Rubinacci question

[pur_sang]

maybe I'm just thick, but regarding those pictures, which is which? I think I can see some subtle differences, but just to clarify, before I start mixing up the Milanese and the Neapolitan.

I think Michael have hit the nail on the head, we should not be charged bespoke prices for MTM.

[mafoofan]

I addressed these issues a very long time ago in a 2003 post on Ask Andy, a response to a question about Rubinacci. (The bespoke process described in the article regarding the making of a bespoke shirt was the process employed by Pierre Duboin when he was at Lanvin.) It can be found here:

http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... =32&t=5108

I don't think the product is suddenly 'MTM' if the cutter isn't there. A personal pattern is made for you in either case.

How does a cutter make a pattern, a three dimensional representation of a body, without ever seeing the body in question? The result might be a “personal” pattern to the extent that the clients name is printed on it, but it will also be an “approximate” pattern.
Most men will be better served by the direct intervention of the cutter in the making of a true, bespoke pattern. And if they are paying the elevated price for bespoke, there is an argument that says, they should receive it in exchange.

This juggling of words may seem a trifle but words have meaning. I should say that there is nothing pejorative intended in the description of a garment being MTM. It is a perfectly fine solution for a great many men. What troubles us is MTM being sold as bespoke.

The LL production is MTM even though we call it Benchmade to Measure (BTM) because of the hand sewn aspect of the make. A “personal” pattern is made for the members who use the service, but I do not call it “bespoke” because the process is not bespoke. That being said, I am very proud of the products being made and inspect each of them personally. The fact of them being MTM does not lessen their quality except to the degree that they cannot fit a client as precisely as a garment conceived from a truly bespoke process.

To get that next level of fit, I need to have my cutter work with the client and that means a trip to Italy…and as you know well, it’s not that unpleasant of a place to visit.

Michael, I entirely understand what you're saying about the trouble of drafting a pattern without seeing the client in person. It would not be my first preference and I can easily see how the resulting product might suffer. However, I have always understood the difference between MTM and bespoke to rest on whether a pattern is bound to the limits of an existing template or drawn from scratch. You are right that the absense of the cutter has a critical effect on how well a bespoke pattern can be drawn, but a large part of the benefit of bespoke is that your pattern can be fine-tuned without limitation over the course of successive orders--because it is not tied to a base pattern. Even if you do not get fitted by one of Rubinacci's tailors in Naples or Milan, you still get the benefit of a personal pattern that can be adjusted in such a way. When I think MTM, I think of the likes of Kiton or Oxxford. They do not draw you a personal pattern, and everything is inextricably tied to existing models, so changes must be kept within certain boundaries.

This quote from your linked post captures what I'm getting at in different words:

"My shirtmaker starts by taking my measurements. Okay so far so good, everyone takes measurements. He may ask to see me wearing another bespoke shirt as well on my first visit to see if there are any obvious problems. From the measurements, he will draw and cut a first pattern of my shirt. Here we enter into the crux of the matter. He does not use a generic pattern and then do alterations (MTM)! He draws and cuts a custom pattern."

That being said, I realize this is all getting over technical and symantic. After all, what matters at the end is how well a thing fits, regardless of how it got there. In that respect, I think you and Uppercase have hit the nail on the head: there is no replacement for being fitted by the person who draws your pattern. Yet, there is terrible bespoke as well as excellent MTM, so the terms have always been indictors of method to me, and nothing else. If we stray from the hard-line 'personalized pattern' distinction, I think all we'll find is grey.

[alden]

Matt, if the measurements lead to the making of a pattern from scratch and one that is refined over time (like all bespoke patterns) then the non-presence of the cutter is mitigated to a degree by the presence of someone with a trained eye like Mariano R to guide the cutter and communicate back data from the subsequent fittings. That is why I referred to the process as MTM-like to allow for an exception. Still, it is not an ideal situation and one that rightly creates a sense of doubt in a potential new client as evidenced by this thread.

