Two suits from an 'off the row' London tailor

[stultus77]

First of all, congratulations on your first bespoke suits. They are the first steps in what will hopefully be a fruitful life-long journey.

My own tastes are constantly evolving and quite frankly the minutae of dress escape me since I tend to look at the overall impression or effect of dress rather than focusing overmuch on the details. Of course, the collective effect of these details helps to create the overall impression, but I'm just too lazy to obsess over them.

That being said, one thing about your suits really stood out even to me: the left shoulder of both suits appear overly padded and/or over extended over your natural shoulder, creating a sort of "dimple". The same is true for the right shoulder, but the ones on your left shoulder is far more obvious.

Perhaps it is just the way it happened to sit when you took the pictures, but it is possible that your tailer failed to adjust for your natural posture and/or there is a mistake in the pattern. I personally would speak to him about it.

Good luck!!

[m-lan]

...

[couch]

EDIT: On which note ... I'd love to hear a) your opinions on the suits above and b) your thoughts on whether there is an objectively 'ideal' aesthetic, which one works towards with experience, or whether that's a problematic/reductive notion.

I presume a) to be directed specifically at dopey, but perhaps I may be permitted a few comments on b). If one follows Kant in the Critique of Judgment, judgments of Taste (the faculty of recognizing beauty) are both subjective (as responses of pleasure, involving no necessary qualities in the beautiful object), and universal (disinterested, and in principle perceivable by anyone). Thus they depend on what he calls finality of form. In practice, as you suggest, the perception of beauty in forms is not unaffected by cultural changes--such things as the 'ideal' proportions for male and female bodies change over time, in what might be thought of as long-cycle fashions (distinct from the shorter-cycle 'designed' fashions often disparaged here).

A careful perusal of the archives of this site will probably allow you to induce the 'ideals' underlying most comments, but a few general principles might be stated that, while subject to debate, might describe a mean around which fashion oscillates. Thinking back to Leonardo's famous Vitruvian Man:



The navel is located near the center of the radius of articulation of the limbs of this 'ideal' male and slightly above the midpoint in height from the ground. Subtracting an allowance for the head, we can see the basis of one traditional tailors' rule of thumb that a suit jacket should have a length half the distance from the top of its collar to the trouser bottom. This gives an appearance that the legs are balanced in length with the torso. Men with longer legs will, by this rule, have a longer jacket--that is, one that ends farther below the trouser fork--though proportionately it will still be half the total height of the suit. Men with shorter legs and longer torsos will, by this rule, have a shorter coat--that is, one that ends near, at, or even slightly above the trouser fork.

Now let us take the latter case. If a jacket is cut to end at or above the trouser fork, and if the shoulders are cut very narrow, it risks looking like it is simply too small--as if it shrank in the wash. This is a look seen in Thom Brown's runway jackets a few years ago (balanced, if one can use the term, by very short trousers). If the shoulders are cut very wide, the coat itself risks looking top-heavy, as if the shoulders were deliberately exaggerated.

In the former case, when a jacket is cut too long, it risks shortening the apparent leg length, and/or looking exaggeratedly enclosing or simply oversized, as if the wearer had lost stature.

According to this rule of thumb, the button point would fall at or just above the midpoint of the jacket, near or at the natural waist. This requires a trouser rise that comes to about the navel if shirt is not to show below the buttoned jacket.

Importantly, each of these variations in dimension becomes associated with strong attitudes that vary with time and social group. So, for example, while a strong male V from waist to shoulders is generally approved on both aesthetic grounds and for sexual attractiveness, many feel that achieving this through obvious shoulder padding or wide cutting is distasteful. There is a direct analogy here with padded and push-up brassieres, or implants. The amount of enhancement, if any, considered appropriate and positive rather than vulgar and unfortunate is a function of attitude and peer influence, in addition to whether there is a defect of proportion that needs correction in the first place. The fashion for very narrow and completely unpadded shoulders reflects a reaction to its opposite, as fashions usually do--in this case understatement exaggerated to the point of caricature.
In many historical periods, of course, a strong V was not idealized--18th-century aristocratic dress was decidedly narrow-shouldered in cut, and jackets from the Edwardian period through the '20s had smaller shoulders than from the '30s on. In both cases this may have had something to do with signaling socioeconomic status (or aspiration to it).

