It HURT to lose this auction !!

[Howard Hughes]

PARDON ?

Not being an internet nerd, can you please explain the meaning of LURK MOAR.

Toodleoo HH

 

[scotrace]

Pasted from Wiki as information without intending commentary on present company:

Lurker
The term dates back to the mid-1980s. Because BBSs were often accessed by a single phone line (frequently in someone's home), there was an expectation that all who used a bulletin board would contribute to its content by uploading files and posting comments. Lurkers were viewed negatively, and might be barred from access by the sysop, if they did not contribute anything but kept the phone line tied up for extended periods.

By contrast, many modern Internet communities now advise newbies to lurk for some time to get a feel for the specific culture and etiquette of the community, lest they make an inappropriate or redundant comment, ask a Frequently Asked Question, or incite a flame war. This leads to the tongue-in-cheek command to "lurk more", often intentionally misspelled as "lurk moar". The verb to "de-lurk" means to start contributing actively to a community having been a lurker previously.

There are also some who lurk on a forum habitually, and rarely, if ever, contribute. It is generally difficult to guess how many such lurkers are present, due to their silence. In flame-wars, a participant who is losing an argument will sometimes claim to receive email support from lurkers. This inspired Jo Walton to write a filk on the subject entitled "The Lurkers Support Me in Email".

 

[Howard Hughes]

APOLOGY

Right.
First of all, my comments concerning this thread were not only true, plain blazers do not command high prices here in the UK, unless it is a Double-Breasted suit with high lapels, most people are not interested, so prices stay low.
My comments were not meant to be negative, but a "it wasn't worth that much anyway, Marc, there are plenty others out there" kind of thing.
I have already replied to Marc on a PM concerning this point and giving him contact details for a good UK dealer.
The Lounger who posted the LURK MOAR post was, in my opinion out of order, and probably finds solace in sniping at people who are out of reach and this is not the kind of behaviour I expected on The Fedora Lounge, I actually expected a bit more class.

Anyway, once bitten, twice shy.

Sorry Marc, if my comments caused offence.

Yours Sincerely
HH

 

[benstephens]

Wow, I have just found this

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/research/fa/bjsimmons.scope.html

It seems, the B J Simmons was a very prolific costume manfacturer for great plays and operas. I would say the 1941 bit is the post 1941 company. have a look at this part of the link

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/research/fa/bjsimmons.bio.html

It says the company was taken over in 1940/41 but B J Simmons continued as its own concern, hence I believe the 1941 tag.

Very interesting

I think you can search the archive as well!

I believe you have it, Ben. Excellent detective work.

Congratulations,

 

[Wolfmanjack]

Wow, I have just found this

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/research/fa/bjsimmons.scope.html

It seems, the B J Simmons was a very prolific costume manfacturer for great plays and operas. I would say the 1941 bit is the post 1941 company. have a look at this part of the link

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/research/fa/bjsimmons.bio.html

It says the company was taken over in 1940/41 but B J Simmons continued as its own concern, hence I believe the 1941 tag.

Very interesting

I think you can search the archive as well!

Very interesting indeed, Ben. I did a little searching at the Harry Hansom Center website at the University of Texas, Austin. I found that B.J. Simmons made nearly 300 costumes in 1941, supplying one theatre production and six film productions. The costume in question was likely one of these. If one could rummage about in the Hansom Center holdings, we would probably turn up the renderings for this very costume. Details below:

Series I. Costume Design Portfolios, 1878-1969

Subseries A. Theatre Productions, 1878-1964​

Job, Title, Theater / Production, Date, Items
262, GET A LOAD OF THIS ("surprise musical"), London Hippodrome, 1941, 12

Subseries B. Film Productions, 1923-1962

Job, Title, Director / Studio, Date, Items
888, ATLANTIC FERRY, Walter Forde / Warner Bros., 1941, 63
923, HATTER'S CASTLE, Lance Comfort / Paramount British, 1941, 38
924, HE FOUND A STAR, John Paddy Carstairs / General Films, 1941, 10
961, PENN OF PENNSYLVANIA, Lance Comfort / British National Films Ltd., 1941, 59
965, PRIME MINISTER, THE, Thorold Dickinson / Warner Bros. , 1941, 46​

 

[benstephens]

The suit in question appears to be on ebay again, This time sans label.

