I suppose one of the few ways to mix things up and get attention nowadays is to play with the jacket buttoning stance, or placement of pocket. Yes, yes it's a nice salute to the 1960s to the early seventies but the question remains who wears these things and why?

I know that the conservative professions would have some trouble with this in NYC. Certain looks scream Mr. Big Shot but just a few pips to the right or left and you have fashion industry or entertainment. I take pains to make sure my clothes say that I am imaginative but within the realm of what I do. When I wear things for afterhours, I am much bolder but even that runs me into some trouble because people cannot fathom changing to go out unless you put on clothes that you would walk the dog in. I use that as a form of vetting because I figure that anyone who is too worried about why I changed clothing to go out isn't worth chatting with.


One of the salient issues with generic tailoring is loss of touch with a specific tailor or look. Is Duncan Quinn a tailor? The vast majority of men buy their suits either ready to wear or some sort of factory made to measure. Even some of the men I see in NYC posting work from tailors are really getting ready to wear from a factory or the somewhat lowbrow tastes of an alterations tailor.

What we are left with are fascination with the fabrics. It makes one think on whether they would rather be limited to one cloth but get the best, most tasteful tailor available or have any cloth they want made up by an intermediary factory.

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

I suppose one of the few ways to mix things up and get attention nowadays is to play with the jacket buttoning stance, or placement of pocket. Yes, yes it's a nice salute to the 1960s to the early seventies but the question remains who wears these things and why?

I know that the conservative professions would have some trouble with this in NYC. Certain looks scream Mr. Big Shot but just a few pips to the right or left and you have fashion industry or entertainment. I take pains to make sure my clothes say that I am imaginative but within the realm of what I do. When I wear things for afterhours, I am much bolder but even that runs me into some trouble because people cannot fathom changing to go out unless you put on clothes that you would walk the dog in. I use that as a form of vetting because I figure that anyone who is too worried about why I changed clothing to go out isn't worth chatting with.


One of the salient issues with generic tailoring is loss of touch with a specific tailor or look. Is Duncan Quinn a tailor? The vast majority of men buy their suits either ready to wear or some sort of factory made to measure. Even some of the men I see in NYC posting work from tailors are really getting ready to wear from a factory or the somewhat lowbrow tastes of an alterations tailor.

What we are left with are fascination with the fabrics. It makes one think on whether they would rather be limited to one cloth but get the best, most tasteful tailor available or have any cloth they want made up by an intermediary factory.

I like the SB, it reminds me of how I used to have mine cut in my youth. I also like the cloth, which looks like a air force blue pick and pick, may even be a mohair. I would like to get a better view of it. I would wear a  suit like that for going out in, not work. It reminds me a bit of Simon's Sabino suit.

The other two DB's don't work for me, cut wise, even though again, they're what I would consider Mod cuts. I doubt these would be worn for work but maybe for attending soul all-nighters and like.

I like you, compartment-alise my wardrobe and have things made for specific environments. Because I like a particular 'wild' item and have it made up doesn't mean I'll be wearing it to a important meeting.

Maybe a celebrity could wear that DB cut. It is kind of cool but who are you going to wear that around? Anyone cool enough couldn't afford it.

The I have a dark airfoce blue nail head which I like but it is a tricky tone to navigate. Done properly, it is a dandiacal home run. If done poorly, it suggests you have no taste. That color is the recent cloth that declares "I am a rich dood, I got my suit made by XYZ traveling tailor and now I'm above the fray."  If coupled with a royal oxford cloth shirt, it is new money overdrive.

I was speaking earlier about the "who's your tailor?" culture which has basically disappeared from sight here. It's a good thing that I enjoy dressing for dressing sake or I would stop caring too; I could probably get the same results I want from much less expensive clothes. At least England has the concept of tailoring, cut, etc. Cut is king and I understand the English precept of only a few acceptable suit cloths but attention to cut, fit and detail.

