The military and naval uniforms on senior officers which I'm seeing on TV these days look great.
The fit of the uniforms, shirts and tailoring is generally exceptional.
Does anyone know if these uniforms are infact bespoke and who are these tailors in the USA or GB which specialize in military uniforms?
Military Uniforms
-
Guest
Retired U.S. military here (and first time poster). Unlike say, British Army officers, I have never heard of an American Army officer getting true bespoke. On the other hand, I have seen made to measure done on occasion, mainly for dress and mess blues. I myself had my enlisted issue winter wool greens altered upon commissioning. For most, its mostly the typical nip and tuck done for off the rack. For an idea of what's out there, Google "Army mess blues."
-
Guest
Several of the Savile Row houses do military uniforms - chief among them Gieves and Dege. There are also some specialist firms that focus on uniforms.
In the US, MTM is certainly available (I believe Brooks Bros. does MTM naval uniforms). I'm sure bespoke is also possible, although a real rarity. Maybe there are local tailors in the Far East (places like the Philippines) who make uniforms for officers who are stationed out there.
In the US, MTM is certainly available (I believe Brooks Bros. does MTM naval uniforms). I'm sure bespoke is also possible, although a real rarity. Maybe there are local tailors in the Far East (places like the Philippines) who make uniforms for officers who are stationed out there.
-
Guest
It's interesting to read that the USA military uniforms are unlikely to be bespoke; they certainly look sharp and tailored to fit perfectly.
These militiary officers' uniforms and style put the politicians' tailoring to shame, I would say.
They wear their clothes beautifully. Perhaps it's the military bearing and gravitas.
These militiary officers' uniforms and style put the politicians' tailoring to shame, I would say.
They wear their clothes beautifully. Perhaps it's the military bearing and gravitas.
-
Guest
Also the fact that the average military man is in much better shape than the average businessman and therefore an easier fit.
-
Guest
Also military uniforms appear to be constructed out of a very thick cloth (not sure exactly what). This helps the look immensely.
Chris Rimby
Chris Rimby
-
Guest
Their shirt collars are always nice and snug; their ties always cinched up tightly into the "V" of the collar. Coat collars hug the neck. Great cloth drape and slim fitting coats. Trousers fall straight and true.
The military men generally look great, stand tall and proud and command in their clothing.
Lessons to be learned here on style and bearing.....?
The military men generally look great, stand tall and proud and command in their clothing.
Lessons to be learned here on style and bearing.....?
-
Guest
There is ( I have not visited in 10 years.) a brilliant and nice little Tailors who specialised in officer uniforms in Aldershot. At the Garrison Church, Browning Barracks end of Queen's Avenue.
Glover & Riding
Queens Avenue
Aldershot
Hampshire
GU11 2BS
[ phone: 01252 323975 ]
Glover & Riding
Queens Avenue
Aldershot
Hampshire
GU11 2BS
[ phone: 01252 323975 ]
-
Guest
bespoke is de rigueur for officers in most british regiments and many have historic links with particular tailors.
Gieves & Hawkes has a long military pedigree going back to the Duke of Wellington. They are also well known for their links to the navy and anyone visiting 1 Saville Row stands a good chance of seeing naval uniforms hanging ready for fittings in the Adam Room.
Gieves & Hawkes has a long military pedigree going back to the Duke of Wellington. They are also well known for their links to the navy and anyone visiting 1 Saville Row stands a good chance of seeing naval uniforms hanging ready for fittings in the Adam Room.
-
Guest
So, does anyone know who makes the bulk of U.S. Army dresswear?
My dad is an officer, and I have always admired how his military dress clothing fits. I know for a fact his not bespoke...it was RTW! Obviously some company out there makes high armholes and a slender fit...
--kirsch
My dad is an officer, and I have always admired how his military dress clothing fits. I know for a fact his not bespoke...it was RTW! Obviously some company out there makes high armholes and a slender fit...
--kirsch
-
Guest
I don't know who makes the bulk of US Army uniforms. But, Marlow White (www.marlowwhite.com) makes many.
I do not know of any bespoke makers of US Army uniforms. I wonder if any are left.
I do not know of any bespoke makers of US Army uniforms. I wonder if any are left.
-
Guest
At least as late as the early 1980’s, Lauterstein’s, in Arlington VA, used to make bespoke Army uniforms, and catered to the large 0-6+ market in the D.C. area. Jacob Reed, in Philadelphia, used to as well; they also cut for the USNA midshipmen getting their commissioning uniforms. I know the latter closed some years ago, but don’t know about the former. Marlowe White used to make a fairly shoddy made to measure, which was better than the AAFES issue, but only insofar as having one eye can be considered preferable to being blind (at least it didn't shimmer, like the 100% polyester Clothing Sales version).
But to worry about the fit of an Army uniform is an exercise in closing the barn door after the cattle have bolted. To be frank, the trend in U.S. Army uniforms (excluding field gear) is something of a sartorial abortion – brought on, no doubt, by the desire to cut costs and to adopt clothing that can be used to the widest extent possible by all ranks and by service members of both sexes. This means that the principal consideration given to adopting a new item is to materials and styles that are the most durable and require the least maintenance, and also are the cheapest to make. Aesthetics are not important- and neither is the service tradition that garrison wear ought to preserve, something the USMC well know. Consequently, the Army’s garrison uniforms today are drab and devoid of style, and have for the most part jettisoned traditional features. In fact, the last three decades of Army fashion are a nightmarish descent into the sartorial underworld. First, the cotton khakis (ok, ok, arguably not a traditional Army uniform, but quite snappy when starched, and, for Christ’s sake, it had real insignia) were abandoned in favor of a wash-and-wear tan version that looked like it was made of polyester. Come to think of it, it was. This was abandoned altogether (so service members would have fewer uniforms to maintain) in favor of the green Class A uniform without the coat. The tan shirt was replaced by a polyester end-on-end shirt of a spectacularly nauseating shade of green (to this day, I can’t wear end-on-end because of this). Traditional rank insignia was abandoned in favor of tiny brass chevrons for enlisted and the outlandish slip-on shoulder marks first for officers then for NCOs as well. Greatcoats were replaced by poly-cotton raincoats better suited for flashing old ladies in the park than for imparting a sense of military decorum. But the piece de resistance was the universal adoption of that most wretched bit of modern military fashion: the beret. Twenty-five years ago, I was in a unit that wore berets as part of their shtick, but I realized full well at the time that I looked a proper twat, particularly when in Class A uniform. Now the whole Army has to wear it.
I read recently that the Army is getting rid of the green Class A uniform and replacing it with the dress blue uniform for all occasions. Since the purpose of the article was to pillory the Bush administration for concerning itself with uniforms when it has a war to fight, there were no details on the uniform itself, though I am confident it will be an embarrassment to all who wear it. This ought to vouchsafe the horror to come: watch a Civil War movie and envision the Union Army officers you see in black berets.
One final point: other services are not immune from machine gunning themselves in the foot when it comes to uniforms. The Navy adopted the slip-on shoulder mark in the early eighties – but did not stop to consider how silly these look on an officer’s white shirt (think of a Navy captain, with his four gold bars, and say to yourself, “Ladies and gentlemen, we are now beginning our descent into the greater Albuquerque area; flight attendants, please prepare for landing”). And who can forget the Air Force’s abortive flirtation with the blue business suit – now that really did look like airline gear!
But to worry about the fit of an Army uniform is an exercise in closing the barn door after the cattle have bolted. To be frank, the trend in U.S. Army uniforms (excluding field gear) is something of a sartorial abortion – brought on, no doubt, by the desire to cut costs and to adopt clothing that can be used to the widest extent possible by all ranks and by service members of both sexes. This means that the principal consideration given to adopting a new item is to materials and styles that are the most durable and require the least maintenance, and also are the cheapest to make. Aesthetics are not important- and neither is the service tradition that garrison wear ought to preserve, something the USMC well know. Consequently, the Army’s garrison uniforms today are drab and devoid of style, and have for the most part jettisoned traditional features. In fact, the last three decades of Army fashion are a nightmarish descent into the sartorial underworld. First, the cotton khakis (ok, ok, arguably not a traditional Army uniform, but quite snappy when starched, and, for Christ’s sake, it had real insignia) were abandoned in favor of a wash-and-wear tan version that looked like it was made of polyester. Come to think of it, it was. This was abandoned altogether (so service members would have fewer uniforms to maintain) in favor of the green Class A uniform without the coat. The tan shirt was replaced by a polyester end-on-end shirt of a spectacularly nauseating shade of green (to this day, I can’t wear end-on-end because of this). Traditional rank insignia was abandoned in favor of tiny brass chevrons for enlisted and the outlandish slip-on shoulder marks first for officers then for NCOs as well. Greatcoats were replaced by poly-cotton raincoats better suited for flashing old ladies in the park than for imparting a sense of military decorum. But the piece de resistance was the universal adoption of that most wretched bit of modern military fashion: the beret. Twenty-five years ago, I was in a unit that wore berets as part of their shtick, but I realized full well at the time that I looked a proper twat, particularly when in Class A uniform. Now the whole Army has to wear it.
I read recently that the Army is getting rid of the green Class A uniform and replacing it with the dress blue uniform for all occasions. Since the purpose of the article was to pillory the Bush administration for concerning itself with uniforms when it has a war to fight, there were no details on the uniform itself, though I am confident it will be an embarrassment to all who wear it. This ought to vouchsafe the horror to come: watch a Civil War movie and envision the Union Army officers you see in black berets.
One final point: other services are not immune from machine gunning themselves in the foot when it comes to uniforms. The Navy adopted the slip-on shoulder mark in the early eighties – but did not stop to consider how silly these look on an officer’s white shirt (think of a Navy captain, with his four gold bars, and say to yourself, “Ladies and gentlemen, we are now beginning our descent into the greater Albuquerque area; flight attendants, please prepare for landing”). And who can forget the Air Force’s abortive flirtation with the blue business suit – now that really did look like airline gear!
-
Guest
One of my favorite sartorial stories is of my own father, who upon graduation from West Point, lo! these many years ago, received from his own father a complete set of uniforms, tailor-made by Brooks Brothers (which, in the 1940s, still did have a custom department) -- even down to the fatigues.
As a soldier's son who grew up with parades and with the images of H. A. Ogden and Charles McBarron, I agree with the anonymous poster above that American uniforms border on the absurd today -- what a deprecation of those who wear them. But, with the exceptions of a few full-dress (most notably the Marines') and some others, American governmental uniforms have seldom been visually impressive (our best battle-dress have combined utility with militarily handsome plainness, however). Instead, the profusion of militia uniforms in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries included some very, very handsome yet sensible examples.
RWS
As a soldier's son who grew up with parades and with the images of H. A. Ogden and Charles McBarron, I agree with the anonymous poster above that American uniforms border on the absurd today -- what a deprecation of those who wear them. But, with the exceptions of a few full-dress (most notably the Marines') and some others, American governmental uniforms have seldom been visually impressive (our best battle-dress have combined utility with militarily handsome plainness, however). Instead, the profusion of militia uniforms in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries included some very, very handsome yet sensible examples.
RWS
-
Guest
I quite forgot to include my name in the above screed on Army uniforms in case anyone wants to fire back a cross reply. I subsequently did a little reading on the adoption of the dress blue uniform for everyday wear: it appears that DA will adopt a grey shirt to go with the uniform in its undress configuration. Now soldiers will look like NYPD cadets. I knew DA would screw it up!
If the Army wanted a good looking uniform, all it would have to do is resurrect the pinks.
Collarmelton
If the Army wanted a good looking uniform, all it would have to do is resurrect the pinks.
Collarmelton
-
Guest
Agreed -- if the Army used real wool and cotton instead of the polyester horrors now usually seen.Anonymous wrote:. . . . If the Army wanted a good looking uniform, all it would have to do is resurrect the pinks.
Collarmelton
RWS
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests