# The Ideal Tie Width?



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

That WSJ article about ties getting narrower got me to thinking. First, I'm wondering why ties are not sold as "sized", with, say, 3 inches wide being a "small", 3 1/2 inches wide being a "medium", and 4 inches wide being a "large". Or some other demarcation depending on the preferred ratio of the tie to the rest of the outfit. 

Second, I'm wondering if it is possible, within the range of currently produced (but unsized) ties to develop a way to calculate the ideal width for a particular suit size.

Let's say, for example, that you take a size 40 as the standard (it's a common sample size for many manufacturers), and then take Alan Flusser's assertion (in Clothes and the Man) that 3 1/4 inches wide is the ideal tie width. 

Putting those together, you'd get 40/3.25 = 12.3. You could then use that to figure what width ties would produce the same proportions in other suit sizes. For instance, the 40/3.25 relationship would suggest a tie width of 2.9 inches for a size 36, and a tie width of about 3 3/4 for a size 46. 

Point is, if the idea is to achieve a particular ratio, then why shouldn't ties be sized (or at least understood as such by us on this forum)? Wouldn't this make buying ties a lot more straightforward?

A few calculations as food for thought:

If the ideal ratio is a 3 1/4 inch tie with a size 40 suit, then:

36: 2.9
38: 3.1
These sizes should wear a 3 inch wide tie ("small").

40: 3.25
This size should wear a 3 1/4 inch wide tie ("medium").

42: 3.4
44: 3.6
This size should wear a 3 1/2 inch wide tie ("large")

46: 3.75
This size should wear a 3 3/4 inch wide tie ("extra large").

48: 3.9
50: 4.1
These sizes should wear a 4 inch wide tie ("xx-large").


----------



## Pgolden (May 13, 2006)

No ideal. There is what looks good and what doesn't. And of course personal style. What I like about the narrow ties is how neat they look--a sort of precision, but then again I'm a bit of a maniac for the culture and history of the early 1960s.


----------



## hbs midwest (Sep 19, 2007)

Pgolden said:


> No ideal. There is what looks good and what doesn't. And of course personal style. What I like about the narrow ties is how neat they look--a sort of precision, but then again I'm a bit of a maniac for the culture and history of the early 1960s.


It's far more an art than a science.

hbs


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

That tie width should vary by chest size seems to make sense in concept. I would think that lapel sizes scale similarly - perhaps one of the trade folks here know. As a 45", it makes me feel more confident about my avoidance of ties less than 3" (which look great on the thin folks). 

I would bet that retailers would be averse to stocking varying widths in the same tie pattern though. If the market demanded it we'd see it (how's that for a laissez-faire argument). I guess Robert Talbott or Sam Hober are available for those who care. Hell, we cant even get properly sized shirts many places (SMLXL).


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

David Hober and I decided that 3 1/4" (or so) x 57" was my tie configuration - another reason to buy ties from the Hobers.


----------



## Ron_A (Jun 5, 2007)

I agree that it's far more art than science. I currently wear a size 48 coat, and, while I admit that a 3" wide "narrow width" tie that I recently received from Lands' End looks pretty silly, there's no way on earth that you're going to see me wearing 4" wide ties.


----------



## trolperft (Feb 7, 2007)

Speas said:


> That tie width should vary by chest size seems to make sense in concept. I would think that lapel sizes scale similarly - perhaps one of the trade folks here know. As a 45", it makes me feel more confident about my avoidance of ties less than 3" (which look great on the thin folks).


The ideal tie width(at the widest) is as wide as the lapel width(at the widest). 
Around 60s or early 70s, the trend of the lapel was slim. The ties sold at most shops was also slim accordingly.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Pgolden said:


> No ideal. There is what looks good and what doesn't. And of course personal style. What I like about the narrow ties is how neat they look--a sort of precision, but then again I'm a bit of a maniac for the culture and history of the early 1960s.


I like this methodology better.


----------



## Pgolden (May 13, 2006)

Alas, this is the rule. Thus one finds oneself being able to afford the ties and not the new suits. But then again one can always tweak a rule or two. The trick is to look like you know what you're doing and haven't committed a sartorial faux pas. I'm working on that.


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

Its all about balance, lapel width and your body. Im 6 ft tall, broad shouldered but slender. I wear a 42 coat. I look thin. However, there are men who are 5 inches shorter than me, barrel chested and also a 42. They look like beer barrels. My point is you cant go just by measurements. My ideal is a 3 inch lapel and a 3 inch tie. 99% of my ties are from 2.75-3.25, mainly because im slender and my lapels usually fall into that range as well. 

So, as many have said and I will echo, its more art than science.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

^ Proportion, no kidding! I was shocked at what I looked like in more than a few of my photos with repps measuring greater than 3.5". For A.Squire, 3.5 is the ideal...or a bow tie.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

I appreciate the many replies, but I'm not really sure how far the "it's more art than science" argument goes. If the idea is that the tie's width should complement the width of the jacket's lapels, then the relationship is measurable. And lapel width is, for most on this Forum I think, a question of style rather than fashion, and correct proportions rather than trendiness. 

