The quality of a suit

I've heard that story, too, J.M., and I can't believe that either. I have and had 50s/60s suits and jackets labeled "Sears" and "Penney's", obviously off the peg, and the armoholes are high. Unless, it was during this ten year period that they discovered that off the peg jackets weren't fitting everyone, so they began experimenting with the armhole. Possible.

Regards,

Senator Jack

.

Who has low hung arms? Why would this fit anyone?

As for material.....I am not into disposable clothing....especially suits. They can keep their "super" suits.

Naaah, the vast majority of 30s suits you find are off-the-rack types. They were tailored in that each store had a tailor who'd get the arms to the right length and the legs cuffed right, but not "tailored" bespoke. And the armsholes are very high. Very few people have used tailors from the 30s onwards - it simply became unaffordable. And moreso today since bespoke tailoring has become such a niche market.

bk

don't forget the fat factor

me and Marc worked the whole armhole thing out a while ago in another thread which i can't find. the formula goes something like: armani (loose fit) + increase in fat people + 'easy fit' one size fits all = bigger armholes.

you'll have to believe me but in england which has only recently seen an obesity boom, armholes have remained relatively small on off the peg suits.

That's anothe myth. People were fat in the 30's and 40's too... maybe not as many, though my vintage off the racks that were size 48 and 50 had high armholes...

Matt Deckard said:

...maybe not as many

Click to expand...

understatement of the year.

herringbonekid said:

understatement of the year.

Click to expand...

The impact of Ray Kroc, and his ilk, on American society has been devastating, and it's going global.

Ray Kroc? Who he?

bk

Baron Kurtz said:

Ray Kroc? Who he?

bk

Click to expand...

founder of McDonalds....

Really? I'd always assumed someone called McDonald, perhaps an ageing farm owner, started McDonalds.

Well, i guess he couldn't really call it Kroc's, eh?

bk

Ray Croc was a milkshake mixer salesman, and the original McDonalds was a customer of his. Ray saw how it was always doing a booming business and bought the guys name and idea away from him, while Mr. McDonald kept his original store. Eventually Ray opened one of his own McDonalds across the street and drove poor Mr. McDonald out of business.

J. M. Stovall said:

Ray Croc was a milkshake mixer salesman, and the original McDonalds was a customer of his. Ray saw how it was always doing a booming business and bought the guys name and idea away from him, while Mr. McDonald kept his original store. Eventually Ray opened one of his own McDonalds across the street and drove poor Mr. McDonald out of business.

Click to expand...

There are a few inaccuracies in your telling of the story, which go well beyond the misspelling of Mr. Kroc's name.

Meh...

No point in worrying about a few facts.....the story is googleable....



back to suit quality......

Miss Neecerie said:

back to suit quality......

Click to expand...

Sorry:eusa_doh:

I think that for many men, no matter the era, getting a good fit from an OTR suit has always been problematic. Today, several Italian makers offer jackets with a high armcye, but be prepared for skimpy tapered trousers. IMO, Oxxford offers the closest thing to an OTR Golden Era suit, albeit at a steep price. Of course going the custom route is an option.

Oxxford still leads the way when it comes to super light wools and navy blue legions at the Senate.

Tomasso said:

There are a few inaccuracies in your telling of the story, which go well beyond the misspelling of Mr. Kroc's name.

Click to expand...

And after his takeover of McDonalds he was accidentally mutated in the sewers of Gotham City and became quite the foe for Batman, a real "Killer" I hear.

J. M. Stovall said:

And after his takeover of McDonalds he was accidentally mutated in the sewers of Gotham City and became quite the foe for Batman, a real "Killer" I hear.

Click to expand...

fftopic: now, really, Mr. Stovall...everyone knows Mr Kroc was born that way. lol

Quality Suiting Fabrics?

Here's something I gave to our salespeople to use when selling our clothing.


There has been a great deal of confusion regarding the quality of fabrics. The world seems to have been sold a bill of goods regarding 'super' fabrics. I hope not to add to that confusion and maybe clear up a few misconceptions.

The term "Super" as used in Super 100's Etc. has no bearing on the overall quality of a woven fabric. The Super 11's, 120's, 150's Etc. refers only to the diameter of the fiber. Super 100's start witha cross-section diameter of less than 18.5 microns. The higher the 'Super' number the smaller the micron diameter and longer the length of a single yarn from a pound of fiber can be spun.

