How to tell ply's

[cutter]

Well, considering the Holland & Sherry 4 ply Airesco cloth was marketed 5 years ago, and is no longer in their collection, I trust you still have a sample of that cloth with which to have made your assessment.  I'm confident H&S would want to consult with you and tap into your vast expertise so as to avoid any further "misleading" cloth classifications.  
Grayson

I only pointed out that 4-ply is not an accurate term to describe 2x2 cloth.  Ply refers properly to individual yarns.

You are deliberately confusing these terms to suit whichever claim to happend to be making at a given moment.  First you cite 4-ply as a common term for 2x2.  It was pointed out that this is incorrect.  Then you cite H&S as evidence.  You were not claiming that the cloth had 4-ply yarns, only that H&S uses 4-ply to mean 2x2.  Now you want to claim that you meant 4-ply yarns all along.

That cloth has no 4-ply yarns.  The percentage of suiting cloth produced with 4-ply yarns is close to zero.

 

[lisapop]

That cloth has no 4-ply yarns. The percentage of suiting cloth produced with 4-ply yarns is close to zero

Well, I trust you will contact Holland & Sherry management at your earliest convenience, if not sooner, to advise them of your assessment of their cloth not being true 4 ply as advertised. I imagine your authoritative opinion as to H&S's credibility would be of immense import to the firm, with the future viability of the organization quite possibility hanging in the balance.
Grayson

 

[cutter]

maybe I misunderstood you. are you saying that cloth contains 4-ply yarn, or that H&S is using 4-ply to mean 2x2?

 

[lisapop]

Don't you think this debate is becoming a bit "immaterial"?  H&S has sold 4 ply cloth that was 4x4.  They stand by the claim that the weave is/was 4x4.  You dispute that claim.  I'd love to arbitrate the difference of opinion between H&S and you, but I need to return to my task at hand, which is cleaning the lint out of the turn-ups of my bespoke trousers.  

Should you like to pursue with Holland & Sherry your claim that they have been "misleading", I have provided contact information for H&S below.  I think I speak for the masses in saying we all await with great anticipation the outcome of your discussion with them...
Grayson

Holland & Sherry Ltd
PO Box 1
Venlaw Road
Peebles
EH45 8RN
Scotland
Tel: +44 (0)1721 720101
Fax: +44 (0)1721 722309
E-mail

Top
London Office & Showroom
9/10 Savile Row
London
W1S 3PF
Tel: +44 (0)20 7437 0404
Fax: +44 (0)20 7734 6110
E-mail (Topel)
E-mail (Lewis)

 

[Luc-Emmanuel]

Well, I trust you will contact Holland & Sherry management at your earliest convenience, if not sooner, to advise them of your assessment of their cloth not being true 4 ply as advertised.  I imagine your authoritative opinion as to H&S's  credibility would be of immense import to the firm, with the future viability of the organization quite possibility hanging in the balance.
Grayson

I think I understand why you've been banned...

Luc.

 

[cutter]

Ok, so I guess you just mispoke earlier when you claimed that 4-ply means the same as 2x2. Don't sweat it; it happens to the best of us.

I did manage to find a sample of H&S cloth that they call 4-ply, and I untwisted both warp and weft, and it is 2x2. There are no 4-ply yarns. But it's not the same as the Airesco, and I can't find samples of that one. So you may be right about that one. If I am wrong, than I apologize to H&S.

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

(Marc) I imagine your authoritative opinion as to H&S's credibility would be of immense import to the firm, with the future viability of the organization quite possibility hanging in the balance.

Rather than admit to a simple error, let us instead resort to the defense of sarcastic imbecility. What was that word, the rationale for which was challenged yesterday? Oh, yes: Lunatic.

 

[Manton]

Oh, what the hell.  I have seen worsted "Supers" with cashmere in which some or all of the cashmere yarns are 3- or 4-ply.  But at most, the cashmere makes up 10% of the cloth, and that's true only of cloth at the upper, upper end.  Usually, it's more like 1% or 2%.  A true 4x4, even in 100% wool, must cost a bloody fortune, like that crazy $#.+ Scabal makes with the diamond dust.  Or the 24k gold stripe.  Very ... classy ... yeah, that's the word ...

 

[MCA]

H&S is being misleading.  There are no 4-ply yarns in that cloth.  That is arguably more misleading than what shirtmakers do when they sell 2x1 shirts as "two-ply."  At least those shirts do have some two-ply yarn in them.

Hi cutter,

Do you happen to be a shirtmaker? You seem quite knowledgeable in the area.

Personally I find all  those yarn numbers misleading by themselves. They only tell a very small part of the story. I have seen 70x1/120x2 shirtings that blow away many 160 2x2s and beyond. The hand,  the "spring-back" quality, depth of color, weave, the finishing, and how the fabrics wear (not only how they look like when new), are the ultimate indicators of quality.  I wouldn't obsess so much over the numbers. Cheers.

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

(MCA) I have seen 70x1/120x2 shirtings that blow away many 160 2x2s and beyond.

Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that a 70/1 weft thread is going to blow away much of anything, your conceptual thesis is correct. Thicker yarns are quite often used in the texturing process. 80/2 is commonly used as one component of very fine oxfords, for example. However, when you cite a single-ply yarn as "blowing away" a two-ply yarn, your premise is false. Although the single ply yarn may have the two qualities you cite (resiliance and depth of color) ... and may even be serviceable for quite a number of washings ... it will certainly begin to pill at some point in its life ... and that point will be way short of the 2-ply yarn's life. That extreme detriment can be overcome only by plying the yarns. From what I read of this Cutter/Lisapop exchange, their disagreement has nothing to do with yarn numbers, but has to do with the definition of plying. Toward this end and in all of the textile trades, plying is the process of twisting multiple yarns together. What the marketing division does with this simple fact seems to vary all over the lot, and I believe that this was the correction Cutter was making to Lisapop and Holland & Sherry. By tradition, using two, two-ply yarns does not yield a cloth meant to be called "4-ply" even though there are technically 4 plies if you sum the number of individual yarns. There are also some very, very expensive 4 ply yarns which are proplerly called 4-ply. What should one call the resultant fabric made from a weft and warp of these 4-ply yarns? Eight ply? I think not.

 

[lisapop]

Who gives a "shirt", when all is said and done.
Grayson

 

[MCA]

Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that a 70/1 weft thread is going to blow away much of anything, your conceptual thesis is correct. Thicker yarns are quite often used in the texturing process. 80/2 is commonly used as one component of very fine oxfords, for example.

However, when you cite a single-ply yarn as "blowing away" a two-ply yarn, your premise is false.

Hi Alex,

I mistakenly used the term "yarn numbers" to include the correct technical term plus the number of plies. My error was due perhaps to my not caring too much about any such numbers, and rather focus on the overall picture.

I am no textile engineer but in my limited experience the resistance to pilling depends directly on the length and intrinsic quality of the individual fibers and on how the individual yarns are spinned, twisted, and treated, and not exclusively on the ply number. Usually makers who use 2 plies are more likely to use higher-grade, long-staple fibers, and more careful weaving practices. Hence the higher  pilling resistance. Again, maybe we are  focusing too much on the hard numbers. I'd choose my "humble" 70/1 above a good deal of 2x2s and 180s, but that is just my personal opinion, never "false" and quite honest, for what it's worth. Regards.