Talk:Bespoke tailoring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[untitled section][edit]

Added interior design elements as a reference, in keeping with the use of the term in the Fall 2005 NY Times Design magazine article Not In My Backyard by Tyler Brûlé. Jimdoria 20:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether it is appropriate for this entry to contain what appears to be essentially an advertisement for a specific bespoke tailor (Comelie London). It certainly feels out of place. It appears that the edits were made by 172.142.61.210.

--Toby Ovod-Everett 192.128.134.68 19:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASA[edit]

"Recently in Britain, a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority means that it no longer applies to only handmade garments."

This is not entirely correct. The ASA ruled that the term 'bespoke' is no different from the term 'made-to-measure' when it comes to clothing. --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 14:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the ruling[edit]

I think this discussion helps clarify some interesting issues, such as: etymology is not always the best criterion: the actual usage of the language is more important; a ruling which establishes that a confusion is taken advantage of, at the expenses of the customers, but ultimately concludes such confusion is not important because it is madse by a majority of people is at least strange and certainly not an example for a project as Wikipedia; Michael Quinnion is an etymologyst and maybe not as his best when he sees measurements as a touchstone. In these respects, though Kan8eDie's edits were generally fine, I think they needed to be somehow modified. Racconish (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the ASA stuff. Most of my edits are on articles about the clothes themselves, so I have not done much to the article. I think the last little reorganisation is a bit more neutral. The lead is stylistically better now, so I think if there is any remaining bias, it is in the ASA section.—Kan8eDie (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The extra detail on the ASA is great, but this is too long a section really. I have not deleted it, but moved it to the ASA article, where it makes more sense to put it. Most readers interested in 'bespoke' will not need to know any more than that the ASA regulates advertising. Thanks for the good contribution.—Kan8eDie (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of comments: firstly, the thing is not called 'SavileRowBespoke', which is just the silly graphic on their site; they are the Savile Row Bespoke Association. Secondly, they aim to "protect the mysterious art of bespoke tailoring and ensure that the well-dressed man will always consider Savile Row his spiritual home". Where the site places "Savile Row Bespoke firms should:" above the lists, you put "According to these standards[5], a bespoke tailor should:", which is a heavy misrepresentation. They are not trying to dictate some general meaning of the term 'bespoke'; it is the name Savile Row Bespoke they are trying to protect, and that is what these lists describe. Thirdly, regarding the long ASA paragraph, your content is still there on the relevant article page. I am not convinced it is relevant here, but I will leave it there for the moment.—Kan8eDie (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the material added cannot be copied across like that anyway. Your work on this article has been great, but it is worth taking the time to get spelling right before rushing to post an update, and pasting material over from other websites is not allowed. If you want to put the section back, please discuss it here first.—Kan8eDie (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I saw your comments here only after making corrections. In any case, I took your point and summarized what I considered most interesting and relevant in their definition. I do not agree with you concerning the pertinence to the subject: Yes, the association defends its tradename, but still, their points are, in my opinion, a very valid way of trying to define the concept, not less appropriate than, say, the definition of the Haute Couture by the Chambre Syndicale. In that respect, I disagree with you. At least for the part I quoted, I think they are really tryinf to give a technical definition of bespoke. I insisted to clarify the angle of the ASA ruling because it is very limited. I think you need to understand exactly what was at that stake in this ruling. Another ruling could apply to other principles of their code. In any case, I confess I find the ruling akward, but more neutral -as you pointed - to clarify its angle. Thanks in any case.Racconish (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interfering, but I am trying to neutral. I do understand the implications; I posted on it at the London Lounge when it first came up. This article did seem to come down heavily against Sartoriani though, but I think it is a bit better, and with more precise references, now. As far as I can tell, we should both be happy now.—Kan8eDie (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. Thanks Racconish (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic field[edit]

The sentence you erased, Kan8eDie, was not referring to made-to-measure but to ready-to-wear. You refer to ASA ruling, but the ASA ruling is irrelevant here. The point is historic and economic, not subjective: 100 years ago, some cheap bespoke was comparable in price and quality to ready-to-wear. Nowadays, the 'average bespoke tailor' has disappeared and the bespoke raison d'être is to be better and more expensive than ready-to-wear. In that respect, made-to-measure is the same, better and more expensive than ready-to-wear. I guess you misunderstood the sentence and shall undo your edit. Should you still disagree, kindly let me know here the reason why. Thank you. Racconish (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ASA ruling is on MTM, but I meant that it is also an indicator that the term bespoke is going down. Arguably, the quality of construction of the lower end (sub £500) of the "bespoke" market is not as good as some of (mostly handmade) £800+ RTW stuff (from big fashion houses; you pay for the brand and it looks horribly modern, but they are properly canvassed, nicely basted lapels, hand-sewn collar/buttonholes etc).—Kan8eDie (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, but the discussion here is not on the comparaison of the premium for bespoke vs the premium for designer name. In general - and neutral ;-) - terms, the statement that a bespoke garment is expected to be better and more expensive than a rtw one remains valid. I will try to clarify my statement. Thanks Racconish (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • I think we largely agree: I take a very traditional view on clothing myself, but I am trying to edit in view of the huge body of misuse out there. We would all love to be able to edit WP to say 'It's wrong', but this is unfortunately not encyclopaedic. I generally like your changes (though I have shifted it back to the lead, which was rather too short).—Kan8eDie (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Try to follow Wikipedia:Footnotes#cite_note-1, as all the floating punctuation does otherwise look a little silly.

Recent IP 'cleanup'[edit]

After a bit of ruminating, I am afraid that I decided to revert the recent edits by an IP. They seemed to represent a lot of time and effort spent on the article, but with the best will in the world, they didn't quite chime with me. A few things sping out: firstly, no facts seemed to be added to the article, while its length increased dramatically. Many rather obscure words and phrasings were added, which seemed to obscure the text and certainly make it much less snappy. Secondly, while I would not revert a contentful edit on the basis of formatting alone, a rather liberal and unhelful use of italics and emboldening (in contravention of the manual of style) further hindered the meaning. Thirdly, many small inaccuracies, particularly through infelicitous use of old words, actually introduced some slight errors. Therefore, I have decided to put the article back to how it was, in the hope that if a cleanup is needed, we can work on it a bit more gradually and make sure we maintain readability and accuracy as we do it.— Kan8eDie (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after revert)

Sorry, but I have to say that these edits still do not make a positive change to the article. The excessive use of stilted phrasing ('wherein', 'denotation', &c.) and the confusing suppression of conjuctions to favour bizarre formatting make the new text less than clear. Please discuss these changes and explain why you think they help before restoring them a second time.— Kan8eDie (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(new IP)

The same edits were made by a new IP, and reverted by UntilItSleeps, who subsequently undid the revert (why?). 68.164.228.8 and 64.105.84.232 are clearly the same user (identical edits).— Kan8eDie (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please revert the page back to oldid 264944366. Three registered users have been putting the page back to this version, versus one unregistered (using two IPs) pushing the current one. This version (linked) is the consensus version. All problems in this case are from an IP user, so a semi-protect would alternatively clear the problem up.— Kan8eDie (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done And I have reduced the protection level to allow registered users to edit. It will revert to unprotected status in 2 weeks. Should the IP editors prove willing to engage in dialogue and come to a consensus, I will consider removing the protection sooner. If non-consensual IP editing becomes a problem after that, feel free to re-request protection.--Aervanath (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Term[edit]

This seems to be an exclusively English term. Generally in the States, items are said to be "hand tailored" or, more frequently, "custom tailored" to denote this. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Worse than that, I've now seen this term employed in a Wiki military history technical page with a link to "bespoke." I'm pretty well read, yet had never heard the term before so I had to make a guess as to what was being said when removing it. As best I can tell the intended meaning was "custom made." I have no problem with the geographic preference, particularly when used in context with clothing, but out of context it is perplexing at best. I suspect our UK brethren are frequently puzzled by equivalent US slang migrating to unusual settings. Red Harvest (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke Timepieces[edit]

The Bespoke Timepieces section stands out as an advertisement for the industry, especially Scalfaro International. There's self-flattering language, and the prominence of the section seems disproportionate to the significance of timepieces to the concept of bespoke work. I'm not a wiki expert. Does anyone with a particular interest in this entry agree and wish to consider cleaning this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.40.151 (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on timepieces and just put a mention in the "Other uses" section.--Commander Keane (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that is best.— Kan8eDie (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

