What is the traditional British-style cut suit?

[bengal-stripe]

Originally Posted by Sator

........they all make up with proper tailored form and structure to varying extents.

What a shame that Sator has forgotten about 'varying extend' as the operative word.

There is more than one way to do anything!!!

 

[bengal-stripe]

Originally Posted by Sator

The fitted coat is the higher artform.

I presume, that is the highest artform.

 

[Sator]

Originally Posted by bengal-stripe

There is more than one way to do anything!!!

There is. Tailoring is about form and structure. Within that there is plenty of scope and range for individual expression. Proper structured coats are to soft slop what shoes are to sandals - it isn't necessary to condescend to that level just to be different.

Modern structured coats aren't as heavily structured as those of the past. The reason is that modern canvas and cloth is much lighter. I have some vintage German Hänsel Orange hair canvas and it is extraordinarily heavy compared to the stuff in modern canvas books. Here is an ad for it from the 1950s:

They don't make canvas like that anymore

BTW one of the main reasons that "drape" was successfully marketed in English language countries was because of the catchy and cryptic sounding name. In German, it is just called "rollende Wellen vor dem Arm" (rolling waves before the arm). Imagine having to walk into a tailor's shop and asking for that!!! Little wonder the style never really took off in German speaking countries, because the name tipped the buyer off as to just what slop he was in for.

 

[AndrewRogers]

Originally Posted by bengal-stripe

I presume, that is the highest artform.

Originally Posted by Sator

In German, it is just called "rollende Wellen vor dem Arm" (rolling waves before the arm). Imagine having to walk into a tailor's shop and asking for that!!! Little wonder the style never really took off in German speaking countries, because the name tipped the buyer off as to just what slop he was in for.

Hah, well, it is probably better than having to walk into a tailor's shop and asking for

rolling waves before the crotch, which is obviously what the chap in metal above did ...

 

[Kaplan]

Sator,

when you say 'The gorge is placed strikingly high' and the 1950's text says 'the gorge is placed high', what is being referred to? Button stance or the height of the lapel notch?

 

[bengal-stripe]

Originally Posted by Sator

Little wonder the style never really took off in German speaking countries, because the name tipped the buyer off as to just what slop he was in for.

Rubbish……….the most famous firm of tailors within the boundaries of German language is Knize in Vienna.
Their style is very much influenced by A&S.

It is not the fact that you personally like one and dislike another school of tailoring; it is that zealous missionary zeal that you exhibit lately.
(“My taste is the only one of value”)

This is a most unpleasant trait, that you share with some posters here and elsewhere. (I could name names, but I refrain.)

A shame the word ‘tolerance’ has become a dirty word in your books.

"Chacun à son goût"

 

[Sator]

When I was at Knize I neither saw nor heard anything about drape, A&S, or rollende Wellen. Nor does anything on their website exhibit drape in the chest.

 

[Sator]

BTW all of those who want to accuse me of gross intolerance and religious zealotry should first read this piece of frightful misinformation:

By a certain Mr Antongiovanni. Note the succession of ex cathedra pronouncements and a complete absence of facts to substantiate them.

 

[Sir James]

Originally Posted by Sator

Never once have I read a written source saying that the way any British tailor cuts a lounge coat is somehow related to the way a military uniform is cut. It's not really possible to do in any technical sense. Nor has a clean fitted cut ever been considered something "military" at any point in tailoring history over the last 200 years or more. In fact, the tradition of cutting a coat so that it followed the anatomical form of the wearer has always been something that is more of a civilian fashion than a military one. Beau Brummell achieved fame for his fitted coats which were revolutionary at the time, but it was a civilian thing not a military one.

The whole foundation of modern tailor and its emphasis on following the natural anatomical form of the wearer began well before Brummell, who became the poster boy of the movement. Take a look at this portrait of Sir Brooke Boothby from 1781:

If you look carefully, he has a book by Jean Jacques Rousseau in his hand, that Boothby helped to edit. Rousseau is the philosopher of the Natural Man. The style of suit worn by Boothby is form fitting to show off the natural shape of the body. Not only that, he is lying down in a naturalist setting. So once again, the origin of modern tailoring with its emphasis on fit is found to have civilian and philosophical origins rather than a military one.

With respect to structured vs soft, I don't really think there is much in between. Soft coats are like soft apples and soft cars. It's generally not something you want. Ever since tailors in the 14th century started to put a layer of padding into the chest, coats have been meant to have shape. That's what the overwhelming majority of tailors in Britain and elsewhere have striven to achieve over the last 200 years. While there was an anti-tailoring fad that started in the 1930s, before going out of fashion, which involved deliberate misfit involving cutting with flab ("drape") and making up with limp canvas, the mainstream tradition has prevailed. Tailoring by its very nature is all about form, shape and structure.

It is very obvious that you possess a great deal of sartorial knowledge, but i wonder if the example given is the most applicable given the era of the clothing and changes that are predominate today.

 

[Sator]

Originally Posted by Sir James

i wonder if the example given is the most applicable given the era of the clothing and changes that are predominate today.

That's a fair point. However, what is true that at that time in sartorial history the modern trend to making clothes closely follow the anthropometric proportions of the body began. If you look at Bummell's clothing, the cut and fit are still terrible by modern standards. The cutting methods of the day such as the Rule of Thirds were pretty primitive, and cumbersome. Slowly and gradually through the nineteenth and twentieth century techniques were developed to improve cutting methods and the fit of coats.

Just as modern physics has moved beyond Newton, this isn't to recognise his contributions to founding modern physics. So it is with the first attempts at the cleanly fitted garment in the late 18th century and its relation to modern tailoring.

 

[AndrewRogers]

Originally Posted by Sator

BTW all of those who want to accuse me of gross intolerance and religious zealotry should first read this piece of frightful misinformation:

By a certain Mr Antongiovanni. Note the succession of ex cathedra pronouncements and a complete absence of facts to substantiate them.

LOL you get points for actually using a red marker on the book!

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Originally Posted by AndrewRogers

LOL you get points for actually using a red marker on the book!
I believe that's crayon used to frame the subject matter.

 

[Ich_Dien]

Originally Posted by Sator

That's a fair point. However, what is true that at that time in sartorial history the modern trend to making clothes closely follow the anthropometric proportions of the body began. If you look at Bummell's clothing, the cut and fit are still terrible by modern standards. The cutting methods of the day such as the Rule of Thirds were pretty primitive, and cumbersome. Slowly and gradually through the nineteenth and twentieth century techniques were developed to improve cutting methods and the fit of coats. Just as modern physics has moved beyond Newton, this isn't to recognise his contributions to founding modern physics. So it is with the first attempts at the cleanly fitted garment in the late 18th century and its relation to modern tailoring.
What is to say that Brummel did not have his epiphany whilst serving as a British army officer? I think it would be wrong to completely write off military influence in tailoring. As we know, Savile Row began mainly catering for those elites who had a position in society, and thus the means, in order to warrant such fineries. We must remember that in this period (widely 1730-1914), that positions of power were largely in the military and court bureaucracy, which required uniforms, or rather should we say, uniforms were worn to. Even the diplomatic officers and customs and excise officers would wear full dress uniform. The influence of military dress is integral to Regency fashion around this period, for those officers at Horse Guards or the court would wear their clothing as a sign of their superior social standing, not only by day, but also by night. Those who did not have such positions, or were only beginning in them, often aspired to their seniors and the celebrities of the day, who in a period of Empire, were largely military men. Although there may be no specific reference in writing by a tailor to the influence of military tailoring in civilian tailoring, the two sparred so regularly that it would be hard to separate them at all. The lounge suit as we know it today is a modified army uniform, you only have to turn back the lapels (particularly on a double-breasted) to see this. Even today, the more well-to-do officers at Sandhurst get their suits and uniforms made on the row, and the row make the uniforms for court livery and a few regiments. Although the lower ranks and their uniforms take no place in this discussion whatsoever, the mainstay of the development of tailoring is, and always has been, the upper-class in positions of power in society.

 

[bengal-stripe]

Originally Posted by Sator

BTW all of those who want to accuse me of gross intolerance and religious zealotry.

I never said you were the only zealot, but you have become a proud member of the intolerant tendency.

Why do people always believe they have swallowed knowlede by the spooful - Shame.

As you can read German: "Jedem Tierchen sein Pläsierchen" (Each little animal it's little pleasure.)

 

[Manton]

Sator, the key difference between my carved-in-stone pronouncements and yours is that I am at least half joking.