In theory I really like them adn think that you can see great examples in old pictures. 

GS's brand sounds like they are getting ready to launch a cooler version.

I didn't notice that waist suppression was so popular on Style Forum.  I recall  a coat of mine being called alternately feminine and militaristic, but there is no accounting for taste... or lack of it.

I've seen some sack suits done and worn with style while the majority of them are just as what you would expect of the majority: inferior.

The sack suit tends to work best on the more portly and larger figured men whereas I feel that a thinner and smaller man would require something shaped, if minimally. Manton's advice of short men wearing shoulder pads to compensate is ridiculous, I feel. One needn't look like a Gotti tragedy to be stylish.

Another noob question- what does it mean that a suit is "undarted"?

So basically what you are saying is that if I am a larger more bulky (be it heavy, athletic, muscular, etc) type then a sack suit might look ok on me? 

What is the alternative?  MTM?

Pulling in the side seams and adding some very slight shaping can easily be done to a Brooks/Press (etc) RTW Sack. Not at all expensive.
Those I wear with a collar & tie I have this done to. Anything that I wear with more layers underneath I leave alone.
As with everthing you either like the style or you don't & it either suits you or it doesn't (Profound, eh?).
I too am looking forward to seeing what GS does with the Sack.

I think (again) that there is too much literal interpretation of what a Sack is and is not on the MBs and so the Sack gets a bad name as an item which neither fits or suits the wearer if people purely think of the style just as some sort of bag with sleeves.
Horace's old Ivy League style adverts show just how much variety there used to be in the shape of Sacks.

Maybe the new 'orthodoxy' of the Sack's shape comes from the OPH where I think it is called 'baggy' & 'unfitted' and boasts 'no shaping'?
And indeed it can be that... along with a lot of other things too.

Down with the new orthodoxy and back to the heritage of American Traditional variety - Surely that's Tradder?

Maybe... maybe... you can keep 'The Curriculum' as 'Trad 101'?
The very basic, foot-in-the-door beginner's approach to the style?
That would stand up. It could be a primary school curriculum, not any sort of PhD in 'Trad'.

In the same way that 'Trad' can stand as a clever bit of spoofing, 'The Curiculum' could also have validity as a 'start here and then move on quickly' point.
I'm aware that neither 'Trad' nor 'The Curiculum' were initially presented in these ways, but as a way of finding positives in the whole business the above approach could be useful.
Maybe?

Last edited by Incroyable (2007-02-10 21:13:47)