Show Us Vintage GERMAN Suits

[Patrick Hall]

I think short jackets can accentuate what we love about the classic silhouette, in much the same way as properly proportioned waistcoats. They make your legs look longer, and add definition to your figure around the middle, especially if they have good waist suppression. But - there is a point where they look ridiculous. I think the "wrist length" rule is a good one. I too am about to offload a suit for the same reason Fastuni. Even though the hems have been let out so the trousers sit at the right place, the waistcoat barely covers the waistband, and the jacket is not pleasingly short, but TOO short. It was clearly made for someone with less torso than me. Such is life.

 

[Two Types]

The so-called 'rules' about jacket length are so frustrating! If you listened to the people who tell you 'it has to reach three inches past the end of the sleeve' or whatever have obviously never looked at photos of Europe in the 1930s. Germany might have got a lot of thing wrong in the 1930s but jacket length wasn't one of them.

Still, if that means they don't want to buy jackets they consider too short, that leaves more for the rest of us.

 

[simonc]

Hear hear TT

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

I got some short jackets but I also hesitate about making rules for or against them. Fastuni once send me several jackets and all were beautiful...but too short. It just felt wrong. Depends on individual taste, posture, proportions, wide or slim trousers...

 

[herringbonekid]

the right one is a good short length as it reaches your wrists.

I think the "wrist length" rule is a good one.

personally, i've never seen much use in rules such as 'wrist length' or 'you should be able to cup your hand around the bottom of the jacket' etc. etc.
firstly, where exactly does your 'wrist' begin and end ?
secondly, what if you have long or short arms in comparison with your torso ?

i think everyone has an 'ideal jacket length' and this can only be found by observing yourself in a full length mirror and deciding what looks best for your height, posture and physique.

not by multiplying the square of the hypotenuse of your wrist bone with your finger tip distance from the floor, dividing by seven and adding forty.

 

[Broccoli]

And then adding to that, some styles should simply be a bit longer or shorter.

 

[Fastuni]

I didn't want to suggest that "reaching the wrists" is or should be a "rule" cast in iron.
It's just what I personally think is a good looking proportion and my "rule of thumb".

I have several rather shortish jackets... they look right to me because they reach the wrists (where the hand bends) of my long arms.

I think this Soviet chart, which I posted before, shows the proportions/wrist length of a short jacket well. Again I don't say it is a general rule - but I agree with this.

For suits/sportcoats at least. Jackets that were significantly shorter than the sleeves were fashionable in a military (German WWII i.e.) and workwear context.

As to the period fashions themselves... there were "rules" or rather guidelines for proportions.
Of course tailors/costumers had leeway to adjust for each bodies particularities, but it gives us an idea:

German tailoring instructions for 1934-36 have a back length of 81 cm for 176 cm average height. 1937/38 it's 77 cm for 176 cm body height.

For 1939/40 the "Reichsinnungsverband" (supreme body of German tailoring guild) set the calculation: "back length is half body height minus 11 cm".
For me with 183 cm height i.e., this would be ca. 80 cm back length.

 

[Patrick Hall]

i think everyone has an 'ideal jacket length' and this can only be found by observing yourself in a full length mirror and deciding what looks best for your height, posture and physique.

not by multiplying the square of the hypotenuse of your wrist bone with your finger tip distance from the floor, dividing by seven and adding forty.

HBK, your aversion to needless dogmatisms and arcane formulas is wise. The menswear world is cluttered with them, and there is certainly no need for us to be manufacturing more here. But my short experience in vintage jackets (zing) has taught me that there is such a thing as too short. Sometimes it feels like I am trying to make a piece work that just wasn't made for my body type, despite bringing all the cunning artifice of a competent alterations tailor to bear. In those instances, using the bend of my wrist as a quick point of comparison for jacket length seems helpful, when I am looking in a mirror trying to work out what is "off" about a particular jacket.

 

[herringbonekid]

But my short experience in vintage jackets (zing) has taught me that there is such a thing as too short.

absolutely. i've been through the same thing with trying to convince myself a jacket is long enough when it isn't.
my point is really: don't look at the wrist, look at the whole picture.

or to put it another way: if the wrist rule works, then why does it work ?
what is actually happening length-wise ?

 

[herringbonekid]

German tailoring instructions for 1934-36 have a back length of 81 cm for 176 cm average height. 1937/38 it's 77 cm for 176 cm body height.

81 cm (sorry, i can only picture inches) ... just short of 32" seems very long for a 5' 8" height !

77cm (about 30.25") isn't short either. that's pretty much my ideal length and i'm 5' 11".


p.s. lots of British suits of the 30-40s had short jackets too; many around 28" even when the arms and legs fit someone of a 'regular' 5'11".

 

[Fastuni]

lots of British suits of the 30-40s had short jackets too; many around 28" even when the arms and legs fit someone of a 'regular' 5'11".

But I'd bet that all of them had skirts about the length of the sleeve-end (where the wrist is supposed to be, give or take 1 cm)... but not significantly shorter than the sleeves.

These are BTW about the measurements of my brown chalkstripe three-piece posted before.
It has 25.5 inches sleeves (originally they were 24.8 inches) and 28 inches back (including collar!). If the sleeves were to fit me perfectly and reach my wrists I'd have to let them out to 26 inches. They would then signifincantly exceed the skirt and throw the balance off.

One will also note that the late 30's suits with "short skirt" often had rather long sleeves (sometimes showing no cuff at all). The balance is maintained - one may even say that the longer sleeves created the illusion or at least reinforced the impression of a "short" suit... very seldomly (at most maybe 1 - 1,5 cm) does one see sleeves longer than the skirt.

