The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: A Proper Guide to Suit Fit

[Guttersnipe]

One common transgression of vintage enthusiasts is the compromise that occurs because beggars can't be choosers. Or in other words, since it's not 1936 anymore, you can't all call up "Hollywood's Tailor," Eddie Schmidt, and get some suits made. That said, I think an awful lot of 21st century gentlemen do not really know what fits well and why because few people wear tailored clothed regularly. So I thought it would be useful if there was a thread devoted to discussing the technical aspects of proper fit, to use as a sounding board, and to post inspirational gems from the past.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Gary Cooper: The Least Dandy of the Dandies

Here he is in that oft attempted but rarely accomplished super suppressed 30s wasp waist. Note there is some button pulling, yet if his hands were by his side, the front of the coat would immediately smooth out. The skillful artifices of a really good tailor can accomplish this but far too often people attempt this by simply wearing a coat that is too small. I own several of these pinched waist 30s suits which are actually quit comfortable, when the fit properly. They rely on the architecture of the chest and shoulder padding to accentuated upper body, which then accentuated the slightly tapper waist.

And now for something completely different; Cooper in a relaxed 3-into-2 roll. Note the relatively relaxed and baggier cut. This suit is less structured than the one above and is intended for comfort, which is also reflected in the cloth choice.

Lastly, this is how a vest should fit (no shirt showing!). And, yes, you can button the bottom button; many vintage suit vests are cut such that the bottom is meant to be closed.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Bob Mitchum said Clark Gable was dumb as a rock, but he sure knew how to dress . . .

. . . or at least he was smart enough to listen to Eddie Schmidt.

The quintessential mid-30s Hollywood wasp waist jacket. My sartorial history could be of (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), but I've always thought this look deliniated form the so-called "London Dagger" or "drape suit" of several years earlier. Things I like especially about this suit: the deep, defined pleats; the dramatic, yet proportional and tasteful lapel; and, the pick stitching treatment on the lapels, which you don't see too often on 30s suits.

A more conservative cut for a more somber occasion. Note the raised hand, yet the jacket says in place. Oddly, Gable's left sleeve seems a tad long, but this is probably an illusion due to angle and his raised right hand.

I like this one of Gable later in life because it illustrates an extremely unstructured casual cut which isn't frumpy, ruffled, slovenly. Also, bonus points for wearing a watch and a bracelet on the same wrist!

 

[herringbonekid]

i've seen quite a few shots on here of people desperate to squeeze into a jacket that is obviously too tight and / or short because they want to wear it so much.
and a few that go the other way and wear overly long or wide vintage jackets for the same reason. generally though, i think the majority of vintage wearers know what they're doing.

all of the photos above illustrate different cuts and style features but they all 'fit'. we don't want to confuse fit with cut and start getting all subjective and claiming that bold look suits are all too big and early 20s suits are all too small.

 

[Guttersnipe]

All of the photos above illustrate different cuts and style features but they all 'fit'. we don't want to confuse fit with cut and start getting all subjective and claiming that bold look suits are all too big and early 20s suits are all too small.

Good point. But I didn't want to start on a negative tone. There are plenty of such snarky threads on other message borads . . . cough, cough . . . Styleforum.

 

[Guttersnipe]

"X" does *not* mark the spot . . .

 

[Guttersnipe]

Fullness across the back does not indicate a poor fit, per se. One marks of a very well tailored full cut jacket is the way the jacket drapes over the blades, yet is otherwise very smooth accroc the back:

 

[DamianM]

Good point. But I didn't want to start on a negative tone. There are plenty of such snarky threads on other message borads . . . cough, cough . . . Styleforum.

Style forum is not good not good at all

 

[Tomasso]

i've seen quite a few shots on here of people desperate to squeeze into a jacket that is obviously too tight and / or short because they want to wear it so much.....and a few that go the other way and wear overly long or wide vintage jackets for the same reason. generally though, i think the majority of vintage wearers know what they're doing.
.

There was a thread here a few years ago which dealt with the matter of alterations on vintage clothing. Several members were dead set against any alterations whatsoever; if they didn't fit they should be resold to those whom they fit. Though one gent (from your neck of the woods) with a rather prodigious collection would wear the most hideously illfitting garments rather than desecrating (his word) a vintage garment. I had a hunch that his stance was due more to his penurious nature (alterations can cost $$$) than concern for the sanctity of the clothing

 

[herringbonekid]

A.C., if a garment is clearly not your size and requires surgery to move it a size or two in either direction then i also don't think it's worth the trouble. better to just admit it's not your size and pass it on. if it's your size but only requires a nip and tuck to make it perfect then it would be silly not to.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Yes, there's a difference between taking up/letting down legs and arms, and having to recut a jacket. Although one of our more prodigious collectors I know has had complete recuts done on 30s suits.

I know I often wear vintage jackets that are just a little too long (the "beggars can't be choosers defense" mentioned above must be invoked). Shortening at the hem all too frequently affects the balance of the jacket so much that it looks worse, IMO, than a slightly long jacket. With the expense of a recut, quite honestly, why not just get a new one made up? Provincial tailors only cost £500 or so, including fabric costs.

There is of course a difference between knowing you're compromising on optimal fit, and not realising that that's what you're doing, and assuming every fit is awesome, simply because the ego in the suit belongs to the owner and cannot admit that it might be doing something that is not optimal.

