A foray into designing my first bespoke suit

[Sator]

One thing I would like to add is that please don't just follow forum group think and insist on natural shoulders at all cost. Natural shoulders only work if you want a rather negligee and easy look, or if you have unusually square and muscular shoulders. For me, that means something I would wear in summer on the weekend for a lazy look. In my case, I prefer more shoulder padding to correct for sloping shoulders. Please don't force your tailor to omit shoulder padding because you read it was cool on the internet.

Also, I would strongly advise against a seamless back panel (no centre seam) on your first order. This is something to consider on later orders after your patterns is absolutely perfect.

[Costi]

I never implied that flat front trousers were an invention of the jeans era. Of course the use of flat front trousers as part of suits can be historically legitimized, like almost anything else (btw, those are breeches that Manton posted). I wear flat front trousers myself, cords and moleskins mostly, but they are not "slim fitting" - they have fuller legs and higher waist than jeans. On an elegant town suit application, however, in year 2009, in an 11 oz grey worsted cloth, I think slim fitting flat front trousers are not the best option. That this style was ever recorded in the history of fashion or that some people today syill wear an interpretation of it is no argument in favour of its being aesthetically pleasing or comfortable. What I find interesting is that most supporters of narrow, slim fitting trousers never tried full, high waisted trousers; at the same time, those who favour full, high waisted trousers also wore slim fitting trousers (like I did, too - and now those suits and trousers are nothing but permanent decoration to my closet).
There is a false notion, a common place probably, that narrow, low waisted, belted trousers are "young and sexy" while full, high waisted, braced trousers are... not. This probably has more to do with a certain psychological insecurity today, when "anything goes" and wearing narrow trousers is a matter of choice, not of following a dominant fashion, as Pelham rightly pointed out. A little more confidence in one's appeal beyond a "sexy look" is the right path to elegance, I think.

[Costi]

Good advice, Sator! This is not the best cloth and application for a shirt sleeve. Alex, leave it for a later project, you have time
A seamless back makes sense on a patterned cloth for continuity - you have no checks or windowpanes on this one.

[Pelham]

. That this style was ever recorded in the history of fashion or that some people today syill wear an interpretation of it is no argument in favour of its being aesthetically pleasing or comfortable

... nor is it an argument in favour of the reverse , I'm sure you'll accept?

What I find interesting is that most supporters of narrow, slim fitting trousers never tried full, high waisted trousers; at the same time, those who favour full, high waisted trousers also wore slim fitting trousers (like I did, too - and now those suits and trousers are nothing but permanent decoration to my closet).

Really, it all depends on how much we are actually talking about. The reason for the popularity of the Apparel Arts type of trousers back in the day is how novel and distinctive those pleats and high waists, and how dramatically loose those legs were back in the day. t's a distinctive look because of how very unlike it was to anything that came before.

I don't see either full or lean as necessarily better for the average man in 2009; I think he should consider his personal build, his social and physical environment, and his aesthetic tastes, and find the right cut after weighing each of those factors.

Perhaps I'm an exception (though I doubt a really rare one) but I can say that while loose and high-waisted does indeed have a certain edge on comfort- similar to the wholly unfettered feeling of wearing pajamas - the case is somewhat overstated. Just my experience, having worn both. Find a skilled tailor and you'll be fine either way.

[Sator]

I think it was T.H. Holding who said that as a cutter, as you take the customer's measurements, you should ask if he prefers a close fit or an easy fit. Most of us fall into one or the other camp. I am most definitely in the clean fit camp, and I have an allergy to loosely fitting clothes. They make me feel like I am dressed in a potato sack. Others will talk about how they feel a clean fit feels like a "straight jacket".

However, brace trousers need not be restricted to wearers in one or other of these two camps. I prefer brace trousers as I no more like the feel of a tight belt around my waist than I do around my neck. Yet despite the belt, the trousers still sag! The real reason I prefer brace trousers is that they elongate the legs, and make you look taller.

Slim cut brace trousers are particularly flattering on the right person, because they really make your legs look much longer. I have my brace trousers all made up flat fronted and slim, in the Edwardian and Victorian manner.



The next illustration shows how even extremely fitted trousers (and pantaloons) can be made up with braces to make the fit even cleaner and to eliminate every last bit of droopy bagging and creasing.



For those obsessed with starched, clean fit and structure like me, braces are absolutely de rigeur!

[Sator]

BTW did I mention that slim cut braces trousers out of decent weighted cloth (16 or more Oz) look amazing. Amazing!!!!

[alden]

I don't see either full or lean as necessarily better for the average man in 2009; I think he should consider his personal build, his social and physical environment, and his aesthetic tastes, and find the right cut after weighing each of those factors.

The only thing I would add is to say that the cut of coat and trousers should be in harmony. If you have close fitting trousers, you will need a close fitting coat. If you choose a more ample coat, you will be advised to mirror this in the trouser.

Perhaps I'm an exception (though I doubt a really rare one) but I can say that while loose and high-waisted does indeed have a certain edge on comfort- similar to the wholly unfettered feeling of wearing pajamas - the case is somewhat overstated. Just my experience, having worn both. Find a skilled tailor and you'll be fine either way.

My normally "skilled" tailor from Naples recently sent me two pairs of casual trousers. Instead of the 22 cms bottoms he gave me 19.5 cms. My casual trousers are already cut much slimmer than my suit's trousers but 5 cms less at the bottom made for a pretty narrow trouser overall. They are no where near the narrowness in the 1916 illustrations, but they are narrow. I think the trousers actually look fine though they don't work with my coats. The problem is comfort. When I try to raise my leg, I have a third of the mobility I am accustomed to have. The trouser cinches on my leg and blocks; there is no mystery to it: there isn't enough cloth there. So in my own case, the comfort is impaired by the narrowness. But others will certainly have other experiences and results. My advice is to try both styles and decide what suits you and your lifestyle best.

Cheers

M Alden

[coolal]

One thing I would like to add is that please don't just follow forum group think and insist on natural shoulders at all cost. Natural shoulders only work if you want a rather negligee and easy look, or if you have unusually square and muscular shoulders. For me, that means something I would wear in summer on the weekend for a lazy look. In my case, I prefer more shoulder padding to correct for sloping shoulders. Please don't force your tailor to omit shoulder padding because you read it was cool on the internet.

Also, I would strongly advise against a seamless back panel (no centre seam) on your first order. This is something to consider on later orders after your patterns is absolutely perfect.

Sator, thank you for your input! I'm sold on the notion that I should leave shirtsleeve sleeveheads for a later project. I think I will do the same with braces, however, I'd like to move in that direction with the styling of the trousers.

My shoulders are somewhat muscular, however, not very square, so I will trust the tailor's eye when it comes to padding. Having come from a family of two physicians, i'm keenly aware of the "I read it on the internet, I must know better" mentality that they encountered with their patients. I would never want to subject my tailor to a similar experience. He has spent a carrier building up an eye for something I have no experience in.

Thanks to Costi and Pelham's commentary, I think I have a clear understanding of what I'm looking for. I want to start to migrate my waistline away from my hips northward towards my natural waistline. I understand I will be asking for slim tapered cut with fullness in mind.

The combination of the higher waistline, fuller legs, tapered slim cut and cuffs should distill the amazing input i've received from you all!

One last thing to clear up. In regards to the sleevehead and the perception I'm going for. As I alluded to earlier, I'm currently bringing my dream to life via running a startup. Towards the middle of April and into the summer I'm "looking forward" to a host of Venture Capital meetings where I need to be "serious and professional", yet giving an air of not trying to dress up. I want to come off as young, sociable and in tune with the times.

There is something about the round elegance of the sleevehead that exudes grace and nonchalance in the midst of professionalism. The roped sleevehead has it's place in my wardrobe, but not for these meetings. I want someone to see a line of my silhouette starting from my head, curving down my neck, over my shoulder, tapering down my torso to my waist, over my hips and shooting straight down to my pants. Ideally there wouldn't be a hard angle at any point along that line. If that visual makes sense to some of you, hopefully you can understand my admiration for the gently rolling shoulder.

Thanks again for all the input so far!

