Bespoke Cutter And Tailor

QuoteThe thing with men's tailoring is that you don't really design it.
If I went to my tailors (I have two in London) and I said I wanted a notched lapel on a double breasted suit, they wouldn't make it.
It's always a peaked lapel on a double-breasted suit.
There are things no good men's tailor will do and you think, why not? but then when you see someone try those things, they look wrong.
It's a hundred years of making a suit a certain way and I love the tradition of that.

Charlie Watts - Tailoring_n.jpg

Some tailors are very narrow minded. Some are limited. And, of course, somethings are foolish and the tailor needs to defend their name.

When I was a teenager my friends and I would use a particular tailor who'd taken cutting classes as a young man, so he could make anything. Consequently he was popular with musicians, local theatres and anyone who was fashion forward and required more outré stuff. What we had made was fairly conservative by comparison with a lot of the stage wear he was involved in, but basically if you showed him a photo of what you wanted, that was proof enough that the concept worked and he was up for the challenge.

Looking back at it, some of the things we wore made us look like clowns, so there's a happy medium. Though I don't like establishments that only have a house style - 'take it or go elsewhere'. It shows a lack of imagination and/or experience IMO.

In the 'post' I found this,... someone mentioned that;

Quotethe suit Charlie is wearing, originally belonged, to Edward VIII. Charlie picked it up at auction.
Apparently if you're a Duke or a King you can have whatever lapel you want!  ;)  :)

Quote from: stoo23 on April 13, 2025, 11:07:37 PMApparently if you're a Duke or a King you can have whatever lapel you want!  ;)  :)

And that's the real question:  Who (in each generation) gets to decide the difference between "narrow-minded and limited" on one hand, and "foolish or clownish" on the other?  ;D

 

Quote from: Greger on April 13, 2025, 01:27:43 PMSome tailors are very narrow minded. Some are limited. And, of course, somethings are foolish and the tailor needs to defend their name.

Brilliant, after all it's all about the persona, their "Gestalt"(S. Freud), apart from craftmanship obviously understanding that makes a tailor I suppose.

Cheers, Hendrick 

Quote from: jruley on April 13, 2025, 11:44:33 PMAnd that's the real question:  Who (in each generation) gets to decide the difference between "narrow-minded and limited" on one hand, and "foolish or clownish" on the other?  ;D

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I figure it's all about the individual's general public influence. That's not me, so I decided that it's all about how confidently I can own it while wearing it. I think that it's interesting how controversial stiff front shirts with wing collars with black tie have become in the UK, even though that's how black tie started. It seems like it just takes a big and confident personality if you want to buck whatever the current trend it.

Some people are artists with clothes. And that's all it takes.
Desirable. Sometimes noticeable talent doesn't take.
Culture is ever changing and clothes are about culture. Not to mention lots of other things.
How many tailors have made Obi-Wan Kenobi robes? One person I saw, once in a while, a man who wore clothes like the pictures of Jesus. It was obviously made by a tailor.
A community tailor has a lot more options than a stuffy Saville Row tailor. Some of them make unusual clothes for certain clients, but they don't want to be known for them.
I remember the days of styles and fashions, didn't want to be out of either.
Some (generally older) business men stayed away from fashions. Styles are 5 years and longer. Don't want to be out of style.
Tailors like the change, because customers come back and keep the tailor bu$y. Styles need to last for a length of time, otherwise cost is too high for many customers. People want to be included.
Fashions are cheaper, they come and go quickly.
It used to be the wealthy boys who bought this.
Mass-production made it possible for the middle-class, but it lacks fit and personality.
I like the tailoring of the past, small town and community tailors. They had opportunity to make many different garments at different prices.
Grandfather said that, "Fit matters". The rest is how much a person can pay.
A poor man's suit may not have all the pockets (flaps will do), but get the value of fit, a wealthy man pays for more.
Mass-production lacks the wealth of fit.
Some people have the misconception that "bespoke" has to have... when it doesn't.

Quote from: Greger on April 14, 2025, 09:35:29 AMI like the tailoring of the past. Small town and community tailors. They had opportunity to make many different garments at different prices. Grandfather said that, "Fit matters". The rest is how much a person can pay. A poor man's suit may not have all the pockets (flaps will do), but get the value of fit. Wealthy man pays for more. Mass-production lacks the wealth of fit. Some people have the misconception that "bespoke" has to have... when it doesn't.

Nostalgia is a fine thing, but we are entering the second quarter of the 21st century and a truly "poor" man is unlikely to own a suit, much less a bespoke one.  If he needs one for a special occasion he can rent it.

I once read a series of articles by a French landscape photographer on "being an artist", "being in business", and "being an artist in business".  He pointed out that if you want to make $60,000 per year you could sell 60,000 art prints at $1 per print.  Or, you could sell just one print and charge $60,000.  It's all about finding the right buyer and developing the skills and aesthetic appeal necessary to sell your product.

Style details like pockets only account for a few of the hours required to make a bespoke jacket using traditional techniques.  How much is your time worth?  If you undervalue your product you'll have to make up the difference on volume in order to earn a reasonable income.  Can you really do that while maintaining the standards expected of bespoke clothing?

Back in the 70s a local tailor his price range started about $475. When I started asking about the details he quickly said the price can shoot up into the thousands depending on the details asked for.
Back then pants were about $100. I said something and his price range immediately went up.
What is bespoke quality? Good question. What is bespoke?
What part of England did it originate? Someone said Saville Row. I don't think so.
All tailors in England were bespoke, quality varied.
Their literature has plenty to say about it.
Blazers were not the fine coats they became later, some tailors wouldn't make sports coats, blazers, etc. Reading about Henry Poole; where he had one place for the wealthy, Saville Row with another place for the middle-class. Another place for the fashions, another place in France.
Only the wealthy got bespoke? Today's world of bespoke standard varies on Saville Row.
Anderson and Shepard has less stitching than the other tailors there. One book says six rolls of pad stitching per inch on chest canvas. Who does that anymore?
You can buy cloth with diamonds in it and gold thread. The price for anything like this is very high. Rubies, Emeralds.
The way Saville Row wants to claim bespoke as only Saville Row and they didn't invent pad stitching do I even want to use the word bespoke.
Tailoring means coat with pad stitching. Tailor is good enough. Basically bespoke is two fittings. Custom is the same as bespoke but the English use it as the same as the US MTM, everyone is wrestling to out do each other with the numerous words.
Sartorial is another word, each country has their own and all of this changes as new methods become popular. Poulins coat shows almost no pad stitches, just enough to do the job. Could easily put 10 X more in, the price goes up with it. A cheaper coat wouldn't have all that canvas and/or felt.
Some tailors use blocks. If you know how to adjust them quickly then fitting time is very little. Block pattern with grading up or down in size, figuration's, etc changing the style.
Think you can get accurately 8 sizes from one block.
Fitting is just dangling from the shoulders. As long as the cloth and canvas are dangling properly together the front overlap is decided. Shoulder seam and side seam, Back seam, Scye drawn, Collar foundation traced around Pocket decisions, Sew and press.
Second fitting; Finish sleeves and collar and final press, Buttonholes and buttons.
Some poor people save their money.
The rich add a lot more stitching.
If the poor ask for classic style (plane jane) it might be good for 30 years. A beautiful press job and, as cheap as it is made, it will stand out. A lot of stitches handles different.
One of my peers in school, certainly not rich, if middle-class it was the lower end, he asked a tailor to make him a school jacket, (Think it was the tailor I walked past on my way to school), the boy was 11 years old.
It had a couple of pockets, don't remember if the jacket zipped or buttoned. Balance, shoulder slope, collar, and scye/sleeves and large enough for a growing child.
It probably took the tailor an hour to sew it up. No pad stitching.

Quote from: Greger on April 14, 2025, 04:22:59 PMIf the poor ask for classic style (plane jane) it might be good for 30 years.

What you're missing is how mass production has changed the way people value clothing.  Cheap clothing today is like running water and central heating, it's just taken for granted.  Burn a hole in your favorite T-shirt?  Fine, use it for a shop rag and buy another 3-pack at Wal-Mart.

Fit?  Many people today equate "fit" with comfort.  They've never had a well fitted suit, so they have no idea how clothing should fit and don't appreciate the difference.

I think we are left with two major customer bases for bespoke clothing:

- Clothing nerds, who may be of any economic class

- Those who dress to show their wealth

If your prices are lower than the going rate, a wealthy customer will want to know why.  Where are you cutting corners, and is your cloth of lesser quality?  He might simply go with a more expensive maker just because "more must be better".

Attempting to get everyone back into bespoke clothes in today's market is probably an excellent idea - if you have a large fortune you want to make into a small one.

I don't know where it started, but there is is a long held rule of thumb that an ounce of gold should be able to buy a decent man's suit. That has held surprisingly accurate for a long time.

$475 in 1975 adjusted for inflation today? About $2,900. Today's gold spot price? About $3,200. Most people today usually only drop that kind of money on life necessities. And a suit is simply no longer a life necessity for most people. I would say that only about half the people that I see show up for well paying engineering job interviews wear a full suit. And that trend changes expectations to where you need to worry a little bit about being dressed too fancy for a job interview.

Mass manufacturing has definitely changed things a lot. I think that the reality is that most people, or at least most men, never really wanted to care much about their clothing. It was a necessary investment to get through life.

Quote from: DrLang on April 15, 2025, 02:21:26 AMI don't know where it started, but there is is a long held rule of thumb that an ounce of gold should be able to buy a decent man's suit. That has held surprisingly accurate for a long time.

$475 in 1975 adjusted for inflation today? About $2,900. Today's gold spot price? About $3,200. Most people today usually only drop that kind of money on life necessities. And a suit is simply no longer a life necessity for most people. I would say that only about half the people that I see show up for well paying engineering job interviews wear a full suit. And that trend changes expectations to where you need to worry a little bit about being dressed too fancy for a job interview.

Mass manufacturing has definitely changed things a lot. I think that the reality is that most people, or at least most men, never really wanted to care much about their clothing. It was a necessary investment to get through life.

Don't forget the shift in "standing" propelled by the new "luxury market". Todays' "nouveau riche", will easily (and thoughtlessly), shell out a thousand dollars for a pair of sneakers from a luxury brand and 600 dollars or more for a single jersey t-shirt with a logo from, say, Gucci or Balenciaga.
D_squared jeans go for 500 dollars hands down, just to name a few... Guys spend money on what they reckon gives them authority.
There is a shift to "silent luxury" lately; even some Hollywood people are buying brands like Brunello Cuccinelli...

Cheerio, Hendrick

I wonder what generation z will make of bespoke when/if they can afford it. Their current philosophy - at least those living in the West - is, ironically , very Maoist in outlook. They all dress alike so that no one is above or beneath another. That way you judge a person on their individual merits, not on how flashy their clothes are.

Their uniform of choice has its roots in US utilitarian workwear and hip hop culture. All the school kids were on holiday last week and I didn't see one that wasn't wearing jeans, sweatshirt and sneakers.

To someone of my age, who grew up in the post-punk era, this is anathama. Individualism was everything. Even if one subscribed to the dress code of a particular youth culture, there was still scope for looking different amongst one's peers.

Quote from: Gerry on April 15, 2025, 06:26:51 AMI wonder what generation z will make of bespoke when/if they can afford it. Their current philosophy - at least those living in the West - is, ironically , very Maoist in outlook. They all dress alike so that no one is above or beneath another. That way you judge a person on their individual merits, not on how flashy their clothes are.

Their uniform of choice has its roots in US utilitarian workwear and hip hop culture. All the school kids were on holiday last week and I didn't see one that wasn't wearing jeans, sweatshirt and sneakers.

To someone of my age, who grew up in the post-punk era, this is anathama. Individualism was everything. Even if one subscribed to the dress code of a particular youth culture, there was still scope for looking different amongst one's peers.

Marketing and constant exposure to mass communiation (social media) has changed self-perception and merged fashion and style totally into the entertainment industry. The power of marketing, social media have made "not belonging" one of the greatest fears of todays youth. In fact, todays advertising proves that by mostly showing groups of likeminded folks as opposed to strong individuals. So in fact youth culture has been turned around and now has a much more strongly affirmative character than in the past. Actually, the once "revolutionary" streetstyle has become just as banal as the bourgeois style it has fought to do away with...

Cheers, Hendrick

Quote from: Hendrick on April 16, 2025, 04:38:10 AMActually, the once "revolutionary" streetstyle has become just as banal as the bourgeois style it has fought to do away with...

When Vivienne Westwood died I watched a documentary about her on TV that was reshown as a tribute. What struck me was just how contemporary the original Kings Road Punks now look. Westwood's once shocking ideas have been totally assimilated into mainstream fashion and nobody bats an eyelid these days. Exposed zips, T-shirts with slogans, ripped cloth... all normal.

Quote from: Gerry on April 16, 2025, 06:04:11 AMExposed zips, T-shirts with slogans, ripped cloth... all normal.

Meanwhile, someone walking around in a stroller and striped trousers is considered weird.  Or at least pretentious.

Deja vu all over again.  The French Revolution replaced silks and satins with what had been equestrian sportswear.  The cultural revolution of the late 20th century replaced the suit with what had been workwear.

When I was a boy, the ushers in our church wore boutonnières on their suit jackets.  Today I'm usher captain and wear a polo shirt with the church logo.

What I've been told is tailoring began with pad stitching, sewing before then followed what people wanted.
Many people copy others fitting into the crowd (like some birds).
Tailoring probably started in Italy, the French influenced it.
Beau Brummell pursued a different direction that the English followed and then the others. The story of clothing is change.
I tend to think that men get hot and pushed the upper fronts to the sides and tailors started to make them fancy and people started calling them lapels. Styles and fashions often came from the customers with tailors contributing.
Mass-production came along and they pushed style and fashion changes to give people a reason to talk and belong and pay money. If customers don't agree with the ideas the Mass-producers can "loose their shirt", many have. Big city tailors could be specialist, and many were. Read that Henry Poole set up two other tailor shops, one for younger people-fashions, another for the middle-class and he inherited his dad's shop and made the front door on Saville Row.
The middle-class tried to copy the wealthy, but with less money. All of this is bespoke, Bespoke quality varies according to pay.
Bespoke just means the definition in the dictionary of custom, but aimed at clothes.
In England they downgraded the word custom, concerning clothing, to what the US calls made to measure, "House Styles" is just a marketing scheme, styles are always changing, not as fast as fashions.
A suit can be a fashion or style.
Back in the 60's men in their 20's, 30's and even 40's would sneak into work wearing fashion suits and get caught and sent home to change into a style suit. As a boy I'd hear stories of these younger men being told they can't wear fashions to work. Fashions were a distraction, so they rushed home and changed.
"Bespoke" was part of the method of climbing the ladder.
In the US the word was "Custom", each country has their own name.
When it comes to quality this varies hugely from tailor to tailor, company owners vary, the tailors they hire vary.
Small community tailors have to make a huge variety of clothes to stay in business. Big city tailors if good can specialize.
If you were good and liked making top dollar White Tie Coats that's all some did, they had enough customers they never needed to make cheaper coats. Trousers, vest, shirts other people made, when being around this quality only the coat maker is called a tailor.
If you go back to the community tailor they made all kinds of clothes and quality, lumberjack, barn, mill, skiing, horse riding, mountaineering, children's, farmers, etc.
Today's world how many women, home sewers, make tee shirts in 30 minutes or less?
Bespoke quality is basically fit, some are not very good, Apprenticeship has many lessons.
Valuing clothes is learned.

Lot of different rabbit holes we could go down there.  I'll pick one:

Quote from: Greger on April 19, 2025, 11:50:29 PMValuing clothes is learned.

Who is left to teach the value of good clothing, and who wants to learn?

Mark Twain once wrote of Wagner's music, "It's better than it sounds".  To those not into it, it's just a lot of noise.

I'm told Jackson Pollock's artwork is brilliant, but to my untrained pedestrian eyes it looks like mulitcolored dog vomit on a wall.

My grandnephew couldn't be bothered to wear a suit for his high school graduation picture.  He didn't own one; the family had to rent one.  He absolutely refused to put on a tie.  To him it was just a hot, uncomfortable, ridiculous, archaic costume.  The results fit his attitude.  I believe the photo he picked for the class book was taken in a hoodie and backward ball cap, so he felt "natural".  And I'm sure he's far from the only one in his class.

I just don't see your vision of the "community tailor" being viable in the current century.

Quote from: jruley on April 20, 2025, 11:08:11 AMMark Twain once wrote of Wagner's music, "It's better than it sounds". 

 :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Twain was very funny.

Quote from: Schneiderfrei on April 20, 2025, 12:26:25 PMTwain was very funny.

Twain on dressing for a funeral:

"Wear a frock coat and hat to a funeral.  Should the funeral be your own, the hat may be omitted."

Quote from: jruley on April 21, 2025, 04:10:25 AM

Quote from: Schneiderfrei on April 20, 2025, 12:26:25 PMTwain was very funny.

Twain on dressing for a funeral:

"Wear a frock coat and hat to a funeral.  Should the funeral be your own, the hat may be omitted."

The one funeral you won't miss...

Cheers, Hendrick

Quote from: jruley on April 20, 2025, 11:08:11 AMLot of different rabbit holes we could go down there.  I'll pick one:

Quote from: Greger on April 19, 2025, 11:50:29 PMValuing clothes is learned.

Who is left to teach the value of good clothing, and who wants to learn?

I just don't see your vision of the "community tailor" being viable in the current century.

The first person who Demanded a castle instead of a hut and workers figured out how to make the castle.

Second question) There are always those who want more than average. Some people want above average and start a business or two or three. Some achieve more.

Quote from: Greger on April 24, 2025, 03:39:14 AMThere are always those who want more than average. Some people want above average and start a business or two or three. Some achieve more.

I thought you were selling the notion that everyone went to the tailor, and everything was bespoke. Now you're saying that tailored clothing is for the above average.

Which is it?  You can't have it both ways.

When I was a boy, ordinary people did go to some tailors. It wasn't just for the rich.
So, yes, a whole community could.
When Mass-produced showed up it wasn't like everyone went to it and tailors were forgotten. Tailored clothes are comfortable, whereas, store bought is a cover.
If you always got comfortable clothes would you forget about them and buy cheaper uncomfortable clothes? Lots of people didn't. It depends on how you count value, money is not the only measure.
Today's sewing machines are very fast, 4,000 stitches is quick, 'Pedal to the Metal'.
All four leg seams is less than 4,000 stitches total, jeans are not time consuming.
It's like practicing the piano or violin or trumpet or oboe. Who can whip out 78 notes in the count of 1 - 2 without practice?  But you learn to move your arm, hand and fingers quick enough to be possible, plus all the details of quiet to louder etc.
There are all kinds of jackets, some have canvas in, different ways of putting canvas in, depends on how the garment is to be embellished and what the customer can pay for. This doesn't change the fit of the garment, it changes the looks.
There are tailors that will make for ordinary people and those that only pursue the wealthy.
Hostek said that he grew up dead center of Montana.
Draw two diagonal lines from corner to corner and there is a town really close.
I think he said that there was over 40 tailor companies, some had over 40 employees, most were probably making Mass-produced part (most) of the time.
That part of the country is wheat and cowboys, he had lots of cowboy paintings in his house.
This boot maker in central Oregon he made thousands of cowboy boots.
Cowboys would save their money and buy a pair of boots.
Lots of these boot makers were scattered across the west, Saddle makers too.
This one rancher, his ex wife caused huge loss for him, he always wore cowboy leather vest, none of them were the same. You can't find these in stores or the internet, someone made them for him.
Value isn't always measured by money.
Therefore, some people scarified their time for quality not found in the store or internet.
Fitted clothes don't rub as much. Rubbing is friction, friction wears out clothes.
You are right! ... there are less tailors.

Historically, at least in the UK, tailors catered to the different classes. Away from Savile Row, most high street tailors offered a cheaper product; and made-to-measure was always available from the larger chains of gents' outfitters. Tailoring in general was a low-paid profession, so prices could be kept affordable.

Even in the 1980s there were small, single traders who could knock up a decent garment for a reasonable price.
I know this, because I used one. I only ever had trousers made; and some basic alterations to coats. The trousers were totally machined, he worked to cloth and there were no fittings, which is how he kept costs down (though the cloth was always top notch). Obviously if something was totally amiss, he'd fix it (inlay was included), but amazingly I never had to ask him to do this. He had an uncanny knack of being able to get a really good result first time. If I were to inspect his work now, perhaps I'd find minor faults, but they'd only be that. Years of experience, I guess. Or he'd sold his soul to the devil.

Quote from: Gerry on April 24, 2025, 09:13:46 PMEven in the 1980s there were small, single traders who could knock up a decent garment for a reasonable price.
I know this, because I used one. I only ever had trousers made; and some basic alterations to coats. The trousers were totally machined, he worked to cloth and there were no fittings, which is how he kept costs down (though the cloth was always top notch). Obviously if something was totally amiss, he'd fix it (inlay was included), but amazingly I never had to ask him to do this. He had an uncanny knack of being able to get a really good result first time. If I were to inspect his work now, perhaps I'd find minor faults, but they'd only be that. Years of experience, I guess. Or he'd sold his soul to the devil.

Sounds like a good guy to know.  Would he have described himself as a "bespoke" tailor?  How would established businesses have reacted if he had?

Would you agree with the following:

Quote from: Greger on April 19, 2025, 11:50:29 PMAll of this is bespoke, Bespoke quality varies according to pay.

Bespoke just means the definition in the dictionary of custom, but aimed at clothes.

Bespoke quality is basically fit, some are not very good, Apprenticeship has many lessons.

I've read that a long, long time ago, the term "bespoke" applied to the cloth itself, not to the garment.  A (presumably wealthy) client would visit the tailor, pick out his cloth - and nothing else was to be cut from that "bespoke" piece until his garment was finished.

People buying from "bespoke" tailors today are usually after a certain level of quality as well as a good fit and their choice of cloth and linings.  I don't know if there is an agreed definition within the trade, but if anybody can call himself a "bespoke tailor" then the term doesn't really mean anything.

Quote from: jruley on April 24, 2025, 10:53:09 PMSounds like a good guy to know.  Would he have described himself as a "bespoke" tailor?  How would established businesses have reacted if he had

The term bespoke simply wasn't used then. Obviously it existed but it was taken for granted that a tailor would be able to make what you wanted, using decent quality cloth which you had chosen and that they would make a pattern from scratch, individual to your measurements.
A tailor was simply a tailor. The word bespoke didn't come into it.
The term is prevalent now only to differentiate traditional tailoring from made to measure and ready to wear. And as I mentioned, traditional tailoring catered to all pay levels.

I don't recall there being alterations tailors around then, either.
Obviously dry cleaners would mend garments that they had damaged, but they didn't offer alterations as many do now.
If you wanted alterations done you went to a basic tailor and don't forget that many women sewed from home in those days and we're skilled at carrying out simple alterations, my mother certainly was, though it helped that she was a trained dressmaker.

I would also add that a lot of what is done by hand now was done by machine in the past. That much is evident from mid-century tailoring manuals and vintage pieces. Savile Row has to justify its high prices and differentiate its products from ready-to-wear, so it propagates the concept that hand-sewing is better (even though this isn't always the case).

This is an article about my old tailor (You have to keep scrolling down past the multitude of ads to read the whole thing):

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/tailor-george-saunders-picks-up-64020

Sadly he's no longer around, but he gained a lot of attention towards the end of his life on account of his shop being one of the few surviving back-to-backs in existence. The National Trust bought it, along with the other shops of that kind along Hurst street, dismantled them brick-by-brick and rebuilt them in another part of town. It's now a heritage centre:

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/visit/birmingham-west-midlands/birmingham-back-to-backs/the-story-of-george-saunders

The Trust took a lot of liberties, recreating the shop how a 1940s/50s establishment might have looked, when in reality this was its appearance in the early 1980s, when I knew it:

(https://i.postimg.cc/9RvTYGz5/Hurst-St-Inge-St-Back-to-Backs-BCC-Conservation-Group.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/9RvTYGz5)

Consequently, my brother didn't make the connection when he visited the heritage centre with his family. It didn't help that the guy was really taciturn: neither of us ever knew his name, despite being regular customers, so the sign above the door in the heritage centre didn't register (we only ever knew the shop as 'Stage 2'). My brother told me that when he stepped into the place the hairs on the back of his neck stood on end. He had a massive sense of déjà vu and found the experience genuinely unnerving. He started contemplating reincarnation. Perhaps he'd been there in a previous life? Which of course he had (sort of). When he was in the visitors' centre watching a video about the history of the street, our old tailor popped up on screen and the colour came back to said brother's cheeks.

There was at least one other tailor shop along the same street. It was more expensive and very snooty (they didn't want to know if you asked about anything more fashion forward). Neither shop had 'bespoke' above their door (despite what the National Trust recreation might lead you to believe).

Edit: if you expand the photo, he described himself as a 'Master Tailor' and the other window has the sign 'Suits and Shirts Made to Measure'. Which had a different connotation in those days: it generally meant 'made to fit' (what we'd call bespoke, perhaps with a few corners cut).

Interesting article, thanks for posting it!

My memories of the 70's and 80's are considerably different.  I grew up in a smaller city than Birmingham (`70,000 population), with fewer options for clothing.  If you wanted a suit you went to Sears or Penney's, or maybe Rike's if you wanted something a little nicer.  There were a couple of local clothiers as well but similar quality.  The stores had alteration tailors who would do simple things like hemming the trousers, maybe take in or let out the waist.  That was about it AFAIK.  If there was a "real", "bespoke", "custom", "personal", or even a made-to-measure tailor in town they kept a low profile.  To be fair I wasn't fussy about fit or very style conscious in those days.

Everybody - or at least the Everybodys I knew - bought and wore what the stores had in stock.  I remember my Dad complaining to a salesman about trousers being cut tighter in the knee than he liked.  The response was "that's what they're wearing these days."  I remember when "leisure suits" came into the stores - and right back out again about 6 months later.  Then the 80's came along, suddenly pleated pants were back and everybody wanted a pair of red elastic suspenders.

And I don't think my experience is that unusual.  Maybe British men still went to tailors, but Americans have been buying most of their clothes from stores since the 50's.  That's the 1850's, not the 1950's.  "Ready to wear" took off in a big way here as soon as steam propulsion made it more efficient to concentrate clothing production in a few large cities.  Now the idea has been extended to the global market.

Good tailoring, like fine wine or a good meal, is for those who appreciate it.  Most people don't.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I doubt the word bespoke started on Saville Row. It probably started way before Saville Row existed. Been spoken for is still used. Castle owners would have been far better educated with words and grammar. Made to measure didn't exist until the 1920. Levi started Mass-produced. There were people sewing clothes before tailors. Shirt makers, and other garments continued after tailors. Tailors made nicer coats. Fashions are less than five years of popular wear. Styles are longer. If styles were shorter length of time there wouldn't be enough people that can afford them and tailors need enough customers.
20 years ago some tailors on SR laughed at Anderson and Shepard because it doesn't have near the stitches as the others. If you read tailor and cutter they said the same thing earlier. There certainly are snobby tailors. Clothes, as other things, is sometimes about prestige. It is like wearing Cool clothes, shoes, whatever. The world is very diverse now.

Quote from: jruley on April 25, 2025, 10:44:09 AMMaybe British men still went to tailors, but Americans have been buying most of their clothes from stores since the 50's.  That's the 1850's, not the 1950's.  "Ready to wear" took off in a big way here as soon as steam propulsion made it more efficient to concentrate clothing production in a few large cities.  Now the idea has been extended to the global market.

It was unusual for anyone to use a tailor in the early 1980s, let alone teenagers. My brother and I could afford it because we'd worked in Germany for a short while, earning a ton of cash all tax and rent free. A well known, British TV comedy-drama (Auf Wiedersehen Pet) highlighted this growing trend at the time.

