Show off the sports coats.

[Two Types]

... and tuck your shirt in! Tucking the shirt in will give a better idea of how it fits your proportions. As would a full length view (your leg length will make a difference to the overall effect). Also, the rear view doesn't seem as bad as the front view.

 

[Metatron]

Firstly, thank you everyone for your time and feedback. Here are some full length photos to show my proportions, as suggested by TT. Tucked in shirt and wool trousers. Excuse the muddiness, I'm using my webcam at the moment.

Let me know if these views change your views. If not, off to the classifieds it goes!

 

[Fastuni]

Well, looks better now - but it is certainly short. If you want to wear it, I'd go with higher-waisted trousers to balance the look. The waistband should be at (or little below) the top button.

The sleeves would need about 1 inch to be let out, as HBK pointed out it might result in not so pretty lines that are hard to iron out.
But the pattern is rather busy so this might not be too visible.
On a different note: I don't know whether it is a factor to you to alter a tagged, deadstock item... [huh]

 

[Baron Kurtz]

This would probably have been part of a suit, but now a sports coat. Probably middle-late 20s. Very tall and very skinny (except the shoulders which are very padded).

 

[Fastuni]

I like the lapels to collar ratio - quite distinct look.

 

[muselladembech]

Yesterday we tried the second fitting (sleeves still not completed) of a light grey tweed sports jacket to our customer. Some few adjustments to do and it is ready!

some pics here (unfortunately I don't understand how to post them here!): http://muselladembech.wordpress.com/

 

[Two Types]

Firstly, thank you everyone for your time and feedback. Here are some full length photos to show my proportions, as suggested by TT. Tucked in shirt and wool trousers. Excuse the muddiness, I'm using my webcam at the moment.

Let me know if these views change your views. If not, off to the classifieds it goes!

I tend to agree with Fastuni: the jacket is short but high waisted trousers would help balance the look. For me the sleeves remain the central issue. How will they look?

(Note: I am probably in the minority with regard to shorter jackets, so its worth remembering that what I think you can get away with might look dreadful to others)

 

[Baron Kurtz]

This is awesome, Gianfrancesco (i'm trying to get the thread opened again that you started!). I love the lapel shape, and the fabric is killer.:eusa_clap To put photos in your post, take the web address of the photo and put it between the image code

Yesterday we tried the second fitting (sleeves still not completed) of a light grey tweed sports jacket to our customer. Some few adjustments to do and it is ready!

some pics here (unfortunately I don't understand how to post them here!): http://muselladembech.wordpress.com/

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Marc C. has proposed a date of around 1923 for this jacket. Anyone think not, and why? (I'm really crap at dating 20s stuff)

 

[Qirrel]

I agree that it is not late 20s. I couldn't be as specific as 1923, though, but then again I'm not that well versed in American 20s suits.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The only thing pointing me to late 20s was the shoulders. I too am not well versed in the vagaries of 20s men's fashions. Leyendecker (and ilk) illustrations are always so extreme and unreal-looking that I find it difficult to use them as a reliable date guide.

bk

 

[Fastuni]

Certainly no lightly padded "natural" shoulder on this one!

 

[herringbonekid]

it gets confusing because not all suits would have had narrow unpadded shoulders with high button stance (cult of youth style) in 1919-23. there were also 'conservative' suits available at the same time and these are harder to date.

i can't give an exact date for that jacket either but i think mid 20s is near enough.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes, I would say you're right about the conservative nature of the jack/suit it came from. A conservative suit with a tilt of the hat towards the cult of youth (have I made that the phrase now?) styles in the extreme length of the jacket. jacket is about a 36-37 chest and 34" long (iirc - might be a bit shorter). Whereas the other one (below) was a bit shorter but still quite conservative, though with the natural shoulder. This one is a size 35 (woo hoo!) and still has the labels under the collar. I should get a pic of the label, I suppose.

 

[herringbonekid]

'conservative' styles from Sears 1923:

Baron, these all look less padded than your jacket.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Hart, Schaffner Marx Style Book 1921. Best styles have square shoulders (does that mean bigger, though?). More here.

 

[Qirrel]

There is a limit to how narrow the shoulder can be if you want it to be "square", and the degree of squareness (makes a lot of sense, I know) is not a binary thing. The (long) 20s coat posted on the previous page has what I would call round shoulders, i.e. natural shoulders, even though it is padded. Feel free to disagree with me about that definition of the natural shoulder, but I think that as long as the padding, whether firm or light, is not used to build up the shoulders to look distinctly squarer than the proportionate figure, or to create a more square/angled shoulder end, it is a natural shoulder.

Notice that in some illustrations in the HSM style book, a shoulder pad of moderate (to modern standards) size is visible as a result of the arm being lifted sideways and upwards:

While in another picture, a rounded shoulder is shown. (Man in DB and bowler, to the left.)

 

[Baron Kurtz]

There is a limit to how narrow the shoulder can be if you want it to be "square", and the degree of squareness (makes a lot of sense, I know) is not a binary thing. The (long) 20s coat posted on the previous page has what I would call round shoulders, i.e. natural shoulders, even though it is padded. Feel free to disagree with me about that definition of the natural shoulder, but I think that as long as the padding, whether firm or light, is not used to build up the shoulders to look distinctly squarer than the proportionate figure, or to create a more square/angled shoulder end, it is a natural shoulder.

Notice that in some illustrations in the HSM style book, a shoulder pad of moderate (to modern standards) size is visible as a result of the arm being lifted sideways and upwards:

Point taken. I guess by natural, most of us are meaning not built up/absence of any padding.

The long jacket I posted previously has very thick shoulder pads. I'm sure if it was worn and the arm lifted as above, that is hoe it would look.

 

[Metatron]

Some of those 20s suits look remarkably like modern ones. Especially those in the first image posted by HBK

 

[Qirrel]

Point taken. I guess by natural, most of us are meaning not built up/absence of any padding.

The long jacket I posted previously has very thick shoulder pads. I'm sure if it was worn and the arm lifted as above, that is hoe it would look.

It looks like it has a fair bit of padding extending past the shoulder seam and into the sleevehead, which makes it seem less square than if the shoulder padding stopped abruptly at the shoulder seam. Maybe you could try it on (if you still own it), and take a picture of it with the arm lifted?

And by the way, it is worth remembering that not all jackets have this firm padding in the sleevehead, which can be a bit misleading when comparing jackets on a mannequin. A jacket with a round shoulder end will often appear to have square shoulder ends when placed on a mannequin, since most mannequins don't have arms to fill out the sleevehead and prevent it from collapsing.