Theoretically speaking...

[Jovan]

Peaked lapels aren't the best choice for a taller, thin guy like myself, right? I'm 170 lb. and 6'1.

But I've been thinking back to Good Night, And Good Luck. and noticed the Prince of Wales check suit worn by Strathairn. It had two buttons with peaked lapels, and the pattern and waistcoat seemed to offset the lengthening effect just a bit. So theoretically speaking, I could still pull that off, right?

Wish I had some photos of said suit.

EDIT: Nevermind, my memory failed me. It isn't a peaked lapel.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

RIDICULOUS ABSURDITY

Peaked lapels aren't the best choice for a taller, thin guy like myself, right? I'm 170 lb. and 6'1.

Whoever gave you that impression is a fool. An absolute blathering idiot who is blindly following what someone else told him/her without investigating the matter. People who dispense such advice should be committed to an asylum to be locked away in the most secure of the wards in said loony-bin. For people who deal in such moronic piffle i would strongly advocate electroshock therapy - knowing that it's useless, but maybe it'll fry this rubbish out of their heads.

This is absolutely absurd, and one of the worst things the style mavens will tell you about menswear. I've been told repeatedly by people who don't know what they're talking about: short men shouldn't wear double breasted jackets. This comes from the same school of thought that tells you a tall thin chap shouldn't wear SB peaks. Words cannot describe the absurdity of these statements. There is little of any worth in Alan Flusser's books, but some of the worst is where he is dispensing this kind of "advice" "for the sake of making sure men don't do something that will make them look bad".

bk

I have a copy of this post and if edited by someone other than me, i will repost in original form.

 

[Lincsong]

The tailoring is what matters the most.

Is not it all about the tailoring of the suit? Should not a suit make a thin man look more muscular, a short man taller, a heavy man thinner? Nothing is worst looking than seeing a heavy set man wearing a tight fitting suit that highlights every roll on his back and the jacket is cut just above the middle of his huge posterior making it look even more wider than it is already. Some men wear suits and they look like a stuffed sausage. But, that's just my opinion.

 

[Senator Jack]

The Baron strikes again! lol lol lol lol

 

[scotrace]

Edit? My dear Baron I am applauding! I only wish I could hear you speak those words!












First thought: Wanted to post "Is it something you feel strongly about?"

 

[Feraud]

The Baron, He walks softly and carries a BIG stick!


Jovan, you can carry off peaked lapels. Forget about all "those" rules your have read or heard.

 

[Manny Tavares]

As long as you don't put on some type of hot pink polyester thing from 1974 you should be fine.

 

[manton]

Whoever gave you that impression is a fool. An absolute blathering idiot who is blindly following what someone else told him/her without investigating the matter. People who dispense such advice should be committed to an asylum to be locked away in the most secure of the wards in said loony-bin. For people who deal in such moronic piffle i would strongly advocate electroshock therapy - knowing that it's useless, but maybe it'll fry this rubbish out of their heads.

This is absolutely absurd, and one of the worst things the style mavens will tell you about menswear. I've been told repeatedly by people who don't know what they're talking about: short men shouldn't wear double breasted jackets. This comes from the same school of thought that tells you a tall thin chap shouldn't wear SB peaks. Words cannot describe the absurdity of these statements. There is little of any worth in Alan Flusser's books, but some of the worst is where he is dispensing this kind of "advice" "for the sake of making sure men don't do something that will make them look bad".

bk

I have a copy of this post and if edited by someone other than me, i will repost in original form.

Just to be clear: Are you saying that any body type will look equally good in any cut of clothing? That cut and styling details have no effect on the overall presentation one makes?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Not at all. I'm not quite that foolish.

I'm saying that adhering to such "rules of thumb" without ever trying them out is the height of absurdity. For example, if i'd believed the mavens i'd never have worn a double breasted jacket, because apparently short men should be very careful [huh].

To shy away from something just because someone says you'll look bad - without ANY knowledge of what you actually look like in that cut of clothing - is doing a disservice to yourself. And the people who strictly adhere to these "rules" and propagate them to unsuspecting men getting interested in classic style are doing a great disservice to menswear.

To get back to this example. It may be that Jovan will indeed look absolutely terrible in a single breasted peak lapel jacket. But then again, he might be nicely surprised. He'll never know if he just comes at it with an attitude of "oh, might as well not try because x, y, and z say it'll look bad on a tall, slim man". Having seen a couple of pictures of the man in question, i suspect there'll be no problem with this cut of jacket - careful consideration of lapel width etc. will aid the look.

