Mystery solved! Bogart's weird suit in "The Big Sleep"

[Dr Doran]

Neat little bit of history. Can't say I like that little quirk though, the whole point was that it was originally a functional buttonhole to roll the lapel over and button the jacket all the way up. I had a Gap blazer that did that (functional cuffs too), and it was wonderful on a windy day.

I always suspected this. I think I will add buttons to some of my suit-jackets for this purpose.

If I was getting a custom suit, I would rather have the neat detail of the functional collar and lapel than a buttonhole that exists only to hold a flower, and advertises the fact that it has no functional use.

However, instead of switching the buttonhole, what about switching the pocket? That could be a neat visual trademark.

OK, well, I was thinking about starting a new thread for this months ago, but this is the most opportune moment to get a feel from y'all.

My wife's aunt finished a 1.5 year tailoring course and offered to make me a 'komplet.' So the suit-jacket of the 'komplet' is made. IT HAS THE POCKET-SQUARE POCKET ON THE RIGHT SIDE INSTEAD OF THE LEFT. I asked her about this. It was a mistake -- she got confused when making it.

It would be impolite for me to ask her to remake it. In fact, impossible, as her English is godawful. (Although she is a wonderful person and a superb cook.)

Now I am wondering if it will be OK. I like the idea of something this radical. Any thoughts anyone?

 

[jamespowers]

I always suspected this. I think I will add buttons to some of my suit-jackets for this purpose.



OK, well, I was thinking about starting a new thread for this months ago, but this is the most opportune moment to get a feel from y'all.

My wife's aunt finished a 1.5 year tailoring course and offered to make me a 'komplet.' So the suit-jacket of the 'komplet' is made. IT HAS THE POCKET-SQUARE POCKET ON THE RIGHT SIDE INSTEAD OF THE LEFT. I asked her about this. It was a mistake -- she got confused when making it.

It would be impolite for me to ask her to remake it. In fact, impossible, as her English is godawful. (Although she is a wonderful person and a superb cook.)

Now I am wondering if it will be OK. I like the idea of something this radical. Any thoughts anyone?

Wear it I say. I have a vintage sport jacket with pleated pockets on both sides. Which side I use depends on my mood.

 

[Dr Doran]

Wear it I say. I have a vintage sport jacket with pleated pockets on both sides. Which side I use depends on my mood.

Thanks, Justin.

I didn't mean to hijack the thread. Sorry, Marc. That is very nice detective work. I think of little variations like the buttonhole on the right as mutations. We see some come and go. Others take over and influence styles for decades. They are somehow more adapted to the environment, more "fit."

 

[Marc Chevalier]

If I was getting a custom suit, I would rather have the neat detail of the functional collar and lapel then a buttonhole that exists only to hold a flower, and advertises the fact that it has no functional use.

But it does have a functional use: to hold a flower. That's no less functional than having an outside breast pocket to hold a handkerchief you'd (hopefully) never mop your brow with, or worse.


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.



And here's part of the article itself; it's from the September 1936 issue of Cinema Arts magazine. The so-called "representative of Oviatt's" was, in fact, James Oviatt himself. Read the second paragraph:

.

 

[Nighthawk]

In some ways I kind of like the buttonhole on the right. *BUT* here is another way of thinking about it. Mr. Oviatt says that having the boutonniere and handkerchief on opposite sides creates "balance." But does it? If we borrow a rule from photography, the Rule of Thirds, we are not going to really want two objects (the flower and handkerchief) on opposite sides as they aren't symmetrical (i.e. they are not exactly the same objects). If, on the other hand, one wore two flowers or two pocket squares then one would have "balance." But the rule of thirds essentially says that isn't always what you want. Take, for instance, this photograph by Ansel Adams. It follows the rule of thirds and is not symmetrical, yet is unquestionably beautiful. Having the pocket square and flower on the same side is similar to this photograph. The large ridgeline is on the right side of the photograph, and not directly down the center. Many beginning photographers make the mistake of centering everything in their photographs, which I have just shown isn't always the best. Symmetry can work, though, such as in this photo of a corridor designed by architect Eero Saarinen. Note the overally symmetry of the photograph, except for the very small man and the door handle. But as the flower and pocket square are fairly large and noticable objects on a person, and due to the fact that they aren't exactly the same, I don't think that Oviatt's look works. Thus, while I would wear an Oviatt jacket to look different, I'm not sure about the overall look. Just my two cents.

