Men's Clothing Forums banner

The Five European Silhouettes and Different Physiques

21K views 36 replies 21 participants last post by  Pipps  
#1 ·
For which of the types of physiques listed below do the five European silhouettes-English (ala Dege & Skinner and H. Huntsman), Milanese Italian (ala A. or Augusto/Mario Caraceni Milano and Rubinacci Milano), Neapolitan Italian (ala Antonio Panico Napoli and Rubinacci Napoli) Soft Roman Italian (ala Domenico/Guilio and Tommy Caraceni Roma and Raphael Raffaelli) and Structured Roman Italian (ala Gaetano Aloisio and William Fioravanti) work best for?

1. Athletic and medium width
2. Athletic and/or muscular
3. Athletic and skinny
4. Athletic and thin
5. Medium width stocky
6. Wide stocky (the category that I fall into at 5’ 9.5” with a big frame and 185 pounds; 185 pounds is normal weight for a man that is 5’ 9.5” with a big frame)

FWIW, Stocky is medium width or wide without being any amount of the following: athletic, muscular and overweight.
 
#4 ·
You cannot have one category for an English silhouette and have four for the Italians, there is a big difference between a soft-tailored Anderson & Sheppard suit and a hard-military-cut Dege & Skinner suit. Secondly, it is not easy to say one cut works better for a certain type of person.

The Huntsman style is good for someone stocky because the longer jacket and flared skirt covers up some of the stomach; therefore, giving a projection of a smaller stomach. However, someone with small body-frame could look good in the same style.
Although you would not put a very stocky person in a hard-military-cut suit, with broad shoulders, slim waist and slim trousers. That person could stick to the military style but not go for slim waist and slim trousers.


Is there really that much difference between the Roman styles (soft vs structured)?
 
#8 ·
For which of the types of physiques listed below do the five European silhouettes-English (ala Dege & Skinner and H. Huntsman), Milanese Italian (ala A. or Augusto/Mario Caraceni Milano and Rubinacci Milano), Neapolitan Italian (ala Antonio Panico Napoli and Rubinacci Napoli) Soft Roman Italian (ala Domenico/Guilio and Tommy Caraceni Roma and Raphael Raffaelli) and Structured Roman Italian (ala Gaetano Aloisio and William Fioravanti) work best for?

1. Athletic and medium width
2. Athletic and/or muscular
3. Athletic and skinny
4. Athletic and thin
5. Medium width stocky
6. Wide stocky (the category that I fall into at 5' 9.5" with a big frame and 185 pounds; 185 pounds is normal weight for a man that is 5' 9.5" with a big frame)

FWIW, Stocky is medium width or wide without being any amount of the following: athletic, muscular and overweight.
Hmmm...this is a very interesting question but too simplified to find any real answers without looking at the issue of cloth in terms of weight, finish, colour and design.

W_B
 
#10 · (Edited)
You cannot have one category for an English silhouette and have four for the Italians, there is a big difference between a soft-tailored Anderson & Sheppard suit and a hard-military-cut Dege & Skinner suit. Secondly, it is not easy to say one cut works better for a certain type of person.

The Huntsman style is good for someone stocky because the longer jacket and flared skirt covers up some of the stomach; therefore, giving a projection of a smaller stomach. However, someone with small body-frame could look good in the same style.
Although you would not put a very stocky person in a hard-military-cut suit, with broad shoulders, slim waist and slim trousers. That person could stick to the military style but not go for slim waist and slim trousers.
What is the terminology (for lack of a better word) for Anderson & Sheppard's (and several other Savile Row tailors') English style that is soft (and far from military)?

Also, what is the terminology for Maurice Sedwell's (and possibly a few or several other Savile Row tailors') English style that is 50% soft/50% structured (and also far from military)?

If such a style exists, what is the terminology for any tailors' English style that is structured (but far from military)?

Can or do any of the tailors with any of the English and Italian house styles make clothing that does not have a slim waist with trousers that are not slim with shoulders that are broad (I take it H. Huntsman can)? Such a style would probably suit me best as I have broad shoulders (but not the body for a slim waist and slim trousers, though I can wear flat front pants with hemmed bottoms and NO cuffs).

As I said before, I am 5' 9.5" with a big frame weighing 185 pounds (again, normal weight for a man such as me that is 5' 9.5" with a big frame)? As I also said before, I am wide stocky (just like I described in the original message of this topic that I posted earlier).
 
#11 ·
So much for of the suit style definitions being inexhaustive, what about the body types? What exactly does 'athletic' mean in this context? I'm slim but I wouldn't say I resemble an athlete. Can it really be assumed that fat means wider than thick? Too much short hand, too much semantics. And besides it's all a little academic. Regardless of house style, a bespoke suit is cut to look good on the intended wearer. All of the tailors you mention know their job well enough to make the most of a client's physical assets &c.
 
#12 ·
Having just spent a week talking to shops on The Row, other than the typical military-influenced styles of Dege, and to some degree, Huntsman, and the obvious soft shoulder of A&S, I'd say it really doesn't matter as the tailors will accomodate what you want and your physical needs.

Dege etc can certainly give a skinny figure the masculine/more muscular look one slight of stature might desire. On the other hand, a softer, less structured style like A&S might come across more "natural" though A&S would be happy to build up more chest and shoulder if that was desired.

Finally- while I'mn sure they exist, I just cannot imagine Rubinacci or trimmer Italian cuts on somebody with generous girth.
 
#13 · (Edited)
What is the terminology (for lack of a better word) for Anderson & Sheppard's (and several other Savile Row tailors') English style that is soft (and far from military)?

Also, what is the terminology for Maurice Sedwell's (and possibly a few or several other Savile Row tailors') English style that is 50% soft/50% structured (and also far from military)?

If such a style exists, what is the terminology for any tailors' English style that is structured (but far from military)?
Gieves do not have a house-style
Poole will do soft or hard shoulder
Dege could make a suit that is not military cut

This makes defining English tailors more difficult, defining a style is easier then associating a tailor to a specific style. Although, they are some easy ones like A&S (soft tailoring), Richard Anderson and Huntsman (equestrian). Someone could go to Gieves and come out with three different looking suits (soft tailoring, hard military cut and something in the middle).

Maurice Sedwell likes a soft shoulder, slanted pockets with fancy flap, slanted breast pocket and low part of sleeve is narrower then the top. However, I would be surprised if he declined to make a hard shoulder suit with besom pockets.

Can or do any of the tailors with any of the English and Italian house styles make clothing that does not have a slim waist with trousers that are not slim with shoulders that are broad (I take it H. Huntsman can)? Such a style would probably suit me best as I have broad shoulders (but not the body for a slim waist and slim trousers, though I can wear flat front pants with hemmed bottoms and NO cuffs).
Yes. They will make the trousers that will fit your lower body best and if you want flat front and cuffs, that is what they will make for you. The same with the jacket; if you broad shoulders, you will get broad shoulders.

As I said before, I am 5' 9.5" with a big frame weighing 185 pounds (again, normal weight for a man such as me that is 5' 9.5" with a big frame)? As I also said before, I am wide stocky (just like I described in the original message of this topic that I posted earlier).
In terms of bespoke, you can go for almost any style you like, as the suit will be made for you. I do think certain styles have an advantage for certain people.

Jacket - broad shoulders, relaxed waist with flared skirt; trousers - relaxed waist, flat front, no cuffs and maybe with side adjusters. Huntsman and Anderson cut a longer jacket and naturally have a flared skirted, but Maurice Sedwell could do the same, as would most tailors.
 
#14 ·
Gieves do not have a house-style
Poole will do soft or hard shoulder
Dege could make a suit that is not military cut

This makes defining English tailors more difficult, defining a style is easier then associating a tailor to a specific style. Although, they are some easy ones like A&S (soft tailoring), Richard Anderson and Huntsman (equestrian). Someone could go to Gieves and come out with three different looking suits (soft tailoring, hard military cut and something in the middle).

Maurice Sedwell likes a soft shoulder, slanted pockets with fancy flap, slanted breast pocket and low part of sleeve is narrower then the top. However, I would be surprised if he declined to make a hard shoulder suit with besom pockets.

Yes. They will make the trousers that will fit your lower body best and if you want flat front and cuffs, that is what they will make for you. The same with the jacket; if you broad shoulders, you will get broad shoulders.

In terms of bespoke, you can go for almost any style you like, as the suit will be made for you. I do think certain styles have an advantage for certain people.

Jacket - broad shoulders, relaxed waist with flared skirt; trousers - relaxed waist, flat front, no cuffs and maybe with side adjusters. Huntsman and Anderson cut a longer jacket and naturally have a flared skirted, but Maurice Sedwell could do the same, as would most tailors.
Thank you, ToryBoy.

But I agree with Cary Grant (the clothing forum member). While they do exist, I cannot imagine the trimmer Italian cuts (Rubinacci and all of the others) on people with generous girths. This may or may not be purely subjective, of course.

Cary Grant (the actor, who was 6' 1" and 175 pounds; he was physique number 3 in my original post) looked best in Domenico Caraceni Roma (who only uses the following Italian slim cut: Soft Roman Italian).
 
#17 ·
Do you have a picture example? So much of what he wore was Kilgour. In the 30's it was A&S among others.
Unfortunately, I do not have any pictures of Cary Grant wearing Domenico/Guilio and Tommy Caraceni Roma (this branch of Caraceni got started in February or August of 1913, IIRC).

However, there might be pictures of Cary Grant wearing Domenico/Guilio and Tommy Caraceni Roma (which, at the time, was Domenico Caraceni Roma) somewhere on the website for Augusto/Mario Caraceni Milano (this branch of Caraceni got started in February or August of 1943, IIRC). Here is the link for that website below:

https://www.caraceni.com

You might want to just Google A. Caraceni in the event that the link above that I provided does not work.
 
#19 ·
This is a pretty interesting discussion. I don't even now where I would fit in. I'm 5'7" 180, and 42x34. My chest and shoulders are muscular, but my belly caries most of the fat. From the front, I have a distinct taper, but my waist is average in terms of measurement. I also think a fellow's lower body shape is important. I've seen heavy fellows with tiny legs. My rear and thighs are very thick from squats, etc. I can't get a skinny jean in a 34 past my thigh. (I took that as a cue to stick to straight cut jeans) I need that flared skirt in a suit to balance my upper and lower body.
 
#21 ·
The drape cut, BTW, of A&S was originally intended as a type of "corpulent cut". That's a tailor's polite way of saying a coat cut for a fat chap. The idea was to add extra rolls of excess cloth to the chest to balance out the excess rolls of fat on the waist, thus helping the wearing look more athletic - and failing that, as least more balanced.
 
#22 ·
I'm curious about someone with broad shoulders requiring broad and hard shoulders.

I like natural shoulders and "spalla camicia" because my shoulders are broad and muscular enough to fill them out nicely. I don't need any additional padding to emphasize this area.
 
#23 ·
Shoulder padding is more to correct sloping shoulders. It is a huge internet myth that all they do is make the shoulders look artificially muscular. Muscular men with square shoulders may still need padding around the back of the shoulder because as a result of some areas being built up, others are left too hollow.

There is a lot of anti-structure propaganda around on the internet, with shrill rhetoric that demands the removal of shoulder pads, and gutting of canvas structure in the chest. Why not go all the way and just remove the whole lot and always wear a sloppy shirt jacket? Never mind that this would mean the death of tailoring as we know it, for such shirt jackets are traditionally not regarded as tailored garments but as shirtmaker's garments. Structure in a tailored coat is something that goes all the way back to the 1600's, and it is a huge pity the internet is being used as a medium to try to give it a bad reputation.
 
