# TM Lewin Quality?



## toyberg (Dec 11, 2010)

I have several TM Lewin shirts. I have found the quality compared to my other shirts (Curtis&Hawes, CT, RL, Paul Frederick, MyTailor, JC Penney and others) to be less than. They seem thin and somewhat flimsy. They are the basic shirt so maybe that's why. What is the general consensus?

The CT's are alright but they shrink like crazy in the cuffs and collars. More than any other shirt I have. Curtis & Hawes are my favorites followed by MyTailor. I'd like to get some shirts that are not super expensive (40-75) that look good and hold up well. Suggestions? BTW, I am a 17 1/2 to 18 collar, 36-37 sleeves.



> *ASK ANDY UPDATE:*
> In addition to all the helpful information below, be sure to check out our comprehensive guide on T.M.Lewin!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

TM Lewin are very entry level - the Jos A Banks of shirts, if you like. They offer good value on a budget.

I mainly wear Turnbull and Asser OTR and shirts from a small one-horse made to measure outfit in London. 

in your range, I would look at Hilditch and Key in a sale.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

toyberg said:


> I have several TM Lewin shirts. I have found the quality compared to my other shirts (Curtis&Hawes, CT, RL, Paul Frederick, MyTailor, JC Penney and others) to be less than. They seem thin and somewhat flimsy. They are the basic shirt so maybe that's why. What is the general consensus?
> 
> The CT's are alright but they shrink like crazy in the cuffs and collars. More than any other shirt I have. Curtis & Hawes are my favorites followed by MyTailor. I'd like to get some shirts that are not super expensive (40-75) that look good and hold up well. Suggestions? BTW, I am a 17 1/2 to 18 collar, 36-37 sleeves.


Tml are very basic shirts. It's what I buy when I need shirts but don't really have much money.

But they hold up well and nothing in the make or detailing is really bad. They look ok. But I either buy that or Turnbull & Asser, preferably on sale. HK may indeed be an option.

I prefer to get either basic shirts like tml or very good shirts like T&A. I find the midrange boring.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

There are many problems with TM Lewin shirts, such as creasing of the cuffs, sizing and robustness of the collar and general quality of the fabric. 

However, you are getting what you pay for. Their prices are very, very reasonable. So on cost:benefit analysis they still score highly despite the drawbacks. Many shirts are just as bad, but significantly more expensive.


----------



## toyberg (Dec 11, 2010)

Haffman said:


> There are many problems with TM Lewin shirts, such as creasing of the cuffs, sizing and robustness of the collar and general quality of the fabric.
> 
> However, you are getting what you pay for. Their prices are very, very reasonable. So on cost:benefit analysis they still score highly despite the drawbacks. Many shirts are just as bad, but significantly more expensive.


I know but even the Costco shirts I bought seem more put together than the TM's.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I can't compare with Costco as I've never tried them but I find the quality comparable with Charles Thyrwhitt.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I just don't get why people want cheap shirts. 

I could easily - but do not - get by with 10 shirts for the weekdays. I risk coming over all Mafoofan here, but I generally wear pale blue solids and white and blue patterns. Generally double cuff. I realise everyone has different budgets and people will be in a different position when starting out, but i probably only wear out three or four shirts a year. At that rate, the T&A prices are not prohibitive.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> I just don't get why people want cheap shirts.
> 
> .


Reasons include (not for me personally but just in general) : 
(1) Budgetary constraints -- 10 x £120 or similar for RTW T&A quality is still a lot of money to spend on shirts
(2) Working conditions -- for example on my days on the wards, there was always a good chance of getting blood splattered on a shirt or similar so I wouldn't be breaking out the Brioni's there
(3) (Affordable) variety -- some people are really into trying out lots of different looks, I notice for example that upr_ uses a lot of TM Lewin shirts. If you choose from a more narrow range of shirts, this isn't a factor.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> Reasons include (not for me personally but just in general) :
> (1) Budgetary constraints -- 10 x £120 or similar for RTW T&A quality is still a lot of money to spend on shirts
> (2) Working conditions -- for example on my days on the wards, there was always a good chance of getting blood splattered on a shirt or similar so I wouldn't be breaking out the Brioni's there
> (3) (Affordable) variety -- some people are really into trying out lots of different looks, I notice for example that upr_ uses a lot of TM Lewin shirts. If you choose from a more narrow range of shirts, this isn't a factor.