My BTM tailor takes the measurements, my notes and photos, we discuss them and then he draws a pattern from scratch as well. The old style Italian tailors draw all their patterns from scratch and it’s quite a pleasure to see them do it. In fact, many of the old guys never made paper patterns, keeping the clients’ measures and fitting requirements in their head. This was possible for tailors in small towns or with a small set of clients in a quarter of a large town, it clearly would not be possible for a tailoring house.

The solution for London may very well be a travelling cutter from Italy for those who would prefer the cut and finish available there.

Yet, there is terrible bespoke as well as excellent MTM, so the terms have always been indictors of method to me, and nothing else.

Just because a coat is made according to bespoke Hoyle does not guarantee a great result. I have seen MTM of a better quality overall (cut, finish and fit) than some of the spotty bespoke clothing on the market. Poor styling and finish is one thing, but it is especially irritating to see bespoke clothing that simply does not fit. I have seen quite a lot of it from SR houses over the years.

We urge prospective consumers to inform themselves about the process your prospective tailor will use in the crafting of garments. You will be doing us all a public service if you are informed and know the right questions ask and the right answers to expect.

Mr. Arty Giani is back so you can practice with him, so write him a few questions. He is always eager to respond to them.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[dopey]

In response to a question earlier to the practices of Huntsman and other visiting tailors:
On its NY visits, Huntsman travels with its Head Cutter, Patrick Murphy, while the head salesman/MD, Peter Smith records the measurements for him.
With Davies, Alan Bennett does the measuring and while he is a cutter and may be the cutter for some, in my case, he gave responsibility for me to my cutter from Dege, who had joined Davies just prior to my deciding to try Davies. Since Bennett and Bailey were trained by Michael Skinner who headed Dege until very recently, I have found that transition seamless.

[carl browne]

Wait.

We have several cutters as members of this forum, don't we?

Let's ask one of them.

C

[mafoofan]

Matt, if the measurements lead to the making of a pattern from scratch and one that is refined over time (like all bespoke patterns) then the non-presence of the cutter is mitigated to a degree by the presence of someone with a trained eye like Mariano R to guide the cutter and communicate back data from the subsequent fittings. That is why I referred to the process as MTM-like to allow for an exception. Still, it is not an ideal situation and one that rightly creates a sense of doubt in a potential new client as evidenced by this thread.

100% agreed. I imagine very few non-tailors can make this approach work. Even with Rubinacci, having the cutter there for the fitting makes a big difference. Watching Mariano and Genarro argue is a great pleasure. I can only assume they are exchanging worthwhile ideas. Even when I saw Genarro by himself (Mariano was home with an injury), Mariano participated remotely over the phone while looking at digital pictures of the fitting.

I hope you don't take me to be arguing with you or being difficult. I think your fundamental insights are correct. I just wanted to clarify that Rubinacci does not do MTM as it is generally conceived of on the forums, whatever the downsides of getting fitted away from Naples or Milan.

My BTM tailor takes the measurements, my notes and photos, we discuss them and then he draws a pattern from scratch as well. The old style Italian tailors draw all their patterns from scratch and it’s quite a pleasure to see them do it. In fact, many of the old guys never made paper patterns, keeping the clients’ measures and fitting requirements in their head. This was possible for tailors in small towns or with a small set of clients in a quarter of a large town, it clearly would not be possible for a tailoring house.

Your 'BTM' sounds like 'bespoke' to me. It's not like your tailor has a stock pattern he's tweaking or is stuck to. He's drawing a new, personalized pattern with your expert collaboration. The only downside is that he can't see the client in person. It may not be a traditinal model of bespoke practice, but it's still bespoke in my book.

Just because a coat is made according to bespoke Hoyle does not guarantee a great result. I have seen MTM of a better quality overall (cut, finish and fit) than some of the spotty bespoke clothing on the market. Poor styling and finish is one thing, but it is especially irritating to see bespoke clothing that simply does not fit. I have seen quite a lot of it from SR houses over the years.

So true. Even RTW can be better than bespoke if the conditions are right.

[alden]

Watching Mariano and Genarro argue is a great pleasure. I can only assume they are exchanging worthwhile ideas.

This three party union of bespeaker, observer and tailor creates, to rephrase Tyler Brule, an ueber-bespoke, one step above normal bespoke tailoring.

I recognize this experience from the work we have done in Sicily and enjoy the creative energy it produces. Most bespeakers cannot see themselves the way a trained observer can. The mirror is relatively useless except for the most basic things. The real work goes on in the discussion between observer and tailor, the provoking, pushing, prying open the style you know the tailor is capable of producing for the bespeaker.

Rubinacci does not do MTM as it is generally conceived of on the forums, whatever the downsides of getting fitted away from Naples or Milan.

To the extent that Mariano is taking the measures, working with his team in Naples and leading the fittings, I do agree with you.

Rubinacci stands as guarantor for the products he is responsible for wherever they are sold. I know this to be fact from the many friends and LL members who are his clients. It turns out that his eye replaces that of the cutter at times and he is one of very few non tailors who would be capable of same.

There are few forums where the “generally conceived notions” are correct; or where they are discussed with objective disinterest. The true challenge of writing about any craft lies in the elucidation of “nuance”, as opposed to burrowing detail and the revealing of the exceptions that confound rules.

In my mind Mariano Rubinacci is the standard that anyone who makes bespoke clothes for others would be wise to set themselves against. When I am working with visitors in my sartoria in Sicily, I do have the famed Neapolitan in mind. And we have a few members who have included Sicily on their itineraries for Naples. And just recently, we have a member who is including Naples on his itinerary for Sicily. That pleases me greatly.

Matt, you should drop by the next time you are in town as well.

Cheers

M Alden

[Greger]

The history of tailoring goes back hundreds of years, long before rtw and later mtm. We all read today, but in the past most people didn't. Therefore, stock patterns were common. It was the skill with those patterns that made some tailors famous. Rock of Eye, too, made some famous. With new cutters experience isn't much and they depend on fitting to do well. When you see an inch along the front and a couple of inches along the side and 3/4 inch at the shoulder, to name a few inlays for fittings, isn't because the pattern is drawn so well, but because it probably isn't (some cutters say "spend the time at the fittings and not at drawing"). This why a cutter can measure, lets say Japan, send by wire the measurements and another cutter draw a pattern, and yet after the fittings have a tailored coat, as happened for a tail coat. Some cutters work with each other a lot and get to know how the other thinks, etc., so it really isn't that hard for one to measure and another to make the pattern, or grab a stock pattern, and another to do the fittings. If it is important for you to have a paper pattern then it is important that that pattern is of the fitted garment and not what they started out with. Last about stock patterns, those who use them would never follow them to a t, because human bodies are not made that way, and they will make a personal pattern after the fittings. Some cutters get really good at what they see, but they didn't start out that way. What is really nice about small town tailors is they get to know their clients.

There are some good alterations tailors out there for after the garment is made, such as mtm and rtw. But, alterations tailors can't do near as much.

[S. Gillette]

My BTM tailor takes the measurements, my notes and photos, we discuss them and then he draws a pattern from scratch as well. The old style Italian tailors draw all their patterns from scratch and it’s quite a pleasure to see them do it. In fact, many of the old guys never made paper patterns, keeping the clients’ measures and fitting requirements in their head. This was possible for tailors in small towns or with a small set of clients in a quarter of a large town, it clearly would not be possible for a tailoring house.

Your 'BTM' sounds like 'bespoke' to me. It's not like your tailor has a stock pattern he's tweaking or is stuck to. He's drawing a new, personalized pattern with your expert collaboration. The only downside is that he can't see the client in person. It may not be a traditinal model of bespoke practice, but it's still bespoke in my book.

Just an attempt to broaden our horizon: Isn't a pattern, even if drawn from scratch, always a modified stock pattern in a way? Every tailor was trained in a certain aesthetic and thus will always incorporate what I call stock thoughts where the client was unspecific or careless. By this I am not saying that they are all MTM makers but rather that drawing a pattern from scratch does by all means not guarantee an individual result.