In the late '80s Armani cut long, low-button-stance, low-gorge, wide-shouldered but lightly padded jackets that looked 'relaxed' at their best and sloppy in their many imitators. Today the designer ready-to-wear fashion is for decidedly short jackets. Many people, especially young people, like to feel au courant and are uncomfortable taking a longer view of fashion and basing their choices on cuts that subtly harmonize their proportions toward the Vitruvian ideal, if it means their clothes look different than the clothes of those in their circle. And there are always flamboyant spirits who quite knowingly adopt exaggerated styles with full knowledge of their effects--the Wildes of the world. And these spirits have their own rules.

Most bespoke makers have, since manufactured clothing became widespread, been influenced by the oscillations of fashion around this traditional mean for proportions, but have usually recommended changes at the modest end of the scale. Even the notable exceptions, such as Nutters and Edward Sexton in the '60s and '70s, were skilled at balancing flamboyant components like wide lapels and shoulders and flared trousers so that their customers still looked well-proportioned as people. It is this, perhaps, that accounts for the acknowledgment, by many members here, of their aesthetic success, even if they wouldn't wear such clothes today. They meet Kant's criteria.

I think you'll find that most members base their ideas about proportion and balance on this tradition, however exuberant we may be about patterns and details. And generally, Castiglione's idea of sprezzatura--the avoidance of anything that appears to be trying too hard--describes an attitude that is valued here. As you suggest, these contexts (developed more fully in many posts and publications often cited here) underlie the somewhat shorthand comments often posted. I hope these preliminary thoughts are useful in interpreting them.

[NJS]

mc - as Costi surmised, you are locked in an antipathy with DFR. As All Hallow's Eve is approaching, I suggest that you could both take your places, in cyberspace, for an i-gent duel. Full morning dress with (pocket squares) is expected - and do post pictures of the man-bag fight.
NJS

[mc5581]

Thanks all for your responses - in particular, couch.

Stultus
Many thanks for your observation and encouragement. I will look for this dimple tonight.


M-lan
I will indeed spend more time in the Great Photos archive - a fantastic resource. I will also try to find Mr. Alden’s note – thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I'm unsure as to your argument, however:

"One day you will see the difference between the lines … There are reasons why 337 is a Handgrade last, and 341 is a Benchgrade last, universally agreed upon, despite differences in personal preference."

I don't think anyone would dispute a verifiable fact such as a 337 being a Handgrade last. Indeed it is unlikely that anyone would dispute that certain limitations, imposed in the manufacturing stage, mean that a mass-produced shoe is unable to replicate some of the techniques of which a handmade shoe might avail itself (some of which are physically observable, which I presume is what you are referring to by ‘difference between the lines’).

Lazlo Vass has written a great introduction on this - Handmade Shoes for Men (2010) – and, anecdotally, I was astonished at the difference between my first pair of bespoke shoes and all others before them.

Couch
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed and considered post: it was most interesting and much appreciated.

It has been a long time since I’ve studied Kant but I think you might have misconstrued his notion of ‘finality of form’ slightly: form in this sense does not relate to the shape or design of an object (the perception of which, as you rightly note, is “not unaffected by cultural changes”) but to its property of internal rather than external purpose … thus it is a very useful metric in judging categories as a whole (art, clothes, music, food) but not for judging objects within the category as all suits are the same on this score – suits almost never have finality of form, in the Kantian sense, I’d argue.

I very much like your metaphor of fashion oscillating around a mean … to extend the metaphor, I’d note that there is a great deal of variance within a defined boundary (the shape of the human body) which you’ve alluded to in your references to 18th-Century v. contemporary dress. My contention is that this variance is good – necessary, even – and that, although there will be a prescribed ‘fashion’ or popular aesthetic within any given social group at a given time, the principles which form that fashion’s particular aesthetic are fluid and clearly subjective – not universally true. It is worth noting that the LL’s collective feelings on ‘balance and proportion’ is an example of one such ‘fashion’ and that this fashion’s principles will differ to those of other groups. I think you hit the nail on the head with this:

“… While a strong male V from waist to shoulders is generally approved on both aesthetic grounds and for sexual attractiveness, many feel that achieving this through obvious shoulder padding or wide cutting is distasteful. There is a direct analogy here with padded and push-up brassieres”

Having read around the forum, I’m actually rather surprised that sprezzatura is an attitude that is valued here. My understanding of sprezzatura, at least in the Italian context, is not so much carefree elegance as a contrived attempt to hide the conscious effort which went into achieving something. My personal view on this is that if a man looks comfortable, relaxed and happy in his suit then the effort which went into achieving it – visible or not – is rendered irrelevant: I visited Tommy Nutter’s exhibition at the Textile Museum a while back and observed that, whilst the suits might look a little overwrought, devoid of context on the mannequins in a different period to the one which they were worn, they looked fantastic in the photos when being worn and visibly enjoyed by men who gave them their life and character.