Alex

[coolal]

I don't see either full or lean as necessarily better for the average man in 2009; I think he should consider his personal build, his social and physical environment, and his aesthetic tastes, and find the right cut after weighing each of those factors.

The only thing I would add is to say that the cut of coat and trousers should be in harmony. If you have close fitting trousers, you will need a close fitting coat. If you choose a more ample coat, you will be advised to mirror this in the trouser.

Perhaps I'm an exception (though I doubt a really rare one) but I can say that while loose and high-waisted does indeed have a certain edge on comfort- similar to the wholly unfettered feeling of wearing pajamas - the case is somewhat overstated. Just my experience, having worn both. Find a skilled tailor and you'll be fine either way.

My normally "skilled" tailor from Naples recently sent me two pairs of casual trousers. Instead of the 22 cms bottoms he gave me 19.5 cms. My casual trousers are already cut much slimmer than my suit's trousers but 5 cms less at the bottom made for a pretty narrow trouser overall. They are no where near the narrowness in the 1916 illustrations, but they are narrow. I think the trousers actually look fine though they don't work with my coats. The problem is comfort. When I try to raise my leg, I have a third of the mobility I am accustomed to have. The trouser cinches on my leg and blocks; there is no mystery to it: there isn't enough cloth there. So in my own case, the comfort is impaired by the narrowness. But others will certainly have other experiences and results. My advice is to try both styles and decide what suits you and your lifestyle best.

Cheers

M Alden

Great point on matching the fullness or lack there of in the trousers with the coat. I forgot to keep in mind that the coat will be a rather lean fitting design, so the trousers, regardless of their fullness, need to echo this.

I plan to experiment in all styles sooner rather than later. I'm sure there is no one style I'll settle on, rather, just finding the time and place for each one.

Thanks again,
Alex

[Pelham]

My normally "skilled" tailor from Naples recently sent me two pairs of casual trousers. Instead of the 22 cms bottoms he gave me 19.5 cms. My casual trousers are already cut much slimmer than my suit's trousers but 5 cms less at the bottom made for a pretty narrow trouser overall. They are no where near the narrowness in the 1916 illustrations, but they are narrow. I think the trousers actually look fine though they don't work with my coats. The problem is comfort. When I try to raise my leg, I have a third of the mobility I am accustomed to have. The trouser cinches on my leg and blocks; there is no mystery to it: there isn't enough cloth there. So in my own case, the comfort is impaired by the narrowness. But others will certainly have other experiences and results. My advice is to try both styles and decide what suits you and your lifestyle best.

We all make mistakes but did your skilled tailor really steal 5 cm from your trousers without your asking for it? Surely you'll send them back?


I think we should consider that in some of those old pictures, they are slightly exaggerating the narrowness of the trousers as they were actually worn back then... the fashion was in favour of narrowness, but photographs that I've seen often reveal a rather less tight cut, so it may be that illustrators took some artistic license in the direction of what was regarded as stylish and sexy at the time.

There are baggy trousers and there are tight blue jeans, but there's also everything in between. So this is hardly an either/or question...

My own test is this: if the trouser looks like it's gathering close when I lift my leg, it might be okay; but if it cinches so that I feel squeezed, it's too tight!

P.

[Sator]

My shoulders are somewhat muscular, however, not very square, so I will trust the tailor's eye when it comes to padding. Having come from a family of two physicians, i'm keenly aware of the "I read it on the internet, I must know better" mentality that they encountered with their patients. I would never want to subject my tailor to a similar experience. He has spent a carrier building up an eye for something I have no experience in.

I think it is a good thing to be well informed. Don't get me wrong. There is, however, a fashion on internet fora for "natural shoulders".

There is something about the round elegance of the sleevehead that exudes grace and nonchalance in the midst of professionalism. The roped sleevehead has it's place in my wardrobe, but not for these meetings. I want someone to see a line of my silhouette starting from my head, curving down my neck, over my shoulder, tapering down my torso to my waist, over my hips and shooting straight down to my pants. Ideally there wouldn't be a hard angle at any point along that line. If that visual makes sense to some of you, hopefully you can understand my admiration for the gently rolling shoulder.

