The Palm Beach suit thread

[jimiez]

Lazy

Ok, not use to typing, just being lazy. Will improve. Thanks Jimiez

 

[Feraud]

Bump!
How'd this go cookie? Did you ever get a suit made up from the material?

 

[cookie]

Noy yet. It looks like BKK will be the tailors. It is has just dropped a little in the priority and finance table.

 

[BinkieBaumont]

"Mr Cookie, I love this, but I think that such extreme styling could only be carried off by someone very tall and very thin ( But hate the colour)"

"This is perfect, tastefully smart, unpretentious , Palm Beach says it all really"

"Just had another look at this and I'm thinking Miss Grace Jones, please tell me its the manaquin?"

 

[Dinerman]

Took a $5 gamble on this one. We'll see.

 

[thunderw21]

Took a $5 gamble on this one. We'll see.

I think you'll be happy with that one. It looks good to me. Hopefully condition is good as well.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Took a $5 gamble on this one. We'll see.

You paid too much. NOT!


Did you get the jacket alone, or the full suit?


.

 

[Dinerman]

Unfortunately just the jacket.

 

[Feraud]

Looks like a fine gamble for 5 bucks. I hope it is a solid piece. Keep us updated.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Detective on the Case.

Here's something you guys might find interesting. This is how i know when the Palm Beach goods you see are post 1955 or not. Goodall stopped production in 1955 and the rights to the name were sold. So labels that don't say Goodall-Sanford or something to that effect, along with "Palm Beach" are post-'55.

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:2h_3p2puH_AJ:business.mainetoday.com/news/061229mills.html+goodall-sanford&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

RISE AND FALL OF SANFORD MILLS
1867: The Sanford Mills are started when Thomas Goodall arrives in Sanford and starts construction on the Sanford Mills. The mills initially produce textiles including blankets and carriage robes.

1889: Goodall Worsted is organized to manufacture woolen textiles.

1944: The Sanford Mills and Goodall Worsted merge to become Goodall-Sanford Inc. The mills produce menswear fabrics under the Palm Beach label.

1955: The Goodall-Sanford Mills close, leaving 5,000 workers unemployed. But as we know the Palm Beach brand continued into the 1970s if not the 1980s [bk]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For your edification, here're the meaty bits of the supreme court argument: Goodall-Sanford, Inc. vs Textile Workers, arising from the proposed liquidation of the textile plants and the laying off of workers. This was in 1957, when the Supreme Court took a look at some aspects of the company winding up. Enjoy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://supreme.justia.com/us/353/550/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court
Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. Textile Workers, 353 U.S. 550 (1957)

Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers

of America, AFL, Local 1802

No. 262

Argued March 25-26, 1957

Decided June 3, 1957

353 U.S. 550

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. In a suit by a union under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, a Federal District Court has authority to compel compliance by an employer with an agreement to arbitrate disputes arising under a collective bargaining agreement with the union. Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, ante, p. 353 U. S. 448. Pp. 353 U. S. 550-552.

2. A decree under § 301(a) ordering enforcement of an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and is appealable. Pp. 353 U. S. 551-552.

233 F.2d 104 affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case, a companion case to No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 353 U. S. 448, was brought by respondent union in the District Court to compel specific performance

Page 353 U. S. 551

of a grievance arbitration provision of a collective bargaining agreement between it and petitioner. The controversy arose over the layoff of employees incident to a curtailment of production and a liquidation of the plants in question. Petitioner terminated the employment of the men who were laid off. The respondent protested the termination of employment, claiming that the men should not have been discharged, thus preserving certain accrued rights to fringe benefits (such as insurance, pensions, and vacations) payable to laid-off employees.

The District Court granted specific performance. 131 F.Supp. 767. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 233 F.2d 104, relying on its prior decision in General Electric Co. v. United Electrical Workers, 353 U. S. 547. For the reasons given in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 353 U. S. 448, we think the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the District Court's judgment ordering enforcement of the agreement to arbitrate.

There remains the question whether an order directing arbitration is appealable. This case is not comparable to Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, which held that a stay pending arbitration was not a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nor need we consider cases like In re Pahlberg Petition, 131 F.2d 968, and Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg Line, 294 U. S. 454, holding that an order directing arbitration under the United States Arbitration Act is not appealable. The right enforced here is one arising under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Arbitration is not merely a step in judicial enforcement of a claim, nor auxiliary to a main proceeding, but the full relief sought. A decree under §301(a) ordering enforcement of an

Page 353 U. S. 552

arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is therefore a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN joins, concurs in the result in this case for the reasons set forth in his concurrence in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 353 U. S. 459.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, see ante, p. 353 U. S. 460.]

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Detective on the Case: Just the facts, Ma'am: Illustrative.

So, take a look at your Palm Beach suit labels. For details of dates used, see the first part of the post above. No need to guess at dates on suits, ties, bowties any more. We have specific dates to guide us! Earlier than '44 is still in the realm of using features to guide a date unfortunately. In my experience they tend not to have union labels for some reason :rage: . The labels on specific items may vary in design but the name of the company should be invariant within a date range.

Goodall Worsted, with no mention of Sanford: Pre-'44. It'll look like this but will probably be orange on white.

Goodall-Sanford: '44-'55. (So Feraud, your bowtie is from this era.)

No mention of Goodall or Sanford: post-'55. This particular one from a middle-late 50s slubby rayon/synthetic mix jacket.