Highstreet tailors started to go into decline in the early 1970s. Prior to that, it was common to buy 'made-to-measure'; though in those days the term wasn't as defined as it is now. In the larger, national gents' outfitters (where many bought their suits), blocks were used and alterations (based on the measurements taken) were made when striking the cloth. A limited choice of options was given, in terms of style, when ordering the jacket/suit, but everything was traditionally put together. Usually in large workshops/factories.

As previously mentioned, with high-street tailors it was taken as read that the term 'made-to-measure' meant 'made to fit' (what we'd now call 'bespoke'). A pattern was cut utilising a customer's individual measurements and the garment made to their instructions/taste. The amount of fittings and handwork varied according to how much you were willing to pay. Rents were cheaper, wages lower, and therefore tailoring was more affordable. Still expensive, but certainly within reach of many who wanted something special. In the 1960s, the Mod generation frequently used tailors; though also in that decade ready-to-wear and fast-fashion took over, courtesy of Carnaby Street, and a whole generation started to be weaned off the good stuff.

QuoteGood tailoring, like fine wine or a good meal, is for those who appreciate it.  Most people don't.  I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I agree. The current generation seem to have no interest in fashion, let alone tailoring; and many Hollywood stars seem content to wear designer-label stuff that often doesn't quite fit. Few follow the example of their metaphorical forebears, who regularly wore tailored suits.

To address Greger's point, I also doubt that Savile Row invented the term bespoke, because tailoring came to the Row, it didn't start there. However, I'm also pretty sure that the Row has pushed the term in recent decades merely as a marketing ploy, because I don't remember any tailor using it in the 70s/80s.

Quote from: Greger on April 25, 2025, 12:59:25 PMMade to measure didn't exist until the 1920. Levi started Mass-produced.

For the history buffs among us, here are two great places to visit:


https://www.1856.com/


https://www.fws.gov/refuge/desoto/steamboat-bertrand


Both of these house the remains of steamboats which sank in the Missouri River, one in 1856, the other in 1865.  The river changed course over time and boat boats were excavated in the 20th century.  For those interested in what was moving on the rivers in those days, they are time capsules.

Both boats contained large quantities of men's clothing, much of it well preserved under the mud (though cotton shirts had mostly rotted).  In addition to shirts, hats, shoes, boots and other accessories there were large numbers of coats and trousers.  No, these didn't belong to the crew and passengers, they were stock on the way to dry goods stores.  This is before Levi Strauss.  He may have popularized mass produced clothing, but he didn't invent it.

The US Army in 1861 had only about 15,000 officers and men.  Most were clothed by arsenals on the East Coast, using handworkers in an effort to provide welfare for soldiers' widows and orphans.  By the end of the Civil War in 1865 something like two million men had served in uniform.  The arsenal system was completely overwhelmed, and the Quartermaster Department had to contract for large quantities of clothing.  Who were the contractors?  Many were clothiers who had lost their Southern markets due to the blockade.  Clothing production had almost disappeared in the South before the war, since it was cheaper to have clothing made in the New York area using immigrant labor.

Best available evidence is the Army issued uniforms in four sizes, according to a fixed "tariff" or proportion of sizes per bale of 100 coats, trousers, etc.  These were cut to standard measurements, although no original patterns are known to survive.  This would not have been possible if tailors were incapable of making made-to-measure and ready to wear clothing.

Some famous American clothiers got their start in the ready to wear business.  Brooks Brothers, I believe, started as a manufacturer of cheap sailors' "slops" in the 1830's.

MTM and RTW go back a lot further than some may want to think...

Maybe Levi was the first on the west coast. Or maybe the first where each employee did one and passed it to the next etc. Ford was the first assembly line auto maker.

The author Tom Wolfe didn't know anything about tailored clothes. As a beginning author one of his heroes looked at his coat sleeve and reacted unfavorably. No hand made button holes. He must have done some research to find out what that was about. Later that is all he wore for those kinds of coats. Around here as a child it seems everyone knew about tailors. Obviously there were areas where people didn't know throughout the US. And from area to area it depended upon what the tailors would make. Some won't touch the lower classes. If you have too many customers you don't have time to make cheaper clothes, unless you have apprentices.

Bespoke is at least two fittings until a good pattern is established. At least one thereafter, because cloth is different.

Gerry,
I to believe the best tailors. Genius and expert skill, doesn't only come from SR. Claiming that SR are the best tailors is another marketing ploy. After all the Germans think they are better. Nowadays there are few tailors around any country. In the past there were thousands just in the US. Hostek said that he hired tailors from many different countries. Some were incredibly good. SR doesn't own everything. Wonder how much history they have forgotten. Because of the lack of tailors today, perhaps they now can accurately claim to be the best. In the past they couldn't because tailoring is an art. Artist are born anywhere. Different cultures have different art expectations.

Quote from: Greger on April 27, 2025, 04:55:00 PMGerry,
I to believe the best tailors. Genius and expert skill, doesn't only come from SR. Claiming that SR are the best tailors is another marketing ploy. After all the Germans think they are better. Nowadays there are few tailors around any country. In the past there were thousands just in the US. Hostek said that he hired tailors from many different countries. Some were incredibly good. SR doesn't own everything. Wonder how much history they have forgotten. Because of the lack of tailors today, perhaps they now can accurately claim to be the best. In the past they couldn't because tailoring is an art. Artist are born anywhere. Different cultures have different art expectations.

The workshops of the Row are, and always have been, a melting pot of nationalities. To claim that the style of the Row is uniquely English is, therefore, a little simplistic; especially bearing in mind that some of their most influential cutters, such as Scholte, weren't even British born.

Outside of London, there are still provincial tailor shops that offer the same standard of tailoring as the Row. Likewise around the globe. The only thing the Row can say with any certainty is that they produce some of the most expensive suits in the world. Having said that, I admire the tradition of the place and they do help to maintain a standard across tailoring.

Quote from: Gerry on April 27, 2025, 07:53:53 PM

Quote from: Greger on April 27, 2025, 04:55:00 PMGerry,
I to believe the best tailors. Genius and expert skill, doesn't only come from SR. Claiming that SR are the best tailors is another marketing ploy. After all the Germans think they are better. Nowadays there are few tailors around any country. In the past there were thousands just in the US. Hostek said that he hired tailors from many different countries. Some were incredibly good. SR doesn't own everything. Wonder how much history they have forgotten. Because of the lack of tailors today, perhaps they now can accurately claim to be the best. In the past they couldn't because tailoring is an art. Artist are born anywhere. Different cultures have different art expectations.

The workshops of the Row are, and always have been, a melting pot of nationalities. To claim that the style of the Row is uniquely English is, therefore, a little simplistic; especially bearing in mind that some of their most influential cutters, such as Scholte, weren't even British born.

Outside of London, there are still provincial tailor shops that offer the same standard of tailoring as the Row. Likewise around the globe. The only thing the Row can say with any certainty is that they produce some of the most expensive suits in the world. Having said that, I admire the tradition of the place and they do help to maintain a standard across tailoring.

In the end, Saville Row is also a fenomenal marketing springboard for tailoring in general. The concentration of houses present, with their different history, has sparked the interest of many also younger people in tailoring an maybe timeless dressing. That said, no they do not hold the technical ownership of the trade as such. But then again, with such a concentration of "names" on just over a square mile or so it's only logic that it is a manget for talent. My dad always said that the best of tailors and bootmakers came from the triangle Venice, Budapest, Vienna, just saying...

Cheerio, Hendrick

Quote from: Hendrick on April 28, 2025, 06:19:26 AMIn the end, Saville Row is also a fenomenal marketing springboard for tailoring in general. The concentration of houses present, with their different history, has sparked the interest of many also younger people in tailoring an maybe timeless dressing.

Absolutely, the high concentration of businesses along the Row means that standards have to be kept really high to remain competitive. If they cut corners customers will simply go to the shop next door.

The only thing that gets tiresome is that some establishments (not all, I hasten to add) think they're the only ones in the world creating decent suits. And some are a little disingenuous when claiming to use only natural materials. Really? What about the polyester thread, nylon banrol and other occasional plastics that creep into their work.

Quote from: Gerry on April 28, 2025, 08:20:29 PM

Quote from: Hendrick on April 28, 2025, 06:19:26 AMIn the end, Saville Row is also a fenomenal marketing springboard for tailoring in general. The concentration of houses present, with their different history, has sparked the interest of many also younger people in tailoring an maybe timeless dressing.

Absolutely, the high concentration of businesses along the Row means that standards have to be kept really high to remain competitive. If they cut corners customers will simply go to the shop next door.

The only thing that gets tiresome is that some establishments (not all, I hasten to add) think they're the only ones in the world creating decent suits. And some are a little disingenuous when claiming to use only natural materials. Really? What about the polyester thread, nylon banrol and other occasional plastics that creep into their work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMj4oy1zo6s

Quote from: Hendrick on April 28, 2025, 06:19:26 AMIn the end, Saville Row is also a fenomenal marketing springboard for tailoring in general.

And now the truth has been revealed that the Saville Row is a hotbed of espionage, saving the world from the ravages of disorder and destruction - as per the documentary Kingsman

DB draft posted on Frank Shattuck's Instaface if anyone looking for Kingsman inspiration. A pint of Guinness would 'suit' me today.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DIzKIQxJlY2/

Quote from: Steelmillal on April 30, 2025, 05:54:09 AMA pint of Guinness would 'suit' me today.

 ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Quote from: Schneiderfrei on April 30, 2025, 09:49:28 AM

Quote from: Steelmillal on April 30, 2025, 05:54:09 AMA pint of Guinness would 'suit' me today.

 ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

I'm in; hot as hell here...

In Sweden if you turned 6 years old they would say we don't know you. 6 is too old to start learning. And no machines. The world is ever changing.

Quote from: Greger on May 01, 2025, 02:56:37 PMIn Sweden if you turned 6 years old they would say we don't know you. 6 is too old to start learning. And no machines. The world is ever changing.

C'mon, Greger - what year was that?

You might find this interesting:

https://www.keikari.com/english/interview-with-frederik-andersen-from-a-w-bauer/

Turns out A W Bauer is in Sweden, and goes back a long time.

And Frederik DID learn to sew at age 6 - but ironically enough, it was on his mother's machine.

Quote from: jruley on May 01, 2025, 09:21:27 PM

Quote from: Greger on May 01, 2025, 02:56:37 PMIn Sweden if you turned 6 years old they would say we don't know you. 6 is too old to start learning. And no machines. The world is ever changing.

C'mon, Greger - what year was that?

You might find this interesting:

https://www.keikari.com/english/interview-with-frederik-andersen-from-a-w-bauer/

Turns out A W Bauer is in Sweden, and goes back a long time.

And Frederik DID learn to sew at age 6 - but ironically enough, it was on his mother's machine.

I learned sewing at age 7... Linings on a Pfaff 134 or 136; it was on a saturday afternoon, mornings I was at school back then... Few weeks later learned to "pull in" sleevecrowns and "knot them off" by hand. Waddings and felts were too small for the cutting table and all handcut by avid ladies those days...

Cheers, Hendrick

1920s is when various groups of tailors started using sewing machines. Grandfather had become a farmer in Canada by then, because he thought he could earn more money.
The group in Sweden, not even sure it is around anymore.
Hostek was really angry and hurt because the American group became mtm. They could have added mtm as another branch. One of the organization leader 10-20 years ago has mtm business and mocked the history of fine tailoring and shirt making.
The guy who owns Bauer now is not old school. No doubt he learned some. I think the old guys were rejecting him because of his age. Too old. He is lucky that they changed their mind. They mentioned the trade was dieing, what year is this? 1970s? 1980? Why weren't there some younger apprentices? In the US there are real tailors who closed up shop because the lack of customers. Some tailors went to mtm and alterations. The boy I went to school with, when he was 11, late 1960s, an old semi retired tailor, a tiny little house, so the pattern would be drawn out bit by bit on the cloth, he certainly made a large variety of clothes. Another young man had a special coat made from an old tailor. It might have been the same tailor. But I think the other had died by then. That was an interesting story. It was probably the same tailor his parents went to. The boys back then didn't want their parents to know what their little group was about. So this tailor asked him many tricky questions trying to get the teen to "spill the beans". Every detail of the coat has to be cut a certain way to represent this teen group meaning. I had read the Hobbit books. The questioning and answers were like when the hobbit was taking the ring back and that little creature with all his trick questions to get hold of the ring. The teen never got what he wanted. The tailor made him an interesting coat. The tailor told him about what other teens had him make. Each generation has its own unique details. Armholes are cut different. Waist, chest, collars, etc. Tailors who only produce like Mass-produced kinda bore me. They can be very good tailors. Some have lots of that work and it pays good money. I understand that. I'm also a painter. What painter paints the same painting over and over? I like small town tailors because they have to be open minded to stay in business. Theater and ballet and movie tailors make a huge variety of clothes. The imagination never ends.
I think England had a cut off age of 19 for awhile. Read that perhaps more than once. Other countries had different ages depending where you lived. Now most will take any age.
One of my cousins in Europe moved out of his parents house as soon as he could because he disliked the demanding picky customers. He might be doing this trade again, but he is probably retired.
Anyway, it is an interesting world of art.

Just a 'follow up' image.
Charlie and Shirley in front of blossoming spring wisteria in 2020 with their rescue dog Suzie.
Apparently the Last Photo with his partner of 59 years before his passing.

Charlie Watts with his wife of 57 years.jpg

Quote from: Greger on May 02, 2025, 05:37:18 PM1920s is when various groups of tailors started using sewing machines.

For those interested in the history of the sewing machine, here is the
International Sewing Machine Collectors' Society website:

https://ismacs.net/index.html

A French tailor named Thimmonier actually had a production line making army uniforms set up in the 1830's, using primitive wooden-framed machines.  To be fair the operation didn't last long.  The local hand tailors rioted, and wooden machines burn very well.

Practical lockstitch machines became available through the decade of the 1850's.  Larger, heavier built models intended for industrial use came out in parallel with the home models.  Singer in particular built larger machines, since their basic design used gears and cross shafts  which could easily be lengthened.

Original Civil War uniforms (1861-65) are on display in many national parks and battlefield museums.  Look closely and you'll find machine topstitching.  Obviously the clothing contractors had machines.  Men's civilian clothing of the era is scarcer, but you can also find machine stitching; I've personally seen machine quilted chest padding in several frock and dress coats.

