The London Lounge

Gentlemen,

Much discussed BBC documentary (and especially good parts from the first episode) prompted me to visit Norton & Sons web-site... Where I found an interesting contradictory: one part of web-site informs that "Norton & Sons are the finest sporting tailor on Savile Row." But the other part reads: "Head Cutter Mr David Ward is back where his Savile Row career began after spells at Timothy Everest and more recently as Senior Cutter at our neighbour Henry Poole."

I wonder, what makes Mr Ward more able to cut sporting garments now, when he is back to Nortons than when he was at Pooles? Also, current head cutter at Nortons is John Kent; at what moment he became more proficient in sporting garments?

Given "nomadic" nature of SR cutters and tailors this applies to specific qualities of all other SR houses. How can a house claim to have a "speciality" or distinctive feature if most of its employees used to work (and likely will work) in other companies?

Probably the only exceptions are A&S and Huntsman, where cutters are taught to cut in a specific way? But then again, we all know that cutters from these establishments now work in other places...

Andrey

I would put Hunstman with the rest of the Row as regard pattern cutting but A & S has a totally unique way of cutting a jacket pattern that as far as I know is only used by me and Thomas Mahon and not even by A & S themselves these days.

The Doctor wrote:I would put Hunstman with the rest of the Row as regard pattern cutting but A & S has a totally unique way of cutting a jacket pattern that as far as I know is only used by me and Thomas Mahon and not even by A & S themselves these days.

Doctor, can you elaborate on that: what defines your and mr Mahon's cutting? Why has A&S left this way of cutting?

I'm not sure if Edwin is talking about this, but Tom goes into some detail in this blog post:

http://www.englishcut.com/archives/000030.html

I believe that Steven Hitchcock has also written that he uses the Rock of Eye method.

--Andre

andreybokhanko wrote:Gentlemen,

Much discussed BBC documentary (and especially good parts from the first episode) prompted me to visit Norton & Sons web-site... Where I found an interesting contradictory: one part of web-site informs that "Norton & Sons are the finest sporting tailor on Savile Row." But the other part reads: "Head Cutter Mr David Ward is back where his Savile Row career began after spells at Timothy Everest and more recently as Senior Cutter at our neighbour Henry Poole."

I wonder, what makes Mr Ward more able to cut sporting garments now, when he is back to Nortons than when he was at Pooles? Also, current head cutter at Nortons is John Kent; at what moment he became more proficient in sporting garments?

Given "nomadic" nature of SR cutters and tailors this applies to specific qualities of all other SR houses. How can a house claim to have a "speciality" or distinctive feature if most of its employees used to work (and likely will work) in other companies?

Probably the only exceptions are A&S and Huntsman, where cutters are taught to cut in a specific way? But then again, we all know that cutters from these establishments now work in other places...

Andrey

To try and answer the above post, I think that tailoring styles DO exist, still.

I can only write from personal experience, as a customer of 1) Tom Brown’s fifteen years ago (when they were on Prince’s Street, Hanover Square) and 2) Meyer and Mortimer/ Jones, Chalk and Dawson’s, since May 2007.

If I had to (incompetently) describe their styles in my own uneducated words, I would say:

Tom Brown: a softer, “easier” cut that M. & M. / J., C. & D., although not as “soft” as A. & S. (as far as I know, not having ever dealt with the latter), heavier cloths (which alas may not be available today, but they were designed to be very long-lasting – I for one like the weight of the garment, and find it comforting, but it would be too much in the summer on the East Coast of the United States, for instance), more roping on the sleeves, perhaps broader lapels (or more belly on DB lapels?), a visible waist, although not as high as with M. & M., armholes perhaps slightly larger/lower (?).

