The 1950s Suit

[Marc Chevalier]

Good point, Tomasso.

.

 

[Senator Jack]

There were big men in the 30s. Did 30s suits designed for big men have low armholes?

Went to sartorial round table last night and was handed the same bushwa - armholes got lower because men started working out. But just what percentage of men in the 80s were working out to the point that they needed low armholes - 3%? 5%? Who would redesign their product - whatever it is - to please 5% of the market when the other 95% think it's fine the way it is. Think about the Coca-cola thread. 95% believe Coke is fine the way it is now with the corn syrup. Is Coke going to change back to cane sugar just because 5% of the public knows it's better? Unlikely.

From a marketing standpoint, it doesn't make sense, and that's why I can't buy into the bodybuilding theory. Next?

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[herringbonekid]

Armani + more and more fatties + general trend toward relaxed or easy fit = lower armholes.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

even for a man who works out, the armholes do not need to be halfway down the body of the jacket ... believe me, i hang out with some bench pressing types, and their arms are swimming in the armholes of their jackets.

From what i've seen of larger suits from the 30s, they had armholes as big as they needed to be, but nowhere near today's standards.

I reckon we can conclude that the large armhole thing is a mystery. There appears to be no logical explanation. It defies all explanation. Every explanation that is put forth can be easily rebutted (thanks, Jack for the latest one. I hadn't heard the bodybuilding explanation before).

Perhaps it's a ploy to make men LOOK TERRIBLE at work, thereby making them more malleable for the boss's latest whim? A bit like the blue suit: Make 'em all look the same, and they won't complain - they certainly won't be individuals.

Or maybe it's just fashion. Like the ridiculous Armani/Boss waistline drop of the 80s that people like Flusser seem so fond of (apparently in homage to the 30s [huh]).

bk

 

[Senator Jack]

I can see HBK's theory about 'easy fit'. Even thin guys, for some reason, want 'easy fit' trousers, but, let's face it, low armholes aren't the internal combustion engine. Designers like Dior and YSL certainly knew that low armhole = bad fit, so why would they take a 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' strategy? I should think they would have gone the complete opposite in fact - marketing their styles as having better fit than what Armani was offering.

Yes, Baron, an unsolvable mystery it seem to be at that. Again, I can see how some designer figured how it would be an easier fit, but I can't see how it caught on like wildfire.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Mr. Rover]

I'm still looking for a nice flecked sportscoat to wear around.

 

[Feraud]

How about a dollars and cents solution?
Does a suit use less material with lower armholes? In thinking about it, it seems a lower armhole means less material going into the jacket.
The difference in actual material may seen negligible, but negligible adds up over time.
From a construction point of view I can certainly see pattern makers commenting, "who will notice the height of an armhole?"

 

[Marc Chevalier]

There were big men in the '30s. Did '30s suits designed for big men have low armholes?

The armholes corresponded to the overall size of the suit. If you tried on a size 52 suit from the 1930s, you'd find the armholes low (for yourself).

However, today's men -- at least those who work out, and there are many -- have larger arms, backs, chests, and shoulders in relation to their suit size. It's a fact that the average 1930s man was less muscular than his 2006 counterpart. A man of today may be a size 42, but he is big enough under and around the arms to want some extra space there in a suit.

.

 

[herringbonekid]

some vintage armholes ARE really small. i've got thin arms and on some of my jackets the hole is right beneath my armpit. now if a guy with thick muscley or just fat arms tried on a jacket in a shop and he couldn't get his arm in, or it was too tight, he'd put the suit jacket back and keep looking. so the big armhole keeps everyone 'happy'. a skinny guy tries it on and it feels a bit big but he doesn't care because he doesn't know any different. one size fits all.

(to be honest i think modern off-the-rack suits in england don't have this problem so badly. i haven't looked at ready to wear suits in america so maybe i don't get just HOW big the holes can be).

 

[Marc Chevalier]

But just what percentage of men in the 80s were working out to the point that they needed low armholes - 3%? 5%? Who would redesign their product - whatever it is - to please 5% of the market when the other 95% think it's fine the way it is.

