# What is the highest thread count you would consider for a suit?



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

The concern is that as the fiber becomes thinner there may be issues of durability and an inability to easily clean the garment for fear of damage. I recognize that thread size and S count are not completely interchangeable but for purposes of this discussion perhaps 15.5 microns to 16 microns and/or S140 - 150 can be the cutoff.

I guess what I am looking for is some real life experience - good or bad with higher thread counts. Would anyone seriously consider wearing a 14 micron thread size suit 3 days a week while shuffling around NYC in a cab? Or maybe durability really isn't an issue? Is the durability of these suits getting better or worse as time goes on? Is an S150 more durable now than it was say 10 years ago when S150 was maybe the finest wool available?


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

You can get quite a range in weight from threads of the same diameter depending on how one weaves them. I am probably typical in that I have suits with the same thread diameter ranging from tropical to winter weight. Put aside the S numbers and feel the cloth in your hand. In any event, I certainly would not wear any suit 3 times a week unless it looked like this https://images.search.yahoo.com/ima...b=12tvcmgq3&sigi=13217u1eh&.crumb=0820UEAV7mK


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

https://tuttofattoamano.blogspot.com/2011/02/sartorial-mythbusting.html

Though of course, that's a very high-end suit, and cloth of that quality may be out of reach of mere mortals (or cost-driven RTW manufacturers).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Point of order!

I think there may be a confusion of terms. I believe the Super number refers to the thickness in microns of the *fiber* from which the yarn is spun, not the threadcount (threads per square inch), or the thickness of the yarn. And as ARK suggests, while the cloth woven from finer fibers, all other things being equal, are theoretically more fragile than those from stouter fibers, all other things never are. Advertising and hugely disparate practices in the spinning of yarn and weaving of cloth has made these numbers essentially meaningless.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

arkirshner said:


> You can get quite a range in weight from threads of the same diameter depending on how one weaves them. I am probably typical in that I have suits with the same thread diameter ranging from tropical to winter weight. Put aside the S numbers and feel the cloth in your hand. In any event, I certainly would not wear any suit 3 times a week unless it looked like this


But do you think thread diameter has any effect on fabric durability?


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> https://tuttofattoamano.blogspot.com/2011/02/sartorial-mythbusting.html
> 
> Though of course, that's a very high-end suit, and cloth of that quality may be out of reach of mere mortals (or cost-driven RTW manufacturers).


Thanks for the link. Certainly the implication here is S150 wears well. Interesting.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Point of order!
> 
> I think there may be a confusion of terms. I believe the Super number refers to the thickness in microns of the *fiber* from which the yarn is spun, not the threadcount (threads per square inch), or the thickness of the yarn. And as ARK suggests, while the cloth woven from finer fibers, all other things being equal, are theoretically more fragile than those from stouter fibers, all other things never are. Advertising and hugely disparate practices in the spinning of yarn and weaving of cloth has made these numbers essentially meaningless.


I agree - perhaps I should have stated fiber diameter in the title since that is was I am really asking. I think that S count is not totally meaningless since there appears to be at least some correlation between fiber diameter and S count - e.g. S180 more like a 14 micron fiber from what I can tell.

Not saying I would buy a suit based on the S count - in fact the contrary. If I like the way the fabric feels I am more inclined to purchase the garment. The concern is how it will wear? And since these garments are more expensive I am more inclined to think twice regardless of the feel.


----------



## herfitup (Mar 4, 2012)

Personally I stop at 120. I travel a lot and drag a computer bag over my shoulder. I don't need delicate jackets, I need durable and carefree. I've noticed that wrinkles fall out of most 100s and 120s if you let them sit for a day and I don't have room to travel with more than two jackets without checking a bag. If you head to an office everyday you might make a different decision.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

I have a Zegna sportcoat that's made of "15 milmil 15" fabric (at the time this was particularly thin fiber, it's long since been superceded). It takes absolute nothing to scrape the fabric into a noticeable thin spot. 

I bought it on clearance at Neiman-Marcus for $300 and over the years I've probably spent as much on reweaving.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

I think the "super" system was designed to prey on us gentlemen, who by their nature have to have the biggest boat/best wines/fastest cars/highest super number etc.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I have a 'Superfine 150' navy Canali suit. Its way too delicate. All it took was being caught without an umbrella in one rainstorm and the suit, especially the coat, has never been the same again. I prefer more substantial fabrics.


----------



## bluesman (Aug 17, 2009)

The "S" number dates back over 200 years - it indicated the number of hanks of finished yarn that could be made from a pound of wool (the British wool pound, I assume, which was not the same measure as the avoirdupois pound or the Troy pound). So the finer the yarn that could be spun from wool, the higher the S number. But this is not a direct indicator of quality, durability or any other parameter of wear. The rest of this post may shed a bit more light on using the systems under discussion.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

I have S150 suits I've worn weekly for 2+ years, and they've worn fine. However, if going bespoke or higher end MTM, I'd only do that for a dinner suit; I'd otherwise stop in the 120 range.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Super 150 would be my upper limit. I had a Corneliani suit in Super 150 that held up well for a decade-plus of occasional wear before a local tailor of some renown ruined it when I brought it in for some waist suppression.

My most recent suit was a VBC Revenge Super 140. I don't know the Super number of the fabric in the latest suit I ordered, but I think it's lower than that. As a general matter, I prefer not go over 110 or so.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> However, if going bespoke or higher end MTM, I'd only do that for a dinner suit; I'd otherwise stop in the 120 range.


 Please explain why?

Thanks.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

zzdocxx said:


> Please explain why?
> 
> Thanks.


For me (again, just personal preference/opinion), if I'm spending $1500+ on a suit, I'm buying it as a 'life' item. Something that I intend to actually wear out, I'd stay 120 or lower for durability. My 150s have wear that I can notice, and given that they are weekly suits after 2 years, I would be upset if that happened to a $1500 suit, not so much to a $500 suit. So, a bespoke dinner suit, that will be worn monthly at most, I'm ok with a more fragile suiting. My work suits I'd prefer to be of a tougher, more durable material. I made an exception to this when E/A offered me a free suit to make up for 4 months of incorrect orders (of 4 suits); I ordered a 140s in blue chalkstripe made into a 6x4 DB. When it showed up, I was so impressed with the cloth that I ordered a second in a charcoal chalkstripe. Whereas I usually would spend $7-800 on their MTM, that one was $1400. Being a DB (and two of them at that), they won't see weekly wear between the two of them, so I was ok with the fabric. Well worth it.

After typing that out, I guess the distinction would be how often one is worn. For a suit worn weekly, or close to it, under 120; for less frequent wear, higher counts are ok by me. The point being that I wouldn't begin to build a bespoke wardrobe entirely with 150s suitings; I'd start at lower numbers for staples, and then expand as the wardrobe expanded.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Got it.

For me, I shed my clothes as soon as I get to the hospital, almost always. A meeting for which I dress up might last a couple of hours.

So I am not in my clothes all day long like you are.

So I get what you mean.

But some people do seem to like those higher super number fabrics. Granted there are the other factors that go into the quality, as that recent article explained.

But I'm guessing different people, and different jobs, put different demands on a suit.

What do you think?

I'm thinking about these high power CEO types, I imagine them to be sitting behind a large air-conditioned desk all day, never having to shlep around. Just imagining as I say since I don't know any, only the people I see interviewed on television, eg. on the financial shows.

And as far as the way different people carry themselves, I also imagine some are more delicate. For example, some women are more graceful than others and I imagine would put less wear and boo boos on clothing.

OK just conjecture here.

:icon_study:


----------



## diplomatusa (Apr 10, 2009)

herfitup said:


> Personally I stop at 120. I travel a lot and drag a computer bag over my shoulder. I don't need delicate jackets, I need durable and carefree. I've noticed that wrinkles fall out of most 100s and 120s if you let them sit for a day and I don't have room to travel with more than two jackets without checking a bag. If you head to an office everyday you might make a different decision.


Agreed. Still, even office-dwellers have to be careful with higher #s -- like another poster said, all it takes is a few minutes out in the rain and you have issues. The only time I've bought something higher than a 120 is a less-expensive (but still nice-looking) Wizard of Aahs offering -- if it gets ruined, it's not the end of the world. But even then, I only do that if the garment features a pattern or style I really like.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Michael Alden video at Smith Woolens discussing super numbers, etc. -


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Michael Alden video at Smith Woolens discussing super numbers, etc. -


Interesting - the notion here is that the fabric may have some advantage to having a multitude of fiber diameter as opposed to a single diameter.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

JBierly said:


> Interesting - the notion here is that the fabric may have some advantage to having a multitude of fiber diameter as opposed to a single diameter.


Especially with bungee cords.

All the great dressers, until the super number race began, used cloth made from 80 or wider. To my mind, what is really interesting is how a marketing campaign has convinced so many that the inferior is superior. Super numbers, Super Pacs no difference..


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

JBierly said:


> Interesting - the notion here is that the fabric may have some advantage to having a multitude of fiber diameter as opposed to a single diameter.


Yes, and considering the source, I would think it likely true.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Michael Alden video at Smith Woolens discussing super numbers, etc. -


Incredibly informative video...thanks.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

arkirshner said:


> Especially with bungee cords.
> 
> All the great dressers, until the super number race began, used cloth made from 80 or wider. To my mind, what is really interesting is how a marketing campaign has convinced so many that the inferior is superior. Super numbers, Super Pacs no difference..



I understand there is quite a bit of hype with the S numbers and marketing. But I can't totally dispel that there are at least some merits to high S count fabrics - they seem lighter and softer to the touch in general. And I recognize that it isn't the only factor to the feel and weight of a fabric. On the other hand, just because of the hype doesn't mean it is inferior in all regards either. Do you really want to have to wear a suit for 10 years before it feels good? Perhaps...... but I am getting a bit too old for that.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

JBierly said:


> Do you really want to have to wear a suit for 10 years before it feels good? Perhaps...... but I am getting a bit too old for that.


That's how long it takes until it's at it's best; they say it has a great hand right there before it's even made up. I'd rather wait 10 years for a cloth to perform at its peak than have a worn out suit by then.


----------

