How many own a vintage suit?

[Matt Deckard]

Puddled trousers aside, if all modern suits were as good as the suit on the Prince, the world would be a much better looking place. If that's one of his recent Turnbull & Asser's (it looks it), it's respectable ready to wear construction made to measure, and significantly less expensive than bespoke even at T&A prices. He could find better MTM but probably not from an English supplier. I am glad it's not mine though.

I truly think he could do better wearing Ralph Lauren off the rack. That suit isn't the princes friend.

Really... they couldn't even get the break right.,,, thats an easy one. Like night and day.

Maybe i'm outdated and crazy though, it's what I like.

 

[Mr. Rover]

Geez. The Prince wearing Ralph Lauren would be like the Pope wearing Prada...wait. Nevermind. :eusa_doh:

 

[manton]

Matt, keep in mind that even in the 30s and 40s, Savile Row was not making many (if any) suits cut like the one on the right. Most the tailors in London would have turned up their nose at that as too extreme. What Charles is wearing is actually reasonably consistent with Savile Row orthodoxy and would not have looked out of place in London in the 30s.

What you guys seem to really like is an American vintage look; emphatically not the American sack, but an American cut derived from the London drape, which was itself controversial on Savile Row when it first appeared, and then smartened up beyond what even the drape advocates in London would have approved of.

 

[Mr. Rover]

I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

 

[Matt Deckard]

I don't know... I think shorter jacket and wider lapels were consistant over their as well during the 30's... the teens were the time of the long skirts and ultra narrow lapels. Not as austentatios as the hollywood cuts, though still wider than what you see on the prince and more balanced in appearance to my eye.

 

[Mr. Rover]

I hardly think that the Duke of Windsor is a good example...true, he was a trendsetter, but he dressed more eccentricly than most "normal" people and I believe he often had to argue and find different tailors to suit his needs. I believe he had his jackets made in the UK (A&S? Poole?) and then had his trousers made in NY because the tailor refused to make his pants with zippers.
It also doesn't help that he was 5'4 and needed a shorter jacket to make him appear taller.

 

[manton]

The duke is wearing Scholte, the inventor of the London drape, and thus the tailor who most approximated the American 40s look (which is indeed derived from Scholte.) Churchill is wearing Poole, and those look like textbook SR lapels to me: halfway across the chest. Eden's are wider, it is true, but in the other respects his suit looks more like Charles than like that chalk stripe.

Charles' lapel isn't really skinny like a 20s lapel. It's just on the narrow side of the SR range.

Astaire was able to get some big-time lapels out of A&S, but apparently he had to insist on them. (Giving the lie, as it happens, to A&S's insistence that they never change their cut for anyone.)

 

[manton]

I believe he had his jackets made in the UK (A&S? Poole?)

Scholte, and then later James & James.

and then had his trousers made in NY because the tailor refused to make his pants with zippers.

No, it was because he liked low rise belt trousers and Scholte refused to make them.

 

[reetpleat]

While I like a lot of things about that vintage suit on the tailor's dummy posted above, I think the lapel roll is off. Look how it rolls far past the waist button. When worn and buttoned, that jacket will show distinct pulls around the button and through the wast. The lapels will also pull at the button, straining the thread until sooner or later the button will pop off.

Could be a tight collar (most likely) or a couple of other things.

Unless I misunderstand your post, I do not understand your objection at all. I have always thought a proper suit ofthe era should be pressed with a roll to the collar, not a crease. This means that unbuttoned, this style would naturally roll over the button, but when buttoned would roll back and lie naturally. I can't imagine a tailor mad a mistake on such a fine wuit.

I am sure tha once buttoned it would lie quite naturally.

In San Francisco we used to always talk about how hard it was to find a dry cleaner who would not crease the heck out of your lapel.

 

[reetpleat]

I don't know... i'm just not pleased with the idea of style today.

Collar too wide for the tie
lapels too narrow for the suit... just looks like they don't belong
the break on the trousers is... well puddling.
The suit may look like it fits, though the balance and structure doesn't compliment the prince like those suits that were made in the old days.

and no hat.

Well, rich people seem to hve their own sense of style that has little to do with anything else.

I don't think the suit is that bad. I certainly isn't to my taste. But the tit is good. I agree about the break. I think it must be a wealthy british thing, because double breasted certainly isn't a current style. But we must be careful not to assume our preference for certain styles is an absolute. Quality is, proportion is, but style itself isn't.

 

[manton]

Unless I misunderstand your post, I do not understand your objection at all. I have always thought a proper suit ofthe era should be pressed with a roll to the collar, not a crease. This means that unbuttoned, this style would naturally roll over the button, but when buttoned would roll back and lie naturally. I can't imagine a tailor mad a mistake on such a fine wuit.

I am sure tha once buttoned it would lie quite naturally.

In San Francisco we used to always talk about how hard it was to find a dry cleaner who would not crease the heck out of your lapel.

