Roman and Neapolitan Styles

[iammatt]

The man makes the tailor and the clothes. I have been writing this for years.

Cheers

Question on this. So does that mean that you believe that if two men choose the same cloth at a rather opinionated tailor like A&S, they will get rather different results simply because of the input they have in the project and their own bearing, or do you mean that the good client "makes the clothes" because he selects good tailors, good cloth and has a good eye for detail? I don't mean to parse the issue too much, but I think it is interesting and I also am kind of unlear on the finer points.

[mafoofan]

I have to agree with UC. We have just as good cameras and photographers today. It’s the subject matter that is missing or is inferior. But that is another and very interesting topic that parallels the decline of elegance, the extinction of masculinity.

I agree with this. The last time I was in Naples, somebody told me that the problem was not that there were no good tailors, but that there were so few good customers.

Which begs the question, what make a good subject matter or good customer? Are we talking physical attractivenes, personal style, character, a combination?

[voxsartoria]

Thank you, gentlemen, for a fascinating thread.

I have nothing to add, but I am enjoying learning.

Best Regards,
Bill

[manton]

The man makes the tailor and the clothes. I have been writing this for years.

Cheers

Question on this. So does that mean that you believe that if two men choose the same cloth at a rather opinionated tailor like A&S, they will get rather different results simply because of the input they have in the project and their own bearing, or do you mean that the good client "makes the clothes" because he selects good tailors, good cloth and has a good eye for detail? I don't mean to parse the issue too much, but I think it is interesting and I also am kind of unlear on the finer points.

What did the Neapolitans mean by "good customer"?

[alden]

The legendary Neapolitan tailor Angelo Blasi said , "A me il cliente troppo soddisfatto , quello che si accontenta subito,non mi piace non mi da soddisfazione.Io voglio quello esigente,in una parola quello che sia alla mia altezza". (Angelo Blasi, 1987)

"Personally I do not care for the easily satisfied client, one who is immediately happy with my work. There is little satisfaction working for a client of this kind. Give me rather the demanding customer, in a word, one who is my equal and knows how to push me to the ultimate expression of my talent and craft!"

This is the kind of relationship the “man who makes tailors” is looking to build. It involves a good deal of psychology to know how to extract the very best from a professional, any professional. You need to find, encourage and drive their inner passion for the craft, if indeed it is there. And if the passion is not there, then there is no sense wasting time or money in its pursuit. You may want to reread “The Good Tailor” in the Articles section. It explains a good many of my thoughts. http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/vie ... php?t=5294

Every craftsman is a bit different so it is hard to give any but general ideas on the subject. I have found that draining an artisan in details, the 1/8 of a cm here and there routine, is counterproductive. That’s not the path. To make him want to dress you like no one else, you have to convince him that you have worth, that you merit his investment. He has to want to see his work draped on you looking fantastically well. Its not a thing about money or earning, its more important than trade. You have to play David to his Michelangelo.

With regards to a man making the clothes it is a question I have discussed often with respect to the science of elegance. Some men have presence. They have the innate ability to make clothes look good. Part of it is their ability to choose (their taste) and part of it is the hard to define aura or presence that they possess. I understand the former, and the latter is a mystery that has beguiled more than one writer on the subject.

Cheers

[iammatt]

The man makes the tailor and the clothes. I have been writing this for years.

Cheers

Question on this. So does that mean that you believe that if two men choose the same cloth at a rather opinionated tailor like A&S, they will get rather different results simply because of the input they have in the project and their own bearing, or do you mean that the good client "makes the clothes" because he selects good tailors, good cloth and has a good eye for detail? I don't mean to parse the issue too much, but I think it is interesting and I also am kind of unlear on the finer points.

What did the Neapolitans mean by "good customer"?

I don't know. My Italian is not good enough to ask the kind of questions I would have needed in order to get an explanation I could have understood.

Alden's explanation of being somebody the tailor wants to dress well is the best explanation I have heard. That will be the one I go with when thinking of the subject.

[uppercase]

The older suits are always more compelling to my eye than what is made today. Even if it comes from the same sartoria.

We have hundreds of pictures of modern day suits; yet we always return to the past in admiration of cut, quality, presence; you name it, whatever the point of comparison, yesterday was the gold standard.

Was it the weight of the cloth? Was it the presence of the wearer? Was it the black& white photography? Was it the relaxed poses? Was it the choice of color and accessories? Was it hewing to a strict classicism?

I don’t know what it is, but past results were better to my eye.

Books are written on past dressers. Nobody will write a book on anyone dressing today. It doesn’t matter the tailor.

Astaire was admired and dressed by A&S. But no one will write about anyone dressed by A&S today.

The A&S name continues today but nothing is the same. Everything has changed over the past 70 years: the tailors, the cutters, the cloth, the silhouette.

And the client. Though there are many dressed by A&S today, there is no Astaire.

So what is it? The individual? The cloth? The tailor? Is the difference in our minds? In the photography? Is it the distance, perspective and time which separate us from the past?.

Will the LL Eden cloth make a suit like Eden’s. Or do we need Eden? Or Eden’s tailor?

I don’t know.

But I know I like what I see was made in the past much more than what is made today.

I’ll bet most of us do as well.

[angelo]

uppercase wrote:

We have hundreds of pictures of modern day suits; yet we always return to the past in admiration of cut, quality, presence; you name it, whatever the point of comparison, yesterday was the gold standard.

Was it the weight of the cloth? Was it the presence of the wearer? Was it the black& white photography? Was it the relaxed poses? Was it the choice of color and accessories? Was it hewing to a strict classicism?

Uppercase ,
I think that You really have hit the mark with Your post. Very likely all the above points, raised by You, did contribute to giving to a particular period of the recent past, mainly circumscribed to the '30s of last century , the "aura " of the classical age of the masculine dressing. In that era the culture of the "homo elegans" reached his highest peaks ,until now not yet surpassed.
Thank You very much for Your superb post.

Angelo

[alden]

The last time I was in Naples, somebody told me that the problem was not that there were no good tailors, but that there were so few good customers.

The following is an article I wrote in Italian that develops exactly this theme. The individual in Naples may have read it.

Our idols

The question at hand is the decline of Savile Row since 1965 and its status as the reference in bespoke craftsmanship acquired in the glorious years of the 1930s. I think it very safe to say that decline there surely has been. Whether this decline puts the Row's position in doubt can be discussed from a variety of points of view. But first I would explore with you some of the causes for this decline.

I suppose firstly we must understand what made up the greatness of the 1930s. Photos of personalities from that period show that THEIR apparel was particularly well designed and crafted. It is important and primordial to understand that the coat worn by the Duke of Windsor was not the coat of Scholte but the coat of the Duke. The suit made by Huntsman for Olivier, or the one made for Astaire by Anderson & Sheppard are the suits of these two gentleman and not the houses that made for them. The great houses were the craftsmen who realized these works for these exceptional men according to their instructions. And if the suits are brilliant or beautiful, one can imagine two things: That the instructions furnished by these men were themselves brilliant and the artisans charged with their making were competent and capable enough to produce the garments, as they are today, based on these instructions.

It should be pointed out, and many of you know this already, that clients of the ilk of the Duke of Windsor, Fred Astaire, and Cary Grant were known on SR to be among the most demanding imaginable. They were men who had comprehensive knowledge of tailoring. Cary Grant did many of his own designs, and it has been said if he had not been an actor he would surely have been an excellent designer. In fact, towards the end of his life he did design a series of clothes. So at this point we can begin to understand how implicated these men were in the creation of their clothes. And because these men were brilliant dressers, so were their clothes. We can include Prince Charles to the list, as tailors who have worked with him have told me he is not exactly shy about exacting perfection.

Lets dig a bit deeper. If it is true that the tailoring houses are the fountain of beautiful dress and not individual clients, then we would expect to see a large population of men dressed like gods. We would see in the photos from the 30s an entire generation of men wearing brilliant clothes. And we do not see such a thing. The overall level was much higher than the rest of the last century 40s-present but the truth is that very few men reached an exceedingly high level of dress. And why?

Men influence, change and make history, not institutions. Institutions are the organs through which great men act to achieve their destinies. As far as tailoring is concerned, how would it be possible to do brilliant clothes for someone who does not possess the DNA of same? If the overall level of dressing has fallen, I maintain its the fault of substandard clients, the bespeakers and not the fault of tailors! Don't blame the tools, or the craftsman,.... blame the clients!!

Cheers

[mafoofan]

^^^ That's a nice piece of writing, Alden. Now, I feel bad about being a less imaginative and demanding client!

[storeynicholas]

Following on: According to A M Bigot de Cornuel - "No man is a hero to his valet". Hegel's answer was: "This is not because the hero is no hero - but because the valet is a valet." I would be interested to see whether anyone takes up the challenge to describe why it is that there has been a decline in masculinity - is it, perhaps, because the world is beng taken over by certain (not all) women, in combination with various 'minority interest groups', whose express purpose is to bring masculinity into a state of decline by means of accusation of abuse of position and control? Does anyone dare second this? However, I am of the view that there is something for the proposition that standards of craftsmanship have declined and that a current Savile Row suit is not much better than something from a fifty shilling tailor in the 1940s.
NJS

[dopey]

Following on: According to A M Bigot de Cornuel - "No man is a hero to his valet". Hegel's answer was: "This is not because the hero is no hero - but because the valet is a valet." I would be interested to see whether anyone takes up the challenge to describe why it is that there has been a decline in masculinity - is it, perhaps, because the world is beng taken over by certain (not all) women, in combination with various 'minority interest groups', whose express purpose is to bring masculinity into a state of decline by means of accusation of abuse of position and control? Does anyone dare second this? However, I am of the view that there is something for the proposition that standards of craftsmanship have declined and that a current Savile Row suit is not much better than something from a fifty shilling tailor in the 1940s.
NJS

NJS:
Here are the beginnings of some musings I had on a not entirely dissimilar subject. They are yours to run with.

[storeynicholas]

Dopey,
I have long thought that your nom de guerre is self-effacing and this proves it. I think that you exactly express probable axioms which most people are afraid even to air - let alone debate - because 'society' , for some weird reason (maybe just out of commercial motive), these days, adopts as 'heros' androgynous, nondescript, intellectually deficient, self-projecting, pushing, nonentities (such as fashion designers and their hangers-on, in the form of modern 'celebrities') who seize the reins of power and influence, in everything - from religious belief to sexual mores to economics and garden design - and, in the process, trample all the flower beds for everyone else; including those whose tastes, ideas, values, ideals and perceptions are more finely honed than theirs. It would, indeed, take a doctoral thesis to explain this phenomenon: I am not sure that I would be the one to do it - not least, because, in certain respects, I have opted out of the rat-race of modern life and, therefore, have (fairly happily) resigned my place to comment on the deficiencies which I believe that it has produced. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that you are on to something and, returning to my opening line, suggest that you branch out on this subject first. I think that the starting place is the reluctant realization that this cyber-space of the LL is so valuable to us because there is, increasingly, nowhere else to go: want a great Havana cigar over a fine Armagnac, in a deep armchair in Duke's Hotel? - No Can Do. Want a full strength Turkish cigarette over a hand or two of blackjack at Crockford's? No Can Do - aside from the fact that decent Turkish cigarettes have long been banned - I MEAN: YOU WOULD, NOW, AT WORST, RISK ARREST AS A CRIMINAL - and so it goes on and will go on. It is all the more depressing that the real criminals are, more or less, unhampered; lurking in some doorway, to relieve you of the unsmoked cigars as you wander, angry and frustrated, homewards. But the more that I have thought about it, as I write, the more I have come, reluctantly, to the conclusion that WE LET IT HAPPEN. Maybe the tailors feel that we, the customers, are no longer worth the effort - because we did let it happen - and even, in some respects, made it happen. I often wonder (as I have said before) what those boys who died for us in the skies over Sussex and Kent would make of what we have done to their land and all that it once represented. I have edited this before and do so again, for two reasons: first, I have failed to acknowledge MA's superb original post which, I think, may have been intended to provoke something more than the comparative study in tailoring which the title might have beguiled us into expecting and, secondly, because I think that there is yet another important point here: speaking just for myself, I could cope with a diminution in masculinity around me, as a result of the fashoion-designers' malign influence, but I am greatly alarmed at the concomitant diminution in femininity which marches, in equal step with it - the girl models without shape and decked out in garments which do not cover to create mystery and invite speculation - but expose more or less all to remove any thought of better possibilities in their shapeless forms: all of course, brought about by the women themselves who wish to resemble men and the 'minority interest groups', mentioned above, who wish that these girls were men. I suppose that they are still minority interest groups. There we are, the murder is out. If I lived in the UK, I would probably be prosecuted for the expression of such views. Fortunately, I don't.
NJS.

[voxsartoria]

While it does see true to me that there has been a steady, uninterrupted decline in Western male elegance from the 1930s to the present, I am less convinced that the 1930s represented the apex of how men dressed. In fact, I somewhat suspect that the decline began much earlier.

The transition from novelty to ubiquity of mass media such as photographic and sound film representations of behavior and dress did have a special intersection in the 1930s: the rapid rise of these realistic representational technologies and their wide distribution came within generations of men who had dressed themselves according to social standards at odds with the rising fluidity and chaos of the eroding class systems. Among these men—some aristocrats, some royal, some common—there were those who understood the old vocabulary of dressing, but who then used clothing to imprint their personality over conventions.

I think of the Duke of Windsor, but also others. To the modern eye, which is distant from that time, these men seem elegant, but I would say they were more radical than one might assume…and troubling to their peers. Because of the times, how these men dressed, how they moved in that dress, and how that behaved and spoke are all accessible to us to varying degrees in the library of mass media, and it was at that very time that it became possible for so many people to become iconic.

No one who loves jazz will suggest that the best jazz is being written and performed today. Many, however, will say that best jazz there ever was dates to a time when it was a variation on the standard repertoire. I think that is what the 1930s were to male dress: the men who dressed with the sartorial personality that many of us admire today were in fact deviating from the proper dress of their fathers and grandfathers, but doing so with a full understanding of what that former vocabulary was. In doing so, however, these men helped to accelerate the process of destroying that vocabulary, which primarily was of rigid social class, and within classes, of hierarchy.

I agree quite a bit with the thoughts Dopey posted in the thread to which he links above, and I think that describes how fashion and elegance generally changed before the first World War. The inter-war historical icons of elegance for us today, to our small world of modern men still concerned with male elegance, were, in my opinion, more extreme, more modern in outlook, than the type of gentlemen described in Dopey’s post. But, these were men quite familiar with what came before…to tweak a standard, one must know that standard well. But as surely as the designer feminization of male fashion, those great style icons of the 1930s contributed to the force of decline by making fashion a bit too personal.

One more thing: it also has to be said that that clothing was far more important then than now simply for the reason that it was far more expensive. Particularly among those who were middle class, the share of the family budget and domestic effort devoted to clothes was far greater than it is today for a modern family in the west. It would seem that what becomes cheap then becomes almost inevitably something treated cheaply.

Best Regards,
Bill

[MTM]

... to tweak a standard, one must know that standard well....

I think this is a great point, as is your connection of it to the jazz greats.
m