Men have a lot of issues dealing with what is and what isn't in clothes. Probably one of the few things that keeps me on line discussing clothing is my astonishment at the confusion and denial. It's offline too, I see men are generally very insecure about choices and when they do make choices, it's for intrinsic reasons that bear no relation to the effect they believe their clothing choice will yield. It takes a lot of thought and effort to get a good handle on clothing and the relationship it has to the persona.

Even with things that many would sneer at as a given, it takes some considerable thought to really deconstruct the truth behind a clothing tenet. I am very glad i don't make a living off of men's clothing, it must be frustrating beyond belief. At least women are appreciative that someone is trying to make them look good. With men, I suspect it's a bit of, thanks, I paid you, now go away and never mention it. Most men will never, ever get clothing, even if you spoon fed it to them. That's what makes them all the more comic.

I think the wildest thing Ive had made up in recent times is that bounder jacket from dashing tweeds and I could wear that could go to some important meetings but not others. Depends who the crowd is and the occasion.

GIZhou007 wrote:

I like DB jackets but the cut looks wrong to me.  Don't know why, it just does.  Perhaps too tight fitting to sit down in?  The sleeves are toom long on the SB and the tweed suit which just seems out of place.  In the country side but who wears blue tweeds?  Thick tweed is great for shooting and hunting i the cold but wrong in that setting.  Meh what do I know. 

I must hunting disagree that the cut is everything.  Why don't I buy a Shanghai/Hong Kong eBay made to measure suit?  I suggested this to my sons as they are in professions needing suits.  Because of the material.  It may be the best fitting suit but if the material isn't up to scratch...

That checked material would make a nice sports jacket for town. I think he is doing what so many clothing guys do, wear something head turning to get them in the door and then sell them a charcoal solid suit.

All things equal, cut and fit are everything, or used to be everything, or should be everything.

Of course the wrong or poor quality material would spoil an item for the event but if we are dealing with two identical looking suit cloths but one is better quality, the cut and fit will be more important. It may not last as long for several reasons and why someone would make a beautiful suit out of second rate material is beyond me, although I have seen people at my tailor have him make things from rubbish cloth.

Good material poorly cut and fitted only impresses the uncritical eye which may not be what you want to achieve. It wouldn't work for me. Obviously, it works for the vast bulk of suit wearing men. It's that exclusion/inclusion duality. Do you want to impress that handful of influential people or garner acclaim from the masses?

There is also the concept of culture. A suit made in a culture that is too alien can create problems. I like the English look but I wear an American suit, I am following my ancestors here and in my city. Wearing a Neapolitan suit would be slick.

The material itself can be a problem, even on a good suit. Some English dood on the news today had a very heavy white stripe on a blue ground that was far too bright a blue. Looked like a blazer instead of a suit.

Film Noir Buff wrote:

GIZhou007 wrote:

I like DB jackets but the cut looks wrong to me.  Don't know why, it just does.  Perhaps too tight fitting to sit down in?  The sleeves are toom long on the SB and the tweed suit which just seems out of place.  In the country side but who wears blue tweeds?  Thick tweed is great for shooting and hunting i the cold but wrong in that setting.  Meh what do I know. 

I must hunting disagree that the cut is everything.  Why don't I buy a Shanghai/Hong Kong eBay made to measure suit?  I suggested this to my sons as they are in professions needing suits.  Because of the material.  It may be the best fitting suit but if the material isn't up to scratch...

That checked material would make a nice sports jacket for town. I think he is doing what so many clothing guys do, wear something head turning to get them in the door and then sell them a charcoal solid suit.

All things equal, cut and fit are everything, or used to be everything, or should be everything.

Of course the wrong or poor quality material would spoil an item for the event but if we are dealing with two identical looking suit cloths but one is better quality, the cut and fit will be more important. It may not last as long for several reasons and why someone would make a beautiful suit out of second rate material is beyond me, although I have seen people at my tailor have him make things from rubbish cloth.

