# New Norman Hilton. Eh.



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

36S, 36R, 36L, 38L, and 40L jackets are only available with a $173.75 upcharge for a "Custom Size". The first four sizes I can sort of understand, but since when is 40L out of the ordinary? Every other retailer carries it standard.

9 3/4" rise trousers, which is hopefully a typo or just the length of the zipper. I recall that the trousers from last season had a regular, non-trendy rise.

Not so impressed with these developments.

https://www.normanhilton.com/


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Somebody let me know when they have black with silver buttons.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

You'll just never let that go, will you? Along with the fact that I wear socks with boat shoes sometimes.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

I was at Nick's today trying on the Norman Hilton blazers. Sweet baby Jesus, those are amazing. I was afraid that they would be too "modern" in cut and length but they fit me just fine. The silk blazers are nice and thick with minimal shoulder padding and all the trad details are there (undarted, lapped seams, single hook vent). The blue blazer is a rich hopsack weave and the buttons are nice and substantial. The fabric has a bit of a sheen to it which I actually like. My only complaint is that the lapels are a bit undersized and the rolled button hole is finished on the wrong side. The sleeves also have too many buttons (I prefer 2). I asked about an MTM program and I was told I could basically build my jacket from the ground up for an extra "hundred and change" (probably the $173.75 Jovan mentioned above). It was a very pleasant experience and I got to see "the" jacket which they pulled the Norman Hilton pattern from. It was a burgundy tweed number, undarted with a ticket pocket and grey buttons. A weird bird indeed. They brought out all of last season's leftovers for me which were available for 35% off but I was in reconnaissance mode and didn't pull the trigger on anything. But the Witherspoon model with a few tweaks is my new grail blue blazer.

For Trips benefit, I'll also add that I visited the Ralph Lauren store and tried on the Polo I and Polo II jackets that he loves so much. I have to say that they come pretty close. But they only have a doeskin blue blazer and it's darted. The shoulders were just as amazing as the Norman Hilton, so no complaints there. And the experience was just as wonderful. Everyone there knows their stuff and I got to see a lot of great RL foot wearfrom Crocket and Jones and an "unknown" New England manufacturer. The issue is the price tag. The blazer OTR was $1195. An MTM blazer starts at $1495. The NH blazer was $695 OTR and maybe $900 MTM (conservative estimate).


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

So so so... Hmmmm. 

Do tell me about these shoulders. Tell me about the body. As you could tell, the Polo I & Polo II are different with the II being a wider cut in the waist and a bit wider in the shoulders. If the Hiltons are close to the II in size and have a shoulder that's just as soft I might have to go check them out. 

That being said if I'm spending close to $900 for a custom model (I'd want double vents) I'm much more likely to give it to Sid Mashburn, but Princeton's a shorter drive than Hotlanta.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Sid needs to stop the ticket pocket abuse.

Was the hopsack noticeably lighter in weight than the Polo? Such things matter in Texas a lot. Nick's probably out, though, as I'm not real keen to need to throw down an extra ~$200 for a 40L, a common size (kind of pisses me off, to be honest, but it's not my business so he can do what he pleases)


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Trip English said:


> So so so... Hmmmm.
> 
> Do tell me about these shoulders. Tell me about the body. As you could tell, the Polo I & Polo II are different with the II being a wider cut in the waist and a bit wider in the shoulders. If the Hiltons are close to the II in size and have a shoulder that's just as soft I might have to go check them out.
> 
> That being said if I'm spending close to $900 for a custom model (I'd want double vents) I'm much more likely to give it to Sid Mashburn, but Princeton's a shorter drive than Hotlanta.


Trip, I'm glad you mentioned the difference between I and II because the sales associate swore the only difference was in the number of buttons and vents. I didn't like the width on the shoulders of the Polo II and I actually preferred the cut and button stance of the Polo I. By comparison, I think the Norman Hilton had shoulders similar to the Polo I with the roominess of the II. It felt like a true sack blazer. If you can find the Polo II at a significant enough discount, it's probably still your best bet for a double vent. I wasn't happy with the fabric selection for the Polo blazers but really liked the Hilton stuff. If you want to come down and check it out, let me know.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

hookem12387 said:


> Sid needs to stop the ticket pocket abuse.
> 
> Was the hopsack noticeably lighter in weight than the Polo? Such things matter in Texas a lot. Nick's probably out, though, as I'm not real keen to need to throw down an extra ~$200 for a 40L, a common size (kind of pisses me off, to be honest, but it's not my business so he can do what he pleases)


No hopsack for the Polo, only doeskin. That made it a no-go for me, since I have enough heavy-weight blue blazers.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

hookem12387 said:


> Sid needs to stop the ticket pocket abuse.


f'sho.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

hardline_42 said:


> Trip, I'm glad you mentioned the difference between I and II because the sales associate swore the only difference was in the number of buttons and vents. I didn't like the width on the shoulders of the Polo II and I actually preferred the cut and button stance of the Polo I. By comparison, I think the Norman Hilton had shoulders similar to the Polo I with the roominess of the II. It felt like a true sack blazer. If you can find the Polo II at a significant enough discount, it's probably still your best bet for a double vent. I wasn't happy with the fabric selection for the Polo blazers but really liked the Hilton stuff. If you want to come down and check it out, let me know.


So to summarize - in a given size, the NH have narrower shoulders (like the Polo I) and a more generous body (like the Polo II). Not sure how this will work (I tend to need the room in both the shoulders and the body) but in the grand scheme of things I really shouldn't just let year after year of NH go by without investigating. I'll let you know when I plan a day trip.


----------



## Desk Jockey (Aug 19, 2005)

But 40L, last I checked, *is* out of the ordinary. A 9 3/4 inch rise, on the other hand, is very much in the ordinary--unless you're talking about a long-proportion pair of pants.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

hookem12387 said:


> Sid needs to stop the ticket pocket abuse.
> 
> Was the hopsack noticeably lighter in weight than the Polo? Such things matter in Texas a lot. Nick's probably out, though, as I'm not real keen to need to throw down an extra ~$200 for a 40L, a common size (kind of pisses me off, to be honest, but it's not my business so he can do what he pleases)


To be fair, it seems there might be more to the "custom size" option than that according to hardline_42. I'm curious exactly what he means by building a jacket from the ground up.

But in the end, it would be nice to just stock a friggin' 40L for regular price. :icon_scratch:



Desk Jockey said:


> But 40L, last I checked, *is* out of the ordinary. A 9 3/4 inch rise, on the other hand, is very much in the ordinary--unless you're talking about a long-proportion pair of pants.


If you mean back in the mid-20th century, when men were generally shorter, you'd be correct. These days, I can't think of a single menswear retailer I haven't seen offering 40L. Brooks Brothers, Hickey Freeman, Hart Schaffner Marx, Ralph Lauren, J. Crew, Banana Republic, Express, and even lowly department store brands from J.C. Penney and Dillard's carry it as a standard size.

I'm also curious where you commonly see a 9 3/4 rise besides on skinny, low rise jeans.


----------



## dorji (Feb 18, 2010)

Desk Jockey said:


> But 40L, last I checked, *is* out of the ordinary.


Yes, yes it is. Makes restraint easy though...


----------



## dorji (Feb 18, 2010)

Awww and they are named after F Scott Fitzgerald characters (the new jackets).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

dorji, I'll ask you as well... how are you having a hard time finding 40L jackets?


----------



## dorji (Feb 18, 2010)

They are just not very common where I live, or from the online retailers I buy from. That's all, no big deal.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Odd. I see them everywhere I go.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

It seems the Buchanan, Nassau, and Witherspoon have 40L available now, and on no jackets do I see "Custom Size" options anymore. I wonder if it's a response to other bloggers or forum members who raised the same issue.

The trousers don't look that low in rise from what I can see on the models, so I'm thinking the 9 3/4" measurement is a mistake. Still look lower than last season's trousers though, maybe about 11".


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> Trip, I'm glad you mentioned the difference between I and II because the sales associate swore the only difference was in the number of buttons and vents. I didn't like the width on the shoulders of the Polo II and I actually preferred the cut and button stance of the Polo I. By comparison, I think the Norman Hilton had shoulders similar to the Polo I with the roominess of the II. It felt like a true sack blazer. If you can find the Polo II at a significant enough discount, it's probably still your best bet for a double vent. I wasn't happy with the fabric selection for the Polo blazers but really liked the Hilton stuff. If you want to come down and check it out, let me know.


2 questions:

Are the shoulders of the Polo I a lot narrower? I may be able to size up to a 42L in the Polo I to get added length

Do you find the Norman Hilton lapels too small? 2.5" seems awfully tiny (that's what the sales rep just told me on the phone).


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

The shoulders & chest feel much narrower on the Polo I & IV. Sizing up could be a possibility. 

I'm mourning your recent Polo II debacle. A sad day indeed.

You should cheer yourself up with a belt buckle.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Weird, last season the Norman lapels were 3". Guess they're making everything tinier to appeal to the short and tight fashionistas. :-/


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

dorji said:


> Awww and they are named after F Scott Fitzgerald characters (the new jackets).


Brooks Brothers was already doing it, and with a Gatsby movie coming out this year, why not?

</gag>

That aside, I want one.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Weird, last season the Norman lapels were 3". Guess they're making everything tinier to appeal to the short and tight fashionistas. :-/


 I guess it's possible the salesman on the phone was wrong? It seems unlikely, but it also seems unlikely they'd change that, right? Anyone seen or ordered the current season?


