how big is the chest circ. of your jacket???

[johnnyjohnny]

i'm totally interested in fit, especially since coming onto the forum here i've found many members prefer their mil and bike jackets a trim fit...reasoning being that ww2 mil jackets were worn trim, and for bike jackets that are actually worn for biking, a good fit is needed if one hits the pavement, so the protection sticks with you

since i like my jackets a bit looser than normal, perhaps a half size over what perfect fit would be, i'm curious as to what the multivarious others here on the fedlounge do for fit...specifically your actual chest circumference (inches pleeeze) vs. the outside chest circumference of your jacket, normally measured w/jacket laid flat and zipped, armpit to armpit at the seam to the torso, at the bottom of the armpit, across to the same place other side, and then doubled for the full circumference....but can also be done with a tape measure around the full chest right under the armpit, but the former method is likely easier

would love to hear your jacket name, your chest circ (relaxed, not inflated), and then your actual jacket's chest circ/or armpit to armpit...several of each person's jackets would be great

for me, i find i wish a 26" armpit to armpit for a-2s, g-1s, and motorcycle jackets, as well as the eastman luftwaffe i just got...my actual chest circ is 45.5".....so that's a 52" circumference on the jacket, vs. my actual chest size of 6.5" less

i do live in lalaland (known as los angeles) so i never wear anything but one shirt under my jackets, tho in colder climes folks might get their jacks a bit larger for layering

am curious as to what the norm on this is, and rather than asking for subjective anecdotes, quantifying it this way will give actual info...and it's always interesting, especially in fashion (and utility as we are talking mil and bike riding jackets) to see where one falls...and size worn is an element of fashion

danke

 

[Peacoat]

Fit

I wear my jackets as practical pieces of clothing; I don't focus too much on style, although I don't like a boxy fitting jacket. I also like room under the jacket for layering.

Wearing just a Tshirt, I have a 42" chest and a 34" waist. In the winter the waist may grow an inch or so.

In terms of Aero, I think it will be difficult to quantify the fit, as they are all custom made. For my tastes, the Aeros are too tightly fitted. I like more room in the chest, arms and shoulders than what they do. My next Aero order will specify this.

In almost all motorcycle jackets, I need a stated size 46 to get a relaxed fit that leaves room for layering. Schott recommends going one size up in the Cafe Racer, and some other styles. I ordered a 44, and it was too tight. Sent it back, got a 46, and it was just right until I got into some light rain. It shrank back to a 44, so I can no longer layer under it, which is OK as I have others for that purpose.

So, to summarize, I am a 42 with a 34 waist and wear a 42 suit. For motorcycle jackets, I need a 44 or, usually, a 46 to get a fit that allows layering. All other measurements are OK in either of those sizes. I have never found a 42 in a motorcycle jacket that gives me enough room.

 

[johnnyjohnny]

eeeeek, your story of your shrunk schott (no, that's not a double entendre) made me take notice...i wouldn't like my jackets to be any smaller than they are now, and since everyone on the forum is such a fan of doing a gene kelly with your jackets, i eased up enough to not run out of the rain with a leather jacket

but now you have me paranoid (well, i was already so, but you've heaped kerosine, or pecard's, on the fire)...on the other side of it, one of my first a-2s a couple of years ago was a nice current issue cockpitusa, but it's of course blousy...i coated that thing in warm water about four times, letting it dry, then repeating, and i couldn't notice any shrinkage (sadly as that was my desire)...

can you peacoat, or anyone, explain if in fact water will shrink our leather jackets? my experience, and what i've heard on the forum here a few times (except from you, troublemaker) is that water will not shrink the leather

o.j. simpson demonstrates the dangers, or benefits, of wetting leather:

but, of course, we all recall oj and the gloves in court...they, of course, had been wet between the night they were lost on nicole simpson's property and the try-on in court...

 

[Peacoat]

Oh, it shrank alright. Most noticeably in the arms and the length of the body. The circumference of the body shrank as well. As it was a little big before the wetting, that isn't so noticeable, but it does eliminate layering. And it wasn't a heavy soaking rain either, just a steady light rain.

