MC General Chat

[clee1982]

color wise I say this is still "good"

Shop Double Breasted Navy Tartan Look

Paul Stuart

www.paulstuart.com

this actually reminds me some of the older phineas cole stuff (though phineas cole woul d have been more "hard" edged)

Shop Nehru Jacket & Stripe Pant Look

Paul Stuart

www.paulstuart.com

this reminds me of blade runner (the 2nd one) actually...

Shop Shearling Coat Look

Paul Stuart

www.paulstuart.com

and this is pretty safe pick

Shop Tonal Camel Look

Paul Stuart

www.paulstuart.com

 

[UrbanComposition]

Perhaps surprising no one, I would absolutely wear everything in this picture:

 

[clee1982]

I would do the whole outfit, except that big pocket in the front of the pants (like I would want to remove the pocket, the fit/texture itself are all fine)

 

[smittycl]

A little Steam Punk and would look great on ... umm ... anyone but me. The Chelsea boots are short as well. Maybe if I had a Sopwith Camel and a grudge with the Red Baron?

 

[Nobilis Animus]

A little Steam Punk and would look great on ... umm ... anyone but me. The Chelsea boots are short as well. Maybe if I had a Sopwith Camel and a grudge with the Red Baron?

You'd lose that one if that coat isn't real fur.

I'd wear all of this, including the colours, but I'd like the trousers to be sleeker - more like this:



(which I'm guessing is the source of some of their inspiration)

 

[clee1982]

A little Steam Punk and would look great on ... umm ... anyone but me. The Chelsea boots are short as well. Maybe if I had a Sopwith Camel and a grudge with the Red Baron?

I actually prefer short chelsea, no "caught in the back of pants" issue

 

[clee1982]

You'd lose that one if that coat isn't real fur.

I'd wear all of this, including the colours, but I'd like the trousers to be sleeker - more like this:

View attachment 1467758

(which I'm guessing is the source of some of their inspiration)

I see this as less coherent though, it's suit as suit, coat as coat, then put the coat over

 

[Nobilis Animus]

I see this as less coherent though, it's suit as suit, coat as coat, then put the coat over

Well, not necessarily that particular picture, but the lighting, colour palette, and turtleneck + coat strongly remind me of these collections anyway.

Personally, I'm not inclined to wear anything with fake fur. Either the real thing, or just give me wool.

 

[whorishconsumer]

Who came up with the cardinal rules of "proper suit fit"?

 

[UrbanComposition]

Who came up with the cardinal rules of "proper suit fit"?

Pretty sure it comes from the military, at least a small part.

 

[whorishconsumer]

Pretty sure it comes from the military, at least a small part.

I have to imagine that military wear was standardized, though. So how did they account for things like shoulder slope and neck gap?

 

[clee1982]

I would imagine going back to the old days, officer stuff were "bespoke"

 

[smittycl]

I would imagine going back to the old days, officer stuff were "bespoke"

Exactly. I think some Brit Regiments still require the officers to provide their own uniforms.

 

[dieworkwear]

Prior to the mid-19th century, all clothing was made "bespoke" either by a tailor or in the home. The only "ready-to-wear" clothing was workwear made for sailors, miners, and slaves. Ready-to-wear manufacturing was really pioneered in the United States by companies such as Brooks Brothers. But even in the early days of Brooks' history, they had custom tailors just make a ton of clothes in stock sizes.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, British military dress uniforms came from Gieves and Hawkes (separate entities before their merger). Gieves tailored dress uniforms for the Navy; Hawkes for the Army.

For fit issues such as the collar gap, I suppose the "rule" comes from precise tailoring. For fit issues such as the proportion of the suit (e.g. the length of a jacket), I think the "rule" comes from generations of British upper-class tradition. Many of our suit traditions just come from British upper-class norms.

 

[Nobilis Animus]

Prior to the mid-19th century, all clothing was made "bespoke" either by a tailor or in the home. The only "ready-to-wear" clothing was workwear made for sailors, miners, and slaves. Ready-to-wear manufacturing was really pioneered in the United States by companies such as Brooks Brothers. But even in the early days of Brooks' history, they had custom tailors just make a ton of clothes in stock sizes.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, British military dress uniforms came from Gieves and Hawkes (separate entities before their merger). Gieves tailored dress uniforms for the Navy; Hawkes for the Army.

For fit issues such as the collar gap, I suppose the "rule" comes from precise tailoring. For fit issues such as the proportion of the suit (e.g. the length of a jacket), I think the "rule" comes from generations of British upper-class tradition. Many of our suit traditions just come from British upper-class norms.

In addition to all this, which is spot-on, suits are still described by the term "informal" because they were originally what gentlemen wore when they had no official business or formal occasion to attend. They could vary considerably from modern types - at least prior to the 1910s or so.

The fascination with minute sleeve details, shoulder construction, etc is fairly recent. (although most jackets in the past were unpadded as a rule) Trousers in the past, for example, might be flared:




while later fashions in the Edwardian period were famously slimmer:



Neither these suits nor the coats in the other picture would be "badly fitting" according to any supposed rules, but rather fitting differently depending on the garment itself.

The one thing I will point out about the earliest suits is that they still fit closely around the shoulders and arm area like a morning coat until well into the 1930s. The wider look with larger gaps between jacket and body didn't really start to show until the advent of ready-to-wear.