1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

I have 12 suits which are too large

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by ernest, Feb 14, 2005.

  1. ernest

    ernest Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    In the back = a long ply from the shoulder to the waist on right and left = what can we do for this?

    In the front = at the level of the first button (these are 3 buttons) there are too fabrics and there is a small wave under the button when I put it ine the button hole = what can we do for this ?

    HELP me .

    I am afraid to be oblige to sell them ( i like them all very much as they are very good fabrics and convas suits.)
     
  2. johnnynorman3

    johnnynorman3 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,686
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Take them to the best tailor you know and ask him. What are you asking us for?
     
  3. ernest

    ernest Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    If it is possible to make a 52 with a 53.

    Shoulders are not too bad so I hope it is possible to improve them enough to make them wearable.

    I do not know any tailor.
     
  4. Brian SD

    Brian SD Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,760
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Definitely take them to a tailor, he can fix the too much fabric around the waist. Many of us have to have our suits modified to get rid of some of that extra fabric...
     
  5. kabert

    kabert Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    That's a small size difference in the tailoring scheme of things -- find a really good tailor and you'll be all set.
     
  6. Carlo

    Carlo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,027
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2003
    .2 suits one Ernest - Don't send him to the tailor, send him to the diner.

    Cheeseburgers lad, cheeseburgers and beer with fries.
     
  7. Matt

    Matt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,179
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    ok stupid question forthcoming....

    when you discovered that the first suit was too big, why did you proceed to buy the other ELEVEN?
     
  8. ernest

    ernest Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    I bought 6 suits in 53. I was fater so now they are too large.

    I bought 6 suits in 52 but i didn't realize they were too large
     
  9. alchimiste

    alchimiste Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    577
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    a fine country
    So your problem seems to be that you are no longer fat enough. Why do you blame the suits if you are the one who made them too large?

    Mathieu
     
  10. Matt

    Matt Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    11,179
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    fair enough...

    congratulations on a highly successful weightloss program and good luck overcoming its consequences.

    as ppl have advised you above, a good tailor should be able to take the suits in for you by this amount.

    where do you live? generally ppl on this board and on askandy are pretty good tailorlocators....
     
  11. PHV

    PHV Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    686
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Ernest, your english is really improving.
     
  12. ernest

    ernest Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    (ernest @ Feb. 13 2005,21:37) In the back = a long ply from the shoulder to the waist on right and left = what can we do for this? In the front = at the level of the first button (these are 3 buttons) there are too fabrics and there is a small wave under the button when I put it ine the button hole = what can we do for this ? HELP me . I am afraid to be oblige to sell them ( i like them all very much as they are very good fabrics and convas suits.)
    Ernest, your english is really improving.
    Thanks but I am not as sure as you are. I feel no difference. Others, what do you think about it?
     
  13. j

    j Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,914
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    It's getting there; I do see an improvement. I don't envy you trying to learn English. I was about to offer you a quick object lesson on the difference between usage of "which" (as in your post title) and the word "that", but I decided it would be too confusing (for you and for me.). Maybe in six months?
     
  14. ernest

    ernest Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    I am ready.
     
  15. marc237

    marc237 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,381
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    (j @ Feb. 16 2005,04:49) It's getting there; I do see an improvement. I don't envy you trying to learn English. I was about to offer you a quick object lesson on the difference between usage of "which" (as in your post title) and the word "that", but I decided it would be too confusing (for you and for me.). Maybe in six months?
    I am ready.
    You only think you are. Have fun with the following: The usage is intimately linked with the distinction which grammarians made between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. A restrictive clause is one which limits, or restricts, the scope of the noun it is referring to. Take these examples: The house that is painted pink has just been sold. The house, which is painted pink, has just been sold. In the first of these, the clause "that is painted pink" is a restrictive clause, because it limits the scope of the word "house", indicating that the writer doesn't mean all houses, only the one that has been painted in that particular colour; if you take that clause out, we are left with The house has just been sold: we no longer know which house is being referred to and the sentence loses some crucial information. The second example is non-restrictive: the writer is giving additional information about a house he is describing; the clause "which is painted pink" is here parenthetical"”the writer is saying "by the way, the house is painted pink" as an additional bit of information which is not essential to the meaning and could be taken out. Here's another example: Another cause of stress is a traumatic event that is out of the ordinary and has a major impact on the person's life. The argument here is that the clause "that is out of the ordinary and has a major impact on the person's life" modifies and constrains "event". It's not just any event but one specific type of event, to the extent that the whole block from "event" onwards forms one idea. That makes the clause restrictive. Older style guides make two firm points about the difference between the two types of clause: Restrictive clauses are introduced by that and are not separated from the rest of the sentence by commas. Non-restrictive clauses are introduced by which and must be separated by commas from the rest of the sentence to indicate parenthesis. The problem is that few people have followed these rules systematically, and you can find lots of examples where the relative pronoun which is used to start a restrictive clause. The 1965 edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage comments: If writers would agree to regard that as the defining relative pronoun, and which as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity and in ease. Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers. This is even more true today than when he wrote it and most modern style guides say that either relative pronoun can be used with restrictive clauses. For example, I found this sentence quoted approvingly as an example under the equivalent section in "Oxford English": A suitcase which has lost its handle is useless. The clause "which has lost its handle" is certainly restrictive. If you take it out, you are left with "A suitcase is useless", obviously a different meaning to that intended. So, according to Fowler's rule, the which ought to be that. Despite the shift in style, there remain some situations in which that is still regarded as preferable to which, though they're difficult to tie down. Here are some instances, but don't take them as a full list of cases, and they are tendencies, not full-blown rules: In clauses that follow impersonal constructions, such as it is, that is preferred: "It was the dog that died". Clauses which refer back to the words anything, nothing, something, or everything have a slight preference for that over which: "Can you think of anything that still has to be done?" Clauses which follow a superlative also tend to prefer that: "Thank you for the most superb dinner that I've ever eaten". In part, it seems probable that this preference is derived from stress and rhythm. The word that contains "soft" sounds and is usually unstressed, whilst which contains a "harder" initial sound and is easier to stress. Several writers note that that tends to be preferred in speech, which may be due to the comparative ease with which that is and similar phrases can be contracted, for example to that's, compared with the equivalent expressions using which. Though you can use which instead of that in restrictive clauses, you can't do so the other way round: non-restrictive clauses ought always to start with which. Also, you can't change the punctuation rules; it is particularly important to watch this point if you decide to use which in a restrictive clause, as otherwise your poor reader has no clue at all how you intend the sentence to be read. Here is a rather artificial example to make the point: The cup which he stepped on is in the bin. The cup, which he stepped on, is in the bin. In the first, you are being told about a specific cup with the special property that it is the one he stepped on; in the second, the fact that he stepped on it is an ancillary bit of information. My view is that punctuation is more important than choice of pronoun in such situations. You won't be thought wrong if you use that in the first case (and will avoid the thunder of pedants' condemnation) but you will be justly criticised if you leave out the commas in the second. A further point worth noting is that the opening pronoun in restrictive clauses is frequently left out, so that you can say "The cup he stepped on is in the bin". Again, you can't do this with non-restrictive clauses. If you wish to write naturally, don't fuss too much about the usage of that versus which. Obsessive correction (what has sarcastically been called a "which hunt") is best avoided. If your sense of the language is not strong enough to be sure of the right pronoun, use that for the restrictive cases and which for the others and you won't go wrong. For credit, see http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/which.htm
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by