Anybody Care To Name This Jacket?

[pejsek]

Here's a very nice bespoke jacket I picked up a few months ago. No tailor's tags are visible and none have even obviously been removed. The style seems something of an homage to A&S--absolutely minimal padding in the shoulders, sweater-like fit. My original hunch was perhaps Flusser, but I'm still not sure. The best clue as to the maker is probably the lapel buttonhole, which is very nicely done, distinctive, and flamboyant.

Any expert opinions? Wild guesses?

 

[Chris "Italia"]

I am going to make some WILD guesses.

Cesare Attolini?

Pal Zileri Sortoriale?

Saint Andrews Milano?

Eddy Monetti Napoli?

 

[TomW]

No idea on the maker, but I absolutely love it!

 

[chorse123]

That lapel buttonhole is about to fall of the lapel! Perhaps it was altered after the hole was cut? A son trying to "modernize" his father's jacket?

 

[pejsek]

Well, thanks for the guesses, complements, and suggestions. I'm pretty sure this is a US-made jacket. It's certainly Savile Row in inspiration, but the execution is just a little different somehow. The buttons, for example, are like nothing you would get by default on SR. I wonder if this might be something from Cheo. My only first-hand experience with Cheo is an unfortunate decision to pass on two perfectly fitting db chalk stripe suits from Cheo I spotted at an Upper East Side thrift store about 10 years ago--I thought they would be too difficult to carry back to California. And they weren't real English bespoke suits! (Oh, how it pains me to write that.) But from what I understand, Cheo favors a soft approach that shares a kinship with A&S. You are quite right to note, chorse123, that the lapel buttonhole is quite audaciously placed. There is, however, nothing botched or impromptu about its execution and it is sewn with the same thread as all the other buttonholes. Anybody here know Cheo's work?
I must say--without intending to pat myself on the back--it's not until I've looked at the pictures here that I fully realized how expertly the pattern-matching has been done. The angled pockets and ticket pocket are particularly impressive in the way they just melt into the jacket. Whoever the tailor is, I'd like to offer my thanks and admiration.

 

[Tomasso]

............I too, have a suspicion that the lapels were trimmed.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Agreed - hard to believe a tailor would be so fastidious about the pattern matching while being careless about the placement of the lapel buttonhole.

 

[Bradford]

I would name it Darryl or maybe Lloyd.

 

[pejsek]

Okay, well, the Darryl it is! Thanks, Bradford. I don't think the lapels have been trimmed. The jacket shows no signs of work (and not much wear). Wouldn't trimming the lapels affect the way the jacket buttons? In any case, I must say this possibility hadn't even occurred to me until it was raised here and I have tried to consider it objectively. The buttonhole is quite long and I think this is why it extends so far out. Imagine the buttonhole ending 1/4" earlier. It would be placed perfectly. The buttonhole begins right in line with the lapel notch. I don't think it could rightly begin earlier than this point. I took the buttonhole to be a signature feature of this (sadly) anonymous tailor. Does this sound like a rationalization?

 

[EL72]

Originally Posted by pejsek

Does this sound like a rationalization?

Yes, but that's fine, at least you're not hurting Darryl's feelings.

 

[pejsek]

As a result of some of the replies here, I went and dug out (and you have no idea how literally apt this verb is) an old marked A&S jacket (Class of '78!) from my closet. The comparison of the lapel buttonholes is interesting. Here's the A&S:

And now here's a shot of the underside of the lapel on the first jacket:

Both buttonholes are 1.25" long. Both show a hint of a curve; the A&S perhaps a bit more so. Both begin on the axis extending down from the lapel notch parallel to the lapel's edge. The A&S buttonhole ends 3/8" from the edge of the lapel, while the buttonhole on the unmarked jacket ends 1/4" from that spot--this is, of course, the big difference. An unusual feature on the unmarked jacket is the length of the buttonhole guard, which at nearly 1.5" in length is longer than the buttonhole itself and extends to the very edge of the underside of the lapel. The guard on the A&S jacket is properly discrete, measuring in at an unimpeachable 1".
So, have these lapels been altered? I don't know. Would someone really go to the trouble to shave off perhaps 1/4"? Maybe. Interestingly, in keeping with my taste for the unrestrained, the lapel buttonhole was one of the first things I really liked about this jacket. I guess I like a bit of flash in the buttonhole--which this one supplies in spades. I'd be disappointed if it were a bit more discrete. I shudder to ask, but are there any rules about the size of the lapel buttonhole in relation to the width of the lapel?