When is a Suit’s Silhouette “Too Much”?

[lasbar]

Originally Posted by George

Firstly, I think they'd 'relax' the cut somewhat for an American customer.

Secondly, Huntsman/Anderson's American clients represent a very small proportion of suit wearing American men.

The second point is absolutely spot on..
Huntsman's customers can not be referred as the Average American suit wearer.

I do agree with your analysis of middle classes being obsessed by their look ,clothes and the car they're driving...
That is the reason why they spend so much energy being sartorially perfect instead of being just themselves.
They're craving for social reconition when the upper classes are just themselves and not giving a crap about what other people think of them..

 

[NaturalShoulder]

Only but a few ensembles here approach the degree of shape that Poole has.


- B[/quote]

I think that this degree of shape certainly is jarring enough to make others notice but I think it draws immediate focus to the wearer's midsection which is probably not a good thing in most cases.

 

[George]

[guote=NaturalShoulder;3108522]

I think that this degree of shape certainly is jarring enough to make others notice but I think it draws immediate focus to the wearer's midsection which is probably not a good thing in most cases.[/quote]

It's interesting that you use the word jarring. Are you American?

Remember: The tailor will always adjust the silhouette to suit the client, the thing is to achieve a balanced, flattering look. sometimes the tailor has to 'suggest' with regards to cut.

 

[hymo]

Is this jarring? My tailor has never made anything this waisted before.

 

[Manton]

There definitely is an American strain of opinion which holds "too much" shape on a men's suit to be "effeminate." I have seen it in my own family. Also, I recall that many of the AAAC trads used to say this. Perhaps they still do.

 

[George]

Originally Posted by hymo

Is this jarring? My tailor has never made anything this waisted before.

For me, shape wise, it's fine. More importantly, how do you feel about it?

 

[hymo]

It attracts a lot of attention. I'm the guy who wears "that" suit.

 

[AndrewRogers]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

I don't know what portion of Savile Row's output goes on the back of Americans, but it's not trivial, is it? So, it depends on the circle.- B

It's huge.

 

[George]

Originally Posted by AndrewRogers

It's huge.
As a total percentage of Savile Row, I would say it's the largest percentage, probably by far. However, as a percentage of suit wearing American men, it's a piddling amount, which in the context of this thread, is the important point.

 

[George]

Originally Posted by hymo

It attracts a lot of attention. I'm the guy who wears "that" suit.
Right, interesting. Back here, in England, nobody would bat an eyelid at it. What nationality is the tailor if you don't mind me asking

 

[BBC]

Originally Posted by hymo

Is this jarring? My tailor has never made anything this waisted before.

The waist is less jarring that the fact that you buttoned the bottom button, which is accentuated by the camera angle.

Originally Posted by Manton

There definitely is an American strain of opinion which holds "too much" shape on a men's suit to be "effeminate." I have seen it in my own family. Also, I recall that many of the AAAC trads used to say this. Perhaps they still do.

While I certainly can't speak for all trads, I don't think trads find "too much" shape to be a particularly feminine trait anymore, but that it places visual focus on the wrong part of the body and suggests a higher level of "formality" (i.e. stiffness) than a rumpled, old tweed sack. The visual implication of the strongly nipped waist is fairly broad shoulders, but the eye is drawn to the waist (in images more than real life) thereby detracting from attention on the shoulders/chest. One can achieve the natural shoulder, strongly nipped waist look (here's me below in a Hilton 3/2 sack), but it sends an entirely different vibe than a nipped waist with relatively stronger shoulders. The pic below drew rather mixed reviews on the Trad Forum, but the turnover in membership (it's a rather younger group if WAYW pics are any indication) means that younger "trads" are more accepting of individual interpretations of the TNSIL "look."

Please excuse the overly long sleeves as this was a test run.

 

[J. Cogburn]

The classic British silhouette has shape and lots of it. The A&S look, that is the drape, is not the classic English look.

Of course. I'm not saying one shouldn't wear suits with shape. Otherwise, I'd post a pic of a J. Press suit and say - Here! I'm saying that one ought to be leery of too much shape.

The thing about being understated as a statement of taste is a middle class obsession not a upper class one. The British upperclass/aristocracy simply wouldn't give a **** and dress how they pleased.

Maybe you don't get around to the states much. Because if you did, you'd note that this is exactly how 99% of Americans dress. They dress how they please and don't give a damn. T-shirts, track suits, flip-flops, jeans, Nike tennis shoes, baseball hats ... every man a Duke!

In Britain, it's your accent and the use of certain words that would announce your class not your togs.

And nowhere else?

I think this concern with a shapely silhouette being feminine is an American thing.

Could be. The English upper-class has a pretty weird homoerotic socio-cultural thing going on that I don't pretend to understand.

 

[J. Cogburn]

Is this jarring? My tailor has never made anything this waisted before.

To my eyes, no.

 

[Millerp]

Originally Posted by J. Cogburn

If you're going to spend $4k+ on a suit, you don't want it to simply be a well-fitting version of the Brooks Brothers model currently hanging in your closet
Just speaking for myself. this is exactly the style I want. Well fitting and well made.

 

[Eccentric]

I think a silhouette is only too much when you are no longer comfortable wearing it. It's all relative to the wearer.