can you tell a suit's qaulity by just looking?

You confuse me

First you said...

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

-Many times, the inner label on the lining will say something like "Super 100's wool." Super 100 and above is very good

Then you said...

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

As a corollary to my Super 120s statement, I might also add that Super 120s wool from a maker like Zegna or Loro Piana is going to much better-quality than a no-name brand like the one in JPHardy's post.

ohh but then it was...

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

I've merely said that Loro Piana or Zegna 100% wool in Super 100s or above is an indicator of a non-cheap suit.

...ahh ok...perhaps not indicator, more like FIRST indicator

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

The Loro Piana mark would be a good FIRST INDICATOR that's its not a cheaply-made suit.

...oh I mean....half-way descent indicator...

I already corrected myself on this point too. I said that super 100s from a maker like Zegna or Loro is going to be a half-way decent INDICATOR of a non-cheap suit.

Click to expand...

...and quality not meaning well made

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

LEARN TO READ ZACHARY.

"First indicator" does not equal a categorical statement that all Loro Piana suits are well-made in other ways.

....

Originally Posted by zbromer

Click to expand...

The whole point was that it's actually not a good first indicator.

The whole point of my arguing with you is that YOU KEEP ON ATTACKING ME WITHOUT PROVIDING SUPPORT.

Let's say you see a Loro Piana or Zegna Super 100s label on the jacket lining of a friend. You also see non-shoddy pick stitching on the lapels On first glance, this would indicate the it's a halfway decent suit. Not cheap. Of course, you'd have to do the pinch test to find the canvas.


On, the other hand, a different friend has a rather-shiny looking suit without pick stitching and without a Super 100s label from a reputable cloth maker like Zegna or Loro.

YOU WOULD CONCLUDE ON FIRST GLANCE THAT THIS IS A CHEAP AS HELL SUIT.

Originally Posted by B|aze

Click to expand...

You confuse me First you said... Then you said... ohh but then it was... ...ahh ok...perhaps not indicator, more like FIRST indicator ...oh I mean....half-way descent indicator... ...and quality not meaning well made ....
The underlying meaning of two statements does not change when you use synonyms or qualifiers that are similar. Learn some English, my Danish friend.

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

The whole point of my arguing with you is that YOU KEEP ON ATTACKING ME WITHOUT PROVIDING SUPPORT.

Let's say you see a Loro Piana or Zegna Super 100s label on the jacket lining of a friend. You also see non-shoddy pick stitching on the lapels On first glance, this would indicate the it's a halfway decent suit. Not cheap. Of course, you'd have to do the pinch test to find the canvas.


On, the other hand, a different friend has a rather-shiny looking suit without pick stitching and without a Super 100s label from a reputable cloth maker like Zegna or Loro.

YOU WOULD CONCLUDE ON FIRST GLANCE THAT THIS IS A CHEAP AS HELL SUIT.

I'm not sure I've seen this big of a hole dug within a single hour on this forum.

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

The underlying meaning of two statements does not change when you use synonyms or qualifiers that are similar. Learn some English, my Danish friend.

Ok thank I will...just to clarify though (now that I have a change to talk to a real english professor)
Very good, good and half way descent is the same then?

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

The whole point of my arguing with you is that YOU KEEP ON ATTACKING ME WITHOUT PROVIDING SUPPORT.

Let's say you see a Loro Piana or Zegna Super 100s label on the jacket lining of a friend. You also see non-shoddy pick stitching on the lapels On first glance, this would indicate the it's a halfway decent suit. Not cheap. Of course, you'd have to do the pinch test to find the canvas.


On, the other hand, a different friend has a rather-shiny looking suit without pick stitching and without a Super 100s label from a reputable cloth maker like Zegna or Loro.

YOU WOULD CONCLUDE ON FIRST GLANCE THAT THIS IS A CHEAP AS HELL SUIT.

This is silly. I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out some errors in your statements, and you've gotten very defensive. I also did provide support, when I went through your three points and provided exact reasons why each was flawed.

Newer posters often come on here without as much knowledge as others. Nobody's attacking you for it. We're explaining why you have some misplaced notions. As I said, don't get so defensive. Sit back and read a bit. You will learn a lot.

You've also completely changed your argument. First, it was pick stitching. Now, it's non-shoddy pick stitching, which was MY point. Big difference. Second, it was Super 100s. Now, it's Super 100s from a specific reputable cloth maker, which still isn't necessarily that indicative. Non-shoddy craftsmanship and a reputable cloth maker are entirely different things than you originally said. Not to mention, one would have to know how to look for non-shoddy work and one would have to know who are reputable cloth makers. This knowledge is entirely different than just anyone observing something on a suit for indications of quality.

Originally Posted by zbromer

Click to expand...

This is silly. I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out some errors in your statements, and you've gotten very defensive. I also did provide support, when I went through your three points and provided exact reasons why each was flawed.

Newer posters often come on here without as much knowledge as others. Nobody's attacking you for it. We're explaining why you have some misplaced notions. As I said, don't get so defensive. Sit back and read a bit. You will learn a lot.

You called my post laughable.

You then proceeded to turn my 3 limited statements into categorical ones.

You are intellectually dishonest.

That's why I keep posting in this thread.

Originally Posted by zbromer

Click to expand...

You've also completely changed your argument. First, it was pick stitching. Now, it's non-shoddy pick stitching, which was MY point.
I only clarified it when you brought up the shoddy Jos. A Bank thing, which was news to me. I think well-done, pick-stitching was probably a good indicator until a couple years ago, if what you say is true. Jos A Banks then capitalized on the mentions of pick-stitching, and put cheap, shoddy stitching into its garments to lure people in I was unaware that Banks did this. I try to stay away from that crappy store.

Second, it was Super 100s. Now, it's Super 100s from a specific reputable cloth maker, which still isn't necessarily that indicative. Non-shoddy craftsmanship and a reputable cloth maker are entirely different things than you originally said.

Click to expand...

I conceded that I changed my argument slightly. I said I was adding the Zegna/Loro thing as a corollary to my original statement. It's a little early, and I didn't choose my words carefully enough.

Not to mention, one would have to know how to look for non-shoddy work and one would have to know who are reputable cloth makers. This knowledge is entirely different than just anyone observing something on a suit.

Click to expand...

We're not talking about the average person. We're talking about if it's POSSIBLE to find indicators that a suit is or is not cheap. And with that, I exit the thread. I don't like arguing with intellectually dishonest people. You keep straw-manning my statements.

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

You called my post laughable.

You then proceeded to turn my 3 limited statements into categorical ones.

You are intellectually dishonest.

That's why I keep posting in this thread.

Awesome thread. Keep it going, Viks.

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

You called my post laughable. You then proceeded to turn my 3 limited statements into categorical ones. You are intellectually dishonest. That's why I keep posting in this thread.
I made one negative comment in my first post. For that, I apologize. However, you declared that I "KEEP ON ATTACKING [YOU] WITHOUT PROVIDING SUPPORT." That's categorically not true. I've disputed your incorrect claims. That's not attacking. Nobody has turned any of your limited statements into categorical ones. We've pointed out that your statements, be they limited or not, were not particular helpful to those looking for a useful answer to the OP's question. You got incredibly defensive. It's no big deal. You gave some bad advice, be it limited or not. I've done it. Some of the most knowledgeable people on the forum have done it. David Halberstam wrote a rather lengthy book on how our nation's best and brightest did it for a decade. It's no big deal. Well, in the case of those in David Halberstam's book it was.

Originally Posted by VikingsFan82

Click to expand...

I don't like arguing with intellectually dishonest people. You keep straw-manning my statements.

VikingsFan82: Seriously Zbromer has been nothing but polite to you. You are by far the rudest person in this thread. You need to calm down.

Originally Posted by onion

Click to expand...

VikingsFan82: Seriously Zbromer has been nothing but polite to you. You are by far the rudest person in this thread. You need to calm down.

Not entirely true. I did call his first post laughable. Although, that was largely in part because he said here are two good indicators and proceeded to list three. That was laughable.