# Fake button holes on suit jacket sleeve. What do you prefer?



## miamimike (Oct 18, 2007)

I was curious to know when you get your suit jacket sleeve shorten do you have your tailor put new fake button hole stitching next to your buttons, have him do real button holes, or just leave it plain (4 buttons but no fake button hole stitching)?


Also whats your take on just having buttons on the sleeves and no stitching next to them? I would think it would not matter cause why put fake button holes next to them to begin with. That is if real holes are not an option. Is that a sign of a low quality suit? Or just personal taste?

If need to know, the suits are Canali and Corneliani.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

A good tailor would shorten the sleeve but the buttons would stay in the same positions; hence, new stitching in the button area will not be needed. 

If you have cheapy plastic buttons, a good chance to get horn or mother-of-pearl buttons put in. Something I did not think of doing when two blazers shortened. 

I have blazers that working and fake holes, and it has not made a difference; although it is nicer to have working buttons because one can appreciate the worksmanships. Only on one of the blazers, do I have two of the four buttons undone, but that is more to do with the style.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

If one were to replace the cheap buttons with betters buttons, then, wouldn't one also have to do the same for the pants, so all the buttons would match? I don't see mother of pearl working with suits.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Buttons on a suit should surely be of horn. MoP is for shirts.

As to button holes, leave them in the form they came, the quaint US custom of adding working holes seems somehow false. Making a silk purse out of a sow's ear comes to mind.


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*I have real button holes put on all my suits and sport coats ....*

I think they definitely add something to the overall look. The jacket has to be prepped for this to work, as are all the BB 1818 jackets. Jackets which already have button holes or those faux buttons with thread around the non-existant holes will gernerally not work. You can't get the sleeves short enough to show 1/2" of cuff. I wouldn't wear the faux type since they are just not the image I wish to project. I have BB shorten the sleeves to the proper length and position the buttons; then, I have a second fitting. The BB tailor didn't want to position the buttons correctly, but after they screwed up a jacket and I would not purchase it, he decided to do it my way with sleeves shortened and buttons positioned correctly.

In your case, a tailor would have to see if the jacket was properly prepped. While Canali is usually a pretty good suit, I have surprisingly seen them on the rack with faux holes.

I have seen many Brit suits with button holes on rtw, so don't say this comes totally from the US. It is silly to say that an rtw suit should not have working buttons. If the jacket is properly prepped, there is no problem. As for silk purses out of sow ears, that is what we Aerican thought when we had to give you Brits lendlease aftwer WWII.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

By all means make them working only if the sleeve is correct in length and you trust your tailor's skills. A good high end jacket should have the sleeves lined in such a way that you only need to remove the old stitches, cut and sew the buttonholes, etc. Most jackets line the sleeve with the lining across the cuff opening slit requiring the tailor to realign the lining, etc.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

To answer your original question, I see no reason to have your tailor either add "fake" stitching (I think the reason why is contained right there) or working buttonholes. If the coat came with buttons attached, chances are that adding working buttonholes will require a lot of labor and a lot of cost to you. I personally simply have the buttons put back, no fake stitching or working buttonholes.


----------



## maestrom (Nov 29, 2008)

*Stitching*



gnatty8 said:


> To answer your original question, I see no reason to have your tailor either add "fake" stitching (I think the reason why is contained right there) or working buttonholes. If the coat came with buttons attached, chances are that adding working buttonholes will require a lot of labor and a lot of cost to you. I personally simply have the buttons put back, no fake stitching or working buttonholes.


On my suits, I prefer the fake stitching. I get most from Brooks, and I think it looks weird when the buttons are just sewn on. Adding working buttonholes seems a bit much; they are meant to be a sign of craftsmanship, particularly on bespoke suits. Run of the mill 1818 suits don't need working buttonholes.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

dfloyd said:


> I have seen many Brit suits with button holes on rtw, so don't say this comes totally from the US. It is silly to say that an rtw suit should not have working buttons.


