or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Anderson & Sheppard Expatriates Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Anderson & Sheppard Expatriates Thread - Page 2

post #16 of 2409
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
I would put this a little differently. Yes, the R sleeve is fuller, but it's not straight. The back is quite curved. The front also curves close to the wrist.

The more important differences are two:

1) On the R coat the sleevehead is placed more forward. This is in part a function of the crooking of the coat to fit Matt's body, but I think there is something aesthetic about it as well.

2) The shape of the upper sleeve is very different. The ED coat has a more traditional, symetrical horseshoe-shaped sleevehead. The R coat's is shaped more like (for lack of a more ready example) the toe of a shoe: straigther in the front, and more rounded in back.

It should also be noted that the comparison photo above will have as much to do with the differences in physique and stance betweent the two individuals as much as it might be in house style.

- B
post #17 of 2409
Thread Starter 
Couple more full body DeBoise silhouettes:





- B
post #18 of 2409
Thread Starter 
So, a premise of this thread is that there are three active A&S expats. If there are more, do post.

As I described in the original post, two of the three left together to form Steed.

Today, they both ply their trade in Cumbria, with virtual storefront operations on the Row, and they remain great friends. Here are Mr. DeBoise and Mr. Mahon last New Years eve morning, in casual gear:



Counterclockwise from the left front: Edwin DeBoise; Thomas Mahon; Alan Pitt, A&S's former Head Cutter who now works with Mr. Mahon; and Paul Griffith, a former A&S tailor now working for Mr. Mahon.

- B
post #19 of 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
My Steed stuff is from when Thomas and Edwin were partners. It is very wasp-waisted, and the chest is more swelled than draped.

Here's the picture I always post of my Mahon DB suit, which I think he still cuts like what Manton describes:



Pardon the twisted upper body. Note the swelled chest and the straight skirt. The shape is a bit more extreme on the DB than the SB, probably because this is the second instead of first suit. The next one is SB, which promises to be drapier. The SB buttoning point is pretty low.

Nice thread, B. I thought that Rubinacci was a great thread subject because relatively little is known about them, while there're lots of resources on English tailors, but I've learned quite a bit from this thread already.

It's interesting to see the differences between our coats on how much the left lapel overlaps the breast pocket. I wonder how that's determined.

--Andre
post #20 of 2409
Thread Starter 
A spirited discussion on another forum about how cutting is done on SR today. It comprises a rare cutter vs. cutter discussion.

"The Doctor" is Edwin DeBoise.

Here is Thomas Mahon describing what had been the traditional method of how A&S cutters laid out and cut their jackets.

Reading both will help you understand another difference between the old A&S and the expats on hand, and what is more typical practice at SR on the other.

- B
post #21 of 2409
Thread Starter 
Bespoke and the individual pattern.

Well, there are many different ways to individualize tailored clothing.

With RTW, alterations are a way of indvidualizing something.

With the most flexible MTM, fit and style can be adjusted.

With bespoke, anything is possible.

The fact of the matter is, the distinction among the three is gradual. The less standard one's physique and posture, the more the potential gains from bespoke vs. altered RTW. And the greater the potential pitfall.

If one's physique and posture are somewhat standard, then there is a considerable danger to MTM and bespoke. The main danger?

Electing unfortunate stylistic decisions.

This is where RTW shines. The best RTW is styled well.

Where the A&S expats have an edge is that at least two of them, and perhaps all three, know how to style a garment. There's one style though--soft, body-conforming, and lightly constructed, "sloppy" in the sense that the constuction is not tensed to have you fit into the garment rather than the garment fitting to you with wear--and if you don't like that, perhaps you should consider another category of tailor.

There is nothing special about having an individual pattern except for one thing: repetition and refinement, and both can be victims of ageing and changing bodies.


- B
post #22 of 2409
Quote:
Where the A&S expats have an edge is that at least two of them, and perhaps all three, know how to style a garment. There's one style though--soft, body-conforming, and lightly constructed, "sloppy" in the sense that the constuction is not tensed to have you fit into the garment rather than the garment fitting to you with wear--and if you don't like that, perhaps you should consider another category of tailor.

I think tht it's not so much a case of "having you fit into the garment". That's not the way of structured clothing at all. It's that the garment is "pre-conformed" to your body. Even with more highly structured clothes- that I prefer- the fit's the thing. There is no excess or ancillary cloth, the cut supports the movement rather than additional folds etc. I wouldn't say that it is any less comfortable or body conforming than an A&S or Neapolitan style and regardless of the level of structure, it definitely conforms to your body. It is , however different- and it feels different- but very comfortable.
post #23 of 2409
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yachtie View Post
I think tht it's not so much a case of "having you fit into the garment". That's not the way of structured clothing at all. It's that the garment is "pre-conformed" to your body. Even with more highly structured clothes- that I prefer- the fit's the thing. There is no excess or ancillary cloth, the cut supports the movement rather than additional folds etc. I wouldn't say that it is any less comfortable or body conforming than an A&S or Neapolitan style and regardless of the level of structure, it definitely conforms to your body. It is , however different- and it feels different- but very comfortable.