So . . . since the width of the lapel is related to the jacket size, and the width of the tie related to the width of the lapel, it should follow that you can cut out the middle man (i.e., the lapel) and find a direct relationship between the jacket size and the tie width. 

Now I realize that there would be room to manuever (e.g., you might choose a "small" rather than a "medium" tie if you are a size 40, simply out of aesthetic preference or other sizing considerations, such as height). 

But there's some room for science in all this art, isn't there?


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

As someone mentioned above, I doubt that any clothing store would be receptive to stocking the same pattern tie in multiple sizes. The industry seems to be moving in the opposite direction to a 'few sizes fit most' scheme.

Department stores have had 'average sleeve length' shirts for many years and BB did this on their less traditional shirts and they may still do. Not sure as I just buy traditional shirts from them.

Until about 6/8 years ago BB sweaters came in numerical sizes and then switched to m/l/xl sizing where each size covers two of the old sizes.

I see that BB now offers some of their trousers only pre-cuffed in two inch increments -- good luck on getting the break you desire - I can't.

Back to ties, before they went on vacation I received my first Sam Hober tie and a lovely thing it is. Great people to do business with too. I have way too many ties (I am retired) but the next time I buy a present for myself, it will probably be another Sam Hober tie.

Cheers, Jim.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

2 and 7/8 inches for me.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Jim In Sunny So Calif said:


> As someone mentioned above, I doubt that any clothing store would be receptive to stocking the same pattern tie in multiple sizes. The industry seems to be moving in the opposite direction to a 'few sizes fit most' scheme.


Brooks tried to do this recently with the 2 7/8 inch wide "University" ties -- they replicated the patterns in the regular line of ties. I think the problem was that their resulting range of tie sizes was too extreme -- either 2 7/8 inches wide, 3 3/4 inches wide, or, in the case of the "luxury" ties, 4 inches wide. Under my approach, they left out every size between 36 and 46.


----------



## Sam Hober (Jan 2, 2005)

Taliesen,

I am fascinated by your posts and take them very seriously.

I am also interested by your name. Is it from the old Welsh book of poetry or Frank Wright's house, or something else?

Now on to your thoughts:

*If* you had some "rules" or traditions to start with *that were fixed* I think that a few minutes with a calculator could produce standard sizes. Note, I do not agree with a 3.25" standard width. Perhaps Flusser was writing a long time ago and his book has not been updated?

We at Sam Hober have a "standard" 57" by 3.75" size and a classic shape which we use as a guideline and starting point. Having a starting point helps when I ask questions such as: Do you like a more classic American look or a more modern Italian look?

I was mostly subjective when I came up with our standard. I looked at what looked good on most men in North America. And by hand we made a pattern and tested the resulting tie. Then we made some small changes to the shape.

Back to your calculations:

Yes, we could have taken a more computational approach for the width and it would have served as another good survey technique. However, for us looking first and measuring later worked better.

Yet, we have a lot of respect for a calculator and we always have one on hand when we make a tie - I am serious.

I still have an HP business calculator that I bought in business school. Well not the original it finally died after much use and I replaced it.

If a system was adopted for tie widths one would still need to consider a lot of variables such as chest width and height etc.

When I stop to think about it on a practical level I do not think about lapel widths very much. I still go with what looks good on a gentleman based on his height, chest and waist - and his sense of style which can over-ride other measurements.

So in the end standardized sizes are useful but subjective art seems to work better. At least for us.

A parting thought: I had a friend who teaches finance who told me that all the financial formulas taught in business school are very useful, but in the end a gut-level feeling often makes the final decision.

In the same way one gentleman can end up with a 57" by 3.25" tie and another with a 3.5" width, and another with a 3.75" and finally a 4" width.

All the above ties that made the gentlemen happy were for the same basic body build.

I look forward to reading your thoughts.


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

3.5, like Squire.


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

I wear 3.25" width for me


----------



## NavyBlueBlazer (Oct 10, 2007)

I have a well-rounded collection of various widths, materials, and patterns - all traditional and tasteful.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Sam Hober said:


> Taliesen,I am fascinated by your posts and take them very seriously.I am also interested by your name. Is it from the old Welsh book of poetry or Frank Wright's house, or something else?


Thanks for your response. The name is a reference/homage to the Welsh poet. I spent some time in Wales when I was younger.



> Note, I do not agree with a 3.25" standard width. Perhaps Flusser was writing a long time ago and his book has not been updated?


The Flusser book I referenced is from the early 1980s. Interestingly, in his more recent work (Style and the Man), he tip-toes around the tie width issue, saying merely that anything between 3.25 and 4.25 are all acceptable widths. But for the purposes of this forum, I would note that Clothes and the Man is much more Trad-friendly than Style and the Man. Indeed, in his examples section in the latter part of Clothes and the Man, Flusser uses several suits and sportcoats from Press, in 3/2 sack configurations, to present his ideas on style.



> We at Sam Hober have a "standard" 57" by 3.75" size and a classic shape which we use as a guideline and starting point....I was mostly subjective when I came up with our standard. I looked at what looked good on most men in North America. And by hand we made a pattern and tested the resulting tie. Then we made some small changes to the shape.


I see your point on this. My calculations were done with the assumption that 3.25 on a size 40 is the ideal, but I used that merely to prove that once you have an ideal using a sample size, you can extrapolate from it ideal tie widths for all the other suit sizes. I don't know if 3.25 really is the best width for a size 40, although I wouldn't want to see anything wider than 3.5 or more narrow than 3 inches on that size.



> If a system was adopted for tie widths one would still need to consider a lot of variables such as chest width and height etc.


I agree. My idea is that if ties were offered in sizes, men could make more informed decisions about what looks best (e.g., "I usually wear everything in a medium but I find that ties in a size "small" work better for me", or something like that).



> In the same way one gentleman can end up with a 57" by 3.25" tie and another with a 3.5" width, and another with a 3.75" and finally a 4" width. All the above ties that made the gentlemen happy were for the same basic body build. I look forward to reading your thoughts.


The question I would have, though, is whether a 4 inch wide tie on anyone smaller than, say, a size 46 could ever be "Trad." I understand that it might look good under various aesthetics, but not necessarily the Trad one. My thought in posting here was to illustrate not only that something close to an ideal tie width can be found, but also that the Trad preference for more narrow ties than is currently the norm should take into account body size. E.g., a 2 7/8 inch wide "University" tie might look bad on a size 48; and a 3 3/4" Brooks Brothers standard tie might look bad on a size 36.


----------



## Sam Hober (Jan 2, 2005)

"My thought in posting here was to illustrate not only that something close to an ideal tie width can be found, but also that the Trad preference for more narrow ties than is currently the norm should take into account body size. E.g., a 2 7/8 inch wide "University" tie might look bad on a size 48; and a 3 3/4" Brooks Brothers standard tie might look bad on a size 36."


Your points are all good ones, and I agree that a general framework of sizes with reference to body size would be helpful. 

For me a gentleman's height is for me the primary driver of tie length, and in turn the width follows the length as a basic measurement. Then the width is modified based on personal style preference: Trad vs a more modern wide width as an example.

3.75" on a very long tie, 63" for example could indeed look like in some ways like a 57" by 3.5".

So now we venture from the realm of style into practical production. To really give a good choice of sizes you would need many lengths and perhaps two shapes in each of the tie designs....

The good news here is that trad styles are classics and not subject to the whims of fashion so one would not need to keep changing the designs.

For us it works better to simply keep rolls of silk on hand and then custom make the ties.

With that said I could see a nice middle path of having a good set of classic widths available as a made-to-measure program. Maybe a drop-down menu on our website with a choice of lengths and widths and perhaps two shapes?


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Sam Hober said:


> For us it works better to simply keep rolls of silk on hand and then custom make the ties.
> 
> With that said I could see a nice middle path of having a good set of classic widths available as a made-to-measure program. Maybe a drop-down menu on our website with a choice of lengths and widths and perhaps two shapes?


That sounds very intriguing. I would think it might need to be coupled with some guidance on how to select a width based on the factors of height and chest size.


----------



## Sam Hober (Jan 2, 2005)

Height is something that I address. Tie length based on chest size I indirectly take into account. In that when you measure a tie that fits you are automatically factoring in your chest size.

A thought just came to me: We are assuming a four-in-hand knot?

From my custom tie guide:

7) How do I determine the correct tie length?​ First, please measure untied your best fitting tie from tip to tip.​ Next, tie your tie and tell me how many inches from your belt the big and small ends are.​ Finally, let me know the knot that you used and how often you tie your favorite knot.​ All things being equal we generally will add two or three inches for a Windsor knot.​ We can adjust the height of your keeper. (The loop that holds the small end of the tie.)​ Please note that there is roughly a 1/4 inch variance at times in the length of a handmade tie. Also depending on the silk and how often you wear your tie the silk can stretch over time.​


Taliesin said:


> That sounds very intriguing. I would think it might need to be coupled with some guidance on how to select a width based on the factors of height and chest size.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Sam Hober said:


> A thought just came to me: We are assuming a four-in-hand knot?


I think I'd be chased out of this forum if we weren't.


----------



## Thomas (Jan 30, 2006)

My thinnest tie is 2.5" from Band of Outsiders. Ideally, I prefer my ties to be between 2.75" and 3.25". I do have ties wider than 3.25" but they are rarely worn.


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

David - this may be a bit off topic, but I think that simplifying the decision process in terms of tie sizing may help you increase sales. You might have a number of standard sizes listed on the site as alternatives. Something that also might be interesting is to reference well known maker shapes/sizes to the extent they are standard. I tend to like the Polo cut, but others may know they like Ferragamo, Gucci, Brooks 3.75", etc.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

I agree with Speas. I wonder if an online calculator of some kind could be set up to allow inputs (e.g., suit size, preferred style) that would then lead to an automated conclusion (e.g., with these inputs your best match is a certain size and cut of tie).


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

3.5 or 3.75 for me


----------

