anyone ever use tom fords mtm program?

Originally Posted by SirSuturesALot

Click to expand...

Haha, love your avatar mafoo.

Thank RJpigmonster.

Originally Posted by triniboy27

Click to expand...

Don't you use Rubinacci because you like the Rubinacci house style?

How is this any different?

I think Rubinacci's house style is as much a method and approach to tailoring as it is a 'style'. I like the ultimate balance between comfort and appearance; I also like the fact that the quality and service are absolutely top-notch.

Tom Ford, like all ready-to-wear designers, must optimize design for many, many people. Thus, the benefits and trade-offs are far less likely to match any one person's preferences.

Originally Posted by litho

Click to expand...

do you not look at your own pictures? You also look incredibly stiff and hang-on-a-car-mirror-like

We've already established that I'm a robot.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Whether you can achieve an interesting whole that amounts to more than the sum of a garment's features is, to me, an unresolvable query. But to answer your point, I never said one should ask a tailor to copy Tom Ford's styling, only that I have yet to see any evidence that there is such a thing beyong the few features that people have identified individually, and that a competent bespoke tailor should be able to execute those features (after all, Zegna's factory workers can).

Also, whatevever the merits of Tom Ford's work, its evaluation should be contained within the context of ready-to-wear. Even if his lapels are good for a model that must be scaled to fit as many people as possible, why suppose they are optimal for any one person? If someone says, "I want a Tom Ford suit," it's perfectly reasonable to question whether he has considered options that might be better for him individually .

Of course the whole is more than the sum of it's part, that's what you go for when you wanna be "well-put together".

As for your point about TF styling being non-existent as it is made of the few features you've identified (and probably a few more we haven't discussed) well what the hell is a house style then? Same basic canvas; a suit and some specific lapel, drape/n. drape, pockets, button placement, overall proportions, fabrics etc choices. Once again if you're asking a tailor to reproduce the same set of features and doing it because you've seen TF do it then it is fair to say you're asking the tailor to copy TF's vision/house style.

As for your comments about TF being optimal for a person I found them rather absurd considering you took a strong stance favoring individual preferences versus dressing according to an optimal ideal. It appears you have yet to internalize this aesthetic choice as it's opposite still spills over into your discourse from time to time.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

I'd be perfectly happy to hear what makes the features of a Tom Ford suit amount to 'design' in any meaningful sense. So far, all I hear is that people really like the look, which consists of certain details that aren't proprietary or unique to Tom Ford in the first place.

The merit of Pollack's art had to be justifiable, either by himself or by his advocates. If his work just 'looked nice', it wouldn't be 'art' to begin with--at least, not in a way that would give the word any significance.

Anyway, the cases of Ford and Pollack aren't analogous. Ford 'designs'. Pollack did 'art'. One must account for a physical function (i.e. being worn by a human being), one doesn't have any physical function at all.

Tom Ford isn't a "designer" anyway in the way you're suggesting - engineering the garments (materials, pattern, etc). He's a great stylist, in the way that most bespoke tailors are not. It's not like most of these guys are keeping up on the latest fashion trends to adapt for their bespoke clients.

I wonder if you would consider anything other than the obviously avant-garde to be "design".

Originally Posted by emptym

Click to expand...

You forgot, iirc, the five buttons on the sleeve.

That's a Gucci holdover. I don't know if Gucci did that pre-Ford as well (I wasn't old enough to be buying expensive clothes before the Ford era at Gucci) but at any rate I can't imagine why anyone couldn't just sew on an extra buttonhole.

Originally Posted by josephrex

Click to expand...

Tom Ford isn't a "designer" anyway in the way you're suggesting - engineering the garments (materials, pattern, etc). He's a great stylist, in the way that most bespoke tailors are not. It's not like most of these guys are keeping up on the latest fashion trends to adapt for their bespoke clients.

I wonder if you would consider anything other than the obviously avant-garde to be "design".

I have been saying that for a long time. Todays designers are nothing more than stylists putting looks together. To be considered a fashion designer, one must present a distinctive look that is innovative, unique, and purposeful. If the fashion industry was like the automotive industry than we would all be driving the same style cars. Just my opinion.

