Tailcoat

[benstephens]

In the 1930s, the most classic of British evening tailcoats had no outside ****** pocket. Most American tailcoats of the '30s did, however.

.

Marc,

I am a little unsure of this statement. Every tailo coat I have ever come across, even made in very high end Saviller row tailors has a ****** pocket.

To double check, I looked through my tailoring catologues and they all have ****** pockets on the tail coats?

Was it an earlier style, or was it the origins of it being court dress (Ie wearing court shoes as well)

I would be interested to see your examples.

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[benstephens]

I have been thinking about this. I have rarely seen tailcoats with button holes in the lapels, could it be one or other?

I know the fashion for wearing a button hole dissapeared by the early to mid 30s in the UK.

Ben

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Ben,

My catalogues concur with yours.

Funnily enough my tailcoat (made in Sheffield, sometime in the 30s) lacks both buttonhole and ****** pocket.

bk

 

[Edward]

Please excuse billowing of shirt from uncontrolled trousers, the result of consumption of a rather larger quantity of alcohol than I should have had at a friend's 40th a couple of years ago. This is, however, the best photo of the coat I have access to at present. This coat was, according to the labels, made by a tailor in London's Cheapside, in 1931. It has no lapel button hole, but it does have a ****** pocket. My other tailcoat, which is probably 40s or 50s, is very similar. Both have grosgrain lapels. The 31 tails also have miser's pockets for the gloves, a detail I really like.

 

[Vampyre Master]

I can't figure out when in my life I'd wear white tie once, much less more...

you should get out more
V

 

[Vampyre Master]

Please excuse billowing of shirt from uncontrolled trousers, the result of consumption of a rather larger quantity of alcohol than I should have had at a friend's 40th a couple of years ago. This is, however, the best photo of the coat I have access to at present. This coat was, according to the labels, made by a tailor in London's Cheapside, in 1931. It has no lapel button hole, but it does have a ****** pocket. My other tailcoat, which is probably 40s or 50s, is very similar. Both have grosgrain lapels. The 31 tails also have miser's pockets for the gloves, a detail I really like.

I say were you not wearing a waistcoat!!
V

 

[Vampyre Master]

Here I am at the House of Commons, don't forget those secret pockets in the tails, stops one spoiling the line and fit of the jacket.
V
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk224/VampyreMaster/SHannualdinner003.jpg

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I am a little unsure of this statement. Every tailo coat I have ever come across, even made in very high end Saviller row tailors has a ****** pocket.

Ben, my reference here is Debrett's Guide to Etiquette and Modern Manners, by John Morgan. Regrettably, the exact edition doesn't come to mind, but it isn't ancient. I'm certain that the eminent but stodgy Mr. Morgan was "channeling" court dress when he rejected outside ****** pockets and handkerchiefs.

.

 

[Orgetorix]

Most, though not all, of the tailcoats I've seen illustrated in Apparel Arts/Esquire have been without ****** pockets. Of course, that may not tell us anything more than that Lawrence Fellowes didn't like them.

 

[GBR]

In the 1930s, the most classic of British evening tailcoats had no outside ****** pocket. Most American tailcoats of the '30s did, however.

Were you to have a tailcoat made, would it have a ****** pocket? What do you think would be more accepted in Vienna?


Grosgrain facings? That's okay, but the most classic (and British) were of barathea silk, not grosgrain.

I'll try for that.


Red lining? Fun, but not of that era. Classic? Black satin body lining (with cream silk sleeve linings).

Can do.


.

A red lining would be redolent of the ring master at a circus.

 

[Geesie]

Hm... if you want to go flamboyant with the lining, maybe black with black brocade pattern?

 

[crazydaisy]

Hi guys, can I ask what the desired fit would be for a tailcoat? Do you want it the same as your suit jacket , or perhaps closer fitting?...The reason I'm asking is that I will buy one for my hubby sooner or later - of ebay (probably), since we don't afford anything close to bespoke - and I need some guidelines regarding the desirable fit. If I was to buy a suit I would compare the given measurements of the piece in question with those of a suit he already has, but in the case of a tailcoat what should I go by?

 

[Orgetorix]

You have some leeway with the fit, depending on whether you're going for any particular historical era. In the early decades of the 20th century, dress suits were cut very slim, trim, and close to the body--a very clean chest, slim waist, tails that hugged the legs, and trousers that were also trim and straight.

In the '30s and '40s, fashions changed with the overall swing toward the drape cut, and tailcoats began to be cut a bit fuller, especially in the chest. Trousers were also cut fuller, in line with the suit trousers of the era.

So, basically the key points of a tailcoat's fit will correspond with the key points of a suit's fit. The shoulders should be wide enough that the top of the sleeve isn't binding, but not so wide that they droop. The waist should be as nipped in as it can be, though this can be adjusted by a good tailor. The bottoms of the tails should fall around the back of the knee, though mine are a bit longer and work just fine.

The trickiest part of fitting a dress suit is the relationship between the length of the trouser rise, the length of the coat fronts, and the length of the vest. Basically, the vest should cover the waistband of the trousers but should not show below the fronts of the coat. So make sure when he tries it on that the waistband of the trousers comes up at least to where the bottom of the coat front ends. Otherwise you'll end up with a vest that either doesn't cover the waistband or shows where it shouldn't.