What I mean is this. The lapel roll is determined by three things: the shape of the front of the coat; the stitching of the canvas to the lapel; and the tension of the collar. Those three factors combine to make a lapel roll to wherever it rolls.

Yes, you emphatically do not want it creased, at least not must past the gorge. What I am saying is that once a lapel rolls to where it rolls, it's going to roll there no matter what you do to it. If it rolls past the button, it will roll over the button and put strain on it when the coat is buttoned. Most tailors build their lapels rolls to end just above the fastening point of the coat precisely to avoid this.

On that coat, the roll clearly goes past the top button. It looks to me like it goes pretty far past, a couple of inches. In my experience, that will put strain on the button and maybe cause a pull around the middle, and maybe (in this case probably not, with lighter cloth almost certainly) cause a ripple at the collar, when the coat is buttoned.

 

[Matt Deckard]

There are always different style and different proportions. i like the german suitsfrom the 30's myself...

This thread has turned to vintage versus modern. I'd like to see more pics of modern suits that have the style and fit and flare of the vintage suits posted.

 

[reetpleat]

Have we become cozy enough with royalty to drop Charlie's Prince title?

I agree with HBK on this. Buttoning Wooster's suit would probably simply look similar to how a 3-button suit with a lapel rolled to the 2nd button closed with the top 2 buttons.

There is a real difference between a suit made to not button the top button and a suit with a lapel that rolls over.

Some here surely know more about the history, but I know the classic brooks brother suit is made with three buttons but made to be worn with the top not buttoned. It dates back to the fifties or older, but not common outside of BB.

When we sold vintage in San Francisco, I would sometimes get an older suit in that style and press the lapel so it would be a real three button. It kind of worked, but a trained eye could see something was amiss. It had been cut to not button there.

However, on a suit like the one in question, it is cut for the button to be buttoned, and the only reason you see that roll over is that there is no crease to the collar. If you wer et olay it flat and put a crease where it naturally lay, you would find it to be above the button I am sure.

 

[reetpleat]

Another vintage ready made three piece.

too bad he's sitting down in the pic, the suit is very nice.

As for the button roll on the two button. The one posted as with the previous one on the mannequin is again a two button both functional with the waist sitting between the buttons. The ones i have seen in person also have the lapel rolling slightly over the button. It's the fashion of the cut.

As for the prince... My opinion is that a little more shoulder, with the way the jacket is cut, would help the look.

Perfect pic. Notice how all the collars do not lie flat at the crease. They all have theat roll which is what any vintage enthusiast should aspire towards. ANy of those suits, singel or double, if you unbuttoned the button would roll over the button. You can practically see how bad it wants to in these illustrations.

 

[herringbonekid]

...You can practically see how bad it wants to in these illustrations.

nicely put.

 

[reetpleat]

Matt, keep in mind that even in the 30s and 40s, Savile Row was not making many (if any) suits cut like the one on the right. Most the tailors in London would have turned up their nose at that as too extreme. What Charles is wearing is actually reasonably consistent with Savile Row orthodoxy and would not have looked out of place in London in the 30s.

What you guys seem to really like is an American vintage look; emphatically not the American sack, but an American cut derived from the London drape, which was itself controversial on Savile Row when it first appeared, and then smartened up beyond what even the drape advocates in London would have approved of.

Agreed. Frankly, in a way we commoneers do not really understand, if Charles wore a regualr normal suit of clothing, it would be scandelous. Keep in mind the people he has to keep happy are in a whole different world. On inwhich they have been dressing the same way for seventy years or more.

 

[reetpleat]

I hardly think that the Duke of Windsor is a good example...true, he was a trendsetter, but he dressed more eccentricly than most "normal" people and I believe he often had to argue and find different tailors to suit his needs. I believe he had his jackets made in the UK (A&S? Poole?) and then had his trousers made in NY because the tailor refused to make his pants with zippers.
It also doesn't help that he was 5'4 and needed a shorter jacket to make him appear taller.

He was as short as me???? My Hero!

Keep in mind he was a trend setter. If he wore something he could be eccentric because it would soon become the style. How that cycle starts I don't know. I guess you have it or not. BUt Charles is expected to fit in, not to set trends.

 

[Matt Deckard]

It's preference of the tailor. I have seen suits where the button is part of the roll and some where the button is slightly below the roll. It's up to the maker and does not ad extra stress to the suit from what i have seen... i mean they have been around for 70 years some of them.


My favorite style which I hope to have the right tailor emulate someday... I'm sure it's not that hard for the right person.

On th left and on Jimmy... three piece single breasted three button peak lapel. I have a vintage one in plaid though it's too long.

 

[manton]

I love the suits in Rope. I may be remembering wrong, but I thought the SB suits in that movie never had the top buttons buttoned.

I am a bit prejudiced here, because I just don't like the buttoned up look on anyone. 3-button suits can be very nice, but I always prefer to see the top left unbuttoned. I'm not claiming that's anything more than my own taste.

 

[Matt Deckard]

They were buttonable though never buttoned... I switch tastes now and again, though I prefer to have the option.