1935 Holy Grail Suit

[Fletch]

These things are amazing. They're almost like scale replicas of real clothing, given the average size today vs. what survives from then.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Examples larger than size 38 or so are so astonishingly rare, as these were young men's/youths suits. At least that's how they were generally marketed. It's not really reasonable to expect many larger ones to come onto the market. (I know of at least one very large one on eBay right now, being sold by LuckyKat I believe, that is certainly the largest I've ever seen - and one of the few I've seen above size 38.)

bk

 

[Gin&Tonics]

Examples larger than size 38 or so are so astonishingly rare, as these were young men's/youths suits. At least that's how they were generally marketed. It's not really reasonable to expect many larger ones to come onto the market. (I know of at least one very large one on eBay right now, being sold by LuckyKat I believe, that is certainly the largest I've ever seen - and one of the few I've seen above size 38.) bk

But even for "adult" suits, the sizes tend to be smaller, right?

I wear a 42 Long jacket with a 34 or 36 inch waist (more like 36 these days...) and a bare minimum of 34 inseam. I'm 6'2", 200lbs. I feel there's little to no chance of me finding any suits in my area that are both vintage, and will actually fit me.

 

[Tomasso]

the "77 year" old garment will have a superior construction compared to a modern made to measure suit. You would need to go full bespoke to get even near to this.
.

Slow down, FFF.... Oxxford ain't gone nowhere ........

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Extremes will always struggle - abnormally tall like you, and abnormally small like me. Anything "R" is too long for me. I am firmly against the notion that vintage suits tend to be on the smaller side of things. The vast majority I come across are in the range 38R-42R, which seems average. "Longs" more common than "Shorts". The only difference is I can find boys suits - you will struggle for vintage, not because of jacket size but because of your abnormally long legs. You will have more competition when these suits do come up, so prices will be higher. I know a number of "odd-sized" people who do just fine finding vintage to fit.

But even for "adult" suits, the sizes tend to be smaller, right?

I wear a 42 Long jacket with a 34 or 36 inch waist (more like 36 these days...) and a bare minimum of 34 inseam. I'm 6'2", 200lbs. I feel there's little to no chance of me finding any suits in my area that are both vintage, and will actually fit me.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Slow down, FFF.... Oxxford ain't gone nowhere ........

Ok. I am not familiar with them and not a bespoke customer anyway but 460$ still seems much cheaper than bespoke or high end mtm (with good fabrics and outside of asia)

PS: Checked the Oxxford site and their sportcoats alone costs 2000. So no need to slow down. I couldn't afford them anyway.

 

[Tomasso]

Ok. I am not familiar with them and not a bespoke customer anyway but 460$ still seems much cheaper than bespoke or high end mtm (with good fabrics and outside of asia)

PS: Checked the Oxxford site and their sportcoats alone costs 2000. So no need to slow down. I couldn't afford them anyway.

Just pump your brakes for a few seconds.......Oxxford make RTW, MTM and bespoke all to the same standards of construction and the fabric used is of the highest quality as they are a sister company of the venerable cloth merchant Holland & Sherry. And something that should interest you and your pocketbook: The Bay is littered with new and pre-owned Oxxford which can be had at a fraction of their MSRP; much of it priced right in your wheelhouse. IMO, the best deal for classically styled tailored garments out there.

Now go ahead and race off as I'm sure that you'll find something disagreeable about this suggestion....

 

[redheads'n'truckbeds]

I had the pleasure of seeing this suit in person, beautiful piece for sure.

 

[Fletch]

Examples larger than size 38 or so are so astonishingly rare, as these were young men's/youths suits. At least that's how they were generally marketed.

They also were favored by men in entertainment and the media. Franchot Tone and Cab Calloway come to mind.

 

[Chasseur]

Smashing suit! I'm mixed most of the time about peak lapels on a SB, either they work really well or they don't. But these look great!

 

[Gin&Tonics]

Extremes will always struggle - abnormally tall like you, and abnormally small like me. Anything "R" is too long for me. I am firmly against the notion that vintage suits tend to be on the smaller side of things. The vast majority I come across are in the range 38R-42R, which seems average. "Longs" more common than "Shorts". The only difference is I can find boys suits - you will struggle for vintage, not because of jacket size but because of your abnormally long legs. You will have more competition when these suits do come up, so prices will be higher. I know a number of "odd-sized" people who do just fine finding vintage to fit.

My excessively long limbs and I will take comfort in your words and keep a sharp eye out for any vintage suits out there I found a beautiful one at the Goodwill in Bellingham, but alas it didn't fit...

Hope springs eternal, no?

 

[Salieri]

I'm a 36R, 30W/32L (ie on the slim side but not excessively small) and I find that most of the 30s/40s stuff that I come across is too big for me. The very large sizes are, admittedly, very rare, though I suppose people were far more likely to be under-, rather than over-nourished.

Back to the suit in question - is it serge or flannel?

And just why do so many of you guys love belted backs so much?

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Beltbacks? They are less common today and this makes them special for us [huh] "Oh look, it's vintage!"
Ok, the also are a sporty feature and make the suit less buisness-like.
I just think they look cool and accentuate the nipped waist of 30s suits.

 

[herringbonekid]

First it's a quintessential 1930s American business suit in the ubiquitous navy serge. If you read gentleman's guides from the era, they uniformly all state a man must have a suit like this in his wardrobe (3-piece, serge suiting, dark blue or navy color, little or not texture/pattern to the cloth). While *some* many not view this coloring/cloth as a desirable, thinking it's boring, despite their commonness during the era, business suits like these are exceedingly rare today.

belted back suits weren't really considered 'business' suits back in the 30s. they were called 'young men's' or 'collegiate' suits. that's not to say that no one would ever have worn one in a business context of course, but that business suits were generally called 'conservative' styles.

And just why do so many of you guys love belted backs so much?

i can't answer for everyone, but for me the belt and various pleats add interest to an area of the suit which would otherwise be featureless. it also makes a suit a bit more 'sporty' and / or 'rugged' which in turn makes it a bit less like a 'business' suit.


edit: just read Flo's post after mine: great minds think alike !

 

[Guttersnipe]

. . . belted back suits weren't really considered 'business' suits back in the 30s. they were called 'young men's' or 'collegiate' suits. . . 'conservative' styles.

I think you failed to follow my line of reasoning. The fact that it combines elements from disparate source is what makes it so cool (and rare). It has elements of the quintessential 30s business suit (the navy serge, the peak lapels, the three-piece configuration, the high button stance on the waistcoat), elements of a sports suit (the "fancy back"), and elements of a collegiate suit (the wide legs, the dramatically suppressed waist).

 

[avedwards]

I think you failed to follow my line of reasoning. The fact that it combines elements from disparate source is what makes it so cool (and rare). It has elements of the quintessential 30s business suit (the navy serge, the peak lapels, the three-piece configuration, the high button stance on the waistcoat), elements of a sports suit (the "fancy back"), and elements of a collegiate suit (the wide legs, the dramatically suppressed waist).

I fully agree with this. I think a fancy belt back but an otherwise conservative cut would make a good look for a modern business suit too.

 

[resortes805]

OK, I'm resurrecting this thread to grumble about another 'holy grail' suit (for me at least) that I lost out on. Woe is me.

Once again, another suit in a versatile shade with the little details I really dig; pleated rear half-belt, peaked lapels, wide trouser cuffs and etc. the jacket would most likely not fit me, so I am not too distraught about this one. Had it a vest, I would have fought harder for it.

 

[resortes805]

Resortes Have you seen Mr. Luna about the 30s suit he found?

Yup, my boy did me a solid and sold me this suit! It's killer....will post pics soon.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

^^ That one 2 posts up is awesome!

 

[cookie]

OK, I'm resurrecting this thread to grumble about another 'holy grail' suit (for me at least) that I lost out on. Woe is me.

Once again, another suit in a versatile shade with the little details I really dig; pleated rear half-belt, peaked lapels, wide trouser cuffs and etc. the jacket would most likely not fit me, so I am not too distraught about this one. Had it a vest, I would have fought harder for it.

I have an early 50s DB in exactly that fabric.