Paul Newman's suit?

[tonyb]

Fella thinks he stumbled across a suit made for the late Paul Newman -- you know, the Paul Newman. What sayeth the cognoscenti?

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121013/entlife/710139933/

 

[Tomasso]

I would take the label of a top NYC tailor at face value and say that the suit was made for Mr. Newman. How it wound up in that basement....who knows....

 

[The Good]

So what are the chances of a guy knowing about Paul Newman to begin with, finding the suit, only to apparently have it fit as well as in the picture? This could be real, but that's a very big coincidence. Could it possibly be the suit of another Paul Newman? Have any members here found or bought suits/hats/accessories belonging to a famous person?

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Yes, Famous person's articles of clothing have indeed been found by lounge members, mostly in the Los Angeles/Hollywood area I think as evidenced here: http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?57884-FRANK-SINATRA-s-Vintage-Suit-Jacket&highlight=Frank+Sinatra
Whether or not this suit is genuine, I think the jury is still out as they say. Lots of supporting evidence, but also lots of evidence to the contrary. [huh]

 

[Tomasso]

but also lots of evidence to the contrary. [huh]

Where is the contrary evidence? All I'm hearing is Hotchner saying that he didn't like to wear suits and his daughter wondering how his clothes could have ended up in that basement.. Newman being a customer of the tailor certainly trumps that. It may have been made for him to wear in a movie or play.

 

[tonyb]

I'm inclined to believe it really is a suit made for the Paul Newman, although I wouldn't bet the mortgage on it either way.

If it's a scam, well, that would be putting oneself through a lot of bother for what I assume would be a modest return. It's not a suit that was worn in a movie, after all.

As to Newman not being much for dressing up ... That describes a goodly portion of the male population, the majority, perhaps. But I'd wager that most of those guys who'd just as soon not have to don a suit still own at least one, and likely a couple or more. And if that rather-not-wear-a-suit fellow happens to be a person of means, such as Paul Newman, I'd guess that the suit he'd just as soon not have to be wearing would be bespoke. If you got the scratch, and you got to wear a suit, even though you'd rather not, it may as well be a good one, that fits right.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Who cares? It's an 80s suit. Lol

 

[Feraud]

Ha, I was thinking the same thing..

 

[tonyb]

And 20 years ago you couldn't give away most '60s-vintage stuff -- clothes, furniture, etc. Now that MCM stuff is hot. Some call it the "Mad Men" effect, and I don't dispute there's something to that. But it does coincide with a large slice of the population getting to an age when people tend to get misty-eyed over their increasingly distant early years.

 

[m0nk]

Personally, I think this is cool if it truly is Newman's Own Suit... but only for the guy who likes it and wants to wear it. Otherwise, if no one likes the suit itself, IMO, it's bad form to take profit from such a find. I'm not a fan of monopolizing on celeb stuff... especially after they've passed...

 

[m0nk]

And 20 years ago you couldn't give away most '60s-vintage stuff -- clothes, furniture, etc. Now that MCM stuff is hot. Some call it the "Mad Men" effect, and I don't dispute there's something to that. But it does coincide with a large slice of the population getting to an age when people tend to get misty-eyed over their increasingly distant early years.

I absolutely agree here. Very well said.

 

[tonyb]

Personally, I think this is cool if it truly is Newman's Own Suit... but only for the guy who likes it and wants to wear it. Otherwise, if no one likes the suit itself, IMO, it's bad form to take profit from such a find. I'm not a fan of monopolizing on celeb stuff... especially after they've passed...

Which points to a problem with just about any sort of thing that becomes valuable for reasons apart from its "inherent" value (which is itself a matter of some conjecture). Should I ever stumble upon a suit that once belonged to a celebrity, especially one as famous and revered as Paul Newman, and if that suit actually fit me, I doubt I would wear it out of the house, if even then. It's akin to how I would feel about owning a boat-tailed Auburn, say, or some six-figure vintage Ferrari. (A guy can dream, can't he?) I'd fear that using such a thing as a car, a means of transport -- you know, actually taking it to the supermarket and the bank and such, would be risking serious damage to its value. So, for practical purposes, it ain't a car no more.

And I'm in agreement as to the capitalizing on celebrity stuff. Still, if a person is broke and really needs the scratch to pay the water bill and he happens to have a suit that may well have once belonged to a now-deceased movie star and he can get a few hundred bucks for it, well, I'd say that's a good time to sell that suit.

 

[filfoster]

Where is the contrary evidence? All I'm hearing is Hotchner saying that he didn't like to wear suits and his daughter wondering how his clothes could have ended up in that basement.. Newman being a customer of the tailor certainly trumps that. It may have been made for him to wear in a movie or play.

Agree. And the date would support a time when he could have/would have bought a suit like that. Like most tangilbles that don't have a COA or photo of the celebrity handing the item over, or DNA sample on it, (don't go there), these things can always be disputed.

tonyb's last post also states a view some of us share...it's too good to risk wearing, or driving, to use the automotive examples. Neurotic? Who cares?

 

[Chowderhouse]

Paul Newman (or his wife or children, after his death) probably gave away the suit to a charity thrift store. Sometimes, celebrities take out the owner label or blackout the name with a black marker before giving clothes away. Sometimes they don't.


It's just as possible that someone bought the suit at a thrift store and didn't end up using it. In fact, the person who bought it might not have even seen the label with Newman's name on it. Most 'amateur' thrift shoppers don't bother looking in the inside breast pocket of a jacket, unless they think there could be some forgotten cash inside.

 

[Cobden]

I may be off base with this, but I thought "Esquire" in the US meant one was a lawyer, whereas in the UK it just means "Mr". Not seen "Esq" on the name label of a US suit before, but I've seen it on every British suits I've come across (barring instances where the owner had another title)

Now...it could just be the tailor being British and following British tradition regarding , or he had it tailored in the UK. Or it could just belong to a bloke called Paul Newman who is either British, or an American lawyer...

 

[filfoster]

I may be off base with this, but I thought "Esquire" in the US meant one was a lawyer, whereas in the UK it just means "Mr". Not seen "Esq" on the name label of a US suit before, but I've seen it on every British suits I've come across (barring instances where the owner had another title)

Now...it could just be the tailor being British and following British tradition regarding , or he had it tailored in the UK. Or it could just belong to a bloke called Paul Newman who is either British, or an American lawyer...

Yes, this is the American convention. I am a lawyer with no pretension to 'esquire' but that is the general use here. It is sometimes used as an obsequious honorific.
The mystery sustains. It would be interesting to know if the suit's dimensions corresponded to the late Mr. Newman's.