Jacket sleaves

[kiltedwolfman]

I have heard many many times that a jackets sleaves should leave about 1 inch of shirt sleave exposed. An equal number of times I have asked why? And most of the time the answer is simple that that is the way it is done.
I am quite curious as to how the tradition, rule, what ever you may call it of leaving a portion of the shirt sleave exposed came about? One would think that at any given time in early history with the cost of clothing you would want to protect it from stains etc.
So I put it to the learned rabble, why must ones jacket leave ones sleaves vulnerable to the elements?

[The Guy in the Kilt at UC]

You really should only be showing about 1/2" of your cuff.

[CMcG]

The specific amount of shirt sleeve to be shown under the jacket cuff varies according to fashion and personal taste from 1/4" to a full 1". This "rule" is paired with another that says a similar amount of the shirt collar should show above the jacket. I use the word "rule" here rather loosely... many men seem to prefer their jacket to cover the cuff and I assume we are talking about civilian dress, not a prescribed uniform?

I'm not aware of a historical explanation but visually it adds interest to the outfit. A shirt with a colour different from the jacket creates a contrast that is enhanced by being able to see it at the cuff and (from behind) at the collar, instead of only on the chest. Another reason for this practice is to display cufflinks, if the shirt allows them.

[Paul]

Each of my jackets seems to fit differently in the sleeve. This is mainly due to my ridiculously long arms that require an XL length when available! Otherwise I can wear a 40L that will expose an inch or so of my shirt cuff.
To be honest it really shows when a jacket fits perfectly. The shirt exposure can really vary from something extremely minimal to an inch or so, though some people tend to show none.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I have heard many many times that a jackets sleaves should leave about 1 inch of shirt sleave exposed. An equal number of times I have asked why? And most of the time the answer is simple that that is the way it is done.
I am quite curious as to how the tradition, rule, what ever you may call it of leaving a portion of the shirt sleave exposed came about? One would think that at any given time in early history with the cost of clothing you would want to protect it from stains etc.
So I put it to the learned rabble, why must ones jacket leave ones sleaves vulnerable to the elements?

Leaving a bit of white cuff showing indicates that the wearer is a gentleman; he does not labour, and therefore his cuffs are spotless. This really harkens back to the 18th century when gentlemen wore white waistcoats, ultimately replaced by white shirts, as a sign of independent means. This clear distinction between the gentleman and laborer also exists in the phrase "blue collar" when used to describe the working class males of the 19th and 20th century.

[kiltedwolfman]

So from a historical sense it could be said that the purpose of the fashion was to show your standing on an upper level socially. That was what I had thought but was not 100% sure that I was on the right track.
I am wondering now if that kind of blantant self importance would have have a kind of negative conotation during it's original time frame, and what it might say about people now who stricktly maintain it?

[piperdbh]

So from a historical sense it could be said that the purpose of the fashion was to show your standing on an upper level socially. That was what I had thought but was not 100% sure that I was on the right track.
I am wondering now if that kind of blantant self importance would have have a kind of negative conotation during it's original time frame, and what it might say about people now who stricktly maintain it?

To those of us who would have been workers in the employ of the wealthy, yes, it probably would have had a negative connotation. To those who would have flaunted their wealth and "position", it was probably one more way to show their "superiority", much like the way some of my high school students use the area in which they live or their brand of clothing to show that they are "better" than their peers who live in a less-affluent section or who buy their clothing at less expensive, non-brand-name stores.

[Slag101]

Historically speaking, the reason for shirt cuffs to extend past the jacket sleeve is not to show upper status (at least for the mid 1800s). You were right when you said people would want to protect their clothing from stains/damage, but you reversed the concept. Logically, a jacket is much more expensive than a shirt (most of the time). Being able to fold back the cuff of the shirt to protect the cuff of the jacket would be useful, hence why early to mid 1800 shirts had the cuff button set back, and not centered on the cuff. This would protect the cuff from staining and fraying during manual labor, and extend the life of the coat/jacket. This is the tradition behind why the shirt cuff extends past the jacket sleeve. I think I pulled this gem from "Thoughts on Men's Shirts", but I may be mistaken on the source.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

So from a historical sense it could be said that the purpose of the fashion was to show your standing on an upper level socially. That was what I had thought but was not 100% sure that I was on the right track.

I don't think that was its purpose, per se. It's just that only in the past 50-75 years have most people been able to afford clothes that required constant laundering to keep them looking fresh and clean. In times gone by this was not as much of an issue for the well-off who could afford to own several shirts and have them regularly cleaned, and so a white shirt came to be a mark of someone with money, which doesn't necessarily equate with social status.

I am wondering now if that kind of blantant self importance would have have a kind of negative conotation during it's original time frame, and what it might say about people now who stricktly maintain it?

Well, since the first thing a working class man did when "dressing up" 100 years ago was to don a white shirt, I don't think it had any sort of negative social influence. It wasn't at all about blatant self-importance; it was (and is) all about presenting a clean appearance to those one would meet socially, as opposed to a meeting in the work environment. Today the statement made by a white shirt is exactly the same as that made in 1810-- that the person wearing the shirt owns more than one shirt and can afford to keep 'em clean.

There are all sorts of social conventions concerning shirts, but the general custom is that a white shirt should be worn on formal social occasions, and when a suit and tie (or the kilted equivalent) are the required attire in the evening.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Historically speaking, the reason for shirt cuffs to extend past the jacket sleeve is not to show upper status (at least for the mid 1800s). You were right when you said people would want to protect their clothing from stains/damage, but you reversed the concept. Logically, a jacket is much more expensive than a shirt (most of the time). Being able to fold back the cuff of the shirt to protect the cuff of the jacket would be useful, hence why early to mid 1800 shirts had the cuff button set back, and not centered on the cuff. This would protect the cuff from staining and fraying during manual labor, and extend the life of the coat/jacket. This is the tradition behind why the shirt cuff extends past the jacket sleeve. I think I pulled this gem from "Thoughts on Men's Shirts", but I may be mistaken on the source.

Absolutely correct. I can't wait for your next posting!