Amazing to me how much better tailoring was back in the day. Just watch this scene and pay attention to your general impression of the clothes. Then, I'll point out some things in the thread below. 🧵
One of the things that sticks out to me is the degree of care taken to align the stripe across the panels. This is not always possible across the collar, shoulder seam, and gorge because the panels are different lengths. But care was clearly taken here to minimize the mismatch.
You still see this in the best bespoke. In pic one (a suit by Steed in the UK), the chalk stripe flows smoothly across the seam that connects the collar to the lapel (known as the gorge). Compare this to pic two, where the pattern doesn't even align across pockets (bad and lazy)
Trousers will never be perfect in motion because the body moves. But when the wearer stands still, the back should drape cleanly. In pic one, we see a crisp line flowing down the back. In pic two, the pants look like they're carrying expelled diarrhea.
There's also a lot more shaping. Look at the roundness of this chest (it puffs out). This is the result of structure (chest piece, canvas), pad stitching, and pressing. From the back, you can also see that broadening of the shoulder and nipped waist, giving a V-shaped figure.
A lot of ready-to-wear tailoring nowadays is too soft to give this silhouette. It's basically like wearing a cardigan. You don't get that built-up, broad shoulder, shaped chest, or V-shaped figure. The silhouette is simply the body underneath.
The sleevehead (top of the sleeve) is also perfectly clean. There is no divot. Divots can appear in ready-to-wear as a result of poor pattern drafting or workmanship, but it's more often bc the coat is too narrow across the back. Common as people wear increasingly slim clothes.
And, of course, no collar gap. If you watch the scene, the collar never lifts from his neck, even as he moves. It is not uncommon to see men with collar gaps nowadays, even when they're standing still.
Compared to other films of its time, this film doesn't even stand out in terms of style. Just look at other films on this page: The Big Sleep (1946) and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939). Smith plays a naive rube from Montana, yet wears a suit better than billionaires today
If you want to see some truly stylish films, you have to watch the ones starring guys like Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, Fred Astaire, Marcello Mastroianni, and Vittorio De Sica. It's just that "average" back then is remarkable today bc of the dearth of tailors.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One day, "It" will happen, by which I mean sudden and unexpected news that you want to celebrate. In such cases, you will want the right outfit. 🧵
What do I mean by "It?" I mean that joyous moments are not always something you can plan for. Perhaps you received a pay raise or got accepted at a waitlisted school. Perhaps a loved one is now cancer-free. Such moments can be sudden and unexpected — and you want to be prepared.
Of course, you can always celebrate in the same clothes you wear to bed. But IMO, this diminishes the moment. Thus, it's nice to special outfits for "It," even if you don't wear them all the time. It's similar to toasting a special glass of champagne and drinking water.
In the 1950s, Irving Penn traveled across London, Paris, and NYC to take portraits of workers in their work clothes. These clothes at the time were not considered glamorous — they would not have shown up on fashion runways — but they demonstrate a simple aesthetic principle 🧵
Consider these outfits. How do you feel about them? Are they charming? Repulsive? Stylish?
If you consider them charming and stylish, as I do, then ask yourself: what makes them charming and stylish? Why are you drawn to the outfits?
As I've mentioned before, I think outfits look better when they have "shape and drape." By shape, I mean the outfit confers a distinctive silhouette. If these men took off their clothes, we can reliably guess their bodies would not be shaped like this:
If you're just dipping your toes into tailored clothing, start with a navy sport coat. This is something you can wear with a button-up shirt and pair of trousers, or something as casual as a t-shirt and some jeans. It's easily the most versatile jacket.
Key is to get something with texture so it doesn't look like an orphaned suit jacket. Spier & Mackay has great semi-affordable tailoring. Their navy hopsack Moro is made from pure wool and a half-canvas to give it shape. Classic proportions and soft natural shoulder
There's a pervasive belief that we no longer produce clothes in the United States. This is not true. In this thread, I will tell you about some great made-in-USA brands — some that run their own factories, while others are US brands contracting with US factories. 🧵
I should first note this thread focuses on well-made, stylish clothes produced in ethical conditions. For me, producing in the US is not enough. It means nothing if the clothes are ugly, crappy, or produced in sweatshop conditions. My article for The Nation below.
JEANS
Gustin produces MiUSA jeans using raw Japanese denim. "Raw" means the fabric hasn't been pre-distressed, allowing it to naturally fade with use, reflecting your actual body and lifestyle. I like their fuller 1968 Vintage Straight fit. They also do lots of other stuff.
Let's first establish good vs bad ways to think about style. The first pic is correct — style is a kind of social language and you have to figure out what type of person you are. The second pic is stupid bc it takes style as disconnected objects ("this is in" vs "this is out").
I should also note here that I'm only talking about style. I'm not here to argue with you about ergonomics, water bottle holders, or whether something accommodates your Dell laptop. I'm am talking about aesthetics.
Watch these two videos. Then answer these two questions:
— Which of the two men is better dressed?
— How does each come off?
I think Carney is better dressed, partly because his clothes fit better. Notice that his jacket collar always hugs his neck, while Pierre Poilievre's jacket collar never touches him.