom edge to the ground).

It is both: the relative lengths of front and back affect (among other things) how well a coat follows the contours of the body.
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post
I don't think the openness of the quarters is something to be thought about in isolation. Certain cuts seem to look better with more closed quarters. The more columnar, Roman silhouettes, for example. Same for the straight and narrow 50s sack look.

+1
post #29 of 53
imho a jacket with closed quarters looks like a uniform.
post #30 of 53
Is it at all possible for a tailor to open up the quarters a bit on a jacket that, in my opinion, look to be too closed?

It's a linen OTR sport coat that I didn't spend a whole lot on, so I'm willing to take a risk on it...

If it is possible, about how much should it cost (at a decent NYC tailor)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Open or closed quarters?