Suitsupply NYC

[pomor]

Casablanca probably referred to their take on a Safari jacket?

Were was a Vancouver fit (I own two jackets — wider lapels, 3 patch, unlined and has a removable zip front.

There were London, Roma, Livorno suit fits.

 

[pomor]

This is an upcoming Vicenza. Any guesses as to the material? Looks a bit drab, to be honest, but different.

https://a.suitsupplycdn.com/image/u...o,w_1366/v1/products/Coats/default/J638_1.jpg

https://a.suitsupplycdn.com/image/u...o,w_1366/v1/products/Coats/default/J638_2.jpg

 

[preid]

Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

Do you guys remember the fit that was totally unlined, with 3/2 roll, patch pockets? Discontinued about 2 winters ago. It started with “M..” Also, the Harris fit only lived for 2 seasons, and it looks like the Biella has been folded into the almighty Havana

I believe you’re thinking of the Mercer fit

 

[h3ro]

RIP San Diego fit.

 

[Michael81]

That is absolutely horrid.

Re Hudson vs Havana: They are completely different fitting jackets, in my opinion. Apart from the shoulder and button placement, the actual cut is different. The Havana is fuller and cut straighter. When taken in, it does not provide the wearer with the kind of subtle hourglass silhouette you can achieve with the Hudson. You get more of a V shaped silhouette, which I dislike. I have owned two but ended up getting rid of both. Still wearing my three Hudsons, though.

Havana:

Hudson:

It looks better even though it's a 48L instead of a 50L.

The Biella is just a Havana for bigger guys. I tried it and it did not work out well.

 

[TheSupplier]

Hudson fits much better and I agree they are two different cuts. Suitsupply, in a rush to standardize the line, just renamed everything without changing the cut since to a layman they pretty much "fit the same". I noticed immediately Havana, Hudson and Biella are still totally different fits although under the Havana umbrella.

 

[WayneLyndon]

Re: @Michael81 : problems with the physique.

I think everyone thinks that he's somehow unique bodywise. This or that is exceptionally long, or at least one has arms that are too long or back that is quite short.

I've expertise in physical training and visual arts, and would like to convince that everyone's perfectly normal. Not even in a vague, cultural relativistic and reassuring sense normal, but in absolute sense normal.

I mean one's shoulder is typically lower than the another one, that's physiological. A mans head goes to to length of the body eight times. Your elbows are at the height of your waist. Your wrists are at the height of the widest part of your hips. Your face can be divided between the jawline and top of the forehead into three parts that are exactly equal size in length. Your eyes measures the same as your nose. The width of your head (including ears) measures your eyes five times.

And so on. We can of course go to quantumphysics to see if measures truly add up but that is not necessary here. Also there are REAL disproportions in people which to human eye look right away a bit off. But even those traits are considered normal.

You on the other hand are by bodily proportions, a complete norm. Your back is not 'long', your legs are not 'long'. You are tall. Take that as a compliment if you like

TO THE POINT

So my question/possible solution here is: isn't classic menswear defacto dealing in arming the man with correct proportions, regardless of height ect.? Keeping in mind the tradition of tailoring knows we're all perfectly normal. I would argue that you being tall isn't a real obstacle for anything.

So my next question is: what is YOUR complete vision of yourself? WHAT do you want to look like?

If you lack vision of what you want to look like, you're left dealing with problems in single details at a time. Such as the gorge level when you should be looking at the whole silhouette, the whole game. In this context vision can mean for example a image of Brad Pitt in this or that movie (whatever works) or the movie Casablanca. You get the idea of course.

I think this is the problem with many these days: individualistic drive with details in engineer-level precision while forgetting that this register of classical dressing is already well equipped to deal with details such as best gorge height with EVERYONE. For tall person that would be lower, for a short man that should be lifted higher. The body is the starting point, not the individuals sense of style.

This individual drive and sense of responsibility of individual style leads to frustration: it easily leads to this 'post-internet-whatever' sense of feeling individualistically 'weird'. Even the best tailors cannot help to build a look for by constantly tweaking details here and there. One should start from the big picture, and go from there downwards into details.

MY TAKE

One should use the classical proportions as a good starting point to dressing. Then forget the clothes and while, when or if the vision of oneself grows or appears, only then try tweak the measurements or jump in the fashion bandwagon.

My vision (and I mean vision, not the final answer for everything) for Michael81:

I. Tall man like you, lower gorge height to balance your body height.

II. Longer jacket. Nevermind the half/half-rule, it makes your legs look really, really long.

III. lower buttoning point also for your height.

IV. a bit of structure in jackets: this 'correct fit' -era has gone to its limits: Correct fit can also mean correct fit to sculp ones body instead of every part of the garment licking the body from the same distance. So I would like to see a bit of structure, more distinct shoulder line. Soft shoulders make your jackets look more shirt-like which doesn't do you justice (you're tall and handsome).

V. I would like you to wear trousers a bit wider than that and also a bit longer: relatively short length makes you look like you're growing height as I look at you. Also creates bit of a "a kid dressed by mother"-look. I would also love to see you in trousers with hems that are closer to the 2/3-of the width of the shoes. Wider all around I mean.

The look I'm offering is a conservative look, there's no way around that. But conservative look is a great starting point in classical dressing and easier starting point than coming in from detailing point of view.

In a sense, dressing is drawing. I would like to draw a picture of you with measurements given above. Perhaps more than with proportions you're providing me now.

PS. I've followed Styleforum for long time and I've registered Michael81 battling with the gorge height and button stance before. I know you know these things and I'm trying not to sound like an arrogant ass. Please note that english is not my first language and being arrogant is the last thing I would like to sound of. I wrote this post in complete camaraderie.

This post wasn't meant to Michael81 per se, but to us, men, in collectively.

PPS. If what I'm saying is complete nonsense and you've already encountered these thoughts be free and say so.

PPPS. Sorry for the longish post. I had these few points of view I wanted to bring attention to.

 

[WayneLyndon]

I would like to add, that one's body being the starting position (height/weight/measurements) I'm absolutely not convinced of the level of those in-store SuSu-sellers. In my experience they love to tweak every detail and remove every spare inch of the garment.

Granted I've experience of one store though. But it's as good as a sample as any number of stores.

 

[Michael81]

@WayneLyndon Thanks for putting the effort into that post. We did, however, discuss these issues at length a few pages back.

For what it's worth I completely agree with you.

 

[Betelgeuse]

That is absolutely horrid.

Re Hudson vs Havana: They are completely different fitting jackets, in my opinion. Apart from the shoulder and button placement, the actual cut is different. The Havana is fuller and cut straighter. When taken in, it does not provide the wearer with the kind of subtle hourglass silhouette you can achieve with the Hudson. You get more of a V shaped silhouette, which I dislike. I have owned two but ended up getting rid of both. Still wearing my three Hudsons, though.

Havana:
View attachment 1035548

Hudson:
View attachment 1035549
It looks better even though it's a 48L instead of a 50L.

The Biella is just a Havana for bigger guys. I tried it and it did not work out well.

To be honest, both look great!

 

[Michael81]

Thank you kindly. Still not a fan of the Havana, though.

 

[saskatoonjay]

Please note that english is not my first language and being arrogant is the last thing I would like to sound of. I wrote this post in complete camaraderie.

This is wonderful. It made me see the kindness in Wayne's message.

 

[WayneLyndon]

This is wonderful. It made me see the kindness in Wayne's message.

Heh, well I certainly don’t care about kindness. Let’s leave kindness to kind women shall we?

There was few points I wanted to point out since the misconceptions frequently pop out in this forum. Even though I’m aware the vast knowledge and experience people have and what I wrote is hardly anything new in the world of menswear.

My english lacks the finesse to say what I want to say without sounding arrogant or otherwise pissy.

 

[Qb12]

I was wondering whether anyone has already order this suits: https://eu.suitsupply.com/en/suits/lazio-brown-plain/P5551.html Any photos would be highly appreciated

 

[TheSupplier]

Look what I found laying around:

in a 36R.

If that were a 38R I would sure keep it! Its really a shame I wasn't into suits when this was out.