Mr. Alexander Kabbaz

[alden]

I would like to welcome Alex Kabbaz on behalf of the assembled members of thelondonlounge. Mr. Kabbaz, a New York based artisan and teacher, brings significant experience in custom tailored shirt making to the group. He is also an authority on the bespoke process, the communication between artist and client that often determines the success or failure of projects. Communicating well is a skill everyone who commissions sartorial services needs to develop and perfect. His insights into this process, from the artisan point of view, should prove beneficial to many of londonlounge readers who are beginning their bespoke wardrobes.

Welcome Alex!

So, if you have any questions of Alex, its up to you to ask.

Best regards,

M Alden

[AlexanderKabbaz]

Dear Michael,

Thank you for the privilege. I shall do my utmost to uphold the highest caliber of bespoke artisanship with which you credit me.

As many of you know, my hobby is owning a Summer art school here in East Hampton which, with our 400 students, tends to keep me not only feeling young, but also extremely short of time from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Hence, my annual three-month scarcity is not a reflection of anything but happy exhaustion.

I welcome your questions and only hope that I can provide satisfactory answers ... untimely though they may be for the next month.

Again, my thanks for your confidence in me. I hope we may share many interesting and productive years together.

Alex

[dopey]

Dear Alex:
May I start the discussion with a question I have been wondering about for some time and have started to think about out loud in this thread http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/vie ... sc&start=0 and elsewhere? Specifically, do you find any use for wool in summer-weight shirts? It seems that wool, in both knit and woven formats, was used for summer shirting in the 30s and after. Now, that use is gone. Is that a result of Second World War restrictions, or has cotton simply proved to be a superior textile for that purpose? Are summer suitable wools and wool blend shirting even available anymore? Has a customer ever asked?

[Guest]

I have a question for the AK: on single-needle versus double-needle tailoring, that hoary subject, I have finally figured out which is which.

That said, in the 36 shirts I own I notice that single needle is never inferior to, but only sometimes clearly superior to, double-needle tailoring. I am speaking strictly objectively here, I honestly have no stake in the matter.

The biggest difference appears in the lightest fabrics, where single-needle tailoring minimizes the ugly ridges on the seams that come with the first laundering. Is my observation generally true or an artifact of my only having seen 40 dress shirts up close?

[AlexanderKabbaz]

(Dopey) Specifically, do you find any use for wool in summer-weight shirts? It seems that wool, in both knit and woven formats, was used for summer shirting in the 30s and after. Now, that use is gone. Is that a result of Second World War restrictions, or has cotton simply proved to be a superior textile for that purpose? Are summer suitable wools and wool blend shirting even available anymore? Has a customer ever asked?

This is a question I would rather ponder for a time and reply more fully at a later date ... and so I shall. A few off-the-cuff answers would include the following: On the downside, in the field of fabrics woven with the intent to be used as shirtings, I have not seen a wool & cotton blend in decades. I carry wool & cotton blends which I would not consider suitable for Summer shirts as they are too heavy. Similarly, my cashmere & cotton blend is too heavy. I have seen, and used, very lightweight (6.5oz) suitings for shirts, but not specifically for Summer wear. On the upside (with a down$ide), I have only this year made a few shirts from a very intersting linen & cashmere blend of Loro Piana's. They also make a linen & wool (worsted, if I recall) blend which I did not like or use. The linen/cashmere blend proved spectacular, both in result and price ... it cost north of $300/yard. My preferred Summer fabrics are Irish-woven handkerchief linen and Alumo's 2x2 170s linen/cotton blend. Although Testa do make a 2x2 170s linen/cotton blend, they are being unfathomably stingy on the thread count. That results in a "bodyless" fabric which I am not proud to use. I have done so due to a scarcity of linen/cottons in nice patterns ... but try my best to discourage its use even though I know certain members are addicted to this particular cloth.
Finally, as to whether the WWII wool restrictions are influencing 21st Century weaving ... I may be older than most members, but not quite that old.

(brescd01)On single-needle versus double-needle tailoring, that hoary subject, I have finally figured out which is which.
That said, in the 36 shirts I own I notice that single needle is never inferior to, but only sometimes clearly superior to, double-needle tailoring. I am speaking strictly objectively here, I honestly have no stake in the matter.
The biggest difference appears in the lightest fabrics, where single-needle tailoring minimizes the ugly ridges on the seams that come with the first laundering. Is my observation generally true or an artifact of my only having seen 40 dress shirts up close?

As is most often the case in this - I would agree with 'hoary" - subject, the observed result is not specifically caused by the double-needle stitching, but by one of its corollaries. Double-needle seaming is done to save money. Seaming is accomplished in half the time. Another related method of making a cheaper shirt is the use of polyester or polyester-cored cotton thread, either of which are less costly than cotton thread. The vast majority of double-needle stitching is done using polyester thread whereas most makers who will bother to remain in the single-needle tradition will also spring for the added cost of cotton thread. Polyester thread has undesirable elastic properties. When it is sewn under the necessary tension, it stretches out. The result is that when its elastomeric memory causes it to return to its original size, it "shrinks". This, in turn, puckers the cotton fabric and you see what you refer to as the "ugly ridges". The lighter the fabric, the less ability it has to "fight" the shrinkage and the more obvious the puckers. The reason that you do not see them when you purchase the shirt is that the shirt has been ironed using machinery which flattens the pucker. Adding the magic equalizer (wash water) removes the effect of the iron and the puckers reappear. Thankfully, the use of a hand-iron of sufficient weight (about 7 pounds is fine), combined with a goodly dose of steam, can once again eliminate the puckers ... but you must do this each time the shirt is laundered. Sad to say that there are many hidden "economizers" in modern shirtmaking, most of which are magically revealed through a few turns 'round the ole washing machine.