Well, that is a great point.

But if you are right, then there is no advantage to "soft tailoring."

The point you express is held by, I think, a near complete hegemony of clients of bespoke tailoring outside of A&S and southern Italy.

I don't know if Scholte was well spoken or literate, but if either, I am disappointed we can't dig him up.

- B
post #24 of 2409
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Another common thread (so to speak) is the small/short backneck measurement. That's the distance from the center backseam to the shoulder seam. A short backneck (on each side) results in extra fullness over the shoulder blades, allowing for greater freedom of movement, and also is THE major cause of keeping a collar glued to the neck. Frankly, I don't know why all tailors don't do this. The tell-tale sign, BTW, is the angled shoulder seam. It won't travel in a straight line from the neck to the sleeve, bisecting your body, but will angle down toward the back of the coat.

All my A&S-inspired suits stay glued to the neck far better than others, and also are easier to move in. I can pretty much move my arms in any direction and the collar will not lift.

I have found (through somewhat limited) experience that these guys have a tremendous track record at getting the balance right from the get-go. They may not make the most shapely coats, and certainly not the leanest, but the balance is perfect. An A&S customer friend of mine reports the same of John Hitchcock, and from what I have seen of his coats, he is right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
^^^ Softness is not simply or even primarily a matter of the shoulders. It's also about the canvas. The A&S guys use very little (sometimes none) of the stiff stuff (horsehair/hymo), and so far as I know never make a more typical SR four-layer canvas. The canvas's main ingredient is typically flax, and as a result the chest and fronts overall are very, very soft, esepcially by comparison with their peers on the Row.

Thank you. You say it better than could I.

- B
post #25 of 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
Well, that is a great point.

But if you are right, then there is no advantage to "soft tailoring."

The point you express is held by, I think, a near complete hegemony of clients of bespoke tailoring outside of A&S and southern Italy.

I don't know if Scholte was well spoken or literate, but if either, I am disappointed we can't dig him up.

- B

I think it really boils down to the look you like.
post #26 of 2409
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yachtie View Post
I think it really boils down to the look you like.

True, but I don't want to devalue your observation to such relativism.

The fact is, especially for the best local American and British tailors:

1. "Soft tailoring" is suspect. "Soft tailoring" means cheaper construction.

2. A single fitting is laughable.

3. Of course, anything done well in bespoke is going to be comfortable. Scholte didn't corner the market on this, in fact, he's an outlier.

These are legitimate points.

- B
post #27 of 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
True, but I don't want to devalue your observation to such relativism.

The fact is, especially for the best local American and British tailors:

1. "Soft tailoring" is suspect. "Soft tailoring" means cheaper construction.

2. A single fitting is laughable.

3. Of course, anything done well in bespoke is going to be comfortable. Scholte didn't corner the market on this, in fact, he's an outlier.

These are legitimate points.

- B

I can't respond to 1. - it may be true,it may not be true.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could get a really good result with one fitting - even if your pattern is well characterized.
The feel of different cuts is such that I'm not sure that it's possible to compare them regarding comfort. It'd be apples to oranges.
post #28 of 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by yachtie View Post
I can't respond to 1. - it may be true,it may not be true.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could get a really good result with one fitting - even if your pattern is well characterized.
The feel of different cuts is such that I'm not sure that it's possible to compare them regarding comfort. It'd be apples to oranges.
FWIW, I have had suits with four fittings, two fittings, one fitting and no fittings, and they all fit the same. Once the pattern is down, I don't know that lots of fittings are necessary.
post #29 of 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by yachtie View Post
I can't respond to 1. - it may be true,it may not be true.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could get a really good result with one fitting - even if your pattern is well characterized.
The feel of different cuts is such that I'm not sure that it's possible to compare them regarding comfort. It'd be apples to oranges.

Comfort is subjective as well.

I like to feel a jacket when I wear it. Very close to the body. That is comfortable to me. Loose fitting clothes are more uncomfortable than snug clothing to me.
Some wear jackets so loose and that is comfort to them.

A structured jacket should be comfortable. Soft tailoring does not guarantee comfort. If it is not cut or fitted well you will have a very uncomfortable, but soft, jacket.

You can get great clothes with one fitting and terrible fitting clothes with 5 fittings. There is no formula or equation that guarantees a positive result.
post #30 of 2409
^^^ I'd say that's definitive.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Anderson & Sheppard Expatriates Thread