Bespoke Cutter And Tailor

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):



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.