Charlie Watts - great Tailoring comments

[Gerry]

And finally this is most interesting:

I sincerely hope, for the good of the trade and the preservation of their businesses, that tailors will take an active part in this (the ready-to-wear) trade.  It is waiting for and badly needs skilled tailors...

Except that the majority of tailors didn't go into the RTW trade but took part in the rise of MTM instead. Which is why we saw the birth of The Fifty Shilling Tailor and a host of similar high-street chain stores at this time. Many of those stores were still around in the 70s and 80s (I remember them). They stopped doing MTM during that time, but the day "when bespoke was no longer an option" (at least a lower form of bespoke tailoring: MTM) didn't arrive for another five decades.

We've become conditioned to look the same nowadays, but that was definitely not the case in the past. People wanted exclusivity/individuality, which is made very clear in the the article Sol posted:

Whatever developments are in store for the ready-to-wear trade, there will always be a certain amount of trade for the bespoke tailor. There are certain well-marked differences between the branches of the trade - the bespoke tailor stands for individuality and the ready-to-wear tailor for uniformity.

Don't get me wrong, RTW was always in the background in the UK, but that 'uniformity' was considered dull by many and the industry didn't really begin to make inroads until after WWII, in particular the late '50s. Only then did RTW begin to offer something that people really wanted. Cecil Gee started to import RTW garments from Italy in '57. Austin brought in the Ivy look around the same, importing US made stuff. A handful of places in London sold genuine Italian knitwear and shirts. In theory these stores enabled Brits to get the much coveted 'continental look' (or an Ivy league interpretation of it, in the case of Austin). However, their stock was really expensive due to import duties. Often it made more sense for the proto-Mods of that era to find a cheap tailor and, for not much extra, get the same look but with a decent fit. Companies like Harry Fenton and John Collier quickly jumped on the bandwagon when the continental look took off and offered MTM versions, and both stores thrived during that era, despite the growing popularity of Carnaby Street (which became a place for more impoverished teens and tourists from the mid 60s onwards).

which kind of contradicts the notion that "all tailors were trained to bespoke standards", no?

There was no fusing in the 1920s, everything was traditionally canvased; and although buttonhole machines existed, the MTM factories utilised hand-finishers, professional cutters and tailors. This is Des Merrion's recollection of his father's place of work, Burtons, during the late 60s:

tailoring [was] on an immense scale that will never, ever be seen again. To this day, almost fifty years later, I can still see the rows upon rows of men and women sat hand sewing the suits Burtons' made...

From his website (scroll down and click on the 'keep reading' links):

https://desmerrion.com/about/

The clarion call for tailors to join their ranks in the 1920s confirms that the RTW industry required those skills too. How were their staff not being trained to a bespoke tailor's standards? (by today's definition of the word). Other than fit, RTW suits were being made in exactly the same way. [Edit] And please note that in the UK, tailors only make garments. Cutters draft patterns and oversee fittings. Master tailors (though they're more likely to think of themselves as cutters) do both.

[Greger]

Grandpa talked about two standards of tailors. The better tailors, and then, that would make the other tailors, factory tailors. They work to different ends and belong to different groups. And then there are alteration tailors, a whole nother group.
Live in North West Washington.

[Hendrick]

Grandpa talked about two standards of tailors. The better tailors, and then, that would make the other tailors, factory tailors. They work to different ends and belong to different groups. And then there are alteration tailors, a whole nother group.
Live in North West Washington.

Funny that. Even today there are probably more repair and alteration shops in Europe than bespoke tailors. In the past these were often combined with or part of dry cleaning establishments. Calling them tailors is is an infinitly long stretch in my opinion...

Cheers, Hendrick

[Hendrick]

Clearly, the gentry of say 150 years ago wore custom made only.

Did they?  Did they really?

All of them?  All of the time?

Even to their cravats and stockings ?

And is this a known, researched, provable fact - or more of an observation based upon standards the gentry were expected to uphold?  What about impoverished gentlemen, or misers?

You might well argue that most gentry wore custom made - but "only" is kind of a reach, isn't it?

