I like the idea of independent reviews by actual customers.
I hope to post one or two.
Independent reviews
-
Mark Seitelman
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
Mark, let me guess: your first review will be of Oxxford?
-
Mark Seitelman
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
Bry, who is Oxxford? Never heard of them. 
I would like to write about Tashae, that great, bespoke artisan.
Seriously, I think that actual customer reviews are more valuable than the gossip, slander, and hearsay bandied about on the other fora. I am both amused and appalled that people who have never been patrons freely opine about the alleged failings of a clothier.
I would like to write about Tashae, that great, bespoke artisan.
Seriously, I think that actual customer reviews are more valuable than the gossip, slander, and hearsay bandied about on the other fora. I am both amused and appalled that people who have never been patrons freely opine about the alleged failings of a clothier.
Mark, I agree. I am more amused when people lavish generous praise on tailors, from whom they have never commissioned work, let alone have never met. It is hard to judge a tailo'rs work by looking at photos of a jacket modeled by a mannequin.
-
AlexanderKabbaz
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:20 pm
- Location: East Hampton & New York
- Contact:
Highly inappropriate place for me to speak out ... but you can certainly say that again. Speaking from experience, trying to 'maintain one's cool' under those circumstances can be, if you'll excuse the phrase, gut-wrenching.I am both amused and appalled that people who have never been patrons freely opine about the alleged failings of a clothier.
Mark, Bry and Alex,
I think that a good many people have been distracted and misled by the kinds of posts you cite. This is especially true for younger and inexperienced bespoke customers who are vulnerable to the hype. This is an area where the LL membership can make a real difference and contribution to the bespoke community by communicating real and objective reviews based on their own, personal experiences.
I have devised an objective formula for assigning marks to artisans that I am using in some other writings. I call it the 5 Cs.
Consultation: This is the effectiveness of the communication between artisan and client. Does the artisan enquire and seek to understand the customer’s intended use for the garment? Is the exchange of information sufficiently clear between the parties? Does the provider listen and counsel effectively. (Rating: 0-20 pts.)
Cut: Are the elements of styling, functionality and fit discussed in the consultative phase embodied in the cut of the garment? (Rating: 0-25 pts.)
Construction, detailing and finishing: Is the construction of the garment consistent with the agreed upon cut? For example, if a natural shoulder has been requested, has it been delivered? What are the standards of finishing work, quality of buttonholes, hand stitching, hand felling etc.? (Rating: 25 pts.)
Custom: A most important quality reference point is customer service. Does the artisan back up his work and deliver what has been promised to a client’s complete satisfaction? (Rating: 0-20 pts.)
Culture: Is the artisan’s overall level of sartorial culture demonstrated in his works? Is the craftsman able to align his works with the other elements of dress in a harmonious way? A tailor should understand a shirtmakers or shoemakers works sufficiently well to be able to deliver a unified image. For example, he might counsel a notch position for a jacket that is pleasing with the shirt collar design of the client. (Rating: 0-10 pts.)
By employing this benchmark we will be able to assign marks relative to a 100 pts scale that will be objective and precise.
What are your thoughts?
I think that a good many people have been distracted and misled by the kinds of posts you cite. This is especially true for younger and inexperienced bespoke customers who are vulnerable to the hype. This is an area where the LL membership can make a real difference and contribution to the bespoke community by communicating real and objective reviews based on their own, personal experiences.
I have devised an objective formula for assigning marks to artisans that I am using in some other writings. I call it the 5 Cs.
Consultation: This is the effectiveness of the communication between artisan and client. Does the artisan enquire and seek to understand the customer’s intended use for the garment? Is the exchange of information sufficiently clear between the parties? Does the provider listen and counsel effectively. (Rating: 0-20 pts.)
Cut: Are the elements of styling, functionality and fit discussed in the consultative phase embodied in the cut of the garment? (Rating: 0-25 pts.)
Construction, detailing and finishing: Is the construction of the garment consistent with the agreed upon cut? For example, if a natural shoulder has been requested, has it been delivered? What are the standards of finishing work, quality of buttonholes, hand stitching, hand felling etc.? (Rating: 25 pts.)
Custom: A most important quality reference point is customer service. Does the artisan back up his work and deliver what has been promised to a client’s complete satisfaction? (Rating: 0-20 pts.)
Culture: Is the artisan’s overall level of sartorial culture demonstrated in his works? Is the craftsman able to align his works with the other elements of dress in a harmonious way? A tailor should understand a shirtmakers or shoemakers works sufficiently well to be able to deliver a unified image. For example, he might counsel a notch position for a jacket that is pleasing with the shirt collar design of the client. (Rating: 0-10 pts.)
By employing this benchmark we will be able to assign marks relative to a 100 pts scale that will be objective and precise.
What are your thoughts?
Michael,
Thanks for this post. I want to think about it a little more. Your list is a good starting point for interviewing a new tailor, shirtmaker, etc. What about in the case of, say A&S, where no matter what, you are getting their house style.
Thanks for this post. I want to think about it a little more. Your list is a good starting point for interviewing a new tailor, shirtmaker, etc. What about in the case of, say A&S, where no matter what, you are getting their house style.
Mr. Alden,
Whilst the categories are indeed useful headings under which to discuss a tailor, I am not sure the "Parker-ization" of tailors and their products will be in the end very meaningful.
How can you abstract cloth, cut, and all the details, into a number, for comparison to a suit built for someone else, even perhaps by the same tailor?
Just look at your recent post on two jackets!
Leon
Whilst the categories are indeed useful headings under which to discuss a tailor, I am not sure the "Parker-ization" of tailors and their products will be in the end very meaningful.
How can you abstract cloth, cut, and all the details, into a number, for comparison to a suit built for someone else, even perhaps by the same tailor?
Just look at your recent post on two jackets!
Leon
These are all relevant questions to ask. A matrix that splits out the results of those inquiries with comments may indeed be a useful stimulus for discussion.
Nevertheless, I instinctively distrust "objective" rating systems that are devised and operated by individuals in an inevitably subjective fashion. That way lies Robert Parker.
Nevertheless, I instinctively distrust "objective" rating systems that are devised and operated by individuals in an inevitably subjective fashion. That way lies Robert Parker.
It makes sense to separate into categories, and this is a good way to do it, though we may wish to refine it over time. I might suggest a category for fit, for instance. But however we do it, I think it is useful. I have a decent amount of recent experience with New York tailors, for instance. Each has strengths. Some have weaknesses. Or, if not, weaknesses, then in certain areas they are less strong than others. This is a way to reflect that.
But, sticking to the artistan at hand, I would say of Kabbaz:
Consultation: 20. He listens. He understands. He writes stuff down. You get what you ask for.
Cut: I know I sound like a suck up, but 25. I have never had a shirt like his. They are amazing. Very clean and shaped, but nowhere binding. The hang of the sleeves have to be seen to be believed.
Construction. I have to knock him somewhere, so ... 23. No handwork. He says it's not as strong. Maybe. As to everything else, it's great. The seams are flat and neat. The stitching minute. He builds a great roll into the collar using two layers of handset interlining. He does an edge stitch that is beautiful. Normally I hate edge stitches and find them fashion-imbued. Not these. Also, the best buttons in the business, hand-shanked like a horn button on a suit coat.
Custom: 20. If Alex shines anywhere, it is here. You get what you want. If not, he fixes it. No argument. No questions asked. He is more upset by mistakes than you.
Culture: 10. He made a shirt that works for my face and frame, and for my clothes. I didn't even need to explain it. He just did it.
With tailors, I can't point to a clear "winner." Among the best in New York, no one tailor is clearly superior to any other. Some are better at one thing, some at others. With some, it just comes down to what silhouette you prefer. But the distance between Alex and the next best is substantial.
But, sticking to the artistan at hand, I would say of Kabbaz:
Consultation: 20. He listens. He understands. He writes stuff down. You get what you ask for.
Cut: I know I sound like a suck up, but 25. I have never had a shirt like his. They are amazing. Very clean and shaped, but nowhere binding. The hang of the sleeves have to be seen to be believed.
Construction. I have to knock him somewhere, so ... 23. No handwork. He says it's not as strong. Maybe. As to everything else, it's great. The seams are flat and neat. The stitching minute. He builds a great roll into the collar using two layers of handset interlining. He does an edge stitch that is beautiful. Normally I hate edge stitches and find them fashion-imbued. Not these. Also, the best buttons in the business, hand-shanked like a horn button on a suit coat.
Custom: 20. If Alex shines anywhere, it is here. You get what you want. If not, he fixes it. No argument. No questions asked. He is more upset by mistakes than you.
Culture: 10. He made a shirt that works for my face and frame, and for my clothes. I didn't even need to explain it. He just did it.
With tailors, I can't point to a clear "winner." Among the best in New York, no one tailor is clearly superior to any other. Some are better at one thing, some at others. With some, it just comes down to what silhouette you prefer. But the distance between Alex and the next best is substantial.
deleted by author
Dear Mr. Alden,
While I can certainly understand the benefits of an objective rating system -- principal among them the fact that it would break down the client-tailor relationship into several components worthy of careful analysis and appraisal, as opposed to a formless emotional evaluation -- please forgive me if I share a possible drawback to such a proposal that comes to mind.
