The quality of a suit

[Fletch]

Convenience is no bad thing as long as it isn't the ONLY thing. The automobile was once a convenience, until whole nations were rebuilt around it.

When convenience drives out quality and choice, then we have to question it. But inconvenience for its own sake is as obnoxious as convenience for its own sake. Recall the glurge email going around where old fools crow about having it tough as kids.

Oh, and Baron, thanks eversomuch for the cigar.
< snips off end with Swiss Army penknife scissor >
< realizes he has no light >

 

[Feraud]

Do you mean to say people just wanted to make a buck in the old days?
Now you have gone and burst my rose colored bubble.

The last few threads have brough up good points. I believe the changes in style reflect a manufacturer's desire for more profit than an altruistic desire to help the average joe. I wish there were a way to change or at least have the option on new made jackets. Nothing short of a major celebrity screaming for change in the name of humanity will change it.

It is different but not necessarily harder to put on a jacket with high armholes. I recently discovered this with two jackets I own. Every day men "struggle" with this same problem as they put on their dress shirts. But once you put the jacket on an epiphany is reached!

 

[Lawman]

Guys, why is it there are so few long sizes in vintage clolthing? I am a 48L. At 6' 3", 215 lbs., hardly a physical anomaly. Yet I can find no vintage clothing in my size, and I look pretty hard.

Mark

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I don't know. Census data suggests that americans are no taller now than they were back then (and even perhaps a bit shorter now) so this stuff should be out there. One possible explanation is that most people then (as now) are in the R category - hence it's regular, normal, everyday guy size. Believe me, there's as little S category clothing out there as L category.

Less stuff produced = less stuff survived.

bk

 

[Fletch]

My own pet theory (hey, I got a million of 'em) is that the more popular sizes got sold and got worn – most often worn out – and that's why they're gone.

 

[Lawman]

Fletch, never thought of that. I like the theory.

 

[Feraud]

My own pet theory (hey, I got a million of 'em) is that the more popular sizes got sold and got worn – most often worn out – and that's why they're gone.

Agree! That sounds like a very probable theory.

Did anyone ever receive an ugly tie on a special day and stick it in the closet and never wear it? Well that is probably where our "never used" vintage stuff is coming from!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

but the L sizes would never have been the most popular. [huh] If they were the most popular they would be called R(egular). I am convinced that then, as now, fewer clothes are manufactured in L and S than in R.

bk

 

[TOTTIE]

plus, it's a lot easier to take trousers up, and dresses in, than down, and out. Particularly if you trim the new hems. So clothes that are handed down often get smaller over time.

 

[BellyTank]

Evening all... Baron and all you Men's Men.

I raise my glass of organic Cab/Sav to you...

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

The suit jacket has become a "slip-on/slip-off" item of clothing-
an item of outer wear, almost. Off for the car- on for the walk to the office- off for the office.

An "all day" garment- such as a suit jacket was back then(hence the funk), requires intrinsic functionality- high-cut arm holes.

People danced in suits back then- played Golf, bowled, probably (God forbid)even sat on the toilet jacket-clad, which, of course, would require super-superior arm hole function, especialy at the last stretch.

Remember, the job's not finished, 'til the paperwork's done!

Excuse me-

B
T

 

[Tomasso]

I would also add that for several decades, the clothing donated to U.S. charitable institutions was often shipped to other countries. And, in 1930, U.S. population was less than half its current number. Both factors (supply/demand) impact the current availability of vintage clothing in the U.S.

 

[Matt Deckard]

Fact remains that I want a suit in which I can do whatever I want to do. That means a tough fabric and high armholes... a lining that won't wear out and buttons that don't pop off. I prefer clothes that don't lose shape like those from the 30's.

Like with a comfortable pair of shoes, if the shoe fits the foot is forgotten. I should be able to run and walk in my dress shoes.

 

[cookie]

Many companies talk about quality these days though don't define what they mean. Whether it be a certain lining or a outer fabric or a construction detail, it is mentioned though they say nothing of what they mean by quality. I see people in stores asking for higher rated wools. I was at a tailir shop next to a man who was ordering a made to measure suit when he asked if they had anything thinner and lighter. Companies are catering to this customer though not often to me. The old school guy who wants a suit that will last a long time.

The higher the count it seems the faster the wear and tear. When i was in New York I was told one man's custom suit wouldn't last more than a couple years simply because the fabric used. the idea of luxury befuddles me when the materials used are flimsy.

Why pay an exhorbitant price for goods that wouldn't last.

Well to me it's not how smooth a fabric is or how airy and light it is, It's how well it wears. Quality can be smooth and dense or coarse and hard, though in general what really matters to me is that it lasts. thinner threads are nice, though if you are going try to make wool into silk why not just use silk... why make a jacket at all? why not just wear the shirt?

So what is quality?

For starters one sign is the density of the fabric and the anti wrinkling properties. Heavier weights wear longer and higher counts appear to wear out faster... that's mainly because they make them so thin. There are fabrics that will wear down quicker like flannel and loose woven tweeds, though modern flannels and modern tweeds seem to wear down more quickly for the same reason modern wools wear out faster. The fabrics are woven more loosely making for a far less dense wool.
Cashmere tends to stretch and lose shape easily and from some old tailors with which I spoke, at one time it was more of a filler for cheaper suits because of it's problems holding shape.

I'll go more in depth when I get back with a camera.