Here in Europe, even in the 50s and 60s, a decent suit was made by tailors, especially for occasions...

Now here I want to pick up on something Sol quoted from the dictionary a couple of posts ago.  If "tailor" means a man who cuts and makes clothes, then are not all suits "made by tailors?"  Even the lousy ones ?

Which isn't just being funny, it's kind of important.  The word "tailor" in English can mean lots of different things.  I'm sure the professionals here who are rightfully proud of skills and earned reputations would not consider an apprentice who just walked in the door a "tailor".  But a census taker would...

Technically, from an industry standpoint, ready to wear is very different in it's conception than tailoring. In RTW a garment is "broken down" in a number of manipulations, whereby a worker (by machine or hand) only executes a single handling repetively. So a garment is assembled in series in a system called "progressive bundling". Obviously these workers are not tailors, usually mastering only handful of manipulations at best. Many of them never even assembled a whole garment, be it by lack of skill or pure loathe of the work.

Industrialised garment making existed even before decent sewing machines became available. However it started with commodities like blouses, aprons, underwear, shirtcollars and neckwear. Industrial production of constructed garments came later. Milestones were the Reece eyelet buttonhole machine (not for sale; these had a counting mech and Reece was payd per buttonhole!), the Strobel blindstitcher that could canvas mechanically and a number of other specialised machines like column stitchers or the (dead cheap vs. Wilcox & Gibbs!) Singer 81k overlocker. The catalogs of industrial sewing machinery from around 1900 speaks volumes, by the way.

Another huge influence was the invention of the circular knitting machine; it all but killed the other sort of underwear industries. They had to close shop or die; many if not most of them went in shirtmaking. Arrow shirts are a great example.

My point in general; some garment factories had tailors at work. Cutting, preparation of trims and findings and bundling chores were done in series by less skilled workers. But the assembling, piece by piece, was done by fully skilled people who were actually real tailors...

Cheerio, Hendrick

[Gerry]

Just for the record, the menswear chains I remember from my youth were: Burton, Collier, Hepworth and Foster Bros. All had their roots as tailoring shops that switched to MTM in the early 20th century. Ultimately they ended up selling RTW in the 70s/80s, but only the national chains Dunn & Co and Austin Reed started life that way. There were local, independent stores of course, though the ones I remember didn't have any great history. Certainly the fashionable ones were products of the 60s and 70s.

With the exception of Austin Reed, RTW was more the outdoorsy stuff: rain macks, hunting, hiking and ski wear. Dunn was very much in the sporting-set mould, most of their range being in any cloth so long as it was tweed. If you wanted plus fours and a deerstalker, that's where you went. Small wonder it closed its doors in the '90s.

The department stores that sold RTW mostly sprung up during the Edwardian era (though some had roots in the late Victorian period). So RTW did have a national presence in the 20th century, though not really in the 19th, except for the lower classes; and clearly when given the choice of RTW or MTM, the preference during much of the 20th century was for the latter - as is evidenced by the shops that actually graced UK highstreets.

[edited for a typo]

[Gerry]

Technically, from an industry standpoint, ready to wear is very different in it's conception than tailoring. In RTW a garment is "broken down" in a number of manipulations, whereby a worker (by machine or hand) only executes a single handling repetively. So a garment is assembled in series in a system called "progressive bundling". Obviously these workers are not tailors, usually mastering only handful of manipulations at best. Many of them never even assembled a whole garment, be it by lack of skill or pure loathe of the work ...
My point in general; some garment factories had tailors at work. Cutting, preparation of trims and findings and bundling chores were done in series by less skilled workers. But the assembling, piece by piece, was done by fully skilled people who were actually real tailors...

It's clear from Desmond Merrion that things changed over time. As I mentioned in my previous post, suits were only made the traditional way in the 1920s and clearly required the skills of actual tailors to make (the handwork for pad-stitching and finishing, for example). As automated mass-production took over then yes, a machinist on the line was merely a machinist. No tailoring skills required.

