# Bown's Bespoke



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

This is very bad ...

https://www.desmerrionbespoketailor.com/

-----------------
Dear Mr Merrion,

I write about gentlemen's fashion for Bown's Bespoke - an on-screen lifestyle magazine specificaly designed for those who work in financial services in the City of London and elsewhere with large disposable incomes, who desire and can afford the highest possible standards for their wardrobes.

We seek to provide our readers with reviews of the very finest suppliers of clothes and accessories. Bown's Bespoke can be viewed on the public internet at www.bownsbespoke.com [On a Google and a Yahoo search for 'bespoke suit', Bown's Bespoke appears on page one or page two.]

It strikes me that it would be interesting to write an article about the experience of having a bespoke suit made by yourself. Usually, my articles are about the Savile Row tailors, but I thnk people would appreciate something about a really good bespoke tailor who is outside London and is therefore able to charge rather lower prices. I would anticipate covering such matters as what makes a suit from you special, considerations of style, the quality of workmanship, the fittings procedure, and so on. Would this be of interest to you?

If so, what I would propose would be that the suit - perhaps to go in our new 'Bespoke Country Suits' section - should be made on a complimenary basis - in exchange, as it were for the article.

I look forward to hearing from you, and send herewith a link to a typical article in Bown's Bespoke:
https://www.bownsbespoke.com/henrypoole3.html

I would be most grateful for a quick response, even if the proposal is not possible.

Kind regards
Francis Bown

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


----------



## Bespoke Gent (Feb 12, 2006)

I don't think it's so bad, if not a little cheeky.

I work in marketing and this type of thing is quite common, a trade for exposure.
It's what PR is based on after all. 

I guess I would question the integrity of the review though - i.e. if you made a terrible suit for him, would he still be obliged to write a 'positive' review?

Thoughts?


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

*surprise, surprise.*

I am not surprised at all and there have been threads on here discussing this already.

The Bown website is a good reference point but some of the prices are wrong (I am not talking about today's prices but the prices at the time he claimed to have got the item) and his choices are controversial why go to Henry Poole for a bespoke but then be anti-bespoke coat.

Thanks for linking the info.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Bespoke Gent said:


> I guess *I would question the integrity of the review though* - i.e. if you made a terrible suit for him, would he still be obliged to write a 'positive' review?
> 
> Thoughts?


This is the important issue. The way the reviews are written, it is like he paid for the items

"If you choose one of George's materials, the price of an overcoat is £390; taking in your own material the price is £250. This took the total price of my wonderful new overcoat to £480"

Secondly, as mentioned in my first replay to the thread why be so anti-bespoke overcoat? Go to Henry Poole for a £3k suit but you may not have enough money for bespoke overcoat, there is even .

"I am not the person to advise you against Savile Row. I love its traditions, its character and its expertise. *If you can always afford it*, my advice is always to go there for your tailoring and to go nowhere else in the world. But I am the person to recognise that not everyone can invariably pay £2000+ for a suit and £1500+ for an overcoat. Poverty, as I never cease telling my friends, has its disciplines - and I am master of them all."

Apparently his website is for people with money, so why have this.

I have worked for a few publication companies and some companies did pay for being featured. However, the feature was about the company and what it offers, not trying to make people believe that we have used their services.


----------



## Bespoke Gent (Feb 12, 2006)

I don't see any problem with his comment about S.R. being expensive, or words to the effect of.

Only the most hardened (and rich) fool could imply finance was not a concern when talking about SR. 

I guess he is trying to reach all readers who are just as interested in bespoke, but might not necessarily be able to afford SR - he is simply saying there are alternatives.

I still stick by my comment though - I now question the reviews and their integrity.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

I'm hardly surprised.

I expect many website owners get freebies in return for charitably phrased write-ups.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

Des was wise to post this to show he doesn't need that type of paid advertising and he's already busy. 

Beware of men with red shoes


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I must say the good Father Bown certainly has plenty of chutzpah! I edit magazines that people pay $4 an issue to acquire. Bown's blogsite is free to the public. I would never dream of soliciting merchandise equivalent in value to a bespoke suit in return for free publicity. And, if any of my employers, past or present, had gotten wind of such a stunt, it would have put paid to my career.

This is somewhat keyed to the value of the item. I might ask someone for a review copy of a book. I have never and would never solicit a free gun...and any gun I would even be loaned for review would probably be considerably less expensive than a suit of Des Merrion, whatever his prices are these days.

Asking to have a suit made at a modest discount in return for publicity on the blogsite would probably be acceptable, IMO. If Des Merrion volunteered to make the erstwhile clerical gentleman a suit in return for publicity, that again would be ethically acceptable, I think, assuming Fr. Bown gave it a fair and objective review.


----------



## Bonhamesque (Sep 5, 2005)

Surprise surprise that explains a lot.
We have often wondered on this forum whether he deliberately tries to get free garments in exchange for 'publicity'.
Bloody cheek.
It's highly debatable how much good it would do anyone anyway.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

Men who read Bown pay nothing for the entertainment. His business model has been in use in trade publications for as long as there have been journalists. If he gets merchandise he should disclose it, but other than that who expects him to work for free? 

I sometimes get things for free, sometimes at wholesale, and sometimes at full price. Whatever I pay, I only write if I think it's something my readers will be interested in. If I did it any other way, no-one would read me.

And Merrion has some cheek, in my opinion. This is a man who last spring said he'd make me something for one price after looking at what it involved, told me three months later he wanted twice as much before he'd start, and when I said no thanks has kept my deposit even though he hadn't done any work on the project. 

He did complain that he spent money on a train ticket to London to measure me, however I spent an equivalent sum at his request to send him a partially completed suit that he said he'd pay shipping on so he could look at it. He hasn't paid that shipping either. 

Be careful of men who are holier than thou.


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

newtrane said:


> This is very bad ...
> 
> -----------------


I don't think so. It's only a clothing review. It's not the FDA reviewing drug safety.

It is apparent that he is writing of favorable experiences with favored vendors. The same holds for his reviews of hotels.

One of the vendors told me years ago of the "arrangement." The vendor agreed because of the free publicity of a well written review.


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

Will said:


> Be careful of men who are holier than thou.


Very good advice. Very good indeed.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Will said:


> Men who read Bown pay nothing for the entertainment. His business model has been in use in trade publications for as long as there have been journalists. If he gets merchandise he should disclose it, but other than that who expects him to work for free?
> 
> I sometimes get things for free, sometimes at wholesale, and sometimes at full price. Whatever I pay, I only write if I think it's something my readers will be interested in. If I did it any other way, no-one would read me.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the warning.


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

Now, it is getting interesting ... 

Will: "I sometimes get things for free, sometimes at wholesale, and sometimes at full price."

Could you please elaborate on this (Harvey, Mahon etc.)?


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

Will: "If he gets merchandise he should disclose it"

Will: "I sometimes get things for free, sometimes at wholesale, and sometimes at full price."

Hmm. Go ahead.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Will said:


> And Merrion has some cheek, in my opinion. This is a man who last spring said he'd make me something for one price after looking at what it involved, told me three months later he wanted twice as much before he'd start, and when I said no thanks has kept my deposit even though he hadn't done any work on the project.
> 
> He did complain that he spent money on a train ticket to London to measure me, however I spent an equivalent sum at his request to send him a partially completed suit that he said he'd pay shipping on so he could look at it. He hasn't paid that shipping either.


You didn't say how much the deposit is...a little or a lot. If it is a little I wouldn't write him off, because you may like his garments enough to write him up as a character.

I think some of his advisors are not to bright and it shows in his business practices. Craftsmen are not always business elites. More like, few craftsmen are business elites.


----------



## des merrion (Oct 1, 2006)

Will said:


> Men who read Bown pay nothing for the entertainment. His business model has been in use in trade publications for as long as there have been journalists. If he gets merchandise he should disclose it, but other than that who expects him to work for free?
> 
> I sometimes get things for free, sometimes at wholesale, and sometimes at full price. Whatever I pay, I only write if I think it's something my readers will be interested in. If I did it any other way, no-one would read me.
> 
> ...


Ref Boehlke comments, my side of the story.

I was contacted by Will and asked if I could finish off a linen suit that he had been left lumbered with from a previous tailor he had commissioned the suit from. I asked Will what stage the suit was at, he told me it was almost finished, and was a good fit. 

Based on Will's comments we agreed a price to finish the suit (£750) I was informed that I needed to see if I could still purchase the cloth that would allow me to finish the suit and check if the cloth purchased would be a good enough match regarding the shade. This I did and the match was close enough to go ahead and finish the suit.

The suit was sent over to me, along with another he no longer wanted for me to just look at the canvas etc. When I received the suit the first thing was the suit was nowhere near finished as Will had told me, it was barely beyond a pocket fitting stage. I thought OK at least the fit was supposed to be good so I would make some money, not much, but some and I may gain a new client. I arranged to meet Will at his Hotel in London so I took 1 day off work and travelled to London by train. I tried the suit on him, the fit was nowhere near it was a mile off and would need completely stripping, fully re-cutting and then re-trying on.Will gave me about £300 deposit.

I arrived home and some time later on emailed Will telling him I could not finish the suit at the price quoted, which had been agreed before I even saw the suit and was based on WILLS opinion of the work needed. In reality the work required combined with the fit issues meant I would basically be making him a bespoke suit for less than half my normal price, which I could not do, I asked for double what I previously asked for which was still less than my full bespoke suit price but was a fair price considering the amount of work needed to finish it. I would also have the added cost of having to visit London again to give him at least 1 further fitting which by even doubling the price meant I would make nothing but still thought I may gain a client so it may be worth a punt. Will refused the price increase I then started receiving various emails from Will asking for his money back, most of which were replied too but not all. 

I initially agreed to a refund as this was not a big problem, but after the emails become more threatening and in Wills words "I shall start talking to some men I know" I told him to do whatever he wanted and tell anyone he wanted, I also thought this is not right, I felt I had travelled to London on false pretences, as the suit was nowhere near finished, as he said it was, and not a good fit. My costs were 1 full day off work, the train fare costs to London, and taxi costs in London to and from his Hotel, which in total was much more than the deposit he gave me I would also have had to purchase the cloth to finish the suit. 

Why should I make a bespoke suit at a loss? I had incurred the cost of 1 day off work combined with expensive travel costs. So due to Wills aggressive stance I changed my mind and kept the £300 and considered it fair compensation for wasting my time even though my out of pocket expenses were much greater. As for cost Will the equivalent... It had cost Will around £30 to send me the suit.

I consider the matter a disgrace, someone asks you to help them out the result of which is you incur substantial costs they then want a refund when they don't want to pay a fair price. I consider he got away lightly as my consultancy fees are £750 per day minus expenses. 

The matter is closed as far as I am concerned.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Will said:


> Be careful of men who are holier than thou.


Now who is holier than Thou? You didn't even captilize Thou! _"I shall start talking to some men I know"_ I think in some states that is good enough for felon jail time. 

It is kinda strange for an experienced clothier to expect some humble tailor to travel to do a total recut on a garment with pieces missing when you are already traveling, and at such a low low price. Maybe your the con- theats and all.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

Always more interesting when _both_ sides of a dispute come out..


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I've made stuff before and what Will ask is way way to low. 

Making a garment is a lot of work. Manufactured make something like 800 in a day with jigs and whatever all the same or close. Custom is a whole different way of construction that makes a better coat. And each is different. A quick custom coat can be made in about 35 hours. A customers coat can take a lot longer. Trouses take about 8-12 hours. What is a liveable wage and overhead and cost of the goods? And who wants a livable wage? Everybody wants more. So, the price is up there for custom and the comfort is worth it sometimes. I can buy pants at Ross for about $10-12. But I buy some junk cloth at JoAnn's for about that much, and thread and zipper, pocketing, waistband lining, hook & eye and good buttons comes from elswhere, and about 8-12 hours, includes making a pattern, I end up with trousers that are so comfortable that I have to look down now and then to make for sure I didn't forget to put them on. The fit and comfort of hand made clothes is worth the effort and time.


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

Will: What kind of freebies / kickbacks did you get from your "favorite sources"?

* Drake's London
* Gaziano & Girling
* Kabbaz Kelly Custom Clothiers
* Lawrence and Foster
* Leather Soul Hawaii
* Sam Hober
* The Hanger Project
* Thomas Mahon
* Peter Harvey


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Never mess with a Yorkshireman.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

> Be careful of men who are holier than thou.


Or, as Harry Truman once said, when folks get to praying too loud in the Amen corner, you'd better go home and lock your smokehouse.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

I made a remark on the other Bown's thread. Then I gave some thought. I discovered Harvie & Hudson by reading Bown's Bespoke some time ago. H&H were everything Bown said they were in a positive way. I've been very happy with H&H.

My question would then be would Bown give a not so great firm a stellar review based soley on the complimentary item received?


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

I have his correspondence. He set the price, not I, after examining the work. If he'd given the higher price at the fitting I would not have told him to proceed. 

Then he wrote me on several occasions claiming a refund check was in the mail. Which it was not. I wrote him that I would go public, waited two more months and now I have. Writing about clothing experiences is what I do.

But, as I wrote, one case is not a pattern of rip-offs like the unlamented Mr. Beaman's. It simply means I cannot recommend Mr. Merrion based on an unsatisfactory experience.


----------



## flatline (Dec 22, 2008)

Mitchell said:


> I made a remark on the other Bown's thread. Then I gave some thought. I discovered Harvie & Hudson by reading Bown's Bespoke some time ago. H&H were everything Bown said they were in a positive way. I've been very happy with H&H.
> 
> My question would then be would Bown give a not so great firm a stellar review based soley on the complimentary item received?


I believe there are a few things at play here, but the whole thing has really unraveled rather quickly.

Firstly, Mr Merrion seems to have taken umbrage at being approached for a free garment. As has been pointed out, Merrion makes his living cutting and sewing cloth. Say it takes him 36 hours to really make a knock-out suit. That is almost an entire business week. If you are self-employed, could you really afford to throw away a week's pay, hoping that the publicity would make up for the loss? That's a risk not everyone is willing to take.

Second, it has been mentioned that complimentary items are part and parcel of the publicity business. I would maybe lodge an objection in this case. It seems to me that Sony sending out 100 of its newest televisions to magazines and blogs is quite a different thing when they are manufacturing thousands. When your profits are based on volume sales, not high margins, you can afford to give away tons of merch. There are probably plenty of tailors who will do work for deep discounts, but Mr Merrion apparently is not one.

Third, the reader outrage over Bown's alleged improprieties seems to be centered around the nondisclosure. In my experience, trade publications make no attempts to hide the fact that their units are review items sent directly by the manufacturer. I've never read Bown myself, but it would appear that had he noted this in the past, there would considerably less backlash.

Lastly, as to the particular disagreement between Will and Mr Merrion, I prefer not to wade into the middle of that. Suffice it to say that better communications may have saved the day.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

I had an unsatisfactory experience with one of the retailers who advertise here. I posted it. Andy had a word. It was all sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.

Will, I read your blog daily, but I'm not sure that a threat to go public is the way to do it. It sounds as if DM gave you a price which was uneconomic for him. You would not have paid him what he says is an economic price. You seem to acknowledge that although he might have had the suit he didn't have _you_. So he couldn't know anything about the fit from first-hand experience. Can I suggest you both put down the handbags and walk away ?

But the whole thing about getting something for free is that - if you don't tell your readers - you run the risk of misleading them. Of course, if you say your review is unbiased then we will believe you - why on earth shouldn't we? But failing to convey that (pretty important) fact suggests that there is a bias there. That's Brown's error, in my view. If you rely on your readership, then you ought to treat them with respect.

I have no interest really in Mrt Brown. But can I urge you to make clear your relationship with your suppliers when you post about them. I do think it would give what you say added weight and authority.


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Nobody comes out of that affair smelling of roses. 

It must have been clear to everyone that Bown gets for his efforts some kind of remuneration, even if only in kind or in barter. There is nothing wrong in Bown approaching Merrion with his proposal, there is equally nothing wrong in Merrion refusing: “Thanks - but no thanks”, or negotiating a different deal: “I can throw in the making, but not the fabric.” - or something on similar lines. It was definitely wrong for Merrion to publish the approach, and to leave Bown’s phone number in, was outright obscene. 

Does anyone think, those stars dressed by the various designers for Oscar-night would pay for their garments. I presume, design houses get approached by lesser celebrities, and are not interested in dressing them. Fair enough. Would Armani or Dior get out a press release: “We were contacted by the agent of Ms X to dress her for the Oscars. But she is not a big enough star for our house.”

Barter is much older than payment with money and goes on all the time. It is common for tailors, shoe- or shirt makers to work for each other and get paid in kind: “I’ll make you a pair of shoes and you make me six shirts“, or whatever. It is probably cheaper and has more kudos to dress Ms Hathaway, then to take out a full page in ‘Vogue’. So, why should a writer not get paid for his work. It is not only Nick Foulkes who will write positively about everyone he is paid for, to write about.

Equally the Will/Merrion affair is unpleasant for both parties. If the deal falls through, it is not right for Merrion's refusal to return a deposit, like some slum landlord. If Merrion has travel expenses, that is his problem unless it was negotiated upfront that he would not travel to London, without his expenses being covered. It is equally not right for Will to threaten to go public (or to actually go public).

Neither is it right for ‘newtrane’ to demand from Will, what kind of deals (if there were any) he has arranged with the individuals who get mentioned on his blog. Does anyone write into ‘Vogue’ and demand in detail the connection between advertising and editorial exposure (there definitely is one)?

Really, bad, bad, bad for all the parties involved in stirring that particular pot.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Hear hear, Bengal Stripe.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

The former Reverend Bown has a dreadful cheek - he runs a small time website yet expects suits valued in £1000s for his trouble. A small discount maybe but a bespoke suit?


I imagine such scrounging comes naturally to a former parson in the Church of England.


----------



## outrigger (Aug 12, 2006)

GBR said:


> I imagine such scrounging comes naturally to a former parson in the Church of England.


It makes a mockery of his former profession, still I'll continue to read his blog along with Wills ans Des'. I'm fascinated by Bespoke tailoring and hope to work in the trade at some level in the future.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

GBR said:


> The former Reverend Bown has a dreadful cheek - he runs a small time website yet expects suits valued in £1000s for his trouble. A small discount maybe but a bespoke suit?


Henry Poole features three times: country suit, summer suit and winter suit.

If he got all three for free, it a big mistake on the part of Angus Cundy.


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

bengal-stripe said:


> Neither is it right for 'newtrane' to demand from Will, what kind of deals (if there were any) he has arranged with the individuals who get mentioned on his blog.


I do not agree. Will wrote, that "if he (Mr. Brown) gets merchandise he should disclose it, but other than that who expects him to work for free?" and "Be careful of men who are holier than thou". I find it rather pathetic that Will points at others while thinking he is not bound by his own rules.

Generally, I think incentives (kickbacks and the like) must be communicated transparently. Otherwise, how can I know if e.g. a financial advisor acts in my interest when he makes a recommendation? I guess this is part of a bigger problem with this world (and the current crisis).


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*We need more fights like this ....*

These epistlelary combats are better than Cruiser and his notch lapel tuxedo retorts.


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

How can you write an "independent review" on a tailor if he renumerates you for this?

Same kind of problem with Rating Agencies, Equity Analysts etc. 

The world is in deep trouble.


----------



## flatline (Dec 22, 2008)

newtrane said:


> How can you write an "independent review" on a tailor if he renumerates you for this?
> 
> Same kind of problem with Rating Agencies, Equity Analysts etc.
> 
> The world is in deep trouble.


An interesting point. Restaurant critics go to great lengths, often with false names and disguises, to remain incognito while grading an establishment. It would seem they are the exception rather than the rule however.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

dfloyd said:


> These epistlelary combats are better than Cruiser and his notch lapel tuxedo retorts.


Of course, you have to bring him up even in a thread where he hasn't posted anything. Why don't you, JLiboural, and others -- who always get cheesed off and tell him to go away because he's not enough of a clothing enthusiast -- just put him on ignore?


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

I agree with Newtrane. The difficulty I see in Bengal Stripe's analogy with a bartered transaction is that, when goods or services are bartered, people know about it. This is a concealed barter, where an implied representation is made to the people who read about the goods that no barter has in fact taken place.

Bengal Stripe's suggestion is that in some unspecified way 'we all know'. But we don't. I certainly agree that writers should be paid for their work. But if the work is reviewing a product then I want the information so that I can distinguish between a review and a plug. This is particularly important for high-end clothing because an independent review is quite often a plug due to the skill of the craftsman. That means something. High-end clothing is also very expensive and if someone is saying (and Brown does say this, in terms - as does Will) that a product is worth the money then I would like to know if they mean _my _money, or if they have put their own hands into their own pockets.

I don't particularly want to know how much has been received, but I would welcome an indication of whether there was a discount or a total freebie. That sort of transparency is customarily expected. It also strikes me as simple courtesy. If I listen to what is said I am going to put (have put) a considerable sum of money the way of these makers. That is - if a review has been written on a barter basis - part of the aim of the review. Why should that be kept secret from me?


----------



## CPVS (Jul 17, 2005)

Gentlemen do not expect preferential treatment of any description regardless of their station or calling. If preferential treatment is given, it should be received in the manner it was given: graciously and with gratitude for going beyond the standard.

Reviewers, in my opinion, are no more entitled to preferential treatment (i.e., special discounts or free merchandise) than any man off the street. If my tailor were to feel like giving every third chap he meets a free pair of bespoke trousers, that is his decision. No one, however, has the right arbitrarily to expect something above the usual circumstances.

Earlier in this thread someone wrote, "... who expects him [any reviewer] to work for free?" The answer to this question (presumably rhetorical) is, no one. In my opinion, if a reviewer or other writer tires of working for free, he has the right to charge for his written words. If the market for his words -- his readership -- supports him, then bully for him. Otherwise, if the writer or reviewer tires of dispensing his pearls of wisdom and graceful prose for not one thin dime -- and finds the market will not provide him with one -- then he has no one to blame but himself.

At the end of the day, I believe a gentleman should neither expect to receive more than is his normal due, nor be esteemed above the ordinary.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

What JLibourel says is high ethics, can't go wrong with that.

I thought in the past on Browns website that he was standing by a Rolls Royce, which I thought was his own. I also thought his website was his bobby. To learn that he takes several thousand pounds worth of goods for a simple review surprises me. Maybe it is a fair trade, but he should have been up front about who is paying for those goods.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

newtrane said:


> I do not agree. Will wrote, that "if he (Mr. Brown) gets merchandise he should disclose it, but other than that who expects him to work for free?" and "Be careful of men who are holier than thou". I find it rather pathetic that Will points at others while thinking he is not bound by his own rules.


I got involved in this thread knowing there'd be a reputation price to pay but that's a deliberately uninformed statement. Have you looked at my site? What do you think the following disclaimer means?

"We may have business relationships with some of the makers that we write about in other posts, and we may receive discounts for purchases that are not available to other customers, however we only write about products that meet our standards for inclusion in our own wardrobe."


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

WA said:


> To learn that he takes several thousand pounds worth of goods for a simple review surprises me. Maybe it is a fair trade, but he should have been up front about who is paying for those goods.


If you read the reviews, it is written in way to make it seem he paid for the items.  

_"__As we looked at lightweight cloths he told me that my suit would take 130 hours and 15,000 hand-stitches to produce. It made the price of £2,100 plus VAT (total £2,467) seem absurdly low."_

It is not mentioned that he paid that much; however, instead of misguiding he could have said, "The starting price for suit at Maurice Sedwell is £x, but this particular cloth would cost £x+1"

In my opinion, he does not need to mention if he paid or what he paid for the item but at the same time, he should not make it seem he paid the full-price for the item.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Jovan said:


> Of course, you have to bring him up even in a thread where he hasn't posted anything. Why don't you, JLiboural, and others -- who always get cheesed off and tell him to go away because he's not enough of a clothing enthusiast -- just put him on ignore?


Oh, I don't tell Cruiser to go away. He is quite entertaining in his relentless, pertinacious defenses of all that is cheap, lowbrow and third-rate. As I have often remarked, he fulfills the same function as a "villain" in professional wrestling.


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

Will: I am beginning to understand. Your reviews are neither independent nor a pastime of a clothing enthusiast. They are a marketing tool to help your clothing advisory business (and to get you discounts / freebies). You are doing clothing consultations and get paid for that (on an hourly basis I suppose). So far everything is fine. Now, it seems you are getting paid from both sides (the clients seeking independent advice and the manufacturers giving you kickbacks). There are inherent incentive problems with that.

Let's assume the following setup. There are three tailors in this model.

Tailor 1 is very bad and does not pay you any kickbacks.
Tailor 2 is mediocre and pays you 30% of your clients purchases as kickbacks.
Tailor 3 is better than tailor 1+2 but refuses to pay you any kickbacks. 

- Which tailor will you recommend?
- Is the result optimal from the clients perspective?

I am aware that this kind of business model has become quite common for "advisors" in general. However, this does not imply that this is acceptable from a moral point of view. A disclaimer on the website might give you legal but not moral protection.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

GBR said:


> I imagine such scrounging comes naturally to a former parson in the Church of England.


Because?


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

To me Bown's "reviews" have all the cutting-edge of the "restaurant-reviews" in my local free newspaper. Because the local pizza-joint buys twelve ads, they will get an editorial "review", culminating in such gems "my companion had the deliciously pungent and piping hot garlic bread". In principle, they are just the same as the fluff-pieces Foulkes or Kissel (and I'm sure, Libourel as well) will have to write, on behest of their editors and advertising departments. (Yes, to please good advertisers).

Search me, how anyone can be so naïve, to see Bown as an "independent reviewer". They are "vanity publishing" (nice pieces of 'fluff' which do not say anything in particular) - with the vanity on Bown's as well as his 'clients' part. As for the 'thousands' Bown would be getting: I bet, he tries to get the whole suit/shoes/hotel for free, but is willing to get himself haggled down (how low, I do not know).



newtrane said:


> ....that this is acceptable from a moral point of view.


newtrane, from a moral point of view it is not acceptable that neither you (in your opening post) nor Merrion in his blog, have seen the necessity to remove Bown's telephone number. This is the tactic of the bully boys: "We let everybody know where you live!"


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

bengal-stripe said:


> newtrane, from a moral point of view it is not acceptable that neither you (in your opening post) nor Merrion in his blog, have seen the necessity to remove Bown's telephone number. This is the tactic of the bully boys: "We let everybody know where you live!"


I think you are right here and I apologize for not having realized this.

May I ask a moderator to please remove the phone number in the first post?


----------



## Blackie (Jul 21, 2007)

newtrane said:


> Will: I am beginning to understand. Your reviews are neither independent nor a pastime of a clothing enthusiast. They are a marketing tool to help your clothing advisory business (and to get you discounts / freebies). You are doing clothing consultations and get paid for that (on an hourly basis I suppose). So far everything is fine. Now, it seems you are getting paid from both sides (the clients seeking independent advice and the manufacturers giving you kickbacks). There are inherent incentive problems with that.
> 
> Let's assume the following setup. There are three tailors in this model.
> 
> ...


Well said.

B


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

"Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption, is an act usually implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the recipient in ways not consistent with the duties of that person."

How would you define "incitement of bribery"?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

bengal-stripe said:


> To me Bown's "reviews" have all the cutting-edge of the "restaurant-reviews" in my local free newspaper. Because the local pizza-joint buys twelve ads, they will get an editorial "review", culminating in such gems "my companion had the deliciously pungent and piping hot garlic bread".


If Poole doesn't deliver in 30 minutes, the suit is free!!!!!!

I think I see an opportunity for Will to start offering A Suitable Pizza... Or better yet, A Suitable Curry, made by the curryjoint to the royal families of India...


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

I agree with BS that disclosing Bowns telephone number is way out of line. At the very least it is now out on the internet for any Bot to pick up and forward to various nefarious cold callers, spammers etc.

I think you may also find that it is a breach of the Data Protection Act in the UK as you do not have Bown's permission to publish his number. (Although policing the Internet is almost impossible)

Bown comes across as a bit of a chancer, the site isn't very professional. I think DM's assessment was correct, if not the decision to publish private correspondence.

Regarding Will's site. I'd never seen that disclaimer 'till it was pointed out, but it seems fair enough. I'm under no illusions about the realities of the commercial world (having run my own businesses or been self employed since 1990). I have done things on a like for like basis . I think it's pushing things a bit to start going on about "morality".

Vis a vis the DM / Will scenario, we've had both sides of the story, only they know which is true. Really it is no one else's business. It's a shame it was made public.


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

There might be discrepancies between correct (or moral) behavior and the current "realities of the commercial world". But does this justify anything? I don't think so.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

bengal-stripe said:


> To me Bown's "reviews" have all the cutting-edge of the "restaurant-reviews" in my local free newspaper. Because the local pizza-joint buys twelve ads, they will get an editorial "review", culminating in such gems "my companion had the deliciously pungent and piping hot garlic bread". In principle, they are just the same as the fluff-pieces Foulkes or Kissel (and I'm sure, Libourel as well) will have to write, on behest of their editors and advertising departments. (Yes, to please good advertisers).


I have to take some umbrage at my inclusion there. In the first place, I have been my own editor for the the past 22 years. I work with our advertising salespeople, but not for them. I certainly have no problem with giving editorial coverage to "vertical" advertisers. However, I have always taken pride in the fact that I have reviewed products honestly and fairly. If a product is a real lemon, I simply will not write it up, and believe me, this has happened with some of our most valued advertisers. I have never, but never, distorted the truth to make an advertiser's product look better than it is. I am proud of that. Another writer, who has known me most of my career, recently described me as "one of the most...scrupulously honest gunwriters alive now or having lived."



> Search me, how anyone can be so naïve, to see Bown as an "independent reviewer". They are "vanity publishing" (nice pieces of 'fluff' which do not say anything in particular) - with the vanity on Bown's as well as his 'clients' part. As for the 'thousands' Bown would be getting: I bet, he tries to get the whole suit/shoes/hotel for free, but is willing to get himself haggled down (how low, I do not know).
> 
> newtrane, from a moral point of view it is not acceptable that neither you (in your opening post) nor Merrion in his blog, have seen the necessity to remove Bown's telephone number. This is the tactic of the bully boys: "We let everybody know where you live!"


I note that quite a to-do is being made about this. Time was, not that long ago, when the vast majority of people had their names, addresses and phone numbers published for all the world to see in something called a telephone book. A lot of them still do. What's the worst that can happen to Fr. Bown if his telephone number is published? Have somebody call him up and try to mooch some free clothing advice off him? The horror! The horror!


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> What's the worst that can happen to Fr. Bown if his telephone number is published? *Have somebody call him up and try to mooch some free clothing advice off him?* The horror! The horror!


enough said

:aportnoy:


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5168570.stm

_*With almost half of us now choosing to be ex-directory, it seems Britons just don't want to be called at home.* _

_Perhaps this is why, according to British Telecom, 48% of all landline users, including non-BT customers, are ex-directory. And the figure has been climbing steadily. Add to that Britain's legion of mobile phone users, virtually all of whom are not listed on any directory, and you have a nation that wants to be left alone. _

Not to mention Boiler rooms (share scammers) etc.

As I said earlier, it is a breach of the Data protection Act in the UK.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Just to add to Bengal-Stripe's comments, I do not think that what Bown did is cheeky, inappropriate or immoral. As others have said, this happens all the time and to be surprised by it is simply naïve.

What is not only naïve but utterly immature and indeed inappropriate is for Merrion to publish the communication. He could have just politely declined and let that be the end of it. Perhaps this is a way for Merrion to say in a roundabout way that someone out there considers his work worthwhile to apply for such a barter. In which case, Merrion, come off it - it happens all the time to lots and lots of people regardless of how good or poor their work is.

It is rather unfortunate that Boehlke had to bring his minor commercial dispute with Merrion onto this forum, which I think is inappropriate, unnecessary and unproductive. It has, however, been a source of great entertainment. My ruling thus far is Round 1: Merrion 1, Boehlke 0. I know that others who have not participated in this thread are well tuned into this thread specifically for this reason so subsequent rounds are greatly anticipated. If we were to believe that God made humans in his own image, I should think that he may have two cheeks on his backside but indeed has only one backside. We would like to determine who that is.

Various comments about Bown's "concealed" barter and his reviews being inappropriate or immoral is misguided. First of all, it is amoral. Bown does not charge any money to people for reading his blurbs. They are FREE. If one is required to pay to read his publications, then we can perhaps get into a whole debate about the difference between editorials and advertorials and their respective guidelines. But, guys, it's bloody free. Bown get's nothing from the readers, other than the satisfaction that there are people out there who read his stuff. Or, do some of you expect him to actually go spend his own money on experiencing the process and acquiring the products so that he can write about it for you to enjoy at no cost? 

Newtrane, you raised the definition of bribery, which contains a key notion, namely that it will result in the recipient behaving in a way inconsistent with his duties. Bown's duties? What are they, writing about things he paid for? And in receiving free products, is he deviating from his normal duties? 

