New Member
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:42 pm
I am a new member here and would like to introduce myself. Over 30 years ago I worked as an apprentice to a tailor in a medium sized city in the Midwest US. He sent out a lot of suits to a CMT house, but also did a lesser number of bench-made coats. He started me out by tying my thimble finger in the proper position to get it accustomed to the proper hand sewing position. I worked long hours and eventually got to where I did any hand sewing he needed done. I padded lapels, sewed canvas and twill tape, coat linings, trouser curtains and bottoms, and also did finish work like edge stitching, button holes, and collars.
I started in the business when my (now) ex-wife was a graduate student in costume design. We wanted to go into business together eventually. I really appreciate how this forum has been enriched by the scholarly approach taken by some of the members of here to document the evolution of style in men’s clothing. My wife had to do similar research in order to get period line and garment types right for various plays and she had a number of bound 19th century Godey’s Lady’s Books that she referred to regularly. I learned the history of women’s couture and my favorite was Balenciaga for his great vision coupled with the technical ability to make any garment that came out of his or any other workshop. I learned a bit about cutting from developing patterns and cutting tailored clothes for the theater as my boss would (rightly!) not permit me to get shears anywhere near customer cloth.
As life took its turns, I left the business and went into corporate life where the backbone of my wardrobe was made by my old boss. I then took the entrepreneurial path and didn’t wear a suit to work for 10 years. We have sold the business, so I am now a bespoke customer freed from the need to buy work suits.
I have some random thoughts after reading a fair amount on this forum:
Cloth has changed a lot since I started in tailoring. The changes were coming, and have clearly accelerated. 12/13 oz. cloth was considered on the lighter side of mid-weight and was the year round choice. 9/10 oz. was summer weight. We had a few Super 100s from England and Zegna had just started showing a new range of Super 120s. Now it seems that many cloths are like tissue paper and the numbers go ever higher (or the micron designation lower). My boss would have hated most of them. I understand the lure of the higher designated Supers, but I like the old fashioned stuff. I particularly love the clear finish Scottish twists of upwards of 15 oz with lots of colors incorporated that aren’t thick because of the heavy twist, tailor beautifully, and look good all day long. I really admire Michael Alden’s advocacy efforts on the part of the great traditional cloths. I am humbled just by reading his descriptions of them, which is combined with the great knowledge of how and where they are made that backs up his prose.
I see that word usage is a little looser than when I was working as a tailor. I was quickly corrected by a salesman from London making the rounds that a suit is made from “cloth” and that “fabric” is used for linings. After a while I recognized the wisdom of making that distinction because a cloth can be shrunk and stretched by pressing into a shape that it will then hold. That is why people can take apart all the garments that they want without ever finding the real magic of a great coat. The cutter and coat maker have to be in perfect harmony so that the actual shape is created for the way the coat was cut in order for it to both fit and drape properly. My old boss showed me several examples of coats that customers brought to him that were cut and sewn correctly, but had problems because they were not shaped by pressing properly during construction.
Another word that appears in descriptions of sleeveheads and shoulders around the forum here sometimes is “pleats” to describe the ripples that can be made when two edges are sewn together where one is longer than the other. Thomas Mahon wrote a wonderful piece on shoulder pattern matching in his blog that illustrates that type of seam. Those ripples are not pleats, as pleats are created where a piece of cloth is folded onto itself and then releases the fullness above or below where it is sewn. In dressmaking those are called gathers, but we just called it fullness. My boss would have not liked the Neapolitan shoulder where the sleevehead is not supported and has extra fullness that causes ripples above and to the outside of the scapula.
Of course there was no Internet so our information on what was going on in tailoring in different parts of the world was limited. At that time, Italians were seen as creating structured shoulders and the US as the home of natural shoulders. Now the world seems reversed. (Although it was never really that simple).
My boss collected examples of great tailoring and I used to enjoy looking at them. He had a Brioni from the 1950s that was beautiful. I liked a German overcoat from the 1920s. My favorite was a pre-World War II Oxxford that was incredible. It was 3/8 lined and the work that went into creating a bellows lining to cover their bellows pockets had to be seen to be believed.
At that time, Oxxford, Hickey Freeman, H. Freeman, Southwick, and no doubt a few others that I am failing to mention still made clothing in the US completely or mostly by hand. H. Freeman made beautiful trousers with a one piece curtain felled by hand. There was no doubt though, that the wind was blowing toward disposable fashion in place of craftsmanship.
For all (any?) of you that have read this far, thank you for making this forum the excellent place that it is. Thank you also to all of the tailors here who keep alive the ideal of fine craftsmanship in the apparel arts.
Joel
I started in the business when my (now) ex-wife was a graduate student in costume design. We wanted to go into business together eventually. I really appreciate how this forum has been enriched by the scholarly approach taken by some of the members of here to document the evolution of style in men’s clothing. My wife had to do similar research in order to get period line and garment types right for various plays and she had a number of bound 19th century Godey’s Lady’s Books that she referred to regularly. I learned the history of women’s couture and my favorite was Balenciaga for his great vision coupled with the technical ability to make any garment that came out of his or any other workshop. I learned a bit about cutting from developing patterns and cutting tailored clothes for the theater as my boss would (rightly!) not permit me to get shears anywhere near customer cloth.
As life took its turns, I left the business and went into corporate life where the backbone of my wardrobe was made by my old boss. I then took the entrepreneurial path and didn’t wear a suit to work for 10 years. We have sold the business, so I am now a bespoke customer freed from the need to buy work suits.
I have some random thoughts after reading a fair amount on this forum:
Cloth has changed a lot since I started in tailoring. The changes were coming, and have clearly accelerated. 12/13 oz. cloth was considered on the lighter side of mid-weight and was the year round choice. 9/10 oz. was summer weight. We had a few Super 100s from England and Zegna had just started showing a new range of Super 120s. Now it seems that many cloths are like tissue paper and the numbers go ever higher (or the micron designation lower). My boss would have hated most of them. I understand the lure of the higher designated Supers, but I like the old fashioned stuff. I particularly love the clear finish Scottish twists of upwards of 15 oz with lots of colors incorporated that aren’t thick because of the heavy twist, tailor beautifully, and look good all day long. I really admire Michael Alden’s advocacy efforts on the part of the great traditional cloths. I am humbled just by reading his descriptions of them, which is combined with the great knowledge of how and where they are made that backs up his prose.
I see that word usage is a little looser than when I was working as a tailor. I was quickly corrected by a salesman from London making the rounds that a suit is made from “cloth” and that “fabric” is used for linings. After a while I recognized the wisdom of making that distinction because a cloth can be shrunk and stretched by pressing into a shape that it will then hold. That is why people can take apart all the garments that they want without ever finding the real magic of a great coat. The cutter and coat maker have to be in perfect harmony so that the actual shape is created for the way the coat was cut in order for it to both fit and drape properly. My old boss showed me several examples of coats that customers brought to him that were cut and sewn correctly, but had problems because they were not shaped by pressing properly during construction.
Another word that appears in descriptions of sleeveheads and shoulders around the forum here sometimes is “pleats” to describe the ripples that can be made when two edges are sewn together where one is longer than the other. Thomas Mahon wrote a wonderful piece on shoulder pattern matching in his blog that illustrates that type of seam. Those ripples are not pleats, as pleats are created where a piece of cloth is folded onto itself and then releases the fullness above or below where it is sewn. In dressmaking those are called gathers, but we just called it fullness. My boss would have not liked the Neapolitan shoulder where the sleevehead is not supported and has extra fullness that causes ripples above and to the outside of the scapula.
Of course there was no Internet so our information on what was going on in tailoring in different parts of the world was limited. At that time, Italians were seen as creating structured shoulders and the US as the home of natural shoulders. Now the world seems reversed. (Although it was never really that simple).
My boss collected examples of great tailoring and I used to enjoy looking at them. He had a Brioni from the 1950s that was beautiful. I liked a German overcoat from the 1920s. My favorite was a pre-World War II Oxxford that was incredible. It was 3/8 lined and the work that went into creating a bellows lining to cover their bellows pockets had to be seen to be believed.
At that time, Oxxford, Hickey Freeman, H. Freeman, Southwick, and no doubt a few others that I am failing to mention still made clothing in the US completely or mostly by hand. H. Freeman made beautiful trousers with a one piece curtain felled by hand. There was no doubt though, that the wind was blowing toward disposable fashion in place of craftsmanship.
For all (any?) of you that have read this far, thank you for making this forum the excellent place that it is. Thank you also to all of the tailors here who keep alive the ideal of fine craftsmanship in the apparel arts.
Joel