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Amazing that, eh? Where did the label go? It's certainly the same suit.

bk

 

[benstephens]

Its a shame, as it is a piece of theatre history, also, for what it is, you will not find anything closer to an actual suit made in the period.

A few of the details are definately latter, especially the way the trousers have been finished.

 

[benstephens]

Oh dear.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230327668090&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:GB:1123

I hope the new owner is happy, It is a well made suit, better than any modern reproduction.

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[Mahagonny Bill]

Oh dear.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230327668090&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:GB:1123

I hope the new owner is happy, It is a well made suit, better than any modern reproduction.

Kindest Regards

Ben

To quote BinkieBaumont

"They paid HOW MUCH?"

It's a very fine looking suit, but isn't £500.00+ a bit excessive?

 

[Tomasso]

It's a very fine looking suit, but isn't £500.00+ a bit excessive?

If you wanted to replicate that today it would probably cost treble the winning bid, at the very least.

 

[benstephens]

If you wanted to replicate that today it would probably cost treble the winning bid, at the very least.

Yes that is very true, in fact, I do not think they could replicate it today.

 

[Tomasso]

I do not think they could replicate it today.

Actually, I would guess that a few firms on the Row have the pattern in their archives, along with access to a reasonable facsimile of the cloth .

 

[KY Gentleman]

As an undertaker (not really) .I would classify this as a cadaver suit.
You wouldn't have liked it.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

This is one of the more disturbing auctions i've seen to date. Somewhere along the line from the initial auction (which i pushed up to £75), the label clearly stating the provenance (Simmons) and date (1941) of this suit has been removed from the trousers (Trousers label states - B.J. Simmons & Co. (1941) Ltd. 25 Shelton Street, WC2). This allows it to be presented as of the date when this style might have been more popular/common. Buyer beware, as always.

Bookster says he got the suit from the dealer and i tend to believe him. I think (hope) he has rather too much respect for clothing than to do something so horrific, just to try to make out that it's older than it really is.

Whoever emperorofmontana is should be ashamed of themselves. If they truly are a dealer of vintage clothing, double the shame. But is this the kind of thing i expect of dealers in vintage clothing? You bet! Go into the London shops sometime. I am aware of the finer methods of egg sucking vis a vis vintage clothing. The fequency of conscious mis-selling of suits (and other things) as older than what they really are is stunning. This here is simply a particularly egregious example.

bk

 

[benstephens]

As Baron says Buyer beware!

Ben

 

[volatile]

I have my own thoughts on the whole thing, and feel that either seller is not without blame.

However, as Baron says Buyer beware!

Ben

That's HORRENDOUS. 1000% profit following a few scissor snips?!

 

[Wolfmanjack]

Whoever emperorofmontana is should be ashamed of themselves.

emperorofmontana clearly is a slippery character. I note that he/she has gone through five eBay User IDs in the past three years.

 

[benstephens]

It is all a subjective dating argument anyway. removing the label by the original dealer is wrong, after that is becomes an issue of knowledge and experience, and the suit in question is certainly a very well made suit.

Ben

 

[bookster1uk]

However, I sent a link of the previous auction to the person selling it, and they would not alter the description, so in my opinion both as bad as each other I am afraid.

I have altered descriptions before on ebay when i have been told new info, and bidders can retract.

Ben

Handbags at dawn!
That was not your response when we corresponded! I may still have it if you would like me to post it?You certainly did not suggest that my description was outlandish at all, and suggested you fully understood my decision to let it run.I corresponded carefully and honestly with all enquirers, as I always do.
Vintage dealers are just that, dealers..we win some, we lose some, and we are running businesses, I deeply resent the slurs, we have a good reputation that we are justifiably proud of. I can't say I necessarily like all of the people I buy from, precious few are angels, if you know a wholesaler who is an angel please put me in touch.
The attrition rate when buying vintage is nothing short of horrendous ( cue violins ) I literally have a mountain of items bought in good faith, that are damaged and will never be offered for sale, its helpful to have a good 'touch' every so often to help to even things out.
To finish the story, it has gone to a very special place for what it is,not what it might be.
I hope I have clarified the situation somewhat, and that a little mutual respect might surface as a result of me daring to contribute.