100% Wool vs Wool/Nylon Blend

[Dan27]

I sometimes run into coats that are either 100% wool or 80% wool/ 20% nylon blend.

My instincts tell me that the 100% wool is superior, however some sites on the internet claim that the wool/nylon blend coats are more durable and warmer.

I am seeking a coat that is warm for the Chicago winter. Should I be looking for 100% wool or will the wool/nylon blend be something to consider?

[Tempest]

It don't matter.

[fishertw]

I had a duffel coat (circa 1985) from LL bean that was 100%wool. When I outgrew it, I got a Gloverall that is 80/20. The 100%seemed to be a wArmer coat.
Just my perception.

[Bohan]

I bet insect holes will be smaller because insects don't eat nylon. BTW, I never had moths in my apartment but I had a woolen suit and a sportscoat develop several holes and I have to throw them out (I've been using them to check my measurement). I knew it must be a different insect eating them. Recently I read some textile standard about fabrics needing to be dust mite resistant. Those I have and so does everyone else.

[RM Bantista]

I sometimes run into coats that are either 100% wool or 80% wool/ 20% nylon blend.

My instincts tell me that the 100% wool is superior, however some sites on the internet claim that the wool/nylon blend coats are more durable and warmer.

I am seeking a coat that is warm for the Chicago winter. Should I be looking for 100% wool or will the wool/nylon blend be something to consider?

New Member Dan27,
As to what is superior, 100% wool is the better of those two choices; however, 100% cashmere is to be preferred. If it can be found in older English manufacture, so much the better. In natural fiber coats, the quality of the yarn and resulting cloth makes a difference in the quality.
Nylon blended with wool may not have the useful life of better woven wool. The hand may not be equal to good wool either. There is a school of thought that would maintain that the nylon will either cut the wool or stretch and render the item less desirable over time.
Last time one looked, 100% cashmere Burberry topcoats were marked half-off of $1400US. These things change with the season. That was a full-length db topcoat, very handsome.
Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law,
rudy

[Bernie Zack]

Not to hijack the thread, but on a related note, I had previously believed that any garment with polyester was substandard or cheap. That is, until I bought a polyester/linen blend pair of trousers from J. Press. Compared to a few pairs of trousers without the polyester, I preferred the trousers with the polyester. It is a very small amount of polyester, less than 10%, but that small amount really helps to cut down on wrinkles when I wear them in the summer.

Maybe they add the nylon for similar reasons? I don't know, just guessing.

New Member Dan27,
As to what is superior, 100% wool is the better of those two choices; however, 100% cashmere is to be preferred. If it can be found in older English manufacture, so much the better. In natural fiber coats, the quality of the yarn and resulting cloth makes a difference in the quality.
Nylon blended with wool may not have the useful life of better woven wool. The hand may not be equal to good wool either. There is a school of thought that would maintain that the nylon will either cut the wool or stretch and render the item less desirable over time.
Last time one looked, 100% cashmere Burberry topcoats were marked half-off of $1400US. These things change with the season. That was a full-length db topcoat, very handsome.
Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law,
rudy

[Langham]

I have read elsewhere that mixing synthetic and natural fibres is undesirable in every possible way, including sub-atomically and aesthetically. I believe there is also a Biblical injunction against it.

[Kreiger]

On the other hand, many fan-favorites, like the Gloverall duffle coat or the vintage L.L. Bean Norwegian sweater are/were made of an 80/20 blend. The fiber content is only part of what makes a fabric quality.

[StephenRG]

however, 100% cashmere is to be preferred. If it can be found in older English manufacture, so much the better.

Happily I am in possession of such a thing - it's now 20 years old and still shows no signs of wear.

[Bohan]

I believe there is also a Biblical injunction against it.

http://shatnez.n3.net/

"Do not wear Shatnez - wool and linen together" (Deut. 22:11)
"A Shatnez garment should not cover you" (Lev. 19:19)

I think wool with synthetics is OK.

[Langham]

http://shatnez.n3.net/



I think wool with synthetics is OK.