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Himself said:


> Brooks Brothers was already doing it, and with a Gatsby movie coming out this year, why not?
> 
> </gag>
> 
> That aside, I want one.


I want the Eckleburg, though I'm tempted by the Wolfsheim.


----------



## dorji (Feb 18, 2010)

He did fix the worlds series. Plus had molar cufflinks.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

hookem12387 said:


> I guess it's possible the salesman on the phone was wrong? It seems unlikely, but it also seems unlikely they'd change that, right? Anyone seen or ordered the current season?


Well, maybe. The lapels don't look quite that small.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

dorji said:


> He did fix the worlds series. Plus had molar cufflinks.


I seriously looked into making molar cufflinks a while back, but I so rarely wear shirts that require them, and ebay has a policy against selling human remains so I had to abandon it.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

So, if anyone is curious about these, here are some pictures. The button stance is too high for me, and the lapel is too small. The hopsack is very nice, though, and the shoulder is perfectly unstructured. Big thumbs up from me on the shoulder, in fact. Alas, another down the drains in my blazer quest


----------



## Coffee Mug (Mar 27, 2011)

hookem12387 said:


> So, if anyone is curious about these, here are some pictures. The button stance is too high for me, and the lapel is too small. The hopsack is very nice, though, and the shoulder is perfectly unstructured. Big thumbs up from me on the shoulder, in fact. Alas, another down the drains in my blazer quest


That's a good looking blazer. The lapels _are _too small, but the shoulder looks perfect and it's the right shade of navy. The button stance does look pretty standard for a 3/2. I'm about your height, and I prefer a 2-button style for that reason.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Hmmmmm.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Coffee Mug said:


> That's a good looking blazer. The lapels _are _too small, but the shoulder looks perfect and it's the right shade of navy. The button stance does look pretty standard for a 3/2. I'm about your height, and I prefer a 2-button style for that reason.


 That second button is hitting 2-3" above my navel, which seems awfully high to me. Maybe I'm just a crazy person, though.

Trip, be interested. So long as the lapels aren't too mad men


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I'm worried that you have 2-button stance expectations of 3-button jackets. My Brooks Brothers, Ralph Lauren, & Vintage JAB jackets (sack and darted) all have the center button a few inches above the navel. This may be more problematic for a tall guy, but the stance seems correct to me. 

And I am interested, and I am concerned about the lapel width.


----------



## roman totale XVII (Sep 18, 2009)

Coffee Mug said:


> That's a good looking blazer. The lapels _are _too small, but the shoulder looks perfect and it's the right shade of navy. The button stance does look pretty standard for a 3/2. I'm about your height, and I prefer a 2-button style for that reason.


+1 I'm in the market for a new blazer and that's a great looking one that's frankly spoilt by the lapels. When even a slim-looking guy like yourself can't pull it off, that's not good.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Thanks for posting the pics hookem. The lapels look tiny. How wide are they?


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

That's an even more appropriate way to describe the lapels: tiny. 

That's a terrible shame. It looks very nice through the body, though. Only the lapels have been Brooklynized.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Hookem, Kudos to you for actually ordering one, trying it on and taking pictures. All too often we (I certainly include myself) over-analyze catalog pictures, hersay, and measurements rather than just buying the damn thing.

You certainly made the right call sending it back, those lapels are terrible. The button stance looks off to me too (is that a Long? it appears like they just added some length to a regular without changing the button height or spacing).
Those severely closed quarters don't do any favors either.
Good call, I wish I knew of somewhere else to recommend to you.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

I don't like it, for all of the reasons already mentioned. It just looks weird.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

It looks like the top two thirds of a rakish lab coat.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Trip English said:


> It looks like the top two thirds of a rakish lab coat.


Med student coat, maybe. 

I think the lapels on my lab coats are wider than those.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> ...it appears like they just added some length to a regular without changing the button height or spacing).
> Those severely closed quarters don't do any favors either.


To my eyes, the closed quarters are a major culprit in having the button stance seem too high. Of course, my eyes aren't the best, anymore. :frown:


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

The button stance, I know, doesn't need be at the navel - but I may have been hoping for a tiny bit lower than what is typical for a 3/2. I'm actually very ok with it being above, but it should be a bit below where it is. I think TBS nailed it when he said they just added length to make the long. Yes, the closed quarters don't add to the look, but if the button was an inch lower I'd likely have kept it. If anyone is curious, Epaulet is likely next in line; I'll try a 40r with them before deciding if I need the special order/no return long. If not that, it'll be a Brooks fitz blazer that holds me over until I can afford something m2m/bespoke.


----------



## Acme (Oct 5, 2011)

Cowtown said:


> The lapels look tiny. How wide are they?


