Charlie Watts - great Tailoring comments

[Greger]

Hendrick, you pull up some interesting points. The way people think keeps changing. How many older people, corporate owners keep up with quickly ever changing young minds. Those younger people don't want to "obey" the elderly!

[Hendrick]

Hendrick, you pull up some interesting points. The way people think keeps changing. How many older people, corporate owners keep up with quickly ever changing young minds. Those younger people don't want to "obey" the elderly!

No, they don't want to obey. I fact, they look around the world mostly in disapproval and in want of things that "cant be had" anymore. What I also wanted to emphasise is that you don't have to be a conformist when you are wearing an austere garment. Some of the most beautiful creations I've seen in shows were deafeningly "silent" but meticulously executed. I guess turning one's back at percieved style or fashion or even the system as a whole is more of a statement than walking the walk!


Cheers, Hendrick

[jruley]

As a boy listening to men,  my parents generation, being told to go home and change into a suit of style out of the fashion suit or they are fired. Later they were told that even after hours they would be fired wearing any fashion at all. The company reputation was at stake. People climbing the corporate ladder paid attention. There are still companies in America that have some rules for clothes.

My experience was a bit different.  From 1980 up to retirement in 2015, I worked first as a draftsman in the engineering department of an aerospace company, then as a grad student researcher in a laboratory, then as a civilian employee on a military base.  The dress code barely changed in 35 years.  Most men wore a dress shirt and trousers to the office.  Shirt could be long or short sleeve depending on the season or your preference.  Ties were not strictly required but most salaried employees wore them.  A few guys hated them and kept a clip on tie in a drawer in case they had a meeting or presentation.  Working level engineers rarely wore suits unless they had an interview, an important meeting, were bucking for promotion or were from New York (there were a few fashion conscious ones).  Some wore odd jackets on colder days, others preferred casual jackets or coats.  Only senior managers routinely wore suits every day.  I did a fair bit of travelling to other companies in different states, and I didn't see much variation in standards of dress.

Dress loosened up even further after Sept 11, 2001 when our military counterparts began wearing utility uniforms to the office instead of "blues".  Blue jeans were discouraged but casual shirts and pants were fully acceptable, and ties and shiny shoes pretty much disappeared.  Some of the younger guys were starting to smarten up a bit about the time I retired, but most of my generation were quite happy to be informal.

I can't recall ever hearing about someone being sent home for inappropriate dress, but then engineers aren't particularly notable for being stylish  .  I'm sure there are other professions where dress is more important. 

[Greger]

Jim, watched a program on TV about movie stars and famous TV personals. The older generation. To keep their high pay they had to wear nice clothes. All the pictures show them with nice clothes. The movie industry demanded high standard clothes for the movie industry reputation as a whole. They were examples of fineness. A good image. They gave up the "lower" clothes for money.
I remember men dressed up for going to town. Suit and tie. Some of these men would never go into a restaurant without it. A lot of these people didn't wear these kinds of clothes to work. It was expected men wore suit and tie to church and downtown. Of course this has all faded away. You would be lucky to see a man in a suit and tie nowadays walking around downtown. Will uniformity ever come back? And what will it be?
As a boy in stores I'd see rows and rows of suits, sports coats, blazers, vest, trousers, ties, shirts for boys of all ages. Other than shirts none of these clothes have been Mass-produced for the last several decades. Someone said recently there is one company. Otherwise the parent is paying a tailor.

[jruley]

Of course this has all faded away. You would be lucky to see a man in a suit and tie nowadays walking around downtown. Will uniformity ever come back? And what will it be?

Yep.

[Hendrick]

Of the seven (known) physical quantities, time is probably the most relevant to human life and it is irreversable until proven otherwise.
Fashion is part of human attitude for as long as we remember. To understand it, you must know that it is strongly driven by the vices aptly described by the likes of Shakespeare and Moliere but also Sigmund Freud (to name just a few), such as vanity and jealousy (to again, name just a few). It comes to be when an individual sets itself apart with originality from the herd instead of conforming to the attitudes and habits of the masses, soon to be followed by them, thereby effectively starting the end of a trend. And as such it will cause the original personality to distance himself again. No matter how "accepted" a trend is, it will die eventually; there are nightclubs in europe where you are not allowed in when wearing "white shoes", meaning trainers of course.
When we talk about style, we usually mean references to known manners and objects that somehow seem to give a wearer authority. But again, it almost always references to the known. In fact, this is what has kept Saville Row alive, not to mention giving Ralph Lauren the opportunity to building a 5 Bn. dollar operation...
Suits will always be there; now that "everybody" holds master degrees and competion in the corporate world is much more agressive than say between plumbers and builders, authorative dressing is in demand again. It will never be the same, but te underlying need is there. A few years ago you would see men, here in europe, in what I call "boys'suits". Jackets only half covering there bums, trousers too small and three fingers short etc. Compare that to our dads, to whom it was a capital sin to show a bit of leg when they crossed their legs...  The "boy suit" seems over now, but all of a sudden the 6 pleat 80's style wide and creaseless style trousers are there again (in France called pantalon de coiffeur, "haidressers' trousers"...). All this goes to say that there will always be fashion influence, also in formal dressing. But there also be demand for clothing that gives a person authority.

Ask yourself; would I buy a Maserati car from a guy on thongs, wearing shorts and a baseball cap and a dragon tattoo on his legs?

Cheerio, Hendrick

[jruley]

Ask yourself; would I buy a Maserati car from a guy on thongs, wearing shorts and a baseball cap and a dragon tattoo on his legs?

Well, my last two new cars were a Chevrolet and a Honda  .  I honestly can't remember what the salesman was wearing, I was more interested in the vehicle's features and the financial details.

I agree there will always be a "felt need" for "better" clothing, but will it be the classic suit?  Although styles change, the basic concept of a man's suit goes back to at least the 17th century.  The shirt covers the upper body, and trousers as a lower garment work equally well for walking, riding, and sitting down.  The waistcoat and jacket are additional layers which provide warmth and protection from the weather.  The "layer principle" has always applied; you can find genre paintings of farmers working in their shirts from the early 19th century, although this wasn't considered "polite" dress.

Maybe Europe is different, but since WWII life in the US goes on inside a climate controlled bubble.  Most homes and public buildings have been centrally heated and air conditioned since the 1970's.  Most cars are heated and air conditioned too, and we drive everywhere.  We are only exposed to the weather for a few seconds between the parking lot and the store or office entrance.  So the outer layers of a suit no longer have a functional purpose; they're just decorative.  "Vests" (as we call them) have practically disappeared, jackets have gotten lighter and lighter in weight.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the classic suit take over the role of the tuxedo or "dinner suit", which has already practically disappeared (except for entertainers). Since ties are becoming less popular the next logical step would be for the jacket to lose its lapels; this happened in the early 19th century before "cravats" became popular.  Since we spend more time seated in the office work environment it would also be logical for the jacket to lose its skirt and side pockets.  So if the jacket survives as anything but formalwear I would not be surprised to see it morph into something like the WWII British "battledress" or Eisenhower jacket.  This is a far more practical form than the traditional one and can be made either casual or nice looking.

[Hendrick]

"I agree there will always be a "felt need" for "better" clothing, but will it be the classic suit?" That depends on the situation, todays'menswear is much more "composed of style elements" than the classic wardrobe and yes, there is demand for a well made jacket, especially in the luxury segment...

https://kiton.com/collections/men-blazers?_gl=1*v66qx8*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTQ1MTI1MzM3Ny4xNzQ2NjUyMTc4*_ga_WBC75JP42C*czE3NDY2NTIxNzckbzEkZzAkdDE3NDY2NTIxNzckajAkbDAkaDA.

"I wouldn't be surprised to see the classic suit take over the role of the tuxedo or "dinner suit", which has already practically disappeared (except for entertainers). Since ties are becoming less popular the next logical step would be for the jacket to lose its lapels; this happened in the early 19th century before "cravats" became popular"

https://www.brioni.com/en/us/pr/sky-blue-linen-wool-and-silk-jardigan-SGPZ0MPB1274900?from=search

I agree that ergonomics and practicality are important and clothing should not necessarily be restrictive, but that is not a new concept... Look at todays' sportswear and than look back at what McGregor made as far back as the 1950's, "Catalina jackets", "Barracuta" jackets, "Drizzlers", overshirts and note how influential they are at even todays'menswear (think Ralp Lauren...)

