# How long should a suit jacket be?



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

I have tried doing a search but can't seem to find a thread that specifically covers this. Also, what little I have found seems vague or conflicting. Studying photos on the forum hasn't helped as I see jackets that hang at different points of the anatomy too.

How long should the jacket be? Is it measured at some point along the hand or at a certain part of ones bottom?

Confused


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

mambo said:


> I have tried doing a search but can't seem to find a thread that specifically covers this. Also, what little I have found seems vague or conflicting. Studying photos on the forum hasn't helped as I see jackets that hang at different points of the anatomy too.
> 
> How long should the jacket be? Is it measured at some point along the hand or at a certain part of ones bottom?
> 
> Confused


Get someone to measure the distance from the nape of your neck under the collar of a jacket down to the ground and then halve it.
That should be your coat length.
That's one way of doing it.

Eh mambo, mambo Italiano, Eh-mambo, mambo Italiano...


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

The Italians tend to prefer shorter jackets than the English.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

There is no standard length, especially in RTW, and tailors tend to have their own house styles. Huntsman says that its jackets are longer than those of most firms.


----------



## rssmsvc (Aug 5, 2004)

I think the standard answer is just enough to cover your backside, but I have noticed RLPL comes a bit shorter than avg , with Isaia a bit longer.

In the summer time I like it a bit shorter and in the winter a bit longer which is strange but comfortable to me.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Why I know this.....*



Bonhamesque said:


> Get someone to measure the distance from the nape of your neck under the collar of a jacket down to the ground and then halve it.
> That should be your coat length.
> That's one way of doing it.
> quote]
> ...


----------



## lostinthewilderness (Oct 28, 2007)

Flusser suggests two different methods (on page 41 in _Dressing the Man_):

1) Bottom of the jacket should line up with the knuckle of the thumb. Generally reliable but doesn't work as well with people with unusually long or short arms relative to height.

2) Measure the distance from the jacket collar (at the point where it joins the coat's body) to the floor, then divide by half.

In my experience, there is quite a bit of variation from one designer to another. My Brioni jacket is almost an inch longer than my Isaia.


----------



## miamimike (Oct 18, 2007)

*cup hands*

If I can have my arms down by my side and cup my fingers under the jacket then its the right length for me. Thats one way to find out but nothing beats trying on jackets and finding out what looks best for you. I prefer to have shorter jackets which look better on me than longer ones.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

miamimike said:


> If I can have my arms down by my side and cup my fingers under the jacket then its the right length for me.


That's always been my rule... no real reason to get overly quantitative about it.

DCH


----------



## RedondoBeach (Jan 23, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> That's always been my rule... no real reason to get overly quantitative about it.
> 
> DCH


I'll also echo that method.


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

There's room for some individualization of suit jacket lengths, but I generally try to find a suit jacket that ends just about an inch below the bottom of the curvature of my rear end. An inch longer or shorter than that rarely looks awkward.

I really don't think you should judge suit jacket length by your arm length. The two seem unrelated to me since the proper length is more about where the bottom of the suit ends in relation to your rear end than it is about where your hands extend to.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

What Bonhamesque says is a good general rule.

If you want to personalize it, then a fitting will do.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

almost an inch shorter than you think.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

mambo said:


> &#8230;vague or conflicting&#8230;


Yes, I am afraid so... 



mambo said:


> &#8230;How long should the jacket be?


Assuming you are attempting to do _Classic Style _as described in Roetzel, Molloy, Flusser, Keers, et al., then, ideally, there are three points that have to be met: 

Half the distance from the collar to the deck -- any deviation from this looks, to a greater or lesser degree, not very good&#8230; 
Skirt cover the seat of the pants 
Quarters line up with the bottom of the stride 
The tricky part is in achieving the last two points with the minimum compromise on the first point. 

Please note that this post is intended to comment on sartorial issues only -- not social, or otherwise.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*thats just silly.......*



Orsini said:


> Yes, I am afraid so...
> Assuming you are doing _Classic Style :icon_hailthee:_, then, ideally, there are three points that have to be met:
> 
> Half the distance from the collar to the deck -- any deviation from this looks, to a greater or lesser degree, not very good&#8230;
> ...


IMHO:

It is totally ridiculous to use arm length as a jacket length measurement. Run away from any tailor who uses this as his primary measuring technique. There is absolutely no logical reasoning behind this unless this measurement is perfect for your build.