NH

 

[cptjeff]

But it does have a functional use: to hold a flower. That's no less functional than having an outside breast pocket to hold a handkerchief you'd (hopefully) never mop your brow with, or worse.


.

The pocket can be used to hold other things too. It doesn't have to be for just aesthetic purposes. A buttonhole that only holds a flower- that's not a functional use. That's an aesthetic use only. But that pocket you could use to hold a ticket, a handkerchief that you might actually use...

Just becuase most people don't use it for a functional purpose does not mean it can't serve a functional purpose. But that buttonhole can never serve a functional purpose.

 

[Dinerman]

That buttonhole can hold the t-bar of your watch chain, but only if it's on the same side as the pocket.

 

[HarpPlayerGene]

The button from a trolley cord on a fedora could pop into that hole.

We are kinda' reaching here, though. It is a pretty useless vestige. I'd prefer it as a functional part of a button-up-if-necessary arrangement.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The pocket can be used to hold other things too ... that pocket you could use to hold a ticket, a handkerchief that you might actually use...

Truth be told, in all cases but one, men don't really use their suits' outside breast pocket to hold anything except a pocket handkerchief. Not tickets, not pens, not glasses, and certainly not blow-your-nose handkerchiefs: those items go into hip pockets or interior pockets.


The one exception:

That buttonhole can hold the t-bar of your watch chain, but only if it's on the same side as the pocket.

.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The button from a trolley cord on a fedora could [be] pop[ped] into that hole.

But it could be popped into a righthand hole just as easily.


.

 

[Matt Deckard]

Truth be told, in all cases but one, men don't really use their suits' outside breast pocket to hold anything except a pocket handkerchief. Not tickets, not pens, not glasses, and certainly not blow-your-nose handkerchiefs: those items go into hip pockets or interior pockets.

Are you referring to the iPhone pocket on the upper left hand side under the lapel?

 

[cptjeff]

Truth be told, in all cases but one, men don't really use their suits' outside breast pocket to hold anything except a pocket handkerchief. Not tickets, not pens, not glasses, and certainly not blow-your-nose handkerchiefs: those items go into hip pockets or interior pockets.

Men don't use their buttonholes either. Just because they don't use it doesn't mean it can't be used. A pocket certainly can be used for practical purposes if one so desires.

 

[avedwards]

Truth be told, in all cases but one, men don't really use their suits' outside breast pocket to hold anything except a pocket handkerchief. Not tickets, not pens, not glasses, and certainly not blow-your-nose handkerchiefs: those items go into hip pockets or interior pockets.
.

I must disagree, and so must Mr Bogart. In this very film, whilst wearing this very suit he has a pair of sunglasses in his outside breast pocket. When not wearing them (he only does very briefly as part of a disguise) he puts them behind his pocket square, and being very thin they don't form a noticable bulge. I tried this with vintage sunglasses and when they are behind a pocket square they are not visible but easily accessible, whilst they risk being crushed in an inside pocket.

 

[Dr Doran]

I must disagree, and so must Mr Bogart. In this very film, whilst wearing this very suit he has a pair of sunglasses in his outside breast pocket. When not wearing them (he only does very briefly as part of a disguise) he puts them behind his pocket square, and being very thin they don't form a noticable bulge. I tried this with vintage sunglasses and when they are behind a pocket square they are not visible but easily accessible, whilst they risk being crushed in an inside pocket.

True, this will work with the 1930s specs I have -- thin, small specs.

But if you try Ray Ban Wayfarers, big clumsy geek glasses -- forgetaboutit.

 

[thunderw21]

If it were me I'd prefer a buttonhole on each lapel.

Still have a functional buttonhole and can put a flower on the right side if I so desire. Win either way.

 

[Dr Doran]

If it were me I'd prefer a buttonhole on each lapel.

Still have a functional buttonhole and can put a flower on the right side if I so desire. Win either way.

Well, often for DOUBLE breasted jackets we get this, presumably in the name of symmetry.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

An [outside breast] pocket certainly can be used for practical purposes if one so desires.

The next time you see a guy --besides "Mr. Bogart"-- whose suit's outside breast pocket is stuffed with glasses or something, please let us know.

.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

If it were me I'd prefer a buttonhole on each lapel.

Still have a functional buttonhole and can put a flower on the right side if I so desire. Win either way.

James Oviatt eventually agreed with you. A mid-1950s Oviatt's suit jacket:

.

 

[thunderw21]

James Oviatt eventually agreed with you. A mid-1950s Oviatt's suit jacket:

.

He was a genius of a man.