Harris Tweed jacket - Burtons - lovely colour

[Baron Kurtz]

This is the one I'm thinking of, which is a US version. The trade mark 319214 was issued in the UK in 1910.

 

[Two Types]

"Burton changed their name in 1936 from Montague Burton: The Tailor of Taste Ltd to Montague Burton Ltd, The Tailor of Taste and this is reflected in the logo. So, if it says the former it should be from pre-1936 and if the latter, post 1936. This doesn’t seem to be perfectly consistent, however, as there seems to be a fuzzy period of overlap in the late 30s (possibly the firm using up old label stock?)"http://andrewsandpygott.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/dating-montague-burton-clothing/
Whilst this isn't foolproof, it is a good start and at least dates any 'Montague Burton Ltd, The Tailor of Taste' to post-1936 (if the authors of that website are correct).

 

[Tomasso]

what skin tone is that ?

Winter.

 

[Guttersnipe]

so how do you use the Trade mark?

With U.S. trademarks, you can look them up on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's website. At the very minimum, you can usually get a date of issuance, but generally the is a registration and renewal history.

For example, the U.S. registration number on the label posted by BK was superseded by a filling dated September 27, 1947 and granted July 4, 1950. Given the 1937 copyright and 1947 trademark filing, you have a time window in which you can place any garment with that label.

 

[Tomasso]

Just kidding!

I know.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

hmmmm, with a VERY large pinch of salt and lots of crossed fingers. Union/copyright etc. labels, and other trimmings are awful dating tools. They give an earliest date only. Clothing firms are notorious for using old labels - check the Scott & Co hatters thread for pre-1917 postal code sweatbands etc. being used in post-1952 hats. Egregious!

The labels (tailor's date labels with no signs of having being inserted later can be excluded here) can only be used in conjunction with other features to determine an approximate age. I have no problem accepting that a 1930s Harris Tweed label could very easily find its way into a 1980s jacket. A tailor, say, needed an official Harris Tweed label, the customer was arriving to pick up his suit in 1 hour, and the only one he could find at the back of a drawer was from he middle 1930s. He would use it.

For example, the U.S. registration number on the label posted by BK was superseded by a filling dated September 27, 1947 and granted July 4, 1950. Given the 1937 copyright and 1947 trademark filing, you have a time window in which you can place any garment with that label.

 

[Sloan1874]

Fantastic looking jacket. Really like the collar and love the colour. Obviously this is from the days when Burtons were really Burtons

 

[Two Types]

Regarding labels: There was also the case of the boating blazer dated to the 1960s but with a pre-1917 label, which was dated through the London postcode which changed in 1917.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The Scott hats are teribble. Crown liners "By Apointment to Brenda" and pre-1917 "W" postcode, but with a sweatband with "By Appointment to Brenda" and the post-1917 "W1" postcode.

 

[Tomasso]

from the days when Burtons were really Burtons

Where did they rank back in the day in relation to Selfridges, Harrods, etc...?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Waaaaayyyyyyyy below that kind of level.

Their ethos was a quality suit of clothes for a week's wages. They were sincerely directed at the working classes, who couldn't even imagine going to Selfridges, Harrods, or even the rather lower middle class Austin Reed or Horne Bros.

 

[Guttersnipe]

mmmm, with a VERY large pinch of salt and lots of crossed fingers. Union/copyright etc. labels, and other trimmings are awful dating tools. They give an earliest date only. Clothing firms are notorious for using old labels - check the Scott & Co hatters thread for pre-1917 postal code sweatbands etc. being used in post-1952 hats. Egregious!

The labels (tailor's date labels with no signs of having being inserted later can be excluded here) can only be used in conjunction with other features to determine an approximate age. I have no problem accepting that a 1930s Harris Tweed label could very easily find its way into a 1980s jacket. A tailor, say, needed an official Harris Tweed label, the customer was arriving to pick up his suit in 1 hour, and the only one he could find at the back of a drawer was from he middle 1930s. He would use it.

Unless a piece is dated, there is always going to be a degree of conjecture based on qualitative observation when dating a piece of clothing. While copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc. are not precise, I would argue that the are every bit as useful as the qualitative evaluation of a garment's features. With specific regards to Harris Tweed, it's worth noting that the specific typography of their labels changed over time, and is also useful for dating purposes.

Over the years, I've seen far too many vintage collectors stymied when dating garments based on features alone. Two archetypal examples this are what I call "the old man's suit" and "the trend setter's suit." On numerous occasions, I myself have come across dated pieces that were made with features either way ahead of or way behind their times. This is why I place value on labels too.

For example, I routinely run across 70s does 30s Harris Tweed jackets advertised as 30s. Usually it's obvious, but not always. On at least one occasion, checking the trademark number saved me from grossly overpaying for a 70s odd jacket.

 

[herringbonekid]

Waaaaayyyyyyyy below that kind of level.

i have a 1940s Selfridges tweed jacket very similar to the Burtons one in this auction. almost identical cut. i'd wager that if you compared the two side by side you'd see no discernible difference in quality of materials, construction etc.

 

[Anthony Jordan]

Very nice - I have a 2-piece Harris suit in a very similar shade which is one of my favourites.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I agree, Burton's turned out a decent product. I meant in terms of prices.

i have a 1940s Selfridges tweed jacket very similar to the Burtons one in this auction. almost identical cut. i'd wager that if you compared the two side by side you'd see no discernible difference in quality of materials, construction etc.

 

[Sloan1874]

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one of the likely origins of the expression "Going for a Burton" comes from the fact that Burton used to do the standard demob suit for soldiers. It became shorthand for somebody who was either absent or sent home through injury - "Where's Smith?" "'E's gone for a Burton".

 

[herringbonekid]

Sloan, i've never heard that phrase, but i'm sure you're familiar with 'the full monty' which is also supposedly Montague Burton related.

 

[Sloan1874]

Exactly! The odd thing, and I just did a quick, non-scientific straw poll of the people sitting in the office with me, they've never heard it before either! It's odd, because I've always liked it as a phrase. I must use it more often, see if I can hustle it back into common use.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

apparently, according to our friend wikipedia:

"Gone for a Burton is a euphemistic phrase meaning to die. It was used in World War II especially in the Royal Air Force when referring to aircrew who had crashed or been killed in action." Apparently in reference to a Burton's Ale advertising campaign in which a missing person was said to have gone for a Burton (Ale).

And according to Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang, the first usage is in a letter from Sgt-Pilot F Rhodes in Sept 1942, with the meaning above. He does quote others later referring to going to Montague Burton's tailor shop, so it is possible that the phrase was reworked for rather less grisly subject matter.

 

[herringbonekid]

some more amusing tailoring terms here:

http://www.savilerowbespoke.com/about-us/bespoke-specification/tailoring-terms/

i did actually 'chuck a dummy' once. after cycling to the post office to collect a parcel. but that's another story.