# Fabrics: Scabal vs. Eton vs. Holland and Sherry



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Of these three fabric sources, which one is the best all around? I also know that Oxxford gets it's fabrics from all three of these sources for their suits, tuxedos, sports jackets, dinner jackets, dress pants, dinner (or formal dress) pants, odd vests, dinner (or formal odd) vests, overcoats and dinner (or formal) overcoats. The Holland and Sherry fabrics from Oxxford generally range from super 100s to super 130s with a few super 140s, super 150s and no thread count fabrics thrown in. Eton fabrics from Oxxford generally range from super 100s to super 150s with a few super 160s, super 170s and no thread count fabrics thrown in. Scabal fabrics from Oxxford generally range from super 150s to super 220s with a few no thread count fabrics thrown in. I looked at all of Oxxford's fabrics at Bergdorf Goodman last week on Wednesday 9-6-06. I believe that the Scabal fabrics from them were the most expensive (and the nicest) with the Holland and Sherry fabrics the least expensive (and less nice than Scabal but still first class) and the Eton fabrics priced below Scabal and above Holland and Sherry. IMO, the Eton fabrics looked and felt the same as (no better, no worse) than the Holland and Sherry (which, again, were less nice to look at and feel than the Scabal fabrics but still first class). Despite having the highest super numbers when having a thread count, the Scabal fabrics actually felt just as durable as and just as resistant to wrinkles as or marginally more durable than and marginally more resistant to wrinkles than the Eton and Holland and Sherry farbics. I may or may not ever be able to afford Oxxford clothing (50/50 chance) at some point in my life. But my Uncle Joe and my father can easily afford Oxxford clothing. If anybody here on Ask Andy's has any knowledge whatsoever about which one of these three fabric sources that Oxxford gets their fabrics from is the best all around, please share it with me and the other forum members? Thank you in advance! This would come in handy if my father, my Uncle Joe and I ever decide that they are interested in buying any of the clothing that I mentioned above from Oxxford.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Of those, H&S is the best all around. But the offerings are so vast that some will be great, some so-so, and some dreck.

Remember, too, that Super number does not mean thread count. Also, higher super numbers don't necessarily correlate with quality. Some of us prefer non-supers, for the most part.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Oxxford suit separates?!? 

Come to think of it, I think I saw those being sold next to the Charvet pre-tied bowties...


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Cantabrigian said:


> Oxxford suit separates?!?
> 
> Come to think of it, I think I saw those being sold next to the Charvet pre-tied bowties...


Typing error on my part. Sorry about that. I often get sidetracked very easily. I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause for anybody.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

manton said:


> Of those, H&S is the best all around. But the offerings are so vast that some will be great, some so-so, and some dreck.
> 
> Remember, too, that Super number does not mean thread count. Also, higher super numbers don't necessarily correlate with quality. Some of us prefer non-supers, for the most part.


Given the prices that Oxxford charges for the clothes sold under their name that they actually make, I would think that all of Oxxford's farbics, regardless of what source they are from, would be excellent. Unless, of course, you get a defective garment and/or a defective fabric, which I am sure is extrordinarily rare with Oxxford, again given the prices.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Fashion TC said:


> Given the prices that Oxxford charges for the clothes sold under their name that they actually make, I would think that all of Oxxford's farbics, regardless of what source they are from, would be excellent. Unless, of course, you get a defective garment and/or a defective fabric, which I am sure is extrordinarily rare with Oxxford, again given the prices.


