DB jacket proportions - lapel width & button position

You keep coming up with straw men, I'll keep knocking them down.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

You really can't escape your mindset, can you? Saying that Rubinacci is better than Chan in some ways, does not mean everyone wants--or should want--Rubinacci. As I pointed out myself, construing one tailor as "better" than another only tells part of the story. Only when you assume that tailoring reduces to technical know-how along a straight, universal spectrum, such as you have, would you make the overreaching and misguided inferences that I was suggesting everyone use Rubinacci.
First off, re: mindsets I was not the one who said...

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

So, yes, I'd argue that a Rubinacci is an upgrade of sorts over Chan. I know I will catch a lot of abuse for that, but let's get real: when you're spending four times less than somebody else, it's actually pretty obnoxious of you to suggest you're getting the same thing.
Well of course Rubinacci is best at being... Rubinacci. Rubinacci is naturally an 'upgrade' over Chan if you want a... Rubinacci. But no one here has asserted that what Rubinacci does is easily copied anywhere by anyone, or that anyone else should get a Rubinacci done at Chan or any other XYZ tailor because they can churn out the 'same thing'. But despite me already saying that in my last post, you have placed Rubinacci above Chan on a qualitative scale, despite having no direct experience with Chan. And if putting Rubi above Chan does not 'tell the whole story', what is the other part of the story then? And your comment re: price is... how shall I put it... pretty obnoxious, perhaps? Let's flip your statement around, does it then get less obnoxious to suggest that (the more expensive than Rubinacci) Huntsman can do the 'same thing' as Rubinacci? Or are the concepts of a low(er) price or bang-for-buck or good value things that you find... obnoxious in general?

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Moreover, you are free to want a hybridized suit (with respect to your example, a suit with "Italian features" but isn't overall an "Italian suit"). However, that was never in dispute. What is in dispute is if someone who wants an "X Style suit" can get it from a tailor who does not specialize in X Style but incorporates stylistic elements associated with X style.
Straw man #1. That was never the point in question. For the 3rd time - the points I have raised are as follows: - if you go to a tailoring house (like you have) with a strong and relatively inflexible house style, the result will always be that you are channeling your stylist/tailor's vision of what looks good. It is certainly the easiest, quickest, and 'most efficient' way to 'looking good', but it is still someone else's vision of what looks good. - contrary to what you claim (and didn't substantiate despite pointing out the HK members as examples), a good result is possible if you act as the stylist and guide your tailor along in what you want Is that really that difficult to understand?

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Yes. Did you not understand the comparison?
Yes, I did. Did you not understand that it was a rhetorical question? And did you not understand the comparison I made - that unlike a woman - you should not accept your bespoke clothing 'as is'?

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Seriously, do you have any experience working with a tailor? I'm not asking to make an ad hominem attack or put up a straw man, but because: (1) you question my own personal experience, and (2) your statements about how bespoke tailoring should be appear completely alien to the actual experience of what it is.
Straw man #2. I do not question your personal experience or its validity - of course you went to Rubinacci and had jackets made with them. That you had a personal experience with Rubinacci has never been a point of discussion here. That said, you appear to be locked in by your poverty of experience with any other bespoke tailor other than Rubinacci - unable to imagine how anyone else's bespoke experience might differ from yours. Not all tailoring houses work like LH, where in essence a stylist (Mariano) makes the lion's share of decisions and works in conjunction with a sympathetic tailor to deliver a well-fitted 'house style' garment to a customer while taking into account the customer's considerations. PG (and PG - if I am wrong, please correct me) knows what he wants, and guides his tailors as to how they might achieve it. Clearly others here have done so at Chan as well. NYR chipped in earlier in the thread to say the exact same thing about his experience with his tailor. And yes, that has been the tenor of my experiences with bespoke as well. But yet, you question our collective personal experiences?

