Indochino

[Doc4]

Yikes, this thread is starting to disturb me a bit. I never worried about whether my suit coats seemed out of date because they were too long before now! One thing I thought about is that in the past I have been around more people wearing suits, so I had a better idea of what the current "norm" was for things.

I am sure that like everything else, longer jackets will be back in fashion, soon enough.

Timeless style will always look good.

For those who focus on current fashion trends, you will look hopelessly out of date. But they always focus on "the current thing" rather than trying to figure out if "the current thing" is actually "good". Five years from now, they will have thrown out all the "in" clothing they wear now.

You are fine.

 

[The Knize]

You are fine.

I know! But thanks for saying!

My first suit was unvented. Quite a good, sleek look,

And I think perfectly traditional, if one goes back far enough. Are most double-breasted suits these days unvented? If I recall, they can be, or they can be double vented, but are never single vented. Dinner jackets are not vented, if I recall. You may have put your finger on it. Single vents just do not look as good to me as they once did. Double vents seem more elegant and more useful. I think they originated with English gentlemen sitting in saddles or something like that. They wanted something that would look nice across the back even when straddling a horse.

I think it is harder to sit in a double-breasted suit. I assume one is supposed to unbutton their jacket to sit, and I spend most of my time sitting. DB seems like a lot of fabric to deal with! I admit that a well-fitted DB suit has a certain very elegant look. A British look, to my eye.

Peaked lapels are standard for double-breasted, but very uncommon for single-breasted. ... but perfectly allowable for single breasted.

Definitely on both points!

I'm fond of a ticket pocket. Probably because I tend to like "English" suit styles. I much prefer the look of jetted pockets (IE: no flaps)

Interesting. I had not thought of jetted pockets as being English. That makes them appeal to me more. I do seem to like flaps, and seem indifferent to ticket pockets, I think on some level because I consider those outside suit coat pockets as not intended to be actually used for anything. They can remain sown shut as far as I am concerned!

One thing about the Indochino suits, I think across the board, is that the breast pocket is on a bit of a slant. It is hard to tell from the photos. I guess it does not bother me. I would not have asked for it!

I like the linings that are quiet. Some (cheaper and more durable) linings are fine until you try to move around, and then you think you are wearing a grass skirt. IMHO this is one of the biggest benefits of the more expensive suit ... getting a better, quieter lining.

That is hilarious. I admit I have not given whether linings were properly functional much of a thought! I meant fancy in terms of color. Arguably garish colors. On the Indochino suits, I got the "black" suit--I still am slightly bothered by the idea of a black suit and this one clearly has some faint, white checked, I guess, pattern to it!--with a bright red lining. For the Glenn Plaid suit I got a pink lining. Both I thought came out nicely. It is not as if you can see the linings when I am wearing the suits. The red sort of lightens what would otherwise be a potentially very somber suit! The pink ads some playfulness to what could be a rather nondescript suit. In part, I decided that I would not get much in the way of "bespoke" type touches. I did not get contrasting/colorful buttonhole threads for instance, either on the sleeves or the boutonniere holder. I did get surgeon's (that, is buttonable) sleeves. I forget what else was available to tend to identify the suit as "bespoke"--yeah, I know, not true bespoke, but made to measure. Like i said, I got a peak lapel on the darker suit, which seemed the more formal suit to me. For one thing, I thought those other touches might look very 2024 some day. But I thought a lining that one would not get in an off the rack suit that no one was much going to see anyway, might be some nice "virtue signaling" of a sort. Some fun.

I did not think to get the trousers lined. I would have if that was an option. I think it helps them wear better.

I am still considering ordering up extra pairs of pants.

 

[Doc4]

Are most double-breasted suits these days unvented? If I recall, they can be, or they can be double vented, but are never single vented.

I doubt that many suits nowadays are unvented. But I could be wrong.

I think, in terms of the formality scale, it looks like this:

unvented > double vents > single vent.

As the double breasted is more formal, my expectation would be double vents (hence the Canadian preference for the "double double") or unvented.

Dinner jackets are not vented, if I recall.

Should be.

No doubt nowadays some bright spark has produced a dinner jacket with vents. To be worn without cummerbund or vest, coloured tie, and don't forget your oversized diver's watch.

I think they originated with English gentlemen sitting in saddles or something like that.

That, and/or other sporting activities where active poses and dramatic movements are needing more freedom of movement. Same with the shoulder pleats on the backs of English shooting jackets.

I think it is harder to sit in a double-breasted suit. I assume one is supposed to unbutton their jacket to sit

IIRC, no. You keep them buttoned, unlike the single-breasted.

I had not thought of jetted pockets as being English

My apologies for sticking two things in the same paragraph. I meant that I thought of the ticket pocket as "English", and then moved on to jetted pockets. You are quite right to not have thought of jetted pockets as "English".

I am still considering ordering up extra pairs of pants.

IIRC correctly, the thought behind ordering more trousers when ordering the suit is to colour match precisely, as subsequent batches of cloth may have subtle but noticeable variations that wouldn't be noticed unless you put it right beside (ie jacket and pants) the other. That, and the colour of the fabric does tend to slowly fade through wearing and especially cleanings.

Too late now? Dunno.

 

[The Knize]

Too late now? Dunno.

I don't think so! I think Indochino buys fabric in massive bulk, but, of course, there could be variations in dye lots, etc.

unvented > double vents > single vent.

I and the internet seem to agree.

You are quite right to not have thought of jetted pockets as "English".

Your prose was clear enough! My error probably from too fast a reading.

IIRC, no. You keep them buttoned, unlike the single-breasted.

The internet seems to say you are correct. I stand corrected. Some internet entries seem to say one may optionally unbutton the bottom row of buttons on a DB suit coat when sitting, but apparently never all the buttons.

No doubt nowadays some bright spark has produced a dinner jacket with vents. To be worn without cummerbund or vest, coloured tie, and don't forget your oversized diver's watch.

Very funny, again. Yes an oversized watch! Black tie garb should not be worn with any watch, of course. The idea being that anyone wearing black tie has no worry about the time. I suppose can afford financially not be concerned about what time it is.

The internet seems to be all over the place on vents on a tuxedo jacket. Some saying the rule is no vent(s). Others saying the rule used to be no vent(s), but that changed in the 60s when some double vents started showing up. 60s seems like an oddly specific time period! Those sources seem to say that single vents are still not allowed. Other sources seem to say that no vent, single vent, and double vent are all okay these days, and each configuration can be found for sale. No doubt that double vents are considered more formal. Actually it is unclear to me whether the British have single vents for anything. Some sources refer to single vents, at least on suits, as a US style.

I would say no vents on a dinner jacket, even though they may be practical. I think the idea was that one was not going to ride a horse or do anything physical in a dinner jacket. As for access to pants pockets, as I recall, tuxedo pants have pockets, but I am not sure a gentleman carries anything in his pants pockets! I mean why do I have my man servant with me at the soiree, if I need to carry anything at all!

I think the internet leans either none or two vents on a DB suit. Never a single vents, although it is recognized that single vent DB suits are available to purchase!

the thought behind ordering more trousers when ordering the suit is to colour match precisely

Yes. The underlying idea being that one is likely to wear out the trousers before or long before the jacket, or if one is clumsy as apparently am, to tear open their trousers in an electric scooter mishap! I dare say it would be impossible to match the fabric of the two Indochino suits I bought long after the fact. Each has a pattern.

 

[Doc4]

The internet seems to say you are correct. I sit corrected

FTFY

I think the internet leans either none or two vents on a DB suit. Never a single vents, although it is recognized that single vent DB suits are available to purchase!

Just because it's for sale on the internet doesn't make it proper. Just because Websters defines "literally" to mean "figuratively" doesn't make it so, no matter how much the youth think otherwise.

 

[The Knize]

<I sit corrected.>

just so! well-played

Just because it's for sale on the internet doesn't make it proper.

Not just for sale on the internet. I think for sale generally. Still does not make it proper!

Just because Websters defines "literally" to mean "figuratively" doesn't make it so, no matter how much the youth think otherwise.

I suppose I was vaguely aware of that particular Websters', to me. bumbling misjudgment. I understand the concept that dictionaries are of essentially two types. Either they try to reflect actual "in the wild" usage or seek to prescribe proper usage, regardless of how folks tend to actually use language, and Websters is of the former type. And I do admit that one hears people use the word "literally" in a hyperbolic manner to mean a variant of "figuratively." And I do not think it is just the "youth" that do this. But I do not think that the misuse by some of a word to mean the opposite of its definition justifies a dictionary's adopting that incorrect usage in a formal alternative definition.

Good analogy to building a DB suit with a single vent! Just say no!

 

[The Knize]

I can't stop thinking about Websters defining literally to mean figuratively!

This may deserve a separate thread. I wonder what Bryan Garner has to say about this!

 

[Doc4]

I can't stop thinking about Websters defining literally to mean figuratively!

This may deserve a separate thread. I wonder what Bryan Garner has to say about this!

And why is Websters not Webster's?

 

[The Knize]

And why is Websters not Webster's?

Excellent question! I actually looked that up to make sure Websters was correct, when I first responded to your posting re "literally"!

 

[Doc4]

Excellent question! I actually looked that up to make sure Websters was correct, when I first responded to your posting re "literally"!

Auto-fill had suggested the name without the apostrophe so I went with it.
If the current editors don't realize that their book is "of or by Webster", then I don't think they are the experts to speak on the definition of literally.

I suspect they would be content with Romanes eunt domus.

 

[The Knize]

I hear you!

<Romanes eunt domus>

Cool reference!

 

[Doc4]

Cool reference!

I am literally a woman.

 

[The Knize]

I wonder what Bryan Garner has to say about this!

As might be expected, Bryan Garner does not like it. He does not really go on about it though. See

Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day: literally. — LawProse

lawprose.org

I really dislike this stuff. I am still annoyed that "disinterested" has come to mean "uninterested" as well as "unbiased." Reflecting actual uasge should be balanced against degradation of the language when that usage is essentially uninformed! I understand Websters point that "literally" is being used as an intensifier and is not intendex to be taken literally. But it is still being used incorrectly! I have tried to think of other examples.

I suppose just because certain slang uses "bad" to describe something very good, I do not think has prompted Websters to provide and official nonslang secondary definition of "bad" as "good"! And I hate the idea that this would be framed as an old versus young issue! I do not normally take issue with the way young people choose to talk and in fact often like it as a good way language is evolving. Do ya feel me?

 

[StillShaving]

FTFY

Just because it's for sale on the internet doesn't make it proper. Just because Websters defines "literally" to mean "figuratively" doesn't make it so, no matter how much the youth think otherwise.

I must be losing it mentally or not reading any challenging material lately. As when I first read "Websters" in this post and in the response, for a moment I wondered was this referring to some specific group of people on social media?? Sort of like "hipsters" but not wanting to be associated with tiktok or instagram or whatever is most popular this month, so borrowing the original "web" from WWW terminology. haha

 

[dojpros]

late to the party- I own 3 and they certhinly exceed the intersection of quality/value. Their default tailoring is a bit tight for my tastes but they can do a tweak With ease.

 

[The Knize]

To follow up on my Indochino experience, I got both my suit trousers back from the non-Indochino tailor and I am really liking the suits. Indochino's on-site tailor was backed up so I went to my own tailor, whom I really like anyway. I submitted the bill for his services ($50 in total) and Indochino "credited" me back to my credit card account I take it, virtually immediately. Communications were excellent and prompt throughout.

I am very happy with the entire transaction. The cost to value ratio seems very good indeed. And the purchase process quite painless and reassuring at every stage.

I guess we will see how the fabric holds up, but it seems rather good quality to me. And no issues at all as to workmanship.

I would say that the trousers do fit tighter than I am used to. But that seems rather flattering, really, and I suppose looks au courant. I do not dare gain much weight back, though!

The bottom of the suit coat, which I guess is called the "skirt," does come up a bit higher that most of the suits I already owned, but is definitely not as short as many of the suits one sees on-line these days that we discussed earlier in this thread. I do not remember discussing with the Indochino fitting guy anything about where the bottom of the skirt should land or for that matter how close the trousers should fit. My guess is that any of this is adjustable in the fitting process. As with the fit of the trousers, I think I like where the skirt of the suit falls. It probably does look a bit more modern than other of my suits, and seems flattering enough.

I probably also had the trouser length adjusted vey slightly shorter than most of my suit pants.

Anyway, I rather like the "fit"/style, although it may be a bit modern for some tastes. I do like the idea of having some variety in the suits I wear.