Jump to content


Photo

White Tie Bespoke Evening Dress Tails


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Michael the Beloved Ay329

Michael the Beloved Ay329

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 August 2010 - 04:04 AM

Am gathering information on commissioning a bespoke evening white tie dress tails

Would welcome comments on suggested cloths. I prefer a Midnight Barathera...but am happy with Black Barathera too. I prefer the weight range to be 14-19oz (I tolerate heavier cloths quite well)

I have considered H. Lesser...but found their cloths to be WAY TOO PRICEY. Have some Smith Woolens samples, but none go over 13oz

Am still awaiting samples from Dugdale....have received numerous promising candidates from P&B's Universal Book

Has anyone commissioned any evening dress tails using Dugdal'es or P&B's heavier barathera cloths? If yes, what are your comments

My tailor is happy to make me my dress tails, but am wondering did different time eras have different looks or features. FYI, I am tall, 6'4 & well fed at 260lbs...so I welcome comments on suggestions for my tailor

#2 jukes

jukes

    Pro

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,164 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London Suburbs

Posted 19 August 2010 - 04:54 AM

If you,re looking for reasonable price and good quality, you would be hard pushed to beat Dugdale.

#3 J. Maclochlainn

J. Maclochlainn

    Master

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,143 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 August 2010 - 05:17 AM

For the weight you mention go with P&B's Universal Book, if you want to keep pricing down whilst still having the quality of P&B then go dugdales, but the weight is 13oz
Silly Cognoscenti, Drape is for windows!

#4 Artist's Eye

Artist's Eye

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 54 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 08:32 AM

My tailor is happy to make me my dress tails, but am wondering did different time eras have different looks or features. FYI, I am tall, 6'4 & well fed at 260lbs...so I welcome comments on suggestions for my tailor


There's always been slight accommodations to the fashions of the time.
The 1930s had the problem of dealing with a garment that's supposed to be fitting with that eras style of full pleated trousers and draped chest.

Now the trick is dealing with low rise pants which must be covered at the top by the waistcoat, which in turn must be completely covered at the sides by the short front of the coat.
Too often recent examples have displayed exposed waist bands or the sides of the waistcoat.
It's worthy keeeping in mind that depending on how well fed you are that any band of white around the waist is probably going to make that area look wider.

Edited by Artist's Eye, 19 August 2010 - 08:35 AM.


#5 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 19 August 2010 - 10:38 AM

I have tried a lot of different dress coat drafts, and styles. In the end I found that what looked best was a fairly standard modern cut that came in around the Edwardian era. For a while I was fascinated by the old fashioned style with cut-on lapels, half silk facings, and strap, but I ended up hating the look of all those criss crossing seams at the front of the coat where it was most visible. The modern cut is just so much cleaner with seams kept out of sight. The absence of a strap means that the fronts are a bit shorter, exposing more leg - which helps make them look longer.

This is a garment which looks striking enough as it is without you gilding the lilly with unusual details. The fit is what makes this garment looks so elegant, not the outer detail.

I haven't really had any opportunity to try my hand at a corpulent dress coat draft, so I don't have strong opinions. However, one thing I would consider trying is displacing the front dart to the bottom point (red arrow):

Posted Image

This helps to bring the corner in to follow the body. The corpulent belly can make this corner poke outwards somewhat. Notice how on this dress coat the lapel is very long ie the lower extremity of the lapel goes down to the depth of point L. I prefer this circa 1914 style to the 1950s style with the end of the lapel roll being further up towards the chest.

The other thing that makes a significant difference to the fit is the second underarm side body:

Posted Image

This makes it easier for the fitter to achieve a cleaner fit. I have also shown how the front waist dart is displaced forward. The row of three show buttons is moved so that they are placed right on top of the dart.

The next thing is that I find dress coats look good with a more generous than usual gorge dart. This helps to give you good chest but also on a corpulent figure (often a bit over erect) stops the front from gaping, while giving the lapels a beautiful roll.

If there were one fancy detail I would recommend considering it is a roll collar:

Posted Image

Even then I marginally prefer the classical style of double breasted lapels. Other than that I would reserve the fancy cut for the waistcoat.

The next thing is the amount of belly on the lapels. Personally, I would avoid a wide and short, bellied lapel on a corpulent figure:

Posted Image

I would suggest the slightly narrower, longer and straighter lapel of the first draft shown above.

BTW if you want, ask your tailor what system he cuts by (or at least one he likes). A lot of American tailors like the New Mitchell System or Regal's for example. I will happily scan a draft for him if he doesn't have one. I know your tailor sometimes "surprises" you with unexpected styling. If you specify a well defined draft, it does make his life simpler as he gets clear directives on cut and style. Likewise, I have plenty of dress waistcoat drafts.

#6 Michael the Beloved Ay329

Michael the Beloved Ay329

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 August 2010 - 10:50 AM

The 1930s had the problem of dealing with a garment that's supposed to be fitting with that eras style of full pleated trousers and draped chest.

Now the trick is dealing with low rise pants which must be covered at the top by the waistcoat, which in turn must be completely covered at the sides by the short front of the coat.
Too often recent examples have displayed exposed waist bands or the sides of the waistcoat.
It's worthy keeeping in mind that depending on how well fed you are that any band of white around the waist is probably going to make that area look wider.


My tailor usually cuts a traditional full pants, high rise, with double deep reverse English pleats...I never liked well fitting-low rise trousers.

I'll save the Shawl collared lapel for my 2nd pair of dress tails...thus Peak lapel it is...but what are the different ways Peak lapels were made for evening dress tails?

#7 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 19 August 2010 - 10:55 AM

I have a personal pet peeve about pleated trousers with a dress coat. The pleats bellow out from under the front of the coat, which I find unsightly.

DB lapels on dress coats are like DB lapels on any other coat.

#8 Michael the Beloved Ay329

Michael the Beloved Ay329

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 August 2010 - 02:22 PM

I have a personal pet peeve about pleated trousers with a dress coat. The pleats bellow out from under the front of the coat, which I find unsightly.


I have linked a similar thread from the London Lounge that contains pictures of Hugh Jackman wearing plain front (quite slim too) trousers on his dress tails...compliments of Leonard Logsdale
http://www.thelondon...4&t=9695#p50906

Every reason why I desire pleats

Edited by Michael the Beloved Ay329, 19 August 2010 - 02:23 PM.


#9 Artist's Eye

Artist's Eye

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 54 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 02:51 PM

I have linked a similar thread from the London Lounge that contains pictures of Hugh Jackman wearing plain front (quite slim too) trousers on his dress tails...compliments of Leonard Logsdale
http://www.thelondon...4&t=9695#p50906

Every reason why I desire pleats


Is it the horziontal pulls in the front when Hugh Jackman leans forward that you object to?

#10 Artist's Eye

Artist's Eye

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 54 posts

Posted 19 August 2010 - 02:54 PM

The shawl collar version reminds me of a mess jacket.
Not that that's an evil thing.

#11 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 19 August 2010 - 03:38 PM

I doubt that having pleats here is going to make the trousers cleaner in this dancing pose:

Posted Image

You are going to just end up with messy gaping pleats splaying open in every direction. Trousers pleats gaping out beneath the fronts of a dress coat remind me of Cossack trousers:

Posted Image

However, doubtless these things are a matter of taste.

There is additionally an argument to made to the effect that pleated trousers harmonise better with the lounge coat (including the dress lounge/ dinner jacket). The skirt at the front neatly covers up the accordion like pleats. Lounge coats arguably better cover up corpulence than a body coat, especially dress coats, which, being cut to be worn open, permit the belly to protrude from the open coat fronts:

Posted Image

#12 Artist's Eye

Artist's Eye

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 54 posts

Posted 20 August 2010 - 06:29 AM

I don't mind the Cossack trousers; perhaps it's because they provide a dramatic contrast, and as they're not part of a suit, they don't contradict the notion of a fitting body coat.

Also I've just noticed an echo in form with the top of the trousers with the top of the sleeve head.

#13 rs232

rs232

    Journeyman

  • Senior Apprentice
  • PipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 August 2010 - 04:13 PM

Sator, with regard to pleats on a dress coat, do you dislike reverse-facing pleats, or pleats in general?

#14 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 20 August 2010 - 04:19 PM

As I say, it's just my pet peeve. I dislike double pleats most. Single pleats are tolerable if done in moderation:

Posted Image

However, I have always been taught that a dress coat should be cut close to the body (that's why it's called a "body coat" or "body fitting body"). Double pleats seem to be incongruous with this. This is the classical way it should be IMHO:

Posted Image

#15 rs232

rs232

    Journeyman

  • Senior Apprentice
  • PipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 August 2010 - 06:05 PM

^ The fellow on top gets my vote! I really do like the sharp line down the front of the waist & thigh that a pleat gives. Cut correctly, it doesn't really give any more width to the silhouette. Agreed on the point about double pleats though - looks a bit busy and the second starts to add width at the hip.

All said, though, I really think that leg definition doesn't share equal attractiveness with torso definition in men's garments, which is why I wish that skinny jeans fad would go away.

#16 Michael the Beloved Ay329

Michael the Beloved Ay329

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 August 2010 - 12:40 AM

^ The fellow on top gets my vote! I really do like the sharp line down the front of the waist & thigh that a pleat gives. Cut correctly, it doesn't really give any more width to the silhouette. Agreed on the point about double pleats though - looks a bit busy and the second starts to add width at the hip.


Your comment got me thinking...I will run this by tailor next time I pass by to see what are his thoughts on how my dress tail trousers should be

#17 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 21 August 2010 - 08:51 AM

The other little tip not known to all tailors (or forgotten because tailors seldom get to cut dress suits) is that the side seam should be displaced on full dress trousers. In this case, the displacement is from B4 to B2 as well as S5 and S:

Posted Image

This is so that the braiding on the side of the trousers can be seen out of the front edge of the tails. The amount of displacement should be about 2-3 cm (about 1", give or take 1/8"). I have indicated this by arrows.

What they don't show in the diagram (but explain in the text) is that the corresponding part of the trouser underside (right diagram) should also be displaced - as indicated in red.

This shouldn't be much trouble for your tailor to do. It's just a nice little old world refinement that has been largely forgotten these days.

#18 ACECAPS

ACECAPS

    Apprentice

  • Super Pro
  • PipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:düsseldorf-west germany
  • Interests:patterns,cutting books-new&old,nice+big cutting shears
    tailortalk+c.

Posted 19 February 2011 - 09:42 PM

The other little tip not known to all tailors (or forgotten because tailors seldom get to cut dress suits) is that the side seam should be displaced on full dress trousers. In this case, the displacement is from B4 to B2 as well as S5 and S:

Posted Image

This is so that the braiding on the side of the trousers can be seen out of the front edge of the tails. The amount of displacement should be about 2-3 cm (about 1", give or take 1/8"). I have indicated this by arrows.

What they don't show in the diagram (but explain in the text) is that the corresponding part of the trouser underside (right diagram) should also be displaced - as indicated in red.

This shouldn't be much trouble for your tailor to do. It's just a nice little old world refinement that has been largely forgotten these days.


ANOTHER POINT FOR THIS MANOEUVRE IS TO HAVE THE SIDE SEAM POCKET NEARER TO THE FRONT;THUS MAKE THE (SIDE SEAM-)POCKETS MORE EASILY ATTAINABLE




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users