#24 ·
The drape cut, BTW, of A&S was originally intended as a type of "corpulent cut". That's a tailor's polite way of saying a coat cut for a fat chap. The idea was to add extra rolls of excess cloth to the chest to balance out the excess rolls of fat on the waist, thus helping the wearing look more athletic - and failing that, as least more balanced.
No, this was not the original intent of the drape cut. It is a potential benefit of the drape cut for certain clients -- I gather you saw the same clip of John Hitchcock talking to Oswald Boeteng that got posted on Style Forum. Note that Hitchcock did not say that this was the origin of drape, because it isn't.

I realize you don't like drape, but why you must persist with this delusional campaign to demonize it, misrepresent it, and just lie about it is beyond me.

Shoulder padding is more to correct sloping shoulders. It is a huge internet myth that all they do is make the shoulders look artificially muscular. Muscular men with square shoulders may still need padding around the back of the shoulder because as a result of some areas being built up, others are left too hollow.

There is a lot of anti-structure propaganda around on the internet, with shrill rhetoric that demands the removal of shoulder pads, and gutting of canvas structure in the chest. Why not go all the way and just remove the whole lot and always wear a sloppy shirt jacket? Never mind that this would mean the death of tailoring as we know it, for such shirt jackets are traditionally not regarded as tailored garments but as shirtmaker's garments. Structure in a tailored coat is something that goes all the way back to the 1600's, and it is a huge pity the internet is being used as a medium to try to give it a bad reputation.
Talk about shrill. You have become the most shrill person on all the forums. You have always been reactionary and eccentric, but you didn't used to be such a damned bore.

Isn't it enough that you like what you like, and other people like what they like? There seems to be room enough for all of us. Yet when people talk about styles you don't like, it is "propaganda." When you start a forum to discuss what you like, that is ... what?

I acutally admire your forum, though I don't read it much. I see it for what it is, an enormous repository of valuable information that might otherwise be forgotten or lost, even if not all of it (maybe not even most of it) pertains to things that I would ever want to wear.

Face it, Sator, the only one in the crusade is you. I think you used to have a sense of humor and irony. Whether you ever did or not, you don't any more and haven't for a long time.

BTW, this is just more straw-manning. You know enough about tailoring to know that drape coats often have shoulder pads (of varing widths and thicknesses) and they always have canvas. Soft tailoring is a skill unto itself, in many ways more difficult than making a structured coat, in which a hard cavas can hide many small fit discrepancies.
 
#25 ·
easy Tiger.

I'm not trying to get involved in the preceeding post; however, I'd just like it known that I was sharing my personal opinion, based on my body and my limited experience with jackets...That and I think I have a small-er head in relation to my body so I'm not trying to emphasize this at all.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with hard tailoring or that soft was the only way to go. Additionally, spalla camicia does not mean a shirt jacket, just a shirt shoulder. Just that I personally don't always see the need, not want or preference, to make the broad look broader. I also didn't say that padded shoulders served to make the shoulder look more muscular. Once again, this was just mentioned as it applies to my body.

...I didn't realize things were so testy on this side of the tracks...
 
#26 · (Edited)
Unfortunately, I do not have any pictures of Cary Grant wearing Domenico/Guilio and Tommy Caraceni Roma (this branch of Caraceni got started in February or August of 1913, IIRC).

However, there might be pictures of Cary Grant wearing Domenico/Guilio and Tommy Caraceni Roma (which, at the time, was Domenico Caraceni Roma) somewhere on the website for Augusto/Mario Caraceni Milano (this branch of Caraceni got started in February or August of 1943, IIRC). Here is the link for that website below:

https://www.caraceni.com

You might want to just Google A. Caraceni in the event that the link above that I provided does not work.
Is Tyrone Power,not Cary Grant, in the picture.
Cary Grant was not never customer of Caraceni.