# Time for my anual Brooks rant!



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Received latest catalog. Thumb through it with the vain hope to once again be delighted. Disappointment leads to anger. Where is Guatama when we need him most?

Brooks has lots of stuff, a very small and diminishing portion of which is classic. They have the best quality of any menswear mass marketer. (But who's the competition?) Yada-yada.

In the final analysis, they've become just an upscale J. Crew. Lots of cliché, fashion followers and plenty of items of poor design or questionable taste.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Yada yada indeed. I can't disagree, but yes we've covered this ground.

At least they still make a really nice traditional fit OCBD. That may be all we have to cheer about, but 'hey' it's something.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Flanderian said:


> Brooks has lots of stuff, a very small and diminishing portion of which is classic...In the final analysis, they've become just an upscale J. Crew. Lots of cliché, fashion followers and plenty of items of poor design or questionable taste.


Agreed.

In the past two weeks I've viewed _Citizen Kane_ and _The King's Speech_ - lots of great classic clothing in both films. Wish Brooks carried some of _that _stuff...


----------



## dorji (Feb 18, 2010)

I hear you... but I am grateful for the few things that they do well (in my opinion only). One thing which is new are these ties that are 3.25". I think they're nice, and purchased the red one...
https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...olor=GOLD&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=
_Looks like the red one is gone, maybe you're right..oh well_


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> Received latest catalog. Thumb through it with the vain hope to once again be delighted. Disappointment leads to anger. Where is Guatama when we need him most?
> 
> Brooks has lots of stuff, a very small and diminishing portion of which is classic. They have the best quality of any menswear mass marketer. (But who's the competition?) Yada-yada.
> 
> In the final analysis, they've become just an upscale J. Crew. Lots of cliché, fashion followers and plenty of items of poor design or questionable taste.


You didn't mention the worst part... nearly everything is "imported".


----------



## Bluegrass Man (Jun 26, 2011)

joenobody0 said:


> You didn't mention the worst part... nearly everything is "imported".


That's the problem I have with them. For north of $100 a tie, it had better not be made in a 3rd World Country.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Wow, the ties got narrower. I wasn't expecting that. They're made in the States and $79.50 though, not north of $100 and made in the mysterious country of "Imported".


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Their OC boxer shorts are also still of good quality.


----------



## Ed Reynolds (Apr 13, 2010)

Relax, 

That just means more of our money goes to J Press and O'Connells instead of some corporate giant from the land of "Imported."


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Indeed BB may have lost a bit of their original focus, but they do have those incessant sales during which the occassional insane bargain can be found. And they do continue to offer a few of the basics that we all seem to crave. LOL. Is Brooks Brothers not somewhat akin to Gawd, family and Country, in that having earned our undying allegiance, when they are ill, we shall hold each of their respective hands, offering comfort and succor, until their good health is eventually restored? Gentlemen, let it not be said, withany substantial degree of justification that we are but 'fair weather sartorialists!'


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Their sportshirt selection is pretty lackluster this fall as well. I picked up some decent tartan cotton twill button down shirts last years - but nothing similar this season. Seems to me tartan button downs oughta' be a staple for Brooks. Also, only one Shetland sweater in a single color? (they had none last year, as I remember it). One Brooksflannel shirt this season. Frankly, I don't think that they do the basics very well at all - unless you're referring merely to OCBDs and boxers. They have nice shoes now and then.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

xcubbies said:


> Their OC boxer shorts are also still of good quality.


Yes, they are, and I buy them. OCBD as well, and their PPBD also, though off-shored. If I needed any ties, BB's would certainly deserve consideration. But that's such a tiny portion of their offerings, and some of the few remaining classics I mentioned. They're now even branding inexpensive Italian chukkas as Peal.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

"upscale J Crew" I like. Question: Is JCrew becoming more like BB, or is BB becoming more like JCrew? To the "traditional fit" oxford bd, and the boxers, I'd add the unlined shell lhs. Well, three outstanding items is not bad ...


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

I was about to say their footwear in general, but just took a look at their website and there is the most unbelievable bunch of crap there. And I guess that is my impression overall: that there are things worth getting but one has to put up with everything else.


----------



## Hayek (Jun 20, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> Their sportshirt selection is pretty lackluster this fall as well. I picked up some decent tartan cotton twill button down shirts last years - but nothing similar this season. Seems to me tartan button downs oughta' be a staple for Brooks. Also, only one Shetland sweater in a single color? (they had none last year, as I remember it). One Brooksflannel shirt this season. Frankly, I don't think that they do the basics very well at all - unless you're referring merely to OCBDs and boxers. They have nice shoes now and then.


I was very disappointed by the poor sport shirt selection too. If I knew the selection wouldn't be as good this year, I would have picked up more than 1 last year.

Vineyard Vines (I know, I know...) actually has excellent sport shirts; better quality than Brooks. And you can get them without the whale.


----------



## sjk (Dec 1, 2007)

Flanderian said:


> In the final analysis, they've become just an upscale J. Crew. Lots of cliché, fashion followers and plenty of items of poor design or questionable taste.


Rugby also came to mind, with the profusion of shields and crests on all of the sportswear.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

Most of their stuff isn't for me, but I think they are doing a reasonably good job of staying current. Their catalogs look nearly the equal of Polo, Hilfiger, and Burberry. Face it, that's wear the money is, and they are smart enough to see that. I think they will continue to be a successful company. A substantial part of their heritage is the OCBD, which they are kind enough to offer in 4 different fits, and any combination of neck and sleeve length, made in the USA, for a very reasonable price, which I don't see them discontinuing. I think if they tailored their products more to fit my needs, they would be out of business rather quickly. All in all, I give them a solid keep up the good work.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Brooks' selection of stiff collars and frock coats has gotten downright pitiful these days. *grump, grump*


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Hayek said:


> I was very disappointed by the poor sport shirt selection too.


Per your interest and that of fellow member Epaminondas, in past years, Brooks has had two crops of sport shirts, early and late. The later crop was when the tartans were typically introduced. I have no idea if that might be the case this year.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Charles Saturn said:


> Most of their stuff isn't for me, but I think they are doing a reasonably good job of staying current. Their catalogs look nearly the equal of Polo, Hilfiger, and Burberry. Face it, that's wear the money is, and they are smart enough to see that. I think they will continue to be a successful company. A substantial part of their heritage is the OCBD, which they are kind enough to offer in 4 different fits, and any combination of neck and sleeve length, made in the USA, for a very reasonable price, which I don't see them discontinuing. I think if they tailored their products more to fit my needs, they would be out of business rather quickly. All in all, I give them a solid keep up the good work.


Well said and it raises an obvious question...why is it that so many of us find it offensive that BB adapts their product offerings to reflect evolving market realities, rather that blindly pandering to a perhaps select but declining customer base...and eventuALLY GOING OUT OF BUSINESS? :ICON_SCRATCH:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Well said and it raises an obvious question...why is it that so many of us find it offensive that BB adapts their product offerings to reflect evolving market realities, rather that blindly pandering to a perhaps select but declining customer base...and eventuALLY GOING OUT OF BUSINESS? :ICON_SCRATCH:


Because it stinks? Money is good, but it's not the only good. There are easy/dumb ways to make money, one of which is pandering to the lowest common denominator, and that's what Brooks now does. But there are other ways; by surprising, delighting and elevating taste. That's what breeds long-term success. See: Apple. (Bye, Steve.)


----------



## closerlook (Sep 3, 2008)

Isn't J. Press sort of corporate now too, and also twice as expensive on average than brooks (during sale time)?



Ed Reynolds said:


> Relax,
> 
> That just means more of our money goes to J Press and O'Connells instead of some corporate giant from the land of "Imported."


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Wow, the ties got narrower. I wasn't expecting that. They're made in the States and $79.50 though, not north of $100 and made in the mysterious country of "Imported".


Ties, some shirts, most suits, a few sports coats are all made in the US. It seems like every year more of their stuff is "imported". Even a lot of the overpriced Black Fleece items are made in China.

You'd have to be crazy to pay $1600 for a made in China poncho!


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Sartre said:


> I was about to say their footwear in general, but just took a look at their website and there is the most unbelievable bunch of crap there. And I guess that is my impression overall: that there are things worth getting but one has to put up with everything else.


It seems like the percentage of stuff I would actually buy from them is decreasing steadily. It's probably a function of our paths diverging, and the fact that I'm generally set for suits and other standard items.


----------



## closerlook (Sep 3, 2008)

Let us also not overlook that they have not restocked the alders this year and have filled in the shoe department with (AE notwithstanding) filler.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

closerlook said:


> Let us also not overlook that they have not restocked the alders this year and have filled in the shoe department with (AE notwithstanding) filler.


That's true, but with the way Alden is going (QC and long delays) I can't really blame them.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

The Rambler said:


> To the "traditional fit" oxford bd, and the boxers, I'd add the unlined shell lhs. Well, three outstanding items is not bad ...