Well, it doesn't work that way. For one thing, Oxxford does not make any of its own cloth. The same corporate parent owns H&S, but that is not the same thing. Second, even H&S is a merchant, not a weaver, so most of what it sells it does not make. Though I understand that they are starting to weave more of their own stuff, out of Chile. Third, any company with a huge line like H&S is going to have some misfires. It would be lovely if we could just trust the entire line to be perfect accross the board, but that's not the real world. Finally, the very best available cloth (in my opinion) is not made by any of these companies, and is (for the most part) not available through any MTM program from any company. MTM is subject to certain economic pressures that make using really high quality cloth that is run off in limited lengths untenable.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

manton said:


> Well, it doesn't work that way. For one thing, Oxxford does not make any of its own cloth. The same corporate parent owns H&S, but that is not the same thing. Second, even H&S is a merchant, not a weaver, so most of what it sells it does not make. Though I understand that they are starting to weave more of their own stuff, out of Chile. Third, any company with a huge line like H&S is going to have some misfires. It would be lovely if we could just trust the entire line to be perfect accross the board, but that's not the real world. Finally, the very best available cloth (in my opinion) is not made by any of these companies, and is (for the most part) not available through any MTM program from any company. MTM is subject to certain economic pressures that make using really high quality cloth that is run off in limited lengths untenable.


What he said, except for the last sentence (even though qualified by the 'for the most part' in the previous sentence).


----------



## Royal_Elegance (May 8, 2006)

Well, is there a way to tell the difference in quality by simply touching / examining the fabric, or you simply have to rely on the source's reputation? 

I've encountered a lot of tailors who tried to sell me a fabric from a less known manufacturer and they've always claimed their fabrics to be better than Scabal, Zegna, etc. It was really hard to tell the difference by simply touching the cloth sample. At the end of the day, I never bought them because I knew nothing about the manufacturer.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

There is no infallible way to gauge the quality of cloth, I don't think. Reputation is not bad, but imperfect. Learning how good cloth "feels" and responds to certain stresses is vital. Tailors' judgements can also be useful. There are tailors who I know have an excellent appreciation for cloth, and also direct experience in working with it. But even this is not infallible, as the occasional tailor will praise to the skies stuff I consider tissue paper.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

If you're lazy, you can still get pretty close just by checking to see if it's sold by Lesser's.


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

*Road test them all?*

Why don't you do a test and have three suits made in navy using each of three cloth merchants?

Seriously, they're all excellent cloths, and you won't go wrong with any of them.


----------



## LotharoftheHillPeople (Apr 30, 2006)

I have to second Mark's suggestion for the three suit trial run. 
While you're at it, you may as well make one the Scabal 50% 220 50% cashmere cloth. It's my understanding that you could get into one of those for a cool 18-20K.


----------



## andreyb (Dec 24, 2003)

manton said:


> Finally, the very best available cloth (in my opinion) is not made by any of these companies, and is (for the most part) not available through any MTM program from any company.


Manton, could you, please, share the names of the companies making this cloth?

Andrey

P.S.: Perhaps you already did this, but somehow I missed it -- sorry if this the case.


----------



## HeimiesDuncan (Sep 14, 2006)

manton said:


> Well, it doesn't work that way. For one thing, Oxxford does not make any of its own cloth. The same corporate parent owns H&S, but that is not the same thing. Second, even H&S is a merchant, not a weaver, so most of what it sells it does not make. Though I understand that they are starting to weave more of their own stuff, out of Chile. Third, any company with a huge line like H&S is going to have some misfires. It would be lovely if we could just trust the entire line to be perfect accross the board, but that's not the real world. Finally, the very best available cloth (in my opinion) is not made by any of these companies, and is (for the most part) not available through any MTM program from any company. MTM is subject to certain economic pressures that make using really high quality cloth that is run off in limited lengths untenable.


Actually, I'de like to make a slight correction. I was curious about HnS weaving out of the british Isles, and caught up with someone in their employ (as someone who has some HnS books on his shelf) and queried them.

Yes HnS and Oxxford are owned by the same company, but HnS is still having their goods woven in England and Scotland. The parent company did aquire a South American company that was known for their linen fabric production, and has hence began production of woolens. That company is actually producing under their own name, and it's decent for the cost. I do not sell it, on the other hand, though it is offered through my custom house in their seasonal books. I was told that HnS would have a difficult time relocating production, as it would absolutely destroy their name and sellability. Marketing suicide as it were. If this is 100% true, I'm not sure. I have no reason to believe otherwise at this point.

As for the hand? Well, HnS has a definite feel that is a touch heavier than most Italian (and even some English goods) out there. The reason for this is mostly regional. Simply put, it is English cloth. English weavers, regardless of the quality, will more then likely produce a heavier cloth than the Italians, more then likely attributed to the style of production, and the climate of the area. If you take a swatch of HnS in 120's, and put it next to say... Zegna's 120's, it's going to feel completely differently. I have, on the other hand, discovered no difference in the final product. All the cloth mentioned in this thread is of high quality (and Scabal even offers cloth of absurd luxury standards, and to a point so does HnS... I don't know much on Eton).

Hope that helps!


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Hmmm. The president of H&S told me (and some others) last year that they were beginning to set up mills in Chile, in part as a hedge against the (inevitable) decline and disappearance of English sources. He said that the current production was small, but it could grow. Certainly, I realize that the vast majority of what they sell today is still British.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Holland & Sherry.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

andreyb said:


> Manton, could you, please, share the names of the companies making this cloth?


For my money:

Lesser: all books, from the Superfine Tropicals (8/9 ounce) to the 16 ounce worsteds, are terrific quality. Designwise, you may not find what you are looking for, however.

Smith Woolens: also great for worsteds, though they have a heavier emphasis on Supers that don't interest me. The Botany and Steadfast books are excellent. I also like the flannels book, though oddly, it has very few flannels in it. Gilt Edge (or Gilt Twist) is not bad for a super lightweight summer cloth, but Lesser Superfine Tropicals wears better. However, Gilt Edge has some nicer designs.

J&J Minnis: The fresco and flannel books are the best of their respective kinds, hands down. Rangoon is a great tropical book. Some say it is the same stuff as Lesser Superfine, but it is marked as 8 ounce, not 8/9, and the weave definitely feels tighter to me. Also, it has several designs that Lesser lacks.

Harrisons: Great flannel book; not quite up to the Minnis quality in most cases, but superior designs and colors in several instances. Thistle is a killer worsted book, as is Fine Classics. I am not a fan of Grand or Premier Cru: too much emphasis on high count fibers and not enough wool in the yarns to give the cloth sufficient body. Nice designs, I got sucked in once, but never again.

For suitings, those are the books I go back to again and again. I also grab the odd piece of Woodehouse or Hield or Hunt & Winterbotham when they surface in NY cloth stores.


----------



## Trilby (Aug 11, 2004)

I would suggest a couple of additions to Manton's list:

For flannels, my absolute fave is Fox.

For tweeds, W. Bill.

Otherwise, and especially for worsted suitings, I think Manton's list is pretty definitive.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Trilby said:


> For flannels, my absolute fave is Fox.


Everything in the Minnis book is made by Fox. Not sure about the Harrison's book. There are no Fox books circulating in New York, but if you write to them they will send you cuttings of what they have on hand, glued to black crepe paper. It's mostly solids, as I recall. Also, a friend who is in frequent contact with Fox was told that they no longer intend to maintain a stocklist. Henceforth, they are only going to weave for others.



> For tweeds, W. Bill.


Certainly. I have so little occasion to wear tweed, and more than enough tweed in my closet to cover those occasions, that I don't pay much attention to tweed these days.


----------



## HeimiesDuncan (Sep 14, 2006)

manton said:


> Hmmm. The president of H&S told me (and some others) last year that they were beginning to set up mills in Chile, in part as a hedge against the (inevitable) decline and disappearance of English sources. He said that the current production was small, but it could grow. Certainly, I realize that the vast majority of what they sell today is still British.


I was under that impression as well... Their parent company, though, works in strange... strange ways. I do business with said company, they are OK to work with, but they certainly massive.

When I was pushing for information, the only thing that came up was their new Chilean company... which i'm pretty sure goes by the name of Crosseville, and so far, they seem to be producing under that name.

Also, I know that HnS utilizes mills in Scotland as well. I don't know if this is for specefic production purposes, or that they produce the same fineness of fabric that their English ones do. Regardless, I'm pretty sure it's cheaper to produce outside of England, whether it be Scotland OR Chile.

Hell, I could be dead wrong, and all information given to me completely false. Which would upset me... I'm pretty weird about having stuff produced where I want it produced when I sell it, but if they are producing offshore, and the quality does not change, I don't think I'll have too much to gripe about.

Also, Manton, a customer of mine who lurks around on AAAC (also the same customer who turned me on to the forum) has said your posts are a notorious good read. He is quite right in my opinion.

Duncan


----------



## Trilby (Aug 11, 2004)

manton said:


> Everything in the Minnis book is made by Fox. Not sure about the Harrison's book. There are no Fox books circulating in New York, but if you write to them they will send you cuttings of what they have on hand, glued to black crepe paper. It's mostly solids, as I recall. Also, a friend who is in frequent contact with Fox was told that they no longer intend to maintain a stocklist. Henceforth, they are only going to weave for others.


Interesting. I have had some cloth direct from Fox in the past, which I've always been thrilled with. I'm having some trousers made up at the moment from a flannel in the Minnis book, but it hadn't realized it was also made by Fox.

Duncan - you have a great looking website. I particularly like the photograph on your homepage.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

manton said:


> Also, a friend who is in frequent contact with Fox was told that they no longer intend to maintain a stocklist. Henceforth, they are only going to weave for others.


I wonder who is going to pick up their lightweight flannel range? Not that anyone really needs such an animal, but theirs are so lovely that I occasionally drool over the thought of having a suit made from it. When all the basics are firmly covered and I have occasion to go out for quiet evening dates in the spring (ha!).


----------



## HeimiesDuncan (Sep 14, 2006)

Trilby said:


> Interesting. I have had some cloth direct from Fox in the past, which I've always been thrilled with. I'm having some trousers made up at the moment from a flannel in the Minnis book, but it hadn't realized it was also made by Fox.
> 
> Duncan - you have a great looking website. I particularly like the photograph on your homepage.


Oh thats me. My boss is cheap and learned that I'de do a three hour photoshoot for a pastrami on rye and a coke.

Duncan


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

manton said:


> There is no infallible way to gauge the quality of cloth, I don't think. Reputation is not bad, but imperfect. Learning how good cloth "feels" and responds to certain stresses is vital. Tailors' judgements can also be useful. There are tailors who I know have an excellent appreciation for cloth, and also direct experience in working with it. But even this is not infallible, as the occasional tailor will praise to the skies stuff I consider tissue paper.


The incorrect double negative aside, and with all due respect which, BTW, is enormous, I would heartily disagree with the intended meaning of your first sentence. The study of cloth is both science and art. The vast majority of artisans consider solely the art. This is fallible. The vast majority of weavers are attuned, in the main, to the science. That is fallible. Having said that, there are a few practitioners out here who recognize the duality of the matter and, given the time and necessary tools, are perfectly capable of gauging the quality of cloth.
As to your final thought, the fallacy of your opinion lies in its subjectivity. Try the sensuous feel of a gossamer wind which is silk chiffon. What - maybe a half-ounce per yard? Or the buttery Alumo 200's end-on-end at less than 3 ounces. There are some - a very few - 6.5oz tropicals which tailor like a dream. Your evident predilection towards 11oz-13oz cloths may foster a distaste for lightweight cloths; your objectivity as a renouned author should preclude such a narrow focus.



Concordia said:


> If you're lazy, you can still get pretty close just by checking to see if it's sold by Lesser's.


 Usually so.



HeimiesDuncan said:


> I was under that impression as well... Their parent company, though, works in strange... strange ways. I do business with said company, they are OK to work with, but they certainly massive.


