Is it really about the armholes?

[Mike K.]

Okay, so I’ve be reading up on lots of old posts about what makes a well-fitting suit jacket or blazer (or flight jacket for that matter). The consensus seems to be that it’s all about the armholes. They must be high. They must be small. Many modern jackets are built with enormous armholes that cause a jacket to ride up and look very awkward if the arms are raised (if they can be raised at all). Modern jackets are made to be put on or taken off with ease, rather than be worn. Vintage jackets were meant to be worn and give the wearer comfort and mobility.

But is it really all about the size and height of the armholes? My scientific mind has been curious about this, and perhaps I’ve missed something browsing through countless posts about jackets & suits. Here’s my question – is it really the armholes that make the fit, or is it really the sleeve length along the underside (hence attachment angle of the sleeve)? Below are two somewhat crude geometric drawings I made, both have an “armhole” of identical size and both have a “top length” of identical size. The difference is how the “sleeve” is stitched onto the jacket. With a downward angle, the bottom length is very short, while with a more right angle to the body the bottom length is much longer. Which one offers more mobility and a better fit when worn (i.e. more like vintage)?

Here are a few real-life examples and where I started to question things. How could a modern blazer fit so poorly, yet a modern outdoor jacket fit so much better? It’s not about the armhole (is it?), but rather the way the sleeve is attached – arms up versus arms down.
First two photos are my pathetic-fitting blazer – definitely arms down construction (see what happens when the arms are raised).
Next photo is a safari jacket – arms up.
Last photo is my technical outdoors jacket – arms up.
Granted these are different kinds of jackets, but the armholes are of nearly equal size on each so in principle the comparison should be relevant.

It would seem that vintage jackets, precisely because of their higher/smaller armholes, have a longer under-sleeve length; therefore the sleeve is attached in a more upward position. Many modern jackets have a much shorter under-sleeve length relative to the top-sleeve length because of the angle at which the sleeves are attached; therefore one can’t raise the arms without the entire jacket riding up around the head.

So what do you think? Is it simply the size/height of the armholes, or rather the attachment angle of the sleeve? Please post your comments, measurements, and photographs! Whether your input supports or falsifies my hypothesis, I’d be interested in getting your feedback. Thanks so much!

Cheers,
Mike

 

[J. M. Stovall]

Veeeery interesting! Good detective work Mike!

 

[Mike in Seattle]

I think, in addition to what you say in the post, the pictures speak volumes.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

but aren't these two measurements/features simply different ways to say the same thing? The smaller armhole requires the different sleeve shape/attachment; and the two seem inseparable . . . at least for a suit jacket

And to be fair, that safari jacket is really just a shirt made of heavy fabric, as is the mountaineering-type jacket shown. Of course a shirt is going to have different arms to a jacket like the one shown first. Looks like a comparison of apples and oranges.

bk

 

[carebear]

I think you're right in emphasizing the angle of attachment and under sleeve length.

As your diagram shows, the body of a jacket is more or less a rectangle, the side is essentially vertical.

The sleeve is also essentially a rectangle of fabric. The angle at which it is attached to the body will determine the maximun angle it can be moved to while worn without the fabric around the shoulder seam being forced to move to adjust. If you want a sleeve that can move perpendicular to the torso without bunching the shoulder fabric, you need that sleeve attached more or less perpendicularly. Like, as BK points out, a shirt.

Of course, if you do that and the armhole is so large that the underarm seam does not extend deep into the wearer's armpit you'll have a bunch of extra fabric bunched up in the armpit when he puts his arm down. And if there isn't a little more fabric on top of the shoulder and/or the sleeve isn't put on at a slight downward angle you wouldn't be able to lower your arm to your side without the fabric looking stretched over the shoulder.

So it is the combination of more perpendicular sleeve attaachment with an underseam length that more nearly reaches the actual length of the arm from wrist to pit that will give you mobility. You can't physically get that without the smaller armhole and still have a cleanly fitting jacket.

 

[Mike K.]

but aren't these two measurements/features simply different ways to say the same thing? The smaller armhole requires the different sleeve shape/attachment; and the two seem inseparable . . . at least for a suit jacket

True Baron...as I said "precisely because of their higher/smaller armholes, have a longer under-sleeve length; therefore the sleeve is attached in a more upward position."
Couldn't a modern suit jacket have larger arm holes, but achieve a similar fit as a vintage jacket (with small/high arm holes) by changing the sleeve attachment?

This actually began during my quest for a A-2 flight jacket with a good fit. The A-2 is known for a more shirt-like fit. However, what appears to make the difference with modern reproductions is not the size of the arm opening as much as how the sleeves are attached.

What would be great is to see two similar jackets (e.g. two suit jackets, two A-2 flight jackets, etc.) with equally-sized armholes but different sleeve attachment angles. While I'd always prefer to find a suit/jacket that is vintage (or at least has a true vintage pattern), perhaps a compromise can be had with modern attire if only a simple pattern change were made.

 

[Mike K.]

ISo it is the combination of more perpendicular sleeve attaachment with an underseam length that more nearly reaches the actual length of the arm from wrist to pit that will give you mobility. You can't physically get that without the smaller armhole and still have a cleanly fitting jacket.

Ahh...good point indeed!!

 

[SamReu]

Spokes Man

I haven't conducted the exhaustive surveys that some of you guys have done, but I can offer anecdotal evidence: I have an old sports coat whose arm holes are pretty high and tight. I can reach all the way to the highest cabinet, where I keep candy away from the kids, and the jacket hardly hitches up at all. I also have a recently made jacket whose arm holes are big enough to accommodate four arms -- two in each armhole, of course -- and it rides up my back like one of my sons.

I've noticed the same fitting characteristics in an old (15-plus years) ELC A-2, which is close-fitting all the way up the armpits, and a recently made US A A-2, which has the larger openings for my arms.

I'd say you are spot-on, Mike.

 

[Fatdutchman]

The downward angle is IT! Jackets (ala suit jackets) with a lot of downward angle of the sleeve will generally also have large, low armholes (and correspondingly overly broad shoulders...). Better fitting (on me) jackets will have sleeves attached more straight out (and naturally, have higher armpits). Suit jacket makers are unconcerned about mobility, and are only concerned with the "drape". Unfortunately, many modern makers of other kinds of jackets seem to have similar philosophies.

I have an old Cooper A2 (in my avatar) with sleeves that hang almost straight down. Looks good on me as long as I'm standing still with my hands in my pockets. Don't ask me to scratch my nose, or brush my hair or even drive with this jacket on and zipped up!!! Reaching above my head is not possible. I recently tried a US Authentic A2. Along with other fit problems (like the body being too large and 6 inches too long...) the sleeves were attached similarly, and I couldn't easily raise my arms.

The US Wings A2 appears to be much more "wearer friendly" and the sleeves are straighter out...by looking at their photos, anyway.

You can have a well-fitting jacket with sleeves that are hanging down at about a 45 degree angle, but the armholes have to be high and tight in the armpit. The closer the jacket conforms to the body, the better it will fit, and the more you can move in it.

I am VERY concerned with jacket fit. Any old jacket WON'T do for me. It has to be right.

 

[Feraud]

When the opportunity presents itself for you to try a vintage jacket with high armholes, try it on. That is all I will say. Your mind will be changed before you can say "vintage inspired".

Think of a jacket like a well made dress shirt. You want a high, fitted armhole. This will provide the best range of movement. Modern jackets do not aspire to this. Today's jackets are made for nothing more than standing with your arms at your side. That is apparently all designers think a suited man is capable of doing.

 

[BellyTank]

Not just the high, smaller armhole- chest width and shoulder design also add to the total effect. The armholes must be relatively close to the armpit and chest to really work.

It's difficult to compare a suit jacket with anything else-
especially sports/activewear/outerwear

The suit jacket must look good with arms down-
we don't spend most of our jacket time with outstretched arms.

The angle of attachment is a good and valid point- 3 o'clock vs. 5 o'clock in your example makes a big difference but raglan, grown-on and set-in sleeve configurations/attachments are difficult and not so meaningful to compare but useful to illustrate the difference.

B
T

 

[The Wingnut]

fftopic: I was in a local vintage clothing store this past weekend and a gentleman was there with his girlfriend or wife, trying on a '40s vintage midnight blue tuxedo. He was complaining that the 'armpits are too snug'. I was standing close by, and had to say something. I politely excused myself and explained as carefully and briefly the difference between modern and vintage jacket cuts, and how modern jackets ride up when the arms are raised, as opposed to vintage jackets being made for a full range of motion. At the point I'd started speaking to him, he'd removed the jacket. After I talked to him, he picked the jacket back off the rack and went into the dressing room to try the whole thing on.

...it didn't fit him around the middle, but he made a point of walking up to me and thanking me for what I'd told him, and that he did notice the jacket didn't ride up the way the ones at home did.

I think we've got another convert. It's a disease! Spread it to the world!

 

[Rittmeister]

I posted the below in the Better Fit thread, but am also posting it here for others to see. Also, Mike K., can you repost the pics you had in your original posting? Thanks.

I am new to this forum and I think it is great. For most of my life I have loved the 30's and 40's. I have had many vintage suits and jackets, as well as custom made from several tailors. I never understood the difference in cut and look until I read this forum. After studying hundreds of period pictures of suits and uniforms and working with tailors, I think the angle of the sleeve setting is as important as the armhole size. It appears that sleeves on older jackets were set so that entire sleeve pitched forward more. That is, if you look at a sleeve from the side, the older sleeves seem to be set at a 30 degree angle instead of 10 or 15. When worn, this created some extra fabric at the top back of the sleeve. As such, when the arm is bent at the elbow the sleeve does not ride up the arm as much. This combined with slightly more room across the back (as in drape cut suits) allowed for the sleeve to stay in place along the entire arm as it is moved. Modern suitmakers and tailors seem to dispise any wrinkles or extra fabric across the back. But then the suit only looks good when standing completely still. Has anyone else noticed the problem of sleeves riding up on modern suits, and often the back of the sleeve riding up more than the front? Are there any solutions other than sleeve setting and more room across the back? Thanks.

 

[Jerekson]

By Jove, I think he's got it.

 

[herringbonekid]

it's fine to have the arms attatched 'sticking out' more such as on a shirt or denim jacket, but these are softly structered garments. to do the same thing to the sleeve angle of a suit jacket made of decent weight wool would result in lots of under-arm bunching and wrinkling which just isn't traditionally acceptable on an elegantly made garment.