Finnish examples of "short jacket" with "long sleeves" - note that no shirt cuff shows and the skirt reaches at least the wrist, while not exceeding the sleeve:
http://www.arjenhistoria.fi/actions/viewimage.php?id=1002231&imgres=hres
http://www.arjenhistoria.fi/actions/viewimage.php?id=1002228&imgres=hres

if the wrist rule works, then why does it work ?
what is actually happening length-wise ?

That's the way I perceive it:

30's to mid-40's fashion (the period our examples and discussions here were about) is supremely concerned with proportion.

Visually the sleeves and body of a jacket form one unit (upper body), the pants another (lower body).
The hands are also part of this visual upper unit. On a wrist-length jacket the hands reach beyond the "separation line" - the jacket appears short, but not too short.
A jacket significantly shorter than the sleeve-cuffs/wrist throws this off. The arms and legs appear to be longer, the torso appears short.

It can be a desired effect - as mentioned in WW2 German soldiers often shortened their tunics to achieve exactly this. It also is the desired effect of short sports and leather jackets.
It is not a bad aesthetic - but it doesn't (IMO at least) work well with proper suits and combinations.

If the skirt reaches already the finger-tips or even beyond, the jacket appears very or overly long... the other extreme has been achieved.
Again this might be a desired effect (in the early 20's i.e), it just doesn't work with the 30's aesthetics.

 

[herringbonekid]

But I'd bet that all of them had skirts about the length of the sleeve-end (where the wrist is supposed to be, give or take 1 cm)... but not significantly shorter than the sleeves.

yes, but i wouldn't expect a jacket's sleeves to ever be longer than the skirt unless it was tailor made for a wearer with long arms and short torso.
my point was that i don't think the Germans and northern Europeans were purveyors of especially short jackets for the era compared with the Brits.

see the the sleeve / body ratio of the Burtons suit in this thread: http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?78707-amazing-Burtons-suits

 

[Fastuni]

my point was that i don't think the Germans and northern Europeans were purveyors of especially short jackets for the era compared with the Brits.

Ah, ok. It certainly appears to be an overall European (and influenced regions) fashion.
I thought your comment was meant in context of the "wrist rule".

 

[herringbonekid]

i'm still confused by the tailoring guides you quoted in the previous post though, since they seem to suggest that German jackets were on the long side, not short.

 

[Fastuni]

I checked several German-language publications (Internatioanle Moden, Rundschau, Schneidermeister, Zeitschrift für Modekunst and official guild booklets) from 1933-1940... their average body height is 175-176 cm (69 inches). With some seasonal variation (a bit shorter in Spring/Summer) they abide by the rule: "back length is half body height minus 10-11 cm" or state outright "77 cm/30 inches" back length. Before 1934 jackets were 77 cm to 176 cm body. 1934-37 they were longer (81 cm), 1937-39 shorter, 1940 and afterwards again longer.

Here examples:

1937



1938



1940


An important point may be what is meant by "back length". One Austrian publication from 1933/34 emphasizes "total back length 77 cm". I understand by total "including collar back", which always is 3-4 cm. However usually back length is measured, as we know, without the collar. But then why mention "total"?

Glancing over the German illustrations after 1933... the skirt is always a bit longer than the sleeves.

But then one should probably remind oneself that the "guidelines" and reality were two different things. There are so many short/sleeve-length German jackets and photographic evidence that they obviously were in demand that way.

Here BTW a sport-coat like cut workwear twill jacket (from Austria), with sleeves that are much longer than the body.

 

[herringbonekid]

An important point may be what is meant by "back length". One Austrian publication from 1933/34 emphasizes "total back length 77 cm". I understand by total "including collar back", which always is 3-4 cm. However usually back length is measured, as we know, without the collar. But then why mention "total"?

if you deduct the collar height then those back measurements make more sense for a 5' 7" height.... still not 'short' though.

 

[Fastuni]

Hmm... the obvious explanation would be that there was a discrepancy between the advertised "fashion ideal" and reality.

Some more food for thought:

German periodical from July 1929:

75-76 cm back length for average height 174 cm.

Oct. 1930:

A DB in "English fashion" is shown: 76 cm back length for 175 cm.

 

[Fastuni]

Ok... as we are on the topic of really short 30's jackets. This one is probably from Poland.
Size 35 (on a 38-40 mannequin - sorry for the creased shoulders). 71 cm total back length. 41 cm shoulders.
Anyone interested in this Central/East-European specimen of unusual tailoring, PM me.

 

[Two Types]

"probably from Poland" What is the basis of the assessment of it being of Polish origin?

P.S. why is it a 35 not a 45????????

 

[Fastuni]

P.S. why is it a 35 not a 45????????

Cosmic injustice. But then... why isn't it a 40 L complete with trousers?

What is the basis of the assessment of it being of Polish origin?

A very thin basis.

I got this together with some other (mostly decrepit) Central European suits. Some certainly German, but some had labels from Poland/Warsaw and Czechoslowakia.
I just can't really convince myself that this is German in origin. Some details make me doubt that this is German.
Could be "provincial" German tailoring, but my gut feeling leads more eastwards.

See the fabric for pocket lining... the unusual stripe-run of the lapels (fancy and peculiar lapels were as we know rather common in Eastern Europe) , the very short length and the use of rounded SB pocket flaps on a genuine DB jacket. Also there is no bona-fide evidence of "typical German" tailoring... such as bowled buttons or fabric tongues around the pockets.
It certainly is Central European... just very different from usual German stuff. As it came with some Polish/Czech stuff, this is where my suspicions go.