That's easy to answer. Armani was, at that time, designing very expensive suits that were sold in NYC and Los Angeles. He was designing for male "fashionistas" who were willing and able to afford his suits. Most of these "fashionistas" were doing their time at the gym, bulking up. Armani (and Hugo Boss) designed lower armholes for them. He also did so to be consistent with his design "signature": loose, floppy suits that you could hardly feel on your body. Very different from 1930s (and 1970s) fitted suits, which you can REALLY feel.


In their cautious way, mainstream suit manufacturers (the Grief Company, etc.) went ahead and adopted aspects of "the Armani look". One of the details they copied was the low armhole.


.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The big armhole keeps everyone 'happy'. A skinny guy tries it on and it feels a bit big but he doesn't care because he doesn't know any different. One size fits all.

You hit the nail on the head -- that is EXACTLY why lower armholes have continued to be made on mainstream suits for more than 20 years. It's a fixed-cost way of keeping customers satisfied. "Mystery" solved.


Suit manufacturers and retailers have discovered that the modern customer doesn't test a suit by raising his arms. As a young man, I sold suits at a department store; never did I see anyone check the armholes, or wave their arms around. Rich or poor, well-dressed or not, no one ever complained about the low armholes.

.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

(to be honest i think modern off-the-rack suits in england don't have this problem so badly. i haven't looked at ready to wear suits in america so maybe i don't get just HOW big the holes can be).

That's right. The American model jackets have much larger armholes. Funnily enough, Paul Smith cuts bigger armholes on his suits for the US market than he does for his Brit suits ...

bk

 

[Matt Deckard]

There was an article in Esquire a few years back that mentioned how Manufacturers made higher cut armholes for the European market. MAy be true. I tried suits on in Europe and they did have a better fit in the chest, at least the ones from Facionable and Polo and Burberry and a few other shops. They still were not up to the hight that Sears had off the rack in the 50's.

Like I said before, it's not fitness it's fashion that changed the armhole. We're here to bring it back up.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Matt is absolutely right in that higher armholes mean a better-looking, better-moving jacket. Armholes have been high for centuries, if not millenia. Lower armholes are a recent invention, and not a great one at that.


For one thing, they're too low. I understand if customers feel more comfortable in jackets whose armholes are *somewhat* lower than those of the '30s and earlier. But, as Matt has said, today's armholes go to an extreme depth.


It's interesting that many dress shirts today have higher armholes than their '80s and '90s ancestors. If dress shirts can have higher armholes, then why can't jackets? (And yes, they go together. A low-armhole shirt feels awful when worn inside a high-armhole jacket.)


.

 

[Tomasso]

There was an article in Esquire a few years back that mentioned how Manufacturers made higher cut armholes for the European market.

Italian makers such as Brioni, Kiton and Borrelli offer RTW suits and shirts with higher armholes to the American market but the stuff is still roomier that what they offer in Europe. I blame Ray Kroc.

 

[Matt Deckard]

My favorite suit.

A good display of a suit with all three buttons functional. No cuttaway.

Good show Jack.

Now for business Marc. Yeah... we'll talk when we get together. Until then i am swamped with Helping Classic Style Magazine get off the ground.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Until then i am swamped with Helping Classic Style Magazine get off the ground.

No worries, mate. I understand

.

 

[Senator Jack]

Of course I should be working. But what am I doing? Visiting vintage shops.

UPDATE: Tried on early about a half-dozen early 70s leisure suit jackets. All had LOW armholes. Perhaps these suits were specifically designed for 70s linebackers with no sense of style? (Why am I thinking of Larry Czonka here?)

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Jack, you'll have better (armhole) luck with early '70s Pierre Cardins and Christian Diors.

.

 

[Senator Jack]

Unless I was in some drunken stupor and forgot (a distinct possibility given my history) today was first time I was ever in a leisure suit. What I won't do in the name of sartorial research!!!!

The low armhole leisure suit predates the Armani experiment and now it has me thinking about those big Texans who wore a lot of leisure suits. Is this the real birth of the low armhole?

Regards,

Senator Jack