# Bargain...or bust?



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Hi, everyone:

I picked this up today at a thrift store:









Is this a sport coat or an orphan?

Second, I believe it fits me pretty well, but the sleeves need to be lengthened about .5". Does there appear to be enough material left to lengthen the sleeves? There is about 1" underneath. 

Lastly, how "snug" should a jacket feel at your upper arms / shoulders / upper back when you reach forward directly in front of you?

Thanks in advance, Jeff


----------



## g3dahl (Aug 26, 2011)

The material available for lengthening the sleeves is actually hidden. Try to feel through the lining to determine how far above the seam the fabric extends. You need twice as much fabric as the amount of lengthening, plus the extra for the seam. In other words, lengthening a half inch requires a full inch of fabric plus the seam allowance.

We can give feedback about the fit if you post a picture of yourself wearing the jacket.


----------



## wacolo (Jul 21, 2006)

gamma68 said:


> Hi, everyone:
> 
> I picked this up today at a thrift store:
> 
> ...


My guess would be orphan, but I have seen similar coats worn as odd jackets. If all you need is .5" virtually any alterations person worth their salt can squeeze that much out, even if they have to add a bit of facing. As g3 said, fit pics would help.


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

It's an orphan. Anything that makes the jacket less formal is a good indicator of something more likely to be a sport coat--different colored buttons; swelled seams; patch pockets, etc.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

I have a similar southwick that I think looks great as a sport coat. This has enough of a pattern where I don't think that would be seen as too strange. That's where all odd jackets came from originally.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

I'll post photos soon. So if I changed the buttons, would it make this jacket pass as a sport coat? And what type of buttons would you folks recommend?


----------



## ytc (Mar 20, 2012)

Yes, I think so. I think nacre buttons would be very nice.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Pardon my ignorance--what is nacre?


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

g3dahl said:


> The material available for lengthening the sleeves is actually hidden. Try to feel through the lining to determine how far above the seam the fabric extends. You need twice as much fabric as the amount of lengthening, plus the extra for the seam. In other words, lengthening a half inch requires a full inch of fabric plus the seam allowance.


Thanks for the tip! I checked the sleeves and it feels as if there is 1" or so of fabric beyond the seam. I think they could be easily lengthened.


----------



## Sgpearl (Dec 11, 2012)

I had to look it up:



> Nacre (/ˈneɪkər/ nay-kər),[1] also known as mother of pearl, is an organic-inorganic composite material produced by some molluscs as an inner shell layer; it is also what makes up the outer coating of pearls. It is strong, resilient, and iridescent.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Sorry, it's a bust. An orphan, and not one that could be pulled off (as if any orphan could, although solids have a better shot) as an odd jacket. Fortunately, you bought it at a thrift store and so, hopefully, you did not pay much. But I can't see that working. At all. Under any circumstances. Learn from this mistake, study the WAYWN thread and walk before you run, which is to say, start out with the most basic of jackets, the navy blazer, and go from there.


----------



## AncientMadder (Apr 21, 2011)

^ Agreed. Not all glen plaids are created equal. For an odd jacket, you want a larger-scale pattern and a lighter gray (or a different color altogether), preferably on a fabric with more texture than a smooth worsted, along with some of the casual details CMDC describes. 

Check to see if the pants turn up at the thrift store. If not, you'll find something better soon.


----------



## Typhoid_Jones (Jan 21, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Sorry, it's a bust. An orphan, and not one that could be pulled off (as if any orphan could, although solids have a better shot) as an odd jacket. Fortunately, you bought it at a thrift store and so, hopefully, you did not pay much. But I can't see that working. At all. Under any circumstances. Learn from this mistake, study the WAYWN thread and walk before you run, which is to say, start out with the most basic of jackets, the navy blazer, and go from there.


+1. Get a navy blazer with 3 patch pockets and a gray herringbone tweed jacket.


----------



## sp999 (Dec 9, 2012)

Personally, the only people that I think this would look "odd" are the people on this forum. To the overwhelming majority of the population they will not give it a second thought. Nor would they know that the suit is an "orphan" and not a proper sports coat. If the OP is comfortable wearing it, then it is not a problem. The only rule that you should adhere when wearing orphans is to is to make sure that the pants do not try to match to match the jacket. You should try to match the pants and jacket the same way you would match a sports jacket with pants. This way you do not appear to be putting together a suit.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

sp999 said:


> Personally, the only people that I think this would look "odd" are the people on this forum...
> ....


LOL. but isn't that the group of people to whom the OP posed his question? Frankly I think you are wrong in the advice that you provide following the opening comment, quoted above. The fabric pattern showcased in the jacket in question is a pattern consistent with suit designs, as suggested by an earlier poster. The jacket may be worn as an odd jacket and, as you suggest, most people will not care, but they will notice! Many would wear the suit coat as an odd jacket...I would not.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. but isn't that the group of people to whom the OP posed his question? Frankly I think you are wrong in the advice that you provide following the opening comment, quoted above. The fabric pattern showcased in the jacket in question is a pattern consistent with suit designs, as suggested by an earlier poster. The jacket may be worn as an odd jacket and, as you suggest, most people will not care, but they will notice! Many would wear the suit coat as an odd jacket...I would not.


So swapping out the buttons would NOT, in your opinion, be enough to change the designation of this item from suit jacket to sport coat? That seems to be the consensus here.

For what it's worth, I went through the rack of pants at the thrift store and did not find matching pants. I may go look again, just to be sure.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Typhoid_Jones said:


> +1. Get a navy blazer with 3 patch pockets and a gray herringbone tweed jacket.


Already have those items. This is an addition to the expanding wardrobe.


----------



## leisureclass (Jan 31, 2011)

If you're concerned, get some lighter buttons. I have a pretty similar odd jacket with lighter buttons and it's all copasetic.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

I appreciate this useful discussion. I asked a similar question in another thread and got similar responses. About a 50-50 split. I didn't wind up getting the jacket I asked about, but I did just buy this one:









It's probably an orphan too. Would take opinions on what to wear it with, or if I should dump it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^(Responding to post #16)
I think, at this point, the jacket has been purchased and it would be fun/worth the effort to swap out the buttons and guage the visual impact of the change. Please don't take my comment that "I would not wear the suit coat as an odd jacket" as an indictment against your doing so. It would not work for me because of my admitted age and perhaps even sartorial insecurities. However, I have seen a number of younger folks wearing orphans as odd jackets doing so and looking pretty darned good. It all boils down to how you feel about being seen wearing a suit coat as a sport coat. As stated in my earlier post, many people might notice, but most of them will not care that you are doing so. Good luck in this present sartorial adventure!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This, really, isn't the right place to ask about orphans. It has, to coin a phrase, been asked and answered, more than once. End of the day, orphans have no place in this universe. You might want to inquire on the main forum (and even there, I would imagine a strong diversity of views). Most people, of course, would not notice, but we here are not most people. To us, it matters. To folks with taste who know about clothes, it matters. And those are the folks who would see someone wearing that and say to themselves, "What a huge, huge sartorial mistake, wearing a suit jacket with jeans/khakis/mismatched dress trousers/Bermuda shorts." Changing the buttons won't help, any more than if you put snow tires on a Ferrari and thought yourself ready to drive through Alaska in dead of winter. It looks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it quacks like a duck. Don't try making a sport coat out of a duck.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> This, really, isn't the right place to ask about orphans. It has, to coin a phrase, been asked and answered, more than once. End of the day, orphans have no place in this universe. You might want to inquire on the main forum (and even there, I would imagine a strong diversity of views). Most people, of course, would not notice, but we here are not most people. To us, it matters. To folks with taste who know about clothes, it matters. And those are the folks who would see someone wearing that and say to themselves, "What a huge, huge sartorial mistake, wearing a suit jacket with jeans/khakis/mismatched dress trousers/Bermuda shorts." Changing the buttons won't help, any more than if you put snow tires on a Ferrari and thought yourself ready to drive through Alaska in dead of winter. It looks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it quacks like a duck. Don't try making a sport coat out of a duck.


Please, pardon me for asking questions of people (yourself included, apparently) who have more knowledge of and taste for fine clothing than myself. I thought this forum (or "universe," as you coined it) was a place to share information and learn about such things.

And, for your information, I did a search of "orphan" on this forum, and the Internet, before making my initial post.

Yesterday, I read an interesting comment about AAAC on a review posted on YouTube. The person wrote this:

_I'm not a huge fan of Ask Andy. It seems like a lot of the guys there are pricks. Maybe it's because they're so serious about clothes and they're long-term members. They look down on people who aren't as geeky about clothes as they are. Not to mention, the style that they promote seems like it's for an older demographic. _

Initially, I wouldn't have agreed with this assessment. I've met some people who seem to be quite genuine about sharing information about clothing and want to help relative newcomers like myself build a nice wardrobe.

And then I read posts like the one above from someone who cites "folks with taste who know about clothes," as well as a post from some so-called satorial "expert" (in another thread) who told me I was "hanging my shirts incorrectly" and I think there may be something to the YouTube review. After all, if it looks, swims, flies and quacks like a duck......

I could also say something in response about where you can place my orphan Southwick, but I suppose I'll be a gentleman and take the high road.


----------



## Natsoi (Mar 20, 2013)

I like it, you could change the buttons and it would look good with a maroon merino as there is some of that colour in the jacket.

One thing I did notice is that there is no top pocket on this jacket, or is it just my eyes?


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Natsoi said:


> I like it, you could change the buttons and it would look good with a maroon merino as there is some of that colour in the jacket.
> 
> One thing I did notice is that there is no top pocket on this jacket, or is it just my eyes?


According to 32rollandrock, your suggestion would be a huge sartorial mistake. I guess neither you nor I have any taste for fine clothes.

And yes, the jacket has a chest pocket. For some reason it's not visible in the top photo.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^
I don't know why I'm biting, but I'm biting.

You asked for opinions. You got them. You responded with "Yeah, but..."

Folks here are trying to help you. They are trying to prevent you from wasting money and making mistakes. When someone says "Yeah, but," it is generally a sign that they are not getting the message. Your mind is either open to what folks who know about clothes are telling you or it is not. We are not being elitist or geeky or prickly. We are being honest. If you do not want honest advice and opinions, then do not post asking for advice and opinions. People here speak their minds, sometimes in strong terms. You asked "bargain or bust." You got a straight answer, and it isn't a kinda-sorta bust, it is a bust-a-roni, a bust-maximus, a bust-apalooza. Would you prefer that you be given the message with a lot of kind, gentle adjectives to cushion the fall? If so, perhaps this isn't the place for you.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> ^^
> I don't know why I'm biting, but I'm biting.
> 
> You asked for opinions. You got them. You responded with "Yeah, but..."
> ...


Where is the "yeah, but"? I only asked whether switching the buttons makes it pass as a sport coat. I see nothing wrong with exploring options. It's pretty clear you feel there are none. Fine. But I don't appreciate the condescending attitude.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

gamma68 said:


> Where is the "yeah, but"? I only asked whether switching the buttons makes it pass as a sport coat.


Sigh.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> This, really, isn't the right place to ask about orphans. It has, to coin a phrase, been asked and answered, more than once. End of the day, orphans have no place in this universe. You might want to inquire on the main forum (and even there, I would imagine a strong diversity of views). Most people, of course, would not notice, but we here are not most people. To us, it matters. To folks with taste who know about clothes, it matters. And those are the folks who would see someone wearing that and say to themselves, "What a huge, huge sartorial mistake, wearing a suit jacket with jeans/khakis/mismatched dress trousers/Bermuda shorts." Changing the buttons won't help, any more than if you put snow tires on a Ferrari and thought yourself ready to drive through Alaska in dead of winter. It looks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it quacks like a duck. Don't try making a sport coat out of a duck.


Since way back, people have been wearing their suit jackets with odd trousers. I think your on thin ice here, my friend. The general point on advice is sound, but a suit jacket with odd trousers isn't a faux pas in itself, if they complement each other properly. A generic cheaper OTR suit jacket in a thin super 100:s worsted will rarely work, true, but a heavier weight MTM can.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

gamma68 said:


> Please, pardon me for asking questions of people (yourself included, apparently) who have more knowledge of and taste for fine clothing than myself. I thought this forum (or "universe," as you coined it) was a place to share information and learn about such things.
> 
> And, for your information, I did a search of "orphan" on this forum, and the Internet, before making my initial post.
> 
> ...


"Geeky about clothes"?

Go to a chefs forum and say you like Macdonalds the best.

We don't care if the style we promote comes across as being for older guys. Every second newbie who comes on here gets a chip on his shoulder because whatever he wants justified doesn't get a good review. Go to a knife forum and say that Ikeas starter set knives are the best. Go to a street racing forum and say you really like to race in stock Hyundai. Go on a watch forum and say that, to your mind, Timex is a far better watch than Rolex.

We're not just sharing information, but arguing relative rights and wrongs...

You're here because you like quacking ducks, or you're not here for any good reason.  You follow me?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

gamma68 said:


> Hi, everyone:
> 
> I picked this up today at a thrift store:
> 
> ...


This jacket won't work, IMO, too much of a lounge suit jacket to fly solo


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> Since way back, people have been wearing their suit jackets with odd trousers. I think your on thin ice here, my friend. The general point on advice is sound, but a suit jacket with odd trousers isn't a faux pas in itself, if they complement each other properly. A generic cheaper OTR suit jacket in a thin super 100:s worsted will rarely work, true, but a heavier weight MTM can.