Yes, I appreciate I was asking for an excessively literal response. I think I acknowledged (3) as not being persuasive for me, and (1) in my comment about starting out (i.e. if your replacement rate is three T&A in sales per annum, that works out at closer to £300). (2) is a fairly limited category.

So, my question remains, for a professional earning a decent but by no means generous salary, why favour cheap shirts over a small collection of decent quality ones?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Yes, I appreciate I was asking for an excessively literal response. I think I acknowledged (3) as not being persuasive for me, and (1) in my comment about starting out (i.e. if your replacement rate is three T&A in sales per annum, that works out at closer to £300). (2) is a fairly limited category.
> 
> So, my question remains, for a professional earning a decent but by no means generous salary, why favour cheap shirts over a small collection of decent quality ones?


Not all have decent salaries, least of all when starting out, and if you get 15 tml shirts you will have classic shirts to wear (which are basically underwear), different for each day between laundry


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Balfour said:


> I just don't get why people want cheap shirts.





Bjorn said:


> Not all have decent salaries, least of all when starting out, and if you get 15 tml shirts you will have classic shirts to wear (which are basically underwear), different for each day between laundry :smile:


Not to mention that a lot of people aren't going to see the sense in paying £80-150 for a shirt, when equally nice looking (to anyone who isn't a sartorial guru) shirts can be had for £20-25. As for the difference in quality.... If you've never owned a £100 shirt, how will you know? And quite frankly, even if they do recognise the qualitative difference, they may simply feel that a shirt at that price is a pointless extravagance.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Yes, I appreciate I was* asking for an excessively literal response.* I think I acknowledged (3) as not being persuasive for me, and (1) in my comment about starting out (i.e. if your replacement rate is three T&A in sales per annum, that works out at closer to £300). (2) is a fairly limited category.
> 
> So, my question remains, for a professional earning a decent but by no means generous salary, why favour cheap shirts over a small collection of decent quality ones?


Sounds like it was a rhetorical question then Balfour.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Balfour said:


> I just don't get why people want cheap shirts.





Haffman said:


> Sounds like it was a rhetorical question then Balfour.


It wasn't framed as a question at all, actually.

The comment was intended to explore what, to me, is an interesting facet of the quality versus quantity debate.

The budgetary stuff really goes without saying. If one has only £1000 a year to spend on clothes, one isn't going to buy T&A shirts (on sale or otherwise).

But establishing certain parameters of budget and taste, I am interested in exploring why people would wish to buy lots of cheap shirts from TM Lewin as opposed to a more limited number from firms like T&A.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> Not to mention that a lot of people aren't going to see the sense in paying £80-150 for a shirt, when equally nice looking (to anyone who isn't a sartorial guru) shirts can be had for £20-25. As for the difference in quality.... If you've never owned a £100 shirt, how will you know? And quite frankly, even if they do recognise the qualitative difference, they may simply feel that a shirt at that price is a pointless extravagance.


Trust me, there is a BIG difference between a Turnbull & Asser shirt and a TM Lewin shirt. As for what the masses think, that doesn't inform my sartorial choices one iota.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Yes, I appreciate I was asking for an excessively literal response. I think I acknowledged (3) as not being persuasive for me, and (1) in my comment about starting out (i.e. if your replacement rate is three T&A in sales per annum, that works out at closer to £300). (2) is a fairly limited category.
> 
> So, *my question remains*, for a professional earning a decent but by no means generous salary, why favour cheap shirts over a small collection of decent quality ones?


The queston I was referring to is highlighted above and presumably you agree it's a question. My point was that the answers have been given - unwilling to pay that much for whatever reason, workplace issues or wanting to get more variety rather than quality for the expenditure.

Like you I am a quality over quantity man but I can see why the expense of T&A puts people off even if they are on good salaries. I agree with you though that the outlay is in fact worth it.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Not all have decent salaries, least of all when starting out, and if you get 15 tml shirts you will have classic shirts to wear (which are basically underwear), different for each day between laundry


I acknowledged that things may be different when people are starting out, and I think one can explore an angle to a question for a subcategory (i.e. those who are on decent salaries). It would be a very boring forum if we could only explore sartorial choices that everyone could afford.

As for the 15 shirts thing, as I say, I think I could get by on 10 shirts for the weekdays very easily (in reality I have more, but this is more a question of what the minimum acceptable number would be assuming budget forced you into difficult decisions as between quality and quantity).