All very interesting but not the most important in determining the overrall quality of a fabric. What goes into a great fabric?

1. Quality of the Fiber as noted above
2. Spinning of the yarn, the quality of the spinning and the number of turns per inch whether single or two ply yarns means a lot to the final performance of the fabric.
3. Dyeing, whether dyeing the wool stock before spinning (Stock Dyed) dyeing the wool in Top form (One of the straightening and aligning processes in worsted yarn spinning) aka Top Dyed, dyeing the yarn (Yarn or Package dyeing) or dying the fabric after waeving (Piece Dyed).
4. Weaving having the proper number of warp and weft threads per inch on the loom and after finishing is of critical importance.
5. Finishing or treating the fabric after weaving, shrinking, stabilizing, milling, shearing, pressing are among the many things that may occur prior to shipping the fabric to the manufacturer. Whether a clear hard finish, a soft flannel face or something inbetween, finishing can make or break a fabric.

For a great fabric to be created all of the items listed above must be considered. The most important thing is to determine is the end use of the fabric. In a suiting, will it be worn often or just occasionally, does it need to resist wrinkles and recovr quickly when wrinkled, for what season will it be worn, what overall look and feel is desired. Depending on the aswers given above the mill designer sets out to create a fabric to meet them.

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. 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?

Click to expand...

I'm sure I need hardly remind the Senator from Queens that the name of that tune is marketing – and marketing of a most insidious kind: marketing to the industry. The kind the buying public never gets let in on, but that controls (sometimes outright curtails) their choices for quality and affordability. Then the manufacturers can chirp righteously, "It's what the public wants," while meaning "it's what we want the public to want."

The genius of industry marketing is that you no longer (think you) need to appeal to the end user. He's just a mug, helpless before your crafty wiles. (Never was this truer than in retail men's clothing in the early 1970s.) The sell was in, I suspect, after a few makers convinced a few store buyers – and not that lots of actual men were bodybuilding, but that the trend, the new body image, was to be muscular and fit, and that retailers could associate themselves profitably with the trend.

I'm sure that the low armhole was snuck in, a low-profile and comparatively unsexy detail, amidst a dizzying barrage of other Peacock Revolt features like low-rise flared trou, wash-n-wear stretch doubleknit, and a pastel-puke panoply of colors. I'm almost as sure that the real reason for the low armhole was a secret even from the retailers: it was easier and cheaper to make. (I'm assuming. Was it?)

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.

Click to expand...

Commerce, ultimately, has no history. You make a buck, you make it today. Sometimes in ways you're not proud of. The business world is full of low armholes, if you know what I mean.

give that man a cigar

and it's nothing new. Industry marketing in the golden era was just as insidious. Read an issue of Apparel Arts. Whew . . . all the tricks of the trade to get people to buy what you want 'em to buy. Quite disgusting really . . . they know full well what they're doing, but making a buck for the industry is more important than giving people good product. All that matters is that it's NEW product. Frankly, a garment businessman does not want his OTR/MTM suits to last. He wants you to have to buy new ones. This is why they hate vintage afficianados and keep trying to subvert the vintage-clothing culture. We don't shop in their high street stores. We're looking for grand deals on high quality suiting that will last yet another lifetime.

herringbonekid said:

me and Marc worked the whole armhole thing out a while ago in another thread which i can't find. the formula goes something like: armani (loose fit) + increase in fat people + 'easy fit' one size fits all = bigger armholes.

you'll have to believe me but in england which has only recently seen an obesity boom, armholes have remained relatively small on off the peg suits.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, i have trouble putting too much blame on the increase in weighty individuals. As Matt D. pointed out, though fewer of 'em, there were large men in the golden era. And their suits had high-cut armholes. We come back to marketing. Men have been convinced - erroneously - that low slung armholes mean increased comfort (Art Fawcett has a great tale he related in another thread about the jacket-testing habits men who'd come into his vintage clothing store). Because they are unlikely to ever touch a jacket with high armholes, they will never defeat this myth. And frankly, jackets with lower armholes are easier to put on. Try it sometime. And we've got to the point where the tiny amount of effort required to put on a high-armholed jacket has become too much.

My most hated word of all time? Convenience.

bk