# Suit jacket v. Sport coat



## justinlw26 (Oct 4, 2008)

How can a person tell the difference between an orphaned suit jacket and a sport coat? I am having some sport coats made up and I do not want people to think they are orphaned suit jackets. Any advice would be appreciated. thanks.


----------



## jauburn (Jun 15, 2008)

IMO it is simply very easy to tell the difference between an orphaned suit jacket and an ensemble piece. I much prefer ensembles, but then again I am not a lawyer in the U.S. of A., thankfully.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

There are a number of things that often differentiate the two, but they are inevitably guidelines rather than hard rules. After a while, you just know.

The most telling sign is the buttons. Suits generally have four-hole buttons that match the fabric in color. Sport coats will most often have buttons in a different color, and sometimes shank buttons, especially in the case of blazers. Texture is also a hint. Sport coats favor more textured fabrics like corduroy, hopsack and tweed, while suit jackets favor smoother wool. Construction can be a hint--patch pockets are a sure sign of a sport coat.

Similar discussion on older threads:
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/archive/index.php?t-53753.html
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=78748

Here are some photos. The first is clearly a sport coat, given the brown velvet and the light horn buttons:
https://manolomen.com/images/Paul%20Smith%20corduroy%20jacket.jpg
This undistinguished ensemble is a bit different, but the rough texture and patch pockets qualify it as a sport coat:

This last gent looks to be wearing an orphaned suit coat. The smooth texture, pinstripes, and buttons give it away:
https://www.splendicity.com/sheknowsbest/files/2007/11/jeremy-wright.jpg


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

justinlw26 said:


> How can a person tell the difference between an orphaned suit jacket and a sport coat? I am having some sport coats made up and I do not want people to think they are orphaned suit jackets. Any advice would be appreciated. thanks.


Stay away from pinstripes and it shouldn't be a problem. If you want to really sporty-up a jacket, consider some sports-coat-only features (even if most modern odd jackets don't have these), such as a throat latch, patch pockets, a belted back, an action-back, some striking buttons, or even elbow patches (if you like them - I don't, but that's not terribly important to you!). OTOH, if you want a more understated and/or urban look, just stay away from the stripes and quit worrying about it.


----------



## mt_spiffy (Apr 12, 2008)

Suits with an action back seem to be very popular right now. I dont care for them myself. I do like the back pleat.

I also like pinstripe blazers. To each their own. 

A blazer will, in one way or another look more casual. Be it material, pattern, construction, or buttons.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

mt_spiffy said:


> Suits with an action back seem to be very popular right now. I dont care for them myself. I do like the back pleat.
> 
> I also like pinstripe blazers. To each their own.
> 
> A blazer will, in one way or another look more casual. Be it material, pattern, construction, or buttons.


There's no such thing as a pinstriped blazer, so I have little idea of what you mean. The stripes of a regatta blazer are not pinstripes.


----------



## windsor (Dec 12, 2006)

The only manufacturer that I know of that can be relied upon to use two hole buttons on sport coats only, is Oxxford. All others use four hole or maybe two, but no consistancy. Please advise if there are other exceptions.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

My definition of a "suit jacket": a jacket that is part of a suit. A dinner suit has a jacket therefore a dinner jacket is a "suit jacket". Here is another "suit jacket":



It is a jacket and made up as part of a suit. Ergo: it is a "suit jacket"!

As for a "sports coat/jacket", a coat may only be called that if it has sporting features eg a hacking jacket, a Norfolk jacket (like the one in the above illustration). Any odd lounge coat should not be called a "sports coat".


----------



## mt_spiffy (Apr 12, 2008)

JibranK said:


> There's no such thing as a pinstriped blazer, so I have little idea of what you mean. The stripes of a regatta blazer are not pinstripes.


I bought a few on eBay. They are a little "fashion forward".


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

mt_spiffy said:


> I bought a few on eBay. They are a little "fashion forward".


They might be 'fashion forward' but blazers they are not.

Striped blazer








I wouldn't call it pinstriped.


----------



## thesartorialist (Feb 17, 2009)

JibranK said:


> There's no such thing as a pinstriped blazer, so I have little idea of what you mean. The stripes of a regatta blazer are not pinstripes.


https://www.jcrew.com/AST/Browse/Me...atsandvests/sportcoats/PRDOVR~12432/12432.jsp


----------



## mt_spiffy (Apr 12, 2008)

Yeah, something like that.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

thesartorialist said:


> https://www.jcrew.com/AST/Browse/Me...atsandvests/sportcoats/PRDOVR~12432/12432.jsp


That's not a blazer.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

JibranK said:


> That's not a blazer.


People are so sloppy with the name of garments they call them whatever they please.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Sator said:


> People are so sloppy with the name of garments they call them whatever they please.


How hard do they find the memorisation of just a few words?

Alas! This era is not mine.


----------



## Drogue (Mar 24, 2009)

JibranK said:


> There's no such thing as a pinstriped blazer, so I have little idea of what you mean. The stripes of a regatta blazer are not pinstripes.


Couldn't you have a blazer made from a pinstriped material? What about the definition of a blazer ensures it cannot be pinstriped?


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Drogue said:


> Couldn't you have a blazer made from a pinstriped material? What about the definition of a blazer ensures it cannot be pinstriped?


A blazer is either made of solid navy cloth with metal buttons or made of boldly striped cloth (as I posted above.)
Sator, est-ce que vous pouvez leur donner des images?


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

justinlw26 said:


> How can a person tell the difference between an orphaned suit jacket and a sport coat? I am having some sport coats made up and I do not want people to think they are orphaned suit jackets. Any advice would be appreciated. thanks.


Excellent responses, but also read the recommended related posts at the bottom of the page!


----------



## ChicagoMediaMan-27 (Feb 23, 2008)

IMO, a blazer is solid navy and has metal buttons. Some might say black with metal buttons as well.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Drogue said:


> Couldn't you have a blazer made from a pinstriped material? What about the definition of a blazer ensures it cannot be pinstriped?


A blazer is traditionally done in a Regatta stripe, and modern single-breasted blazers are a solid navy, reflecting a navy origin. A blazer is a type of sports coat, while pinstripes/chalkstripes are for business (business suits). Therefore, a sports coat in a business fabric does not make sense.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ChicagoMediaMan-27 said:


> IMO, a blazer is solid navy and has metal buttons. Some might say black with metal buttons as well.


That (though not black) or regatta blazers as shown in post #10.


----------



## Drogue (Mar 24, 2009)

JibranK said:


> A blazer is either made of solid navy cloth with metal buttons or made of boldly striped cloth (as I posted above.)
> Sator, est-ce que vous pouvez leur donner des images?


How so? It certainly didn't use to. The term blazer first applied only to the red blazers of LMH boat club. Then the term got corrupted and referred to something wider. Then it became a blue sports jacket. To say your definition is the true one seems arbitrary, and certainly isn't the case this side of the Atlantic. Cver hear I've almost never heard the term sports jacket, as blazer is often used instead. School uniforms here usually involve a blazer of some colour - mine was dark green. College boat clubs have blazers in various different plain and striped versions, and to call these anything else would seem incorrect, given that it was the original meaning.

It may be that in America a blazer means a solid navy jacket with metal buttons, but that would be a corruption of the original meaning.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Striped blazers, though, are *not* pinstriped.


----------



## Drogue (Mar 24, 2009)

JibranK said:


> Striped blazers, though, are *not* pinstriped.


Of course. I can understand why a pinstriped blazer wouldn't be normal, however I do dispute the idea that a blazer has to be navy or striped, since the original that gave the blazer it's name was not. If you were to have a tailor make a jacket that is a blazer in every other way but out of a pinstriped material, I believe it would be correct to call it a blazer. Though this may be an English/American difference in terminology.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Drogue said:


> If you were to have a tailor make a jacket that is a blazer in every other way but out of a pinstriped material, I believe it would be correct to call it a blazer. Though this may be an English/American difference in terminology.


What constitutes "every other way"? IOW, does every odd jacket count as a blazer?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

mt_spiffy said:


> I bought a few on eBay. They are a little "fashion forward".


A blazer is not coterminous with sport coat. Instead, it is a type of sport coat with its own etymology. While perhaps imperfect, I offer the following:

"A sport coat, especially but not necessarily double-breasted, that: 
(i) displays through choice of colors, breast patches, patterns, buttons, or any combination of such indicia an institutional or organizational affiliation or (ii) displays any combination of such indicia in a manner that resembles or is similar to that which traditionally denotes an institutional or organizational affiliation, including a coat that is solid in color, especially navy, particularly if it has metallic, enamel or other ornamental buttons."

In my view, absent some type of indicia of institutional or organizational affiliation a pinstripe jacket cannot fairly be called a blazer. Even a solid navy jacket absent some type of ornamental buttons is a stretch to call a blazer, but probably charitably fits within an expansive definition. But the all too common use of the term "blazer" as a synonym for any odd sport coat/jacket is indefensible in my view.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> "A sport coat that:
> (i) displays through choice of colors, breast patches, patterns, buttons, or any combination of such indicia an institutional or organizational affiliation or (ii) displays any combination of such indicia in a manner that resembles or is similar to that which traditionally denotes an institutional or organizational affiliation, including a coat that is solid in color, especially navy, particularly if it has metallic, enamel or other ornamental buttons."
> 
> In my view a solid jacket, even navy, without metallic or enamel buttons is a stretch to call a blazer, but probably fits within a fair definition. But the all too common use of the term "blazer" as a synonym for any odd sport coat/jacket is indefensible in my view. Furthermore, any notion that a blazer must be double-breasted has not been in conformity with prevailing usage in many decades.


Dead-on, IMO. I think the confusion is that there are two distinct and legitimate meanings of the word "blazer." Nothing wrong with that, happens all the time in the English language. The problem, as you hint, comes when people try to expand it _beyond_ those two meanings to be a synonym for "odd jacket," which strips it of all useful meaning.


----------



## thesartorialist (Feb 17, 2009)

JibranK said:


> That's not a blazer.


I'm just going by the store's definition. I've seen many a pinstriped blazer in my time (I go to a school where navy blazers are the uniform) and figured that I would be able to find one if I checked the website of any standard clothing store. Others:

https://shop.nordstrom.com/s/2880813/0~2376777~2374609~2374626
https://www.amazon.com/Dolce-Gabbana-Single-Button-Pinstripe/dp/B000J0XEJU
https://www.bergdorfgoodman.com/sto...710056&cmCat=search&searchType=MAIN&parentId=

Call them what you will, but I don't see the sense in nitpicking. Plus it's hard to claim that anyone is wrong for putting the words "pinstriped" and "blazer" adjacent to one another if that is indeed how these jackets are being marketed.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

When the likes of Dolce & Gabbana get to decide what things are called, men's clothing and the English language are both f***ed.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

thesartorialist said:


> I'm just going by the store's definition. I've seen many a pinstriped blazer in my time (I go to a school where navy blazers are the uniform) and figured that I would be able to find one if I checked the website of any standard clothing store. Others:
> 
> https://shop.nordstrom.com/s/2880813/0~2376777~2374609~2374626
> https://www.amazon.com/Dolce-Gabbana-Single-Button-Pinstripe/dp/B000J0XEJU
> ...


None of those are blazers. Some people erroneously use "blazer" to refer to a lone suit jacket. Banana Republic, for instance, markets their separate suit jackets as "suit blazers":
https://bananarepublic.gap.com/browse/product.do?cid=5376&pid=619669&scid=619669002

If you want an explanation of the importance of precision in language, I would suggest Hobbes' _Leviathan_, Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lying In a Non-Moral Sense," or Orwell's "Politics and the English Language."


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

This is a blazer:










This is written by Archibald A. Whife:

Boyer says much the same about the blazer. A blazer is called that because of its bright colours, usually in school or team colours. It is usually single breasted.

Solid navy coloured double breasted jackets, with or without gilt buttons are NOT blazers. The proper name for that garment is a reefer jacket. Boyer notes that the term "blazer" as applied to the reefer is a corruption of the term.

In other words, this is a blazer:


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

I've heard you make the same argument, Sator, but as impractical as we all are, I can't justify being incomprehensible on the basis of a many-decades-old corruption. "Blazer" as a navy jacket with gilt buttons is quite firmly entrenched in the States. It's even in the Random House Dictionary. (Though not, as you will be happy to know, the Oxford English Dictionary.)

I say we chalk this up to another American English/British English disagreement.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*In sum*

I think we can all see that a blazer does not have to be navy. It didn't start that way, and there are plenty of school kids running around in various colored blazers whose coats can't realistically be called anything else, not to mention the security people and golfers.

We also can't count on blazers having metal buttons anymore. Many are pretty firmly calling their horn button versions "blazers."

So, where does that leave us? I used to think that patch pockets, with or without flaps, were a distinguishing feature. Now, I'm not so sure. I have a couple that don't have them, but they're all navy and all have metal buttons. I clearly don't prefer the "new blazer" look for myself. As I've said elsewhere, with what other garment are we allowed to be that flashy, with shiny metal buttons? So why would I get something that looks like a suit jacket? That said, however, I don't have a problem if someone wants to market something less "traditional" as a blazer, and someone wants to wear it:icon_smile:


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

amplifiedheat said:


> I've heard you make the same argument, Sator, but as impractical as we all are, I can't justify being incomprehensible on the basis of a many-decades-old corruption. "Blazer" as a navy jacket with gilt buttons is quite firmly entrenched in the States. It's even in the Random House Dictionary. (Though not, as you will be happy to know, the Oxford English Dictionary.)
> 
> I say we chalk this up to another American English/British English disagreement.


Yes, point well taken but school children in commonweath countries still wear blazers as part of their uniform. In US sports circles, true blazers are still worn eg Augusta:










If you are going to call reefer jackets blazers, you are now forced to give the same name to two entirely different garments. So the question becomes whether you are going to just accept this sloppy and confusing use of language or not.

EDIT: I forgot to add that Boyer is an American writer.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

thesartorialist said:


> I'm just going by the store's definition. I've seen many a pinstriped blazer in my time (I go to a school where navy blazers are the uniform) and figured that I would be able to find one if I checked the website of any standard clothing store. Others:
> 
> https://shop.nordstrom.com/s/2880813/0~2376777~2374609~2374626
> https://www.amazon.com/Dolce-Gabbana-Single-Button-Pinstripe/dp/B000J0XEJU
> ...


Perfectly sensible, but for the record the store is just plain wrong. Lenders market zero interest loans too, but they usually aren't right either.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Drogue said:


> Of course. I can understand why a pinstriped blazer wouldn't be normal, however I do dispute the idea that a blazer has to be navy or striped, since the original that gave the blazer it's name was not. If you were to have a tailor make a jacket that is a blazer in every other way but out of a pinstriped material, I believe it would be correct to call it a blazer. Though this may be an English/American difference in terminology.


Not at all. You are apparently suffering under the misconception that that any odd jacket or sport coat qualifies as a blazer. Not so, under either American or English usage.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Blueboy1938 said:


> I think we can all see that a blazer does not have to be navy. It didn't start that way, and there are plenty of school kids running around in various colored blazers whose coats can't realistically be called anything else, not to mention the security people and golfers.
> 
> We also can't count on blazers having metal buttons anymore. Many are pretty firmly calling their horn button versions "blazers."
> 
> So, where does that leave us? I used to think that patch pockets, with or without flaps, were a distinguishing feature. Now, I'm not so sure. I have a couple that don't have them, but they're all navy and all have metal buttons. I clearly don't prefer the "new blazer" look for myself. As I've said elsewhere, with what other garment are we allowed to be that flashy, with shiny metal buttons? So why would I get something that looks like a suit jacket? That said, however, I don't have a problem if someone wants to market something less "traditional" as a blazer, and someone wants to wear it:icon_smile:


I stand by my definition, #26 above, which is grounded in the more originalist definition shared by Sator but pays respect to current usage. I adamantly insist that the current trend to call any odd jacket a blazer is worth resisting with passion.


----------



## thesartorialist (Feb 17, 2009)

amplifiedheat said:


> If you want an explanation of the importance of precision in language, I would suggest Hobbes' _Leviathan_, Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lying In a Non-Moral Sense," or Orwell's "Politics and the English Language."


If you want to talk Nietzsche, then all you need to remember is rhetoric is reality. If people understand something conceptually as a blazer, then it becomes a blazer. I'm not totally familiar with Hobbes' and Orwell's explicit positions on this subject, but since they built their careers on rhetoric I suspect they'd agree. Regardless, we're here to discuss clothing, not epistemology.



CuffDaddy said:


> When the likes of Dolce & Gabbana get to decide what things are called, men's clothing and the English language are both f***ed.


I always thought the people who _wore _Dolce & Gabbana were the snobs-- this is like some strange inverse of that. You both have gotten me all philosophical-- I'm starting to question reality.

(Upon previewing, this post is ridiculous. But I can't help myself.)


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

thesartorialist said:


> If you want to talk Nietzsche, then all you need to remember is rhetoric is reality. If people understand something conceptually as a blazer, then it becomes a blazer. I'm not totally familiar with Hobbes' and Orwell's explicit positions on this subject, but since they built their careers on rhetoric I suspect they'd agree. Regardless, we're here to discuss clothing, not epistemology.


There will always be a tension between descriptive and prescriptive usage and definitions. But those who advocate imprecision and change in favor of precision and tradition should logically bear the burden of persuasion. In this case there is simply no good reason for functionally eliminating the traditional concept and definition of a blazer.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

thesartorialist said:


> If you want to talk Nietzsche, then all you need to remember is rhetoric is reality. If people understand something conceptually as a blazer, then it becomes a blazer. I'm not totally familiar with Hobbes' and Orwell's explicit positions on this subject, but since they built their careers on rhetoric I suspect they'd agree. Regardless, we're here to discuss clothing, not epistemology.
> 
> I always thought the people who _wore _Dolce & Gabbana were the snobs-- this is like some strange inverse of that. You both have gotten me all philosophical-- I'm starting to question reality.
> 
> (Upon previewing, this post is ridiculous. But I can't help myself.)


Enjoy your education at AAAC. Soon you shall learn that Dolce and such are for nouveau riche with money to burn and no eye for quality.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

thesartorialist said:


> If people understand something conceptually as a blazer, then it becomes a blazer.


Yes, common use is very important in defining the meaning of a word. However, the drift in meaning of terms has allowed reefer jackets (double breasted, often navy coloured with gilt buttons with a naval origin - hence the term 'reefer') to be called blazers, while blazers (single breasted often in bright team or school colours and stripes) are still called blazers. Apples are being called oranges. So where to now?


----------



## thesartorialist (Feb 17, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> There will always be a tension between descriptive and prescriptive usage and definitions. But those who advocate imprecision and change in favor of precision and tradition should logically bear the burden of persuasion. In this case there is simply no good reason for functionally eliminating the traditional concept and definition of a blazer.


