# Lapel buttonhole



## justinlw26 (Oct 4, 2008)

What is the point in the lapel buttonhole and why is it there? Is it okay to leave it off entirely?


----------



## Bird's One View (Dec 31, 2007)

Historically there was a button under the opposite lapel so that the coat could be fully closed in bad weather.

The buttonhole is also used to hold a flower.

Neither of these is done often any more.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

I've never seen a jacket without a buttonhole.I suppose if one tried they could find one without a buttonhole,but why would one want to do that?I think a jacket sans buttonhole would look odd.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Bird's One View said:


> Historically there was a button under the opposite lapel so that the coat could be fully closed in bad weather.
> 
> The buttonhole is also used to hold a flower.
> 
> Neither of these is done often any more.


Two separate types of buttonholes. Both of which appear on the coat below, from Orvis:









The little tab in the notch of the left lapel corresponds to an unseen button under the other lapel, so that the coat can be buttoned up all the way to the neck.

The buttonhole on the lapel itself is for a _boutonniere - _a flower which is trimmed below the bloom and wrapped with florists' tape so that the stem can be put through the hole. Some coats have a loop on the back of the lapel to hold the end of the stem.

As to whether it's OK to leave it off - it's unlikely you'll wear a _boutonniere, _so it doesn't serve any actual purpose. Leaving it off will either a) make people think that you consciously chose to leave it off, and you have great style and taste becauce you're so meticulous about the details of what you wear, or b) you bought a jacket so cheap they didn't want to spend the extra $1.50 to put on a buttonhole.

Obviously, the rest of the garment will dictate which of these two groups people think you fall in.


----------



## justinlw26 (Oct 4, 2008)

miket61: I'll go with a). Thanks for the response. I just thought when thee tailor asked if I wanted one, I thought it looked cleaner without and as I could not think of a reason have one, I decided to leave it off. These days, why would anyone where a boutonnière on a suit jacket, especially if the suit is a business suit? People would think you were off your rocker.  
I can see for a tux - as one would be highly likely to wear a flower on their lapel with a tux. 

BTW - what would you call a coat like the one pictured? I really like that it has the buttonhole to close the jacket with. Do you think something like that would be out of place on a traditional, everyday blazer?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I would still put one on there, just in case. You never know when a suit could benefit from a flower. A suit without one seems, well, incomplete! To me it would be like leaving off the breast pocket -- where then will you put a pocket square?


----------



## Bird's One View (Dec 31, 2007)

The tab on the collar of the Orvis jacket fastens to a button on the underside of the opposite collar (not lapel). I believe this is called a throat latch.

I was describing a storm button -- a button high on the chest of the jacket, under the right lapel, that fastens to the lapel buttonhole.

A jacket could have both a throat latch and a storm button.

Throat latches are also made as a separate strip of cloth with two buttonholes that buttons to the underside of the collar on both sides. This can be concealed under one side of the collar when not needed.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I would still put one on there, just in case. You never know when a suit could benefit from a flower. A suit without one seems, well, incomplete! To me it would be like leaving off the breast pocket -- where then will you put a pocket square?


+1 ssssss


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

I would have one put in just in case. 

Also, today is Rememberance Sunday so you need that buttonhole to slip your poppy in! 

I have a morning coat, DJ and tails without buttonholes which I found rather odd. I had to have them put in by the tailors.


----------



## Unregistered (Mar 13, 2008)

I'm not sure about the button holes on my tails...

Think I'd rather leave it without! :icon_smile:


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

On a couple of my earliest MTM suits, I opted out of having a lapel buttonhole. A mistake. It looked fine, I guess, but it was annoying not to have anywhere to put a poppy around this time of year or a flower if the mood took me at other times of year.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

The lapel buttonhole is also used for the smallest version of decorations (medals and chivalric orders), the rosette.
Nothing wrong with not having one as many people never need it, still should you need one and not have it it would be somewhat annoying.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lapel buttonhole as just an extra pretty much any more like surgons cuffs.

With out one you could pin a vase to your lapel to put your flower in.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

WA said:


> Lapel buttonhole as just an extra pretty much any more like surgons cuffs.
> 
> With out one you could pin a vase to your lapel to put your flower in.


Ooo! Like Poirot?


----------



## Imparali (Nov 10, 2008)

What I have seen a lot of people do now, is get two button holes one of each side. And They get it in a different color. It actually looks pretty good, but it's a trend that will eventually go out of style.

