Let's compare the tailoring in two film scenes. Here is Fred Astaire dancing in Broadway Melody of 1940. Pay attention to how his clothing moves with him. 🧵
Here's the opening scene of Spectre. Daniel Craig is basically just walking in this scene.
Despite his more extreme movements (dancing vs walking), Astaire's tailoring moves with his body, rather than fighting against him. You can see this first with how Craig's jacket lifts off his neck when he raises his arm (collar gap). No lifting on Astaire.
Before someone suggests that Astaire's jacket collar may be pinned down, you can see it's not when he flies into the air. The jacket collar shifts up and down, but still stays glued to his neck throughout the scene. This is the result of high armholes and good tailoring.
Astaire's lapels always lay flat on his chest. Craig's lapels buckle away from his chest because his jacket is too small for him.
More of a stylistic matter, but Craig's shirt showing beneath his jacket's buttoning point ruins the visual fluidity of the suit, breaking things into distinct pieces. Astaire's high-rise pants and longer jacket achieve continuity.
Craig's jacket is too tight across the upper back. His sleeves are also too tight for his arms. As a result, the sleeveheads often have a divot. Astaire's sleeves don't have divots. They fall cleanly.
You can see the tightness towards the end of the scene. The side seams are straining on him. Whoever worked on this film tailored this suit within an inch of its life. The armholes are also quite low.
Since the suit is so shrunken, the scene opens with a collar gap and ends with a collar gap. The suit fights against Craig's body the whole time.
IMO, a lot of tailoring in films looks bad because:
1) Brand placement deals force actors into ready-made designer suits, rather than quality bespoke suits made for their body.
2) The trend towards shrunken silhouettes in the last 20 years. Does not work for everyone.
3) Questionable costume direction. A bespoke tailor told me that he made suits for a famous actor with a muscular build, but was told to keep taking in the seams because the costume dept wanted to show off the person's muscular figure. The result is bad from tailoring POV.
I would slim up Astaire's trousers just a tad in the original clip, but the quality of the tailoring is much better. Suit should allow for movement. At the very least, it should fall cleanly. This can be done even on muscular builds.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some people are incredulous that you can wear certain shoes without socks, such as leather loafers. Much depends on your body and climate. But I'll tell you one reason why you find this difficult to believe: you buy low quality footwear. 🧵
It's absolutely possible to wear certain shoes without socks. As mentioned in an earlier thread, men have been doing this for over a hundred years. Going sockless makes sense if the outfit is semi-casual (not business clothes).
In fact, if you wear socks with certain footwear styles, such as espadrilles, you will look like you don't know what you're doing.
Tim is right and wrong here. I'll tell you where he's right and where he's wrong. 🧵
It's perfectly fine to wear slip-on shoes without socks. Those who suggest otherwise are simply ignorant and unaware about the history of men's dress.
You don't have to take my word for it. We can go back to Apparel Arts.
Apparel Arts was an early 20th century trade publication that taught men how to dress well. It was sent to clothiers and tailors so they could smartly advise their clients, but it later became a public-facing publication under the title "Esquire."
I get this sort of comment all the time, often about bespoke suits or mechanical watches. "These things are boring," "This is only for rich people," or "Who cares?"
Let me tell you a story. 🧵
Before the age of ready-to-wear, men had clothes made for them, either in the home or, if they could afford one, by a tailor. Ready-made clothing was limited to simple workwear, such as what was worn by sailors or miners.
Tailoring shop, 1780:
In this older method, a tailor would measure you, sometimes using a string (before the invention of tailor's tape). Then they'd use those measurements to draft a pattern, cut the cloth, and produce a garment. This process is called bespoke.
As I've stated many times, suit jackets and sport coats are made from many layers of material, including haircloth, canvas, and padding. These layers give the garment its structure so it doesn't fall on you like a t-shirt or dress shirt.
For the chest and lapels, these layers can be attached to each other using a single-needle roll-padding machine, such as you see here. This is what you'll typically see on factory-made suits (this is a Strobel KA-ED machine). Happens both on the low- and high-end.
I found this reply interesting ("Can those foreign companies open shop in the US?")
I don't think Japanese or South Korean menswear can be made in the US. At least, not without losing something. Let's explore why. 🧵
I should state at the outset that no thread will do Japanese or South Korean fashion justice because these countries are fashion powerhouses. Japan alone covers everything from Yohji Yamamoto to And Wander to WTAPS.
It's Impossible to generalize, but we can discuss aspects.
Let's set the stage: Trump announced that he wants to tax Japanese and South Korean goods 25% starting August 1st. That means if you're a menswear shop in the US importing $1,000 worth of clothes made in Japan or South Korea, you owe the US government $250.
Ahead of the NATO summit last month, President Zelenskyy arrived at the Paleis Huis ten Bosch wearing this outfit: a black jacket with matching black pants and a black shirt. Many debated whether this qualifies as a suit, as there's a $50M bet on it at Polymarket.
To understand the suit, we must place it in history.
During the Regency period (early 1800s), British men in high positions wore a long fitted garment known as the frock coat, which had a waist seam and full skirt. These garments were often quite colorful and expressive!