There are several good things about the fiddlebacks, and a few drawbacks, too.
The fiddleback is essentially “modern” (1800’s - 1970’s, really). They are typically quite ornate, even rococo. The cloth of gold and cloth of silver become quite fragile with repeated flexation; to prevent this flexing they are often made quite stiff. They are expensive to clean, hard to repair, frightfully expensive, and quite heavy. The cutouts for the arms are likewise a practical way to reduce flexation. Further, these vestments tend to be extremely warm due to many layers of interfacing plus the heavy brocades and trims and a heavy lining. The weaves tend to be extremely tight.
One priest I knew could not don a particular white & silver chasuble he favored without the assistance of others. It generally took two of us altar boys to put him into it… it weighed well over 20 pounds, and did not bend from any point below 6" down from the shoulders. It could, quite literally, be stood up on its own.
Scapular forms of the chasuble date back to the 1400’s.
The “Gothic” Chasuble and it’s easily mistakable predecessor, the Conical Chasuble, can be seen back to the 800’s in various illustrations. Some are as ornate as the fiddlebacks, but not many.
In general, tho, many modern gothic chasubles are of fairly light, flexible, durable, and often pretty materials. They are far more suitable to heated churches in the winter, and to summer use. They tend to be both less expensive to make and to maintain. They are in fact more traditional, and never entirely left the use even in the early 20th century…
Modern materials and construction can make either practical for either form of the mass. Both are approved forms of the vestment.
Now, the maniple isn’t used in the OF. But a maniple can be worn with the gothic chasuble, just as easily as with the fiddleback.