Matt Harpalani
www.imparali.com


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Buttonholes are also useful for such things as museum entry pins, which must be bent around a convenient edge.

I had a suit and a dinner jacket that came without (I'd assumed they would be with, but that wasn't standard...). There was maybe one occasion when I needed a flower for the DJ, and I'm probably going to have one put on the suit before next spring. It feels sort of naked without it.

Taking the other side are (mostly American) tailors such as Chipp, who see the whole enterprise of cutting the face of a perfectly good lapel and then handing it off to a buttonholer as too much of a risk. The cost of screwing it up, should it happen, is high indeed.


----------



## NEW_Rome (Oct 29, 2008)

I have a tailcoat without a hole and my brother's choir tuxedo does not have a button hole. All of my suit jackets have the stitching, but only one of them actually has a hole. So far as I know it is now customary to pin a boutonniere onto the lapel, rather than stick it through the hole, if there even is one.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Today, I gave my morning coat to the tailors to be lapel-holed. For future weddings, it is a must for the flower (although it will be pretty useless if they gave me a mini-garden to wear instead of a single bloom).


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

This past weekend mi esposa and I took a short cruise down to Mexico and back where she was one of the speakers to a group of other lawyers. I opted to take my cream dinner jacket for the formal dinner on Friday evening. Sadly, the ship's gift ship carried only roses, but I noticed during dinner that the centerpieces on the table some nice yellow daisies. As we were leaving dinner I freed one of the blossoms from its certain fate in the ship's garbage hold and placed it my buttonhole where it comfortably danced the rest of the night away.

That is what a buttonhole is for.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> Ooo! Like Poirot?


Ah mon ami, but there is a story behind Poirot's lapel pin, nes't pas?


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Pinhole*

I use it to stab a pin through, such as my years of service pin, etc. That way I am not making a hole in the lapel that will show. This can be done whether it's a working buttonhole or not.

That said, I don't see the point, really, unless I were living in a harsher clime and wanted it "just in case" I got trapped in a sudden squall without an overcoat and wanted to button down the hatches.

But then, lapel button holes, along with cuff buttons, are anachronistic ornament, without which the suit looks "unfinished" out of long habit. It seems to me that some of these things need to be eliminated in order to bring men's clothes into the 21st Century. A cleaner, leaner look is overdue, in my opinion.


----------



## justinlw26 (Oct 4, 2008)

thanks for the input, but in terms of opting FOR the lapel buttonhole, I am unpersuaded. I would never want to stick a flower on my lapel, for me, I think it looks ridiculous. And as far as those stupid pins that people put on themselves, I think they look ridiculous, as well; I don't like advertising to the world my political leanings, or who I am morning, or what cause celebre I am supporting, etc. If I want someone to know, I will tell them. Or, if someone wants to know, they can ask me. I remember watching Andy Rooney once talking about the American flag pin that President Bush and other politicians pin on their lapels and how ridiculous that was. Like, does the President of the United States of America need a pin to tell the world he is patriotic?! Though I am no fan of Andy Rooney and think he is a pompous ass, he had a point. And as far as museum entrance pins go, you can just anchor them around the chest pocket. So, for me, no buttonhole, though I do appreciate the thoughts and commentary.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

justinlw26 said:


> thanks for the input, but in terms of opting FOR the lapel buttonhole, I am unpersuaded.


Looks like you and I are in the minority. 

I'm wondering why the tweed hunting jacket from Orvis has a buttonhole for a boutonniere - is the young hunter going to put a posey on his lapel before slogging out to the dairy barn and asking a fair young milkmaid for her hand?


----------



## justinlw26 (Oct 4, 2008)

LOL!!

I think to each his own. I am glad that so many people responded, however; I prefer to only break the rules when I know why I am breaking them.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Blueboy1938 said:


> I use it to stab a pin through, such as my years of service pin, etc. That way I am not making a hole in the lapel that will show. This can be done whether it's a working buttonhole or not.
> 
> That said, I don't see the point, really, unless I were living in a harsher clime and wanted it "just in case" I got trapped in a sudden squall without an overcoat and wanted to button down the hatches.
> 
> But then, lapel button holes, along with cuff buttons, are anachronistic ornament, without which the suit looks "unfinished" out of long habit. It seems to me that some of these things need to be eliminated in order to bring men's clothes into the 21st Century. A cleaner, leaner look is overdue, in my opinion.


Let's get rid of ties, lapels, and collars while we're at it. What do we get then?

Apparently, the _23rd_ century business suit. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## justinlw26 (Oct 4, 2008)

I think your point is misguided. The features that you list actually do something to contribute to the look of the suit. After all, the suit is made to showcase the male form. And the lapels, the tie, the collar, etc., all play their part. The lapel buttonhole does not serve any purpose and, IN MY OPINION, doesn't even look nice, but rather silly. If nothing else, I like everything else about a suit, right down to the functional buttonholes, just can't say the same for the lapel buttonhole. And that it doesn't serve any function only serves to exacerbate matters still further. Your point is well taken nonetheless.


----------



## jmacak (Nov 18, 2007)

justinlw26 said:


> I think your point is misguided. The features that you list actually do something to contribute to the look of the suit. After all, the suit is made to showcase the male form. And the lapels, the tie, the collar, etc., all play their part. The lapel buttonhole does not serve any purpose and, IN MY OPINION, doesn't even look nice, but rather silly. If nothing else, I like everything else about a suit, right down to the functional buttonholes, just can't say the same for the lapel buttonhole. And that it doesn't serve any function only serves to exacerbate matters still further. Your point is well taken nonetheless.


Hi Justin

Right on. There were those who came before us who believed the same thing. I have a number of vintage ('40s to early '60s) without buttonholes and they look just fine.

I have never felt the need to retrofit these with buttonholes.

I probably would not buy a dinner jacket without one, but I like to wear a boutonnière when I am formally dressed.

joe


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> Ooo! Like Poirot?


That is a nice flower vase.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Mark from Plano said:


> This past weekend mi esposa and I took a short cruise down to Mexico and back where she was one of the speakers to a group of other lawyers. I opted to take my cream dinner jacket for the formal dinner on Friday evening. Sadly, the ship's gift ship carried only roses, but I noticed during dinner that the centerpieces on the table some nice yellow daisies. As we were leaving dinner I freed one of the blossoms from its certain fate in the ship's garbage hold and placed it my buttonhole where it comfortably danced the rest of the night away.
> 
> That is what a buttonhole is for.


Hope you had a nice time (of course,there are rarely bad times when wearing a dinner jacket).I may get a daisy for my lapel next time I wear an ivory dj.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

justinlw26 said:


> I think your point is misguided. The features that you list actually do something to contribute to the look of the suit. After all, the suit is made to showcase the male form. And the lapels, the tie, the collar, etc., all play their part. _The lapel buttonhole does not serve any purpose and, IN MY OPINION, doesn't even look nice, but rather silly._ If nothing else, I like everything else about a suit, right down to the functional buttonholes, just can't say the same for the lapel buttonhole. And that it doesn't serve any function only serves to exacerbate matters still further. Your point is well taken nonetheless.


I respectfully disagree.


----------



## BPH (Mar 19, 2007)

I noticed someone on TV yesterday (an "expert" on Antiques Roadshow I think) with two buttonholes on his jackets left lapel, one above the other.

Does anyone know of a story behind this or is it just a fashion whim of the wearer?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Phileas Fogg said:


> The lapel buttonhole is also used for the smallest version of decorations (medals and chivalric orders), the rosette.
> Nothing wrong with not having one as many people never need it, still should you need one and not have it it would be somewhat annoying.


Maybe for the US military, but our(UK) military mini-decorations are worn on the top of the breast pocket just like the full-size ones.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

Actually I am refering to what is used on mainland Europe. Still I believe that some form of rosettes are probably worn even in the UK as there are Catholics there afterall. Knights of Malta, of the Holy Sepulchre or of the Chivalric Orders of the Holy See most probably wear their rosettes even after crossing borders.

Though there could be a slight misunderstanding. I am not talking about miniatures (e.g. very small medals hanging from a thin ribbon) but about rosettes (e.g. small silk covered pins with a miniature cross on them). Miniatures are usually worn either hanging from a small golden chain (without their ribbons) or on a miniatures' bar worn either on the lapel or on the breastpocket. Rosettes can be worn only in the lapel buttonhole and only one at a time, whereas miniatures can be worn in greater numbers (usually up to six).

Anyway thanks for the advice on British customs in wearing decorations.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



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

I don't think we can defend nor attack any details of tailored clothing on the issue of practicality because if we wanted to be practical, we would not wear tailored clothing in the first place. I suggest that we wear suits and other tailored clothing because we think they look nice. 

Cheers, Jim.


----------

