or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Best bespoke commission ever? I think so. *** PICTURES ADDED FOR THOSE LACKING IMAGINATION
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best bespoke commission ever? I think so. *** PICTURES ADDED FOR THOSE LACKING IMAGINATION - Page 20

post #286 of 436
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post

http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/ulster/

The same source identifies an "Ulster coat" as a sub-species of "greatcoat."

I've done my reading around the internet. It appears the difference between these coats, as construed across multiple references, is highly qualitative as opposed to categorical. In other words, I've yet to find any powerfully definitive interpretations. Hence the desire for discussion here.
post #287 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post


The same source identifies an "Ulster coat" as a sub-species of "greatcoat."

I've done my reading around the internet. It appears the difference between these coats, as construed across multiple references, is highly qualitative as opposed to categorical. In other words, I've yet to find any powerfully definitive interpretations. Hence the desire for discussion here.


The original Ulster has a cape. Your coat is not an Ulster.

post #288 of 436
use the term greatcoat same as you use overcoat or topcoat. variations and hybrids come under these categories
post #289 of 436
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovelace View Post

The original Ulster has a cape. Your coat is not an Ulster.

Yes, but clearly there are things we call "Ulster coats" today, which are entirely capeless. Otherwise, no modern overcoat is an Ulster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post

use the term greatcoat same as you use overcoat or topcoat. variations and hybrids come under these categories

Well, based on my reading, this is the conclusion I think I've come to: the headings themselves are so weakly defined, and there are so many modifications that can make them overlap, you can basically call something whatever you want, so long as you attach the right adjective ahead of it.

But that taxonomically terrible. I was hoping to find a better way.
post #290 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post


Yes, but clearly there are things we call "Ulster coats" today, which are entirely capeless. Otherwise, no modern overcoat is an Ulster.
Well, based on my reading, this is the conclusion I think I've come to: the headings themselves are so weakly defined, and there are so many modifications that can make them overlap, you can basically call something whatever you want, so long as you attach the right adjective ahead of it.

But that taxonomically terrible. I was hoping to find a better way.

Well, yes. That's clothing evolution in process. I don't think your coat is an Ulster as I understand it. Others will disagree.

 

Going back to your original point about how it is difficult to define certain clothing items, it is, because there aren't clear distinctions with some items.

 

Here's Noel Coward wearing a Polo coat.

 


Edited by Lovelace - 1/26/13 at 8:36am
post #291 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Bringing the thread back to the original subject . . .

Manton and I were earlier today discussing the taxonomy of overcoats and other tailored outerwear. What the hell would you say this overcoat is?

A modified, gentrified great coat? An Ulster or polo coat? An extended pea coat? An unnamable chimera? Interested to hear you thoughts and reasoning. If this takes off, we can start a more general overcoat thread. Let's see if this forum is still worth something.

Ask your tailor, he gets to name.
post #292 of 436
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

Ask your tailor, he gets to name.

He didn't name it anything. Its form didn't exist until he and I batted it out. The receipt and e-mails simply say "vintage tweed overcoat."
post #293 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovelace View Post

Here's Noel Coward wearing a Polo coat.



But the original Polo was a wrap coat originally called a "wait coat" with slash pockets, no buttons. This version evolved from the original.

Try defining a Chesterfield. Velvet collar and then things go awry. Single breasted, fly front but some have notch lapels and others have peaks. They come double breasted as well as single.
post #294 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Bringing the thread back to the original subject . . .

Manton and I were earlier today discussing the taxonomy of overcoats and other tailored outerwear. What the hell would you say this overcoat is?

A modified, gentrified great coat? An Ulster or polo coat? An extended pea coat? An unnamable chimera? Interested to hear you thoughts and reasoning. If this takes off, we can start a more general overcoat thread. Let's see if this forum is still worth something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aravenel View Post

In my mind, I would classify that somewhere in the family of an Ulster coat, based on the lapels, it being double breasted, the half-belt, and its being of tweed.

Would love a broader overcoat thread--its a very interesting topic as it can vary more than perhaps any other piece of modern menswear.

I started one last week!!! Let's put some life into it. Discussions about categorizations, cloth, cuts, details ... all welcomed.

http://www.styleforum.net/t/332290/the-official-classic-mens-coats-thread/0_20#post_6064138
post #295 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post

But the original Polo was a wrap coat originally called a "wait coat" with slash pockets, no buttons. This version evolved from the original.

teacha.gif

post #296 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post

But the original Polo was a wrap coat originally called a "wait coat" with slash pockets, no buttons. This version evolved from the original.

teacha.gif


Nice, deets please?
post #297 of 436
Matt, I think I would call your coat an Ulster, though the collar is a bit more exaggerated than most Ulsters I've seen, and the waist is more nipped. The patch pockets, (general) collar style, fabric, half belted back, cuffed sleeves, and button config would lead me to think this.

Though, it's more about the collar style, fabric, and patch pockets I suppose. Those are what really define Ulsters for me.
post #298 of 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post


But the original Polo was a wrap coat originally called a "wait coat" with slash pockets, no buttons. This version evolved from the original.

