A&S critic

[pur_sang]

http://tuttofattoamano.blogspot.com/sea ... 20Sheppard

I just saw this blog, and this particular post caught my attention. The blog seems very informative and interesting, and I'm sure most members here will find it the same too.

Although the author did praise/confirm a few aspects of an A&S suit, but I will say it is mostly very critical. What do people think?

Can anyone comment on the current quality of work at A&S? I will presume it must be positive?

Also, very interesting how he's all praises towards Caraceni in general (both Domenico Caraceni and A. Caraceni), and not so much praise towards the MD of A&S.

[Gruto]

“You either swear by our coats or you swear at them.”

I think jeffreyd's dissections of garments from famous tailors are of great value. Certainly I like to follow them, and I cannot subscribe to the view that some seem to hold that such dissections are blasphemous. Reason rules, IMO.

The post you mention addresses mediocre construction of a particular A&S coat from 1987. I have no reason not to believe jeffreyd when he dismisses the construction. That said, it must be difficult to say a lot about fit and style without seing the original owner wearing the coat, and jeffreyd might go a little far in his consclusions on these matters.

[pur_sang]

But beyond fit and style, he really criticised their craftsmanship. Maybe this is 1987, but he don't seem to believe that anything has changed from his comments. If that is true, isn't it a bit strange that A&S has the reputation that it has?

More and more, I believe not only you need to see the garment on the person, but also see the person without the garment. This is the only way you can see whether the garment have made the person look better.

[Etutee]

But beyond fit and style, he really criticised their craftsmanship. Maybe this is 1987, but he don't seem to believe that anything has changed from his comments. If that is true, isn't it a bit strange that A&S has the reputation that it has?

Not really. A&S customers, while being much more knowledgeable than the median fashion design consumers are still NOT tailors. As such, their views as consumers are likely to be more subjective than technical. Remember in that blog everything (or mostly) is from a pure technical point of view, which is definitely praise worthy but that is not the entire bespoke experience. A great percent of "reputation" is built on how customers feel about a particular brand or company rather than from a technical viewpoint about their garments.

To put it in much crude form; do you think Armani, Prada, Dior etc deserve the reputation they have? We all would say clearly NO but a majority of their customers don't share our views and certainly don't base their loyalty on technical side at all. Just like as in the case of A&S here but to a much lesser extent.

It is easy to argue on the technical part but much more difficult to do so on the bespoke "experience" part. We cannot possibly split the bespoke process i.e, garment without the bespeaker. That usually does not work. However, what we CAN do is judge just the technical aspect.

my two cents

[pur_sang]

I think the point you made about the designer labels is very interesting. As the general public often think a designer label is the highest level for clothing, and bespoke and haute couture customers know otherwise. I guess it depends on whether a bespoke suit customer is there for the technical or aesthetic aspect. I will presume most are there for the technical!?

However, if we are there for the technical aspect, trusting this blogger, he seems to give higher praise to Zegna Couture, Brioni and the like.

The more I read, the more I lean towards a high quality RTW that I know it looks good when I put it on, no hassles.

[J.S. Groot]

I guess it depends on whether a bespoke suit customer is there for the technical or aesthetic aspect. I will presume most are there for the technical!?

Really? I certainly trust that most here are into bespoke because of aesthetics.

Then again, can they be separated? I think not. To many bespoke customers, a coat that not only fits and is correctly proportioned, but also hugs your neck without lifting, sits across the back with no rumpling and has lapel rolls that are alive (etc.) is also the most aesthetically pleasing. Incidentally, these traits are achieved with high technical standards, that is, a lot of hand work.

[pur_sang]

J.S. Groot, interesting how the critic cannot and did not address the points that you mentioned, which is in agreement with Etutee's statement that you cannot judge a garment without its bespeaker.

[Costi]

I wonder when (or, rather, if) this fast food vs haute cuisine discussion is ever going to end. The same arguments roll over and over again, like the waves of the sea and nobody wants to see the others' "truth" - one side's being that all waves come from the sea and not the beach, while the other's is that any wave will end up breaking on the shore and return to the sea (oh, you think it's the same thing?!).
Handwork does not make the difference between bespoke and RTW. The most important difference is in the way the cloth is cut and fitted. A bespoke tailor is free to choose his techniques and methods, incorporating as much handwork as he sees fit, since handwork is an instrument and not the purpose (or substance) of his work.
Some people, if they had a Saxa porcelain figure in their hands, would feel the need to smash it on the ground to see if it really is that fragile. A lesson of anatomy may be interesting, but seeing the entrails of a human won't stop one from falling in love the next day. To answer the initial question, this curiosity does not (and cannot, as pursang noted) provide answers to the matters we care about (style, if synthesized in one word), because we are looking for explanations in the wrong place and, if anything, it shows that style remains fascinating in spite (rather than because) of all technicalities behind it. But doesn't love work the same way? In fact, it is easier and more probable to love a living person, with all its imperfections (or because of them) than an artificial clone.
A bespoke suit is a love affair: there is the longing, the courtship, the waiting, the first date, the second, the first night at home, the next day, then many years of mutual understanding and appreciation, growing old together beautifully. I don't want to write the word that describes the part of RTW in this metaphor, but you see it in a window at a street corner, you take it home the next minute, you have it the same night; next day you take a better look at it in daylight and notice some shortcomings (didn't it look perfect last night?); after a while you wonder what you saw in it in the first place and, if you don't have the strength of character to get rid of it and look for something that offers deeper satisfaction, you decide to keep it anyway (because you paid for it) and take it for a ride every now and then. Of course, there is the "My Fair Lady" alternative, but then you need a good eye for the right raw material and what you see in it is what it can become (through "styling"?), rather than a quick fix. If you are so lucky as to spot your true style in a shop window and it's called Armani, Brioni or Magdalene, go for it and never look back. But it's useless to tell the lover that the object of his love has bad bones or false teeth...

[Greger]

The problem is that A&S is the only ones that make coats with certain futures that separate them from everybody else, so you don't have a choice, except from a couple of others who used to work for them. A&S does a fine job some places with their coats and theory, but they really drop the ball in other places they shouldn't. Even in some of their theory places they failed. They brag about doing two fittings instead of three when they should be doing three or four or more when needed, instead of protecting their reputation. Reputation should never over rule fit. Hugging the neck; how many other tailors do that without drawing attention to it? Drape; when you see one drape line that is vertical and on the other side the other one is diagonal means they don't care to do a proper fitting. Or two "drapes" on one side and one drape on the other. The fitting problems list could go on and on. Sometimes you pay for what you get- their prices are lower. Construction sometimes is not up to par either. It is a catch 22 when they have something you want and they are the only ones that produce it along with all the crude that comes with it.

Some customers know what should be done, but other customers need to be shoved out the door when they start demanding. There are no easy answers.

[J.S. Groot]

The most important difference is in the way the cloth is cut and fitted.

I guess it could be argued that this could qualify as hand work as well, although I admit that it was not my meaning in my previous post

Nice metaphor by the way. Very poetic.

[JDelage]

The examples that have been posted here and elsewhere were sometimes - to say the least - unconvincing. See the "3 different tailors, 3 very different suits" for example.

[Costi]

The most important difference is in the way the cloth is cut and fitted.

I guess it could be argued that this could qualify as hand work as well, although I admit that it was not my meaning in my previous post

You are right, of course. I'll explain better what I meant.
Some "top" RTW lines boast a certain amount of handwork as a hallmark of quality, attention to detail or "sartorial" make: handsewn buttonholes, maybe some pickstitching along the lapel edges, handsewn crosstiched buttons etc. They go as far as faking handwork (machines that imitate the pickstitching, for instance), just to impart a "sartorial" air to their products.
However, as far as true bespoke tailoring is concerned, handwork is so essential in every step (as you write) that it becomes nothing to boast about. But if a tailor chooses to use a machine-padded collar, I don't think it's the end of the world. And if he has a good quality shoulder pad that fits a client very well, again I don't think it's a crime to use it, rather than make his own. I don't think these things define the essence of bespoke tailoring. Of course, this logic mustn't be taken too far. But when the difference in the final result (and behaviour of the garment in time) is neglectable, I have come to believe it is not a crime to spare some unessential handwork - which can be a nice touch, but it is not essential.
I have recently admired a pair of Ambrosi trousers, which incorporate a tremendous amount of handwork. While I very much admire the skill, patience and painstaking consistency in handworking a pair of trousers, and while I admit that some handsewn details are a very nice touch, there is no doubt in my mind that trousers that fit and wear just as well can be made with a lot less handwork, without compromising either functionality or aesthetics. In other words, they are no "more bespoke" than other trousers that are cut just as well and sewn carefully using a machine, but they are without doubt a beautiful (and functional) piece of sartorial art pour les connaisseurs.
It is also a matter of trust in the tailor's honesty that whatever means and tecniques he employs, he won't spare time and work when it could make a difference for the client, but without guarding the sacred fire of the thimble and needle like a Vestal. Bespoke tailoring is simply not a cult.
Perhaps this sort of fundamentalism is better explained today (but not so much in the eighties) by the proliferation of industrially MTM clothing called "bespoke" (legally, too!) just for the fact that it is somewhat adjusted or "personalized" for a particular client. Faced with such perverse attacks meant to confuse uneducated customers, perhaps the small world of bespoke tailors feels more acutely the need to defend by barricading itself behind the time-honoured methods, insisting on every detail that can set it apart from industrial techniques, but we shouldn't judge the past with today's eyes.

[J.S. Groot]

Well said throughout.

Some "top" RTW lines boast a certain amount of handwork as a hallmark of quality, attention to detail or "sartorial" make: handsewn buttonholes, maybe some pickstitching along the lapel edges, handsewn crosstiched buttons etc. They go as far as faking handwork (machines that imitate the pickstitching, for instance), just to impart a "sartorial" air to their products.

In my eyes, seeking these details for the sake of the details themselves, that is, for the sake of showing off your "bespoke", is not much better than toting around a LV monogram bag.*

*I reserve my rights to be hypocritical. I still like my coat cuffs working

[manton]

I am not going to cut up my A&S to see what is inside, but A) I saw it as it was being made and it clearly had a hand-made intercollar and had-padded fronts; and B) from the outside, it looks as well made as any English clothing I have (and better than most, actually) though perhaps a hair behind the best Italians. You can't fault the make of what they are puting out these days.

[alden]

An off topic post but who remembers the great 1985 run for the US dollar against the GBP, and SR suits costing $900-$1200 (which was less than most good RTW of the time.)

The streets of SR were lined with Yanks, Wallstreeters, (or anyone whose income was in US dollars) hauling away dozens of suits. I have to say a good deal of my own work wardrobe was built in those years. Parisian restaurants limited the number of American clients, so as not to have them full of tourists every night. A Porsche 911 turbo could be had for $25K. French and English antiques and art were vacuumed Stateside. A large house in the countryside behind St. Tropez full of antiques could be had for $40K. Never since the days of the sacking of Rome had such a volume of goods being exported in so little time by so few.

It was fun. But I can imagine makers were stressed to keep up with the demand.
They are stressed to keep up with the demand today as well for different reasons: attractive rates for the GBP; exaggerated SR marketing stoking demand (that never existed before); fewer experienced and capable craftsmen. We read about SR snafus on the LL all too often as marketing “spiel” gets way ahead of production capacity. Bespoke simply is not scalable. In this regard, Jeff D’s vigilance about quality standards in tailoring is pertinent for consumers.

There are two conversations here. One is about clothes and one is about style. A man can have great clothes and not have style. And he can have great style without clothes. If good clothing is the subject, then questions regarding the quality of the make are on target. Because we tend to focus more on questions of style on the LL we assume (and maybe incorrectly) that we possess clothing of excellent manufacture. In any case, the quality of the make has to be sufficient to transmit the style in a durable way.

My advice is to work with businesses and craftsmen who can provide the look you want (one in accord with your own style) with a make that will last, wear well, assume a patina and remain handsome. That is not an easy thing to find these days.

Cheers

Michael Alden