New Raphael suit (not mine)

Originally Posted by Cravate_Noire

Click to expand...

But there's no zig-zag crunching around the nipped waist.

But then again we have people here who find it absolutely acceptable that some of their bespoke coats look crunchy around the waist/hips because "the shirt is bunching underneath".

That's on a mannequin.

Originally Posted by George

Click to expand...

Does your soon to be ex-friend know that you have subjected him to all this?

I do feel sorry for fool's friend and Raphael. I sense that there's a vendetta against foof.

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

Click to expand...

If you expect to own it for years and can reasonably afford it, then I dont see any issue with it. Plenty of RTW on this forum in that price range worn in office settings.

If I've got the luxury to spend $5k on a suit I'd go bespoke as well, I'm not arguing that at all. My argument is clearly from the value-added perspective. In other words, how much do I need to spend to get the exact same end result in terms of fit and utility?

Vox,

I'm curious as to why you consider that OP's suit 80's wallstreet (or 80's NYC finance), in my mind thats more double breasted navy pinstripe with a yellow 'power' tie and a Bengal striped shirt.

Interested in your thoughts on this one.

-Also B

Originally Posted by George

Click to expand...

That's on a mannequin.
Really? This power of comprehension blows me away. That's why I said that's how it should be.

Originally Posted by furo

Click to expand...

If I've got the luxury to spend $5k on a suit I'd go bespoke as well, I'm not arguing that at all. My argument is clearly from the value-added perspective. In other words, how much do I need to spend to get the exact same end result in terms of fit and utility?
Value added is dependent entirely on personal standards. I consider anything less then Polo not a worth while pursuit, while others may wonder why I would do that rather then simply buying 3-4 suits at Men's Warehell. The same thing applies here, IMO.

FWIW, the waist does look off to me, not because it is too tight, but it is hitting his hip bone in an awkward way. I don't know if that is the way he is standing or what.

Every once in a while I take delivery of a Raphael suit that has some problem that I only really notice after living with it for a while. In every case, I have taken the garment back to Raph, who has fixed the problem fully and without any complaining, denial, or other BS.

Originally Posted by Cravate_Noire

Click to expand...

That's why I said how it should be.

Yes, but you can't offer up a suit that is on a mannequin as an example of how a suit should look or fit, it's a meaningless comparison.

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

Click to expand...

Vox,

I'm curious as to why you consider that OP's suit 80's wallstreet (or 80's NYC finance), in my mind thats more double breasted navy pinstripe with a yellow 'power' tie and a Bengal striped shirt.

Interested in your thoughts on this one.

-Also B

I didn't say 80s Wall Street...'twas CEGO-Carl who noted that this cut would be completely uncontroversial in a modern NYC finance house (assuming it is suit day... )

The phrase I used was "the ruined 80s look." The 80s ruined Brooks Brothers. At least through the 70s in NYC and through the early 80s in Boston (dates might differ in other cities), the BB look was still supreme and it made for a coherant and harmonius clothing culture in the professions.

Then, things like those shoulders on the Raph Foof posts happened, confidence in the Establishment aesthetic disappeared, and well, was replaced.

- B

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

FWIW, the waist does look off to me, not because it is too tight, but it is hitting his hip bone in an awkward way. I don't know if that is the way he is standing or what.

Every once in a while I take delivery of a Raphael suit that has some problem that I only really notice after living with it for a while. In every case, I have taken the garment back to Raph, who has fixed the problem fully and without any complaining, denial, or other BS.

It may be the way he's standing, it also depends how long he's been wearing that suit on that day. A suit wont lay perfectly throughout the course of a day. Sitting down, standing up moving around it all as an effect.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

I didn't say 80s Wall Street...'twas CEGO-Carl who noted that this cut would be completely uncontroversial in a modern NYC finance house (assuming it is suit day...

)

The phrase I used was "the ruined 80s look." The 80s ruined Brooks Brothers. At least through the 70s in NYC and through the early 80s in Boston (dates might differ in other cities), the BB look was still supreme and it made for a coherant and harmonius clothing culture in the professions.

