# Brooks Brothers "spring preview"



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Any thoughts?


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Looks like J. Crew.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Whale pants in slim fit only.

Bastards.


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

Orgetorix said:


> Any thoughts?


 I don't like it. Too too forced!


----------



## 1WB (Sep 25, 2008)

I feel like I have made the same complaint about more and more items with each new BB season in recent years, but here goes again...

re: the Duckie Brown cordovan longwing -- $575 seems a little rich for a shoe that's made in India or China, shell or not.

Also, I am not a fan of the light tan buttons on this year's Fitzgerald tan cotton suit. Bleh.


----------



## Wisco (Dec 3, 2009)

Unfortunately, BB is on the path to irrelevance. Instead of standing for something like classic American style, they are trying to pick up bits and pieces from hipster brands to try to attract... who exactly? By not standing for something, they become high-priced dreck that neither hipsters or classic clothing aficionados seek out. Sad, actually.

I realize that I'm acting like a curmudgeon, but I don't believe that BB should be listening to the young gun prep blogosphere as their muse. I guess I best take my ball home and just shop at O'Connells. Harumph!!!


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

1WB said:


> re: the Duckie Brown cordovan longwing -- $575 seems a little rich for a shoe that's made in India or China, shell or not.


I guess I don't quite understand this. What does the location of manufacture have to do with an item's price? Assuming luxury markups aren't in play, the price of a shoe seems to be mainly determined by the cost of materials and the cost of production. Manufacturing an item in China or India _may_ lower the cost of production, but it doesn't have to. You hvae to figure that at least $200 of the price of a shell cordovan shoe is in the premium for the shell, which is made by a US company. A goodyear welted shoe takes about as much time and effort to make in India as it does in the US, and if Florsheim isn't running a sweatshop, labor costs won't be dramatically cheaper there than here. Somewhat cheaper, yes, but not enough to impact price much. Add in the fact that Brooks is pricing these with its regular 25% off sales in mind, and I just don't see $575 as unreasonable for these.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Wisco said:


> I realize that I'm acting like a curmudgeon...


With no models over 30 they don't care what we think!!


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Doesn't do much for me. The jacket on the far right looks like it might be OK.


----------



## closerlook (Sep 3, 2008)

Orgetorix said:


> I guess I don't quite understand this. What does the location of manufacture have to do with an item's price? Assuming luxury markups aren't in play, the price of a shoe seems to be mainly determined by the cost of materials and the cost of production. Manufacturing an item in China or India _may_ lower the cost of production, but it doesn't have to. You hvae to figure that at least $200 of the price of a shell cordovan shoe is in the premium for the shell, which is made by a US company. A goodyear welted shoe takes about as much time and effort to make in India as it does in the US, and if Florsheim isn't running a sweatshop, labor costs won't be dramatically cheaper there than here. Somewhat cheaper, yes, but not enough to impact price much. Add in the fact that Brooks is pricing these with its regular 25% off sales in mind, and I just don't see $575 as unreasonable for these.


THose are mighty fine long wings, however i believe the 25% off would only apply to those during the once a year summer sale... correct?


----------



## 1WB (Sep 25, 2008)

Orgetorix said:


> [T]he price of a shoe seems to be mainly determined by the cost of materials and the cost of production. Manufacturing an item in China or India _may_ lower the cost of production, but it doesn't have to. . . .


Respectfully, I suspect that the cost of production in China or India is _far_, far lower than in Taunton, MA or Port Washington, WI.

Even if the imported shoes require the same number of hours of labor to manufacture, which I doubt they do, the difference between labor costs to manufacture their American counterparts in union shops is quite likely very substantial.


----------



## farrago (Apr 27, 2006)

Meh. How much more do i need to say?


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

Well as a 2 days away from 26 year old I'll also agree that most of it is a bit too J. Crew hipster for me. Yeah I'm a young guy who likes classic fashion, and I don't even mind updated versions of classics. But why would I buy $575 shoes from a third world country when I can get the same shoes from Alden for Crew or directly from Alden or something like that. I get the younger market appeal, but we aren't retarded. As to the other styles, some are eh, some are no, some are not too bad but I do agree they are trying way too hard. But as others have said in other threads, if this is what it takes to keep a good source for some of the classic staples then I guess I can't complain too much. For me as a tall big guy I don't have too many options that are priced well when on sale. I'm too big for Mercer and they are expensive, O'Connell's is a little small for me in shirts as is Press and when BB goes on sale it's a good buy for me. While in my current income level I'll take the good with the bad.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Orgetorix said:


> A goodyear welted shoe takes about as much time and effort to make in India as it does in the US, and if Florsheim isn't running a sweatshop, labor costs won't be dramatically cheaper there than here. Somewhat cheaper, yes, but not enough to impact price much.


If that were true, it's unlikely they would have moved production off-shore in the first place (since they then have to pay to ship the shoes back to the U.S. for sale). I think you highly underestimate the price difference in labor costs between here and China/India.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

^ I don't know anything about manufacturing labor costs, but professional class labor costs in India are about one-tenth of what they are in the U.S.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

I like the tipped shawl collar cardigan, and I really like the bottom right outfit. I don't think it's great, but it doesn't seem like a world is ending collection.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

Wisco said:


> Unfortunately, BB is on the path to irrelevance. Instead of standing for something like classic American style, they are trying to pick up bits and pieces from hipster brands to try to attract... who exactly? By not standing for something, they become high-priced dreck that neither hipsters or classic clothing aficionados seek out. Sad, actually.
> 
> I realize that I'm acting like a curmudgeon, but I don't believe that BB should be listening to the young gun prep blogosphere as their muse. I guess I best take my ball home and just shop at O'Connells. Harumph!!!


I guess the question is whether they can stay profitable selling just classic American Style. I have no idea what the answer is. My guess is that they have done their due diligence, and are offering what the young upwardly mobile buyer is looking for. They certainly could be offering a bit more for our set, and down here in the peanut gallery, we certainly are of the opinion that they would do well, but as has been mentioned, it is possible that is not the case. For one, I would love to know what percentage of the company's sales are going to the New American Male.

What I want to know, is where and when do the buyers of these clothes wear them, at work? For play?

In other news, I noticed that copy on cotton Fitzgerald mentioned a natural shoulder. So, the news isn't all bad.


----------



## Wisco (Dec 3, 2009)

Charles Saturn said:


> I guess the question is whether they can stay profitable selling just classic American Style. I have no idea what the answer is. My guess is that they have done their due diligence, and are offering what the young upwardly mobile buyer is looking for. They certainly could be offering a bit more for our set, and down here in the peanut gallery, we certainly are of the opinion that they would do well, but as has been mentioned, it is possible that is not the case. For one, I would love to know what percentage of the company's sales are going to the New American Male.
> .


That's a great question Charles. Unfortunately, BB is private held by Retail Brand Alliance, so we'll not soon know.

BB has obviously decided to grow by bringing in new customers rather than focusing on growing share among their existing customers. At least I see less and less that I would buy at a modern day BB... and I am not alone. It's a common conundrum in retail and I'm sure their pencil-pushers ran the numbers. I guess my complaint is that as a privately held company they SHOULD be able to worry about the long term, being true to their iconic brand and all that other non-quarterly call driven stuff. Maybe that is what they are doing, and I'm just too dumb to see genius in their plan. My fear is that I'm not and that they are going to keep doubling-down on a flawed strategy until they run out of chips.

I wish them best and pray they do not discontinue the all-cotton Polo OCBD that has defined the company since its inception. Do it for Agnelli, at least.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

^^^^As per Muffy Aldrich, they are in their "New Markets" phase which is to be followed by the "Cash Grab" and then into oblivion. https://www.muffyaldrich.com/2011/01/preppy-vendors-on-my-radar.html
Although, it seems to be working for JCrew.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Deleted


----------



## MKC (Sep 10, 2010)

Charles Saturn said:


> ^^^^As per Muffy Aldrich, they are in their "New Markets" phase which is to be followed by the "Cash Grab" and then into oblivion. https://www.muffyaldrich.com/2011/01/preppy-vendors-on-my-radar.html
> Although, it seems to be working for JCrew.


Sadly, it seems to me they are well into the Cash Grab phase.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

J Crew, Banana Republic, GQ, just trendy short run fashion. Nothing for the serious mature businessman. I wouldn't be so sure about their due diligence either. Looks like they've been sold a bill of goods by some young turk wannabes who don't know jack about true branding and demographic targeting. The people who wear those getups won't be darkening the doors of Brooks Brothers. I hope they pull back from the brink and get rid of the supposed whiz kids--emphasis on kids--who seem to be their "brain trust" before they sink into a totally irrelevant establishment desperately seeking an identity. Clearly, they have lost their way. When the pendelum swings back to classic American traditional attire...and it always does...they will no longer be a point of reference. Pathetic.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Top row, second from right looks fine, if a bit dandyish. All of the ones on the bottom row, went one step (but only one) too far toward costume. Top left and second left are ridiculous.


----------



## CM Wolff (Jun 7, 2006)

Orgetorix said:


> Any thoughts?


These looks book previews are not worth getting too excited about one way or another - they certainly are not a good enough basis for writing Brooks off, they are just costumes worn by rather silly looking models in ways normal adults wouldn't wear them (e.g. too short, etc.).  But looking at the full spring line that is now up on the website, Brooks spring 2011 is no better or worse than it has been for years. Typical selections of sportshirts and polo shirts and sweaters and pants and other gear, enough tastefully done for a mature gentleman and professional, as well as a host of other stuff that just has to be bypassed when it skews too young and forward.


----------



## JakeLA (Oct 30, 2006)

Epaminondas said:


> If that were true, it's unlikely they would have moved production off-shore in the first place (since they then have to pay to ship the shoes back to the U.S. for sale). I think you highly underestimate the price difference in labor costs between here and China/India.


I just read a report by the Asian Development Bank that claimed if the iPhone was manufactured in the U.S. by workers making ten times what Chinese workers get, Apple would still make 50 percent profit on each phone. I expect the same goes for shoes.


----------



## MidWestTrad (Aug 14, 2010)

Orgetorix said:


> Any thoughts?


Yes....mostly involving some instrument of death.


----------



## statboy (Sep 1, 2010)

JakeLA said:


> I just read a report by the Asian Development Bank that claimed if the iPhone was manufactured in the U.S. by workers making ten times what Chinese workers get, Apple would still make 50 percent profit on each phone. I expect the same goes for shoes.


Nope, not working. This 'statistic' means nothing without the accompanying percent profit currently realized by Apple in Asia. Then we'd have to assume the same difference in production costs and profits you cite in electronics for those seen in shoe and apparel manufacturing.


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

I wonder what the younger consumers think about us while reading these posts? 
I was so excited this weekend when I found a bunch of OCBDs at BB on clearance. A young couple went beside me on the table and the girl said, "these shirts are pretty cheap.. but the style is kinda oldish (with an eww expression on her face)". Oldish? WTF?


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Seems that BB has taken a turn off the straight and narrow. For a few years after Luxottica bought them they seemed to really be getting better, really nice...but I'd say the last 2 years have been a little iffy. That said, I think the style of those photos is as much to blame as the content for their off putting effect. They are runway shots. O'Connell's and Press are what BB should be. I don't really know what BB is right now. There is something iffy going on. The staple garments are still there, full cut shirts, great polos, trousers, cordovan shoes, etc....but a lot of the accoutrement has been less than appealing lately. Ugh. That's ok, I'll just shop at O'Connell's and Press, and....Eddie Jacobs.


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

As a young guy who wants to wear classic clothing, the line I am constantly walking is trying to find stuff that will fit my thin frame, but not look like those pictures (tight, short, lorise trousers) or be made of Teflon in India or be black or multi-stripe or some experimental hybrid of styles. I wish it were 1960 again and the body type that designers of classic clothing thought of was thin. As if to compensate, my peers are wearing ultra-slim fits. I see people walking around in tight-as-hell Barbours and skinny jeans and I kind of gag. I just want to look put together; I want my clothes to be normal, to fit normal, to look normal, to be authentic, and to last a long time. (!) I know I am not the only one, I see some young men walking around looking very nice; I feel like stopping and asking them where they acquired such wonderful articles of clothing, but I fear that the answer will be, "My grandfather."

Certain items are readily available in flattering cuts---shirts (BB slim), trou (J. Crew classic fit), shoes (AE), belts (lots of nice places for these), and a peacoat (Sterlingwear). For this I am eternally grateful. But other things are friggin' impossible to find if you are slim like me---sportscoats/blazers, casual outerwear in a true small (not a small that's actually a 39L), casual shirts that aren't too baggy but don't have anemic BD collars.

I guess this turned into a rant. Apologies. My general opinion of the lookbook: ridiculous fits, maybe some worthwhile items; but as long as they're designing things to be combined like _that_, my aesthetic isn't really being represented.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It does not appear that I will be making any spring purchases at BB(?). LOL. Well, by gawd, at least we can depend on O'Connell's keeping the faith!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

"That's ok, I'll just shop at O'Connell's and Press, and....Eddie Jacobs."

Visited Eddie Jacobs a couple of weeks ago. Stock is dwindling rapidly, across all product lines. Was told that they're relocating, but have yet to find a spot/suitable lease arrangement. I asked if there was a chance that Eddie Jacobs would *not *reopen, and was told that there was little chance of that occurring - very heartening.

A fully-stocked Eddie Jacobs would be a magnificent trad place to shop...I hope it survives!


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

Tiger said:


> "That's ok, I'll just shop at O'Connell's and Press, and....Eddie Jacobs."
> 
> Visited Eddie Jacobs a couple of weeks ago. Stock is dwindling rapidly, across all product lines. Was told that they're relocating, but have yet to find a spot/suitable lease arrangement. I asked if there was a chance that Eddie Jacobs would *not *reopen, and was told that there was little chance of that occurring - very heartening.
> 
> A fully-stocked Eddie Jacobs would be a magnificent trad place to shop...I hope it survives!


