I'm not concerned with what Taub intends to do. It's a question of whether the result is good or bad, and by what measure. As a piece of avant garde fashion, I have trouble understanding the value of what we've seen: a fundamental reliance on classic forms combined with "new" surface embellishment that is difficult to read. You get a confused mish-mash where it's not clear why the inventor stuck to a classic form to begin with. If you want to push boundaries, would it not be more courageous to create something more new from the ground up? To do so with clear purpose? In actuality, Despos's shirt-coat is much more in that spirit. Even a stalwart classic menswear lover can appreciate the added functionality--because that functionality makes sense within classic menswear, though the form did not exist before. We know to view it as more casual because it is less structured than a typical overcoat. The shirt collar relates it to shirt jackets, which we also view as a sort of casual, sporty hybrid. The lack of detailing makes it highly adaptable to different outfits. It can be made more dressy over a coat, yet makes sense over a sweater, too. Such a garment may not have existed before, but it is nonetheless soundly "classic menswear." It draws from the same language even if it speaks a new idea. Language, language, language. That's what I'm getting at. I'm not saying we all have to dress identically to be classic.
This all touches on the idea of coherency that Vox wrote about, though perhaps from a different angle.
On another note, I am home sick today so couldn't go outside to take photos. Here is the overcoat, properly buttoned and from a more level perspective. The height of the gorge is much more accurately depicted: