Magnoli suit gone wrong - update

[daddy-o]

Yes, the trousers do look like they're bunching at the crease of the thigh. Are the pants pleated? If so, are the pleats deep enough? I've found that even if the pants are high enough, if there isn't enough material you'll still get bunching.
Also, the jacket seems a little long to me, but that may be a matter of posture more than jacket fit. A live tailor would be much better at addressing these issues.
The peak lapels also look distinctly "modern"- they are the same way on my DB suit from Sam's Tailor. For a vintage peak lapel, I tend to see a lower gorge, and if it's a higher gorge, a less steep or floor level peak seem was used.
Compare:

On the bright side, the lapel does seem to have a nice amount of belly, which a lot of people get wrong.

Yes the pants are pleated but simply not roomy enough. Indy will probably remake them. he wants me to have the garment just right. nice to see that he cares. I may have them done a bit higher as well. The jacket is slightly longer but that´s just me. I love long suit jackets even though I am short bloke. Yes the lapels are a bit weird and modern. I like the lapels on the pics but not the rest of the jacket and the lapels should have been more like that. But I think I can live with that.
In any case I think the best modern retro repro garments I have are a couple of Skin Deep jackets from Sydney. They just got it right even though at an astronomical price. must post pics later....

 

[Mr. Rover]

I just came to the conclusion that nowadays there aint nobody who can make a great looking and great fitting suit like in the 40´s. Sad but I think true.

It's been done.

 

[Jovan]

What Rover said. Always make sure you communicate visually what you want, too. Pictures are freely available from the internet; or more specifically from here! Those help a lot. I also find it helps to show pictures of your full body from front, side, and back if possible.

I think it's actually better to get a buttock-length or possibly even slightly shorter jacket if you're short of stature. This gives an illusion of height in a strange way.

 

[CharlestonBows]

Also, the jacket seems a little long to me, but that may be a matter of posture more than jacket fit. A live tailor would be much better at addressing these issues.

The peak lapels also look distinctly "modern"- they are the same way on my DB suit from Sam's Tailor. For a vintage peak lapel, I tend to see a lower gorge, and if it's a higher gorge, a less steep or floor level peak seem was used.

I think the issue with the lapels definitely goes to the way they were cut, constructed and pieced together. The pattern is just flat wrong for the look that is attempted. This might might have some adverse implications vis-a-vis the method that the coat front was constructed. Maybe a little fusing? Indy could answer that much better than any guess I'd make.

It may also relate to the width of the peak itself. You can still have a high button stance on a coat while maintaining a wider, vintage-esque peak. It's all about the cut, on this one, and it's just gonna be hard to get those detailed proportions right without having someone really work at your measurements.

 

[luvthatlulu]

Blah...blah...blah.

I think the issue with the lapels definitely goes to the way they were cut, constructed and pieced together. The pattern is just flat wrong for the look that is attempted. This might might have some adverse implications vis-a-vis the method that the coat front was constructed. Maybe a little fusing? Indy could answer that much better than any guess I'd make.

It may also relate to the width of the peak itself. You can still have a high button stance on a coat while maintaining a wider, vintage-esque peak. It's all about the cut, on this one, and it's just gonna be hard to get those detailed proportions right without having someone really work at your measurements.

???????????

Personal fitting. End of discussion.

Please notice that everyone can tell you what went wrong (in their opinion) after the fact. There are no shortcuts in getting a proper fit. The only question is how long will it take for Loungers to learn (accept) this simple concept.

 

[CharlestonBows]

???????????

Personal fitting. End of discussion.

Please notice that everyone can tell you what went wrong (in their opinion) after the fact. There are no shortcuts in getting a proper fit. When will you learn this simple concept?

I'm just giving my opinion in the course of an open discussion. My opinion is based upon my personal experience as a professional clothier and a well-read student of the history and the practice of the tailoring trade. I make the observations I make because I do this for a living, and try to find and derive further insight through a discussion of fault and benefits of this garment. It's how we all learn, just like medical students doing dissection, and law students clerking at trial.

I have nothing but praise and respect for the efforts of Indy -- I think it's a small miracle he can do what he does. I just don't believe in it, and thats my own personal, professional opinion. I've been advocating, always have, and always will, about the benefits of a proper, personal fitting by someone who is trained and knows how to use a tape measure. I do not believe, at all, in online measurements for the reasons cited so many times on this thread. Its why, when I cut a suit, or a coat, or a pair of trousers, that I do not use anyone's measurements but my own that I take. So yes, of course, a personal fitting is paramount.

When talking about the lapel, I am making an observation about the coat front and the lapel, which looks strangely constructed on a detail level (and maybe it's the picture itself), and pose that maybe there was a fusing issue. All that in addition to the modern pattern for a peak on a suit meant to be a vintage reprod. I also talk about an issue I see concerning the width of the peak in relation to the proportions of the garment and the wearer, which I think is unachieving of the vintage inspired look. And yes, a personal fitting would solve that, but with Indy's company, it's just not feasible. Unless you have a ton of air miles.

 

[luvthatlulu]

I'm just giving my opinion in the course of an open discussion. My opinion is based upon my personal experience as a professional clothier and a well-read student of the history and the practice of the tailoring trade. I make the observations I make because I do this for a living, and try to find and derive further insight through a discussion of fault and benefits of this garment. It's how we all learn, just like medical students doing dissection, and law students clerking at trial.

I have nothing but praise and respect for the efforts of Indy -- I think it's a small miracle he can do what he does. I just don't believe in it, and thats my own personal, professional opinion. I've been advocating, always have, and always will, about the benefits of a proper, personal fitting by someone who is trained and knows how to use a tape measure. I do not believe, at all, in online measurements for the reasons cited so many times on this thread. Its why, when I cut a suit, or a coat, or a pair of trousers, that I do not use anyone's measurements but my own that I take. So yes, of course, a personal fitting is paramount.

When talking about the lapel, I am making an observation about the coat front and the lapel, which looks strangely constructed on a detail level (and maybe it's the picture itself), and pose that maybe there was a fusing issue. All that in addition to the modern pattern for a peak on a suit meant to be a vintage reprod. I also talk about an issue I see concerning the width of the peak in relation to the proportions of the garment and the wearer, which I think is unachieving of the vintage inspired look. And yes, a personal fitting would solve that, but with Indy's company, it's just not feasible. Unless you have a ton of air miles.

OK. I accept that. I believe that you agree with me that there are no shortcuts toward getting a proper fit. Right? Everything else is just a discussion about what went wrong because someone did try to shortcut the process. That's my point--if we quit trying to shortcut, maybe we can stop having these discussions.

I am a strong believer in not "sugar-coating" my answer to someone's question, and simply telling them how it is and how to correct it rather than parroting back how they want it to be. Character flaw of mine, I guess.

 

[BellyTank]

Character flaw of mine, I guess.

Hey,
quit sugar-coating it.

B
T

 

[Alan Eardley]

Not my discussion, but it is my opinion that you can't get a realistic 1940s fit or 1940s 'movement' in clothing unless you have a 1940s-type build.

Alan

 

[Matt Deckard]

Not my discussion, but it is my opinion that you can't get a realistic 1940s fit or 1940s 'movement' in clothing unless you have a 1940s-type build.

Alan

i don't have a 1940's type build yet i can assure you you can get the fit and movement you see in 1940's films with clothes that are properly tailored. If 1940's clothes didn't fit me like 1940's clothes I'd have a closet full of 70's gear.

 

[benstephens]

What is the definition a 1940s build?

Ben

 

[Jovan]

OK. I accept that. I believe that you agree with me that there are no shortcuts toward getting a proper fit. Right? Everything else is just a discussion about what went wrong because someone did try to shortcut the process. That's my point--if we quit trying to shortcut, maybe we can stop having these discussions.

I am a strong believer in not "sugar-coating" my answer to someone's question, and simply telling them how it is and how to correct it rather than parroting back how they want it to be. Character flaw of mine, I guess.

Many of us can't afford the cost of a true bespoke suit. Even Charleston Bows' (I wish I knew your real name) bespoke jobs start at $950 -- and that's with half-canvassed front. The next best thing is getting a tailor to measure us, and sending those measurements off to someone who has sent us a swatch. Location is another. I'll be damned if I can find a single person in this town who will competently take my measurements, much less one who will make suits as well! Add to that, not all the travelling tailors out there can visit near where we live. As CB said earlier when we were discussing this thread, "I've said it once, and I'll keep saying it -- a good tailor is harder to find than a good surgeon."

In conclusion, I'd say many of us know that we're "shortcutting," but price and location are factors in the decision.

 

[Alan Eardley]

Physical dimensions within the range of dimensions that was most common in the 1940s.

What is the definition a 1940s build?

Ben

 

[Alan Eardley]

Well, I'm pleased for you...

Alan

i don't have a 1940's type build yet i can assure you you can get the fit and movement you see in 1940's films with clothes that are properly tailored. If 1940's clothes didn't fit me like 1940's clothes I'd have a closet full of 70's gear.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I can see what Alan means, and certainly without the athletic youthful etc etc. body shape i'd imagine you'd not be able to get this:

That's not to say you're not going to look good. But without, let's say, a suppressed waist to highlight, how will it be possible to suppress the waist of the jacket to achieve the effect properly? You can always build up a body but it's incredibly difficult to build a small waist jacket upon a large waist body.

bk

 

[benstephens]

True Baron that is the ideal, but is using a fashion plate the same as a using a fashion photo now to say what the average look is like and how clothes should fit? I am unsure if really many people were actually like that, as today, very few men look like the models we see displaying the clothes of designers and fashion stores.

Alan, the Army and Navy catologue starts the waist size of "off the peg" trousers at 32", and increases to I think 42", so one would say that this is the most popular size range, and thus the range for the middle class professional of the time.

Ben

 

[BellyTank]

...and throw into the mix, ...

Alan, the Army and Navy catologue starts the waist size of "off the peg" trousers at 32", and increases to I think 42", so one would say that this is the most popular size range, and thus the range for the middle class professional of the time.

Ben

Ah... but trouser waists were generally worn much larger then, than what has become customary today. Nowadays people even wear a trouser with a waist size smaller than their own- hey, no belt.

Remember that a vintage trouser waist was "high" and sits way higher than a "contemporary" trouser waist- closer to the ribs than the hips.
A 32" waist from 1940 would have been meant for the "waist" measurement at the "vintage" waist height AND an allowance used.
The trouser waists of yore were worn big.

... all those vintage suits one sees with a 36" jacket and 34" trousers...
or a 42" jacket, with 42" trou.

Braces, old beans.


B
T

 

[Senator Jack]

The oddity about all this online measuring and ill-fit is that I, and I believe many vintage collectors, can look at the measurements of any suit offered on ebay and know if or exactly how it's going to fit (as long as the seller has, of course, measured the suit correctly) If I ask the seller for the pit-to-pit laid flat and I get anything from a 19.5 to 20.5, I know I'm good for the chest. If collar to hem is from 29.5 to 31, I know jacket length will work. Shoulders, sleeve length, on and on. Yet if I plug these measurements into an online tailor's site, I'll get a suit that is completely off.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[AdmiralTofu]

Many of us can't afford the cost of a true bespoke suit. Even Charleston Bows' (I wish I knew your real name) bespoke jobs start at $950 -- and that's with half-canvassed front. The next best thing is getting a tailor to measure us, and sending those measurements off to someone who has sent us a swatch. Location is another. I'll be damned if I can find a single person in this town who will competently take my measurements, much less one who will make suits as well! Add to that, not all the travelling tailors out there can visit near where we live. As CB said earlier when we were discussing this thread, "I've said it once, and I'll keep saying it -- a good tailor is harder to find than a good surgeon."

In conclusion, I'd say many of us know that we're "shortcutting," but price and location are factors in the decision.

:arated: Agreed. I'd also go out on a limb and say that I'm sure for most of us, the real appeal isn't in "shortcutting" the process. I, personally, would love to be able to take the time out and go get measured by the actual person making the clothes, and to go in for personal fittings and such... who wouldn't enjoy all that attention? What it boils down to, though, is cost and availability. With mycustomtailor offering $300 suits, and Indy not much more than that, it starts to look pretty darned attractive. Especially when you see some of the great results in Hemingway Jones's mycustomtailor suit thread, and some of the glowing reviews I've often heard of Indy's work. It tends to make the few negative experiences you hear about sound like they're worth the gamble.

-Tofu

 

[benstephens]

v

Ah... but trouser waists were generally worn much larger then, than what has become customary today. Nowadays people even wear a trouser with a waist size smaller than their own- hey, no belt.

Remember that a vintage trouser waist was "high" and sits way higher than a "contemporary" trouser waist- closer to the ribs than the hips.
A 32" waist from 1940 would have been meant for the "waist" measurement at the "vintage" waist height AND an allowance used.
The trouser waists of yore were worn big.

... all those vintage suits one sees with a 36" jacket and 34" trousers...
or a 42" jacket, with 42" trou.

Braces, old beans.


B
T

I am afraid I am not sure I agree completely. I accept people did wear trousers with a looser fit, however, I have always been in the belief that modern trousers are still measured on the true waist measurement, as when I have measured modern trousers with say a 32" waist, they measure at least a 34" on the waist band, my thoughts being that this compensates for them to sit lower on the hip.

So, even if we say that a 32" waist on a pair of 1930s trousers is equivalent to a 30" on modern trousers, it still shows that off the peg trousers started at about 30" and went up to 40" in today's standards. And I know the jacket Chests went to a fairly big size as well.

On the same point as well, the Trousers that I am referring too have self supporting waist bands, they are of the sports flannel type so would not neccesarily have been worn with braces, so would have been worn fairly close fitting to the body, granted some had adjusters, to act as a belt of sorts, but I would imagine gentlemen would have bought them fairly close to their actual waist size.

I am not trying to argue the case that everyone was large, they certainly were not, George Orwell writes about the malnourished look that he saw in 1928 even among the well to do, and gone were the days of the Barrel Chest'ed Guardsman that he saw before the war. My point merely being that we must be careful in our research to make assessments based upon the look I in fashion plates and fashion magazine photographs of the time as being the physique of the period.

Ben