# Clothes with logos



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

What is the opinion here on clothes with logos? As I have grown longer in the tooth I no longer have T shirts with billboard sized slogans across them crazy, but I still have a few sweaters with the Polo pony on them, and most of my polo shirts have some sort of small company logo. 

I don't have any dress shirts or trousers with logos and have never liked them. I am now starting to wonder however if there is something juvenile about clothes with logos and whether I should be dispensing with them altogether now I am beyond 35. Or am I over-thinking it? 

Weirdly, I feel a polo shirt looks almost incomplete without something over the left chest. Such is the conditioning power of branding I guess.

Would welcome any thoughts...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I have a strong preference for logo-less polo/golf shirts. With the exception of athletic and "outdoors" clothing, I generally have a rule that my clothes have no visible labels.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I hate logos. Although I recognize the power of "showing off" the brand. I'll still wear Lacoste or RL polos.

T-shirts, no.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

An un-ubiquitous logo is fine (izod small crocodile, Levis cloth tag on seam, etc), my preference being no logo. When the logo takes over and one looks like a billboard; something is wrong, I.E. the present polo pony.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Interesting question. My kneejerk reaction is to say that logos are tacky and then harumph with a superior grunt, but my wardrobe is filled with them, so I guess I should reconsider my position. 

In businesswear, I still wear a PRL OCBD on an occasional Friday with no reservation. Otherwise, I agree, that logos are probably a bad idea at the workplace...although no one seems to really care one way or the other.

For casualwear, I agree that a logo-less polo shirt looks a little empty. So I have quite a few polo shirts from PRL and BB. My chino shorts have a PRL tag stitched over the back pocket. There's a Wrangler/Dickies/Carhartt tag hanging from the back pocket of my jeans/work pants. My fleecewear is tattooed with logos from Northface, Mountain Hardware, or Columbia. My Filson shirts have Filson written on the button edges.

All of my baseball caps have logos from various golf courses or sporting event/retail brand/resorts/etc.

My athletic/casual shoes have a New Balance "N", the Timberland logo, a Chippewa brand in the leather, a Redwing tag, Sperry sailboat, etc.

Yes, I hate logos, but I can't seem to escape them.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I think I might go logo-less for future purchases. I have a couple of Sunspel polo shirts that are logoless, but have a small pocket on the left chest which relieves the monotony. 

I agree sportswear is going to be a different story. When I run I look like I am sponsored by Nike and when I hike I look like I am brought to you by the North Face. Not exactly very original or stylish, but I can live with it.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

mrp said:


> An un-ubiquitous logo is fine (izod small crocodile, Levis cloth tag on seam, etc), my preference being no logo. When the logo takes over and one looks like a billboard; something is wrong, I.E. the present polo pony.


Agree the present giant polo pony is just ridiculous. Somebody turned up to work in one of those polo shirts a few weeks ago. You need to be a sports star to look anything other than ludicrous...at least if you are a sports star people can assume you are paid to wear it.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

I enjoy the patterns & colors of Paul & Shark. It's still made in Italy and appears well made to my amateur eye. I was never bothered by the small shark on the pocket & in fact on many of my shirts its' hard to see unless you're looking for it. My problem is thay nowadays they splash their name everywhere on the garment as well.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

If you're going to sweat logos come with the territory. Otherwise pass.


----------



## cmacey (May 3, 2009)

If a quality product I like has a logo, oh well. You like what you like. Definitely overthinking it...IMHO.

I never wear "T" shirts out in public unless I am training or doing some form of manual labor.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

cmacey said:


> If a quality product I like has a logo, oh well. You like what you like.


Right. And I like my collared shirts without logos.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I can live with a 1/2" pony, Golden Fleece, over grown lizard,etc. on a knit polo shirt, but anything beyond 1/2" in size is just too darned obtrusive and to be avoided if humanly possible!


----------



## PMRuby (Jan 13, 2010)

cmacey said:


> If a quality product I like has a logo, oh well. You like what you like. Definitely overthinking it...IMHO.


Actually, not really. I've seen several Barbour button downs that i've loved the prints on, but I've neglected to buy a single one because they have a ghastly logo on the breast. It ruins the whole shirt.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> I have a strong preference for logo-less polo/golf shirts. With the exception of athletic and "outdoors" clothing, I generally have a rule that my clothes have no visible labels.


I agree. I had some plain polo shirts from Brooks once (picked up on a trip to the States, on a sales tax 'holiday' in DC) that had the logo as a sort of indentation in the shirt rather than in a different colour. Those were okay. I have worse logo-ed polo shirts, but nothing more formal.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

PMRuby said:


> Actually, not really. I've seen several Barbour button downs that i've loved the prints on, but I've neglected to buy a single one because they have a ghastly logo on the breast. It ruins the whole shirt.


I like Barbour waxed jackets. I can't believe people walk around wearing that tacky little pin they sell them with on the lapels of the coat, though.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

An observation I find interesting is that either the cheaper or the more expensive the clothing, the less likely it is to be covered in logos. On the cheaper side I'm referring to the likes of own-brand clothing from the big - cheap - retailers. On this side of the pond, it's Primark/Pennys, Tesco and so on. On the expensive side I'm referring to the likes of say Loro Piana, and the casual lines from Brioni, Kiton etc... Obviously there are some exceptions to this but by and large it's so.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> What is the opinion here on clothes with logos? As I have grown longer in the tooth I no longer have T shirts with billboard sized slogans across them crazy, but I still have a few sweaters with the Polo pony on them, and most of my polo shirts have some sort of small company logo.
> 
> I don't have any dress shirts or trousers with logos and have never liked them. I am now starting to wonder however if there is something juvenile about clothes with logos and whether I should be dispensing with them altogether now I am beyond 35. Or am I over-thinking it?
> 
> ...


Whoa! Hold your horses! Mr Haffman, not but a few days ago in another thread you conceded to Hollister or some such tommyrot as being items you wore to the supermarket. :devil:

My position is simple; items adorned with trumpeted logos are contraindicated in any circumstance. Ghastly declasse gewgaws.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

For the left chest perhaps, OP?


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Shaver said:


> [/SIZE]Ghastly declasse gewgaws.


Sounds like the makings of a new brand-just imagine the possibilities with a stylized GDG logo emblazoned on everything. And French to boot!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


>


:icon_hailthee: VictorRomeo I have never found occasion to use this emoticon before but your post absolutely deserves it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Brooksfan said:


> Sounds like the makings of a new brand-just imagine the possibilities with a stylized GDG logo emblazoned on everything. And French to boot!


I can imagine it. EEK!


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

There's an earlier thread on pretty nearly exactly the same topic, though it began - to my recollection - on the narrower subject of BB's recent "big box o' polo shirts" promotion.

There's no heavy logic to this. Where logos are considered acceptable (_i.e._ where they've traditionally appeared), they're acceptable; where they're not, they're not. 
Unacceptable: business clothes, dress clothes.
Acceptable: cars, sporting goods, polo shirts and ... well, most everything else.

Other point: There are tons of what amount to (or literally are) trademarks in clothes, which functionally aren't enormously different from logos. Anybody who's not a bit on the rubish side can recognize a Barbour coat with no logo. You need to be sharper, but scarcely a genius, to recognize a J. Press sportcoat.


----------



## sqroot3 (Jun 13, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> For the left chest perhaps, OP?


epic.


----------



## sqroot3 (Jun 13, 2012)

Starch said:


> There are tons of what amount to (or literally are) trademarks in clothes, which functionally aren't enormously different from logos. Anybody who's not a bit on the rubish side can recognize a Barbour coat with no logo. You need to be sharper, but scarcely a genius, to recognize a J. Press sportcoat.


Whoops. I can recognize neither. checked out photos of these items. how can you tell?!


----------



## Col. Mustard (Mar 16, 2008)

My sociological theory in regards to branding. (Apologies for inadvertently cannibalizing anyone else's insight.)

Apparel has always communicated social status. Those in a higher social rank would wear more ornate or more refined, more crafted or better materialed, more fancy or sophisticated clothing. These were qualities that could be determined on sight, especially among elites as they communicated in-group status to one another. Lower ranks would wear increasingly plain and utilitarian clothing as you worked your way down the social ladder.

