Facing reality - most Vintage jackets will not fit me

[Seb Lucas]

Yeah - agree once a jacket sits up above a belt line it looks wrong.

 

[Grayland]

Yeah - agree once a jacket sits up above a belt line it looks wrong.

I agree. The belt (on the jacket) above the belt of the pants looks strange IMO.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Very short all over.

 

[AeroFan_07]

@AeroFan - The Brando jacket reaches down just past the beltine which for me is the "perfect" fit. Your jacket is above the belt line and IMO doesn't look quite right. Also to me, the sleeves look too short and it looks like its an uncomfortable fit overall - if its for riding you will want more room to be able to stretch those arms and move your torso - but that's just me and my opinion. The shoulders and waist look good. If you do go with Aero stick to your guns on the measurements you give them. They talked me into getting a custom CHIPS jacket longer than I wanted due to my height (6'2") rather than my personal preference and I wish I had ignored their advice. Cheers!

This is the exact reason I made the thread...sort of like that "I really WISH it would fit -- but it does not." Sort of a thread for that reason. And since it is over 60 years old, there's just not changing it. So, I'm back to the newer jackets, probably a new custom Aero later in 2020 (For a Motorcycle jacket). Thanks for the input folks.

 

[Dumpster Diver]

Funny I had this conversation today at lunch. My Grandfather was issued a Canadian Wool uniform when he enlisted back in 1936. He thought maybe the pants were a bit too big, and the QM replied "do they hurt you under the armpits? Then they fit!"

you need oldschool high rise Jeans with that high cut...it does look good on you, Just hoist up yer Trousers a wee bit. I religiously wore 1950's US army issue wool Pants and they're riding just above my naval area, Stuff was Just high cut back in the day as has been mentioned already here.

Try a pair of Real Navy Dungarees "Seafarer" brand ones are nice and waist cut. Your Jacket just doesn't want to work with Low-rise Jeans I guess? dang, well it doesn't look bad or anything.

Those Brass studs on the back panel WOW!

 

[01flhr]

Very short all over.

Everythings too short. The sleeves arent even good riding length.

 

[rockandrollrabbit]

Yeah - agree once a jacket sits up above a belt line it looks wrong.

I find with a lot of jackets - certainly on my Bootlegger and A-2 - that due to the front dip of almost all pants and jeans, often the front of the jacket can be above the belt, while the back covers it. I can live with an exposed belt buckle for this reason. It's when the rear of the belt is exposed that sets off alarm bells for me.

 

[Bfd70]

Totally agree. Any asthetic concerns not withstanding a short front isn’t uncomfortable and actually easier in the car. A short back makes me feel like my pants are falling down.

 

[jonbuilder]

I ride with leather riding pants. My current Aero and Vanson sort rider pants cover my belly button, as did the Buco, Cal Leather and Langlitz riding pants I have used in the past. My shortest vintage leather jacket, a Hercules D pocket similar to AeroFan's Hercules covers my belt when sitting on the bike. The length is similar to my Classic Wards' Winward perhaps a tad shorter. I wear my Hercules without a belt when not riding so I do not have a conflict with my pant belt.

 

[Jwag]

I think I'd fit in well for 1930-50 clothing. I'm 5'5" and vintage clothes seem to fit me well. I don't like high rise pants though. I prefer a regular rise. I like my jackets to be 23" long. In fact I have a huge problem finding clothes that fit me. Everything these days is way too long on me. Nobody caters to the shorter man. They got Big & Tall. Yet women get a "petite" section. Dress shirts?? Holy cow a small just about reaches my knees haha.

 

[Edward]

The motorcycle jackets were made to ride, so when you sit & reach for the handle bar, the short front dip will close in & won’t dig into the hip/groin.

Assuming a specific riding style, of course - i.e. the very upright, US Harley type riding position. It's notable that when Lewis Leathers created their first "American style" motorcycle jacket in 1956, the Bronx, they felt the need to put a leather-covered buckle on the front halfbelt in order to prevent it scratching the tank: by then, many, younger UK riders preferred a racing-style riding position with dropped handlebars, and liked to ride leaning over the tank. When Lewis perfected their cross-zip design with the original Lightning 391 in 1958, it's little wonder that they opted for side-buckles instead, which became a norm across their classic line. Similarly, by 1978 when the Super Monza was introduced, Japanese style racing bikes had become much more common, hence the demand for a longer jacket that didn't leave the lower back exposed as it rode up with the rider leaning much further forward.