[Costi]

The "stock" in stock pattern does not refer to styling, it refers to measurements. Of course coat patterns of customer A and cutomer B drawn by the same cutter in the "house style" will share a lot in terms of aesthetic choices and styling, but each will have been made starting from the client's measures. If customer B looks pretty much the same as A, only he has broader shoulders, longer arms and a more erect stance, and if the cutter starts from pattern A and tries - as much as possible - to modify it to fit customer B, then we can talk about using a "stock pattern".

[mafoofan]

The "stock" in stock pattern does not refer to styling, it refers to measurements. Of course coat patterns of customer A and cutomer B drawn by the same cutter in the "house style" will share a lot in terms of aesthetic choices and styling, but each will have been made starting from the client's measures. If customer B looks pretty much the same as A, only he has broader shoulders, longer arms and a more erect stance, and if the cutter starts from pattern A and tries - as much as possible - to modify it to fit customer B, then we can talk about using a "stock pattern".

From my understanding, it is perfectly legitimate to use templates in drafting individual patterns as part of the bespoke process. I recall a discussion on another forum where a couple of well-regarded tailors and other credible authorities concurred on that point. Thus, for me, the essential distinction between MTM and bespoke is whether there are system-imposed limitations on how much one's final pattern can be individualized. The only objection I've heard to this distinction is that it does not capture qualitative differences that often correspond with each approach. However, I don't see why inconsistent, qualitative differences should matter when trying to come up with a simple, easy-to-use definition; those differences can be more easily and accurately notated seperately ('good' bespoke versus 'bad' bespoke versus 'good' MTM, etc.).

That all being said, I have no idea whether Rubinacci uses templates in drafting patterns, and I don't see why it matters so long as the final pattern is individualized to suit the client without constraint.

[Costi]

From my understanding, it is perfectly legitimate to use templates in drafting individual patterns as part of the bespoke process.

I have always understood the difference between MTM and bespoke to rest on whether a pattern is bound to the limits of an existing template or drawn from scratch.

I am not sure I understand what your thesis is: that there isn't really much difference between bespoke and MTM?
If we take the striclty utilitarian approach, we may certainly come up with examples of good MTM and bad bespoke, as you wrote. However, examples of "good MTM" do not prove that MTM is "good' (in se), just the way instances of "bad bespoke" do not lead to the conclusion that bespoke is "bad".
Beyond the variability of actual results, the difference lies in the approach first of all: MTM uses a shortocut that is meant to make the tailor's life easier, not to obtain a better result for the customer. The tailor's life is only made easier with MTM if he alters the stock pattern within certain limits, so that one change in one place does not disrupt the balance of the pattern, requiring another change in another place to correct it. THESE are the limitations of MTM: if a tailor made ALL the changes necessary to perfectly adapt a stock pattern to a client, he would end up working more than if he started from scratch. Therefore, in MTM practice the pattern can only be adjusted SO MUCH, and not more, because otherwise the method is not economically justified.
Michael Alden explained all this much better here: http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... mtm#p45636

[mafoofan]

From my understanding, it is perfectly legitimate to use templates in drafting individual patterns as part of the bespoke process.

I have always understood the difference between MTM and bespoke to rest on whether a pattern is bound to the limits of an existing template or drawn from scratch.

I am not sure I understand what your thesis is: that there isn't really much difference between bespoke and MTM?
If we take the striclty utilitarian approach, we may certainly come up with examples of good MTM and bad bespoke, as you wrote. However, examples of "good MTM" do not prove that MTM is "good' (in se), just the way instances of "bad bespoke" do not lead to the conclusion that bespoke is "bad".
Beyond the variability of actual results, the difference lies in the approach first of all: MTM uses a shortocut that is meant to make the tailor's life easier, not to obtain a better result for the customer. The tailor's life is only made easier with MTM if he alters the stock pattern within certain limits, so that one change in one place does not disrupt the balance of the pattern, requiring another change in another place to correct it. THESE are the limitations of MTM: if a tailor made ALL the changes necessary to perfectly adapt a stock pattern to a client, he would end up working more than if he started from scratch. Therefore, in MTM practice the pattern can only be adjusted SO MUCH, and not more, because otherwise the method is not economically justified.
Michael Alden explained all this much better here: http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... mtm#p45636

My thesis is that the use of a stock pattern in drafting a pattern for a client does not, in and of itself, determine whether a process is bespoke or MTM. Bespoke tailors may use templates to construct indivdual patterns--or they may not. The difference is in the manipulation that comes afterwards. In MTM, pattern manipulation is constrained to specific parameters.

