Seems like a very fair review to me. What exactly is your objection to it? Would it be more 'stylish' to encourage readers to buy a service that Simon deep down feels is lacking?

Last edited by Jake (2010-05-04 10:23:50)

Interesting dilemma.  I read that blog post shortly after it was posted.  I thought the tailor would be quite upset.  I was suprised as it is somewhat out of character with the rest of the blog posts.  Generally, it seems fair, as it is one of opinion and not opinion stated as fact.  There were some ancillary comments which seemed unnecessary: "At the second fitting the seat seemed a little better, but still tight. The waistcoat looked the same. And I swear the jacket had been shortened from the bottom, though Charlie said this was not the case. I may have been mistaken."

Personally, I don't swear to things if I am concerned I might easily be corrected.  Perhaps it is down to writing style, but that turn of phrase is unfortunate.  It gives the reader the perspective the tailor may be less than skilled but also, and clearly worse, less than honest.   The tailor is in a difficult spot because if he comes and defends himself he will risk appearing beligerent and defensive, as I believe many people view the tailor who frequents SF and AAAC.  We shall probably never know the real story. 

I for one like the look of the waistcoat, and the lapel stiching worked for me.  Admittedly, that may be a sign of my ignorance.

Last edited by g- (2010-05-04 10:42:37)

If you don't know the tailor, how do you know he is concerned and hasn't been allowed to post on the blog?

I read the post and the suit looked a mess. Particularly, the button looked lower than the buttonhole on the jacket and the waistcoat buttons didn't seem to line up straight.

It's Crompton's blog and he can express himself how he wants. I hold no brief for him and, when he has posted about stuff where I have personal knowledge of the people involved - as he has once or twice - I think he's got it wrong. But he makes his position clear and this was a freebie in exchange for a review. There is no entitlement to a good review and he wants his readers to trust him.

I don't know the tailor but I refuse to be cross-questioned on my source of information! I didn't say that the tailor had not been granted a right of reply. I said that my comments had been blocked. The suit may or may not be a mess. That is not the point. Crompton seems to have chosen the most expensive cloth on offer and accepted the suit and he seems to want to wear it. As I say, it is not the negativity of the review in relation to the quality of the workmanship (which, frankly, is not really discernible from the picture, especially since the vest is not properly buttoned-up), it is the imputation of dishonesty without any real evidence, beyond Crompton's eye, which is not that of a tailor. But, hey, this is not my fight and it's over to Charlie! Mind you, I would just add that the bespoke process entails discussion and instructions to get it right. You don't walk away with something that isn't right; an option here might have been to have said: "I can't give this suit a good review. The review that I might produce could be damaging. Maybe, keep the suit for window-dressing and I'll leave the review."
RR

Last edited by Reckless Reggie (2010-05-04 14:13:05)

Grossgrain silk - Maybe the point about the bespoke process is the better point. You state your requirements and, if you're new to the tailor (especially one with an ususual background), even down to the handwork expected, wadding, padding (or not), vents, pockets, shaping and so forth and you don't take the garment until it is right. Moreover, you always examine an example of their recent work to see what you think of it. Maybe, the blog says as much about the blogger's lack of experience as a bespeaker as anything. Possibly, he didn't press for everything to be corrected because the suit was a 'freebie' but that is not a good policy as both tailor and customer end up dissatisfied.
RR

Last edited by Reckless Reggie (2010-05-04 16:18:05)

Compston has now added some additional comments of his own to his review. My attempted first comment (which was not vulgar but reasoned) might not have been blocked as "I couldn't swear" that he had just over-looked it. It will be interesting to see whether a second attempt at reasoned comment gets anywhere.
RR