I agree with those 3, Rambler...totally. I would add only 2 more. I do like their Navy 3/2 blazer and their advantage chinos. (I know the chinos are non-iron--the only ones I like actually--but they really don't feel like it and sure saves a lot of trips to the cleaners.) So for me that makes 5.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Pleh! True trads don't iron their chinos. They wear them rumpled from the dryer like real men! :icon_study:


----------



## jwooten (Dec 19, 2010)

I find the limited availability of Made in America goods from Brooks to be disheartening, but the fact that they still carry Made in USA goods is good for me. Their sportshirt section is increasingly narrow, and dull. I want some nice tartans, hopefully they release more in the second wave. I'm not exactly pleased with the outcome of my most recent order however, they sent me 4 out of the 5 shirts I ordered without notifying me 1 was back ordered. And mistakenly put 16-36 barcode and sticker on a 16.5 -33 shirt which went unnoticed til I got it home. You just think people would notice or verify that in quality control, plus how do you run out of white shirts...?

Anybody know when the last time was that they offered a different color OCBD outside of white, almost white, yellow, blue, pink or more than just red and blue in the stripes?


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

Yes, the Fitzgerald and Black Fleece are signs on the road to J Crew perdition. I did get a nice 1818 Madison blazer last week at the F&F sale. Narrow ties? Madmen again.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

Probably best as a separate thread but I note that 'Made in USA' is always accompanied by 'with imported fabric'. Even Hardwick suits and jackets say that. Don't we mill any suit wool here anymore?


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

I can't wait for the day when we shut down crappy companies like Oracle and Apple and replace them with good old cobblers and shirt factories.

:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

David J. Cooper said:


> I can't wait for the day when we shut down crappy companies like Oracle and Apple and replace them with good old cobblers and shirt factories.
> 
> :icon_headagainstwal


Now you're talkin'! Luddites of the world, unite! You have only your apps to lose.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

jwooten said:


> Anybody know when the last time was that they offered a different color OCBD outside of white, almost white, yellow, blue, pink or more than just red and blue in the stripes?


My goodness, why? 

Be careful, or we'll banish you to , otherwise known as Lands End.


----------



## jwooten (Dec 19, 2010)

No one else would like a yellow stripe?


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

jwooten said:


> No one else would like a yellow stripe?


Pink (not red) for me!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

filfoster said:


> Now you're talkin'! Luddites of the world, unite! You have only your apps to lose.


:icon_cheers:


----------



## closerlook (Sep 3, 2008)

joenobody0 said:


> That's true, but with the way Alden is going (QC and long delays) I can't really blame them.


indeed.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

closerlook said:


> indeed.


I'm actually happy that BB is starting to sell Rancourt USA made moccasins instead of whatever "imported" shoes they have been selling.

On the other hand, more and more sport coats are made in China. I picked up a fully canvassed MIC jacket without realizing it and the quality was so inferior it went back without a moments consideration.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

Himself said:


> My goodness, why?
> 
> Be careful, or we'll banish you to , otherwise known as Lands End.


They don't look bad, to me. I have a much more colorful Gitman OCBD in a navy/yellow/red tartan. I have a sage green OCBD from Bonobos (again, I think made by Gitman). But what I really would like to see BB offer is pastels in lilac, pale green and peach-and one in white with aqua stripes



jwooten said:


> No one else would like a yellow stripe?


I would. Did. I got a NOS pinpoint from O'Cs for this very combination. They still have a few; maybe one in your size.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Would a mint green or lilac candy stripe kill them??


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Jovan said:


> Pleh! True trads don't iron their chinos. They wear them rumpled from the dryer like real men! :icon_study:


Not where I'm from. But if need be I'll turn in my Trad card before going the rumpled route.:icon_saint7kg:


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Flanderian said:


> Because it stinks? Money is good, but it's not the only good. There are easy/dumb ways to make money, one of which is pandering to the lowest common denominator, and that's what Brooks now does. But there are other ways; by surprising, delighting and elevating taste. That's what breeds long-term success. See: Apple. (Bye, Steve.)


I think you're comparing apples to oranges, no punt intended. Apple makes devices that people recognize as inherently well designed, objectively beautiful and functional items. Those categories don't really apply to clothing in the same way. There's no way Brooks can produce some iconically beautiful sack coat and have the masses clamor for it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Orgetorix said:


> I think you're comparing apples to oranges, no punt intended. Apple makes devices that people recognize as inherently well designed, objectively beautiful and functional items. Those categories don't really apply to clothing in the same way. There's no way Brooks can produce some iconically beautiful sack coat and have the masses clamor for it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Perhaps if they tried advertising it as the "Authentic Mad Men Edition Blazer". Same with their OCBDs. The marketing effort of their basic items we all love is non-exsistant. They are just there. Buy them if you want. Most of their sales people don't even understand why anyone would wear such items.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

That's just it. Why _don't_ they understand that those items are part of what made BB successful? Sounds like another failing on their part; the staff not being educated enough about what they're selling.

A few here have been saying the same thing for a while: Market the OCBD and sack sport coats/suits as "Iconic American Styles from Brooks Brothers" = profit = they can keep selling the stuff we like. I really wish they would read these forums from time to time, given that they buy ad space here.


----------



## boatswaindog (Nov 18, 2010)

I just noticed that Brooks is offering a few shoes manufactured by Edward Green (The original maker of the Peal RTW line). Impressive!


----------



## Bricktop (Feb 10, 2010)

David J. Cooper said:


> I can't wait for the day when we shut down crappy companies like Oracle and Apple and replace them with good old cobblers and shirt factories.
> 
> :icon_headagainstwal


Before we get too sniffy, my Apple stuff is all "Designed in California. Made in China."


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Orgetorix said:


> I think you're comparing apples to oranges, no punt intended. Apple makes devices that people recognize as inherently well designed, objectively beautiful and functional items. Those categories don't really apply to clothing in the same way. There's no way Brooks can produce some iconically beautiful sack coat and have the masses clamor for it.


I think you're mistaken. I believe the essential concepts used by Apple can be *translated* into most any business. It's the difference between being a market leader and market follower. And a large part of it is vision and integrity.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I think the rise and fall of Brooks Brothers is well documented. If anyone wants links to the old articles I can put them up. What I wanted to say was that Brooks Brothers had a corporate culture that was really responsive to its base. They outfitted people from childhood to the grave so they had a full range of clothing and really new their customer. If you did not want a pocket on your button down they took it off, if you a wanted a button on the back collar they put it on. I am sure at least metaphorically they were searching the obituaries to make sure their last costumer who wanted a pull over button down was dead before they discontinued it. I am sure younger folks looking at the current company wonder why old folks are all sentimental about Brooks but there was a time when you could actually believe the company you were dealing with was the organic evolution of a firm that was established in 1818.


----------



## Kelorth (Apr 29, 2009)

*OCBD*

Anybody recommend a better brand, with more options? I love Brooks shirts, but choices are very limited. Please, no MTM OCBD comments.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

Kelorth said:


> Anybody recommend a better brand, with more options? I love Brooks shirts, but choices are very limited. Please, no MTM OCBD comments.


The aforementioned Gitman Bros. and Bonobos have RTW alpha-sized OCBDs.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Mad Hatter said:


> The aforementioned Gitman Bros. and Bonobos have RTW alpha-sized OCBDs.


Thanks, nice shirts.

But @ $150 for a work shirt, I hope the work pays well. :icon_smile_big:

https://www.bonobos.com/relwen-woodsman-workshirt-red-multi-plaid


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Brooks deserves plenty of griping about...but this is actually pretty nice:

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...b_Product_Id=1566171&default_color=Navy-multi


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

Flanderian: Most all is overpriced, and some is just too hipster. There is/was some code for a $50 discount on your first purchase, and that's how I got my first shirt. Codes change, but IIRC it was something like "welcome home".


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

*Time for my annual Brooks rant!*

Ed Reynolds noted we can spend more at O'Connell's and J. Press rather than trading with a large "corporate" entity. Trust me, J. Press is actually a larger corporate entity than Brooks. It was acquired by Onward Kashiyama in 1986. Interestingly I still have in my "archives" the Forbes article from 1987 when the new management enthusiastically announced its plans to open five new stores a years for an indefinite period. Number of new cities launched since then in U.S. is zero. Apparently our taste (3r2, plain front, natural shoulder, etc. is nowhere near as universal as we would all like to believe. If it were I would assume by now Chicago would have seen a J. Press outpost. Going back to late 70s there was a store on Post Street in San Francisco which had closed by 1983. Other than remodeling and relocating stores in NY, D.C., New Haven and Cambridge they have not expanded here.

I'm not adding this to "defend" Brooks but simply to confirm the fact that if there were a huge market for our beloved Ivy look it would be more prominently featured in the Brooks product offerings. For now I'll have to remain content that I can visit any of five Chicago area locations and order a 3r2 which will be made up in the Southwick factory which if I recall correctly is in Massachusetts, still if I'm right which remains a U.S. territory.

