Low armholes

[Parterre]

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?

 

[Trompe le Monde]

larger sleeves fit more people

easy

 

[ethanm]

was it a deliberate move to decrease the practicality of the suit jacket?

Yes, it was.

 

[Svenn]

^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.

 

[Parterre]

Yes, it was.

Hey, I'm a staunch believer in the anti-suit conspiracy!

Quote:

Thanks, this really does clear it up for me!

 

[Parker]

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.

 

[Steve Smith]

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]



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.

 

[F. Corbera]

 

[Steve Smith]



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]



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]



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]



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.

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

 

[Steve Smith]

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.