Keep in mind that some tailors will refuse to let coats out of their shops with shirt sleeve shouders. They say that such shoulders are easier to make but unacceptably sloppy, and dismiss the claims that the "waterfall" of "beautiful" folds in the sleevehead are desirable as being an attempt to pass off a slovenly shortcut as a virtue.

[alden]

We all make mistakes but did your skilled tailor really steal 5 cm from your trousers without your asking for it? Surely you'll send them back?

Its the kind of freak error that happens once every decade or so. I am not too concerned about it, though he did get a good ribbing about the effects of massive grappa consumption on cutting skills.

I think the problem with the illustrations is that they can be a bit exaggerated. The 30s style trouser you posted is a bit ample and the 1916 version is skeletal. There surely is a via del mezzo.

Cheers

Michael

[coolal]

My shoulders are somewhat muscular, however, not very square, so I will trust the tailor's eye when it comes to padding. Having come from a family of two physicians, i'm keenly aware of the "I read it on the internet, I must know better" mentality that they encountered with their patients. I would never want to subject my tailor to a similar experience. He has spent a carrier building up an eye for something I have no experience in.

I think it is a good thing to be well informed. Don't get me wrong. There is, however, a fashion on internet fora for "natural shoulders".

There is something about the round elegance of the sleevehead that exudes grace and nonchalance in the midst of professionalism. The roped sleevehead has it's place in my wardrobe, but not for these meetings. I want someone to see a line of my silhouette starting from my head, curving down my neck, over my shoulder, tapering down my torso to my waist, over my hips and shooting straight down to my pants. Ideally there wouldn't be a hard angle at any point along that line. If that visual makes sense to some of you, hopefully you can understand my admiration for the gently rolling shoulder.

Keep in mind that some tailors will refuse to let coats out of their shops with shirt sleeve shouders. They say that such shoulders are easier to make but unacceptably sloppy, and dismiss the claims that the "waterfall" of "beautiful" folds in the sleevehead are desirable as being an attempt to pass off a slovenly shortcut as a virtue.

Sator, thank you for your insight yet again. I'm curious how my tailor would react to this request.

In truth, the exact rolling look I'm going for can be summed up in this picture of Mr. Alden taken from Manton's post on the Neapolitan shoulder here:


Given the suiting that I'm using, is the "spalla camicia" the only way to achieve that look? I'm absolutely in love with it. Notably absent is the "waterfall" effect in the drape from the sleevehead. Is this a byproduct of the suiting weave / weight / materials?

Thanks,
Alex

[alden]

Given the suiting that I'm using, is the "spalla camicia" the only way to achieve that look? I'm absolutely in love with it. Notably absent is the "waterfall" effect in the drape from the sleevehead. Is this a byproduct of the suiting weave / weight / materials?

I am glad you like this picture though it is not a "spalla camicia" but simply a very natural shoulder with an open seam.

The "waterfall" effect is a term I coined and it has little to do with gushing folds of cloth or pleating in the descending of the sleeve from the shoulder. The picture above is a waterfall. The cloth falls evenly and harmoniously with the sole effect being that of gravity.

The cloth in question is a 20 ozs Reid & Taylor from the 60s. The picture is of the tailor who made the suit, Mr Loris Vestrucci of Florence.

I would say your approach is very good overall. You might want to look at some photos from the 60s in the way of the slim Conduit cut by Sinclair. It may give you some ideas.

Cheers

[Sator]

Given the suiting that I'm using, is the "spalla camicia" the only way to achieve that look? I'm absolutely in love with it. Notably absent is the "waterfall" effect in the drape from the sleevehead. Is this a byproduct of the suiting weave / weight / materials?

I would say it comes from more meticulously pressing out the excess so as to shrink out the rippling, and probably putting a bit of padding just in the sleevehead to keep it clean.

My preference is increasingly for a more mainstream Italian structured shoulder (taken from Villarosa and Angeli):



The shoulder is a bit higher, and more concave. My Italian tailor calls them "donkey's shoulders". In my case, it helps to correct for a slight slope in my shoulders, and helps me avoid a droopiness in the shoulder.