I have no opinion on whether 'bespoke' or 'MTM' is better. I might generalize with respect to certain price ranges, but I think the best, most accurate answer is: "It depends."

[Costi]

My thesis is that the use of a stock pattern in drafting a pattern for a client does not, in and of itself, determine whether a process is bespoke or MTM.

I have never heard of MTM clothes made on the basis of an individual pattern drafted from scratch for a client. Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that drafting and individual pattern is specific to bespoke only, even if it does not, in and of itself, make the product bespoke (because there is more to it). So, what you are saying is that bespoke garments may also be made by adjusting a stock pattern. I think not, and here is why:

A tailor who has a "full bespoke" suit on order will NOT use a stock pattern because he knows there are limits to the amount of manipulation it can take.
A tailor who DOES use a stock pattern AND is honestly set to deliver full bespoke to his customer, knowing he will have to make change after change after change to keep the evolving stock pattern in balance (much more difficult work than drafting a good individual pattern from the outset, which will only need minor adjustments during fittings), must be a masochist. I don't theoretically exclude the possibility, but I doubt it is often found in practice.
In practice, a tailor who starts from a stock pattern does so with the sincere hope of sparing the time and hard work needed to draft an individual pattern from scratch. Therefore, since he is set on sparing time and effort rather than give his best, he will only make those adjustments (or amounts of adjusment) that will not upset the stock pattern requiring more and more changes to correct it. If he is honest, he will charge his customer the MTM price, and not the full bespoke one.
I think this principle is universally valid and applies in many areas: cars, architecture, food. When you start from a template and then want 100% customization, you soon arrive at the conclusion that the template is too narrow and you need to start fresh. This is no different in tailoring.

[Greger]

Maybe the first question to ask, is, "where do patterns come from?" Generally a pattern come from a system, there are many systems. If both custom and stock come from a system, than either can be manipulated the same. In fact, this is how many stock patterns are made for a certain "size" of the many various shapes of people, the way tailors do it for indiviluals (bespoke). Most m2m has limitaions in fittings and because it is sent off to a factory and personal tailoring in the construction department is gone. Whereas, in bespoke, limitless fitting and personal tailoring carries on. I suppose most m2m comes in Longs, Regular or Short for size of height, whereas, in custom, the that is not even a consideration, but simply drawn in, but any cutter worth his salt can easy manipulate a stock pattern same as if he drew it custom. Many systems come up with a certain fit, such as waist or hips, which the bespoke cutter has to adapt for the customer, same as would be done for m2m. Sometimes with the very difficult to fit it is much easier to start with a general stock pattern, which is, proportionate measures, because you know it looks good, and then make the drastic changes with cuts, wedges, add ons and subtractions. Direct measurement systems can be very good, but with some bodies they can make strange looking coats that don't fit. Many bespoke cutters are experts, so there should be no problem however they choose to do it.

Bespoke (custom) is not only extremly personalized from the cutters, but also in the construction. Cutting and fitting that the cutter does only does so much, after that, it is the tailor that does the rest of the fitting. In real tailoring there is more than just making the garment up. Which brings up another argument; If it only works that one cutter see and measures and draws the pattern and fits you, then he would also have to be the tailor. If you can have cutter and tailor as two different people, then there can be three cutters and several tailors to make a garment. Cutters know cutting and tailors know tailoring, so cutters should be able to explain to one another the parts of the job to pass on than it is for a cutter to tell a tailor what changes to make. It is nice to see a master do both, because there is no explaining of what to do- the one person knows and does.