The next motorcycle jacket I ordered after the shrinking was a Fox Creek. I specifically asked the rep about rain and shrinkage, and she said they had no reported problems. I ordered the next size up--a 44--and sent it back for a 46 because it left insufficient room for layering. The 46 Fox Creek is a good fit, but then I haven't let it even look at rain.

I have had two jackets that were a bit too big. A good soaking in the bathtub caused them both to shrink some. One just right and the other shrank a little bit but is still a better fit than before the soaking.

 

[ukali1066]

I too am a fan of the fitted 30's/40's cycling/Luftwaffe jacket

I'm a 34 chest and 32 waist, so I find a 36 chest is a good fit for me

 

[johnnyjohnny]

wahhhhhhhhhh

well thanks peacoat, now i'm fer sure fer sure going to be afraid of the rain...am wondering if using leather water resistance spray's, or just conditioners, would keep this from happening...but then i'd also be a bit wary putting a water resist spray on my eastman luftwaffe...thank goodness it never rains in southern california (stinkin' song)

and thanks ukali, sounds like you wear them the way they were meant to be worn...tiiiiiiiiiite. per the conversation above, stay out of the rain my man. oh, and nice taste you have in jackets.

as for the original question, i guess no one wants to give me actual armpit to armpits...which seams to be the only way i can really know what size a jacket will be...i wasted a lot of $$$ on size issues until i understood this measurement and knew what worked for me...seems this thread would be the most incredible and germane thread ever on the fedlounge...but alas, guess i'm wrong again...

 

[P5640blouson]

Fit

This is my idea of fit:
I am 37 chest 31 around the belly, trim athletic, and with wearing nothing more than a T-shirt and dress shirt underneath, I find that size 36 for thin jackets (actual chest circumference 38") and size 38 (actual 41) for thick jackets like Lewis does the trick. Anyone know about the McCoy Buco Jackets? I need to find out if their size 36 can accomodate my dimensions of 37 chest and 31 belly. I can't speak Japanese and I don't know who to ask. Thanks in advance.

 

[tjoek]

I have an actual 36" chest circumference with 29" waist and standing at 5'7". My build is slim but a bit stocky.

Throughout "trials and errors" over the years I found 19.5" armpits would best accommodates me as the chest will fit closer yet not too tight nor loose (I like to wear my clothes fitted but not tight).
My rule of thumb is a minimum of 2", maximum of 4", and optimum of 3" extra space between the chest and the fabric.

Nevertheless the tricky part is actually on the waist (at the narrowest part) since I require at least 17.5" width in order to be able to fasten the jacket closed without creating "pull" effects on the fabric.

 

[Norwayman]

I have 44"chest, and are 190 cm. (6´2"?)
My FQHH Highwayman is labeled 44, and is 26,5" pit to pit laying flat, and
zipped up.
My Eastman Monarch A2 is also labeled 44, and is 25" pit to pit laying flat,
and zipped up.
Both jackets fits me very well, and I have room for a sweater in the Hwman.

 

[P5640blouson]

Pit to pit is not always the best measure

Pit to pit is not always the best measure as the side seams on a jacket may be to the rear, with the front panels wrapping around the front. In this case, the back panel width is important as it must accomodate the full width of your backside. I am talking about the side seam not running down the middle of the armholes but towards the back. The M-65 field jacket is an example of this as it was designed to accomodate extra bulk in the chest area, be it your manly chest muscles or equipment in the pockets. For the M-65, it it is sized for 37chest, for example, then the actual circumference in the chest area is like 44inches! This is the way the spec runs for that jacket, and the way it is cut, looks great with this oversizing. The fashion versions of that jacket usu looks inordinately chic an non utilitarian. The real M-65 is badass looking when worn in the military recommended sizing. Just look at som Mil photos and you'll know what I mean, and then compare it to the some fashion versions worn by some model on a fashion runway.

A note about the factor of height: the average person is 5'9" so most regular length jackets centered around size 40 are for this height. So if you have a proportional looking torso and are 5'7"-6'1", regular length is perfect. If you are taller or shorter by more than 2 inches, then the short or long non standard length will have to be applied to get the textbook overall look when the garment is worn. Of course these norms may be different among the largest or smallest sizes where makers expect the wearer to be taller, i.e. sizes 42 and above or size 34 and below.

In the end there are so many factors that affect the fit and look of a jacket on any particular person, the rule is to get the look and fit that you want and it may not be the textbook (traditional/cultural/trend-design factored) look or fit.

 

[celtic]

A note about the factor of height: the average person is 5'7" so most regular length jackets centered around size 40 are for this height. So if you have a proportional looking torso and are 5'7", regular length is perfect. If you are taller or shorter by more than 2 inches, then the short or long non standard length will have to be applied to get the textbook overall look when the garment is worn.

hrm...I always considered myself a bit short at 5'9"ish

if your facts are correct, I'm actually TALLER than average?

 

[gtdean48]

hrm...I always considered myself a bit short at 5'9"ish

if your facts are correct, I'm actually TALLER than average?

Off the internet so you know it is true =
The average male American mens height is 177 cm, which is 69.7 inches, which is approximately 5 foot - 10 inches tall. (for white males*).
Or
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the average height for an adult male in the United States is:
69.2 inches, or
5 feet 9.2 inches

 

[P5640blouson]

I would say 5'7" in North America

I stand corrected on my note above:
Some more detail, Of course these norms change from country to country/nationalites, but in the U.S. military sizing (a good cross-section for the healthy population as you find all kinds in there so uniforms have to be standardized for the pleathora of sizes and shapes), Short would be less than 67inches closer to 63 inches, regular would be 67 to 71 inch, and long is 71 and up. One could say that 69 is average as its between 67 and 71, but upon closer inspection, I would say that a jacket would look hideous if too short, whereas a slight lenghtening is mostly safe.
Statiscally, one source places the U.S. population at 5'9" for average for all males 20-30 years old for the ones sampled. The averages go all over the place when you single out groups by nationality.

 

[johnnyjohnny]

celtic, you midget! (that's a joke)

tjoek...really sleek fit...very nice...varies from how i wear mine since i go way beyond your 3" preference circumference vs. actual chest size...all a matter of preference, and also i'd say in jacket type, as you are wearing cafe racer style jackets...kind of a michael jackson look (only in jacket...don't want to open up a can of worms...but, can you moonwalk?)...thanks for the specifix as it does tell me what others do out there, and where my fashion sense stands...kind of the california 'cas' (that's casual for you non-lalalanders)

norwayman...more a fellow to my own tastes...your aero fits you even larger than i wear my jackets, 53" circumference on a 44" chest, or a 9" difference...i'm guessing that out there in norwayland you do layer a bit, whilst i do not here in los angelesLand, where i'm just happy when it's cool enough to wear jackets made for european bikers or ww2 pilots...thanks for the measurements, love the specific info

P5640blouson, you are the spitfire on my messerschmitt tail! but i'll answer this in partially agreeing that one measurement can't tell all, but if one could, given all others accommodating other needs, armpit to armpit (or circumference where side seams are off to the back) would do, i heartily posit

the m-65, not being a leather jacket, was, as you point out, made also for equipment considerations stuffed into pockets, but beyond that, a fit that would work with the need for non-restriction to accommodate movement commensurate with murdering your enemy with anything from an m-3 combat knife to rapid fire with an m-16...if i had to do that (i missed the nam draft by a few lottery numbers) i'd much rather wear a loose m-65 vs. a nice fitting aero route 66 or eastman luftwaffe

and i'll also agree that armpit to armpit/circumference is more an after the fact analysis that helps see where one is vis a vis jacket size, especially considering actual size on leather jackets is useless since it varies so much from manufacturer to manufacturer, or even within one manufacturer's wear line...however, of everything, i believe the a to a tells most, though not all

but for me, and maybe others, i really wanted to know how off the wall i was with the sizing i liked on my jackets, basically 6 1/2" larger chest circumference than my actual chest measurement...not quite heretical, but verging on wearing oversize clothes, tho not quite

thanks for the comments and taking the time to go over measurements

as i sit here writing, my 26" armpit to armpit eastman luftwaffe clothes my 45.6" chest as tight as i would dare...any tighter and i'd have a panic attack...guess it's no surprise i'm claustrophobic (seriously)

 

[P5640blouson]

fit

The slack that you prefer in your jackets seem reasonable enough. I figure while I'm still young and want a more fitted look. Then when I get old and crepuscular, I'll hide in my clothes. As far as tight spaces are concerned, snug feels good for me, but I can understand how a tighter fit can bring back memories of wearing a straight jacket , just kidding
As far as getting that fit that we are all after, we'll get there sooner or later, as we certainly are talking about it rather than demanding perfect fit without truly understanding what it entails.

 

[johnnyjohnny]

spitfire on my tail

P5640blouson, i will warmly assume that your comments were not meant to be insulting, as i have nothing but the fondest feelings in my heart for your constant contrariness...to wit:

I figure while I'm still young and want a more fitted look. Then when I get old and crepuscular, I'll hide in my clothes.

...will be happy to post a pic of my non-"crepuscular" body...which at 45.5" chest and 34" waist has not crepuscled quite yet

I can understand how a tighter fit can bring back memories of wearing a straight jacket

...my only memories of being in a straight jacket are with a very beloved woman i know who wears black stiletto boots and...well, we'll leave it at that, except to say implications of my psychiatric state are...uh, overblown

any other things you'd like to say? if so, post your address so i can send you a shovel. very handy for folks who wish to dig themselves in deeper.

 

[P5640blouson]

Cynic

Regarding those statements, they were made with cynicism towards myself. In all honesty there was no connotations pointed at anyone but myself, even if it came across that way. "Old and crepscular", sometimes I feel like I am almost there. "Straight Jacket", well heck, I live in SoCal, so I must be less than normal. But then again, don't you live here too? (Ha Ha) Getting the wardrobe right would help me keep my sanity, at least that's what I think for now, as I've had many other hobbies in the past, to no avail. Oh by the way, my own spouse has pointed at me on numerous occasions for whether I was serious or cynical. I am well aware that when commenting on others, that I may well be commenting on myself, the same. No harm intended, I promise. I guess my stab at British humor ain't working...

Getting back to fit, I figure with a healthy lifestyle where body size is maintained, a well fitted wardrobe, jacket especially, it should last a good long time, in my case for the next two decades, hopefully. That is my goal for this research.

 

[johnnyjohnny]

i should have checked where you live...we are neighbours, we think alike (despite my using british spellings for things like 'neighbours')...in fact chatting with you seems like i am conversing with a doppleganger

i'll keep the shovel, though it apparently wouldn't cost much to send it over given the distance between us

tah...or should i say, later dude

by the way, get the jacket...you'll love it

 

[GreyBadger]

I would welcome advice on the fitting of sheepskin jackets, particularly Irvins. I hear that often a larger size is better due to the lining. Does this follow in practice?

 

[Edward]

Pit to pit measurement is a useful thing to know; indeed, I often find it a much more helpful measurement than the nominal size of a garment (unfortunately, all too many eBay sellers don't understand the difference, citing the latter as the former). It is, however, only part of the overall picture, as yet again sizing can very with cut of the jacket. I have a slim-fitting, tweed suit, labelled a size 42R. The jacket is a wonderul fit on me, very slim, quite 30s in that respect (if only the trousers were tht wider leg fit too, but they're more a late 50s neat cut, not a drainpipe, but certainly neat on the thigh). The pit to pit measurement in that jacket is only a 44", but due to the cut around the shoulders and general shaping, it is extremely flatterin,g very comfortable, and I can button it without it looking ridiculous. Other, more modern cut jackets of a similar pit to pit measurement (sized as a 40R) I cannot get into, and require the 46" of a contemporary 42R. Other features which cann affect this include underarm gussets, pleated action backs, etc - c/f the much neater cut of an AN6552/M442a type as compare to a nominally same-sized A2 without those features.