Suit critique please?

[Rob]

The jacket sleeves are way too short, but the leg length is right.

The material its made from seems to crush very easily and, being a light suit, it's always going to look beaten-up for that reason.

I'm not too fond of the colour, personally.

 

[Jerekson]

To be prefectly honest, I don't like it.

Something about it just doesn't seem particularly flattering.

 

[The Wingnut]

Is the cotton twill pre-shrunk? The suit would be meant to be machine washed if the material was pre-shrunk, which would make an ideal traveler's suit. I get the impression that it's meant to be just that.

...and cotton twill, being the animal that it is, wears far better(both for the wearer and the viewer) after it's been washed a few times and beat around a bit, broken in, in other words. It softens up and doesn't 'crinkle' at the seams and creases as we're seeing.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Jacket.

Hi Rooster,

Agreed the belt is probably a touch high.

The fabric looks shiny. Is that just the bright sunlioght, or is there a sheen to the cotton?

Re: arms look like a good length. The apparent length discrepency is due to dropped left shoulder. The arms are most likely exactly the same length, but with the postural asymmetry, the left one looks longer. (I have a dropped right shoulder and get the same effect.)

I like the pockets. Without seeing them up close, you understand, they appear to be pretty "period-correct" as they say. The breast patch pocket could do with some angle, but that's just a quibble.

bk

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Trousers.

The belt of the trousers is frankly absurd. There is no way in heaven or hell that that thing could be functional. It really does look like an afterthought.

Belt loops, and a rear cincher belt? Can anyone say redundant?

The pleats. Why do they start so far down from the waistband? I can tell you. It's because to create a high waist without having to make a new pattern, the tailors have just added a huge amount of fabric above the normal height of the waistband on the trousers they cut. Note how the back belt and the pleats are at the same relative position.

All in all, a very lazy pair of trousers.

bk

 

[Micawber]

Personal opinions: Not my cup of tea but I think it needs breaking in to soften it up. To me the jacket does give the appearance of being a little short in the skirt but it looks like it's just about covering your backside. Sleeve length just, but only just about ok.

Trousers: I agree with BK. I am not terribly impressed with the presentation of the waist area. Leg length is a tad long at the front for my taste.

 

[thunderw21]

I don't thinik the sleeve length is too bad. I'm not a big fan of the fabric but since I can't see and feel it for myself then I can't completely say.

The trousers seem different, maybe they don't come up high enough on you. And like others have said the adjustment belt on the back of the trousers don't seem high enough either. They do, however, look like the right length for you.

 

[Rooster]

I'm pleased with the sleeve length. They measure out to be the same as the vintage suit I used the measurements from. In fact the only thing that bothers me with the jacket is the fact that the action back won't return closed after I move. I may iron it a bit to see if I can give the fabric in that area more memory.The fabric could use some "living in" to break it down a bit, it is a bit shiney at the moment, but hat should disappear with use. I wore just the jacket out to diner the other night and found it to be real comfortable.
The trousers on the other hand are another thing all together. Putting that much pressure on the ol' twig and berries just isn't fun, and even then the waist still isn't near high enough.

 

[Alan Eardley]

The belt of the trousers is frankly absurd. There is no way in heaven or hell that that thing could be functional. It really does look like an afterthought.

Belt loops, and a rear cincher belt? Can anyone say redundant?

The pleats. Why do they start so far down from the waistband? I can tell you. It's because to create a high waist without having to make a new pattern, the tailors have just added a huge amount of fabric above the normal height of the waistband on the trousers they cut. Note how the back belt and the pleats are at the same relative position.

All in all, a very lazy pair of trousers.

bk

The waistband, pleats, wide belt loops and the way the cinch starts from the side seams reminds me of some British post-war military trousers, like the tropical KDs, which have buttoned adjustment tabs about 6 inches long to tighten the seat area. It looks as if whoever designed Rooster's trousers has extended this type of adjuster to meet at the rear like a cinch. It may be a coincidence, but there is a distinct similarity.

Alan

 

[Forgotten Man]

Well… it’s my turn… I’ll be kind.

1. Fabric: Not sure what I is, is it Khaki? It makes this suit to me appear very unnatural, it doesn’t drape or hang as it should… or as vintage pieces do. It seems as if it could stand on it’s own… no hanger required.
2. Pants. That back buckle is out of control… it should look more like this... this pair of Wahmaker's illustrates well.

3. Coat: The coat isn’t too bad, other then that the bi-swing doesn’t seem to lay correctly. The belt doesn’t give the coat form as it should. There is no taper in the waist.

I think the main thing is the fabric that throws me off… it just doesn’t drape.

Sorry, no offence, just tossin' me two bits in,

FM~

 

[Micawber]

Well… it’s my turn… I’ll be kind.

1. Fabric: Not sure what I is, is it Khaki? It makes this suit to me appear very unnatural, it doesn’t drape or hang as it should… or as vintage pieces do. It seems as if it could stand on it’s own… no hanger required. <snip>

As I say it looks like it needs breaking in - meaning that wear and use *should* soften it up.

 

[Rooster]

As I say it looks like it needs breaking in - meaning that wear and use *should* soften it up.

Yep, I think that's the ticket. This is supposed to be a casual country suit built for rough and tumble. I'll thrash around in it for a while and post some more pictures when it takes on "the look".
As far as no taper at the waist, that's probably more about my size. I don't taper at the waist, in fact these days my waist is my largest measurement.lol gone are the days of a 42" chest and a 32" waist........
Those Wahmaker's pants are kind of what I had envisioned.

 

[Forgotten Man]

Those Wahmaker's pants are kind of what I had envisioned.

Next time you have a pair of buckle back pants made, have them copy the Wahmakers buckle back style. Seriously, the buckle back shouldn't go from seam to seam... it looked rather odd. No offence of course

FM~