A&S

OK, because some people asked, here is the back:



Fit and balance-wise, it looks flawless to me, except the sleeves, as noted. All I have to do is move my arms about 1/2" forward and the sleeves smooth out. That tells me that they just need to be rotated back a hair.

But the waist suppression is even more evident than it is from the front. The skirt also looks quite flared. Viewing from the back makes me want it let out.

Here is the side to show that, again, the back balance is dead-on:



It follows the curve of my back and the vents close perfectly.

Originally Posted by Despos

Click to expand...

Asking them to change is like asking a chef to change his recipe to match your tastes. You eat at restaurants that you like because of their cooking style, same with tailors.

I think that this is yet another kimchi reference.

I would reverse what you say: one uses tailors because of how well they baste, same with restaurants.


- B

Originally Posted by alebrady

Click to expand...

so, it may be in the pages and pages of nonsense here BUT...

manton, irrespective of if you disagree with Despos on this point, can you describe in layman's terms what a 'crooked coat' is - i would have guess it meant something generically like leaning to the left or right (i.e. 'crooked') but i suspect that is not the tailoring defintion that is in use here?

also, could you provide any more detail on how they achieved the more open quarters by altering the balance (i think you used the phrase 'drop the front') but i am not sure i know what this means? It seems there are at least two ways to get more open quarters - whatever way that A&S achieved it (which i am surmising did something to the balance of the coat) or to cut the fabric itself with more swoop below the BP - is this correct?

in a profile shot, would the bottom of your jacket not currently be parallel to the floor? i thought this was 'balance'.

thanks - just trying to extract a little education here

Well, I thought I knew what crooked v. straight meant. Then there was an LL thread a long time ago in which Logsdail, Mahon, DeBoise and one or two other tailors argued among themselves about what it meant and could not come to a conclusion. That was sort of dismaying. I gave up on getting a precise definition after that.

One think that Despos is referring to is the way that A&S and the Neapolitans cut a shoulder seam that angles backwards. Now, he and others (tailors who don't do it) insist that it should not affect how the suit wears or lays. That may be in the grand scheme of things. All I know is that most of my suits have that angled seam and a few don't. The ones that do stay on the next and allow me to move my arms with perfect freedom. The ones that don't ether don't stay on the next or they wear tight through the blades as I move. I've been lectured three or four times about how that can't be the cause or have anything to do with what I experience. But I remain skeptical. At a minimum, I know what works for me and what does not.

If you dig up my balance thread you will see why dropping the fronts will open the quarters.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

OK, because some people asked, here is the back:

The vaginazation of the pattern in the upperback is driving me crazy.

Originally Posted by maomao1980

Click to expand...

The vaginazation of the pattern in the upperback is driving me crazy.

I knew someone would say that.

Seriously, this SF on 'roids. All patterned and striped jackets have that, unless you cut a one-piece back, which is as rare as unicorns.

Originally Posted by maomao1980

Click to expand...

The vaginazation of the pattern in the upperback is driving me crazy.

Is this a tailoring term? Despos: Please explain.

Regards,
ET

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

I knew someone would say that.

Seriously, this SF on 'roids. All patterned and striped jackets have that, unless you cut a one-piece back, which is as rare as unicorns.

Couldn't they have cut the patterns closer so the stripes that meet at the seam would be closer and not as horny looking?

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

unless you cut a one-piece back, which is as rare as unicorns.

Cue Vox.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Here is the side to show that, again, the back balance is dead-on:

It follows the curve of my back and the vents close perfectly.

That's an interesting photo. You either have an unusual posture or you're leaning backward, with your shoulders back and you hands fore of your sides to keep from toppling backwards.

Generally, one's head, shoulders and hips are more in line.


- B

Originally Posted by maomao1980

Click to expand...

Couldn't they have cut the patterns closer so the stripes that meet at the seam would be closer and not as horny looking?

I hope this is a joke. For your sake.

I have two one piece backs. You have too be careful with 'em

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

I hope this is a joke. For your sake.

only a half serious joke. Perhaps they could have also chosen a different way to matching the pattern so that the effect is not as apparent. As you've said, this is SF on 'roids for SF sake.

Originally Posted by maomao1980

Click to expand...

The vaginazation of the pattern in the upperback is driving me crazy.

Originally Posted by maomao1980

Click to expand...

Couldn't they have cut the patterns closer so the stripes that meet at the seam would be closer and not as horny looking?

A person sees what they want to see.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

OK, because some people asked, here is the back:

i am surprised by the back shot - only that I would have thought that typical A&S (ie assuming you did not specificy otheriwise) would have had more drape in the blades? is more there than maybe what is evident in the photo or is it really that clean?

i dont know about the huntsman reference earlier (the shoulder line for instance is completely different, along with other aspects) but the shape of the suppresion, skirt, and lack of drape do effect a sort of hacking look to it - particularly from the back. i like it but i defintitely would never have guessed A&S

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

If you dig up my balance thread you will see why dropping the fronts will open the quarters.

thanks ill try and dig it up.

Despos, what did you mean by 'crooked coat'? thanks