I think it's probably true that visible stitching of any kind was looked down on as a sign of cheaper quality work, but that doesn't mean machines didn't have their place.

Quote from: Greger on May 02, 2025, 05:37:18 PMTailors who only produce like Mass-produced kinda bore me. They can be very good tailors. Some have lots of that work and it pays good money. I understand that. I'm also a painter. What painter paints the same painting over and over? I like small town tailors because they have to be open minded to stay in business. Theater and ballet and movie tailors make a huge variety of clothes. The imagination never ends.

If you are purely an artist, then you can paint whatever you wish.  If you are an artist in business, then you have to paint things other people want to buy, or you will starve.  Same thing with a tailor.  If your customers value conformity over self-expression you may very well make the same thing over and over.  Face it - you're making uniforms, although the rules may not be as explicit as military regulations.  Your work is distinguished by its precision, not its originality.

I agree that theater, ballet and movie work is probably a better fit for an artistic mind than cranking out endless quantities of the "house style".

Quote from: jruley on May 02, 2025, 11:40:59 PM

Quote from: Greger on May 02, 2025, 05:37:18 PMTailors who only produce like Mass-produced kinda bore me. They can be very good tailors. Some have lots of that work and it pays good money. I understand that. I'm also a painter. What painter paints the same painting over and over? I like small town tailors because they have to be open minded to stay in business. Theater and ballet and movie tailors make a huge variety of clothes. The imagination never ends.

If you are purely an artist, then you can paint whatever you wish.  If you are an artist in business, then you have to paint things other people want to buy, or you will starve.  Same thing with a tailor.  If your customers value conformity over self-expression you may very well make the same thing over and over.  Face it - you're making uniforms, although the rules may not be as explicit as military regulations.  Your work is distinguished by its precision, not its originality.

I agree that theater, ballet and movie work is probably a better fit for an artistic mind than cranking out endless quantities of the "house style".

Note that every decent level ready to wear co. in the mens' business has a least a "tailor in the house", Schnittmacher in German... These guys are extremely good at developing cuts within the right "Zeitgeist". Now I was thinking of an aunt of mine, a painter who was commisoned for literally hundreds of portraits. They were all portraits sure, but always representing different characters' facial features and expression. I suppose clothing can give the wearer authority but also the opposite... I think that in costume design there is far more room for expression but also there, authority of the character is at play at stage. No matter if it's comedy, tragedy or satire...

 

Cheers, Hendrick

Wait, wait, wait'a.. wh.. ..Wait.

Who's round is it?

(https://i.postimg.cc/F760ddqb/Screenshot-13758.png) (https://postimg.cc/F760ddqb)

Was still there at screenshot data..

Uniform is a varied word, Military is different than IBM blue and that is somewhat different than general business suit.
The business suit is different from a fashion suit, the fashion suit is not a business suit at all.
How many people born in the sixties and later know any of this? They think coat and trousers cut from the same sports cloth is a suit and a choir could have a suit more with military rules and then there is dressage uniform, among other kinds.
Mass-production doesn't have fit that bespoke would.
Mass-production was using sewing machines 100 years before bespoke, doesn't mean that there no bespoke using machines.
My understanding is most bespoke groups refused to allow them. If you don't want to be an outcast a thimbled finger for every stitch for bespoke.
Mass-production is very different.
Bespoke talent varies hugely, too.

Quote from: Steelmillal on May 05, 2025, 04:13:28 AMWait, wait, wait'a.. wh.. ..Wait.

Who's round is it?

(https://i.postimg.cc/F760ddqb/Screenshot-13758.png) (https://postimg.cc/F760ddqb)

Was still there at screenshot data..

Hey that's not far at all from me.

Quote from: Greger on May 05, 2025, 01:04:36 PMUniform is a varied word, Military is different than IBM blue and that is somewhat different than general business suit.
The business suit is different from a fashion suit, the fashion suit is not a business suit at all.

How many people born in the sixties and later know any of this? (emphasis added)

So how is it relevant - if you are making for people under age 65?

When your grandfather was working in the early 20th century, did he try to force his customers to follow 1850's and 1860's rules of dress?

So why should a tailor working in 2025 try to force customers to follow the conventions of the 1950's and 1960's?

Is the tailor supposed to be a fashion policeman?

Quote from: Greger on May 05, 2025, 01:04:36 PMUniform is a varied word, Military is different than IBM blue and that is somewhat different than general business suit.
The business suit is different from a fashion suit, the fashion suit is not a business suit at all.
How many people born in the sixties and later know any of this? They think coat and trousers cut from the same sports cloth is a suit and a choir could have a suit more with military rules and then there is dressage uniform, among other kinds.
Mass-production doesn't have fit that bespoke would.
Mass-production was using sewing machines 100 years before bespoke, doesn't mean that there no bespoke using machines.
My understanding is most bespoke groups refused to allow them. If you don't want to be an outcast a thimbled finger for every stitch for bespoke.
Mass-production is very different.
Bespoke talent varies hugely, too.

Exactly... That is why most fashion suits are made ready to wear and have "added seasonal fashion content" in them, just try to immagine a Saville Row suit on a Gucci, or worse Balenciaga catwalk for that matter. Oppositly, a business suit is discreet and unobtrusive in nature and fit and more "style statement" than "fashion statement". An RTW suit can never fit like a bespoke suit, but it can easily be a little crazier. Because RTW is machined, the "make" of it is much more anonimous however crazy the styling may be. In a bespoke suit, you immediatly see the hand of the maker as well as the typical features of the cut. Clearly, the styling of a bespoke suit is subtle and discreet and it is logic only that the tailor pursues a degree of timelesness at the pricepoint in question! So no, the tailor is no member of the "design polizei" but he represents a craft and it is in his own interest to protect it. 

Cheerio, Hendrick

Don't take me too seriously, I'm mostly pulling Greger's chain  :) .

We've been presented with two different visions of "bespoke".  One is the unique artistic piece:

Quote from: Greger on May 02, 2025, 05:37:18 PMAnother young man had a special coat made from an old tailor. It might have been the same tailor. But I think the other had died by then. That was an interesting story. It was probably the same tailor his parents went to. The boys back then didn't want their parents to know what their little group was about. So this tailor asked him many tricky questions trying to get the teen to "spill the beans". Every detail of the coat has to be cut a certain way to represent this teen group meaning. I had read the Hobbit books. The questioning and answers were like when the hobbit was taking the ring back and that little creature with all his trick questions to get hold of the ring. The teen never got what he wanted. The tailor made him an interesting coat. The tailor told him about what other teens had him make. Each generation has its own unique details. Armholes are cut different. Waist, chest, collars, etc.

while the other is traditional and conservative:

Quote from: Hendrick on May 06, 2025, 02:12:29 AMClearly, the styling of a bespoke suit is subtle and discreet and it is logic only that the tailor pursues a degree of timelesness at the pricepoint in question!

Quote from: jruley on May 06, 2025, 03:08:34 AMDon't take me too seriously, I'm mostly pulling Greger's chain  :) .

We've been presented with two different visions of "bespoke".  One is the unique artistic piece:

Quote from: Greger on May 02, 2025, 05:37:18 PMAnother young man had a special coat made from an old tailor. It might have been the same tailor. But I think the other had died by then. That was an interesting story. It was probably the same tailor his parents went to. The boys back then didn't want their parents to know what their little group was about. So this tailor asked him many tricky questions trying to get the teen to "spill the beans". Every detail of the coat has to be cut a certain way to represent this teen group meaning. I had read the Hobbit books. The questioning and answers were like when the hobbit was taking the ring back and that little creature with all his trick questions to get hold of the ring. The teen never got what he wanted. The tailor made him an interesting coat. The tailor told him about what other teens had him make. Each generation has its own unique details. Armholes are cut different. Waist, chest, collars, etc.

while the other is traditional and conservative:

Quote from: Hendrick on May 06, 2025, 02:12:29 AMClearly, the styling of a bespoke suit is subtle and discreet and it is logic only that the tailor pursues a degree of timelesness at the pricepoint in question!

Correct! But note that between the times "mods" and before that "teddy boys" went to tailors to have a cool outfit made and these days a revolution took place in the RTW market that has developed into a whopping 150 Bn. market in the luxury segment alone!

That is without the "normal stuff"... Do not underestimate the marketing power of the players in that field and the visual influence on youngsters by means of influencers, celebreties and so on. Maybe there is an overkill effect that may explain the success of houses like Hermes, Chanel and Cuccinelli lately versus the decline of the revamped companies held by the likes of LVMH that are currently in decline and looking for new "rockstar designers" constantly. I personally think that there is a bit of fashion fatigue, save for maybe the real cheap stuff sold to teenagers. Could be that the hunger for style is greater than the hunger for fashion, at least for the real spenders. Maybe the system of "fast moving consumer goods" is not the right way for luxury brands; it is too similar to fast fashion brands. And a visit to the tailor may just be the perfect escape from "planet fashion". There is also a socio-economic factor; after WWII fashion was scarce, now it is omnipresent and dead-cheap. Style however, is a different story. As an example the Saint Laurent see-through blouse is now nearly sixty years old, only to indicate that creativity and complexity ar not the same... We took multiple hurdles in consuming over the decades, 50's was about cars, housing and decoration, 60's about travel and fashion for the masses, 70's "freedom", sex and peace and so on. So maybe we squeezed it a bit too hard and we are nearing the end of a certain consumption cycle.  I keep hearing and reading all sorts of philosophies about fashion, but all I see are people in black spandex and trainers everywhere... 


Cheerio, Hendrick

Well Jim, grandpa came from a small community in a small country in Europe. Really, not even a town. He came to America and convinced them how to dress properly. Even in the casket. After all, you don't want to stand before God on your judgment day wearing clothes that go to hell! He certainly forced everyone to dress correctly. When he died everything went pot. Just look at the hippies.

Putting aside humor, king's, czars, emperors, duke's, lords, top brass, etc set the standards and most everyone else tries to copy as best they can until the hippie generation.
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.

SR has a representation of style because of the clientel it brings in. Show clothes are a bit different.

In the US there were some tailors that only made style and others that made both style and fashions. Today's fashions I can't imagine any tailor even looking at them for ones sanity sake!

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!

Quote from: Greger on May 06, 2025, 07:41:57 AMHendrick, 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

Quote from: Greger on May 06, 2025, 07:24:50 AMAs 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. 

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.

Quote from: Greger on May 06, 2025, 12:34:54 PMOf 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.

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

Quote from: Hendrick on May 06, 2025, 05:02:00 PMAsk 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.

"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 

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.

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.

Quote from: Greger on May 08, 2025, 12:52:01 PMSome 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.

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

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.

"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.

Quote from: Greger on May 10, 2025, 05:58:19 AMEasy 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?

Quote from: Greger on May 10, 2025, 05:58:19 AM"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.

When they enter the workplace, a high percentage of our current youth will require a suit, whether they like it or not. That has been the experience of my eldest nephew. A small percentage, the high earners, will eventually buy bespoke.

I doubt we'll ever see a return to those mid-century days when tailors were aplenty, but I don't see the profession going into decline either. There will all always be a small percentage of the population that wants the best.

The difference now, and most likely in the future, is that outside of work young people only dress casually. Which is why we're seeing more tailors offering high-end casual wear alongside their normal fare.

Quote from: jruley on May 10, 2025, 06:24:32 AM"Comfort" today seems to be equated with oversized, loose and sloppy, or stretchy.  How is a tailor supposed to compete with that?

When you see someone in a well-fitted garment they simply look elegant. And many people would want to buy into that. Vanity is alive and well.  :)

Quote from: Gerry on May 10, 2025, 06:27:00 AM

Quote from: Greger on May 10, 2025, 05:58:19 AM"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.

When they enter the workplace, a high percentage of our current youth will require a suit, whether they like it or not. That has been the experience of my eldest nephew. A small percentage, the high earners, will eventually buy bespoke.

I doubt we'll ever see a return to those mid-century days when tailors were aplenty, but I don't see the profession going into decline either. There will all always be a small percentage of the population that wants the best.

The difference now, and most likely in the future, is that outside of work young people only dress casually. Which is why we're seeing more tailors offering high-end casual wear alongside their normal fare.

Same here, and more so since the end of Covid... Frankly, I think since then mainstreet ready to wear has relatively suffered more than tailoring. And that is not all; demand for ceremonial is also increasing. It is clearly obvious in the offerings of fabric suppliers. True, there is a huge gap between what is worn casually or formally. And let's face it; how is wearing streetwear, in whatever form, a statement anymore? The only exception is the boom in bodyconscious athletic stuff and oldschool running shoes. "Sophisticated" casualwear or "refined sportswear" is also doing well, call it "dinner-proof" if you will. Prices in that segment are steadily crawling northward by the way (think of labels like Stone Island or CP Company for example). Anyway, there will always be formal moments and that includes above all business situations...

Cheerio, Hendrick

Quote from: Gerry on May 10, 2025, 06:37:29 AM

Quote from: jruley on May 10, 2025, 06:24:32 AM"Comfort" today seems to be equated with oversized, loose and sloppy, or stretchy.  How is a tailor supposed to compete with that?

When you see someone in a well-fitted garment they simply look elegant. And many people would want to buy into that. Vanity is alive and well.  :)

Couldn't agree more; freedom is a great thing, but it shouldn't hurt the eyes...

Cheers, Hendrick

Quote from: Gerry on May 10, 2025, 06:37:29 AMWhen you see someone in a well-fitted garment they simply look elegant. And many people would want to buy into that. Vanity is alive and well.  :)

Nice sidestep, but I meant how does a tailor compete on the basis of comfort?  Yes a well fitted jacket can be more comfortable than off the rack, but it's not more comfortable than a sweatshirt.

The last popular fashion statement, as demonstrated repeatedly in the James Bond movies, and copied endlessly by footballers in Australia and my own sons up until recently, was the wearing of undersized jackets. This was the fashion in order to emphasise ones "Gains" in the gym.

