Better fit

[iammatt]

Nothing happens.

+1.

I also believe that a balance between height of armhole and comfort is necessary. It makes no sense to wear a super high armhole if it has no relation to the body proportion, posture and lifestyle of the modern man.

 

[BellyTank]

Nothing happens.

I see...

The page has changed since then- there were mouse-hover captions.

Never mind.

B
T

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

Quick question: Where should the shoulder seam on a jacket fall? Should it be right on top of the natural shoulder or should it overhang, and if so by how much?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Tony, it depends on the style of the jacket. More than anatomy, fashion determines shoulder seam placement.

.

 

[Matt Deckard]

Matter of preference.

Whichever makes you feel more comfortable
I like the slimming look of closer shoulders though ddon't like how I'm not slim so I should ad a little more shoulder. Before the 1930's they used little to no padding and the suits fit more like Marine Corps tunics which hugged the body in all areas from the waist up. I'll post more in a bit.

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

Thanks, gentlemen. I'm beginning to think I have abnormally narrow shoulders since all the shirts and jackets I have that fit properly around my chest and my neck seem to overhang my shoulders by a good inch or two on each side.

 

[aliados]

My shoulder seams are generally too wide for me, too. The mysuitshop.com suit I just got has a 46 chest and a 19 inch shoulder, so fits far more comfortably than most OTR jackets, although it most likely could be an inch narorw (which, couple dwith higher armholes, would possibly resolve the hitting-oneslef-in-the-ear-with-shoulder-pad syndrome . . . )

 

[aliados]

BTW, I never realized just how much work and calculation SHOULD go into fashioning an armhole and sleeve. Check out http://vintagesewing.info/1940s/42-mpd/mpd-04.html#cap

 

[Martinis at 8]

I don't think the weight gain has to do with the increase in armhole sizes in all suit sizes. If it were a matter of people getting bigger, companies would simply produce more larger sized jackets as they have been doing...

MD,

I respectfully disagree. As you mentioned earlier in the thread, the changes to the lower and larger armholes came about in the 70's. This is about the same time there was a resugence in pleated pants. Both of these were done in order to meet the increasing obesity in the American lifestyle. My grandfather (now deceased) was a bespoke tailor and commented on this to me several times. RTW suits, shirts, etc. are made to fit the masses and the masses are now more sendentary than ever.

In the WW2 sub-forum, someone mentioned the books by Ambrose, in either D-Day or Citizen Soldier there is an excerpt at the beginning of the book that gives the measurements of the average individual going into the service. This is vastly different from what we see today.

This is not a question of just being 'fat', it is a question of physique. Even in the old days guys who could be labelled as 'fat' still got outside to shovel, axe, post-hole dig, etc. They walked and were on the move. Hence their physique still presented a shoulder girdle that lent itself to higher armholes and they also had better posture. So it's not just a question of waist line, but the total physique. A lot of RTW suits have a 'drop' of zero inches.

Today what sells as an 'athletic cut' RTW shirt was the common standard back before the 70's. The answer for those of us who have the dimensions of old is to go with MTM or bespoke. I find MTM to be satisfactory.

Cheers,

M8

 

[Jovan]

aliados: Could you please post some pictures and a review of the suit? I would really appreciate it, since I've considered them for my suit needs and have only heard a few opinions on their work so far.

 

[manton]

Quick question: Where should the shoulder seam on a jacket fall? Should it be right on top of the natural shoulder or should it overhang, and if so by how much?

I'm going to dissent a little bit, for the hell of it.

"Extension" is indeed mostly a matter of personal preference. But there are cases in which it is advisable that go beyond preference. The most important would be a guy whose upper arms, outer edge to outer edge, are significantly wider than his shoulders, point to point.

(Small interjection. A distinction needs to be made between the shoulder seam and the sleevehead seam. The former is the one that runs from your neck to the top of the sleeve. The latter is the round one that attaches the sleeve to the coat.)

Anyway, shoulders that end right on the delt for such a man will be too narrow, because his thick upper arms will bulge at the upper sleeve and make the jacket look (and feel) tight.

Another consideration has less to do with body type and more with the design of the jacket. If the coat has a lot of drape in the chest, close shoulders will make that excess balloon out in a way that looks somewhat silly. Dramatically draped coats need extended shoulders.

 

[iammatt]

FWIW, my suit coats are all about an inch past my shoulder bone and my sportcoats are a little further... call it 3 cm.

 

[Jovan]

I'm going to dissent a little bit, for the hell of it.

"Extension" is indeed mostly a matter of personal preference. But there are cases in which it is advisable that go beyond preference. The most important would be a guy whose upper arms, outer edge to outer edge, are significantly wider than his shoulders, point to point.

(Small interjection. A distinction needs to be made between the shoulder seam and the sleevehead seam. The former is the one that runs from your neck to the top of the sleeve. The latter is the round one that attaches the sleeve to the coat.)

Anyway, shoulders that end right on the delt for such a man will be too narrow, because his thick upper arms will bulge at the upper sleeve and make the jacket look (and feel) tight.

Another consideration has less to do with body type and more with the design of the jacket. If the coat has a lot of drape in the chest, close shoulders will make that excess balloon out in a way that looks somewhat silly. Dramatically draped coats need extended shoulders.

My last jacket had slightly extended shoulders, even though I already have somewhat broad ones for a guy my build. Is this bad?

 

[aliados]

mysuitshop.com

aliados: Could you please post some pictures and a review of the suit? I would really appreciate it, since I've considered them for my suit needs and have only heard a few opinions on their work so far.