I too wish we could go back to the days of massive selections of Ivy clothing on every shelf but it aint' gonna happen.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I had almost forgotten about Kashiyama's expansion plans. They were saying in 1990 that they planned on opening a new store every year for the next five years.

from Patterns of Power GQ June 1990


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Kelorth said:


> Anybody recommend a better brand, with more options? I love Brooks shirts, but choices are very limited. Please, no MTM OCBD comments.


Why not?



Brooksfan said:


> Ed Reynolds noted we can spend more at O'Connell's and J. Press rather than trading with a large "corporate" entity. Trust me, J. Press is actually a larger corporate entity than Brooks. It was acquired by Onward Kashiyama in 1986. Interestingly I still have in my "archives" the Forbes article from 1987 when the new management enthusiastically announced its plans to open five new stores a years for an indefinite period. Number of new cities launched since then in U.S. is zero. Apparently our taste (3r2, plain front, natural shoulder, etc. is nowhere near as universal as we would all like to believe. If it were I would assume by now Chicago would have seen a J. Press outpost. Going back to late 70s there was a store on Post Street in San Francisco which had closed by 1983. Other than remodeling and relocating stores in NY, D.C., New Haven and Cambridge they have not expanded here.
> 
> I'm not adding this to "defend" Brooks but simply to confirm the fact that if there were a huge market for our beloved Ivy look it would be more prominently featured in the Brooks product offerings. For now I'll have to remain content that I can visit any of five Chicago area locations and order a 3r2 which will be made up in the Southwick factory which if I recall correctly is in Massachusetts, still if I'm right which remains a U.S. territory.
> 
> I too wish we could go back to the days of massive selections of Ivy clothing on every shelf but it aint' gonna happen.


But, as everyone keeps saying, it COULD happen if they'd actually market the stuff instead of letting it fade into obscurity. Hell, they could do it on their blog which is aimed at young men primarily.

"What is the classic American man wearing this fall? Brooks Brothers classic American styles, made in the USA! Seen here on this dashing young model: Three Button Sack Suit, Supima Oxford Button-Down Dress Shirt, BB#1 Repp Tie"

It's really that easy.

Here's hoping someone from BB is looking at this thread. I still find it curious that they want to advertise their sales here yet haven't taken a lick of the constructive criticism regularly given.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Mad Hatter said:


> Flanderian: Most all is overpriced, and some is just too hipster. There is/was some code for a $50 discount on your first purchase, and that's how I got my first shirt. Codes change, but IIRC it was something like "welcome home".


Thank you. May give it a try.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Kelorth said:


> Anybody recommend a better brand, with more options? I love Brooks shirts, but choices are very limited. Please, no MTM OCBD comments.


You should definitely check out Mercer & Sons.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Jovan said:


> ...But, as everyone keeps saying, it COULD happen if they'd actually market the stuff instead of letting it fade into obscurity...


I think in a nutshell that this is the biggest change that Brooks has undergone -- they have, in Flusser's words, "abdicated their role as the protectorate of America's traditional fashion." It used to be that as Brooks went, so traditional American fashion went. Today, they are followers, not leaders. They have lost their soul.


----------



## ArtVandalay (Apr 29, 2010)

Brooksfan said:


> I'm not adding this to "defend" Brooks but simply to confirm the fact that if there were a huge market for our beloved Ivy look it would be more prominently featured in the Brooks product offerings.


I don't think the masses would have been clammoring for Ed Hardy t-shirts either, except they were marketed to them...


----------



## leisureclass (Jan 31, 2011)

Sartre said:


> I think in a nutshell that this is the biggest change that Brooks has undergone -- they have, in Flusser's words, "abdicated their role as the protectorate of America's traditional fashion." It used to be that as Brooks went, so traditional American fashion went. Today, they are followers, not leaders. They have lost their soul.


This, and the sheer size of their operation. I could be wrong, but I don't think they were trying to appeal to absolutely everyone and all styles in the "glory days." Wasn't it just a couple of styles all in a very similar cut?


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Danny said:


> Brooks deserves plenty of griping about...but this is actually pretty nice:
> 
> https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...b_Product_Id=1566171&default_color=Navy-multi


Looks nice enough, but... *imported!* I could get a similar quality, imported, shirt just like that from a few places. They would probably be cheaper too. For items like this, I fail to see how BB earns my money. That's really the problem - they offer almost nothing that can't be found elsewhere at a lesser cost, and provide no value added component (besides shopping at BB instead of J Crew, Rugby,...) to justify their higher cost.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Why not?
> 
> But, as everyone keeps saying, it COULD happen if they'd actually market the stuff instead of letting it fade into obscurity. Hell, they could do it on their blog which is aimed at young men primarily.
> 
> ...





Sartre said:


> I think in a nutshell that this is the biggest change that Brooks has undergone -- they have, in Flusser's words, "abdicated their role as the protectorate of America's traditional fashion." It used to be that as Brooks went, so traditional American fashion went. Today, they are followers, not leaders. They have lost their soul.


You are all looking at Brooks' history through rose-colored glasses and subscribing to the Trad-lore account of what Brooks was. Brooks has been around for nearly 200 years, and their _entire_ history has been one of change and adaptation to taste. They've always been relatively traditional and slow to change (compared to other firms), but change they always have and change they always will. They don't sell stovepipe hats anymore. They don't sell frock coats anymore. They don't sell chauffeur's livery, union suits, button boots, stiff collars, riding jodhpurs, hickory stripes, homburgs, or suits made of 21-ounce flannel anymore. Why? *Because it all went out of style and nobody wanted it anymore.* They may have been the last retailer to stop carrying some of this stuff, but once it was no longer financially viable, it disappeared. They didn't try to "educate" their consumers into wanting outdated styles by marketing materials showing 1860s styles on young men in the 1920s.

I like sack suits, OCBDs, and made-in-USA shetlands just as much as anyone else here. But we have to realize we are a diminishing bunch of anachronistic hobbyists. Our taste doesn't reflect that of the majority of the population, hasn't in decades, and won't ever do so again. No matter how much marketing money a company might throw down that hole.

I'm thankful Brooks still caters to Trad tastes to the extent that they do. I'm even more thankful that they continue to be a guardian and purveyor of more generic good taste, even if it isn't Trad. And I can't fault them for not pursuing a strategy that would have put them out of business long since.


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

Well said. 

Why is it always Bean and Brooks Brothers who take all of the negative talk. Why not Polo or Eddie Bauer or Filson or Levis?


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

David J. Cooper said:


> Well said.
> 
> Why is it always Bean and Brooks Brothers who take all of the negative talk. Why not Polo or Eddie Bauer or Filson or Levis?


Eddie Bauer is such a shadow of anything worthwhile that it's not even worth talking about.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Despite the many strong points made by Orgetorix, I find myself agreeing with those who say that a well-crafted campaign designed by Brooks Brothers (and other retailers) could indeed revive classic clothing, if not "trad" per se. I believe many people would wish to own and wear well-made, attractive clothing - some simply need a bit of guidance and education. For many, of course, Ed Hardy shirts, sweatpants, and square-toed shoes will always be _de riguer_, but so what? Such people will always exist.

By the way, doesn't Allen Edmonds market its shoes in a similar manner to what many are suggesting Brooks, et al. should do? Has it worked?


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Despite the many strong points made by Orgetorix, I find myself agreeing with those who say that a well-crafted campaign designed by Brooks Brothers (and other retailers) could indeed revive classic clothing, if not "trad" per se. I believe many people would wish to own and wear well-made, attractive clothing - some simply need a bit of guidance and education. For many, of course, Ed Hardy shirts, sweatpants, and square-toed shoes will always be _de riguer_, but so what? Such people will always exist.
> 
> By the way, doesn't Allen Edmonds market its shoes in a similar manner to what many are suggesting Brooks, et al. should do? Has it worked?


It seems to me that RL Polo does Brooks Brothers better than Brooks Brothers does. Of course Polo has the rediculous clothes for the mall shops, but they also offer really nice classic items year in and year out. Nobody is saying BB needs to become J Press, I'd be happy with more Polo and less Banana Republic.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Despite the many strong points made by Orgetorix, I find myself agreeing with those who say that a well-crafted campaign designed by Brooks Brothers (and other retailers) could indeed revive classic clothing, if not "trad" per se.