As is always true the fashion suits those individuals who are in the peak of fashion readiness. Wearing undersized jackets quickly became as ludicrous as seeing a row of half a dozen young women waiting, seated on a bench at the hairdresser, with their backs to the glass window - all wearing low rise jeans. A sight previously reserved for the bar at a plumbers conference. ;)

Quote from: jruley on May 10, 2025, 09:46:22 AMYes a well fitted jacket can be more comfortable than off the rack, but it's not more comfortable than a sweatshirt.

I'm just not convinced that this is at all true. I get people occasionally commenting about this when they see how I normally dress outside of work (which is basically how I dress at work) and I think it's really all about perception and biased expectations.

People are so accustomed to slim fit poor fitting off the rack suits, often with polyester in the mix, that they simply do not know what an ok fitting jacket feels like. They see a jacket and can only think of that much less than satisfactory experience they had with a Men's Wearhouse suit that they needed for a wedding or some other such rare occasion. I have a couple jackets that I wear constantly. They're not at all a perfect fit. But the shoulders are right, the amount of ease is good, and I don't overheat in the half lined one until I am being active in 80 degree weather. My cotton chinos that actually have enough fabric to fit right are as comfortable as any jeans, and rolling up the sleeves on a half decent cotton buttonup shirt is as comfortable as any tshirt. And so I am as comfortable in my slightly elevated outfit as anyone in a sweat shirt and sweatpants.

Quote from: jruley on May 10, 2025, 09:46:22 AM

Quote from: Gerry on May 10, 2025, 06:37:29 AMWhen you see someone in a well-fitted garment they simply look elegant. And many people would want to buy into that. Vanity is alive and well.  :)

Nice sidestep, but I meant how does a tailor compete on the basis of comfort?  Yes a well fitted jacket can be more comfortable than off the rack, but it's not more comfortable than a sweatshirt.

It wasn't a sidestep Jim. People who go to tailors aren't in the market for sweatshirts. They might own them and wear them around the house, but that's not the reason they're going to a tailor, is it. Someone who wishes to buy a vintage Porsche isn't going to be swayed at the last moment by an e-bike.

Formal wear still has its place in society; and many have to conform to the dress code of the workplace (or classroom in the case of British schoolkids). For office workers, politicians and those in business, their uniform is still the suit. Catch the London rush-hour sometime and you'll see that to be the case. Dress codes have changed over the years of course, and perhaps formality has been eschewed more in the States, but the UK is still a very traditional place.

The market for bespoke bottomed out long ago. It's now small, niche, but healthy. And to return to my initial point, when you see someone well-dressed they can inspire a sense of awe; even feelings of inadequacy and envy. That's what fuels the bespoke trade: a desire to join the club and be that person.

Quote from: Schneiderfrei on May 10, 2025, 01:29:32 PMWearing undersized jackets quickly became as ludicrous as seeing a row of half a dozen young women waiting, seated on a bench at the hairdresser, with their backs to the glass window - all wearing low rise jeans. A sight previously reserved for the bar at a plumbers conference. ;)

Do they call it a "tramp stamp" down there too?   ;D

Quote from: jruley on May 11, 2025, 12:23:12 PMDo they call it a "tramp stamp" down there too?   ;D

Hi jruley, if indeed there is a tatoo there it is called a tramp stamp. If it's just the exposed top of the natal cleft, it's called a plumber's crack.  Welcome to Australia. ;)

Sounds like Wal-Mart at home  ;D

Sweatshirts, flip flops, and plumber's butt. Yep, that's high fashion in some parts.

Off to get me a 'soda'...

(https://i.postimg.cc/XGkH2Ty0/yoohoo.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XGkH2Ty0)

Quote from: Steelmillal on May 12, 2025, 05:35:09 AMSweatshirts, flip flops, and plumber's butt. Yep, that's high fashion in some parts.

Off to get me a 'soda'...

(https://i.postimg.cc/XGkH2Ty0/yoohoo.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/XGkH2Ty0)

...remember this?

Wishing you the strength of the stool and the courage of the little dog...

(https://i.postimg.cc/jWG4BhqK/PHOTO-202.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/jWG4BhqK)


Cheerio, Hendrick

Quote from: jruley on May 11, 2025, 01:28:17 PMSounds like Wal-Mart at home  ;D

I've seen the instragram videos of Walmart. Quite frankly they surpass anything I've ever seen here.  But, we call such people, Bogans.

Quote from: Schneiderfrei on May 12, 2025, 10:41:18 AMI've seen the instragram videos of Walmart. Quite frankly they surpass anything I've ever seen here.  But, we call such people, Bogans.

Bogans?

I call them "Wal-Martians"  ;D

That's right. Bogans = "An uncouth or unsophisticated person regarded as being of low social status."

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

Yes. For freedom of movement. But, what people don't know is that move freedom of movement and better comfort is putting the goods where they belong. It can still be loose and baggy. When the shoulders are right and the balance, straight and crooking, the comfort and freedom of movement is better. And, the collar sits nice. People don't know this. But when they get something that is they learn by wearing it. After that they want it. A cheaper shirt doesn't need high quality method of making. The sleeves can be sewn in the scye with a overcaster (serger). The side seam and sleeve in one go. The collar and yoke and placket and cuff use a sewing machine. The bottom edge however. The outside looks professional and the inside details don't matter for a cheaper shirt. The object is a better fitting shirt at a price ordinary people can buy.
Some people's posture is terrible and these shirts make a huge difference.

Everything has been done to death. Even jeans. It seems hard to come up with anything new. Younger people like something never done before. Each generation wants to leave its own mark. I wonder what will grab their attention next.

Quote from: Greger on May 12, 2025, 06:33:58 PMEverything has been done to death. Even jeans. It seems hard to come up with anything new. Younger people like something never done before. Each generation wants to leave its own mark. I wonder what will grab their attention next.

Trust it to be something that brings in the most cash the fasted! But also remember that most teenagers and twens never lived trough or have ever seen the trends we have... As an example, I have waded through -at least- five waves of flares, simply because the appear "new" to every new generation of teens...

Look at Gucci. Originally a typical Italian luxury brand, quiet in a sense but with a slightly "oblique" taste to it, especially under Tom Ford. Allessandro Michele arrives and goes all in retro 70s, with crushed velvets, crochet, fringes, "off" colours and what have you. Had nothing to do with the Gucci that we all knew but it was a huge succes, because it was clicked to heaven and back by youngsters on the internet who couldn't even afford the stuff.

Don't forget styling... How people put their outfits ("the sum of parts") together is evermore important than the individual item of clothing. Tiktok and other social media has propelled "self styling" into unseen before media power. Teenage girls and boys are "dipping their toes" in ever increasingly "risqué" self styled "fashion" imagery with jaw-dropping results and clicks&likes. Important fashion houses are astronomically huge amounts of their marketing budgets in influencers.

This "media hairball" leaves the consumer increasingly confused and insecure. Funny consequence of all this is that players like Shein and Temu actually use these images and "mash them up" to recrate AI generated "pictures" of the stuff they sell. An explosive mix of inflated lips, oversized butts and huge breasts the result, the taste level is at least questionnable. A friend, who works in marketing, told me that to her it looks like "a perpetual garden party for callgirls". These images are then injected into Instagram, Pinterest and what have you to create demand for the containerloads of polyester stuff that just hit our shores.

So, I suppose the fashion revolution, once "owned" by the young has become a system. Compare it to fast food, where you can "tap in your order" on a screen these days and can "ad any choice", as long as it is a burger!


Cheers, have a great day, Hendrick

Quote from: jruley on May 12, 2025, 11:32:32 AMI call them "Wal-Martians"  ;D

Brilliant! ;D

Quote from: jruley on May 12, 2025, 11:32:32 AMI call them "Wal-Martians"  ;D

We call them Cousins :)

Quote from: Steelmillal on May 13, 2025, 01:15:56 AMWe call them Cousins :)

"If your family tree runs straight up and down — you might be a redneck..."

I can honestly say, "Hi! My name is AL; this is my brother Steve and my other brother Steve." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YTE8QjCw2U

Quote from: Greger on May 12, 2025, 06:33:58 PMEverything has been done to death. Even jeans. It seems hard to come up with anything new. Younger people like something never done before. Each generation wants to leave its own mark. I wonder what will grab their attention next.

It's also the 30-year generation swing. Lack of what came before allows most everything to be recycled/reset.

"Trust it to be something that brings in the most cash the fasted!", but I meant "fastest"

Quote from: Steelmillal on May 13, 2025, 01:15:56 AMWe call them Cousins

 :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

Quote from: Hendrick on May 13, 2025, 08:53:53 AMthe most cash the fasted!", but I meant "fastest"

Da Guinness is getting the basted of Hendrick  :o

Quote from: Hendrick on May 12, 2025, 08:03:03 PMDon't forget styling..

Timeless style should be bedrock IMHO. But is that simply good balance? I always default to fit by way of ease and cut. It may simply follow, and I'm spitballing, that the artisan skill that most accurately accents the body with balance AND time cheats is the art we seek to streamline to compete with ready-made. I just bought a vintage Ike jacket from 1967 that has the most amazing sleeve fit, for ME. The coat body is too small, but the sleeve will be dissected and captured for future use.

Quote from: Schneiderfrei on May 12, 2025, 12:11:12 PMThat's right. Bogans = "An uncouth or unsophisticated person regarded as being of low social status."

(https://i.postimg.cc/qhw5R27H/camera-shy.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/qhw5R27H)
Still looking for k-leather cheap  :-X

Fashion interest is so short and it takes so long for Mass-production which leaves a huge chance of buyers are not interested when it hits the shelves and racks.
Styles are more steady and profitable. Except, it seems people lost interest in styles.
What is the answer?

Quote from: Greger on May 13, 2025, 12:42:02 PMFashion interest is so short and it takes so long for Mass-production which leaves a huge chance of buyers are not interested when it hits the shelves and racks.
Styles are more steady and profitable. Except, it seems people lost interest in styles.
What is the answer?

No one knows... But, the length of suppy lines has increased multiple times over, say, the last 30 to 40 years. But profit margins have also massively increased, at least here in the olde worlde... When in my first job, the multiplier in retail was x2. The came VAT, it went to x2,2. Soon to become 2,5 early 80's. Nowadays x2,75 is a minimum and rising. Retailers aim for x3 to x3,5 on private label goods... The increase has mainly to do with the costs of goods unsold, or sold at reduced prices. So, the full price consumer pays top for unsold and discounted merch. All this means that on branded goods, over the whole distribution line (including wholesale margins), a consumer pays 6 to 8x the initial cost of goods.

France, Germany and Italy had huge "fast fashion" systems in the past. Supply lines were incredibly direct, and weekly input came directly from the retailer. In fact, their orders were more or less sold before they were delivered. Clearly this was also a boon for local textile industries. Our "outsourcing" mentality has become a form of economic prostitution and only now we are starting to realise that with sharing knowledge, we also share wealth...

We know that many of the asian fast fashion products are damaging (lead, chemicals etc.) and impossible to recycle, yet our markets are open for these products. Regulations in Europe are very stringeant. There are campaigns against the use of plain sugar (...), a bottle of liquor costs the equivalent of 25 usd. and a pack of cigarettes 15, mostly through taxes. All for our "protection". So maybe it is time to have a look at other imports as well.

Cheers, Hendrick

Quote from: jruley on April 24, 2025, 04:42:44 AM

Quote from: Greger on April 24, 2025, 03:39:14 AMThere are always those who want more than average. Some people want above average and start a business or two or three. Some achieve more.

I thought you were selling the notion that everyone went to the tailor, and everything was bespoke. Now you're saying that tailored clothing is for the above average.

Which is it?  You can't have it both ways.

I understand I'm a little late to this discourse but I thought I'd share my two cents.

Jim, in all due respects, Greger's memories of "everyone going to tailors" in the US may not be as far fetched as it appears.
I was able to find a merchant of Pendletons and their wool apparel cloth is $40 per yard; granted, they specialize in flannel, but considering that in the 60's there were a lot more American mills than today (that also sourced their wool from inside the US), I don't think it be much of a stretch to assume that wool could have had a comparable price back then. Compare that $40 of flannel with a VBC flannel that costs about $200. From what I remember reading, a yard of wool in the 50's was about $3-$5 (about $35-$60 in todays money), that is still more affordable then the more "prestigious" companies.

I've also been doing quite a bit of research on a tailor named Clarence Poulin, who conducted business in rural New Hampshire. He wrote "Tailoring Suit's the Professional Way" (1953), and describes RTW "greatly depleting the ranks of the tailor" as something of a past but recallable memory (he was born in 1912).
I'm not denying RTW existed a century before, that's obvious, but it seems it didn't become a widespread norm until WW1. Until then it was usually reserved for military, workwear, or shirt-making.
Heck Jacob Davis, the tailor who invented jeans (and patented it with Levi Strauss, his denim supplier), only went into mass-production because he couldn't keep up with the high demand. This was early 1870s, and him making pants for a woodcutter shows tailors did in fact make clothes for people who weren't rich, and were very much essential.
Something I read about the OK Corral shootout is that it was common in those days for tailors to make gun pockets in coats, and would have some kind of canvas to easily take the gun out. So they would have actually shot out of their coats which is a little funny to think about. Not really on the point but thought I'd mention it.

RTW was a little popular in urban areas along the eastern coast, but even then there were tailors. The period during and after WW1 is when RTW became more of a norm for people getting their clothes. I'm assuming this is due to the US's rise in wealth and immigration, it only makes sense that RTW became "norm" when it was the more convenient option to meet the rising workforce's need for clothes ASAP.

This is corroborated in the MTOC (1928), which on page 3 that had an essay by F. Chitham named "Some Problems of the Tailoring Trade", presumably written in the late teens to early 20's, as the book was a collection of writings and drafts by the Tailor & Cutter to meet the modern needs of the 20's tailor.
On page 7, he describes RTW as "said to still be in its infancy", and on page 8 he advises tailors to "take an active part in this [ready to wear] trade." He also mentions that the overcoat and hat trade had became fully ready to wear. Notice that in the entire paragraph he describes ready-to-wear as a recent or new happening, despite having been around for a century.
Media also seems to support tailors as being more common. Films such as the Chaplains "The Count" and Lloyds "Girl Shy" all present tailors as something common and relatable. Now, are silent films a good clear representation of past life? Not necessarily, but they certainly open a view into what town life was in the late teens to 20's.
And Stanley Hostek learned the trade from his father. They both lived in Lewistown Montana on his grandfathers horse ranch. The population was only 5,000 in 1930. You have to admit a miner's town would be an odd place for a tailor to be in business if they only catered to the wealthy.