Also, to be clear: Two people with absolutely the same body dimensions can look very different in exactly the same suit/jacket. Therefore, using body shape as a determiner of what style one adopts is like identifying criminals by the bumps on their heads. ABSURD.

bk

 

[slicedbread]

word...

 

[manton]

I have never heard anyone say that tall men should avoid single peak as a general rule. Never heard it, never read it. I am 6'4" and, after a month of overeating, may tip 185. I wear single peak all the time.

However, peaked lapels are somewhat elongating, and draw the eye upward. So, if a tall man wants his clothes above all to mitigage the impression of his height, he is better off with notch.

This is all that those body type guidelines really mean. Not that "If you are X, and you wear Y, you will necessarily look bad." But rather "If you are X, and wish to look as Y as possible, then wear A but not B." Imagine the following experiment. Put a short guy in a perfectly cut (for him) SB, and then in a perfectly cut (for him) DB. Juxtapose the photos. To most eyes, he will look ever so marginally taller in the SB. I know he will to me.

Still, clothes alone cannot make a fat man look thin, or a short man tall, only thinner (or less obviously fat) or taller (or less obviously short). Even then, cut matters. The DB that works best for a short guy is not the same as the DB that works best for the tall guy.

 

[Feraud]

I am glad to read clarification on the issues.
From what I notice there has been an influx of new members lately. I would hate to have them read a publication that spews "hard and fast" rules that would hinder their growth as vintage enthusiasts.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I have never heard anyone say that tall men should avoid single peak as a general rule. Never heard it, never read it. I am 6'4" and, after a month of overeating, may tip 185. I wear single peak all the time.

So, we need to ask: Where did the impression expressed in the first line of the first post originate? Jovan has gotten this impression from somewhere, i assume.

I guess a large part of my problem with the propaganda of the tailoring industry - and this is where many of these "rules" originate - is the suggestion that a short man should want to look taller, or that a tall man should want to look more "average". (i'm perfectly happy with the idea of buiding shoulders when one shoulder is dropped compared to the other. I just don't see shortness or tallness as a "problem" or "flaw" to be "corrected for".

In my experience there are but two of these rules that have turned out to actually be generally true: A short man really shouldn't wear a jacket that's too long for him. And a very fat man shouldn't wear horizontal stripes. Other than that, the rules have proved generally discardable. Unless, like many, the viewer is obsessed with seeing the kind of ubiquity that the tailors spout as "correct".

bk

 

[manton]

So, we need to ask: Where did the impression expressed in the first line of the first post originate? Jovan has gotten this impression from somewhere, i assume.

I have no idea. Perhaps he will tell us.

I guess a large part of my problem with the propaganda of the tailoring industry - and this is where many of these "rules" originate - is the suggestion that a short man should want to look taller, or that a tall man should want to look more "average". (i'm perfectly happy with the idea of buiding shoulders when one shoulder is dropped compared to the other. I just don't see shortness or tallness as a "problem" or "flaw" to be "corrected for".

It is not propaganda. It is helpful advice. It seems to me that the clothing industry would better serve its own interests (selling clothes) if it said "Anyone can wear anything! It will all look good on you!" You know, the way some sucessful salesmen treat their customers. "It looks great! You should buy it! Right now!"

The fact is, some short men do wish to draw less attention to their shortness, just as some heavy men do wish to draw less attention to their bulk. There are ways to do this with clothes. One can use, or not use, those little tricks at one's discretion.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Exactly, but why should some short men's wishes become rules to be stuck to by all short men? (equally applicable to tall men.) And then short/tall men who do not wish to conform are "incorrect"? Then comes the impression that "oh, i won't look good in that" without ever trying it out.

I am so vociferous on this point because it took me years to get over such "advice" from people i respected as knowledgeable (tailors) and finally try out a DB. I - 5'3" or so - look no better in SB than DB. I am a walking proof against the hypothesis that short men look better in SB jackets.

This one for Jack:

There is a point when "helpful advice" becomes overly restrictive on style.

bk

 

[manton]

Exactly, but why should some short men's wishes become rules to be stuck to by all short men?

Who says they should? I would turn the question around. Why is it that when some people ask for advice, and advice is given, some third party always seems to come along and shout: "Don't try to force your rules on me!"?

then short/tall men who do not wish to conform are "incorrect"?

I have read every clothing advice book, etiquette primer, and tailoring manual from the 20th century that I have been able to buy or borrow. The term "incorrect" is used sparingly, and only for certain limited things. One category would be traditional configurations. E.g., peaked lapels would be deemed "correct" on a DB coat, notched "incorrect." (Once again, I add the ritual disclaimer: anyone who likes DB notch, wear it. In the London/New York/Milan/Naples tailoring tradition, it is, or was, just not done. That's a historical fact, nothing more.)

The second category would be what to wear for certain occasions in order to be "correctly" attired. Hence a black tie with a tailcoat would be "incorrect," white tie "correct." The reverse would be true with a dinner jacket. Again, one can wear whatever one wants, but the historical truth of this tradition is really beyond dispute.

That said, I have never, ever come across a source which deems it "incorrect" for a short man to wear DB. And it is unfair of you to chastise Flusser for saying so, since he in fact says the exact opposite. See, e.g., Clothes and the Man, p. 54.

 

[aliados]

. . . peaked lapels are somewhat elongating, and draw the eye upward. So, if a tall man wants his clothes above all to mitigage the impression of his height, he is better off with notch.

This is all that those body type guidelines really mean. Not that "If you are X, and you wear Y, you will necessarily look bad." But rather "If you are X, and wish to look as Y as possible, then wear A but not B." Imagine the following experiment. Put a short guy in a perfectly cut (for him) SB, and then in a perfectly cut (for him) DB. Juxtapose the photos. To most eyes, he will look ever so marginally taller in the SB. I know he will to me.

Touche!
And if I may add my humble contribution -- in my experience, whatever compliments I have received on my suits or hats have been made when i was wearing things in which I felt comfortable and confident. No matter the "rules" or the fit, unless I personally felt that I was wearing something that fit me, it didn't look quite right.

And what, may I ask, is wrong with being -- and looking -- tall and slender? Hell, go with SB peaks AND pinstripes! (But yes, the horizontal lines of a check or plaid will temper the lengthening effect of peak lapels).
Charlie

 

[Baron Kurtz]

We can, i'm sure, trade Flusser quotes all day. Pg. 53 of my edition:

"Like the heavyset frame, the thin physique should always dress large. Closely fitted clothes serve to accentuate the narrow frame."

The second part of the quote is fact, the first an opinion put forth as definitive. Why should one dress large? I have problems with the idea that accentuating a narrow frame would somehow be wrong. Perhaps someone could explain?

It seems entirely antithetical to all the pictures i see of relatively short men from the golden era (as a first example, think J. Cagney). Why was it okay then, but suddenly the thin physique should always dress large? To my mind there is nothing that looks more ridiculous than the modern man's penchant for overly wide shoulders and lots of excess fabric in the chest/waist of the jacket. it looks like they've raided the closet of their father.

For better or worse, many men are using books like this to decide what to wear. When they read an apparently reputable source saying that they should never wear closely fitted clothes, they run away from that style for ever. Without even knowing if it looks good on them. This is a travesty.

bk

so, i'd say we're probably going to get nowhere with this argument so i'll wrap up until the next thread along these lines.

 

[manton]

The quote you cite seems mildly expressed, and not unhelpful. Again, anyone can reject any of this advice. It is so obviously non-binding that saying so over and over would just be tiresome and cloying.

I am -- and have been for some number of years -- at a loss as to why so many people object to the advice being offered at all. The usual reason cited is that men are supposed to be individuals, and dress for themselves, etc., so such advice is degrading or something. But that really strikes me as circular, for shouldn't the true individual be individualist enough to know that he does not have to wear what a book tells him looks best on him?

The essential point remains, however: Flusser and others are correct to argue that, all other things being equal, certain garments make X body type see more X, whereas others make it seem more Y. If some number of men wish to learn these little tricks, why should any third party object on their behalf?

 

[Lincsong]

The whole purpose of tailoring is to make the man look good. To say that one shouldn't wear a particular style; simply because of their height or weight is nonsense. The whole object is to look good. If that were not the case then simply walk around with the pants waist below the butt, underwear exposed and a t-shirt with a profanity scrawled across the chest. Wear the different styles and take a good objective look. If you have a BIG BUTT and you're wearing a tight fitting, back belted jacket and it looks like an orange triangle should be hanging from the waist, you're in trouble and you shouldn't be wearing tight fitting jackets. Conversely, if you're short and wearing a suit (regardless of SB, DB, PL or NL) that makes you appear to be modeling for the 8-12 year old section at Sears, then that style suit is not for you.