I take exception to the view stated earlier in this thread that H&S retains complete independence from Oxxford. Individualized Apparel Group, Oxxford's parent, didn't purchase the firm just to let it sally forth without recognizing the importance of its new owners. I've never been a fan of vertical integration, but I must admit that Mr. Hays is the absolute master of that art in this field. He is not, however, known for letting his acquisitions ignore the services they can offer towards improving the bottom line of IAG as a whole. Were he to do so he would be a fool - and the man is no fool!



HeimiesDuncan said:


> Also, Manton, a customer of mine who lurks around on AAAC (also the same customer who turned me on to the forum) has said your posts are a notorious good read. He is quite right in my opinion.
> Duncan


 Well ... I'd agree with your opinion and certainly second the notorious part. :devil:


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> The incorrect double negative aside, and with all due respect which, BTW, is enormous, I would heartily disagree with the intended meaning of your first sentence. The study of cloth is both science and art. The vast majority of artisans consider solely the art. This is fallible. The vast majority of weavers are attuned, in the main, to the science. That is fallible. Having said that, there are a few practitioners out here who recognize the duality of the matter and, given the time and necessary tools, are perfectly capable of gauging the quality of cloth.


As frequently happens, I don't really know what you're trying to say. I will restate my point in, hopefully, clearer terms.

Leaving aside shirtings, because this thread is about suitings, the question was, How can a consumer judge cloth quality? The consumer has three primary inputs to go by: 1) swatches; or, if he is lucky, a full bolt that the tailor has on hand; or if he is really lucky, a tailored garment that the tailor has made for another customer that is still in the shop; 2) The reputation of the cloth merchant; 3) The opinion of the tailor, assuming he has worked the same cloth in the past. None of this is infallible. I suppose the client can ask for a cutting, and take it to "the lab" for analysis. But for most of us this is impractical, and we are left with the more subjective methods discussed above.



> There are some - a very few - 6.5oz tropicals which tailor like a dream.


Do please name them. I have an open mind and a low tolerance for Northeastern summers. I would be quite happy to learn of well-draping, long-lasting 6.5 ounce tropicals.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

manton said:


> Do please name them. I have an open mind and a low tolerance for Northeastern summers. I would be quite happy to learn of well-draping, long-lasting 6.5 ounce tropicals.


You can sign me up as well.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

As frequently happens, you've disagreed with things I didn't say, responded to allegations I didn't make, and rewritten the question to suit your response. Much as I truly enjoy the discourse - especially with you - I will clarify my thoughts in, hopefully, clearer terms.



manton said:


> ...the question was, How can a consumer judge cloth quality?


 That may be so but I didn't read it anywhere. What I read was:


manton said:


> There is no infallible way to gauge the quality of cloth, I don't think.


 To this I responded, not as a consumer, but as a professional user of clothing fabrics of all types for too long to think about, that you are incorrect. If one realizes both the art as well as the science of cloth - any cloth - one can make accurate qualitative assessments which, as you indicated, might require tools of some sort such as a microscope or pick glass. I did not allege, nor did I mean, that an average consumer - nor even most tailors, a fact I did intimate - can do so.

I then read onward to this:


manton said:


> There are tailors who I know have an excellent appreciation for cloth, and also direct experience in working with it. But even this is not infallible, as the occasional tailor will praise to the skies stuff I consider tissue paper.


 and took umbrage at your inference that lightweight cloths - tissue paper, as you phrased it - are necessarily of poor quality. I strongly disagree with that for I have seen over the years many fabulously tailored coats of the lightest of cloths - 8oz and under. I don't claim that it is easy and as one who works daily with the lightest available weights of shirtings I will attest that the lighter the cloth, the more difficult the tailoring. This, however, is not a testament to poor quality of fabric, but more a question of the skill of the maker.



manton said:


> Do please name them. I have an open mind and a low tolerance for Northeastern summers. I would be quite happy to learn of well-draping, long-lasting 6.5 ounce tropicals.


