Just how "sacky" would a sack suit have been?

[anon`]

And this, of course, assumes that I'm getting my terms correct.

Here's what I'm wondering: I've a suit. It's dated to 1932 and the original owner was huge. Like Sydney Greenstreet huge. But my tailor is awesome and has made it fit me! Had to make some concessions with the trouser waist, and I think the waistcoat needs some tweaking, but I can deal.

The jacket, however, is a bit more of a dilemma. It fits just perfect in the shoulders and arms, and around the chest. But it's awfully full in the waist. The front of the jacket flares away noticeably below the lower button, and the whole thing exudes an Edwardian air in terms of cut.

I'm on the fence about trying to have the jacket taken in further at the waist or not. Would it have been unheard of for a relatively skinny guy in the early '30s to wear a suit cut thus? Yes, I know I'm being a little anal here, but I rather enjoy being able to wear those closely-tailored suits that were popular in the era.

Anyone have good pictures to illustrate? Yes, I'll try to get a photo, but I have to run to the post office, first. You know, before they raise their rates again. Many thanks!

 

[mike]

Without any pictures at this time, my gut says do your best to return it to as close to its original state and sell it for a good sum to a person it will fit. Larger than 40-42 sized 30's suits, especially from 1932 are mighty rare! Put that money aside for a suit that comes closer to fitting you prior to tailoring! I tried doing something similar once and I know I'm not the only one. One of the telling signs that you're forcing something that doesn't work is if it bunches up across the upper back, just below the back of the collar. That is only one of the many possible pitfalls.

 

[Fletch]

Have to see those pix...but from your description, it reads as tho the slack area is in the waist and skirt. That's actually not the most impossible thing to fix. The big danger is that taking in the back seams will relocate the coat pockets so far back they start looking like hip pockets.

You can feel assured that, were it actually 1932, a gent of modest dimensions would not have felt too ashamed in a suit that was a little full thru the middle. One took what one could get in such frugal times.

Then again, a conscientious tailor in that day would have moved heaven and earth to correct the problem, and would have likely possessed the skills to do so, too.

 

[anon`]

Without any pictures at this time, my gut says do your best to return it to as close to its original state and sell it for a good sum to a person it will fit. Larger than 40-42 sized 30's suits, especially from 1932 are mighty rare! Put that money aside for a suit that comes closer to fitting you prior to tailoring! I tried doing something similar once and I know I'm not the only one. One of the telling signs that you're forcing something that doesn't work is if it bunches up across the upper back, just below the back of the collar. That is only one of the many possible pitfalls.

Completely agree, but believe it or not the jacket fits pretty well through the shoulders and back. It's just that this Mr W Wall was pretty corpulent around the midsection. I seriously imagine that he looked an awful like like Mr Greenstreet. That said, I paid about a song for this suit so I've not a lot of financial investment wound up in it. No way is it leaving my possession any time soon, even if I just wind up sitting on it unless something really good comes along.

Have to see those pix...but from your description, it reads as tho the slack area is in the waist and skirt. That's actually not the most impossible thing to fix. The big danger is that taking in the back seams will relocate the coat pockets so far back they start looking like hip pockets.

You can feel assured that, were it actually 1932, a gent of modest dimensions would not have felt too ashamed in a suit that was a little full thru the middle. One took what one could get in such frugal times.

Then again, a conscientious tailor in that day would have moved heaven and earth to correct the problem, and would have likely possessed the skills to do so, too.

Correct on the sizing. It's just big through the waist. The trousers aren't coming much down from about 34" in the waist, but they do a remarkable job of not bunching up in any obvious manner. My tailor has already done an excellent job to get this down to size, and I think she can do more. But I wanted opinions on it, first!

So, without further ado:

(Man, I love my eyes!)

 

[Tomasso]

My favorite sack.

 

[Tomasso]

For the purpose of observing fit it's best to take pics of the front, side and rear with your arms hanging naturally at your side; and with the jacket buttoned.

 

[Fletch]

Yes. In the pose you're in, any jacket would look about the same.

But this discussion does touch on something about the 30s - and the 40s, too. There were a whole lot of skinny guys, a few really fat guys, and almost nobody in between. If there was any appreciable demographic with a localized middle-aged paunch, they don't appear to have left much of a mark behind, either on the collective memory or on the hand-me-down closet...except maybe to the skinny generation just behind them.

 

[Wolfmanjack]

So, without further ado:

(Man, I love my eyes!)

IMHO the suit is not a bad fit just as it is. We would need back and side pics to judge for sure. Also a pic with your arms down.

The jacket appears to be a rather boxy cut at present, with the coat falling straight from armpits down to the waist; rather like an "ivy league" cut from the 1950s.

As Fletch has said, it shouldn't be hard for your tailor to nip-in the waist a bit more, if that will feel better for you.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

In the '30s and before, ready-to-wear suits came in 4 sizes: short, regular, long and STOUT. Chances are that your suit was made to be a stout. (Of course, custom made suits would be tailored the same way for customers with average shoulders and chests but giant beer bellies.)

.

 

[mike]

You could always save the money on tailoring and just eat fast food occasionally, it'll catch up with you

 

[Tomasso]

The jacket appears to be a rather boxy cut at present, with the coat falling straight from armpits down to the waist; rather like an "ivy league" cut from the 1950s.

That's the Sack; Brooks Bros 'introduced' it in America over a century ago though its ilk had been seen in GB decades before.



I like Ike's sack:

 

[Tomasso]

In the '30s and before, ready-to-wear suits came in 4 sizes: short, regular, long and STOUT.
.

When did Portly come into use?

 

[jamespowers]

When did Portly come into use?

After Corpulent.

 

[Bird's One View]

The most obvious sign that the suit was originally bigger is the horizontal distance between the pockets and the buttons. Suppressing the waist further will only exaggerate this. I would probably leave it alone.

 

[Tomasso]

After Corpulent.

Got it! But then where does Fatso fit in the timeline?

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Got it! But then where does Fatso fit in the timeline?

1980

 

[Dr Doran]

Eh. I'd leave it alone. It has a vest, so who cares?

 

[MrBern]

Would that really be considered a Sack suit???
I cant recall if it had darts, but it definitely is ventless.

 

[MrBern]

So, without further ado:

(Man, I love my eyes!)

It does look like a good solid sack suit. Where you hoping for a more fitted look? Dont do too much to it.