I would be curious to see a pronunciation guide. Is it BEE-spoke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.17.106 (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a hidden category that requests an audio pronunciation file. If you can read IPA, wiktionary has a version for British and American English.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it pronounced beh-spoke LeapUK (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

perfumes[edit]

would be great to see some reference to perfumes as the term is widely used to describe made to order perfumes. 24.16.89.161 (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relation?[edit]

Is the term related to the Bespoke Family (Tailors)? Toronto, Ontario, Canada - Francesco Sr. Bespoke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.24.6 (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"only used in British English"[edit]

I removed this phrase from the article's intro. It's not only uncited but provably false (The New York Times used it yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/dining/04train.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fdining%2Findex.jsonp, and in 2005, according to Jimdoria's edit at the top of this page). I'd believe it's predominantly British, but I don't have a reference for that. AdamBradley (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite is "ready made", not "turnkey"[edit]

The opposite of the term "bespoke product" is not "turnkey product" but "ready-made". "Turnkey" means it is complete and ready to use but can be, and usually is, made to order. When a local government buys a "turnkey" school or hospital this means it contracted with a single party to deliver the complete school or hospital complete and ready to use according to specifications supplied beforehand by the government. It does not mean that it bought an existing school or hospital which were built beforehand by someone else in the hopes of later finding an interested buyer.

"Bespoke" means "made to order" and the opposite is "ready made" which means it was not made to any specific order but made in the hope of attracting a buyer after it is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GS3 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses[edit]

I plan to remove the Other uses section because it is mainly unsourced original research. It would be possible to put the word "bespoke" in front of just about anything--I don't see the point of this section. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other uses[edit]

I understand that 'bespoke' is now being in education - "bespoke curriculum", for instance. Any plans on adding this to the article? ---- ees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.32.109 (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems all wrong, mostly[edit]

This article's emphasis on clothing seems quite wrongheaded. The word is used in English as a general antonym to "ready-made," and hasn't applied strictly to clothing, if at all, since the OED's first attestation in 1755. In fact, that seems to be a more modern usage.
Bespoke = bespoken adj. 2; spec. of goods; ordered to be made, as distinguished from ready-made adj. and n.; also said of a tradesman who makes goods to order. Also n., a bespoke article.
1755 C. Charke Narr. Life 203 At length the bespoke Play was to be enacted.
1865 G. Measom Illustr. Guide G. E. Railway 69 The Bespoke or Order Department.
1866 Chambers's Encycl. VIII. 691/1 The shoemaking trade..is divided into two departments—the bespoke and the ready-made or sale business.
1884 Birmingh. Daily Post 24 Jan. 3/3 Boot Trade.—Wanted..Saleswoman, accustomed to Bespoke Trade.
1907 W. De Morgan Alice-for-Short xlvii, His boots may have been ‘bespokes’ for anybody, except himself.
1908 Daily Chron. 13 June 4/7 A ‘bespoke tailor’.
1928 Punch 30 May p. xv (advt.) Lotus Bespoke Model Shoes. 1965 Punch 29 Sept. 478/1 A ‘Special Collection’ which is, in harsh reality, a collection of bargain bespokes.
1966 Economist 16 July 239/2 Although there is a lot of bespoke work in this [steel] plant, management would prefer some element of payment by results.
 — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bespoke tailoring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bespoke tailoring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed introductory section[edit]

I removed the following text:

The sizing guidelines are a must to be followed. The cuff of the shirt should be visible under the cuff of suit jacket at the arms. The suit length should should be just till the point where when the arms are relaxed to the sides then the suit jacket should just contact the upper thumb knuckle. The suit jacket should not be much loose and the be snug against the body but not restricting movement and making the wearer uncomfortable.

No citation was offered by User:Apsleyuk who added it at 19:08, 3 April 2018‎.

It seems like a very good explanation and, if properly sourced, could make a good addition to this article. I attempted to find a source and wasn't able to. Frankaustx (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeted redirects[edit]

I retargeted Bespoke tailor, Bespoke tailors and Bespoke suit from Bespoke to Bespoke tailoring. This change on 16 April 2014 turned Bespoke from a DAB to an article. but the redirects were created in 2011 and 2012, when Bespoke tailoring already existed. As far as I can see, Bespoke tailoring has never been moved or turned into a redirect, so I think they were just created to the less-specific target and have quietly stayed there all this time. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bespoke_tailoring&oldid=1199916054"