Bespoke Cutter And Tailor

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"? 

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 June 06, 2025, 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 June 06, 2025, 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 June 06, 2025, 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 June 06, 2025, 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 June 06, 2025, 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!









(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:



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 June 06, 2025, 07:37:48 AM

Quote from: Gerry on June 06, 2025, 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 June 06, 2025, 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 June 06, 2025, 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 June 06, 2025, 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:



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 June 06, 2025, 07:00:12 AM

Quote from: Hendrick on June 06, 2025, 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

Quote from: Gerry on June 06, 2025, 08:07:37 AMI 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.

Well let's look at the total picture.  The uniform was basically a condition of employment, it was required by military regulations.  Cheaping out wasn't an option, there were probably only a couple of places in town that were familiar with the details of the style.  And standing out in a bad way in the officer's mess would not be a good way to start one's career.  So our lieutenant looked for other ways to economize.  Had he stayed on the farm back home, he might have fixed the leaky roof rather than buy a new dress coat for the next important ball.

Quote from: Gerry on June 06, 2025, 08:07:37 AMThere 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.

Except it's not like flipping a switch, and there isn't a clear bright line between the classes.  Gentry are those who believe they are gentry, behave accordingly, and accepted by those already claiming the status.  Fortunes have life cycles, they are built slowly over time, eventually peak, then are dissipated or given away (unless a crash happens).  A family accepted as "gentry" might backslide for a couple of decades before they finally lose the property and are dropped from the social register - during which time they might be forced to economize in all sorts of ways.

Quote from: Gerry on June 06, 2025, 08:07:37 AMThe fact remains that a substantial sector of society had the sort of wealth that enabled them to use bespoke tailors.

I have never doubted that, or even questioned it.  I merely object to the notion that all of a certain class used them exclusively.

Quote from: Gerry on June 06, 2025, 08:07:37 AMPS, 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). 

No, not at all, it's just a friendly conversation on the internet.  I didn't even ask you to buy a $40 book .

Quote from: SO_tailor on June 06, 2025, 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:



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.

Let me echo Gerry's thanks for posting the full quote.  I read it somewhat differently.  It's almost as if he's lamenting the impending demise of the bespoke trade:

QuoteWhatever developments are in store for the ready-to-wear trade, there will always be certain amount of trade for the bespoke tailor...

...There are, however, grave doubts whether the remnant of trade left to him (the bespoke tailor) will be sufficient to make the business renumerative...

And note this:

QuoteThe overcoat trade has largely gone to the ready-to-wear tailor; the flannel coat and trouser trade and the tropical suit trade have almost entirely left the bespoke tailor.  Sports suits are rapidly following, and the lounge suit trade, ready for service, grows larger every year.

And finally this is most interesting:

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

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

Reading this, the impression I get is of a well-established branch of the trade which was getting strong enough to begin to threaten bespoke - not "something new".  Harrods customers needed to be educated about its limitations because the day might soon come when bespoke was no longer an option.