Fair enough. I'm not trying to push any specific definition, just mentioning that stores and consumers and designers have come to understand the term "blazer" to apply to a much larger concept than is traditionally understood. So while a blazer may officially be one specific thing, for all intents and purposes the word defining the concept applies to more than that specific thing-- rhetoric shapes reality. A flexible decision is, I believe, more precise in the sense of greater accuracy. But then, that too is flexible!



Sator said:


> Yes, common use is very important in defining the meaning of a word. However, the drift in meaning of terms has allowed reefer jackets (double breasted, often navy coloured with gilt buttons with a naval origin - hence the term 'reefer') to be called blazers, while blazers (single breasted often in bright team or school colours and stripes) are still called blazers. Apples are being called oranges. So where to now?


In these terms, I would say that common use has turned "blazer" from "apple" or "orange" to "fruit," on a par with "jacket" (maybe not quite that broad; I guess no one would call a Barbour or a Patagonia a "blazer"). Now apples and oranges have to be replaced with "traditional blazer" or something along those lines, and everything else. Perhaps this has traditionalists irked, but one of the most innate characteristics of language is that it evolves. I enjoy discussing the nuances of English as much as the next guy, but in this case I say I'll just wear the damn thing and be done with it.



JibranK said:


> Enjoy your education at AAAC. Soon you shall learn that Dolce and such are for nouveau riche with money to burn and no eye for quality.


I'm with you-- most of their products are garish and overpriced (I've never owned anything from them, so I can't speak for quality, but I'll take your word for it). It just struck me as slightly ironic to dismiss a snobbish brand so... snobbishly. Nothing against you CuffDaddy; I suppose our interest in clothes makes all of us snobs, at least a little.
Sorry for the TL;DR.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> I stand by my definition, #26 above, which is grounded in the more originalist definition shared by Sator but pays respect to current usage. I adamantly insist that the current trend to call any odd jacket a blazer is worth resisting with passion.


Well, I do resist by wearing what you let pass as a blazer and avoiding the rest. However passionately it is resisted, though, I think the battle has already been lost. I was merely attempting to sum up the current state of affairs.

Come to think, I wonder what my fellow club members would say if someone showed up at an event that requires a blazer with the club crest and tie if it didn't have metal buttons?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Blueboy1938 said:


> Well, I do resist by wearing what you let pass as a blazer and avoiding the rest. However passionately it is resisted, though, I think the battle has already been lost. I was merely attempting to sum up the current state of affairs.
> 
> Come to think, I wonder what my fellow club members would say if someone showed up at an event that requires a blazer with the club crest and tie if it didn't have metal buttons?


I don't know what they would say, and don't understand why such a situation would merit saying anything, since such a jacket would satisfy the traditional definition of a blazer. See post 26. In any case, congrats on your 1000th post and welcome to the resistance.


----------



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

I think it is unfortunate that some people call any odd jacket, and especially an orphaned suit jacket, a blazer. 

On the other hand, I think Sator's campaign to have a double breasted blazer called a reefer jacket is a battle long ago lost. I doubt that very many haberdashers, at least in this country, would know what I was talking about if I asked for a reefer jacket - some might direct me to the closest Navy surplus store I expect.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Jim In Sunny So Calif said:


> I think it is unfortunate that some people call any odd jacket, and especially an orphaned suit jacket, a blazer.
> 
> On the other hand, I think Sator's campaign to have a double breasted blazer called a reefer jacket is a battle long ago lost. I doubt that very many haberdashers, at least in this country, would know what I was talking about if I asked for a reefer jacket - some might direct me to the closest Navy surplus store I expect.


I agree, but would point out that calling a reefer jacket a blazer is no more wrong than calling a blazer a sport coat. They should be regarded as subsets of the other I would think. In other words, I don't think Sator's campaign is grounded so much in correction as in greater precision.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

thesartorialist said:


> It just struck me as slightly ironic to dismiss a snobbish brand so... snobbishly. Nothing against you CuffDaddy; I suppose our interest in clothes makes all of us snobs, at least a little.
> Sorry for the TL;DR.