I knew this was gonna happen...

Rules? What rules? Who needs rules? Let's just wear freakin' tux jackets with patch madras trousers. And, while I have heard of odd jackets, I've never heard of odd trousers. I'm just saying...

Your point may--may--be true, but the circumstances in which it maybe, possibly, hypothetically works are so rare as to not be worth mentioning. To say that it can work is only to confuse and encourage poor souls like the OP, who are just starting out and are going to waste a fair amount of money no matter what. Buying up orphans with the thought that they can somehow work as sport coats isn't a good strategy for anyone, let alone someone who is searching for sea legs.

Even a glue-factory nag like Palice Malice wins the Belmont in a blue moon. That doesn't mean that you can make a living betting oh-for-whatever colts in Triple Crown races (and if I sound bitter, I am). Same deal with orphans.

Tell you what. And I'm serious here. Let's start an orphan-or-sport-coat thread and see how many folks are fooled. I don't have any orphans, so someone else will have to post the inaugural image.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The position of the buttons in comparison to the level of the pocket flaps on that jacket is quite dreadful.


----------



## KayGee (May 19, 2013)

I don't particularly care about the "Orphan or Sportcoat" drama unfolding, but I'm not a fan of this jacket because I can't think of too many pants it would look good with.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

It would look great with the pants that came with the suit.



KayGee said:


> I don't particularly care about the "Orphan or Sportcoat" drama unfolding, but I'm not a fan of this jacket because I can't think of too many pants it would look good with.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

You should be able to get some use out of it. Don't bother changing buttons. Wear it as what is is -- an orphan -- just not for business (unless one of the glamor industries.) 

Those guys that said we were squares are sorry bigots. They should eat quiche and die. We are older guys, some of whom know what that they are talking about. It is illogical to expect us to sound like younger guys.


----------



## g3dahl (Aug 26, 2011)

The problem with using it as an odd jacket becomes obvious when one tries to build an outfit around it. Normally, sport coats can be paired with gray flannel trousers or khakis. Neither will work with this jacket. I can't think of anything else that would, either, except for the original trousers. Sorry!


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> I knew this was gonna happen...
> 
> Rules? What rules? Who needs rules? Let's just wear freakin' tux jackets with patch madras trousers. And, while I have heard of odd jackets, I've never heard of odd trousers. I'm just saying...
> 
> ...


Let me be very clear here about the intentions of my original post and subsequent replies:

1. To learn if this jacket is an orphan or a sport coat.
2. Upon learning that it is an orphan, asking if switching buttons might turn it into an accetable sport coat. Some said sure, some said no way. 
3. Keeping an open mind, asking what buttons might look nice on this jacket _*IF *_I wanted to give it a shot.

I never intended to _force _this oprhan into being a sport coat. Or wear it inappropriately. Seeing as how I spent less on this jacket than the cost of a Starbucks latte, I think I'll just donate it back.

I wasn't particuarly bothered by any of the "orphan" judgements delivered--just the condescending tone contained in your earlier post.

Since you seem to get off on your "superior sartorial knowledge," I think you'll really enjoy starting an "orphan-or-sport coat" thread and delivering judgement. Feel free to cut and paste my Southwick photo and go at it.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

g3dahl said:


> The problem with using it as an odd jacket becomes obvious when one tries to build an outfit around it. Normally, sport coats can be paired with gray flannel trousers or khakis. Neither will work with this jacket. I can't think of anything else that would, either, except for the original trousers. Sorry!


I totally agree, sir. Back to the thrift store it goes!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

While the orphan versus suit jacket distinction has its place, especially with respect to pinstripes, it is overdone. 32's insistence to the contrary is not dogma, having been rejected by many esteemed sartorial theologians over many years, including the his excellency Archbishop Cuffdaddy. This jacket would pair nicely with charcoal gray or navy trousers.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Let's see. I dare you. I double-dog dare you.



Mike Petrik said:


> While the orphan versus suit jacket distinction has its place, especially with respect to pinstripes, it is overdone. 32's insistence to the contrary is not dogma, having been rejected by many esteemed sartorial theologians over many years, including the his excellency Archbishop Cuffdaddy. This jacket would pair nicely with charcoal gray or navy trousers.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

There is nothing wrong with keeping it until something better comes along. If you are new to thrifting, much of your closet will turn over in a few years, anyway, as the close-but-not-quites gradually get replaced by perfect.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

crs said:


> There is nothing wrong with keeping it until something better comes along. If you are new to thrifting, much of your closet will turn over in a few years, anyway, as the close-but-not-quites gradually get replaced by perfect.


Nope. If 32 says it's a bust, then it must be a bust. Too bad the pants went missing.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Please, 32. Buy the jacket and ship it to me. If possible, I'll have it altered and wear it with charcoal trousers and send you a thank you note -- I promise. I triple dog dare you.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Mike Petrik said:


> Please, 32. Buy the jacket and ship it to me. If possible, I'll have it altered and wear it with charcoal trousers and send you a thank you note -- I promise. I triple dog dare you.


Forget it, Mike. It's pretty clear you can't win with 32, the "sartorial expert."


----------



## Barrow Jacket (Mar 14, 2012)

Gamma, a bit of perspective if I may. About a year and a half ago, I found this board. I didn't know what "Trad" was, and was confused by a lot of the terms and preferences. I asked some advice from the board, on a navy blazer (probably the 1,000,001st ? on that topic here BTW). Not only did the majority disagree with what I thought, I was a bit stung by some of the curt replies. I did think "to hell with these guys, I'm outta here, etc...

But I stayed, didn't post much and just lurked a bunch. I am glad I did. Learned more in the past year on fashion than I had my whole life. I am by no means a pure "Trad" dresser. But I think if you take a step back, get past any "sting" you feel over the message or tone of what you heard...and continue to participate/read the experience of this board you will be glad you did long term. don't let an $8 miss on a thrift sour you on this board. free advice, worth about what you paid for it. :icon_smile:

On this particular subject, the jacket is a pass for me b/c the pattern is too subtle for a sportcoat wear. I'm just not a fan of the odd coat thing, it feels a bit gimmicky to me like a Jos A Bank trio look. Kudos for being adventurous with thrifting, though. I'm a chicken at pulling triggers on things I find.​


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

You're on. Hit me up with a PM and we can go from there. There's an easier way to do it, of course, if you're willing: Have Gamma take a picture of himself wearing the jacket with a pair of either navy or charcoal trousers, or both. If he doesn't have the trousers, either you or I can send him a pair. He probably wouldn't even have to put the trousers on--taking a picture of them next to the jacket should do the job.

Any way you wanna do it, and we can then put it up to a vote of the masses to see if it works. I absolutely, positively guarantee that it will not, but if you want to go through the trouble, I'm game. I would appreciate it if, when you see the result, you would reimburse my expenses, but that is up to you as a gentleman. Again, I'm willing to front funds for postage and alterations up to, say, a maximum of $100, with your assurance that you will take a picture of the result and post it. Again, the easier--cheaper--option is to send trousers to Gamma, and I'm pretty sure I have both navy and charcoal kicking around.

Are you in?



Mike Petrik said:


> Please, 32. Buy the jacket and ship it to me. If possible, I'll have it altered and wear it with charcoal trousers and send you a thank you note -- I promise. I triple dog dare you.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Barrow Jacket said:


> Gamma, a bit of perspective if I may. About a year and a half ago, I found this board. I didn't know what "Trad" was, and was confused by a lot of the terms and preferences. I asked some advice from the board, on a navy blazer (probably the 1,000,001st ? on that topic here BTW). Not only did the majority disagree with what I thought, I was a bit stung by some of the curt replies. I did think "to hell with these guys, I'm outta here, etc...
> 
> But I stayed, didn't post much and just lurked a bunch. I am glad I did. Learned more in the past year on fashion than I had my whole life. I am by no means a pure "Trad" dresser. But I think if you take a step back, get past any "sting" you feel over the message or tone of what you heard...and continue to participate/read the experience of this board you will be glad you did long term. don't let an $8 miss on a thrift sour you on this board. free advice, worth about what you paid for it.​


Again, let me be clear. I'm more disappointed that I didn't find the suit pants than "stung" by 32's condescending remarks. I just don't care for know-it-alls or condescension in any form or setting.

So it's an orphan--OK, I get it. Never said I didn't. But 32 doesnt have to be a smarta** and tell me there's no room for my questions in his precious sartorial universe.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Careful, now. Someone has just offered you two free pairs of trousers. You should be thanking me.



gamma68 said:


> Again, let me be clear. I'm more disappointed that I didn't find the suit pants than "stung" by 32's condescending remarks. I just don't care for know-it-alls or condescension in any form or setting.
> 
> So it's an orphan--OK, I get it. Never said I didn't. But 32 doesnt have to be a smarta** and tell me there's no room for my questions in his precious sartorial universe.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> You're on. Hit me up with a PM and we can go from there. There's an easier way to do it, of course, if you're willing: Have Gamma take a picture of himself wearing the jacket with a pair of either navy or charcoal trousers, or both. If he doesn't have the trousers, either you or I can send him a pair. He probably wouldn't even have to put the trousers on--taking a picture of them next to the jacket should do the job.
> 
> Any way you wanna do it, and we can then put it up to a vote of the masses to see if it works. I absolutely, positively guarantee that it will not, but if you want to go through the trouble, I'm game. I would appreciate it if, when you see the result, you would reimburse my expenses, but that is up to you as a gentleman. Again, I'm willing to front funds for postage and alterations up to, say, a maximum of $100, with your assurance that you will take a picture of the result and post it. Again, the easier--cheaper--option is to send trousers to Gamma, and I'm pretty sure I have both navy and charcoal kicking around.
> 
> Are you in?


32rollandrock, get over yourself. I'd rather see this jacket go back to the thrift store. You've made your point ad nauseum.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Can some sane moderator please close this thread? I've had enough.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

gamma68 said:


> Can some sane moderator please close this thread? I've had enough.


gamma68, if you have the stomach for it, please stick around. There is a great deal to be learned from the members of this forum. You will also see that we can get *much* more heated than this when discussing contentious issues. Don't be a cry-baby if you encounter a character on the internet who is not to your liking. :icon_smile:


----------



## Anthony Charton (May 7, 2012)

Noticed nobody responded to this one:


frosejr said:


> I appreciate this useful discussion. I asked a similar question in another thread and got similar responses. About a 50-50 split. I didn't wind up getting the jacket I asked about, but I did just buy this one:
> 
> View attachment 8007
> 
> ...


Keep it. Navy, brown or tan trousers. Light blue shirt or tattersall. Knit or wool tie. There's no way of saying whether it's an orphan without looking at the pockets/buttons/construction, but the pattern is ample enough that it can officiate as an odd jacket.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Cuff's posts on this thread are dispositive in my view:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...et-as-a-odd-jacket&highlight=orphan+cuffdaddy

Basically, the use of suit jackets as sport jackets is grounded in tradition; 
Objections against such use are grounded in particular execution, but have no basis as a rule; and 
Glen plaid makes for a nice sport coat.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Shaver said:


> gamma68, if you have the stomach for it, please stick around. There is a great deal to be learned from the members of this forum. You will also see that we can get *much* more heated than this when discussing contentious issues. Don't be a cry-baby if you encounter a character on the internet who is not to your liking. :icon_smile:


Again, let me be very clear. I have no issue with comments in this thread from anyone except 32. The YouTube video comments were not made by me, nor do I necessarily agree with them. I have no intention of abandoning the AAAC forum because one person is an ass. In my experience, there are crass, obnoxious and rude people in all walks of life. It's much easier to be insulting on the Internet while hiding behind a computer, of course. But that doesn't make that behavior acceptable, nor does it make me a "cry baby." If 32 is going to post on what is a gentleman's forum, then act like a gentleman. If 32 can't handle questions from a relative newcomer or opposing views from others in this forum, then I suggest he find some other outlet for his obnoxiousness.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

gamma68 said:


> Again, let me be very clear. I have no issue with comments in this thread from anyone except 32. The YouTube video comments were not made by me, nor do I necessarily agree with them. I have no intention of abandoning the AAAC forum because one person is an ass. In my experience, there are crass, obnoxious and rude people in all walks of life. It's much easier to be insulting on the Internet while hiding behind a computer, of course. But that doesn't make that behavior acceptable, nor does it make me a "cry baby." If 32 is going to post on what is a gentleman's forum, then act like a gentleman. If 32 can't handle questions from a relative newcomer or opposing views from others in this forum, then I suggest he find some other outlet for his obnoxiousness.


Without mentioning names, it is true that many men (we can only assume they are men) feel license to say things when safely cloaked in anonymity that they would never have the courage to say to your face -- small prissy men transforming themselves into Internet bad-asses. Overall, I'd say there is less of that here at AA than many other places, but sadly that is like saying our violent crime rate is better than south side Chicago's. To take exception to rude behavior does not make you a cry-baby. It is sad that we have members who think so.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Without mentioning names, it is true that many men (we can only assume they are men) feel license to say things when safely cloaked in anonymity that they would never have the courage to say to your face -- small prissy men transforming themselves into Internet bad-asses. Overall, I'd say there is less of that here at AA than many other places, but sadly that is like saying our violent crime rate is better than south side Chicago's. To take exception to rude behavior does not make you a cry-baby. It is sad that we have members who think so.