Thanks for that update, Tiger. I hope Eddie Jacobs makes it to a new location. It's pretty late in the game for them not to know where they're going. It *is* a magnificent trad shop. Let's hope it prospers!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

You sensed the same thing I did, Sir Cingle - that's why I asked if there was a possibility that the shop would not reopen. I'm with you - I wish them well!

Interesting: the gentleman working there may have been an owner, and whenever a customer entered (none did so after me, one was there before I entered), he would lock the door and security gate behind the entering the customer. He would unlock to allow the customer to leave, and then repeat the locking process. I guess the neighborhood has become dangerous, and is ipso facto proof of why ownership feels that it must relocate. Hard to miss the metaphor of the trad shop physically and philosophically under siege. A sad indictment of modern America, I fear...


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

One thing you can depend on is BB being behind the times, especially when they try to be hip and of the moment. They jumped on the Thom Browne bandwagon well after his popularity had peaked, and continue to have him design the Black Fleece line despite how the high-fashion world has moved on to other looks.

Now that BB is really getting behind the short, skinny look that J Crew and Rugby have been pushing for years, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if things in more fashionable quarters will move on to a more relaxed look quite soon. But BB will keep adding more Milanos and XXSlim shirts, blissfully unaware.


----------



## Uncle Bill (May 4, 2010)

CM Wolff said:


> These looks book previews are not worth getting too excited about one way or another - they certainly are not a good enough basis for writing Brooks off, they are just costumes worn by rather silly looking models in ways normal adults wouldn't wear them (e.g. too short, etc.). But looking at the full spring line that is now up on the website, Brooks spring 2011 is no better or worse than it has been for years. Typical selections of sportshirts and polo shirts and sweaters and pants and other gear, enough tastefully done for a mature gentleman and professional, as well as a host of other stuff that just has to be bypassed when it skews too young and forward.


I tend to agree, what they posted is their spring "Look Book" and of course with these previews the envelope gets pushed. I have been not been a 20 something a long time and I see it for what is, to get discussion going. For the real test, I tend to look at the individual offerings on the site available for sale and there are three sport shirts I really want once the BB Toronto store is stocked up for spring.


----------



## dcjacobson (Jun 25, 2007)

> When the pendelum swings back to classic American traditional attire...and it always does


It does? That's news to me. Many of the above posters, scattered all over the country, are buying their clothes from a shop in Buffalo, New York--the same kind of shop that used to exist in almost every town. I live in a metro area of over 2 million people. You can count such traditional shops on the fingers of one hand. That pendulum has quite a ways to swing yet.

Good luck,
don


----------



## JakeLA (Oct 30, 2006)

Orgetorix said:


> One thing you can depend on is BB being behind the times, especially when they try to be hip and of the moment. They jumped on the Thom Browne bandwagon well after his popularity had peaked, and continue to have him design the Black Fleece line despite how the high-fashion world has moved on to other looks.
> 
> Now that BB is really getting behind the short, skinny look that J Crew and Rugby have been pushing for years, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if things in more fashionable quarters will move on to a more relaxed look quite soon. But BB will keep adding more Milanos and XXSlim shirts, blissfully unaware.


I don't mind the slim fits, seems more authentically Take Ivy to me. The problem I have with Brooks is that a lot of their "stylish" clothing just looks like Macy's house brand crap. But I agree, it's obvious that the owners have no idea what they're doing, hence the half-assed forays into "collegiate" looks that are then spread haphazardly thoughout the website so anyone who's actually in college can't find them anyway; the stupid imports from Italy (Jaggy pants, anyone?) the new addition of Florsheim Duckie Brown shoes (which Brooks spells Duckey on their website), the fugly catalog I got the other day featuring endless photos of the same fake family wearing zip-up sweaters on a yacht, red suede chukkas... the list goes on.

But at least they've got Thom Brown. He's doing some very wearable pieces this season:


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

dcjacobson said:


> It does? That's news to me. Many of the above posters, scattered all over the country, are buying their clothes from a shop in Buffalo, New York--the same kind of shop that used to exist in almost every town. I live in a metro area of over 2 million people. You can count such traditional shops on the fingers of one hand. That pendulum has quite a ways to swing yet.
> 
> Good luck,
> don


The fact that independent men's stores have all but died out has more to do with globalization and the fact that men don't dress up anymore than it does with people not dressing American/Trad anymore.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

JakeLA said:


> ...the fugly catalog I got the other day featuring endless photos of the same fake family wearing zip-up sweaters on a yacht, red suede chukkas... the list goes on.


But hey, that's a nice yacht!!

That Navy jumper with CPO insignia however...

on a grown man?? :rolleyes2:


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Orgetorix said:


> But BB will keep adding more Milanos and XXSlim shirts, blissfully unaware.


Well, it shouldn't take the too long to get a clue as most of the slim fit shirts are what they have in the clearance section. Last summer they had some nice, long sleeve madras shirts in slim fit only. Even when I was slim-mer, I still preferred the BB full cut (voluminous luxury). I don't care what they make in slim fit, but don't skimp on the regular cut offering.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Tiger said:


> You sensed the same thing I did, Sir Cingle - that's why I asked if there was a possibility that the shop would not reopen. I'm with you - I wish them well!
> 
> Interesting: the gentleman working there may have been an owner, and whenever a customer entered (none did so after me, one was there before I entered), he would lock the door and security gate behind the entering the customer. He would unlock to allow the customer to leave, and then repeat the locking process. I guess the neighborhood has become dangerous, and is ipso facto proof of why ownership feels that it must relocate. Hard to miss the metaphor of the trad shop physically and philosophically under siege. A sad indictment of modern America, I fear...


There are usually just two guys there, Eddie Jacobs Jr and Frank Motta...they are the partners that own the store. Might I ask if you were in the store at or near closing time? That would explain the door locking procedure which is not uncommon no matter where you are. That neighborhood is not really dangerous as much as sparsely populated. It's right next to the Inner Harbor though.

Interesting article from when they moved the store last time in 1992.

https://articles.baltimoresun.com/1...24104_1_eddie-jacobs-new-location-jacobs-died


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Danny said:


> Interesting article from when they moved the store last time in 1992.
> 
> https://articles.baltimoresun.com/1...24104_1_eddie-jacobs-new-location-jacobs-died


Nice piece.

I wonder if the "Hambergers" refered to in the article is what was left of Hamberger-Mullins of decades past??


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Danny said:


> There are usually just two guys there, Eddie Jacobs Jr and Frank Motta...they are the partners that own the store. Might I ask if you were in the store at or near closing time? That would explain the door locking procedure which is not uncommon no matter where you are. That neighborhood is not really dangerous as much as sparsely populated. It's right next to the Inner Harbor though.
> 
> Got there at 3:40PM on a Saturday afternoon. Perhaps they had a bad experience, and are now very cautious?


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Perhaps. Not sure. Can't say that has been the case whenever I have been there [recently or otherwise]. 3:40 on a Saturday is a pretty safe time of day anyway. Maybe they did though [have a bad experience]. More likely I think they were just getting ready to get out of there.


----------



## dcjacobson (Jun 25, 2007)

> The fact that independent men's stores have all but died out has more to do with globalization and the fact that men don't dress up anymore than it does with people not dressing American/Trad anymore.


Understood. But my point was that I don't see much evidence that the pendelum is swinging back to classical attire. If it were, you wouldn't have to go to Buffalo to get it! You yourself say that "men don't dress up anymore," and I certainly agree with that.

Anyway, all I saw in the preview I got was boating togs. Not much there for a 50-year old guy (who doesn't even own a rowboat!).


----------



## rbstc123 (Jun 13, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> With no models over 30 they don't care what we think!!


 I can only assume that the baby boomer generation represents BBs largest slice of the customer pie. That said, I can only further assume that they are recruiting new customer's for the future. The loyal customers will not go anywhere simply because BB still offers the same staples that they have always offered. And they will continue to do so. They are just after the younger crowd and a slice of the resurgence of the preppy movement within it.


----------



## rbstc123 (Jun 13, 2007)

hookem12387 said:


> I like the tipped shawl collar cardigan, and I really like the bottom right outfit. I don't think it's great, but it doesn't seem like a world is ending collection.


+1 
I think the jacket is great as well displayed with the outfit on the bottom right.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

rbstc123 said:


> I can only assume that the baby boomer generation represents BBs largest slice of the customer pie. That said, I can only further assume that they are recruiting new customer's for the future. The loyal customers will not go anywhere simply because BB still offers the same staples that they have always offered. And they will continue to do so. They are just after the younger crowd and a slice of the resurgence of the preppy movement within it.


I think it's just that those are runway shots. Runway models are 17-25 years old. Simple as that. In catalogs they definitely use older models.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Let's see...

My play-by-play response to flipping through the preview.
Cool boat, J.Crew, PRL, What's with the logos?, J.Crew, Affected, J.Crew, Levi's?, J.Crew, Contrived, Male model is shorter than the female, Cute Girl, J.Crew...


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Whale pants in slim fit only.
> 
> Bastards.


They're in the Clark fit - that's not exactly slim fit. Milano is slim-fit.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

maximar said:


> I wonder what the younger consumers think about us while reading these posts?
> I was so excited this weekend when I found a bunch of OCBDs at BB on clearance. A young couple went beside me on the table and the girl said, "these shirts are pretty cheap.. but the style is kinda oldish (with an eww expression on her face)". Oldish? WTF?


Not sure how a button-down shirt is "oldish." All the mainstream stores have them.



unmodern said:


> As a young guy who wants to wear classic clothing, the line I am constantly walking is trying to find stuff that will fit my thin frame, but not look like those pictures (tight, short, lorise trousers) or be made of Teflon in India or be black or multi-stripe or some experimental hybrid of styles. I wish it were 1960 again and the body type that designers of classic clothing thought of was thin. As if to compensate, my peers are wearing ultra-slim fits. I see people walking around in tight-as-hell Barbours and skinny jeans and I kind of gag. I just want to look put together; I want my clothes to be normal, to fit normal, to look normal, to be authentic, and to last a long time. (!) I know I am not the only one, I see some young men walking around looking very nice; I feel like stopping and asking them where they acquired such wonderful articles of clothing, but I fear that the answer will be, "My grandfather."
> 
> Certain items are readily available in flattering cuts---shirts (BB slim), trou (J. Crew classic fit), shoes (AE), belts (lots of nice places for these), and a peacoat (Sterlingwear). For this I am eternally grateful. But other things are friggin' impossible to find if you are slim like me---sportscoats/blazers, casual outerwear in a true small (not a small that's actually a 39L), casual shirts that aren't too baggy but don't have anemic BD collars.
> 
> I guess this turned into a rant. Apologies. My general opinion of the lookbook: ridiculous fits, maybe some worthwhile items; but as long as they're designing things to be combined like _that_, my aesthetic isn't really being represented.


I think we're on the same wavelength here, aside from sizes.



CM Wolff said:


> These looks book previews are not worth getting too excited about one way or another - they certainly are not a good enough basis for writing Brooks off, they are just costumes worn by rather silly looking models in ways normal adults wouldn't wear them (e.g. too short, etc.). But looking at the full spring line that is now up on the website, Brooks spring 2011 is no better or worse than it has been for years. Typical selections of sportshirts and polo shirts and sweaters and pants and other gear, enough tastefully done for a mature gentleman and professional, as well as a host of other stuff that just has to be bypassed when it skews too young and forward.


Good points.



AdamsSutherland said:


> Let's see...
> 
> My play-by-play response to flipping through the preview.
> Cool boat, J.Crew, PRL, What's with the logos?, J.Crew, Affected, J.Crew, Levi's?, J.Crew, Contrived, *Male model is shorter than the female*, Cute Girl, J.Crew...


I see this pretty much every day.


----------



## Uncle Bill (May 4, 2010)

dcjacobson said:


> It does? That's news to me. Many of the above posters, scattered all over the country, are buying their clothes from a shop in Buffalo, New York--the same kind of shop that used to exist in almost every town. I live in a metro area of over 2 million people. You can count such traditional shops on the fingers of one hand. That pendulum has quite a ways to swing yet.
> 
> Good luck,
> don


I live in a region of 5.5 million people and the independent men's clothing stores mostly carry more fashion forward European inspired menswear (continental as opposed to British). The lone BB outlet in downtown Toronto is the closest thing I got to trad/preppy clothing without going into the hassle of dealing with UPS/Fed Ex when I order online.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

Uncle Bill, you need to get a US mailbox like Per. I mean he lives in Sweden and he's nor complaining.


----------



## Uncle Bill (May 4, 2010)

That will be rectified come May, I will have a crash pad in NYC so I can shop in person.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

In other BB-related news:



> New York, January 26, 2011 - Nordstrom, Inc. (NYSE: JWN) and Brooks Brothers announced a partnership today to begin selling Brooks Brothers menswear in select Nordstrom stores and on Nordstrom.com.
> 
> "We are very excited about this new partnership and honored to be working with Nordstrom," said Paulette Garafalo, Brooks Brothers' President of Wholesale. "Brooks Brothers and Nordstrom share the same values and a long-held tradition of offering exceptional products and unparalleled customer service."
> 
> ...


----------



## Luckycharmboi2 (May 30, 2009)

I am not a relic by any stretch (in my 30s), but at the same time am quite conservative in my manner of dress. Other than the cotton Fitzgerald suit (of which I already own 2 from years past), all of the remaining outfits look ridiculous. The jacket in the lower right is simply ghastly, and I can't see anyone wearing it to anything other than a picnic, sailing, or a horse race. It seems like the sort of item one couldn't wear often without appearing to be a uniform. The remaining outfits seem like attempts at banana republic hipster type clothing. But keep in mind, I'm sure it's not lost on BB (as it wasn't on A & F) that kids spend a lot more money on clothing than older folks, and hence their attempt to segue into a younger market. Sad for us, and sad for what it's doing to the brand, but it may ultimately work out for their bottom line (at our expense).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Yeah, but if they keep offering the clothing that older people buy, what do they have to lose by offering some hipster-ish stuff alongside it?