Many of us here will remember your early, inspiring posts on another forum. In those days, you refused to divulge the names of your favourite artisans. Even as I was frustrated by your stand, I understood and respected your reasons. You wished, I recall, to encourage independent thought and analysis of clothing, and to foster better communication between clients and tailors. The lesson I learned was that it was not about canonising certain artisans, or identifying the best that could be bought by waving fistfuls of dollars in the air, but about being an intelligent and educated consumer who could work with a craftsmen, who could, much as Alias has done with Mr. Min, even inspire a good tailor to be great.
None of this, I think, has been compromised by the CAP in itself. Indeed, the LL as a whole has done a great service in fostering those ideals. But I worry that assigning numerical ratings to craftsmen opens us up to the possibility of the sort of vulgar and simplistic comparison that is rife on the other fora: "Tailor A is only an 89! Let's go to Tailor B, he's a 91!" "Check out my new brogues: they're 95 on LL!"
Granted, no member of the London Lounge is likely to use the numbers in such a way, as a crutch. But I would submit that that is precisely why they are not needed. Detailed analyses of the tailoring process in each of the 5Cs that you have outlined would be all that is required, and would reinforce your excellent philosophies.
Let us remember, too, that a tailor is a human being, constantly learning and evolving. A man who receives a "70" this year might, after hard work and the demanding custom of, say, a Manton, become a 90. But everyone would remember the 70. Whereas an honest qualitative (and not quantitative) assessment would not tie a man so heavily to his early failings.
Finally, it occurs to me that we should be honest in our own abilities as customers; we too deserve a rating. Having a suit made requires the collaboration of two intelligences and two sensibilities. You, Sir, are a highly skilled customer, and no doubt get the best out of your artisans; as such you are entitled to judge them. But it would be presumptuous for a neophyte to assign a (possibly damning) score to a tailor without a great deal of experience, discernment, and tact. It would be better for a him to describe his experience with the tailor in detail, so that others may judge the basis of his judgement.
Warm regards,
Huzir Sulaiman
While I can certainly understand the benefits of an objective rating system -- principal among them the fact that it would break down the client-tailor relationship into several components worthy of careful analysis and appraisal, as opposed to a formless emotional evaluation -- please forgive me if I share a possible drawback to such a proposal that comes to mind.
Many of us here will remember your early, inspiring posts on another forum. In those days, you refused to divulge the names of your favourite artisans. Even as I was frustrated by your stand, I understood and respected your reasons. You wished, I recall, to encourage independent thought and analysis of clothing, and to foster better communication between clients and tailors. The lesson I learned was that it was not about canonising certain artisans, or identifying the best that could be bought by waving fistfuls of dollars in the air, but about being an intelligent and educated consumer who could work with a craftsmen, who could, much as Alias has done with Mr. Min, even inspire a good tailor to be great.
None of this, I think, has been compromised by the CAP in itself. Indeed, the LL as a whole has done a great service in fostering those ideals. But I worry that assigning numerical ratings to craftsmen opens us up to the possibility of the sort of vulgar and simplistic comparison that is rife on the other fora: "Tailor A is only an 89! Let's go to Tailor B, he's a 91!" "Check out my new brogues: they're 95 on LL!"
Granted, no member of the London Lounge is likely to use the numbers in such a way, as a crutch. But I would submit that that is precisely why they are not needed. Detailed analyses of the tailoring process in each of the 5Cs that you have outlined would be all that is required, and would reinforce your excellent philosophies.
Let us remember, too, that a tailor is a human being, constantly learning and evolving. A man who receives a "70" this year might, after hard work and the demanding custom of, say, a Manton, become a 90. But everyone would remember the 70. Whereas an honest qualitative (and not quantitative) assessment would not tie a man so heavily to his early failings.
Finally, it occurs to me that we should be honest in our own abilities as customers; we too deserve a rating. Having a suit made requires the collaboration of two intelligences and two sensibilities. You, Sir, are a highly skilled customer, and no doubt get the best out of your artisans; as such you are entitled to judge them. But it would be presumptuous for a neophyte to assign a (possibly damning) score to a tailor without a great deal of experience, discernment, and tact. It would be better for a him to describe his experience with the tailor in detail, so that others may judge the basis of his judgement.
Warm regards,
Huzir Sulaiman
Yes, the translating of subjective impressions into numerical ratings appears prone to difficulties. The one element I like however is a checklist for the reviewer what to consider and include in the review.
We should not forget either that a long term customer receives a different service than a first time one: not better or worse, but different due to the mutual history and cumulative experience of both parties. The checklist encourages to return (at least in spirit) to the early days and think about every single step of the bespoke process.
We should not forget either that a long term customer receives a different service than a first time one: not better or worse, but different due to the mutual history and cumulative experience of both parties. The checklist encourages to return (at least in spirit) to the early days and think about every single step of the bespoke process.
Dear Huzir,
The 5Cs proposal would have been a success had it had as sole effect to elicit such an excellent response from you.
Gentlemen,
I would ask that the 5Cs framework be used as a way for members to exchange information about artisans without the use of the previously proposed numerical evaluations. Reviews must be based on personal experience of an actual commissioned work.
Members wishing to submit an Independent Review should go to the “Contribute” heading of the main page and submit their stories to “Independent Reviews.” I will personally read the reviews before they are posted. If I have any questions about them, you will be contacted. There may be reviews selected for publication elsewhere on the site with the permission of the author, as was the case with the smoothjazzone piece.
The reviews are essentially for the use and hopefully entertainment of the members of thelondonlounge only. I know they will be written in a gentlemanly way with the greatest respect and discretion being afforded the artisans in question. Do not hold back from an honest assessment but always emphasize the positive.
We need to find more ways to communicate our values to the bespoke community in a way that forwards the principles and mission of thelondonlounge. Distinguishing true bespoke and quality bespoke from the mass of offering in the market today is a good way to reward those who work diligently to maintain traditional values and craftsmanship. Your ideas regarding other initiatives are appreciated.
I am working on drafting a bespoke user’s manual (a project I mentioned in the yahoo days) that includes a process flow chart that can be printed out and used by customers with their artisans. Included in this process will be a detailed order sheet that includes many of the details commonly associated with commissioning a work. The document can be printed in duplicate and signed by the customer and craftsman so no doubts or misunderstandings can occur in the process.
How many times have we read about 3 button jackets being ordered and delivered as 2 buttons; or how many times has bad communication endangered a relationship from the very onset?
These problems can be avoided with a clear, well defined process. This process statement and bespoke handbook can be offered to the community as a way of breaking down the psychological barrier of risk that all too many men feel when contemplating a bespoke commission. We will have made a significant contribution by breaking these barriers down one by one. That is, after all, one of the reasons why we are here.
M Alden
The 5Cs proposal would have been a success had it had as sole effect to elicit such an excellent response from you.
Gentlemen,
I would ask that the 5Cs framework be used as a way for members to exchange information about artisans without the use of the previously proposed numerical evaluations. Reviews must be based on personal experience of an actual commissioned work.
Members wishing to submit an Independent Review should go to the “Contribute” heading of the main page and submit their stories to “Independent Reviews.” I will personally read the reviews before they are posted. If I have any questions about them, you will be contacted. There may be reviews selected for publication elsewhere on the site with the permission of the author, as was the case with the smoothjazzone piece.
The reviews are essentially for the use and hopefully entertainment of the members of thelondonlounge only. I know they will be written in a gentlemanly way with the greatest respect and discretion being afforded the artisans in question. Do not hold back from an honest assessment but always emphasize the positive.
We need to find more ways to communicate our values to the bespoke community in a way that forwards the principles and mission of thelondonlounge. Distinguishing true bespoke and quality bespoke from the mass of offering in the market today is a good way to reward those who work diligently to maintain traditional values and craftsmanship. Your ideas regarding other initiatives are appreciated.
I am working on drafting a bespoke user’s manual (a project I mentioned in the yahoo days) that includes a process flow chart that can be printed out and used by customers with their artisans. Included in this process will be a detailed order sheet that includes many of the details commonly associated with commissioning a work. The document can be printed in duplicate and signed by the customer and craftsman so no doubts or misunderstandings can occur in the process.
How many times have we read about 3 button jackets being ordered and delivered as 2 buttons; or how many times has bad communication endangered a relationship from the very onset?
These problems can be avoided with a clear, well defined process. This process statement and bespoke handbook can be offered to the community as a way of breaking down the psychological barrier of risk that all too many men feel when contemplating a bespoke commission. We will have made a significant contribution by breaking these barriers down one by one. That is, after all, one of the reasons why we are here.
M Alden
-
Mark Seitelman
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:42 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
Michael, I think that your criteria are a sound framework for a well considered review.
Of course, each reviewer will bring his personality and likes to the table.
Furthermore, most of us, including this writer, will contribute reviews that are fair and honest but rarely hurtful or nasty. One can write a review which is honest about an artisan's shortcomings and still be balanced if one also notices the pluses. After all, we still want to be welcomed by the clothiers and artisans that we review!
I hope to be able to contribute a review in early December. I have to talk to the subject and review some of his recent work.
Cheers.
Of course, each reviewer will bring his personality and likes to the table.
Furthermore, most of us, including this writer, will contribute reviews that are fair and honest but rarely hurtful or nasty. One can write a review which is honest about an artisan's shortcomings and still be balanced if one also notices the pluses. After all, we still want to be welcomed by the clothiers and artisans that we review!
I hope to be able to contribute a review in early December. I have to talk to the subject and review some of his recent work.
Cheers.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests