# Can a "non-sack" suit still be trad?



## Barrister (Nov 2, 2005)

Could a conservative charcoal chalk stripe or solid bankers gray suit that is center-vented, darted (but with minimal waist supression) and lightly padded in the shoulders still look somewhat trad in its own way, assuming the suit is a three-button as (opposed to two) and has flat front trousers (as opposed to pleated)? Or would this look like I was just trying to make a non-sack suit look like a sack?

"I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone." 
- Edmund Burke


----------



## guyfromboston (Jan 26, 2005)

This is an important topic. I own a couple of suits and jackets from the Andover Shop that are two or three button, center vent, and slightly darted. Are they Trad? I don't know, but I think they're classic American. Many of the trousers that I've had made at Andover are pleated (forward, of course). Trad? Don't know, but they look pretty darn good to me. I don't wear wide ties, Italian shoes, or cologne. Trad? I think so. My father's family came to the USA from Scotland in the very early 1700s, I was born in Litchfield CT, went to an Ivy League school, etc. I dress the way I do because that's how the people I grew up with dressed, and I will innovate from time to time. If Harris can buy clothes from RL, you can wear a two button suit  .


----------



## jmorgan32 (Apr 30, 2005)

Yes, in my opinion. I say that because I think of my father, and myself as very "traditional." Now, saying that, "trad" as Andy mentions on the front page of this forum, is a term coined on this site. 

I happen to wear only 2 button slightly darted coats with as little padding as I can find. I don't like my previous experiences with dry cleaners trying to "fix" the 3 roll to 2, and more importantly, I don't like the fact that the number of retailers selling the sack is shrinking by the day.

I grew up watching my father dress in some sacks, (early 60's) and also some 2 button suits. Never pleated pants. (me too - Never) In my mind, my Dad was so trad he didn't even care or look if a coat was darted! I would bet if I called him and asked about it he would say, "Oh hell son I don't know or remember." (he is retired) I just know he only wore navy or various shades of greys in suits and never wore pleated trousers. He was "trad" to me because I remember in the 70's during high school the other Dad's were wearing poly bright shirts with 5" collars and my Dad just laughed at the whole scene. Grey slacks, white BD and dirty bucks were his weekend dress. Always the same. 

Always narrow rep or club ties with a 4 in hand knot. 

Enough about my family. I say yes. You would look fine and very "Ivy league" as I prefer to call the style of dress in a 2 button navy Brooks blazer, white or blue BD and either grey wool trousers or khakis. Plain front of course. 

Feel good in a 2 button, but I would say the 3 button "high roll" is not nearly as Ivy league. (it is too "trendy" in my opinion.)

All the best, Joe


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by guyfromboston_
> 
> This is an important topic. I own a couple of suits and jackets from the Andover Shop that are two or three button, center vent, and slightly darted. Are they Trad? I don't know, but I think they're classic American. Many of the trousers that I've had made at Andover are pleated (forward, of course). Trad? Don't know, but they look pretty darn good to me. I don't wear wide ties, Italian shoes, or cologne. Trad? I think so. My father's family came to the USA from Scotland in the very early 1700s, I was born in Litchfield CT, went to an Ivy League school, etc. I dress the way I do because that's how the people I grew up with dressed, and I will innovate from time to time. If Harris can buy clothes from RL, you can wear a two button suit  .


Yeah, but I remove the pony-player emblem. Can you remove the darts?


----------



## jmorgan32 (Apr 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Harris, You are brutal.[8D]


----------



## guyfromboston (Jan 26, 2005)

Remove darts from a jacket? Easy. A big pair of scissors, a bottle of Elmer's Glue, and a belt of 18-year old scotch are all it takes.



> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bowdoin (Dec 9, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Barrister_
> 
> Could a conservative charcoal chalk stripe or solid bankers gray suit that is center-vented, darted (but with minimal waist supression) and lightly padded in the shoulders still look somewhat trad in its own way, assuming the suit is a three-button as (opposed to two) and has flat front trousers (as opposed to pleated)?


To my mind, a darted two-button suit -- though obviously less "trad" than a three-button sack -- actually looks much more traditional and American than a darted three-button suit.

I associate the darted three-button suit with shiny silk ties and gigantic Windsor knots favored by trendy Europeans. Look at Gerhard Schroder, Jacques Chirac or Tony Blair. I think two-button jackets, undarted or darted, are more trad.

As evidence, I cite the comment of a 25-year-old peer of mine, who favors the European look: "Dude, two-button jackets look like something from your dad's closet."

Indeed.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I can certainly sympathize. When I was at Bowdoin, people used to address me as "Dude" too. I had to slap them down only a few times before they started using my name instead.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bowdoin_
> [To my mind, a darted two-button suit -- though obviously less "trad" than a three-button sack -- actually looks much more traditional and American than a darted three-button suit.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Even the most die-hard trads I know have a two button or two in their closets. I guess it depends if you are an Orthodox or conservative trad. 

Gee, all kinds of good metaphors exist here -- can we have "cafeteria plan" trads (ie., you believe in The Trad, but you pick and chose your execution of the belief).


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Tom Buchanan_
> 
> Even the most die-hard trads I know have a two button or two in their closets. I guess it depends if you are an Orthodox or conservative trad.
> 
> Gee, all kinds of good metaphors exist here -- can we have "cafeteria plan" trads (ie., you believe in The Trad, but you pick and chose your execution of the belief).


Actually some of us don't have any two button - some of us are _poor_ - sniff.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Tom Buchanan_
> 
> Gee, all kinds of good metaphors exist here -- can we have "cafeteria plan" trads (ie., you believe in The Trad, but you pick and chose your execution of the belief).


Hoo boy, that comes back to the discussions of 'trad' in the early stages of the 19 page thread. Is trad simply a style of dress, or is trad more of a social/cultural/philosophical _weltanscheung_?

DocD


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

No! Darts are tools of the devil!


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> No! Darts are tools of the devil!


Thus spake zarathustra.

Manton comes down to the valley of trad.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> We will tar and feather him and send him packing.


What, you mean darts _aren't_ tools of the devil? You guys are all over the map on this.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Okay, now I'm reading a biography about Evelyn Waugh.

Lots of photos.

NO DARTS! SOFT, NATURAL SHOULDERS. PLAIN FRONT TROUSERS.

I'm beginning to think the "English look"--a la Savile Row's military-inspired Huntsman--wasn't "English" until mid-century. 

It appears the sack pre dates the darted, fitted coat, eh? By quite a lot, eh?

Perhaps manton would care to defend.

-Harris


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

https://www.nndb.com/people/836/000079599/waugh-1.jpg

It appears darts are not only evil (thanks, Manton), but not entirely British.

Harris


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Manton, I was refering to the actual "Thus Spake Zarathustra" as in :

" Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too
much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.
I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more
become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.
Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the
evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to
the nether-world, thou exuberant star!
Like thee must I go down, as men say, to whom I shall descend.
Bless me, then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the
greatest happiness without envy!"

Sorry if the humor didn't come across. (Manton decends from wisdom down to the trad valley) No offended I hope, offense was not intended.


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> Hoo boy, that comes back to the discussions of 'trad' in the early stages of the 19 page thread. Is trad simply a style of dress, or is trad more of a social/cultural/philosophical?


Like those numbers on the J Press ties, Trad is whatever you want it to be.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Darts definitely predate undarted coats. Or, to be a little more precise, sidebodies and panels do. These are technically not the same as darts but they serve roughly the same purpose. All the standard 19th century coats were made this way. They were, by modern standards, outrageously fitted. A late 19th century frock coat makes modern Huntsman look like a sack. Military uniforms and riding coats -- which in the English tradition gave way to the modern coat -- were also made the same way.

So far as I know (and all the sources I have or have read state or suggest this), the true sack coat without darts or sidebodies or any waist suppression at all was invented in the US as a mass market product around the turn of the last century. The US pioneered RTW clothing long before the Brits.

As to the dart itself, I have not been able to nail down its exact origin. I wonder if anyone can. I like to think it was invented by Scholte. Certainly he made a lot of double-dart coats -- no sidebodies -- as this resulted in a nice combination of waist and drape. It is simply inaccurate -- as you, Harris, have stated elsewhere -- that either Scholte or A&S made, or the duke of Windsor or Fred Astaire wore, true sack coats. Yes, they wore coats that were much softer and less waisted than other SR firms were making at the time. But still not sacks.

As to the pics, it is hard to be certain that all those coats lack both darts and side bodies. They do appear to lack front darts, but even that is not certain. As to a rear dart or a sidebody seam, given the angles and poses, it is not possible to tell if such seams are present or not.

Yet those coats do appear to have a very subtle amound of waist suppression (try to imagine them buttoned), which brings me to an important point that you trads need to understand: DARTS ARE ONLY ONE WAY TO MAKE A WAIST! Ahem. I gather that what you all object to is not so much a dart, but a waist. Well, there is more than one way to pull in a waist. So you need to expand your enemies list.

Finally, let me say that I do not understand the tenor of much of what is posted here. I understand and respect that you guys do not like waist suppression. To each his own. I'm glad you all found each other and can get so much enjoyment out of sharing a common passion. But why you find it necessary to A) bait and denounce those who do not share your taste and B) construct implausible historical justifications for your taste is beyond me. Whether or not Waugh or Windsor or Astaire liked or wore darts should not affect your own opinion of darts in the least. My opinion should certainly not trouble you in the least. This dart dispute is positively Swiftian in its microscopic silliness.

You say sack, I say waist suppression, let's call the whole thing off.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by mpcsb_
> 
> Sorry if the humor didn't come across.


It did. Sorry mine didn't.


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> But why you find it necessary to bait and denounce those who do not share your taste?


Great post, manton. As to the point lifted above, this is very much a two way street. Never seen anyone post something like "Trad sukcs"? We have a few member, including the Godfather himself, who don't back down from an argument.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> Yet those coats do appear to have a very subtle amound of waist suppression (try to imagine them buttoned), which brings me to an important point that you trads need to understand: DARTS ARE ONLY ONE WAY TO MAKE A WAIST! Ahem. I gather that what you all object to is not so much a dart, but a waist. Well, there is more than one way to pull in a waist. So you need to expand your enemies list.


The 'new' Brooks tweed sack I just picked up I like _because_ of its great waist suppression (I will note that our own Ken Pollock favors a suppressed waist and flared skirt). It's a nice look coupled with the 3to2 roll and no darts. Of course, darts don't offend me, either. But then, I only rated myself a 3 on the Trad scale.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> 
> Never seen anyone post something like "Trad sukcs"?


Oh, I've seen it. I don't like that either. When someone attacks, I for one would never begrudge you for responding (graciously, like a trad should). But sometimes you guys are the aggressor. What's more, sometimes you seem to go out of your way to gratuitously antagonize people people who have nothing against you.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

"Finally, let me say that I do not understand the tenor of much of what is posted here. I understand and respect that you guys do not like waist suppression. To each his own. I'm glad you all found each other and can get so much enjoyment out of sharing a common passion. But why you find it necessary to A) bait and denounce those who do not share your taste and B) construct implausible historical justifications for your taste is beyond me. Whether or not Waugh or Windsor or Astaire liked or wore darts should not affect your own opinion of darts in the least. My opinion should certainly not trouble you in the least. This dart dispute is positively Swiftian in its microscopic silliness."

Adjectives. Adverbs. What we do without them?


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> That makes no sense to me. You've made these strange leaps in logic before. My comment was in reference to your sudden, unexpected appearance in these pages. The position on darts/no-darts has been consistent for a long time.


Here goes, the "loathsome business of explaining a joke."

1) I posted my "darts are a tool of the devil" post as a joke.

2) mpsb said I had descended into the vally of the trad.

3) You replied that I would be tarred and feathered.

4) Returning to my earlier joke, I asked that if you were going to violently eject me, did that mean that you had changed your minds about darts? (Since according to the terms of my earlier joke, I had come to agree with "trad" that darts are a tool of the devil.)

See how much funnier it is when every step is pedantically explained?


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by AlanC_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


AlanC,

I completely agree. As exhibits to my argument that you are correct, I would submit two trad hand-me-down coats that I possess. One is from the old Nelson & Gwatney in Richmond (long extinct). The other is from the old Arthur Rosenburg of New Haven, circa 1966. Both are classic "sack" style with natural shoulder, 3 to 2, hook vent, two sleeve buttons, etc. Yet both fit slim.

If I could purchase jackets cut like this otr today, I would do so in a heart beat.

One other point, in most of those pictures, it looked like Evelyn Waugh did not need waist suppression, but rather, the opposite.

Tom


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Harris, is there a reason behind your sneering hostilty that I missed? Something I or someone else said, perhaps, but have subsequently forgotten? As it is, it seems mysterious, and makes me wonder what's troubling you. I mean, it can't simply be that we disagree about darts. Can it?


----------



## Brownshoe (Mar 1, 2005)

Affirmative action, abortion, waist suppression...

some topics just seem to be too searingly personal and controversial for polite conversation.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Good lord. This is like reading Maximum Rock and Roll c. 1982 and putting up with the endless debates about what is and isn't "punk".


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Harris? Sneering? The man doesn't know how to sneer.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> Harris? Sneering? The man doesn't know how to sneer.


Can you explain his post (and other posts) then? Seriously. I don't think I have ever antagonized you guys. I have never joined in any of the sophmoric trad-bashing. I don't harbor any ill will toward any of you or your tastes (which admittedly I do not entirely share). I make the occasional joke, which I like to think is mild if largely unfunny. So what gives?


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

No malice intended, manton.

Between offering mea culpas to people who take offense at the connection between WASPs and bad haircuts, the mention of how fancy clothes fail to help an obese person look thinner, and how a lot of oh-so-cool turtlenecked bohemians praised the progressivism of a certain rabbi (and synagogue) at a party...I'm exhausted. 

I'm all out of 'em. 

Thanks for the information.

Microscopically silly,
Harris


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

I have an undarted, pinstriped navy, natural shoulder, 2 buttons on the sleeve, single vented suit from Brooks with a lot of waist suppression and a bit of a flaired skirt. I feel like I walked right off of Wall Street when I wear it. I guess its a mix of American Boardroom with trad touches...

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


Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Harris_
> 
> Microscopically silly,
> Harris


For the record, I did not call you "microscopically silly." I said that it is microscopically silly for people to harbor enmities against other people over the hardly momentous issue of whether coats should, or should not, be darted.

But I am glad that we are not enemies. I have all the enemies that I need or want.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

.....


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


10-4, good buddy.


----------



## tricket (Aug 23, 2003)

Manton, I'd ever examined or tried on an Anderson Sheppard suit jacket myself. I know it features the lack of front darts. Does it affect the silhouette compared to those that use darts to create very visible waist suppression (like PLRL by Chester Berrie)?


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> Good lord. This is like reading Maximum Rock and Roll c. 1982 and putting up with the endless debates about what is and isn't "punk".


The answer to that is that The Ramones were the only punk band and everyone else just played punkish music.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Horace (Jan 7, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by manton_
> 
> Darts definitely predate undarted coats. Or, to be a little more precise, sidebodies and panels do. These are technically not the same as darts but they serve roughly the same purpose.


I wore a tweed jacket today from Andover. 3 button, center vent, no darts. But it had "sidebodies". Arm-holes are higher too. The coat fits a little more snuggly (though no less comfortably) than other jackets that I have. And this coat, incidently, is just a little wider in the back (the shoulder to shoulder measurement) than others as well. The coat is shapely compared to a Brooks Makers tweed and the padding is minimal, like the old Makers tweeds.


----------



## dpihl (Oct 2, 2005)

*Sack Suits from history*

https://www.ushist.com/wardrobe/q-1502_victorian_sack_coat_suit_civil-war.htm#books​https://www.ushist.com/wardrobe/q-1502_victorian_sack_coat_suit_civil-war.htm#books

The sack suits depicted on the above web site look very smallish, and the skirt of the coat seems cartoonish. Very different from the long sack suit depicted below:

https://historicparks.org/imagegallery/garnier/pages/UnkGarnier_jpg.htm

*Description: *This young man (Probably Eugene Garnier) is wearing a loose fitting long coated sack suit which was typical of the 1860s and 1870s.