 

[DamianM]

well if the man got the 30s suit cut to fit him I see no problem if hes going to wear the articles until the day he dies.
When something is customized then the item loses value to everyone else but the sole proprietor of the item because it was customized for his need and not everyone's needs.
Same goes with furniture and cars. Seen some 30s deco furniture painted matte white, I would not pay anything near what they were asking because it has lost its originality. same goes with clothing.

 

[Guttersnipe]

There was a thread here a few years ago which dealt with the matter of alterations on vintage clothing. Several members were dead set against any alterations whatsoever; if they didn't fit they should be resold to those whom they fit. Though one gent (from your neck of the woods) with a rather prodigious collection would wear the most hideously ill fitting garments rather than desecrating (his word) a vintage garment. I had a hunch that his stance was due more to his penurious nature (alterations can cost $$$) than concern for the sanctity of the clothing

I vaguely remember that thread (and chuckling about it a ton). Not only is there is a lot of misguided sanctimony in the notion that any alteration of a vintage suit is "desecration," but there is also a lot hypocrisy. After all, if the item is so sacrosanct, why would one even wear it at all? That being said . . .

A.C., if a garment is clearly not your size and requires surgery to move it a size or two in either direction then i also don't think it's worth the trouble. better to just admit it's not your size and pass it on. if it's your size but only requires a nip and tuck to make it perfect then it would be silly not to.

. . . I absolute agree with you, HBK, if only out of pragmatism. Having coats completely re-cut is a dicey proposition in that the results are varying. I've had (mostly) good luck with jacket re-cuts, but that's because I'm lucky enough to have access to a really, Really, REALLY good age'd tailor. At $200+ a pop, it doesn't make economic since with most vintage suits . . .

 

[Tomasso]

I agree with the Baron about messing with jacket length and recutting a suit borders on folly. The fellow I was referring to wouldn't even make adjustments to the length of jacket sleeves or trouser cuffs much less dealing with chest or waist issues. Very odd IMO.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I agree with the Baron about messing with jacket length and recutting a suit borders on folly. The fellow I was referring to wouldn't even make adjustments to the length of jacket sleeves or trouser cuffs much less dealing with chest or waist issues. Very odd IMO.

I agree that trying to alter that is follow. However, with regards to re-cuts, I think it depends on the circumstances. Because really great vintage suits can be readily had for $250-350 dollars, paying $200-300 to have a coat re-cut doesn't make sense -- especially if you pay decent money for the suit in the first place. But in the case of MTM or bespoke suits, re-cuts due to weight change often make sense because ones shoulders change very little (perhaps 1/4" per 20-25 lbs.). When faced with the choice of reinvesting several hundred dollars to extend the life of a four-digit suit it is kinda a non brainer.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I will say here that I have a 1930s Burton's "Laird" tweed suit that was in a costume department of a local theatre. The legs were cut off at the bottom and the strips used to make Norfolk-type straps to the fronts. When I removed these straps I find that the jacket is badly faded everywhere except under the flaps.

As a fun project, and as my clothes-making skills increase, I now aim to take this suit apart, "turn" the panels inside out, and recut the jacket for myself (it is significantly too big). As a size 35-36, it really is a waste of time - and a bit rude to larger vintage enthusiasts - to consider doing such a job to a "normal" vintage suit as another one will inevitably come along. But in the case of a destroyed jacket, completely unwearable, I certainly wouldn't pay someone to do it, but it will certainly be worthwhile doing the job myself.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I personally find if I like a suit or jacket and it is close to fitting and requires the hand of a tailor to make it fit right, then I have never felt sad or negative about spending the funding to have a tailor do their job. I would never place the factor of something being "vintage" into a determination of having it fit be it by tailor or not, if it can fit with alterations, then that is what I have a tailor do.

To some degree, when "shopping" for a clothing item to wear, the size and fit should (in my opinion) be a major role in making the determination to purchase to begin with. I view something if it is a bit large, can be easily altered to fit. Anything too small, is just that, too small.

 

[Broccoli]

I will say here that I have a 1930s Burton's "Laird" tweed suit that was in a costume department of a local theatre. The legs were cut off at the bottom and the strips used to make Norfolk-type straps to the fronts. When I removed these straps I find that the jacket is badly faded everywhere except under the flaps.



As a fun project, and as my clothes-making skills increase, I now aim to take this suit apart, "turn" the panels inside out, and recut the jacket for myself (it is significantly too big). As a size 35-36, it really is a waste of time - and a bit rude to larger vintage enthusiasts - to consider doing such a job to a "normal" vintage suit as another one will inevitably come along. But in the case of a destroyed jacket, completely unwearable, I certainly wouldn't pay someone to do it, but it will certainly be worthwhile doing the job myself.

You are the first one I see here who share my size, the true vintage size, haha.
I must ask do you have a 28" waist too?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I used to! more like a 29.5 now, though. Annoyingly size 35S is not too common, so I always need to wear 36S-R so things tend to be just a little bit big.

 

[Broccoli]

That's right, I'm just too small to go shopping in men's stores since clothes are almost always a bit too large. But the size must have been pretty common 70 years ago right? And if I find something in my size that fits, it REALLY fits and looks good. Not as many people are after the smaller items on ebay either, but I guess you are my competant!