Fits very well, and is extremely comfortable.
Style-tailoring oddities which I know now to address next time:
1. Lapeled vest has an actual collar; will post pix of proper tailoring.
2. Shallow pleats (1/2").
3. Their label is placed above the inside pocket, and is sewn on the vertical edges (hence anything headed for the pocket gets stuck behind the label).
4. No change pocket in outer jacket pocket.
They assured me that all of these items can bedone as I like, provided I ask.

Oh -- one actual problem -- the upper right-hand vest button was misplaced by 1/4"! HORRORS!

I'll try to post pix this weekend.

 

[iammatt]

My last jacket had slightly extended shoulders, even though I already have somewhat broad ones for a guy my build. Is this bad?

No.

 

[Jovan]

Fits very well, and is extremely comfortable.
Style-tailoring oddities which I know now to address next time:
1. Lapeled vest has an actual collar; will post pix of proper tailoring.
2. Shallow pleats (1/2").
3. Their label is placed above the inside pocket, and is sewn on the vertical edges (hence anything headed for the pocket gets stuck behind the label).
4. No change pocket in outer jacket pocket.
They assured me that all of these items can bedone as I like, provided I ask.

Oh -- one actual problem -- the upper right-hand vest button was misplaced by 1/4"! HORRORS!

I'll try to post pix this weekend.

Mmm. I think I'll pass, then. It doesn't sound like they have much quality control.

 

[Matt Deckard]

MD,

I respectfully disagree. As you mentioned earlier in the thread, the changes to the lower and larger armholes came about in the 70's. This is about the same time there was a resugence in pleated pants. Both of these were done in order to meet the increasing obesity in the American lifestyle. My grandfather (now deceased) was a bespoke tailor and commented on this to me several times. RTW suits, shirts, etc. are made to fit the masses and the masses are now more sendentary than ever.

In the WW2 sub-forum, someone mentioned the books by Ambrose, in either D-Day or Citizen Soldier there is an excerpt at the beginning of the book that gives the measurements of the average individual going into the service. This is vastly different from what we see today.

This is not a question of just being 'fat', it is a question of physique. Even in the old days guys who could be labelled as 'fat' still got outside to shovel, axe, post-hole dig, etc. They walked and were on the move. Hence their physique still presented a shoulder girdle that lent itself to higher armholes and they also had better posture. So it's not just a question of waist line, but the total physique. A lot of RTW suits have a 'drop' of zero inches.

Today what sells as an 'athletic cut' RTW shirt was the common standard back before the 70's. The answer for those of us who have the dimensions of old is to go with MTM or bespoke. I find MTM to be satisfactory.

Cheers,

I have to dissagree back. I wore the vintage suits when I was 280 and when I was 215 and the armholes on the size 50 vintage were definately better than the modern size 50 jackets. It's a matter of tailoring and society accepting lower armholes as the normal. The shoulders and body of the brown jacket below fit fine, though no jacket needs an armhole seem that far away from the armpit. Try on a 1940's military uniform and salute and try on a modern version and you'l see the difference and those jackets weren't issued to the heavy set.

 

[Martinis at 8]

I have to dissagree back. I wore the vintage suits when I was 280 and when I was 215 and the armholes on the size 50 vintage were definately better than the modern size 50 jackets. It's a matter of tailoring and society accepting lower armholes as the normal. The shoulders and body of the brown jacket below fit fine, though no jacket needs an armhole seem that far away from the armpit. Try on a 1940's military uniform and salute and try on a modern version and you'l see the difference and those jackets weren't issued to the heavy set.

MD,

Where was the disagreement in your reply?

I wore the vintage suits when I was 280 and when I was 215 and the armholes on the size 50 vintage were definately better than the modern size 50 jackets.

Yes, I said that the older suits had better armhole design.

It's a matter of tailoring and society accepting lower armholes as the normal.

This is the point I am making. That acceptance is due to physique change. Otherwise why would it be accepted?

The shoulders and body of the brown jacket below fit fine, though no jacket needs an armhole seem that far away from the armpit.

No disagreement there either. Your physique may be more akin to the larger set I was referring to in my earlier post, i.e., you don't appear to slouch and have good posture (from what I can tell in your photos). The heavy set today slouches by rolling the shoulders forward. The heavier guys of yester-year didn't seem to have this problem because of what I mentioned in my previous post about exercising the shoulder girdle. Shoulders rolled forward can be accomodated with larger and lower armhole sizes.

Try on a 1940's military uniform and salute and try on a modern version and you'l see the difference and those jackets weren't issued to the heavy set.

I have. I was US Army officer for years. My father-in-law was an enlisted man in WW2. I have his old Ike jacket. I was angered when they did away with the khaki uniform When I was a 2LT I never saw a fat colonel or a fat general. Now I see them all over the place. Have you seen Gen. Abizaid on TV? He's fat. I was at Ft. Benning last June to see my son graduate from Airborne school. Lots of fat colonels at the O-club. Hence the different fit/tailoring of today's uniform from what we saw of yester-year.

Cheers,

M8

 

[Matt Deckard]

You don't need to make the armholes bigger for the skinny guys suits.
That's what happened, and I don't believe the heavy set changed the armholes across the board.

 

[Martinis at 8]

You don't need to make the armholes bigger for the skinny guys suits.
That's what happened, and I don't believe the heavy set changed the armholes across the board.

You are correct. However, we ran out of skinny guys. So I think the companies went with what they thought was the majority, and the lesser of the 'tooling' cost. Just an opinion.

You are correct in that we should protest, but we who post on boards like this unfortunately do not make up the majority. What would be nice is if they offerred size differences with the armholes.

Do you know if they even offer suits in 'slim' anymore? I haven't heard the term used in decades. I wonder if the arm hole sizes were different on those. I do MTM now on my suits, so I don't really know.

Nice topic BTW.

Cheers,

M8