Schott shinki fit

[mr.hatlover]

The schott jacket looks too long. They apparently prepared for it, and that's why it has a two way main zipper. Which also ruins any callback to a vintage piece. When I first saw this jacket I liked it, but the length and super busy front don't aid the design, they hurt it... It's not a vintage repro at all. It's a modern jacket, plain and simple. Not saying that's a bad thing but it just has nothing in common with the historical styles it poorly emmulates. It's just not that jacket. If viewed under the lens of something entirely modern, I don't think it looks as bad. But I still can never be convinced a cross zip looks good at this length. Type 3 and cross zip leave little wiggle room for length. As soon as they are too long it is impossible to unsee. Other styles can get away with length flexibilty. IMO this one simply can't. A 26.5" back on the size large Schott with any kind of front drop turns this into a cross zip car coat.

They were looking at a modern audience with this one. You can see the jacket also doesn't have side adjusters.

But in the non tucked shirt world there are people who prefer it that way.

Personally I tried hard to make it work because the leather really is that good.

The horsehide is supple with beautiful grain and feel. I haven't seen or felt anything better so I took a chance.

 

[ton312]

They were looking at a modern audience with this one. You can see the jacket also doesn't have side adjusters.

But in the non tucked shirt world there are people who prefer it that way.

Personally I tried hard to make it work because the leather really is that good.

The horsehide is supple with beautiful grain and feel. I haven't seen or felt anything better so I took a chance.

Yeah Schott has been stretching their patterns like this for awhile now. I don’t think a 22” back would sell well at all. I wear my short ass Schott with an untucked shirt and a vest. 24” back 1” drop:

I’m ok with my shirt sticking out a bit. I just think for some styles, they ought to stay short(ish). A 24” back with a 1.5” drop would’ve helped the shinki jacket. And FWIW I think outside the sleeves length your jacket is a perfectly fine fit. Not my personal length preference is all.

 

[mr.hatlover]

Yea i agree with you, if the jacket was an inch-inch and a half shorter it would have been a decent fit. The length just makes it look sloppy.

Plus you are forced to raise the bottom zip if you want to sit down but I guess thats why they added it.

I even tried to see in the mirror how it would look shorter and it was a way better fit.

The medium is an inch shorter but don't know if ill be able to find one, if it will be too tight.

Schott will be releasing more shinki jackets but i doubt they will be in this style.

 

[Aloysius]

Back in the days that measurement included the collar. So measured from the base of the collar to the hem the back was about 23" long.

That 25" was measured from the top of the collar. That's how they measured it back then. So that would make the jackets 22.5-23" by our modern measurements while the Schott is still 25" by our modern measurements and more like 27" by the old style.

Actually, Schott's back measurement includes the collar. That's why my size 42 613SH says it has a back length of 25 or 25.5 but when you measure from the bottom of the collar it's 24.

Inferring jacket length from an artistic drawing, whatever lol. Next thing you're going to tell me men used to have 24" wide shoulders back in the days.

View attachment 648441

Some interesting things to pull from this drawing. Look at the crease on the left and right of the man's body (most easily seen running from chest through left hand warmer). This shows the importance of drape and how these jackets were meant to have doom in the chest to achieve the drape cut which was the stylistic hallmark of 1930s-40s tailoring. The chest drape gives both freedom of movement and helps generate a V-shape on the wearer.

 

[jeo]

The body length on these 1940 models look very similar to the P628H worn in Schott's listing (25" length is stated in a couple of them):

View attachment 648409

View attachment 648410

View attachment 648411

View attachment 648414

P628H listing pic:

View attachment 648418

EDIT: This aviator jacket I currently own has a 25" back length as well:


View attachment 648424

View attachment 648425

Looking at where those 1940 jackets with the 25" listed lengths fall in relation to the hips, there is no way in hell those lengths are 23"....

I own an original Sears Top Line. This one is made by LA Sportogs. It’s a size 38. That’s how jackets were measured.

25” total length
23.5” from base of collar

Kind of strange how the drawings correspond with what would be a 25" length in a similar jacket.......

Not really. A 23.5” back length on a size 38 jacket from this period is long. It also has quite a significant front drop. This is just a long jacket. And the drawings reflect that.

That 25" was measured from the top of the collar. That's how they measured it back then. So that would make the jackets 22.5-23" by our modern measurements while the Schott is still 25" by our modern measurements and more like 27" by the old style.

I'm not saying all vintage aviators were like this. California Sportswear made longer ones for example, but in general, aviators were usually shorter.

100%. Most CSC aviators are actually quite long and others made them long too like my Top Line I posted above, but the majority of aviators overall were short.

 

[Marc mndt]

Speaking of California Sportswear, this aviator sports a 26" back length (24" sleeves) in a size 42 (EDIT: 42" chest, not size 42):

http://[URL]https://www.butterworth...29938/vintage-1940s-40s-california-sportswear

[/URL]

View attachment 648471

View attachment 648470

EDIT: Couple more ad drawings from 1941 and 1943:

View attachment 648472

View attachment 648473

You may stop now trying to argue that you're ignorant, you've alread made a convincing case.

 

[mr.hatlover]

I own an original Sears Top Line. This one is made by LA Sportogs. It’s a size 38. That’s how jackets were measured.

25” total length
23.5” from base of collar

View attachment 648480 View attachment 648481 View attachment 648482



Not really. A 23.5” back length on a size 38 jacket from this period is long. It also has quite a significant front drop. This is just a long jacket. And the drawings reflect that.



100%. Most CSC aviators are actually quite long and others made them long too like my Top Line I posted above, but the majority of aviators overall were short.

Damn that jacket looks nice.

 

[Technonut]

You may stop now trying to argue that you're ignorant, you've alread made a convincing case.

Quite rude and condescending to a lounger who's been around since 2006.... Still trying to figure out your response to a post simply showing pics of the longer length mentioned of Cal Sportswear's aviators in an earlier post, and a couple more 1940's ad drawings....

 

[Marc mndt]

Quite rude and condescending to a lounger who's been around since 2006.... Still trying to figure out your response to a post simply showing pics of the longer length mentioned of Cal Sportswear's aviators in an earlier post, and a couple more 1940's ad drawings....

I've showed you the original vintage jacket next to the Schott and still you continue trying to prove your point that Aviator jackets from the 40s were similar to the Schott in terms of length, even though that's clearly not the case. Also ignoring what everyone else is saying about how back length was measured back in the days. Seems like you're intentionally ignoring the facts.

 

[Technonut]

I've showed you the original vintage jacket next to the Schott and still you continue trying to prove your point that Aviator jackets from the 40s were similar to the Schott in terms of length, even though that's clearly not the case. Also ignoring what everyone else is saying about how back length was measured back in the days. Seems like you're intentionally ignoring the facts.

It was also shown that some were manufactured longer... Two makers were mentioned so far. I simply posted pics and a link to the Cal Sportswear being sold, it's back length measurement, and a couple more vintage ad pics. I did not compare it to the Schott in that post, and do not appreciate being called ignorant because of it.... I'm pretty sure I posted "Speaking of the California Sportswear", which should have made it clear....

 

[Marc mndt]

I did not compare it to the Schott in that post, and do not appreciate being called ignorant because of it....

I missed that, sorry. I thought we were discussing the back length of the Schott, my bad.