I have concluded for _conservative _suit jackets, there can be only one logical determination of jacket length. It's rude when people stare at each other's crotch. If you want to show your junk off, that's what normally tighter fitting casual pants are for. Please no pictures.

Cover your groin/ crotch and cover your butt cheeks. Most other men don't want to see how "excited" you are over your job or how much weight you have gained over the holidays.

Can anyone else think of any logical determinations?

I believe fashion has to be smart, meaning every fashion reasoning has to have some logic behind it.

Why do we have men's classsic style? So we can wear the same clothes our entire life and still look good and be in fashion. It's about logic gentlemen.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Your jacket won't cover your "crotch" anyway regardless of length, unless it is double-breasted. I say go with the "half the length from the collar to the floor" measurement and extend it as close as possible to cover your rear.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

99% of guys wear their coats too long. don't worry about how long they should be, worry about how much shorter they should be.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*we arent all the same...*



Vladimir Berkov said:


> Your jacket won't cover your "crotch" anyway regardless of length, unless it is double-breasted. I say go with the "half the length from the collar to the floor" measurement and extend it as close as possible to cover your rear.


That measuring technique is just as silly and illogical as using one's arm length. It would only work if every man had the same exact torso and leg ratios. Think about it.........


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> IMHO:
> 
> It is totally ridiculous to use arm length as a jacket length measurement. Run away from any tailor who uses this as his primary measuring technique. There is absolutely no logical reasoning behind this unless this measurement is perfect for your build.
> 
> ...


I agree that using the arm length can be unreliable as some people have unusually long / short arms in relation to their body.
However your 'cover your crotch' method is vague in the extreme!
If someone walks into a store and tries a jacket on they may say to themselves 'this covers my crotch so it must be fine' but it could be 2" too long.
You haven't said how much crotch should be covered or how long is too long.
If I was 42 regular and put on a 46 long that would cover my crotch but it wouldn't be right would it?

The most scientific method (and the one used by tailors) is the one that I've specified.
It is not unacceptable to deviate from this measurement by a small amount for the benefit of style or for other reasons but that method will give you a very accurate starting point (and will cover your crotch!).


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

Vladimir Berkov said:


> Your jacket won't cover your "crotch" anyway regardless of length, unless it is double-breasted. I say go with the "half the length from the collar to the floor" measurement and extend it as close as possible to cover your rear.


If you use that method it will cover your rear, no need for extension.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Bonhamesque said:


> However your 'cover your crotch' method is vague in the extreme!
> The most scientific method (and the one used by tailors) is the one that I've specified.
> It is not unacceptable to deviate from this measurement by a small amount for the benefit of style or for other reasons but that method will give you a very accurate starting point (and will cover your crotch!).


I agree, covering your crotch is vague, but simple as well.

A scientific method? That is insane man!:crazy: A method in how clothing fits must be totally based on appearence and logic. A "scientific ' method would more than likely rule out exceptions to the rule and would leave some men's coats looking too long or too short.

Have you seen how scientists dress? Enough said.

The logical conclusion for a conservative suit jacket would be based on covering body parts.

2" higher or lower to enhance one's height/build will look much better overall and not pose an offensive look.

Men 6' and taller look fine when the jacket extends to the bottom of their cheek.

Men < 6' might want to consider 2" above their cheek for the added appearence of more leg and height.

One must really figure out wear their height is located in torso or legs and truly decide from there.

For me, I go as short as possible without it looking funny.

I don't recall ever seeing a suit jacket and thinking it was too short, but too long I have often thought.:aportnoy:


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> I agree, covering your crotch is vague, but simple as well.
> 
> A scientific method? That is insane man!:crazy: A method in how clothing fits must be totally based on appearence and logic. A "scientific ' method would more than likely rule out exceptions to the rule and would leave some men's coats looking too long or too short.
> 
> ...


Sorry old chap, you are so far wide of the mark that it's almost amusing.
TWO INCHES higher or lower!
Do you know how much two inches is?
If a man who is less than six foot tall wore his jacket TWO INCHES higher than his 'cheek' as you put it, it would look like he was wearing his little brother's clothes.
And I don't know where you get this idea that a shorter jacket makes your legs look longer and the man therefore look taller?! :icon_smile_big:
That goes against all previously held tailoring principles about size and height.

Certain designer labels actually add half an inch or even an inch to the coat length of their suits in order to make the wearer look taller.
Shortening the coat length will just make you look like you bought the wrong jacket or you have a strangely short body.

When I talk about a scientific method of calculating your coat length I don't mean 'a method devised by scientists in a laboratory' - that's a bit too literal.
What I'm talking about is using a method that's based on measurements and real points on the body that you can actually refer to rather than vague ideas like 'hey, if it covers up your junk you're ok'.

I didn't invent this method by the way, it's a traditional Savile Row technique that's remained the same for over 100 years. I've been using it to measure clients for about 16 years and it works beautifully.

As I said you need to adapt it occasionally for people who might need some extra length for whatever reason, but not in the majority of cases.
You could stop 100 people on the street and make them suits with a coat length measured this way and it would probably only be wrong in about 12 cases.
Even then, only by half an inch or so. It's the most accurate method.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> ...arm length as a jacket length measurement...


I never said that.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*okay..........*



Bonhamesque said:


> Sorry old chap, you are so far wide of the mark that it's almost amusing.
> TWO INCHES higher or lower!
> Do you know how much two inches is?


Yes, two of my thumb widths.



> If a man who is less than six foot tall wore his jacket TWO INCHES higher than his 'cheek' as you put it, it would look like he was wearing his little brother's clothes.


Tall men would NOT do this, but if they did I have a penny that says noone would notice.



> And I don't know where you get this idea that a shorter jacket makes your legs look longer and the man therefore look taller?! :icon_smile_big:
> That goes against all previously held tailoring principles about size and height.


I don't know about your tailors butl, think about this: 
If the jacket went down to the fellow's knees, his legs would NOT look longer. So apply the logic to an inch or two of a longer jacket.



> Certain designer labels actually add half an inch or even an inch to the coat length of their suits in order to make the wearer look taller.


Yeah, certain labels...uhhh Again think about the logic to that one.



> Shortening the coat length will just make you look like you bought the wrong jacket or you have a strangely short body.


I suggested an inch or two, not six inches.
Stalkier shorter guys like myself are better off IMHO to buy a short suit jacket and having the sleeve lengthened if there is enough material.
At least try on a short and a reg and compare the way it falls.



> When I talk about a scientific method of calculating your coat length I don't mean 'a method devised by scientists in a laboratory' - that's a bit too literal.
> What I'm talking about is using a method that's based on measurements and real points on the body that you can actually refer to rather than vague ideas like 'hey, if it covers up your junk you're ok'.


It's about sartorial feng-shui, not increments.



> I didn't invent this method by the way, it's a traditional Savile Row technique that's remained the same for over 100 years. I've been using it to measure clients for about 16 years and it works beautifully.


That's great if youre made from a cookie cutter.



> As I said you need to adapt it occasionally for people who might need some extra length for whatever reason, but not in the majority of cases.
> You could stop 100 people on the street and make them suits with a coat length measured this way and it would probably only be wrong in about 12 cases.


12% is considered very significant.



> Even then, only by half an inch or so. It's the most accurate method


Most accurate would require that of a sartorial feng-shui master, Haaaa...Yahhhh (karate chop)


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

My two cents: Go to a better men's store. Have them measure your chest and waist. They should be able to guide you to your proper off the rack size, be it short, regular, or long. Or you might be on the extreme - portly or extra long.

Now that your proper size is determined, try on suits and blazers/sport coats from different manufactures. Your correct proportion should just cover the curvature of your buttocks. Sometimes within one manufacturer one model in a suit can be a bit longer and the same model in a blazer can be a bit shorter. 

Also a well made jacket is a bit longer in the front than in the back; however, the hem should look level, which is an optical illusion. 

If the jacket appears too long, it can't be radically changed because then the side pockets will look out of place. Once you go through this exercise and find a tailor and retailer you trust, if you stay true to yourself, you will know when your jacket is too short, too long, and just right. 

Then there is this whole Thom Browne short jacket thing going on. It will fade in the not too distant future, I hope.


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

Capt Ron said:


> Stalkier shorter guys like myself are better off IMHO to buy a short suit jacket and having the sleeve lengthened if there is enough material.


Stalkier? Does that mean men who stalk women? Or do you mean stockier?



> It's about sartorial feng-shui, not increments.


Of course it is. :crazy:
Why do tailors even bother to use tape measures when they can just use feng-shui?