Aww thanks Mike. It always cheers me up when the moral compass of the forum takes a little pot-shot. :icon_smile:

FWIW I don't read the posts made by 32rollandrock as being particularly rude. There is perhaps unnecessary over-reaction and that contains potential to be perceived in equivalence to being a cry-baby. Alternatively the abuse which has been directed at 32r&r (ass, obnoxious etc) *is *rude.

Of course if anyone can illustrate my error here then I shall be more than happy to summons up the courage to apologise.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver, I regret including the last sentence. It can be taken to be a pot-shot, and I apologize. 

gamma, I hope you stick around. We cannot have enough gentlemen.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver, I regret including the last sentence. It can be taken to be a pot-shot, and I apologize.
> 
> gamma, I hope you stick around. We cannot have enough gentlemen.


Well, that's very kind of you to say so Mike. As you know I have a great deal of respect for your opinions so please allow me to apologise for being a little 'catty'.

gamma68, I echo Mike's encouragement, please do stick around. One minor caveat - and an aspect of this forum of which you may not be aware - this is the Trad sub-forum and dedicated to a rather specific modality of dress (more accurately defined by what it is not, rather than what it is) and general matters of style are best discussed over on the fashion forum.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver, I regret including the last sentence. It can be taken to be a pot-shot, and I apologize.
> 
> gamma, I hope you stick around. We cannot have enough gentlemen.


Mike, as I stated earlier, I have no intentions on leaving.

Shaver, I believe 32's posts speak for themselves.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Still trying to figure out if this thread is officially a scrap or a scuffle, and if it will transmogrify into a melee or donnybrook - one can only hope!:smile:

For what it's worth, I would not wear the jacket as a sport coat. However, with different buttons, and paired with navy pants, and worn at functions requiring something better than a polo but less than business casual, I can see this working for someone whose clothing budget is limited, or who doesn't mind pushing the envelope a bit, especially in our sartorially-challenged world where a new sweatshirt and sneakers is considered "dressed up."

As to the incipient peripheral battle that has (sort of) begun:

a) I think 32rollandrock was a bit harsh, but not quite obnoxious or rude
b) Gamma68 was stung by that harshness, since as the OP he was not a dispassionate, objective reader, and viewed 32rollandrock's words as a personal affront (understandable)
c) I believe gamma68 did belabor this point
d) A gentleman could read the comments of 32rollandrock and Shaver's "cry-baby" comment as being beyond the parameters of civilized discourse, which is how Mike Petrik seemed to view it
e) I didn't like the "cry-baby" comment either, as it appeared to be both extreme and "salt in the wound" to a new AAAC member. There has to be a euphemism for that term!
f) Shaver's clarification helped, as did Mike's apology
g) Many good things can be said about these two gentlemen!

I have no doubt that gamma68 will stick with our forum. Too much quality information doled out by many men of integrity and character. And, as is true in any purely written medium, there will be the occasional misunderstanding with the attendant ruffled feathers. This will always be so...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Still trying to figure out if this thread is officially a scrap or a scuffle, and if it will transmogrify into a melee or donnybrook - one can only hope!:smile:
> 
> For what it's worth, I would not wear the jacket as a sport coat. However, with different buttons, and paired with navy pants, and worn at functions requiring something better than a polo but less than business casual, I can see this working for someone whose clothing budget is limited, or who doesn't mind pushing the envelope a bit, especially in our sartorially-challenged world where a new sweatshirt and sneakers is considered "dressed up."
> 
> ...


It has occurred to me that perhaps cry-baby is a much more severe criticism in the States than it is in England. In which case, consider it noted and I shall not employ it again.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Thanks Anthony!



Anthony Charton said:


> Noticed nobody responded to this one:
> 
> Keep it. Navy, brown or tan trousers. Light blue shirt or tattersall. Knit or wool tie. There's no way of saying whether it's an orphan without looking at the pockets/buttons/construction, but the pattern is ample enough that it can officiate as an odd jacket.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Ass?

You are new here. You know nothing about fashion--that's not an opinion, dem's da facts, as you acknowledge. You came here to learn stuff. And now you are calling people names.

We don't call people names around here. If we have a strong viewpoint, we express it. But we do not resort to name calling. Whether you realize it or not, you owe me an apology.

You would do well to not post so much and instead spend that time reading. A lot of the questions you pose could be answered by reading through the threads or obtaining Alan Flusser's book Dressing The Man for $20-$30 on Amazon, a cheap education.

If you progress in your sartorial journey, you will find that any question posed--even something so simple as "Is it light outside?"--will result in a myriad of diametrically opposed answers. That is the nature of fashion. In the instant case, those who say that orphans can work are not, technically, wrong, they are merely wrong more than 90 percent of the time. If you do not believe me, go to the WAYWT threads and you will see that the folks who consistently hit it out of the park don't wear orphans, and if they are wearing an orphan, they will crow because making an orphan work is such a rare feat. Certainly rare enough that it should not be attempted by anyone who hasn't yet figured out the basics.

That, my friend, is all that I and others who have labeled your jacket a bust have said. If you want to continue name calling and insulting folks from whom you might learn something, that is your wont, but only to a point. We expect a certain amount of decorum around here, and calling someone, anyone, an ass goes beyond bounds of acceptable behavior.

Finally, I really would like to see an orphan-or-sportcoat thread, long the lines of the everyone's-favorite-game thread. That, it seems to me, would be the best way to put this issue to rest, and it keeps cropping up again and again and again and again, with nary a picture I can recall to prove anything. There is nothing like a photograph to show what does and does not work in an odd jacket.



gamma68 said:


> Again, let me be very clear. I have no issue with comments in this thread from anyone except 32. The YouTube video comments were not made by me, nor do I necessarily agree with them. I have no intention of abandoning the AAAC forum because one person is an ass. In my experience, there are crass, obnoxious and rude people in all walks of life. It's much easier to be insulting on the Internet while hiding behind a computer, of course. But that doesn't make that behavior acceptable, nor does it make me a "cry baby." If 32 is going to post on what is a gentleman's forum, then act like a gentleman. If 32 can't handle questions from a relative newcomer or opposing views from others in this forum, then I suggest he find some other outlet for his obnoxiousness.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> You are new here. You know nothing about fashion--that's not an opinion, dem's da facts, as you acknowledge. You came here to learn stuff. And now you are calling people names.


How could you know how much sartorial knowledge I possess? Because I asked if a jacket is a sport coat or orphan? That's just one question. Sorry you took exception to it. Infer what you will.

