gapingvoid: "cartoons drawn on the back of business cards"

Didn't Thomas say he was "considering it" - has a decision already been made? I like the idea, but afraid I will never get one of his suits!

I'm confused here. Tom does say 'considering,' asks for customer feedback and hasn't mentioned anything about price. That's quite different from what you're saying Hugh. I hope this disconnect doesn't mean a fait accompli.

The final decision depends on the feedback we get from existing customers. But so far it's been 100% positive. So it looks like it's a goer. But if in the end there's a big ol' backlash, then of course we'll need to come up with a new plan.

Dennis, prices are staying where they are for now.

I don't think of it as an "artificial scarcity" either. Think of it as a work of art. The fewer created of a high-end item like these suits makes each more valuable and I don't think that making fewer suits at the same quality is an artifical scarcity.

If the quality was diminished, or more people started making the suits, but making fewer...that would be artificial.

Scarcity is scarcity whether it is real or artificial.

Hugh, I'd be very curious to see what price the market might pay.

How is English Cut priced relative to other bespoke savile row tailors?

Certainly by limiting output to 100 suits you've placed English Cut into the elite of bespoke savile row tailors.

Here's the other question I'd be interested to have you answer. What if you can book production 10, 20, 50 years into the future? Would you want to? What would be the implications?

Hugh, when Yousuf Karsch, the famed portrait photographer of Ottawa turned 65, he complained that he was working too much and wanted to slow down. Friends suggested doubling his rates, thus cutting his work load in half. He did double his rates, and people seeking his services also doubled. You may be heading towards an $8,000 suit.

Paul, in order to grow a business, you either sell more OR increase your prices. Selling more in our case lowers the quality, so...?

Yeah, $8,000 suits would be good.

P.S. Our suits currently sell for £1710. Competition sells for about £2500.

That difference is not sustainable long-term.

I think you said this ages and ages ago, but it makes even more sense now.

Isn't the next, even urgent, step, to find someone Thomas can train? You're selling quality but you're also selling a tradition and a reputation, which depends on belonging to a community, which depends on the next generation.

So you're accepting a lower margin on overall suits, compensated by additional projected margin from shirts? Made me think about something else...

Having just read the way Thomas has presented the concept to his customers it doesn't sound tacky (or artificial) in the slightest. Just a sensible recognition of an artisan's current production capacity. I hope the reaction is positive and the concept is a success.

Hey, seems to me Thomas should be free to produce exactly the number of suits he likes.

That's not "creating scarcity", at least not in a way the deserves censure. Scarcity is a collaborative effort of markets; if there's scarcity in suit it's a result of all the other suppliers not making up the difference, to say nothing of the part buyers play.

So I say fair play to you. I've long thought to myself the smartest thing to do is put your prices up. I look forward to the day I can afford to splash out on one.

There's something that's forgotten in all this - it's not a viable long term strategy. OK - so Hugh hasn't said anything about whether it is long or short.

Final thought - does limiting production actually create additional kudos when there are substitutes?

Well, we're not going to be jacking up our prices to $8000 anytime soon...

But I would like the prices to one day be around te same as the other Savile Row tailors are charging, not 20% less.

in order to grow a business, you either sell more OR increase your prices. Selling more in our case lowers the quality, so...?

I totally disagree with the (prevalent) meme that "selling more" lowers the quality. That's just not necessarily true. As a proponent of what's known as "lean manufacturing", I can emphatically state that this is not the case (I should also probably mention that most of my 27 years of manufacturing experience is in men's suits). Consider Toyota (who "invented" lean manufacturing). Their cars get better the more they produce. Their cars are less expensive the more they produce. Their models beat any other maker in any category. In addition, they are the most profitable. It does not necessarily follow that greater numbers induce lower quality. I'd urge you and Thomas to explore the concepts of lean manufacturing (see my book and my blog).

Of any other philosophy of manufacturing, Lean blends utmost respect for craftsmanship and artisanry with compassion and profits. Iow, you can make things of stellar quality, pay people very well and make a tidy profit. Manufacturing (impo 100 units IS manufacturing) doesn't have to be a dirty word. Quality niche manufacturing is the future. I wish you the best of luck in your new venture.

Kathleen, I agree with your thoughts about manufacturing, but I can't see how you can view what Thomas does as manufacturing. He may repeat the same process 100 times a year, but the result in each case is more like a one-of-a-kind work of art that is perfect for his customer, but useless to anyone else.

If Toyota had to create each vehicle to custom fit each customer, the advantages would evaporate.

I have to agree with Hugh, that the only way to sell more without lowering the quality would be to clone Thomas. Not likely. Regardless of his chosen profession, Thomas is more of an artist than anything else.

Kathleen: "Lean manufacturing" means, essentially, that the builder puts less effort per item into creating the item, yes?

While you say that "blends utmost respect for craftsmanship", I'm not sure how it can possibly be consistent with the form of craftsmanship that treats each object created as a unique piece. I see in your blog (which, admittedly, I've only skimmed) the claim that standard work is the cornerstone of lean manufacturing, and an elaboration on what you mean by standard work, which I understand as being the process by which parts of the manufacturing are standardized such that the results are exactly repeatable.

Standard work, however, is the opposite of the sort of craftsmanship that Thomas does. You say that "If there's room for interpretation, there's room for error because people never interpret things in precisely the same way" (quoting from your entry on "Standard Work"). Bespoke craftsmanship says that if there's room for interpretation, then there's room for something to be better than it would be if standardized. In a case where the entire foundation -- the choice of fabric, the sizing of the suit, the desired cut and shape -- change from one product to the next, these are both going to be true; there's simply no way that the standard design could be the best design for any given suit, because it has to be optimized for all suits. The higher quality of bespoke comes from the fact that one chooses a builder who is capable of making changes that are improvements rather than errors.

So, honestly, I don't see how lean manufacturing can possibly "respect" the form of craftsmanship that includes adapting all portions of the design and assembly to the differing particulars of each object being created, except possibly from afar, if it's based around standardization.

Admittedly, I'm probably overselling my point and underselling yours (and I know I'm extrapolating a lot of what I think your point is without having a lot of data, so I'm setting you up a bit as a strawman; my apologies insofar as I've done that) -- there are a few things that can be standardized even when every piece is a new design. The fundamental process can be roughly standardized, and I'm sure that in most cases Thomas makes each suit roughly the same way, as variations within a standard theme. That, presumably, is how he can make 100 suits a year instead of 10, though!

I want to amend my above point: there are two ways that a builder can put less effort into creating an item. One of them is by eliminating wasted effort; the other is by eliminating effort that goes into adding value. My above post is ignoring the gains by eliminating things that are inarguably waste; those may well be present (and the gains in production made by eliminating them certainly aren't detrimental to quality), but I doubt there's enough of that to make much of a real difference in Thomas's suit output.

The rest of the argument, then, is whether eliminating the amount of design work and adaptation that goes into each individual suit would count as eliminating waste, or as eliminating things of value. My contention is that it would very definitely be the latter.

If Thomas is making 100 bespoke suits a year, then this is not manufacturing. He's "cutting to order" (given specific order with predefined parameters over which he exercises little to no control). Making 100 suits a year under these conditions amounts to extraordinary output, particularly for one person.

Now that said, you'd better believe that Thomas employs the concept of "standard work", lol. When he sets a jetted pocket, he employs the same work method; he doesn't do it differently each time. Regardless of the measure of any given individual, the construction processes Thomas uses vary little.