Show off the sports coats.

[BellyTank]

Baron, to use the Sartorial vernacular;
...that jacket is a great big spunk, Mate!

B
T

[mike]

[Baron Kurtz]

Nice jacket. Fits you well. And a nice combo with the solid trousers.

Glad to see a jacket that's not too long! (not particularly you; just generally people wear 'em too long.)

bk

[mike]

Nice jacket. Fits you well. And a nice combo with the solid trousers.

Glad to see a jacket that's not too long! (not particularly you; just generally people wear 'em too long.)

bk

thanks! any other suggestions on what sort of pants to pair it with as it's orphaned otherwise? by the way, the pants aren't as long as some of those pictures show them to be, I wasn't wearing suspenders, just quickly put em on to show here.

[Baron Kurtz]

Striped jackets are difficult. They have a terrible tendency to look like orphaned jackets, independent of what you do with them.

bk

[mike]

Striped jackets are difficult. They have a terrible tendency to look like orphaned jackets, independent of what you do with them.

bk

do you think maybe some charcoal or even black pants might take the eye away from the difference of material between jacket/pants...? I have some high waisted probably 50's pants that aren't pegged that I thought might be able to mix well...

[luvthatlulu]

That looks like a very nice jacket but, judging only from the first two photos, it appears to me to be about 2-3" too short in length (hands in pockets pictures--all bets are off). Ideally, the coat bottom should lie in the curve of your fingers at rest (give or take a little for personal taste), but definitely should not be so short that almost the entire pant fly is exposed to public scrutiny! DB jackets were worn shorter decades ago...but never that short, I'm afraid.

Now, I know you mentioned that the pants were not hanging properly in the photo. Try them again with the suspenders you mentioned and, if the same problem still exists, I'd recommend recycling that jacket thru eBay.

Sorry...you asked...and I was reluctant to say so, but felt someone had to say it.

[mike]

That looks like a very nice jacket but, judging only from the first two photos, it appears to me to be about 2-3" too short in length (hands in pockets pictures--all bets are off). Ideally, the coat bottom should lie in the curve of your fingers at rest (give or take a little for personal taste), but definitely should not be so short that almost the entire pant fly is exposed to public scrutiny! DB jackets were worn shorter decades ago...but never that short, I'm afraid.

Now, I know you mentioned that the pants were not hanging properly in the photo. Try them again with the suspenders you mentioned and, if the same problem still exists, I'd recommend recycling that jacket thru eBay.

Sorry...you asked...and I was reluctant to say so, but felt someone had to say it.

no problem! I certainly appreciate honest opinions! but with these new pictures.. is this still too short..?

[luvthatlulu]

It's better, but I'm still afraid so, Mike.

Let me draw your attention to the second photo. Notice anything odd?

1. The crotch of your trousers is still exposed.

2. Compare the waist of the jacket to your natural waist--a little too high.

3. Now, let your eyes follow the line of your trouser leg up to the bottom of the jacket. Then, start at the shoulder of the jacket and let your eyes follow the line of the jacket down to the bottom. See a difference? Long legs on a chorus girl are great, but not on a man in a jacket and trouser. A 1 3/4 - 2" cuff would break up that difference and help some.

It's the problem in 1. above that concerns me the most. The jacket is just a hair too short in my opinion...and that's all it is, my opinion.

Still, it's a nice looking jacket and the high-waisted trousers are great, too, by the way.

[Jovan]

Personally, this doesn't bother me that much. But you're talking to a guy who likes the slightly short jacket styles of the '50s and '60s.