PDA

View Full Version : Does a jacket without breast pocket look odd?
















hPPYs
07-17-2011, 10:18 AM
Does a jacket without breast pocket look odd?

I saw a jacket as shown below.
http://www.gentlemansemporium.com/store/vict_mens_23.php

Tomasso
07-17-2011, 10:50 AM
Yes.

Edward
07-17-2011, 10:56 AM
Yes and no. The example to which you link is historically correct. On the other hand, if you were to replicate the typical 1930s through 1950s suit, it might look a little unusual without a breast pocket as one would normally have been found on the typical designs in that period. On a subjective, personal level, I'm so used to wearing a blazer or suitjacket with a breast pocket and pocket square that I probably would find it a little odd to not have one myself.

MisterCairo
07-17-2011, 11:01 AM
Per Edward, the presence or absence of the pocket will look odd depending on the nature of the jacket. To wit (be forewarned, there be hippies here):

http://www.citizenofthemonth.com/2008/06/11/the-nehru-jacket/

Edward
07-17-2011, 11:20 AM
Quite. (Although I do suspect that the bright blue jacket in the first photo on the page linked to is not a true Nehru: the button stance looks wrong. I may, of course, be misinterpreting the visual cues, but it looks to me more like a Tyrolean style jacket with the lapels buttoned closed.)

Tomasso
07-17-2011, 11:27 AM
it looks to me more like a Tyrolean style jacket with the lapels buttoned closed.)It looks like a regular sportcoat.

hPPYs
07-17-2011, 11:46 AM
Thank you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/George_Washington_Carver%2C_ca._1902.jpg/800px-George_Washington_Carver%2C_ca._1902.jpg
I also found a photo of George Washington Carver in 1902,and most of those people didn't have breast pockets.

Tomasso
07-17-2011, 03:07 PM
I also found a photo of George Washington Carver in 1902,and most of those people didn't have breast pockets.Oh sure, it was common back in the day but that wasn't your question.......;)

HodgePodge
07-17-2011, 03:53 PM
Quite. (Although I do suspect that the bright blue jacket in the first photo on the page linked to is not a true Nehru: the button stance looks wrong. I may, of course, be misinterpreting the visual cues, but it looks to me more like a Tyrolean style jacket with the lapels buttoned closed.)

I'm fairly certain this is the Jacket http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/320x480/Shows/SS2007/Paris/Mens/YSL_Rive_Gauche/00010f.jpg
He's popped the collar, which judging by the material on the underside wasn't what YSL had in mind, and buttoned a button I don't think was truly meant to be buttoned.
The fact that the Sartorialist likes that makes me feel like less of a failure for not having any sartorial je ne sais quois.

Marc Chevalier
07-17-2011, 04:15 PM
Does a jacket without breast pocket look odd?

I saw a jacket as shown below.
http://www.gentlemansemporium.com/store/vict_mens_23.php

Short answer: it doesn't look odd on that jacket. It would look odd on 1920s-'50s, 1970s-2011 jackets.

Qirrel
07-18-2011, 05:23 AM
Short answer: it doesn't look odd on that jacket. It would look odd on 1920s-'50s, 1970s-2011 jackets.

I disagree:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7XCyUxA7Jyo/ThcSiq5dHmI/AAAAAAAAHBQ/Pu1xhQpcln4/s1600/Tan+Suiting.jpg

Didnt want to resize itself, hence the link.

avedwards
07-18-2011, 06:53 AM
I think it looks odd on a post-20s suit or sport jacket, unless it as extremely sporty jacket such as a shooting jacket in which case no breast pocket might look acceptable. For example, on this jacket I think it looks OK:
http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww317/mr-ave/Photo446.jpg

MisterCairo
07-18-2011, 07:03 AM
Looking at each photo in this thread so far I can't come up with a single jacket where I go "hey, there's no breast pocket, what the!" or "Hey, there'a breast pocket on that jacket, what the!"

I think, just think, mind you, that we're in agreement. The presence or absence of a breast pocket will look strange, only in certain circumstances and only then to certain people. Sometimes.

dustyjohnson10
07-20-2011, 04:49 AM
actually sometimes it do look good but sometimes it doesn't! it all depends on the type of jacket a person has!

hPPYs
07-22-2011, 03:12 AM
Thank you,everyone!

Tomasso
07-26-2011, 11:04 PM
I wouldn't want a jacket sans breast pocket, but not so much that it is odd or unattractive but because that's where I stow my sunglasses when not in use. Where would I put them.[huh]



http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e141/tmgco/Shoes320.jpg

scotrace
07-27-2011, 04:58 AM
Ditto /\

filfoster
07-27-2011, 12:28 PM
Thank you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/George_Washington_Carver%2C_ca._1902.jpg/800px-George_Washington_Carver%2C_ca._1902.jpg
I also found a photo of George Washington Carver in 1902,and most of those people didn't have breast pockets.

Now THAT'S interesting.

Oldsarge
07-27-2011, 02:16 PM
With the exception of that shooting jacket (which I actually like), I cannot help but feel that a shirt or a jacket without a breast pocket approaches uselessness. If I am feeling really dressy I want a pocket square. If not, like Tomasso, I want a place for my dark glasses/notebook/shopping list/etc. Nothing official, just a personal opinion . . .

Salieri
07-27-2011, 02:34 PM
I cannot help but feel that a shirt [...] without a breast pocket approaches uselessness.

Really? Really???

Undertow
07-27-2011, 02:51 PM
That picture of GW Carver almost (ALMOST) looks like some of them are wearing overcoats.

I am the very last person on the FL to be familiar with sartorial history, but do those jackets not look like overcoats - or at least plain outerwear? And they are buttoned quite high, with what appears to be 4 buttons total. Am I on to something here? :spider:

Marc Chevalier
07-27-2011, 04:44 PM
I am the very last person on the FL to be familiar with sartorial history, but do those jackets not look like overcoats - or at least plain outerwear? And they are buttoned quite high, with what appears to be 4 buttons total. Am I on to something here?

Those definitely aren't overcoats or even topcoats, though I understand your point.

Oldsarge
07-27-2011, 09:27 PM
Really? Really???

Absolutely!

Salieri
07-28-2011, 12:43 AM
I really can't understand what people would want to do with a shirt pocket. Do you have pockets in your underwear too?

hPPYs
07-28-2011, 01:41 AM
No,a shirt with double cuff does not need a pocket.

Hal
07-28-2011, 01:43 AM
I really can't understand what people would want to do with a shirt pocket. Neither can I - but for the last 25 years or so, all shirts I have seen (and therefore, unfortunately, all I have bought) have had pockets. They did not have pockets before that time, and pockets seem to me a (small) waste of material and additional cost.

Edward
07-28-2011, 09:23 AM
Thank you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/George_Washington_Carver%2C_ca._1902.jpg/800px-George_Washington_Carver%2C_ca._1902.jpg
I also found a photo of George Washington Carver in 1902,and most of those people didn't have breast pockets.

Interesting, the guy on the far right in the front row appears to be wearing his db jacket butting to what we would now consider the "female" side. I know the naval origin of the db was to do with being on deck in the cold and being able to button the jacket one way or t'other to keep the draught out, but I wonder when the convention of 'male' and 'female' buttoning sides came in? The other men in this photo all have their (SB) jacket buttoned to the "male" side, so it's not a reversed photo, one would presume at least.


With the exception of that shooting jacket (which I actually like), I cannot help but feel that a shirt or a jacket without a breast pocket approaches uselessness. If I am feeling really dressy I want a pocket square. If not, like Tomasso, I want a place for my dark glasses/notebook/shopping list/etc. Nothing official, just a personal opinion . . .

About the only thing I keep in the pocket is a pocket square nowadays (maybe occasionally a pen), so it's more decorative than purposeful for me. I prefer to have one, though I don't know that (other than not being able to have a pocket square, of course), I'd miss it for any reason other than the look of it should I not have one.


That picture of GW Carver almost (ALMOST) looks like some of them are wearing overcoats.

I am the very last person on the FL to be familiar with sartorial history, but do those jackets not look like overcoats - or at least plain outerwear? And they are buttoned quite high, with what appears to be 4 buttons total. Am I on to something here? :spider:

They look to me more like more casual lounge suits / jackets from that period, the sort of common workwear that would have been worn (c/f modern denims) in contrast to the morning suit which the more upper class might have still regularly worn at that point.



I really can't understand what people would want to do with a shirt pocket. Do you have pockets in your underwear too?

On days like today when it is too warm to keep my suit jacket on at my desk and/or when I am wearing a vintage suit with only one inside pocket and no waistcoat, I find a breast pocket in a shirt a remarkably convenient place to stow a pen or field telephone.


No,a shirt with double cuff does not need a pocket.

Well... arguable no garment "needs" a pocket, but they can be convenient. I have several shirts (not evening shirts, of course) which have both breast pocket and double cuff. [huh]

MisterCairo
07-28-2011, 11:07 AM
I really can't understand what people would want to do with a shirt pocket. Do you have pockets in your underwear too?

Would you store your crucial items like this in YOUR underwear?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6140/5984787879_20a9476d30_m.jpg

Undertow
07-28-2011, 12:45 PM
Do you have pockets in your underwear too?

Why, don't you? I guess that's where I keep all my junk. (pens, pencils, erasers, and such, in case you're wondering) :nono:

lol

Mr Vim
07-28-2011, 05:05 PM
And of course, let us not overlook the idea of pockets for our socks.

dustyjohnson10
07-29-2011, 03:48 AM
yeah it does but by having a jacket on the coat, it gives a nice look.

Undertow
07-29-2011, 06:39 AM
And of course, let us not overlook the idea of pockets for our socks.

I've seen this. I think they may have been handmade, but I've seen a pair of OD wool socks with little pockets. lol I'm not sure what they were used for, but I can only imagine something pretty small.

hPPYs
07-30-2011, 08:57 AM
Western jackets have no breast pockets,right?

Marc Chevalier
07-30-2011, 11:33 AM
Sure they do. I've seen vintage western jackets with "smiling" (crescent) slash pockets, one on each breast.