New tailcoat

[YoungLawyer]

Dear Readers,

My evening tails, although once very well tailored, are now showing the signs of eighty years of life. So I am seriously considering having tails made. As these would (I hope) last equally as long, I don't mind going to a tailor on the Row who could do a really good job, although if any reader has had a positive experience with tails somewhere else in London, I would be interested to hear of it. As this is a once in a lifetime commission (little danger of expanding girth as yet), I'd like to get it as right as possible. Here is my request to you: please could you post to this forum all the pictures of tails that you can find - both old photographs and fashion plates - so I can make a more informed choice as to which style would suit me best, and so that I can be precise with my request. Secondly, if anyone has recently had tails made, please could they recommend a London tailor?

My current preference is for tails from the 1920s, when they were not generally cut as high at the front as in the 1930s, and where the trousers were perhaps cut slightly slimmer. My friends who are in the army wear [very!] slim cut trousers with mess-dress, and it seems that slimmer trousers do look neater than the civilian relics from the 1930s. I have very occassionally seen black tails cut like evening hunt coats, in the Edwardian fashion, one even with a velvet collar, but I think that might be a little too flamboyant. My build? I am slim and 6'.

Thank you in advance,

[Costi]

Welcome aboard, YoungLawyer!

Have you read this?: http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... =32&t=5526

[YoungLawyer]

Dear Costi,
Thank you,
I have indeed. It was in fact that post which first drew my attention to the variety in cut which was possible in the coat.

To answer the second question, which is probably going to be asked, I'm certain that I most like the style of waistcoat which is single-breasted, with four buttons set close together, with a wide and round cut to show the bib of the shirt and with the two points below quite long. I found one off e-bay some years ago, which is almost perfect, but ever so slightly too short (by an inch only). Think of the styles in (the original series of) Brideshead in the scene in the club, and you will not be far off. I think that means that there should be a close similarity between the points of the waistcoat, and the front of the coat.

[Costi]

I guess it is difficult for a white tie waistcoat to be TOO short. Aren't you mislead by the current fashion of wearing low-rise trousers?
If the waistcoat is high (which it should be, too), the only thing you need to make sure is that the trousers are also high enough - which is all for the better. And high trousers look better if they are quite full at the hip and then gradually taper toward the ankle.
The only requirement of the tailcoat front in relation to the waistcoat that I can think of is that no white should show between coat and trousers.

[YoungLawyer]

Costi,
I supposed - though I accept that I may be wrong - that the length of the waistcoat could be related to the size and position of the natural waist. This waistcoat buttons so that the bottom button is fractionally above the bottom of my ribcage, and so 1-2in above my natural waist, which is the thinnest point. If betwen them the coat and tails should emphasise a narrow waist as much as possible, shouldn't the waistcoat end at the narrowest point, i.e. the natural waist, and the coat ever so slightly on the hips, so that the coat shows some waist supression too? It might not help that the one I found was made for someone rather more 'round' than I am, so that the points always stuck out towards the horizontal. I accept that some pictures show them higher. What's your opinion?

No, of course no shirt showing below, and no 'sagging' ever! But then how much overlap between trousers and waistcoat should one aim for?

[chelsea]

Perhaps there are some alternative options. As always, it all depends on budgets.


1. Being slim and 6 foot, you will probably be able to find quality second hand evening tails in good to excellent condition, if you conduct a search. This might represent a significant saving on an item which in truth is not used too often. David Saxby at Old Hat in Fulham is always worth a try.


Chelsea

[Costi]

YoungLawyer, the trousers should have the waistband at the natural waist (definitely below your ribcage, most probably at or 1-2 cms above your belly button). The waistcoat should completely cover the waistband of your trousers, but not go lower than the bottom end of your tailcoat's fronts. I meant there should be no white WAISTCOAT showing between tailcoat and trousers - any SHIRT showing there is out of question
If the waistcoat really is TOO short, i.e. it would not cover the waistband of your trousers if they sat at your natural waist, the best thing to do is order a bespoke white pique' waistcoat along with the rest.

[YoungLawyer]

I can assure you that I know not to make such basic errors as showing shirt/waistcoat below (although even that was fashionable on occasions) - but the most common sight that I see is to wear an old waistcoat and jacket with modern low-slung trousers. It's not something that I've ever done.

I think, Costi, that I generally agree with you, but observe this picture of Adolphe Menjou, which is in the 'great photographs' thread. You can't deny that his waistcoat is much higher, and indeed stops on his ribcage, and the trousers must be very high indeed. The same could be said for Fred Astaire's tails. So I think the height is subject to fashion, and rather than go with one modern image of what is most commonly done, I'd rather make an informed choice based on looking at as many past fashions as possible. I hope that you could help me with that. I do know about old hat/saxby etc., and while they are generally far, far better than the off the peg alternatives, the condition isn't always great, and one will never find trousers to match. So I'm still looking for old pictures, if you could be kind enough to share any that you have.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8549/menjou25jy.jpg

[Costi]

YoungLawyer, I may have been mislead by your answering "No, of course no shirt showing below [...]" to my previous comment reading "no white should show between coat and trousers". It is why I felt the need to underline that by "white" I had meant "white waistcoat" and not "white shirt". Never mind now, the idea is clear.
Here is a kind of tailcoat cut you may like, on the tall and slim frame of Anthony Eden:





This is a 1902 fashion drawing, the style of which I DON'T particularly like, with not so high and rather trim trousers:

[YoungLawyer]

Costi,
Thank you very much for your reply - but I fear that your picture didn't load. You couldn't try to post it again, could you?

[Costi]

You are most welcome - I re-edited my post and I hope they are visible now.

[YoungLawyer]

Thank you, that last is very much like the one John Tomlinson is sporting here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDE3yavXs-A
It's always best to see photographs, rather than fashion drawings, and I think it's not quite to my taste either.


Edit: on closer inspection, the actual length of the waistcoat doesn't change all that much between the fashion plate and the later photographs - what really is being altered is the buttoning point (the second picture of AE aside). The fabric below the waistcoat buttons seems to hang down to almost the same length as in the Edwardian fashion plate, so that the waistcoat length doesn't really move that far. The real differences in style on the coat seem to be the number of buttons and the angle that the coat's front quarters (is that the right word?) are cut at - changing from horizontal to angled downwards toward the centre. The trousers must be cut to the same height throughout, but gradually becoming a looser fit.

[YoungLawyer]

I must say, I thought there would be more enthusiasm for this project here!

[storeynicholas]

I don't think that there is a lack of enthusiasm but you do seem to know what you are doing and if you go to a good tailor, you are not going to go far wrong. If you get a midnight blue coat and need trousers, you might avoid the problem in cloth and colour matching by having black, which would not be wrong and, indeed, once was very right. Charity shops, sometimes, have these but it is rather hit and miss.
best,
NJS

[DonB]

I am looking into the possibility of patronising a Dutch bespoke tailor (which explains why I am not opting for Budd's) for a shirt to go with my tails.

To shape my thoughts I wrote down what I would like in a shirt. I would very much welcome any and all comments of the membership of the lounge, and perhaps I am helping Younglawyer in achieving his goal as well. I suppose it is no surprise that I am standing on the shoulders of giants here I am indebted to Etutee and Peter Marshall (http://www.blacktieguide.com) and various other sources.

I would like the shirt to be made up from two different cloths. Pique for the cuffs, the (detachable) collar and the bib, everything else in linen. Furthermore the bib should be double layered and take two studs (being 6'1").

The bottom hem should feature a tab which fastens to the trousers to keep the shirt from riding up:


The shirt of the actor portraying Churchill protrudes up and out due to subpar tailoring in the movie 'Into the Storm':


The collar should be higher than usual for dress shirts. The difference is also seen in the screenshot above. The backside of the shirt should feature a loop to keep the strap of the backless waistcoat and the tie in place:


The frontside of the wingcollar is to feature broad wings as shown below:


Regards,
Don