Show us your suits

[Dinerman]

The jacket fits like a dream, but the pants need to be lengthened, so no shots of it on. Plenty of room to let out, though.

Bottom and middle buttons

Top button. Different button and button hole, but the stitching from the button doesn't go through the back of the fabric like it usually does on replacements.

Atlantic Clothing Company - New York - Clothes of Merit

Gripper Zipper

Trousers

Pleats

Back

 

[Mario]

Wonderful find. I really like the cut of the jacket and the fabric looks great too. :eusa_clap!

 

[birkie]

Top button. Different button and button hole, but the stitching from the button doesn't go through the back of the fabric like it usually does on replacements.

Perhaps it was designed as a 3-roll-2 suit. The top button hole looks reversed (i.e. the rough side out). If you fasten only the middle button, is the top button now hidden behind the roll of the lapel and the "finished" side of the upper button hole exposed?

 

[Dinerman]

The buttonhole's not reversed, but it does look like it was done on a different machine. The thread is a different color and the button's a different color. I think it must have been a conversion of a 2 button suit into a 3 button.

 

[Tomasso]

I think it must have been a conversion of a 2 button suit into a 3 button.

It most certainly was, and consequently the lapels are woefully out of balance. It was a silly thing to have been attempted and the tailor who performed the work should be brought up on charges of malpractice.

 

[Qirrel]

It most certainly was, and consequently the lapels are woefully out of balance. It was a silly thing to have been attempted and the tailor who performed the work should be brought up on charges of malpractice.

I agree. You can see that the lapel "bellies" out at the third button; the roll should always begin below this. By the way the buttonhole is done by hand, although rather poorly.

 

[Matt_the_chap]

My latest acquisition, a 1930s (I believe it to be from 1933) pinstriped D/B suit, two piece with a watch pocket on the trousers and around 22 or 23" bottoms. Sadly, I've got no photos of it on yet as I don't have a camera with me at university. It's a joy to wear and exceptionally smart. The label says 'Jackson the Tailor', but there's nothing beyond that.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The label says 'Jackson the Tailor', but there's nothing beyond that.

Could it be "Jackson" from Shanghai?

 

[birkie]

My latest acquisition, a 1930s (I believe it to be from 1933) pinstriped D/B suit, two piece with a watch pocket on the trousers and around 22 or 23" bottoms

Say, does it have a lapel button hole, or do the jpeg compression artifacts give the mistaken impression that it doesn't?

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Say, does it have a lapel button hole, or do the jpeg compression artifacts give the mistaken impression that it doesn't?

Well, my own Shanghai "Jackson" suit has no boutonniere holes on the lapels. Matt's suit doesn't appear to have them, either.

 

[Matt_the_chap]

No, it's an English Jackson, from somewhere in the South of England (AFAIK). The writing of 'Jackson' is similar between the labels, but nothing else. It simply reads 'Jackson the Tailor' on a cream label. The fabric also is rather heavy for a suit made in the Far East, even by the standards of the day. It's definitely not summer-weight wool, I'd estimate between 14oz and 16oz. And, going by the photograph of your suit, there seem to be some differences in the cutting style of the suits, Marc. The waist suppression seems much more severe and the gap between collar and lapel is much smaller on my suit. I'm not sure whether that counts for much, but they seem to be rather different suits in 'house style'.

There's no lapel buttonhole at all, on either lapel, which I quite like. If I had buttonholes on D/B lapels I'd want them on both or none at all, meanwhile S/Bs, for some reason in my mind, don't require such symmetry.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Interesting. The fact that my Jackson's script lettering on the label is similar to yours make me think that the Shanghai tailor was "ripping off" the English one's name and logo. Perhaps "Jackson the Tailor" was famous in Britain back then?


Weird as it sounds, my Shanghai Jackson suit is made of heavy wool flannel, and has a waistcoat. It was probably made for a European or American who never intended to wear it in the Far East.

 

[Matt_the_chap]

It seems 'Jackson the Tailor' might've been quite famous in Britain: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/suits-you-sir-jackson-returns-to-high-street-1.969038

That is, if it's the same 'Jackson the Tailor'.

"Sir Montague Burton (1885-1952), founder of the tailoring empire that bears his name, was one of several Russian Jewish immigrants who built enormously successful businesses from humble beginnings. Michael Marks, co-founder of Marks and Spencer, is another classic example; and Lionel Jacobson, founder of Jackson the Tailor, who became chairman of the Burton Company after Sir Montague's death, had similar origins."

They seem to have offered a lot of off-the-peg stuff, I'm not too sure. If it's the same firm, they paid good wages in 1950s Edinburgh, of £7 7s a week. They seem to have been of the same sort of standard as Burton's back then.

 

[Hal]

The label says 'Jackson the Tailor', but there's nothing beyond that.

'Jackson the Tailor' was a UK clothing chain comparable to Burtons, Alexandre, John Collier (previously known as "The Fifty Shilling Tailors"), Hepworths, Foster Brothers and others. It was definitely around in the 1950s and 1960s, and probably closed down when all the others named (except Burtons, who changed tack) did. The suit you show certainly looks older than 1955 - but my knowledge (and memory!) don't go back further than that. I can, however, remember adverts in the press and on ITV saying something like "I got it at Jackson's".

 

[Matt_the_chap]

It's definitely a 1930s suit, but all those firms seem to have started around the same time. Amusingly, with inflation, I've paid about the same for this suit now as I would've done back then had I bought it in a Jackson's.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Jackson was quite a famous high street brand.

I obviously haven't seen all the features or held the suit, but I don't know how you can be so sure of the date. It looks like a generic suit from anywhere between 1930-1955 or so. It looks, actually, very much like a demob suit.

bk

 

[Matt_the_chap]

The fabric is far too different (being black) from the demob standard of 'Blue' or 'Brown' for it to be such. It's also made very very well, as opposed to the cheap and shabby construction of the demob suits I've seen. It's also not seen very much wear at all, with an invisible weave to a tiny hole in the knee, possibly a moth hole and only a little bit of shine on the elbows of the jacket and the seat of the trousers. It's also not got a CC41 label along with plenty of selvedge everywhere, which rules out the rationing years. The trousers are also much wider than any '50s stuff I've seen before, even early '50s.

The features all tie in too distinctly with 1930s suits, in my mind anyway, for it to be any later. The lack of any wartime marks also seriously narrows down the timeframe.

 

[Matt Deckard]

17.6 oz tweed

 

[dhermann1]

I just won this on Ebay, and my heart is still pounding.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/110745344873?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

 

[Tomasso]

Nice! Are you also bidding on the seller's 3-piece suit. That's a looker.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/C-1940-Amer...pt=Vintage_Men_s_Clothing&hash=item19c8efb8f1