You can tell the make, model, and year of a car by its design.

You CANT tell the make and model of a suit or shirt by its design.

Originally Posted by Sprezzatura2010

Click to expand...

That's a Gucci holdover. I don't know if Gucci did that pre-Ford as well (I wasn't old enough to be buying expensive clothes before the Ford era at Gucci) but at any rate I can't imagine why anyone couldn't just sew on an extra buttonhole.
I don't know why anyone would want to sew on an extra buttonhole.

Some of the Ford stuff I have seen at NM looks pretty good. In fact, some of the fabrics for sweaters, ties and pocket squares are pretty awesome. The only problem I have with the stuff is that it crosses into Russian Gangster territory a little too much, which I assume is sort of the point of the super luxury thing he is trying to do, but it makes it so that a tie which I like very much will never harmonize very well with the rest of the stuff I have.

The suits seem at least as good as anything else at NM, but the luxury thing doesn't do it for me. Out of the almost classic designers, I much prefer Thom Browne, though I am not sure teh two are comparable.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

Of course the whole is more than the sum of it's part, that's what you go for when you wanna be "well-put together".

Or maybe you're just picking parts that go together nicely?

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

As for your point about TF styling being non-existent as it is made of the few features you've identified (and probably a few more we haven't discussed) well what the hell is a house style then? Same basic canvas; a suit and some specific lapel, drape/n. drape, pockets, button placement, overall proportions, fabrics etc choices. Once again if you're asking a tailor to reproduce the same set of features and doing it because you've seen TF do it then it is fair to say you're asking the tailor to copy TF's vision/house style.

To be clear, I would be dubious of any tailor's 'house style' if it consisted of aesthetic features that have nothing to do with a well thought-out 'way' of doing things--it might not stop me from using that tailor, but I'd want the flexibility to modify the template.

On the other hand, I respect a house style that reflects the accumulated knowledge and expertise of the tailor in making a superior garment (along some tangible metric). To me, that kind of house style is closer to 'design' than what Tom Ford does.

Perhaps I didn't convey this clearly enough, but part of my point is that Tom Ford may not have an identifiable 'vision' or 'house style' to begin with. So far, I have only heard that he uses certain features in his suits that anybody else could easily employ (and may have before Tom Ford came into the scene). Without proven originality or uniqueness, I don't see why anybody should give credit to Tom Ford for having a 'vision'.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

As for your comments about TF being optimal for a person I found them rather absurd considering you took a strong stance favoring individual preferences versus dressing according to an optimal ideal. It appears you have yet to internalize this aesthetic choice as it's opposite still spills over into your discourse from time to time.

I think individual preferences should rule, but I also think they should be well informed. Also, I don't think I ever said that individual preference should always trump the desire to meet a norm, only that one should not presume the norm is a good thing without good cause. I did say that it is more important to be comfortable with your appearance than for others to be--but that's a different discussion altogether.

Originally Posted by josephrex

Click to expand...

I wonder if you would consider anything other than the obviously avant-garde to be "design".

You might be right about that.

Originally Posted by jamesbond

Click to expand...

Ed, if it makes you happy then throw Rubinacci in there as well. I suppose you could throw most of the famed Saville row tailors in too. And yes i understand that the OP is looking for that particular style. Like i said its his money not mine. If hes got that kind of cake to throw around on Tom Ford and it makes him happy then im happy for him.


Actually, as I have noted here before, most of the Rubinacci stuff I have seen here makes me not want to get something from him, as I find myself loving iammatt's stuff (and whnay too if I recall) but finding it lacking in the others. I'm afraid that I may or may not love it (BTW, I can't afford to take trips to Italy for suits so it's sort of a moot point anyway). One thing you can say about TF or other designer MTM programs is that you can at least try the stuff on and have an idea how you are going to look before laying your money down. I do not like the TF style either but I am not so foolish as to think that I can go to any competent tailor and get the same look. People like TF and Thom Browne get too easily dismissed as snake oil saleman around these parts, their talent is seen as marketers more than legitimate designers. Shattuck made a wonderful suit for aportnoy and is obviously a more than competent tailor but I seriously doubt that someone in love with TF's cut would be happy having Shattuck replicate it nor that a Shattuck would even want to. Rubinacci is also obviously a more than competent tailor but I also doubt that he would want to replicate a TF suit nor that if I were looking for the TF cut that I would get a satisfactory product from him. TF sells you his vision of what a suit should be, no different than Rubinacci except that TF's vision will change with the whims of fashion. Not my cuppa but it seems that whenever someone here wants to go the high end designer route, the answer is always, "but with that money you can get Rubinnacci/Chan/Shattuck/Logsdail etc", without giving any consideration to what the OP is actually looking for.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

So far, all I hear is that people really like the look, which consists of certain details that aren't proprietary or unique to Tom Ford in the first place.

I don't understand your point here. The issue isn't the detail - everything in the world can always be stripped down to prosaic, straightforward & simple steps or details. Surely the issue is how the details, proportions and overall design theme synergistically interact together to create an aesthetically-pleasing (or not, depending on one's tastes) gestalt entity. Tom Ford has a fairly clear aesthetic vision to his current work, which the majority of his items are designed around. Copying isolated elements of the work is not enough to recreate the vision, since it's the interaction of the elements within the overall proportions of the design, that create the overall effect.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Perhaps I didn't convey this clearly enough, but part of my point is that Tom Ford may not have an identifiable 'vision' or 'house style' to begin with. So far, I have only heard that he uses certain features in his suits that anybody else could easily employ (and may have before Tom Ford came into the scene). Without proven originality or uniqueness, I don't see why anybody should give credit to Tom Ford for having a 'vision'.

Ah, well, this subsequent post clarifies your position a little. In this case, I won't aim to convince you that there is a clear aesthetic vision to his work. I'll just say that when I personally look at his collection, I do get a clear sense of direction and coherence to his ideas. I don't actually like most of them very much, but I do get a sense of where he's trying to go, and how.

I don't say that Tom Ford MTM or RTW or whatever is necessarily better or worse or necessarily more flattering or less flattering. That clearly depends on both the build of the individual and their own aesthetic perception when they look in the mirror. What I would say that if someone is after the Tom Ford "look" as a priority in their wardrobe choices, they'll find it much less frustrating to buy Tom Ford directly than attempt to get a bespoke tailor to work to recreate the look by aping details. Go to a bespoke tailor and ask them for something like Tom Ford and you'll get their interpretation of the look. It may (should!) fit better, but it won't be the same look, despite the similarity of elements within it.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

. . . crosses into Russian Gangster territory a little too much.

I once heard someone knowledgeable said that the largest proportion of Mr. Ford's clients is from Russia.

- M

Originally Posted by Holdfast

Click to expand...

I don't say that Tom Ford MTM or RTW or whatever is necessarily better or worse or necessarily more flattering or less flattering. That clearly depends on both the build of the individual and their own aesthetic perception when they look in the mirror. What I would say that if someone is after the Tom Ford "look" as a priority in their wardrobe choices, they'll find it much less frustrating to buy Tom Ford directly than attempt to get a bespoke tailor to work to recreate the look by aping details. Go to a bespoke tailor and ask them for something like Tom Ford and you'll get their interpretation of the look. It may (should!) fit better, but it won't be the same look, despite the similarity of elements within it.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say there is a Tom Ford look. It is only defined in relation to a large group of consumers, not individual people. We might say that Tom Ford has developed a Tom Ford Man, but he has not anticipated a Tom Ford Holdfast or Tom Ford Mafoofan. So, who is to say that a bespoke tailor could not get you closer to being Tom Ford Holdfast than Tom Ford can?

If someone wants to wear Tom Ford-ness in all its unidentified, undefined glory, I suppose the only way to do that is to buy the Tom Ford brand. But if someone likes the look, it makes perfect sense to stop and wonder what he likes about it and whether it can be better attained elsewhere.