With each year that passes, and each suit I have made, my preferences alter. It may well be the case that in 10 years I’ll prefer a less aggressive cut, more in line with those found in the Great Photos archive. However, in such an instance, I won’t feel my suits have evolved (ie insinuating that there is a universal ideal to which we can all aspire) as much as they’ve changed to reflect changes in my life and general attitudes as I grow older. My point in case is that a Great Photos archive 100 years ago would look very different to the one which you see now.

EDIT: NJS ... what a fantastic idea!

[couch]

It has been a long time since I’ve studied Kant but I think you might have misconstrued his notion of ‘finality of form’ slightly: form in this sense does not relate to the shape or design of an object (the perception of which, as you rightly note, is “not unaffected by cultural changes”) but to its property of internal rather than external purpose … thus it is a very useful metric in judging categories as a whole (art, clothes, music, food) but not for judging objects within the category as all suits are the same on this score – suits almost never have finality of form, in the Kantian sense, I’d argue.

Well, summary always distorts, and this is not the place for a detailed argument, but consider section 11 from Moment 3:

Every purpose, if it be regarded as a ground of satisfaction, always carries with it an interest—as the determining ground of the judgement—about the object of pleasure. Therefore no subjective purpose can lie at the basis of the judgement of taste. But neither can the judgement of taste be determined by any representation of an objective purpose, i.e. of the possibility of the object itself in accordance with principles of purposive combination, and consequently it can be determined by no concept of the good; because it is an aesthetical and not a cognitive judgement. It therefore has to do with no concept of the character and internal or external possibility of the object by means of this or that cause, but merely with the relation of the representative powers to one another, so far as they are determined by a representation.

Now this relation in the determination of an object as beautiful is bound up with the feeling of pleasure, which is declared by the judgement of taste to be valid for every one; hence a pleasantness, accompanying the representation, can as little contain the determining ground [of the judgement] as the representation of the perfection of the object and the concept of the good can. Therefore it can be nothing else than the subjective purposiveness in the representation of an object without any purpose (either objective or subjective); and thus it is the mere form of purposiveness in the representation by which an object is given to us, so far as we are conscious of it, which constitutes the satisfaction that we without a concept judge to be universally communicable; and, consequently, this is the determining ground of the judgement of taste.

While you are right that for Kant the beautiful is purposive but (to the extent that it is judged on aesthetic grounds) without a conceptual or pragmatic purpose, Kant was very much in the business of describing what allows us to make aesthetic judgments about specific objects and not simply categories; many schools of criticism have made and continue to make use of his idea to hold that achieved works of art display finality of form (e.g., Clement Greenberg, the New Critics, Susan Stewart). The idea that the "relation of the representative powers one to another" grounds the judgment of taste (or beauty) underpins, for instance, the criticism and appreciation of abstract art--where, as Pound put it, "you like a painting because it is an arrangement of lines and colors" rather than as a successful representation of a person or scene. (In Kant's day, of course, color was almost never used as an independent "representative power" and thus he viewed it as mere decoration, and excluded it from his formal criteria, unlike design and composition [CJ section 14]. Thus cultural changes inevitably complicate the mechanics of artmaking and aesthetic judgement, which is just to say that art and taste have histories). To sum up this point about form in Kant's own words: "A judgment of taste which is uninfluenced by charm or emotion (though these may be associated with the delight in the beautiful), and whose determining ground, therefore, is simply finality of form, is a pure judgment of taste." So a suit may be judged as aesthetically pleasing apart from its intended use or its associations; but to the extent that functional constraints (involving fit, etc.) affect the relationships of proportion and line (cf. Kant's composition and design), then Louis Sullivan's notion that form follows function need not, I would argue, be ruled out of a Kantian judgment of a suit's aesthetic success.

