The Myth of the Soft Shoulder
Nevermind, the shoulder fit of the tweed is great, soft or not so. Your pocket square combination is a masterly pick. Cheers, LG
Indeed, great tweed and that superb pocket square gives it just the right character - remarkable choice. The shoulder looks lightly padded rather than "soft" - the wadding seems to compensate the structure.
-
Greger
What is a soft shoulder? Canvas is structure. Two layers is more structure. Maybe add another layer in the shoulder. Add to that a cover, such as felt, and you have even more structure. Wadding isn't much of anything, and the lest of structure, if you want to call it structure at all. Pad-stitching adds to structure. Take five sheets of veneer and it as a unit is bendy. Add glue and it becomes plywood, which is hard to bend. It is rather miss-leading when a tailor says wadding (padding) is structure. More like an outright lie. Some tailors take the canvasses up to the shoulder. A&S takes the canvass over the shoulder, that would be more structure, wouldn't it? Some tailors put padding in the shoulder to keep it from clasping. How much do they put in? A thumb size? A palm size? This sort of padding you don't feel (in my opinion if you feel the padding then the coat is a miss-fit, unless it goes further up the shoulder than half way). A&S puts in more than that, and it has no reason for clasping, but for some other reason. Some put in more to create a style. Some tailors put cuts in the canvass to weaken the structure- that makes it softer. Is there over a hundred ways to do these canvasses? The cut of the coat also effects the feel of the coat. Where the seams are- really makes a difference. In movement how are the seams pulled under the stress. Rarely is the length of the seam under stress. But crosswise and diagonal- very much so. This is where the type of stitch really matters. There are many miss-conceptions floating around. Some have been put out by the tailors who themselves were taught the myths as facts. I'm sure there are many secrets to this canvass subject that tailors keep from each other. Being restricted to internet knowledge is not being open minded to the many variations, and some unknown to i-gents could be way better. As shown above if some tailors don't know what they are talking about then how could i-gents know more? How many ways are there to do firm shoulders where the customer thinks it is soft, because it feels that way. Anyway, the combination of pluses and minuses can go in many different directions.
And the point is...? 
There are a hundred ways to make beef steak, yet the result can always be described as raw, medium or overdone. If the cook came to your table to wonder with you what medium may mean, how medium is medium, and why that is so, and how many combinations of size, temperature, cooking time and techniques there are to achieve that, you would probably think he is making game of you.
There are a hundred ways to make beef steak, yet the result can always be described as raw, medium or overdone. If the cook came to your table to wonder with you what medium may mean, how medium is medium, and why that is so, and how many combinations of size, temperature, cooking time and techniques there are to achieve that, you would probably think he is making game of you.
i see the poster's point and it seems to illuminate the sloppy use of terminology ...but costi is right---some shoulders are clearly and visibly less structured than others.........
and some are clearly more padded and squared than others...
etc
and some are clearly more padded and squared than others...
etc
Soft shoulder, it is like porn - one knows when one sees it.Costi wrote:And the point is...?
Also, don't forget that booty is in the eyes of the beholder.
- M
-
Greger
It is more complicated than that. If you thoroughly pad stitch two layers of canvas that will be way more structured than one that is partially pad stitched with some fluff of wadding. And as I said how you use the wadding makes a world of difference. Just because in the 80s some people used lots of wadding for some style effect doesn't mean that you can't have a harder coat without the wadding simply by the method of pad-stitching and other stitches.
And as I said there is more. Look at shoulder shape. How does the coat fit? From mid shoulder to the end you have thin air between the canvas and the body. A mis-fit is where the coat is setting on the outer shoulder, which means you have thin air between the coat and body up by the neck. In the later you have the coat and collar clasping so you have ugly lines. Now you could add padding up there instead, and maybe some tailors do for a long necked person to make the neck look shorter. So it is not structure, but filling or prop that you don't see or even the wearer feeling, because this isn't about style. I don't want to re-explain for the ends. And there are other ways to do this too. If you were around before the 80s you would have heard many other reasons for a number of different shoulders that have never been mentioned on the internet. Some style use shoulder padding while others don't use shoulder padding for the style, but use it for other reasons. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge that hasn't shown up on the internet yet.
Wadding is also used for a number of other reasons. There are at least two types of hunch backs that tailors have used wadding for hundreds of years to give the appearance that the person isn't a hunch back or hardly a hunch back. Again, wadding is not used for structure. And they do use wadding other places, too.
With so much of this sometimes a tailor will tell one aspect that some tailor do sometimes but it doesn't paint all tailors for that one aspect every time. And if I put some goose down in there instead of wadding you certainly couldn't say it is for structure, because goose down has no structure.
And as I said there is more. Look at shoulder shape. How does the coat fit? From mid shoulder to the end you have thin air between the canvas and the body. A mis-fit is where the coat is setting on the outer shoulder, which means you have thin air between the coat and body up by the neck. In the later you have the coat and collar clasping so you have ugly lines. Now you could add padding up there instead, and maybe some tailors do for a long necked person to make the neck look shorter. So it is not structure, but filling or prop that you don't see or even the wearer feeling, because this isn't about style. I don't want to re-explain for the ends. And there are other ways to do this too. If you were around before the 80s you would have heard many other reasons for a number of different shoulders that have never been mentioned on the internet. Some style use shoulder padding while others don't use shoulder padding for the style, but use it for other reasons. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge that hasn't shown up on the internet yet.
Wadding is also used for a number of other reasons. There are at least two types of hunch backs that tailors have used wadding for hundreds of years to give the appearance that the person isn't a hunch back or hardly a hunch back. Again, wadding is not used for structure. And they do use wadding other places, too.
With so much of this sometimes a tailor will tell one aspect that some tailor do sometimes but it doesn't paint all tailors for that one aspect every time. And if I put some goose down in there instead of wadding you certainly couldn't say it is for structure, because goose down has no structure.
I am not a professional tailor and we are mainly talking about dress and style here, rather than tailoring techniques; therefore, I use words describing the shoulder treatment from the perspective of the wearer, not of the tailor - that is, they refer to the look, to the visual effect, to the style message. If a tailor could use a "soft" technique to achieve a "structured" look, I will describe the result as "structured" as far as the look is concerned.
Finally, technical sartorial culture is only useful insofar it helps men understand the underlying techniques involved in achieving a certain look, but we should beware of getting absorbed in these professional details and miss the real target. I trust a talented tailor to understand what kind of result I want and employ those techniques that will lead there; if I can learn a thing or two in the process (because I have a talkative tailor or I ask too many questions), that only adds to the charm of the experience (like a restaurant chef coming to your table with a mobile stove to prepare you a couple of Crepes Suzette under your eyes), but it doesn't make me forget the reason why I am there.
I think it is self-deceiving to assume that all those who post on the intetnet today were born, raised and educated on the internet. Like yourself, most posters on the LL do have out-of-the-internet, real-life experience and what they know and post is not what they learned on the internet. Most bespoke customers with the least interest in what they are paying for (99% of the cases) go through a so-called "customer's apprenticeship" which creates common language with a tailor and helps the customer understand and appreciate what he is getting. This often means a lot of stories from the past, remarks, comments that create a "sartorial culture" that some enjoy sharing on the internet, which doesn't mean that's where they got it.Greger wrote: There is a tremendous amount of knowledge that hasn't shown up on the internet yet.
Finally, technical sartorial culture is only useful insofar it helps men understand the underlying techniques involved in achieving a certain look, but we should beware of getting absorbed in these professional details and miss the real target. I trust a talented tailor to understand what kind of result I want and employ those techniques that will lead there; if I can learn a thing or two in the process (because I have a talkative tailor or I ask too many questions), that only adds to the charm of the experience (like a restaurant chef coming to your table with a mobile stove to prepare you a couple of Crepes Suzette under your eyes), but it doesn't make me forget the reason why I am there.
i appreciate these additional details as helpign me understand the varying types of construciton and the complex matrix of structures that give various end-results
it helps in asking better questions...and gives hints at different solutions to the same problem
but visually a soft looking shoulder is a real phenomenon, however arrived at
and i quite like them, personally, but they suit my frame so...
it helps in asking better questions...and gives hints at different solutions to the same problem
but visually a soft looking shoulder is a real phenomenon, however arrived at
and i quite like them, personally, but they suit my frame so...
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gentlemen, who would deny that the Gable, Fairbanks, Gabin, Agnelli et al structured silhouettes pictured above are supremely elegant?
They are all that 'soft' is not: masculine, forceful, vital and decisive.
Look at Gabin in the photo above. Would he have the same impact, could he play the same character in a soft, round silhouette? No.
And Agnelli would still be Agnelli even in a soft, round silhouette by Rubinacci in the style of Sig. Beppe Modenese (photo below), but do you think that he would any longer be admired for his sober elegance, panache, considered distinguished and dashing ? No.
No, clothes do not make the man though they certainly can enhance or diminish his stature, his innate force, vitality and style....
Indeed, I would guess that the photo of Agnelli above in the grey suit is cut by Colin Hammick (photo below) of Huntsman, Agnelli's long time tailoring house. A structured coat. Probably 1" extension on each shoulder, padded to be squared but subtly so in the finest bespoke tradition of restraint and elegance. A superb structured coat. Bravo.
Please show me a soft silhouette which can compare with this measure of elegance.... I cannot find one photo from the 1930s, 40s, 50s worn by any elegant man.
Now these structured shoulders are not 'big' and they are not ' horizontal'. Let's not exaggerate here, gentlemen.
No. What they are, are firm shoulders with a bit padding which both elevates and extends the shoulder line to make a handsome, masculine line.
As to definitions of soft vs. structured, well, I will leave that to the semanticists. I don't think that you will narrow it down to weights and measures. You know it when you see it, don't you? A picture is much more valuable to me.
Even Huntsman describes its shoulder as 'natural'. I refer to the description of the Huntsman coat by its long time (now deceased) managing director, Colin Hammick:
“Ours tends to be a slim line,” Hammick said in 1990, “influenced by the hacking coat, with a slight waist and a slight flare and a rather low opening on our coats. We try to keep a natural shoulder, but not a Brooks Brothers shoulder. We tend to rely on the silhouette of the garment rather than the details.”
But definitions aside, I will only add here that when I originally started this post, I did mean soft and round. It is the roundness which disturbs and jars me. It's not good looking. Unfortunately, soft and round tend to go hand in hand today as tailored by the soft houses. So soft and round are linked in my mind, though they certainly need not be.
This is all the more the pity as the coats made by Scholte, and early-A&S, were soft but the shoulders certainly did not fall off a precipice; they were supported by a bit of wadding and even had a bit of rollino. Refer to the photos of Windsor and Astaire below illusrating this point.
Today, soft purveyors often iron their shoulders down into bloody submission. But first they insist on cutting an extended shoulder, ensuring that the whole damn thing droops, falling into ignominy. It looks like a broken wing. An unfortunate condition.
Couch framed this subtle issue of the impact of a bit of lift needed at the sleevehead as follows:
Below is a photo of the amount of padding which goes into a 'soft' coat by an A&S alumnus.
Is it too much? Will it make a soft or structured coat? You decide.
But that is not the issue to me. It doesn't matter how tightly you can squeeze your coat shoulder to illustrate how little padding you carry. It should matter to you, however, how good you look in your coat.
My best looking coats have more padding. You may consider yours as having the least. But this particular tailor definitely makes a more structured shoulder and still considers his style as being that from the English soft school. It is a good looking shoulder for a suit. Nicer than what A&S currently produces. Maybe he's on to something....
Now let's turn to some photos.
But first, I want to clarify that I certainly don't mean to single out these gentlemen; they've really only come to my attention because of their public profile as stylish men, their fondness of soft bespoke and their disclosure of their tailors.
So here are several photos of them in a soft shoulder as cut by A&S and Rubinacci today...what do you think?
These photos of Windsor and Astaire illustrate to me how a soft coat should properly be made: with structure. But tailoring was different then. And men were altogether more elegant. As Hammick said, rely on the silhouette.
Windsor:
Astaire:
Colin Hammick (d. 2008), MD of Huntsman, Savile Row. Named Best Dressed Man of the Yearby Tailor&Cutter in 1971:
Gentlemen, who would deny that the Gable, Fairbanks, Gabin, Agnelli et al structured silhouettes pictured above are supremely elegant?
They are all that 'soft' is not: masculine, forceful, vital and decisive.
Look at Gabin in the photo above. Would he have the same impact, could he play the same character in a soft, round silhouette? No.
And Agnelli would still be Agnelli even in a soft, round silhouette by Rubinacci in the style of Sig. Beppe Modenese (photo below), but do you think that he would any longer be admired for his sober elegance, panache, considered distinguished and dashing ? No.
No, clothes do not make the man though they certainly can enhance or diminish his stature, his innate force, vitality and style....
Indeed, I would guess that the photo of Agnelli above in the grey suit is cut by Colin Hammick (photo below) of Huntsman, Agnelli's long time tailoring house. A structured coat. Probably 1" extension on each shoulder, padded to be squared but subtly so in the finest bespoke tradition of restraint and elegance. A superb structured coat. Bravo.
Please show me a soft silhouette which can compare with this measure of elegance.... I cannot find one photo from the 1930s, 40s, 50s worn by any elegant man.
Now these structured shoulders are not 'big' and they are not ' horizontal'. Let's not exaggerate here, gentlemen.
No. What they are, are firm shoulders with a bit padding which both elevates and extends the shoulder line to make a handsome, masculine line.
As to definitions of soft vs. structured, well, I will leave that to the semanticists. I don't think that you will narrow it down to weights and measures. You know it when you see it, don't you? A picture is much more valuable to me.
Even Huntsman describes its shoulder as 'natural'. I refer to the description of the Huntsman coat by its long time (now deceased) managing director, Colin Hammick:
“Ours tends to be a slim line,” Hammick said in 1990, “influenced by the hacking coat, with a slight waist and a slight flare and a rather low opening on our coats. We try to keep a natural shoulder, but not a Brooks Brothers shoulder. We tend to rely on the silhouette of the garment rather than the details.”
But definitions aside, I will only add here that when I originally started this post, I did mean soft and round. It is the roundness which disturbs and jars me. It's not good looking. Unfortunately, soft and round tend to go hand in hand today as tailored by the soft houses. So soft and round are linked in my mind, though they certainly need not be.
This is all the more the pity as the coats made by Scholte, and early-A&S, were soft but the shoulders certainly did not fall off a precipice; they were supported by a bit of wadding and even had a bit of rollino. Refer to the photos of Windsor and Astaire below illusrating this point.
Today, soft purveyors often iron their shoulders down into bloody submission. But first they insist on cutting an extended shoulder, ensuring that the whole damn thing droops, falling into ignominy. It looks like a broken wing. An unfortunate condition.
Couch framed this subtle issue of the impact of a bit of lift needed at the sleevehead as follows:
Indeed!couch wrote:If what you mean to suggest by "squared" is a shoulder in which the shoulder line meets the sleevehead with a perceptible angle rather than a single unbroken curve from shoulder through sleevehead, then I agree that this bit of definition does indeed lend some confidence, crispness ("sharpness" was your word), formality, and vigor to the presentation.
Below is a photo of the amount of padding which goes into a 'soft' coat by an A&S alumnus.
Is it too much? Will it make a soft or structured coat? You decide.
But that is not the issue to me. It doesn't matter how tightly you can squeeze your coat shoulder to illustrate how little padding you carry. It should matter to you, however, how good you look in your coat.
My best looking coats have more padding. You may consider yours as having the least. But this particular tailor definitely makes a more structured shoulder and still considers his style as being that from the English soft school. It is a good looking shoulder for a suit. Nicer than what A&S currently produces. Maybe he's on to something....
Now let's turn to some photos.
But first, I want to clarify that I certainly don't mean to single out these gentlemen; they've really only come to my attention because of their public profile as stylish men, their fondness of soft bespoke and their disclosure of their tailors.
So here are several photos of them in a soft shoulder as cut by A&S and Rubinacci today...what do you think?
These photos of Windsor and Astaire illustrate to me how a soft coat should properly be made: with structure. But tailoring was different then. And men were altogether more elegant. As Hammick said, rely on the silhouette.
Windsor:
Astaire:
Colin Hammick (d. 2008), MD of Huntsman, Savile Row. Named Best Dressed Man of the Yearby Tailor&Cutter in 1971:
UC, you are trickier than a crooked politician brandishing statistics with those examples. Posting the same, overused and unfortunate photos of soft clothes does not do much to advance our collective knowledge. And now using both the DoW and Astaire as examples of constructed tailoring...?! I am glad to see you inching your way towards the light.
Still there are good observations here; but still the dogged belief that style can be reduced to a formula, that one style fits all, that clothes have magical powers. Then again, there is probably a good measure of tongue in cheek in this so, here is some of same.
There are pictures of men wearing soft tailored clothes other than Manolo Blahnik, if you look for them.
Granted, using Gary Cooper, who was probably the most masculine figure of the last century along with Rudolf Valentino, is a bit unfair, so lets try these on for size..
Speaking of the devil...
Then there are American, French and Italian made softies:
She didn’t need padding to feel more feminine
Neither did she…
But, sadly, many woman do feel the need to add padding, silicon and Wonder accouterments of all kinds and shapes to feel more feminine, to buttress, install or replace that which God did not give. And we, keen observers of things feminine, can see the artifice a mile away. I think the perceived need to embellish and adorn one's figure is a feminine instinct and neither masculine or virile. And, it should be said, that men who puff their chests and shoulders up to feel better about themselves, more masculine, can be seen miles away by observant ladies who can recognize true masculinity. That is probably why tight jeans and a t-shirt have been the most naturally remunerative attire for those seeking a woman's attention for the last half century. There is no place to hide and either you have it or you don't. Remember, you will eventually have to take the coat off, and if she finds a mouse underneath the armor of a man...you get the picture!
(Back on subject…)
Both of these men look well dressed to me:
One man may look relaxed and naturally confident (or sloppy and round.) The other may look serious like a banker (or a minister extruding himself into a fire breather for a hot Sunday sermon.) Depending on your point of view you will see in these pictures exactly what you want to see, and if that is the end result of research and development of your own, individual style then it is both fine and dandy. If it is a passive acceptance of an a priori of style, it is counterproductive.
Cheers
Michael Alden
Still there are good observations here; but still the dogged belief that style can be reduced to a formula, that one style fits all, that clothes have magical powers. Then again, there is probably a good measure of tongue in cheek in this so, here is some of same.
Please show me a soft silhouette which can compare with this measure of elegance...
There are pictures of men wearing soft tailored clothes other than Manolo Blahnik, if you look for them.
Granted, using Gary Cooper, who was probably the most masculine figure of the last century along with Rudolf Valentino, is a bit unfair, so lets try these on for size..
Speaking of the devil...
Then there are American, French and Italian made softies:
She didn’t need padding to feel more feminine
Neither did she…
But, sadly, many woman do feel the need to add padding, silicon and Wonder accouterments of all kinds and shapes to feel more feminine, to buttress, install or replace that which God did not give. And we, keen observers of things feminine, can see the artifice a mile away. I think the perceived need to embellish and adorn one's figure is a feminine instinct and neither masculine or virile. And, it should be said, that men who puff their chests and shoulders up to feel better about themselves, more masculine, can be seen miles away by observant ladies who can recognize true masculinity. That is probably why tight jeans and a t-shirt have been the most naturally remunerative attire for those seeking a woman's attention for the last half century. There is no place to hide and either you have it or you don't. Remember, you will eventually have to take the coat off, and if she finds a mouse underneath the armor of a man...you get the picture!
(Back on subject…)
Both of these men look well dressed to me:
One man may look relaxed and naturally confident (or sloppy and round.) The other may look serious like a banker (or a minister extruding himself into a fire breather for a hot Sunday sermon.) Depending on your point of view you will see in these pictures exactly what you want to see, and if that is the end result of research and development of your own, individual style then it is both fine and dandy. If it is a passive acceptance of an a priori of style, it is counterproductive.
Cheers
Michael Alden
Amen. We do have professional tailors that regularly contribute to the forum: Frank Shattuck, Jeffrey D and Len Logsdail (all three fans of the structured style but capable of making anything.) Let's leave the tailoring bla bla from non tailors to other sites where such tripe is cultivated and served steaming cold. (It is funny to note that the LL has never had a regular contributor from the ranks of the soft tailors.)I am not a professional tailor and we are mainly talking about dress and style here, rather than tailoring techniques; therefore, I use words describing the shoulder treatment from the perspective of the wearer, not of the tailor - that is, they refer to the look, to the visual effect, to the style message. If a tailor could use a "soft" technique to achieve a "structured" look, I will describe the result as "structured" as far as the look is concerned.
In addition I am surprised to have been forced to edit various posts in this thread where really out of line comments were published about individuals who have contributed their own images for our mutual benefit. That kind of behavior will not be tolerated here and is better left to other forums where it is considered normal and desirable. If, in an extreme case, you wish to take a shot at someone on this site, you had better have your own real image published here as well. The anonymous, peanut gallery format so successful on other forums is a non starter here.
Cheers
Michael Alden
Those are beautiful. Here are a couple made in HK, by Chan. Breanish tweed on the left and Smiths Finmeresco on the right:alden wrote:...
Then there are American, French and Italian made softies:...
The blue jacket is from the suit I posted earlier in the thread. Not sure which side of the discussion these pics support!
They support the argument for style. And that is the only argument that counts in my book. The clothes are very well done by Chan. I especially like the look of the tweed.Not sure which side of the discussion these pics support!
Thanks for sharing your photos.
Cheers
Michael
The tweed is particularly nicely done, indeed! Thanks for posting the pictures.
Talent sans frontieres...MTM wrote:Here are a couple made in HK, by Chan.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests