"Tightness"

"The brute covers himself, the rich man and the fop adorn themselves, the elegant man dresses!"

-Honore de Balzac

schneidergott
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:13 pm
Location: Castle Douglas, Scotland

Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:57 pm

I don't mind a "slim cut" coat, but it works on very few physiques and only if done right. What we see now is just a manipulation of an already insufficient cut.
That's why I said modern patternmakers don't know the basics any more.
Proper waist suppression is a tricky thing and done wrong it will give horrible results. Sadly, except for a few men and women, many still fall for those ill fitting garments. "Style over substance, image over good fit" Hurray!!! :wink:
Costi
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:03 pm

Style and "substance" (understood as proper tailoring) ought to come together. Between the two, however, I believe that STYLE should be the leading force, and the required tailoring techniques should follow it. Good fitting clothes that lack style are nothing to be proud of, either for the maker or for the wearer.
It is the architect who creates the house in his mind and on paper, and then the constructor should be able to realize it as planned and designed. I wouldn't want to live in a house designed and built by a constructor without a plan... unless the constructor happens to be an architect, too!
Scot
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 8:44 pm
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Costi wrote:Style and "substance" (understood as proper tailoring) ought to come together. Between the two, however, I believe that STYLE should be the leading force, and the required tailoring techniques should follow it. Good fitting clothes that lack style are nothing to be proud of, either for the maker or for the wearer.
It is the architect who creates the house in his mind and on paper, and then the constructor should be able to realize it as planned and designed. I wouldn't want to live in a house designed and built by a constructor without a plan... unless the constructor happens to be an architect, too!
Hmm, not sure about this Costi. The stylish coat that does not fit is unwearable. And a house that looks marvellous on paper but which falls down is not much use either. The well fitting coat without style will at least have a degree of utility. For the aspirations of most LL members to be fulfilled, though, surely style and substance must come together!
alden
Posts: 8209
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:58 am
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:05 pm

The stylish coat that does not fit is unwearable. And a house that looks marvellous on paper but which falls down is not much use either. The well fitting coat without style will at least have a degree of utility. For the aspirations of most LL members to be fulfilled, though, surely style and substance must come together!
Scot,

Don't be too much lured by the siren's song of fit. There are some of us that can have it and some of us (so deformed) it will always be a bit of a challenge. But be that as it may, I do have to agree with Costi's comments based on my own observation over the years.

I have seen legions of men in perfect clothes, who have spent largely in time and resources to have them, who had a zero "style" quotient. To complicate matters, I have seen a good many men with not so perfectly fit clothes who had presence and style that filled rooms, no that filled amphitheaters and had a most unusual effect on ladies. Of men who possessed great clothes and style together, I might have seen a dozen in 30 years living between far flung outposts in London, Paris and Italy. So, it can happen, but it is extremely rare.

So my advice is to get the best fit you can and focus on lifting your style quotient in any way you can.
The good news is you don't need a tailor to do that, you need a mirror. The bad news is that no one can sell it to you. It is not commercially available. That makes it devilishly attractive.

Let me rewrite this sentence, "The stylish coat that does not fit is unwearable" to read "The stylish man in a coat that does not fit is unbearable!"

Cheers

Michael
Costi
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:14 pm

Scot wrote:For the aspirations of most LL members to be fulfilled, though, surely style and substance must come together!
Precisely my idea, Scot. I just added to it the notion that, if both are present in a garment (as they should), it is tailoring that must follow style and not vice versa. In other words, first a decision is made (by the cutter, the designer, the client - whoever it is that styles the garment) on what the planned piece of clothing is to look like, what kind of image it should convey. Then it is the job of the actual maker (tailor) to ensure that it comes out as planned.
I don't like the idea of a tailor deciding to amend the design of a coat with respect to the cutter's (and customer's) plan, because he has different ideas on how clothes should fit: snug or loose, draped or lean, how long or how short, with narrower or wider lapels or higher or lower buttoning point. There are many tailoring techniques available and a good tailor should know how to choose the one that best serves the style chosen by the cutter and customer. Of course, whoever it is that plans the garment should have a good understanding of what is possible and what can be achieved given the body, the cloth, the kind of garment - so that the design is not impossible. If cutter and tailor are one and the same, I believe he should avoid letting his personal view of fit get in the way of styling the garment as the customer likes it.
We tend to speak of fit as an absolute notion, that can only manifest itself in one way with any one person - I think that is a false notion. Fit is, to a certain degree, relative to style. A body coat and a draped jacket may both fit a customer well, although they will look (and FEEL) quite differently. If well cut and tailored, both may be comfortable, although some may think the body coat as being "too tight" or the draped jacket as being "too loose" - this is a matter of style, of preference, of the image that the customer wants his clothes to convey.
There is no style without good fit, that's for sure. But well-fitting clothes with the wrong style (or none whatsoever) are by no means a better alternative. Both need to be present and, as stated before, in my view the leading force is style, while good tailoring should follow it and give it the best expression.
Scot
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 8:44 pm
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:14 pm

