Delete

[amadar]

delete

 

[RangerP]

Tuck in your shirt!

Here's my noob opinion:

Sleeves 2 inches too short IMO on the first one. Probably 1-2 inches too short on the second. It's too bad they are too short because the side view of the sleeve is perfect.

the first one is worst than the second. It might be the untucked shirt but the button stance looks off on the first one...it's really high for a 3 roll 2.

I would maybe wear the second one after a slight waist suppression (not much!!). I wouldn't wear the first... B&S

How did you get cheap MTM Oxxford?

 

[Mac]

I know it's MTM but the first jacket looks like you've bought a regular length rather than what you need which would be a long. The first one is a mess—get a refund if you can. Go to the tailor and have them take the second jacket in at the chest and waist. The shoulders look fine to me—it's nice not to see divots in a MTM jacket. I'd lengthen the sleeves just a tad if there's anything to lengthen as I see you've got working cuffs. Very nice jacket though. Return jacket one, keep jacket two.

 

[amadar]

Thanks for the thoughts/suggestions so far. I wanted to clarify one thing......these jackets were MTM, just not for me. Thus the low prices

. I have posted better frontal pictures of the blue jacket as the first ones posted are from a strange angle. I've also notice some weird rippling in the button/chest area of the blue jacket. The jacket doesn't feel tight in the chest, in fact quite the opposite.......could a loose chest cause the rippling?

 

[Sanguis Mortuum]

The sleeve length is unsalvageable.

 

[SpooPoker]

Originally Posted by Sanguis Mortuum

The sleeve length is unsalvageable.

 

[amadar]

^^^^ I never thought of this.....might just work!

 

[Dewey]

They are too short for you. They were MTM for a shorter guy. The button stance on both appears to be well above your navel, on the top of your stomach. You look like a pregnant schoolboy who has just gone through a growth spurt, especially in the first picture. Length in the back might be OK but you can't do anything about the button being so close to your sternum.

The shoulders look OK to me. Sleeves are a little short but here it's because the jacket is a short.

Give both jackets to charity. Or your shorter brother.

Also you might clean your mirror before you shoot pictures in it.

 

[blahman]

Have those SCs been ironed?

 

[amadar]

Originally Posted by Dewey

They are too short for you. They were MTM for a shorter guy. The button stance on both appears to be well above your navel, on the top of your stomach. You look like a pregnant schoolboy who has just gone through a growth spurt, especially in the first picture. Length in the back might be OK but you can't do anything about the button being so close to your sternum. The shoulders look OK to me. Sleeves are a little short but here it's because the jacket is a short. Give both jackets to charity. Or your shorter brother. Also you might clean your mirror before you shoot pictures in it.
Thank you for your, um, candid insight......I'll be sure to clean my mirror next time. FWIW, both of the jackets' button stances are approximately 1/2" above my navel, so I'm guessing any pregnant schoolboy effect may have been a product of a strange camera angle. Also, I'm 6 feet tall and the jacket lengths both measure between 30.5" to 31" (from BOC). i could be mistaken, but apart from the sleeves, I think the jackets measure as regulars.

Originally Posted by blahman

Have those SCs been ironed?
As far as I know they have not....what makes you think this?

 

[bck]

As others have pointed out, the sleeves look ridiculously short. What do you plan on doing with these now?

 

[amadar]

Originally Posted by bck

As others have pointed out, the sleeves look ridiculously short. What do you plan on doing with these now?

Opinions have been slightly inconsistent so far.....so I'll wait to see what additional comments may come in. Most likely they will end up on the B/S at some point.

 

[mhdena]

The only inconsistency is your refusal to accept that it is to short.