Try defining a Chesterfield. Velvet collar and then things go awry. Single breasted, fly front but some have notch lapels and others have peaks. They come double breasted as well as single.

 

I thought the Polo evolved from the Ulster?

 

And are all Polo's wraps? I'm sure I've seen buttoned versions.

 

Epsom coats and Covert coats are another.

post #299 of 436
foo reppin positivism hard.

to expand:

Does anyone else see a discontinuity between foo's argument that certain stylistic liberties (if you can even call a curved yoke, considering the history of American West sportcoat styles a stylistic liberty) and his own slavish devotion to his own preferred idiosyncrasies? How is it that having a curved yoke is objectively 'ugly', while wearing a button-down collar with the buttons down, or having a shell-cordovan longwing made up on an aggressive last is the height of fashion conservatism? The problem is that foo is projecting his narrow understanding of what constitutes classic dress onto a world which is not in agreement with his personal taste (and, at its heart, it is personal taste). I know that foo has an obsession to this internalized worldview -- see, again, OneShoe -- but his inability to recognize that it's, at its heart, completely personal is baffling.

Consider this: wasn't one of foo's points that there are so many different variations on overcoat and Great Coat designs over the last seventy five years, that it was actually hard to articulate a particular style, and that because of this virtually any overcoat configuration can be considered 'classic'? Yet, despite the hundreds of different pocket designs, piping patterns and lapel sizes, having a curved back-yoke in an attempt to smoothly continue the lines from the arms is simply, inarguably ugly, and the opposite of classic dress?

edit: Even worse, foo is now trying to talk about function in the context of traditional dress. How is wearing a button-down collar with a tie 'functional' in this day and age? Are you playing polo? Or does the fact that it's traditional mean it doesn't have to be functional? Where's the line?

At the end of the day this type of thinking is stupid and limiting.
Edited by Teger - 1/26/13 at 9:44am
post #300 of 436
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teger View Post

Does anyone else see a discontinuity between foo's argument that certain stylistic liberties (if you can even call a curved yoke, considering the history of American West sportcoat styles a stylistic liberty) and his own slavish devotion to his own preferred idiosyncrasies? How is it that having a curved yoke is objectively 'ugly', while wearing a button-down collar with the buttons down, or having a shell-cordovan longwing made up on an aggressive last is the height of fashion conservatism? The problem is that foo is projecting his narrow understanding of what constitutes classic dress onto a world which is not in agreement with his personal taste (and, at its heart, it is personal taste). I know that foo has an obsession to this internalized worldview -- see, again, OneShoe -- but his inability to recognize that it's, at its heart, completely personal is baffling.

Thanks for engaging me in this discussion. I was hoping to get some thoughtful back-and-forth.

First of all, you should keep in mind I allow myself some self-professed idiosyncrasies that I would never prescribe to others as general good practice. Have you ever heard me say everyone else should only where Plaza-lasted longwings? I mean, other than in obvious jest.

Also, things can be idiosyncratic for different reasons. A longwing is not an idiosyncratic shoe in the canon of classic menswear. And the Plaza last is really not an aggressive shape--it is just one of the sleekest used by Alden, which is really saying nothing. Anyway, I chose it for fit, not style. Yet, you are right, only wearing longwings is idiosyncratic. I just see nothing wrong with idiosyncrasy in and of itself. In fact, I think it is part and parcel to one's personal style. The big, huge difference between my point of view and others is that there is plenty of room for eccentricity and idiosyncrasy within the established language of classic menswear. I would not begrudge someone else for only wearing another type of shoe that is both classic and equally versatile. I never wear my longwings when they would be patently wrong, keeping in mind they do make my outfits more casual than they otherwise would have been.

Another mistake you make in your commentary is conflating different forms of conservatism. I never said to dress conservatively. I don't really even know what that means. I said that it is important to be conservative about our approach to the canon of classic menswear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teger View Post

Consider this: wasn't one of foo's points that there are so many different variations on overcoat and Great Coat designs over the last seventy five years, that it was actually hard to articulate a particular style, and that because of this virtually any overcoat configuration can be considered 'classic'? Yet, despite the hundreds of different pocket designs, piping patterns and lapel sizes, having a curved back-yoke in an attempt to smoothly continue the lines from the arms is simply, inarguably ugly, and the opposite of classic dress?

You aren't following the line of your own reasoning. Yes, overcoat taxonomy is clearly a muddled space. Yet, within that space there are certainly defined forms and components. Taub's funny yoke details are not part present there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teger View Post

edit: Even worse, foo is now trying to talk about function in the context of traditional dress. How is wearing a button-down collar with a tie 'functional' in this day and age? Are you playing polo? Or does the fact that it's traditional mean it doesn't have to be functional? Where's the line?

You must have skimmed over that part of my analysis. Function is not only physical. It is also social and communicative. The button-down collar has a defined place in our clothing culture. It has certain connotations, chiefly that it is more sporting and casual than other collars one would wear with a tie. Hence, if I want to make my suit a little more casual, I might select a buttondown collar.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Best bespoke commission ever? I think so. *** PICTURES ADDED FOR THOSE LACKING IMAGINATION