anyone ever use tom fords mtm program?

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by mmkn

Ford is small enough still that I think his brand can deliver a very specific product.

Before I went bespoke, I explored Armani MTM.

After the suit arrived in Beverly Hills and was subsequently poorly altered, the GA folks sent me to Chicago and NYC to have their tailors correct the problems . . . still very poorly done and the suit was ultimately returned.

Armani has gotten too diluted, to large IMO. Unless you're a Russian oil magnate and receiving the personal attention of Mr. Armani's personal stylists and tailors, even their MTM program might not be up to snuff.

That said, I've seen an alteration tailor at the Costa Mesa GA do some pretty thorough fitting.

YMMV.

- M
That isn't really what I meant. Their similarity is that beither mixes all that well with anything else.

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Again, why do you think Tom Ford would be that hard to copy? Put in another way: Tom Ford's suits just don't seem that remarkable. It's not like he's doing things other makers aren't doing or can't do.

Why is this an insult? Some people value fashion a great deal and don't understand why I choose to wear things that are so unfashionable.

You don't see how you're elevating your preferences -- "a unique approach to tailoring" -- while dismissing others -- "not like he's doing things other makers aren't doing or can't do"? London House didn't invent drape and has no monopoly on drape; it just applies it in a certain way. You might like the way Rubinacci does it, which is well and good, but someone else might like how Tom Ford's stuff looks. That's why you go to Rubinacci, not Chan, and why someone else goes to Ford, not Rubinacci.

The insult isn't in the word "fashion," it's in how you're using "fashion" as a pejorative.

 

[mmkn]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

That look is very neutrally masculine.

Fixed.

(I'm not referring to Mr. Ford's sexuality.)

- M

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

The influx of all this "designer" crap is why I left SF for a year. I hope threads don't start heading down the SoCal/Thom4Life/Jil/TomFord/[enter famous runway name here] path again.

Excuse me?

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by edmorel

I think the TB debate was helpful and at the end of the day, Thom Browne makes some very wearable items with very good construction. I have no experience with Ford, but Zegna makes a good product. jil had shoes made by Lattanzi at one point, not sure who does the tailored clothing there. Not really sure how this "designer crap" is any different than Ralph Lauren.

My Jil Sander handmade shoes are made by Lattanzi.

I'm not sure who makes the MTM Sartorial line suit; however, I wouldn't be surprised if they started using factories solely under their guidance now that the Prada stranglehold is gone.

 

[mmkn]

Originally Posted by iammatt

That isn't really what I meant. Their similarity is that neither mixes all that well with anything else.

Got it.

Anyway, your Armani mention gave me a springboard to hope that Ford doesn't lose his "boutique touch" as he expands his empire.

- M

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by unpainted huffheinz

The difference between Sexton and the Row firms is the personal sensibility of the former versus the more bureaucratic structure of the latter. I don't think cutters on the Row are very free to follow their own personal whims, and personality is exactly what makes people search out someone like Sexton or Ford.

Basically, one co-opts the style and sensibility of a designer, and has to fit that into their own life. Perhaps that is the main objection to designer offerings?

My tailor worked for Sexton before going to Anderson & Sheppard. These are quite different styles, and I have had some interesting conversations with him about it. While what he cuts for me has the DNA of Scholte and Per Anderson's soft tailoring, a bit of Sexton goes into it as well and I like that.

One of the reasons why he is my tailor and not A&S is exactly what you describe: I prefer working with a man who is completely in charge of his own work. There are choices like this on the Row, but you are right...the glories of the larger houses are exactly that they are not as as subject to the decisions of one person. It is a source of vitality...one only needs to look around at the declining numbers of bespoke tailors in the US where the business model follows the single tailor structure to see why it is important for the continuation of the craft that the multi-tailor Savile Row and Italian makers exist.

As for Tom Ford: I have seen a couple examples in the flesh and I think it is RTW to the core. It is a look in which the emphasis is the designer's view imposed on the client. It is monologue, not a dialog. For that reason, it is not really the bespoke tailor who is most capable of mimicing the Tom Ford look, but the price-jumping RTW maker who could replicate the look most convincingly.

I assume there are factories already that are beginning to produce the knockoffs.

