Show us your suits

[Marc Chevalier]

.



From the February 1935 issue of Men's Wear magazine:

 

[skyvue]

Here's a suit I got a few months back, but have never posted here.

I think the union tag is a '49 one, but the bottom of it is sewn over, so I can't be certain.

It's my first double-breasted (I recently purchased my second):

 

[thunderw21]

Here's a suit I got a few months back, but have never posted here.

I think the union tag is a '49 one, but the bottom of it is sewn over, so I can't be certain.

It's my first double-breasted (I recently purchased my second):

Yep, wouldn't doubt if it had a '49 tag. That material and suit style look to be from the mid- to late '50s.

 

[skyvue]

It's a nice medium weight, this suit -- by vintage standards. Comfy for three seasons out of the year.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Skyvue, check this out, if you pay attention to the details, it is possible to distinguish different union tags even when the copyright date isn't visible.

Edit: and by the way, I really like that suit! The lapels are an interesting shape, it's very distinctive!

 

[Guttersnipe]

I just snapped this up with a BIN on eBay. Admittedly I paid more than I usually am willing to...

...but thought it was worth while because of this - a 1934 union tag!

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.



It's worth that price ... and Fahey-Brockman was a quality retailer in Spokane, Washington.



.

 

[skyvue]

Skyvue, check this out, if you pay attention to the details, it is possible to distinguish different union tags even when the copyright date isn't visible.

Edit: and by the way, I really like that suit! The lapels are an interesting shape, it's very distinctive!

Thanks, Guttersnipe! I like it, too; it's one of my favorites.

I knew about the page you linked to, but the only difference between the 1949 label and the 1962 label is the circled R trademark symbol on the lower left, yes? Unfortunately, that part of my label is hidden.

And your suit looks great -- I only hope we're entirely different sizes, so that I'm not reduced to being terribly jealous of your snapping it up.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Thanks for the info on Fahey-Brockman, I wasn't familiar with them.

. It's worth that price ... and Fahey-Brockman was a quality retailer in Spokane, Washington.
.

Wouldn't you know it, those vintage seamstresses/tailors had an uncanny knack for sewing over the important details on union tags!lol

I knew about the page you linked to, but the only difference between the 1949 label and the 1962 label is the circled R trademark symbol on the lower left, yes? Unfortunately, that part of my label is hidden.

 

[anon`]

It's worth that price ... and Fahey-Brockman was a quality retailer in Spokane, Washington.

They had a store in Seattle as well. One still finds their stuff for sale in shops all over the place up here in the Pacific NW.

 

[skyvue]

One still finds their stuff for sale in shops all over the place up here in the Pacific NW.

Which is exactly where I purchased this suit -- Portland, to be precise.

 

[anon`]

Which is exactly where I purchased this suit -- Portland, to be precise.

Really? At which haunt?

 

[skyvue]

The establishment where you were working the day we got to chat (the name's eluding me just now).

 

[anon`]

Ah, the Avalon! I didn't realise you'd picked up anything there (I hope it wasn't that day--I refused to admit that my memory may be that bad yet)!

 

[Benny Holiday]

Early '50s "Style Mart" suit. Great fit, no altering needed.

Very, very sharp Thunder! :eusa_clap And don't you love those finds that require no alerations?

 

[habberdasher]

Skyvue, I think your suit looks late 50s-early 60s because of the lapels, not mid 50s or 1949-am I wrong anyone?

 

[thunderw21]

Very, very sharp Thunder! :eusa_clap And don't you love those finds that require no alerations?

Yes, love not having to alter!

 

[reetpleat]

.



It's worth that price ... and Fahey-Brockman was a quality retailer in Spokane, Washington.



.

I always assumed they were a big national brand, because i see so much of them. they are almost a household name to me. but i now realize that is because I am in Seattle. tony b in this area, as well as another lounger have both commented on them. I see now that they were mainly a northwest brand.

Yes, very nice stuff. I don't commonly see stuff that old. That suit is beautiful. How much was it? With the vest, I would allow a pretty high price and still feel good about it.

I see tons of stuff from the 50s and 60s by them around here.

 

[reetpleat]

Skyvue, I think your suit looks late 50s-early 60s because of the lapels, not mid 50s or 1949-am I wrong anyone?

I agree with you due to the cut and lapel. A rare style, especially in this fabric. I have seen some on mad men worn by the slightly older guy with the gray hair. db pinstripe, but cut all early 60s

 

[habberdasher]

I agree with you due to the cut and lapel. A rare style, especially in this fabric. I have seen some on mad men worn by the slightly older guy with the gray hair. db pinstripe, but cut all early 60s

Yeah, Roger Sterling. His suits always seemed out of place because they were db but still had thin lapels and a slimmer cut of the sixties.