On Jacket Length

[ZzzRain]

It's partly a matter of style. Some tailors like to cut coats with a slightly longer front balance, such that the front of the jacket hangs a little lower than the back when you view the jacket from the side. Other tailors like the back to be even with the front. But when the back is longer than the front, things start to look off. It can also look like the coat is riding up on you at the front, maybe suggesting that you have a bit of a gut.

In ready-to-wear, you'll often find that the front balance is longer than the back to account for a gut. If you have a bit of a paunch, then the coat needs a bit more cloth to cover your stomach. This "lifts" the front balance, so that if you have a lower front balance to begin with, it ends up being even on a paunchy stomach.

Mark at The Armoury explains this concept at the end of this video.

Learning a lot from this shared video, especially on the part of demonstrating the proportion. Mark mentioned that sport jacket could be shorter because they visually look longer and I also saw lots of examples from Isaia and other trendy brands tend to have shorter sport jacket. Just wonder whether sport jacket should follow the 'cover the butt' rule?

 

[dieworkwear]

Learning a lot from this shared video, especially on the part of demonstrating the proportion. Mark mentioned that sport jacket could be shorter because they visually look longer and I also saw lots of examples from Isaia and other trendy brands tend to have shorter sport jacket. Just wonder whether sport jacket should follow the 'cover the butt' rule?

If we're talking about a classic tailored aesthetic, then I think jackets should always cover your butt. There are some casual takes on the classic tailored jacket, which don't have to follow this rule, but they're mostly outside of the scope of what's discussed on this side of the board.

That said, I find that "cover your butt" is a somewhat imprecise concept. More important, I think, is to just make sure the jacket looks right. I think sport coats can be a little shorter than suit jackets. But I think a lot of guys wear jackets that are too short.

A few years ago, I asked a bespoke tailor how does he assess whether a jacket is too long. He said he just goes by his eye. I think if you look at enough photos of well-dressed men, you start to get a sense of what looks right. I think "half jacket, half trouser" is a good rule. You can adjust at the margins, but I generally think of it as a matter of maybe a half inch or so, not really much more.

 

[Ziqianzhu]

If we're talking about a classic tailored aesthetic, then I think jackets should always cover your butt. There are some casual takes on the classic tailored jacket, which don't have to follow this rule, but they're mostly outside of the scope of what's discussed on this side of the board.

That said, I find that "cover your butt" is a somewhat imprecise concept. More important, I think, is to just make sure the jacket looks right. I think sport coats can be a little shorter than suit jackets. But I think a lot of guys wear jackets that are too short.

A few years ago, I asked a bespoke tailor how does he assess whether a jacket is too long. He said he just goes by his eye. I think if you look at enough photos of well-dressed men, you start to get a sense of what looks right. I think "half jacket, half trouser" is a good rule. You can adjust at the margins, but I generally think of it as a matter of maybe a half inch or so, not really much more.

Great points! Since I started following people on Instagram, permanent style and your blog, my taste and eyes have significantly changed, or to say improved.

 

[ballmouse]

The 'right' length of the coat to me is dependent on the rest of the coat. Hence the above description why tailors go by their eye and why you see actors wearing different length coats between films from different decades and each look right based on the rest of the fit.

The 39 Steps (1939)

Whiskey Galore (1949)

 

[dieworkwear]

The 'right' length of the coat to me is dependent on the rest of the coat. Hence the above description why tailors go by their eye and why you see actors wearing different length coats between films from different decades and each look right based on the rest of the fit.

The 39 Steps (1939)

Whiskey Galore (1949)

I think that suit would look better with a longer jacket and slimmer trousers. As is, the proportions make him look stubby.

 

[Jnarcane]

Below is a recent linen jacket from Yeossal. I have concern about the length (my fault, if anyone’s!) and am not sure how to resolve it, as the rules of thumb proposed in this thread suggest different lengths in my case.