This depends on the brand, Hackett and Aquascutum have working cuffs on some their lower-end suits


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

ToryBoy said:


> This depends on the brand, Hackett and Aquascutum have working cuffs on some their lower-end suits


I recently saw some Perry Ellis suits at Dillards with working buttonholes at the cuffs.. Cost was under $250.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Fake is as fake does!*

Perhaps it is time to question the need for some of the fake or function-free features on suits and other items of clothing. It is all very well to "know" that you have working buttonholes where none are needed so that you can "appreciate the fine workmanship" I suppose, but absent a foppish leaving of one or two unbuttoned (guilty as charged, Your Honor:icon_smile_big, what's the point, really?

Adjusting the sleeve length is a very practical reason for not having either real, but functionless, buttonholes or just the stitching, since they begin to look awkwardly placed if too much shortening is necessary. You can't take them out once they are in place. That is why, for instance, JAB includes a package of buttons for your tailor to attach after adjusting the sleeve length. Obviously, that adds an obligatory tailoring tag to your costs, whether you need a sleeve adjustment or not, but at least the buttons are in the right place if you do.

Why doesn't a clean, no-extraneous-buttons look become the standard of excellence and elegance instead of all that archaic, lovingly preserved detail? I should think that should be relegated to the die-hard trads, while the fashion squad should be looking to push style into the 21st Century. The fine fabrics and excellent fit should rule, not the cookie-cutter thrall to anachronistics, in my humble opinion.


----------



## jefferyd (Sep 5, 2008)

Blueboy1938 said:


> Perhaps it is time to question the need for some of the fake or function-free features on suits and other items of clothing.
> 
> Why doesn't a clean, no-extraneous-buttons look become the standard of excellence and elegance instead of all that archaic, lovingly preserved detail?


Hear, hear! And let's chop off the lapels while we're at it since they don't serve much purpose either!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

jefferyd said:


> Hear, hear! And let's chop off the lapels while we're at it since they don't serve much purpose either!:icon_smile_big:


We've tried that with the Nehrus!

Actually, the lapels do have a practical function to "lap" against the elements. That is why I would not necessarily advocate doing away with the lapel buttonhole, nor the lapels for that matter.

What I'm addressing is the endless torture of agonizing over "working" v. "fake" v. "none" that seems to be going on constantly in the Fashion Forum. Why not rethink some of this? The current suit, after all, is a distillation of historic modifications, with residual elements preserved without much practical rationality and a whole lot of inconvenience and expense.

There is, whether we like it or not, an assault on "classic" mens attire going on. A large part of that is motivated by the "fussiness" of full-on, all-bells-and-whistles looks that are burdened by extranea. Maybe, just maybe, the kind of thoughtful folks who I believe represent most of the fora participants could very well push to make the suit and its offshoots more relevant to the people who will be wearing them, or choosing not to as they are now, after we're gone. I believe that a simplified, but clearly fine-fabric and beautifully fitted suit that has shed some of the unnecessaries could capture the attention of upcoming generations.


----------



## miamimike (Oct 18, 2007)

Below


----------



## miamimike (Oct 18, 2007)

gnatty8 said:


> To answer your original question, I see no reason to have your tailor either add "fake" stitching (I think the reason why is contained right there) or working buttonholes. If the coat came with buttons attached, chances are that adding working buttonholes will require a lot of labor and a lot of cost to you. I personally simply have the buttons put back, no fake stitching or working buttonholes.


I like the look of real working button holes but like said before, the suit must be preped for that. On dark color suits I would not think it would matter if you had fake or no button holes since most would not be able to see them anyway. Personal taste. When I see the fake holes on my suits, I sorta cringe about adding them back and rather get working holes or nothing at all (just add buttons back with no side stitching). To me its like having a cheap suit and adding Brioni tags to the inside or having a chevy sub and adding an escalade body kit to it. Just not right.

But I asked this question because I wanted your opinions on what you like and thought of just having buttons on suit sleeves.

On another note, if my suit was in tier 1 like Isaia, Brioni etc I would not hesitate to having working holes only. But for everyday suits like Canali, HF, MV then I would prob just have my tailor replace the buttons and tear out the stitching and put back plain buttons but add better ones.

​


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I am pretty much in agreement with everything you've said there Mike..


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Blueboy1938 said:


> Perhaps it is time to question the need for some of the fake or function-free features on suits and other items of clothing.


I agree. It's no different than those fake hood scoops on cars or silly rear spoilers on passenger cars designed to be driven at highway speeds. What's the point of working buttonholes if there is a "rule" that says they should never be unbuttoned? Of course if one is actually going to unbutton them on occasion, as David Niven does in this old photo, that is an entirely different matter.

https://img70.imageshack.us/my.php?image=davidnivenej4.jpg

Cruiser


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 13, 2005)

So, if a suit has 'fake' buttonholes sewn on, can a tailor successfully remove all traces when shortening a sleeve? I always thought there was a risk it would leave a mark if he removed, say, the bottom one.
[email protected]


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> So, if a suit has 'fake' buttonholes sewn on, can a tailor successfully remove all traces when shortening a sleeve? I always thought there was a risk it would leave a mark if he removed, say, the bottom one.
> [email protected]


Fake button holes are easy to remove. On an older coat there it might show because it hasn't faded under the threads. A newer coat is no worry.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

I would like working button holes on the jacket cuffs. I really like the extra detail that it adds, but if it didn't have them I wouldn't not buy the suit just due to that fact alone.


----------



## stant62 (Aug 6, 2008)

I also like the extra detail the working buttonholes add on the sleeves. It differentiates my suit from the all the others out just a little bit more.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Sprung trap!*



stant62 said:


> I also like the extra detail the working buttonholes add on the sleeves. It differentiates my suit from the all the others out just a little bit more.


Ah, but wouldn't not having any buttons at all be the ultimate differentiation?:icon_smile_big:

And, while we're at it, why shouldn't coat collars and lapels be designed so that they could actually be fastened closed and look as though that was meant to be? That means, of course, finishing the underside of the collar in the same material as the rest, which is not commonly done, if ever. That's what they were originally meant to do, and if we're going to have them, why shouldn't they function as they were meant to?

That would only happen on the off chance that a person were caught out without an overcoat in a sudden squall; about as often as a surgeon would need to unbutton working sleeve buttons to turn back the cuffs, I suspect. At least the design would be honest.


----------



## trentblase (May 14, 2008)

I try to find OTR suits w/ no fake button holes because I know I'm going to have to get the sleeves shortened anyways. I'd love to go no buttons -- is this an emerging style?


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

overcoats are or should be equipped with a storm button. its under the right lapel. the left lapel crosses over and buttons in a storm. 
i have not seen this on a suit or sport coat yet. 
but i do think a sport coat with that little button holed throat latch under the left collar, should have one for the collar and the lapel also.


----------



## El Captain (Nov 10, 2008)

Fake button holes are O.K. in my opinion although it is not something I seek in a suit. ButI have to agree it is a nice detail but not a deal breaker on a purchase.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I'd like to go back to my earlier point about functioning buttonholes, not fake ones, on jacket sleeves. I love them. I wish I had them on my jackets.

What I don't like are those folks who have them but then have this self-imposed "rule" about never unbuttoning the things. I can't tell you how many pictures I've seen of men who are noted for being well dressed in bygone years who had their jacket sleeves unbuttoned, often turned up, much like the picture of David Niven that I posted. 

To me this is the same as spending large sums of money on elaborate, decorative suspenders and then treating them like underwear, fearful that someone might actually see them. It just makes no sense to me. But then again I don't really understand the Theory of Relativity either. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## BLFancher (Mar 18, 2007)

I like Thomas Mahon's take on them...

I don't go out of my way to have them made.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I'd like to go back to my earlier point about functioning buttonholes, not fake ones, on jacket sleeves. I love them. I wish I had them on my jackets.
> 
> What I don't like are those folks who have them but then have this self-imposed "rule" about never unbuttoning the things. I can't tell you how many pictures I've seen of men who are noted for being well dressed in bygone years who had their jacket sleeves unbuttoned, often turned up, much like the picture of David Niven that I posted.
> 
> ...


As I have said before, I have functioning buttonholes on some of my trousers, but I usually keep those buttoned up as well. I see no utility in keeping a button or two unbuttoned. It does not make my wrists more comfortable, or allow me more freedom of movement. As to why I still go through the added expense of adding functioning buttons, that is a more complex question, and I am honestly not even sure myself. It just "feels" right, so I do it.


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

Functioning button holes are better, hand stitched button holes that function even better, but no big deal.

I tend to have functioning hand stitched button holes mainly because I make my own suits. but if I see something off the rack that's really nice or economical to buy I don't sweat not having working buttons.

By the way I never open them, I think it's a bit vulgar somehow. Having said that I wear a 3 letter monogramme on my cuffs!


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I'd like to go back to my earlier point about functioning buttonholes, not fake ones, on jacket sleeves. I love them. I wish I had them on my jackets.
> 
> What I don't like are those folks who have them but then have this self-imposed "rule" about never unbuttoning the things. I can't tell you how many pictures I've seen of men who are noted for being well dressed in bygone years who had their jacket sleeves unbuttoned, often turned up, much like the picture of David Niven that I posted.
> 
> ...


It's about knowing what you got and not having to flaunt it. (confidence within) There are also more subtle ways of telling a quality suit. functioning button holes don't always mean a quality/expensive garment anyway. They are everywhere now, another reason not to bother so much.

Hand stitched button hole, that's what I look for....I can spot them a mile off.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I'd like to go back to my earlier point about functioning buttonholes, not fake ones, on jacket sleeves. I love them. I wish I had them on my jackets.
> 
> What I don't like are those folks who have them but then have this self-imposed "rule" about never unbuttoning the things. I can't tell you how many pictures I've seen of men who are noted for being well dressed in bygone years who had their jacket sleeves unbuttoned, often turned up, much like the picture of David Niven that I posted.
> 
> ...


if your gf gives you boxers with pink hearts on them, i hope you keep them covered.

relativity? i understand it, there is no such thing. 
smile-snicker-snicker


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I thought sleeve buttons were first applied to dissuade wearers from wiping their noses on the garment? 
If so, instead of faux buttonholes, we need more aggressive buttons, something that will really set hook in a nostril to embarress the offender.
And, as an aside, this business of taking national offense at every perceived slight and throwing back Lend Lease ( war material, not post war economic asistance by the way)is self defeating.
IF, and it's a big if, the poster meant offense the genteel reaction is none.You know, stiff upper lip and never apologise, never explain.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

a tailor said:


> if your gf gives you boxers with pink hearts on them, i hope you keep them covered.


Let's just say that I hope the day never comes that my gf gives me boxers with pink hearts on them. Wearing them would almost guarantee an accident with me being taken to the hospital. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

Kav said:


> I thought sleeve buttons were first applied to dissuade wearers from wiping their noses on the garment?
> If so, instead of faux buttonholes, we need more aggressive buttons, something that will really set hook in a nostril to embarress the offender.
> And, as an aside, this business of taking national offense at every perceived slight and throwing back Lend Lease ( war material, not post war economic asistance by the way)is self defeating.
> IF, and it's a big if, the poster meant offense the genteel reaction is none.You know, stiff upper lip and never apologise, never explain.


Yeah that was all about Russian Guardsmen and there coats.....probably a myth though.


----------



## moss01 (Dec 6, 2008)

If you will make them working, best to have hand sewn.


----------



## chapelle14 (1 mo ago)

GBR said:


> Buttons on a suit should surely be of horn. MoP is for shirts. As to button holes, leave them in the form they came, the quaint US custom of adding working holes seems somehow false. Making a silk purse out of a sow's ear comes to mind.


 MOP is for suits as well. I have gorgeous Isaia, Brioni, etc. suits with those buttons.


----------

