# Hilditch & Key - Pattern Matching?



## stophe (Jan 19, 2008)

Hi guys!

I've just recently purchased my first H&K shirts from the Sale By Mail from their website.

Just a question about the pattern matching of the stripes across the shoulders - i've noticed that none of my 4 shirts are actually 'perfectly' matched, as can be seen by the pictures below. One of them (the blue fine stripe) actually reaches the point where the stripes are 100% out of sync!

Am I just unlucky (I purchased 4 shirts and all 4 are the same) or is this simply H&K's level of pattern matching and is normal?







I just want to know as this is my first H&K purchase and one of their claims is that they match stripes!

Thanks!
Chris


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

I have two of the H&K blue stripe and the pattern matching is fine. If you are unhappy, take it back. H&K will swap unworn and unwashed sale shirts.


----------



## stophe (Jan 19, 2008)

Thanks for the reply - so comparing yours to mine, would I be right in saying the pattern matching is usually better than the one I have received?

I understand they do exchanges but I'm in Australia and shipping it back and then paying for shipping again would be quite a bit.


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*Most English shirts are not patterned matched....*

T&A, who some say are the best, pay no attention to pattern matching. I think this is because pattern matching is hard to accomplish and because most who wear $150 to $350 rtw shirts keep their jackets on, making pattern matching immaterial. I don't know whether English bespoke is any better. I wouldn't worry about it, you are not unlucky. That's just the way it is. People buy H&K for material and fit, not pattern matching. I have had better results with H&H, whose collars I like better than H&K. but that is just a personal preference.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

stophe said:


> Thanks for the reply - so comparing yours to mine, would I be right in saying the pattern matching is usually better than the one I have received?
> 
> I understand they do exchanges but I'm in Australia and shipping it back and then paying for shipping again would be quite a bit.


Sorry, I did not look at your location. Yes, pattern matching is normally better but it is more difficult with very narrow stripes. I have an old shirt where it is not spot on. With such a narrow stripes, it is difficult to tell whether the pattern is matched accurately. Perhaps you could email H&K with the photo and ask them to confirm that the shirt is sub-standard. If so, H&K may be willing to pay for the postage to replace it or even refund you (that would enable you to buy another).


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

dfloyd said:


> T&A, who some say are the best, pay no attention to pattern matching. I think this is because pattern matching is hard to accomplish and because most who wear $150 to $350 rtw shirts keep their jackets on, making pattern matching immaterial. I don't know whether English bespoke is any better. I wouldn't worry about it, you are not unlucky. That's just the way it is. People buy H&K for material and fit, not pattern matching. I have had better results with H&H, whose collars I like better than H&K. but that is just a personal preference.


That is fair comment. Budd don't do pattern matching either. I have to admit that pattern matching looks great on my large candy (wider than bengal) striped shirts.


----------



## stophe (Jan 19, 2008)

I must admit I didn't buy the H&K just for the pattern matching - but rather for the material, collar and fit. However I see it as a bonus that they do pattern match.

It's just that on their website and on the tag attached to each shirt they make it clear that all stripes are matched on their shirts - and when I received my shirts this wasn't the case!

Could it be that the Sale by Mail shirts are seconds, or the somewhat non-perfect shirts compared to the ones that make it to the store?


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*If you can dig out his e-mail address, maybe you can...*

convince the guy who had "The Best of English Shirts" Australian website to go back in business. He had good prices on T&A, and his shipping to the states was as reasonable as shipping from England. He quit for personal reasons just as I was about to give him an order. Iwould like to see somebody from Australia start this up again. After all, if we purveyors of English goods buy our shoes from Malasia, no reason we can't buy aour shirts from Australia.


----------



## MarkusH (Dec 10, 2004)

dfloyd said:


> T&A, who some say are the best, pay no attention to pattern matching. I think this is because pattern matching is hard to accomplish and because most who wear $150 to $350 rtw shirts keep their jackets on, making pattern matching immaterial. I don't know whether English bespoke is any better. I wouldn't worry about it, you are not unlucky. That's just the way it is. People buy H&K for material and fit, not pattern matching.


That is not correct.

Although T&A is notoriously sloppy for pattern matching, H&K claim that they pattern match. So, Stophe, you were indeed unlucky.


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*Unlucky or not....*

I wouldn't worry about it. Whether H&K says it will pattern match or not, the next order you place, if there is one after this, you might again not get a perfect match. Very few people notice things like pattern matching, which is probably why T&A makes little or no effort to pattern match. I would care more about a pin striped suit, but there are many of the rtw suit makers who have horrible pattern matching. Enjoy your shirts, practically no one will notice. Just think of all the men who have ill fitting deparftment store shirts.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

stophe said:


> Could it be that the Sale by Mail shirts are seconds, or the somewhat non-perfect shirts compared to the ones that make it to the store?


Definitely not! The Sale by Mail shirts are standard stock and are available in the stores. Only the slimfits and the cotton/wool country shirts are not in the sale.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> That is fair comment. Budd don't do pattern matching either. I have to admit that pattern matching looks great on my large candy (wider than bengal) striped shirts.


Word.

I care a lot about pattern matching on this H&K shirt I bought recently (and where they got it right):

https://www.classicwardrobe.co.uk/P...tegories/Designer/Categories/Hilditch-and-Key

But I care about it a lot less on this shirt, where the pattern matching on close inspection appears a bit imprecise:

https://www.classicwardrobe.co.uk/P...tegories/Designer/Categories/Hilditch-and-Key


----------



## smr (Apr 24, 2005)

The first two pictures posted don't look bad at all to me, and on the third, it may just be that those fine line stripes are very hard to match. I agree with PJC that I would be much more upset if bolder stripes were not well matched at the shoulder. If it upsets you that much, however, contact them. They do show a picture on their web site of a shirt similar to yours with matched stripes at the shoulder. .


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Word.
> 
> I care a lot about pattern matching on this H&K shirt I bought recently (and where they got it right):
> 
> ...


It does matter on the first. I also have the second and the matching is less precise - see earlier comment.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> That is fair comment. Budd don't do pattern matching either. I have to admit that pattern matching looks great on my large candy (wider than bengal) striped shirts.


yes, and on the even larger H&H butcher stripes - though I always worry they make you look fat!?


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> That is fair comment. Budd don't do pattern matching either. I have to admit that pattern matching looks great on my large candy (wider than bengal) striped shirts.


yes, and on the even larger H&H butcher stripes - though I always worry that these make you look fat...!?


----------



## stophe (Jan 19, 2008)

Thanks for the replies! :icon_smile:

I've contacted them regarding this issue and i'll see what they reply with!

You're right though - I agree that with the fine stripes it would be hard to get them matched up perfectly and its less noticable - however their website does have a similar shirt where they show it matched up perfectly!


----------



## stophe (Jan 19, 2008)

I have sent the pictures off to H&K and they have advised that the pattern matching on my shirts "are normal" and is "as near as perfect that can be achieved" I guess the shirt on their website showing perfect matched stripes is - false advertising??? 

Furthermore, I've noticed that even the stripes on my cuffs are not even lined up straight to the edge of the cuff!! 



I can somewhat understand about the pattern matching on the shoulder, but this? Even my TM Lewin shirts got it right....

I have heard only praise on this forum for H&K and expected much more - have I really just gotten a bad batch of shirts? Or are my standards too high?


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

As a loyal H&K customer for over 20 years, it hurts to admit that (IMHO) standards have slipped a bit in the last two to three years. The fabric quality is not as good as it used to be. I have bought a few shirts in the latest sale that are still in their bags. After examining them, I will report back. However, I would still prefer to wear H&K over Lewin any day. MOP buttons are a minimum requirement. The H&K collars and the cut are far superior.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

I'll post the same thing here I did in response on SF...

Seriously, you have to find a way to lessen your anxiety about this kind of sh!t. You are pointing out things that simply do not matter. Worry about liking the fabric, about how the shirt fits and its durability. Stop worrying about pattern matching in general and especially about whether 1 or 2 mm discrepencies matter at all.


----------



## I'm Pelham (Feb 3, 2007)

well said iamatt!


----------



## k.diddy (May 15, 2004)

iammatt said:


> I'll post the same thing here I did in response on SF...
> 
> Seriously, you have to find a way to lessen your anxiety about this kind of sh!t. You are pointing out things that simply do not matter. Worry about liking the fabric, about how the shirt fits and its durability. Stop worrying about pattern matching in general and especially about whether 1 or 2 mm discrepencies matter at all.


Sure it does matter. It shows laziness and sloppiness. When we pay a lot of money for a shirt, suit, or pants, we expect merchandise to fit and have excellent workmanship, which includes pattern matching. If a $40/shirt maker like Jantzen can do this consistently, why can't we expect the same of $250, $400 or $500 shirtmakers?


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> As a loyal H&K customer for over 20 years, it hurts to admit that (IMHO) standards have slipped a bit in the last two to three years. The fabric quality is not as good as it used to be. I have bought a few shirts in the latest sale that are still in their bags. After examining them, I will report back. However, I would still prefer to wear H&K over Lewin any day. MOP buttons are a minimum requirement. The H&K collars and the cut are far superior.


I bought 4 shirts on this latest SBM go-round and noticed that not a one of them has country of origin on the label (this has been the case for several seasons, in fact). Whereas my older H&K shirts do often say "Made in England" or "Made in Gt. Britain" on the label.

I suspect H&K is getting shirts made outside the UK. If they were making them in Britain, they would surely keep listing that on the label. Could there be a link between what appears to be offshore production and slipping quality-control standards? I don't know, but one wonders . . . .


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

k.diddy said:


> Sure it does matter. It shows laziness and sloppiness. When we pay a lot of money for a shirt, suit, or pants, we expect merchandise to fit and have excellent workmanship, which includes pattern matching. If a $40/shirt maker like Jantzen can do this consistently, why can't we expect the same of $250, $400 or $500 shirtmakers?


It only matters if pattern matching leads to a better shirt. There is much evidence that it actually leads to a worse shirt. It certainly seems to matter more on the internet than in the real world.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

k.diddy said:


> Sure it does matter. It shows laziness and sloppiness. When we pay a lot of money for a shirt, suit, or pants, we expect merchandise to fit and have excellent workmanship, which includes pattern matching. If a $40/shirt maker like Jantzen can do this consistently, why can't we expect the same of $250, $400 or $500 shirtmakers?


You should.



iammatt said:


> It only matters if pattern matching leads to a better shirt. There is much evidence that it actually leads to a worse shirt.


I don't have any idea where that came from, would most vehemently dispute the statement, and would sincerely like to see even one iota of such "evidence".


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> You should.
> 
> I don't have any idea where that came from, would most vehemently dispute the statement, and would sincerely like to see even one iota of such "evidence".


I think it has been well established that many of the top European shirtmakers not only do not match patters, but believe that like in a jacket, it is not preferable. The explanation revolves around putting round parts into holes, especially at the shoulder. It has been diagrammed by members on several of the forums. Other shirtmakers, such as yourself, obviously disagree, but not everybody is on the same page. You have more diagrams than I could ever come up with, and I am sure you have great reasons for your point of view, but there are many points of view on the subject.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

iammatt said:


> I think it has been well established that many of the top European shirtmakers not only do not match patters, but believe that like in a jacket, it is not preferable.



I believe that unlike your shirtmaker, the vast majority of shirtmakers who don't match patterns do it because they can't be bothered to. That said, it's not the be-all and end-all of a decent shirt. I like that H&K does it, but it's only one factor in making it what is the best-made British-branded RTW shirt.


PJC in NoVa said:


> I bought 4 shirts on this latest SBM go-round and noticed that not a one of them has country of origin on the label (this has been the case for several seasons, in fact). Whereas my older H&K shirts do often say "Made in England" or "Made in Gt. Britain" on the label.