I can just hear them now at Huntsman:
The Duke of Gloucester: "The coat length looks a bit long Mr Allen, what do you think?"
Mr Allen: "Well it covers your junk sir.."



> That's great if youre made from a cookie cutter.


You'd be surprised how uniform men's bodies are, which is why this method works in the vast majority of cases.



> 12% is considered very significant.


Not as significant as 88% though is it?



> Most accurate would require that of a sartorial feng-shui master, Haaaa...Yahhhh (karate chop)


Er... ok.

We could play this 'I write a line, you contradict it with your bizarre theories' game all day long but it's ludicrous and I've had enough already.
If you don't want to listen to long established tried and tested methods and you'd rather use your 'sartorial feng-shui' then good luck with it.
I only hope for his sake that the OP pays no attention to you whatsoever.


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

Harsh, but very well said.

I think the new-year flood of names onto this forum is great, but I wish people who discover this site could just follow other people's conversations for a couple of weeks or months before leaping in. The joy of this place is in listening to experienced tailors/shirtmakers/shoemakers chat, in sharing first-hand experiences of them, and in seeing some beautiful clothes collected over years. There's very limited appeal -- for me, at least -- in hearing the "commom sense" of people who are just learning to dress well, although I confess I'm guilty of contributing to this from time to time.

The recent rush to express personal opinions (and, I suspect, to acquire the credibility that comes with a high post count as quickly as possible) is unfortunate. The Andys, Udeshis, Wills, Kabbazes, Bonhamesques et al. have always been small in number but large in voice on here, but recently their contributions have been lost in a mass of rather tedious "debates" that seem to have got lost on their way to Styleforum.


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

YYZ-LHR said:


> Harsh, but very well said.
> 
> I think the new-year flood of names onto this forum is great, but I wish people who discover this site could just follow other people's conversations for a couple of weeks or months before leaping in. The joy of this place is in listening to experienced tailors/shirtmakers/shoemakers chat, in sharing first-hand experiences of them, and in seeing some beautiful clothes collected over years. There's very limited appeal -- for me, at least -- in hearing the "commom sense" of people who are just learning to dress well, although I confess I'm guilty of contributing to this from time to time.
> 
> The recent rush to express personal opinions (and, I suspect, to acquire the credibility that comes with a high post count as quickly as possible) is unfortunate. The Andys, Udeshis, Wills, Kabbazes, Bonhamesques et al. have always been small in number but large in voice on here, but recently their contributions have been lost in a mass of rather tedious "debates" that seem to have got lost on their way to Styleforum.


Couldn't agree more old chap.
The joy is exactly where you said it is, and on the other points, if you don't know what you're talking about don't waste your time arguing with people who do.


----------



## Hard2Fit (May 11, 2005)

mambo said:


> How long should the jacket be? Is it measured at some point along the hand or at a certain part of ones bottom?


At a minimum it should cover your rear. 
How much longer is personal preference.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

*Outside your box...*



YYZ-LHR said:


> Harsh, but very well said.
> 
> I think the new-year flood of names onto this forum is great, but I wish people who discover this site could just follow other people's conversations for a couple of weeks or months before leaping in. The joy of this place is in listening to experienced tailors/shirtmakers/shoemakers chat, in sharing first-hand experiences of them, and in seeing some beautiful clothes collected over years. There's very limited appeal -- for me, at least -- in hearing the "commom sense" of people who are just learning to dress well, although I confess I'm guilty of contributing to this from time to time.
> 
> The recent rush to express personal opinions (and, I suspect, to acquire the credibility that comes with a high post count as quickly as possible) is unfortunate. The Andys, Udeshis, Wills, Kabbazes, Bonhamesques et al. have always been small in number but large in voice on here, but recently their contributions have been lost in a mass of rather tedious "debates" that seem to have got lost on their way to Styleforum.


Yes, I understand your feelings and also the want of some people to attack the new messenger rather than logically analyzing the message.

When I see "Starting Member" under a screen name I'm always hoping to read a new take on an old scene.

I don't think this person was born yesterday and is still being dressed by his mummy. I don't dismiss their few posts or measure them by their ability to shop bespoke.

Understanding a wide variety of humor is key in life and on this forum.

Feng-shui is the fundemental foundation on which all fashion is fabricated upon. We may joke all we want, but if colors and lines dont flow properly it just doesn't loook good.

I'm the 12%, I'm not cut from a cookie, no matter what I do I'll never fit into OTR clothes or look great without bespoke. I understand the frustration of those who face the same sartorial challenges and I'm openly envious of those do not, but this has always forced me to think outside the dept store on a level that an unchallenged person could not fathom.
I'm not offended by your lack of compassion or understanding. It's quite common amongst people today. If you have the leisure time, you might want to consider enrolling in a sartorial sensativity course to aid you in your self-improvement endeavors to become a more empathetic human.

Forgive the number of my posts, your sadly mistaken if you think I post to gain "credibility". Dude, I'm a ex-navy SCUBA instructor in his off-season. Another medal pinned on my chest from AAAC isn't going to buy me a cup of coffee. I've always enjoyed fashion and dressing well when I rarely had the chance. I simply have more opportunity to write at this time. I'm lucky if I can work one day a month. I seek nothing other than to pass this winter quickly.

I apologize if any of my grammar or spelling faux pas have offended any English teachers or if my posts have injured stoic feelings or have challenged golden grail sartorial standards, or if I have violated one's private country club forum. Perhaps membership to AAAC should require a sponsor, a training class, a test, an oath, and a credit check. If so, please make the changes while my credit score is still worthy.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Capt Ron said:


> Feng-shui is the fundemental foundation on which all fashion is fabricated upon.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

*coat length?*

"hard to fit" is right on the length.
the measure is a greedy sales mens ploy. most people have heard this and mistakingly think that is correct. i spent 5 years as a alteration shop fitter manager. i have seen how most of the sales men operate. they will tell the customer to hang the arms down. then tell them to curl the fingers or hold them straight or ball up the fist or anything so that the coat would agree with the coat length. 
i was constantly making them change the sizes or models or brands. sometimes even loosing a sale, and for that having some sales men hate me. lucky that management was behind me. 
i might suggest this, take your jacket that is the length you like and measure the length. 
then put a tape measure in your pocket when you go shopping, and then measure the jackets before trying them on.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

a tailor said:


> "hard to fit" is right on the length.
> the measure is a greedy sales mens ploy. most people have heard this and mistakingly think that is correct. i spent 5 years as a alteration shop fitter manager. i have seen how most of the sales men operate. they will tell the customer to hang the arms down. then tell them to curl the fingers or hold them straight or ball up the fist or anything so that the coat would agree with the coat length.
> i was constantly making them change the sizes or models or brands. sometimes even loosing a sale, and for that having some sales men hate me. lucky that management was behind me.
> i might suggest this, take your jacket that is the length you like and measure the length.
> then put a tape measure in your pocket when you go shopping, and then measure the jackets before trying them on.


Which would you say is easier or more feasible to fix? A jacket slightly too long or a jacket slightly too short?


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

you cant lengthen the short ones body. but can lengthen the sleeves. 
you makes your choice.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Thank you*



a tailor said:


> you cant lengthen the short ones body. but can lengthen the sleeves.
> you makes your choice.


Thank you. I had expected that.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Ahhhh! Kitty copped a buzz! Good kitty!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Bonhamesque said:


> Couldn't agree more old chap.
> The joy is exactly where you said it is, and on the other points, if you don't know what you're talking about don't waste your time arguing with people who do.


... +1


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

YYZ-LHR said:


> Harsh, but very well said.
> 
> I think the new-year flood of names onto this forum is great, but I wish people who discover this site could just follow other people's conversations for a couple of weeks or months before leaping in. The joy of this place is in listening to experienced tailors/shirtmakers/shoemakers chat, in sharing first-hand experiences of them, and in seeing some beautiful clothes collected over years. There's very limited appeal -- for me, at least -- in hearing the "commom sense" of people who are just learning to dress well, although I confess I'm guilty of contributing to this from time to time.
> 
> The recent rush to express personal opinions (and, I suspect, to acquire the credibility that comes with a high post count as quickly as possible) is unfortunate. The Andys, Udeshis, Wills, Kabbazes, Bonhamesques et al. have always been small in number but large in voice on here, but recently their contributions have been lost in a mass of rather tedious "debates" that seem to have got lost on their way to Styleforum.


Someone finally said it. These observations are way overdue...