You can get a Tom Ford-esque suit from a Savile Row tailor.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say there is a Tom Ford look. It is only defined in relation to a large group of consumers, not individual people. We might say that Tom Ford has developed a Tom Ford Man, but he has not anticipaed a Tom Ford Holdfast or Tom Ford Mafoofan. So, who is to say that a bespoke tailor could not get you closer to being Tom Ford Holdfast than Tom Ford can?

Oh, this I agree with, no problems.

I would say it would be quite difficult, still. It would require quite a hell of a lot of aesthetic appreciation combined with both an ability to focus on detail and take a more birds-eye view on both on my part and that of the tailor. But yes, in theory, I agree entirely that I could get closer to "Tom Ford Holdfast" with a bespoke tailor than with Tom Ford.

But that would be MY and my TAILOR'S interpretation of Tom Ford. We would be redesigning it to better suit me. This is not necessarily a bad thing of course. To you or to me, it would actually be a good thing! But it would not necessarily be a good thing to everyone since it would be different to Tom Ford's own vision of the look and if someone really just wanted that look, they'd be better off going to the original.

If someone wants to wear Tom Ford-ness in all its unidentified, undefined glory, I suppose the only way to do that is to buy the Tom Ford brand.

Click to expand...

This is my fundamental point, though I would not couch it in such dismissive terms because I don't think it's as non-specific as you do.

But if someone likes the look, it makes perfect sense to stop and wonder what he likes about it and whether it can be better attained elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Yes, but remember you won't get exactly the look you liked. You'll get a variation of it that may or may not satisfy you.

I think we're not disagreeing as much as you think, but we are talking at slight cross-purposes.

The point is what it is the buyer wants.

If the buyer wants Tom Ford, they need to buy Tom Ford.

If they like elements of Tom Ford but are happy to accept some deviations in order to better flatter/fit them as an individual (which I think both of us would consider a smarter decision), then a bespoke tailor should be able to deliver that IF the tailor is flexible and IF both the tailor and the buyer have a pretty well-developed aesthetic sense to know what to include, what to modify and what to completely leave out. This is NOT an easy skill set, but can be done with practice/training.

If on the other hand, they can find a bespoke tailor whose house style is close to what they already like in terms of aesthetics rather than trying to mould that tailor's style to one vastly different to their usual work, then that by far holds out the best potential for satisfaction on the part of the buyer. It will require less interpretation and redesigning by both the buyer and tailor, and be more within the natural range & experience of the tailor.

It depends what the buyer wants, I think.

Originally Posted by edmorel

Click to expand...

Actually, as I have noted here before, most of the Rubinacci stuff I have seen here makes me not want to get something from him, as I find myself loving iammatt's stuff (and whnay too if I recall) but finding it lacking in the others. I'm afraid that I may or may not love it (BTW, I can't afford to take trips to Italy for suits so it's sort of a moot point anyway). One thing you can say about TF or other designer MTM programs is that you can at least try the stuff on and have an idea how you are going to look before laying your money down. I do not like the TF style either but I am not so foolish as to think that I can go to any competent tailor and get the same look. People like TF and Thom Browne get too easily dismissed as snake oil saleman around these parts, their talent is seen as marketers more than legitimate designers. Shattuck made a wonderful suit for aportnoy and is obviously a more than competent tailor but I seriously doubt that someone in love with TF's cut would be happy having Shattuck replicate it nor that a Shattuck would even want to. Rubinacci is also obviously a more than competent tailor but I also doubt that he would want to replicate a TF suit nor that if I were looking for the TF cut that I would get a satisfactory product from him. TF sells you his vision of what a suit should be, no different than Rubinacci except that TF's vision will change with the whims of fashion. Not my cuppa but it seems that whenever someone here wants to go the high end designer route, the answer is always, "but with that money you can get Rubinnacci/Chan/Shattuck/Logsdail etc", without giving any consideration to what the OP is actually looking for.

Word. But if the OP works on Wallstreet as was stated then why in the world would you want this type of suit? Maybe a Russian mobster, fashion photographer, interior designer, etc. but Wallstreet it is not. Im thinking the OP's liking to TF comes from the new Bond flick and the suits in that movie look different then TF's main line and ad's that i've seen.