I'm probably gonna get flak for stating some of the above, though it's all observation and suits that I can't wear that I get my information.

There is much more to post regarding linings and canvasing and basting and finishing tequniques, extras in how trousers are put together... shoulder seams and of course the dreaded armhole... this is the begening.

Matt no disrespect to you but that is 1940 style thinking.

It has got so bad now that the kids buy the $500 suit that lasts a year maybe rather than an Italian for $1000. Or alternatively they are money market guys and buy the $2000 suit or two and they still last 1-2 years.They simply are not interested in longevity or wear and tear /investment suiting. They think that because of the name Armani or some such the suits are quality. My alterations guy says that they are very very expensive for the quality of manufacture and materials. Now they sell them on the 180 wools when everyone knows these things crease like linen. It is because they want the light weight of linen but are still to cowardly to wear it for some prejudice reason about crushing. They don not care about drape or all the other things that the FL guys drool over.

I wear linen suits all summer and today wore a light wool on a hot day for a change and it was not comfortable. Even heavy not crushing linen (7 oz+) is still more comfortable to wear in the Aussie/Med/US Dixie type climate. But wool will always trump linen because linen needs more maintenance. And the punters are being sold that the revolution is the high micron super wqools that weigh nothing. Okay they don't wear well. So what??? these guys don't care about such things. They will be in a clothing bin or opportunity shop in 12-24 months. I picked up a perfect Zegna suit from Vinnies (St V de Paul) that cost AUD2500 new and wear it all thru summer.

 

[cookie]

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

Jack just re that thought - my mate Pete at Bookster was asked by yours truly why the suits he sold were predominately below 44 (aka my size). He said that with the growth in size of humans in the last 30 years that the suit sizes are growing to 46 48 etc. Maybe the armhole situation/problem are just symptomatic of that phenomenon aka the need to find space to fill!

 

[Feraud]

The bottom line is to have choices. I want the option to buy heavy or lightweight fabrics at my discretion. We should not have to engage in a lost cause to find a winter weight suit. The suit racks in men's stores are woefully bland and monotonous when it comes to fabric and pattern.
This has to change.

 

[Tomasso]

Census data suggests that americans are no taller now than they were back then (and even perhaps a bit shorter now)

Could it be that the influx of Asian and Hispanic immigrants, over the last fifty years, has skewed the data. I bet that the progeny of an American born in 1900 has grown in height every generation.

 

[Matt Deckard]

Matt no disrespect to you but that is 1940 style thinking.

I want quality not vintage. I do stuff in my suit. I travel I change tires I ride bikes I live in a suit and I expect my suit to hold up like clothing should hold up.

It's about quality, not vintage.

You can make the styles of today in a quality hat will take the punnishment of life... companies just don't.

 

[reetpleat]

but the L sizes would never have been the most popular. [huh] If they were the most popular they would be called R(egular). I am convinced that then, as now, fewer clothes are manufactured in L and S than in R.

bk

While sizes have changed. I am a vintage reg and a modern small, go to any store and they will tell you that they order more l and xl. that is always waht is left on the racks because they order so many.

Partly that is due to the hiw big people wear clothing, but this latest generation is actually quite a bit bigger overall. It may be that immigrants offset that, but even asians and mexicans I se that are younger are huge. BOys and girls both. I will have to check out the census data because I am not sure I believe the claim that statistics have not changed. But that may be.

Interestngly, over thouands of years, evidence seems to show people got bigger and smaller through various periods, not one direction or the other.

That and various parts of the world varried, for example, The Irish wre particularly small, five feet or so average, until the Vikings and other groups invaded over centuries.

As far as vintage sizes, I have theorized that bigger guys are harder on clothing, and also that some small, expecially small skinny sizes belonged to young men that grew out of it and it got stuck in the attic.

But I find so many small fortts and thirties stuff, and slightly bigger fifties and sixties stuff, and even bigger seventies stuff, that I think the "anecdotal" or circumstantial evience points to people beng smaller. Common sense tells me this is true and I would need a lot of evidence to the contrary to change my mind. But evidence and facts would.

 

[jamespowers]

Sizes change based on nutrition, health care and genetics. Some Anthropometric historians say that we as a population have remained staganant in our height since the 1950s. This kind of makes me think that they have an agenda.
However, when you think about the times involved, there seems to be some sense to it. A population could reach a point of homeostasis due to a constant high standard. Nutrition was variable in certain eras of our history---particuallry the Depression and WWI and II. Rationing and such kept nutrition at a low level no matter what genetics were involved--aside from gigantism and dwarfism caused by other factors.
From the 1950s until now there really were no national impacts that totally restricted nutrition. Immigration sources changed in the 1960s and maybe that had some small part in it.
In reference to sutis and suit sizes, it is obvious that the suit sizes left now---sometimes 60 years later would be those that were not worn much. The small sizes would have been those not sold or worn much thus ending up NOS and all over the place as they are now. If size more or less remained the same, as Anthropometric historians say, then the suits most used and worn out would be the sizes we are now. Think Taft not Wilson.

Regards,

J

 

[Matt Deckard]

So... Anyone see any good tough wools out their on the racks?
I know Banana Republic is blazing a trail when it comes to materials being tough as nails, I just wish the fits were more... welll it's the armholes. Materials are great... styles are great... they just need to make it closer to the armpit and shaped for mobility.