I can only presume the reason you and Greger had such different experiences with observing community tailors just comes down to regional and periodical differences. Greger seems to have grown up during the late 60's in a western area; most tailors in general closed in the US by the middle 70's when the synthetic serge and department stores like Sears became common, so that might line up with your mention of not seeing a lot of tailors during the 70's and 80's. It shouldn't be extremely surprising that tailors went out when a majority of American mills went out too. Or it could just be a Baader–Meinhof phenomenon, who knows...

I think the catching on of RTW is like computers. They were invented during the 50's; had a slight surge in the 70's and 80's being a niche interest of some geeks; but became popular and widespread in the 90's with the rise of the internet. Most families didn't own computers until that last decade.

Hello Sol,

Let me introduce you to "Ready-Made Democracy" by Michael Zakim:

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo3635952.html

The author makes a compelling case that most American men were wearing at least some ready to wear clothing most of the time by the end of the 1850's.  This certainly included underclothing, shirts, work clothing, informal garments like "ditto suits", and may very well have included frock coats.  For working class or middle class men who weren't particularly fashionable, clothes buying in the second half of the 19th century probably wasn't that much different than when I was young, except that sizes had yet to be standardized.  You went to a clothier (not a tailor), picked out something you liked that more or less fit, maybe had it altered, then collected it and took it home.

Of course there were exceptions.  While marching through rural Georgia Sherman's army encountered people dressed in obsolete styles who still made their clothing at home.  And of course a tailor could settle anywhere and maybe offer services that weren't available (or affordable) to most people even in a large city.  The past is a spectrum, not one data point.

I think Greger's mistake is assuming that his dear old grandfather's experience was the norm.  There's plenty of evidence that it wasn't.  Most Victorian era tailors were not independent entrepreneurs who could make anything anyone needed at a price they could afford.  Tailoring was a low status occupation.  Most were sweated labor cranking out piecework under appalling conditions.  They made what they were told to make, and if they couldn't produce, there was another immigrant waiting who could make faster or cheaper.

"Tailor" in a historical occupation listing can mean lots of things.  It doesn't necessarily imply a master with his own shop.  It often means a guy who spent his lifetime making one style of garment, or putting in pockets.

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PMMost Victorian era tailors were not independent entrepreneurs who could make anything anyone needed at a price they could afford.  Tailoring was a low status occupation.  Most were sweated labor cranking out piecework under appalling conditions.  They made what they were told to make, and if they couldn't produce, there was another immigrant waiting who could make faster or cheaper.

This is very true. Tailoring was a working-class profession and poorly paid. Ironically, you might earn more money working down a mine. Hours were long and working conditions poor - the sweatshop is nothing new (apologies for the poor quality snap, the museum where I took it was very dark, much like the working conditions of these poor sods):

(https://i.postimg.cc/WqprM7vR/Tailor-s-Workshop.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/WqprM7vR)

People bought and owned fewer garments and clothing was recycled/refashioned. The second-hand market was a lot larger than it is today and clothes were handed down (even mentioned in wills). That's not to say that workers didn't buy tailored suits, but they were an investment, expected to last a fair chunk of one's adult life and regarded as 'Sunday best'.

In the UK, ready-to-wear (what we used to call 'off the peg') didn't really become a thing until the department stores began to emerge (early 20th century onwards). The tailoring trade, however, adapted. As I mentioned previously, what we would now think of as made-to-measure became a thing from around the 1920s onwards. Large menswear chains sprang up and offered cut-price tailoring. The suits were made in huge factories but blocks were altered to a customer's measurements and some places offered fittings. This industrial-scale tailoring (which is alive and well in Italy, incidentally) pretty much saved the tailoring profession. Obviously the degree of individualisation was limited but it made decent-fitting clothing affordable. In the 60s, John Collier was a well known high-street vendor who offered this service. The firm was originally called 'The Fifty Shilling Tailor":

https://buildingourpast.com/2022/04/12/the-fifty-shilling-tailor-and-john-collier/

Some other names of the period (many were still around in the 1980s, though they'd stopped doing made-to-measure by then):

https://www.retrowow.co.uk/retro_britain/shops/menswear_chains.php

There's a very good interview that Reza did with Desmond Merrion. He started his working life at one of the large, suit-making factories. He mentions that fusing was just coming in when he started, but canvas was still being used and hand-felling and handmade buttonholes were the norm. Most of this disappeared pretty quickly though.


Despite the menswear chains offering cut-price tailoring, there was still the independent high street tailor. In low-rent areas, and due to the poor wages, these shops offered affordable suits that could be personalised to a greater extent. Many businesses offered payment by instalments, or were flexible (see the first cartoon strip), which helped keep them afloat:

https://www.pritchards.co.uk/blog/the-history-of-pritchards-the-workforce-cutters-and-tailors/?srsltid=AfmBOorn_BfS-ZYM_7TJRSLlTEUzd8WTjL1Wok19qf7z0snCNDETUwxh

To give some context, those fifty shillings at The Fifty Shillings Tailors in 1922 (the date of the first shop) would get you a suit for the equivalent of £122 today (according to the Bank of England's online inflation calculator). The article states that the final cost was closer to five guineas, which would be around £257.

That's pretty cheap for a suit. Low wages, long hours and mass-production methods are the only way they could have done that back then. Plus cloth was cheaper due to the sheer number of mills at that time (as Sol points out).

It's also worth mentioning that men's 'outfitters' were common in those days. They sold pre-made items; as did many tailors and made-to-measure firms when it came to shirts etc. Outfitters still existed for school uniforms when I was a lad (that term was used); and the outfitters of old mostly sold uniforms and workwear. Some would have sold suits, but what was the point when the made to measure brigade churned them out so cheaply.

Finally, made-to-measure firms offered a range of the latest styles (which they had blocks for), one of which you'd select. So you couldn't just rock up and ask for what you wanted. In that respect, they weren't bespoke (though certainly similar to couture). Even the term 'wholesale bespoke' was stretching things. I dare say the fit was a hell of a lot better than the ready to wear of nowadays though, especially at establishments offering a fitting or two.

Quote from: Gerry on June 04, 2025, 11:12:04 PMI dare say the fit was a hell of a lot better than the ready to wear of nowadays though, especially at establishments offering a fitting or two.

Fit seems to have become less important to RTW customers as styles have evolved.  They expect jackets to have deep armholes so they can put them on and off quickly, and they equate looseness with comfort (not true if you have to reach while wearing the thing).  Deep armholes "solve" (aka camouflage) a wide range of fitting issues, and nice straight seams are easier to cram through the sewing machine in a hurry.

There's kind of a parallel in the 19th century.  The skin tight, bursting at every seam styles of the 1830's and 40's got more relaxed through the 50's, culminating in the balloon sleeves, exaggerated chests and oversized look of the early 1860's.  Then things tightened up again, but the overall shape was straighter, approximating a modern look by the turn of the century.  Part of this I suspect was driven by increasing use of the sewing machine (straighter seams) and by RTW styles which needed to be somewhat relaxed to fit more people.

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PMHello Sol,

Hello Jim!

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PMLet me introduce you to "Ready-Made Democracy" by Michael Zakim:

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo3635952.html

As much as I appreciate you sending me a book to read (and this isn't sarcastic or empty gratitude, I really do) I'm not going to be paying $40 for a research paper just to have a little talk on the internet. I will read it in the future, but not right now. Again I do appreciate the offer.

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PMThe author makes a compelling case that most American men were wearing at least some ready to wear clothing most of the time by the end of the 1850's.  This certainly included underclothing, shirts, work clothing, informal garments like "ditto suits", and may very well have included frock coats.  For working class or middle class men who weren't particularly fashionable, clothes buying in the second half of the 19th century probably wasn't that much different than when I was young, except that sizes had yet to be standardized.

So it seems we don't really have much to disagree on. The concept of RTW is old and was used for shirting, workwear, military, and lingerie by the 1850's; I stated this on my last posts. It seems we just disagree on when it became the permanent, mainstream source of mens clothes in America. You and Mr. Zakim seem to argue for an early date (by 1850's); I argue for a more latter date (post WW1). Personally, I wouldn't use the fact of a services mere existence as evidence of it's mainstream popularity; and the use of mass production does not equate to it being RTW; cut-make-trim services were comparable to our modern MTM, and even the "pre-made" clothes were done by groups of tailors, usually in ware-houses. Tailor back then usually involved someone primarily making clothes, not always fitting them (though, it was an art involved).
The popularity for RTW appeared to be more gradual as each war boosted it's growth. War of 1812 gave it some "kick"; Civil War and the Spanish War being it's "rising action"; WW1 making it to become the stronghold it is today.

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PMYou went to a clothier (not a tailor), picked out something you liked that more or less fit, maybe had it altered, then collected it and took it home.

Wouldn't the altering have to be done by a tailor? ;)

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PMOf course there were exceptions.  While marching through rural Georgia Sherman's army encountered people dressed in obsolete styles who still made their clothing at home.  And of course a tailor could settle anywhere and maybe offer services that weren't available (or affordable) to most people even in a large city.

I don't really know what to comment on this, I just find it a cool fact. But if you don't mind me asking what were these "obsolete" styles? Was it regarding women's or men's clothes?

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PMThe past is a spectrum, not one data point.

110% agree. *proceeds to clank and cheer an invisible glass, while a drip of wine concurrently gets in my eye... somehow...*

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PMI think Greger's mistake is assuming that his dear old grandfather's experience was the norm.  There's plenty of evidence that it wasn't.

I wasn't refering to Greger's grandfather, I was reffering to his expierence as a child in the 60's and 70's, where he mentioned his peers going to tailors and such; giving my outsider's explaination on why he saw many and you very few.

I do think it would help if Greger mentioned where he grew up. I really cannot tell if he grew up in a middle class suburb or some landlocked Amish Villiage.

Cannot comment on what village tailoring was in non-Anglo Europe, never studied it. I have read the late Martin Greenfield's Measure of a Man, and he mentions of tailors living in Czechlovakia, but I don't recall if he describes the conductions of the business. It's a great biography though. My only real comment would be on art of Jewish tailors, where they show a "villiage tailoring for the folk" role, but that's it.
Then again, I wouldn't be too shocked. All those immigrants had to learn it from somehwere, hence a market for it.

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PMMost Victorian era tailors were not independent entrepreneurs who could make anything anyone needed at a price they could afford.  Tailoring was a low status occupation.

I don't think anyone was arguing they were necessarily independent, it's common knowledge that most worked under their "governors", and I doubt anyone was thinking it was a high status occupation too. I mean every single media I encountered involves tailors as some lowly but humble occupation. But, on not "making anything anyone needed at a price they could afford" I think I have a little dispute.

Once again I'm going to bring up Jacob Davis, who always seems to be ignored in these conversations. He made the riveted jeans for a local woodcutter of all people, and saw opportunity in the upcoming gold miners. His shop was in Reno, Nevada, and in 1870 it wasn't even close to having 2,000 people. You would agree this is "making something at a price they can afford" right?

Sweatshops... yeah those were bullocks, period. But this still has tailoring being the more mainstream option whether it be a small or standardized, or cut-make-trim.

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PM"Tailor" in a historical occupation listing can mean lots of things.  It doesn't necessarily imply a master with his own shop.  It often means a guy who spent his lifetime making one style of garment...

Um... and? Not meaning to be rude but I don't see how this changes anything. Either way it's someone making clothes. Though I will mention that calling someone a "tailor" did sometimes refer to not the owner, or the workers, but the actual building's business. A governor for example, who did absolutely nothing, would be called a "tailor" for simply running a tailoring operation.

Quote from: jruley on June 04, 2025, 12:48:07 PM... or putting in pockets.

The editions I went through of American dictionaries all have a consistent definition that tailors are men who cut and make clothes. I highly doubt those of ye olden days would call someone who simply adds a pocket to a garment a "tailor"... whilst that could be categorized as "altering", it's just a bit of a stretch (pun not intended) to assume a simple addition would be considered "tailoring". This is sourced from Websters 1828 and 1886 dictionary.

Anyhow, thanks for reading my post! Hope you enjoyed it. ;)

What I miss in this discourse is the absence from the impact of demographics and economic influence on socio-cultural behaviour. The further we travel back in time, the greater the differences in social classes were. Clearly, the gentry of say 150 years ago wore custom made only. That said, even before the invention of the sewing machine a miner or farmer needed clothing, now immagine the difference, "sweatshops" are nothing new... The discussion above gives the impression that back then there was a single, homogeneous demographic, as well as a single occasion for dressing. Here in Europe, even in the 50s and 60s, a decent suit was made by tailors, especially for occasions...

Cheers, Hendrick

Quote from: SO_tailor on June 05, 2025, 05:37:16 AMSo it seems we don't really have much to disagree on. The concept of RTW is old and was used for shirting, workwear, military, and lingerie by the 1850's; I stated this on my last posts. It seems we just disagree on when it became the permanent, mainstream source of mens clothes in America. You and Mr. Zakim seem to argue for an early date (by 1850's); I argue for a more latter date (post WW1). Personally, I wouldn't use the fact of a services mere existence as evidence of it's mainstream popularity; and the use of mass production does not equate to it being RTW; cut-make-trim services were comparable to our modern MTM, and even the "pre-made" clothes were done by groups of tailors, usually in ware-houses. Tailor back then usually involved someone primarily making clothes, not always fitting them (though, it was an art involved).

Well, I can understand not wanting to pay $40 "just to have a little talk on the internet".  However, you can hardly expect me to summarize his arguments further for free :).  I think you would enjoy the book, but if this is only a casual interest for you I understand. 

Quote from: SO_tailor on June 05, 2025, 05:37:16 AMI don't really know what to comment on this (obsolete styles in Georgia seen during Sherman's March), I just find it a cool fact. But if you don't mind me asking what were these "obsolete" styles? Was it regarding women's or men's clothes?

Sorry I don't have a ready quote for where I read that.  IIRC it was summarizing soldiers' observations in letters home.  There were no specific examples cited, but the army encountered people in very isolated areas who were basically living in pioneer conditions.  Subsistence farmers who made practically everything they used.  These were people who were missed by the steam powered travel revolution Zakim discusses, so they were not served by general stores; they were too far off the beaten track for a store to be profitable.  I speculate they were behind the times because they copied their existing clothing in order to make new pieces.  If a family had been doing this for 20-30 years then the soldiers would have seen men in drop fall trousers and roundabout jackets or smocks, instead of up-to-date fly front trousers and sack coats.

Quote from: SO_tailor on June 05, 2025, 05:37:16 AMOnce again I'm going to bring up Jacob Davis, who always seems to be ignored in these conversations. He made the riveted jeans for a local woodcutter of all people, and saw opportunity in the upcoming gold miners. His shop was in Reno, Nevada, and in 1870 it wasn't even close to having 2,000 people. You would agree this is "making something at a price they can afford" right?

Okay, so Mr Davis is one data point.  And Greger's grandfather is another.  That's two data points.  Now, how many data points does Michael Zakim have in his book?  Sorry, you'll have to pay that $40 to find out :).

Quote from: SO_tailor on June 05, 2025, 05:37:16 AMAnyhow, thanks for reading my post! Hope you enjoyed it. ;)

Very much so!

Quote from: Hendrick on June 05, 2025, 08:41:31 AMClearly, 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?

Quote from: Hendrick on June 05, 2025, 08:41:31 AMHere 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...

Quote from: jruley on June 05, 2025, 11:00:41 AMWhich 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...

Well, Beatrix Potter's Tailor of Gloucester was oddly inspired by a real "tailor" named John Prichard; he didn't really do any of the actual sewing but was simply in charge a group of tailors whom he employed. I'm guessing he'd be what some in the English trade call "the governor". It was ironically his employees who finished the clothes for the mayor.

I have this one book by the Tailor & Cutter publication (I think from the 1910's) about running a tailoring business, and it seemed in that day most cut the clothes and ship them out to a sweatshop workshop, where they would later make-up the coats, trousers, and vests. Interestingly they paid the slave coat maker 10 shillings (or 0.5 pounds). In modern British money that would be about £50/$68 per coat! Imagine that "wage" in this economy! >:(

Quote from:  jruleyAnd 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?

They simply didn't pay their tailors.  :)

Every stately home I've ever visited holds account books, dating back to the time when the house was built. All of the nobility used tailors, it's in their records. Then there are the order books of Savile Row. You must have watched vids on youtube where companies like Henry Poole show off all the famous names they had on their books: kings, prime ministers, actors etc. Yes, it's a provable fact.

The aristocracy only started to have financial difficulties in the early 20th century. After WWI there was universal suffrage for men, things gradually started to improve for workers and it became harder for the ruling class to screw-over the rest of society. Then there was the Wall Street Crash. Punitive death duties from parties representing the common man were the death knell. Prior to that though, the impoverished aristocrat was a rarity. They either maintained their estate/fortune or were ruined. In which case, some other git took over their manor.

Hopefully I've demonstrated in my posts that there was a level of tailoring accessible to all classes of society, at least here in the UK. The elite of London and the home counties used Savile Row. The upper-middle and middle classes used independent tailors. The lower middle and working classes used the menswear chains, who would churn out a pseudo-bespoke suit at an affordable price (around £250). Even amongst them there were the cheaper sort who would either make a lower quality product, sell 'off-the-peg', or both. Fosters comes to mind. They were still around when I was a kid, though by that time they were no longer "a working-class clothier, outfitter and tailor" (note that even the poorest had access to tailoring).

https://buildingourpast.com/2021/07/20/foster-brothers/

QuoteIf "tailor" means a man who cuts and makes clothes, then are not all suits "made by tailors?"  Even the lousy ones :)?

In the past we had apprentices who'd undertake all the crappy jobs. So yes, even the lousy stuff was made by tailors. Tailors who were learning to become masters. You can't judge the past by today's standards. The degree of automation wasn't in existence then, so workshops comprising tailors of all ability were the norm ... and still are, incidentally. That's how Savile Row operates.

Factories knocking out cheap suits only became a thing in the 20th century. Were their machinists called tailors? No, because they didn't posses the all-round education that an apprentice tailor did. Those factories employed or trained professional cutters though, to make the designs and blocks. They also employed professional finishers for buttonholes and felling (listen to the above interview with Desmond Merrion).

Gerry, I think you quoted the wrong guy!

Quote from: SO_tailor on June 05, 2025, 02:39:26 PMGerry, I think you quoted the wrong guy!

Whoops, sorry, I erased a load of text and must have left you in instead. I'll correct it immediately! (meant to quote Jim).

https://henrypoole.com/hall-of-fame/

Scroll down and click on each of the dates:

https://www.huntsmansavilerow.com/pages/heritage

more:

https://www.gievesandhawkes.com/pages/history

Davis and Son "It's an experience you'll share with some of the world's most powerful men: four kings, seven crown princes, eighteen Knights of the Realm, two US presidents, and the likes of Sir Robert Peel have made Davies and Son their choice when looking for a suit.":

https://www.esquire.com/uk/style/a31209353/savile-row-tailors/

Obviously the list goes on (you're free to do the googling). Are you seriously trying to tell us Jim, that when the average man could buy a made-to-measure suit for £250 that the upper class went about in ready-to-wear after a bad run at the cards table?

Outside of ladies fashion, RTW barely existed until the 1960s in the UK. It reared its ugly head mostly as a result of Carnaby Street. Even then, it was mostly a phenomenon of the mid '60s onwards: even John Stephen - 'The King of Carnaby Street' - had boutiques that offered ready-to-wear for the more discerning Mods. For his own wardrobe, he had Savile Row make up his designs (it's all in his biography).

A whole generation of teenagers grew up with cheap, bad-fitting, disposable fashion. In the '70s, their buying habits continued and the menswear chains and boutiques of Chelsea (many of whom used tailoring houses to make up their clothes - I know this from a past exhibition at the London Fashion and Textile Museum) largely went out of business. Those chains that limped on dropped made-to-measure and their factories switched production to ready-to-wear. Ultimately most went out of business in the '80s; the factories started to wind-down when Thatcher crippled British exports by keeping the pound artificially high. Production switched to Asia and here we all are.

OOooo my favourite - Wilkie Collins

Quote from: Gerry on June 05, 2025, 08:25:21 PMAre you seriously trying to tell us Jim, that when the average man could buy a made-to-measure suit for £250 that the upper class went about in ready-to-wear after a bad run at the cards table?

I said no such thing.  Recall that I was responding to Hendrick's claim below:

Quote from: Hendrick on June 05, 2025, 08:41:31 AMClearly, the gentry of say 150 years ago wore custom made only.

(emphasis added)

Three words:  "gentry", "custom", and "only".

"Only" is pretty self-explanatory.

"Custom" I take to mean "bespoke".

Maybe I need more education in the UK class system, but I put "gentry" a step below the aristocracy.  You have to be born noble (unless you're the one the title was created for), but you can buy your way into the gentry.  I'll be happy to be corrected if this is not so.

I see gentry as the holders of sizeable estates in the country.  Such people are often land rich but cash poor.  They are heavily taxed but may not have much income even though they hold considerable wealth. Yes, there are social expectations - but that's about what you do when other folks are looking.

I would certainly expect Mr Gent to have suitable clothing to host important visitors, and that would often be bespoke.  Maybe not made by the most fashionable house in London but made by local talent in the nearest provincial city.

But when Mr Gent is riding round the farm in the morning, I would expect him to wear any old rag he found suitable.  Could be his worn and patched bespoke stuff from 15 years ago, or it could be something cheaper.  In this country by the late 1850's it could very well be something he ordered from a catalog.

Quote from: jruley on June 05, 2025, 10:03:11 PMI see gentry as the holders of sizeable estates in the country.  Such people are often land rich but cash poor.  They are heavily taxed but may not have much income even though they hold considerable wealth.

As I was attempting to explain above, that has only been the case relatively recently. Prior to WWI, the gentry were extremely rich, their houses packed with servants. Because only the upper classes (and wealthier middle classes) had the vote, they were able to maintain a favourable advantage over the rest of society, many of whom were kept in penury.

The Wall Street Crash was a real turning point for the gentry. My late partner came from a tilted family (coat of arms, manor house in the country, servants, the works). Her grandfather lost most of his fortune in 1929, became estranged from his wife and kids, gradually lost the plot mentally, and ended his days in a council flat in Hammersmith, London.

Quote from: jruleyI would certainly expect Mr Gent to have suitable clothing to host important visitors, and that would often be bespoke.  Maybe not made by the most fashionable house in London but made by local talent in the nearest provincial city.

That was the exactly the case, but all tailors were (what we would consider) 'bespoke' in those days. Only menswear chains offered the equivalent of made-to-measure (adapting blocks in large factories to suit a customer's measurements and figuration). And said chain-stores - the 'wholesale bespoke' tailors - had a limited palette, so to speak: they wouldn't have been able to offer a lot of the evening wear etc required by the gentry. So the landowners used local, independent tailors; or made trips to London to get kitted out at Savile Row.

Quote from: jruleyBut when Mr Gent is riding round the farm in the morning, I would expect him to wear any old rag he found suitable.  Could be his worn and patched bespoke stuff from 15 years ago, or it could be something cheaper.  In this country by the late 1850's it could very well be something he ordered from a catalog.

King Charles is known for wearing suits that have been patched up so many times, the repairs are visible. It's a trait of the Aristocracy. However, it would have been unthinkable for any of the gentry (yes, you are correct about the distinction) to have ordered stuff from catalogues. I doubt you could even do such a thing in the mid 19th century, at least here in Britain. Only the peripheral stuff - shirts, ties, handkerchiefs, underwear etc - was made ready-to-wear (though could also be made bespoke). And the upper-classes strove to look correct at all times. There was a formal dress code for everything, including riding around the estate (though managers did all the dirty work).

Personally, I don't think Hendrick's claim was outrageous ... merely factual.

Quote from: Gerry on June 05, 2025, 11:05:28 PMThat was the exactly the case, but all tailors were (what we would consider) 'bespoke' in those days.

C'mon Gerry - surely you're not implying that every private soldier in Her Majesty's army got a bespoke tailored uniform?  Or even made-to-measure?  There are surviving uniform jackets imported by the Confederacy, and they (unlike most Confederate uniforms) have size marks.  That tells me they were made ready to wear, not made to measure.

I get that ready to wear was less common in the UK than the US; the secondhand clothing market was bigger.  But it's hard to believe it didn't exist.  Words like "any", "all", and "only" should be used with care.

Just found this little gem on page 4 of my well thumbed copy of "The Handbook of Practical Cutting on the Centre Point System" by Louis DeVere:

QuoteThis proportionate pattern is also valuable, in cases where we may not be able to take the measures of the client, which may happen from various causes in cases of emergency, and a coat made to fit this pattern, while it would of course fit best on a person who was proportionate, would still not look amiss, on a man who was slightly longer or short bodied, stooping or extra erect, thinner or stouter at waist.  The ready-made houses in fact, draft all their coats from the proportionate pattern, and have found this plan tolerably successful.

Now, this cutting book was published in 1866, in London.  DeVere published at least four editions of it over several decades and also published in trade magazines.  So just which "ready-made houses" was he talking about, if "all tailors were bespoke"?  ;D

Quote from: jruley on June 05, 2025, 11:46:00 PMC'mon Gerry - surely you're not implying that every private soldier in Her Majesty's army got a bespoke tailored uniform?  Or even made-to-measure?  There are surviving uniform jackets imported by the Confederacy, and they (unlike most Confederate uniforms) have size marks.  That tells me they were made ready to wear, not made to measure.

I get that ready to wear was less common in the UK than the US; the secondhand clothing market was bigger.  But it's hard to believe it didn't exist.  Words like "any", "all", and "only" should be used with care.

From the Gieves & Hawkes website (linked above):

"As two independent companies, both Gieves and Hawkes could hardly have had better military credentials than having The Duke of Wellington and Lord Nelson as customers ... By the late 19th.century, they were kitting out some 98% of naval cadets at Dartmouth and then 5 out of 6 when they later became naval officers."

Officer class then (as now, incidentally) were dressed by specialist tailors. Ordinary soldiers would have been kitted out by general military outfitters (I did mention that outfitters sold uniforms).

Jim , you're guilty of what Hendrick was complaining about, i.e. reducing the populations of Europe and the US to " a single, homogeneous demographic". In reality, society was totally class ridden, nowhere more so than in Great Britain (as it was commonly known back then), and people shopped differently according to class.

QuoteNow, this cutting book was published in 1866, in London.  DeVere published at least four editions of it over several decades and also published in trade magazines.  So just which "ready-made houses" was he talking about, if "all tailors were bespoke"?

I mentioned in my previous post that companies like Fosters were "a working-class clothier, outfitter and tailor" and sold 'off-the-peg' clothing, i.e. RTW. I also mentioned that the 'wholesale-bespoke' companies sprang up as a reaction to the department stores, who sold RTW, in order to protect their interests. By creating a system to mass-produce well-fitted, 'bespoke' (made-to-measure) garments at such a low cost, they held back the encroachment of RTW for decades. So I'm not denying that RTW existed, it just wasn't mainstream as it is today; and it was mostly bought by the lower classes.

Not a fact I'm particularly proud of, but by the late 19th century Britain governed about a quarter of the globe, and had significant sway over the rest of it (as the US does nowadays). We were the richest nation on earth and the rich were stinking rich. The order books of Savile Row prove this. To think for one moment that the aristocracy/gentry/nobility (it's just semantics, they were simply all rich) slummed-it and shopped at RTW outlets intended for the lower orders is ridiculous, frankly. If it makes you feel better, then the majority of the upper classes would have have their clothing made by a personal tailor.

As for all tailors being bespoke, by dint of the apprenticeship system then yes, all tailors had a training that would categorise them nowadays as 'bespoke'. Whether they ended up in a high-class establishment or a workshop making RTW workwear and uniforms is neither here nor there. My mother was apprenticed to three different dress-makers in the early-to-mid fifties. She had no creative ability (by her own admission), so after qualifying ended up as a machinist in factories (yes, making RTW! ... though this was in Germany). She was still a trained dressmaker though, just as tailors churning out overalls for tradesmen were tailors. Many of my mother's workmates would have had the same training (apprenticeships being the norm back then).

After WWII, many returning soldiers were given 'demob' suits. Their allocation was random (no measurements were taken, you were given whatever was in stock and that was that). Perhaps this was the beginnings of RTW in this country. However, they were a national joke, known for being a poor fit (ironic considering that many of the 'wholesale bespoke' chains were commissioned to make them). Nowadays, that poor fit would simply be the norm, I dare say, but the nation's attitude towards those suits highlights just how expectant of a decent fit the general public had been.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demob_suit

The department stores were never too much of a threat because the clothes they sold were considered 'square' and dowdy by many. This is what led to the first, independent 'boutiques' in mid-50s London: Quant in Chelsea, Bill Green in Soho. They were among the first to sell RTW, fashion-forward designs that paved the way for the explosion of RTW in the '60s. As much as I love them, I also hate what they started!  :(

Thanks for a great discussion!

I would like to ad that my use of the word gentry is just a term for what is now referred to as "upper class", albeit in a different time dimension...

Here's another example of how rtw became influential in Europe, equally influenced by WWII. When my dad started working as "Schnittmacher" (as it was called back then) the first thing he snatched up (visually) was the trenchcoat as worn by Bogart in Cassablanca. In the late 40s and early 50s, people dressed poorly and textiles were scarce to say the least, but nice double twisted cotton gabardines were plentiful. And people wanted "newness", away from their drabby overcoats so to speak. It proved successful enough for him to become partner in an outerwear firm that frankly couldn't keep up with demand for years. Nino of Nordhorn, Germany, operated a few thousand (!) looms in the 50s and employed a few thousand people. They produced half a million (!) meters per week in their Ninoflex cottons... Just to illustrate the popularity of the trenchcoat & Co!

All the this time, however, a men's suit was still tailored and so was the ladies' "tailleur" or skirtsuit. Note that the sharpness of desirable styles like the slimmer mohair suits could only be executed by a very good tailor! The tailleur btw had a huge boost with Jacky Kennedy (and Oleg Cassini's "young" silhouettes), not to mention Audrey Hepburn's signature Givenchy style. This continued well into the late sixties, when fashion became "fast moving consumer goods"...

Cheerio, Hendrick

Quote from: Hendrick on Today at 06:18:24 AMThe tailleur btw had a huge boost with Jacky Kennedy (and Oleg Cassini's "young" silhouettes), not to mention Audrey Hepburn's signature Givenchy style. This continued well into the late sixties, when fashion became "fast moving consumer goods"...

I love that late 50s/early 60s period in women's fashion. Catherine, Princess of Wales, wears it periodically. Probably on account of Jacky Kennedy's presidential association, it has a stateswoman-like presence. In a similar manner, I've noticed that the Chanel collarless jacket has become almost the norm for stateswomen and female political commentators/newsreaders in Europe. Perhaps it's just a phase/fashion, but it's a classic/timeless look IMO.

Quote from: Gerry on Today at 02:34:15 AMJim , you're guilty of what Hendrick was complaining about, i.e. reducing the populations of Europe and the US to "a single, homogeneous demographic". In reality, society was totally class ridden, nowhere more so than in Great Britain (as it was commonly known back then), and people shopped differently according to class.

Perhaps, but aren't you guilty of the same thing within the classes?  Members of a class are just human beings that have something in common; they are not cookie cutter copies of a stereotypical trope.  All "gentry" might look filthy rich to the working class, but some have bigger estates than others, more income than others, and better prospects than others.  And if you can buy (or marry) your way into the gentry, you can also fall out of it.  The system was really designed to "screw over" everyone except the eldest surviving male child.

Having social expectations does not create the means to realize them.  I remember a story about Lord Cardigan (later of Light Brigade fame) finding one of his subaltern officers asleep on a London park bench during the wee hours.  "Why do you not take lodgings suitable to your rank?" he railed at the young man.  The lieutenant replied that after paying for the expensive uniform required by regulations he couldn't find lodging he could afford.  Cardigan was not impressed; he couldn't understand why other people weren't made of money like himself. 

Quote from: Gerry on Today at 02:34:15 AMIf it makes you feel better, then the majority of the upper classes would have have their clothing made by a personal tailor.

Thank you, that's all I was really looking for :).

Quote from: Gerry on Today at 02:34:15 AMAs for all tailors being bespoke, by dint of the apprenticeship system then yes, all tailors had a training that would categorise them nowadays as 'bespoke'. Whether they ended up in a high-class establishment or a workshop making RTW workwear and uniforms is neither here nor there.

I disagree. I see a vast difference between being "bespoke trained" and working in the bespoke trade.  I've heard of trained paleoentologists and medieval historians who ended up managing a McDonald's.  What you do isn't necessarily what you're trained for.

Quote from: jruley on Today at 07:37:48 AMHaving social expectations does not create the means to realize them.  I remember a story about Lord Cardigan (later of Light Brigade fame) finding one of his subaltern officers asleep on a London park bench during the wee hours.  "Why do you not take lodgings suitable to your rank?" he railed at the young man.  The lieutenant replied that after paying for the expensive uniform required by regulations he couldn't find lodging he could afford.  Cardigan was not impressed; he couldn't understand why other people weren't made of money like himself. 

I agree Jim, having social expectations in no way creates the means to realise them. Though you sort of shoot yourself in the foot by giving an example of someone born of a higher class being obliged to use a bespoke tailor as a result of expectations, regardless of the literal and metaphorical cost to himself. He didn't pop to the local outfitter to buy a crappy, cheap uniform, did he.

There are many examples in history of those of wealth losing everything, or falling on hard times. Arguably they were no longer upper class once this happened, so are irrelevant to this discussion in many respects. The fact remains that a substantial sector of society had the sort of wealth that enabled them to use bespoke tailors.

QuoteI disagree. I see a vast difference between being "bespoke trained" and working in the bespoke trade.  I've heard of trained paleoentologists and medieval historians who ended up managing a McDonald's.  What you do isn't necessarily what you're trained for.

Fair point. I think we just had a little confusion over semantics and/or context. The fact remains that those with wealth (not the people who'd lost it) used tailors and not ready-to-wear clothiers/outfitters. And those tailors, by definition and training, were bespoke.

PS, I can only echo Hendrick's comments, I've enjoyed this conversation, it's been very informative (please don't think that I hold any animosity towards you Jim).  :)

Quote from: jruley on June 05, 2025, 11:46:00 PMC'mon Gerry - surely you're not implying that every private soldier in Her Majesty's army got a bespoke tailored uniform?  Or even made-to-measure?  There are surviving uniform jackets imported by the Confederacy, and they (unlike most Confederate uniforms) have size marks.  That tells me they were made ready to wear, not made to measure.

Too be fair Jim, there was tailors on the war front in both WW1 and WW2. So the possibility of the army having custom made (likely MTM) clothes makes quite a lot of sense when you think about it. I'll admit I find it a bit funny but I guess you not only have to "fight" for your country, but also "fit" them!


(https://i.postimg.cc/p9gVq6vG/IMG-9322.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/p9gVq6vG)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Lhk43DbD/IMG-9324.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/Lhk43DbD)

(https://i.postimg.cc/q6rJd6z2/IMG-9326.webp) (https://postimg.cc/q6rJd6z2)

(https://i.postimg.cc/kRynMMbz/IMG-9327.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/kRynMMbz)
(Yes that last one has watermarks from Alamy; I just like taking images I find interesting. Not really interested in having the most refined image)

Quote from: jruley on June 05, 2025, 11:46:00 PMI get that ready to wear was less common in the UK than the US; the secondhand clothing market was bigger.  But it's hard to believe it didn't exist.  Words like "any", "all", and "only" should be used with care.

Frank Chitham, (1875-1935) was director of Harrods as early as 1920, and became president a decade later.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1920/mar/08/committees-of-inquiry
This gives the earliest possible date for "Some Problems with the Tailoring Trade" article I shared to be written in 1920. However, it's much more likely to have been written in 1926-7, considering A.S. Bridgland (the editor of the MTOC) prefaced the book with a thank you note to Chitham and a few other essayist he asked to collaborate saying:

"The Editor is grateful to all those in every section of the trade who have collaborated with him... he would like to express thanks to ... Mr. Frank Chitham for a candid and reasoned view of the future of the trade;..."
— Modern Tailor Outfitter & Clothier VOL 1 page v.

Chitham wasn't a tailor; he was a director at Harrods as mentioned. But, the last section in his article indicates that RTW, despite how old the concept was "said to be still in it's infancy". Here is the full quote below from the pages:

(https://i.postimg.cc/NyLxvbVv/IMG-3437.png) (https://postimg.cc/NyLxvbVv)

Again, notice how he describes ready to wear as something new, and that he specifically highlights on creating "a favorable impression on the customer who is buying ready-made clothes for the first time". All this infers that, at least across the pond, RTW was very much a new and unheard product. All this during the middle to late twenties.

Quote from: jruley on Today at 07:37:48 AM

Quote from: Gerry on Today at 02:34:15 AMJim , you're guilty of what Hendrick was complaining about, i.e. reducing the populations of Europe and the US to "a single, homogeneous demographic". In reality, society was totally class ridden, nowhere more so than in Great Britain (as it was commonly known back then), and people shopped differently according to class.

Perhaps, but aren't you guilty of the same thing within the classes?  Members of a class are just human beings that have something in common; they are not cookie cutter copies of a stereotypical trope.  All "gentry" might look filthy rich to the working class, but some have bigger estates than others, more income than others, and better prospects than others.  And if you can buy (or marry) your way into the gentry, you can also fall out of it.  The system was really designed to "screw over" everyone except the eldest surviving male child.

Having social expectations does not create the means to realize them.  I remember a story about Lord Cardigan (later of Light Brigade fame) finding one of his subaltern officers asleep on a London park bench during the wee hours.  "Why do you not take lodgings suitable to your rank?" he railed at the young man.  The lieutenant replied that after paying for the expensive uniform required by regulations he couldn't find lodging he could afford.  Cardigan was not impressed; he couldn't understand why other people weren't made of money like himself. 

Quote from: Gerry on Today at 02:34:15 AMIf it makes you feel better, then the majority of the upper classes would have have their clothing made by a personal tailor.

Thank you, that's all I was really looking for :).

Quote from: Gerry on Today at 02:34:15 AMAs for all tailors being bespoke, by dint of the apprenticeship system then yes, all tailors had a training that would categorise them nowadays as 'bespoke'. Whether they ended up in a high-class establishment or a workshop making RTW workwear and uniforms is neither here nor there.

I disagree. I see a vast difference between being "bespoke trained" and working in the bespoke trade.  I've heard of trained paleoentologists and medieval historians who ended up managing a McDonald's.  What you do isn't necessarily what you're trained for.

There is another point to make here, besides class & rank... Dressing your best is not a means to differenciate oneself from others per sé. I was brought up learning to dress for different occasions in a suitable manner, not to necessarily stand out by whatever means, but with measured room for originality. I know that this has a tradition in the "bourgeois" European tradition but it is a meant sign of respect to others nevertheless. Similarly, we were tought to never demonstrate knowledge or intellect to the disadvantage of others in any situation.

I like think that one has to study whatever has their interest. However, if their ambition is to wear bespoke suits daily, I must urgently advise them not to spend five odd years to study french poetry...

Lastly, "looking filthy rich" is by no means an ambition for "gentry". That is the ambition of "nouveau riche". Gentry aims for "quality of life", even in a mended tweed hacking jacket. The rest is just a manner of habits. You would hardly expect them to spend their mony secretly or do you? 

Cheerio, Hendrick

Very cool photos Sol. "Officers of the Royal Singer Regiment, salute!".

Quote from: SO_tailor on Today at 08:19:33 AMChitham wasn't a tailor; he was a director at Harrods as mentioned. But, the last section in his article indicates that RTW, despite how old the concept was "said to be still in it's infancy". Here is the full quote below from the pages:

(https://i.postimg.cc/NyLxvbVv/IMG-3437.png) (https://postimg.cc/NyLxvbVv)

Again, notice how he describes ready to wear as something new, and that he specifically highlights on creating "a favorable impression on the customer who is buying ready-made clothes for the first time". All this infers that, at least across the pond, RTW was very much a new and unheard product. All this during the middle to late twenties.

Thank you for posting that Sol, fascinating. It ties in with the rise of 'wholesale bespoke'/made-to-measure during that period. As mentioned earlier, it was a foresighted reaction/counterresponse by the tailoring industry towards this new trend.

Quote from: Gerry on Today at 07:00:12 AM

Quote from: Hendrick on Today at 06:18:24 AMThe tailleur btw had a huge boost with Jacky Kennedy (and Oleg Cassini's "young" silhouettes), not to mention Audrey Hepburn's signature Givenchy style. This continued well into the late sixties, when fashion became "fast moving consumer goods"...

I love that late 50s/early 60s period in women's fashion. Catherine, Princess of Wales, wears it periodically. Probably on account of Jacky Kennedy's presidential association, it has a stateswoman-like presence. In a similar manner, I've noticed that the Chanel collarless jacket has become almost the norm for stateswomen and female political commentators/newsreaders in Europe. Perhaps it's just a phase/fashion, but it's a classic/timeless look IMO.

Trust me, it's classic... With the overkill of streetwear, even younger brands are picking up the tailleur, albeit a bit more daring.

Check

https://fr.sandro-paris.com/fr/femme/blousons-vestes/

https://int.claudiepierlot.com/en/p/buttoned-short-tweed-jacket/225vandatweed/CFPVE00481_A004.html

https://www.tarajarmon.com/p/veste-vinny-28225.html

Note that even "femme junior" brands are picking up timeless and generic "mademoiselle" styles...


Cheerio, Hendrick