• I'm happy to introduce the Styleforum Happy Hour, our brand new podcast featuring lively discussion about menswear and the fashion industry. In the inaugural edition, a discussion of what's going on in retail today. Please check it out on the Journal. All episodes will be also be available soon on your favorite podcast platform.

  • Hi, we have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy in anticipation of the upcoming new Calfornia laws, the CCPA. If you are a resident of California, these rights pertain to you. Thanks - Styleforum Team.
  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

Low armholes

Parterre

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2012
Messages
102
Reaction score
22
Is there a reason that low armholes came into style and eventually displaced higher ones? I can really think of no reason, my searches find none, and I don't think there was any kind of fashion trend. It's known that the higher armholes are more practical as they allow greater movement, was it a deliberate move to decrease the practicality of the suit jacket?
 

Svenn

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
53
^Trompe is correct... a lower armhole's one redeeming quality is that it will allow larger-circumference sleeves to be more smooth when, and only when, the arms are at rest. The pics below demonstrate how setting a sleeve in at an angle will lower the armhole. In the 18th century, many jackets had sleeves set in perpendicular to the torso, like a shirt, making the sleeve cap just a straight line; as opposed to the sinusoidal curve at the top of an angled sleeve. The higher the armhole, the more fitted the sleeve has to be to remain smooth when your arms are at rest, unless you want shirring. My hunch is that through the post WW2 period people only cared if the suits looked tidy when the arms were straight at your sides like a soldier, unlike in earlier ages when there was a bit of rippling in the underarms to allow for movement.









 
Last edited:

Parker

Distinguished Member
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
8,662
Reaction score
15,359
Thanks Svenn. I had never thought of how a sleeve can be set in at an angle vs. a "T". wow, StyFo still delivering the sartoria arcana. :teach:
 

Steve Smith

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
574
Sleeves are not set perpendicular to the torso on a shirt. They angle down. Find a shirt built in the shape of a T, lay it flat, take a picture and put it in the thread if you disagree. I am not saying that such a thing does not exist, but it would be a piece of junk and I don't think any of you have one in your closet.

The diagram completely misses the point, implying that a low armhole is a function of placing the arm lower on the body of the suit. The top of the armhole is always at the end of the shoulder. A lower armhole is a function of a larger arm. A higher armhole is a function of a smaller arm on the suit. Think about it.
 

Svenn

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
53

Sleeves are not set perpendicular to the torso on a shirt.

I didn't say they were, but on many shirts they're much closer to perpendicular than suit jackets, for mobility purposes. We're not just talking about dress shirts here.

The diagram completely misses the point, implying that a low armhole is a function of placing the arm lower on the body of the suit. The top of the armhole is always at the end of the shoulder. A lower armhole is a function of a larger arm. A higher armhole is a function of a smaller arm on the suit. Think about it.

Again, neither I nor the diagram for that matter imply that the top of the armhole would ever move. The diagram does not imply what you're saying, I'm not sure where you got that from. Youre correct that an armhole's depth is dependent on diameter, but it's also dependent on the angle of the sleeve. The same size sleeve angled down farther of a torso will cut out an elongated armhole relative to one closer to perpendicular.
 

Steve Smith

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
574

I didn't say they were, but on many shirts they're much closer to perpendicular than suit jackets, for mobility purposes. We're not just talking about dress shirts here.
Again, neither I nor the diagram for that matter imply that the top of the armhole would ever move. The diagram does not imply what you're saying, I'm not sure where you got that from. Youre correct that an armhole's depth is dependent on diameter, but it's also dependent on the angle of the sleeve. The same size sleeve angled down farther of a torso will cut out an elongated armhole relative to one closer to perpendicular.




You said this: In the 18th century, many jackets had sleeves set in perpendicular to the torso, like a shirt...

That is saying that a shirt has sleeves set perpendicular to the torso.



Here's where I got that from. You have lowered the arm well below what is obviously the shoulder on this drawing.
 

Steve Smith

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
574

Youre correct that an armhole's depth is dependent on diameter, but it's also dependent on the angle of the sleeve. The same size sleeve angled down farther of a torso will cut out an elongated armhole relative to one closer to perpendicular.

All obvious, and also theoretical. Lay some suits flat, photograph, and show us these high armhole suits which have sleeves set less vertically than the low armhole suits.
 

Svenn

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
53

You said this: In the 18th century, many jackets had sleeves set in perpendicular to the torso, like a shirt...
That is saying that a shirt has sleeves set perpendicular to the torso.

The transitive property is voided if the word 'like' is inserted ;) but I can see why you misunderstood.

Here's where I got that from. You have lowered the arm well below what is obviously the shoulder on this drawing.

No it's not lowered- the original diagram, where the sleeve is perpendicular, is at the same location; check the first image in my post. These are simplified diagrams and obviously don't represent the human body, there is no 'obvious' shoulder. They're not mine, but they get the point across well enough.
 

Svenn

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
1,716
Reaction score
53

All obvious, and also theoretical. Lay some suits flat, photograph, and show us these high armhole suits which have sleeves set less vertically than the low armhole suits.

:facepalm: When did I say all high-armholed suits have less veritcal sleeves? Try understanding what I wrote first before posting.
 

Steve Smith

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
574
The transitive property is voided if the word 'like' is inserted wink.gif but I can see why you misunderstood.



Oh, cool. My dog has four legs, like a human.

This will be my last post in this thread. I don't know where your knowledge lies, Svenn, but it is not in the English language or suit construction.
 
Last edited:

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

How wide do you like your leg opening on your trousers?

  • 7”

    Votes: 60 17.3%
  • 7.5”

    Votes: 116 33.5%
  • 8”

    Votes: 104 30.1%
  • 8.5”

    Votes: 36 10.4%
  • 9”

    Votes: 14 4.0%
  • 9.5”

    Votes: 7 2.0%
  • 10”

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • 10.5”

    Votes: 8 2.3%

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
432,778
Messages
9,278,824
Members
194,727
Latest member
Sickrobots
Top