Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

The quality of a suit

Will

One of the Regulars
Messages
100
Location
San Francisco Bay area
J. M. Stovall said:
Here's my question: if new suits fabric is 120, 130 and such, what would the fabric in vintage suits be using that grading system? And where does fabric like modern tweed fit in?

Somebody needs to make me a chart!:p

The standard cloth used in Savile Row suits before the start of the Super grading system was roughly a Super 80.
 

Matt Deckard

Man of Action
Messages
10,045
Location
A devout capitalist in Los Angeles CA.
I do have to ask though, what is it that you guys are doing that would necessitate having to wear a lower count than 120s
Everything, I want a suit that can take life like I take life.

There is a big seperation these days between quality and luxury.

There were plenty of smooth dense wools. It's not about the fuzzy wools... fuzzy wears out faster. I prefer density.

I want quality... Luxury is a silk suit. I want a suit that lasts and looks great and that takes a stout wool.
Many of the suits I have from the golden era are average... It's well made and fits comfortably. That's hard to find today.

If the modern day concept of "quality" keeps going up, my suits will be lasting a month.
 

herringbonekid

I'll Lock Up
Messages
6,016
Location
East Sussex, England
Senator Jack said:
But being being in the minority who wants to buy a suit to wear at least once a week, we get freezed out.

agreed. ultra lightweight suiting is just another thing the public are being made to believe they 'must have'.

Senator Jack said:
Silk and 'silky' suits kind of put me in the mind of a flouncing Indian prince...

agreed again. i want to feel the resistence of a suit when i'm wearing it. i don't want to feel like i'm wearing pyjamas. especially in english weather. hell, i'm a man. i want TEXTURE. i want roughness. raarrgghh.
 

carebear

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,220
Location
Anchorage, AK
herringbonekid said:
agreed again. i want to feel the resistence of a suit when i'm wearing it. i don't want to feel like i'm wearing pyjamas. especially in english weather. hell, i'm a man. i want TEXTURE. i want roughness. raarrgghh.

Somebody get that man a blood-rare steak and a power tool. STAT!
 
Super 120s fabric? I think we should be told.

hulk.jpg


bk
 

Lawman

One of the Regulars
Messages
175
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
This really is a great thread. I have spent a lot of money on suits over the years, and I have three in my closet right now that really look and wear the best. And they are not the most expensive. I have two Golden Fleece BB three-button suits that have an incredibly dense wool that looks like a million bucks. Today I am wearing a chalk stripe Hickey Freeman made of a very dense brown wool. It looks like the kind of stuff you see in the old Golden Era films. These suits look great from a distance, and great up close. They don't wrinkle. I have some 120s and 130s that have a great look, but if you get in a car wearing them, you know you'll be facing some steamer time before you can wear them again. I rotae my suits, but even so, being an old footballer with thick thighs, the finer wools all seem to bring that dreaded realization, sooner or later, that you can read a newspaper through the crotch.

Mark
 

herringbonekid

I'll Lock Up
Messages
6,016
Location
East Sussex, England
Lawman said:
the finer wools all seem to bring that dreaded realization, sooner or later, that you can read a newspaper through the crotch.

Mark


i'm sorry, i don't understand this analogy. are you talking about the see through qualities of lightweight fabric ?
 

Robert Conway

A-List Customer
Messages
324
Location
Here and there...
I agree. To me quality is about four things.

Level of workmanship
Obviously a poorly cut, fitted or assembled suit is useless, no matter how good the material is.

Quality of the material

Does the material full fill the needs of the garment? What good is a 180 series suit if the cloth is so thin that it won't drape properly or hold its shape?

The visual quality of the material

The material has to be able to withstand day to day abuse and years of cleaning, BUT it also has to look good (I'm speaking of the fabrics character and beauty). If it wears like iron, but is unattractive, what's the point?

Longevity
Will the garment last for many years and maintain an appealing appearance with normal use? Is the material sturdy enough to survive the normal day to day wear for a reasonable amount of time, with proper care?
 
I have a question that's been nagging at me for awhile.... when did the tight armholes give way to the bigger, looser ones? thanks!

I went out to a few vintage shops a few months back to see if I could come up with a time frame. I had been thinking it began with the 70s leisure suit, so I went out and tried on a half-dozen jackets from that era, and sure enough though the sleeves and chest were my size, the armholes were big. So I wondered if the low armholes even went farther back and I started to try on as many 60s low-gorge two button jackets as I could find. This time, I found an occassional low armhole. So, I'm thinking it begins around 66-67. The Kennedy era two buttons seem to always have the high armholes, but in the second half of the decade, the low starts creeping in, and by the 70s, a lot of of-the-peg jackets are low armhole.

Regards,

Senator Jack
 

slicedbread

A-List Customer
Messages
487
Location
Murphy, Tx
Does it not strike you as odd that, over time, practically every suit company adopted the low armhole...Wouldn't you think a few would stick to the old ways? Is it more costly to make higher armholes?
 
Yeah, we've covered that angle, SlicedBread. There are so many references to armholes here at the Lounge that you probably won't find the exact post, so I'll go through it again.

No, it doesn't make sense. The old excuse that you'll get from tailors, stylists, mavens, who don't want to do any sort of research is that men started working out and they needed room for all these newfound muscles that no man had before 1970. But when we think about it, just what was the percentage of men in the 70s that was actually working out. Let's be generous and say 5%. So now we're to believe that the clothing industry changed all their jacket and shirt patterns just so it could please 5% of the public?

Every time I read that excuse in a magazine, I cringe. No one seems to think about the illogicity of it. If 5% of the men today suddenly grew tails, would the industry include a 'tail pouch' on every pair of trousers produced? Anyway, I have yet to hear one logical reason for the drop and I suspect in twenty years time no one will have a reason for the shift to Super 150s either.

Regards,

Senator Jack
 

Tony in Tarzana

My Mail is Forwarded Here
Messages
3,276
Location
Baldwin Park California USA
Senator Jack said:
No, it doesn't make sense. The old excuse that you'll get from tailors, stylists, mavens, who don't want to do any sort of research is that men started working out and they needed room for all these newfound muscles that no man had before 1970.

Regards,

Senator Jack

Yeah, I've heard that, and it's horse, well, stuff. My modern cheap jackets have huge armholes and are tight around my biceps, and I ain't no Mr. Universe. lol
 

Forum statistics

Threads
107,350
Messages
3,034,879
Members
52,782
Latest member
aronhoustongy
Top