No offense taken on my part. None whatsoever. It's good that you can maintain a sense of humor about such things.

I think you'll find a substantial faction (though perhaps not a majority) here are rather keen to differentiate consumerist "prestige" from timeless quality. My comment re D&G was based on which camp they fall into.


----------



## Drogue (Mar 24, 2009)

Jim In Sunny So Calif said:


> I think it is unfortunate that some people call any odd jacket, and especially an orphaned suit jacket, a blazer.
> 
> On the other hand, I think Sator's campaign to have a double breasted blazer called a reefer jacket is a battle long ago lost. I doubt that very many haberdashers, at least in this country, would know what I was talking about if I asked for a reefer jacket - some might direct me to the closest Navy surplus store I expect.


Does this not mean that you're saying that we can call a reefer jacket a blazer, when it is not something which is not traditionally called a blazer, because it is common usage; yet this argument does not apply to other common usages of the word blazer?

I could understand being an absolute traditionalist and calling something a blazer only if it is the jacket of a particular sports team, or even only if it's red. I could also understand saying it should be called whatever it is in common usage. However the definition of a reefer or striped jacket with metal buttons seems arbitrarily in the middle. Why give in to common usage on part but not all of the definition? The main argument I have is that, in my opinion, it's hard to say definitively "that's not a blazer" when there's no accepted definition, but many schools of thought on it.

Personally, I quite like Mike's definition from post #26, as it keeps to the original idea of it representing something, allows a reefer jacket to be termed a blazer, but also allows it to include other types of jackets used to show affiliation. Indeed, I have seen pinstriped jackets with corporate insignia on to show affiliation, so it would make these blazers.

While obviously correct, the term sports jacket always annoyed me, as most jackets made as such could never be used for sport. I prefer it as many shops use it here, where a jacket is just called a jacket unless it's actually intended for horseriding, hunting, or some other sporting use.

One question I do have though: where did the metal buttons tradition originate? All the traditional rowing blazers I've seen have horn buttons. I realise it is the tradition now, I'm just wondering how it became so.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Drogue said:


> One question I do have though: where did the metal buttons tradition originate? All the traditional rowing blazers I've seen have horn buttons. I realise it is the tradition now, I'm just wondering how it became so.


It comes from the fact that blazers are club or school uniforms, so blazer buttons often had a team logo in them like this:

Taken from:

Likewise with the club badge:

From:

In the case of the reefer coat, the buttons designated the rank, role, ship or company of the seaman (naval or civilian). This button is for Royal Engineers:

BTW reefer jacket in contemporary British English tend to refer to what in American English is called a "pea coat":

From https://www.worldofsurplus.com/shopscr1534.html

In older British usage a "pea jacket" was a synonym for a "reefer jacket" (ibid Devere, 1866). In contemporary usage a reefer jacket in British English also refers to this type of military garment with a button three or more configuration:










However, tailors and cutters traditionally refer to all double breasted jackets as reefer jackets, regardless of the buttoning.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Usually the feel of the garment in so many subtle ways. There a few cloths which are generally used for both for starters, many are similar but if you think, @would someone have a suit in this?', weight texture, feel etc


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Drogue said:


> Personally, I quite like Mike's definition from post #26, as it keeps to the original idea of it representing something, allows a reefer jacket to be termed a blazer, but also allows it to include other types of jackets used to show affiliation. Indeed, I have seen pinstriped jackets with corporate insignia on to show affiliation, so it would make these blazers.


Thank you. I tried to pay respect to current descriptive usage without doing violance to traditional prescriptive usage.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

How can a person tell the difference?

It is all down to the texture and style of the fabric.

You should have a sport coat made in a fabric which clearly says 'sport coat' - ie something which would never be considered viable in a full suit.

Then the jacket will always make its intentions clear from first glance!


----------