H&K switched production from England to Glenrothes, Scotland ten or fifteen years ago. It got in trouble for continuing to use its "Made in England" labels, and in more trouble when the chairman of H&K said that it didn't matter since to export market customers, England and Great Britain were the same thing. (You'll notice that the shirts they sold at Saks still said "Made in England" until Saks stopped carrying H&K.) H&K laid off many of its Glenrothes workers about five years ago, and there was talk in the press of manufacturing being sent out to Pakistan. I don't know if that's really where they're made; at the shop they insist the shirts are still made in Glenrothes, but as that would be a selling point, it's not logical that they don't put that on the label even though it's not a requirement.


> I suspect H&K is getting shirts made outside the UK. If they were making them in Britain, they would surely keep listing that on the label. Could there be a link between what appears to be offshore production and slipping quality-control standards? I don't know, but one wonders . . . .


I don't think the recent shirts have declined in quality from those made right before the switch. Apparently if retailers so request, H&K will supply shirts made in Britain (or with labels that say that, FWIW). Thus, Ben Silver, Drinkwaters and the late Best of British shirts all sell/sold H&K shirts with the made in Great Britain label.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

I agree with RJ Man's post above 100%. H&K staff are adamant that the all the dress shirts sold in Jermyn Street are made in Glenrothes. The casual shirts, e.g. denims, are made in Italy.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

RJman said:


> I believe that unlike your shirtmaker, the vast majority of shirtmakers who don't match patterns do it because they can't be bothered to. That said, it's not the be-all and end-all of a decent shirt. I like that H&K does it, but it's only one factor in making it what is the best-made British-branded RTW shirt.


Well, hers definitely could not be due to the shoulder construction, but she does not tend to match areas that would drive forumites crazy. Sometimes the plackets and cuffs etc...

I should not have said Europe, because by all indications the French makers do match, but I have been in a fair number of shops belonging to very good shirtmakers in Italy, and none of them fanatically match patterns. Whether they are as good, or as diligent as US and French makers would, I guess, be judged by them and their clients.


----------



## encyclopedia (Jan 3, 2008)

iammatt said:


> I'll post the same thing here I did in response on SF...
> 
> Seriously, you have to find a way to lessen your anxiety about this kind of sh!t. You are pointing out things that simply do not matter. Worry about liking the fabric, about how the shirt fits and its durability. Stop worrying about pattern matching in general and especially about whether 1 or 2 mm discrepencies matter at all.


I think that's a bit strong. I think u can reasonably equate caring about this issue with:
- are cuffs 2cm or 2.5 or 3
- is the buckle on a black belt gold or silver colored
- do your sleeve buttonholes work

Although clearly some will be more important to one person than the next. So much of this forum is about things less than 1pct of people will ever notice I don't think its fair to suggest things that less than 0.5pct or 0.1pct or whatever of people will notice are significantly less important.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> I agree with RJ Man's post above 100%. H&K staff are adamant that the all the dress shirts sold in Jermyn Street are made in Glenrothes. The casual shirts, e.g. denims, are made in Italy.


If they're made in Scotland then of course a label saying "Made in England" is out of bounds, but have you ever asked anyone at any of the H&K shops why the shirts don't just carry "Made in Gt. Britain" or "Made in UK" on the labels, then? I've got H&K shirts (some years old now) that do say "Made in Gt. Britain," so I know they've done this in the past.

It's obviously a marketing plus to be able to label a Jermyn Street shirt as being of actual British make, so when RJ says that it's "not logical" for H&K to omit this, I most certainly agree with him.

BTW, I'm talking strictly about dress (or in British English, "formal") shirts here. Purely on styling grounds I'm not a fan of H&K's casual stuff and don't own any of it.


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

Matt, I don't think anyone can argue with the notion that on a non-shirred shirt shoulder, matched patterns simply look better. That's why we all like to have our shirtmakers match the patterns. It is as simple as that.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Khoa said:


> Matt, I don't think anyone can argue with the notion that on a non-shirred shirt shoulder, matched patterns simply look better. That's why we all like to have our shirtmakers match the patterns. It is as simple as that.


From what I understand, even from shirtmakers who do not shir, like the best of breed in Rome, pattern matching can be harmful to sleeve hang. I prefer my shirts to fit well, and what is under my jacket at the shoulder does not cause me to think twice. Good fit > pattern matching. If pattern matching is possible in some areas without disturbing fit, knock your socks off and match to your hearts delight. Personally, I wear solid or tick weave shirts 99% of the time, so I couldn't care less.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

I just unpinned one of my new H&K fancy stripes (bearing no country of origin labeling) and I must say that the pattern matching and balancing are absolutely perfect at all points.

Kudos to H&K.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

This goes beyond shirt construction. Fixating on pattern-matching does _nothing_ to improve your style. In fact, you might even wind up _less_ stylish.

Pattern-matching does not impact your appearance nearly as much as your coordination of color, pattern, and texture. It means nothing compared to how well your clothes fit you. Moreover, fixating like this easily detracts from _how_ you wear your clothes--perhaps the most important thing of all. It's a matter of attitude.

I have a hard time imagining Fred Astaire scolding his shirtmaker for not matching the patterns on his shirts. He always looks damned good to me, and I've never thought to check if his patterns match up. Man, could he _move_.


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> This goes beyond shirt construction. Fixating on pattern-matching does _nothing_ to improve your style. In fact, you might even wind up _less_ stylish.


Come on mate, I understand Matt's POV, in that pattern-matching may affect fit or comfort and therefore he doesn't care for it (although I don't necessarily believe that it negatively affects fit or 'sleeve hang' - maybe AK can chime in here to give another POV, seeing as though he religiously pattern matches as well as obsesses about fit).

What you are saying however is just rubbish. Suggesting that someone who insists on pattern-matched shirts is somehow less stylish, or has a less stylish attitude to wearing clothes is laughable.


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

iammatt said:


> From what I understand, even from shirtmakers who do not shir, like the best of breed in Rome, pattern matching can be harmful to sleeve hang. I prefer my shirts to fit well, and what is under my jacket at the shoulder does not cause me to think twice. Good fit > pattern matching. If pattern matching is possible in some areas without disturbing fit, knock your socks off and match to your hearts delight. Personally, I wear solid or tick weave shirts 99% of the time, so I couldn't care less.


Fair enough, but a good number of us don't believe that pattern-matched shoulders negatively affect fit to any significant degree, and that's why we insist on it. Telling someone that they are being overly anxious about their poorly matched sleeves fails to take this into account. You make it seem as though you get the choice of either sub-par fitting pattern matched shoulders or well-fitting shirts without pattern-matched shoulders. But don't shirts exist which both fit well and are pattern-matched, eg. Charvet bespoke.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Khoa said:


> But don't shirts exist which both fit well and are pattern-matched, eg. Charvet bespoke.


Of course, there exist some who pooh-pooh Charvet bespoke as well.

Not me. Just sayin'.


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

RJman said:


> Of course, there exist some who pooh-pooh Charvet bespoke as well.
> 
> Not me. Just sayin'.


Matuozzo bespoke >> Charvet bespoke
in terms of fit and finishing.
I have bespoke shirts from both.


----------



## stophe (Jan 19, 2008)

Thanks for the replies guys!

I guess my point of view is that H&K claim to pattern match on all their shirts. Whether it leads to a worse fitting shirt, I guess thats debatable but H&K obviously don't seem to think so and hence they offer shirts that are matched.

Now my concern is that i've received a number of shirts which are very much below par on their level of pattern matching, so I just want to know if I have a reason to bring this up as a "quality" issue with H&K based on your experiences with H&K. So far, they've come back and said thats about as 'near perfect as can be achieved on a hand made shirt' - but PJC in Nova has just noted that one of his shirts is perfectly matched!


----------



## The Doctor (Oct 17, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> If they're made in Scotland then of course a label saying "Made in England" is out of bounds, but have you ever asked anyone at any of the H&K shops why the shirts don't just carry "Made in Gt. Britain" or "Made in UK" on the labels, then? I've got H&K shirts (some years old now) that do say "Made in Gt. Britain," so I know they've done this in the past.
> 
> It's obviously a marketing plus to be able to label a Jermyn Street shirt as being of actual British make, so when RJ says that it's "not logical" for H&K to omit this, I most certainly agree with him.
> 
> BTW, I'm talking strictly about dress (or in British English, "formal") shirts here. Purely on styling grounds I'm not a fan of H&K's casual stuff and don't own any of it.


They use to have made in England labels in the shirts but there was a rising in the hills so they put in made in Great Britain. not sure what they use now. lol


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

T4phage said:


> Matuozzo bespoke >> Charvet bespoke
> in terms of fit and finishing.
> I have bespoke shirts from both.


And if I lived in Naples or enjoyed the sort of lifestyle that allowed me to make frequent visits to Naples without the demands of work and family, I might have given her a go. As it is, one can't do better in Paris than Charvet bespoke, and I'm not saying Matuozzo isn't beter.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Aside from across the placket,( checked shirts are most noticible) I don't suppose it really matters and should be secondary to fit. When I saw Matt last, the blue stripe Matuozzo he was wearing looked pretty well matched to me- (but I wasn't micro-examing it either). So if there was mismatching, it's not noticible.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

RJman said:


> And if I lived in Naples or enjoyed the sort of lifestyle that allowed me to make frequent visits to Naples without the demands of work and family, I might have given her a go. As it is, one can't do better in Paris than Charvet bespoke, and I'm not saying Matuozzo isn't beter.


My wife has a couple of bespoke shirts from each Charvet and Matuozzo. Honestly, there are things I like both about Charvet and things I like both about Matuozzo, but pattern matching isn't one I've thought of. If pressed, I would say the Charvet shirts are slightly more pristine or businesslike, and the Matuozzo ones are more artisanal looking with a bit more flair. Neither better nor worse.


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

RJman said:


> And if I lived in Naples or enjoyed the sort of lifestyle that allowed me to make frequent visits to Naples without the demands of work and family, I might have given her a go. As it is, one can't do better in Paris than Charvet bespoke, and I'm not saying Matuozzo isn't beter.


Weekend trip? Don't you get weekends off sometimes in Freedom ? 
That is what I do.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

T4phage said:


> Weekend trip? Don't you get weekends off sometimes in Freedom ?
> That is what I do.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Khoa said:


> What you are saying however is just rubbish. Suggesting that someone who insists on pattern-matched shirts is somehow less stylish, or has a less stylish attitude to wearing clothes is laughable.


What I'm saying is that fixating on pattern-matching doesn't improve style in a meaningful way. I'm not saying that everyone insisting on pattern-matching is _necessarily_ unstylish, but being too neurotic about it certainly can't help you relax in your clothes.

If pattern-matching makes for a better-constructed shirt, I'd insist on it, too. But there doesn't seem to be consensus on this issue and I can't think of a reason why it would make a difference.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Khoa said:


> Fair enough, but a good number of us don't believe that pattern-matched shoulders negatively affect fit to any significant degree, and that's why we insist on it.


Where does this belief come from? Have you tried top end shirt makers that believe both ways, or did you learn it simply by reading?



> Telling someone that they are being overly anxious about their poorly matched sleeves fails to take this into account. You make it seem as though you get the choice of either sub-par fitting pattern matched shoulders or well-fitting shirts without pattern-matched shoulders.


No, what I have said is that there are pluses and minuses to pattern matching, and that excellent fit is more important.



> But don't shirts exist which both fit well and are pattern-matched, eg. Charvet bespoke.


Yes. Charvet shirts are very nice. I have seen shirts that fit in a way that I prefer, but they are very good. If pattern matching is just as important to you as fit, they would be an excellent choice.



> What you are saying however is just rubbish. Suggesting that someone who insists on pattern-matched shirts is somehow less stylish, or has a less stylish attitude to wearing clothes is laughable.


There is no doubt in my mind that people who obsess more are generally less stylish. That goes double for people obsessing about unimportant details.



> maybe AK can chime in here to give another POV, seeing as though he religiously pattern matches as well as obsesses about fit


I think we all know what Alex believes on the subject, but there are only opinions, no right answers. Alex will also tell you that fused collars are great, while Charvet will say point blank that you cannot make a beautiful collar if you use fusing. Some shirtmakers agree with Alex, some with Charvet. If you are most interested in patterns that match, then you should insist on it, but that still doesn't mean that it is anything other than your preference.


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

iammatt said:


> Where does this belief come from? Have you tried top end shirt makers that believe both ways, or did you learn it simply by reading?


No I haven't, I've only bought shirts from Charvet and a local maker, who both pattern-match. My point was though, your statements ("I prefer my shirts to fit well") may mislead some people into thinking that they can't have both pattern-matching and good fit. I haven't had the luxury of trying AM for shirts, so I have no means for comparison other than what I have read. Your statement "If pattern matching is just as important to you as fit, they (_Charvet_) would be an excellent choice." is another example of how some of your posts are misleading. We all know that fit is infinitely more important than pattern-matching when talking about bespoke shirts, so why would you suggest that anyone would believe otherwise? What I am saying is that pattern-matching is a bonus that some of us appreciate on our bespoke shirts, so why knock those who insist on this feature?


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> What I'm saying is that fixating on pattern-matching doesn't improve style in a meaningful way. I'm not saying that everyone insisting on pattern-matching is _necessarily_ unstylish, but being too neurotic about it certainly can't help you relax in your clothes.
> 
> If pattern-matching makes for a better-constructed shirt, I'd insist on it, too. But there doesn't seem to be consensus on this issue and I can't think of a reason why it would make a difference.


Your first point is fair. I have to ask you though, surely pattern-matched shirt fronts do make for a better-constructed shirt purely on the basis of aesthetics, right?


----------



## encyclopedia (Jan 3, 2008)

Khoa said:


> Your first point is fair. I have to ask you though, surely pattern-matched shirt fronts do make for a better-constructed shirt purely on the basis of aesthetics, right?


this ill agree with. i dont like the look of the placket (the doubled-over part of the shirt the button-holes are in, in case my nomenclature is wrong). but i do like the strength it gives, especially with very light cottons and silks. so its important to me that the pattern match well over the edge of the placket. for some patterns a mismatch can be visually quite disruptive. all the shirtmakers i currently use do this.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Khoa said:


> No I haven't, I've only bought shirts from Charvet and a local maker, who both pattern-match. My point was though, your statements ("I prefer my shirts to fit well") may mislead some people into thinking that they can't have both pattern-matching and good fit. I haven't had the luxury of trying AM for shirts, so I have no means for comparison other than what I have read. Your statement "If pattern matching is just as important to you as fit, they (_Charvet_) would be an excellent choice." is another example of how some of your posts are misleading. We all know that fit is infinitely more important than pattern-matching when talking about bespoke shirts, so why would you suggest that anyone would believe otherwise? What I am saying is that pattern-matching is a bonus that some of us appreciate on our bespoke shirts, so why knock those who insist on this feature?


My post was not unclear, nor was it misleading. If you thought that it was, perhaps you were hoping to find meaning that was not there, or hoping to not find meaning at all.

I am happy that you are happy with your shirts, I was simply trying to help the board out with a little knowledge in an area where I believe there remains much myth.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Khoa said:


> Your first point is fair. I have to ask you though, surely pattern-matched shirt fronts do make for a better-constructed shirt purely on the basis of aesthetics, right?


Are you talking about the placket being folded in an even line over the button holes? In that case, it seems that pattern-matching would be the result of better construction, not the cause of it.


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> Are you talking about the placket being folded in an even line over the button holes? In that case, it seems that pattern-matching would be the result of better construction, not the cause of it.


What I am talking about is the shirt front, where the left hand front panel visually meets the right hand front panel. Both plain plackets and applied plackets. I refer to the stripe or check pattern mathcing either horizontally (on striped shirts) or horizontally and vertically (on checked shirts).

This is a photograph of Matt posted in another thread. Matt, I'll remove the photograph if you want. Looking at the shirt front, look at the right shirt front. The stripes don't match. That is what I am referring to. Excuse the big red graffiti, that is not my doing.

I didn't mean for this to get heated, and I apologise for aggressively attacking your previous statements, but I just cannot fathom why AM didn't cut the shirt panels such that they would match at this junction. To me, it takes away from the aesthetics of the shirt, regardless of how well Matt feels the shirt fits. At the end of the day, I don't care that much either if my shoulders don't match, particularly if it is true that it may negatively affect fit, but I would at the minimum want the shirt front to be matched, seeing as though this can be done without affecting the fit of the shirt.


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

iammatt said:


> My post was not unclear, nor was it misleading. If you thought that it was, perhaps you were hoping to find meaning that was not there, or hoping to not find meaning at all.
> 
> I am happy that you are happy with your shirts, I was simply trying to help the board out with a little knowledge in an area where I believe there remains much myth.


Fair enough Matt, however, of course to you, your words will always be clear, because in your own mind you know exactly what you mean. What meaning other members extract from your posts, I would be interested in knowing. It may be the case that I am the only one who has intepreted your posts as misleading.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Khoa said:


> More so I mean applied plackets, where a separate piece of material is sewed in (ie. the placket on a classic OCBD Ralph Lauren Polo shirt). I refer to the stripe or check pattern of the applied placket matching either side of the shirt front, both horizontally (on striped shirts) or horizontally and vertically (on checked shirts).


I just now examined my Brooks OCBDs (blue candystripe, U.S.-made, MTM). The plackets do not match up perfectly with the shirt underneath. I've never noticed, and still don't think it matters aesthetically.

Consider that this kind of placket creates two different surfaces on two different planes--the visual separation is unavoidable, even when the patterns 'match'. I agree that the patterns should be evenly cut so that vertical lines remain parallel. But I don't see how trying to create the illusion of one contiguous pattern across two obviously separate surfaces would make a shirt look better.

The same goes with sleeves. The seam between body and sleeve is obvious and can't be hidden no matter how well patterns match. It appears perfectly natural that the patterns on each would go their own way. After all, your arms _are_ visually distinct from your torso; why shouldn't your shirt reflect that?


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

Sorry mate, I edited my post after you quoted me, I've actually changed what I had written because I had myself confused. Anyway, here is a link to another photograph that AK posted in another thread, where you can see that the shirt fronts of his striped shirts do match, and don't break up the pattern of the fabric. In my opinion, the shirts just looks that much better because of it.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Khoa said:


> Sorry mate, I edited my post after you quoted me, I've actually changed what I had written because I had myself confused. Anyway, here is a link to another photograph that AK posted in another thread, where you can see that the shirt fronts of his striped shirts do match, and don't break up the pattern of the fabric. In my opinion, the shirts just looks that much better because of it.


Again, I really don't see what the big deal is. Do I notice the difference between Matt's Matuozzo shirt front and the shirt fronts of the Kabbaz shirts you posted? Yes, but I still don't think there's any real aesthetic advantage. Call me stubborn, but my thinking with regard to two-piece plackets applies here as well.

The right and left sides of a shirt front overlap where they button together. This creates a two-tiered surface. My mind almost _expects_ the patterns not to match up. Do I think the pattern-matching on the Kabbaz shirts looks bad? No, but I wouldn't say it necessarily looks better either.

It may come down to your particular design philosophy. Is it better to hide the separation between two obviously distinct surfaces, or openly acknowledge that they are separate? I see no objective reason to believe the former is superior.


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> Again, I really don't see what the big deal is. Do I notice the difference between Matt's Matuozzo shirt front and the shirt fronts of the Kabbaz shirts you posted? Yes, but I still don't think there's any real aesthetic advantage. Call me stubborn, but my thinking with regard to two-piece plackets applies here as well.
> 
> The right and left sides of a shirt front overlap where they button together. This creates a two-tiered surface. My mind almost _expects_ the patterns not to match up. Do I think the pattern-matching on the Kabbaz shirts looks bad? No, but I wouldn't say it necessarily looks better either.


Well you have an different point of view on this matter. If you have the option of either a matched front or a non-matched front, I don't see any reason why you would choose the latter.

I think you will find that on shirts with larger patterns, the types of patterns that many of the conservative AAAC folk would not be caught dead wearing, non-matched fronts are very visually jarring.



mafoofan said:


> It may come down to your particular design philosophy. Is it better to hide the separation between two obviously distinct surfaces, or openly acknowledge that they are separate? I see no objective reason to believe the former is superior.


I think when we are talking aesthetics of shirts, you may find it hard to always reason objectively. Come on, let's not be fools, you either think it looks better or doesn't look better or looks the same, we don't need to go abouts looking for reasons why.

To each his own however. Matt, yourself and I clearly have differing opinions on the overall importance of pattern-matching, and we will have to leave it at that. I don't think we will ever agree on the matter. Interestingly, the only time I seem to post on this board is when the topic of pattern-matching comes up, so maybe I do have an unhealthy obsession with it.


----------



## Cravate Noire (Feb 21, 2007)

> Seriously, you have to find a way to lessen your anxiety about this kind of sh!t. You are pointing out things that simply do not matter.


For you!
I'm not sure what you exactly mean by the necessity of construction, but if it's things like pleated sleevehead etc. I can say that it's nice but for me personally it's not too important because I dont feel that its fit is significantly better than on a shirt with pattern matching but with different (simpler) shoulder construction.
We also dont see the super duper artisan's masterwork under a jacket as we dont see ultra vital pattern matching either and is it not quite a personal decicion if one/both/none of them is there as long as there is no _significant disadvantage _because of either?
(ergo fits well person A without any specialties in construction that enable pattern matching, but might fit person B as well as A only with no or limited pattenr matching).


----------



## BigH (Jan 3, 2008)

Been lurking a bit on this site for a while now but threads like this make me want to participate. A web site where people talk about the stripes on their city shirts - does it get any better than this? I feel like I've come home! :icon_smile:

Having not bought H&K for a couple of years as I've not been wearing cutaways so much (don't like their standard collar shape) this is all bad news. It is so sad to hear that some people feel their standards are slipping as you could always rely on H&K and they were my favourites. It seems that the cancer started by Pink, adopted to some degree by Lewin, and then exasperated by Charles Tyrwitt arriving on Jermyn Street is permeating as the better shirtmakers try and compete. And I still have to stifle down some bile when I see the Tesco Metro on beloved Jermyn Street. If only H&H did collars like the H&K cutaway I wouldn't be quite so concerned for the future. All of that said, I think the stripe matching on the above examples is acceptable, although the cuffs could have benefited from more attention to detail.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

BigH said:


> Been lurking a bit on this site for a while now but threads like this make me want to participate. A web site where people talk about the stripes on their city shirts - does it get any better than this? I feel like I've come home! :icon_smile:
> 
> If only H&H did collars like the H&K cutaway I wouldn't be quite so concerned for the future.


H&H does, but you have to order it as a . I have one the late and much lamented "Best of British Shirts" Aussie web biz had H&H make up RTW, and it's an excellent collar:

BTW, I am wearing today an H&H fancy stripe that I bought recently, and the pattern matching is perfect at all points.


----------



## Lauriston (Dec 17, 2007)

I believe that in a professional business environment you shouldn't be seen without your jacket so I don't worry if my shirt's patterns match. I generally prefer solid fabrics for other obvious reasons.


----------



## smr (Apr 24, 2005)

Great looking collar, PJC.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

smr said:


> Great looking collar, PJC.


Thanks, but that's not actually me or one of my shirts; it's just a pic from the H&H website. (My H&H cutaway is a blue and red fancy stripe.) And I would never wear a tie knot that big.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

iammatt said:


> I think it has been well established that many of the top European shirtmakers not only do not match patters, but believe that like in a jacket, it is not preferable. The explanation revolves around putting round parts into holes, especially at the shoulder. It has been diagrammed by members on several of the forums. Other shirtmakers, such as yourself, obviously disagree, but not everybody is on the same page. You have more diagrams than I could ever come up with, and I am sure you have great reasons for your point of view, but there are many points of view on the subject.


 The determination as to whether the sleeve stripes match the yoke stripes is made by the person cutting the shirt. Either the effort is made to calculate the armhole center and the sleeve center and then to cut them on the same stripe - or it is not. This has *absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fit.* It has nothing to do with opinion. It has nothing to do with likes and/or dislikes. It has only to do with mathematics.

I would say there are very few shirtmakers who cut their shirts one-at-a-time. That was being kind - - actually there are almost none. You *cannot* match a stripe which you cannot see when you are cutting the shirt and you cannot see any stripe below the top layer. This has nothing to do with opinion. It is simple optics.

It takes at a minimum 40 minutes to cut a shirt. It takes 45 minutes to cut six shirts piled up. In other words, it costs more - much more - to cut shirts one-at-a-time. In other words, the entire reason that stripes are not matched is simple economics.

They tell you it's about fit? They tell you it's about preference? They tell you its about style? They tell you lies.



iammatt said:


> Well, hers definitely could not be due to the shoulder construction, but she does not tend to match areas that would drive forumites crazy. Sometimes the plackets and cuffs etc...
> 
> I should not have said Europe, because by all indications the French makers do match, but I have been in a fair number of shops belonging to very good shirtmakers in Italy, and none of them fanatically match patterns. Whether they are as good, or as diligent as US and French makers would, I guess, be judged by them and their clients.


 Whether they bother to match patterns is up to them. Not doing so - unless you are doing so for some style purpose - is just lazy, cheap, and wrong. Opinion does not enter into the equation. Style - *rarely* - might.



iammatt said:


> From what I understand, even from shirtmakers who do not shir, like the best of breed in Rome, pattern matching can be harmful to sleeve hang. I prefer my shirts to fit well, and what is under my jacket at the shoulder does not cause me to think twice. Good fit > pattern matching. If pattern matching is possible in some areas without disturbing fit, knock your socks off and match to your hearts delight. Personally, I wear solid or tick weave shirts 99% of the time, so I couldn't care less.


They tell you it's about fit? They tell you lies.



mafoofan said:


> This goes beyond shirt construction. Fixating on pattern-matching does _nothing_ to improve your style. In fact, you might even wind up _less_ stylish.
> 
> Pattern-matching does not impact your appearance nearly as much as your coordination of color, pattern, and texture. It means nothing compared to how well your clothes fit you. Moreover, fixating like this easily detracts from _how_ you wear your clothes--perhaps the most important thing of all. It's a matter of attitude.
> 
> I have a hard time imagining Fred Astaire scolding his shirtmaker for not matching the patterns on his shirts. He always looks damned good to me, and I've never thought to check if his patterns match up. Man, could he _move_.


Irrelevant.



iammatt said:


> My post was not unclear, nor was it misleading. If you thought that it was, perhaps you were hoping to find meaning that was not there, or hoping to not find meaning at all.
> 
> I am happy that you are happy with your shirts, I was simply trying to help the board out with a little knowledge in an area where I believe there remains much myth.


 I am sorry to be so firm on this point, but you are portraying the myths you have come to believe as knowledge. They are telling you lies to justify shoddy methods.

Simply ... think ... it ... through. I asked for evidence and received instead secondhand opinions of those who *gain direct and substantial economic benefit *by fostering a belief that matching is detrimental. What do I gain by riling you up? Simply ... think ... it ... through.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 18, 2007)

Thank god (or rather Prof Kabbaz) for this post. I was beginning to lose my sanity.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> The determination as to whether the sleeve stripes match the yoke stripes is made by the person cutting the shirt. Either the effort is made to calculate the armhole center and the sleeve center and then to cut them on the same stripe - or it is not. This has *absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fit.* It has nothing to do with opinion. It has nothing to do with likes and/or dislikes. It has only to do with mathematics.
> 
> I would say there are very few shirtmakers who cut their shirts one-at-a-time. That was being kind - - actually there are almost none. You *cannot* match a stripe which you cannot see when you are cutting the shirt and you cannot see any stripe below the top layer. This has nothing to do with opinion. It is simple optics.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but some of this is BS.

If one believes that the shirt sleeve should be larger than the armscye then it is virtually impossible to match the patterns at the shoulder. In fact, it is impossible. It is, as you say, simple geometry. The same thing goes for shirring into a cuff. If the stripes match at the entry to the cuff, then they cannot possibly match at the top of the sleeve placket. Diagonal lines cannot be matched up with straight lines, no matter what.

Perhaps there are very few *honest* shirtmakers left, but without personal experience with them, calling them out as liars may not be the best course of action.

I am done with this thread. Enjoy your patterns.


----------



## k.diddy (May 15, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> The determination as to whether the sleeve stripes match the yoke stripes is made by the person cutting the shirt. Either the effort is made to calculate the armhole center and the sleeve center and then to cut them on the same stripe - or it is not. This has *absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with fit.* It has nothing to do with opinion. It has nothing to do with likes and/or dislikes. It has only to do with mathematics.
> 
> I would say there are very few shirtmakers who cut their shirts one-at-a-time. That was being kind - - actually there are almost none. You *cannot* match a stripe which you cannot see when you are cutting the shirt and you cannot see any stripe below the top layer. This has nothing to do with opinion. It is simple optics.
> 
> ...


+10000


----------



## Connemara (Sep 16, 2005)

iammatt said:


> Sorry, but some of this is BS.
> 
> If one believes that the shirt sleeve should be larger than the armscye then it is virtually impossible to match the patterns at the shoulder. In fact, it is impossible. It is, as you say, simple geometry. The same thing goes for shirring into a cuff. If the stripes match at the entry to the cuff, then they cannot possibly match at the top of the sleeve placket. Diagonal lines cannot be matched up with straight lines, no matter what.
> 
> ...


Finally, some sanity.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Irrelevant.


Some would say a $1075 machine-sewn shirt is pretty irrelevant, too. If I were you, I'd think twice before accusing _other_ shirtmakers of lying for the sake of economic benefit.


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> Some would say a $1075 machine-sewn shirt is pretty irrelevant, too.


Interesting use of the term irrelevant. Doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

mafoofan - I think AK simply pointed out what some of us were thinking. Your posts about "two surfaces in two different planes", "design philosophy" and what your "mind almost expects" are just a load of fluff. Shirts are simple things, lets keep it simple. iammatt offered some meaningful reasons (eg. effects on fit) why matched patterns may not be optimal, but all you have done is put forward some meaningless theories that have little relevance to the discussion.

You wanted an objective reason why matched fronts are better (don't get me started about why on Earth you would seek objective reasoning in a discussion about aesthetic aspects of men' shirts), well here it is:

1. Matched fronts please everybody (this includes me and you).
2. Unmatched fronts would be reason enough for some not to buy a shirt (this includes me, but not you).
3. Some people don't care either way (this is your camp).

By that logic alone, matched fronts are superior, because they please the most people.

It seems to me that you are trying very hard to not understand why matched fronts might look better. It seems as though you might be finding it hard to stomach that your shirts might not be perfect. Obviously, AK and you have history, so perhaps the fact that I used AK shirts as an example for comparison made it even harder to stomach. AK calling out another shirtmakers as liars isn't the best move in my opinion, but you taking a cheap shot at the cost of his shirts doesn't reflect well on your either.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Khoa said:


> Interesting use of the term irrelevant. Doesn't seem to make any sense to me.


Alex does not use hand-stitching, understood by some people to be a major contributor to a shirt's cost of production. Thus, given his prices, such shirts may be _irrelevant_ to discussion of expensive shirts amongst those people.



Khoa said:


> By that logic alone, matched fronts are superior, because they please the most people.


Actually, the fact that anything pleases the most people has nothing to do with whether it is logically correct. I find this odd reasoning particularly in light of this board's interest in things that may seem negatively idiosyncratic to 'most people'.



Khoa said:


> It seems to me that you are trying very hard to not understand why matched fronts might look better.


Look, if making an effort to explain a point-of-view that differs from others' (or even the majority's) equates with "trying very hard" not to understand what others think, mindless group think is the result. Afterall, consensus solves everything, right? I might as well accuse _you_ of trying very hard to not understand _my_ opinion. I have made a point of patiently explaining what I think and why in an ongoing exchange with you.

It's ridiculous to expect _anyone_ to tolerate their opinion being summarily judged "irrelevant." Why aren't you admonishing Alex for not being more polite or conducive to discussion? I believe I have been fairly polite to you despite the fact that you called my opinion "rubbish."



Khoa said:


> AK calling out another shirtmakers as liars isn't the best move in my opinion, but you taking a cheap shot at the cost of his shirts doesn't reflect well on your either.


It's hardly a cheap shot, actually. He is a moderator of this board, he advertises his merchandise here, and sells the most expensive shirts anybody knows of. Then, he accuses other shirtmakers of lying for economic benefit while explaining that _his_ way of making shirts happens to be superior because _he's_ telling the 'truth'. If he thinks it appropriate to accuse others of dishonestly promoting their economic interests because of a difference in opinion, he should accept the implication that his economic interests just as likely make _him_ a liar.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Apples and oranges here, in comparing pattern matching on certain areas of jackets to pattern matching on suits.

The reason why pattern maching is unwise where a coat collar meets the lapel is that the cloth has to be tortured and stressed to make it work. It's not worth the effort, and the resulting stress is bad for the fit and longevity of the suit.

The reason why pattern matching along the shoulder seam is unwise is partly the above, but also because any good coat will have more fullness in back than in front. Hence the length of cloth along the shoulder seam will be longer for the the fore-part than for the back part. You want the excess in back to remain as is over the shoulder blades, but the excess along the seam has to be shrunk and pressed out. There is no way to do that and still match patterns.

Leaving aside the issue of sleevehead shirring, which I agree cannot be done in combinatin with pattern matching, the other areas of a shirt were patterns should be matched are simply a matter of proper cutting, and of using a bit more cloth to make it work. Hence slightly more work + slightly more cloth = slightly more time and slightly more money. I am thinking of where the placket blends into the sleeve (not at the base of the cuff, at the other end), the two parts of the yoke, and the top of the sleeve to the yoke on an un-shirred sleeve.

Maybe the great makers of Naples and Rome cut in such a way as to make this impossible, but Borrelli was able to do it (though they don't make split yokes) and so is Battistoni. Every shirt I can remember from Milan, Paris, London, New York, LA and Hong Kong has matched patterns in those areas.

True, it does not affect the fit or cut of the shirt, but some people like it and see its absense as a cut corner.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

manton said:


> Maybe the great makers of Naples and Rome cut in such a way as to make this impossible, but Borrelli was able to do it (though they don't make split yokes) and so is Battistoni.


Not that Borrelli is necessarily an exemplar of anything, but out of curiosity I examined a three-year-old striped MTM shirt with no shirring in the shoulders: the fronts do not match up, the sleeve placket does not match up with the sleeve, and the sleeves are a few millimeters off at the yoke.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

mafoofan said:


> Not that Borrelli is necessarily an exemplar of anything, but out of curiosity I examined a three-year-old striped MTM shirt with no shirring in the shoulders: the fronts do not match up, the sleeve placket does not match up with the sleeve, and the sleeves are a few millimeters off at the yoke.


Mine are getting close to ten years old. (Still wearable, amazingly.) I understand, anecdotally, that quality has slipped since they went super-global.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

This is an interesting discussion and would be better if people were less prickly. Since no one asked me, my opinion is that Alex is basically correct in saying that patterns can be matched in all the places we are talking about (with one exception) as long as the shoulder sleeve is not shirred. (For iammatt: the yoke is only about two inches wide at the shoulder and that is the only spot you need to match - you can feed a larger sleeve into a smaller armscye and still have the pattern match on the yoke, if you want and you aren't shirring the sleeve). The one place I don't think anything can be done about pattern matching if fit demands otherwise is along the side seams - most bespoke shirts are probably uneven to some degree on this seam to follow the body contour and you simply can't get that to line up, at least not if you want the front to look right. I can't prove this, but it makes sense to me - and as I noted the last time this subject came up, my shirts are pretty consistent on this: The right side seam has matching patterns for the most part and the left side seams is off by more or less the same amount in the same place every time. Perhaps the pattern could have been drafted better, but I don't think so. On the other hand, I don't get great pattern matching at the shoulders, or at least consistent pattern matching at the shoulders, so perhaps my shirtmaker employs the expediency Alex noted.

But like most, though not all, posting here, what do I know? I have never made a shirt or drafted a pattern or even watched one being made. It is mostly conjecture (which is the maximum level of effort my interest in the subject will allow). Fortunately, i have nothing riding on being right.


On the aesthetics of the issue, my view is that if something is technically possible and not harmful, but only requires attention, effort and skill to be done, then it should be done. It makes me happy to know that things are done with the most care as possible, regardless of whether the improvement is visible. To me, that means patterns should match. When they don't it is a compromise. All else being equal, I would prefer pattern matching. All else is not equal so I do without perfection. But that doesn't mean I can't admire it.

Personally, I would love for Alex to post a shirt, made from a completed client pattern (meaning the shirt fits to everyone's satisfaction), showing all the seams and joints and how cutting and pattern making was used to make sure the patterns match - where it was difficult and where it was straightforward. He is a valuable resource and should not go to waste.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

dopey said:


> (For iammatt: the yoke is only about two inches wide at the shoulder and that is the only spot you need to match - you can feed a larger sleeve into a smaller armscye and still have the pattern match on the yoke, if you want).


I think this would look wierd. A shirred shoulder should look uneven. Smooting it out and then matching patterns on one part, and then shirring everywhere else, would look like it is trying to be two things, and ends up looking like neither. Plus, making the yoke area smooth means you have to cram more cloth into the areas that you do shir. That would add to the oddness factor, and might even affect the way it wears.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

dopey said:


> Personally, I would love for Alex to post a shirt, made from a completed client pattern (meaning the shirt fits to everyone's satisfaction), showing all the seams and joints and how cutting and pattern making was used to make sure the patterns match - where it was difficult and where it was straightforward. He is a valuable resource and should not go to waste.


+1 That( with an explanation as noted,) would be good to see.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

manton said:


> I think this would look wierd. A shirred shoulder should look uneven. Smooting it out and then matching patterns on one part, and then shirring everywhere else, would look like it is trying to be two things, and ends up looking like neither. Plus, making the yoke area smooth means you have to cram more cloth into the areas that you do shir. That would add to the oddness factor, and might even affect the way it wears.


Nice to have you back!


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

manton said:


> I think this would look wierd. A shirred shoulder should look uneven. Smooting it out and then matching patterns on one part, and then shirring everywhere else, would look like it is trying to be two things, and ends up looking like neither. Plus, making the yoke area smooth means you have to cram more cloth into the areas that you do shir. That would add to the oddness factor, and might even affect the way it wears.


Of course. When I said "except for shirred shoulders" I meant that as a complete exclusion. I was trying to explain why, when you don't shirr shoulders, pattern matching at the yoke is possible even in the circumstance iammatt was talking about. But I see how I was unclear. I went back and fixed it.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

dopey said:


> The one place I don't think anything can be done about pattern matching if fit demands otherwise is along the side seams - most bespoke shirts are probably uneven to some degree on this seam to follow the body contour and you simply can't get that to line up, at least not if you want the front to look right. I can't prove this, but it makes sense to me ...


 This is correct. The curvature is different (usually) for the front and back side seams. The only way to match would be to stretch one and shir the other which would simply look - and make the fit - horrible.



dopey said:


> Personally, I would love for Alex to post a shirt, made from a completed client pattern (meaning the shirt fits to everyone's satisfaction), showing all the seams and joints and how cutting and pattern making was used to make sure the patterns match - where it was difficult and where it was straightforward. He is a valuable resource and should not go to waste.


I'll consider this. Although I declaimed above that not matching is the born of economic considerations, on reflection, perhaps I was entirely incorrect and these bastions of the art actually don't know how. In which case I would be teaching them and my irrelevant shirts would become even less relevant.



manton said:


> I think this would look wierd. A shirred shoulder should look uneven. Smooting it out and then matching patterns on one part, and then shirring everywhere else, would look like it is trying to be two things, and ends up looking like neither. Plus, making the yoke area smooth means you have to cram more cloth into the areas that you do shir. That would add to the oddness factor, and might even affect the way it wears.


 +1 ... and *very* nice to make your reaquaintance.

*Mafoofan*: I stated "irrelevant" in relation to your post for a simple reason. This thread seems to be one of questions of method, technique, ability, propriety, and willingness. You chose to expound upon preference, style, and desirability all, of which are irrelevant to those topics. Replying with a personal insult was uncalled for.

*IAmMatt*: Your statement, "fitting a larger sleeve into a smaller armscye" relates to shirred sleeves which I do not claim can be pattern-matched. You may choose not to interpret it that way, but by definition when one inserts a longer piece of cloth into a shorter recipient, one must either shir or pleat. The shirring may be skillfully done so as to be virtually unseen, but by the laws of physics it must be there.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> *IAmMatt*: Your statement, "fitting a larger sleeve into a smaller armscye" relates to shirred sleeves which I do not claim can be pattern-matched. You may choose not to interpret it that way, but by definition when one inserts a longer piece of cloth into a shorter recipient, one must either shir or pleat. The shirring may be skillfully done so as to be virtually unseen, but by the laws of physics it must be there.


Couldn't you do it with small pleats, either under the arm or further back on the shoulders away from where the sleeve hits the yoke? I know Perry Ellis RTW shirts, years ago, had a single, large shoulder pleat as a sort of trademark.

More difficult, to be sure, but couldn't the sleeve pattern be designed so that the sleeve is wider than the armscye, generally, but narrows to the shape and size of the armscye right where it attaches? No shirring would be necessary. Pattern matching aside, I would view this, purely on my subjective aesthetic criteria, as a better solution to the same problem than shirring.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> *Mafoofan*: I stated "irrelevant" in relation to your post for a simple reason. This thread seems to be one of questions of method, technique, ability, propriety, and willingness. You chose to expound upon preference, style, and desirability all, of which are irrelevant to those topics. Replying with a personal insult was uncalled for.


Alex, we will have to disagree about the importance of desirability to method and technique. We are talking bespoke, no? It seems to me that desirability is really of _ultimate_ significance when it comes to how something is made for a client. If what you say is true--that pattern-matching is a merely matter of cost--I suppose I'd rather not pay more for something I don't think is aesthetically important.

Where was my insult? I think it was offensive of you to imply that competing shirtmakers, some of whom make shirts for forum members and are their friends, are simply lying to make more money. I think you can agree that you are just as soundly subject to such an implication; afterall, you don't make shirts for free and your business benefits from the patronage of this forum's membership. Why not stick to your knowledge and reasoning instead of making unfair inferences about other's motivations? The latter proves nothing.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

dopey said:


> Couldn't you do it with small pleats, either under the arm or further back on the shoulders away from where the sleeve hits the yoke? I know Perry Ellis RTW shirts, years ago, had a single, large shoulder pleat as a sort of trademark.


 Yes.



dopey said:


> More difficult, to be sure, but couldn't the sleeve pattern be designed so that the sleeve is wider than the armscye, generally, but narrows to the shape and size of the armscye right where it attaches? No shirring would be necessary. Pattern matching aside, I would view this, purely on my subjective aesthetic criteria, as a better solution to the same problem than shirring.


 You are under a geometric misconception. This is a matter of circumference, not shape. I'll show you what I mean at Sartorial Excellence.



mafoofan said:


> I think it was offensive of you to imply that competing shirtmakers, some of whom make shirts for forum members and are their friends, are simply lying to make more money. Why not stick to your knowledge and reasoning instead of making unfair inferences about other's motivations?


 As has consistently been the case for quite some time (years?) , you twist my words into your politically pleasing platitudes.

I neither implied nor inferred. I stated unequivocally that ascribing anything other than economic savings or style preferences to the non-matching of stripes in critical areas is *lying*. Again, no inference. No implication. Mine was an unequivocal statement that the truth is not being told. An absolute statement thankfully made possible because no brand names have been mentioned.

Again, and to all contestors, I await even one iota of the *evidence* I asked for in my first post. Here's a hint for the thinking man: There is one - only one - type of fabric pattern which cannot, according to the laws of physics be matched. The gauntlet is thrown down**. :devil:

** Manton, Smooth Jazz, Gilchrist, Medwards, Udeshi, and Cusey are ineligible to compete.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> As has consistently been the case for quite some time (years?) , you twist my words into your politically pleasing platitudes.
> 
> I neither implied nor inferred. I stated unequivocally that ascribing anything other than economic savings or style preferences to the non-matching of stripes in critical areas is *lying*. Again, no inference. No implication. Mine was an unequivocal statement that the truth is not being told. An absolute statement thankfully made possible because no brand names have been mentioned.


You know, I tried to be diplomatic. Now I will be more direct.

1. I fail to see how I've twisted your words to fit my political interests--whatever in the world those might be in relation to this discussion. Unlike you, I stand to gain no economic benefit from participation in this forum, and I don't sell shirts. Between us, you are much more plausibly motivated by 'political' interests here.

2. It looks like you need to hit the logic books again. Your strong belief that you are stating something 'unequivocal' and 'absolute' doesn't make it so--and anyone who believes you just because you say so is more the fool for it. I hope others can see through your shenanigans when you say that you _know_ other shirtmakers are liars. Have you ever even met Anna Matuozzo? Lovely woman. I'm sure she can let me know if you've ever discussed shirtmaking with her.

3. I fail to see how your "absolute statement" is "made possible" in any meaningful way because you didn't mention other shirtmaker's names. An absolute statement is a claim that something is true without exception; it has no added credibility or truthfulness by mere merit of its absoluteness. You can make any absolute statements you wish, but you may be wrong every single time.

4. If your beliefs about shirtmaking are sound, you should have no need to call other shirtmakers liars for disagreeing with you. After all, they may _legitimately_ disagree--even _if_ they are ultimately wrong. I implore others to question why you must resort to such offensive tactics.

5. I would _love_ to see a completed Kabbaz shirt, in all its glory, on the client's body, not obstructed by a jacket or coat, and not completely indiscernable from other shirts because of a grainy or out-of-focus photo. They may be wonderful. But the reason you give for _not_ showing your shirts is ridiculous and dubious: if seeing your perfect pattern-matching will somehow 'teach' other shirtmakers to better compete with you, I would be equally concerned about your clients having the audacity to take off their jackets in public.

With that, I'm done with this thread. Let the lynching begin.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

mafoofan said:


> You know, I tried to be diplomatic. Now I will be more direct.


 You have never tried to be diplomatic in all the times you and I have jousted. You merely couch your words in such a way that you can later reinterpret your statements - and those of others - to suit subsequent purposes.



mafoofan said:


> 1. I fail to see how I've twisted your words to fit my political interests--whatever in the world those might be in relation to this discussion. Unlike you, I stand to gain no economic benefit from participation in this forum, and I don't sell shirts. Between us, you are much more plausibly motivated by 'political' interests here.


Here is a perfect example of word twisting _cum_ reinterpretation. What I pleasantly prosed was, "politically pleasing platitudes". Political interests - including yours - were never mentioned. Yet you have managed to write an entire disparaging paragraph on the subject of my economic interests ... based on your misquotation and subsequent reinterpretation.



mafoofan said:


> 2. It looks like you need to hit the logic books again. Your strong belief that you are stating something 'unequivocal' and 'absolute' doesn't make it so--and anyone who believes you just because you say so is more the fool for it. I hope others can see through your shenanigans when you say that you _know_ other shirtmakers are liars. Have you ever even met Anna Matuozzo? Lovely woman. I'm sure she can let me know if you've ever discussed shirtmaking with her.


 _Au contraire_, my young friend, you have inverted your logic. My stating absolutely that they are lying does not make them liars. It does make my statement absolute and unequivocal - even if my statement is untrue. And it makes your statement that I was "inferring" or "implying" a condition untrue as I was neither inferring nor implying. I was making an absolute statement.

The correct facts of the writing notwithstanding, you have skillfully used your illegitimate claim of illogic to bring in the name of a brand and thus personalize this thread. I say you have done this so as to limit my ability to respond for, as you and I have discussed previously - and as I stated here in this thread - you are well aware that I shall not criticize another shirtmaker.

As for Anna Matuozzo, we have never met nor spoken. I know nothing more about her work than the photos I have seen posted here. I suppose you have a purpose in dragging her name into this mud but it certainly is not very courteous of you for a number of reasons.



mafoofan said:


> 3. I fail to see how your "absolute statement" is "made possible" in any meaningful way because you didn't mention other shirtmaker's names. An absolute statement is a claim that something is true without exception; it has no added credibility or truthfulness by mere merit of its absoluteness. You can make any absolute statements you wish, but you may be wrong every single time.


 Very enlightening. Thank you. BTW, does that relate to anything ... or are you merely baying at the Moon?



mafoofan said:


> 4. If your beliefs about shirtmaking are sound, you should have no need to call other shirtmakers liars for disagreeing with you. After all, they may _legitimately_ disagree--even _if_ they are ultimately wrong. I implore others to question why you must resort to such offensive tactics.


 I realize that in the community of academic debate _disagreements_ are preferable to unforgiving, absolute statements. After all, who am I to state absolutely that gravity causes thrown objects to fall? Others may disagree and be absolutely certain that the true cause is the pressure of the atmosphere. Or God's will. Or George Bush's. Thus it must follow that I can, at most, consider a supposed effect of the force of gravity to be nothing more than my opinion.



mafoofan said:


> 5. I would _love_ to see a completed Kabbaz shirt, in all its glory, on the client's body, not obstructed by a jacket or coat, and not completely indiscernable from other shirts because of a grainy or out-of-focus photo. They may be wonderful. But the reason you give for _not_ showing your shirts is ridiculous and dubious: if seeing your perfect pattern-matching will somehow 'teach' other shirtmakers to better compete with you, I would be equally concerned about your clients having the audacity to take off their jackets in public.


In the first place, it was blatantly obvious that my statement was _tongue in cheek_ and meant to be comical.

In the second place, I have *never* stated that I would not show my shirts. That you have concocted, no pun intended, from whole cloth. I have shown hundreds of shirts on this forum - without jackets.

In the third place - and again, to correct the record from your word twisted revisionism, I was answering this:


> showing all the seams and joints and how cutting and pattern making was used to make sure the patterns match - where it was difficult and where it was straightforward.


 which is, again in jest, what I said that I might not want to teach.

And, finally, there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of forum members who have come to Sartorial Excellence over the years and seen the matching on my shirts. If school and life are of so little consequence that you consider the arrival of a pair of pants sufficient cause to blow off a Federalist lecture and a legal obligation to appear for your parking tickets - _you don't mind if I quote your clothing blog, do you?_ - perhaps you'll take a day to come in to the upcoming CSE and investigate for yourself? Or, as I suspect, do you perfer to just blow smoke?



mafoofan said:


> With that, I'm done with this thread.


 I, for one, am crushed.


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> Actually, the fact that anything pleases the most people has nothing to do with whether it is logically correct. I find this odd reasoning particularly in light of this board's interest in things that may seem negatively idiosyncratic to 'most people'.


Not odd reasoning at all. Whether you apply my logic to the general public, or members of this forum, it stands true. The point is, you keep questioning why, when you should be questioning why not. You can make anything (eg. unmatched fronts) seem reasonable if you make the problem complex enough. Next time you buy a casual shirt with a wide bengal stripe (if that tickles your fancy), or a wide, bold check, you'll realise why sometimes making the effort to match the patterns is important. I applaud you on your ability to remain polite, but I just don't have enough patience to tip toe around.

Look, the way this thread has gone is my fault. I should have never brought AM into this, but I was looking for a photograph of a unmatched shirt front, and that photograph of iammatt was the first photograph that came to mind. She makes wonderful shirts from what I can see in photographs, so it is a shame that this thread is perhaps giving her bad press, especially when she is in no position to defend herself.

The reason why I originally got involved here was that those of us who insist on matched shirt patterns were getting put in a negative light, being represented as over anxious and ignorant. I just wanted to chime in to argue that there is some method to this madness.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Khoa said:


> Look, the way this thread has gone is my fault. I should have never brought AM into this, but I was looking for a photograph of a unmatched shirt front, and that photograph of iammatt was the first photograph that came to mind. She makes wonderful shirts from what I can see in photographs, so it is a shame that this thread is perhaps giving her bad press, especially when she is in no position to defend herself.
> 
> The reason why I originally got involved here was that those of us who insist on matched shirt patterns were getting put in a negative light, being represented as over anxious and ignorant. I just wanted to chime in to argue that there is some method to this madness.


 Frankly, I would not have gotten involved if I knew that there was a named shirtmaker. Though I glanced at the photograph, I recognized it as one which was posted anonymously (as far as maker) many years ago with a request for criticism. At that time, I noted that the center front was incorrect, thus showing two white stripes where one should have been. There is another possible reason for this which is not the fault of the shirtmaker. A common method of allowing for weight gain is to move the front buttons 3/8" closer to the edge. Although this serves the intended purpose, it also unmatches the fronts. There is really no way to tell which is the case without having the shirt in hand.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> _Au contraire_, my young friend, you have inverted your logic. My stating absolutely that they are lying does not make them liars. It does make my statement absolute and unequivocal - even if my statement is untrue. And it makes your statement that I was "inferring" or "implying" a condition untrue as I was neither inferring nor implying. I was making an absolute statement.
> 
> As for Anna Matuozzo, we have never met nor spoken. I know nothing more about her work than the photos I have seen posted here. I suppose you have a purpose in dragging her name into this mud but it certainly is not very courteous of you for a number of reasons.





Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Frankly, I would not have gotten involved if I knew that there was a named shirtmaker. Though I glanced at the photograph, I recognized it as one which was posted anonymously (as far as maker) many years ago with a request for criticism. At that time, I noted that the center front was incorrect, thus showing two white stripes where one should have been. There is another possible reason for this which is not the fault of the shirtmaker. A common method of allowing for weight gain is to move the front buttons 3/8" closer to the edge. Although this serves the intended purpose, it also unmatches the fronts. There is really no way to tell which is the case without having the shirt in hand.


This is, frankly, embarrassing. If you say that somebody lies, you are, in fact, calling them a liar. While it might be embarrassing to have called out as a liar somebody or bodies in your own field who have reputations at least as good as your own, it has to be even more so to then try to play some Clintonesque semantics game to back out of it, and then finally to claim you didn't know you were talking about anybody in particular, and if you were, you had no idea who it was. I am neither saying that you are lying or a liar by engaging in obvious double talk, I am simply saying that you have left the truth behind. While you may have the truth on your side in the shirt debate (who knows), you most certainly do not in the owning up to what you say division.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

iammatt said:


> This is, frankly, embarrassing. If you say that somebody lies, you are, in fact, calling them a liar. While it might be embarrassing to have called out as a liar somebody or bodies in your own field who have reputations at least as good as your own, it has to be even more so to then try to play some Clintonesque semantics game to back out of it, and then finally to claim you didn't know you were talking about anybody in particular, and if you were, you had no idea who it was. I am neither saying that you are lying or a liar by engaging in obvious double talk, I am simply saying that you have left the truth behind. While you may have the truth on your side in the shirt debate (who knows), you most certainly do not in the owning up to what you say division.


 That's crap. You posted that photo years ago and asked me for my critique. I specifically told you I would not do so if I knew who made it. Nothing I have said in this thread relates to that photograph nor was I discussing any shirtmaker for none were named AFAIK.

I am in no way embarrased to have stated that any shirtmaker who does not match the pattern and tells you it is for reasons of fit is simply lying. Period.

Stop screwing with me. You've damn well been here long enough to know I do not criticize named custom shirtmakers.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

We'll just leave it at... our memories differ.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

iammatt said:


> That is most certainly not why that shirt was posted, nor was it posted as some anonymous shirt. It was part of another thread, not sent up for your critique. I am in no way "screwing" with you, just calling it how I see it.


I don't know how to find it because of the damage to the archives. You posted that *years* ago along with a suit (or suits) for which you also requested constructively critical comments. I specifically remember telling you about the two white stripes where there should have been white-yellow-white.

That said, you should be honest enough to admit that you know I do not criticize when shirtmakers are named. You have certainly been here long enough to know that.

I asked you for evidence of your claim of "proper fit =/= matched stripes" three pages ago. That evidence has never been forthcoming leaving all who disagree unable to refute it. Thus, rather than a discussion of fact, you are able to say that my comments are disgruntled, unproven opinion which should not be stated as an absolute. *Come with the factual evidence to back your claim so it can be disproven. *


----------



## jar2574 (Aug 30, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I am in no way embarrased to have stated that any shirtmaker who does not match the pattern and tells you it is for reasons of fit is simply lying. Period.


1st -- You have the patience of Job.

2nd -- I always appreciate your posts and I've learned a lot from you.

3rd -- After reading this thread, convinced by your logic, I see no reason why fit should be negatively affected by matching patterns.

All that said, I did find some of your statements a little harsh. "Lying" involves an intent to deceive. Some of those shirtmakers might not be liars. They might just be ignorant.

If there's anything I've learned by coming to this site, it's that the making of fine clothes is becoming a lost art. I wouldn't be surprised if there are shirtmakers who are truly ignorant on this subject, and actually believe that fit is a consideration in matching stripes. If it's what their mentor taught them, they might not know otherwise.

Hopefully they'll come to AAAC and learn from your techniques.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

jar2574 said:


> All that said, I did find some of your statements a little harsh.


Your are entirely correct. My statements were extremely harsh. After many years of having this particular topic regularly thrown up on the board in answer to some new member's innocent question, I'll admit to being fed up with the serving up of widely circulated, easily disprovable myths. When, again, the "evidence" was never presented, I guess my patience just simply ran out.


jar2574 said:


> "Lying" involves an intent to deceive. Some of those shirtmakers might not be liars. They might just be ignorant.


 Again, you are correct. So, sitting here 'tween the rock and the hard place, which would have been received with less animosity: Calling them liars or calling them ignorant? Faced with the choice, I chose the former. Why? Two reasons:

1] Given the grade level at which the apprentice shirtmaker learns how to match patterns (that would be about Pre-K 4) I couldn't convince myself that they simply don't know how ...

and

2] Were I forced to come up with a reason for something I knew to be unjustifiable, the first catchword I would drag out of the hat would be the mythical, mysterious, always arguable "fit".



jar2574 said:


> 1st -- You have the patience of Job.


 In light of my performance in this thread, I think we can both agree that was nice, but a lie. 

As for the rest of what you said, a sincere thank you.


----------



## uppercase (Apr 19, 2004)

*Pattern Matching: An Indicator of Quality?*

Pattern Matching: An Indicator of Quality?

Here are shots of 5 shirts; some RTW, MTM and Bespoke.

Can you tell which is which?

Can you tell which shirt cost $100, 300, 500, 650 and 1000?

PLACKET VIEW:

Shirt 1:



















Shirt 2:









Shirt 3:









Shirt 4:









Shirt 5:


















---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BACK VIEW:














































---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOP OF SHOULDER VIEW:


----------



## jar2574 (Aug 30, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Your are entirely correct. My statements were extremely harsh. After many years of having this particular topic regularly thrown up on the board in answer to some new member's innocent question, I'll admit to being fed up with the serving up of widely circulated, easily disprovable myths. When, again, the "evidence" was never presented, I guess my patience just simply ran out.


I wasn't aware that this had been brought up before. I also wasn't aware that pattern matching is learned so early on. Those facts certainly puts things in a new light.



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> In light of my performance in this thread, I think we can both agree that was nice, but a lie.
> 
> As for the rest of what you said, a sincere thank you.


LOL.

You're welcome.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

> Pattern Matching: An Indicator of Quality?
> 
> Here are shots of 5 shirts; some RTW, MTM and Bespoke.
> 
> ...


These are nice photos which you obviously spent time taking. Thank you.

I would like to answer, but key components of the game are missing and questions abound, such as: What exactly is supposed to be matched between a one-piece yoke and the top of the back? The respective stripes are either perpendicular or near-perpendicular. The same applies to sleeve-to-cuff attachment. Are you really expecting a complete sleeve-to-yoke match with a chevronned yoke? Are all these sleeves set normally? In one or two photos I think (could be wrong; old eyes) I am seeing Neapolitan sleeve-sets. Was a client mandated measurement specified for the placement from cuff-end for the buttonholes or are they just asymmetric in relation to the stripes for some other reason?

Pattern matching is not an indicator of quality, nor is price an indicator of quality.

Not matching patterns is an indicator of lack of quality ... or a styling preference beyond my comprehension.

Price is merely an indicator of ball size.


----------



## trimaldo (Jul 29, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Pattern matching is not an indicator of quality, nor is price an indicator of quality.
> 
> Not matching patterns is an indicator of lack of quality ... or a styling preference beyond my comprehension.
> 
> Price is merely an indicator of ball size.


Fill me in please. Why are you the arbiter of all things shirt related. The names mentioned in this thread and the concurrent one at FNB all seem to garner more respect in the shirt world.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

trimaldo said:


> Fill me in please. Why are you the arbiter of all things shirt related. The names mentioned in this thread and the concurrent one at FNB all seem to garner more respect in the shirt world.


I do not claim, nor do I want, to be the arbiter of all things shirt related. Nor do I really care who is and who is not more respected in your universe.

As for the one _simple_ topic at hand, here is the _simple_ answer:

Matching requires effort, knowledge, and expense.

Not matching requires no effort, no knowledge, and no expense.

Draw your own conclusion.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

#4 is obviously the expensive one. 

Anyone applying a placket in that way could only be worried about perfect fit.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

dfloyd said:


> I wouldn't worry about it. Whether H&K says it will pattern match or not, the next order you place, if there is one after this, you might again not get a perfect match. Very few people notice things like pattern matching, which is probably why T&A makes little or no effort to pattern match. I would care more about a pin striped suit, but there are many of the rtw suit makers who have horrible pattern matching. Enjoy your shirts, practically no one will notice. Just think of all the men who have ill fitting deparftment store shirts.


I have not read through all the posts as yet but to my mind pattern matching is an issue. If I've noticed a pattern on a shirt does not match then my eye returns to it and it bugs me. Furthermore if I were paying $$$$ for a Bespoke shirt say like T&A then I sure would expect everything to be perfect.
In fact if I am purchasing a mainstream RTW shirt, I will first find the colour I want, then find what's available in my size, then check a few of the shirts to see which matches best. As in fact it's one of the few benefits of mass produced items, you will nearly always find a shirt with perfect pattern match just by random chance, when they make so many it just comes around that some will be spot on and others will be way out.

Mychael


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

I wish I had kept copies of e-mails exchanged between myself and Customer Service of Rodd & Gunn clothing.
I took them to task over their product mission statement which went something like they make everything they sell "perfect".

I asked how could something be perfect if their pattern matching was wildly out on some of their shirts.

We actually exchanged quite a few very civil and very informative e-mails.
They initially maintained that pattern matching (in the context of my query) 
was not an issue and would be the same with any maker, any style.

When pressed I finally got the admission from them that it comes down to economics, yes an entire shirt could be pattern matched but it would be more time consuming and would create more fabric wastage.

So to me the bottom line, yes it can be done, perhaps it should be done but in the end it comes down to the almighty dollar and profit margins.

My personal feeling fwiw is that I applaud anyone that picks up on things that are not right, if we all let things slide then everything just slides more and comes down to the lowest common denominator.

Some things we can change, some things we cannot, some things matter more then others but it stills counts that we can notice things good and bad and be aware of how we'd like things to be.

Mychael


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> I would like to answer, but key components of the game are missing and questions abound, such as: What exactly is supposed to be matched between a one-piece yoke and the top of the back? The respective stripes are either perpendicular or near-perpendicular. The same applies to sleeve-to-cuff attachment. Are you really expecting a complete sleeve-to-yoke match with a chevronned yoke? Are all these sleeves set normally? In one or two photos I think (could be wrong; old eyes) I am seeing Neapolitan sleeve-sets. Was a client mandated measurement specified for the placement from cuff-end for the buttonholes or are they just asymmetric in relation to the stripes for some other reason?


I dunno, seems like a fun game to me! 5, 4, 1, 2, 3 in descending order. I bet I am most wrong about 5. And I can see why Concordia picked 4...


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

MIPCAR: Nicely said. 

Did they offer to redo the shirts if you would pay extra for the extra expense?


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

I like, in particular, how on shirt no. 2, where pattern matching is not possible because of how the sleeve is set, the shirtmaker was careful to have the central area of the pattern line up perfectly where the yoke and sleeve join. That seems like a sign someone cares about doing everything right. The other photos of this shirt also make it look well made to me, though I don't really care for the obvious look of the hand stitching - but maybe I am not used to it. It is still my overall favorite.

Shirt no. 4 has very nice sewing, but is not relevant for the pattern matching question. (Edit - I looked at more of the photos and sometimes the stitching on 4 wanders)

Shirt no. 3 does the same think that I like in no. 2 - since the angle of the yoke or the shirt sleeve does not permit pattern matching, the sleeve is set so the match is perfect at the center and diverges away from there. This carries the same indication that the shirtmaker cares.

All this, btw, illustrates well iammatt's point. After focusing on these closeups, I really didn't care - I wanted to see how the shirts looked.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> MIPCAR: Nicely said.
> 
> Did they offer to redo the shirts if you would pay extra for the extra expense?


Not a question I asked of them. However I doubt it.

Mychael


----------



## trimaldo (Jul 29, 2007)

lolz. You moved the buttons. lolz.

ur pattern matching is kewl. The shirts prolly look great in plastic.


----------



## uppercase (Apr 19, 2004)

I take away the same message as most of you re. pattern matching: it's not a sign of quality nor price.

Indeed, the least expensive shirt pictured in my post has the best pattern matching; the bespoke shirt has the least.

All of the shirts more or less match; but that ofcourse is the point of the photo exercise: what you don't see is that some don't fit, some are headed for the bin, some wear wonderfully, others are just OK. But they all match.

So, to me, pattern matching is largely irrelevant when talking about MTM or bespoke; it's not a criterion for a good shirt; and if things don't match perfectly, it doesn't bother me.

But there is a difference between not matching because of sloppiness and not matching because of anatomical issues.

A well made RTW should pattern-match, I believe. Why not? It's not fitted to anyone.

But a good MTM or bespoke need not necessarily match because of anatomical issues though I've always found an honest attempt to get patterns close enough to right without compromising fit.

A good shirt by a talented maker will i) fit nicely and ii) be comfortable. That's about as good as you can get. And if you can get that, you're already golden.

But if you find a great maker plus brilliant cloth, the shirt will additionally be endowed with intangible character and convey a sense of pleasure and occasion every time you put it on.

In this context, issues such as pattern matching, button hole stitching, hand stitching vs. machine stitching, button selection, etc. are just interesting asides but not essential matters; they come way down on my list in terms of what makes a great shirt.

So what does a great shirt look like?

This photo of the Neapolitan tailor Panico is an example of a great looking shirt, IMO: fitted but not binding, flowing, it conveys movement, ease and obvious comfort. Luxurious and sensual. A wonderful collaboration. Superb!

https://www.sartoriapanico.com/

As to the shirts in the photos:

Shirt 1: Charvet. RTW. Probably the best RTW shirt I have tried. It fits and hangs very well on me. Boring collar. Boring cloth. A bit stiff and industrial. All machine stitched.

Shirt 2: Kiton. MTM. My favorite. Very comfortable. Very light. A great, soft collar and soft cuffs. The most handwork. Sublime.

Shirt 3: Merolla & de L'Ero. Naples. Bespoke. Another favorite. Largely machine made. Carlo Riva shirting; unmatched hand; stupendous cloth. Gabriella's a great gal. Matching is off between the two shoulders. Doesn't matter.

Shirt 4: Borrelli. MTM. POS: Collar too tight. Front button constantly pops open. Binds and pulls in the chest. Good bye. The RTW is better. Probably got a lemon or was measured by a dummy.

Shirt 5: Hilditch & Key: RTW. Pretty trim and hangs nicely. Not a bad shirt at all and the least expensive among the 5 shirts pictured. But: too heavy lining in collar and cuffs. Stiff. Cheapish quality cloth. Too, too English colors. But it matches!!


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

uppercase said:


> But if you find a great maker plus brilliant cloth, the shirt will additionally be endowed with intangible character and convey a sense of pleasure and occasion every time you put it on.
> 
> In this context, issues such as pattern matching, button hole stitching, hand stitching vs. machine stitching, button selection, etc. are just interesting asides but not essential matters; they come way down on my list in terms of what makes a great shirt.


Very well said, and a good description of why a shirt in plastic wrap is telling you nothing. The best way to judge is not only on a person, but also in motion.



> So what does a great shirt look like?
> 
> This photo of the Neapolitan tailor Panico is an example of a great looking shirt, IMO: fitted but not binding, flowing, it conveys movement, ease and obvious comfort. Luxurious and sensual. A wonderful collaboration. Superb!


And to think, his shirtmaker doesn't pattern match 100%. The shame. :devil:


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

So assuming that pattern matching CAN be achieved with no sacrifice of fit or comfort, would you rather have it, or not? Is it something that anyone would actually avoid?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

manton said:


> So assuming that pattern matching CAN be achieved with no sacrifice of fit or comfort, would you rather have it, or not? Is it something that anyone would actually avoid?


No, I would imagine that it is preferable to have it if possible, but I would never judge a shirt as better or worse because of it, except, as Uppercase says above, if it were an RTW shirt. Nor would I ask for patterns to match. I would leave it up to the maker.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

iammatt said:


> I would never judge a shirt as better or worse because of it


I would, all other things being equal. It would mean that one maker took the extra time and extra cloth to do, and the other ... didn't.

I would never want (say) the collar pattern to match the lapel pattern on a coat. But the breast pocket pattern should like up all the way around. The pocket flap patterns should line up at the bottom edge (at the top it's impossible on a darted coat). Plaides should line up along the center backseam Etc. Anything less is just sloppiness -- and distracting to the eye. I feel the same way about certain areas of a shirt.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

uppercase said:


> A well made RTW should pattern-match, I believe. Why not? It's not fitted to anyone.
> 
> Actually no, at least as I came to understand it from exchanging e-mails from a manufacturer. You see with RTW/OTR shirts they stamp/cut out by machine thousands and panels for the shirts. The panels are then collected in no particular order for assembly.
> Which I why I said in an earlier post that you will sometimes find a perfect matching RTW shirt and other times find one that matches badly or even worse matches on one sleeve but not the other.
> ...


----------



## Khoa (Aug 20, 2005)

I feel sorry for whoever has to move all those buttons back on AK's shirts.

iammatt's shirt wasn't affected to any significant extent by the unmatched front, even in the eyes of pattern matching addicts like myself, but those unmatched AK shirts, because of the scale of the pattern, just look terrible in my opinion. In an unrelated matter, those fabrics looks ghastly too.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

Khoa said:


> I feel sorry for whoever has to move all those buttons back on AK's shirts.


Look again. The buttons weren't moved.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Khoa said:


> In an unrelated matter, those fabrics looks ghastly too.


Yeah, well, to put it diplomatically, I don't see anything there I would wear ...


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

As always Uppercase, a wonderfully written and descriptive post!

I am of the same school of thought as iammatt and a few others regarding the primacy of fit over patternmatching. 

Here is a particularly difficult pattern to match,but the shirtmakers did their best:


----------



## Aaron in Allentown (Oct 26, 2007)

If H&K touts pattern matching in their sales materials, they should actually do pattern matching.

I bought the shirt I'm wearing today from Sam's Tailor in Hong Kong. I paid all of 45USD for it. The pattern is matched perfectly at the shoulders. The pattern is centered perfectly on the button placket. The stripes on the material are perfectly parallel to the front edge of the cuffs, and the pattern is aligned identically on the two cuffs. If an inexpensive Hong Kong 3-day special shirt can have these features, then, certainly, H&K can achieve a similar effect.

Again, if H&K claims that they pattern match, they should be able to do at least as good a job as a cheap tailor in Hong Kong.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

T4phage said:


> I am of the same school of thought as iammatt and a few others regarding the primacy of fit over patternmatching.


No one disagrees with that. The question is whether the two conflict. I don't think they do, with rare exceptions.

Then again, I only get NY machine made shirts. But the patterns do match. And I am happy with the fit. Maybe there are Continental ways of cutting that make pattern matching impossible. I doubt it, but I can't rule it out.


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

manton said:


> No one disagrees with that. The question is whether the two conflict. I don't think they do, with rare exceptions.
> 
> Then again, I only get NY machine made shirts. But the patterns do match. And I am happy with the fit. Maybe there are Continental ways of cutting that make pattern matching impossible. I doubt it, but I can't rule it out.


First let me say "Welcome back"!

Well, for one I never paid a lot of attention re: Pattern Matching, and I am sure that if something was terribly off in that area I would have noticed. Lately I have asked some of the makers I use/used and they answer in the same manner, they try unless it will conflict with fit.


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

I forgot to add the shoulder-yoke picture:


The point I wanted to make was that this particular shirt was also made by the same lady who makes iammatt's and mafoofan's shirts (although this one is a more casual shirt). In this case the pattern was able to be matched with no detriment to the fit. But I have been told that for some people's body shape and fabric pattern it cannot.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

T4phage said:


> I forgot to add the shoulder-yoke picture:
> 
> The point I wanted to make was that this particular shirt was also made by the same lady who makes iammatt's and mafoofan's shirts (although this one is a more casual shirt). In this case the pattern was able to be matched with no detriment to the fit. But I have been told that for some people's body shape and fabric pattern it cannot.


On a shirt made of cloth like this, I wouldn't much care about pattern matching. Pattern balancing across the collar points, maybe, OK, but to me pattern matching matters mainly (and a lot!) on shirts such as this one:


----------



## k.diddy (May 15, 2004)

T4phage said:


> I forgot to add the shoulder-yoke picture:
> 
> The point I wanted to make was that this particular shirt was also made by the same lady who makes iammatt's and mafoofan's shirts (although this one is a more casual shirt). In this case the pattern was able to be matched with no detriment to the fit. But I have been told that for some people's body shape and fabric pattern it cannot.


I'm having difficulty seeing where the patterns match. Can you point it out?


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

PJC in NoVa said:


> On a shirt made of cloth like this, I wouldn't much care about pattern matching. Pattern balancing across the collar points, maybe, OK, but to me pattern matching matters mainly (and a lot!) on shirts such as this one:


The point I was trying to get across was that some have suggested that the shirtmaker that iammatt uses either does not know how to do it or is too lazy, (I *try* to take it as lightly as I can as the comments may have been made in the heat of an arguement) but I know for a fact that they TRY their best unless it is not possible due to fit considerations.


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

k.diddy said:


> I'm having difficulty seeing where the patterns match. Can you point it out?


that was the second photo showing the shirred shoulder. Look above at the first photo, maybe you can see it then.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

But they do match at the shirred shoulder. 

Not everywhere, because they can't. But you can see how your shirtmaker tried to match the pattern at the center of the shoulder/yoke join, with the pattern falling out of alignment, because of the shirring, as you move away from the middle.

This is exactly what you would expect from someone putting in the effort to get it right.


----------



## mambo (Dec 29, 2007)

iammatt said:


> I'll post the same thing here I did in response on SF...
> 
> Seriously, you have to find a way to lessen your anxiety about this kind of sh!t. You are pointing out things that simply do not matter. Worry about liking the fabric, about how the shirt fits and its durability. Stop worrying about pattern matching in general and especially about whether 1 or 2 mm discrepencies matter at all.


I disagree. If the website boasts about pattern matching, they should deliver as per description. I would be asking for a discount/refund/return. The issue is not about whether anybody else will notice but that the wearer knows it is incorrect. I am certain that many members on this forum would notice!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

T4phage said:


> I forgot to add the shoulder-yoke picture:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

WA said:


> This does not match. They got the right and left sleeve on the wrong sides, because they cut it wrong. They laid the sleeve pattern upside down or the cloth is upside down.
> 
> When ever the pattern can match, and fit right, it should, because, at least your subconscious mind will notice it; and say, that is a better shirt.


Absolutely plain WRONG.
The fabric is directional with a definite top and bottom. The shirt has a one piece yoke. So one of the sleeve to shoulder pattern will not match.

>>>>>>>>
^.................^
^.................^
^.................^
^.................^
^.................^

Where "^" = sleeve and direction of the pattern
Where ">" = one piece yoke and direction of the pattern

Here is the other shoulder:

Better not to jump to quick conclusions....


----------



## k.diddy (May 15, 2004)

T4phage said:


> Absolutely plain WRONG.
> The fabric is directional with a definite top and bottom. The shirt has a one piece yoke. So one of the sleeve to shoulder pattern will not match.
> 
> >>>>>>>>
> ...


NO, you can have both sleeves match the yoke. All you have to do is turn the fabric 180 degrees so the patterns match. In other words, the end that is now attached to the yoke should have been the cuff, and the cuff the sleeve. It's a bit more involved than the current approach, since you can't just copy the right sleeve pattern to cut the left sleeve, and hence not too many tailors would do it.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

k.diddy said:


> NO, you can have both sleeves match the yoke. All you have to do is turn the fabric 180 degrees so the patterns match. In other words, the end that is now attached to the yoke should have been the cuff, and the cuff the sleeve. It's a bit more involved than the current approach, since you can't just copy the right sleeve pattern to cut the left sleeve, and hence not too many tailors would do it.


I feel that anybody who worries this much about pattern matching needs a referral to a good psychiatrist.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

I'm with PJC: on a pattern that small, matching matters much less, if at all. On wide stripes and big checks, though, I want to see it match where possible.


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

k.diddy said:


> NO, you can have both sleeves match the yoke. All you have to do is turn the fabric 180 degrees so the patterns match. In other words, the end that is now attached to the yoke should have been the cuff, and the cuff the sleeve. It's a bit more involved than the current approach, since you can't just copy the right sleeve pattern to cut the left sleeve, and hence not too many tailors would do it.


So your suggestion would be (following the legend I used above):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
^..........................V
^..........................V
^..........................V
^..........................V
^..........................V

I sincerely hope that you see the problem with this (try to imagine it with a large directional pattern).

One of the sleeves will not match the body.. which is an INCREDIBLY jarring sight. But of course you will have the 1 piece yoke matching the pattern on the sleeves at the shoulder.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

manton said:


> I'm with PJC: on a pattern that small, matching matters much less, if at all. On wide stripes and big checks, though, I want to see it match where possible.


Agreed!!


----------



## k.diddy (May 15, 2004)

T4phage said:


> So your suggestion would be (following the legend I used above):
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> ^..........................V
> ...


I don't understand your chart. Let me illustrate a different way:

Imagine the pattern is like this:

======
--------

This is how you would arrange the panels/fabrics to make the pattern match from sleeve-yoke-sleeve

SLEEVE YOKE SLEEVE
====== | ========== | ======
-------- | ------------- | -------
====== | ========== | ======
-------- | ------------- | -------

In your pics, one sleeve is attached in the "wrong" direction, like so:

SLEEVE YOKE SLEEVE
-------- | ========== | ======
====== | ------------- | ------
-------- | ========== | ======
====== | ------------- | ------


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

k.diddy said:


> In your pics, one sleeve is attached in the "wrong" direction, like so:
> 
> SLEEVE YOKE SLEEVE
> -------- | ========== | ======
> ...


Trust me, it is not wrong.


----------



## k.diddy (May 15, 2004)

iammatt said:


> Trust me, it is not wrong.


Maybe you're the one who should see a psychiatrist.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

k.diddy said:


> Maybe you're the one who should see a psychiatrist.


It won't help. You can trust me on that, too.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

T4phage said:


> So your suggestion would be (following the legend I used above):
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> ^..........................V
> ...


Not sure you see what is wrong about the pattern matching. It is not only not matching at the shoulder but in context with the whole shirt.

If the cloth had been flipped over or turned 180°, or, easier, the pattern flipped or turned- the shirt wouldn't be a 2nd. Otherwise, it is a very nice shirt.

When buying custom- everything should be right. 

Non of the pictures show much shirling.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

iammatt said:


> It won't help. You can trust me on that, too.


Until you do something about your negative attitude, you will never find help.

Remember, it is easier to pull down than to build up.


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

I give up. If some people want their shirts to pattern match in this way, so be it.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Actually, that's pretty lousy matching. Where'd you learn to make shirts? Naples?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Is that a true Neapolitan shoulder?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

T4phage said:


> I give up. If some people want their shirts to pattern match in this way, so be it.


That is an interesting idea, and if you asked for that way, fine. Usually cloth is cut on the folded double, but the way you suggest each sleeve was cut indepently. I like your creativeness.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

T4phage said:


> I give up. If some people want their shirts to pattern match in this way, so be it.


For a moment, I thought that Eric Glennie was back!


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

T4phage said:


> I give up. If some people want their shirts to pattern match in this way, so be it.


According to Alex Kabbaz in a thread on this subject long ago, the way to solve this problem is to do a split yoke and reverse the cloth on one panel of the yoke. I remember this because he admitted that if the fabric was different on the front and reverse (as some weaves are), pattern matching would then be impossible. Getting a concession out of the man was rare enough that I noted it. I might have even saved the calender with the date circled in red.


----------



## T4phage (Nov 12, 2003)

WA said:


> That is an interesting idea, and if you asked for that way, fine. Usually cloth is cut on the folded double, but the way you suggest each sleeve was cut indepently. I like your creativeness.


I believe that drawing represents what both you and k.diddy were suggesting. Please re-read your post.

Dopey is correct, on my shirt, the direction of the "A" on both sleeves are oriented in the same direction, thus the pattern matching on one shoulder will not work due to the one piece yoke. The only way around it is to use a two piece yoke.


----------



## penguin vic (Sep 20, 2007)

It is easier to pattern match the letter H than the letter A ...


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

T4phage said:


> I believe that drawing represents what both you and k.diddy were suggesting. Please re-read your post.
> 
> Dopey is correct, on my shirt, the direction of the "A" on both sleeves are oriented in the same direction, thus the pattern matching on one shoulder will not work due to the one piece yoke. The only way around it is to use a two piece yoke.


That's probably why H&K have a two piece yoke.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Bishop of Briggs said:


> two piece yoke.


If any topic can get the forum more riled up than pattern matching, this is it.

New thread: what's the point a two piece yoke?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

manton said:


> If any topic can get the forum more riled up than pattern matching, this is it.
> 
> New thread: what's the point a two piece yoke?


I dunno, I hide my shirt yoke under mah black suit...


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

RJman said:


> I dunno, I hide my shirt yoke under mah black suit...


With brown shoes?


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

RJman said:


> I dunno, I hide my shirt yoke under mah black suit...


I used to do this, but Eric Glennie inspired me to cut out the top half of the back of my jackets to show off my shirt yokes.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

I'm a two-piece yoke man till I die!

And it has to be mitred!

Except when I like the shirt for other reasons. Then I don't care about the yoke.

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then, I contradict myself.
I am large. I contain multitudes."
--Walt Whitman


----------



## cdmoore1855 (Dec 2, 2008)

I have numerous H&K shirts which I bought in the sale, all of them have perfect matching stripes. I have not bought any for at least 3 years, so maybe quality declined or as mentioned above they are outsourcing from the UK now


----------

