To look good, a suit must fit. And fit is the wearer's responsibility because he can't count on anyone else to do it for him these days. Most bespoke tailors won't let a customer out the door with a garment that isn't a great reference but I've seen some poor work from at least one great name recently. And ready to wear is let the buyer beware.
Fit has little to do with silhouette, fashion or construction, though all of these have a great deal to do with how well a man looks in his clothes. By fit, I mean the criteria that a jacket and trousers should meet to look as though they were made for the wearer and not his uncle or older brother.
First, the jacket must be long enough to cover the seat, but not so long that the legs seem to be shorter than the torso (another writer submitted recently that a man's fingertips should be able to curl under the jacket's bottom when his hands are hanging at his sides but that must have been written by a guy who never saw someone with short arms).
The jacket's shoulders should not be wider than the wearer's shoulders, and the jacket collar must sit snugly where the nape of the neck meets the upper back, staying in place through a reasonable range of motion. It should also lie flat behind the neck and across the collarbones in front.
The jacket should button without strain and there should be no more than three inches of space between the button and the chest.
Jacket lapels should fall straight down the chest without buckling or pulling away from the chest in any other way and the jacket back should not have horizontal creases anywhere along its length. If a coat does buckle or crease it is almost certainly too small, and no amount of alteration can make a RTW coat larger.
Jacket sleeves should not be creased where they cover the upper arm; creases here indicate that the sleeve is too tight or the shoulder has not been extended far enough. The sleeves should extend to the wristbone, allowing for a quarter to half an inch (depending on personal preference) of shirt cuff to show beneath.
Trousers should fall flat in front with no wrinkles, pulling, or creases over the stomach, and no tugging in the crotch. The pleats on pleated trousers, and suit trousers should be pleated unless a man buys them in an atelier in Naples, must be parallel with the trouser crease and must not pull open. Trousers should fall in a straight line, without ripples, to the shoe, where plain or cuffed trouser bottoms should touch the instep in front and just cover the back (some variation here is permitted as a matter of style rather than fit).
Posts
4 comments:
I have recently become an avid reader of this your blog, Will, and whenever I have a thought about menswear, this is the place I come to for advice. As for pleats and suit trousers, I have a question: what do you think of flat-front slacks with or without a matching suit jacket? I've taken to this style as I feel it is clean, modern, and classy. I am of a slightly younger generation, though (I'm 25), so I wonder if style difference is all that seperates the older-and-dapper from the younger-who-want-to-not-look-like-the-guy-on-the-couch. I'm sure there's a good word that succintly describes what I mean to say, but hopefully I've communicated my thought. Thanks for all the articles. We'd be that much poorer for the lack of them (and you, for that matter).
I am also of the younger generation (27) and am firmly of the view that the trousers do not require pleats, either on a suit or otherwise. This is a very Italian look, as Will aludes to, but is an acceptable look in modern men's tailoring, and one that many of the traditional London tailors are ready to suggest. It also suits the slimmer man, preventing unnecessary "bunching" of material when sitting. Several of my made-to-measure suits (unfortunately I am not yet in the realm of bespoke) have flat-fronted trousers, and I agree with Daniel's view that this is just as classy as the pleated variety, albeit cleaner and more modern, as he says. In fact, it is not particularly noticable.
The problem with flat-fronted trousers comes when pairing with jackets that carry other "modern" styling twists (I say "modern" because many of these hark back to misguided tailoring of the 1960s and 1970s). More buttons than the traditional 2 or 3 on a city suit or overly large lapels (I particularly dislike the current trend for the pointed lapels usually found on a double-breasted suit being placed on a single-breasted jacket) will make the lack of pleats in your trousers look like a fashion issue rather than an alternative tailoring choice, if you follow my distinction.
Michael, I can't help but to point out an error in your logic. Nothing is more stylish and classic than a single breasted suit coat with peaked ("pointed") lapels. It is decidedly not a modern affectation. Because so few maker of RTW make the effort to produce such, coats detailed so are at the very least MTM, but more likely bespoke (there are occasional RTW exceptions to this).
There is a wonderful picture of Clark Gable on p123 of Villarosa's 'The Elegant Man' wearing a SB 3 piece with pick stitched peak lapels. It is worth a look.
You are right to point out that details must be consistent. If you want to stick with flat fronted suit trousers-which are a modern affectation-then you must stick with notch lapels on a SB coat. Even a classic three button (top button hole in the lapel roll) should have pleated trousers. The three button with its top button below the roll-a decidedly modern detail-could take flat fronts, but really should be avoided out of hand.
these are not refer to the fit..fit should have to refer the proper patterning ( the cut and the fabrication and interlining or padding.) for example..the dior new look..shoulder line..the waist line..one more example..the narrowing of the upper chest width..the narrow oval arm hole...for me the greatest garment design engineering is the cut ( the fit).
Post a Comment