Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Does it have anything to do with the ease of reach ............... from years ago ............. to the shoulder holster? On 22-jan-2006, at 19:29, feli wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2006, at 5:58 AM, Mark Langer wrote: >> I used to collect vintage clothing. I don't anymore, partly >> because it is >> getting hard to find and partly because I gained so much weight >> that I can't >> get into some of my best pieces. But yes, the quality just isn't >> there. I >> recently bought a new suit and coat that probably cost more than >> my car is >> worth, and compared them to a 1940s suit that I have in my closet >> that I >> picked up in a yard sale in the Montreal neighborhood of Westmount >> years >> ago. There is no comparison. But even in a thousand dollar suit >> today, you >> just don't get the degree of hand tailoring and expensive >> construction that >> used to be found in suits and coats. On the other hand, wages are >> often >> higher for skilled workers in the garment industry (at least for >> domestically-produced suits) than it used to be. > > > > > It seems that the two biggest problems these days with suits are > the size > of the armhole (too big) and the lack of the diamond shaped > undercut / plane > in the bottom of the pants, located between the base of your zipper > and the base > of your gluteus maximums. > > A large armhole, makes it easier to put a jacket on, but restricts > your mobility and > makes the jacket feel confining. It also screws up the fit around > the front, making your > lapels do weird things. Most importantly the moment you raise your > arms, the jacket > climbs up on top of you, looking like a scared cat. A properly cut > armhole, sits up high > underneath your armpit, like a T-shirt. Notice how far down it is > in a modern jacket. > Take a look at an old movie, with lets say Fred Astair. Fred will > be twirling around all > over the place, with his arms in the air, yet the body of his > jacket doesn't ride up on him. > If he tried that in a modern jacket it would probably ride up over > his head, obstruct his > vision and he would knock himself out as he crashed in to the > nearest wall. > > Modern pants lack a crucial undercut. If you examine a vintage > piece you will notice > a diamond shaped piece, located between the base of the zipper and > the base of your > gluteus maximums. Without this plane, your pants will inevitably > pinch around your family > jewels. If they are pleated, the extra material at the top just > looks like a sack, without structure > and they won't drape properly. Take a close look at an old movie > from the 40's and notice > how planar the fit around waist is and how elegant the line is, as > the pant legs reach the shoes. > > >> On the other hand, wages are often >>> higher for skilled workers in the garment industry (at least for >>> domestically-produced suits) than it used to be. My grandfather >>> was a >> tailor, and two of his brothers were organizers for the ILGWU back >> in the >> 30s and 40s. I grew up on tales of family poverty back then. >> > > Yeah, the garment industry was pretty brutal in the old days. > > But I see no reason for these two problems to exist in a $1000 > suit. Most tailors you talk to these days don't > even know what you are talking about, when you mention it. > > > >> Mark > > > ________________________________________________________ > feli2@earthlink.net 2 + 2 = 4 > www.elanphotos.com > > > NO ARCHIVE > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information