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> The queston I was referring to is highlighted above and presumably you agree it's a question. My point was that the answers have been given - unwilling to pay that much for whatever reason, workplace issues or wanting to get more variety rather than quality for the expenditure.
> 
> Like you I am a quality over quantity man but I can see why the expense of T&A puts people off even if they are on good salaries.


Yes, that quoted bit was a question. (I could get into a tedious grammatical debate about whether the "it" in your post #12 would be read to refer to my post #7 rather than my post #9, but I will spare us all that!:biggrin2

As I say, though, I find it curious that people who are interested in clothes (assuming adequate budget) still buy from TM Lewin, and I just don't get the "lots of c&ap shirts = interesting variety" rather than "lots of cr*p shirts = lots of cra* shirts" logic.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Balfour said:


> Trust me, there is a BIG difference between a Turnbull & Asser shirt and a TM Lewin shirt. As for what the masses think, that doesn't inform my sartorial choices one iota.


Nor should it. However, since you stated that you did not understand why people want cheap shirts, I simply added more reasons to those already mentioned by others. As far as the qualitative difference is concerned I own several shirts from Turnbull & Asser, as well as a couple from TM Lewin, so I'm relatively well aware of how they compare.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> Nor should it. However, since you stated that you did not understand why people want cheap shirts, I simply added more reasons to those already mentioned by others. As far as the qualitative difference is concerned I own several shirts from Turnbull & Asser, as well as a couple from TM Lewin, so I'm relatively well aware of how they compare.


Good Lord, the concept of a polemical comment is totally lost on some of you chaps.

But, thanks for representing the "I don't give a &rap about clothes, so I buy ASDA George for value" constituency on AAAC.:biggrin2:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Yes, that quoted bit was a question. (I could get into a tedious grammatical debate about whether the "it" in your post #12 would be read to refer to my post #7 rather than my post #9, but I will spare us all that!:biggrin2
> 
> As I say, though, I find it curious that people who are interested in clothes (assuming adequate budget) still buy from TM Lewin, and I just don't get the "lots of c&ap shirts = interesting variety" rather than "lots of cr*p shirts = lots of cra* shirts" logic.


I would have replied that "question *remains*" implied the previous existence of said question :icon_smile_big:

I must confess to a reluctance about equating 'people interested in clothes' who are on 'adequate budget' with the quality level of Turnbull & Asser, for fear of sounding like an absurdly complacent character from an F Scott Fitzgerald novel :wink2:. Money is always a tricky subject. But the general point of quality over quantity and quality repaying over time is one I accept.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Good Lord, the concept of a polemical comment is totally lost on some of you chaps.
> 
> But, thanks for representing the "I don't give a &rap about clothes, so I buy ASDA George for value" constituency on AAAC.:biggrin2:


From rhetorical questions to straw men in one easy dash....you are becoming an ever more truculent fellow Balfour :devil::icon_smile:


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Balfour said:


> But, thanks for representing the "I don't give a &rap about clothes, so I buy ASDA George for value" constituency on AAAC.


Thank you kindly. On balance, I probably prefer to represent that particular constituency over the "I'll just make whatever assumptions I prefer, without actually having anything at all to base them on", not to mention that the spot seems already to be reserved.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> I would have replied that "question *remains*" implied the previous existence of said question :icon_smile_big:


Now that, Sir, is a fair point well made!



Haffman said:


> I must confess to a reluctance about equating 'people interested in clothes' who are on 'adequate budget' with the quality level of Turnbull & Asser, for fear of sounding like an absurdly complacent character from an F Scott Fitzgerald novel :wink2:. Money is always a tricky subject. But the general point of quality over quantity and quality repaying over time is one I accept.


For sure. But take Hilditch & Key. Under £50 per shirt if you multi-buy in a sale. Or Ede and Ravenscroft - £35 per shirt in the right sale. Both a significant step up in quality from TM Lewin or Tyrwhitt. TM Lewin used to be much better (say nine or ten years ago), but the quality now is poor.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> For sure. But take Hilditch & Key. Under £50 per shirt if you multi-buy in a sale. Or Ede and Ravenscroft - £35 per shirt in the right sale. Both a significant step up in quality from TM Lewin or Tyrwhitt. TM Lewin used to be much better (say nine or ten years ago), but the quality now is poor.


