The Official Tweed Appreciation Thread

[Willin]

Is there any reason why someone would avoid a tweed-like fabric with the following description/blend? 14oz is a medium-light weight for tweed, correct? That would be ideal for me as I "run hot."

14oz Merino Blend
This luxurious range of tweed fabrics is ideal for skirts, suits, bags and scarves. Available in a range of smoky colours. Made from 80% Merino Wool and 20% Silk. Made in Scotland.

 

[Cantabrigian]



Is there any reason why someone would avoid a tweed-like fabric with the following description/blend? 14oz is a medium-light weight for tweed, correct? That would be ideal for me as I "run hot."

14oz Merino Blend
This luxurious range of tweed fabrics is ideal for skirts, suits, bags and scarves. Available in a range of smoky colours. Made from 80% Merino Wool and 20% Silk. Made in Scotland.

It will likely have a little sheen to it. Also I'd wager it will be more like a worsted made to look like a tweed ala some of the Porter & Harding offerings. NTTAWWT,

 

[Isbister]

Is there any reason why someone would avoid a tweed-like fabric with the following description/blend? 14oz is a medium-light weight for tweed, correct? That would be ideal for me as I "run hot."

14oz Merino Blend
This luxurious range of tweed fabrics is ideal for skirts, suits, bags and scarves. Available in a range of smoky colours. Made from 80% Merino Wool and 20% Silk. Made in Scotland.

As a general principle, it is inadvisable to intermix different fibres. It may be 'made in Scotland' but it sounds Chinese. I would recommend any of the lightweight 100% wool tweeds rather than this mongrel fabric.

 

[JermynStreet]



As a general principle, it is inadvisable to intermix different fibres. It may be 'made in Scotland' but it sounds Chinese. I would recommend any of the lightweight 100% wool tweeds rather than this mongrel fabric.

No offense intended, but what qualifies you to make this assessment? Plenty of Saville row tailors use blended fabrics for suits. Is silk/cashmere a "mongrel" fabric? Silk/vicuña? Alpaca/vicuña?

You have explained that you think blended wools are bad, but you do not say why. If this indeed true, I am interested to know why.

 

[Isbister]

No offense intended, but what qualifies you to make this assessment? Plenty of Saville row tailors use blended fabrics for suits. Is silk/cashmere a "mongrel" fabric? Silk/vicuña? Alpaca/vicuña?

You have explained that you think blended wools are bad, but you do not say why. If this indeed true, I am interested to know why.

Chemical and sub-atomic analysis reveals that different fibres necessarily have antipathetic qualities - it is all a matter of like with like. You cannot blame the Savile Row tailors for wishing to experiment, but wiser counsel would inform them otherwise.

You mention two mongrel mixtures, but the alpaca and vicuna, however, are very nearly the same creature and their fibres therefore are quite compatible.

 

[JermynStreet]

Chemical and sub-atomic analysis reveals that different fibres necessarily have antipathetic qualities - it is all a matter of like with like. You cannot blame the Savile Row tailors for wishing to experiment, but wiser counsel would inform them otherwise.

You mention two mongrel mixtures, but the alpaca and vicuna, however, are very nearly the same creature and their fibres therefore are quite compatible.

Is this your sub atomic analysis? And, again, I mean no offense but are you simply just repeating what you've heard on the internet or have you performed these analyses? Do you have clothing made of these materials that has eroded faster? If you have some sort of technical background in chemistry or fabric making, I am inclined to give what you say more credit, however, conclusory statements like yours do not and should not carry any weight unless you can cite to a scientific source. On SF I often lurk on the shoe care threads, and you would not believe the type of statements made on there all from members who "heard" this or "read" that. Believe it or not, people used to "hear" that the world was the center of the universe and that the sun and stars revolved around us. Furthermore, if you are only repeating what you have heard...you really are only propagating information that you have no background or reason to support or reject.

Last, I find it hard to believe that chemical and sub-atomic analysis revealed that wool has "antipathetic qualities" (the vagueness of the statement itself makes your claim sound suspect) with other materials considering how many high end tailors carry such blends.

Again, I openly admit that I do not know about wool's chemical properties and would be happy to believe your statement if you prove yourself correct, however, until you have shown or proven otherwise why this is untrue, you should definitely not be giving advice to other forum members based on what you've read elsewhere.

 

[Cantabrigian]

I like it when stuff gets real.

 

[Willin]

Thanks for the fabric advice.

How often are tweed sport coats made with side (double) vents? It seems that they are much more commonly single-vented. It's not a style I prefer but due to the difficulty in finding a suitable coat I could settle with a single vent if this is indeed the trend.

 

[DocHolliday]

Very commonly.

 

[JermynStreet]



Very commonly.

Shoot out in the SF Corral, Doc?

 

[Willin]



Very commonly.

Very commonly single vented or side vented?

 

[Isbister]

Yes, I am referring to research that was carried out years ago concerning the complementarity of various fibres.

In essence, at a subatomic level, all fibres have their own electronic field. Similar fibres can be woven together without disturbing this field, whereas fabrics which blend unlike fibres having differing electronic fields disturb this pattern. This will manifest itself in the form of excessive wear, misalignment of fibres, and even a sensation of discomfort in the wearer of such fabrics.

It is not research that I personally was involved in, but I am prepared to accept the findings at face value as they happen to coincide with my own preconceptions - just as I am prepared to accept, without having personally investigated the matter, that the Earth is round and not flat. I do not wish to prevent others from experimenting with whatever mixtures of fibres they deem advisable, although my own advice would be to avoid combinations of natural fibres and synthetic substances, such as cotton and polyester.

I am unclear why you think I should not be giving advice to forum members - almost every other posting here seems to be giving advice on this or that, often with far less justification than I have just provided here. Finding my statements 'vague' or 'suspect' may not be a bad starting point, but by all means do your own investigations into the subject too and then you too may be able to contribute something to the discussion.

 

[sugarbutch]



In essence, at a subatomic level, all fibres have their own electronic field. Similar fibres can be woven together without disturbing this field, whereas fabrics which blend unlike fibres having differing electronic fields disturb this pattern. This will manifest itself in the form of excessive wear, misalignment of fibres, and even a sensation of discomfort in the wearer of such fabrics.

Is this like directional audio cables or green Sharpies and CDs?

 

[JermynStreet]

Yes, I am referring to research that was carried out years ago concerning the complementarity of various fibres.

In essence, at a subatomic level, all fibres have their own electronic field. Similar fibres can be woven together without disturbing this field, whereas fabrics which blend unlike fibres having differing electronic fields disturb this pattern. This will manifest itself in the form of excessive wear, misalignment of fibres, and even a sensation of discomfort in the wearer of such fabrics.

It is not research that I personally was involved in, but I am prepared to accept the findings at face value as they happen to coincide with my own preconceptions - just as I am prepared to accept, without having personally investigated the matter, that the Earth is round and not flat. I do not wish to prevent others from experimenting with whatever mixtures of fibres they deem advisable, although my own advice would be to avoid combinations of natural fibres and synthetic substances, such as cotton and polyester.

I am unclear why you think I should not be giving advice to forum members - almost every other posting here seems to be giving advice on this or that, often with far less justification than I have just provided here. Finding my statements 'vague' or 'suspect' may not be a bad starting point, but by all means do your own investigations into the subject too and then you too may be able to contribute something to the discussion.

You are referring to research that you have seen not that you have directly contributed to. In other words, you have no qualifications to come to the conclusions you proffered. Now, if you had said that you read in X book that Y research was true, your conclusion might be somewhat justified.

Listen, I told you that is not personal, but I think giving advice on the basis of hearsay actually takes away from the conversation. If we are having a conversation about molecular biology, and someone comes in to the conversation and says "You know, I read that all anaerobic cells do not use the Krebs Cycle to generate energy," a little research would uncover that statement to be absolutely false. We could also agree that that statement would take away from the general scientific discourse, first, because it is false, second, because people have to correct the false statement, and third, and worst of all, people who are listening to you and taking your advice as fact now have false information. Likewise, because you have neither sufficiently explained the science behind what makes a "mongrel" fiber nor offered your own experience indicating that such fabric is indeed inferior, you literally have no basis on which to make that conclusion.

You say I take away from the conversation; let me ask you which is worse, making a definitive proclamation without basis to an impressionable group of people seeking answers, or questioning whether someone is indeed qualified to make a definitive statement on a topic.

The reason why I pointed this out is because this is often what happens on StyleForum. Incredible theories get started about different sartorial subjects and people offer their opinions on them-only they are not their opinions, the speakers are merely acting as proxies on behalf of original speakers. Just like we do not and should not allow hearsay in the court system, people should have either direct or expert knowledge before making a claim...especially when that claim is in response to a question asked, as is the case here.

Lastly, your explanation is patently ridiculous. Your argument reads, in essence, 1.) all fibers have electronic fields at the atomic level, 2.) similar fabrics have similar electronic fields 3.) the components fibers of blended fabrics have have different electronic fields, 4.) blended fabrics' fields will disturb this pattern (pattern?! what pattern?!

), 5.) conclusion, therefore blended fabrics degrade faster.

If we are speaking chemistry here, you have neglected to explain about 50 necessary steps in the whole chemical reaction that could lead to this result and any high school debater would tear this logical sequence to bits. Contributions like this are a disservice to members on here who are genuinely seeking scientific or personal anecdotal answers. I would have had no problem if you had said, "I had a blended fabric coat, and it fell apart after 15 wears," but that's not what you said. You made a proclamation on the basis of reading something else...the science of which you have failed to prove that you can adequately explain and also cannot seem to cite.

This applies to you, me, and anyone else on here, that unless you have direct or expert knowledge about a subject, you should not offer your advice.

 

[JermynStreet]

Also, this all started because I was genuinely interested in learning more about your statement. As I said, this was and is nothing personal