new ruling on bespoke

[Costi]

Dear Sartorius,

The question of a tailoring house's pride is not a matter of ethics, as you rightly point out - selling RTW along with bespoke is an amoral business fact. However, I think bespoke clothing is a matter of taste and not a matter of money. Offering them both under the same name turns bespoke into a matter of money (i.e. the more expensive alternative to RTW). It is an affront to the client's taste to offer RTW and also proof that the house does not really believe in what it does (read "pride"). What is all the fuss about a house style in this case? What was the brand name built on - "something for any pocket depth" or "unique style and craftsmanship"? You cannot satisfy everyone and you shouldn't attempt it, either - particularly with matters of taste. What would you think of a 5 star Micheline restaurant that opened a fast food area inside to make an extra buck?

[storeynicholas]

Costi - "Fortnum & Mason's Gloucester Old Spot Pork Crackling Bar Snacks de Luxe with your Vesper Martini, sir? - and how would sir like his burger?"
NJS

[sartorius]

I think bespoke clothing is a matter of taste and not a matter of money. Offering them both under the same name turns bespoke into a matter of money (i.e. the more expensive alternative to RTW). It is an affront to the client's taste to offer RTW ...

I agree that bespoke is first and foremost a matter of taste, but at £3,000+ for a suit it is also, inescapably, a matter of money. Not just a matter of money, not even primarily a matter of money, but a matter of money nevertheless. My own sartorial journey from RTW to MTM to SR bespoke is a case in point. For years I would walk the Row gazing longingly into the tailors' windows, and for years SR bespoke was well beyond my means. Even now that I can afford it, I still get frequent pangs of guilt at having spent a king's ransom on a suit. So I'm not sure your argument holds about affronting clients' tastes. Certainly I can say personally that it hasn't affronted mine!

... and also proof that the house does not really believe in what it does ...

I don't see that this follows. Companies the world over diversfy their product range while retaining the quality of their core products - in fact, in not doing so, SR is a notable exception. Take the example of Porsche, who were roundly condemned by purists for bringing out the Cayenne - on the basis that they were pandering to yummy mummies and footballer's wives. Porche continues to produce some of the most wonderfully engineered cars money can buy and it has evidently not affronted its customers because it remains one of the most profitable car makers in the world.

What would you think of a 5 star Micheline restaurant that opened a fast food area inside to make an extra buck?

That would indeed be a catastrophic error of judgment, but I think the analogy is false. The reality is that restaurants the world over have different rooms catering to different budgets. There are numerous places in London where one can eat at a high class restaurant in the "bistro" for less than in the main salon. This is yet another example of product segmentation. If diversifying one's products leads to loss of quality, then I would agree it is to be condemned but there is no reason why this should happen.

[storeynicholas]

As former liberal PM HH Asquith ('Sqiffy') used to say: "We will have to wait and see."
NJS

[jb]

Since I wrote my first post which talked a bit about tailoring in the US 30 years ago, I have thought a fair amount about the tailoring business. I totally agree that the business is different these days, and certainly not as much like a quiet club.

I have always fellt that the huge imbalance between the money (and magazine ink) spilled on behalf of fashion over the small artisan shop made it difficult to get the word out on behalf of the category of bespoke clothing. Neiman Marcus and other retailers do much more to promote high end RTW brands than individual tailors can manage.

The reason that I am optimistic in the face of this large gap in marketing communications is the existence of the internet. Forums such as this and certain blogs do serve to get out the word. There is a large contingent who purchase brands such as Kiton, Brioni, and Oxxford, so those customers should be potentially receptive to the allure of bespoke if they only hear about it in the right way.

I hope that it happens before all of our tailors disappear, though. As NJS quoted earlier, we will have to "wait and see".

Joel

[Costi]

Dear Sartorius,

I might just as well write in Romanian and my message would still get across just as fine
I would say the brasserie of a good restaurant (I doubt such a restaurant would open a bistro) is a matter of convenience: if you don't have time for a full lunch / dinner, or did not have time to make a reservation, or if you have to eat outside normal lunch / dinner hours, or if you travel and would like to launch an unscheduled invitation, then you can go to the brasserie. The level of service is (or should be) the same, except you have less courses to choose from. Not a matter of saving money.
Yes, the Cayenne is not in line with Porsche's tradition and, as you pointed out, traditional Porsche customers protested on a matter of taste. Ferrari, for instance, did not put such a hybrid a on the market - although I can guarantee it would have been just as successful, if not more; businesswise - apparently an unprofitable decision, but I think they know their clients better and see the long run (which is another way of saying we shall have to wait and see).