The jacket has a 2.5" lapel. It's copied from a design originally made in 1963.

Are narrow lapels back in style?


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

They were a few years back, but not anymore.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

:icon_scratch: Not from what I've seen. There were narrow lapel "slim fit" suits in literally every store that had a men's department during my recent trip to the mall.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

hookem12387 said:


> So, if anyone is curious about these, here are some pictures. The button stance is too high for me, and the lapel is too small. The hopsack is very nice, though, and the shoulder is perfectly unstructured. Big thumbs up from me on the shoulder, in fact. Alas, another down the drains in my blazer quest


Thanks for sharing. I too am a little disappointed. The '60s 3/2 sack sport coats I own have the bottom button slightly below or right at the same level as the pocket openings. Plus, something about the overall cut seems off.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Jovan said:


> :icon_scratch: Not from what I've seen. There were narrow lapel "slim fit" suits in literally every store that had a men's department during my recent trip to the mall.


It's the "Mad Men" effect.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I must admit I do not care for the narrowest extremes of lapels and ties presented on that show, but it is what was worn.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Hookem, thanks for posting the pics. On my ridiculously short frame, the narrow lapels look pretty proportional. but I concur with everyone else's thought that they don't look right on you.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

hookem12387 said:


> So, if anyone is curious about these, here are some pictures. The button stance is too high for me, and the lapel is too small. The hopsack is very nice, though, and the shoulder is perfectly unstructured. Big thumbs up from me on the shoulder, in fact. Alas, another down the drains in my blazer quest


This looks great on you, lapels and all. Your young and lucky that the best look of yesterday is also the best look of today. There's no reason to seek out the middle of the road, it will find you in due time.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Now's the time if you're going to try them. $347 + shipping on the website. I grabbed the Nassau. If it works I may get the Wilson if my size is left. No returns on sale items, though. Just exchanges. So make sure you need a lot of ties or pants just in case.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

^^ If you don't need a long, I have a feeling it will be a better fit overall. I think the long just doesn't quite adjust its proportions enough, it really just adds an inch. Just a guess, though, for the every-so-slightly odd proportions. You will be excited by the shoulders


----------



## zightx (Jul 10, 2011)

I just bought the Alexander. I was thinking about buying the Wilson but it ran out in my size now. I was a little unsure about the windowpane overcheck though. But I don't know if a raw silk jacket in white will be so much fun anyway...


----------



## steve2318 (Oct 12, 2010)

Anybody else with fit pics of their jacket?

Thinking about ordering the Wilson but the no returns except for store credit has me worried


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Grabbed the Buchanan and some pants. Too good a deal to be ignored.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Bingo! I got it ... the character in _The Quiet Man._


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Not quite. Close, but no cigar.


----------



## zightx (Jul 10, 2011)

I got my Norman Hilton sport coat yesterday. Not happy with the fit at all. The fit is very short and a little boxy. The body is fixable with a little taper but the dealbreaker is that it's so short you'll think it's a 38S but mine is a 38R. I'm going to send it back.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

AldenPyle said:


> Not quite. Close, but no cigar.


Can you elaborate?


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Can you elaborate?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_American


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Ah, yes, that's what I meant, lol. No cigar.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

This fall, Norman Hilton are darted and side vented. That makes me sad. Probably for the best though. I need no more sport coats and nobody else seemed to like them.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

AldenPyle said:


> This fall, Norman Hilton are darted and side vented. That makes me sad. Probably for the best though. I need no more sport coats and nobody else seemed to like them.


 Whoa, I'd still hoped they would work out the pattern for longs, since they said they were changing things up a bit. I had no idea they meant REALLY change things up.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Well, so much for that little experiment.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

It was doomed to fail. They may as well have brought back 4-button Edwardian coats for all the interest the general public has in sacks. This forum likely represents the white-hot core of trad tastemakers and the few who actually laid hands on these garments were non-plussed. Viva la side vents! Viva la darts!


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

I was plussed and it seemed like they pretty much sold out in the first season. But they may have tapped the bottom by the 2nd or maybe its just the economy.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

The upside: I'm definitely going to give them another shot now that the pattern is different. The jacket I tried had amazing shoulders, and I don't at all mind darts or side vents.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> I was plussed and it seemed like they pretty much sold out in the first season. But they may have tapped the bottom by the 2nd or maybe its just the economy.


I'm fairly certain that all seasons saw some heavy markdowns to clear out the leftovers. I suppose even the midas touch of F.E. Castleberry has its limits.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Trip English said:


> I'm fairly certain that all seasons saw some heavy markdowns to clear out the leftovers. I suppose even the midas touch of F.E. Castleberry has its limits.


Only odd sizes left, first season.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Where did you see it? In the store? The website seems completely down.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

It was up last night (or my last night). Prose described shoulders as "sweater-like".


----------