With respect to Boehlke's business model, I do not see anything peculiar about recommending to clients those suppliers with whom he has some sort of a previously established relationship. He is a middle man, a broker. He puts buyers and sellers together, just like an estate agent, auction house, etc. Some make money from just one side (like the estate agents), others make money from both sides (like the auction houses). Nothing wrong with being remunerated for the trouble of finding buyers, selecting sellers and bringing them together. I don't understand what morality has anything to do with this model: why should he bring business to someone, or introduce someone to a business, who is not happy to pay him for his troubles? 

As for disclosing someone's private details, such as a telephone number, *without his consent*, it is a big deal. As Infrasonic said, it's illegal. When you are listed on the directory, it's because you consent to be listed, not because you are obliged to be listed. 



RJman said:


> If Poole doesn't deliver in 30 minutes, the suit is free!!!!!!
> 
> I think I see an opportunity for Will to start offering A Suitable Pizza... Or better yet, A Suitable Curry, made by the curryjoint to the royal families of India...


I'm not even going there, RJ. It'll make the other thread about the calla lily cufflinks tame in comparison.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Serious American news organizations, the type being abandoned left and right for the "unfiltered voices" of the Internet, typically have strict policies prohibiting the acceptance of goods for personal use. Usually this extends to anything more expensive than a meal. Someone found to have accepted pricey goods usually will be fired, as it's considered a serious ethics violation.

This isn't to say that pay for play hasn't existed or doesn't exist now. But there's certainly a conflict of interest. Reviews that have been bought are worthless. Even if a reviewer has the best of intentions, gifts naturally engender goodwill. Especially if the reviewer wants more freebies in the future.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

misterdonuts said:


> Just to add to Bengal-Stripe's comments, I do not think that what Bown did is cheeky, inappropriate or immoral. As others have said, this happens all the time and to be surprised by it is simply naïve.


 
I don't think it happens all the time to operations as small as Mr. Merrion's. No matter how successful or profitable his firm is, I expect that providing a free bespoke suit would be a relatively large expenditure of time and money for him. 

The fact that this is written by an individual blogger also takes it across the line from "cooperative advertising" to "free stuff for Mr. Bown." If _GQ_ had written to Mr. Merrion saying "we love your suits. Would you be able to send us one we could use for a photo shoot?" it wouldn't seem quite so questionable.




> Newtrane, you raised the definition of bribery, which contains a key notion, namely that it will result in the recipient behaving in a way inconsistent with his duties. Bown's duties? What are they, writing about things he paid for? And in receiving free products, is he deviating from his normal duties?


 
His normal duties are to provide descriptions and express opinions. If the opinions and the tone of the piece are altered by the level of concession made by the manufacturer, then that does cross a line. 

Regarding Mr. Bown's phone number, I would assume that if he added it to the e-mail signature he expects the number to be retained by anyone to whom he sends an e-mail. My work e-mail has my phone number on it; my personal e-mail does not.

Alexander Kabbaz had a shirt featured in an article on tuxedo shirts in _Departures_ magazine several months ago. I haven't seen him on here for a while, but I'd be interested to know the terms under which a $1,500 shirt was photographed. Did they come to him or did he send it to them? Did he get it back?


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

misterdonuts said:


> Newtrane, you raised the definition of bribery, which contains a key notion, namely that it will result in the recipient behaving in a way inconsistent with his duties. Bown's duties? What are they, writing about things he paid for? And in receiving free products, is he deviating from his normal duties?


On his website, Mr. Bown claims to write "independent reviews of the world's finest tailors". By that, Bown's duties should be rather clear (to write independent, unbiased reviews). At the same time, he seeks payment or freebies from tailors. Indeed, by that he puts himself in a conflict of interest. If Desmond Merrion had agreed to make a free suit for Mr. Bown he assumedly would have gotten a positive review. An "independent" review? I don't think so.

Even if things like that are the "realities of the commercial world" I find it wrong. I sincerely hope (and also believe) that business practices like that are not successful in the long run. (And now do not quote John Maynard Keynes please).


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

having read all your posts I remain clearly of the view that Bown is an outrageous individual. How on earth can you give an independent view of a product if you have not only been given it but solicited it? 

Des Merrion is absolutely right to have published this to confirm what Bown is hiding. At the very least he should have said that the garments were solicited garments and shown the honesty which is former profession - an ordained priest in the Church of England espouses. It is noteworthy that he does not even say in his letter to Merrion how many 'hits' his sites has.: Those publishing hard form magazines can refer to their circulation figures to give the advertisers some view on the worth of their investment.

If you actually look at his bespoke suits he says very little on than how unfailingly polite his donors are, so he makes no pretence at any real critique - that might be helpful to give some idea of the house style and execution of each them 

To judge by his site he has obtained an awful of expensive items in a very dubious manner.


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

misterdonuts said:


> With respect to Boehlke's business model, I do not see anything peculiar about recommending to clients those suppliers with whom he has some sort of a previously established relationship. He is a middle man, a broker. He puts buyers and sellers together, just like an estate agent, auction house, etc. Some make money from just one side (like the estate agents), others make money from both sides (like the auction houses). Nothing wrong with being remunerated for the trouble of finding buyers, selecting sellers and bringing them together. I don't understand what morality has anything to do with this model: why should he bring business to someone, or introduce someone to a business, who is not happy to pay him for his troubles?


Let's assume you have an "independent" financial advisor. You seek his advice because you do not know much about finance. You agree to pay him for that. Let's assume the advisor has three different structured products in his universe:

Product 1 is very bad, the issuing bank does not pay the advisor any kickbacks.
Product 2 is mediocre, but the bank pays the advisor 10% of the invested capital as a kickback.
Product 3 is better than product 1+2, the bank refuses to pay any kickbacks.

- Which product will the advisor recommend you?
- Is the result optimal from the clients perspective?

Is the kickback a payment for the "troubles" of the financial advisor? I do not think so.

Again: "Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption, is an act usually implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the recipient in ways not consistent with the duties of that person."


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

And just who is paying Bown for his "advice?"


----------



## newtrane (May 4, 2006)

Concordia said:


> And just who is paying Bown for his "advice?"


I was talking about Boehlke's, not Bown's business model. There are several black sheep here


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

GBR said:


> I remain clearly of the view that Bown is an outrageous individual. How on earth can you give an independent view of a product if you have not only been given it but solicited it?


Big words indeed!!!

Bown is just another (more or less) lovable, charming rogue in the tradition of "Arthur Daley" in the long-running TV-series 'Minder': A bit of a spiv and a chancer, immaculately turned out in a somewhat garish way (Arthur Daley was rather fond of camel-coloured overcoats), always coming up with dodgy (more or less) hair-brained schemes that would make him "a nice, little earner".



> George Cole, in his alter ego of Arthur Daley in the long-running series Minder, is to countless British viewers the quintessence of the Cockney spiv, a mischief-causing small businessman always with an eye to the main chance and often caught treading on the toes of the law. Endearingly convinced against all the evidence of his own cunning, and equally often driven to distraction by the comical collapse of his schemes, the irrepressible Daley, with his salesman's patter and naive pretensions as a big-time wheeler and dealer, became an icon for the 1980s, representing the materialist sub-yuppie culture that was fostered under the capitalist leadership of Margaret Thatcher. Every episode of the comedy series, which co-starred Dennis Waterman as his dimwitted but resolutely honest bodyguard-cum-assistant Terry McCann, featured the launch of another of Daley's shady schemes, or "nice little earners" as he called them, and culminated in the hapless secondhand car salesman and would-be executive being exposed for some fiddle or other and having to be rescued from arrest, physical assault, or worse by his long-suffering minder. Other troubles in Daley's life, from which he took refuge in his drinking club, the Winchester, came from "'Er indoors", the formidable Mrs Daley, who was never seen.


Spot the resemblance:










So, Bown got himself *"a nice little earner"* - Good for him!


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

It turns out I agree with MisterDonuts et, al. on the topic.

Bown doesn't charge a membership or subscription. He just writes about what he considers the finer things of the sartorial world. As he derives no income from his venture, yet exposes and supports his many vendors in a positive way I think it appropriate for him to make the request. It's a request and nothing more. If Bown said, "Make me a suit or I'll write that you're a no-good tailor and shouldn't even sweep the floor," that would be another matter.

In my case Bown's site lead me to a shirt maker whom I've developed a great relationship with and bought many items from. According to the shirt maker they received a great deal of business from the strength of Bown's site.

If Mr. Merion's business would be harmed by providing 1/52 of his yearly efforts to the venture he certainly may politely decline and site that it would be beyond his means.

People ask me for paintings done on a complimentary basis all the time with the promise of "great exposure" to the world. If it is beyond my time constraints I politely decline and the person making the request politely understands. Sometimes they turn around later and buy something from me.

When I first read Bown's site I had a notion that his goods were provided pro-bono. So this is no surprise to me. I don't think there's any call to blast the guy on the web.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Mitchell said:


> He just writes about what *he considers the finer things of the sartorial world*.


I have to disagree with this.

He is writing about what he can his hands on. If he really want to discuss about the finer things of the sartorial world then with all those reviews of bespoke suits belongs a review of a bespoke overcoat.

There is an article about about purchasing a bespoke overcoat.

"This took the total price of my wonderful new overcoat to £480 - less than a third of its Savile Row equivalent. Is it as good? Well, even with its real horn buttons, its fine cloth and its good tailoring, *there is a difference.*" 

A clear example where he admits there is a difference between this and something bespoke. Even if he wanted to show a good MTM example, then surely the expensive cashmere option which he discussed, is the only option.

First paragraph in email to Des:
"I write about gentlemen's fashion for Bown's Bespoke - an on-screen lifestyle magazine specificaly designed for those who work in financial services in the City of London and elsewhere *with large disposable incomes, who desire and can afford the highest possible standards for their wardrobes.*"


----------



## flash harry (May 17, 2008)

Working for a company in the media sector I know only too well of how the whole freebie / gift charade works. It is part and parcel and expected by all clients, they ask, more than often they get. It makes my blood boil of how this system is abused. 

Des, in my opinion, was absolutely right to tell this old chancer where to go. To give Bown the benefit if the doubt, he is out of touch, if he is not out of touch then he is ignorant.

I salute Des for being unwilling to compromise and devalue a lifetimes experience. He strikes me as being a hard working honest individual who let's the quality of his workmanship speak for itself. 

As for the Will debacle, if he wants to mislead people, waste their time, then throw his toys out the pram then play at being Mr Big, he does not deserve his money back, he certainly won't do it again.


----------



## Frog in Suit (Mar 27, 2007)

To put this debate into _some_ perspective, who in his right mind would spend thousands of pounds on the sole recommendation of a complete stranger running an internet blog?

Frog in Suit


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

I don't understand the problem with this kind of arrangement: (1) it makes it easier for the reviewer to review more products, and (2) the reviewer's credibility is a strong incentive against bias. If it were me, I might make a disclosure to my readers, but I don't think it would be wrong of me not to.

I _wish_ people were willing to make me stuff in exchange for reviews on my blog.