----------



## _K. (Aug 5, 2009)

Found this thread useful; I'm looking at some nice Italian suits at Winner's/TJMaxx and they don't have any S,R,L designation on the tags (Zegna and what appears to be an offbrand with no specific brandname/labels that I recognize). Any thoughts on Zegna suits? I'm 6'2" with 35" shirtsleeve and usually look for 40L. I have a 40L Mani suit that I like (think it's an offbrand of Armani but not sure) but this is a little more expensive.



Capt Ron said:


> A scientific method? That is insane man!:crazy: A method in how clothing fits must be totally based on appearence and logic. A "scientific ' method would more than likely rule out exceptions to the rule and would leave some men's coats looking too long or too short.
> 
> Have you seen how scientists dress? Enough said.
> 
> ...


That was funny! Ronnie James Dio for the last word on this argument! I'm a scientist and though you generalize I think I know what you mean. Nevertheless, not all fields of science are alike. I work in biomedical and a lot of my colleagues have great fashion sense, particularly the Europeans.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Bonhamesque said:


> And I don't know where you get this idea that a shorter jacket makes your legs look longer and the man therefore look taller?! :icon_smile_big:
> That goes against all previously held tailoring principles about size and height.


Flusser among others mention the basic principle that a slightly shorter jacket is ideal for the shorter man. (Emphasis on "slightly.") It does make sense intuitively--do men not look taller in white tie, with its short coat and high trousers?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

amplifiedheat said:


> Flusser among others mention the basic principle that a slightly shorter jacket is ideal for the shorter man. (Emphasis on "slightly.") It does make sense intuitively--do men not look taller in white tie, with its short coat and high trousers?


A jacket that is too long looks extra-dreadful on a short guy. If it is just a little shorter than spec, it makes the legs look (a little) longer.

Smaller trouser cuff are a good dodge for short guys, too.


----------



## dburr (Aug 10, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> That's always been my rule... no real reason to get overly quantitative about it.
> 
> DCH


For my Body - it's always bee 1/2 way between thumb tip and knuckle. JMHO


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

I've used 6 bespoke tailors over the years and each one has said that the knuckle of the thumb - when the arms hang naturally - is a good starting point. There may, however, have to be slight changes thereafter.

If you think about it this makes sense. Most men have uniform bodies - otherwise RTW would not work at all. Those that have longer arms to bodies will not want a short jacket because the proportions would look bizarre. It is only those with short arms to bodies who would look odd in a 'normal' length jacket. 

I had a first fitting today and the jacket is to be shortened based on that formula. The tailor did half of it for me whilst I waited and the 3/4 inch made a huge difference to the look - for me. There is an element of taste in here also.

As a general note - if you are so in love with your own thesis about how to measure a jacket that it makes you be rude to someone who disagrees with you, then perhaps your priorities need more adjustment than you clothes? :teacha:


----------



## damon54 (Dec 12, 2007)

Almost every suit coat I own specs to 33.5" & is a Regular.
Recently saw an opportunity on Ebay that was for a long but was only 34". I was wondering if I could pull that off. I am 6' in barefeet.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

iammatt said:


> 99% of guys wear their coats too long. don't worry about how long they should be, worry about how much shorter they should be.


I'm just a starting member, but a 45 year suit wearer, and I think over 90% I see are too short. I like mine long enough to cover my rear and then some, so I usually get a Long and have the sleeves taken up to Regular. This is purely a matter of personal preference: I think a longer coat looks better

But I always check the length in a mirror, no matter where and how the measurement was done. What does, literally a "rule of thumb" have to do with my torso?


----------



## Braemar (Sep 22, 2009)

Not sure I can add any new insights on this topic... however, I have found that over the years as I have gained weight, I have preferred a longer coat length. When I was younger, I aimed for mid-knuckle of thumb to end of thumb. Now I find that end-of-index finger gives me a more flattering look. 

Braemar


----------



## Mr. Tweed (Apr 9, 2009)

*No rules of thumb enough*

Jacket length is far too important to be determined by arbitrary rules. The only: Cover your butt! As long as the jacket reaches beyond the point where your butt starts to diminish, its length is allowed to be played with.

Jacket length must be viewed upon in relation to the cut of the jacket, the trousers to match and the type of body to flatter. We recently published some advice regarding this on our website: .

Most importantly, regarding jacket length, no rules of thumb can replace your eyes and a mirror. More than one length is allowed within permanent style, as long as you keep your butt covered!

Yours,
Mr. Tweed


----------