Michael, I don't disagree with anything you say and, Costi, likewise for your clarified position. However, I am not sure if you are both saying quite the same thing. Michael seems to be saying start with a decent fit, the rest is up to you. Costi, that style is intrinsic to the garment, and something that is positively planned in its conception and construction. For the former, style is largely achieved after the tailors work is done, for the latter it is part of the tailors work. There is no great contradiction here I think, just a slight difference in emphasis.

We are, perhaps, beginning from different places. When I walk down an average town street what I see is men wearing suits that are so far from fitting they don't have hope in hell of of being stylish: coats 3 or 4 inches too long, sleeves 2 or 3 inches too long, no hope of actually buttoning up without splitting the seams, etc, etc! A suit that fitted, by almost any definition, would be such an aesthetic improvement that the question of whether it was worn with "style" would really be a secondary consideration.

For my part I am still working through fit and style issues with my relatively new tailor. I would say we are 85-90% of the way there. Is this good enough? Should I stop obsessing about "perfecting" the pattern and concentrate on "dressing"?
alden
Posts: 8209
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:58 am
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:39 pm

For my part I am still working through fit and style issues with my relatively new tailor. I would say we are 85-90% of the way there. Is this good enough? Should I stop obsessing about "perfecting" the pattern and concentrate on "dressing"?
Yes.

Work with your tailor but do not be obsessive about it. Concentrate on your dress, composition, tone, colors etc, the things that will enrich your dress with your own style.

I have rarely, if ever, met someone with a micro focus on tailoring look especially good. If anything the obsessive notes come through like a gallon of YSL Opium split on the clothes, the look is studied, lacks spontaneity or humor.

Let your imagination lead you, not your brain. Try to see the world as you did when you were a child, capturing images without thought. Put those images together and let your eye be your guide. Though I have yet to write the essay, this is the idea behind some of the silent movies on DWS. (Stay tuned for more.)

Cheers

Michael
carl browne
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:05 pm
Location: Newport Beach, California
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:57 pm

I think that good tailoring has more to do with hiding physical flaws, and accentuating the strengths. Fit, style, cloth, and everything else should work to that end, I think.

Imagine Quasimodo in a perfectly fitted suit--one cut to follow the outlines of his figure. Not helpful!

C
Costi
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:16 pm

Scot, take Michael's advice - "perfect" fit can only go as far as your tailor can take it, and then "perfect" fit alone is not the universal solution to fine dress (not at all, actually!); style, instead, is all in your power.
Indeed, I referred to style as SG mentioned it, i.e. the inherent style of a tailor-made garment, whereas Michael refers to personal style in the way you dress. The former is but an instrument in service to the latter, which is the essence of dress.
Michael, do write the essay - all these pieces of wisdom scattered just get lost in these threads; they will make so much more sense when they are pieced together. Balzac taught us that elegance is an attribute of the WHOLE :wink:
Costi
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:25 pm

carl browne wrote:I think that good tailoring has more to do with hiding physical flaws, and accentuating the strengths. Fit, style, cloth, and everything else should work to that end, I think.

Imagine Quasimodo in a perfectly fitted suit--one cut to follow the outlines of his figure. Not helpful!

C
Quasimodo is repugnant because he is aware of his deformity and is ashamed by it. If he tried to dress such as to hide his malformations, he would only add ridicule to it, because his deformity would still be visible ALONG with his effort to hide it.
He would stop being repugnant the moment he admitted his condition as a given fact and stopped being ashamed of it or trying to hide it.
carl browne
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:05 pm
Location: Newport Beach, California
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:37 pm

Wow, Costi, excellent point. Perhaps the Hunchback is too extreme an example. But you are right. You bring to mind the example of large men. Those who wear their trousers at the natural waist supported by braces--those that celebrate their girth--tend to look better than those who wear their trousers on the hip, supported by a belt with the belly hanging over it.

However, given a more ordinary figure, I still have to stand by my position that cut, fit, style, cloth, etc. should should all be employed to flatter the wearer --minimize the flaws and accentuate the strengths. Perhaps not to hide nature, but just improve upon it a little. If this makes the clothes appear a bit anachronistic, or somehow out of step with current style, fine. Far better that than stylish and unflattering.

C
Costi
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:34 pm

carl browne wrote:Those who wear their trousers at the natural waist supported by braces--those that celebrate their girth--tend to look better than those who wear their trousers on the hip, supported by a belt with the belly hanging over it.
Carl, excellent point! :wink:
carl browne wrote:However, given a more ordinary figure, I still have to stand by my position that cut, fit, style, cloth, etc. should should all be employed to flatter the wearer --minimize the flaws and accentuate the strengths. Perhaps not to hide nature, but just improve upon it a little. If this makes the clothes appear a bit anachronistic, or somehow out of step with current style, fine. Far better that than stylish and unflattering.
But of course! The secret is feeling confident and at peace with yourself: not hiding nature, as you wrote. If you have a belly you can't (or won't) lose, rather than wear a corset, wear clothes that take your belly into account and look as good as possible while doing it. If you have a dropped shoulder, rather than use padding to level it out, have a coat made that takes it into account - that's what individual fit is about. Cherish those imperfections upon which you cannot improve. Make a virtue of necessity. That's what "unapologetic" means, along with feeling confident about your tastes and choices. That is why the style you choose must be your own, so you would believe in it. Clothes may be judged in se - taken apart, analyzed, put back together and displayed in a shop window; but dress is judged in relation to the wearer, who is a living person. This makes all the difference in the world.
Jordan Marc
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:59 pm
Contact:

Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:13 pm

Some clarification about clothes worn on screen in the 'Golden Age' of Hollywood needs to be understood. Lead actors had to pay for their own clothing; the allowance was written into their contracts. The wear-and-tear of white tie-and-tails worn by Astaire for take after take in his pictures necessitated an entire rack of identical costumes, replete with matching accessories right down to his patent lace-ups. This is what once prompted Astaire to say that he never actually owned a tail suit; the studio did. Further, a stand-up suit and a matching sit-down suit were made differently. The stand-up is self-explanatory, but its sit-down
counterpart was often made with one sleeve longer than the other. If a scene called for a medium shot of
an actor seated at a table with a gorgeous actress, the script might read:

INT. RICK'S CAFE - OFFICE - NIGHT

The cafe is closed. Ilsa and Rick are seated in his office.

ILSA
(quietly)
I wasn't sure you were the same. Let's see, the last time we met...

RICK
(puffing on a cigarette)
Was La Belle Aurore.

ILSA
How nice, you remembered. But, of course, that was the day the
Germans marched into Paris.

RICK
Not an easy day to forget.

ILSA
No.

RICK
I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue.

The next time you watch Casablanca, see if you can spot the costume change of Bogart's coat so the longer sleeve doesn't ride up. That same sort of movie magic often applied if the scene entailed a
fight. If the actor's sleeve was ripped to shreds, it was made as a breakaway. Too much attention is being paid to tight versus loose. The fit is tailored to the torso of the customer, onscreen or off.

JMB
storeynicholas

Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:01 pm

JMB - If you watch the 'Of all the gin joints' scene carefully, you will also see that he changes his DJ half way through...look at the cuff buttons. :D A little like the yellow sports car in Ben Hur although I have never seen that.
NJS
JRLT
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:27 am
Contact:

Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:09 pm

And also like the little yellow Porsche in Commando. :D In one scene A. Schwarzenegger smashes it up, in the next he drives it away in pristine condition.
Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests