W.W. Chan's New Website

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Of course, people do that. And there is, of course, a psychological impetus to believe one's money was well-spent. However, money still speaks more than it doesn't. As a general matter, nicer things cost more--regardless of whatever StylefForumnomics says to the contrary.

Actually, I was referring to the psychological impetus to believe that time spent making money is time well-spent. And ethics well-flushed.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

I disagree with you disagreement with his disagreement. - B
Well, I . . . oh, forget it.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

I also suspect that sometimes there is too much focus on per-unit economy (i.e. this suit is less expensive that that suit) when a whole-wardobe approach might make more sense. Instead of three Chan, let's say, two SR, etc. - B
More like, "instead of three Chan's, an SR jacket with matching shorts."

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

I also suspect that sometimes there is too much focus on per-unit economy (i.e. this suit is less expensive that that suit) when a whole-wardobe approach might make more sense. Instead of three Chan, let's say, two SR, etc.

Wouldn' t two SR suits suits cost around $9,000 (with the current exchange rate)? For that amount you could get six Chan suits. (Or for that matter, 27 JAB Sig Golds at 70% off.) I suppose it's all a matter of where you want to draw the line.

I should certainly hope that a Saville Row suit at $4,500 offered something more than a Chan at $1,500. If it doesn't, then it is indeed folly to prefer the SR product to the Chan. However, I wouldn't know, never having owned a $4,500 suit. However, Chan is plenty good enough for someone in my humble station in life.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

I think Foo is right. The soft shoulders that I have seen from Chinese makers can be nice, but they are one rung or two down from SR and Italian softies.

It doesn't make them crap, though...unless you put one against the other, only the most attentive and finicky (

) would notice.

I also suspect that sometimes there is too much focus on per-unit economy (i.e. this suit is less expensive that that suit) when a whole-wardobe approach might make more sense. Instead of three Chan, let's say, two SR, etc.


- B

I think this is an easy thing to say for someone with your resources.

Originally Posted by Bull

Click to expand...

Full disclosure: I'm a lawyer.

*sees SF'ers throwing eggs, tomatoes and peices of charcoal*

*ducks*

What's the difference between a lawyer and an onion?

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Click to expand...

Wouldn' t two SR suits suits cost around $9,000 (with the current exchange rate)? For that amount you could get six Chan suits. (Or for that matter, 27 JAB Sig Golds at 70% off.) I suppose it's all a matter of where you want to draw the line.

I should certainly hope that a Saville Row suit at $4,500 offered something more than a Chan at $1,500. If it doesn't, then it is indeed folly to prefer the SR product to the Chan. However, I wouldn't know, never having owned a $4,500 suit. However, Chan is plenty good enough for someone in my humble station in life.

SR suits are about $3,500 (excl. VAT) these days given the prevailing fx rate. Many are well below that number.

Originally Posted by Bull

Click to expand...

And give me a break on the seersucker number being a poor fit - it looks focking incredible. Let's be serious, it's one thing to offer reasonable critiques, but when someone becomes chauvanistic about their minute style preferences, it comes off as crass IMO.
No, it's not about style preferences. In the image below, I've modified the fit, as well as other elements. The other elements aside, the fit is still bad.

Originally Posted by Bounder

Click to expand...

I disagree with your disagreement. In the website pictures, they have everything from near-sack to near wasp-waisted. As you note, the quarters are all over the place. The lapels seem to vary a fair amount as well, though not as much as the quarters. I happen to know that Chan shoulders also vary considerably, though you can't really tell from the tiny pictures.
I don't know if we are looking at the same images. I am only considering the images specifically displayed on the 'House Style' page. I see nothing "near-sack," although you could argue that the waist suppression can verge on the waspy.

Originally Posted by Bounder

Click to expand...

Chan's forte, and weakness, is that they are amazingly flexible -- probably more flexible than any Italian or SR house, bar none.
I don't want to get into this argument again, because I think the flaw in your reasoning comes down to a very basic confusion in definition. If by "flexibility," you mean the willingness to do different things, you might be right about Chan. However, under that definition, I'm even more flexible. I'll make you whatever you ask for. It will look like garbage, but I'm nonetheless being flexible, aren't I? On the other hand, if by "flexibility," you mean the ability to do exactly as well what others are doing differently, Chan--by your own admission--is not necessarily more flexible at all. It's only this second definition of the term that makes it useful to discuss.

Originally Posted by Bounder

Click to expand...

The can do a credible job at almost anything, though not, obviously, up to the standards of some house that specializes in whatever look it is you want. I've never compared all three on this point, but I bet, for example, that they can do drape better than Huntsman but not as well as AS. I do know that they are happy to accomodate somewhat unusual requests -- requests that might get you ejected from a lot of other houses -- and that they do a very acceptable job of implementing them.
I have no idea why you would suppose any of this. I have not seen one single example of a Chan suit that successfully mimics the work of a more prestigious tailor. What is "acceptable" to you isn't really the issue.

Originally Posted by radicaldog

Click to expand...

Actually, I was referring to the psychological impetus to believe that time spent making money is time well-spent. And ethics well-flushed.
Either way, you're referring to the tendency to emphasize the importance of money in determining value.

The swelled chest on the right looks a bit ridiculous. Looks like he's smuggling some prosciutto cotto.

Foo,

To be fair, that coat is still at a fitting stage. I've had coats in far worse shape during my own fittings that have been revamped extensively by the tailor.

Its a bit unfair to judge Sciamat based on that pic. While I agree with the prevailing sentiment on Sciamat's cartoonish shoulders, the rest of their garments don't look that bad.

ET

Originally Posted by Bhowie

Click to expand...

I think this is an easy thing to say for someone with your resources.
Oh, come on. That is a low blow. Vox is talking about long-term planning and value. I see no reason why his wealth would make it easier to emphasize those things, or why the less wealthy shouldn't try to be better long-term planners and extract more value from their investments. Your remark implies that you're much more prejudiced by wealth than he is.

Originally Posted by Eustace Tilley

Click to expand...

Foo,

To be fair, that coat is still at a fitting stage. I've had coats in far worse shape during my own fittings that have been revamped extensively by the tailor.

Its a bit unfair to judge Scaimat based on that pic. While I agree with the prevailing sentiment on Sciamat's cartoonish shoulders, the rest of their garments don't look that bad.

ET

I posted two images. The finished jacket on the guy who actually works for Sciamat fits even worse and is much tighter. Based on all the Sciamat jackets I've seen posted online, narrow shoulders and over-tight waists are characteristic.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

On the other hand, if by "flexibility," you mean the ability to do exactly as well what others are doing differently, Chan--by your own admission--is not necessarily more flexible at all. It's only this second definition of the term that makes it useful to discuss.
You are viewing the world through OCD-colored glasses. Very few people, even on SF, think like this.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

Oh, come on. That is a low blow. Vox is talking about long-term planning and value. I see no reason why his wealth would make it easier to emphasize those things, or why the less wealthy shouldn't try to be better long-term planners and extract more value from their investments. Your remark implies that you're much more prejudiced by wealth than he is.

I give Vox a lot of ****. My comment wasn't trying to be insulting at all. $1200 for a suit is still a good chunk of change for most Americans. This is one of the few times I'm not actually trying to insult Vox.

The Sciamats would be fun for a single odd jacket, but I would not fill my wardrobe with their stuff.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Click to expand...

I posted two images. The finished jacket on the guy who actually works for Sciamat fits even worse and is much tighter. Based on all the Sciamat jackets I've seen posted online, narrow shoulders and over-tight waists are characteristic.

Yes, and I was responding to your 'foofing' the seersucker coat, not the other guy's completed suit. There are a few pics I've seen on their blog that appear to be quite ok - not my cup of tea, but they're not bad in terms of fit and styling (save the shoulders).

There are a lot of pics of Luca floating around that invoke giggles on this forum. But that's Luca's style and isn't indicative of the quality and styling offered by Rubinacci as a firm. Perhaps the same is happening here. Who knows.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Click to expand...

Wouldn' t two SR suits suits cost around $9,000 (with the current exchange rate)? For that amount you could get six Chan suits. (Or for that matter, 27 JAB Sig Golds at 70% off.) I suppose it's all a matter of where you want to draw the line.

I should certainly hope that a Saville Row suit at $4,500 offered something more than a Chan at $1,500. If it doesn't, then it is indeed folly to prefer the SR product to the Chan. However, I wouldn't know, never having owned a $4,500 suit. However, Chan is plenty good enough for someone in my humble station in life.

Hi, I am here to tell everyone that there is no need to further discuss what is being discussed as the correct choice has been well described by JLibourel. I have bolded it in the event you missed it the first time around.