Last year we did a series of articles analysing four of my overcoats from different traditions: Sartoria Ciardi, Cifonelli, Liverano and Edward Sexton. They were discussed, measured and picked apart in the ‘Style Breakdown’ format that also formed the basis of the book Bespoke Style.
There was one, however, which we didn’t have time to include, and it was probably the most unusual – the ‘Body Coat’ from the tailor Michael Browne, which he made for me five years ago.
The coat has some interesting making aspects that are worth delving into, quite apart from the obvious style ones.
House: Michael Browne
Address: 15 Bruton Place, London
Site: michaelbrowne.eu
Cutter: Michael Browne
Price (at time of writing): £8500 (incl VAT)
Perhaps the most evident visually of those making choices is the front edge. This long, sharp line than runs from the lapels down to the very bottom of the coat is actually quite soft.
Most tailors clamp that front edge with hand stitching, to stop it moving around or losing shape. That goes for jackets as well as coats, and for most tailoring traditions.
But Michael puts only subtle top stitching along there, relying on the rest of the make to keep the line straight. This is harder to do and in some ways makes the coat look more like a ready-to-wear piece than a bespoke one.
Or to put it another way, it does something the hard way in order to achieve a deliberate effect – something you could say about Michael’s approach to bespoke in general.
Something similar is done along the bottom edge of the coat – as shown in the image above.
That wide navy panel on the right is the facing – the back of the long line we just talked about. Usually this would finish at the bottom. Instead, the hem (that thinner line of navy material running left to right) is prioritised, running to the corner instead.
This is again done for particular effect, to make that bottom edge cleaner and sharper.
There are details like this all over the coat, including the way the collar is made. Then there’s the beautiful finishing on things like the lapel buttonhole (first image above) and the neat hidden button on the cuff (second image).
That finishing is the best of any of the coats in this series, on a par with Cifonelli.
The design aspects of the coat aren’t all comparable with the other coats in this series, as this is a single-breasted and those were all double. But you can certainly see the distinctive style Michael is going for.
The most obvious things are the closer, jacket-like fit, the simple two buttons, and that clean back – simply sliced by the box pleat in the centre back and a long vent.
But I think the style is actually more down to subtler things, like the relatively small notch on the lapel (which makes it appear wider) or the dead-straight breast pocket with its slightly thinner welt.
These are the kinds of things that really show a designer at work, in a way that rarely happens with more traditional tailors. Edward Sexton, of course, is another in our series that has a distinctive design, but it’s still one that originated now 50 years ago.
I find Michael’s style very satisfying, because it is so distinctive yet (in this material at least) rather subtle.
Most of the time I wear it with things like these charcoal flannels, a navy knit and a pair of black or dark-brown shoes. It looks very stylish yet understated, and seems to draw a particularly large number of compliments.
Interestingly, though, I struggle to wear it with anything other than these quite conservative pieces, in dark colours. Somehow the design is unusual enough to stand out quite a bit if other things do so too – like a silk scarf, pale-coloured trousers, or contrasting shoes. So in that way I haven’t found it anywhere near as versatile as a normal navy overcoat.
Another disadvantage of the style is that the close fit makes it more likely alterations will be needed. You only have to gain a little weight and Michael’s things require letting out, as this one has been for me since the photos were taken last year.
This is an interesting topic, because you would think a close-fitting coat would be no more susceptible to alteration than a loose one. After all a tighter coat needs altering only if you get bigger, not smaller, and a looser coat would probably need altering if you got smaller but not bigger. So the difference is only which direction you go in.
But actually I’ve found roomier jackets and coats are less likely to need alterations even if you get smaller. Partly this is because the change is less noticeable – tension lines from being too tight are more obvious than a little excess from being too loose.
But also I think it’s because roomier jackets are already made – in their cut, in their structure – to look good when roomy, so a little more room isn’t a problem
Anyway, one for another piece perhaps and certainly the input of a tailor or two.
The last thing we need to mention is the price, which has risen from £7500 (including VAT) when I had it made in 2019 to £8500 today. That 13% increase is pretty much on a par with other bespoke tailors, but remains a very large amount of money.
As I said in the original article, it’s hard to make any kind of case for spending that on a coat, except that if you are going to spend it, this is exactly the kind of workmanship and taste you should expect. It remains better value than the designer brands that can each similar prices. (And it’s still less than Liverano…)
Style breakdown:
- Shoulder width: 6½ inches
- Shoulder padding: Light
- Sleevehead: Moderate roping
- Lapel width: 4½ inches (SB, notch lapel)
- Gorge height: 4½ inches
- Outbreast pocket height: 11½ inches (shoulder seam to bottom of pocket welt)
- Buttoning point: 194½ inches
- Back length: 44 inches
Other clothes shown:
- Permanent Style ‘Finest Crewneck’ in navy
- Hermes silk stole
- Whitcomb & Shaftesbury bespoke trousers in Fox Flannel
- Cleverley bespoke black oxfords
Cloth: 90% wool, 10% cashmere; 986021 from Holland & Sherry