Meyer & Mortimer / Jones, Chalk & Dawson: a sharper, more defined, silhouette (military tailors) which makes me feel slim again (!!!), a higher waist, more flare in the lower part of the coat, a slightly longer coat (at least on a DB), less space between the buttons (on a DB), higher armholes (I think), a more natural (less disguised?) but broader shoulder (less obvious “padding” in general around the shoulder and chest area), very little or no roping, a lighter-wearing (I do not think that this is only due to lesser cloth weights), easy, comfortable, suit. Mr. Munday, who deals with me (I hope this is not too onerous a task…) has spent part of his career at Gieves & Hawkes and Dege & Skinner, also tending towards the military end of things.

Caveats: 1) Those are the only two firms I have any experience with and 2) My technical knowledge is exceedingly limited (“non-existent” may be more accurate) and my descriptions therefore based only on my visual observations and what I have picked up in conversations during fittings. But there definitely is a different “feel” when one wears a suit from those two firms, and they do look different in the mirror .

Based on the above, I would defend the idea that house styles DO exist. You might also keep in mind that Tom Brown was a small firm, probably sending almost all, if not all, of the work out. Meyer & Mortimer employ some 10 or 11 people, including a buttonhole lady and a presser, under the shop and at another workshop in Soho.

Perhaps the secret is that cutters who change firms are versatile enough to adopt the style of their new firm. Perhaps also, a cutter is only hired by a firm if his technique is found to be compatible with that firm’s style and habits.

I hope the above comments make sense.

Frog in Suit.

Only Tom and I cut in the original A&S method, which is by drafting from scratch, using a free hand and rock of eye, if you want.

It would be very easy for a cutter from one Savile row house to move to another as the drafting procedure is basically the same and they would be using the house blocks, which weren’t so at A&S, whereby the patterns and drafting method would be quite foreign to another cutter not trained at A&S. Sadly this original method is now lost at Andersons.

If you go to their web site & click on house style, then style, where the first line tells you that the A&S look is defined by a lightly padded shoulder, then click on the cutting tab under the same heading you will see a pattern, that to me bears no resemblance to any pattern I've seen cut at Andersons and where they have written, 4 ply's of wadding on the Right shoulder. Is that a soft lightly padded natural shoulder?

There have been some very good looking suits pictured coming out of the shop of Edwin DeBoise

The above comment on changes in A&S cutting style is very interesting.

I wonder if another part of the original A&S style was to only shape a coat through the side seams rather than through front darts? I believe that now A&S largely uses front darts.

Was this side seam treatment considered part of A&S's tailoring heritage, much as the soft shoulder/chest?

For those who have been using A&S for a long while now , are there other incremental method changes in A&S construction and cut? For example, is the 50/50 sleeve treatment Edwin mentions elsewhere, still used at A&S?

Only Tom and I cut in the original A&S method, which is by drafting from scratch, using a free hand and rock of eye, if you want.

It would be very easy for a cutter from one Savile row house to move to another as the drafting procedure is basically the same and they would be using the house blocks, which weren’t so at A&S, whereby the patterns and drafting method would be quite foreign to another cutter not trained at A&S. Sadly this original method is now lost at Andersons.

Edwin, I think that it is unwise at best to generalize the rest of Savile Row cutting, in the way you have here. Whilst you are correct that most cutters in the trade use block patterns of different origins, in my experience it is firstly incorrect to say that all houses have a house block that all cutters have to adhere to, as I know of no tailoring house where all the cutters use the same blocks or system. To add to this I for one do not use block patterns at all in any of my bespoke clothes, it is all entirely cut from scratch, and I know of at least one other non A&S cutter who does not use a block pattern in any way.

Joshua Byrne wrote:

Only Tom and I cut in the original A&S method, which is by drafting from scratch, using a free hand and rock of eye, if you want.

It would be very easy for a cutter from one Savile row house to move to another as the drafting procedure is basically the same and they would be using the house blocks, which weren’t so at A&S, whereby the patterns and drafting method would be quite foreign to another cutter not trained at A&S. Sadly this original method is now lost at Andersons.

