Pages: 1
I was asked for input by an editor at the WSJ writing an article about cloth quantities but rather than make it about myself, I thought I would open the topic up for others here as well.
My contribution would be that cloth used to contain all these fibers in them naturally, 80s, 100s, 120s, 150s etc. and they were beautiful wools with depth and life. But at some point the finer fibres were combed out by the mills and sold as "better" cloths. The result was to deaden the suppleness of the standard suit material. It is no wonder there is no turning back and that the higher numbers might actually give people better performance. Buying yarn quality is an exercise in buying a la carte from a non-fungible menu. There isn't that much super 150s and up yarn available, so if you buy any, make sure you buy from the most reputable merchats around who live and die by their reputations for quality like Harrisons of Edinburgh and H. Lesser.
Holdouts like Dugdale Bros. and H. Lesser and Sons still make cloth that often eludes a "super" label in spite of the wool's innate superiority. To compare their cloth to supers quality is missing the point entirely, well woven wool with good ingredients doesnt need to be a super. Also the finish on the fabric is a lot of the final determination with regard to the wool's beauty.
I have many suits from super 100s, 120s, 130s, 160s etc and they perform well. They are fine, smooth and modern. Choose wisely from good merchants and the cloth quality will truly be as advertised.
My experience is that superfine cloth detracts from rather than enhances a suit. It tends to wrinkle and lacksa certain substance and structure. Cloth with substance and body tends to hug the torso and conform to the body, if tailored properly, and compliment the person wearing the suit. The lighter and lighter cloth are marketed as newer, better, improved to influence the consumer to constantly replace (upgrade) his wardrobe, which, in the end, really reduces clothes from a smart, longterm investment to expendable extravagances
My interest is in how the cloth makes up and what it looks like afterwards, longevity is not really a concern. That said, I have S150 and S180 suits that have taken a hammering over several years and still look good, although the trouser lining has had to be replaced a couple of times as I do seem to destroy that for some reason.
I haven't noticed much more wrinkling in the Supers, but as I steam my suits quite regularly it may be that I just don't notice. There is a different, softer drape to the Supers, and definitely a softer, lighter feel. This is more noticeable in the S180 rather than the S150 but is probably at least partly due to the finishing.
Although I agree with Marc about the superfines, my feeling is that it really comes down to the wearer and the context in which he's wearing the suit. If you're hacking around some big metropolis in the winter as opoosed to Santa Barbara in May, your choices, obviously, will and should be different. I have no trouble with the superfines, but I never travel with them. I travel with a more brutish blend because they endure and I don't have to worry about getting knocked around a bit or the threat of inclement weather.
Some people are 'hard' on clothes, others easy. I'm the latter. I have a pair of argyle socks that are in great condition that must be twenty plus years old. They were of immaculate quality. Why they haven't worn out yet or didn't pill I don't know. Now my friend goes through even better quality clothes like a jack rabbit through a goose-creek shed.
So it's the man as much as the fabric, IMHO.
--RT
The other commerce-driven development in cloth is cashmere blends, which allows purveyours to increase the price of their goods without really adding value, given that the small amounts of cashmere, often merely 1%, do little or nothing to provide appreciable softness.
I have no expertise, but I'd say as someone mildly educated in matters sartorial that I'd eschew all "Super" fabrics because I see them as a marketing gimmick, or I see them as unnecessary and untraditional. There are others who I respect and who disagree with me.
edit: grammar & poor syntax, as usual
Last edited by Horace (2006-11-04 01:25:05)
I can't agree more. Luciano Barbera, one of my favorites, eschews the numbering system completely when you order directly. All cloths cost the same, regardless of "quality".
Luddites! Surely technological improvements count for something, no?
This may be a little out of the sartorial universe inhabited by most of the members of this board, but I urge you all to check out a new denim line called Gilded Age. Their claim to fame is to use materials made with "gilded age" technology. You can read quite a bit about them on their web site www.gildedage.net
"I have many suits from super 100s, 120s, 130s, 160s etc and they perform well."
I like the comfort and durability I get from my Super wools. This is just one aspect of the quality of a cloth though. I don't ever see much in the way of wrinkling issues.
I think it'd be interesting to do an extended comparison of the arguments for and against cloth qualities, esp. super numbers that have been offered by Alden (over at londonlounge) and FNB.
I read the article on supers in the Journal last week. Anyone else see it? They didn't really go into the nitty-gritty, did they?
Pages: 1