[Guest]

This would explain the inverse of what I have observed, that light fabrics and single-needle tailoring show the fewest puckers, not the heavier fabric. The other problem is, all my shirts including bespoke Florentine shirts shoe some puckering, more with heavier fabric.

That said, with most fabrics, I grant a slight aesthetic superiority to single-needle tailoring, but only slight, and other factors seem to be more critical, for example the care with which the seam is constructed. For example, I have some single-needle tailored Barbas which seem carelessly done. I am not sure that these are noticeably nicer than some double-needle tailored Liste Rouge shirts whose seams were nevertheless carefully done?

I have divided my shirt wardrobe into two seasons, and this is so superior to what I did before I cannot imagine otherwise. Therefore, I have 18 shirts for warm-weather wear and 18 for cold-weather wear. This has improved the comfort, fit and feel of virtually every ensemble. Is this pretty standard, or am I the exception?

[AlexanderKabbaz]

Is this pretty standard, or am I the exception?

Quite usual.

[BirdofSydney]

Another question, if I may Mr Kabbaz:

I notice from your website, that you have a disdain for the gusset. I'm not hugely fond of them, on aesthetic grounds as much as anything else. But, if you would be so good as to explain both your reasons for disliking them, and what it is you do instead, I'd be most grateful (in as much as it doesn't disclose trade secrets, of course!).

Regards,

Eden Bird

[AlexanderKabbaz]

Pictured from a birds' eye view, the basic shirt pattern is a bit easier to understand. The hardest part to understand is that the pattern, any pattern, is merely a two dimensional plan for a three dimensional object.

Gussets. This cute little "styling attribute" is used, literally, to cover up a lack of sewing skill. Notice in the rendering of the Individual Pattern how sharp the three curves are which comprise the transition from the bottom of the front hem to the bottom of the rear hem on each side of the shirt. The sewing 'foot' used to make the hem is called a "scroll foot". Its action is to roll under a small portion of fabric into a finished edge while placing a stitch designed to hold the rolled fabric in place. It is a very difficult foot to use and requires years of practice to master. Because the hem is hidden in the trousers, it is usually not considered one of the more important seams in the shirt. Therefore, in the mass-production prevalent in the majority of shirtmaking operations these days, this step is usually assigned to the lowest person on the totem pole. To eliminate this difficult curve, a different method of manufacture was designed. In the traditional method, the side seams of the shirt are sewn (closed) and then the hem is sewn. In the easier method, the hem is made and then the side seams are closed. Where they join together (side seam, front hem, and rear hem) there is something I can describe only as in incompatible, weak ... mess. Hence, the cute little "Gusset" which, when wrapped around this mess and stitched, not only does hide the mess, but also does really add strength. It is a strength which would not have been needed as it is inherent in the properly made (continuous hem thread) closure. It is a 'mess' which wouldn't need covering if it didn't exist. But, as the PR truthfully says, the Gusset really adds strength. Draw your own conclusion.

[Anglo Saxon]

Hello.

It is my understanding that shirt gussets are an historical relic from when ordinary shirts were put on and taken off over the head. (By “ordinary” shirts I mean “working” shirts as opposed to dress shirts).
In these shirts, strains are set up in the side seams when the wearer is pulling his shirt on and off. This strain is greatest when the shirt is about half on or off with the head of the wearer in the back and his arms half-way in the sleeves. The strains then are on the gussets and the shirt-front opening. This is why these shirts were made with hand-made, bias-cut hip gussets, which were elastic and strong. This strain was magnified if insufficient ease was built in to the shirt draft in the hip region.
Of course, neither of these donning and doffing strains are set up in a modern dress shirt.

[AlexanderKabbaz]

Anglo Saxon: I neither agree nor disagree with your historical derivation as I am unaware of the reference. However, if the shirts were cut with suppressed waists - as most renderings show them - then the narrowest area and, hence, the greatest strain, would be on the waist and not in the tail area. Just food for thought ...

[Keith T]

Just wanted to interject at this point and give a hearty welcome to Mr. Kabbaz. I have always enjoyed his insight and helpful comments. Thanks so much.

[AlexanderKabbaz]

Thank you Keith. Your kind words are much appreciated.

[BirdofSydney]

I'm most grateful Alex. Would I be correct in identifying as another "cop-out" the practice of darting the backs of shirts? I contemplated that it might have useful effects in terms of shaping the garment to be more three dimensional - after all, the fronts of suit jackets are darted - but I remain unconvinced.

Once again, thank you for sharing your knowledge. Who knows, one day I may have the pleasure of patronising your establishment (when my funds and location, and the volume of your business all align and cease to provide obstacles).

Regards,

Eden Bird

[AlexanderKabbaz]

If the difference between your chest and waist measurements is less than 10" no darts are necessary. If the difference is less than 12", a very good patternmaker and seamster/ess can make the shirt sans darts. For example, 45"C-33"W-42"H can be made using only the side seams for waist suppression.

However, the majority of shirtmakers will use darts if the difference is more than 7"-8".

Darts are sometimes used as a styling option as they can make for some very interesting effects when combined with stripings.

On women's shirts, (front-under the arm) darts are essential to fit the bustline. I have heard tell of certain shirtmakers who use these "women's darts" to fit gentlemen with abundantly defined pectoral muscles, but I personally prefer other methods of accomplishing this goal over changing the shirt into what is, in effect, a blouse.

At the present time, except for a couple of fellows who happen to like the darted look as a style statement, I have exactly zero male clients for whom I dart their shirts as a fitting essential. Zero. Zip. None. I suppose a statement of preference, no?