Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35

Thread: J. Crew Lapels Continued

  1. #31
    Varsity Member CMAc7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quoted
    72 Post(s)
    As a 5'7" 135 lb guy, I fully agree that narrow lapels are not flattering in a timeless menswear sense. Anything under 3" seems very youthful in a bad way. When I think of 2.5" lapels I envision the shiny, shoulder padded suits worn with tangerine dress shirts from Express. Something a teen would wear to prom.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #32
    mistabutters
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by dpark View Post
    I understand the joking nature of your comment, but more seriously, there's really not that much difference in shoulder width between a 36 and, say, a 40. In Suit Supply's Hudson or Spier and Mackay's Contemporary, the 36 has shoulders 17.3 inches wide, and the 40 has shoulders 18.1 inches wide, so less than an inch difference, and more importantly less than 5% relative difference. So if 3.5" lapels on a 40 are timeless, then the timeless lapels on a 36 should be 3.35". Conversely, if 2.5" lapels are flattering on your frame, then 2.6" lapels should be flattering on someone with a size 40 frame.

    This idea that narrow lapels are flattering to small sizes is not based on anything logical. Lapel sizes in general are not based on anything logical, just fashion trends. But in particular this idea that small frames need 2.5" lapels to look balanced is just kind of silly, especially when juxtaposed with the common claim that 3.5" is timeless for the average guy.
    Just curious, is 40 considered the reference size for suit makers? I don't own a 40 suit to measure, but the shoulder measurement wouldn't be the most accurate way to understand the differences in the suits for lapel purposes. You'd want to measure from the edge of the upper chest to the shoulder seam, which probably has a greater than 5% difference.

    Also, I wasn't saying 2.5" looks best even for small people. I was saying it still works for small people (at the lower end of what still fits into acceptable range). I'm all for bigger lapels on suits, I just don't think a true 3.5" lapel is flattering on a 36S jacket. I'd rather be right in the middle to be honest, but J Crew needed to swing the pendulum.
    Last edited by mistabutters; April 10th, 2017 at 07:58 AM.

  3. #33
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,059
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Quoted
    452 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mistabutters View Post
    Just curious, is 40 considered the reference size for suit makers? I don't own a 40 suit to measure, but the shoulder measurement wouldn't be the most accurate way to understand the differences in the suits for lapel purposes. You'd want to measure from the edge of the upper chest to the shoulder seam, which probably has a greater than 5% difference.
    40 is basically "medium", so that's what I based it on. Conveniently, there was a recent post where Joe said his size 40 had classic 3.5" lapels.

    I would assume that generally all width measurements would scale roughly in an proportion to the shoulders. I can't imagine that the shoulders vary 5% but the distance from the inside of the lapel to the shoulder varies dramatically more. Even if it were 10%, that should give you >3" lapels on the 36 to match the proportions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mistabutters View Post
    Also, I wasn't saying 2.5" looks best even for small people. I was saying it still works for small people (at the lower end of what still fits into acceptable range). I'm all for bigger lapels on suits, I just don't think a true 3.5" lapel is flattering on a 36S jacket. I'd rather be right in the middle to be honest, but J Crew needed to swing the pendulum.
    I guess I don't think "the middle" is much smaller than 3.5". We happen to be in a rebound phase from skinny lapels, but 3.5 was not traditionally considered wide. Wider lapels than that have been popular at times. Some are wider than that now.

  4. #34
    mistabutters
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by dpark View Post
    40 is basically "medium", so that's what I based it on. Conveniently, there was a recent post where Joe said his size 40 had classic 3.5" lapels.

    I would assume that generally all width measurements would scale roughly in an proportion to the shoulders. I can't imagine that the shoulders vary 5% but the distance from the inside of the lapel to the shoulder varies dramatically more. Even if it were 10%, that should give you >3" lapels on the 36 to match the proportions.



    I guess I don't think "the middle" is much smaller than 3.5". We happen to be in a rebound phase from skinny lapels, but 3.5 was not traditionally considered wide. Wider lapels than that have been popular at times. Some are wider than that now.
    When I said middle, I meant middle of their two lapel widths or 3" lapels. That would fall nearly perfectly at the mid point between the chest and shoulder for me. Also 3" works well with your math lol.

  5. #35
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,119
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quoted
    395 Post(s)
    These are wide lapels:
    [img]
    http://www.braamfashion.com/wp-conte...43_470x701.jpg[/img]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •