New tailcoat

[Costi]

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.

Excellent idea, I did this on a dinner suit shirt (turndown collar) and I'm very happy with how cool the shirt wears. Make sure the linen is properly soaked before it is cut and, even after that, you need to build in a good shrinking allowance.

[DonB]

Here are some screenshots from the movie Suspicion (Hitchcock - 1941), featuring Cary Grant. I particularly like the styling of his shirt and collar and the way they look in combination with the waistcoat and the tie:




Regards,
Don

PS. The quality of the screenshots show some need for improvement in my opinion. I made the screens using ALT+i in Mediaplayer. I welcome any suggestions which would help me make better ones.

[YoungLawyer]

For those of you who followed this thread, I found a few more answers to my questions here:

http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum/in ... wtopic=150

This was especially useful for the paragraph by Sator about the height of the natural waist.

The film 'The Shooting Party' has some good footage of Edwardian cut evening tails, one even with a shawl collar, and it might be worth a post along the lines of the 'Kind Hearts and Coronets' thread; the suits in both films are quite similar.

The aim of evening dress is, I think, to emphasise waist supression as much as possible. What is the best way to achieve this? The Edwardian style seems to me to place the buttons of the waistcoat on (so just above and just below) the natural waist (the narrowest point). That means that the points of the waistcoat come down over the hips - they don't follow the narrowest line, and they were cut quite square. The 1930s style seems to place the waistcoat buttons above the natural waist, so that the bottom line of the waistcoat follows the narrowest line, and the points are much longer. This has to be put into the context of how full the trousers are. The Edwardian cut seems much narrower, and these couldn't in my opinion be placed with the much higher waist line of the 1930s (although modern mess dress seems to do this, with sometimes superb results). Equally, full cut trousers would look awful with the lower waistline. I still can't decide what looks most flattering on a trim frame. I've only ever seen in the Edwardian style worn in the flesh by much older - and far larger - gentlemen than myself...

[Costi]

Regarding waist suppression, just keep in mind you're not going to be Sarah Bernhardt in an ball dress.
I'd say go with high waisted, full cut trousers and adjust everything else according to the scheme you described. The waistcoat needs to cover the waistband (at all times) and the fronts of the tailcoat need to cover the waistcoat bottom. If you're thin, you risk looking like Jiminy Cricket with the "Edwardian" style.

[schneidergott]

Some suggestions (4 actually!)

[Costi]

YoungLawyer, I hope your evening attire ends up looking like the man in quadrant 2.

[YoungLawyer]

Earlier this week, I went for a first appointment:
I asked for the tails to be made in an 18/19oz barathea (I considered 18oz, but it didn't appear as deep a black)[question; of what weight fabric are your new/old inherited dinner clothes?].
I asked for the tails to be cut with a strap, but with the front of the strap cut slightly at an angle rather than straight across; for the lapels to be all silk, not half covered; for the lapels to be cut high at the top; for there to be an outside breast pocket; for the buttons to be covered with silk to match the lapels; the silk to have narrow cords; for the trousers to be cut with pleats, but to be more trim than the 1930s outline, to try and follow a middle course between that baggy style and the tight outline of overalls/mess dress trousers; those to be done with two strips of narrow braid. The waistcoat will have four studs, and be cut with a shawl collar.
I had a discussion with the tailor about the height of the waist of both the trousers and the coat - and after listening very patiently to me, he told me that rather than discussing those details in the abstract, that those points would be worked out accurately at a first fitting stage, after which the thing would be completely taken apart and work would begin again almost from scratch. He said that work would only really start on the waistcoat when the length and more detailed style of the jacket was worked out at that first fitting, with two more stages of fitting to follow. I assume that is a good, and normal, way to proceed.
Watch this space.

It's all very exciting, though I would welcome any feedback from others who have had similar suits made.

[YoungLawyer]

Does anyone have an opinion on the weight of cloth that I have chosen? It occured to me that 18/19oz might be rather heavy, and I'd be reassured if someone who has a used or inherited a similar weight would speak up! Or, if it's wildly off the mark for a dress coat, if someone could suggest that I reconsider while I still can!

[couch]

I can't yet speak from use, but I recently purchased a vintage (late '30s - early 40s, I estimate) dress suit that is remarkably close to a good fit before tailoring and the wool of which is in excellent condition (the unequally ridged faille facings are a little flattened at the edges). The cloth (a black fine self-herringbone) is very substantial--much heavier than anything else I own except one tweed, so I would not be surprised if it weighed in at 18 oz or more. So your cloth is not "wildly off the mark" as regards historical precedent (as you probably know from your 80-year-old set); the question is whether your own temperature sensitivity and the conditions in which you expect to wear it (with waistcoat, boiled shirt, and tie) will leave you reasonably comfortable in it.

Indeed, many men find that dinner suits to be worn at crowded functions, and/or for dining and drinks, call for cloth that is either more porous in weave (like the Brisa or Mistral) or somewhat lighter in weight and harder in finish (like kid mohair blends) if they are not to overheat. As a full dress coat is shorter and worn unbuttoned, and as your occasions for wearing it may see you on your feet more often, you may not need to go so light. You may also simply prefer to accept a little occasional discomfort for the sake of the line. It is certainly true that a substantial cloth will drape much more elegantly, as old henry has remarked elsewhere on the forum.

Members who wear evening dress in wider variety of circumstances may have more detailed reports from the field.

[YoungLawyer]

Thank you, Couch, for your reply, which is very reassuring. I'd be interested to hear from other members too.

[YoungLawyer]

I’ve decided to stick with the 18/19oz, after looking at it again.

Another technical question relates to the fastening of the trousers. My old trousers had two buttons facing inwards at the waistband. The tailor says that this solution isn’t as strong as a more conventional waistband, and is also more bulky due to extra layers of fabric being needed. Do any of you have a view on this? I’d instinctively opt for that older solution, as it provided a button to put the loop on the shirt on too. The tailor also says that it’s difficult to change from one method to the other at a first fitting stage – I’m a little surprised at that.

[DFR]

What pockets do you have in tail coat in these days? When your old suit was new, doubtless its wearer would not need to be in funds - his chauffeur would drive him and his host feed and water him. These days those luxuries have gone and so we need money - wallets etc. One even needs keys as a Butler or footman is unlikely to be available to open one's door upon return. That requirement is not diminished by one's dress.

So how are trousers and coat adapted to this?

[YoungLawyer]

I habitually only carry one bank card and an oyster card, a key on a ribbon, and perhaps a few notes, all of which fit neatly into the fob pocket. A functional hankerchief occupies one side pocket, and perhaps an invitation and/or dance card sit in the inside breast pocket on the coat. Anything else, such as a telephone, other keys, loose change and other cards stay in my coat. So I don't think I've call for many more pockets than I would have done eighty years ago.
I confess I don't really use the tail pockets, although I'll have them put in regardless.

So: trousers, two vertical side pockets (hankerchief) and a fob pocket (key, cards, etc);
waistcoat, two pockets (one for a slim pocket watch, the other functionless);
Coat, outside pocket (pocket square), inside pocket, two tail pockets (empty).

And so most of those would go unused.


The trouser problem requires a decision tomorrow morning. Do any of you fasten the loop on the shirt front to one of those two inward facing buttons on the waistband, or do you have another button placed lower down on the inside of the fly?

[YoungLawyer]

I had a baste fitting for the tails last week, and I'm glad that I stuck to the 18/19oz fabric, which looks superb.

I noticed a few details on tails which I hadn't considered before:

First was that the waist seam should sit just on the hips, and not above, on the natural waist. Looking again at old pictures and fashion plates, that seems to be the case even in the 1930s, although post war tails seem to be cut rather higher, and are not to my eye as elegant. Discussion on the internet seems to place this seam at the natural waist - and this is too high. I'm having my tails cut with a narrow strap, and in order to keep the proportions, I'm having the waistcoat points cut to finish in line with the waist seam. I think that distance, with the waistcoat cut a little shorter, will prevent it from become visable during wear. The overall effect has a slightly 'lower' waistline than I'd considered, so I asked for the (four) buttons on the waistcoat to be raised, and to have longer points below them.

Secondly, was that the tailor suggested that I choose to have the tails cut below the knee. The tailor suggests that contrary to fashion plates, which often show them shorter, the best place for the tails to end is just off the calf. I think that's a little long, but I'm willing to see what the effect is. Out of interest, I checked again in the Granada production of 'Brideshead', and several tails were cut to that longer length, and their lenght didn't seem so long that I'd noticed it at all before. In 'The Shooting Party', the tails are cut rather shorter.

Thirdly, he had cut the waist of the trousers rather lower than I'd anticipated, and I asked him to raise them to just below the buttons on the waistcoat. I think that will mean that the waistband on the trousers will finish just below the buttons on the waistcoat, and then the waistband on the trousers will be covered by the points on the waistcoat. That will mean that the lower edge of the waistband will be just above my hips, and the buttons of the waistcoat will be on my natural waist. Is that how yours are arranged? How high are the high-waisted trousers that you have cut?

I'll ask to take a picture or two at the first proper fitting to illustrate the progress, if anyone is still following this thread.

[storeynicholas]

Four waistcoat buttons and longer points used to be the thing for certain wear, such as hunt balls, but not for Court wear when the shorter points were actually specified. I am not sure what you mean by the waistcoat points covering the trouser waistband; surely the waistband should be well and truly covered.
NJS