----------



## JakeLA (Oct 30, 2006)

Luckycharmboi2 said:


> I am not a relic by any stretch (in my 30s), but at the same time am quite conservative in my manner of dress. Other than the cotton Fitzgerald suit (of which I already own 2 from years past), all of the remaining outfits look ridiculous. The jacket in the lower right is simply ghastly, and I can't see anyone wearing it to anything other than a picnic, sailing, or a horse race. It seems like the sort of item one couldn't wear often without appearing to be a uniform. The remaining outfits seem like attempts at banana republic hipster type clothing. But keep in mind, I'm sure it's not lost on BB (as it wasn't on A & F) that kids spend a lot more money on clothing than older folks, and hence their attempt to segue into a younger market. Sad for us, and sad for what it's doing to the brand, but it may ultimately work out for their bottom line (at our expense).


Considering that over the years Brooks has sold everything from 4" wide ties (in 1968, no less) to velour "loungewear," so I'm not sure why you're so freaked out about a gingham blazer. Are you equally offended by patch madras and pink trousers with whales embroidered on them?

As for Abercrombie, the original company went bankrupt in the 70s; the current owners just bought the name.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Modern A&F may as well be referred to as AFINO.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

JakeLA said:


> Considering that over the years Brooks has sold everything from 4" wide ties (in 1968, no less) to velour "loungewear," so I'm not sure why you're so freaked out about a gingham blazer. Are you equally offended by patch madras and pink trousers with whales embroidered on them?
> 
> As for Abercrombie, the original company went bankrupt in the 70s; the current owners just bought the name.


Funny you mention the ties. I noticed all of the Audubon waterfowl ties were 4"; only the one songbird tie was 3.25" No wonder they ended up in the outlets.


----------



## pt10023 (Jan 14, 2008)

*Brooks Brothers on Facebook*

Are any of you on facebook? Brooks Brothers has a page, and facebook members can comment on the posts that BB makes. Many of the comments regarding their spring preview post reflect what's being said here - that BB seems to be copying J Crew; that BB is moving away from its roots and alienating its long-term clients; etc. Perhaps we could join the chorus. Ideally, numerous negative comments would be made and read by someone with the ability to influence the direction BB is heading in. Yes, I realize that's probably not going to happen, but at least we can find satisfaction in telling BB directly, in a public forum, that we think their spring preview sucks.


----------



## My Pet. A Pantsuit (Dec 25, 2008)

MKC said:


> Sadly, it seems to me they are well into the Cash Grab phase.


I think so. Last I heard, they were firing sales associates who'd been there for over 20 years because they failed to open 40 new credit card accounts annually. Unapproved accounts didn't count toward that goal, either, so in slower stores, Dillard's-style high turnover was basically a guarantee. They also closed some gross amount of credit cards in 2010 over 6 months of inactivity, which incensed many people who'd had the thing for 30 years.

But they don't have much of a PR budget; stuff like Levis and Red Wing boots just appear, with the expectation that the customer's one-sided "relationship" with Brooks Brothers will compel people to buy them.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Well, that solidifies it then. I don't think Brooks Brothers is getting my business.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

not to appear too out of it, but are men's jackets getting shorter?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

No, their arms are getting longer...


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

The Rambler said:


> not to appear too out of it, but are men's jackets getting shorter?


While it is possible that BB's jackets are getting shorter, the pics they use for catalogs and marketing materials often bear little resemblance to the way things fit in real life. The marketing people fit and pin and Photoshop them as they think looks good, without worrying too much about traditional rules of proportion. There was a notorious pic of a DB Regent suit a couple years ago where the bottom of the model's jacket only came down to about his wrist bone, but the real suit fit normally.

My guess is BB's jackets are much the same as they have been the last several years, but they're just showing them shorter in pictures to be in step with current fashion--or, rather, where fashion has been for several years. BB behind the curve as usual.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> No, their arms are getting longer...


Since you mentioned odd proportions:
https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...olor=GREY&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=

My wife pointed out the enormous size of this guys hands. He looks like he's wearing baseball mitts!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Fred Astaire had hands like that - if you look at his movies, you'll see that he almost always has a couple of fingers tucked in to minimize the size.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

It seems they would be well served to bring back something akin to the University Shop, you know where "trendy, moderately priced clothing for the younger man just beginning his career" could be purchased. But what do I know, if you had asked me what i thought about Abercrombie and Fitch targeting the young teen set with a heavy dose of sex sells advertising, I would have said good luck.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

joenobody0 said:


> My wife pointed out the enormous size of this guys hands. He looks like he's wearing baseball mitts!


I thought he looked familiar!!


----------



## JakeLA (Oct 30, 2006)

Charles Saturn said:


> If you had asked me what i thought about Abercrombie and Fitch targeting the young teen set with a heavy dose of sex sells advertising, I would have said good luck.


Abecrombie and Fitch went bankrupt, and the name was sold to some clothing conglomerate, it's not like Mr. Fitch woke up one morning and said, "Enough with the fishing rods, I'm going to sell hot pants to high school girls!"


----------



## Ed Reynolds (Apr 13, 2010)

> It seems they would be well served to bring back something akin to the University Shop, you know where "trendy, moderately priced clothing for the younger man just beginning his career" could be purchased. But what do I know, if you had asked me what i thought about Abercrombie and Fitch targeting the young teen set with a heavy dose of sex sells advertising, I would have said good luck.


I had thought that myself, why aren't there more traditional men's stores around? Could I open one and be successful? I'm not sure. We have a generation or more of teens/young men who are conditioned to think the cheaper is better, even if the quality sucks.

How many young people will buy a Mercer shirt, or spend $200 on a pair of AEs when they can go to Macy's, Banana Republic or any other cheap mall store to buy Hecho En Chine garbage that will fall apart in a year? ​


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I thought he looked familiar!!


It looks like you got some advanced pictures of Thom Browne's new cartoon inspired collection! Kudos to you.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

JakeLA said:


> Abecrombie and Fitch went bankrupt, and the name was sold to some clothing conglomerate, it's not like Mr. Fitch woke up one morning and said, "Enough with the fishing rods, I'm going to sell hot pants to high school girls!"


That's good to know. I always wondered how they got where they did. Makes a bit more sense.


----------



## inq89 (Dec 3, 2008)

maximar said:


> I wonder what the younger consumers think about us while reading these posts?
> I was so excited this weekend when I found a bunch of OCBDs at BB on clearance. A young couple went beside me on the table and the girl said, "these shirts are pretty cheap.. but the style is kinda oldish (with an eww expression on her face)". Oldish? WTF?


I am biased just by posting on this board, but my generation has lots of differing tastes. What she's think as oldish...I honestly thought the same thing too just a few years ago. But tastes change very quickly and a lot of my friends are starting to dress "their age" instead of shopping at American Eagle like we did in high school. My clothing preferences went to the deep end though lol.



unmodern said:


> As a young guy who wants to wear classic clothing, the line I am constantly walking is trying to find stuff that will fit my thin frame, but not look like those pictures (tight, short, lorise trousers) or be made of Teflon in India or be black or multi-stripe or some experimental hybrid of styles. I wish it were 1960 again and the body type that designers of classic clothing thought of was thin. As if to compensate, my peers are wearing ultra-slim fits. I see people walking around in tight-as-hell Barbours and skinny jeans and I kind of gag. I just want to look put together; I want my clothes to be normal, to fit normal, to look normal, to be authentic, and to last a long time. (!) I know I am not the only one, I see some young men walking around looking very nice; I feel like stopping and asking them where they acquired such wonderful articles of clothing, but I fear that the answer will be, "My grandfather."
> 
> Certain items are readily available in flattering cuts---shirts (BB slim), trou (J. Crew classic fit), shoes (AE), belts (lots of nice places for these), and a peacoat (Sterlingwear). For this I am eternally grateful. But other things are friggin' impossible to find if you are slim like me---sportscoats/blazers, casual outerwear in a true small (not a small that's actually a 39L), casual shirts that aren't too baggy but don't have anemic BD collars.
> 
> I guess this turned into a rant. Apologies. My general opinion of the lookbook: ridiculous fits, maybe some worthwhile items; but as long as they're designing things to be combined like _that_, my aesthetic isn't really being represented.


I actually don't mind saying that some of clothes have been passed down from my grandfather and my father. They have good style, and I always received compliments.

I agree with the fitting. One thing that BB does right is they offer lots of fits. I wear the Clark and now teasing with the Hudson - due to working out, not gaining fat  and I am glad to see they offer the Milano as well. Whether we like it or not, in my case I am indifferent because I wasn't even alive during the "golden age", BB and the like have to evolve to attract a new type of customer. The OP's Spring Preview looked very much like RL and JCrew as mentioned before, which I do not mind as long as they stay true to their roots as well. (The collab with Browne was too much of a departure, the collegiate line is not imo)


----------