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

I guarantee you, nobody here who looks good in their bespoke clothes will claim to have 'designed' it, simply using his tailor as an assembler. If you imagine otherwise, feel free to continue dreaming the impossible dream about cheap tailors that can do everything and anything the best, so long as you tell them what to do. To me, delusion is sadder than anything else.
Straw man #3. You wrongly attribute equivalence to people who are more involved with the design of their bespoke items with people who who use... 'cheap tailors'. And no one is claiming here that there is a (cheap) tailor out there who can do 'everything and anything the best, so long as you tell them what to do'. You seem incapable of realising that - unlike you - some of us are our own Mariano Rubinaccis, that we do not need a 3rd party stylist to make decisions for us, that we know what we want, how to dovetail what we want with our tailor's ability, and how to achieve a good result. We are actual players who are actively involved in the bespoke process in a big way, not some chap sitting on the sidelines observing, disagreeing occasionally with the referee's call, but ultimately not making much of a difference to the result of the game - the point maomao made went right over your head.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Your "vision" is really more a delusion about the nature of custom clothing, not a "vision of style," isn't it? It is not controversial to assert that personal style requires comfort and confidence--so, yes, to a degree, one much accept his clothing for what it is. If you cannot do that, you can't have style. You'll just be a fastidious, clothing nerd.
I disagree with your assertion that it is a delusion about the 'nature of custom clothing'. How 'custom' is something designed for you if (as you assert repeatedly) people can still readily identify it as being Rubinacci? You seem to take pride in that, while it makes me cringe. When I see a vox suit I wonder - who made that? Ditto for PG suits. Would something you played a major role in realising not be more... 'custom'? Re: the bolded bit above, I find it interesting that you would say that, given that you spent 'weeks pondering' and worrying about the buttoning style on jackets made nearly 2 years ago... and then finally sent them back to Italy to be redone.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Also, you inadvertently hit the nail on the head: bespoke is very much about fit. If you notice, the best dressers on this forum who use bespoke do not use bespoke merely to come up with outlandish, never-before-seen contraptions. Rather, bespoke is most effectively used to achieve the finest fit, finest detailing, and finest quality possible.
Straw man #4. Fit and styling overlap, but are not the same thing. Everything may fit within that nebulous definition of 'right', but what about the styling? You also seem to imply that someone who takes a more active role in designing his clothes will somehow inevitably come up with 'outlandish, never-before-seen contraptions'. No, he will come up with something that is his own - rather than Mariano Rubinacci's or (insert stylist) vision of what looks good. Like I said earlier, he will simply replace Mariano Rubinacci.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

If you think your clothes can capture and express your individuality, I'd hate to think how shallow and impoverished that individuality must be. My "view of style" is this: clothes, and all other material things, cannot and should not embody individuality, only step out of the way and let it speak for itself.
And... straw man #5. I said all that? Wow. But the conclusion you draw is partly wrong, nonetheless. A person's 'individuality' partly stems from his choices, and an individual's choice of clothing is... well, necessarily a choice. Thus through the choices that were made in its selection, a man's clothing does say something about his personality, and is a glimpse at the individual who wears them. The concept of a uniform stems from applying the opposite logic. Does dapper Mariano let his clothing 'step aside'? Does the sartorially more adventurous Luca not express part of his personality in his more brazen colour combinations? Does someone who is fastidious, meticulous and precise with his fits not express a part of his personality? What does a pocket square worn tell you about the person who lives in a nearly totally pocket square-less world? What about a pair of well-shined shoes? So of course your clothes do not 'step out of the way', but instead speak about you (or raise questions about you) before you have uttered a single word. And knowing you, I'd like to remind you that they do that, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Originally Posted by aj_del

Click to expand...

No suggestions ???
"Matthew Fan, or How I Spent $7000 to look like a Neapolitan."

Can someone summarise the last 6 pages - I see a lot of quotes & want more pictures!

Not ones though of Rubi fleecing some ASHINS pockets.. Kidding..

There has been some great debate..

Just saying..

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Yes, I think so. It's a tailor shop. Actually, Rubinacci does all of its work in-house while Savile Row firms often depend on outworkers.

Apparently, most (but not all as I originally thought) Italian tailors do all of their work in house (among them, Augusto Caraceni Milano, Domenico Caraceni Roma, Ferdinando Caraceni Milano and, of course, Rubinacci Milano and Rubinacci Napoli). A bit off topic, but all Italian tailors (including these five) are equally handmade, FWIW. Everything in this paragraph is heavily promoted by all of the Italian tailors themselves (and promoted just as much by Andrew Ramroop/Maurice Sedwell and Ozwald Boateng).

Andrew Ramroop/Maurice Sedwell and Ozwald Boateng are the only Savile Row tailors that do all of their own work in house (and the only Savile Row tailors who are just as handmade as all of the Italian tailors). Andrew Ramroop/Maurice Sedwell and Ozwald Boateng also heavily promote everything in this paragraph about themselves.

The few Italian tailors that do outsource do a lot less outsourcing than all Savile Row tailors other than Andrew Ramroop/Maurice Sedwell and Ozwald Boateng.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

A better analogy would be choosing to buy court-side tickets to a Knicks game rather than multiple cheaper tickets to watch college basketball because the Knicks are the only team you really want to see.

What I know about tailoring would fit inside a thimble. I know rather more about basketball. Do not watch the Knicks -- that way dopeyness lies ...

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

You keep coming up with straw men, I'll keep knocking them down.
Do you know what a straw man is? My points are in direct response to your arguments, such that, if true, your conclusions would be wrong. Just because they inconvenience your position does not make them straw men.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

Well of course Rubinacci is best at being... Rubinacci. Rubinacci is naturally an 'upgrade' over Chan if you want a... Rubinacci. But no one here has asserted that what Rubinacci does is easily copied anywhere by anyone, or that anyone else should get a Rubinacci done at Chan or any other XYZ tailor because they can churn out the 'same thing'. But despite me already saying that in my last post, you have placed Rubinacci above Chan on a qualitative scale, despite having no direct experience with Chan.
Actually, you specifically stated that a good tailor should be able to do whatever you want, and it is merely a matter of managing him correctly and caring enough about your personal style to get the details right. You stated that house styles are not truly unique or the expressions of specialized experience, but rather smokescreens to create a sensation of prestige and justify high prices. I have never used Chan or spoken to its tailors, however those who have, and also used other tailors, have shared their experiences with me. Moreover, Rubinacci workmanship is well documented on this forum. If you believe the quality of a Chan suit exceeds a Rubinacci one, feel free to demonstrate it. However, until you have, the price differential, the giant gap in reputation, the relative quality of Rubinacci garments versus others that have also been documented on the forum, and the experiences of people who have used many tailors weighs against your unsubstantiated claim. Isn't a Chan jacket almost entirely sewn by machine?

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

And if putting Rubi above Chan does not 'tell the whole story', what is the other part of the story then?
You suggested that a suit can be broken down into several parts, which if implemented by another, would create a suit of the same style. My response was that there is more to a suit's style then the type of shoulder it uses and whether it has full front darts. Rather, the manner in which they are executed and integrated matters just as much, if not more.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

And your comment re: price is... how shall I put it... pretty obnoxious, perhaps? Let's flip your statement around, does it then get less obnoxious to suggest that (the more expensive than Rubinacci) Huntsman can do the 'same thing' as Rubinacci? Or are the concepts of a low(er) price or bang-for-buck or good value things that you find... obnoxious in general?
No, it would not be obnoxious to suggest Huntsman might be superior to Rubinacci--if one knew nothing else about either tailor other than its price. At the very least, it would be an issue worthy of investigation. I don't know about you, but I like knowing why certain things cost more than others, rather than simply dismissing more expensive things out-of-hand. In this case, you have yet to provide any substantial reason to believe Chan is as good or better than Rubinacci, although it costs a fourth as much. The onus is on you is to show that the market is wrong or misrepresentative of relevant preferences.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

- if you go to a tailoring house (like you have) with a strong and relatively inflexible house style, the result will always be that you are channeling your stylist/tailor's vision of what looks good. It is certainly the easiest, quickest, and 'most efficient' way to 'looking good', but it is still someone else's vision of what looks good. - contrary to what you claim (and didn't substantiate despite pointing out the HK members as examples), a good result is possible if you act as the stylist and guide your tailor along in what you want Is that really that difficult to understand?

No. It is very easy to understand your points. Now, see if you understand my responses: 1. Your first claim suggests that one who buys a distinctive house style is necessarily subscribing to another's "vision of what looks good." However, because the tailor has ultimate control of a garment's production, and his methods of manufacture, which are germane to him, affect the style of a garment as much as a client's stated preferences, you are always subscribing to another's vision of what looks good. Moreover, you dismiss the stylistic choice one makes in picking a tailor to begin with. I wager that picking your tailor is the step that makes the biggest difference in your bespoke experience. 2. I never said you can't get "good results" by acting as your own stylists in relation to your tailor. I did say this: (a) micro-managing your tailor is a bad idea because you, as a client, do not possess his professional expertise to fully know what you're messing with, (b) if you desire one tailor's house style, you cannot simply instruct another to execute it for you and expect equivalent results, and (c) house styles often represent a tailor's specific abilities and experience, and every tailor--whether he sells a distinct house style or not--is limited by his abilities and experience. I have said over and over again that Chan clearly does good work. However, Chan cannot do everything every other tailor can do--at least, it defies plausibility. You don't expect a neurologist to do a cardiologist's work, or a carpenter to do a florist's. That Chan may lack a distinct house style does not mean Chan can do every other style; more likely, it means Chan did not invest its experience along any one route, and can do many different styles, but not as well as tailors who specialized in them. In other words, Chan is a generalist, not a genie, which comes with all the benefits and deficits that role entails.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

And did you not understand the comparison I made - that unlike a woman - you should not accept your bespoke clothing 'as is'?
I understand your claim. I question it's lack of reasoning. Why shouldn't you, at a certain point, come to terms with what your clothes are? Increasing attention to detail does not appear to always lead to increased style.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

That said, you appear to be locked in by your poverty of experience with any other bespoke tailor other than Rubinacci - unable to imagine how anyone else's bespoke experience might differ from yours. Not all tailoring houses work like LH, where in essence a stylist (Mariano) makes the lion's share of decisions and works in conjunction with a sympathetic tailor to deliver a well-fitted 'house style' garment to a customer while taking into account the customer's considerations. PG (and PG - if I am wrong, please correct me) knows what he wants, and guides his tailors as to how they might achieve it. Clearly others here have done so at Chan as well. NYR chipped in earlier in the thread to say the exact same thing about his experience with his tailor.
Again, the extent to which one "guides" his tailor is a separate issue from the success of the results achieved. I have criticized NYR's garments in the past; I cannot say if it's because he guided too much, but they aren't examples of uncontroversially successful results from micromanaging one's tailor. On the other hand, PG's suits are openly controversial on the forum. I don't think there is a strong consensus that they are overall successful. To me, PG's strength is his style and personality, not the impeccability of his tailoring.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

And yes, that has been the tenor of my experiences with bespoke as well.
And do you believe your tailor can do anything any other tailor can do, with your instruction? If not, hopefully you will see my point: the best results from one's tailor are not purely a function of how one instructs him.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

Straw man #3. You wrongly attribute equivalence to people who are more involved with the design of their bespoke items with people who who use... 'cheap tailors'. And no one is claiming here that there is a (cheap) tailor out there who can do 'everything and anything the best, so long as you tell them what to do'.
See above. Now that you are conceding this point, you are also inherently recognizing that different tailors do different styles with varying success. Thus, it is at least important how you pick you tailor as it is how you express your preferences to him.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

You seem incapable of realising that - unlike you - some of us are our own Mariano Rubinaccis, that we do not need a 3rd party stylist to make decisions for us, that we know what we want, how to dovetail what we want with our tailor's ability, and how to achieve a good result. We are actual players who are actively involved in the bespoke process in a big way, not some chap sitting on the sidelines observing, disagreeing occasionally with the referee's call, but ultimately not making much of a difference to the result of the game - the point maomao made went right over your head.
Let's be clear. Mariano Rubinacci--in fact--makes no decisions without my final approval and satisfaction. He is my tailor and everything must ultimately make me happy. This is the case with any professional or expert hired to do a service. They are hired, obviously, because the client cannot do what he does. Yet, it is the client's interests and goals that must be served for the hired professional to do a good job. I do not dispute that some people step into the role of self-advisor. I do the same. I just have an expert as extra guidance. Maomao's point did not go over my head, and neither have any of yours. My response is this: the level of your self-perceived guidance does not equate with actual control over the results received. Why? Because no matter what you tell your tailor to do, you are beholden to his professional decision-making over elements you did not think of or account for. When he attempts to do as you ask, he is still doing it his way--you are not telling him how to sew, cut, assemble, etc. This unimpeachable ownership of the process ensures that every tailor will have a certain style, however you might instruct him.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

I disagree with your assertion that it is a delusion about the 'nature of custom clothing'. How 'custom' is something designed for you if (as you assert repeatedly) people can still readily identify it as being Rubinacci? You seem to take pride in that, while it makes me cringe. When I see a vox suit I wonder - who made that? Ditto for PG suits. Would something you played a major role in realising not be more... 'custom'?
If you can't look at Vox's suits and see A&S alum, then it's as likely that you just don't know your tailors as it is they don't look like the work of an A&S alum. Vox went to Steed precisely because Steed is A&S alum and makes accordingly. Also, you are perhaps unwittingly impeaching a great number of people other than me on this form. Would you say Iammatt has less style because he clearly wears Rubinacci? Anyway, I'm not sure why you think being able to identify a thing's maker makes it any less "custom." I could make you a suit that is absolutely unique and of unknown origin. Is that more "custom" to you? If so, "custom" doesn't sound like a measure I'd want to emphasize.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

Straw man #4. Fit and styling overlap, but are not the same thing. Everything may fit within that nebulous definition of 'right', but what about the styling? You also seem to imply that someone who takes a more active role in designing his clothes will somehow inevitably come up with 'outlandish, never-before-seen contraptions'. No, he will come up with something that is his own - rather than Mariano Rubinacci's or (insert stylist) vision of what looks good. Like I said earlier, he will simply replace Mariano Rubinacci.
Styling is subject to concerns for fit that go over your head as a non-tailor. My point was not that someone who designs his own clothes will necessarily come up with something outlandish and never-before-seen. My point is that, unless he does, his suit is no more unique than mine, along the lines you are using to define uniqueness.

Originally Posted by apropos

Click to expand...

But the conclusion you draw is partly wrong, nonetheless. A person's 'individuality' partly stems from his choices, and an individual's choice of clothing is... well, necessarily a choice. Thus through the choices that were made in its selection, a man's clothing does say something about his personality, and is a glimpse at the individual who wears them. The concept of a uniform stems from applying the opposite logic. Does dapper Mariano let his clothing 'step aside'? Does the sartorially more adventurous Luca not express part of his personality in his more brazen colour combinations? Does someone who is fastidious, meticulous and precise with his fits not express a part of his personality? What does a pocket square worn tell you about the person who lives in a nearly totally pocket square-less world? What about a pair of well-shined shoes? So of course your clothes do not 'step out of the way', but instead speak about you (or raise questions about you) before you have uttered a single word. And knowing you, I'd like to remind you that they do that, whether you acknowledge it or not.
I will say only this: if you step out into public and everyone's attention is drawn to your well-shined shoes or perfectly folded pocket square, you probably fucked up your outfit.

^^^It's fun, fun, fun 'till Daddy takes the T-Bird away.

Originally Posted by RSS

Click to expand...

^^^It's fun, fun, fun 'till Daddy takes the T-Bird away.

lol

Originally Posted by RSS

Click to expand...

^^^It's fun, fun, fun 'till Daddy takes the T-Bird away.

Huh?

There's one appropriate response to all this:

Originally Posted by luftvier

Click to expand...

There's one appropriate response to all this:

There's two. You forgot:

For all the Family Guy and Star Wars fans out there, this thread can be summed up in one sentence: "Something, something, something...Rubinacci...something, something, something...complete."

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

I will say only this: if you step out into public and everyone's attention is drawn to your well-shined shoes or perfectly folded pocket square, you probably fucked up your outfit.

Don't you feel, though, that your point falls flat on its face if you, say, are wearing an awesome eagle jacket?




- B

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

Don't you feel, though, that your point falls flat on its face if you, say, are wearing an awesome eagle jacket?

He must have designed his own jacket. I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it and I cannot, for the life of me, identify the tailor. Very custom. Very stylish.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

He must have designed his own jacket. I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it and I cannot, for the life of me, identify the tailor. Very custom. Very stylish.

Note the allusion of the eagle on the little table to the eagles on his arms. It's easy to miss.

There's also a relationship of the head to the lampshade that I am trying to piece together.


- B