I only said I'm relatively new to the sartorial world--does that make me some kind of barefoot hillbilly clad in overalls? Have you seen my closet? Catch me on any day of the week, and you'll see I dress better than probably 90% of the men my age. You also assume I have no navy or charcoal pants in my closet and that I should take you up on your silly offer to accept your pants for photos with this jacket that, in high likelihood, would set me up for even more of your ridicule. Sorry, don't need it.



32rollandrock said:


> We don't call people names around here. If we have a strong viewpoint, we express it. But we do not resort to name calling. Whether you realize it or not, you owe me an apology.


I apologize for insinuating that you're an ass. In person, I suppose it could be possible that you're a charming lad. Let me rephrase: I find your _posts _condescending and arrogant.



32rollandrock said:


> You would do well to not post so much and instead spend that time reading. A lot of the questions you pose could be answered by reading through the threads or obtaining Alan Flusser's book Dressing The Man for $20-$30 on Amazon, a cheap education.


Thanks for the tip, pal. I've had the book for a while now. I'll refer to it again. I suppose you could have said something along those lines from the start. And, contrary to your assumption, I've read quite a few threads here. Might I suggest that you would do well to check the arrogance at the door and resist the temptation to chastise someone who, in your estimation, knows "nothing about fashion." At what point does someone cross your threshold of sartorial knowledge that they're allowed to post here? At what point would I "know something" about fashion?



32rollandrock said:


> If you progress in your sartorial journey, you will find that any question posed--even something so simple as "Is it light outside?"--will result in a myriad of diametrically opposed answers. That is the nature of fashion. In the instant case, those who say that orphans can work are not, technically, wrong, they are merely wrong more than 90 percent of the time. If you do not believe me, go to the WAYWT threads and you will see that the folks who consistently hit it out of the park don't wear orphans, and if they are wearing an orphan, they will crow because making an orphan work is such a rare feat. Certainly rare enough that it should not be attempted by anyone who hasn't yet figured out the basics.


All I asked was if the buttons could be switched out to make the jacket acceptable on its own. Seems to me you took issue with the question and got upset when people disagreed with your opinion. I never even said I was going to attempt the button switch.



32rollandrock said:


> That, my friend, is all that I and others who have labeled your jacket a bust have said. If you want to continue name calling and insulting folks from whom you might learn something, that is your wont, but only to a point. We expect a certain amount of decorum around here, and calling someone, anyone, an ass goes beyond bounds of acceptable behavior.


Take a step back and re-read your own posts in this thread. I find the condescending tone insulting and unacceptable. That lacks decorum.



32rollandrock said:


> Finally, I really would like to see an orphan-or-sportcoat thread, long the lines of the everyone's-favorite-game thread. That, it seems to me, would be the best way to put this issue to rest, and it keeps cropping up again and again and again and again, with nary a picture I can recall to prove anything. There is nothing like a photograph to show what does and does not work in an odd jacket.


I _highly doubt _your call for an "orphan-or-sportcoat" thread would put a rest to anything, because some people would think the ensembles pictured look great. But then, of course, you'd disagree and tell those people that they have no fashion knowledge whatsoever. Why open that can of worms? Best let it rest, friend.


----------



## AncientMadder (Apr 21, 2011)

Sigh.


----------



## Barnavelt (Jul 31, 2012)

My goodness...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Let's stop this here and get this thread back where it belongs. Please.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Mike Petrik said:


> Cuff's posts on this thread are dispositive in my view:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...et-as-a-odd-jacket&highlight=orphan+cuffdaddy
> 
> ...


Mike, thanks for posting this link. I find the comments there quite enlightening. I also believe CuffDaddy is my new hero.


----------



## Barnavelt (Jul 31, 2012)

For what it is worth, a year ago I bought on ebay a BB glen plaid advertised as a "sport coat" but it turned out to be an orphan jacket. Aside from ultimately being the wrong size in the shoulders, too big in the chest and too short in the sleeves, I really didn't know what I was doing when trying to wear it. The pattern was very fine, and it would only have looked OK with the trousers it came with. Since pants wear out and are more likely to get messed up / tossed, the thrift store racks are full of orphans. Now I know to pass 'em by, usually by just counting the buttons on the cuff. My jacket was similar to the OP's. It's tempting to try and rehabilitate something like a jacket, especially if it is good quality or vintage, but there is so much good stuff out there I find patience works best for me. Unless you like "projects" of course. My 2 cents, YMMV.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Barnavelt said:


> Now I know to pass 'em by, usually by just counting the buttons on the cuff.


Is it usually four for a suit, two or three for a sport coat?


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

Another tip--although it doesn't always work--check the inner label. A lot of times it will have the jacket and trouser waist size...i.e 40R/34W. Then you know you have an orphan.


----------



## Garasaki (May 9, 2013)

I certainly don't have it all figured out, but when thrift shopping, I just look at the patterns now. Having lost 5 bucks on a orphan a few times, and having tried a few on and REALLY trying to figure out how to put an outfit together with something, it starts to get pretty obvious what I can work with and what I can't.

Which is what it comes down to with a patterned jacket of any kind. What can you pair with it to make a pleasing outfit? 

Again, I've not got it all figured out, but looking back on my early shopping days on my own sartorial journey, I see that I picked up WAY too many fine patterned pieces, ties in particular. Now I've learned a little bit about using patterns (from observing many "busts" on my own attempted outfits). And when looking at a patterned sportcoat, I come up with very few options to make a reasonable outfit around it. 

A solid coat, on the other hand, leaves the door open to millions of different combinations, from using solid colored shirts, ties, and trousers of various textures, to using patterned shirts and solid ties, to solid shirts with patterned ties. And these are just the easy and obvious approaches - more complicated (and risky) combinations are available for trying as well.

So, that's why I stay away (in general) from patterned jackets - solid jackets are just so much more versitile.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

CMDC said:


> Another tip--although it doesn't always work--check the inner label. A lot of times it will have the jacket and trouser waist size...i.e 40R/34W. Then you know you have an orphan.


That is a good tip. When I first spotted this jacket, I checked the inner pockets for a size label. There is none, other than a "union-made" tag and a "dry clean only" label with space for the owner's name, date, and size (blank).


----------



## Barnavelt (Jul 31, 2012)

frosejr said:


> Is it usually four for a suit, two or three for a sport coat?


I can't take credit for coming up with this method to quickly scan racks of jackets; it was suggested by another member. But in my limited experience, many of my older sack sport coats have 2 or even only 1 cuff button. Certainly 4 or 5 is more likely to be a suit orphan; but the type and color of buttons are just as much an indicator. I have to save time doing my scanning so I get home before my wife strangles me with a repp tie for stopping yet again at the local thrift.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

I was on my way to assembling an orphanage before I did a lot more reading on AAAC about what constitutes a sport jacket and what is just half a suit... Now I'm a lot more discriminatory in what I pick up.

The actual percentage of stand-alone jackets versus orphans seems to be surprisingly low (not including ubiquitous blazers).

All this being said, $5 is a remarkably small sum to gamble while learning. It's better to experiment (and read up) earlier on than start looking on ebay for "Brooks Brothers blazer" and end up with an orphan jacket and pay a lot for it at the same time.

Perhaps the most saddening is a J.Press jacket in grey which I fear I shalt never be able to wear again... but I still won't part with it :devil:

Edit: This is a good guide which helped to steer me in the right direction. 
Also, when in doubt, buy tweed! 
https://putthison.com/post/46854289999/is-this-an-orphaned-suit-jacket-i-recently


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Not always easy to tell with some brands. How many of these Hickey-Freeman jackets would you at least scrutinize as possible orphan if you saw them in a thrift shop? I have to say most.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

frosejr said:


> Is it usually four for a suit, two or three for a sport coat?


Of the fourteen jackets currently hanging in my wardrobe, eleven have four buttons, while three have three. None are orphans. It may be that it is a better indicator in the US; my jackets are all either British, French or German.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

crs said:


> Not always easy to tell with some brands. How many of these Hickey-Freeman jackets would you at least scrutinize as possible orphan if you saw them in a thrift shop? I have to say most.


Oh that is a very interesting point.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

Based on that, I will just buy any HF on sight at take the chance 

One indicator that I'm not sure has been mentioned is shoulder construction. I typically find a lot more padding in suit jackets than sportcoats.


----------



## sp999 (Dec 9, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. but isn't that the group of people to whom the OP posed his question? Frankly I think you are wrong in the advice that you provide following the opening comment, quoted above. The fabric pattern showcased in the jacket in question is a pattern consistent with suit designs, as suggested by an earlier poster. The jacket may be worn as an odd jacket and, as you suggest, most people will not care, but they will notice! Many would wear the suit coat as an odd jacket...I would not.


The whole point is that at the end of day most people are concerned about how other people in society will react to them if they were to wear an "orphan". Will they laugh at me. Will they say, "oh my God, I cannot people what that idiot is wearing". I maintain that most people in society will not notice. They cannot tell the difference. Those that do notice, if done properly, will think what a clever way to wear a suit jacket. Only the people on this forum will laugh at him.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

There does seem to be a belief that if a pattern is consistent with a suit design it can not also be appropriate for a sport jacket. Those who share that belief should kindly alert the misguided tailors on Savile Row, as the misinformed souls offer many fabrics for both suits and sport coats. Some of those fabrics include subtle glen plaid patterns.


----------



## TradThrifter (Oct 22, 2012)

This jacket would be an interesting project. I say go for it bud; Replace the buttons and see how it turns out. Now you know what to look for and not make the same mistake in the future though. I think some people could learn to loosen up a bit about this whole thing. This is a fun hobby that we derive personal enjoyment out of and nothing more. No one will notice (or care), I promise. :wink2:


----------



## blacksby (Jan 17, 2013)

crs said:


> Not always easy to tell with some brands. How many of these Hickey-Freeman jackets would you at least scrutinize as possible orphan if you saw them in a thrift shop? I have to say most.


I agree


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

TradThrifter said:


> This jacket would be an interesting project. I say go for it bud; Replace the buttons and see how it turns out. Now you know what to look for and not make the same mistake in the future though. I think some people could learn to loosen up a bit about this whole thing. This is a fun hobby that we derive personal enjoyment out of and nothing more. No one will notice (or care), I promise. :wink2:


Thanks, TradThrifter, for your encouragement. I believe I will experiment with different trousers alongside this jacket and consider replacing the buttons to create an ensemble.

You and sp999 also touched upon something that got lost within this thread. I know that there are people out there, like the members of this forum, who have a lot of sartorial knowledge and may notice that the Southwick is an orphan. But those people are among the minority when it comes to the general public. I agree with your implication that the vast majority of people will not look askance at it, or even notice, or care. And if it doesn't work out, it was a cheap thrift store purchase.


----------



## AncientMadder (Apr 21, 2011)

"People won't know the difference" is a terrible argument that gets made often here. Yes, it's true. But people won't notice if you wear square-toed Kenneth Coles either. Just because you can "get away" with dressing sub-optimally doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yes, we are hobbyists. But if you're investing time and effort into a hobby, make it your goal to do it as well as possible, not simply to be passable.

In the context of dressing well, the jacket is a complete bust.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

AncientMadder said:


> "People won't know the difference" is a terrible argument that gets made often here. Yes, it's true. But people won't notice if you wear square-toed Kenneth Coles either. Just because you can "get away" with dressing sub-optimally doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yes, we are hobbyists. But if you're investing time and effort into a hobby, make it your goal to do it as well as possible, not simply to be passable.


This has never been said better than this.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

AncientMadder said:


> "People won't know the difference" is a terrible argument that gets made often here. Yes, it's true. But people won't notice if you wear square-toed Kenneth Coles either. Just because you can "get away" with dressing sub-optimally doesn't mean it's a good idea. Yes, we are hobbyists. But if you're investing time and effort into a hobby, make it your goal to do it as well as possible, not simply to be passable.
> 
> In the context of dressing well, the jacket is a complete bust.


With all due respect, it seems there are a number of folks within this thread and the recently launched *"sport coat or orphan"* thread who would disagree. My impression is those folks are interested in opportunities and don't see the world in "right-or-wrong" terms. They understand there there are no "hard and fast" rules. They don't want to "get away with dressing sub-optimally," but look the best they can with what they have.

I think a great example of this is emb1980s post within the aforementioned thread. I admit it: I'm a sartorial newbie, but I'm aware that it's generally understood that pinstripes indicate a suit jacket. I would have definitely passed that particular jacket by in the thrift store. But I think the outfit as pictured looks pretty sharp. Sure, nit-pick the shirt collar or color of the pocket square if you wish. I think it looks good, and so do some of those who responded to his post. I bet emb1980 even received some compliments outside of AAAC when he wore it. He certainly wouldn't be mocked in public.

Here is a genuine, sincere question: has someone written an official rule that states orphans shall never be worn unless with their original trousers? If so, where has it been published?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

gamma68 said:


> They understand there there are no "hard and fast" rules.


Well, just to be clear. While there are no hard and fast rules in the sense of being enforceable mandates, there are conventions, some more rigid than others. But one must be careful not to mix dogma with prudence. The "rule" against orphan suit jackets is plainly in the ambit of the latter. Many fabrics both can be and are used for both a suit coat as well as a sport coat, and there need be no tailoring difference whatsoever. But not all fabrics can be used for both, either for reasons of convention or aesthetics. Therefore, it is prudent to proceed with caution, and the less one knows the more caution needed. Since most men know very little, the need for great caution is often expressed as a rule. Knowledgeable men, however, should know that the rule is much more a rule of thumb than a rule of law.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Mike Petrik said:


> Well, just to be clear. While there are no hard and fast rules in the sense of being enforceable mandates, there are conventions, some more rigid than others. But one must be careful not to mix dogma with prudence. ... Knowledgeable men, however, should know that the rule is much more a rule of thumb than a rule of law.


This is better stated than what I tried to express. Conventions, yes. Prudence, yes. Dogmatic rules, no.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

gamma68 said:


> I admit it: I'm a sartorial newbie


Exactly.


----------



## Garasaki (May 9, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> those who say that orphans can work are not, technically, wrong, they are merely wrong more than 90 percent of the time. If you do not believe me, go to the WAYWT threads and you will see that the folks who consistently hit it out of the park don't wear orphans, and if they are wearing an orphan, they will crow because making an orphan work is such a rare feat.


I agree with you.

I would be interested in hearing you elaborate on WHY it is difficult to do? Can the "mechanics" behind this be articulated?


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> Exactly.


I really don't think this comment was necessary.

The Trad Forum has become very stuffy lately. *COUGH*


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

gamma68 said:


> I really don't think this comment was necessary.
> 
> The Trad Forum has become very stuffy lately. *COUGH*


Arrogance often exceeds knowledge. Best to ignore these things.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

1. There are no rules, only taste.

2. Taste is individual and personal.

3. If I don't like what you're wearing, you shouldn't care.

4. If your boss, clients or wife don't like what you're wearing, you should care.

5. If your mistress doesn't like what you're wearing, you've already changed.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

MaxBuck said:


> There are no rules, only taste.


I'm more of a moderate. Some sartorial "rules" are time-honored for good reason, and they are helpful to know and one breaks them at one's peril. I'm not a complete relativist. Yet, one should resist elevating every preference or prudential caution to a rule. In my view that describes the "no orphan" admonition. For the best threads on this subject see: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...are-not&highlight=cuffdaddy+rules+conventions; https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...es-quot&highlight=cuffdaddy+rules+conventions


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm more of a moderate. Some sartorial "rules" are time-honored for good reason, and they are helpful to know and one breaks them at one's peril. I'm not a complete relativist. Yet, one should resist elevating every preference or prudential caution to a rule. In my view that describes the "no orphan" admonition. For the best threads on this subject see: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...are-not&highlight=cuffdaddy+rules+conventions; https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...es-quot&highlight=cuffdaddy+rules+conventions


This is true. With regard to orphans, it is not necessarily a no-orphan "rule" as much as it is a reminder that 90 percent or more of orphans won't work and when they do, it is in rare and considered circumstances. Flusser's Dressing The Man is instructive in this regard. It is fine to break rules, he says, but the well-dressed man has the rules down cold and knows exactly what rule he is breaking, how, exactly, he is breaking it and why.

Due respect to the body politic, but in the years that I have spent here, I can think of maybe a half-dozen members who I think would be able to pull off an orphan. Alan C, I think, could do it. So could Patrick. Trip. Rambler. Orgetorix. Apologies to anyone I've missed, and I'm sure that I have. That's no slam on anyone, that's just recognition of how truly hard it is to dress well. It takes a special talent, and the rest of us, well, we're just not worthy, as they say, but we try nonetheless.

The best thrifters on TOF constantly talk about leaving orphans behind and how much it hurts, not necessarily from a sartorial standpoint but from a financial one--there are a lot of flippers. If it's a Brioni or a Kiton, they'll pick it up because there is always someone who'll pay for the label. Someone has dubbed it aspirational dressing or clothing, and I think that's apt. In the political world, just because everyone is saying something does not make it right, but the sartorial world is different. Clothing, almost by definition, is intended to make a statement about the wearer to the rest of the world. So, I think, it pays to pay attention to what the rest of the sartorial world, or at least the most knowledgeable portion of the sartorial world, has to say about any aspect of fashion. As much as we might wish it to be, Mr. Petrik is right: It is not relative.

Finally, my own personal cautionary tale about orphans. Years ago, before anyone even knew the Internet existed, I got a job at a state capital during legislative session. Anyone who has ever swum in a sartorial sea like that might be able to appreciate what someone with little means and even less knowledge was up against. Lobbyists, lawyers, politicians, eye-candy secretarial help, almost all of them, it seemed, trying to out-do each other in the dressing department as they went about the daily business of dog eat dog. It was, should have been, a bit overwhelming for someone who cut off their ponytail in an attempt to fit in. I headed to the thrift store(s) to assemble a wardrobe in the month or so I had before the job started. I ended up with orphans galore, and blissfully ignorant that they were not sport coats. One of my favorites was sharkskin--would've been a fabulous get-up if I had had the trousers. A couple months into the job, I walked into the office wearing my sharkskin orphan and there were a couple colleagues sitting around. "Do you have the pants for that?" one of them asked. "Yes," I lied. "Oh, really?" the other asked. "You should wear them some time."

Having been that guy, trust me, you do not, ever, want to be that guy. You do not want to take even the smallest risk of ever being that guy, and in most cases, you're not even going to know that you're that guy because only in rare environments will anyone put you on notice. Once it has happened, and it only has to happen once, it is very difficult to stop being that guy. You will never, ever forget it. And so that's why I say the things that I do about wearing orphans. Relativists may, and likely will, proceed at their own risk, but they should realize that the sartorial world is a cruel one.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

32,
Without quibbling about percentages, I agree that the admonition regarding orphaned jackets is prudentially well-grounded. But it is worth remembering its underlying rationale, which is that most men are not knowledgeable about conventions (e.g. no pinstripe sport coat -- and your sharkskin example) or about aesthetics (does this plaid go with that, etc.). Thus, the admonition serves to avoid mistakes. For this reason though I would not regard a well-dressed man wearing a sport coat as violating a rule just because that sport coat happened to be an orphan. Any bespoke tailor can tell you that many fabrics are equally suitable for either a sport coat or a suit. The man in question is no more breaking a sartorial rule than a fellow who buys used clothing on eBay. It is probably a good rule of thumb to say that one should buy his dress clothes only from reputable retailers with excellent tailors. That is very good advice for most men, but like the orphan jacket admonition, its rationale does not apply to everyone. That is why when a gent asks whether a certain jacket would be an attractive sport jacket, the jacket's origin is not only not dispositive, it is not even the question. Each jacket must simply be evaluated on its own terms. At most, one might opine that that particular jacket would likely only work well as part of a suit -- and that is certainly the case with most suit jackets.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^

I've tried. I'm out.

Good luck, all, making your orphans work.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> ^^
> 
> I've tried. I'm out.
> 
> Good luck, all, making your orphans work.


Thanks, and good luck with your career in politics.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks, and good luck with your career in politics.


This might surprise you, but I am not a politician.

Carry on.


----------

