Do you want to do vintage in barrathea ...with tails or your regular vintage? What size?
I'm after classic black tie. Prefer single button, peak lapel, no vents. I'm a Euro 52 R or L depending on the cut.
I tried on the new Canali Dinner suits in David Jones today. They are peak lapel two button (why?). Stronger shoulder than the Canali suits I have at home..will try on the trousers another day.
Strangely (or not!) the 52 Drop 7 tuxedo (in a 84% wool/16% mohair fabric) is $2300...whilst at Henry Bucks in the 52 Drop 6 (in 100% wool) is $2600.
I think Ralph Lauren Black Label is still in the lead. The Canali is definitely smoother and more elegant, the Ralph Lauren is sharper and bolder.
I think the chances of getting on RLBL on eBay/B&S forums is probably greater. On internet prices they are within my reach...at Melbourne retail prices they are strictly in the land of make believe for the moment.
If anyone in Perth (pref CBD) is buying from Brooks Brothers (online) in the next few months then let me know so we can share shipping costs. I do not want to fork out $50US shipping for 1 item. They currently have a sale on now (Spend 300 get $50 off etc) or i could use my 15% corporate card.
Im a 40S with 32/33" waist. The tux was a 40S with 34" pleated pants. The pants waist size was an ok fit but they were very loose fitting around the thighs so i ordered a 32" seperate (and it arrived today). The 40S jacket was a good sleeve/jacket length but the shoulders were a bit large (wide). Other than that it looks/feels great. My Ideal Jacket Fit: Shoulders 18.5" Chest : 43" Waist :36" Sleeve: 24" BOC: 29.5" ----------------- J.A.B Tux Jacket 40S Fit: (measured) Shoulders 19.5" Chest : 44" Waist :41" Sleeve: 24" BOC: 29.5" Jab Signature 34US pants Waist 17.5" Front Rise:11" Thigh 4" below crutch: 13" Leg Opening: 9.5" Jab Signature 32US pants Waist 16.5" Front Rise:11.5" <- Def bigger than 34US size Thigh 4" below crutch: 12.5" Leg Opening: 9"
A colleague brought in the latest issue of Australia GQ today. There is a page devoted to shoes which really, I think, highlights the general ignorance about quality and value for money clothing in this country.
First of all, out of the four pairs of shoes termed 'oxfords', 3 pairs were open-laced derbys. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought by definition an oxford was a closed-laced shoe... and this is supposed to be a style mag?
And as for the shoe suggestions themselves... the less said the better. Honestly, do people spend $1,000 on Churches shoes here? Herring sells custom grade Churches for around A$500, and the pair twice that price in GQ didn't even look custom grade.
I can understand GQ not wanting to promote online buying, but why not provide some real value for money, quality options... like C&Js from Herringbone for instance? Alas, instead of Edgewares for $600, we are offered $925 LV ugly-as-shit brogues as a quality shoe suggestion...
Finally, another gem was the $175 pocket square from Cucinelli on the next page... Do people actually pay these ridiculous prices here? If so, who?? How do these shops stay in business??
I guess those GQ articles are advertorial and the makers pay to be included in those round-ups.
I think there is probably a tiny proportion of the market who do pay those ridiculous prices, but I think the main point of pricing at those levels is to convey an aura of unattainable luxury over the brand. From that point you can go the way of Hermes and not discount but create such a longing for your brand that even ordinary folk will save up and pay. Or you can trade off the cache later in the season when the goods are marked down. I dare say a $175 pocket square is still return a decent profit if it sells for $100.