[marcelo]

In Gentlemen’s Club of London (MacDonald and Jane’s, 1979), Anthony Lejeune reports that many traditional clubs had to make concession in order to prevent their doors from being closed in the twentieth century. They may not have gone as far as to offer less exclusive adjoining rooms as a sort of pis aller for blackballed would-be members, but they did have to merge with other clubs, or otherwise accept members who would not have qualified if the original rules had been applied. What is happing at SR may well be a further token of the same type.

[storeynicholas]

Marcello - The result is that many Clubs have gone altogether - two immediately spring to mind - Arthur's Club (now the site of the Carlton Club in St James's Street) and the Eccentrics' Club in Ryder Street (with its back-to-front clock). Others, as you say, have merged - the East India Club incorporates the Devonshire and the Public Schools' Club. However, the oldest and best survive - White's Boodle's Pratt's, the Travellers' and so on. These remain exclusive but there are other bigger clubs (no names no pack drill) who will take all comers who have the entrance fee and a proposer and seconder and people soon move on from these, if they can. Why fewer clubs? Many different reasons - principally: families who would have patronized them were decimated by two world wars and the survivors reduced by socialist taxation. Much the same reasoning goes for bespoke clothes. On top of that, people mainly now work for a living and have much less time to devote to dress.
It is also a fact that, in comparison with bespoke tailors, firms left offering just bespoke shoes and boots are very few; those that spring to mind are John Lobb, possibly Taylor's in Paddington Street and, to the extent that they still have a separate identity, Poulsen Skone (at New & Lingwood) and Henry Maxwell (at WE Foster & Son). There are several one man bands too, admittedly - but they mainly work out of town. Gaziano & Girling do bespoke and RTW and special orders on standard lasts but this was, presumably, part of their founding strategy, which has proved sound for the times. Peal & Co saw the writing on the wall, after 400 years, and closed their doors in 1965; Niklaus Tuczek's name was, around the same time, taken in by John Lobb. Most of the great hatters have gone too - Lincoln Bennett, Scott & Co, Henry Heath and so on (many of them). However, having said all that, the bespoke suit is probably the most important single part of a decent wardrobe and I know many men who buy bespoke suits but would not dream of bothering with bespoke shirts and shoes. This is partly because of the time and trouble and the cost plus - you need a very good eye to discern whether bespoke shirts and shoes are being worn, rather than very well-made RTW; whereas a bespoke suit stands out in a crowd of RTW. Therefore, bespoke suits are in a different category from other items of apparel and the makers have (possibly for this reason), in comparative profusion, out-lasted the bespoke shoemakers and shirtmakers - although even here, many great old names are now incorporated in to the survivors: James & James; Johns & Pegg; Wells and so on. However, there is an argument that bespoke suits, being an essential part of a good wardrobe should, so far as possible, be kept going as a discrete, exclusive product, without the dilution of RTW 'sidelines' - if they are 'sidelines' It would be a great pity if they cannot survive continuing to turn out their bespoke wares in SR; especially since there must still be enough men in the whole wide world to reach with the message that these suits are (a) central to a good wardrobe and (b) absolute market leaders. Everyone in thie thread seems to agree that bespoke suits should survive - it's just a question whether increasingly introducing the 'sideline' of RTW will (a) help that or (b) just generate extra profits. If it's a question of cutting costs - some are already finding the answer in sharing premises - (ironically) Kilgour and Bernard Weatherill do it and there also used to be a practice of sharing with independent tailors - they put their names up in the window and share the cutting and changing rooms. So there are alternatives, if it is just a question of preservation of the trade. Moreover, I am not sure that sending merchandise onto the 'catwalk' is intended just to be a sideline - it seems to me to be a foray into another line of work altogether.
NJS

[jb]

Good point, in that it seems clear that RTW is a different business with entirely different determinants of success. In the bespoke world top notch craft can develop loyal customers, albeit one at a time, and create staying power at a modest level. RTW success is about marketing and proper merchandising, skills that are not developed in the normal course of running the bespoke business. Further, RTW takes a fair amount of investment upfront for each new season and can therefore be a new source of risk if not managed carefully.

[marcelo]

The result is that many Clubs have gone altogether…

Indeed, but they would have gone anyway, had they not tried to adapt themselves to the new circumstances. Some of them, it seems, did survive. Whether or not the price of their survival was too high, it is a moot question. As one says, no names, no pack drill.

Much the same reasoning goes for bespoke clothes…

This was the thrust of my point when drew attention to fate of gentlemen’s club in the context of a tread on the alleged new rules of bespoke. I did not mean that the present circumstances are such that survival could only be implemented by jettisoning bespoke garments altogether. But they may well require, as the case may be, co-operative work with RTW.

