"Tightness"

[Costi]

Dear S.Gilette,

I am glad my post made you post a picture You appear dressed nicely and, though it's hard to judge from a still picture depicting a person in motion, I might like a little more room in the coat, especially in the lower half.
The point is that SG appears to insist on how a coat MUST look to be considered well tailored, failing to acknowledge that choices of style may require different tailoring techniques, that are no less "appropriate" than the ones he admires.
What I don't admire (but then, again, this is personal preference and opinion) is a coat that looks like this:

[S. Gillette]

Costi, thank you for your answer and compliments on my clothes. Indeed, there are various ways a suit or jacket or trouser can look good and I consider myself lucky to be able to exchange here with people of so many different schools of thought. What one likes especially about his jacket cut may be what another would want to avoid by any means. That's why it's the specific person's jacket, after all.

Here is another jacket from the same pattern in LLTW07 (my first LL cloth):


Because this particular jacket is not worn in properly yet (I has seen the light of day less than half a dozen times so far), it has more of the characteristics you seem to be trying to eschew (percieved as stiffness and tight fit). However, be assured that the fit is absolutely not tight (to me). Au contraire: it feels so loose to the body that one could even forget about its presence altogether. What makes it look fitted is merely the result of skilled ironwork. Also, notice how the jacket's quarters aren't swinging open due to its lower section being to tight but are instead cut fairly open. Here is the same jacket on me standing still (the pulling on one side is due to a second digital camera unusually placed inside the hip pocket):


Of course, I can not really commet on the picture you posted above since the photograph has clearly been edited (see the dark lines etc.) and I don't know how the model underneath is proportioned. I am relatively new to the LL and hope you can forgive me if I don't know how people here have commented on things in the past (your reaction to SG's posts implies your feeling offended by his argumentation in general). All I was trying to convey is that there is more than one way to achieve good fit - a belief which I am happy to see you sharing with me.

[Costi]

All I was trying to convey is that there is more than one way to achieve good fit - a belief which I am happy to see you sharing with me.

Yes, I agree, though this is not exactly my point, but rather the idea that the chosen STYLE dictates the look of a coat, and a "sauber" look is not a requisite of good tailoring.
Your second jacket looks better in the picture, yet it is cut on the same pattern as the first - that is why photography (especially when very small) is tricky. No need to apologize for anything, the point here is to debate, not to establish who is right or wrong
The jacket in the photo I posted has had its edges deliniated, as was the habit in fashion magazines of the era - you can see more of its kind in the original post here: http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... n+magazine.

What do you think of these two coats? Ones is as "sauber" as they come...

[schneidergott]

Please don't confuse cutting (Zuschnitt) with tailoring (schneidern). The first is the process where you determine the style of the garment (including general width, length, shape of lapels, buttoning point and so on), the latter transforms the cut cloth into a garment.
Good cutting makes good tailoring much easier since there would be nothing to doubt about, and yet there are many aspects left to mess things up.
I don't think that proper tailoring (well set in sleeves, neat buttonholes, pockets and fine pick stitching, not to forget accurate pattern matching) will make the garment look lifeless and it is independent from the style of cut (drape or clean).
I find that the style should be chosen according to the physiques of the wearer, rather than being based on marketing or actual fashion hype.
Some men can wear all sorts of styles well, some need to bulk up their slender bodies while others might need a trimmer cut to camouflage some weight problems.

[storeynicholas]

Here's an unusual take on this:-

We might also remember that Brummell wrote a large treatise on men's dress, from ancient times. He surely regarded the influence of the ancients as indicative of good sense in dress. I did, once, have a reference to the book and must find it again and believe that it was, in small numbers, published. One thing is for certain: the Greeks and Romans (male and female) were not overly fond of tight clothing: indeed the English 'Empire line' and 'A-line' dresses of the nineteenth century drew, to some extent, from Greek models. A similar observation on looseness of clothing may be made of the members of Arab and Asian civilizations; along with the Egyptians. Although we, understandably, concentrate on men's dress dating from the last two centuries at most, there must be little doubt that the ancients from whom we do draw, in no small measure, for our own civilization, should still speak to us. Besides an elegant appearance, these peoples were conscious of practicality and would have condemned crotch-hugging trews as likely to lead to infertility (the asphyxiation, even pre-conception, of good stock), and the consequential hastening of the (inevitable) decline and fall of their respective empires. As an aside, they also often exhibited an admirable restraint and modesty in their dress; no doubt, partly (from a male and female point of view), also on the basis that the promise of what is obscured is more alluring than a ton of blubber, swinging loose. We might then go on to wonder whether 1960s' and 1970s' fashions (and Levi 51s) are, in any degree, responsible for the survival, by mere chance, of the inferior gametes that have resulted in our current world leaders (or many of them) and the apparent social and economic sliding into the abyss of our own civilization?
NJS

[Costi]

SG, I used "tailoring" in the sense of making a garment artisanally (so Zuschnitt & Schneidern together). Tailoring stricto sensu, as you refered to it, can certainly only add to a garment, not make it lifeless. But even cutting (Zuschneiden) is a part of a "technical" process that aims to embody a certain style, a vision - of the cutter, of the customer or someone else doing this job; as such, cutting decisions are not only based on the measures and body type, but should also take into consideration the desired stylistic effect. Clean or "sauber" is not a universal ideal - just an option that is not an indication of a superior make.
Style is more than a means to camouflage perceived deviations of the phyisique from an ideal (even the ideal is debatable). Style should, indeed, take into account the body type, but it should also represent the tastes and preferences of the wearer, the way he sees himself, the way he likes to present himself to the world. A lean man may choose to bulk up with roomy clothes, as you write, or NOT - it is a style option. Not to speak of those fortunate men who can successfully wear many styles - in those cases the body type plays hardly any part in choosing the style, yet the style component (which should be clear from the outset) is decisive in choosing the cut and methods of tailoring (soft, hard etc.).
Tailoring (this time lato sensu) is an instrument, not an end in itself. Not even its final product, the clothes, is the final target. The end is the expression of personal style through dress. This is why a good tailor is more than a craftsman, he is also an artist. Otherwise we could program a computer according to a predefined "ideal" system to cut and sew the best fitting clothes and take styling out of the equation - but experience has shown that we dont' want to. Style is an instrinsic component of tailoring, a basic premise in any sartorial endeavour, and not just a trick to adapt an "ideal" cut to flatter one figure or another according to a well-established universal system.
This makes tailoring all the more important (not less), because it is through bespoke tailoring that we are able to materialize these aesthetic aspirations - but in order to do that, tailoring must remain an art and not reduce itself to the practical application of a few handbook principles. Accuracy is pointless without vision and some character to lend to the clothes one makes.

[alden]

This makes tailoring all the more important (not less), because it is through bespoke tailoring that we are able to materialize these aesthetic aspirations .

The key is to say that tailors should not be dressing you in the first place. That is something you will need to do for yourself. Tailors should be making clothes for you, clothes specified according to the style you wish, the one that is yours (not necessarily his or hers.)

And from this statement arises two challenges often written about here. The prospective bespoke client should do enough homework to find a tailor who is capable and willing to make the kind of clothes desired.

All too often, tailors have only one way of doing things, the things they were taught, feel comfortable with or are commercially feasible for them. When I was a young man there was a commercial for perfumes that went something like this: Promise her anything, but give her Arpege! Unfortunately, many tailors will promise you things they cannot do and deliver only what they are willing for you to have. Stay alert! Refuse to listen to a tailor's diversionary tripe and insist on seeing clothes worn by real clients, not in pictures or dummies. You will know a tailor’s works best from their deeds and not their words! Some of the great disappointments with bespoke work can be avoided if one follows this advice.

Great dressers have style before they ever step into the tailors, where they go to buy clothes. You cannot buy style. No one can make it, craft or package it. It has nothing to do with your physique or tailoring manuals. It has to do with you.

Yes, and this fundamental runs afoul of everything you have ever read on the subject (and that alone should lead you to suspect its veracity.)

Cheers

Michael Alden

[alden]

S Gilette

You wear the LLTW07 very well. I am looking forward to seeing it closer in the LL Derby!

Cheers

Michael

[zeitgeist]

The key is to say that tailors should not be dressing you in the first place. That is something you will need to do for yourself. Tailors should be making clothes for you, clothes specified according to the style you wish, the one that is yours (not necessarily his or hers.)

And from this statement arises two challenges often written about here. The prospective bespoke client should do enough homework to find a tailor who is capable and willing to make the kind of clothes desired.

Michael, this is great advice, and would have saved me much woe if I had known it earlier.

It is paramount that one find a tailor who is a counterpoint for one's personal sense of style.

[couch]

Michael, you are of course quite right. I would just say that the point I take from Schneidergott's argument is that a cutter/tailor, like any artist, should be in control of his technique and materials. I don't see that as contradicting your thesis. If a cutter/tailor promises, or is tempted by fashion to produce, a style that he cannot execute well (perhaps "cleanly" or "accurately" are freighted terms), then the results will be poor. This simply confirms your advice to find a tailor who can produce the style one prefers. It may be SG has chosen some unfortunate photos to illustrate his point.

Of course, a great artist should also be able to recognize and incorporate the happy accident.

[Scot]

I must admit to loosing the plot a little with this thread now but it seems to me that "style" is being used here to mean two distinctly different things. The first is the form which a garment takes, this form being the product of deliberate design and execution by client and cutter. It invites categorisation but one suspects it largely resolves into structured and soft. The second usage of style denotes a more indefinable quality which equates with elegance. Michael Alden suggests this is down to the wearer, not the tailor and it seems hard to disagree. That being the case could we accept that whilst style in the former sense may be of some interest to bespoke customers it is only of passing relevance to style in the second sense, which is far more important?

I must agree, however, that it can be surprisingly difficult to have ones vision for ones clothes turned into reality by a tailor! My experience has been that some of my suggestions have been met with reasons why they are not a good idea. The overall results have been pretty good so I can't complain but there are still niggles. I suppose that one must have some trust in a tailors judgement, particularly if they have a good reputation and have been in the business for decades. I also think that they know exactly what they and their team are best at and therefore tend to steer customers in that direction. I am beginning to see that the many comments in this forum about working with a tailor over time are absolutely true, but it can seem like an expensive battle of attrition at times!

[Costi]

Great dressers have style before they ever step into the tailors, where they go to buy clothes. You cannot buy style. No one can make it, craft or package it. It has nothing to do with your physique or tailoring manuals. It has to do with you.

Yes, and this fundamental runs afoul of everything you have ever read on the subject (and that alone should lead you to suspect its veracity.)

Cheers

Michael Alden

Michael, that sounds loud and clear. If the LL were a bell, it should be still reverberating.

[Costi]

I must admit to loosing the plot a little with this thread now but it seems to me that "style" is being used here to mean two distinctly different things. The first is the form which a garment takes, this form being the product of deliberate design and execution by client and cutter. It invites categorisation but one suspects it largely resolves into structured and soft. The second usage of style denotes a more indefinable quality which equates with elegance. Michael Alden suggests this is down to the wearer, not the tailor and it seems hard to disagree. That being the case could we accept that whilst style in the former sense may be of some interest to bespoke customers it is only of passing relevance to style in the second sense, which is far more important?

Scot, let's call the former "garment styling" and the latter - "STYLE".

I must agree, however, that it can be surprisingly difficult to have ones vision for ones clothes turned into reality by a tailor! My experience has been that some of my suggestions have been met with reasons why they are not a good idea. The overall results have been pretty good so I can't complain but there are still niggles. I suppose that one must have some trust in a tailors judgement, particularly if they have a good reputation and have been in the business for decades. I also think that they know exactly what they and their team are best at and therefore tend to steer customers in that direction. I am beginning to see that the many comments in this forum about working with a tailor over time are absolutely true, but it can seem like an expensive battle of attrition at times!

Communication should ideally be two-way between tailor (cutter) and customer, but the customer is not always educated (or informed) enough to be sure about what he wants and the tailor does not always trust the customer's ideas. From my experience, great results come from being able to explain convincingly to the tailor what it is that you want, which also wins his trust to follow your indications, even when they go against his defaults. If you hesitate or are unsure about what you want, the tailor will usually resort to his default in order to avoid a quirky garment that you may find you don't quite like in the end, delivering instead a wearable but neutral garment that has little or nothing to do with the style you were after.