The History of Tailoring : An Overview

The knowledge and art of tailoring, of cutting and sewing cloth -- the two basic aspects of constructing clothes from a pattern -- developed slowly and gradually in Europe between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries. The Oxford English Dictionary's first reference to the word "tailor" gives the specific date of 1297; and certainty by that date tailoring guilds, as well as those of weavers, and cloth merchants were well established in Europe.

During the Middle Ages clothing had been regarded as a means of concealing the body. But with the Renaissance came the accentuation of the human form. The loose robe, that standard uniform of the medieval period so easily constructed from a single piece or two of cloth, was shortened and tightened, and eventually cut, pieced, and sewn together in attempts to bring into prominence the contours of the human form. This was the birth of tailoring and, in fact, of fashion.

These attempts at re-constructing the human body in fabric called for a growing expert skill and division of labor. Soon the cutter (the one who makes the pattern) and tailor (the one who does the sewing) joined other craftsmen as important members of the community.

Until this time the cloth had been the distinguishing feature of garments, and the wearer took most of the responsibility for the design ~ and, in most cases, the actual production ~ of his own clothes. But little by little, the tailor took on equal importance with the weaver, and gradually came to overshadow him. Master tailors in the growing towns eventually became responsible for the clothing needs of society, and the art and science of tailoring became a highly specialized, complex, and jealously guarded craft.

As towns became cities, then city states, and finally empires of power, fashion followed. First Italy, then Spain and France became the center for fashionable dress in concert with the power, wealth, and influence of those empires. Italy reached its great flowering during the age of Michaelangelo, followed by Spain early in the 17th century. France reached its fashionable peak for tailoring during the long reign of Louis XIV (1643 - 1715), when foppish young men from all over Europe flocked to Paris for their wardrobes. Almost every comic play written in the second half of the 17th century includes the character of a Paris-dressed fop, perfumed and beribboned, with powdered wig and silver-buckled shoe in the latest French mode. But by the time of the French king's death in 1715, there had already begun a shift in power, and influence -- and fashion.

Even during Louis' long lifetime a great shift in masculine costume was occurring. In the middle of the 17th century men began to give up the doublet, hose, and cloak that had been the staple items of their wardrobe since the 1500s, and began to wear coat, vest, and breeches, the three components we can begin to identify as modern dress.

Across the Channel, the English had not only turned away from the doublet and hose, but quickly moved through the phase of embroidered ostentation decreed by the French court. They had just survived a bitter but democratizing civil war (l642 - 1649) which, among other things, called into question the brocades and velvets, the silk and pastel satins and powdered wigs and other ostentations of aristocratic French court dress. Over two centuries later, Oscar Wilde would quip that the Puritans and Cavaliers who fought that war were more interesting for their costumes than their moral convictions.

The English moved away from the highly decorative and delicate court style, and took up a more practical form. The costume of both the landed gentry and the newer mercantile class became progressively less gorgeous and exquisite during the 18th century, and far more somber and sober. By the early decades of the 19th century, sobriety (in dress at any rate) had begun to penetrate even the court circle itself, and kings, consorts, and princes were seen to dress in a manner almost identical with their subjects. By mid-century the age of stovepipe hats, umbrellas, and frock coats -- each in glossy black -- was firmly in place.


English tailors, particularly those in London, now came to dominate the fashion scene. First, the English had evolved a style for masculine clothing that was a subtle blending of landed gentry, sporting attire, and bourgeois business wear produced in the tremendous wake of the Industrial Revolution. Secondly, aristocratic court clothing had not been constructed so much with a concern for fit as it had with concerns for decoration, fabric, and color. But when the shift away from ornamentation and ostentation began to occur, fit became the criterion of dress for men. We take it for granted today, but the idea of "fit" as a criterion for men's clothes is a fairly recent one. It is an idea calling for great skill in execution.

The English tailor was trained to use woolen cloth, and over years of experimentation and practice he developed techniques for "molding" the cloth close to the body without exactly duplicating the true form of the wearer. In short, the tailor could now actually develop a new aesthetic of dress: he could mimic the real body, while at the same time "improving" and idealizing it! It was no longer a question of voluminous yards of flowing silken brocade. Men became "gentlemen" (itself a 19th century term) and frowned upon gaudy display in favor of discretion, simplicity, and the perfection of cut. It was, in terms of fashion, the culmination of that radical turn taken in mid-17th century: the Modern had finally arrived! And the Modern was the tailor's art.

There have been tremendous innovations in these past hundred years in fashion and the art of tailoring: sewing machines now do the work on straight seams better than could be done by hand; new fabric technology has history produced more comfortable cloths; fashions have adapted to more leisurely, climate-controlled lifestyles. But tailoring is still, and likely to remain so, an art. It has not been brought down to the level of a science. The tailor still believes in making personalized clothing, statements of fashion for the individual, as he always has done.

Even since the invention of ready-made, cheaply-produced clothes in the middle of the last century, the demise of the tailor has been predicted. Like the panda and the whooping crane, it has been said, the march of modern life is against him. Mega-international corporations seem to own everything, calculatedly obsolete gimmickry)· abounds, and Coca-Cola now sells clothing as well as soft drinks by the millions of units. But craftsmen have indeed managed to survive in this age of the mass-produced and quickly thrown away, even to prosper. There is still a clear need for the uniquely personal and individual in our lives. In this age of the shoddy and the quick, the vulgar and the mass-consumed, tailors can still be counted on to champion uniqueness and quality. It is the hallmark of their tradition.

Today, skilled tailors can be found in Rome as well as Richmond, VA, Paris and Pittsburgh, Hong Kong, Kansas City, Rio and Dallas -- as well of course as Milan, London, and New York They are the fitters and pattern drafters, the stitchers of the handmade buttonholes, the cutters of the fine worsted and cashmere and heathery tweed. And they are all standing in the long shadow of tradition and craftsmanship that is the art of tailoring.

E-tailor at www.mycustomtailor.com

History of The Black Suit

General History and Evolution of the Black Suit for Daywear
The solid black suit you ask? How did it ever become the subject of controversy? Exactly how does such a neutral choice become imbued with enough emotionally charged angst to make it the DMZ of men’s style? After all, wasn’t there a time when all of serious and polite society was dressed in black from head to toe? How then did it creep out of use and then back in for men’s day wear? What were the elements that made this choice of color naff for one generation and the perfectly acceptable choice for a new one?

Part of the answer might actually reside in the collisions of generational high and low fronts which separate “Old Boy” from “Home Boy”. Recently, I had occasion to exchange correspondences with someone who is rather more of a clothing historian and obsessive about fashion minutiae. Apparently, if his thesis is to be believed, and it is a fascinating one, it was the very fact that late Victorian and Edwardian society wore so much black for day wear that the “new” lounge suit wearers purposefully avoided black. It seems, they wanted to distinguish themselves from their stuffy forbears. After a while, black became the more cloistered choice with additional and various reasons invented by retailers to demonize it as a selection and steer buyers to the more readily available charcoals and navies. During this period (Roughly 1920-1980), black became an increasingly odd choice for daywear. When the solid black suit was seen, it was usually seen on people whose occupations demanded it for purposes of mourning, formality or purposeful social color differentiation from the clientele. Further, the black suits were often not of the best quality, reinforcing the idea that a solid black suit was an inappropriate choice for a man of taste. Throughout the mid twenties to the late 70s a black suit was an odd choice for a lounge suit indeed.

Certainly, the black solid suit must have fallen squarely off the ivy league bandwagon for fashion designers (and eventually, the entire fashion industry) to choose it as the suit color to distinguish themselves from those tedious corporate or ivy league types. Armani, Versace and subsequently Donna Karan and others began to use black as the newer, Hip-per color for younger men, for evenings out. As a result, It was adopted as a staple by all the very fringe groups who ironically contribute so much to the mélange that is American male (versus English male) style. Thus it came to pass that the professional athlete or singer, the alternative lifestyle community, African Americans (ever an invaluably stylish American resource), the dot-comers, and artists all donned le style noir. For many reasons, it was a sound choice in these circles, whether it was the Hollywood set, or merely talented persons who wanted to escape any class or educational associations from their past. Black has power, mystery, sex appeal, it slims, it is counter culture and it is undeniably formal and appropriate also. It is the color of the night, of the city, of things modern, the new age. Also, at some point, there was a concurrence amongst the egalitarian (but talented) smart set, rather than try to compete (at a disadvantage) with those to the manner born, they would create their own “Oxford and Yale”. It amounted to nothing less than a new clothing dialect that announced their membership to their own clubs and universities. A new lingua Franca, for a new aristocracy of the asphalt night. Even if you were from a Paul Stuart background, one gladly donned this protective camouflage in order to socialize with the interesting people without letting your background or day job exclude you from the fun or intimidate anyone at the party. In short, it became a polite way to mingle on an even playing field. Further, it was a way to vett out those boring, stuffy guys in brass buttoned blazers and khakis. What label appropriately describes this new dialect, this new language for a brave new style? We could call it talented, we could call it modern.

I prefer to use the term Hip. Hip suggests a a respect for tradition but a strong predilection for the current as well. It covers every social set including the one it is trying to stand apart from (the mainstream, old line one who’s members can don it to fit in, if they possess the requisite reflexes for adaptation), its updated and modern without rending the basic social dictates of taste.

What began as an adaptation by designers and a host of fringe groups and subcultures was eventually adopted by young people (after all they are now heavily influenced by sub or counter cultures; and their fathers had rejected black and so it has become the same symbol that shunning black once represented) and those of all classes in the largest cities who want to congregate in the requisite noir moderne which is as much a part of city night life as wearing top hat, and white tie was during the end of the 19th century. The old and seemingly solid rule to avoid black was being turned on its head, and black was suddenly as in as one could expect. Add to this a desire for older men to want to seem younger and hipper (whether to mingle with the ladies or appeal to those Dotcom guys from, seemingly, a quarter century ago). Also, black is an instant power look. It was always a good choice for men in businesses where there was a need to command respect and attention. Black fills that order.


If black was against a rule at some point for daywear, that rule is now dead. Although, according to one quite knowledgeable fashion historian, even in the past, you would occasionally see a very proper Englishman in a flawlessly cut black flannel suit for town. Rare perhaps, but certainly bringing into question whether there was ever a “rule” against the black solid suit. Solid black suits are now commonly seen in almost every profession and the only ones who think it wrong are equivalent to the same pince-nez and spat wearing fellows whom Fred Astaire tapped around in many of his movies.

However, even if the rule against the black solid suit is dead, if it ever existed, does not mean that the black solid suit is sans controversy. Au contraire, the black solid suit is at the absolute epicenter of conjecture. The controversy does seem to cut across generational lines to an extent. It seems that many, older, well dressed men consider the solid black suit to be both _outré _and the realm of the parvenu. To wear a solid black suit, even for the evening, is to their eyes, wrong. Rather than a black solid suit, they consider a darkest charcoal suit the richer choice. The reason? The black suit only looks good on a certain physical type with certain coloration, the high contrast person. Generally, people with dark brown or black hair and medium to light skin complexions (not pale it is important to note) are the ones who look best in black suits, every other physical coloration either gets drained or disappears in too unrelieved a manner with the black solid wool’s ensemble which represents a lack of depth, warmth and humor. Sometimes, this camp admits, a pair of black pants or a black jacket is acceptable for a more modern look at a club, bar or a hip new restaurant, but generally, the black suit is to be avoided. At the other end of the dressing spectrum, the younger minded dressers are promoting black as something their fathers do not like. To the up and coming generation, a black suit stands for counterculture and night life… for youth. We are a generation of trying to live an eternal life of exterior city partying and black is slimming, mysterious, sexy, modern and defensive; all the characteristics that generation X’ers and Ys have decided define them. Thus, we’ve learned to learned to don noir as a protective mantle. But how, you may ask, does this all translate into the black solid suit appearing more and more at the office? Social lifestyle contaminates work lifestyle more than it ever has before. You are what you play. Young men wear black at night, all their idols wear black suits, those older dudes don’t wear them. That’s all the recipe one needs to see the black suit is a way to look professional and still not submit to the Man.

Now let me make one thing absolutely clear. I do not own a single solid black suit for day wear. To be honest, I think there are so many more interesting choices that it has never occurred to me. I have black suits with patterns on them (window panes, bird’s eyes and chalk stripes) in white or in “hot” colors like alternating white and orange pinstripes. For after hours stepping out downtown style, I have two black suits and an assortment of black jackets. However I need to confess that I do have a predilection for midnight blue solid suits. I feel midnight blue with something black underneath covering my torso makes a tres sophistique contrast. Why? It is a faux pas for women to mix navy (or midnight blue) and black in their dressing. However, in spite of this female rule, it is such an interesting and rich combination that it creates something a little different and, at the same time, something 100% male. Female influences have made themselves so felt in American and Italian male style as of late that I thought it as well for us to reclaim a toehold for ourselves. I come clean about not wearing black suits for daywear because I admit that the solid black suit is making inroads for daywear in spite of how I might feel about it as a choice (that is, not a negative but rather an uninteresting neutral) and that it is a symbol of my generation for going out in the evening to that hot new club, or bar or to wear while entertaining that girl you finally asked out to that trendy restaurant with the candlelit tables on those balmy spring evenings in the city. Sometimes trends and acceptability are not about what we like but about what is. For now, the black suit is us, old but new, what our great grandfathers wore and our fathers eschewed. Old but new, just as the term “hipster” has reappeared in the lingo, the solid black suit separates us from our fathers, and may yet from our sons.

We remain with Best Regards,
E-tailor at www.mycustomtailor.com

A General History Of Detachable Collars On Custom Made Business And Formal Shirts

You may remember the television commercial of old that shows a women yelling - "ring around the collar" - in which she uses a detergent to wash out the grime from her husband´s shirt and collar.

Ring around the collar isn´t simply a Madison Avenue executive´s clever ploy to sell washing detergent. It´s a centuries old problem and more than 150 years ago a Troy women set out to do something about it. However, she had not planned on creating a whole new industry.

Hannah Lord was the daughter of William A. Lord, a Revolutionary War officer and author of Lord´s Military Tactics. She married Orlando Montague, a shoe maker (or blacksmith), on August 14, 1817, and both settled in Troy originally on Second Street.

Mrs. Montague, tired of washing her husband´s shirts because only the collars were dirty decided one day to snip off a collar, wash it, and sew it back on. Mr. Montague, it´s written, agreed to the experiment, and in 1827, the first detachable collar was made at their home at 139 Third Street.

Notice of the event spread through the city and the Rev. Ebenezer Brown took notice. Brown, who was formerly a Methodist Minister, then the owner of a small shop at 285 River Street, was asked several times for the new product that was buzzing around the streets of the city.

Brown saw the need and rushed to fill it. His wife and daughter began cutting, stitching, and laundering the first detachable collars, consisting of 2 ply material, which had to be taped and tied around the neck. These early collars were called "string collars" and cost 25 cents a piece, of two dollars per dozen. Brown would sell and deliver the collars door to door.

His popularity forced him to set up a workshop in the back of his store where he hired several women to do the job, and also outsourced the work. Payment for their labor was in the form of "trade" in his store, and set by his own price. This may have been the first "sweat shop." Brown eventually moved to New York City in 1834.

Orlando Montague, the first person to wear a detachable collar, soon began his own collar factory with business partner Austin Granger in 1834. The Montague & Granger collar factory began at 222 River Street. Besides improving on the string collar, they developed the "Bishop" collar, an upright modification of the turn down collar. Besides collars, they manufactured "dickeys" (detached shirt bosoms), and separate cuffs.

Detachable collars had the problem of leaving gaps between the shirt and collar and this led to the invention of the use of buttons to snap the collars in place. This also led to the development of several new designs of collars.

The original reason that Mrs. Montaque created the detachable collar was to clean it separately from the shirt. With the increase production of collars came the need to wash the thousands of collars being produced. In 1835, Independence Starks, entered the collar making business, and also created the first Troy Laundry at 66 North Second Street (Fifth Avenue today) where he washed not only his own collars but those of competitors as well. Many years later the laundry industry would spark the creation of the first female union in the country.

For the next 50 years many inventions were developed to aid the collar, cuff, and shirt industry and Troy production boomed. By the late 1880´s, detachable collars were being manufactured around the nation.

By the early 20th century, 15,000 people worked in the collar industry in Troy and more than 85% were native born women. Ninety out of every 100 collars worn in America were made here and Troy became world famous as the "Collar City."

In 1901, there were 26 collar and cuff makers and 38 laundries in the city. Wearing a detached white collar gave rise to a new working social class, the "white collar" worker who differentiated themselves from the no or "blue" collar factory worker.

By 1962, only six companies were still making collars and cuffs in Troy and by the 1970´s most had gone out of business or moved South.

Marvin Neitzel Corp, a firm that currently manufacturers nurses uniforms, is the last existing firm which has collar roots. Marvin Neitzel Corporation goes back to 1886 when E. W. Marvin joined the collar firm Gunnison & Son, making it Gunnison & Marvin, later incorporating in 1908 as E. W. Marvin Company. Raymond P. Neitzel joined the firm in 1917 to develop a full line of hospital products and the firm became Marvin Neitzel Corporation in 1931. Marvin Neitzel Corp is the last company to make collars in Troy, ceasing production only a few years ago.

Created By www.mycustomtailor.com