[Costi]

A misalliance, in my view. I am not against fresh blood, on the contrary - tradition must not be stale, as discussed in another thread; however, if it is to change, it had better be an improvement, a step forward. If you cross a pure blood mare with a donkey you will inevitably obtain a mule every time. If you sell style, you must do things in style.

[storeynicholas]

Costi - yes, and, moreover, mules are, invariably sterile - so where does one go from there? - second-rate cordovan (or crup), I suppose!!!
NJS

[marcelo]

The point is a relatively simple one, though I must admit it may rely on false assumptions relative to the real reasons which led traditional craftsmen to decide to venture into the far less noble business of RTW clothing. If what is at issue here is their very survival, they are not to be accused of indulging themselves in a Faustian pact, even if the strategy to ensure their survival may be the deemed the wrong one.

[Frog in Suit]

I am only catching this thread after a few days’ absence.

I wonder whether the Gieves & Hawkes, Huntsmans, etc... of this world are not putting themselves in a weak strategic position by entering the world of RTW. I would suppose they are (over)extending themselves financially. After all their competitors in the RTW market, the worldwide brands one hears about all the time, have very deep pockets and can out-advertise them easily. Advertising campaigns are very expensive. Opening new shops in prime locations costs a bomb. If you do not advertise your RTW, how will you acquire new customers? If your prospects know nothing about Savile Row and its history and are about to dip into the world of "fine suits", why will they choose G & H e.g., over, say, Ralph Lauren? The latter are all over the glossy magazines while the appeal of G & H seems, to me at least, strongest amongst those of us with an appreciation of bespoke clothing, Savile Row and its aura and traditions, G & H’s connections to the Royal Navy (to a Frenchman, the name of the late Lord Nelson must always hold bitter associations….) etc…, in other words a minority.

On the other hand, being seen to compete with large international retail chains will surely turn away your traditional, core, customers. You will end up fighting your large competitors for the untraditional customers, and lose your own core constituency at the same time.

This is why having a collective website such as the Savile Row Bespoke one (or others of the same type – I hold no brief for this particular group--) may be the most cost-effective way of reaching new customers without turning the old ones away. It surely costs much less than a serious advertising campaign. It does not carry the opprobrium of publicly “tooting your own horn”, especially not doing it individually. And, if (a very important “if”) it is done tastefully (good photography, no superlatives or slangy descriptions, no pictures of “celebrities”, discreet allusions to pedigree…) it will interest and amuse the existing customers while awakening the interest of prospective ones with a similar mindset -- internet-savvy as must be all members of the new generation --. Some of the more stylistically daring SRB members I would never touch with a ten-foot pole, being (ahem!) somewhat hidebound in my views, but if the quality if their product meets the organization’s requirements, then the more broadly attractive the collective “brand” will prove to be.

Fighting multinationals on their own ground would appear suicidal. Banning together with one’s peers, enforcing rules based on quality and emphasizing SR’s specificity without spending too much money, seem, to me at least, a more promising strategy.

Now, if I could learn to use PowerPoint, I could be a marketing consultant…

Frog in Suit

[RWS]

Hearing of the intent of a well established, highly regarded maker to offer lower priced goods generally puts me in mind of the Packard Motor Car Company.

Founded in 1899, Packard quickly became the maker of the best known and, for most rich Americans, the most covetted automobiles in the country, considered superior to, for example, Rolls Royce in quality of make and styling (a few other makers, most notably Pierce-Arrow and Peerless, may have excelled Packard in quality, but the tiny numbers of their production perforce limited purchasers to the very rich or very knowledgeable). With the advent of severe, lasting economic depression in the United States in the 1930s, Packard, which had developed no foreign market beyond equally depressed Canada, turned to the merely well-to-do as potential buyers and in mid-decade began manufacturing a fine "junior line", inferior to the "senior" not only in price but in quality as well.

Sales enjoyed a brief respite from the depression -- almost every motoring man or woman had long wished to sport the distinctive grille and hood ornaments that all Packards carried -- then sank again. Why? Because the loss of exclusivity could not sustain the desireability that the marque had long enjoyed, even though the senior line continued to be nearly so well made as before; and because many former purchasers began to look to other makers, whether because of their own straitened finances or because the Packard marque had been tainted by this dilution. Within twenty years, Packard became nothing but a nameplate on top-of-the-line Studebakers, cars that were well-made but hardly of the finest quality, and then ceased to suffer even this phantasmal existence.

From the outside looking in (I've a few suits from two SR houses but do not consistently visit any), I fear that similar dilution may water the grand old names of the Row down to -- tepid, evaporating memories. Whether the quality of true tailor-made clothes from the Row actually declines or not, would-be purchasers' perception may be that a single enterprise cannot offer a range of clothes without some loss of quality at the top; it probably is mine.