I very much like your metaphor of fashion oscillating around a mean … to extend the metaphor, I’d note that there is a great deal of variance within a defined boundary (the shape of the human body) which you’ve alluded to in your references to 18th-Century v. contemporary dress. My contention is that this variance is good – necessary, even – and that, although there will be a prescribed ‘fashion’ or popular aesthetic within any given social group at a given time, the principles which form that fashion’s particular aesthetic are fluid and clearly subjective – not universally true. It is worth noting that the LL’s collective feelings on ‘balance and proportion’ is an example of one such ‘fashion’ and that this fashion’s principles will differ to those of other groups.

If we disagree at all here it may simply be in degree. "Fluid" suggests a more rapid evolution than I would admit for principles, though true over long time spans. That they are socially or culturally conditioned or constructed I accept completely, though that is not the same as being 'clearly subjective'--the latter would mean they were completely idiosyncratic. There's nothing wrong with a man developing his own subjective/idiosyncratic criteria which nevertheless guide the particular clothing decisions he makes in a consistent way, but they are of little relevance if asking the opinions of others. Certainly the LL's collective feelings on balance and proportion (to the extent we may posit such) represent an aesthetic range within a much larger universe of possibilities. That they represent a relatively narrow oscillation from a mean based on "man as the measure of all things" (as sketched earlier) also seems accurate to me, reflecting a certain notion of what that ideal man's physical attributes consist in. Of course there are plenty of other ideas about how clothing should relate to the body, in architectural or surrealist terms, for instance, though these have more often (though not always) found expression in women's clothing--David Byrne's Big Suit being a notable exception.

Having read around the forum, I’m actually rather surprised that sprezzatura is an attitude that is valued here. My understanding of sprezzatura, at least in the Italian context, is not so much carefree elegance as a contrived attempt to hide the conscious effort which went into achieving something. My personal view on this is that if a man looks comfortable, relaxed and happy in his suit then the effort which went into achieving it – visible or not – is rendered irrelevant

Sprezzatura is the art that conceals art. If it is successful, in the context of dressing, there should be no difference perceivable to the observer or interlocutor between innately carefree elegance and elegance that has become carefree through care. Were that not the case, there would be little to be learned from a forum like the LL. One could make the analogy with perfecting a musical or sporting talent. You can only improvise like Louis Armtrong after you've mastered your instrument and your musical genre. You can only skate to where the puck will be after you've chased a lot of pucks.

[DFR]

You have in fact posted this elsewhere for some reason but my opinion of it has not improved so here you are:

From what it is possible to tell from two restricted photographs

No 1

Too tight around button point
Shoulders exaggerated - too much padding/roping and so too dominant
Sleeves too short
Lapels slightly too wide.
Quarters excessive


No 2

Whilst peak lapels are OK if you like them, this pattern for the lapel does not look good at all. Slightly redolent of something made by a multiple tailor from 35 years back
Shoulders ditto

I would suggest over much thought and not enough observation of what is about - who allowed these two to leave his work room?

Clearly if you are happy then so be it but not elegant I'm afraid. Sorry.

Thanks to everyone for replying - your responses are much appreciated. I am a huge fan of Ray Dalio-type 'brutal objectivity' and welcome all feedback and am genuinely grateful for each character which you've taken the trouble to type - thank you, all. I would very much welcome discussion on the below.

I think it's helpful to note two things:

1. Difference of opinion is simply wonderful. I recognise that this is not an academic forum; however, I refuse to patronise this forum's members by assuming they are not 'thinking' - perhaps even intellectual - people. It is therefore important to posit that there is no one objectively ideal form - unless you are a true proponent of Modernism. Fashion tends to excite one's emotions and thus opinions are dispensed, often without sufficient critical detachment, but let's look to architecture for a suitable analogy: context is crucial - there is no one 'universally perfect' aesthetic - and few (Prince Charles excepted, perhaps) would argue that case, these days. For a fantastic example of an objective look at something which doesn't adhere to the author's aesthetic preferences see 'Self-Made Motormen: The Material Construction of Working-Class Masculine Identities Through Car Modification' (Bengry-Howell & Griffin: 2007).

2. This forum and its contributors embody the (in my opinion extremely positive) spirit of dilettantism: posters tend to be keen amateur enthusiasts - lawyers, bankers etc. who enjoy bespoke as a hobby - as opposed to professional designers who have spent years critically studying and subsequently producing design. It is surely different to design something which need satisfy only yourself than to design for a critical and objective audience who can choose between your designs and others. Thus opinions, though always welcome, must always be taken with a grain of salt: they have not been tested by the market!

