New Raphael suit (not mine)

[comrade]

Originally Posted by aportnoy

For comparison purposes...one of my Raphael suits






That's more like it. Raphael is acquitted.

 

[Cravate_Noire]

Well, to be fair, when I gain weight, this happens to me.

If it doesn't look as off as the waist on your friends suit, that may be acceptable.

 

[Manton]

The persistent A&S ... I guess it is not hate but let's call it disdain, still makes me scratch my head. Hitchcock's "pedigree"? Really?

Here is what I remember. He has been at A&S nearly all his career. He was head trouser cutter for a long time. He has, apparently, very good business sense, which helped his rise through the ranks. When it was clear that he was going to become MD, they had Mahon help him perfect his ability to draft a coat pattern. This, at least, is what Mahon claimed a long time ago on a blog post that he has since taken down. I have never asked Hitchcock about that. Why it should be a big scandal is a mystery. Was Hitchcock supposed to have come out of the womb a fully formed coat cutter?

In any event, he is now head cutter and MD. I have seen lots and lots of Hitchcok coats in the last five years, and have liked almost all of them. They are quite a bit better from what I remember from Anderson's "lost period" when I think they really were making bad, or at least often ill fitting, clothing. Hitchcock and Anda Rowlins have turned the firm around. The product is better, quality control is better, the service is better, as a business it is doing better, etc. Hitchock deserves better than the constant sneers he gets here.

99.9% of what is posted about A&S is recycled from people who hate the firm but have never used it, probably never seen it, and wouldn't know it if they saw it. Yet posts made by people with actual experience get paid no heed.

Just to repeat one point: I don't doubt that Edwin thinks he is telling the truth as he understands it about the armholes, but I had the exact opposite experience with A&S. I am in regular contact with two other current A&S clients and so have they. So either Edwin's recollection is a bit off, or A&S has corrected the problem.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

In my opinion, Vox's Steed jackets (though impeccable) have less distinctively sculpted shaping around the chest than you see here (or on any of the Rubinaccis posted). I think Vox would agree. It's not a bad thing (maybe just more English?), but I think it shows we are talking past each other.

Judging from my own suits (which are A&S-like) and California Matt's Rubinaccis, I'd agree. The Rubinacci drape is a lot more interesting to look at, even from afar.

Originally Posted by jefferyd

Not to be indelicate, but what is Hitchcock's pedigree? He has often, um, puzzled me, and if there is such a disconnect between what A&S used to be and what it is now, it would suggest that he did not have the same training that the other cutters did. Or something.

Here is one story:

http://www.englishcut.com/archives/000032.html

Look under point 2, "Credentials".

--Andre

 

[softy]

Your friend needs to grow his hair out or get a real haircut.

 

[jefferyd]

Originally Posted by Manton

The persistent A&S ... I guess it is not hate but let's call it disdain, still makes me scratch my head. Hitchcock's "pedigree"? Really?

Here is what I remember. He has been at A&S nearly all his career. He was head trouser cutter for a long time. He has, apparently, very good business sense, which helped his rise through the ranks. When it was clear that he was going to become MD, they had Mahon help him perfect his ability to draft a coat pattern. This, at least, is what Mahon claimed a long time ago on a blog post that he has since taken down. I have never asked Hitchcock about that. Why it should be a big scandal is a mystery. Was Hitchcock supposed to have come out of the womb a fully formed coat cutter?

In any event, he is now head cutter and MD. I have seen lots and lots of Hitchcok coats in the last five years, and have liked almost all of them. They are quite a bit better from what I remember from Anderson's "lost period" when I think they really were making bad, or at least often ill fitting, clothing. Hitchcock and Anda Rowlins have turned the firm around. The product is better, quality control is better, the service is better, as a business it is doing better, etc. Hitchock deserves better than the constant sneers he gets here.

99.9% of what is posted about A&S is recycled from people who hate the firm but have never used it, probably never seen it, and wouldn't know it if they saw it. Yet posts made by people with actual experience get paid no heed.

Just to repeat one point: I don't doubt that Edwin thinks he is telling the truth as he understands it about the armholes, but I had the exact opposite experience with A&S. I am in regular contact with two other current A&S clients and so have they. So either Edwin's recollection is a bit off, or A&S has corrected the problem.

There is no hate or disdain- I am merely curious. I have no information, nor do I care, about his business acumen, I am only interested in the cutting system being used. Edwin has stated that things are no longer done the way they used to be; I trust Edwin to know what their patterns should, or used to look like. If they were both trained in the same school (meaning at A&S)- why is there such a disconnect? So If Mahon trained him, why are things done so differently? What happened? This is not just about armholes.

 

[Manton]

To me, an A&S suit from 15-20 years ago was as likely as not to have a fit problem of some kind or another. Those from today generally don't.

I frankly think that the explanation is mundane and not flattering to them. It has nothing to do with them changing their pattern. The lion's share of their business was (and remains) rich Americans. One fitting and out. They almost never heard complaints. Their clients wouldn't know what to complain about. They got used to that and got lazy. Their business model got to the point where they could ill afford basted fittings, second fittings, recuttings, alterations, etc.

Well, they have turned the ship around. At the very least, they have gotten good at telling their geek clients from their Master of the Universe clients. The clothes for their geek clients fit. Maybe those for the others don't; I don't know too many of those people.

And it's not just about armholes. I have posted elsewhere about many other claims that I found to be false. For instance, that the button stance had dropped and you couldn't get them to move it. Not in my case. The shoulder is padded. Really? Not in whay's case or my case.

I have some Steed suits and I like A&S better. The Steeds have a button stance that I find too low, a waist that I find way too nipped (and nothing like an A&S) and a chest that is more swelled than draped. Maybe that is the old A&S way, but to me judging from photos it doesn't look like it.

What this often comes down to is drape haters v. drape lovers. Drape haters seem not to be able to leave it at "I don't like drape." They have to make it "A&S sucks." Well, if you don't like drape, you are not going to like A&S. That doesn't mean they suck. Or, not necessarily.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by Cravate_Noire

If it doesn't look as off as the waist on your friends suit, that may be acceptable.

That means a lot to me.

Originally Posted by Manton

Yet posts made by people with actual experience get paid no heed.

This is no longer surprising to me, as much as it irritates. The same phenomenon is true with respect to Rubinacci.

Originally Posted by A Y

Judging from my own suits (which are A&S-like) and California Matt's Rubinaccis, I'd agree. The Rubinacci drape is a lot more interesting to look at, even from afar.

Maybe it's a regional thing. Nobody should be surprised that the Italian way is sexier than the English one

.

Originally Posted by jefferyd

There is no hate or disdain- I am merely curious. I have no information, nor do I care, about his business acumen, I am only interested in the cutting system being used. Edwin has stated that things are no longer done the way they used to be; I trust Edwin to know what their patterns should, or used to look like. If they were both trained in the same school (meaning at A&S)- why is there such a disconnect? So If Mahon trained him, why are things done so differently? What happened? This is not just about armholes.

I think Manton's point is that things aren't done so differently--at least, not anymore. To be quite honest, I have trouble understanding how anyone, even an expert, could glean much from a promotional photo on a website--not that Edwin isn't well-meaning.

 

[a tailor]

on three photos there is more break over the right hip than the left. i think he has a right low shoulder. the shoulders look good but there was no adjustment to the hip. or the shoulder needs to be lower yet.
in the 2nd and 3rd photos you can as jeferd mentioned the stripes curving toward the sides. the hips may be too tight. but also the horizontal stripes dip down in front. could be the strap is too long.

 

[jefferyd]

Originally Posted by Manton

To me, an A&S suit from 15-20 years ago was as likely as not to have a fit problem of some kind or another. Those from today generally don't.
Whnay's coat has a big, glaring fit problem. But we went past that.

You know I have been studying drape lately and trying to sort some of the hard information from the internet chatter and the hate, of which there is much. Hitchcocks's cutting has very distinct characteristics about it, most of which can be traced to Vincent and C.P.G. from the turn of the century since we don't see them anywhere else. I am trying to figure out if this is something that has been preserved in the tradition of cutting at A&S from the early 1900s or if it has crept in later. Did Hitchcock feel his training was incomplete and turned to Vincent's works?

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I think Manton's point is that things aren't done so differently--at least, not anymore. To be quite honest, I have trouble understanding how anyone, even an expert, could glean much from a promotional photo on a website--not that Edwin isn't well-meaning.

We can often tell, just by looking at someone's draft, who taught them, just like we look at works by students of D'avinci or Michaelagnelo we can see traces of their influence.

 

[clee1982]

I think it looks pretty good, nothing stands out and fits pretty well. I think that is the essence of a conervative suit.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by jefferyd

We can often tell, just by looking at someone's draft, who taught them, just like we look at works by students of D'avinci or Michaelagnelo we can see traces of their influence.

Oh, I don't dispute that--but it's impossible to know the true provenance of the photo on the website.

 

[softy]

Originally Posted by clee1982

I think it looks pretty good, nothing stands out and fits pretty well. I think that is the essence of a conervative suit.
To me, the sheer... unprovocative quality of the entire appearance (military haircut, etc.) somehow has the inverse effect of making it stick out like a sore thumb. Or maybe it's just that tight pose he's holding...

 

[jefferyd]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Oh, I don't dispute that--but it's impossible to know the true provenance of the photo on the website.

We could ask them

They were smart enough to hire very good people to put a very good website together; it's not likely they just threw any old image of any old crappy draft on the site- it's likely representative of something.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

I think Manton's point is that things aren't done so differently--at least, not anymore. To be quite honest, I have trouble understanding how anyone, even an expert, could glean much from a promotional photo on a website--not that Edwin isn't well-meaning.

Another likely explanation is that A&S contracted out their website to a web-design house who used a stock photo of a pattern that has nothing to do with A&S cutting tradition.

--Andre