 Firstly, I said this:


Alexander Kabbaz said:


> There are some - a very few - 6.5oz tropicals which tailor like a dream.


 In my experience, for those who order clothes of these fabrics, longevity is of no concern. Seeking a long-lasting 6.5 oz tropical is like searching for durable cashmere socks.



Concordia said:


> You can sign me up as well.


 As for your requests that I cite the sources, it has been more than a decade since I was actively buying jacketings. Nonetheless, I shall journey to the storeroom tomorrow and drag out my books. The only book I can recall off the top of my head before then was one by Cumberland in the early '90's which featured a wonderful selection of 6-7.5 oz cloths from which we made at least three jackets. I'll let you know what else I locate tomorrow.


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

The general consensus amongst most Savile Row tailors is that Lesser and Smith & Co. are the easiest to tailor, with H & Sherry coming in a close third.
H & Sherry are certainly the best value for money and their English-milled fabrics are excellent.

For general use it's hard to beat the Lesser 11 / 12oz bunch, depending on your climate of course.


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Once again, AK, I see you picking a pointless fight in the interests of ... well, I don't know what or whom. I can think of at least one person whose interests would seem to be ill served, and two who have better things to do. Nonetheless, since you "enjoy" this, I will clarify further.

Nice try on "rewriting the question." But using the message board trope of taking one small snippet of words and putting it in a quote box to assert that it accurately reflects the drift of a prior discussion won't really fly here. Go back and reread the exchange between TPapakostas and me on cloth quality. The context clearly is, How can the consumer judge? I think anyone can see that. I suppose I could have clarified in my exchange with TPapakostas. But he knew what we both were talking about so it would have been unecessary. In hindsight, I realize it was necessary, but only to innoculate myself against another message board trope, that of combing through others' posts and declaring them "wrong" simply because said posts do not say every possible thing that could be said about the topic at hand.

You misinterpret -- inadvertantly, I am sure -- my remark about tissue paper. I did not say that all lightweight cloth is tissue paper. I specifically praised three lightweight cloth books, in fact. I said that occasionally a tailor will highly praise something that, to me, feels like tissue paper.

As to whether longevity is a necessary component of quality, I suppose reasonable people can disagree. Because I am not in a position to treat my suits as disposable, and probably would not even if I could, to me fortitude is an essential part of what makes for good cloth.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

The fact that we disagree does not mean I am picking a fight. I just do not agree with your assertion that quality cannot be determined and feel it is misleading. It remains for members to seek out one of the persons who can accurately judge cloth quality and develop a trusting relationship with him. They exist; I know of three in New York.

As far as the longevity issue, I am in your camp. It is for me almost an ironclad determinant. I would not own jackets/suits which I knew were good only for 10-20 wearings. That alters not one iota the fact that in my experience those who choose to spend their money on abnormally lightweight and/or fragile cloths do not have durability on their list of criteria. 

And thank God for them!


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

As a new member I am loath to interject in an exchange between two of the forum's titans, but upon reading the foregoing, I am reminded of St. Paul's injunction in 2 Timothy 2:14.
"Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

LaoHu said:


> As a new member I am loath to interject in an exchange between two of the forum's titans, but upon reading the foregoing, I am reminded of St. Paul's injunction in 2 Timothy 2:14.
> "Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."


 Fret not, LaoHu. Manton and I are fast and good friends. That said - and unshakably so - it is only through these many years of spirited discourse and repartee that AskAndy has become such a dynamic and valuable repository of information on this formerly abysmally documented subject.

Heck - if that weren't the case we'd all be shuffling to the office in our penny loafers with carnations in the keyhole lapel buttonholes of our black suits.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> It remains for members to seek out one of the persons who can accurately judge cloth quality and develop a trusting relationship with him. *They exist; I know of three in New York.*


How 'bout a hint...


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Cantabrigian said:


> How 'bout a hint...


Two are members of AAAC.
Two share the same religion.
Two are artisans.
None are under 40 years old.
All are men.
None are bald.
None are retired ... yet.
None wish to reveal themselves except to their better clients.
​ That's eight hints. I promise to PM anyone who accurately surmises all three.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

It's interesting sometimes how the cloth maker debates unfold. I've heard people passionately debate about cloth with one swearing the cloth merchant they use is best, another guy swearing it is his and a third saying they are both off base and it is the mill that he uses.

What I found ironic in that debate was that both of the famous cloth merchants were using that lesser known mill for the cloth they were discussing. 

Yeah, Yeah... I know, I do have some strange notions regarding what constitutes humor.


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

"...cloth maker debates _unfold......"_ Unfold indeed! :icon_smile:


----------



## Smooth Jazz (Apr 28, 2004)

This thread is loads of fun!!!

I am going to guess:

Two are from the same country
All three have done shows together
None of them are very good looking!!!
And at least two of them are scared of their wives!!!

Am I right?



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Two are members of AAAC.
> Two share the same religion.
> Two are artisans.
> None are under 40 years old.
> ...


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

re: the kabbaz-manton exchange

this is great! its like hagler v. hearns! i will just sit back and enjoy this exchange.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Smooth Jazz said:


> This thread is loads of fun!!!
> 
> I am going to guess:
> 
> ...


3: Same country
0: Done shows together
3: Good looking
1: Scared of wife

What is this? 20 Questions?



acidicboy said:


> re: the kabbaz-manton exchange
> 
> this is great! its like hagler v. hearns! i will just sit back and enjoy this exchange.


Humph. I prefer to think a bit less stridently; perhaps of Buckley vs. Capote, thank you.


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Humph. I prefer to think a bit less stridently; perhaps of Buckley vs. Capote, thank you.


I don't recall Buckley vs. Capote, but I do recall Buckley vs. Vidal which ended in the courts and Buckley vs. Robertson, the Chaucer scholar, which was sublime.

Maybe a Trad question, but does anyone know who was Buckley's tailor?


----------



## Smooth Jazz (Apr 28, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> 1: Scared of wife


At least I was right about one!!!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

LaoHu said:


> Maybe a Trad question, but does anyone know who was Buckley's tailor?


 Having visited him a couple of times in the 1980's when my shirt store was in the same block as NR, I can only presume that it is Walmart or Men's Warehouse. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## spcohn (Sep 18, 2006)

Smooth Jazz said:


> This thread is loads of fun!!!
> 
> I am going to guess:
> 
> ...


Smooth Jazz, any chance we could hear your thoughts on the fabrics and merchants mentioned in this thread (or beyond)?

I've been lurking for a while and have read you're really knowledgeable, so anything you can share would be appreciated.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

spcohn said:


> Smooth Jazz, any chance we could hear your thoughts on the fabrics and merchants mentioned in this thread (or beyond)?
> 
> I've been lurking for a while and have read you're really knowledgeable, so anything you can share would be appreciated.


 Oh, no! I'm toast. I knew I should have given S.J. the answer when he asked.


----------



## M. Charles (Mar 31, 2007)

Does anyone know if Minnis flannel is still made by Fox (assuming Manton was right to begin with)? I am attempting to compare the two with regard to their mid grey 14 oz flannels, and they appear quite different in construction, with the Fox being noticeably more airy and see-through, for lack of a better term.



manton said:


> Everything in the Minnis book is made by Fox. Not sure about the Harrison's book. There are no Fox books circulating in New York, but if you write to them they will send you cuttings of what they have on hand, glued to black crepe paper. It's mostly solids, as I recall. Also, a friend who is in frequent contact with Fox was told that they no longer intend to maintain a stocklist. Henceforth, they are only going to weave for others.
> 
> Certainly. I have so little occasion to wear tweed, and more than enough tweed in my closet to cover those occasions, that I don't pay much attention to tweed these days.


----------