Oh I wouldn't be too sure - if synthetics had been invented then, I'm sure they would have been included in the injunction; it was the general principle of mixing fibres that was held to be wrong, in my view.

[Oldsarge]

According to Talmudic scholars the injunctions in Leviticus are aimed specifically at the Levites, the hereditary priestly class. We ordinary mortals needn't be so concerned. Additionally, the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts directly addresses attempting to impose Mosaic Law on Gentile converts and, by extension, Christians in general. Most of it doesn't apply anymore. Besides, in some fabrics a hint of nylon makes the garment washable, a very useful trait in clothing that sees rough and dirty use.

[MaxBuck]

Unless you're one of those people who refuse to eat shrimp and carpaccio, I think poly/wool keeps you right with God.

Seriously, the notion that full-natural fiber is necessarily superior to any blend is pretty goofy. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. Depends on the use, and on the specific product.

[Langham]

^^ I fear I have imposed on your scholarship somewhat, Oldsarge. In all seriousness, deciding what to wear can at times be complicated enough without the googly of doctrinal injunction to consider, and also I suspect I would be lying if I claimed to have never had contact with petroleum-based fibres, although avoidance of such is one of my general principles.

[Elmer Zilch]

Ah, internet menswear forums. A man asks about 80/20 wool coats and someone recommends that he buy an expensive cashmere topcoat instead.

I used to instinctively think that 100% wool was always preferable to an 80/20 blend until I came across some old Bemidji Mills jackets that had retained shape and drape and looked indestructible. They were 80/20. Now, when it comes to winter coats, I really don't care if there's some nylon mixed in.

I live in Chicago, too, and during the current cold snap I've been wearing an 80/20 Perfecto/Schott bridge coat. It's warm, dense, and looks good after I've retrieved it from whatever chair it was thrown on during the day.

Also, if you're interested in vintage woolens, peacoats, and the like, check out Mid-North Mercantile on Halsted in Pilsen. It's well, urm, "curated."

[smmrfld]

Not a damn bit of difference between the two.

[Tilton]

New Member Dan27,
As to what is superior, 100% wool is the better of those two choices; however, 100% cashmere is to be preferred. If it can be found in older English manufacture, so much the better. In natural fiber coats, the quality of the yarn and resulting cloth makes a difference in the quality.
Nylon blended with wool may not have the useful life of better woven wool. The hand may not be equal to good wool either. There is a school of thought that would maintain that the nylon will either cut the wool or stretch and render the item less desirable over time.
Last time one looked, 100% cashmere Burberry topcoats were marked half-off of $1400US. These things change with the season. That was a full-length db topcoat, very handsome.
Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law,
rudy

Sorry, but a lot of this is wrong.

Nylon will not "cut" wool fibers when spun and woven together in a sweater/coat. Maybe, if a coat were made alternating nylon-only strands with wool-only strands this could possibly happen in a very limited number of highly unlikely circumstances, but the wool and nylon are blended prior to spinning into yarn.

All else being equal, an 80/20 coat will be more durable, shrink less, mat less, and retain shape better, and be less "scratchy" than a 100% wool garment. It is all about the physical make up of the fibers - nylon doesn't stretch nearly as much and will return to the original shape unlike wool, the fibers are finer with no nap so it is impossible to felt itself together, and nylon is indisputably more durable and abrasion-resistant than wool so a blended item will be harder-wearing than 100% wool.

Of course, this is assuming that identical garments are made using identical methods and fibers (with one having the addition of nylon), which is often not the case.

I'm not saying I'm pro-blend, and typically I look to buy 100% wool items over blends, but I just thought I'd dispel some erroneous information.

[Stubbly]

I'll climb out on a limb here… It seems some nylon blended in may improve the strength of wool fabric, especially at the stress points of a coat (pockets, rear flap, etc).

[RM Bantista]

Happily I am in possession of such a thing - it's now 20 years old and still shows no signs of wear.

Super StephenRG,
That is what I think is correct. Isn't it clear that often, the older items are better made than the more recent?
Kind of where one lives, being an older item and an antique by definition.
Good fortune to you,
rudy