See, that's exactly what I'd say Brooks has already done, or is at least trying to do. The GQ-type media have been full of Brooks' classic clothing designs for several years now. That's not what the Trads here want, though. They want 3/2 sacks and must-iron OCBDs. And I agree, but I think it's pointless to wish Brooks would do something that would be fiscally stupid.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Orgetorix said:


> You are all looking at Brooks' history through rose-colored glasses and subscribing to the Trad-lore account of what Brooks was. Brooks has been around for nearly 200 years, and their _entire_ history has been one of change and adaptation to taste. They've always been relatively traditional and slow to change (compared to other firms), but change they always have and change they always will. They don't sell stovepipe hats anymore. They don't sell frock coats anymore. They don't sell chauffeur's livery, union suits, button boots, stiff collars, riding jodhpurs, hickory stripes, homburgs, or suits made of 21-ounce flannel anymore. Why? *Because it all went out of style and nobody wanted it anymore.* They may have been the last retailer to stop carrying some of this stuff, but once it was no longer financially viable, it disappeared. They didn't try to "educate" their consumers into wanting outdated styles by marketing materials showing 1860s styles on young men in the 1920s.
> 
> I like sack suits, OCBDs, and made-in-USA shetlands just as much as anyone else here. But we have to realize we are a diminishing bunch of anachronistic hobbyists. Our taste doesn't reflect that of the majority of the population, hasn't in decades, and won't ever do so again. No matter how much marketing money a company might throw down that hole.
> 
> I'm thankful Brooks still caters to Trad tastes to the extent that they do. I'm even more thankful that they continue to be a guardian and purveyor of more generic good taste, even if it isn't Trad. And I can't fault them for not pursuing a strategy that would have put them out of business long since.


Certainly you raise some valid points. But the notion of rose-colored glasses suggests that we are imagining a Brooks Brothers that didn't really exist, and that is untrue, because a number of us were there and it did exist. Perhaps it has become a part of "trad lore" to the younger folks here, but its existence, importance, and impact on taste are not exaggerated.

You are correct that we are a diminishing bunch but it does not follow that a company cannot survive by catering to a small or esoteric marketplace. A walk of just a couple of blocks up Madison Ave. brings you to Paul Stuart, an establishment that has not compromised itself over the past half century. Of course, they have not made the disastrous decision(s) that Brooks has made to expand and in the process to dilute the brand, flatten the offering, and lower their quality. The tricky question is, does expansion necessitate all of those consequences? The question is an interesting one academically but in the end, I as a consumer shouldn't need an MBA to decide whether I will patronize a company or not.

As evidence that Brooks has always been a hotbed of change, your point that they no longer make stiff collars or jodhpurs or whatever is not persuasive, any more than saying that the fact that in 1976 Ford Motor Co. no longer made horse drawn carriages is evidence of a culture of change and market responsiveness in that company. Of course Brooks evolved, but the important thing about Brooks was that they were leaders, not followers; they didn't respond to change, they created it. The list of items they introduced into this country has been well documented. Hence Flusser's comment about abdicating their leadership position, not losing it.

I am not sanguine about Brooks' ability to "re-create" that leadership, as some have suggested. I do not believe they have the moral authority any longer to be the fons et origo of American traditional style.

To the guy who asks why Bean and Brooks get all the grief: I think it's because Bean and Brooks were the two bastions of Ivy style, especially during the preppy period which is still relatively fresh in people's experience. I am not exaggerating to say that during my college years 95% of everything I owned came from one place or the other. The view may be that here are two companies that have "sold out" and made dumb decisions, betrayed their heritage, and in the process lost their soul. At the same time they have continued to try and trade on that heritage despite offering inferior goods. We're not buying it.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Orgetorix said:


> See, that's exactly what I'd say Brooks has already done, or is at least trying to do. The GQ-type media have been full of Brooks' classic clothing designs for several years now. That's not what the Trads here want, though. They want 3/2 sacks and must-iron OCBDs. And I agree, but I think it's pointless to wish Brooks would do something that would be fiscally stupid.


Perhaps we should clarify what type of clothing we think Brooks (and others) should be marketing better/more? I was of the opinion that members wanted traditional, classic clothing showcased more than it currently is - including 3/2 sacks - as opposed to the more obscure aspects in the "trad" repertoire such as brightly colored chinos, Norwegian sweaters, etc. (which I find unappealing).

I think there's a world of difference between 3/2 navy blazers & OCBDs, versus pink chinos, chartreuse polos, and the like.

Hope that made sense...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Orgetorix said:


> You are all looking at Brooks' history through rose-colored glasses and subscribing to the Trad-lore account of what Brooks was. Brooks has been around for nearly 200 years, and their _entire_ history has been one of change and adaptation to taste. They've always been relatively traditional and slow to change (compared to other firms), but change they always have and change they always will. They don't sell stovepipe hats anymore. They don't sell frock coats anymore. They don't sell chauffeur's livery, union suits, button boots, stiff collars, riding jodhpurs, hickory stripes, homburgs, or suits made of 21-ounce flannel anymore. Why? *Because it all went out of style and nobody wanted it anymore.* They may have been the last retailer to stop carrying some of this stuff, but once it was no longer financially viable, it disappeared. They didn't try to "educate" their consumers into wanting outdated styles by marketing materials showing 1860s styles on young men in the 1920s.
> 
> I like sack suits, OCBDs, and made-in-USA shetlands just as much as anyone else here. But we have to realize we are a diminishing bunch of anachronistic hobbyists. Our taste doesn't reflect that of the majority of the population, hasn't in decades, and won't ever do so again. No matter how much marketing money a company might throw down that hole.
> 
> I'm thankful Brooks still caters to Trad tastes to the extent that they do. I'm even more thankful that they continue to be a guardian and purveyor of more generic good taste, even if it isn't Trad. And I can't fault them for not pursuing a strategy that would have put them out of business long since.


A well reasoned argument, but somewhat flawed. It seems like Ralph Lauren, Brooks Brothers Black Fleece, and a few other brands aimed at younger people are doing okay with offering sack suits and other Ivy League staples year after year. If there was no money in it, why would they continue?



joenobody0 said:


> Eddie Bauer is such a shadow of anything worthwhile that it's not even worth talking about.


I can attest to that. I went into one of their stores during my visit to New Mexico. I saw no styles or level of quality that you wouldn't see at Old Navy or Gap (which are both priced much lower). My girlfriend saw a few women's styles she liked. I wisely kept my mouth shut. 



Tiger said:


> Despite the many strong points made by Orgetorix, I find myself agreeing with those who say that a well-crafted campaign designed by Brooks Brothers (and other retailers) could indeed revive classic clothing, if not "trad" per se. I believe many people would wish to own and wear well-made, attractive clothing - some simply need a bit of guidance and education. For many, of course, Ed Hardy shirts, sweatpants, and square-toed shoes will always be _de riguer_, but so what? Such people will always exist.
> 
> By the way, doesn't Allen Edmonds market its shoes in a similar manner to what many are suggesting Brooks, et al. should do? Has it worked?


I'm sure it's worked... they're still afloat, hired new employees during the recession, and are still made in the USA after all these years. They also still offer many of the same classic styles as they did from decades ago (albeit lasted somewhat differently).


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Sartre, you've quoted Flusser to support your contention. Let me quote him to support mine:



Alan Flusser in Clothes and the Man said:


> "The 1950s are best remembered for the "gray flannel suit" worn by the conservative businessman. Now men were back to the natural-shoulder silhouette. As reported in Apparel Arts '75 Years of Fashion, "No style was ever so firmly resisted, so acrimoniously debated - or more enthusiastically received in various segments of the industry. Natural shoulder styling eventually became the major style influence. Brooks Bros., once a 'citadel of conservatism,' became a font of fashion as the new 'Ivy Cult' sought style direction. Charcoal and olive were the colors."


You're right that Brooks were leaders, and that they introduced a lot of iconic items. But their leadership has always been at the leading edge of where taste was already going. Why was the button-down collar such a hit in the '20s? Because men were already switching to soft collars. Why was the natural shoulder a hit? Because the pendulum was already swinging away from the '40s aircraft-carrier shoulders. It goes both ways - Brooks, like other retailers, both set and followed trends in the wider world. And every time they introduced a new one, it caused an uproar among the hidebound oldsters who wanted their old styles. It happened sixty years ago when Trad was new and older styles were on the way out, and it's happening now when Trad is old and other styles are new. Give it another sixty years and men on whatever equivalent of AAAC exists then will be complaining that Brooks' selection of their beloved non-iron shirts and skinny suits is "just terrible these days."

_"Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after. 
~ *Ecclesiastes 1:10-11*_


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I'm sure it's worked... they're still afloat, hired new employees during the recession, and are still made in the USA after all these years. They also still offer many of the same classic styles as they did from decades ago (albeit lasted somewhat differently).


Of course I agree - my initial question was rhetorical, if somewhat lacking in clarity. Allen Edmonds produces and markets classic American shoes (for the most part), and does so successfully. The person who is about to buy a pair of Kenneth Cole square-toed shoes at Macy's (like so many other lemmings do) might just hold off and decide to try classic American shoes made by AE because of its marketing. The fat guy in the sweatpants, flip-flops, and backwards Yankee cap assuredly won't, but that's fine, too.

In the same way, perhaps the young man (need he be young?) about to buy the bright red shirt and untailored poly-blended black suit might be swayed to look at classic, traditional clothing after being exposed to a cogent marketing campaign from the likes of BB and others. Isn't HSM trying something similar?

A marketing campaign that educates the public and introduces them to the classics just might succeed. If it fails, well, it will be just another reminder for me how far we've deviated from tradition (and I'm not simply referring to clothing)...


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

> In the same way, perhaps the young man (need he be young?) about to buy the bright red shirt and untailored poly-blended black suit might be swayed to look at classic, traditional clothing after being exposed to a cogent marketing campaign from the likes of BB and others. Isn't HSM trying something similar?


I don't think so. Somebody buying clothes like that is buying them for that specific palette, style and price point. Make up an Italian designer name and offer gauche patterns/colors/cut-that's all they want. Remember, these are the people that will have a "Scarface" poster in their home, not "Roman Holiday".

No, those people have seen better attire, and seen it worn better. But that's not what they want, and that's fine. They'll probably only have that one suit and wear it infrequently. BB can't exist as it stands on such clientele without further debasing their offerings. Not knocking them; you can lead a horse to water, but ...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Mad Hatter said:


> I don't think so. Somebody buying clothes like that is buying them for that specific palette, style and price point. Make up an Italian designer name and offer gauche patterns/colors/cut-that's all they want. Remember, these are the people that will have a "Scarface" poster in their home, not "Roman Holiday"...


I agree with your point(s) about the "Scarface" aficionados, but aren't there people who buy that type of clothing because they don't know any better? They need a suit/shirt/tie/shoes so they simply go to the mall, and buy something from one of those odious stores because a) that's all there is, and b) they lack the knowledge of better clothing and where it can be purchased.

The proposed ad campaigns of Saltydog and Jovan (among others) may appeal to these men, or at least provide an alternate avenue to be explored.


----------



## Georgetown08 (Oct 5, 2011)

One of my roommates in college wore the same red shirt every time he wore a suit (for social functions). It was some kind of poly stain-proof thing that was probably hot as hell to wear, but he liked to show off how water (or, more often, beer) would bead up when spilled on it. My other roommates and I would constantly mock the thing, _but_ I'm not sure we ever said anything to his face. He's probably the guy who could be swayed into buying something more reasonable if it was marketed to him (or if we actually spoke up).


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Georgetown08 said:


> One of my roommates in college wore the same red shirt every time he wore a suit (for social functions). It was some kind of poly stain-proof thing that was probably hot as hell to wear, but he liked to show off how water (or, more often, beer) would bead up when spilled on it. My other roommates and I would constantly mock the thing, _but_ I'm not sure we ever said anything to his face. He's probably the guy who could be swayed into buying something more reasonable if it was marketed to him (or if we actually spoke up).


Maybe Brooks or Mercer can produce a shirt that will allow a very nice Bordeaux to bead up on it?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Clothes shouldn't be worn just to get messes on them. Be careful with your damn drink.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

Tiger said:


> I agree with your point(s) about the "Scarface" aficionados, but aren't there people who buy that type of clothing because they don't know any better? They need a suit/shirt/tie/shoes so they simply go to the mall, and buy something from one of those odious stores because a) that's all there is, and b) they lack the knowledge of better clothing and where it can be purchased.
> 
> The proposed ad campaigns of Saltydog and Jovan (among others) may appeal to these men, or at least provide an alternate avenue to be explored.


If BB doesn't offer what they want, IDK what good all the ads in the world will do to change that. That is what they like at the moment; the discerning among them will evolve to the more refined. Sure, some get bad advice from friends. But they gravitate to stuff that appeals to them, then subsequently get bad advice from clerks in those stores.

If I was over BB advertising and wanted to reach out to them, I'd do it pointedly but subtly. A simple picture of a well-dressed model and a simple statement of "Almost two centuries of dressing men in classic style. We're ready when you are".


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Mad Hatter said:


> If I was over BB advertising and wanted to reach out to them, I'd do it pointedly but subtly. A simple picture of a well-dressed model and a simple statement of "Almost two centuries of dressing men in classic style. We're ready when you are".


Precisely the idea - Brooks Brothers needs to hire you immediately, and save the United States from sartorial deterioration!


----------



## TheWGP (Jan 15, 2010)

This thread has been a fun read... and right on time, Brooks is offering the 25% off corporate card event, October 14-16, according to the email I just received. Good time to stock up on the essentials that don't go on sale much.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Mad Hatter said:


> A simple picture of a well-dressed model and a simple statement of "Almost two centuries of dressing men in classic style. We're ready when you are".


Superb!


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

Maybe a more timely BB ad would simply show a well-dressed young man with the caption: "Grow up."


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Sartre said:


> Certainly you raise some valid points. But the notion of rose-colored glasses suggests that we are imagining a Brooks Brothers that didn't really exist, and that is untrue, because a number of us were there and it did exist. Perhaps it has become a part of "trad lore" to the younger folks here, but its existence, importance, and impact on taste are not exaggerated.
> 
> You are correct that we are a diminishing bunch but it does not follow that a company cannot survive by catering to a small or esoteric marketplace. A walk of just a couple of blocks up Madison Ave. brings you to Paul Stuart, an establishment that has not compromised itself over the past half century. Of course, they have not made the disastrous decision(s) that Brooks has made to expand and in the process to dilute the brand, flatten the offering, and lower their quality. The tricky question is, does expansion necessitate all of those consequences? The question is an interesting one academically but in the end, I as a consumer shouldn't need an MBA to decide whether I will patronize a company or not.
> 
> ...


I think this is excellent!

But a couple of points, I've done business with all the merchants mentioned for over 40 years, and each has seen different epochs during that span.

Bean was once a go-to source of mine for inexpensive sportswear, and then became very problematic. There are now some areas of clothing where I've found significant improvements in the last couple of years. They seem to have improved and standardized quality, and standardized the sizing of sweaters, shirts and pants. Still don't care for the look of their footwear, and haven't needed outwear. When I first purchased from Bean in the early'70's, outside of iconic items, much of it was junk. Their golden age seemed to span from the mid 80's to early 90's.

I've been a fan of Paul Stuart for over 40 years. But in fairness, they've always included fashion in their interpretation, but it was most often used as flavoring as part of a classic design. The last 5 to 10 years has seen a changing of the guard at this family owned and run business and it now has a largely European bias to the virtual exclusion of an American aesthetic.

I realize I'm more of a classicist than rabid trad, and Brooks through most of its history did *not* sell what many members of this forum would consider trad, but rather conservative, classic clothing. It did innovate and evolve. During one phase of ownership this innovation and evolution largely ceased, and this seems to be what many here consider the golden age. I don't necessarily believe that's so. It stagnated, became less profitable and got sold. What I'd like to see is a return to classic/traditional clothing, and from there innovation and evolution can again return within the context of aclassic aesthetic. This actually occurred for a couple years after the RBA acquisition,and then the fashionistas dominated, and we've wound up at J. Crew.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Flanderian said:


> I realize I'm more of a classicist than rabid trad, and Brooks through most of its history did *not* sell what many members of this forum would consider trad, but rather conservative, classic clothing. It did innovate and evolve. During one phase of ownership this innovation and evolution largely ceased, and this seems to be what many here consider the golden age. I don't necessarily believe that's so. It stagnated, became less profitable and got sold. What I'd like to see is a return to classic/traditional clothing, and from there innovation and evolution can again return within the context of aclassic aesthetic.


Here, here! All I've been trying to say in this thread is that, in moving away from Trad, Brooks is not somehow betraying their funadmental principles. They're just doing what they've always done, what virtually every other retailer of their ilk does, and what is economically necessary for them to survive and remain the purveyors of classic style and good taste _that they still are_.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Orgetorix said:


> They're just doing what they've always done, what virtually every other retailer of their ilk does, and what is economically necessary for them to survive and remain the purveyors of classic style and good taste _that they still are_.


Sorry, I don't think that's what I wrote, and certainly isn't what I meant. Evolve and inovate does not mean becoming a fashion whore. Brooks *has *abandoned much of what made it worthwhile, and IMO it is because it's being run by people with a very limited and short term perspective.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> Sorry, I don't think that's what I wrote, and certainly isn't what I meant. Evolve and inovate does not mean becoming a fashion whore. Brooks *has *abandoned much of what made it worthwhile, and IMO it is because it's being run by people with a very limited and short term perspective.


Even when Brooks producing something I'd like to buy - camel hair 3R2 sack from a few seasons ago - it's made in China. I'm not going to pay $550 for a MIC coat!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Sorry, I don't think that's what I wrote, and certainly isn't what I meant. Evolve and inovate does not mean becoming a fashion whore. Brooks *has *abandoned much of what made it worthwhile, and IMO it is because it's being run by people with a very limited and short term perspective.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Flanderian said:


> Sorry, I don't think that's what I wrote, and certainly isn't what I meant. Evolve and inovate does not mean becoming a fashion whore. Brooks *has *abandoned much of what made it worthwhile, and IMO it is because it's being run by people with a very limited and short term perspective.