This I can fully endorse and this is the reason why I would never again buy TM Lewin whatever my financial situation. At £17 for TM Lewin versus £35-£50 for the brands you mention, the case is very very compelling for one E&R shirt rather than two TMs...


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> Thank you kindly. On balance, I probably prefer to represent that particular constituency over the "I'll just make whatever assumptions I prefer, without actually having anything at all to base them on", not to mention that the spot seems already to be reserved.


My assumptions were based on your own words:



Belfaborac said:


> Not to mention that a lot of people aren't going to see the sense in paying £80-150 for a shirt, when equally nice looking (to anyone who isn't a sartorial guru) shirts can be had for £20-25. As for the difference in quality.... If you've never owned a £100 shirt, how will you know? And quite frankly, even if they do recognise the qualitative difference, they may simply feel that a shirt at that price is a pointless extravagance.


In that post, you were advocating the position of people who (1) buy clothes based on what other people think; (2) buy clothes based on what other people think when those other people cannot tell the difference between a £20 and £100 shirt; (3) haven't worn a £100 shirt. (1) and (2) make that constituency a pretty vulgar one.

So, for sure, my response was satirical, but it was assuredly not without a basis.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> From rhetorical questions to straw men in one easy dash....you are becoming an ever more truculent fellow Balfour :devil::icon_smile:


Hopefully I've clarified my point on the straw man quip. But I am a crotchety old git at times, this is true.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Excuse me? I was advocating exactly nothing, merely presenting a position held by many. Whereupon you evidently chose, for whatever reason, to interpret it as you saw fit and take an adversarial approach. Which is all good, feel free to continue.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Haffman said:


> ....you are becoming an ever more truculent fellow Balfour :devil::icon_smile:


And THAT, my friends, is the British equivalent of a *PIMP SLAP!!*

:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> Excuse me? I was advocating exactly nothing, merely presenting a position held by many. Whereupon you evidently chose, for whatever reason, to interpret it as you saw fit and take an adversarial approach. Which is all good, feel free to continue.


Well, you were advocating the position of the people you described in your post in that you were providing a rationale for their behaviour. I was not suggesting that you held these beliefs yourself, merely that you were representing the position of those who do. I suggest you check out a dictionary definition of "advocate", which is not limited to causes you personally support. For example, a lawyer "advocates" many causes he may find personally distasteful.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

BluePincord said:


> And THAT, my friends, is the British equivalent of a *PIMP SLAP!!*
> 
> :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:


I hope you are not suggesting, at the risk of utilising un-parliamentary language, that I am Haffman's "ho".


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Balfour said:


> Well, you were advocating the position of the people you described in your post in that you were providing a rationale for their behaviour. I was not suggesting that you held these beliefs yourself, merely that you were representing the position of those who do. I suggest you check out a dictionary definition of "advocate", which is not limited to causes you personally support. For example, a lawyer "advocates" many causes he may find personally distasteful.


That really was an admirable attempt; in fact it was almost believable. However, the hour grows late, so rather than continue I shall bid you good night.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> That really was an admirable attempt; in fact it was almost believable.


This post is a vacuum. But, hey - if you can't meet the substance of my reply, do continue to carp on the sidelines.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Balfour said:


> I hope you are not suggesting, at the risk of utilising un-parliamentary language, that I am Haffman's "ho".


I'm just sayin' you're gonna have to get NASTY on him now! Lay that pimp hand of justice DOWN on him for disrespecting you!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Haffman said:


> This I can fully endorse and this is the reason why I would never again buy TM Lewin whatever my financial situation. At £17 for TM Lewin versus £35-£50 for the brands you mention, the case is very very compelling for one E&R shirt rather than two TMs...


I would agree, but tml are typically around 20-25£ when bought at their ordinary price. E&R are in fact 80-100£. H&K are 110£. That's apples to oranges in my book.

It's more often 4 tml shirts to 1 E&R or New & Lingwood. 2 tml shirts to 1 Harvie & Hudson. 5-6 for every Emmett London shirt.

You get tons of tml shirts for every Turnbull & Asser or Emma Willis. At their "retail" price...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

When I first ventured into this hobby several years ago I bought 12 Lewin shirts and an assortment of 15-18 ties. I knew nothing about matching colors, patterns, fabrics etc.. This was a way of familiarizing myself with such ideas and it didn't cost me a complete fortune. As they are all still in excellent condition I see no reason to take them out of the rotation at this point either. 