Good material poorly cut and fitted only impresses the uncritical eye which may not be what you want to achieve. It wouldn't work for me. Obviously, it works for the vast bulk of suit wearing men. It's that exclusion/inclusion duality. Do you want to impress that handful of influential people or garner acclaim from the masses?

There is also the concept of culture. A suit made in a culture that is too alien can create problems. I like the English look but I wear an American suit, I am following my ancestors here and in my city. Wearing a Neapolitan suit would be slick.

The material itself can be a problem, even on a good suit. Some English dood on the news today had a very heavy white stripe on a blue ground that was far too bright a blue. Looked like a blazer instead of a suit.

FNB I have to disagree with you. sort of. I don't get why people overlook cloth, its what the suits made of, at least on the outside. Of course cut is the most important thing but you should have the best in everything. The trinity of great cut, great handwork and great cloth creates suits with whizz bang even if its a charcoal grey 2 button suit.

I think tailors, well I know tailors, like cheap cloths that are easy to work with. They are often more interested in improving margins so they put forward that cut is paramount and cloth really isn't as important as it should be. I always thought it was crazy for a Savile Row firm to make $3000 suits from cloth that cost them $22 a yard. Unfortunately theres very few people that are in this business primarily to make an exceptional garment.

Unless your a creative person its hard for people to understand this, but for me money isn't my motivation. For me its an ego thing, its a buzz of creating something exceptional. That label with my name on it and seeing that "whizz bang" garment finished after months of hard work is the reward, I get a kick out of it and even though I don't own it, in a way I always will.

crazy...

Last edited by David Reeves (2012-04-17 20:24:59)

formby wrote:

David Reeves wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

That checked material would make a nice sports jacket for town. I think he is doing what so many clothing guys do, wear something head turning to get them in the door and then sell them a charcoal solid suit.

All things equal, cut and fit are everything, or used to be everything, or should be everything.

Of course the wrong or poor quality material would spoil an item for the event but if we are dealing with two identical looking suit cloths but one is better quality, the cut and fit will be more important. It may not last as long for several reasons and why someone would make a beautiful suit out of second rate material is beyond me, although I have seen people at my tailor have him make things from rubbish cloth.

Good material poorly cut and fitted only impresses the uncritical eye which may not be what you want to achieve. It wouldn't work for me. Obviously, it works for the vast bulk of suit wearing men. It's that exclusion/inclusion duality. Do you want to impress that handful of influential people or garner acclaim from the masses?

There is also the concept of culture. A suit made in a culture that is too alien can create problems. I like the English look but I wear an American suit, I am following my ancestors here and in my city. Wearing a Neapolitan suit would be slick.

The material itself can be a problem, even on a good suit. Some English dood on the news today had a very heavy white stripe on a blue ground that was far too bright a blue. Looked like a blazer instead of a suit.

FNB I have to disagree with you. sort of. I don't get why people overlook cloth, its what the suits made of, at least on the outside. Of course cut is the most important thing but you should have the best in everything. The trinity of great cut, great handwork and great cloth creates suits with whizz bang even if its a charcoal grey 2 button suit.

I think tailors, well I know tailors, like cheap cloths that are easy to work with. They are often more interested in improving margins so they put forward that cut is paramount and cloth really isn't as important as it should be. I always thought it was crazy for a Savile Row firm to make $3000 suits from cloth that cost them $22 a yard. Unfortunately theres very few people that are in this business primarily to make an exceptional garment.

Unless your a creative person its hard for people to understand this, but for me money isn't my motivation. For me its an ego thing, its a buzz of creating something exceptional. That label with my name on it and seeing that "whizz bang" garment finished after months of hard work is the reward, I get a kick out of it and even though I don't own it, in a way I always will.

crazy...

Well,

I would rather have a well cut suit in a mediocre cloth (whatever that is) than a poorly cut suit in a beautiful cloth. This is what I mean when I say cut trumps cloth.

I'm naturally drawn to the cut first, then the cloth but rarely the handwork, unless its beautiful, the likes of what you would see on ceremonial clothes or hand-sewn frogging on a smoking jacket. The kind that Lock & Co specialise in. But a button-hole, just fails to excite me. My button holes are hand done by the way. I've never told my tailor this of course as I'm lucky to have him lol

One of the reason that some tailors, especially those of a certain age who happen to do everything themselves (rare as rocking-horse sh*t these days I know) prefer heavier cloths, especially those  full/half milled ones is because they 'take the needle better'. This is tailor code for they hide poor stitching. I like full-milled cloths, especially for chalkies. Old school look. lol

Lightweight/clear-cut worsteds are less forgiving and more demanding for the tailor to work with, therefore there is an increased risk that he will f*ck it up. They are often more expensive too which compounds the problem. This is probably one of the reasons that heavier/full-milled cloths are pushed, so in that sense they are better for the tailor, but what is better for the tailor may not necessarily better for the client. Margins are also important, they are a business and aim to maximise profits. They are not obliged to pass cost savings onto their clients unless market circumstances dictate it. This is not 'ripping' the client off as one shrill 'expert' claimed.

Where, I think the likes of Scabal, Dormeuil H&S come into their own is in the realm of high end cloths This is where their buying power helps them secure the finest quality wools, vertical integration also plays its part too for other reasons. Their bog standard cloths however, are over priced and equivalent quality can be found elsewhere, cheaper. But I suspect this isn't where there market is nowadays anyway.

I have several suits from the likes of Bateman & Ogden, a merchant I suspect you would say are of the 20 quid a metre variety that has been superb, tailored beautifully and lasts ages (their Mohair book is very good) but it doesn't look modern (Mohair, notwithstanding) and what young blade doesn't want to look modern and rightly so.

It's interesting what people see and what they do not see. Two women at this bar just on Friday were asking me what I did, trying to guess from my clothing. Whatever that means. One of them told me I was too creative to be in a conservative profession because none of those men ever had any flair; that she never saw colors or patterns combined like I had arranged them. I said I didn't think my outfit that unusual (Navy chalk stripe suit, that jumbo pink/white/blue check shirt and a light pink self paisley jacquard tie). She asked me to look around the large bar and restaurant to see if anyone else were dressed similarly, which no one was. I honestly thought what I was wearing was toned down and it is a good illustration of what Americans see. She never mentioned the cut or fit of my clothes, just colors and patterns and their combination.

Good suit wool doesn't have to be expensive. I have seen the Ogden books, their stuff is a bit Lesser-esque, n'est ce pas?

I prefer excellence of cut and fit over cloth quality but in reality I ensure both are present.

That SB is natty. I'm with others the DB looks a bit odd.

These days I'm watching a lot of Get Smart. It's a sartorial delight. Max, The Chief, and 99, all look spiffy. Every time. And with two or three different costumes each episode.

Max often has suits and jackets with interesting details, breast pocket flaps, half belted jackets, and other stuff. I never see the young dudes on SF doing any of this at all, for all their cutting edge no socks look and tight pants and jackets.

The big question is why, it's the sort of stuff that works for work. How about a nice blue suit in nailhead but with flaps on all exterior pockets, jacket and pants?

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

David Reeves wrote:

FNB I have to disagree with you. sort of. I don't get why people overlook cloth, its what the suits made of, at least on the outside. Of course cut is the most important thing but you should have the best in everything. The trinity of great cut, great handwork and great cloth creates suits with whizz bang even if its a charcoal grey 2 button suit.

I think tailors, well I know tailors, like cheap cloths that are easy to work with. They are often more interested in improving margins so they put forward that cut is paramount and cloth really isn't as important as it should be. I always thought it was crazy for a Savile Row firm to make $3000 suits from cloth that cost them $22 a yard. Unfortunately theres very few people that are in this business primarily to make an exceptional garment.

Unless your a creative person its hard for people to understand this, but for me money isn't my motivation. For me its an ego thing, its a buzz of creating something exceptional. That label with my name on it and seeing that "whizz bang" garment finished after months of hard work is the reward, I get a kick out of it and even though I don't own it, in a way I always will.

crazy...

Well,

I would rather have a well cut suit in a mediocre cloth (whatever that is) than a poorly cut suit in a beautiful cloth. This is what I mean when I say cut trumps cloth.

I'm naturally drawn to the cut first, then the cloth but rarely the handwork, unless its beautiful, the likes of what you would see on ceremonial clothes or hand-sewn frogging on a smoking jacket. The kind that Lock & Co specialise in. But a button-hole, just fails to excite me. My button holes are hand done by the way. I've never told my tailor this of course as I'm lucky to have him lol

One of the reason that some tailors, especially those of a certain age who happen to do everything themselves (rare as rocking-horse sh*t these days I know) prefer heavier cloths, especially those  full/half milled ones is because they 'take the needle better'. This is tailor code for they hide poor stitching. I like full-milled cloths, especially for chalkies. Old school look. lol

Lightweight/clear-cut worsteds are less forgiving and more demanding for the tailor to work with, therefore there is an increased risk that he will f*ck it up. They are often more expensive too which compounds the problem. This is probably one of the reasons that heavier/full-milled cloths are pushed, so in that sense they are better for the tailor, but what is better for the tailor may not necessarily better for the client. Margins are also important, they are a business and aim to maximise profits. They are not obliged to pass cost savings onto their clients unless market circumstances dictate it. This is not 'ripping' the client off as one shrill 'expert' claimed.

Where, I think the likes of Scabal, Dormeuil H&S come into their own is in the realm of high end cloths This is where their buying power helps them secure the finest quality wools, vertical integration also plays its part too for other reasons. Their bog standard cloths however, are over priced and equivalent quality can be found elsewhere, cheaper. But I suspect this isn't where there market is nowadays anyway.

I have several suits from the likes of Bateman & Ogden, a merchant I suspect you would say are of the 20 quid a metre variety that has been superb, tailored beautifully and lasts ages (their Mohair book is very good) but it doesn't look modern (Mohair, notwithstanding) and what young blade doesn't want to look modern and rightly so.

It's interesting what people see and what they do not see. Two women at this bar just on Friday were asking me what I did, trying to guess from my clothing. Whatever that means. One of them told me I was too creative to be in a conservative profession because none of those men ever had any flair; that she never saw colors or patterns combined like I had arranged them. I said I didn't think my outfit that unusual (Navy chalk stripe suit, that jumbo pink/white/blue check shirt and a light pink self paisley jacquard tie). She asked me to look around the large bar and restaurant to see if anyone else were dressed similarly, which no one was. I honestly thought what I was wearing was toned down and it is a good illustration of what Americans see. She never mentioned the cut or fit of my clothes, just colors and patterns and their combination.

Good suit wool doesn't have to be expensive. I have seen the Ogden books, their stuff is a bit Lesser-esque, n'est ce pas?

I prefer excellence of cut and fit over cloth quality but in reality I ensure both are present.

I deleted that post because I wasn't happy with the way it read, a common feeling. I was going to edit it and repost.

I see Bateman & Ogden as somewhere between the look of Lesser and Dugdale. An, old fashioned, no-nonsense cloth, a bit old Toff if you like. I have to admit, I like it, but for certain looks mind. Their book of Tweeds, Glenhunt is also very nice and I recommend their 2 ply Mohair. I'm going to visit their place in a couple of months, I'll right something up and take some piccies.

Certain cloths, finishes & patterns suit certain looks, times and places and choices need to be considered carefully. Barking, get Lessers 13oz at someone asking for cloth advice is not helpful in my opinion.

Fashion concious/well dressed women do understand cut & fit and far more than men for obvious reasons, for one the shape of their bodies. In your case they just didn't comment but they noticed.

Some women find men who have a touch of the dandy about them fascinating, maybe adopting a trait normally associated with the opposite sex in this case a love of clothes plays on our inherent narcissism. I dunno.

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

It's interesting what people see and what they do not see. Two women at this bar just on Friday were asking me what I did, trying to guess from my clothing. Whatever that means. One of them told me I was too creative to be in a conservative profession because none of those men ever had any flair; that she never saw colors or patterns combined like I had arranged them. I said I didn't think my outfit that unusual (Navy chalk stripe suit, that jumbo pink/white/blue check shirt and a light pink self paisley jacquard tie). She asked me to look around the large bar and restaurant to see if anyone else were dressed similarly, which no one was. I honestly thought what I was wearing was toned down and it is a good illustration of what Americans see. She never mentioned the cut or fit of my clothes, just colors and patterns and their combination.

Good suit wool doesn't have to be expensive. I have seen the Ogden books, their stuff is a bit Lesser-esque, n'est ce pas?

I prefer excellence of cut and fit over cloth quality but in reality I ensure both are present.

I deleted that post because I wasn't happy with the way it read, a common feeling. I was going to edit it and repost.

I see Bateman & Ogden as somewhere between the look of Lesser and Dugdale. An, old fashioned, no-nonsense cloth, a bit old Toff if you like. I have to admit, I like it, but for certain looks mind. Their book of Tweeds, Glenhunt is also very nice and I recommend their 2 ply Mohair. I'm going to visit their place in a couple of months, I'll right something up and take some piccies.

Certain cloths, finishes & patterns suit certain looks, times and places and choices need to be considered carefully. Barking, get Lessers 13oz at someone asking for cloth advice is not helpful in my opinion.

Fashion concious/well dressed women do understand cut & fit and far more than men for obvious reasons, for one the shape of their bodies. In your case they just didn't comment but they noticed.

Some women find men who have a touch of the dandy about them fascinating, maybe adopting a trait normally associated with the opposite sex in this case a love of clothes plays on our inherent narcissism. I dunno.

Sorry. I left a post un-submitted for hours to watch some televisione which would preserve a deleted post. Let me know if you want me to delete it.

You weren't to know, let it stand.

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

It's interesting what people see and what they do not see. Two women at this bar just on Friday were asking me what I did, trying to guess from my clothing. Whatever that means. One of them told me I was too creative to be in a conservative profession because none of those men ever had any flair; that she never saw colors or patterns combined like I had arranged them. I said I didn't think my outfit that unusual (Navy chalk stripe suit, that jumbo pink/white/blue check shirt and a light pink self paisley jacquard tie). She asked me to look around the large bar and restaurant to see if anyone else were dressed similarly, which no one was. I honestly thought what I was wearing was toned down and it is a good illustration of what Americans see. She never mentioned the cut or fit of my clothes, just colors and patterns and their combination.

Good suit wool doesn't have to be expensive. I have seen the Ogden books, their stuff is a bit Lesser-esque, n'est ce pas?

I prefer excellence of cut and fit over cloth quality but in reality I ensure both are present.

I deleted that post because I wasn't happy with the way it read, a common feeling. I was going to edit it and repost.

I see Bateman & Ogden as somewhere between the look of Lesser and Dugdale. An, old fashioned, no-nonsense cloth, a bit old Toff if you like. I have to admit, I like it, but for certain looks mind. Their book of Tweeds, Glenhunt is also very nice and I recommend their 2 ply Mohair. I'm going to visit their place in a couple of months, I'll right something up and take some piccies.

Certain cloths, finishes & patterns suit certain looks, times and places and choices need to be considered carefully. Barking, get Lessers 13oz at someone asking for cloth advice is not helpful in my opinion.

Fashion concious/well dressed women do understand cut & fit and far more than men for obvious reasons, for one the shape of their bodies. In your case they just didn't comment but they noticed.

Some women find men who have a touch of the dandy about them fascinating, maybe adopting a trait normally associated with the opposite sex in this case a love of clothes plays on our inherent narcissism. I dunno.

Sorry. I left a post un-submitted for hours to watch some televisione which would preserve a deleted post. Let me know if you want me to delete it.

I think women are shocked that a man can dress at all. It's rare that it is done well if you arent in the fashion industry. It really depends on the person though. Age of the observer can also be a factor. I find the younger women are more likely to comment vaguely, younger men are more likely to want to know where to buy it. Middle aged doods rarely comment unless they aren't suit wearing fellows and I think it's the pain of feeling like someone knows more than they do and thus is getting ahead. A pain which i hope tortures them to madness. Middle aged ladies like a well dressed man but ask an awful lot of questions bout the reasons behind choices.

I always thought the Lessers stuff was pretty much old city of london; dry with no finish whatsoever. If I got one suit from all the numbers I liked from Harrisons and Lessers, I'd have another 100 suits! The 11 oz worsted flannel in the Harrisons bunch is pretty much a milled worsted and the new LGB flannel Harrisons relaunched in their Lessers book is really, very nice.

I have seen the bateman and ogden books. There was another English company that had that but I cant remember their name now.

Im thinking of doing myself a DB in a "Tory boy" Lesser cloth. Likely 16oz a chalk stripe or pinstripe.

formby wrote:

David Reeves wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

Sorry. I left a post un-submitted for hours to watch some televisione which would preserve a deleted post. Let me know if you want me to delete it.

I think women are shocked that a man can dress at all. It's rare that it is done well if you arent in the fashion industry. It really depends on the person though. Age of the observer can also be a factor. I find the younger women are more likely to comment vaguely, younger men are more likely to want to know where to buy it. Middle aged doods rarely comment unless they aren't suit wearing fellows and I think it's the pain of feeling like someone knows more than they do and thus is getting ahead. A pain which i hope tortures them to madness. Middle aged ladies like a well dressed man but ask an awful lot of questions bout the reasons behind choices.

I always thought the Lessers stuff was pretty much old city of london; dry with no finish whatsoever. If I got one suit from all the numbers I liked from Harrisons and Lessers, I'd have another 100 suits! The 11 oz worsted flannel in the Harrisons bunch is pretty much a milled worsted and the new LGB flannel Harrisons relaunched in their Lessers book is really, very nice.

I have seen the bateman and ogden books. There was another English company that had that but I cant remember their name now.

Im thinking of doing myself a DB in a "Tory boy" Lesser cloth. Likely 16oz a chalk stripe or pinstripe.

I have that book, nice stuff.

Have you guys seen Harrisons oyster cloth?

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

I have that book, nice stuff.

Have you guys seen Harrisons oyster cloth?

My previous tailor pulled his book, didn't like it, said it had to hard a finish. I thought Oyster was sold as Thistle in the US. Is Thistle a different book?

It may be Thistle here, it's oyster on the Harrisons website. They seem to promote it as awesome bread and butter City suit cloth.

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

My previous tailor pulled his book, didn't like it, said it had to hard a finish. I thought Oyster was sold as Thistle in the US. Is Thistle a different book?

It may be Thistle here, it's oyster on the Harrisons website. They seem to promote it as awesome bread and butter City suit cloth.

Well, again this was several years ago and he may have had a few bad lengths which spooked him enough to pull the bunch. Buy a trouser length and have Mr Carvato make it up, see what he thinks.

What about Fine Classics and that other bunch Conquest?

All these books, Its too bloody confusing.

I doubt I will try them, any of them. For that look, I would rather go with either the H. Lesser 11 or 13 oz books. I've been using them for a while now and I like the look and feel, plus they will literally last forever; same with the LGB which has the added bonus of getting softer without a decay in fibre quality.

Outside of a small set of people, you dont get much of premium in the USA from observers for wearing a milled finish cloth. And to the naked eye, the Harrisons worsted flannel is shaved to the point where it is basically a milled finish. And how many of those do I need? Harrisons makes 4 versions of the FNB chalkie.

I am in a city where Harrisons Frontier and Mystique are handier cloths. And, I know those cloths are very popular in the UK (more so 'Frontier").

After that, i jump to the premier cru, cru classe, grand cru. Slightly more finish than the Lesser cloths (no finish at all) but still no shine to them.