I hope it's clear from what I've written that value-judgments such as "lapels slightly too wide"/"peak lapels are OK if you like them"/"not top drawer" or even "slightly redolent of something made by a multiple tailor from 35 years back" are meaningless without context: what DFR considers 'elegant' is unquestionably informed by his age, location, upbringing etc. and is likely entirely different to someone else. These opinions are interesting inasmuch as they give us insight into a particular worldview. It is intuitively obvious - and has been convincingly demonstrated in numerous studies - that young men use clothes to construct masculine identities in ways completely divorced from their parents. Neither 'norm' would be appropriate for the both groups and consequently there is no 'universally correct' form ... ie no correct lapel width or jacket length, only one which conforms to the standards prevalent in a particular social sphere. What DFR considers too wide may be judged too narrow by his teenage daughter!

So, please continue posting your opinions which are incredibly interesting ... but it would be even better if you provide context (for example as Costi kindly has - I really value looking through past posts and photos of items he has commissioned, which help me appreciate his point of view). DFR, I would really appreciate seeing a photo of you in a jacket you have commissioned as that would really help me to contextualise your aesthetic judgments ... although I feel that is unlikely as, in your first 176 posts, you have exercised the Critic's Right in providing opinions without any evidence of personal competence

If I can engage even one person's interest in a more academic approach (ie not prescriptive) to design I would be delighted. This is how it is approached professionally by people who are employed on the strength of their results rather than the forcefulness of their opinions.

I will entirely ignore your rather silly comments. You will find that several other people make the same point in your thread elsewhere.

If you post photographs and ask for comments you should accept all that are made on the chin and not complain later: I have compared these garments with identifiable standards. I have no intention whatever of making an 'appearance' on this or any other web board.

[NJS]

By Jingo and by Jove! that's a stonking answer, Couch; even if Kant were always beyond my simple mind: further and further beyond it, the longer I live in The Sleepy Hollow. To my mind, in practical terms: if a suit merely fits where it touches; is disproportionate to the body that it is to clothe, and is not sharply cut, by someone who has not drawn the chalk and snapped the shears, on decent cloth, after having served a long and arduous apprenticeship, it will be condemned as less than 'top drawer', by those who know what's what! What?

As you intimate, hard-earned practice makes perfect. If you want a decent Martini then go to a top-end bar. If you are prepared to make do with a chain-pub approximation of one: go to a chain-pub. But, the lesson, maybe, is: don't suggest that the chain-pub approximation is the top of the tree in Martinis. It is, maybe, also interesting to reflect that one of the best Vesper Martinis around (even in the bar from where Fleming got the expression "shaken, not stirred"), is neither shaken, nor stirred but contains a certain ingredient, in silent tribute to one of the SOE's bravest agents!
NJS
PS: I see that the manbags-at-dawn challenge has not met with universal favour; even though both possible contestants would benefit from the experience! If, DFR, you are not prepared to be less mouth and more trousers (even with a blanked-out face), maybe your anonymous combatant is justified in continuing to call your bluff on a demonstration of an empirical justification of your critique and your own elegance; apart from the snark that you so readily employ.
NJS

[Costi]

Let us not forget how the author of a "Treatise on Elegant Living" may present himself:

If you let him loose in the meat market, you risk not being able to distinguish him from the butchers.
There may be no resemblance, I am simply suggesting that one may speak authoritatively on a subject without being able to exemplify with one's own persona. Most art critics fall in this category... However, it is shame not to let one's discourse in the least contaminated by one's appreciation of outer elegance. Hence the conclusion that the quest for elegance has less to do with one's wardrobe and so much more to do with one's spirit: it is a matter of development, not of envelopment.

[NJS]

Let us not forget how the author of a "Treatise on Elegant Living" may present himself:

If you let him loose in the meat market, you risk not being able to distinguish him from the butchers.
There may be no resemblance, I am simply suggesting that one may speak authoritatively on a subject without being able to exemplify with one's own persona. Most art critics fall in this category... However, it is shame not to let one's discourse in the least contaminated by one's appreciation of outer elegance. Hence the conclusion that the quest for elegance has less to do with one's wardrobe and so much more to do with one's spirit: it is a matter of development, not of envelopment.