Spoiler: Jacket

To summarize the thread to date, four rules of thumb have been proposed:

• Jacket should cover one’s butt
• Jacket should reach the “fork” in the pants
• Jacket should reach the knuckle of one’s thumb
• Jacket should bisect one’s body such that the legs appear about as long as the torso

When I ordered the jacket, I had the first and second “rules” in mind. Evaluating the result, I think the first three have been respected. (One ambiguity: exactly how much of the butt should be covered? The side view suggests it needs even more length to do the full job, but the rear-rear view looks fine.)

Regardless of what a majority of the rules say, when I look at the photos, I come away with the impression that my legs are short — and certainly, by the bisection “rule,” the jacket is too long.

Would appreciate input from the brain trust!

 

[Stylewords]

Below is a recent linen jacket from Yeossal. I have concern about the length (my fault, if anyone’s!) and am not sure how to resolve it, as the rules of thumb proposed in this thread suggest different lengths in my case.

Spoiler: Jacket

View attachment 1715107
View attachment 1715115
View attachment 1715116

To summarize the thread to date, four rules of thumb have been proposed:

• Jacket should cover one’s butt
• Jacket should reach the “fork” in the pants
• Jacket should reach the knuckle of one’s thumb
• Jacket should bisect one’s body such that the legs appear about as long as the torso

When I ordered the jacket, I had the first and second “rules” in mind. Evaluating the result, I think the first three have been respected. (One ambiguity: exactly how much of the butt should be covered? The side view suggests it needs even more length to do the full job, but the rear-rear view looks fine.)

Regardless of what a majority of the rules say, when I look at the photos, I come away with the impression that my legs are short — and certainly, by the bisection “rule,” the jacket is too long.

Would appreciate input from the brain trust!

Ok just some thoughts; I'm sure others will chime in. I think the length looks about right. The rules of thumb are just that, rules of thumb. You need to adapt them to your own circumstances. The rule on reaching a particular knuckle doesn't make any sense as everybody has different length arms in proportion to their body (though it might have a slight visual effect hinting at a jacket that seems too long/short). The jacket should cover your butt, but if you have a proportionally long body and short legs, then you may consider jacket length that only just reaches that length or even a tiny bit shorter depending on the type of jacket. Also avoid turn-ups/cuffs on pants if your legs are relatively short.

 

[St1X]

The length seems to be fine, although the photos are taken from the above, so your legs appear shorter. Also linen jacket is more casual, so I'd be a bit less strict with my demands.

 

[Jnarcane]

Ok just some thoughts; I'm sure others will chime in. I think the length looks about right. The rules of thumb are just that, rules of thumb. You need to adapt them to your own circumstances. The rule on reaching a particular knuckle doesn't make any sense as everybody has different length arms in proportion to their body (though it might have a slight visual effect hinting at a jacket that seems too long/short). The jacket should cover your butt, but if you have a proportionally long body and short legs, then you may consider jacket length that only just reaches that length or even a tiny bit shorter depending on the type of jacket. Also avoid turn-ups/cuffs on pants if your legs are relatively short.

Yeah, I understand the limitations of the rules. But my eye for length isn’t as well-trained as some here, so I’m starting by targeting the length indicated by most of the rules and adjusting from there. I’m not aware that I have odd proportions, but then, maybe I wouldn’t!

The length seems to be fine, although the photos are taken from the above, so your legs appear shorter. Also linen jacket is more casual, so I'd be a bit less strict with my demands.

I asked for the photos to be taken at chest height after @dieworkwear suggested the same to prior poster. I suppose the perspective does sell my legs a little short, though.

Just took a couple measurements. BoC length of the jacket is ~31”. Distance from the ground to the lowest part of the front of the jacket is ~33”. Maybe the perspective did me dirty after all!

 

[Aloysius16]

I picked this charcoal Corneliani suit recently from eBay but am unsure if the jacket is too long. I am 6,1 and usually aim for BOC 31" or a touch under. This is 32". Is the length shown here tolerable, and is this more passable because it is a dark suit? I would rather avoid the risk of shortening the jacket and would probably prefer to leave it even if it is a bit too long.

(I am coming round to the fact that I have short arms for my height, so the ‘rule of thumb’ is less than ideal in my case. This must have been even more so for the previous owner as the sleeves are perhaps half and inch too short for me, but the trousers are nearly 3" too long).

 

[9thsymph]

I generally try to follow advice #1 in addition to the bisection rule that I've seen mentioned a few times (not sure by whom). That the jacket should roughly end halfway between your shoulders and the ground bisecting you vertically.

I've been the victim of short jacket criticism many times on this forum. It has been warranted many of those times. However, I posses 'monkey arms' with a 25.5 - 26" sleeve length on jackets from the shoulder seam. In addition I have short legs with roughly a 29.5" inseam on my trousers. This combination makes the 'rule of thumb' nearly always suggest that my jackets are short. Something I think some people have not recognized.

FWIW I think that this jacket is about the right length for myself:



All of that said, I think the preference on SF for a bit longer jackets is a correct one. Open quarters also really help to balance out longer jackets IMO.

I feel similarly. I'm fairly short (5'8") with long arms and torso relative to my legs. This results with jackets that may look too short because my tailor cuts the length according to the bisection rule. I think this is actually the best solution for my own body, though, because even if there are some visual cues that may trigger a sense of the jacket being too short, the overall effect is that my body seems more proportionally balanced and even a bit taller. On the other hand, I have other jackets that adhere pretty strictly to rule 1, which I believe make my overall appearance unbalanced (very top heavy).

I think rule-1 jackets looks better in photos because the static, fixed perspective favors simple cues (end of the jacket relative to crotch and seat) relative to the often distorted or misleading sense of overall balance in photos (via angle). I think the bisection rule works better in real life, where overall balance may be better perceived (less distortion from lens angels and shapes and more movement, which breaks up a reliance on fixed points as references...the wearer just appears well proportioned overall...).

Hopefully you have a body wherein the bisection rule envelops rule 1. I don't and I'm sticking with bisection....

 

[BlueSteel]

I feel similarly. I'm fairly short (5'8") with long arms and torso relative to my legs. This results with jackets that may look too short because my tailor cuts the length according to the bisection rule. I think this is actually the best solution for my own body, though, because even if there are some visual cues that may trigger a sense of the jacket being too short, the overall effect is that my body seems more proportionally balanced and even a bit taller. On the other hand, I have other jackets that adhere pretty strictly to rule 1, which I believe make my overall appearance unbalanced (very top heavy).

I think rule-1 jackets looks better in photos because the static, fixed perspective favors simple cues (end of the jacket relative to crotch and seat) relative to the often distorted or misleading sense of overall balance in photos (via angle). I think the bisection rule works better in real life, where overall balance may be better perceived (less distortion from lens angels and shapes and more movement, which breaks up a reliance on fixed points as references...the wearer just appears well proportioned overall...).

Hopefully you have a body wherein the bisection rule envelops rule 1. I don't and I'm sticking with bisection....

I have the same issue and I agree with you entirely.

I am 6'0" with only a 29" inseam.

Bisection (or close) means that my jackets always look short in photos (in the sense that the bottom hem is always well above the fork of the pants)...but overall there is a balance on my body.

In the pic below the jacket is 31.5" on the back, and the pants I'm wearing have a 29" inseam...and still the jacket looks shorter on me than the general "rules" about visual cues would support. But in terms of bisection, it is pretty much dead on.

For my jacket to reach the fork, I would literally need a back length of about 34.5"...which paired with a 29" inseam would look pretty absurd and very unbalanced:

 

[9thsymph]

I have the same issue and I agree with you entirely.

I am 6'0" with only a 29" inseam.

Bisection (or close) means that my jackets always look short in photos (in the sense that the bottom hem is always well above the fork of the pants)...but overall there is a balance on my body.

In the pic below the jacket is 31.5" on the back, and the pants I'm wearing have a 29" inseam...and still the jacket looks shorter on me than the general "rules" about visual cues would support. But in terms of bisection, it is pretty much dead on.

For my jacket to reach the fork, I would literally need a back length of about 34.5"...which paired with a 29" inseam would look pretty absurd and very unbalanced:

View attachment 1855960

Yep.