I don’t think either of the jackets shown makes the model look thinner or wider. IMO the fitted look is only a good option for someone with a lithe figure.

This picture makes it clearer. The first is fitted, the last is boxy.

More detailed discussion here: https://styleclinic.co/double-trouble-wear-db-jacket/

Interesting article mtnrdredux. My take: More buttons spaced closer together for a leaner look.

That’s it, Sewing— it’s not only the shape but the button placement. The nipped waist with wide buttons looks like the kind of shoulder pad ”fool the eye” proportions of an 80’s jacket. It is not as flattering as the straight lines and buttons, to me anyway. But a naturally wide body type in the boxy shape would not be flattering either.

I think the length needs to be factored in too.

Yes. The point is, the reason BBSTX has read conflicting things is that DB jackets can be very flattering, or very unflattering, depending on a lot of factors.

I own a fitted double breasted jacket that is off the shoulder. I also own a vintage Bill Blass boxy double breasted jacket in an oversized camel/cream plaid. Totally different looks.

While they look nice buttoned, they add more bulk when unbuttoned as the fronts are much wider than single breasted jackets. But when sitting, you almost have to unbutton them...

But when sitting, you almost have to unbutton them...

Hope not, as I sometimes don't wear anything but a bra underneath. I think it, again, depends on the cut, length, even the fabric.

i think most of the time, yes.

i think how tall you are also makes a big difference. Many online sites now indicate how tall the model is and what size they are wearing.

My experience with this has been skewed toward things like "The model is 6'2" and wearing a size S" (or sometimes medium)

There are several sites for clothing marketed to small men, and while some of them actually feature really small men (one showed a guy that was 5'), the average "short" model on the one website was 5'8". So that's the tallest short model you can have because the average height of the American male is 5'9". (Some data says 5'10")

But to see actual models that are 5' -5'6" online they almost look distorted, because that is not the "average" one sees online, even though it describes a lot of real people.

For women. The average height is 5'3-1/2" (some data says 5'4") with a weight of 171 lbs. and a waist of 39". (In 1960 ht. was 5'3", wt. 140.)

So height has increased 0.6%, but weight has increased 22%

Even with "plus sized" models, we are seeing women who are heavier than typical models, but they are often just as Tall as real models. (And still weigh much less than other women of their height). The only way to really evaluate what something would look like on an average person would be to see it on an average person, and that's not really happening in the industry.

The only way to really evaluate what something would look like on an average person would be to see it on an average person, and that's not really happening in the industry.

It actually is happening, in a perhaps unintended way. On many sites, people post pictures of themselves wearing the items they review. Often they include their size, sometimes ht. and wt. too. And it does not seem to be something only those with the most svelte figures opt to do.

Just as an example:

I've seen this, I think it's informative. The guy who was 5' was not an official model for the company but I think he was an influencer who got picked up by the company after talking about their clothes online.

Especially if it is a popular item with lots of reviews. I find it useful not just for an idea of fit, but seeing the same item from different angles and different light, different accessories, is just a much fuller "picture."

"sometimes don't wear anything but a bra underneath"

!!!!

I always wear -- or actually wore now as I don't do suit jackets much any more -- something underneath to protect the jacket even if it was a plain shell (camis and my boobs don't get along well) ... as well as for modesty reasons. I've stood next to seated women and were able to see right down the front of their outfit.

I haven't noticed photos with reviews, but I have started to actually read reviews when I'm on the fence.

Mayfair reviewers show the items in their homes and I have found that very helpful.

I've done quite a few myself!

When I was younger, thinner and when my industry demanded suits, I had a number of double breasted jackets. I think they looked great -- but no photos to prove or disprove.

I think what made them work so well for me (I think) is that I have broad shoulders and decent posture -- I think that helped "carry" the jacket. I am mostly pulling from memory but I would say that my styles were like the middle image Mtn posted above-- slightly boxy with a little shape at the waist. At the time, Jones of NY was making fairly nice feminine suits. I had a few of them as well as RL and Liz Claiborne (before their label was taken over by JCP). I have seen a few at RL in the recent past but haven't really seen them elsewhere -- I am glad to hear they are coming back this season because I always liked them.

My concern for you is that I think I remember you saying you have short shoulders? But really, there's no risk or harm in trying a few. You can always return them if they don't work out!

Not ignoring your comments. Dealing with plumbers, HVAC guys, and painters. Ah, the joys of homeownership! (I’m grateful I own a home, but sometimes maintenance is a pain.)

I am tall and thin, and I have never found a double-breasted jacket that is flattering on me. I stopped wearing them decades ago.

How could you possibly trust a review posted by someone who claims to be 5’3”, 165 lbs and wears a size 10? Or the woman who claims to be 5’9”, 225 lbs and calls her build “athletic?” Seriously?

I am NOT dissing anyone’s body type, but the first person must shop at an extreme vanity sizing boutique, or else have on a layer of spanx that defies physics. It’s delusional.

I find most of what's described in mtn's article true for me: it's all about the shape/cut of the jacket. I have a narrower waist and bigger hips/thighs so if I wear something straight or boxy, especially a jacket, I look much bigger. Whereas wearing a tailored slimmer fitting jacket is very flattering for me.

On a side note regarding women in suits, has anyone been watching The Lioness with Zoe Saldana and Nicole Kidman? Both wear suits a lot in the show, usually either with a blouse or a t-shirt underneath. I noticed on one episode that Nicole looked so frumpy in her suit and then the next episode she wore one much more tailored and looked stunning. Now, I do thik Nicole has been known to pull of some boxy or oversized jackets from time to time, but even with her slim tall frame, sometimes it's not as good of a look as something tailored.

Kswl, from what I've read an "athletic" or "rectangle" female body type describes someone who is not particularly curvy, has shoulder and hip measurements that are almost the same, lacks a defined waist, and weight that is fairly evenly distributed. I think "rectangle" is probably a better way to describe this build.

I think it is more like looking at them and making your own judgement call. And we all know sizing is crazy. Especially if something is a forgiving fit or fabric. If I saw that woman, its not like I'd find it impossible to believe that she takes a 10 in that dress.

As for your comment about "athletic," I think in the context of clothing it does not necessarily have the common meaning. I'd imagine reviewers are given a drop down menu. Keep in mind it is all cloaked euphemisms, right? A larger person might not be an apple or a pear or an hourglass, so maybe athletic is most apt. EG stitch fix describes "athletic" this way:

Not to derail this but when I had what i would call an athletic build, I was pretty curvy -- i had a small waist and flat stomach but I also had a broad rib cage and shoulders, muscular back and muscular legs. I did and still do have large bones -- and true large bones not the "i am big boned" excuse for being overweight. At my most fit, I was 5'6 160 +/- 5 lb and wore a size 8 skirt and 10 pant. When I dipped to 150-140, I looked gross and skeletal-- my bones stuck out and my ribs especially looked sickly. I am sure there are many women who 5'6 and are at their healthiest at a much lower weight... but not all of us.

Sorry if this sounds lecture-y i mean it to be informational. Plus admittedly it hits a sore spot with me. There are many body types and many variations of bone, musculature and fat. Doesn't mean some people aren't lying to themselves and/or the internet when they share their stats .. of course it happens but I don't think you can guess a persons size, fitness or health status with a weight alone (other than at the extremes).

Funky, I appreciate you saying this. On a side note, Pink (the artist) somewhat recently posted a post-baby picture of herself at the gym and she said she's 5'3" and 160lbs and she looks quite fit. There are many body types and body compositions that impact weight.

I think of athletic frequently as a more solid body type, not necessarily a gymnast type. Until my mother got rheumatoid and blown up with steroids and other ummunological drugs she was a size 4-8 depending on what it was, but she did not have a fit muscle in her body. I am not saying that to be critical, it just wasn't the thing her set worried about. Two of my nieces who got their father's family build are big Solid women who could not fit into my mother's clothes after they were about 12. They easily weigh 160-170 at 5'5" but are just solidly built, not flabby and actually are athletic. They never could be skinny and they would not look healthy too skinny either.

Muscle weighs more than fat, that’s an established fact and I know people whose weight would astonish for their overall appearance. Frame and build are real differences across the same height and weight. That said, when the picture belies the description I’ll go with the visual. And I think many reviews of clothing fit are, shall we say, less than accurate and therefore less than helpful.

Pricklypear, I looked up the photo and comment you mentioned. Pink posted that in 2017 and advised women to “stay off the scales,” ladies. But googling for that picture and comment also revealed a women’s health cover story on her in 2023, detailing her decision to go to a two week residential weight loss health program in Spain in 2022 because she was having trouble losing weight despite working out assiduoiusly. So there is definitely another side to that story—- and again, I am not doubting she was fitter than most at 5’3” and 160 but obviously she could not ignore her BMI forever, and didn’t.