Nowadays, one can expect a degree of fusing to be present in a lot of MTM, and in the case of the large Italian firms a fair amount of automation: machines that replicate pad-stitching and canvas basting, for example. Plus a lot of the cutting can be done by machine, whereas the factories of yore literally employed hundreds of cutters.

Incidentally, I'm well aware of the difference between MTM and bespoke, I'm merely trying to point out to Jim that MTM was a successful attempt to stem the tide of RTW in the UK; and despite MTM being an inferior form of tailoring compared to bespoke, it nevertheless required the traditional skills of tailors to make.

[Gerry]

BTW, the workshops of some Savile Row firms are run very much like a production line (the "progressive bundling" that you mention Hendrick). It's only small-time, single-traders who do every step themselves (though the tailors and apprentices on the Row do learn all those steps over time).

[jruley]

Technically, from an industry standpoint, ready to wear is very different in it's conception than tailoring. In RTW a garment is "broken down" in a number of manipulations, whereby a worker (by machine or hand) only executes a single handling repetively. So a garment is assembled in series in a system called "progressive bundling". Obviously these workers are not tailors, usually mastering only handful of manipulations at best. Many of them never even assembled a whole garment, be it by lack of skill or pure loathe of the work.

I'm not sure that's always been the case.  Here's another quote from DeVere's ca. 1866 cutting book (emphasis added):

Ready-made garments now take a very important place in the trade, and a work on Cutting could hardly be considered as complete, that did not give some indication of the patterns that are most generally useful for this purpose.  At the present time, most tailors always keep a certain number of ready-made garments in stock, which are useful for chance customers, or by a few alterations, will serve for executing very pressing orders, which it would not otherwise be possible to prepare in time.

And in a short section entitled "Hints on Selection of Stock, or the Purchase of Materials" he says:

Always keep a fair assortment of light waterproof Tweed Overcoats ready made, so that they are always at hand, to introduce to customers on rainy days, or for the Races, &c, &c.  It is these little incidental things, that increase your trade above the average, and keep your customers from going to the ready-made houses.

It's clear that DeVere's system is intended primarily for what we would call the "bespoke trade" today.  In a section giving advice to new masters setting up their own establishments, he says:

Give the greatest possible attention to the cut of all garments, and spare no trouble to render the fit as perfect as possible, and to have all the details of the cut and making up, in accordance with the latest fashion.  Have a special pattern cut to suit each client, and do not trust to alterations made when trying on; they are troublesome to the customer, and give him a very mean idea of your talent; they are an expense to the master, a  trouble to the workman, and rarely produce a good result.

But he's advising that same new master to keep a stock of ready made raincoats on hand.  So this "ready made" isn't a lower quality intended for the lower classes, it's made by the same people, in the same shop, out of the same materials as their regular product.  As opposed to the presumably cheaper, lower-quality products of the "ready-made houses".

I can't speak for the 1920's since I haven't studied clothing of that period.  But I think it's a mistake to impose modern trade divisions on tailors of the 19th century, or to assume terminology was the same.  Clearly some "real tailors" made ready-made garments in addition to their regular product.

[Gerry]

Very interesting post Jim. I bow to your superior knowledge about the 19th century.

[Gerry]

I did a little searching using google books. You are right Jim, in the 19th century it was common for tailors to make ready-to-wear, on a small scale. According to The Clothing Trade in Provincial England, 1800-1850 by Alison Toplis:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Clothing_Trade_in_Provincial_England/eeg5CgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ready-made+houses+tailoring&pg=PA49&printsec=frontcover

The following report, Commercial Relations of the United States, from 1898, demonstrates two things. Firstly, that the UK was slower to catch on when it came to industrial-scale RTW, compared to the US and Canada. Secondly, that parallel with this burgeoning industry, and in direct response to it, MTM was also emerging as a force to be reckoned with. The following was simply cut and pasted, thanks to some of Google's nifty capture features, so hopefully there are no 'translation' errors:

In the States and Canada a sort of revolution in tailoring for men has been accomplished; in Great Britain it is in process of accomplishment. From small beginnings the making up of suits ready for wearing has progressed by leaps and bounds till it has reached formidable dimensions. And in aggravation of this there is another development in the same direction. Large wholesale tailoring houses distribute broadcast to drapers and others throughout the country bunches of cloth patterns representing stock at headquarters. Anyone wanting a suit can choose his pattern and have his measure taken by the local agent. The order is transmitted to the wholesale house which, having command of first rate cutters, organized labor and immense production, turns out a suit that for style and economy puts the town or village tailor hopelessly in the background.

This rise in RTW tallies with the emergence of the department stores; as well as businesses such as the aforementioned Austin Reed, who started up in the early 1900s and boasted that they provided a RTW suit on a par with a tailored one, in terms of quality (so clearly they employed skilled tailors). Mostly though, it was MTM that won the day.

Full text for the above report here:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Report_Upon_the_Commercial_Relations_of/pCNJAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ready-made+houses+tailoring&pg=PA833&printsec=frontcover

[Gerry]

In the interests of balance, another national company that specialised in RTW was Moss Bros. During the Victorian era they mostly sold secondhand clothes. And although they went on to sell RTW, in my day they were mostly known for suit hire (weddings and formal occasions). They're still in that line nowadays.

The aforementioned Cecil Gee started up RTW shops in the East End of London, but mostly had his day in the late 50s and early 60s. Interestingly, he set up a MTM dept during that time. His chain of shops were deeply unfashionable by the 70s and 80s (I never went anywhere near them); and by then the store only sold RTW.

[Hendrick]

Demographics again... With distribution much more shattered in Europe and many clothing stores being family businesses, powerful purchasing associations in almost all European countries were established as early as the 1950s. Some still exist today and many stores still buy "groupwise". As well as functioning as a kind of platform for smaller makers and brands they also offer the possibility of private labelling for retailers that, combined, avoid high production minimum. Needless to say, all the while "niche fashions" were bought at what where called "boutiques", starting from the 60s onward and no one between 15 and 30  wouldn't go anywhere near any of the established retailers.

Cheers, Hendrick

[Greger]

The CTDA (CUTTER Tailor Designer Association) was a tailors organization. Hostek ended up hating it because it became MTM. You can look at the pictures of these "tailors" wearing their clothes and they are not what I call tailored clothes they are wearing mtm.
There are a few real tailors among them but overall, they are calling mtm tailoring.
A Tailor, who used to write here and other clothing forums had things to say about it. He turned to mtm because he could turn over more coats.
These orders went to factories and not real tailors.
Back in the day real tailors doing the Blue Line pattern adjustments produced better coats because they gained the skills and knowledge from the real tailors. Today, where are the 4-5 year apprenticeships to develop this skill and knowledge? And glued garments are not shapeable to enhance someone's appearance, MTM lacks fittings. Some of the companies were better.
A local tailor in the 70s and 80s made some ski wear. His ski pants were competitive with retail.
Better cloth cost more.
Some of the cost of Saville Row is rent/lease and shops that pursue the wealthiest people add on to the cost because the customers will pay it. So, a tailor that doesn't include these high costs actually might be a Saville Row who moved to a more peaceful place to live. Small town tailors are not by default worse.
Some tailors were taught about ever changing culture and how it shapes clothing.
National culture certainly shapes clothes, Local culture shapes clothes, too.
These mega corporations have limits.

[jruley]

I did a little searching using google books. You are right Jim, in the 19th century it was common for tailors to make ready-to-wear, on a small scale. According to The Clothing Trade in Provincial England, 1800-1850 by Alison Toplis:

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Clothing_Trade_in_Provincial_England/eeg5CgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ready-made+houses+tailoring&pg=PA49&printsec=frontcover

Thank you Gerry for posting that link.  I only read a few pages, but it's clear that "ready-made" has quite a long history in the UK.  I believe I saw a reference to a "clothing warehouse" in one of the cities that opened for business in 1720!

I'm glad to see some of the prominent tailors of a few decades past sharing their stories while they are still with us.  Unfortunately we no longer have living links to tailors of the 19th century.  Trying to understand how things really worked requires sifting through piles of ledger books, advertisements, trade publications and city directories.  I'm glad to see someone has taken that on.