Of course, as noted already, much of the shorter length was simply to do with the fact that back in the 30s-50s it was the norm in menswear for the waistband to actually sit on the waist (as per Navetsea's picture) rather than the modern fashion of the waistband sitting several inches below the "natural waist" (a pox on lowrise and even more so the absurdist "medium rise" and all those who invented it to save a bit of money and make tailoring easier).

without vest they look so weird, how do they look sitting down

Aesthetics is, of course, personal choice: personally, I absolutely hate, loathe and detest to look of trousers with the waistband below the natural waist. It's a rare individual indeed whose proportions they don't make look all wrong. These look perfectly normal to me... that they're also vastly more comfortable than a modern (belowthe)waistline cut is a distinct bonus. I suspect the comfort factor may have been part of why I took to the aesthetic so quickly.

Period jackets are often short, that's true. Men were shorter, pants were higher, etc. There's not a pattern going that can't be made longer by a competent pattern maker and still retain the original look. Where people sometimes go wrong is adding too much or getting the proportions wrong. It's a fine line and partly subjective.

Messing around with the proportions of a vintage look are exactly where so many things go wrong, I agree... it's one reason I stop reading any blurb where they push the product as "vintage style" but then talk about how they have "improved and modernised" the cut. That these jackets were made not in a vacuum but in an era in which they reflected the rest of a man's wardrobe is a factor that has to be taken into account. Certainly easier for those of us who want the overall look rather than one part of it, as there's no need to mess about with the proportions.

I'm not keen on the shorter biker styles at all (many attempt the look, few pull it off) and I would want a utility jacket or half-belt no shorter than 26.5 to 27 inches. I'm six two.

I think that's the best approach - don't mess around trying to change something that doesn't work, opt for something that does fit what you want instead. I've seen little worse looking than fashion versions of the Schott Perfecto type cut about four or five inches longer than the original purely to meet lower waistbands.

he Harry high pants look of yore is surely more comfortable for the overweight man. I can see the attraction. I personally think it's a look that appeals only to a modest subculture and even within this group, only a proportion of guys can pull it off without looking strange.

It never ceases to amuse me how many people in these parts look in askance at the notion of an accurate, vintage look for the period to which this website is dedicated... Of course, the leather jacket aside of things which dominates outerwear nowadays is a subculture of its own which often doesn't extend to the full look.

In terms of weight, I'm currently overweight and a waistband actually on the natural waist is much more comfortable (and flattering) than the overhang look of a waistband worn much lower - but I've always found that to be the case even when I'm not overweight. I remember it being a source of frustration in my teens before I figured out the comfort and style thing; I could never wear Lee jeans or 501s because of the hipster cut. 501s were still designer and expensive back then, so that wasn't so bad - stung a bit though with Lee as they had a factory close to my folks' house in those days and factory 'seconds' with no discernable flaws could be had for half the price of a shop-bought pair. In those days, I was five ten with a twenty-eight inch waist.

High rise trousers is the answer(Real high rise above or around your navel) If you’re around 5’ 11” they should work.

But then you have to like the look.

Truning up at TFL, liking vintage fashion? Who'da thunk?

Yep, this.

It's not that the jackets won't fit you, they just might not fit you the way you want them to. These are motorcycle jackets that are also centered around other stuff people wore back then. You have to adapt your entire wardrobe for these to fit the 'right' way.

Besides, modern motorcycle jackets are still very short.

Doubtless designed with matching leather trews in mind. I've noticed a lot of motorcycle jeans are creeping up to a natural waist too - doubtless for protective coverage, but hopefully it'll have a knock-on on regular fashion too!

I'm waiting for the time when "high" (i.e. on the natural) waist trousers come back into fashion again; I wonder if we'll see people on internet forums bemoaning the demise of the low-"waist", wanting to source low waist trousers and such... heh.

 

[TREEMAN]

Try it without wearing a belt on your pants...….

 

[CBI]

perhaps focus on vintage coats/jackets that are longer, there are some great options.