*Image Type: *Hand Tinted Ferrotype

*Source:* Original

*Decade of origin: *1870​
The following quote () seems to support Manton's time line, which also agrees with everything I've ever read.

 The sack coat, a loose fitting single-breasted garment without a waist seam, first appeared in American pattern drafting systems during the 1840s. By the late nineteenth century distinctive characteristics of this coat included a small collar, short lapels, a fastened top button close to the neck, moderately-rounded front hems, flap or welt pockets on the hips, a welt pocket on the chest, and a slightly baggy appearance. Our 1878 suit has many of the typical sack coat features, but Madison's coat pattern buttons slightly lower and has longer lapels than those pictured in fashion prints.



...At first men viewed the sack suit as an informal alternative to the frock suit that could be worn for sports or leisure activities at the seaside or in the country. By the 1860s they began wearing it for day wear. As _Harper's Bazar_ wrote in their April 6, 1878 issue, "Until visiting hours gentlemen of greatest elegance wear [sack suits], which do not differ essentially from those worn by travellers and the habitues of the races." Later in the year the magazine noted that men were choosing the sack suit "for business, for travelling, and morning wear on the street."

 Besides the loose-fitting coat, another informal feature of the sack suit was the fact that all three pieces were made from the same fabric. Fashion magazines listed plaids, small checks, or narrow stripes in dark color combinations, especially browns, as the preferred fabrics for sack suits. In 1875 _Tailor and Cutter_ wrote that "the leading characteristic is narrow stripes and small checks," though soft wool Angolas "show a little more boldness of both colour and pattern, the general tone in the latter respect being quiet combinations of black, grey, and brown." However not all men wanted "quiet combinations," as evidenced when the _West End Gazette of Fashion_ complained in 1876 that "Our fast young men will find something to be noisy in, in the shape of loud plaids, the patterns more striking than tasteful." By the turn of the century, sack coats had become the dominant mode of dress for men, with frock coats regulated to formal occasions. The introduction of the tuxedo, a formal sack coat, eventually made frock suits obsolete. As early as 1878 Tailor & Cutter had predicted this future. They wrote: "We are rapidly degenerating into a slipshod state of things. After a time Frock coats and even Morning coats will be entirely a thing of the past and if things continue on in this way [these coats] will only be seen at museums where they will serve to amuse a wondering and awestricken group of sight-seers." Today men wear an updated version of the nineteenth-century sack suit.

will take you to an authentic sack suit pattern prepared by the Wisconsin Historical Society, who is also responsible for the content quoted above.
Here is an interesting quote from Emily Post's book: Etiquette published in 1922. 
Chapter XXXIV. 
* The Clothes of a Gentleman
* The business suit or three-piece sack is made or marred by its cut alone. It is supposed to be an every-day inconspicuous garment and should be. A few rules to follow are:
 Don't choose striking patterns of materials; suitable woolen stuffs come in endless variety, and any which look plain at a short distance are "safe," though they may show a mixture of colors or pattern when viewed closely.
 Don't get too light a blue, too bright a green, or anything suggesting a horse blanket. At the present moment trousers are made with a cuff; sleeves are not. Lapels are moderately small. Padded shoulders are an abomination. Peg-topped trousers equally bad. If you must be eccentric, save your efforts for the next fancy dress ball, where you may wear what you please, but in your business clothing be reasonable.
Above everything, don't wear white socks, and don't cover yourself with chains, fobs, scarf pins, lodge emblems, etc., and don't wear "horsey" shirts and neckties. You will only make a bad impression on every one you meet. The clothes of a gentleman are always conservative; and it is safe to avoid everything that can possibly come under the heading of "novelty."

Interestingly, Post seems to advocate purchasing suits in England rather than the U.S. England, yes, but not on Saville Row? Instead she suggests that all of the best tailors are found on Bond Street. Am I reading this right?

I've long been fascinated that Brooks Brothers' own web site attributes the success of their ready made suits with the California gold rush. This places Brooks' sack suit squarely in the same category as Levi's blue jeans.

*1845 Ready-Made Suits*

Brooks introduces the first ready-to-wear suits in America. Pioneers of the 1849 California Gold Rush, unable to wait on the whims of a tailor, flock to Brooks to pick up ready-made clothing. ​


----------



## dpihl (Oct 2, 2005)

*Hitting the sack...*

https://www.ushist.com/wardrobe/q-1502_victorian_sack_coat_suit_civil-war.htm#books​https://www.ushist.com/wardrobe/q-1502_victorian_sack_coat_suit_civil-war.htm#books

The sack suits depicted on the above web site look very smallish, and the skirt of the coat seems cartoonish. Very different from the long sack suit depicted below:

https://historicparks.org/imagegallery/garnier/pages/UnkGarnier_jpg.htm

*Description: *This young man (Probably Eugene Garnier) is wearing a loose fitting long coated sack suit which was typical of the 1860s and 1870s.

*Image Type: *Hand Tinted Ferrotype

*Source:* Original

*Decade of origin: *1870​
The following quote () seems to support Manton's time line, which also agrees with everything I've ever read.

 The sack coat, a loose fitting single-breasted garment without a waist seam, first appeared in American pattern drafting systems during the 1840s. By the late nineteenth century distinctive characteristics of this coat included a small collar, short lapels, a fastened top button close to the neck, moderately-rounded front hems, flap or welt pockets on the hips, a welt pocket on the chest, and a slightly baggy appearance. Our 1878 suit has many of the typical sack coat features, but Madison's coat pattern buttons slightly lower and has longer lapels than those pictured in fashion prints.



...At first men viewed the sack suit as an informal alternative to the frock suit that could be worn for sports or leisure activities at the seaside or in the country. By the 1860s they began wearing it for day wear. As _Harper's Bazar_ wrote in their April 6, 1878 issue, "Until visiting hours gentlemen of greatest elegance wear [sack suits], which do not differ essentially from those worn by travellers and the habitues of the races." Later in the year the magazine noted that men were choosing the sack suit "for business, for travelling, and morning wear on the street."

 Besides the loose-fitting coat, another informal feature of the sack suit was the fact that all three pieces were made from the same fabric. Fashion magazines listed plaids, small checks, or narrow stripes in dark color combinations, especially browns, as the preferred fabrics for sack suits. In 1875 _Tailor and Cutter_ wrote that "the leading characteristic is narrow stripes and small checks," though soft wool Angolas "show a little more boldness of both colour and pattern, the general tone in the latter respect being quiet combinations of black, grey, and brown." However not all men wanted "quiet combinations," as evidenced when the _West End Gazette of Fashion_ complained in 1876 that "Our fast young men will find something to be noisy in, in the shape of loud plaids, the patterns more striking than tasteful." By the turn of the century, sack coats had become the dominant mode of dress for men, with frock coats regulated to formal occasions. The introduction of the tuxedo, a formal sack coat, eventually made frock suits obsolete. As early as 1878 Tailor & Cutter had predicted this future. They wrote: "We are rapidly degenerating into a slipshod state of things. After a time Frock coats and even Morning coats will be entirely a thing of the past and if things continue on in this way [these coats] will only be seen at museums where they will serve to amuse a wondering and awestricken group of sight-seers." Today men wear an updated version of the nineteenth-century sack suit.

will take you to an authentic sack suit pattern prepared by the Wisconsin Historical Society, who is also responsible for the content quoted above.
Here is an interesting quote from Emily Post's book: Etiquette published in 1922. 
Chapter XXXIV. 
* The Clothes of a Gentleman
* The business suit or three-piece sack is made or marred by its cut alone. It is supposed to be an every-day inconspicuous garment and should be. A few rules to follow are:
 Don't choose striking patterns of materials; suitable woolen stuffs come in endless variety, and any which look plain at a short distance are "safe," though they may show a mixture of colors or pattern when viewed closely.
 Don't get too light a blue, too bright a green, or anything suggesting a horse blanket. At the present moment trousers are made with a cuff; sleeves are not. Lapels are moderately small. Padded shoulders are an abomination. Peg-topped trousers equally bad. If you must be eccentric, save your efforts for the next fancy dress ball, where you may wear what you please, but in your business clothing be reasonable.
Above everything, don't wear white socks, and don't cover yourself with chains, fobs, scarf pins, lodge emblems, etc., and don't wear "horsey" shirts and neckties. You will only make a bad impression on every one you meet. The clothes of a gentleman are always conservative; and it is safe to avoid everything that can possibly come under the heading of "novelty."

Interestingly, Post seems to advocate purchasing suits in England rather than the U.S. England, yes, but not on Saville Row? Instead she suggests that all of the best tailors are found on Bond Street. Am I reading this right?

I've long been fascinated that Brooks Brothers' own web site attributes the success of their ready made suits with the California gold rush. This places Brooks' sack suit squarely in the same category as Levi's blue jeans.

*1845 Ready-Made Suits*

Brooks introduces the first ready-to-wear suits in America. Pioneers of the 1849 California Gold Rush, unable to wait on the whims of a tailor, flock to Brooks to pick up ready-made clothing. ​


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Sorry if the humor didn't come across.


Nothing liberal use of SMILIES could not have prevented. Are smilies trad?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I forgot about this thread, which may have been a good thing. Great fun to see Manton being shrill. For newer members, this debate about "darts" was common in the early days of the forum and it was always a heated debate.

DocD


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Barrister said:


> Could a conservative charcoal chalk stripe or solid bankers gray suit that is center-vented, darted (but with minimal waist supression) and lightly padded in the shoulders still look somewhat trad in its own way, assuming the suit is a three-button as (opposed to two) and has flat front trousers (as opposed to pleated)? Or would this look like I was just trying to make a non-sack suit look like a sack?


The reason Trad likes sack suits is because they don't magnify the stature of the people wearing them. A guy in a sack suit is a guy in a sack suit. It's very egalitarian that way. Two or three button, take your pick. You could probably even screw around with the vents... But the natural shoulder, the lack of darts, if you start messing too much with those, you're traveling down a slippery slope.

Same sort of idea behind pleats. Adding pleats after the fact to a pair of pants because you've lost some weight is one thing. Buying pre-pleated pants to give the illusion that that's what's going on is another.

It's tempting when a person isn't in the best shape to buy a trim waistline and an athletic build, but in my mind, that sort of thing is a different way of doing things than what I've come to understand is meant by "Trad".


----------



## Pgolden (May 13, 2006)

guyfromboston said:


> This is an important topic. I own a couple of suits and jackets from the Andover Shop that are two or three button, center vent, and slightly darted. Are they Trad? I don't know, but I think they're classic American. Many of the trousers that I've had made at Andover are pleated (forward, of course). Trad? Don't know, but they look pretty darn good to me. I don't wear wide ties, Italian shoes, or cologne. Trad? I think so. My father's family came to the USA from Scotland in the very early 1700s, I was born in Litchfield CT, went to an Ivy League school, etc. I dress the way I do because that's how the people I grew up with dressed, and I will innovate from time to time. If Harris can buy clothes from RL, you can wear a two button suit  .


Very well put. And just to add just my .02 regarding Trad vs. the Un-Trad. I've always thought that when it came to casual clothing, dressed up or down, nothing could beat Ivy League--the colors, the clean lines of it, and the common sense regarding fabric and temperature, and what sort of footwear would be most comfortable. However, I don't believe this is always true when it comes to business suits. I'm not one for fads--stork legs at the present moment, for instance--but the fine Italian suit makers produce beautiful suits in lovely cloth, and they don't always match up with the ideal of Trad. One interesting example of a Trad who goes for fine Italian suits is G. H. W. Bush, who I've seen wearing Ravazzalo, which I believe is referred to as "baby Brioni." They are beautiful suits, often with soft shoulders and an elegant drape, but they are not the sacks we've often seen the former President wear.


----------