Although I have moved on to "better" and wear these for professional meetings, court, lectures, etc., for more active periods (such as visiting patients in hospitals/homes/prisons), I have no problem donning a "lesser" shirt and actually prefer doing so.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I have 4 TML shirts and like them. Was on Jermyn Street a few months ago and wanted to buy a nice shirt. For me the prices were what kept me from pulling the trigger on one of the better maker shirts, and I am not considered cheap at all.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

There appear to be two different discussions here. The first is the larger question of cheap shirts and quality v. quantity. The second has to do with the particular virtues of TML.

With regard to the first, I am of the opinion that to a great extent dress shirts really do resemble underwear, in that what matters most is having enough so that there is always a clean pair ready to go the next day. Given that at any given time, some of my shirts and in the hamper, and some are with the cleaners, I need a lot of shirts, and 'm often checking to make sure that I'm covered not just for the next day but for specific events that week, esp. since I am not always at liberty to take shirts to or pick shirts up from the laundry or launder them myself. Thus, quantity does have a quality all its own.

I find that I need more shirts than I can afford to own if I were to buy only the better shirts. And thus, in my closet, one finds quite a few TML, Lands End, Tyrwhitt, and Brooks 346 shirts, in addition to a good number of main line Brooks. I'd love to be that guy who can routinely do big Brooks Brothers multibuys and stock up. Or dabble in some of the better British brands. I can't. Indeed, a fair number of my Brooks Brothers shirts are, in fact, from Ebay or from the sales forum here. There's another factor: the reality is that I stain my shirts frequently. I have three small kids and am often feeding them, cleaning them, or holding the youngest, a baby, while I eat. Just recently I was holding a spoon of some green vegetable puree to the baby's mouth when he sneezed. I was wearing my finest Brooks white shirt. I would thus be reluctant to spend much money on my shirts.

As for TML, I cannot recommend their shirts. Compared to my comparably priced Lands End shirts, the TML are definitely prettier, more fashionable, etc. Just looking through their catalogue, I see a number of shirts I really like. I never see LE shirts that catch my eye, and I've only bought plain white and light blue dress shirts from them. The TML fit me well, too. But they are chintzy, esp. the cuffs. They feel flimsy. Worse, mine are invariably wrinkled and look like I had just pulled the shirt from the bottom of the hamper and not just taken it out of the plastic wrapping from the cleaners. I feel self-conscious when wear my TML because of the cuffs, and thus I only wear them when all the other shirts are dirty or with the cleaner. I much prefer to stick with Lands End, even though LE aren't as sharply tailored.

I did recently buy some Tywhitt dress shirts. They feel more substantial than the TML, but still there are issues. The cuffs, for example, are definitely not flimsy, but they have creases that I've never experienced with any other shirt maker. I think the problem is that the fabric on the inside of the cuff is the same size as the fabric on the outside, when the fabric on the inside needs to be just a tiny bit shorter since the circumference of the inside of the cuff is smaller than that of the outside of the cuff. Lands End seems to have figured that one out. Not Tyrwhitt. Still, I prefer that problem to the shabby look of the TML. I doubt anyone notices the crease.

I will keep buying LE and Tywhitt, while trying to keep my purchases from both to a minimum so that I can save up for a large day-after-Xmas Brooks purchase. In the meantime, I'll keep snapping up the occasional target of opportunity on Ebay and the salesforum. I hope to score a T & A or an H & K soon to see what the fuss is about.


----------



## lbv2k (Feb 16, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> There appear to be two different discussions here. The first is the larger question of cheap shirts and quality v. quantity. The second has to do with the particular virtues of TML.
> 
> With regard to the first, I am of the opinion that to a great extent dress shirts really do resemble underwear, in that what matters most is having enough so that there is always a clean pair ready to go the next day. Given that at any given time, some of my shirts and in the hamper, and some are with the cleaners, I need a lot of shirts, and 'm often checking to make sure that I'm covered not just for the next day but for specific events that week, esp. since I am not always at liberty to take shirts to or pick shirts up from the laundry or launder them myself. Thus, quantity does have a quality all its own.
> 
> ...


I honestly think you sum up the argument pretty nicely here.
And the part about the kids and carnage to shirts and clothes in general, I can totally relate. 
Good post.


----------



## aluminiumfish (Feb 19, 2009)

i think they cost south of £5 to have made ..and are sold for 5 for £100 at discount outlets..
bargain...I say.
at £40 might be a little bit wanting..but not by much.


----------