In your previous post I think you mentioned that you prefer the creative as opposed approach to the "classic". However, if clothing is worn as an expression of personality, ergonomics is not the first consideration... with or without lapels...

Now think of womenswear; nobody has ever bought a silk cdc dress with matching 5" heels for warmth nor comfort...

Cheers, Hendrick 

[DrLang]

My there has been a lot of activity here since I looked last. I'm about the most amateur of amateur's on this topic, but I do find it interesting. My experiences are probably extremely biased away from well tailored clothes. I grew up in a small and dying factory town in the 80s. Suits for the most part were and still are a costume worn for certain events. Not daily clothing except for a small handful of people. We dressed nice for church, but a suit was not what that meant. And then I moved into an engineering field where, as has already been pointed out, we're not exactly known for fashion or style. Dressing nice for job interviews is the norm, but that does not mean suit. And I have observed the norms of officewear shift over time, but also by region. "Casual Friday" in Ft. Worth, Texas meant cotton chinos, which were the usual dress in California. And in Pennsylvania now? I guess as long as it's clean, not shorts, and in good repair then you're good to go. As it is, I only started dressing nicer because California offices insisted on being 68 degrees in the middle of a 90 degree summer. So it was impossible for me to be comfortable at work and outside of work unless I wore a jacket at work, which I conveniently had from my job interview wardrobe.

Now? I find this kind of classic dress in sport coats, suits, wool slacks, ties, etc to be ironically subversive. And I will just assume that subversive isn't exactly a good investment for the fashion industry. The way I see it, uniformity of dress still exists. But it looks different. In the early 90s I was mocked for my Hawaiian shirt phase. The next year everyone was wearing them and I had moved on. In the late 90s, the style conscious young man's uniform was an undershirt, cargo pants, and a button-up shirt worn untucked and unbuttoned.

[Greger]

Classic Style has, from my perspective, been a plane Jane. Middle of the road. Certain things about it never change. Lapel width is always the same. The jacket can boring or, how a tailor fits it, shapes it changing it into art. Other kinds of styles generally change slowly. Wider, narrower labels, hip shape, chest shape, etc. The skinny look going on for more than 20 years is crazy. The 50s was baggy, early 60s were narrow (trousers are shorter),headed towards wider into the 70s. TVs got better and American football got more popular and guys wanted larger shoulder pads in the 80s. American football players use large shoulder pads and male viewers wanted to imitate this look with suit coats. Lots of things, such as sports, movies, etc influence American clothes. Eventually, with American styles people get tied of it and a new style takes shape. Europe is a bit different. It seems the US is so diverse that each group has its own rules. And then there are sports clothing, such as skiing, mountaineering, horse riding (lots of this is very different from Europe) and so on.
My opinion is all apprentices should have instructions with these clothes. Journey man tailors pursue what they want for pay. Grandfather made it very clear that the best tailors get paid the most. The best tailors, in those days (in big cities), only made white tie jackets. They were the highest paid. If you were "terrible" you took any job you could get!

Fashions are clothes for a different purpose. Some people didn't/don't understand this. Alden, a man, was controlled by fashion marketers, as though fashions were everything. Somehow he got involved with styles (set free) and can't say anything good about fashions. Fashions are about fun and good for young people. Older men out grow it. For them it is a waste of time. They don't even want to spend time thinking about it, other than to compliment "teenagers" when they come up with something neat. When reading the clothing forums,  even with style, there are many things they get excited about. And some of the details are drifting into fashions. Tailors give reasons to buy new clothes. Some of these reasons are fashions, and the buyers don't know. I doubt modern day tailors know.

An English King to his son about an important dinner. You Will Not Wear Those High Fashion Pants With Creases In Them. Creases were not part of men's trousers in those days. Wild teenagers were putting them in their pants as high fashion. The King, when he got old and died, was probably buried with trousers with creases. Sometimes a piece of fashion becomes style.

Some people wear styles and/or fashions for the wrong reasons. Wrong reasons never remove the right reasons.

[jruley]

Some people wear styles and/or fashions for the wrong reasons. Wrong reasons never remove the right reasons.

This is where artists and engineers live on totally different planes.  I can't imagine how having the right (or wrong) reason for wearing a particular style makes it look any different.  It either flatters you - or it doesn't.

[Hendrick]

I suppose self expression is the key. So you may as well say that a style will work for you only if you "own" it... In the old days people said "what you wear with confidence". In other words, do you want to be a "one of many conformist" or do you have the courage to dress otherwise...

As most people in the design field, I have been heavily influenced by the utilitarian and functional, ranging from workwear to army and exploration gear and sports as well as other "vintage" clothing. The "blender" of the industry however has turned the "streetwear" phenomena into a blurry system. It gives people the impression of "standing out" in pieces that are mass produced by the tens of thousands. So there is basically not much new in streetwear, apart from marketing. As I am typing this, some substantial losses in earnings were reportd by the holding companies of certain luxury houses. Question in case: is luxury personal or is it obviously visual and does it embody "street influences". In other words; how much further do we want to "dress down". In the industry, a distinction is made in trend-analysis; what a consumer chooses from massively available stuff is called a "micro-trend", it is seasonal and commercially as valuable as yesterdays weather report. The underlying dynamics go a little further, for instance; "more volume in trousers" or "more natural colours" that may influnce future decisions.  Interestingly, there is a strong analogy with todays' music industry. A lot of it is composed of "sampling" and in the rap-genre the research into older music is called "grave digging". As an example, John Lennon was wearing army shirts and fatigues in the 1960's, Jacky Steward catapulted the Tacchini poloshirt into fashion in the 60's, Armani did away with creased trousers in 1977 and Jean Paul Gaultier did men's skirts in 1985. Just saying...

I am not interested in what is referred to as "classic" but more in how it gets re-interpreted or evolves, even less in over-polished tailoring. That said I, as do most of us, appreciate virtuosity in any craft as indeed in tailoring... At the same time, civilisation has new problems, such as overconsumption. With fast fashion being the number two source of pollution worldwide we should maybe slow down a little and have a look at other ways of producing and means of distribution, such as custom-making.

Here is a link to GB Small an (american, by the way) maker who has been hugely influential in menswear, has anamzing studio and atelier in Italy and dances to the rythm of his own beat;

https://geoffreybsmall.net

Cheers, Hendrick

[Gerry]

When I was a young man many nightclubs still had a dress code. A throwback to the days of yore when you would only be admitted to a dancehall or club is you were besuited. Which is why so many youngsters owned suits and why the suit was such a part of fashion for different generations, each decade exhibiting its own take(s) on the suit. Youngsters in the past were also more aspirational: they dressed to impress. That ethos is all but extinct with today's youth, who are materialistically richer and don't care about such things.

Nevertheless in the UK, office workers, especially in London, are expected to wear a suit or to at least dress smartly for work. For those in managerial roles, a suit is a must. It's the uniform of status. Just look at parliament or the richest businessmen/women in the UK. For that reason, Saville Row will always exist.

That said, establishments in the West End do now cater to a more casual look. In London, Lee Marsh springs to mind. He has a range of casual, high-end jackets that are made with all the care and attention one would expect of a Savile Row tailor (which he is), yet they're anything but stuffy:

https://www.leemarsh.co.uk/new-page-4

Tailors in Italy and France also offer more casual clothing. The craft is far from dead, it merely continues to evolve.

[Greger]

"That ethos is all but extinct with today's youth, who are materialistically richer and don't care about such things."

Tailors should be reaching out to these that have enough money. These clothes don't have to ALL be expensive. In the past tailors made blazers, which were not a refined coat at all. These were not expensive coats. They didn't have a ton of work in them. What is needed is balance, straight and crooked, armhole depth, loose enough and not a lot pressing. The art of clothing is not always about perfect fit. How many of the old blazers had canvas? Collar canvas, maybe. The purpose of these blazers had nothing to do with persuading anybodies mind. It was merely a coat for certain sports and teams.

Easy wear- Mass-production wasn't everywhere. When it did show up some people didn't buy it because they wanted comfort. A cheap lousy tailor produces a better fit than Mass-produced. In demand tailors charge a lot. And then, all the ones in between. A price range.

[jruley]

Easy wear- Mass-production wasn't everywhere. When it did show up some people didn't buy it because they wanted comfort.

"Comfort" today seems to be equated with oversized, loose and sloppy, or stretchy.  How is a tailor supposed to compete with that?