There are other labels obviously on the dreadful later and very common Palm Beach brand gear, but i shan't bother with those, i think.

bk

 

[skyvue]

So, take a look at your Palm Beach suit labels. For details of dates used, see the first part of the post above. No need to guess at dates on suits, ties, bowties any more. We have specific dates to guide us! Earlier than '44 is still in the realm of using features to guide a date unfortunately. In my experience they tend not to have union labels for some reason :rage: . The labels on specific items may vary in design but the name of the company should be invariant within a date range.

Goodall Worsted, with no mention of Sanford: Pre-'44. It'll look like this but will probably be orange on white.

Goodall-Sanford: '44-'55. (So Feraud, your bowtie is from this era.)

Looks like the necktie I picked up recently is later than I thought, then. Must be '44-'55:

 

[Baron Kurtz]

It would seem so, assuming my sources are accurate.

It is plausible that a tie made long before had a new label put on it - "I found a tie at the back of the workshop, must've been made in the mid 30s, let's try to sell it anyways, where're those labels they just sent me?" Plausible, but not likely, i would think.

bk

 

[Feraud]

Thanks for the info BK. I've pm'd you a picture of the fabric content of my Palm Beach bowtie if you want to include it in your visual guide above.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

If the original owners of the images don't mind i'm going to upload them to my image hosting to make sure they don't disappear. This will be a useful resource, i think for dating any PB gear people find.

bk

 

[Feraud]

^^ Of course.

 

[skyvue]

Fine by me. Here's another label from my NOS tie that might perhaps be useful:

 

[reetpleat]

Unfortunately just the jacket.

The beauty of palm beach suits is that for the most part, they are matchable. So you can match this up with any pants you already own , or any you find, or a suit with damaged jacket.

 

[reetpleat]

Here's something you guys might find interesting. This is how i know when the Palm Beach goods you see are post 1955 or not. Goodall stopped production in 1955 and the rights to the name were sold. So labels that don't say Goodall-Sanford or something to that effect, along with "Palm Beach" are post-'55.

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:2h_3p2puH_AJ:business.mainetoday.com/news/061229mills.html+goodall-sanford&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

RISE AND FALL OF SANFORD MILLS
1867: The Sanford Mills are started when Thomas Goodall arrives in Sanford and starts construction on the Sanford Mills. The mills initially produce textiles including blankets and carriage robes.

1889: Goodall Worsted is organized to manufacture woolen textiles.

1944: The Sanford Mills and Goodall Worsted merge to become Goodall-Sanford Inc. The mills produce menswear fabrics under the Palm Beach label.

1955: The Goodall-Sanford Mills close, leaving 5,000 workers unemployed. But as we know the Palm Beach brand continued into the 1970s if not the 1980s [bk]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For your edification, here're the meaty bits of the supreme court argument: Goodall-Sanford, Inc. vs Textile Workers, arising from the proposed liquidation of the textile plants and the laying off of workers. This was in 1957, when the Supreme Court took a look at some aspects of the company winding up. Enjoy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://supreme.justia.com/us/353/550/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court
Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. Textile Workers, 353 U.S. 550 (1957)

Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers

of America, AFL, Local 1802

No. 262

Argued March 25-26, 1957

Decided June 3, 1957

353 U.S. 550

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Syllabus

1. In a suit by a union under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, a Federal District Court has authority to compel compliance by an employer with an agreement to arbitrate disputes arising under a collective bargaining agreement with the union. Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, ante, p. 353 U. S. 448. Pp. 353 U. S. 550-552.

2. A decree under § 301(a) ordering enforcement of an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and is appealable. Pp. 353 U. S. 551-552.

233 F.2d 104 affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case, a companion case to No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 353 U. S. 448, was brought by respondent union in the District Court to compel specific performance

Page 353 U. S. 551

of a grievance arbitration provision of a collective bargaining agreement between it and petitioner. The controversy arose over the layoff of employees incident to a curtailment of production and a liquidation of the plants in question. Petitioner terminated the employment of the men who were laid off. The respondent protested the termination of employment, claiming that the men should not have been discharged, thus preserving certain accrued rights to fringe benefits (such as insurance, pensions, and vacations) payable to laid-off employees.

The District Court granted specific performance. 131 F.Supp. 767. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 233 F.2d 104, relying on its prior decision in General Electric Co. v. United Electrical Workers, 353 U. S. 547. For the reasons given in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 353 U. S. 448, we think the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the District Court's judgment ordering enforcement of the agreement to arbitrate.

There remains the question whether an order directing arbitration is appealable. This case is not comparable to Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, which held that a stay pending arbitration was not a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nor need we consider cases like In re Pahlberg Petition, 131 F.2d 968, and Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg Line, 294 U. S. 454, holding that an order directing arbitration under the United States Arbitration Act is not appealable. The right enforced here is one arising under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Arbitration is not merely a step in judicial enforcement of a claim, nor auxiliary to a main proceeding, but the full relief sought. A decree under §301(a) ordering enforcement of an

Page 353 U. S. 552

arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is therefore a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BURTON, whom MR. JUSTICE HARLAN joins, concurs in the result in this case for the reasons set forth in his concurrence in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 353 U. S. 459.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, see ante, p. 353 U. S. 460.]

What do you know? A palm beach suit.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.




Yes, a suit suit.


.