# Finally--Photos of Mercer Shirts



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

For years, there were only two ways to get an idea of what Mercer and Sons shirts really looked like: order them for yourself or ask somebody to post a photograph of their own Mercer shirt on a forum like this. That's because, rather disappointingly, the Mercer and Sons web site did not have any photos of the product--merely two sketches of shirt collars.

Recently, however, the Mercer web site has been updated with many photos of freshly-made shirts--featuring button-down, point, and spread collars--made of oxford cloth, pinpoint oxford, and broadcloth. Stripes as well as solids.

Quite interesting. Check it out.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Web site?


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

*Mercer site*



bd79cc said:


> Web site?


just google Mercer and Sons


----------



## realbrineshrimp (Jun 28, 2010)

here's the website https://www.mercerandsons.com/
and here are pictures: https://mercerandsons.com/Peek_Into_Our_Closet.htm


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

Interesting. "Baggier and better"

Who has one?


----------



## Tucker (Apr 17, 2006)

Dragoon said:


> Who has one?


I've got a dozen or so. Quality shirts.


----------



## ASF (Mar 6, 2006)

*Mercer Pink Univ. in action*

Daer All,

Here are two quick snaps of my Mercer Pink University shirt with a Press Navy-Silver repp. This combo pairs well with a solid navy or charcoal suit.


















Just as a point of reference, I wear a 15-35, 42L and I weight ~173 lbs. As you can see, the cut is spacious. I have a few Mercer slim cuts. They are slimmer, but not so much as one would call the fit snug.

Regards-

asf


----------



## Wisco (Dec 3, 2009)

I have a couple on order and David Mercer has been a pleasure to deal with, however I have waited almost 6 weeks to receive the first of the multiple shirts I ordered. I'm willing to wait, but this does seem a bit excessive for standard sizing clothing.

Ciao,

Wisco


----------



## JakeLA (Oct 30, 2006)

ASF said:


> Daer All,
> 
> Here are two quick snaps of my Mercer Pink University shirt with a Press Navy-Silver repp. This combo pairs well with a solid navy or charcoal suit.
> 
> ...


that's more a burqa than a shirt


----------



## ASF (Mar 6, 2006)

No more than BB's shirts of old. However, both are meant to hide the figure beneath!


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

looks good to me. I have a number of Mercer shirts and heartly recommend them. I once laid a Mercer on top of a BB standard OCBD - they were cut very similarly.


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

The collars are awesome. Just curious, if the shirt is bespoke, why the bagginess?


----------



## sjk (Dec 1, 2007)

ASF's shirt/tie combo is great. The soft, unlined collars and cuffs make for a very comfortable shirt.
As an owner of several Mercers, I think the "baggier" aspect of the Mercer shirt is overstated and actually tends to scare people off. Yes, it's a full cut shirt but no more so than BB or RL's classic fit. David can give you precise dimensions if necessary. (Discussions about fit, unless you have a tape measure in hand, often tend to the pointless, in my opinion.)
David can "customize" a shirt if you desire, e.g. put a smaller body on a given neck size and/or taper the waist. (It's not a bespoke shirt though.) This can however run up the already considerable cost of the shirts. They are not cheap. I think they do all of their cuttings at once, hence, you may need to wait several weeks. They are probably a small shop and sometimes get backed up. They wait is often worth it.


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

maximar said:


> The collars are awesome. Just curious, if the shirt is bespoke, why the bagginess?


They are not bespoke shirts--they aren't even MTM. They are MTO to their specific designs. I am a big fan of Mytailor and Joe Hemranjani. There is an individual on Style Forum who had a Brooks Brothers copy project with Joe. It turned out very nice. I do not mean to dismiss the Mercer shirts. Years ago I bought a few. They have a nice feel to the fabric and a great collar roll--but they are definitely tents. I am a 16 neck and somewhere between a 34 and 35 sleeve. I weigh about a buck sixty-five. The shirts really don't work well for guys like me. Mytailor will make you a MTM shirt with a brooks style collar--but the shirt will be made for you. That is my suggestion.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

The collar points seem longer than BB. Are they? If so, does anyone know the difference and can post the measurements?


----------



## Mississippi Mud (Oct 15, 2009)

sjk said:


> The soft, unlined collars and cuffs make for a very comfortable shirt. As an owner of several Mercers, I think the "baggier" aspect of the Mercer shirt is overstated and actually tends to scare people off. . . . David can "customize" a shirt if you desire, e.g. put a smaller body on a given neck size and/or taper the waist.


I'll second these sentiments. I purchased my first Mercer shirts last year upon the board's recommendations. Hesitant about the supposed "bagginess," I spoke with David about my needs and he reduced the size of the body for me. All in all, I'm extremely pleased: the fabrics in both shirts have a fantastic hand and are very comfortable, and the fit is sufficient. David's customer service has no peer, in my opinion, and I'm willing to pay for his cordiality. I plan to order another shirt from Mercer this fall but will order the shirt in a tall this time.

Bear in mind that Mercer is one of only three or four businesses that I feel confident recommending without reservation. Sad indictment on the times.


----------



## sjk (Dec 1, 2007)

Saltydog said:


> The collar points seem longer than BB. Are they? If so, does anyone know the difference and can post the measurements?


BB's website lists a polo collar (for the special order shirts) as being 3 3/8" (or 3 6/16"). Mercer quotes their collar length as 3 7/16".

My unscientific measurements on unpressed, unstarched collars suggest that the BB is 3 1/4" and the Mercer is 3 1/2".


----------



## smile (Jul 2, 2007)

May I ask how high is the Mercer and Sons button-down collar band in the front (where the button is) and in the back and how thick/stable is the interlining used in the collar band? Does the collar stay up well when worn without a tie?

Thanks in advance,
s.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Baggy and tent-like??

That's for me!!


----------



## EastVillageTrad (May 12, 2006)

I've had some for about 4 years and they are very nice. I some some pullovers and flap pockets made among other things.

Pricey compared to BB. But if you are looking for something special worth it.

Very nice to see some photos on the site.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

I've really wanted to order a Mercer for a long time, but can't get over the sizing upcharge. Just because I have a longer sleeve, I can't make myself pay $12.50 on top of their normal price. Nice to see some pictures though.


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

I ordered some a few weeks ago. There was a $12.50 upcharge for the seven button placket and another for slimming the body bringing the total to $120 per shirt. They have the 25% discount for first buyers which helped some. I will REALLY have to love these shirts to buy more at that price.

Serena Mercer was very helpful and easy to deal with.


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

smile said:


> May I ask how high is the Mercer and Sons button-down collar band in the front (where the button is) and in the back and how thick/stable is the interlining used in the collar band? Does the collar stay up well when worn without a tie?
> s.


I have one Mercer shirt, and honestly, this is why I only have one. I usually wear it without a tie (it's a gingham broadcloth) and I've notice the collar sort of collapses under its own weight sometimes. I even have my shirts done at the laundry with medium starch. Oxfords may be more rigid. I hate stiff lining in a collar, but I do expect a little body.

I also experienced pretty serious gaping at the cuff placket. And the cuff button was placed off center (high) on the cuff. From examining historic shirts from an old living history hobby, I know that is a very traditional design feature. But that and the softness let the cuff slump down over my hand a little. I ended up adding gauntlet buttons and additional cuff button to make the shirt satsfactory to me.

I haven't written Mercer off completely, but I found they were far from the perfect shirt for me.

Scott


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

JakeLA said:


> that's more a burqa than a shirt[/QUOTE
> 
> Balderdash I say! _That_ drape gives it the presence of a true high quality trad shirt. Once upon a time I was the same exact size and wore the BB traditional fit and loved it for its volumn. Never have understood wanting an OCBD to look like a "body shirt" from the 70's.


----------



## Pugin (May 15, 2010)

Dragoon said:


> I ordered some a few weeks ago. There was a $12.50 upcharge for the seven button placket and another for slimming the body bringing the total to $120 per shirt.


The six-button placket is one of the most compelling features of these shirts. For me it ranks up there with the unlined collar.


----------



## MidWestTrad (Aug 14, 2010)

I have my first Mercer shirt on order to check out sizing. Ordered with the body of the shirt downsized one size. Agree, David is an absolute pleasure to deal with. We traded a number of emails regarding size, fit, etc. before I pulled the trigger on the order.


----------



## sjk (Dec 1, 2007)

Dragoon said:


> There was a $12.50 upcharge for the seven button placket...


David Mercer will do many other customizations, all, of course, for an added fee. Most are really unnecessary and drive up the cost of a shirt that already isn't cheap. (But they are great shirts.) Changing the nominal six button front to a seven means that the second button below the collar button moves up 5/8". If you wear the shirt with a tie (the traditional way) the number of buttons doesn't matter. If worn open collar, this difference is probably negligible. If you take the longer collar points into account, having the second button slightly lower may actually be more proportionate. If the shirt is pressed and starched, the 5/8" difference again probably can't even be seen.

Same thing with cuff placket buttons, which he will also do, again for a fee. If the cuff and sleeve are sized properly, these buttons really aren't necessary. If you are wearing the shirt under a jacket (the traditional way) then cuff gaping shouldn't be a problem as well.


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

I have some shirts with a six button placket and some with a seven and greatly prefer the seven. I'm 6' 2" and do wear my shirts without a tie on occasion.


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

Wore one of my new shirts for the first time today. I like them a lot.
They are baggy.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Someday I hope to understand the allure of paying $90, waiting 6 weeks and still getting an ill-fitting shirt. As for now, I'm bamboozled


----------



## bluenose (Nov 23, 2009)

I have 6 Mercers which I ordered in 16/35 tall. They are the best fitting, most comfortable shirts of the many, many shirts that I own. They also have the best button down collar. They are worth every penny that David Mercer charges. I cannot bring myself to buy BB any more even at half the price.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Dragoon said:


> Wore one of my new shirts for the first time today. I like them a lot.
> They are baggy.


I don't find this shirt baggy, it's how an oxford shirt is supposed to fit. It looks great. I see too many folks interpreting "fit" as meaning the distance between the clothing and the body.


----------



## Valkyrie (Aug 27, 2009)

We may be staring across the generation gap here.

I find the Mercer fit (and the BB traditional fit) pictured exactly the way a shirt is supposed to fit. That it doesn't adhere like a sausage casing doesn't mean that it doesn't fit. We old guys grew up with room to spare in volume of our shirts and actually like that. Not only is it comfortable, it represents _style_ to us.

This is one of those places where how you think it looks depends, to large degree, on your birthdate, I think.


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

For anybody interested in fit considerations; the shirt I posted above is a 16 body with a 16 1/2 neck. I may try one with the standard sizing next and see how that is.

I think the fabric is wonderful. I will absolutely order some more at some point.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Sartre said:


> I don't find this shirt baggy, it's how an oxford shirt is supposed to fit. It looks great. I see too many folks interpreting "fit" as meaning the distance between the clothing and the body.


I totally agree. I think many of the young "flat bellies" trying to dress trad just don't get it. Even those of us who wore ocbds "back in the day" when we also were flat bellies preferred the substantial full cut ocbd. That is the way they are supposed to fit. Too many of the guys I see yearning for the "authentic" trad look want ocbds that look like something one would find at American Eagle. They bear no resemblance to the original other than the oxford cloth and button down collar. They exhibit none of the presence of the real deal. BB should never have gone to the slim fit--much less the extra slim fit. They should have spent the money on educating folks on the virtues and traditional look of the original ocbd.  These slim fits look like sack jackets with darts and European fitted cuts.



Valkyrie said:


> We may be staring across the generation gap here.
> 
> I find the Mercer fit (and the BB traditional fit) pictured exactly the way a shirt is supposed to fit. That it doesn't adhere like a sausage casing doesn't mean that it doesn't fit. We old guys grew up with room to spare in volume of our shirts and actually like that. Not only is it comfortable, it represents _style_ to us.
> 
> This is one of those places where how you think it looks depends, to large degree, on your birthdate, I think.


I understand and agree with your point of view. However, I think it is up to those of us who actually grew up wearing ocbds in their heyday have an obligation to disabuse the young turks of their skewed and uninformed notion of how a gentleman's ocbd is _supposed_ to fit. That is, if they really want to dress trad and not just a modern day representation designed with the GQ crowd in mind.


----------



## ashcroft99 (Dec 12, 2008)

well said, well said indeed.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^^^
Thank you, sir. It is refreshing to finally have someone agree with me that the BB _traditional_ fit is actually traditional--on a "trad" forum of all places.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

If we were to pour over the thousands of photos amassed on these boards, I think we'd see that a slimmer cut has just as much authenticity as the fuller cut. Not the sausage casing, but just a trimmer body & leg. In fact, the vintage sacks from the 50s and 60s I have are markedly slimmer than the ones currently offered by Press & O'Connell's. Same goes for vintage shirts and slacks. It would seem to me that evidence supports the idea that authenticity lies more in the details (sack cut, hook vent, collar roll, 1.75" cuff, patch pockets, etc.) than the overall fit. 

As Joe Beamish remarked in a recent post (relating to pants, I believe), "There's room in our lives for both."


----------



## tradfan207 (Nov 4, 2010)

Great roll on that Mercer. I am looking forward to ordering one of these as a reward for finishing grad school.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

What's "traditional", anyway?

I notice two competing (or at least different) "trad" aesthetics:

-- WWII bagginess
-- Late 50s/early 60s trimness (also found in 20s and 30s)

You'll see these with khakis as well. Both aesthetics can be found in full evidence in the venerable if-you're-not-looking-at-it-every-time-you-visit-you're-a-fool American Trad Men Photos thread. 

I see room for both and think the Mercer photos look damn fine. Collar roll is fantabulous and will only improve with breaking-in time.


----------



## Mazama (May 21, 2009)

Sartre said:


> I see too many folks interpreting "fit" as meaning the distance between the clothing and the body.


Thanks, Dragoon, for this wonderfully concise summary of the way many of us feel about this topic.


----------



## Mazama (May 21, 2009)

Saltydog said:


> JakeLA said:
> 
> 
> > Once upon a time I was the same exact size and wore the ... traditional fit and loved it for its volumn.
> ...


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

Folks, the Yale co-op rescue shirts I have listed few days back (not an advertisement, sorry) are literally trim fit. Trimmer than JAB tailored or BB trim. So!


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

That is a great looking shirt Dragoon. I don't find it baggy. I size down a whole size 17 neck/16 body with "slim jim" cut. The result is a loose fitting comfortable shirt without excess cloth. For comparison sake I tred a BB old stock shirts from O'Connells. It is certainly full fitting, but I enjoy it as well. 

While there are some days the thought of a wardrobe which consists of the same cut of shirts and suits would be appealing, I do appreciate some variety in fit.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

I will say, Dragoon, my comment was in no way directed towards you. That's actually quite the good fit on you, but it would be a tent on me


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Dragoon's shirt looks fine to me.

Check out the ad for Truval shirts on p. 67 of Marsh and Gaul's "The Ivy Look." Devotees of the buttondown were having this same discussion about fit in 1962 - which as far as I'm concerned makes _everybody_ just as Tradly as hell.


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

hookem12387 said:


> I will say, Dragoon, my comment was in no way directed towards you. That's actually quite the good fit on you, but it would be a tent on me


Now your saying I'm fat?
Just kidding. : )

I think folks should wear shirts that fit the way they like them to. Seems simple to me.

To sum up my feelings on the Mercer shirt:

If a trim fit is desired it may not be the best choice but the Mercers seem very willing to work with their customers.

Would be hard to justify the cost on a tight budget.

Not for those seeking instant gratification; it took eight weeks to receive mine.

The oxford cloth fabric is nice, very nice, both in color and feel.

The Mercer's are a joy to deal with.


----------



## farrago (Apr 27, 2006)

As an older member of the the fraternity, I'd also point out that Mercer offers the closest experience to the old Brooks line up of shirts. Pinpoint, royal oxfords, broadcloths - all without the benefit of modern non-iron chemistry - in a variety of colors and patterns.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

OK, OK. Mea Culpa time. For about 15 years (mostly during the '80s through mid-'90s) I was an avid runner prior to being permanently sidelined by a chronic back condition. At 6'1" and 150 pounds I was stick thin. Even 15X35 BBs were so voluminous on me as to make me look like I was a refugee. While I still wore them...they were not my go-to shirt. I mainly wore Gitman Bros. (which were a bit trimmer at the time than now if I remember correctly) and absolutely loved LE Hyde Parks (which were much more in my price range and very similar to the Gitmans).

After I had to stop running I "filled out" a bit and went back to the fuller cut with the zeal of a prodical son. I never stopped liking the substance of the traditional BB fit on those who could wear it properly and envied those who could. Don't get me wrong...one certainly doesn't have to be overweight to look good in the traditional fit (by no means!)...but beanpole thin can pose a bit of a sloppiness problem. The "slim-fit" wasn't an option back then as I recall.

So, despite my rants to the contrary, I really do understand that different fits suit different people and we are fortunate to have the choice. Having capitulated on that point however, I will probably always stick with my heavy-starch dogma...though many of you look quite well turned out in a slightly more rumpled look...it's just not for me. Perhaps, as has been noted, it is a regional thing. As a fellow of my aquaintence quipped when told his company was going to casual Fridays, "You mean _light_ starch?"

With this difficult disclusure--can we now--all just get along? And may Mercer stick with their "Baggy is Better" philosophy in both word and deed--but work with those who need to downsize. I would hate to see them stretch their resources by also producing a slim-fit. Someone must carry the flame.

Happy Thanksgiving all! We can add multiple fits to the long list of things we have to be thankful for...albeit very near the bottom! One must have perspective.


----------



## MKC (Sep 10, 2010)

Joe Beamish said:


> I notice two competing (or at least different) "trad" aesthetics:
> 
> -- WWII bagginess
> -- Late 50s/early 60s trimness (also found in 20s and 30s)


The essence of the trad business opportunity: Brooks Brothers didn't need to abandon trad to appeal to a broader customer base. It just needed a line of sack suits cut the way they were cut during JFK's day -- an Ivy line (call it University? Brooksgate?) in addition to the venerable BB #1 sack. You don't need darts (or pleats, of course) to make a trim suit.

My version of trad is Bill's M1 and Mercer on the weekend, J. Press sacks on weekdays. But wouldn't it be great if Brooks, Press, Southwick, H. Freeman, Samuelsohn and even Oxxford and Hickey Freeman embraced -- and energetically marketed -- a trimmer sack that made the average American exec look like an American, not a confused stepchild of the Brits and Italians.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

MKC said:


> The essence of the trad business opportunity: Brooks Brothers didn't need to abandon trad to appeal to a broader customer base. It just needed a line of sack suits cut the way they were cut during JFK's day -- an Ivy line (call it University? Brooksgate?) in addition to the venerable BB #1 sack. You don't need darts (or pleats, of course) to make a trim suit.
> 
> My version of trad is Bill's M1 and Mercer on the weekend, J. Press sacks on weekdays. But wouldn't it be great if Brooks, Press, Southwick, H. Freeman, Samuelsohn and even Oxxford and Hickey Freeman embraced -- and energetically marketed -- a trimmer sack that made the average American exec look like an American, not a confused stepchild of the Brits and Italians.


In a few pictures he's posted, Cards has really mastered the trimmer sack suit. I really like the look. Sorry, didn't mean to start WWIII on this thread in terms of shirts!


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

hookem12387 said:


> In a few pictures he's posted, Cards has really mastered the trimmer sack suit. I really like the look. Sorry, didn't mean to start WWIII on this thread in terms of shirts!


Yes he does. I do like a trimmer cut myself and it is certainly possible to achieve without darts.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

hookem12387 said:


> In a few pictures he's posted, Cards has really mastered the trimmer sack suit. I really like the look. Sorry, didn't mean to start WWIII on this thread in terms of shirts!


Worry not Hookem. This forum thrives on different interpretations of proper tradliness. Get's the blood flowing and keeps things interesting. No harm--just fun. It's not like we're debating global warming here. World War III is what the Interchange is for.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Cowtown said:


> Yes he does. I do like a trimmer cut myself and it is certainly possible to achieve without darts.


I really thing the trimmer sack suit is the #1 suit look. It's uniquely American, but still allows for a bit of human form to come through.

Saltydog, glad no offense was taken. It's simply hard to judge these things in text, sometimes. By the way, there's a debate on global warming? I thought everyone....


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I agree not only that a slimmer sack (like the few vintage ones I have) would be welcome in the Trad marketplace, but that Brooks especially has the clout to bring a true American silhouette back to the mainstream. Especially now when the economy has everyone's antennas up to country of origin and marketing is focusing so heavily on authenticity.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Brooks, or someone, could sell it with the right marketing campaign. I recall the ads Lands' End used to run in their catalogues extolling the virtues and timeliness of the Hyde Park. I couldn't wait to try one. They _sold_ me and I've bought dozens I guess over the last 30 years or so. Now they just put a few men's items in a mostly women's catalogue with a take it or leave it approach to copy and presentation...and don't even feature the Hyde Park.

With the recent awareness of early '60s clothing brought about by "Mad Men" Brooks Bros. got a ton of publicity and even marketed a high dollar limited edition of the "Mad Men Suit" and it sold like hotcakes. Had they chosen they could have put out a line of similarly cut suits in a more inexpensive line, marketed them aggressively and probably spurred on a whole new market segment. Back to the future. They could do the same with their must iron Supima ocbds and increase their selection. But, it would take some actual creative thinking and copy which I see little of in most catalogues or on-line these days. They could probably start a run on must iron fine broadcloth shirts if they ran TV ads of a sharply dressed guy breaking out a fresh one for a mid-day meeting from his stash kept in his bottom desk drawer.

While the original J Peterman went under (from what I understand was due to poor business management) and maybe even the spoofs that made them seem foolish on Seinfeld...great advertising copy is what made the company to begin with.

It seems when the big corporations take over great brands like Brooks Brothers and Lands' End all imagination and passion for the product goes out the window. They think a few good camera angles and tricked up websites will do it all. We like to imagine ourselves wearing certain types clothing in certain type situations. It's about building demand. Too advanced a concept for today's bottom line corporate world who can make it cheaper with slave labor overseas and depend on the name built by quality advertising describing a quality product made by Americans.

Seems I'm always on a diatribe or rant...but clothing companies have been manipulating the fashion industry for decades. For whatever reason, they choose not to concentrate on pushing quality, traditional, investment clothing that is never really in or out of style. Actually, they do have a reason. Cheaply made junk that the younger generation will scarf up at outrageous because they saw it on a music video. Adults should demand better quality without having to pay $175 a shirt or $1500 for a suit. That is just out of the range of most. Then again...who wears suits anymore...or, for that matter, quality shirts, slacks and shoes?

Sorry for going on so. But over the years in the advertising world I've just seen so much of this type of thing. If you build it they may not come. If you build it and promote it right, they will come back again and again. Want to know why BB doesn't sell a broad range of must iron ocbds anymore? They not only don't try...they virtually discourage one from buying them. From lack of good advertising and promotion, to lousy on-line delivery, to sales people who think they only handle non-iron shirts. Bottom line is, since they are made in the USA, they probably can't make them for 50 cents and sell them for $79.50.

Getting back in the vicinity of the OP...how is it one can get a "made to order" Mercer, talking directly to the owner for $95....and an off the rack Ben Silver costs $175?

Apologies again for the rambling rant. Hope it makes some sense to someone.


----------



## MKC (Sep 10, 2010)

Saltydog said:


> Then again...who wears suits anymore...or, for that matter, quality shirts, slacks and shoes?


I suspect I am one of the few who still wears a suit five days a week. I get the occasional, "too bad you can't wear something more comfortable." That could only be said by someone who hasn't worn well-tailored sack suits. They are the most comfortable clothes I own.

And to get back to the original post, David Mercer's shirts have the most comfortable collars I have ever worn.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

hookem12387 said:


> Someday I hope to understand the allure of paying $90, waiting 6 weeks and still getting an ill-fitting shirt. As for now, I'm bamboozled


Well, getting past the discussion of fit preferences that has already taken place, it's a very well made and comfortable shirt.

You can always get it trimmed down by an alterations tailor.



MKC said:


> The essence of the trad business opportunity: Brooks Brothers didn't need to abandon trad to appeal to a broader customer base. It just needed a line of sack suits cut the way they were cut during JFK's day -- an Ivy line (call it University? Brooksgate?) in addition to the venerable BB #1 sack. You don't need darts (or pleats, of course) to make a trim suit.
> 
> My version of trad is Bill's M1 and Mercer on the weekend, J. Press sacks on weekdays. But wouldn't it be great if Brooks, Press, Southwick, H. Freeman, Samuelsohn and even Oxxford and Hickey Freeman embraced -- and energetically marketed -- a trimmer sack that made the average American exec look like an American, not a confused stepchild of the Brits and Italians.


 I totally agree and would love to see such a thing. We can only hope.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

MKC said:


> I suspect I am one of the few who still wears a suit five days a week. I get the occasional, "too bad you can't wear something more comfortable." That could only be said by someone who hasn't worn well-tailored sack suits. They are the most comfortable clothes I own.
> 
> And to get back to the original post, David Mercer's shirts have the most comfortable collars I have ever worn.


Good for you!!! Keep the flame alive.


----------



## sjk (Dec 1, 2007)

Saltydog said:


> Getting back in the vicinity of the OP...how is it one can get a "made to order" Mercer, talking directly to the owner for $95....and an off the rack Ben Silver costs $175?


Not to take anything away from your call for quality and value, but many of the shirts sold by BS in the $175 and up range are probably made from fabrics that also would cost $175 if bought from Mercer. (Mercer has a whole "second tier" window of very expensive- and very nice- fabric options.) I'm not defending outrageous mark-ups, but just pointing out that apples may be getting compared with oranges.


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

I got the Mercer swatches, mentioned in another thread, today. I really like the "James Bond's Favorite" British Green Tattersal brushed flannel. $140 from Mercer, in comparison I just checked Orvis and the flannel shirts they are featuring are $129 and don't come in neck/sleeve sizes.

Assuming they still have the fabric, I might order one late next summer. 

In this case their business model (that I like) fails because I don't want to wait until mid January to February for a flannel shirt.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

sjk said:


> Not to take anything away from your call for quality and value, but many of the shirts sold by BS in the $175 and up range are probably made from fabrics that also would cost $175 if bought from Mercer. (Mercer has a whole "second tier" window of very expensive- and very nice- fabric options.) I'm not defending outrageous mark-ups, but just pointing out that apples may be getting compared with oranges.


Point taken.


----------



## dcjacobson (Jun 25, 2007)

Getting back to the Mercer shirts themselves, I've hear that the sleeves shrink. Any truth to that? (I have 36 inch sleeves for my shirts, and that's barely long enough. Any shrinking from that would be terrible for me, especially with an expensive shirt.)


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Really? So far I've washed mine at least three or four times and it's now true to size. I even measured to be sure.

They seem like pretty nice folk though, so I'm sure David would make it right if this were the case.


----------



## Pugin (May 15, 2010)

I just received my first shirt. It shrunk significantly over the course of three washes, but now fits true to size. This was an oxford, so I don't know how other shirts would do. In any case, you can give David the measurements of a well-fitting shirt you own and he will ensure a good outcome.

Incidentally, I remember that in the Trad's ocbd taste test, one of the reviewers said that Mercer shirts would benefit from a tighter weave. Well, shrinkage after washing does tighten the weave.


----------



## Dragoon (Apr 1, 2010)

I have a hard time with sleeve lengths, 35 is a little too short and a 36 is a little long. I ordered my Mercers with a 36 sleeve. After one professional launder and press they were still a hair long so I deliberately shrank them by wetting just the sleeves in hot water and drying them on the hottest setting in the dryer.

I would guess the procedure shrank the sleeves about 1/2 inch.


----------



## PeterW (May 14, 2004)

*Shrinking just sleeves*

Did you think of this procedure? If so, you deserve massive credit! What a great way to fine tune oxford cloth.

I really don't like too short sleeves. So I start the size up. One solution is to move the button for a tighter cuff, but selective shrinking is a great suggestion.

I like Mercer shirts a lot, but at the moment, I prefer BB slim fit oxfords, especially at less than 50 a shirt. They fit me so perfectly.


----------