----------



## smlaz (May 13, 2005)

*Oy*

So I come back to AAAC after an extended time and see that absolutely nothing has changed! Ahh, what better things to do than argue seriously about theoretical ethical lapses and/or moral failings of rag-trade writers and salesmen? I love it!
Cheers,


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

smlaz said:


> So I come back to AAAC after an extended time and see that absolutely nothing has changed! Ahh, what better things to do than argue seriously about theoretical ethical lapses and/or moral failings of rag-trade writers and salesmen? I love it!
> Cheers,


After 169 posts how can you judge?


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> I don't understand the problem with this kind of arrangement: (1) it makes it easier for the reviewer to review more products, and (2) the reviewer's credibility is a strong incentive against bias. If it were me, I might make a disclosure to my readers, but I don't think it would be wrong of me not to.
> 
> I _wish_ people were willing to make me stuff in exchange for reviews on my blog.


Matt

If it is declared honestly without question being asked then relatively little. If it is concealed then a great deal.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> I don't understand the problem with this kind of arrangement: (1) it makes it easier for the reviewer to review more products, and (2) the reviewer's credibility is a strong incentive against bias. If it were me, I might make a disclosure to my readers, but I don't think it would be wrong of me not to.
> 
> I _wish_ people were willing to make me stuff in exchange for reviews on my blog.


So how do we know what's a real review and what's an ad from someone who just wants his next freebie? You assume reviewers will worry about their credibility, but too many folks are just out for a buck or a handout. Makes me think of restaurant reviewers who blatantly flaunt their jobs for better meals and service. Think they're going to receive the same dish/treatment everyone else does? How worthwhile is that review?

Beyond that, even those with the best of intentions can be gripped by unintentional bias. It's human nature to feel fondness for those who give us things. Take, for example, my shoddy Polo boots. They were woefully disappointing for the price I paid, but if I'd gotten them for free, and knew more might be on the way, I'd probably complain much less vigorously. Let's say, in my attempts at fairness, I chose not to review them at all because of the problems. Wouldn't that undermine my next positive review of a pair of Polo shoes? That next review certainly wouldn't be the whole story. Reviews are meant to help others determine what they can reasonably expect, not just praise individual items.

.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

I simply do not see how it can be ok to have a relationship with a supplier which you fail to make clear. If, as the cynical tendency here would have it, everyone knows (I doubt this), then why on earth _not _make it clear? Presumably because _not _everyone knows.

Too much of this sounds like special pleading. If you are committed to honest dealing then you will make your position clear. Brown actually obscures the position. I am surprised that so many people here are prepared to defend that. The phone number thing strikes me as a red herring. You write letters asking for a freebie and put your phone number on: then all of a sudden when the recipient, perfectly properly, regards the request as chutzpah - publishing the information you supplied is wrong? In case we all ring Brown up and ... err ... ask him if we can send him stuff for free? Criticise his taste? Come _on_ - you guys getting all het up about this are the ones criticising _us _for being naive?

Will is in a different position. Right at the bottom of his site he has a disclaimer. It is ambiguous, because it does not say that he may get products for free (and I understood him to say that sometimes he did) and it refers specifically to "purchases". It also gives the impression (to me, at any rate) that we are talking _discounts _here - but nothing like, for example 50% off a non-sale item. That may not be an accurate impression, and in my opinion those of us who read the site deserve an accurate impression. But at least it is there.

However, if Will can review clothes, then it does not lie in his mouth to complain when Merrion reviews him as a customer. Sauce for the goose... And if Will wants to review a Merrion suit, all he has to do is persuade the craftsman to take him on as a customer - and then sign a cheque. Part of the reason that we are losing these crafts is because the customers have exercised the financial clout. I rather applaud DM's attempt to but the boot on the other foot.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

PS: Request for free suit follows in PM


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

Now that we have Mr. Bown's phone number let's all ring him up and ask what he does if the product he receives is lousey.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Free advice is often worth what you pay for it. Free suits and free advertising are probably a different situation.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

This thread has reinvigorated my interest in Ask Andy 

Des train ride was almost 340 miles round trip....that's damn far and a Yahoo Maps investigation notes by car it takes about 3 hours each way. I'm sure he wasn't willing to measure Will in London unless he received some sort of financial commitment deposit. This is a LONG ride by train.

Des learned his lesson to not price his services based on the client's representations. I don't condemn him for sticking his neck out in the hopes of landing a boulevardier such as Will.

On his own blog, Will exposed Darren Beamen because he was taken for a considerable amount and warned potential clients to watch out. This was appropriate...besides, its his own blog, he can vent as much as he desires.

But he reserved himself on the situation with Des and just took it in the pants...as they say in West Hollywood or the Castro district of San Francisco. Thus he didn't vent on his own blog.

It appears he only revealed what transpired with Des because of his displeasure of how Des backed out of an informal oral agreement (I can understand why Des did this), and because he felt this thread was the appropriate forum to discuss it given Des' posting of Bown's proposal

Will is also rightfully upset because another tailor failed to finish a job (unsure if this was a Darren Beamen monstrosity or someone elses...Will can reveal this if he chooses), and then he shelves out 300 MORE pounds with Des only to see no further work done, more months of delay and an agreement fall apart

Des should've never stuck his neck out on this one. I commend him on traveling far and wide to accommodate a potential new client, but asking for double the price after he realized his mistake in underbidding the project...this is not what I would've done. Businesses routinely write off the cost of failing to acquire a potential new client. I see Des did this and figured keeping the full 300 pound deposit was his way of writing off his true additional cost of an additional day in the tailoring shop down the drain.

Des is monitoring this thread. He's removed Bown's phone number from his Blog. But I don't understand the British obsession with annonymity as it relates to telephone numbers. Yes I understand you have a law about it but who gives a crap about the public knowing my phone number. If anyone chooses to hunt me down, I have various firearms to shoot them with if they threaten me with bodily harm at my home....ooooppppse I forgot, the English aren't allowed handguns in the home and they can't use shotguns or rifles in self defense.

Will is the aggrieved party. Des made some good points. He shouldn't have to work for free and perhaps Will overestimated the unfinished garments status and fit....but Caveat Emptor as to Des...he should've headed that warning. Instead a beautiful venture amongst 2 noble and respectable forum members has withered. Oh well, maybe I can find other ways to harass Bengal-Stripe

Back to Bown, Des exposing him tears apart Bown's claim of "Independent review". I read his posts now with a grain of salt...much to my dismay since I enjoyed his style of writing
Bown does well for a living as to his blog. He potentially gets free or marked down stuff like bespoke Cleverley shoes (2 pairs) and bespoke suits. If he did this all in 1 or 2 years...he's making decent money or renumeration via an outstanding wardrobe


----------



## flash harry (May 17, 2008)

Des is the kind of bloke that makes me proud to be British. Bown is not, he nothing more than a ponce, he is not in the media, working for a glossy, he runs a two bit blog under the pretext of unbiased reviews, in fact it is a front to acquire expensive goods free or greatly reduced. Des has called him out and exposed him. After all we are in the throws of the UK's biggest recession for nearly 30 years, dozens of businesses big and small closing on a weekly basis, what was Bown thinking, well he obviously was not, there is no fool like an old fool. 

Des, I raise my morning cuppa to you, and your son, glad to hear he is back safely.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

flash harry said:


> Des is the kind of bloke that makes me proud to be British. Bown is not, he nothing more than a ponce, he is not in the media, working for a glossy, he runs a two bit blog under the pretext of unbiased reviews, in fact it is a front to acquire expensive goods free or greatly reduced. Des has called him out and exposed him. After all we are in the throws of the UK's biggest recession for nearly 30 years, dozens of businesses big and small closing on a weekly basis, what was Bown thinking, well he obviously was not, there is no fool like an old fool.
> 
> Des, I raise my morning cuppa to you, and your son, glad to hear he is back safely.


Bear in mind also that in the UK at least, there would be a significant income tax reduction incentive to running a review blog/website as a business. Basically any expenses incurred could be written off, as long as they are _wholly _to do with the business. 
So travelled to tailor, purchased suit at great discount, had a nice lunch/dinner, review it all, voila a few grand to claim as expenses.

I had the same idea years ago (specifically to do with restaurant reviewing as I was eating out loads) and ran it past my accountant, so I know it is feasible :icon_smile_big: :devil:


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Ay329 said:


> But I don't understand the British obsession with annonymity as it relates to telephone numbers. Yes I understand you have a law about it but who gives a crap about the public knowing my phone number. If anyone chooses to hunt me down, I have various firearms to shoot them with if they threaten me with bodily harm at my home....


There have been a couple of cases, where members of this forum have claimed, some weirdoes had impersonated them, turning up at tailors and other shops.

I remember a case where a member posted,, someone showed up at Anderson & Sheppard, making enquiries, and claiming to be the member. (I believe, the member had posted previously, he was to visit A&S.)

There is also an ex-member who has been accused by more than one current member, to actually having stalked them. Furthermore, I can think of at least one person, who is like an elephant and never, ever forgets. He will use his position as a frequent poster to take 'revenge' on his pet-hates. He will went his spleen and vent it and vent it.

I don't know if these stories is true, but it is obviously better to be more cautious.

*There are some weird people out on the net!!!*


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

^^ The one's that scare me are the "picture of me as a child" avatar types...:devil::icon_smile_big:


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

^ Yeah - and use wild animals in their names


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> So how do we know what's a real review and what's an ad from someone who just wants his next freebie? You assume reviewers will worry about their credibility, but too many folks are just out for a buck or a handout. Makes me think of restaurant reviewers who blatantly flaunt their jobs for better meals and service. Think they're going to receive the same dish/treatment everyone else does? How worthwhile is that review?


Well, you _can't_ know when a review is also a sort of advertisement. Even if the reviewer isn't 'given' something, he still has an incentive to maintain a good relationship with suppliers and say good things about their products. And no, you're right, the more famous the reviewer is, the less likely it is he will be treated the same as other customers. But that's inevitable. You can't regulate how suppliers (whether a tailor or restaurant) are going to treat him.

But I still maintain that the reviewer's credibility _is_ his greatest incentive to be as honest as commercially possible: it's what grows his audience and, thus, his income. Bown's letter to Des makes me far less skeptical of him than I would be if Des were to make bad suits for other people following a positive review. You may not take much heart in that, but it's not an entirely bad situation. It just means you shouldn't depend on one person's review.



DocHolliday said:


> Beyond that, even those with the best of intentions can be gripped by unintentional bias. It's human nature to feel fondness for those who give us things. Take, for example, my shoddy Polo boots. They were woefully disappointing for the price I paid, but if I'd gotten them for free, and knew more might be on the way, I'd probably complain much less vigorously. Let's say, in my attempts at fairness, I chose not to review them at all because of the problems. Wouldn't that undermine my next positive review of a pair of Polo shoes? That next review certainly wouldn't be the whole story. Reviews are meant to help others determine what they can reasonably expect, not just praise individual items.


Yes, but there is no such thing as a perfect, 100% objective review. As you say, due to human nature, it's essentially impossible. Thus, this is not a matter of right and wrong to me, just a different balance of costs and benefits. You may feel more skeptical of what Bown has to say because you know he's getting discounts and free stuff, but he is simultaneously able to review more things.


----------



## David Bresch (Apr 11, 2004)

Sometimes I don't know whether to take you jokers seriously or not. Do you really think these issues rise to the level of "ethics" or "morals?" Consumer Reports goes to a lot of trouble to separate itself from the products it reviews. So far as I am concerned, there is Consumer Reports, and then everything else. Everyone has an angle, everyone. To read Will's blog as if he were "objective" or "impartial" would be naive, I am not even sure what these words mean where fashion is concerned. I do not even think Will represents himself that way.

So far as his tawdry dispute with Des, the amount of money involved is probably trivial for Will but not so for Des. In general, tailors make clothes for clients wealthier than they are. Plus, a tailor makes clothing. Any other services he provides are irrelevant. So if you want an unfinished suit, finished, by all means, cross Des off your list. That hardly relates to the business of bespoke.

I love my tailor. He has charged me widely varying prices for various tasks that due to my ignorance, I incorrectly valued. But he is my tailor and I trust him. Plus, I WANT him to be financially successful because I want his shop to be around for a long, long time. I do not understand this haggling over small amounts of money.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> Well, you _can't_ know when a review is also a sort of advertisement. Even if the reviewer isn't 'given' something, he still has an incentive to maintain a good relationship with suppliers and say good things about their products. And no, you're right, the more famous the reviewer is, the less likely it is he will be treated the same as other customers. But that's inevitable. You can't regulate how suppliers (whether a tailor or restaurant) are going to treat him.


Sure you can. There are established rules for this within the old media, and they're fairly simple. Don't advertise to the vendor/maker that you're doing a review whenever possible, but especially when personal service is involved; don't accept expensive gifts for personal use; and disclose any relationships in the review itself. The line is murkier for product placement in merch photoshoots and general style articles, a la GQ, but a review is a different beast.



> But I still maintain that the reviewer's credibility _is_ his greatest incentive to be as honest as commercially possible: it's what grows his audience and, thus, his income. Bown's letter to Des makes me far less skeptical of him than I would be if Des were to make bad suits for other people following a positive review. You may not take much heart in that, but it's not an entirely bad situation. It just means you shouldn't depend on one person's review.


You put far more faith in your fellow human beings than I would expect from a lawyer. Get back to me in 10 years. 

If credibility is the concern, disclosure is the solution. Anyone who does not do this has little credibility, in my book. Without it, the reviewer is essentially an extension of the vendor, and the review is nothing more than an ad. Might as well skip the review and just believe the promotional claims on the company web site.

A bespoke suit really is the perfect example. Unless he's a total fool, a tailor who is making one for a reviewer, knowing he's being reviewed, is going to give nothing less than exceptional service, and will do his very best work. But that in no way reflects what the average customer off the street can expect, which defeats the whole point of the review.



> Yes, but there is no such thing as a perfect, 100% objective review. As you say, due to human nature, it's essentially impossible. Thus, this is not a matter of right and wrong to me, just a different balance of costs and benefits. You may feel more skeptical of what Bown has to say because you know he's getting discounts and free stuff, but he is simultaneously able to review more things.


Why would I want more unreliable reviews? That's like saying you can have all the spoiled milk you want to drink.

.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

In the interest of transparency (as many seem to treasure it), I have no interest in defending Franky but I find his site immeasurably entertaining -- how often do you get to see someone making a complete buffoon out of himself?:icon_smile_big:

OK, so, naive was a wrong choice of words. There are better words, I admit.:icon_smile_wink:

Let's look at this from another angle. Let's say that you were in the market for a bespoke suit and therefore read up on Franky's blurb. As a direct result of reading his eloquent recommendation, you go to Poole to get a suit or two. It turns out to be a terrible experience for all sorts of reasons and to cap the saga you end up with some terrible suits. What sort of liabilities and damages can you claim from Bown?



Miket61 said:


> I don't think it happens all the time to operations as small as Mr. Merrion's. No matter how successful or profitable his firm is, I expect that providing a free bespoke suit would be a relatively large expenditure of time and money for him.
> 
> The fact that this is written by an individual blogger also takes it across the line from "cooperative advertising" to "free stuff for Mr. Bown." If _GQ_ had written to Mr. Merrion saying "we love your suits. Would you be able to send us one we could use for a photo shoot?" it wouldn't seem quite so questionable.


You seem quite familiar with the interactions between the apparel trade and the media. Forget Merrion, let's talk generalities like "independent bespoke tailors" like him. So, you're the features editor and you get your cute intern to call up the tailor to convey your idea about the upcoming shoot and request a suit. The intern provides further relevant details: since the theme is bucolic elegance, we need a tweed number; James, our model, is 6'1" with 42" bust and 29" waist. Could I send a courier over to your shop tomorrow to pick up a few suits that we might be able to use?

BTW, after you sent your garments on appro for a shoot, how often do they return in saleable condition? By saleable, I do not mean for staff sale, friends & family sale and sample sale, collectively known by the beancounter as write-offs.



Miket61 said:


> His normal duties are to provide descriptions and express opinions. If the opinions and the tone of the piece are altered by the level of concession made by the manufacturer, then that does cross a line.


I do not get the impression that Franky's opinions are influenced by whether or not the products were free. Rather, it seems to me that if the goods are not provided gratis, he does not have any opinions. 



Miket61 said:


> Regarding Mr. Bown's phone number, I would assume that if he added it to the e-mail signature he expects the number to be retained by anyone to whom he sends an e-mail. My work e-mail has my phone number on it; my personal e-mail does not.


Did he send the email to the recipient(s) or to the whole world?



Miket61 said:


> Alexander Kabbaz had a shirt featured in an article on tuxedo shirts in _Departures_ magazine several months ago. I haven't seen him on here for a while, but I'd be interested to know the terms under which a $1,500 shirt was photographed. Did they come to him or did he send it to them? Did he get it back?


How often do you see Departures featuring merchants that do NOT accept Amex?



newtrane said:


> Let's assume you have an "independent" financial advisor. You seek his advice because you do not know much about finance. You agree to pay him for that. Let's assume the advisor has three different structured products in his universe:
> 
> Product 1 is very bad, the issuing bank does not pay the advisor any kickbacks.
> Product 2 is mediocre, but the bank pays the advisor 10% of the invested capital as a kickback.
> ...


Since you seem to prefer the analogy with financial advisers, we need to get our premises straight first so we can discuss apples to apples. There are financial advisers and financial advisers. In your example, how is this financial adviser remunerated in terms of fees, base salary, bonus and other incentive pays?


Concordia said:


> And just who is paying Bown for his "advice?"


You're too intelligent to participate in this thread.:icon_smile_big:


Mitchell said:


> It turns out I agree with MisterDonuts et, al. on the topic.
> 
> Bown doesn't charge a membership or subscription. He just writes about what he considers the finer things of the sartorial world. As he derives no income from his venture, yet exposes and supports his many vendors in a positive way I think it appropriate for him to make the request. It's a request and nothing more. If Bown said, "Make me a suit or I'll write that you're a no-good tailor and shouldn't even sweep the floor," that would be another matter.
> 
> ...


Mitch, you are making way too much sense.



Frog in Suit said:


> To put this debate into _some_ perspective, who in his right mind would spend thousands of pounds on the sole recommendation of a complete stranger running an internet blog?
> 
> Frog in Suit


I hate to admit it, it takes a French/continental lawyer to see the forest from the trees.


----------



## mafoofan (May 16, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> Why would I want more unreliable reviews? That's like saying you can have all the spoiled milk you want to drink.


The point is that all milk tastes somewhat sour.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

mafoofan said:


> The point is that all milk tastes somewhat sour.


Only if you're buying the wrong type of milk. And, even if I accept your point, there's a difference in milk that's just starting to turn and milk that's lumpy.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

As to Bengal-stripes latest post

None of us can ill afford to lose 300 pounds, whether it be Des who is busy and making do with working out of his uninsulated garage, or Will who has an unfinished suit and dreams of one day moving to West Los Angeles

I would describe Will's fascination with the color grey, scarves/ascots, Agnelli and Luca di Montezemolo as disturbing and sometimes outright revolting...but not weird

As to Bown, of course he's a bit odd but his reviews are entertaining, and he writes in a form of English not seen since World War 2.

Bown's liking of Red is weird...but does not have a whiff of homosexuality


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

DocHolliday said:


> Only if you're buying the wrong type of milk. And, even if I accept your point, there's a difference in milk that's just starting to turn and milk that's lumpy.


English milk, pasteurised but not homogenised, is usually lumpy.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Ay329 said:


> dreams of one day moving to West Los Angeles


Isn't that a bit too downmarket? Even more so than Castro and more like Memphis?:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

misterdonuts said:


> English milk, pasteurised but not homogenised, is usually lumpy.:icon_smile_big:


But not the Jersey cow milk...this stuff rocks


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

The problem with Brown and Will is- are they begging? Beggers aren't rich enough to be snobs. If they are not begging then I have no problem with them writing about products they like and avoid products they're not interested in, providing they are not being the voice of the companies they bring to view. 

Des clearly bent over backwards. Has Will bent over backwards at all? Or, is it just take take take? Snob snob snob. If Will is not take or snob then he must by now realize that he was asking to much for free. I think it is much easier for Will to have his tax accountant write off several hundred pounds and call it an honest lost for both and, perhaps, even send Des more pounds to help compensate for his lost.


----------



## Frog in Suit (Mar 27, 2007)

misterdonuts said:


> I hate to admit it, it takes a French/continental lawyer to see the forest from the trees.


Thank you but why the hatred :biggrin2:? Plus I am not a lawyer, just older and (may I hope?) wiser .

Frog in Suit


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

WA, now you are going overboard.

I commented on how Des was flexible...but he took the gamble. He shot bear the brunt of the loss...that he got to keep 300 pounds, minus his actual expenses for the time he lost in preparing this venture is more than enough

Will doesn't have to beg or blow anyone. He gives reviews and comments. 

I learned of Gaziano & Girling through him and purchased 6 of their shoes/boots and trees.

I learned of Tip Top fabrics in Brooklyn through him and purchased 7 cloths for suits

I learned of the London Lounge through him and am a smarter and more stylish business dresser for it

Now the comments about Will are getting personal. He doesn't need anyone to defend him since the quality of his blog and postings on the forums are insightful into his style and quality of his character.

The Mafia have an old saying, "Fish get caught because they opened their mouths...so keep your mouth shut."

With that aside, WA, I'm not attacking you or criticizing you, but I've respected your postings for some time and don't think its right for you to characterize Will as a begger (unless I misread your post...then I apologize ahead of time)


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> Serious American news organizations, the type being abandoned left and right for the "unfiltered voices" of the Internet, typically have strict policies prohibiting the acceptance of goods for personal use. Usually this extends to anything more expensive than a meal. Someone found to have accepted pricey goods usually will be fired, as it's considered a serious ethics violation.
> 
> This isn't to say that pay for play hasn't existed or doesn't exist now. But there's certainly a conflict of interest. Reviews that have been bought are worthless. Even if a reviewer has the best of intentions, gifts naturally engender goodwill. Especially if the reviewer wants more freebies in the future.


I wrote a feature on a local business recently. The owners wanted to send me home with some freebies. I wanted them too, but I paid for them.

The owners were surprised. The writer from a big New York daily who included them in a magazine piece last year not only demanded freebies but wanted them shipped overnight. Got his wish, too.

I wasn't writing a review of the product, either, just a community profile.

Chalk one up for the small-town weekly.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Ay329, did I not say 'if they are not beggers then I have no problem....'?

If Will is not in the clothing business, but just a simple buyer, then I would think different. I presume Will is college educated, while Des probably isn't, as many craftsmen are not. I expect higher business standards from higher educated business people. The knowlege alone from higher education should have directed this lose for both in a positive way. Neither acted wise. They both have interesting blogs. 

As far as organized crime goes they all ought to be shot.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

Will is not a simple buyer...he obsesses about clothes (and so states on his blog).

Des is no tailoring apprentice or young tailor under the age of 30 (and demanding 4000 pounds for a 2 piece suit)

This explains Will's ever expanding Emelda Marcos like shoe collection. I'm waiting for Will's April fools day blog where he will be bring out his jacket with tails (which he wears once year) and mimmicks that famous Adolph Menjou pose with Will's actual shoe collection

Des is no amateur. He's educated in the trade of tailoring for almost 2 decades and is wise enough to conduct business ventures (some which did not fruition lately)...he is not snobbish enough like Tom Mahon to claim he has too many clients and thus recognized it might be to his benefit to service a potential new client like Will.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

What's wrong with Mr Mahon?


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Ay329 said:


> Des is no amateur. *he is not snobbish enough like Tom Mahon *to claim he has too many clients and thus recognized it might be to his benefit to service a potential new client like Will.


Really!

I have looked at his website and he has done the typical ex-Anderson & Sheppard and focused on them when he talked about Savile Row tailors. However, he did mentioned the big boys of The Row and their quality work (e.g. Huntsman and Henry Poole).


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

WA said:


> Ay329, did I not say 'if they are not beggers then I have no problem....'?
> 
> If Will is not in the clothing business, but just a simple buyer, then I would think different. I presume Will is college educated, while Des probably isn't, as many craftsmen are not. I expect higher business standards from higher educated business people. The knowlege alone from higher education should have directed this lose for both in a positive way. Neither acted wise. They both have interesting blogs.
> 
> As far as organized crime goes they all ought to be shot.


This is the first time I have heard anyone expect a positive correlation between education and ethics. Of course, there are many things that I have never heard of.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

Frog in Suit said:


> To put this debate into _some_ perspective, who in his right mind would spend thousands of pounds on the sole recommendation of a complete stranger running an internet blog?
> 
> Frog in Suit


Especially since the reviews that I have read by Bown say little more than the product is splendid and that the vendors are charming people.

I would not trust his opinion on clothing anymore than I would trust his judgement about motorcars and expensive watches and he has stated that he doesn't know much about either of the later two.

Off topic a bit, but on this side of the pond we would call a Silver Cloud lll a Rolls and I wonder if in the U.K. it is common to call one a Royce as Bown does? Actually, after one breaks down and we get the repair bill we might call it something else, but that is a different topic for a different thread.


----------



## outrigger (Aug 12, 2006)

Jim In Sunny So Calif said:


> Off topic a bit, but on this side of the pond we would call a Silver Cloud lll a Rolls and I wonder if in the U.K. it is common to call one a Royce as Bown does? Actually, after one breaks down and we get the repair bill we might call it something else, but that is a different topic for a different thread.


He's the only person I've ever known to use the name Royce, Rolls is the usual term used here, or Roller as a slang term.

His reviews are quite funny in that he never talks about the strengths and weaknesses of the various tailors. He doesn't give any indication of why a customer might prefer Davies to Poole or whatever.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

misterdonuts said:


> You seem quite familiar with the interactions between the apparel trade and the media. Forget Merrion, let's talk generalities like "independent bespoke tailors" like him. So, you're the features editor and you get your cute intern to call up the tailor to convey your idea about the upcoming shoot and request a suit. The intern provides further relevant details: since the theme is bucolic elegance, we need a tweed number; James, our model, is 6'1" with 42" bust and 29" waist. Could I send a courier over to your shop tomorrow to pick up a few suits that we might be able to use?
> 
> BTW, after you sent your garments on appro for a shoot, how often do they return in saleable condition? By saleable, I do not mean for staff sale, friends & family sale and sample sale, collectively known by the beancounter as write-offs.


You're making my point but simulataneously missing it. An "independent bespoke tailor" wouldn't have any suits of any kind laying around to send off. They would have to be RTW from inventory. If they wanted to demonstrate bespoke quality, they'd need to be willing to use one of the tailor's own customers who agreed to participate in his perfectly-fitted suit.

(I seem to recall someone posted photos of one of their customers in a beautifully crafted bespoke suit, and some of the replies were "couldn't you have found a more handsome model?)

When and if garments are returned, they've probably been pinned to fit the model better and the collar is covered with makeup. Not ruined, but not necessarily a write-off, either.



> I do not get the impression that Franky's opinions are influenced by whether or not the products were free. Rather, it seems to me that if the goods are not provided gratis, he does not have any opinions.


But would he have negative opinions of something he got for free? It seems that his method would have been exposed by someone offended by the bad review long before Mr. Merrion was offended by the blunt request.



> Did he send the email to the recipient(s) or to the whole world?


Welcome to the Internet. It's the same thing.



> How often do you see Departures featuring merchants that do NOT accept Amex?


_Departures_ is a magazine produced by American Express for their cardmembers. There is an implication that everything discussed in the magazine can be purchased using their card. Would _New York_ magazine talk about products that can't be purchased in New York, except in the context of a travel article?


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

outrigger said:


> He's the only person I've ever known to use the name Royce, Rolls is the usual term used here, or Roller as a slang term.
> 
> His reviews are quite funny in that he never talks about the strengths and weaknesses of the various tailors. He doesn't give any indication of why a customer might prefer Davies to Poole or whatever.


Yes, we would call it be either of those names also. I am not sure however, what one would call the new model - ugly I guess - pity, it used to be a good looking motorcar.

Right - he really doesn't say much of substance in any of his reviews that I have read.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

I have no gripe with Mr. Mahon and his blog is excellent...although rarely updated

Mahon is also kind enough to point out that he is very busy and at times..."I'm unable to take on new clients" due to the large volume of orders form my current clients. I'm pleased he's doing well but it just slapped me the wrong way...perhaps I'm too sensitive and disappointed he visits San Francisco...bypassing Los Angeles altogether

By the way, Will is a client of Mahon.....Des does not like drape. Why Will even considered Des given Will's past preferences is a great mystery...perhaps Will can enlighten us

Sweet Jesus, this thread has now gone to 5 pages long :crazy:

As to Bown... :deadhorse-a:


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Ay329 said:


> I
> Mahon is also kind enough to point out that he is very busy and at times..."I'm unable to take on new clients" due to the large volume of orders form my current clients.


Maybe he does not want new clients; however, even if one is busy, it is not good business practice to mention that. As Dave Ward (Henry Poole) said sometimes people come with lots of money, there could be a A&S customer who wants 3-5 suits, plus a overcoat or two made.



Ay329 said:


> By the way, Will is a client of Mahon.....Des does not like drape. Why Will even considered Des given Will's past preferences is a great mystery...perhaps Will can enlighten us


either

1. Will wanted to try someone new or inquire about their service, especially as he posts on this forum
or
2. Will was not happy with the service or lack of service from Mahon

Only Will can answer that, although I would suspect the first option


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Ay329 said:


> I have no gripe with Mr. Mahon and his blog is excellent...although rarely updated
> 
> Mahon is also kind enough to point out that he is very busy and at times..."I'm unable to take on new clients" due to the large volume of orders form my current clients. I'm pleased he's doing well but it just slapped me the wrong way...perhaps I'm too sensitive and disappointed he visits San Francisco...bypassing Los Angeles altogether
> 
> ...


Why did it slap you the wrong way? He doesn't particularly strike me as snobbish, especially in the documentary I saw him in.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Ay329 said:


> But not the Jersey cow milk...this stuff rocks


I agree. No trip to Waitrose is complete without one. If you like that stuff, you should also try some clotted cream made from the same. I think it's also know as "a heart surgeon's unemployment insurance in a plastic pot." :icon_smile_big:



Frog in Suit said:


> Thank you but why the hatred :biggrin2:? Plus I am not a lawyer, just older and (may I hope?) wiser .
> 
> Frog in Suit


I must have confused you with someone else. Seems to be a regular occurence for me these days...



Miket61 said:


> You're making my point but simulataneously missing it. An "independent bespoke tailor" wouldn't have any suits of any kind laying around to send off. They would have to be RTW from inventory. If they wanted to demonstrate bespoke quality, they'd need to be willing to use one of the tailor's own customers who agreed to participate in his perfectly-fitted suit.
> 
> (I seem to recall someone posted photos of one of their customers in a beautifully crafted bespoke suit, and some of the replies were "couldn't you have found a more handsome model?)
> 
> ...


I apologise. I had thought that you might step into one or two but certainly not all of them. Anyway, good intentions had absolutely nothing to do with any of them. I must confess that I had been a bit cranky for the last few days as a result of a complete lack of sleep subsequent to a very minor surgery; I slept for the first time last night in almost a week. Sleep didn't seem all that important when I was younger, not to mention the fact that "being in bed but getting no sleep", other than for reasons of jet-lag, meant something rather good.:icon_smile_big: Again, my apologies.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Jim In Sunny So Calif said:


> Off topic a bit, but on this side of the pond we would call a Silver Cloud lll a Rolls and I wonder if in the U.K. it is common to call one a Royce as Bown does? Actually, after one breaks down and we get the repair bill we might call it something else, but that is a different topic for a different thread.


To call such a car " a Royce" is simply an affectation and so typical of the former Father Bown. Rolls would be the universal term here - not even cognoscenti would do otherwise.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

GBR said:


> To call such a car " a Royce" is simply an affectation and so typical of the former Father Bown. Rolls would be the universal term here - not even cognoscenti would do otherwise.


I remember years ago talking to someone who worked in the factory or maybe just lived in Crewe where they were made. He told me everyone there called them 'Royces' (he was correcting me for saying 'Rolls') because Henry Royce was the engineer whereas Charles Rolls was just a toff who had put money into the firm.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

*Royce cars*

After my previous post I came across this site: https://www.darkforce.com/royce/facts.htm

"At the Rolls-Royce factories in Crewe and London the cars are always referred to as Royces. They are never called Rollers."


----------



## The Heirophant (Jan 13, 2009)

Trimmer said:


> After my previous post I came across this site: https://www.darkforce.com/royce/facts.htm
> 
> "At the Rolls-Royce factories in Crewe and London the cars are always referred to as Royces. They are never called Rollers."


My father worked for Rolls-Royce for 35 years after leaving the RAF. That's Rolls-Royce Plc that make aero-engines not the car makers in Crewe.

He would refer to the car as a Rolls-Royce or perhaps a "Rolls", never a Roller or a Royce.

However, that said, he would refer to his employer as "Royce's".


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

David Bresch said:


> To read Will's blog as if he were "objective" or "impartial" would be naive...


Yes, but as this thread shows, there are many people on teh foraz who are bad at reading and reasoning. In point of fact, there are so few sources of information on this sort of clothing and so few ways to evaluate bespoke clothing empirically (short of spending ten years and tens of thousands of dollars placing multiple orders from different tailors) that whatever there is out there, in magazines or on blogs or the interforaz, tends to get swallowed hungrily by those interested, of whom many are unmarried marriage counselors, as they say. Then it gets parroted by them and becomes received wisdom. Given that people oftentimes lack context or healthy skepticism about what they read, the quid pro quo sort of thing is not insidious -- it's just clothes -- but it should affect the writer's credibility.



DocHolliday said:


> You put far more faith in your fellow human beings than I would expect from a lawyer. Get back to me in 10 years.
> 
> If credibility is the concern, disclosure is the solution.


+1. Mafoo needs to do more doc review and due diligence.

BTW, are any customers of Will's men's image consulting business members of the forum? I'm curious about the experience. Perhaps he could do a combination thing with Michael Alden's London Lounge Sartorial Vacations in Sicily.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

Unlike RJMan's suggestion...I don't need 10 years of therapy on teh foraz to make competent decisions on clothing

Granted he's been on here since at least 2004....but wasn't he the victim of Darren Beamen too and had to be rescued by Henry Poole's tailors when a trouser blow out occurred?

But what the hell do I know, I ordered this G&G modified Barclay shoe due to the "wisdom" parrotted by RJMan :crazy:


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

RJman said:


> BTW, are any customers of Will's men's image consulting business members of the forum? I'm curious about the experience.


If Will wants to give me his services for free, perhaps with a few samples to get me started, I imagine I can find some nice things to say.


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Ay329 said:


> Unlike RJMan's suggestion...I don't need 10 years of therapy on teh foraz to make competent decisions on clothing]


As I said, reading comprehension is at a premium...



> Granted he's been on here since at least 2004....but wasn't he the victim of Darren Beamen too and had to be rescued by Henry Poole's tailors when a trouser blow out occurred?


 I wouldn't say I was a "victim" of Darren's. Like a silent few others, I received all my orders from him in finished condition and they fit, and I probably still owe him a dinner. I can't deny that others older and wiser than I did not receive what they ordered from him; indeed, one particularly obsessive person was so vituperative about Darren that he probably kept the Beaman scandal from breaking for six months since we all figured that anyone that persecuted deserved the benefit of the doubt. Poole travelled to the European continent, where I was working, and Darren stopped travelling. 


> But what the hell do I know, I ordered this G&G modified Barclay shoe due to the "wisdom" parrotted by RJMan :crazy:


 Don't blame me for that thing. Actually, there's nothing wrong with it, but apart from my having ordered a pair of side gusset shoes (which however had much less decoration) a few years ago I have done and said nothing that could lead to that order. It's all you, brother.


----------



## Frog in Suit (Mar 27, 2007)

Ay329 said:


> I have no gripe with Mr. Mahon and his blog is excellent...although rarely updated
> 
> Mahon is also kind enough to point out that he is very busy and at times..."I'm unable to take on new clients" due to the large volume of orders form my current clients. I'm pleased he's doing well but it just slapped me the wrong way...perhaps I'm too sensitive and disappointed he visits San Francisco...bypassing Los Angeles altogether


I was planning to respond sooner to that particular question but my computer and I had a slight disagreement :icon_headagainstwal . I admit that the computer was probably right...

I think that capacity constraints are a very real factor, nay an essential one, in today's bespoke tailoring. If all or only some of your employees or outworkers are working at capacity, what do you do? 1) turn down new orders or 2) delay deliveries which antagonizes your customer base and messes up your cash flow. 1 is probably the lesser of two evils. Longer term, you can raise your prices (but you risk pricing yourself out of the market, especially in these parlous times) or hire and train new people, but that is a big risk for a small outfit and there is no guarantee that they will work out, or that you will continue to have the business to support them. I am glad that some tailors, at least, seem to be doing well.

This is just a general remark, as I have no direct knowledge of any of the people (tailors or bloggers) being discussed here, although I read them all....:icon_smile_wink:

Frog in Suit


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> If Will wants to give me his services for free, perhaps with a few samples to get me started, I imagine I can find some nice things to say.


Got a laugh out of that. The only problem is some people really do need the services of people like Will. Some people really can't pick out clothes that "make the man" in a positive way. Talent with clothes varies from none to lots.

What is a tax write off? Your money equals Y. L stands for loss of some of Y. Government comes along and says some of Y is mine, or G. So Y is reduced because of G. Tax write off means L is subtacted from G instead of Y. If Will pays Des the full amount of Des's work days loss and writes it down as L against G what has Will loss? Nothing! Will has already lost G amount. The government lost £750.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

Ay329 said:


> Unlike RJMan's suggestion...I don't need 10 years of therapy on teh foraz to make competent decisions on clothing
> 
> Granted he's been on here since at least 2004....but wasn't he the victim of Darren Beamen too and had to be rescued by Henry Poole's tailors when a trouser blow out occurred?
> 
> But what the hell do I know, I ordered this G&G modified Barclay shoe due to the "wisdom" parrotted by RJMan :crazy:


What's wrong with this shoe (other than the missing "lace")? The diamond cap isn't my taste nor would I bother with the faux laces, but it is a perfectly nice example of whatever it is that it is supposed to be.


----------



## CPal (Dec 28, 2003)

I've often wondered whether Andy's reviews are truly objective or whether he receives goods for free in exchange for his endorsement. I have no problem with it as this is a forum he has created but the arguments for transparency could clearly be transferred to our own Andy ....


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

CPal...please re-read the Mafia saying, posted above, regarding Fish

Dopey...what is the shoe supposed to be?....its a G&G Barclay dressed up with imitation lacing :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

Ay329 said:


> . . .
> Dopey...what is the shoe supposed to be?....its a G&G Barclay dressed up with imitation lacing


Well that is a very long name, and yours is a nice example of a GGBDWIL.

I wasn't criticizing - no need for the . Try a :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

Dopey, I made the adjustment...but has hording cloth made you sensitive?

Are you gonna stick your neck out and comment on WIll and Des, or will you stick it to Bown...I always felt his interest in Red would rub you the wrong way


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Ay329 said:


> please re-read the Mafia saying, posted above, regarding Fish


It is always interesting to watch the fish with its mouth open thinking it is not a fish. And behind closed doors they forget the walls have ears. A school of fish means more good fishing.

Somebody is going fishing, and the fish are going to find out they are the fish with the hook. That is not the bad part. The bad part is when it has been out of the water too long. Of course, the fisherman thinks that is great. But the fish thinks it is hell. And then the fisherman gets to relax. It pays not to be fishy, right!!?


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

WA said:


> It is always interesting to watch the fish with its mouth open thinking it is not a fish. And behind closed doors they forget the walls have ears. A school of fish means more good fishing.
> 
> Somebody is going fishing, and the fish are going to find out they are the fish with the hook. That is not the bad part. The bad part is when it has been out of the water too long. Of course, the fisherman thinks that is great. But the fish thinks it is hell. And then the fisherman gets to relax. It pays not to be fishy, right!!?


:aportnoy::aportnoy::aportnoy::aportnoy:


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

RJman said:


> +1. Mafoo needs to do more doc review and due diligence.


Well, to be fair to Mafoo, he wouldn't be doing any diligence work while just looking. Once you decide to buy, then, yes, you're right - caveat emptor - but I don't think Mafoo was even thinking of buying. 
You're not saying that you ended up at Piscine because of Bown, are ya?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

I have to confess about Bown's Bespoke

I bought 3 pairs of boxcloth, Thurston braces due to Bown's article. 

At first I condemned him for my purchase as I was displeased at the way they felt and were difficult to fit (since I was used to other, more inferior brands).

Now I love them and plan on wearing a blue one tomorrow..sorry I opted against ordering the Red one

Reviews about them on teh foraz (including the owner of Thurston posting here occassionally) was not enough to get me to buy them...but the temper of Bown's article emoldened me to purchase 3 boxcloths...and another striped braces. Yes I was suckered into buying a pair of sock gaiters too but that purchase has been relegated to the dustbin...although I might pull them out for the Edwardian Ball that I plan on attending this Saturday night


----------



## Bracemaker (May 11, 2005)

Ay329 said:


> I have to confess about Bown's Bespoke
> 
> I bought 3 pairs of boxcloth, Thurston braces due to Bown's article.
> 
> ...


I feel honour bound to advise all here that to get the article in Father Bown's Blogette re our 4th rate suspension products I had to sell my sole to the devil. Lucky he didnt spot the deliberate spelling error as my blood congealed over that bit. 
In seriousness though, all he did was phone me up and ask me questions - no requests for free samples.


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Bracemaker said:


> .......Father Bown's Blogette.......


A new word - *Blogette* - I like it!!!


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

Bengal-strip

What is the exact definition of blogette so we can maintain high standards of decency and lexicon use on teh foraz?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

misterdonuts said:


> Well, to be fair to Mafoo, he wouldn't be doing any diligence work while just looking. Once you decide to buy, then, yes, you're right - caveat emptor - but I don't think Mafoo was even thinking of buying.
> You're not saying that you ended up at Piscine because of Bown, are ya?:icon_smile_big:


No, although for a while I wondered if FNB = Francis N Bown.



bengal-stripe said:


> A new word - *Blogette* - I like it!!!


Eh, it's been done before, notably by world's most unemployed blogger www.mccainblogette.com


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Ay329 said:


> Bengal-strip
> 
> What is the exact definition of blogette so we can maintain high standards of decency and lexicon use on teh foraz?


I think a blogette usually has lace trim.


----------



## CPVS (Jul 17, 2005)

"After Lindbergh's famous flight across the Atlantic, he was welcomed to New York by the greatest ticker-tape parade in the city's history. The tailoring department at Brooks worked all through the night making the suit that he would wear in the parade. This had been arranged by the mayor of New York, "Gentleman Jimmy" Walker, a good Brooks Brothers customer himself. When the suit was delivered to Lindbergh, the mayor suggested to the firm that the publicity should be adequate payment for the clothing. The company replied that publicity was not in its area of interest, and the matter of the bill remained."

--G. Bruce Boyer, from "Elegance," 1985.

https://www.ivy-style.com/boyer-on-brooks.html#more-249


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

GBR said:


> After 169 posts how can you judge?


It's not the amount of posting, it's the amount of reading.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

CPVS said:


> "After Lindbergh's famous flight across the Atlantic, he was welcomed to New York by the greatest ticker-tape parade in the city's history. The tailoring department at Brooks worked all through the night making the suit that he would wear in the parade. This had been arranged by the mayor of New York, "Gentleman Jimmy" Walker, a good Brooks Brothers customer himself. When the suit was delivered to Lindbergh, the mayor suggested to the firm that the publicity should be adequate payment for the clothing. The company replied that publicity was not in its area of interest, and the matter of the bill remained."
> 
> --G. Bruce Boyer, from "Elegance," 1985.
> 
> https://www.ivy-style.com/boyer-on-brooks.html#more-249


I got the impression that even the elaborately embroidered coat given to Abraham Lincoln was paid for by admirers, and not a gift from the company.


----------