Then, things like those shoulders on the Raph Foof posts happened, confidence in the Establishment aesthetic disappeared, and well, was replaced.

- B

What is/was the classic Brooks Brothers looks you are referring too?

Originally Posted by UnFacconable

Click to expand...

Can you just stick someone's head on this, pretend it's a chan suit and foof away? I don't have the energy to do so. As for the pooling, I stated it was in the lower thigh, and I guess if you don't see it, there's no amount of foofing that will explain it. I don't think you are making an objective analysis of this fit. Given some of the minute fit issues you point out in nearly every suit you see fit to criticize, it's pretty galling that you fail to acknowledge the shortcomings in this suit which others have also pointed out.

What difference would it make if it were a Chan? I've seen some excellent Chan, and said so. I apologize for misreading you about the pooling at the thigh, but I still don't see what you are talking about. Nobody's trousers stay perfectly straight all the time--not even Aportnoy's. I've seen issues where there is so much bagging that there is obviously a fit problem (the famous back rise issue discovered by Manton), but I don't see that here. I don't think I've ever taken issue with someone's trousers for fitting like they do on Jon's suit.

Originally Posted by furo

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. But my contention is that a workhorse suit has a purpose: utility

I assume by "utility," you mean something like daily wear. Given that, I think it's important to realize that a suit can have that sort of utility, as well as being exceptionally well made and well fitted. It's not like you have to pick one or the other. Anyway, if you're going to spend lots of money on clothes, shouldn't you prioritize those that will experience the most usage? To me, it would be wasting money to do otherwise. Why by a $5k suit, only to have it hang in your closet most of the year?

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

However, the effect you're describing in terms of 'shaping' has been much better realized elsewhere (for example, in vox's suits). Here, the result looks to me like bagginess or sagging just above the buttoning point, with a resulting concavity underneath it. There's too much loose fabric and not enough shape.

In my opinion, Vox's Steed jackets (though impeccable) have less distinctively sculpted shaping around the chest than you see here (or on any of the Rubinaccis posted). I think Vox would agree. It's not a bad thing (maybe just more English?), but I think it shows we are talking past each other.

Originally Posted by George

Click to expand...

Does your soon to be ex-friend know that you have subjected him to all this?

Yep, he's reading, in fact.

Originally Posted by Cravate_Noire

Click to expand...

But then again we have people here who find it absolutely acceptable that some of their bespoke coats look crunchy around the waist/hips because "the shirt is bunching underneath".

Well, to be fair, when I gain weight, this happens to me.

Originally Posted by George

Click to expand...

That's on a mannequin.

That's never stopped anyone from drooling over what they consider perfect tailoring before.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

I didn't say 80s Wall Street...'twas CEGO-Carl who noted that this cut would be completely uncontroversial in a modern NYC finance house (assuming it is suit day...

)

The phrase I used was "the ruined 80s look." The 80s ruined Brooks Brothers. At least through the 70s in NYC and through the early 80s in Boston (dates might differ in other cities), the BB look was still supreme and it made for a coherent and harmonious clothing culture in the professions.

Then, things like those shoulders on the Raph Foof posts happened, confidence in the Establishment aesthetic disappeared, and well, was replaced.

- B

Suit day

Thank you for clarifying your point, I see exactly what you mean now.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Yep, he's reading, in fact.
Well, if it's any conciliation I think his suit is fine, if a tad conservative. Oh and Jon, since you're reading this. Get your shoes sorted out.!!!

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

I've seldom seen Edwin become emotional, but he had strong feelings about that pattern. - B
Not to be indelicate, but what is Hitchcock's pedigree? He has often, um, puzzled me, and if there is such a disconnect between what A&S used to be and what it is now, it would suggest that he did not have the same training that the other cutters did. Or something. Back to Raphael, it looks like he has something in his inbreast pocket, and much of the creasing is consistent with having sat at a desk for a while. He may not look 1000% to some people, but we don't know what he would look like in RTW- maybe this IS a 1000% improvement.