# Lacoste - Made in USA?



## Sweetness (Aug 25, 2005)

From what I've gathered on this forum, the best polo shirt is the Lacoste, but the old-stock made in the USA. Is this true? I already own one and it definitely feels substantial and on-par with modern Polo's offerings.

Opinions?


----------



## Steelydad (Mar 10, 2007)

*Lacoste*

Old stock made in France was best, but g-d only knows where they are made now.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

They are mostly made in Pery (subject to change any time), and not up to the old "made in France" standards.

I don't recall where "Izod" abominations were made. (USA?)


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

All of which begs the question: who in 2007 is making the best polo shirt?

I know many people think of polo shirts as being essentially disposable, but in the not-nearly-mortal-enough words of Hall & Oates, I can't go for that; on the other hand, I also can't go for spending $80 on a shirt that is not four times better than the $20 LL Bean model, short-lived though they may be. No can do.

How about it? And while we're on the subject, does anyone else here feel that anything but a pique-knit polo is just _wrong_ somehow?

EGF


----------



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

egadfly said:


> All of which begs the question: who in 2007 is making the best polo shirt?
> 
> I know many people think of polo shirts as being essentially disposable, but in the not-nearly-mortal-enough words of Hall & Oates, I can't go for that; on the other hand, I also can't go for spending $80 on a shirt that is not four times better than the $20 LL Bean model, short-lived though they may be. No can do.
> 
> ...


You must be picking at my brain or tracking all of the old threads I've been reading. I mean, the engine turned buckle/croc strap was one thing, but now this too?...

I've been trying to decide on posting a thread on this or not, but since you've baited me...here goes:

I own two types of polos (well, two brands but three types)--two new(er) Lacoste polos and the Polo RL regular and custom fits. However, I have at least one problem with each. The Lacoste is a nice cotton but somewhat thin, plus it doesn't have the long tails. Add to it the price and it quickly becomes a problem of sorts. With RL, I like the way the body/midsection fits on the regular fit, but I hate the long(er) sleeves. However, the Custom Fit has the sleeves I like but a somewhat blousy midsection, seemingly cut for a bigger guy (sorry to anyone offended by this broad generalization).

I know there are other brands out there like J. Crew, LE and Bean that I've yet to try and, according to other threads, they have their fans here on the forum. However, I don't mind paying for RL or Lacoste because polos are a huge part of my spring/summer/early fall attire. But, I can't pay $70 a pop for polos if I need 10 or so. So, a bit of a quandry...

One other question lingering is the RL outlet polos. How do they differ from, say, the department store model? If I bought a white, regular fit RL polo at the outlet for $40 and a white, regular fit at, say, Dillards, what's the difference? It has to be more than just unpopular colors (which is what outlets carry mostly), doesn't it?

Lastly, can anyone speak to the BB slim fit polo in terms of fit (closeness, sleeves, etc.), fabric and size differential (if I wear a M normally, should I size up to a L in the slim fit?)? I've been looking at them online and like several of the colors. That plus they're 2 for $89 right now.

I know, it's a lot to read but it's been weighing on my mind for a week or more. Giddy up...

TT


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

*Grass Court Collection*

I've always admired the ones from the Grass Court Collection, allegedly they are 13oz English pique with tortise buttons. No one seems to have bought them yet, but this spring I may give them a try. If I do I promise I'll post pics and a review.

https://www.grasscourt.com/bin/store.cgi?category=shirts


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

I have several of the old Izod-Lacoste polos which were indeed Made In USA. I understand the quality may have declined by the late 80s, but these (cerca '85 I'm guessing, of an uncle) at least seem pretty good. All cotton, etc. I don't think anyone has gotten the pink color quite right since. The new pink seems a little more "hot pink" than the old.


In second place I would put Polo. About the only thing I buy from Polo. Probably because it seems to me the only place a Polo player should appear is on the front of a polo shirt! I buy these at the Polo outlet. 6'0, 175, a few years back they were $32-35 a pop, still? I buy a large, seem to fit normally at that size. In Brooks sizing I'm a medium.

Third place, and for bargains in generic colors like navy blue, white, red, etc. the $10 polos available at Target. Here I take a medium. Definitely as well made as the Brooks or Polo at a fraction of the cost. If you don't need the label, and especially if you don't need the more GTH colors, these will be fine. I bought a ton of their white and navy ones.

However, if you are one of those who flags his collar sometimes--I used to do this myself a lot more often until it suddenly became the rage about 2 years ago and took on a lot of baggage and lampooning as a result--the collars are sometimes a little bit wide to do it properly. Polos and the old Izods were better.


----------



## tflaker (Jul 27, 2006)

egadfly said:


> How about it? And while we're on the subject, does anyone else here feel that anything but a pique-knit polo is just _wrong_ somehow?
> 
> EGF


I absolutely agree. If it's not pique, it just seems to be too modern looking. Also, a pique knit is just the ticket for those hot August days when you need every bit of breeze to cut through your shirt.

As for my choice, I find that a medium RL pretty much personifies my ideal fit: long a trim boddied. The long sleeves are also kind of welcome because I have the arms of a gorilla. If I don't put them in the dryer, they really last a long time. Contrary to what others have said, I've found Lacoste to be very baggy around the midsection, and comically short. I also like Brooks, for their knit seems to be even light than RL, but the cut is a bit boxy for me and the collars somewhat large.


----------



## jbryanb (Oct 2, 2006)

I think the modern day Polo RL shirts are cheap adn they shrink too much.
IMHO, the polo shirts from Perlis in New Orleans are the best made, as well as the best value. They only cost $42.50 and last for years, without shrinking or wearing thin.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

What about Scott Barber for a polo?


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

I agree with much of what's been said here.

Nothing really compares to the Lacoste of old. The new ones don't fit well, are too thin, and too expensive.

PRL, IMO, makes the best all-around polo shirt (appropriately enough), although I only care for the "classic" fit, and only in pique. Never pay retail, though...they can be had for less than $30 at outlets and places like Marshall's and T.J. Maxx.

The polos I've purchased at Target are surprisingly well-made for the price, but the color selection is pretty meager, as previously noted. Time will tell if they hold up as well as the shirts from PRL.

If you want a good bargain-priced polo, check out Lands' End. The quality and fit are very close to PRL, and you can usually find a decent choice of colors.


----------



## 3button Max (Feb 6, 2006)

*polo*

My wife a fanatic on Ralph Lauren has several polo shirts- which I guess are fine if you didnt pay list price.

I have 2 vintage Izods one an American made grand Patron in red

and a navy which seems to be a little less substantial maybe later post US
the red is the picque of yore pre 90s-I wouldnt pay their price today although the chance of thrifting an 
I zod in good condition pre 1990 is probably becoming remote. much prefer these to RL


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

egadfly said:


> And while we're on the subject, does anyone else here feel that anything but a pique-knit polo is just _wrong_ somehow?


Nope. I have some pique knit polos but still prefer the smooth RL jersey knits. They're a lot easier to dress up, e.g. they look much better under a sweater or sportcoat than pique knits, they're classier, softer, and drape MUCH better off a set of pecs.


----------



## charphar (Nov 13, 2006)

KentW said:


> The polos I've purchased at Target are surprisingly well-made for the price, but the color selection is pretty meager, as previously noted. Time will tell if they hold up as well as the shirts from PRL.
> 
> If you want a good bargain-priced polo, check out Lands' End. The quality and fit are very close to PRL, and you can usually find a decent choice of colors.


I, too, have become loyally attached to the fine design firm "Tar-ZHAY" and their "Ultimate Polos" - the $10-12 ones. (Their "Ultimate Khakis" - $16-19 - are pretty serviceable, too. And they come in size 35 waist!)

But, having said all that, I picked up three of the "basic colors" of the Lands' End polos in Sears a couple of weeks ago for $6.99 each! I got the navy, white, and grey LE polos and they are better than the Target ones, IMHO.

Of course, your mileage may vary...


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

I actually really like the LL Bean ones.

The RL ones are also well made and nice. I do not like the logo and thus I have decided to stay away from Lacoste from now on as well.

All in all Bean is my choice.

Danny


----------



## gtguyzach (Nov 18, 2006)

Danny,

How does the fit on the bean polo compare with the others? Like most others here I've tired several of them but have yet to find something that I really like. RL usually fits the bill for me but I find they really work well after they've been washed once or twice. I think I'm just picky though when it comes down to it. 

I find that my preference on shirts also depends on how I want to wear it too. If I'm tucking it in (probably 75% of the time) I like the longer tails that RL and LE provide. However if I'm not tucking it in I find the long tails get in the way and look bad (especially with a pair of 6" inseam shorts) and I prefer the shorter tails of the custom fit RL, Lacoste, or J Crew. Like I said, I'm picky. I'm curious to try BB and see where they fit in. I've seen some for relatively cheap on eBay.

So I suppose there needs to be some clarification on why some people like certain shirts over other ones. My guess it comes down to body type and how you wear it. How do you wear yours and what features do you look for? Probably my biggest pet peeve is long, floppy sleeves. I cringe every time I see the ill-fitted polo with the shoulder seams hanging off the wearer's shoulders and the sleeves clear past the elbow. I prefer banded sleeves no more than half way down the arm and comfortably fitted (not American Eagle or Abercrombie tight and short).

Sorry for rambling, this topic hit on something I'm trying to figure out too. I think I just need to keep sampling different ones.


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*Yes on pique only; some "high end" made w/low end*

Late posting -- back to that old problem where logging in on my Mac at home is impossible; accepts my password, thanks me for logging in, then goes back to screen asking me to log-in again.

I am with Egadfly 100%: My polos are pique only. Anything else seems like too much finery. Like silky undewear.

It might not surprise anyone here to learn that diff brands/price points of polos made in same places. I read an article some years ago that opened with a scence from an overseas plant. The line was turning out Ralph Lauren polos, then switched over to make Target polos. My impression was that quality controls/inputs, etc. did not change much if at all from brand to brand.

Lacoste was Asian sourced in much of the 80s, too. I know this because I wore "Lacoste" all through junior high and high school, and there is no way my family could have afforded the original French firm's wares. I distinctly remember labels from '84 and '85 that read made in INSERT ASIAN COUNTRY HERE. The French bought back in in the 90s, I think. Haven't kept up with the label since. I much prefer Bean or LE polos to anything else, although I am still working through a stack of old Brooks polos (plain, no frills, no youthful "trim" cut, no non-iron treatment).


----------



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

gtguyzach said:


> So I suppose there needs to be some clarification on why some people like certain shirts over other ones. My guess it comes down to body type and how you wear it. How do you wear yours and what features do you look for? Probably my biggest pet peeve is long, floppy sleeves. I cringe every time I see the ill-fitted polo with the shoulder seams hanging off the wearer's shoulders and the sleeves clear past the elbow. I prefer banded sleeves no more than half way down the arm and comfortably fitted (not American Eagle or Abercrombie tight and short).


Zach, I'm right with you on the sleeves. In fact, it's becoming one of my main criteria for a polo. I'd much rather have them too short as opposed to too long. I don't mind the tight and short sleeves too much, just not too short or tight. IMHO, the Polo RL Custom Fit gets the sleeve exactly right but, as I said in my previous post, the shirt body pulls away from me instead of remaining close like the Regular Fit model does...

TT


----------



## Maggio (Apr 4, 2005)

Costco is in the polo game, too. They are offering $14.99 polos Made in Peru. They were sitting next to Joseph Abboud polos, (old label from when Joe ran the joint), and I have to admit that Abboud's had a softer hand, but were $22.95. Hard to beat Kirkland Signature for shirts to knock around with on the weekend. We have all vouched for their BD's. 

Weather here in Jersey is heating up, so I might be able to give it a tryout this weekend. Any of you fellas have a say on the Kirkland Signature polos? Would love to hear what you think?


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

The golf course dictates my interest in polo-style shirts. I'd rank them like this:

1. Bobby Jones - far and away better than anything else out there. They look superb in the traditional solid colors. This is what you want to wear under a blazer! At Stein Mart, they go for the same price as, sometimes a little less than, a Lacoste.

2. Cutter & Buck, Ashford, Greg Norman, and all the rest of the golf-oriented ilk - very serviceable, higher quality than RL or Lacoste, obtainable at lower prices.

3. Generic - the cheaper the better, for those days you want to get down & dirty.

4. Lacoste - not what it used to be, a sentimental favorite, way overpriced.

I liked the old Lacoste shirts from the 70's and early 80's with the loose sleeves and the pocket. The sleeves made for a nice unobstructed swing, and the pocket was just the right size for a scorecard and pencil. The more recent ones weren't quite the same, then they disappeared altogether. Alas.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

GMC said:


> Lacoste was Asian sourced in much of the 80s, too. I know this because I wore "Lacoste" all through junior high and high school, and there is no way my family could have afforded the original French firm's wares. I distinctly remember labels from '84 and '85 that read made in INSERT ASIAN COUNTRY HERE. The French bought back in in the 90s, I think.


What you are referring to is a licensing deal with Izod (for US market only, I believe). The shirts were not made by Lacoste (and no quality standards were imposed), only the rights to use the logo was given to Izod. There was no "sale/repurchase" of the company.


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

A couple of random thoughts:

(1) Cooley has it exactly right about the old pink Lacostes: they were the perfect shade, sadly now extinct. Most of the colors I see offered these days don't appeal to me, particularly the "heathered" shades. Still, I've always tended to stick with white and navy anyway.

(2) Unlike many here, it seems, I'm comfortable with a slightly baggy fit to my polos. I do not wish to show off my pecs (_pace_, FrankDC), such as they are, nor do I like feeling a tight grip around my biceps. Long tails are similarly a requirement.

(3) I'm somewhat curious about these -- anyone tried 'em? At twice the price of their regular polo, they must be decent. What makes a golf shirt different from a normal polo?

(4) I typically buy a couple of new polos each year. These get worn to dinner or other casual occasions, while the previous years' models get pushed down the ladder, first to errand shirts, then to fishing/car washing/gardening shirts. Three years is about the maximum lifespan. I see polos as the trad's version of the ubiquitous t-shirt. For that reason, I have a hard time spending much on them (though I might make an exception for those Grass Court premium piques, if they're really like the Lacostes of old).

EGF


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

TradTeacher said:


> With RL, I like the way the body/midsection fits on the regular fit, but I hate the long(er) sleeves. However, the Custom Fit has the sleeves I like but a somewhat blousy midsection, seemingly cut for a bigger guy (sorry to anyone offended by this broad generalization).
> 
> TT


Are you sure you are talking about the Custom Fit? The custom is smaller aroung the waist than the usual fit. It is made for trim guys not bigger ones. Are you possibly talking about the Golf Fit?


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

egadfly said:


> (3) I'm somewhat curious about these -- anyone tried 'em? At twice the price of their regular polo, they must be decent. What makes a golf shirt different from a normal polo?


I'm not sure if I'm in the market for something that touts itself as being "lustrous." What I'm really looking for is the oxford cloth of polo shirts; a material that is thicker and somewhat stiff, that might eventually wash into something nice and soft, but only after scores (hundreds?) of washes.


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

tripreed said:


> I'm not sure if I'm in the market for something that touts itself as being "lustrous." What I'm really looking for is the oxford cloth of polo shirts; a material that is thicker and somewhat stiff, that might eventually wash into something nice and soft, but only after scores (hundreds?) of washes.


David Mercer, call your office ...


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*Stand corrected.*



hreljan said:


> What you are referring to is a licensing deal with Izod (for US market only, I believe). The shirts were not made by Lacoste (and no quality standards were imposed), only the rights to use the logo was given to Izod. There was no "sale/repurchase" of the company.


You are right. However, I seem to recall Lacoste was dormant for much of the licensing period. Certainly what was widely available in the States was not the read deal.


----------



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

Badrabbit said:


> Are you sure you are talking about the Custom Fit? The custom is smaller aroung the waist than the usual fit. It is made for trim guys not bigger ones. Are you possibly talking about the Golf Fit?


Positive. I own about 5 of the Custom Fits but, for some reason, they start out slim and stretch out during the day. As previously stated, I'm tall (6'1") and slim (172 lbs.) but they just aren't working out as well as I'd like.

I can't wear that Golf Fit stuff. It's sized too big for me. Even a small in that model swallows me whole...

TT


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

GMC said:


> You are right. However, I seem to recall Lacoste was dormant for much of the licensing period. Certainly what was widely available in the States was not the read deal.


It's correct that they were dormant in US (part of the licensing deal). Overseas, they were selling the "real deal" shirts. I still have some of those.


----------



## About Town (Nov 17, 2004)

*David Crystal/ Izod*

In the late sixties and seventies a lot of Lacoste stuff was made
for Izod by a company called David Crystal that had one of their manufacturing and later distribution centers in Reading, PA.

In the seventies many people called the shirts alligator or simply Izod shirts.
The Lacoste crocodile connection was lost in translation

The old US or French Shirts had the tennis tails so you they didn't
pull out when you were playing. I grew up near the factory/distribution
center and wore many an Izod Lacoste alligator shirt from shocking pink to
kelly green to wide striped multis with to whites, cream and pale yellows.

Golf knit shirts in my experience, usually do not have banded sleeves and
can be a bit fuller cut.


----------



## GMC (Nov 8, 2006)

*It's interesting to me that so many favor snug fit*

It's interesting: Many of us favor full -- even baggy -- button-downs, but a number here also like their polos snug. Interesting dichotomy.

Me? I can't stand a polo that fits tight. I definitely want to be able to tuck the shirt in if I want (many of the "trim" fit polos are also shorter and don't stay tucked in), and I can't stand having the shirt snug to the body. It's not so much about comfort as appearance: In a tight polo I feel like I should be in a downtown nightclub discoing and smoking meth. Which I do not do.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

GMC said:


> It's interesting: Many of us favor full -- even baggy -- button-downs, but a number here also like their polos snug. Interesting dichotomy.


A related question for those who prefer tight polo fit -

Do you ever have your polo shirts tailored? For example if you found quality shirt in a nice color (on sale) that is just too baggy?


----------



## wnh (Nov 4, 2006)

While I think the buy-em-cheap mentality is a good one, I'd caution against thinking that any cheap polo will do for certain circumstances. I bought a couple of Wal-Mart (Faded Glory brand, I think) polos last summer that have collars that look as though they'd be better off under a leisure suit. Be ye warned.


----------



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

hreljan said:


> A related question for those who prefer tight polo fit -
> 
> Do you ever have your polo shirts tailored? For example if you found quality shirt in a nice color (on sale) that is just too baggy?


If it was too baggy, I wouldn't buy it--sale or not. I also wouldn't have a polo shirt tailored. It's a casual shirt and should remain so. I'd just wait until I found one I was satisfied with, which is pretty much what I'm doing now...

TT


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

gtguyzach said:


> Danny,
> 
> How does the fit on the bean polo compare with the others? Like most others here I've tired several of them but have yet to find something that I really like. RL usually fits the bill for me but I find they really work well after they've been washed once or twice. I think I'm just picky though when it comes down to it. .


You're right I should qualify my statement. For whatever reason Bean stuff fits 'me' well. I suppose my body is close to their design model. Almost everything I buy from them fits me perfectly right off the bat. Any shirt in size medium works for me. I agree, the baggy, droopy polo look is bad. A medium size Bean polo has the shoulder seam right at my shoulder and the sleeves come about 2/3rd's down to my elbow. It's a nice middle of the road fit for me.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if ALL the polos are made by the same company in Peru. Sort of like they say all mattresses are made in the same factory regardless of brand.

Danny


----------



## gtguyzach (Nov 18, 2006)

TradTeacher said:


> Positive. I own about 5 of the Custom Fits but, for some reason, they start out slim and stretch out during the day. As previously stated, I'm tall (6'1") and slim (172 lbs.) but they just aren't working out as well as I'd like.
> 
> TT


Interesting notes on the custom fit. I've only got one custom fit RL and I don't wear it too often (its bright orange) and I haven't noticed the "stretching" problem but like I said, it doesn't get real regular wear. I have noticed this effect on the one j crew shirt I've got. I picked it on eBay so its a used shirt, but fits me slim in the front and on the sides but the back seems to billow out like there is way too much material. It's a strange phenomenon.

Have you tried going down a size in the classic cut PRL shirts? I tried one on the store the other week out of curiosity and it felt rather nice (I tried a small and I typically wear a medium). It'd felt more like a custom fit but with a longer tail. I think I'd be afraid to wash it though and it would almost certainly have to never go in the dryer. I may give it a go but I'm more inclined to try a Bean one or another LE since the price is so much lower.

That said though, as far as the debate about pique versus smooth knit. I like to have a couple smooth knit shirts to wear in nicer situations. To me the smooth takes the polo shirt up one knotch in formality (still a very casual shirt mind you). I don't think I would wear a smooth knit polo with shorts (unless it was an old beat up one). Strangely, I don't mind a little looser fit in these shirts.

The debate continues, I think my next shirts will be Bean and BB.


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

gtguyzach said:


> Interesting notes on the custom fit. I've only got one custom fit RL and I don't wear it too often (its bright orange) and I haven't noticed the "stretching" problem but like I said, it doesn't get real regular wear. I have noticed this effect on the one j crew shirt I've got. I picked it on eBay so its a used shirt, but fits me slim in the front and on the sides but the back seems to billow out like there is way too much material. It's a strange phenomenon.
> 
> Have you tried going down a size in the classic cut PRL shirts? I tried one on the store the other week out of curiosity and it felt rather nice (I tried a small and I typically wear a medium). It'd felt more like a custom fit but with a longer tail. I think I'd be afraid to wash it though and it would almost certainly have to never go in the dryer. I may give it a go but I'm more inclined to try a Bean one or another LE since the price is so much lower.


I think this highlights the biggest problem for me with Ralph Lauren polo shirts: the unbelievable inconsistency in fit and quality. This problem is further highlighted when you compare shirts purchased from the outlet to ones purchased from stores like SteinMart (and I assume ones purchased full price, though I've never been dumb enough to do that...). Purchasing them off of Ebay would be a crap shoot for what you're actually going to end up with.


----------



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

gtguyzach said:


> Have you tried going down a size in the classic cut PRL shirts? I tried one on the store the other week out of curiosity and it felt rather nice (I tried a small and I typically wear a medium). It'd felt more like a custom fit but with a longer tail. I think I'd be afraid to wash it though and it would almost certainly have to never go in the dryer.


No, but only because a M in the classic cut fits me perfectly. Strangely though, I have to size down to a S in the Lacoste polos because a M is too baggy on me. Yet, in the Custom Fit RL, I wear a L. It's maddening, really...

I may try a Bean polo, but I just worry about those sleeves so much...

TT


----------



## arturostevens (Feb 6, 2007)

I used to wear the original LaCoste shirts in the mid to late 70's. Then, as you recall, in 1979 ( and I can remember this from USC and the invasion of RL that year) the alligator took a dump and the polo horse became a "must wear", at least among the fashion minded prep and college crowd in Los Angeles. I got a few of them, but ultimately steered toward the polos without a label which led me to back to LL Bean. And that is where the value is with polos. No alligator or horse to contend with. 

I must admit I do have a few BB polos and they are fine but the sizing varied a few years ago. I wear a medium and it was not just loose which is fine, but tent like. Now the fit is better. The quality has been good and I am accustomed to that little golden fleece more than the others. And the price point is good. 

I would never pay $80 for a LaCoste with the other options out there that cost less and give you as much if not more.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Shirts*

Gentlemen

I wear the Brooks Brothers polo quite a bit. Lot of washings, and after a few years this bunch I got is still nice.
I also am a fan of J Crew teeshirts, and am thinking of trying their polos as well.
I like the colors they do. Deep greens, browns etc.

Nice day


----------



## thomj513 (Apr 7, 2006)

I used to wear USA made IZODs. Had to look carefully at the label as this was when more of the imports were starting to come into the country. I used to play golf and found some great buys at the local pro shops. Now days I buy most of my polo style shirts from J.C. Penney. Nice selection of colors, the medium size fits my body shape well and the shirts hold up to washing, very little fading, and drying, not much shrinkage. I do own a couple RLs but they're just O.K.


----------



## Duck (Jan 4, 2007)

I prefer B2 over RL. I also own two Vineyard Vines shirts that fit well, but the problem lies in the logo. All new "preppy" people instantly see the whale and want to have a twenty minute conversation about how fun it is. I tend to not wear them out now for fear of "that guy".

I am in the market for a green alligator polo. Has anyone ever worn any or the Perlis shirts?


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Duck said:


> Has anyone ever worn any or the Perlis shirts?


I have a Perlis shirt. It seems to be well constructed, but they are cut _very_ generously. The one I have is a medium and I still feel like it is fairly tent-like on me (though I fall under the school of prefering my polo shirts to be cut slimmer). It is also pretty long.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

Someone needs to give GrassCourt a shot.

Maybe I will, if my forearms get stronger.


----------



## Duck (Jan 4, 2007)

tripreed said:


> I have a Perlis shirt. It seems to be well constructed, but they are cut _very_ generously. The one I have is a medium and I still feel like it is fairly tent-like on me (though I fall under the school of prefering my polo shirts to be cut slimmer). It is also pretty long.


I might order a medium and see how it fits. I hope they have a decent return policy. I am going to pull the trigger on Green Alligator as well.


----------



## CrookedOak (Mar 14, 2007)

*Vineyard Vines Polo shirts*

For what it's worth, I've recently dropped a few pounds (actually lived up to my New Year's resolution) and had to acquire some new polo shirts for the spring. Here is what I've found...

1. *Lacoste *- Quality has declined from what we all remember, but still a classic (~$72)
2. *Polo *- A solid choice, but watch color selection. There are some odd variants of classic colors (~$75*)
3. *Vineyard Vines* - A well made, nicely constructed polo shirt in classic colors (~$62.00*)
4. *J. Crew* - Nice shirt, decent value and good color selection (~$39.50*)
5. *LL Bean* - Double L polo is a classic. Great value and good color selection (~19.50)
6. *Paul Stuart* - A well made, nicely constructed polo shirt in classic colors (~$59.50)

*Can usually be found in some type of online sale or retail sale for less

I purchased one from each company and my favorite is the Vineyard Vines polo. It is well made, washes well and has a great whale logo (trad, but may not be appropriate for all occasions).


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

Untilted said:


> Someone needs to give GrassCourt a shot.
> 
> Maybe I will, if my forearms get stronger.


I'll do it, I promise. Just give me some time. The website is so bad that the shirts have to be great, right?


----------

