"strange customer"

[Guest]

I almost never look at Mahon's blog (for no reason), and this AM I checked it by chance (http://www.englishcut.com/). Here are the last lines of his last entry:

"Also, many thanks to my friend Steven Hitchcock [a very talented, young Savile Row tailor], who kindly warned me about a rather odd individual, an American customer, who's been making life harder than it should be for us tailors. I know customers watch us tailors, and talk about both us and our work with each other. Luckily, we tailors do the same with our customers."

First, I am DYING to know who this customer is. Second, Mahon says that the "star" of his tour, was a jacket he made from a tweed (whose picture is displayed). It looks like a NHTC company pattern, and he suggests he might reveal its origin in the future. Is it NHTC?

[rjman]

David, have you been bothering the Savile Row tailors again?

[Guest]

You got me RJMan. The problem comes from my wanting Mahon and Hitchcock to make me thornproof tweed knickers and they balked...and while we are on the topic, where is my d----ned magazine?

[rjman]

while we are on the topic, where is my d----ned magazine?

I thought you were sending me that Jantzen shirt for Charvet to copy.

[bry2000]

And RJ, I sent you that Big Mac for Alain Ducasse to copy. Where is it?!!!?????!!!!

[Guest]

You have me confused with someone else!

[rjman]

And RJ, I sent you that Big Mac for Alain Ducasse to copy. Where is it?!!!?????!!!!

I got hungry.

[Concordia]

Thomas also mentioned this to me, and now he's broadcasting it on the Net.

It may be a preemptive warning-- just to keep his clients in line before they start misbehaving. Given his remarkable growth in the last year, he almost certainly knows less about his client base than he ever has. And I'm sure there have been some real head cases calling him up.

[JamesT1]

I hope I had nothing to do with this "rather odd individual", I feel guilty because I had an appointment with Mr. Mahon, but a day or two before, he had to switch my time. Due to this, I was unable to meet with him (work and such), but I have felt as though I had wasted his time scheduling me in the first place.

James

[Cantabrigian]

It sounds as though you each acted very reasonably. You made an appointment that you - apparently - had every intention of keeping but happened not to be able to make the tie he sought to reschedule you for.

From Thomas's entry, it sounds as though they were talking about an unreasonably demanding customer.

I hope I had nothing to do with this "rather odd individual", I feel guilty because I had an appointment with Mr. Mahon, but a day or two before, he had to switch my time. Due to this, I was unable to meet with him (work and such), but I have felt as though I had wasted his time scheduling me in the first place.

James

[JamesT1]

It sounds as though you each acted very reasonably. You made an appointment that you - apparently - had every intention of keeping but happened not to be able to make the tie he sought to reschedule you for.

From Thomas's entry, it sounds as though they were talking about an unreasonably demanding customer.]

That's what I was thinking, but I just wanted to get my concerns out there.

Unreasonably demanding customer? Sounds like everyone who comes to the store I work at.

[Concordia]

Remember, the warning was passed from Hitchcock to Mahon. Have you been inconsiderate to Hitchcock? I doubt it.

[JamesT1]

Very true, I have been running on very little sleep lately (midterms), so my focus and such has been rather limited.

[AlexanderKabbaz]

I must say, gentlemen, from the "other side of the cutting table" I find this thread distressing for a number of reasons.

In the bespoke arts, I would venture to say that there is not a maker anywhere who has not at one time or another had a disagreement of some sort with a client. After all, clients aren't coming in and selecting widgets off a shelf, paying the cashier, and leaving. Most of our agreements with clients are verbal and done on the proverbial handshake. It stands to reason, therefore, that there will be at least the occasional miscommunication. And - hopefully rarely - there will be miscommunications where both parties feel sufficiently aggrieved as to be unable to reach a compromise.

I understand the loyalty of makers one to the other. I understand that we all do our best to communicate with each other and to warn one another about a particularly difficult client now and again.

But to put that warning ... to lay bare that dispute ... on the Internet? That, gentlemen, is absolutely beyond the pale. Moreover, it is foolish. As evidenced by this thread. As evidenced by the similar thread on the StyleForum. And soon to be spread to a theater near you? It does naught but breed ill-will. It certainly serves no moral purpose. And, finally, if the identity of the client in question should somehow be revealed, it may well unjustifiably and incurably besmirch his good name.

There is no good which can come from this. Especially if, as I am reasonably certain in this case, the client is in the right.

Which brings me to the second half of this subject. We now live in the time of the world-wide-web. In this time, thanks to the good powers of the internet, makers from the globe 'round are capable of building international reputations. Word of good work ... and, sadly, of below-market pricing ... spreads from continent to continent in the blink of an eye.

On an overall basis, I, for one, judge this to the good. But there are many instances where such is not the case. The Beaman affair is a prime example of this. And why do I rail so against this? Because the usual killing fields - the most sought after picking grounds - are in my backyard. My home. The Big Apple. New York City.

Where one can, with nothing but a few internet photos and a $10 web site, become established in mere months as the next Savile Row wunderkind. Where one can, for a mere $300, rent a room. And where one can, in a matter of a day or two, collect tens of thousands of dollars in deposits, board a plane, and depart the jurisdiction of those so kind as to overfill ones coffers.

I am in no way being accusatory, nor am I making allegations, nor am I positing that such has transpired. I am simply stating facts. This happens continually and, often enough, ends up in misery. Misery for the client who is out of pocket. Misery for the artisan who feels unjustly put upon.

And I wonder ... why? I have a number of British clients. Did I have to go and steal them out from under the Jermyn Street noses? Nay. They wanted my work. They come and see me. Why then, the reverse? Is there insufficient work available for tailors in their homelands? And, if that be the case, why is it that they, one and all, have to pick my homeland as their target? Yes. I acknowledge that there are a small number of old-line firms who have done this for decades. Poole comes immediately to mind as a firm which does - and always has done - it right. Pricelist adhered to. Client satisfaction never disputed. Clothing on time and as agreed.

But in recent years, there has cropped up a band of young warriors. No such history to guide them. Many working out of their homes or using willing cloth merchants as bases of operation. Businesses built solely through the power of the internet. This must be checked. Coming here, grabbing the pot o' gold, and escaping to the safety of a legally non-binding land has got to be brought under control.

And to now be disparaging to a client on the internet? This is out of control. I think I know how Ronald Reagan must have felt when he uttered those famous, history altering words, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

Mr.Tailor, take down that post.

[Cantabrigian]

Very interesting post, Alex. You have obviously considered the issue in far greater depth than I have but I do have a couple of comments and questions:

I understand the loyalty of makers one to the other. I understand that we all do our best to communicate with each other and to warn one another about a particularly difficult client now and again.
But to put that warning ... to lay bare that dispute ... on the Internet?

From my reading of Tom's entry, I think that's all he was saying. I know that many of the makers who rather graciously contribute to the various public fora have said the same. I think it serves merely as a reminder to clients that getting a bespoke garment involves a relationship with the artisan and that there must be a decent degree of mutual understanding if that is to happen. If that's all Mahon was saying, would it be out of line?

And, finally, if the identity of the client in question should somehow be revealed, it may well unjustifiably and incurably besmirch his good name.

Assuming Hitchcock to be a reasonable guy - which since I do not know him is based on the benefit of the doubt - it sounds as though this client is not entitled to much of a good name as a client, in the same way that Darren has lost his credibility as a tailor.

That said, I hope that they are both careful to not mention the name. While someone may not be deserving of a tailor's effort - and I do believe there are clients who are not - people would tend to assume the worst about that person generally and it would be rather unfair if his name were leaked.

Where one can, with nothing but a few internet photos and a $10 web site, become established in mere months as the next Savile Row wunderkind. Where one can, for a mere $300, rent a room. And where one can, in a matter of a day or two, collect tens of thousands of dollars in deposits, board a plane, and depart the jurisdiction of those so kind as to overfill ones coffers.

There are certainly risks to working with someone overseas, especially when it involves an independent tailor. And I think that is well worth remembering. But I don't think that Beaman, to use the obvious example, intended to defraud anyone. You know the situation far, far better than I do but from what you have written, it seems as though Darren simply took on more orders than he could handle. It seems as though Mahon is trying to avoid just that.

And I wonder ... why? I have a number of British clients. Did I have to go and steal them out from under the Jermyn Street noses? Nay. They wanted my work. They come and see me. Why then, the reverse? Is there insufficient work available for tailors in their homelands?

I think that one of the great things about NY is the fact that so many tailors are either stationed here or have frequent visits. I don't think that American should have to travel to Europe or Asia to purchase clothes and I, for one, am grateful that they do make the trip.

There is no good which can come from this. Especially if, as I am reasonably certain in this case, the client is in the right.

It sounds as though you know more about the situation than those of us who have simply read englishcut. If it is one of your clients or friends and Hitchcock was wrong about the person, I can see why you would be upset.