Goodwill buys

[Baron Kurtz]

£9

Not from a thrift or charity shop, but £9 from a London vintage shop that regularly doesn't know what it's got when it comes to menswear. Tentatively dated to 1936-38, the shoulders are more padded than I would expect from earlier, and not so much as I would expect from later. No labels or union tags or anything to help with dating it.

As most of you would be able to tell from the front, it is a belted back.

Action back.

back is constructed of 2 pieces, like a normal suit jacket, but with pleats over which the belt is stitched. Different from many other belt backs i've seen where the skirt panel is a completely different panel from the rest of the rear.

Detail of the belt and pleat construction.

bk

 

[Boogieman]

i'm fortunate to live in a town with a huge thriftstore /op shop. i discovered it a few years ago and buy most of my clothes there. i was browsing one day and saw an expensive designer shirt. i picked it up expecting only one arm but it was perfect. i was so excited i almost missed the other two. i put it down to men thinking they were the same size they were 20 years ago, buying without trying and being too lazy to return them. so now i where fat mens rejects and dead mens shoes. i got two pairs of handmade english wingtips for $10.00 each.
i dress better than i ever have for so much less. the money i save i get to spend on the really expensive stuff.

 

[jamespowers]

I do have a question about the cuffs...how tall are normal cuffs on trousers? I had a pair of pants with really tall cuffs, that are long gone now, but I think they were close to 2 inches tall, but most of my suit pants have cuffs that are shorter than that.

It is sort of a matter of prefernce really. I would say that around an inch to an inch and a half to be "normal." I have a 2 inch cuff on my seersucker suit though.

 

[cookie]

i'm fortunate to live in a town with a huge thriftstore /op shop. i discovered it a few years ago and buy most of my clothes there. i was browsing one day and saw an expensive designer shirt. i picked it up expecting only one arm but it was perfect. i was so excited i almost missed the other two. i put it down to men thinking they were the same size they were 20 years ago, buying without trying and being too lazy to return them. so now i where fat mens rejects and dead mens shoes. i got two pairs of handmade english wingtips for $10.00 each.
i dress better than i ever have for so much less. the money i save i get to spend on the really expensive stuff.

Welcome Boogieman and good thrifting....

 

[davestlouis]

I didn't find any suits yesterday, but did get a Hawaiian/aloha shirt, a white dress shirt for work and a beige summer shirt...short sleeves, spread collar, polynosic(poly and rayon), poly and linen blend, but it feels OK, I'll wear it untucked with shorts or jeans, sort of a guayabera without the fancy stitching. I've finally gotten to the point that I don't feel conspicuous in anything but a solid color polo shirt in the summer.

 

[Paisley]

On the spur of the moment, I got off the bus at the ARC thrift store last night and found two pairs of jeans and two pairs of shorts. I've been trying and trying to find jeans and shorts that fit. (The last pair I ordered had enough room between my back and the waist to carry a small kangaroo around.) Total spent: $18.27. Yay! I just had a feeling I'd find something.

 

[HodgePodge]

Did I do okay, or should I just take it back?

Scouring the suit section I found a single breasted, two button front, one button cuff, narrow(er?) lapel suit. From that I knew I risked not being in true 'vintage' territory at all, but the drop-loop, cuffed, forward-pleated pants gave me hope. Got it home and did some quick googling to find out that what I have is from the years of 1965 to 1970.

I apologize in advance for the bad lighting.

Jacket:


Detail of top of Pants:


Union tag:



Me wearing it:





So, I say to you all: Does it work, or should I take it back?

 

[davestlouis]

I say keep it! That first pic threw me, I thought it was lavender-colored.

 

[Orgetorix]

Not bad at all, HP! Looks like it fits you well. Take it to a tailor and get the sleeves shortened just a bit so you show a quarter to half an inch of sleeve cuff, and you'll be in great shape.

 

[tonyb]

Scouring the suit section I found a single breasted, two button front, one button cuff, narrow(er?) lapel suit. From that I knew I risked not being in true 'vintage' territory at all, but the drop-loop, cuffed, forward-pleated pants gave me hope. Got it home and did some quick googling to find out that what I have is from the years of 1965 to 1970.

...

So, I say to you all: Does it work, or should I take it back?

Curious to know how you came upon that time range, HP. The source I typically rely upon, steelzipper.com, says that union label places it post-'48 but pre-'63, as the 1963 and later (through '76, I believe) version of that design have a circled R in the panel lower and to the left of the diamond-shaped center panel.

Could be that they're wrong about that, or that that particular distinction (the circled R, or lack thereof) isn't absolutely reliable. If the information I've been relying upon isn't accurate, well, I'd certainly like to know. If I were just guessing at its vintage, without seeing any labels, I'd say early '60s. (That and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee, maybe.)

To answer your question, I say yes, it does indeed work. I'd say it's worth whatever the alterations lady (or gentleman) would charge to make whatever small adjustments might be in order.

 

[thunderw21]

Curious to know how you came upon that time range, HP. The source I typically rely upon, steelzipper.com, says that union label places it post-'48 but pre-'63, as the 1963 and later (through '76, I believe) version of that design have a circled R in the panel lower and to the left of the diamond-shaped center panel.

Could be that they're wrong about that, or that that particular distinction (the circled R, or lack thereof) isn't absolutely reliable. If the information I've been relying upon isn't accurate, well, I'd certainly like to know. If I were just guessing at its vintage, without seeing any labels, I'd say early '60s. (That and a buck and a half will get you a cup of coffee, maybe.)

To answer your question, I say yes, it does indeed work. I'd say it's worth whatever the alterations lady (or gentleman) would charge to make whatever small adjustments might be in order.

I agree with your observation, that suit appears to have the first pattern '49 tag with the red numbering while the second pattern tag has black numbering and the circled 'R'.
I believe the suit probably dates from the late '50s. Possibly even early '60s.

 

[cookie]

I agree with your observation, that suit appears to have the first pattern '49 tag with the red numbering while the second pattern tag has black numbering and the circled 'R'.
I believe the suit probably dates from the late '50s. Possibly even early '60s.

A pair of nice Florsheims and it will be "back to 77 Sunset Strip" for you....comb optional!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BkSK0PLY8

 

[tonyb]

I agree with your observation, that suit appears to have the first pattern '49 tag with the red numbering while the second pattern tag has black numbering and the circled 'R'.
I believe the suit probably dates from the late '50s. Possibly even early '60s.

It's those "forward facing" (or whatever you wanna call 'em) pleats and what looks like a relatively short rise that give me pause. (Could be that the photo is deceiving, though.) I happen to have an almost archetypal "transitional" suit myself -- the quite narrow lapels (markedly narrower than HP's) say '60s, but the high-waisted, pleated, full-legged pants say earlier than that. Makes me wanna bust out the Brylcreem, you know?

 

[HodgePodge]

Curious to know how you came upon that time range, HP. The source I typically rely upon, steelzipper.com, says that union label places it post-'48 but pre-'63, as the 1963 and later (through '76, I believe) version of that design have a circled R in the panel lower and to the left of the diamond-shaped center panel.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Was out of town for the weekend.

Although I certainly could have misinterpreted the information, my googling of the tag inside the right lapel which reads 'Superior Men's Tailoring Co. Ltd. Toronto' led me to an XLS document in the Queen's University database entitled 'Men's Clothing Manufacturers Association of Ontario.' In that Database beside 'Superior Men's....' there are the dates 1965-1970. There are 273 entries in the database some with only one date, and some with a date range. Unfortunately the entire document isn't available electronically( I don't think?) so I am more than willing to concede that I'm working off incomplete information, but that is all I could find about the company at all, and why I also asked here where I know people have an eye for these things.

Thanks to all who gave their opinions.

 

[AntonAAK]

Not from a thrift or charity shop, but £9 from a London vintage shop that regularly doesn't know what it's got when it comes to menswear.

I don't suppose you'd share the location of this clueless London vintage shop would you, Baron?

We are very different sizes...

All the best
Anton

 

[davestlouis]

No luck today on suits, Value Village and 3 Goodwill locations...
I did come home with 3 aloha shirts in gaudy florals, an almost new pair of Polo-branded loafers, black, unlined, with full strap and buckle(the buckle is a pewter color). I put a quick shine on them and they look great!

I also picked up a brand new, in the box, pair of 80s era Bass tassel Weejuns, reddish brown with dark brown edge dressing on the soles, made on Weld St in Wilton Maine. The box showed a retail of $83.00, marked down to $43 at some point, and in a man's closet ever since. The tissue paper was still stuffed in one of them, so he had tried one on, and never wore them. The seller was on craigslist, and said they have other stuff they will let me know about...I paid $30, which is more than my norm, but these are a real blast back to my high school years.

 

[davestlouis]

Lo and behold, I finally came home with a suit...Joseph Abboud for Mark Shale, dark bluish gray nailhead fabric, tried on the jacket, and it fit well, so I assumed the pants would too. They do, but they're plain front, I never thought to look. I haven't worn plain front pants in 20 years. Anyway, it was $7.99 at Value Village, and on Mark Shale's website, Abboud suits are $695, so I guess I did OK.

I bought a newer pair of Florsheim longwing non-gunboats for $10...almost new, but cheap-feeling leather and a ribbed rubber insert under the ball of the foot, set into a leather sole. These will be fill-ins while my AE McCallisters are getting recrafted.

The other item today was a cotton buttondown shirt with a gaudy pattern, 1950s Buick woody wagons and sailboats, with a squuare tail, so it's designed to not be tucked in. $3, I like shirts like that and my kids HATE them, so I wear one every chance I get.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

All the bigger ones are pretty clueless.

bk

I don't suppose you'd share the location of this clueless London vintage shop would you, Baron?

We are very different sizes...

All the best
Anton

 

[davestlouis]

The place where I got the latest suit, the Jos Abboud for Makr Shale, marks up suits with brands they recognize, so a cheap Chaps suit from Kohl's gets marked up to $40, but if it's something they don't recognize, it's $7.99, so it pays to pick through.

 

[davestlouis]

I've hit a suit drought...if I wore a 42 I'd be all set, but 48's are few and far between around here at the moment. I've reached the point that I can do a pretty good guesstimate of the size by eyeballing the length and shape(width) of the sleeve of the suit coat on the rack, which saves me some time.

I did hit a good stash of cotton and cotton/linen shorts today at Goodwill...$2 per pair for 4 pairs, all beige or khaki colors, great for what's left of summer. The best brand was Nike Golf, the worst Haggar.