The London Lounge

With the arrival in recent years of the "super" wools--the low-micronage wools (12 microns, for example) designated 180s, 200s, etc.--I'm curious as to where in the softness continuum cashmere falls. And Escorial wool. Or is there a continuum that embraces both the wools and cashmere? In other words, is there a continuum running from the coarser wools through the super low-micronage wools (apparently there is a 250s now!) that has cashmere at some point and Escorial at another, or are these latter just qualitatively different and not directly comparable to the wools?

I believe cashmere is between 14 and 15 micron. Some companies now make cloth blends in which the wool used is actually more expensive than the cashmere; the "base" of the cloth is cashmere, and the "enrichment" is Super 200s, or whatever. I saw some of this recently at Holland & Sherry. Wonderful to the touch; I'm not sure how it would wear.

That's interesting, Manton. If I've understood the conversion correctly, 14 - 15 microns would equate to about 170s, I think, and addition of some 200s would make it even softer. Are there any ways in which cashmere feels different from, or would be superior to, similarly soft, 170s, wool? Escorial wool has been described at times as extremely fine, and I think I may have seen it referred to as even finer than cashmere. Is this just marketing hype? Where would Escorial fall on this continuum?

The Escorial designation does not guarantee a certain degree of finess. Escorial is a breed of sheep. There's Escorial used for $2500 RTW suits and there's 12-micron Escorial that costs $1000 per yard!

manton wrote:I believe cashmere is between 14 and 15 micron. Some companies now make cloth blends in which the wool used is actually more expensive than the cashmere; the "base" of the cloth is cashmere, and the "enrichment" is Super 200s, or whatever. I saw some of this recently at Holland & Sherry. Wonderful to the touch; I'm not sure how it would wear.

I saw that too. To me there is no doubt that cashmeres and wools of the same micronage have quite different characteristics. If you take a 14 micron worsted pinstripe and a worsted cashmere pinstripe you will find that the cashmere has a better drape and a more substantial feel. I have always been somewhat disappointed in the very high super wools that I have owned. Now that cashmeres can be worsted so well into fine suitings, I have a hard time justifying the higher prices charged for 180s and up. I would be interested in what the perceived advantages of these wools are, or whether it is simply a matter of technological triumph to no great cause.

I'm surprised this is even a question. In my limited experience, I find cashmere softer to the touch, even when compared to the super 180+ wools. Numbers aren't everything. I was recently choosing shirtings and a 140s 2ply felt considerably softer to the touch than the 170s from the same book.

Theoretically, wool should be made from longer and stronger yarns than cashmere, all other things being equal. But things rarely are, so a lot depends on the spinning, weaving, finishing, etc.

Still, I am somewhat surprised that iammatt finds cashmere to be stronger and more substantial than wool, even low mircon wool. That's not what my fingers have told me. But then I haven't spent much time examing either worsted cashere or the Supers, so I guess I wouldn't know.

If anyone doubts that the wool Supers can be woven into substantial cloth, however, check out the Lesser 150s book. I doubt I'll ever buy it, but I admit it is good stuff and feels terrific.

I don't know enough about the characteristics of fabrics (and especially fibres) to spead to the durability of cashmere vs. super wools. I also would agree with you that in book or bolt form the very high supers are amazing. I have personally found that suits made of 14 micron wool do not drape as well as cashmere, or nearly as well as less super wools. What starts out as incredible feeling fabric starts to feel slightly papery (for lack of a better vocablary) as it takes its final shape.

I definitely agree that there are a lot of amazing 150s, 120s and 140s. I personally prefer them as a suiting material to anything else. I happen to live in a relatively warm climate, so fabrics that are a bit heavier by nature (more of the archival types) do not suit me well. I just find that the usability and aesthetic value of 150s and below often eclipses the super duper supers that are now available. As for cashmere, my experiences have been superm for look and drape, and a bit iffy as to durability and maintenance.

I had the opportunity to look at a bunch of super 190-210's yesterday. It was really not what I had expected. I expected something tissue-thin and insubstantial, but what I felt was in fact very nice. It was like feeling liquid wool, but it had a surprising amount of springiness. I think a suit made of such cloth would drape beautifully, although I'm not so sure about durability. Also the stuff costs mega $$$.

I do not own anything above S150, as I am scared by cost and durability issues. Below that, I agree with Manton that Lesser's S150 book looks fabulous, and it has been earmarked for the next purchase in that category.

Obvioulsy the diameter of the wool is important, but so are regularity / smoothness and length of the fibre. In addition, the weaver can create a dense or lose weave. Essentially often the luxuriousness of touch is achieved by having "lose ends" poke out, but that compromises durability. The "liquidity" mentioned is another issue, because I find these cloths are very proned to pulled threads.

I always found that cashmere is a touch warmer than wool. I have too little experience with it, but I would not necessarily specify a worsted superfine cashmere for a lightweight suit, even if the actual weight suggets so.