Shirts without yokes

[General Koskov]

I realise that a suit coat and a 'dress' (hated word.) shirt have very little in common besides covering the same body parts, but I have to enquire as to why a shirt needs a yoke while most coats do not. I assume it is because the multiple layers of canvas, padding, etc in a coat give strength to the shoulders whereas a shirt is only one layer of cloth and therefore needs some 'construction' (for lack of a better word) at the shoulders to make it hang together. I think that no yoke can look neater when not wearing a coat over one's shirt (as in summer). The downside to this look is that people like me will see the lack of yoke and think low quality even if I have had it bespoken. Yet there are still 'jacket shirts' cut without a yoke, and I would like to know if this type of cut is less durable. While I'm at it, how about suit-style cuffs on shirts? As in, no separate 'cuff' just a hemmed sleeve with a button or two.

 

[j]

I think its origin is that the yoke gives protection from the sun and multiple layers of fabric give more protection, and the yoke (name should be a hint) bears the burden if one actually carries stuff over the shoulder. Also the more constructed area is where the most stress is on the shirt fabric, where the sleeves pull at their seams in the back. Consequently it is a traditional origin and it would look weird not to have one.

However, try having one made and see how you like it. Just because it's not done doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

 

[MikeF]

I have a Versace Sport shirt with no yoke. If anything, it looks sportier (go figure.), not dressier.

 

[FCS]

I have one shirt that has 'unstitched' yoke, actually I'd prefer that if it's possible to adjust different height for each shoulder.

 

[hermes]

i have an armani black label and a gucci shirt, both without a yoke

they are very slim fitting and modern looking and the way they are constructed, with sort of vertical panels, it allows for no yoke but an astounding fit