Bold Look, only German-made and from the 30's?

[Patrick Hall]

http://http://www.etsy.com/listing/175286710/vintage-1930s-1940s-mens-suit-blue-twill?ref=sr_gallery_14&ga_search_query=1930s+suit&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_ship_to=US&ga_search_type=vintage

Anyone care to try and make heads or tails of this one? The trousers look 1930's to me, but the boxy shoulders on the jacket look really out of place.

 

[GoldenEraFan]

http://http://www.etsy.com/listing/175286710/vintage-1930s-1940s-mens-suit-blue-twill?ref=sr_gallery_14&ga_search_query=1930s+suit&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_ship_to=US&ga_search_type=vintage

Anyone care to try and make heads or tails of this one? The trousers look 1930's to me, but the boxy shoulders on the jacket look really out of place.

It looks like a double breasted converted to single breasted, thus the overly boxy look. Not to mention that is has 2 lapel button holes, of which you only see on double breasteds.

 

[Fastuni]

Exactly. A double-breasted converted to single-breasted. A frequent alteration in wartime and post-war Germany. If it were not for the second lapel buttonhole (and side pocket distance to the front), it would have looked like a normal SB. I don't think it's too boxy.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Link doesn't work for me but I think I know which one it is.

Vintage 1930s 1940s Mens Suit -- Blue Twill Single Breasted Peaked Lapel Suit -- German Bespoke Button Fly -- Marzotto Textiles 43

?

I see the double buttonhole but I don't see the side pocket distance thing. :nerd: [huh]

 

[Fastuni]

Usually on a SB (of this size) the distance between pocket and buttonhole should be 10 cm. It appears to be a bit more than that (same as lapel width) - around 12 cm.
Happens when a DB is turned into a SB (depending on the waist size of course). However this may be a bit "nitpicky" on my part... if it were not for the buttonhole, I would have not taken note of this.
And there certainly were SB with less or more distance to the pocket.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

OK, I thought you said it was asymmetrical. :eusa_doh:

The seller was asked about this on facebook and denied it has been converted and there would be no traces of such. I honestly can't tell.

 

[Fastuni]

The double lapel button holes are a strong indicator of such an alteration.
There may have been rare cases of SB's originally done with double lapel button holes... but

I don't see such an alteration as a negative thing at all. It was obviously very expertly done.
It was also quite frequent and adds character/history to the garment.

A further piece of evidence would be a photo of the front interior... as we all know (most) DB's had a inside button. There should be traces of that if it was a DB.

Anyway it is a nice suit and I'd certainly wear it.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Certainly. I am not even leaning on the opposite. I just just can't tell.

Could be an rare case of a SB with double buttonholes or a very good DB SB conversion.

 

[Nick D]

OK, I thought you said it was asymmetrical. :eusa_doh:

The seller was asked about this on facebook and denied it has been converted and there would be no traces of such. I honestly can't tell.

I suspect it's a professionally done alteration, perhaps to resize or maybe there was damage to the front that was removed. The square fronts are unusual, but perhaps they were more common in Germany?

 

[Fastuni]

Square SB fronts existed - but this one has a very slight curve. What the German tailoring publications would have called a "flotter Abstich".

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Just my $0.02.

Normally I would agree with the consensus on this one, but not this time. Most of the issues noted above would typically point to a converted DB - double buttonhole, squared off bottom fronts. However, I don't think I've ever seen a converted DB where the balance was correct. The front of this jacket is perfectly balanced. It's impossible to tell without having the thing in hand, but my first instinct is that this jacket was designed as it is.

My main gripe with the consensus, though is the "tie/shirt gap". On this jacket as it stands the gap is already very small. Imagine what it would be like with the lapels more folded over one another in the DB configuration, even if rolled to the bottom fastening button. The tie/shirt gap would be absurdly small. Also, on DB conversions of this type there are typically the very visible pricks of the canvas pad stitches on the right side of the fabric. there's no evidence of this here. Incidentally, I don't see anything particularly bold look here.

This image is also illustrated. When a DB is converted, the front of the jacket appears much wider than the back of the jacket, with all the excess fabric thrown into unsightly folds. This image suggests symmetry in panel size, and no evidence that the fronts were cut as DB.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

"This image is also illustative". Mods, EDIT function please! This is becoming absurd.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Very good observation. I couldn't put my finger on it but now I see it more clearly.

 

[Two Types]

Those are some deep turn ups.