Show us your suits

[skyvue]

Here's a suit I got a few months back, but have never posted here.

I think the union tag is a '49 one, but the bottom of it is sewn over, so I can't be certain.

It's my first double-breasted (I recently purchased my second):

 

[thunderw21]

Here's a suit I got a few months back, but have never posted here.

I think the union tag is a '49 one, but the bottom of it is sewn over, so I can't be certain.

It's my first double-breasted (I recently purchased my second):

Yep, wouldn't doubt if it had a '49 tag. That material and suit style look to be from the mid- to late '50s.

 

[skyvue]

It's a nice medium weight, this suit -- by vintage standards. Comfy for three seasons out of the year.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Skyvue, check this out, if you pay attention to the details, it is possible to distinguish different union tags even when the copyright date isn't visible.

Edit: and by the way, I really like that suit! The lapels are an interesting shape, it's very distinctive!

 

[Guttersnipe]

I just snapped this up with a BIN on eBay. Admittedly I paid more than I usually am willing to...

...but thought it was worth while because of this - a 1934 union tag!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.



It's worth that price ... and Fahey-Brockman was a quality retailer in Spokane, Washington.



.

 

[skyvue]

Skyvue, check this out, if you pay attention to the details, it is possible to distinguish different union tags even when the copyright date isn't visible.

Edit: and by the way, I really like that suit! The lapels are an interesting shape, it's very distinctive!

Thanks, Guttersnipe! I like it, too; it's one of my favorites.

I knew about the page you linked to, but the only difference between the 1949 label and the 1962 label is the circled R trademark symbol on the lower left, yes? Unfortunately, that part of my label is hidden.

And your suit looks great -- I only hope we're entirely different sizes, so that I'm not reduced to being terribly jealous of your snapping it up.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Thanks for the info on Fahey-Brockman, I wasn't familiar with them.

. It's worth that price ... and Fahey-Brockman was a quality retailer in Spokane, Washington.
.

Wouldn't you know it, those vintage seamstresses/tailors had an uncanny knack for sewing over the important details on union tags!lol

I knew about the page you linked to, but the only difference between the 1949 label and the 1962 label is the circled R trademark symbol on the lower left, yes? Unfortunately, that part of my label is hidden.

 

[anon`]

It's worth that price ... and Fahey-Brockman was a quality retailer in Spokane, Washington.

They had a store in Seattle as well. One still finds their stuff for sale in shops all over the place up here in the Pacific NW.

 

[skyvue]

One still finds their stuff for sale in shops all over the place up here in the Pacific NW.

Which is exactly where I purchased this suit -- Portland, to be precise.

 

[anon`]

Which is exactly where I purchased this suit -- Portland, to be precise.

Really? At which haunt?

 

[skyvue]

The establishment where you were working the day we got to chat (the name's eluding me just now).

 

[anon`]

Ah, the Avalon! I didn't realise you'd picked up anything there (I hope it wasn't that day--I refused to admit that my memory may be that bad yet)!

 

[Benny Holiday]

Early '50s "Style Mart" suit. Great fit, no altering needed.

Very, very sharp Thunder! :eusa_clap And don't you love those finds that require no alerations?

 

[habberdasher]

Skyvue, I think your suit looks late 50s-early 60s because of the lapels, not mid 50s or 1949-am I wrong anyone?

 

[thunderw21]

Very, very sharp Thunder! :eusa_clap And don't you love those finds that require no alerations?

Yes, love not having to alter!

 

[reetpleat]

.



It's worth that price ... and Fahey-Brockman was a quality retailer in Spokane, Washington.



.

I always assumed they were a big national brand, because i see so much of them. they are almost a household name to me. but i now realize that is because I am in Seattle. tony b in this area, as well as another lounger have both commented on them. I see now that they were mainly a northwest brand.

Yes, very nice stuff. I don't commonly see stuff that old. That suit is beautiful. How much was it? With the vest, I would allow a pretty high price and still feel good about it.

I see tons of stuff from the 50s and 60s by them around here.

 

[reetpleat]

Skyvue, I think your suit looks late 50s-early 60s because of the lapels, not mid 50s or 1949-am I wrong anyone?

I agree with you due to the cut and lapel. A rare style, especially in this fabric. I have seen some on mad men worn by the slightly older guy with the gray hair. db pinstripe, but cut all early 60s

 

[habberdasher]

I agree with you due to the cut and lapel. A rare style, especially in this fabric. I have seen some on mad men worn by the slightly older guy with the gray hair. db pinstripe, but cut all early 60s

Yeah, Roger Sterling. His suits always seemed out of place because they were db but still had thin lapels and a slimmer cut of the sixties.

 

[tonyb]

I always assumed they were a big national brand, because i see so much of them. they are almost a household name to me. but i now realize that is because I am in Seattle. tony b in this area, as well as another lounger have both commented on them. I see now that they were mainly a northwest brand.

Yes, very nice stuff. I don't commonly see stuff that old. That suit is beautiful. How much was it? With the vest, I would allow a pretty high price and still feel good about it.

I see tons of stuff from the 50s and 60s by them around here.

Yeah, I keep seeing their label as well. Must've been a big name out here at one time. I got a couple of '50s-vintage items with their label. And I recently was gifted a hatbox bearing the Fahey-Brockman name.

I don't know when they went the way of all things, but I have no personal recollection of ever seeing one of their stores or even hearing mention of them (excepting around this joint), and I've been living out here since '68.[huh]

As to the '50s and '60s men's wear in general ... man, it's just raining that stuff around here. The simplest explanation is that I'm on the lookout for it so of course that has the effect of making it seem more common than it would be otherwise. But I think that's only a partial explanation. There's gotta be myriad other causes, I'd think, some of them considerably more plausible than others. I'd speculate that the men who acquired that stuff new have no more earthly need for it, so their survivors sent it out into the world. But that theory is easy enough to shoot down. I mean, 1955 was 55 years ago now (hard to believe, ain't it?), and the large majority of the men who were of an age to be routinely purchasing such attire back then have long ago passed on. And besides, they wouldn't have held on to those out-of-fashion clothes all those years anyway. Not many of them would have, anyway. Ours is a mobile society. We move. We discard.

Perhaps the economic downturn has something to do with it. Maybe people are getting a few bucks for the stuff they figure they could live just as well without anyway, such as the old clothing they never wear. So they sell it to the vintage store. Or consign it there. But that does absolutely nothing to explain why so much of it is showing up in thrift stores, where the inventory is donated. I'm finding '50s and '60s stuff at Value Village and Goodwill fairly frequently. For whatever it's worth, I find the pickings (and the prices) better at the stores more removed from the big town. My favorite old junk peddler travels even farther afield -- over to the Olympic Peninsula and out to the ocean towns -- in her searches.