inferno229
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2015
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi, this is my first post on SF.
However, when I finally got to try Brooks Brothers' standard Non-Iron Dress Shirt (the $92 regular price one) as I got it in white, not only did it seem a bit rough to the feel vs the smoother feeling Non-Iron Banana Republic Dress Shirts, but they were very transparent whereas the pocket and the center strip holding the buttons on the front of the shirt are much more opaque. Unlike the BR Non-Iron shirts where it was not only much more opaque and consistent throughout, the contrast between the opaque pocket and center strip (I assume those parts were actually 2-ply) with the rest of the transparent material of the shirt was not flattering at all to the eye. An undershirt was absolutely necessary as I'm not sure if the shirt was designed to be see through in order to have breathability and lightness. As I'm based in SoCal, wearing an undershirt will make the wearer really hot as it just completely suffocates the chest not only trapping the heat but also making the person sweat more which is a catch-22 as they also prevent the see-throughness of the shirt.
Aside from my disappointment, I am looking towards Brooks Brothers' Non-Iron Royal Oxford Dress Shirts that are not only of a thicker weave, but they're 2-ply to which I hope would solve the transparency issue that most guys wearing their dress shirts for work especially do not want.
Has any of you guys worn their Non-Iron Royal Oxford Dress Shirts? Is it opaque enough to wear without an undershirt? Also, is it actually smooth, not rough to the touch unlike their standard broadcloth 1-ply non-iron dress shirts?
Thanks!
However, when I finally got to try Brooks Brothers' standard Non-Iron Dress Shirt (the $92 regular price one) as I got it in white, not only did it seem a bit rough to the feel vs the smoother feeling Non-Iron Banana Republic Dress Shirts, but they were very transparent whereas the pocket and the center strip holding the buttons on the front of the shirt are much more opaque. Unlike the BR Non-Iron shirts where it was not only much more opaque and consistent throughout, the contrast between the opaque pocket and center strip (I assume those parts were actually 2-ply) with the rest of the transparent material of the shirt was not flattering at all to the eye. An undershirt was absolutely necessary as I'm not sure if the shirt was designed to be see through in order to have breathability and lightness. As I'm based in SoCal, wearing an undershirt will make the wearer really hot as it just completely suffocates the chest not only trapping the heat but also making the person sweat more which is a catch-22 as they also prevent the see-throughness of the shirt.
Aside from my disappointment, I am looking towards Brooks Brothers' Non-Iron Royal Oxford Dress Shirts that are not only of a thicker weave, but they're 2-ply to which I hope would solve the transparency issue that most guys wearing their dress shirts for work especially do not want.
Has any of you guys worn their Non-Iron Royal Oxford Dress Shirts? Is it opaque enough to wear without an undershirt? Also, is it actually smooth, not rough to the touch unlike their standard broadcloth 1-ply non-iron dress shirts?
Thanks!
Last edited: