This looks very much like the way Leamington Spa's Clever Trevor works - He sets his stuff up on the Giant vibrator table.

I thought I should come back to this. In my previous post, I say "I generally agree with... cutting one ply at a time". I should clarify that, because it looks as if I am contradicting myself.

The issue I have with some bossy tailors in the forums is the bull$hit that they're way is superior to this-or-that. That's just tree-pissing and marketing schlock, frankly. Or, that RTW is generally inferior because they choose to neglect context.

I've gone rounds with several because I can and will call bull$hit. I can (and do) speak at length about what RTW's limitations are - the primary issue being fit or sizing. But, that has nothing to do with the methods of construction or the operations model.

So, coming back around to the initial statement. Cutting more than one ply at a time is not "bad", per se. It does come with inherent risks. But, a tailor shop who employs a batch process (pictured) will *never* lay as many plies as it takes to develop errors. The degree of accuracy begins to waiver when the spread is over 2" thick (~100 plies).

At that point,  the degree of error is > 1/64". Multiply that by X4 panels, the shirt on the bottom of the stack could be - get this - 1/16" larger than one sewn from the top of the stack. Frankly, of all the tailor/dress/costume shops I've worked in, a 1/16" error (twice the width of a needle) wouldn't have registered - it matters in a factory.

A smart mfg knows to not spread the full 8" the knife will cut if errors begin to happen at 2" high - duh! A desperate mfg will stack all 8" because WalMart is flogging the whip, telling them to sacrifice quality in lieu of volume (BTW: the degree of error at 8" depth almost 1/4").

Clothes from WalMart are also not a sample indicator of quality across the RTW industry (this would be the context that gets discarded, above). {BTW: What's a bloke in a $200 shirt doing at WalMart? That seems a little inverse-proportionate to me.}

To say one's process is superior because J Sprowls uses a batch operations process is equally wrong. And, for the record, Pagz never said anything like that (that I'm aware of). But, several bossy tailors have inferred my work is shoddy because they don't like the way RTW operates.

{Interesting, none of them has been able to articulate the brands I work for :-) Neither have they shown any pictures of my work or my contractor's work. So, how could they possibly know?} I think mine is the next reputation they will try to sink. 'ang on, Darren, I'll meet ya in he!! real soon. 'ave a pint ready for me!

I agree. Hober has struck the balance of an online vendor using viral marketing tactics. Speaking of... I need to get in touch with him, again. I spoke with him a long time ago and drafted a tie pattern in exchange for some sourcing information. I need to see how it's working for him.

That aside, my goal is certainly not to hawk my wares - I have none, per se. I mostly read the boards for market research (e.g. what consumers like, don't like and are noticing on the market). In truth, some commentary from FNB has turned me onto several shirting sources whose books I've ordered and will eventually begin developing into product (volume pricing and consistent lots are difficult to nail down with some of the weavers).

I should give a compliment where one is due. The FNB audience is much more articulate about their issues, sources, opinions and facts. I can get the market info I need in a relatively short period of time. At one point, I had several 5" binders full of printed posts from AAAC (too long to read online). It took a very long time to collect all the feedback, cross-validate, analyze and articulate the Problems, Causes and Solutions. Over 3(?) years, I think I've articulated 30 issues and preferences from there. It was much more work than was necessary.

In short, there's too much chaff to sift over there.