However, as society shifted towards greater egalitarianism throughout the 20th century, culminating in the 1960s, traditional signifiers of social rank were seen as outdated and gauche. Egalitarianism was reflected through casualization: a widespread adoption of the modes of dress of the proletariat, or at least modes of dress where social rank would be less conspicuous. These modes of dress -- mass-produced sportswear and jeans -- are ultimately indistinguishable in terms of quality.

However, human being still have yearnings for definitions of ingroup/outgroup and social status. Again, quality distinctions among machine-made, mass-produced, essentially identical merchandise became meaningless. Thus _branding (_and a more arbitrary retail cost attached to it), rather than quality, became the demarcation of value or exclusivity.

Thus you have people buying crap Burberry polos for $150.

On the other hand, pockets of old money still eschew branding.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Despite the uproar over on the Trad forum, I find the label free Lands End polo shirts just fine. If I want a logo, I have them monogramed. That way I am at least advertising myself! I figure if I'm going to be a walking billboard for some company, they ought to be paying _me_ rather than the reverse. Another reason for Duluth Trading no-polo polos, IMO. And if one's left chest looks bare unadorned, there's always the highly useful _pocket_ .


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I dislike logos. I have no logowear, at all. Except for the Lacoste crocodile. For some unknown reason I like it, and have since I got my first "alligator shirts" in the 60s.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

I have nor ever been an advertising board or product placement space with any item of my clothing. I wear clothes for pleasure, comfort and style not to advertise or endorse a product.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Haffman said:


> What is the opinion here on clothes with logos? As I have grown longer in the tooth I no longer have T shirts with billboard sized slogans across them crazy, but I still have a few sweaters with the Polo pony on them, and most of my polo shirts have some sort of small company logo.
> 
> I don't have any dress shirts or trousers with logos and have never liked them. I am now starting to wonder however if there is something juvenile about clothes with logos and whether I should be dispensing with them altogether now I am beyond 35. Or am I over-thinking it?
> 
> ...


The novelist and journalist Will Self (an Englishman) is not a fan of corporate logos; he went so far as to remove the insignia from his Volvo.

https://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/will_self_on_himself/





 (Around the two minute mark.)


----------



## Busterdog (Jan 1, 2010)

I don't particularly care for logo'd casual clothing though oftentimes, especially with regard to polo shirts, it's impossible to find quality 'anonymous' ones in a hurry.
Like other posters I don't particularly mind little alligators though, sadly, found Lacoste has really gone down hill quality wise.

So where does one find decent polos without logos?


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Busterdog said:


> I don't particularly care for logo'd casual clothing though oftentimes, especially with regard to polo shirts, it's impossible to find quality 'anonymous' ones in a hurry.
> Like other posters I don't particularly mind little alligators though, sadly, found Lacoste has really gone down hill quality wise.
> 
> So where does one find decent polos without logos?


Why not remove them yourself? :wink2:


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Brio1 said:


> The novelist and journalist Will Self (an Englishman) is not a fan of corporate logos; he went so far as to remove the insignia from his Volvo.
> 
> https://www.salon.com/2012/08/20/will_self_on_himself/
> 
> ...


Great links, Brio1.

'I've never really trusted a man who had writing on his trousers -- especially if it was vertical.' Laugh out loud!

EDIT 1: Another laugh out loud: the noun 'trousers' has been hyperlinked without my consent in order to advertise Brook Brothers. Oh, the irony of what this thread is about!


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Brio1 said:


> he went so far as to remove the insignia from his Volvo.


Right ... and how many people can't recognize a Volvo without the logo?

Ostentatious "de-branding" is just another form of ostentation. The most obvious (and actually fairly common) variant is the fad-let of de-badging BMWs, which I mentioned in the earlier thread.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Prefer non-logo, where possible. I'm not going to try to cut out a stitched in name on a rain jacket, for instance, but the need to advertise has never appealed to me. Could be a lingering reaction from the first Ponies: made here in the Carolinas, so we knew the owners had grossly overpaid for perceived status.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Like most people, I am not opposed to the small Polo logo or the Lacoste gator (when I was young, the alligator was the symbol for Izod). The latest trend of the dinner plate-sized pony is very unappealing to me. I didn't like it on the USA olympic uniforms. It reeks of blatant commercialism. Small tags are unavoidable and are easy to overlook. I am not a fan of the baseball caps with the tags and holographic logos still attached to them. I will not even get started on the dayglo sneaker trend. I like my Tommy Bahama polos with the marlin logo being the same color as the shirt. Much less visually obtrusive.


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

I don't mind the conservatively sized logos on sweaters, polos, or sport shirts. Although every time I see one of my peers wearing a "big pony" Polo, I die a little more on the inside.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Refining (somewhat) what I said earlier, in agreement with posts above -

Traditionally-sized and -located logos: okay.
Polo pony logo that approaches the size of an actual polo pony: gack.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Whoa! Hold your horses! Mr Haffman, not but a few days ago in another thread you conceded to Hollister or some such tommyrot as being items you wore to the supermarket. :devil:
> .


No, no, NO!

It was ABERCROMBIE & FITCH !

Get your teenage branding right Shaver, what kind of a man are you?!!:devil:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Col. Mustard said:


> My sociological theory in regards to branding. (Apologies for inadvertently cannibalizing anyone else's insight.)
> 
> Apparel has always communicated social status. Those in a higher social rank would wear more ornate or more refined, more crafted or better materialed, more fancy or sophisticated clothing. These were qualities that could be determined on sight, especially among elites as they communicated in-group status to one another. Lower ranks would wear increasingly plain and utilitarian clothing as you worked your way down the social ladder.
> 
> ...


Thoughtful post, thanks. I should have said that as well as being potentially juvenile, I wonder if there is a certain stylistic laziness or even lack of courage about branded clothing. If what you wear is not endorsed by some major brand (i.e. this is an expensive item so it has to be good)..... then it sinks or swims on its own. Thus I would expect branded clothing to be eschewed by many on this forum and this seems to be the case.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Busterdog said:


> So where does one find decent polos without logos?


Try Sunspel...it's good enough for James Bond!


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> For the left chest perhaps, OP?


Stick a plastic pony on there instead and you just might just have the next Wimbledon tennis and US Olympic uniforms! Quick...patent the idea before it's too late!!:wink2:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Starch said:


> There's no heavy logic to this. Where logos are considered acceptable (_i.e._ where they've traditionally appeared), they're acceptable; where they're not, they're not.
> Unacceptable: business clothes, dress clothes.
> Acceptable: cars, sporting goods, polo shirts and ... well, most everything else.


I'm not really talking about what is "acceptable" in the broadest sense. The point has been made a million times that most people don't notice or care about what we're wearing, within reason. So notch lapel dinner jackets, while arousing endless stylistic opprobrium on these fora, are of course "acceptable" by most standards. I was opening up a discussion on the stylistic merits, or lack of them, of branded clothing.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> No, no, NO!
> 
> It was ABERCROMBIE & FITCH !
> 
> Get your teenage branding right Shaver, what kind of a man are you?!!:devil:


one who isn't much au fait with teenage faddishness. :icon_smile:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> I'm not really talking about what is "acceptable" in the broadest sense. The point has been made a million times that most people don't notice or care about what we're wearing, within reason. So notch lapel dinner jackets, while arousing endless stylistic opprobrium on these fora, are of course "acceptable" by most standards. I was opening up a discussion on the stylistic merits, or lack of them, of branded clothing.


If those dreadful, tatty, pseudo pre-worn, distressed, detailing sewn by a drunken seamstress, astonishingly overpriced rags from S*perdry et al are symbolic of social status and a surfeit of wealth allowing for money to burn (albeit normally someone else's money i.e. parents) then the niche demonstrably exists:

Branded dinner jackets anyone?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Haffman said:


> Stick a plastic pony on there instead and you just might just have the next Wimbledon tennis and US Olympic uniforms! Quick...patent the idea before it's too late!!:wink2:


A "My Little Pony" would be hilarious.....


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Branded dinner jackets anyone?


Could, say, the signature cut of the more renouned Tailors be deemed branding of sorts....? Especially for those "in the 'know"?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> Could, say, the signature cut of the more renouned Tailors be deemed branding of sorts....? Especially for those "in the 'know"?


Perhaps. However I cannot pretend that I am able to discern such nuance. Is this truly an effect that one might train their eye to recognise with certitude? How 'in the know' would one have to be? I think about clothes a considerable deal but hopefully am not so consumed as to ever be able to identify the craft of an individual tailor.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> For the left chest perhaps, OP?


If there was a pictorial hall of fame, I would nominate this. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

If I am going to wear signage, I want to get paid for it. 

Have your tailor remove these before the new shirt is laundered.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Perhaps. However I cannot pretend that I am able to discern such nuance. Is this truly an effect that one might train their eye to recognise with certitude? How 'in the know' would one have to be? I think about clothes a considerable deal but hopefully am not so consumed as to ever be able to identify the craft of an individual tailor.


I agree with that sentiment. I suppose what brought that to mind was the discussion here a while back regarding Huntsman's house style. In fairness, you could have any tailor mimic said style. At the same time, I am sure there are those(probably small in numbers) who could - with a fair certainty of accuracy - spot most 'house styles'.

Either way, it cannot compare with the egregious and clownish nature of a overly branded garment.

Oh by the way, I most graciously accept your smilies.... I do not believe I've ever had so many!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

VictorRomeo said:


> For the left chest perhaps, OP?


This was Lacoste's original idea.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I don't mind wearing logos on my shirt, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Um, yeah... That's kinda the joke...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Joke(!)??? LOL. I thought your illustration was perhaps the most incredible example of 3D embroidery that I could recall ever having seen!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I detest logos on clothes as much as I miss hood ornaments on Buicks!!










Proof once more that there is no justice!!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Joke(!)??? LOL. I thought your illustration was perhaps the most incredible example of 3D embroidery that I could recall ever having seen!


As mentiened earlier, I now have to find a My Littly Pony next! Maybe stick a Troll Doll on it for the rider....


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I detest logos on clothes as much as I miss hood ornaments on Buicks!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd have that on my car.....


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Haffman said:


> I'm not really talking about what is "acceptable" in the broadest sense.


Nor am I.

The normal logos - on polo shirts - are stylistically acceptable, much as a buttondown collar is stylistically acceptable with a suit in the United States.

I suppose all of this is in the United States, since that's the only place I am. It may or may not make work elsewhere.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

There was a brief period when Brooks moved the Golden Fleece emblem from the left chest to the lower right front shirt tail. That was a better time but I'm afraid removing the emblem from the chest now would result in a volume decrease. As I'm sure the old-timers will concur when I came of age suits and sport coats had either 3/8 or 1/2 linings-they were cooler, looked better, etc. But about 1975 or so someone started to equate full linings with higher quality and the rest is history. Logos are here to stay but we do have the right to abstain.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Its just occurred to me that although I've seen pictures of Rene Lacoste in the crocodile shirt, I've never seen a picture of Ralph Lauren in his logo'd clothing (quick Google search didn't reveal any genuine examples either). I wonder if he thinks clothing with logos are stylish...? :icon_scratch:

P.S. I accept its maybe a bit naff to wear your own logo...


----------



## Sober (Jul 31, 2012)

I agree with the general opinion expressed in previous posts that logos should be avoided in most situations. In my opinion, a man should try to be discreet in his clothing. I can accept logos in polo shirts, mainly because they are rather casual and it's virtually impossible to find them 'logoless'. However, I'm very reluctant to buy anything else displaying a brand name. A couple of years ago I bought a few decent quality button-down shirts with a visible logo because they were a real bargain but I immediately asked my taylor to reverse the pocket to hide it. 

A good friend of mine doesn't care at all about dressing style and when he's not at work he often wears promotional clothing from other industries. I think that makes more sense than actually paying for being a billboard!


----------



## pusso (May 5, 2009)

To be honest I do not like logos at all.

My current wearing of Ashworth golf jumpers which do have logos is that my Mother bought me 2 identical ones and as due to my health I'm obliged to live with my parents, I feel that I should wear the jumpers.

None of my own bought clothes have any logos at all.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

I truly detest clothing with big logos and branding.

...absolutely hateful.

I think a small descrete polo pony or green crocodile is OK though.


----------



## sqroot3 (Jun 13, 2012)

Col. Mustard said:


> My sociological theory in regards to branding. (Apologies for inadvertently cannibalizing anyone else's insight.)
> 
> Apparel has always communicated social status. Those in a higher social rank would wear more ornate or more refined, more crafted or better materialed, more fancy or sophisticated clothing. These were qualities that could be determined on sight, especially among elites as they communicated in-group status to one another. Lower ranks would wear increasingly plain and utilitarian clothing as you worked your way down the social ladder.
> 
> ...


insightful indeed, although i am sure there are pockets of old money embracing branding...


----------



## Col. Mustard (Mar 16, 2008)

Brooksfan said:


> There was a brief period when Brooks moved the Golden Fleece emblem from the left chest to the lower right front shirt tail. That was a better time but I'm afraid removing the emblem from the chest now would result in a volume decrease.


This I did not know. When did BB decide to do this? I assume they moved it down from the chest where other brands (lacoste, polo, garanimals, etc.) show theirs. How long have Brooks Brothers been making polos, and have they always had the hanging sheep stuck on there?

So someone tell me again: What's wrong with Lands End polos?

And I think it's interesting that polos have been around for a long time, and you can see them in some older movies and photos. But when you do, they never have a logo.


----------



## Col. Mustard (Mar 16, 2008)

And sorry for all the beefcake. Or, you're welcome for all the beefcake.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

What people call a polo shirt is really a tennis shirt (I'm not sure what or who drew that astray ... may have been Ralph Lauren). And traditionally, they had a logo on the left chest, though it would more likely have been Fred Perry or Lacoste (or, for the more plebian, Munsingwear).

Brooks Brothers, I think, is not a super long-time supplier of tennis shirts. I may be completely wrong on this, but I doubt they started before the '80s or late '70s.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Examples (previously posted in the other thread on the same subject);


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)




----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Starch said:


> What people call a polo shirt is really a tennis shirt (I'm not sure what or who drew that astray ... may have been Ralph Lauren).


This is an interesting point and something I've mused about before. Was it called a tennis shirt prior to Mr Lauren arriving on the scene?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

MikeDT said:


> I truly detest clothing with big logos and branding.
> 
> ...absolutely hateful.
> 
> I think a small descrete polo pony or green crocodile is OK though.


I agree, the smaller logos the better that way you don't have to stand out in the crowd.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Starch, notice that all of those pictures show men actually playing tennis. Presumably professionally, or at least at a high competitive level (I don't know my tennis history well enough to recognize mid-century tennis stars). In short, those are actually athletic wear, not recreational/casual wear taking its inspiration from athletic wear. Even those of us who have expressed a preference (and that's all it is) for no logos on our polo/tennis/golf/short-sleeved-collared-knit shirts concede that true athletic wear is generally going to be festooned with logos.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> I truly detest clothing with big logos and branding.
> 
> ...absolutely hateful.
> 
> I think a small descrete polo pony or green crocodile is OK though.


Funny! Interesting.... Wear a fake - as above - in an ironic sense as a statement in favour of the 'No Name' movement and rage against the brand machine.... or.... wear a fake 'cos you're cheap.... (or poor).


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Starch, notice that all of those pictures show men actually playing tennis. Presumably professionally, or at least at a high competitive level (I don't know my tennis history well enough to recognize mid-century tennis stars). In short, those are actually athletic wear, not recreational/casual wear taking its inspiration from athletic wear. Even those of us who have expressed a preference (and that's all it is) for no logos on our polo/tennis/golf/short-sleeved-collared-knit shirts concede that true athletic wear is generally going to be festooned with logos.


Interesting that during the same period that most of those tennis players were active, professional golfers (maybe the most logo-festooned sport now) were not walking billboards. In fact the only logo was on the left breast of their knit shirts, less an ad than a part of the garment. Not sure when the decision to allow advertising space to be sold came in, but I'd guess the 80s.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That's about the same time the boards in hockey games got ads plastered all over them too.


----------



## Col. Mustard (Mar 16, 2008)

Starch said:


> Examples (previously posted in the other thread on the same subject);


So what have we learned here?

Early to mid 20th century athletes: Logos.
Early to mid 20th century actors: No logos.
Mexican drug lords and those who wish to emulate them: BIG logos



Haffman said:


> This is an interesting point and something I've mused about before. Was it called a tennis shirt prior to Mr Lauren arriving on the scene?



 According to the _Magic Answer Machine_ known as Wikipedia...




> In 1920, Lewis Lacey, a Canadian born of English parents in Montreal, Quebec in 1887, haberdasher and polo player, began producing a shirt that was embroidered with the logo of a polo player, a design originated at the Hurlingham Polo Club near Buenos Aires. The term _polo shirt, _which previously had referred only to the long-sleeved buttoned-down shirts traditionally used in polo, soon became a universal moniker for the tennis shirt; no later than the 1950s, it was in common usage in the U.S. to describe the shirt most commonly thought of as part of formal tennis attire. Indeed, tennis players often would refer to their shirt as a "polo shirt," notwithstanding the fact that their sport had used it before polo did.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Why not get a corporate logo tattooed on your forehead or other? :wink2:

https://authenticorganizations.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/walmart-tattoo.jpg

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...n-gets-radio-station-logo-inked-forehead.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/guy-gets-tattoo-for-free-ipad-2-2011-3


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Col. Mustard said:


> According to the _Magic Answer Machine_ known as Wikipedia...


Many thanks Colonel !

So does this mean that RL ripped off the logo of the Hurlingham Polo Club?


----------



## Col. Mustard (Mar 16, 2008)

Definitely sounds like this Lewis Lacey fella has some money coming to him from Ralph Lauren.

On the other hand, I tried googling every which way I could to find out what the Lacey/Hurlingham logo looked like, and I found nothing. You'd think that since this is the internet and all, there's be a picture or something somewhere.

On the other hand, while looking for it, I did find this picture, which was supposedly taken at the 2011 Annual AAAC Meetup.










Looking good, gents!


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

The tennis players in the photos (with a few exceptions) were amateurs. The majors didn't allow pros until the start of the open era in 1968.

I have some serious doubts about the veracity of that Wikipedia entry. The first part (that someone, somewhere, stuck a polo-player logo on some kind of a shirt) may well be correct, but the second part cites no sources and looks highly questionable to me. In my own experience, it was a "tennis shirt" (or, sometimes, a "golf shirt") until Ralph Lauren made "Polo" into a major brandname in the late '70s and '80s.

Consider:

- Who even _plays_ polo? Lots of people play tennis, and those that don't at least drive by tennis courts or know people who play. In the absence of a marketing machine, do you really think people in the '50s would just randomly start describing a fairly common item of clothing by reference to a sport with which they had no contact?

- The fact that Brooks Brothers referred to their buttondowns as "polo shirts" or having "polo collars" - back before they were making a conscious effort to be trad, retro and competitor's-brandname-upping - suggests that the word wasn't commonly understood to refer to a completely different item.

- The shirts tennis players wear are the exact item. The shirts polo players wear actually tend to be different: they have numbers on them, often are made from a heavier jersey knit (like rugby shirts) and typically have a distinctive and easily recognizable colorful design, in order to tell the teams apart, _e.g._ contrasting-color sleeves, diagonal or other stripes, etc.


----------



## Claybuster (Aug 29, 2007)

The only shirts I wear with logos are my BB polos.

Danny


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Starch said:


> ....I have some serious doubts about the veracity of that Wikipedia entry.


Doubting Wikipedia is a default position. In concert to metagrabolise are the misinformed or ulteriorly motivated who submit much of its content and also the vandals who deliberately distort the remainder.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I do not believe Wikipedia is correct.

https://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/porfirio-rubirosa-last-of-the-famous-international-playboys/

[url]https://www.belleepoquestudios.com/D2/576.jpg

https://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/p213/images/p213-lowe-600w.jpg[/URL]


----------



## Col. Mustard (Mar 16, 2008)

Well, the Magic Answer Machine does cite a source for that section: Time Magazine. (I'm sure when you guys checked the link, you saw the citation.) The source is paywalled, but there is enough from the opening paragraphs to see that the shirt's connection with the sport of polo goes way back. (1893!)

Whether that's actual evidence of the fact that the term "polo" was applied to shirt prior to Ralph Lauren is still an open question. But at this point...que sera sera.

(Curiously, Leighton, I'm not sure how your images indicate that the Wikipedia entry was wrong: You show several pictures of polo players predating Ralph Lauren's launching of Polo wearing polo shirts.)

Whatever the case, I'm sure we all can agree on two things: 1) Porfirio Rubirosa was freaking awesome (as far as bon vivant international diplomats for 3rd world dictators go), and 2) Rubi's polo shirts didn't have logos.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I thought Wikipedia credits Ralph Lauren for the name polo shirt being associated with what are "properly" termed tennis shirts. But those photos and other sources prove those types of shirts were clearly in use by polo players before Ralph Lauren came to the scene.

It also calls into question Lacoste's claim to have originated the polo.


----------



## Col. Mustard (Mar 16, 2008)

The wikipedia says the opposite of what you think it does. It says that by the 1950s, everybody was calling the tennis shirts "polo shirts." RL didn't start making his shirts until the 1970s.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I see. Well, I don't see any conclusive evidence that tennis players were using them first.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

VictorRomeo said:


> For the left chest perhaps, OP?


You have a definite sense of style.

But. is it a man-eater?


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

On the Wikipedia entry, to clarify some things that seems to be going multiple directions:

What is stated without any citation, and which seems likely inaccurate, is this:



> The term _polo shirt_, which previously had referred only to the long-sleeved buttoned-down shirts traditionally used in polo, soon became a universal moniker for the tennis shirt; no later than the 1950s, it was in common usage in the U.S. to describe the shirt most commonly thought of as part of formal tennis attire.


Leighton's post above probably refers to the following passage in the Wikipedia entry, which appears in the paragraph after the preceding quotation, and which seems to contradict it, if not directly at least obliquely:



> [Ralph Lauren's polo-player logo] worked well as a marketing tool, for subsequently, due to the immense popularity of Lauren's
> clothing, a majority of English-speaking westerners began to refer to Lacoste's tennis shirt as a "polo shirt".


There's a citation for that, though it's only Ralph Lauren's own website. In any event, it sounds like it's correct (at least approximately ... I don't know if the "majority" has really been measured).

My own personal observation is that they were called "tennis shirts" (or "golf shirts") until Ralph Lauren's marketing machine took over in the mid- to late-'70s and '80s. I don't think I _ever_ heard the term "polo shirt" before that. It may have been used, but it wasn't common usage.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

On who wore them first:

Rene Lacoste is cited as having first worn "his" tennis shirt in 1929. I doubt any of the Rubirosa photos predates that. He was only 20 then; I think his polo fame came many years (decades) later.

I suspect that's fairly reliable (if anything, the date may be late). There are numerous photos of Lacoste playing in tournaments wearing the item in question (as well as quite a few wearing an earlier, long-sleeve, full button-front shirt). While it's hard to pin dates to the photos just poking around on the Internet, it is pretty easy to establish that he won his last major title in 1929.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I agree. They were "golf" or "tennis" shirts. "Polo" shirts is latter day, and it wouldn't be surprising to learn that the term originated with Ralph's mighty marketing machine.


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

There are probably more BB shirts without the logo than with. I have a few of their polos with the logo and I believe a few button shirts also, but more without. I don't search out logos nor do I rule out shirts with them, unless the logos are like the huge Ralph Lauren or even worse, Hilfiger.

I am stretching towards 60 and I don't need a stupid logo for people to know what I have, or for that matter, what I don't have.


----------



## Cliff (Mar 10, 2005)

Clothes with Logo's.......just say no.


----------



## Busterdog (Jan 1, 2010)

Shaver said:


> one who isn't much au fait with teenage faddishness. :icon_smile:


I bought a rather nice pair of duck decoys from Abercrombie and Fitch (they didn't have logos) - mind you that was several decades ago, now the place seems to be a hang out for my grand daughter and her friends.


----------



## Funkatronik (Feb 5, 2004)

I don't mind a small logo, particularly in polo shirts and sweaters, but a large logo is just a sign of bad taste.

Even worse, maybe, are people who don't remove that manufacturer's logo on the sleeve of a suit. I'm just a humble working class person and even I know they're supposed to be removed, how come some lawyer or a doctor who makes 10 times as much as I do, doesn't know such simple things?

When you're wearing a large, show-off logo you're basically a walking advertizement. Conceptually, it wouldn't be as bad if the manufacturer PAID you to wear the logo, the same way professional athletes are paid to wear logos. But since YOU are actually paying for the logo, well, it's just weird.


----------