I was summarizing my words, not yours, but evolve and innovate is what I meant too. Calling Brooks a fashion whore is just laughable. They've become more trendy and fashion-oriented than Press and O'Connell's, to be sure, but that's not saying much. Comparing them to outfits like J. Crew is silly.

:deadhorse-a:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Agreed! It's called survival.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Orgetorix said:


> I was summarizing my words, not yours, but evolve and innovate is what I meant too. Calling Brooks a fashion whore is just laughable. They've become more trendy and fashion-oriented than Press and O'Connell's, to be sure, but that's not saying much. _*Comparing them to outfits like J. Crew is silly*_.
> 
> :deadhorse-a:


I'm not sure about that. J. Crew doesn't offer quality suiting, but I find "Crew" casual wear to be fairly comparable to the items from Brooks Brothers. J. Crew is tending towards more and more "traditional American", while it appears Brooks is tending away. I'm not sure where BB will end up though. It's clear that they're in flux right now. I'm seeing some good and some bad. I just wish they would stop trying to charge top dollar for made in China items.


----------



## ArtVandalay (Apr 29, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Agreed! It's called survival.


I wouldn't call charging Made-in-USA prices for Made-in-China goods "survival."


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
ArtVandalay: I wouldn't call that survival either. However, IMHO, that is not what BB is doing. They have quite a range of product offerings and yes, it does seem a growing percentage of such are being imported, as the years pass. That being said, it is left to us to decide to buy or not buy the "made in America" prouct offerings or the "made in China" offerings. It is left to us to determine our preferrences for Traditional design offerings or the more continental cuts of those offerings. BB bases their stock levels on how much of each is selling. Customer purchasing decisions are determining the directions to the future that Brooks Brothers will chose to follow. That sir, is what I call survival!


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> ArtVandalay: I wouldn't call that survival either. However, IMHO, that is not what BB is doing. They have quite a range of product offerings and yes, it does seem a growing percentage of such are being imported, as the years pass. That being said, it is left to us to decide to buy or not buy the "made in America" prouct offerings or the "made in China" offerings. It is left to us to determine our preferrences for Traditional design offerings or the more continental cuts of those offerings._* BB bases their stock levels on how much of each is selling*_. Customer purchasing decisions are determining the directions to the future that Brooks Brothers will chose to follow. That sir, is what I call survival!


Their constant backlog of popular items does not support that statement! I suspect they do production planning via magic eightball!


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

ArtVandalay said:


> I wouldn't call charging Made-in-USA prices for Made-in-China goods "survival."


What's wrong with that? It works for Apple, who are being held up in this thread as an example for Brooks to follow.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

joenobody0 said:


> Their constant backlog of popular items does not support that statement! I suspect they do production planning via magic eightball!


Perhaps a valid perspective if one completes most of their purchases online, but, doing most of my BB shopping in their brick and mortar locations, I have not found that to be as much of a problem. However, most of my essential BB items these days seems to be OCBD's, knit polos, wool Gaberdine and their Clarks Advantage cotton trousers! I'm also a sucker for their retail store sport coats and (at least) one suit I've found @ drastically discounted prices in two of their outlet stores!


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Bricktop said:


> Before we get too sniffy, my Apple stuff is all "Designed in California. *Made in China.*"


I'm sure there's still plenty of 'Made in USA' products around...Smith & Wesson, Remington, Armalite, Browning, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Blackwater, General Dynamics, Heckler & Koch, Lockheed Martin, etc... just that it's not the sort of products that Brooks Brothers tend to sell.

So most of the BB catalogue is 'Imported', I wonder how many people in the US want to spend 10-14 hours a day sewing shirts and pants in a very noisy factory for minimum wages? ..apart from maybe migrant Mexicans.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

Forty years ago there were four Brooks Brothers stores in the USA: New York, Boston, Chicago, SF. Men who didn't live in those cities could buy goods through trunk shows or keep their measurements on hand at one of the stores and order my mail or by phone. 

Obviously their perceived market was quite limited. Today there are not many places you can go where there is not at least a "346" at the mall. Evidently there has been a major rethinking of marketing and expanding the clientele. The old stores, or at least the Boston and NYC shops, were lovely to behold, and, unlike today, church-like in their ambience. 

I'm disappointed that the old stores no longer exist, but take mild solace in the fact that I can still buy the OCBDs and boxer shorts that I could back then. As for the rest, well, the closest they come are some of the empty imitations, sold to try to salvage some link to a lost heritage that they bought the name to.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

MikeDT said:


> I'm sure there's still plenty of 'Made in USA' products around...Smith & Wesson, Remington, Armalite, Browning, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Blackwater, General Dynamics, Heckler & Koch, Lockheed Martin, etc... just that it's not the sort of products that Brooks Brothers tend to sell.
> 
> So most of the BB catalogue is 'Imported', I wonder how many people in the US want to spend 10-14 hours a day sewing shirts and pants in a very noisy factory for minimum wages? ..apart from maybe migrant Mexicans.


People who work in the States (or any other country with fair labour laws) have much better conditions than those in China, even at minimum wage.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Isn't it a problem that Chinese manufacturing quality is going up by a very great deal?

Do you feel that BB items that where made in America always had better quality than recent Chinese items?

Also, isn't a lot of their stuff made in Europe?

To me, both American and Chinese is 'foreign', so I'm not buying local produce either way.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

You'll notice I said "(and other countries with fair labour laws)".


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Chinese manufacture can be superb, but then it ain't so cheap.


----------



## Bricktop (Feb 10, 2010)

Mad Hatter said:


> If I was over BB advertising and wanted to reach out to them, I'd do it pointedly but subtly. A simple picture of a well-dressed model and a simple statement of "Almost two centuries of dressing men in classic style. We're ready when you are".


Love it!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The Rambler said:


> Chinese manufacture can be superb, but then it ain't so cheap.


Precisely. A growing number of companies who actually care are starting to realise that you have more control over the end product if you make it here in the States. Anderson-Little is one of them. Not the best quality you can get, but comparable to something else in its price range.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

I sometimes wonder what exactly BB are trying to be. Are they 'trad' or are they trying to be young, cool and trendy?









"Cool puffer vest with style."

I often think that Marks & Spencer in the UK has a similar identity problem to Brooks. In that they where always traditional and quite conservative, but they're also trying to do young, cool and trendy. Of course M&S did own BB for a number of years.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Isn't it a problem that Chinese manufacturing quality is going up by a very great deal?
> 
> Do you feel that BB items that where made in America always had better quality than recent Chinese items?
> 
> Also, isn't a lot of their stuff made in Europe?


I think 'made in Europe' covers a lot of places, UK, France, Italy, Turkey, Albania, Poland, Latvia, etc. Rather like saying made in Asia, which would obviously cover Japan, Korea(ROK and DPRK), China(PRC), Taiwan(ROC), India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, etc.

I'm sure if Brooks or similar had their garments made in cheap labour countries like Albania or Turkey, they would be using the 'Imported' euphemism on their websites, rather than stating the country of origin, because they don't carry the same cachet or prestige as stating 'Made in England' or 'Made in Italy'.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Xcubbies-Forty years ago was 1971 and according to Brooks "Generations of Style" they opened Pittsburgh in 1959, and by that time had stores in LA and San Francisco as well as the Chicago store which had opened in 1950.


----------



## boatswaindog (Nov 18, 2010)

In 1966 there were 6 stores: NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, SF and Pittsburgh.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

MikeDT said:


> trying to be young, cool and trendy?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Brooks no longer sells menswear, they sell fashion, they're being run by execs from the fashion industry, and that is how they envision their business. Like every other fashion business, they salivate over the demographic they believe buys the most, the young. And they have been taught, and do what every other fashion business does to access that demographic; chase trends.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Does anyone know why these shoes cost $2400?

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...ort_by=highestPrice&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Twenty-four hundred dollars should buy a lifetime supply of Redwing boots! Not just one pair. I suspect you are looking at a typing error in the online listing. :icon_scratch:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The new limited time Red Wings Have possibilities!!

I'm liking the 212 shoe.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> Twenty-four hundred dollars should buy a lifetime supply of Redwing boots! Not just one pair. I suspect you are looking at a typing error in the online listing. :icon_scratch:


I don't know. The black is kind of nice! They had me at $1500, but not a penny more!


----------



## Bricktop (Feb 10, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Twenty-four hundred dollars should buy a lifetime supply of Redwing boots! Not just one pair. I suspect you are looking at a typing error in the online listing. :icon_scratch:


Must be a typo, if you check out the "May we suggest" box on the right.  Or one hell of a premium for black. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

I keep telling myself I'm done with this trainwreck, but I can't stay away.



MikeDT said:


> I sometimes wonder what exactly BB are trying to be. Are they 'trad' or are they trying to be young, cool and trendy?


To hear this crowd talk, you'd think there's no middle ground between O'Connell's and Express. Which is ridiculous. There's a wide spectrum between "sartorial museum" and "fashion whore." Brooks is on that spectrum, somewhere to the fashion-forward side of Press but not as far as J Crew or Polo RL. So the answer to your question is, yes. They are trying to encompass both classic American style and younger, more fashion-oriented styles as well. That they have clothing aimed at the latter demographic doesn't mean they've abandoned the former. Anyone who says differently must not have actually _been_ in a BB store lately.



Flanderian said:


> Brooks no longer sells menswear, they sell fashion


Arrant nonsense.



Flanderian said:


> Like every other fashion business, they salivate over the demographic they believe buys the most, the young. And they have been taught, and do what every other fashion business does to access that demographic; chase trends.


Read the Flusser quote I posted above. *This is just what Brooks has been doing for decades.*


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Org, bravo for your spirited defense of BB. Reading through this thread, including my own grumps, I've come to realize how highly I have valued Brooks Bros through the years, and how much I would miss that great company if it ceased to exist.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Orgetorix said:


> Arrant nonsense.


I believe that is a matter of opinion, sir.



Orgetorix said:


> Read the Flusser quote I posted above. *This is just what Brooks has been doing for decades.*


I'd read Flusser's books for over 30 years until they became repetitive, full of unsubstantiated opinion and essentially a waste of time. And I've been a Brooks customer for about 45 years. They have *never* chased the kids to the degree they do in their current iteration. I know this because I've been shopping them through all of the different ownerships. I didn't need to read it in a book.

Received knowledge has its limitations.

If you like them, fine, you are probably part of their target demographic, but that doesn't change facts.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

Its good to remember that there are really two Brooks Brothers, brick and mortar and web based. In the flesh, they really don't push the youthful stuff very hard.


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

There's also variance across brick and mortars. I was at the Brooks at Tyson's Corner mall last weekend and the youthful stuff was very much at the forefront. Being at a mall, and being a smaller store to begin with, made for a much different Brooks experience than at the downtown Connecticut Ave store which has the younger stuff more off in a corner.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Gebus!!

The traffic pattern around Tyson's is a wreck!!

...and I'm getting me some Red Wings 15% off with my Ask Andy discount during the on line trunk show event!!


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Gebus!!
> 
> The traffic pattern around Tyson's is a wreck!!


QFT. Mrs. and I made the mistake one day of trying to go on Black Friday. Never, never, never ever again.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> I'd read Flusser's books for over 30 years until they became repetitive, full of unsubstantiated opinion and essentially a waste of time. And I've been a Brooks customer for about 45 years. They have *never* chased the kids to the degree they do in their current iteration. I know this because I've been shopping them through all of the different ownerships. I didn't need to read it in a book.


Thank you for writing this. I like what Chris Sharp said on the subject a bit earlier in this thread:

"I think the rise and fall of Brooks Brothers is well documented. If anyone wants links to the old articles I can put them up. What I wanted to say was that Brooks Brothers had a corporate culture that was really responsive to its base. They outfitted people from childhood to the grave so they had a full range of clothing and really new their customer. If you did not want a pocket on your button down they took it off, if you a wanted a button on the back collar they put it on. I am sure at least metaphorically they were searching the obituaries to make sure their last costumer who wanted a pull over button down was dead before they discontinued it. *I am sure younger folks looking at the current company wonder why old folks are all sentimental about Brooks but there was a time when you could actually believe the company you were dealing with was the organic evolution of a firm that was established in 1818*." [my emphasis]

The Flusser quotation was not persuasive anyway.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I haven't drunk nearly as much Brooks Brothers Kool-aid as Ralph Lauren Kool-aid, but there's hell of a lot to be said for them. They are bringing a level of quality and sophistication to a lot of areas where there are literally no other alternatives. It's difficult for some of us who live in places like Boston, New York City, Washington DC, etc to remember that not everywhere has the sort of alternatives that allow us to be so blasé about Brooks Brothers.

And, if I may share a lovely anecdote, I went into my local store (Westport, CT) yesterday to look for a new sport coat and while I was there getting top notch service from my salesperson Al, I was party to a father bringing in his two sons for new blazers & grey flannel slacks, and two high-school age kids looking for sport coats for upcoming school events. This is what I think of when I think Brooks Brothers: tradition. Brooks Brothers is where most people go to dress up. For people other than sartorial hobbyists there IS NO OTHER men's store. I remember getting my first dress clothes from there as a kid even though I wasn't from a family of natty dressers. I also remember the pride I had in buying my first dress shirts and dress pants when I got my first "real" job in the 90s. The big printed sales slip (now a thing of the past) was such an adult feeling.

It's easy to say something as provocative as "they don't sell menswear, they sell fashion" but that's both patently incorrect and also beside the point. In all but a few areas and few professions, people don't _wear_ menswear! Casual Friday has become the norm. Yet despite the shameful degradation of the professional male, Brooks Brothers remains a place where you can walk in and get a district check sport coat, a navy blazer, button down shirts, repp ties, conservative suits, cordovan shoes, and any number of other core components of traditional wardrobes. That many of those items are made in the USA is also a plus (3 of the 8 sport coats I looked at were made in the USA and the premium only seemed to be $100 or so).

We can make fun of some of the goofier items in their inventory, but it would be a tragedy if they vanished from the landscape of men's shops.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

^^^

Very well said.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Even though I'm only a quarter of a century old and I can see why the older members here wax poetic about the "good ol' days" of Brooks Brothers. I want some of those products or ones the way they used to be made, too!

I have to admit that the selection of four fits for shirts is nice, though. Covers the customer base young to old, slim to rotund pretty well.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Even though I'm only a quarter of a century old and I can see why the older members here wax poetic about the "good ol' days" of Brooks Brothers. I want some of those products or ones the way they used to be made, too!
> 
> I have to admit that the selection of four fits for shirts is nice, though. Covers the customer base young to old, slim to rotund pretty well.


I agree about the shirts. There is no store that can compete with BB when it comes to made in the USA, real cotton, dress shirts. It's too bad they got rid of all the Golden Fleece Sea Island shirts - I always liked those (I got married in one). At least I bought up their remaining stock in my size at 70% off!

Their USA made 1818 suits can't be beat on a quality/price basis if you buy during sales.


----------



## JoshESQ (Sep 20, 2010)

I am underwhelmed at the monotony o the catalog, but our store seems to have more creativity.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I'm sure they'll try harder to appropriately whelm you next time.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Trip, you're incorrigible. He's a new member! He's not used to your tough love yet.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That's why one should lurk before joining!!


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Even though I'm only a quarter of a century old and I can see why the older members here wax poetic about the "good ol' days" of Brooks Brothers. I want some of those products or ones the way they used to be made, too!
> 
> I have to admit that the selection of four fits for shirts is nice, though. Covers the customer base young to old, slim to rotund pretty well.


Despite my bellyaching, their regular OCBDs are still a staple (although to joenobody, above, Mercer can compete with BB and has a far greater selection). Their casual corduroys are pretty good to kick around in (although I hate that they are pre-sized). I have a number of their cashmere sweaters, which are pretty good. The past few years they have offered thick flannel pajamas that are of quite high quality, and I also have a fine wool dressing gown from Brooks that is impeccable. Their brief cases are quite beautiful. Lots of their shoes are of top quality. I saw a camel's hair polo coat there a year or two ago, and also, I think, a charcoal grey chesterfield. Right now there is a short brown suede golf jacket in the stores that is lovely. So for me the dissatisfaction isn't so much about what they offer, as what they don't offer, or might have offered.

Basically I am stuck in the past.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Sartre said:


> Despite my bellyaching, their regular OCBDs are still a staple (although to joenobody, above, Mercer can compete with BB and has a far greater selection). Their casual corduroys are pretty good to kick around in (although I hate that they are pre-sized). I have a number of their cashmere sweaters, which are pretty good. The past few years they have offered thick flannel pajamas that are of quite high quality, and I also have a fine wool dressing gown from Brooks that is impeccable. Their brief cases are quite beautiful. Lots of their shoes are of top quality. I saw a camel's hair polo coat there a year or two ago, and also, I think, a charcoal grey chesterfield. Right now there is a short brown suede golf jacket in the stores that is lovely. So for me the dissatisfaction isn't so much about what they offer, as what they don't offer, or might have offered.
> 
> Basically I am stuck in the past.


Mercer shirts might even be nicer, but they're a bit more expensive. Additionally, they don't offer such an easy to navigate array of "fits". I know you can swap out different sized bodies with necks, but it's just so much easier to order "slim fit" or "regular fit".

You are correct about the lack of fabrics at BB. I wish they had more stripes.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

They are superior to BB, speaking from a purely technical standpoint. Fabric, finish, construction, etc. are all better. However, their mantra is "Baggier, Better" so you're unlikely to see anything slimmer from them. If you want that, you have to pay more.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Little late to the party.....

If everybody in Mississippi wore nothing but BB, it would be the best dressed state in America. How fitting that they are about to open the state's first BB outside of Jackson.

We often forget how horrible most men choose to dress. I wasn't around in the 50s and 60s, so I can't compare BB circa 2011 to BB circa 1961. No matter what Flusser may think, I can't think of a 2011 retailer that could be better described as the leader of traditional American clothing. You can still walk into a BB and purchase made in USA suits, formalwear, sportcoats, blazers, trousers, shirts, ties, and shoes. All of those items would be considered "classically styled". Who else can make that claim? Does RL make anything other than shoes in the US? Jos A Bank? LL Bean? Lands End? 

We are damn lucky that we still have Brooks Brothers.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Anybody else think that BB reads this forum? Who else just got this email.

.

Clicking the categories brings you to links that show which factory makes which items, along with how many American jobs they create. Very very good marketing.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

^ I know for a fact that BB reads this forum.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

A lot of it I already knew of. Good for them. Though, they made a mistake including this shirt: https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...olor=BLUE&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Jovan said:


> A lot of it I already knew of. Good for them. Though, they made a mistake including this shirt: https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...olor=BLUE&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=


There were other mistakes, or they recently changed factories for a lot of things. Most of their GF overcoats have been made by Greenfield in the past. Now they claim Southwick for the same pictured model.

It's a nice idea. I wish they'd list the made in China items too, so I don't have to look through them to find what I want.


----------



## 1WB (Sep 25, 2008)

joenobody0 said:


> There were other mistakes, or they recently changed factories for a lot of things. Most of their GF overcoats have been made by Greenfield in the past. Now they claim Southwick for the same pictured model.
> 
> It's a nice idea. I wish they'd list the made in China items too, so I don't have to look through them to find what I want.


I think GF has actually changed from Greenfield to Southwick.

Southwick was already making the Fitzgerald fit GF and BF suits.

Moreover, despite all the controversy that erupted here last week when a poster claimed that BB was ending its relationship with Greenfield in order to shift to Southwick-made GF items, I note that all Golden Fleece tailored clothing has disappeared from the BB website - I think that might verify what the OP said.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

1WB said:


> I think GF has actually changed from Greenfield to Southwick.
> 
> Southwick was already making the Fitzgerald fit GF and BF suits.
> 
> Moreover, despite all the controversy that erupted here last week when a poster claimed that BB was ending its relationship with Greenfield in order to shift to Southwick-made GF items, I note that all Golden Fleece tailored clothing has disappeared from the BB website - I think that might verify what the OP said.


I actually posted that same fact in that thread before it was closed. It would be nice to open it back up because I suspect that the OP might have been correct.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Sartre said:


> Despite my bellyaching, their regular OCBDs are still a staple (although to joenobody, above, Mercer can compete with BB and has a far greater selection). Their casual corduroys are pretty good to kick around in (although I hate that they are pre-sized). I have a number of their cashmere sweaters, which are pretty good. The past few years they have offered thick flannel pajamas that are of quite high quality, and I also have a fine wool dressing gown from Brooks that is impeccable. Their brief cases are quite beautiful. Lots of their shoes are of top quality. I saw a camel's hair polo coat there a year or two ago, and also, I think, a charcoal grey chesterfield. Right now there is a short brown suede golf jacket in the stores that is lovely. So for me the dissatisfaction isn't so much about what they offer, as what they don't offer, or might have offered.
> 
> Basically I am stuck in the past.


I bought the Chesterfield that you referred to. Alas, it is made in China (Thailand?).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

joenobody0 said:


> I actually posted that same fact in that thread before it was closed. It would be nice to open it back up because I suspect that the OP might have been correct.


The OP never responded to my PMs and his writing tone suggested trolling, so I put him on suspension. I'll reopen the thread though.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Jovan said:


> The OP never responded to my PMs and his writing tone suggested trolling, so I put him on suspension. I'll reopen the thread though.


Everything about the OP suggested trolling. However, it's either the biggest coincidence in clothing forum history, or the OP had some inside information.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I have no doubt they may have been onto something, but everyone was doubtful of a member who had less than a handful of posts to their name, didn't cite their source, and later demanded ass kissing because they supposedly worked at Brooks Brothers. In any case, even if all of what they said was true, their holier-than-thou tone was not appropriate. If BB are hiring people like that, it's no wonder their retail customer service has taken a nosedive.


----------



## boatswaindog (Nov 18, 2010)

It only makes sense that Brooks would shift to their own factory for high end suits. I hope Mr. Greenfield continues to flourish in his NYC factory.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Brooks watches these fora. If that guy really worked for them, he's probably in hot water by now. 

While it's possible BB could be dissatisfied with Greenfield's quality, it's just as possible that they decided they could move production in-house and control costs and quality more effectively. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Orgetorix said:


> Brooks watches these fora. If that guy really worked for them, he's probably in hot water by now.
> 
> While it's possible BB could be dissatisfied with Greenfield's quality, it's just as possible that they decided they could move production in-house and control costs and quality more effectively.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I didn't think for a second that the move was due to low quality in the Greenfield produced suits. I assume the move was designed to increase control and to remove double marginalization from their supply chain.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Orgetorix said:


> Brooks watches these fora. If that guy really worked for them, he's probably in hot water by now.
> 
> While it's possible BB could be dissatisfied with Greenfield's quality, it's just as possible that they decided they could move production in-house and control costs and quality more effectively.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He's only in trouble if they knew who he was.

Where did you find out that they read these forums?


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

Jovan said:


> He's only in trouble if they knew who he was.
> 
> Where did you find out that they read these forums?


I'd like to know that too. If anyone from Brooks Brothers is reading this, please stop producing tailored clothes in China. They just end up in the discounted section of the website anyways! Also, more colors of striped must iron OCBDs please!


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Y'all should check out Brooks on Twitter today - they're visiting the BB Archives in Virginia and posting pictures of a lot of cool stuff from their history.

I'd give my eyeteeth to spend a day there.

https://www.twitter.com/#!/brooksbrothers


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Brio1 said:


> I bought the Chesterfield that you referred to. Alas, it is made in China (Thailand?).


For me, the more relevant question is whether the garment was of high quality?


----------



## Bluegrass Man (Jun 26, 2011)

Orgetorix said:


> Y'all should check out Brooks on Twitter today - they're visiting the BB Archives in Virginia and posting pictures of a lot of cool stuff from their history.
> 
> I'd give my eyeteeth to spend a day there.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/#!/brooksbrothers


Sounds like a field day for anybody even remotely interested in clothes. Do you suppose JC Penney still has their original ledger stashed some place?


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Got another catalogue filled with pics of his and her clothing. Only chinos featured were Milanos. All the models were youngsters wearing stuff anyone over 40...make that 35...would look ridiculous in. More catering to the younger demo. I just wonder if any of the kiddos they are trying so desperately to reach would ever even consider going in a BB store or ordering from their website. I kinda doubt it. Meanwhile, their tried and true customers--who, by the way, can actually afford to buy their merchandise--will become more and more alienated. People's tastes to change as they get older and both their bodies and sensibilities "evolve". One can't stay 30 forever. With baby-boomers comprising such a large portion of the population (that's why they called it a boom) it would seem logical to try to appeal to that audience who actually has some notion of who Brooks Brothers is and who finally (at least the trailing edge) have achieved the income level to shop there at long last. The rest have been doing it for years, but are being chased away by this insistance on tradish body hugging clothes for the youth in our society. Frankly, I don't get it. At least there are the shirts....while they last.


----------



## El_Abogado (Apr 21, 2009)

*Not all change at BB is bad.*



Jovan said:


> I have to admit that the selection of four fits for shirts is nice, though. Covers the customer base young to old, slim to rotund pretty well.


With all the bitching about how much BB sucks, few mention the good that the store has done. Jovan, you are absolutely right. I hated the one shirt cut back in the 80's and I left BB for a long time because of it.


----------



## donk93953 (Feb 8, 2007)

An occasional tie, sometimes a non-iron shirt for air travel....I closed my BB account some years ago.


----------



## sbello (Oct 30, 2011)

I agree with you. I too feel they are trying to appeal to a demographic that doesn't particularly care. What I've been noticing is an industry wide attempt to be "fashion forward" in the process the traditional customer is being disregarded.


----------



## dorji (Feb 18, 2010)

Well I was not going to join in the rant, but today I thought I'd look at the BB ties. I followed their made in America link to the tie section, where some nice wool ties have appeared! https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...lor=BROWN&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=
Why does stuff like this have to be 2 1/4" ? They are otherwise wonderful looking...


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

dorji said:


> Well I was not going to join in the rant, but today I thought I'd look at the BB ties. I followed their made in America link to the tie section, where some nice wool ties have appeared! https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...lor=BROWN&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=
> Why does stuff like this have to be 2 1/4" ? They are otherwise wonderful looking...


Agreed-that's a handsome tie. Make that 2 3/4" (that extra 1/2" makes a LOT of difference) or 3", and I'd be all over it.


----------