Edwin, I think that it is unwise at best to generalize the rest of Savile Row cutting, in the way you have here. Whilst you are correct that most cutters in the trade use block patterns of different origins, in my experience it is firstly incorrect to say that all houses have a house block that all cutters have to adhere to, as I know of no tailoring house where all the cutters use the same blocks or system. To add to this I for one do not use block patterns at all in any of my bespoke clothes, it is all entirely cut from scratch, and I know of at least one other non A&S cutter who does not use a block pattern in any way.

I completely stand by what I say. The system used is basically the same in construction from house to house and basically the same as any good cutting book. House block as in house style. I'm sure Pooles or Kilgour wouldn’t be pleased with a cutter who produced a Nutters (pagoda type shoulder with 5” lapels to represent their house).

I also worked for Edward Sexton, who I regard as one the best cutters I've known. I worked with Malcolm Plews, Chittleborough & Morgan. Spent 3 years at the London college of Fashion. My father was a cutter and my brother still is and I can say what I’ve said with hand on my heart. I was merely making the point that the A&S system is totally unique and couldn’t be cut by someone not trained there.

uppercase wrote:There have been some very good looking suits pictured coming out of the shop of Edwin DeBoise

The above comment on changes in A&S cutting style is very interesting.

I wonder if another part of the original A&S style was to only shape a coat through the side seams rather than through front darts? I believe that now A&S largely uses front darts.

Was this side seam treatment considered part of A&S's tailoring heritage, much as the soft shoulder/chest?

For those who have been using A&S for a long while now , are there other incremental method changes in A&S construction and cut? For example, is the 50/50 sleeve treatment Edwin mentions elsewhere, still used at A&S?

Thank you.

Andersons very rarely used a side seam. Mr Harvey would use it when a customer wanted more flare to the jacket, as indeed his jackets were.

One dart was most common, placed towards the back of the pocket but two was not out of the question. Two are probably used more often now because they're in the block pattern used by the cutter.

Edwin,

With regard to your response, I understand that in your experience no one outside of Anderson and Shepard has a unique way of cutting, but without going into details, there were significant differences between all of the cutters at Poole's, and whilst there were some house details, the cutting method varied to a wide degree. I also think to suggest that any professional cutter would use a book, or a system derived from it, is very questionable, as we all know that in practical terms these systems are far from accurate.

I am merely pointing out that one should be careful not to make broad based assumptions about the cutting methods adopted by others, that one is not intimately aware of, just because from your experience generalizations can be made. Cutting techniques and tailoring as a whole is constantly developing, or at least should be.

All my best

Joshua

Joshua Byrne wrote:Edwin,

With regard to your response, I understand that in your experience no one outside of Anderson and Shepard has a unique way of cutting, but without going into details, there were significant differences between all of the cutters at Poole's, and whilst there were some house details, the cutting method varied to a wide degree. I also think to suggest that any professional cutter would use a book, or a system derived from it, is very questionable, as we all know that in practical terms these systems are far from accurate.

I am merely pointing out that one should be careful not to make broad based assumptions about the cutting methods adopted by others, that one is not intimately aware of, just because from your experience generalizations can be made. Cutting techniques and tailoring as a whole is constantly developing, or at least should be.

All my best

Joshua

Joshua,

I wasn't suggesting that they use a book, just pointing out the similarities in technique, from books, such as Thornton’s, etc and the method used in the trade, is basically the same and I'll stand by that. It’s drafted with a square to a working scale and if not, using blocks.

Best,

Edwin

Dear Edwin,
I hope all is well, I must not be expressing myself well, and rather than taking this further I suggest we put it down as a misunderstanding, as obviously there is nothing further I can to explain my position, and you do not seem able to accept it.
All my best
Joshua

Dear Josh,

I agree but can I ask if you draft using a square and a working scale?

Best,

Edwin

Dear Edwin,
For some garments I do, but for other garments I do not it very much depends on the nature of the garment I am cutting. Even in the garments that I do use these tools, I use them very differently to the way in which my previous colleagues used to use them, and they play a very minor role in the format of the pattern created.
The one area I think this post has highlighted well, is the proliferation of block patterns even in bespoke, which in my opinion is something of an oxymoron.
All my best
Joshua