A short piece in the December issue of 'Which'. http://www.40savilerow.co.uk/prices.php
Strange they did not go to Jermyn Street.
I did not think Marks' shirts had a great reputation.
I saw 'Which' in a library. I only subscribed when I first set up home. Saved looking at various white goods in the shops.
'Which' is somehow small-minded though. For people who never really enjoy themselves and are constantly looking to save a penny. I do not pay a lot of attention to what it says about items other than consumer durables.
Last edited by Kingstonian (2008-12-15 05:31:01)
I could be mistaken but I think proper shirtmakers like Harvey and Hudson's prices are lower than 40 Savile Row so they may have been trying to pick a particularly bad example. The other thought is that the great unwashed will have heard of Savile Row and not Jermyn St. Either way I think this was meant as a dig at people who don't buy OTR shirts - I'm taking it that fit wasn't a criteria?
I never really though M&S shirts were that great, they don't fit me well anyway, and that is why I went to Jermyn Street (or rather to the late Webster Bros. on Cornhill who are owned by Budd).
I agree with my fellow Kingstonian. Can you post a link to the Which article?
I cannot understand the pricing structure at 40 Savile Row. IIRC, the shirts are made in Ulster and the suits by BMB. You can get better value, especially on shirts, on the Row and in Jermyn Street.
Sorry Bishop I only got sight of 'Which' in a library.
Not many shirtmakers were in the survey, but Which chose to highlight the price discrepancy while claiming the M&S shirt was a better fit..
It was only a comparison of four shirts - two of them M&S - redwood and feller did the assessment, and 40 SR got 3/10. M&S was rated highly because the fit worked best for one guy and they "only needed three measurements". No judgement on construction or material was made. The orders were all on-line and perhaps reflected the inexperience of the person buying them or the general inadequacy of on-line shirt-buying. To say it was not comprehensive would be a severe understatement.