- B

 

[zjpj83]

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

Excuse me?

I don't know what about my post is unclear. I find your clothes ugly and you irritating.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I believe others identified qualities associated with the Tom Ford look. If they haven't, then the look goes undefined. In that case, don't you wonder: what is it, is it unique, can someone else do it?

Perhaps, but I don't think a list of styling details, like those given in this thread, is capable of defining the Tom Ford look. Or the Thom Browne look, or any other designer's look in particular. At best, it's a gross characterization of the look, but there are much smaller details, some of which are implied by or are idiomatic of the styling or construction choices he makes, that go into the look.

I'm not saying it's unknowable, but I think there's a lot more thought and detail that go into a designer's look than just a few styling details.

--Andre

 

[jefferyd]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

In contrast, nothing identified as distinctive of a Tom Ford suit seems to require a generally competent bespoke tailor to have any specialized skill or experience--except for maybe the shoulder line, which I admit is rarely seen (but is this because tailors don't or can't make them?).
Much as I hate to wade into this controversy, I'd like to point out a few things. First, The TF production is being done at the facility that does the Zegna Couture line, not the main line; most of the work, though I am unaware of just how much, is done by hand, and from little what I have seen, is some of the best around. Second, the "spalla insellata" is rarely seen because it is terribly complex and very difficult to execute with consistency. The sleeve is quite huge, much more so than the spalla camicia and setting it is a challenge; the shape of the shoulder, which is supposed to more faithfully follow the curve between the collar bone and the shoulder point, is due to a complex structure in the canvas underneath, and a great deal of stretching of the fabric around the shoulder seam and armhole; getting both shoulders identical is quite difficult so most tailors opt for something more simple; I do not know of many tailors who even know how to do it. TF's stuff is not for everybody's taste, but it certainly could not be replicated by just anyone. EDITED TO READ: I haven't seen any up close and I don't know his methods, but from some pictures I've seen, Chris Despos does a very nice job of it.

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

I don't know what about my post is unclear. I find your clothes ugly and you irritating.

 

[AvariceBespoke]

Has anyone ever used Tom Ford's MTM program?

Anyone ever purchased a suit through his MTM offering?

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

The influx of all this "designer" crap is why I left SF for a year. I hope threads don't start heading down the SoCal/Thom4Life/Jil/TomFord/[enter famous runway name here] path again.
I like the full variety of menswear discussion. Obviously, I'm a fan of designer menswear, but I also enjoy seeing discussions about more sartorial standards. I don't really see why we should be limiting things; it's pretty boring to discuss only a few types of garments that only a few members can actually use. This narrowness is one thing I found rather dull about Ask Andy. You may find it "designer crap," but I think ALL of it has its place, from Mafoofan's Rubinacci to SoCal's Raf sweater. Why buy/discuss only Caraceni if you don't even need to wear a suit to your job? Likewise, you may not need/want to wear Raf, but why would it bother you to see a thread about it? Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks... I think that's a good thing.

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

As for Tom Ford: I have seen a couple examples in the flesh and I think it is RTW to the core. It is a look in which the emphasis is the designer's view imposed on the client. It is monologue, not a dialog. For that reason, it is not really the bespoke tailor who is most capable of mimicing the Tom Ford look, but the price-jumping RTW maker who could replicate the look most convincingly.

I assume there are factories already that are beginning to produce the knockoffs.

- B

not to be combative, but going back to Fuuma's point, how is this different than "house style" of the bespoke guys? Let's assume TF was a bespoke guy, you would go to him because you liked his outlandish suits, not to tell him how to adapt his style to yours. We see that in some of the posts here about bespoke tailors. The guys here who are clients more times than not say something to the effect "I let the tailor do as he pleased as he is the expert". Solito was interviewed not long ago and pretty much said the same thing, "come to me for what I do, not for what you want".

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

In contrast, nothing identified as distinctive of a Tom Ford suit seems to require a generally competent bespoke tailor to have any specialized skill or experience--except for maybe the shoulder line, which I admit is rarely seen (but is this because tailors don't or can't make them?).


I think there is ample evidence that bespoke tailors who stray from what they do naturally court and achieve disaster.

As a group, they are not good mimics. What makes them good is what makes their adaptive range narrow.

- B