Back to the concept of cut vs fabric quality. I remember early on in my research I noticed that seemingly everyone in England wore the same fabric patterns from high to low and from naughty to nice. Several unrelated sources said that what separated the Barrister from the East End gangster wasn't so much fabric as the cut. It was then I began to understand that cut was king in the UK for mens' suits and that fabrics were a settled, secondary concern. I think this is partly because the English will not or cannot afford/concern themselves with expensive suit fabrics. Fabrics must be good quality but non spectacular.

In NYC, men make a great fuss over quality and fineness of the wool with unique patterns of cloth making much more of a splash than their cut. I think it's partly because of all the countries with a tailoring tradition, the USA is the most distanced from it and thus the impact comes from the uniqueness of cloth. At my tailor, it seems like there are a couple of customers who resent anyone else's presence, I have begun to believe partly because they feel they are the only ones in the world who know about tailors.

Certainly, until recently, part of the reason I liked strong chalk stripes is because they were never available here except through a custom tailor. Even today, the real first thing that people notice is the fabric. 

I am happy I made an anthropological study of the UK because I might have wandered off into the every suit a different fabric direction whereas the approach in the UK is a fixed number of acceptable patterns personalized with accessories. In the USA it is the opposite, accessories are generally bland with the suit delivering visual pop. But I think the English get it right for business clothes with the suit or dark sports coat a sort of dark monolith assailed with colorful or unique accessories.

I should add something here. England, for being a smaller country with a concept of exclusivity, actually has more of a broad spread cultural laundry list of taste for colors, fabrics, patterns and combinations of these (although acceptable shapes for clothes and suit cloth patterns are smaller). The USA, a more inclusive culture, actually has a smaller list of colors for ties, socks and shirts (although acceptable shapes are broader and suit pattern cloths can border on the bizarre). I think it's because an American (well, the average American, upper middle class America isn't that far off from English tastes) is hyper concerned with looking the same; eccentricity is frowned upon as imperfect and dysfunctional rather than talented and individual. One man in a meeting who identified himself to us as upper middle class  simply couldn't get over my pink socks. He was convinced he'd found something that pointed to weakness in my character. He was so delighted with himself that I realized what he was subliminally saying was that he grew up wearing a mullet. A real upper middle class American would have liked those socks even if he wouldn't have worn them and he certainly wouldn't have gone on and on pointing at them.

We celebrate the production line and the perfect heroic image of a man. Not to mention the vast majority of Americans are reinventing themselves or trying to fool those around them. Not for nothing do we use the plain white and blue shirt and the plain navy or grey suit as standards. The suit here is not just clothing it is a way to fit into "corporate" culture without any other apparent qualifications.