Well, Balzac didn't always dress like that:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?q=bal ... 29,r:3,s:0

and your choice of picture is just a man in a shirt. I am not sure that I would regard all stout men with heavy jowls as probably butchers!

The thread is basically about a brace of suits and it is all very well to go in search of the beautiful mind (and it is, of course), but the main questions are: do the suits seem to fit and be proportionate to the man for whom they were made? Those are, essentially, questions of outer appearance.

DFR has seen fit to send me a pm with a waspish expression that I "richly deserve" his contempt; presumably with more feeling than I pour my scorn on someone who can so aggressively take up i-gent cudgels over so slight a thing. The trouble with these boards is that they can provide completely anonymous cover for certain people to vent their bitterness with utter impunity. DFR: adjust that pocket square and get on with it!
NJS

[Costi]

Well, Nicholas, of course he didn't always dress like that (he also had that pinkish Franciscan robe tied with a rope around his waist, which he wore while at the writing table ), but he (admittedly) lacked natural elegance, no matter what he wore. Yet he was more than apt to lecture on it (and still be read and valid today!).
I care less about the suits and their fit and more about the mindset that brought them into the world: the choices of the customer and artisan and what lead to them. I believe that, if there is any way to acquired elegance, it is through a transmutation of the mind, rather than through applying "techniques" and methods.
As for your Saturday morning rub - cock that hat and get on with it!

[DFR]

Let us not forget how the author of a "Treatise on Elegant Living" may present himself:

If you let him loose in the meat market, you risk not being able to distinguish him from the butchers.
There may be no resemblance, I am simply suggesting that one may speak authoritatively on a subject without being able to exemplify with one's own persona. Most art critics fall in this category... However, it is shame not to let one's discourse in the least contaminated by one's appreciation of outer elegance. Hence the conclusion that the quest for elegance has less to do with one's wardrobe and so much more to do with one's spirit: it is a matter of development, not of envelopment.

Well, Balzac didn't always dress like that:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?q=bal ... 29,r:3,s:0

and your choice of picture is just a man in a shirt. I am not sure that I would regard all stout men with heavy jowls as probably butchers!

The thread is basically about a brace of suits and it is all very well to go in search of the beautiful mind (and it is, of course), but the main questions are: do the suits seem to fit and be proportionate to the man for whom they were made? Those are, essentially, questions of outer appearance.

DFR has seen fit to send me a pm with a waspish expression that I "richly deserve" his contempt; presumably with more feeling than I pour my scorn on someone who can so aggressively take up i-gent cudgels over so slight a thing. The trouble with these boards is that they can provide completely anonymous cover for certain people to vent their bitterness with utter impunity. DFR: adjust that pocket square and get on with it!
NJS

And for others to seek criticism and then reject it with abuse.

[NJS]

Costi,
I generally agree with what you are saying but the thread started as a question about the visible results of an actual physical experiment. What led to it is interesting but it wasn't the OP's starting point. Moreover, elegance is one thing but anybody who goes to an experienced and good tailor and says that he wants him to build him a suit should be able to expect to emerge in a suit that fits and is proportionate. Whether he wears it well is another matter altogether and we can never fully judge this from still photographs anyway. As it turns out I think that the OP is, in the event, quite lippy and I don't have much patience with him or DFR. But all that the OP was asking for was an example, from DFR, of a well cut, well proportioned, suit to back his judgement. I am not sure that this was unreasonable.
NJS

[NJS]

DFR - the criticism was harshly put but you are right that the OP then snarked back (at more than just you) and so there we are. I have said what I had to say about the suits - as about a pair of shoes that someone put up for criticism - not 'top drawer' and it is reasonable to suppose that you will get what you pay for.
NJS

[DFR]

DFR - the criticism was harshly put but you are right that the OP then snarked back (at more than just you) and so there we are. I have said what I had to say about the suits - as about a pair of shoes that someone put up for criticism - not 'top drawer' and it is reasonable to suppose that you will get what you pay for.
NJS

NJS

Thank you for this - I am glad that you noticed this. I appreciate that my criticism might be harsh but in seeking public criticism this is a risk to an OP but not an outrage. Far too often people try to be nice when occasionally a harsh word is good advice.

Hopefully the matter may now rest and the OP will enjoy his purchases whilst those about may doubt the wisdom in their acquisition.