# Lands' End vs Brooks Brothers OCBD



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

Both Lands' End and Brooks Brothers are running some pretty great sales right now. I'm switching jobs in a few weeks and there will be a fairly-strict dress code. It's time for me to resupply on OCBDs, among other things.

I really do like the Lands' End shirts in tailored fit, especially for $37 or less since I've typically got a gift card. But with the 25% off they're running at BB if you use your store card (dad has one), those are only about $20 more.

I know everyone around here loves BB, so I'm hesitant to switch from something I know fits me really well to an "unknown". Probably relevant that said job is 100% travel and the LE non-iron thing is appealing, even though it makes the fabric a bit stiffer. Last thing I want is to be ironing my shirts in the hotel room every day 12 months a year.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

The BB 25% off applies to sale shirts which brings some of them down to $30. Worth a look.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

I have both. BB OCBD is definitely nicer. But the Hyde Park is nice too, and actually fits me better.

I avoid non-irons now because:


They always need _some_ ironing -- might as well do the whole thing
They don't last very long, and don't age gracefully
They're uncomfortably non-breathable, even sweaty
All-cotton OCBDs are sturdy enough to stay fresh looking all day. Forget the non-iron.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

It takes five minutes to iron an BB OCBD--and that's ironed, not touched up. That's 25 minutes per week, or 17.5 hours per year, assuming six weeks off for vacation/holidays and a hotel every work day. It works out to a bit more than .0019 percent of your time in a given year devoted to ironing shirts, which I argue is a worthwhile investment of time for anyone. I have no issues with a cheater shirt here and there, and plead guilty to possession myself. But I would never, personally, make non-irons the base.



dparm said:


> Both Lands' End and Brooks Brothers are running some pretty great sales right now. I'm switching jobs in a few weeks and there will be a fairly-strict dress code. It's time for me to resupply on OCBDs, among other things.
> 
> I really do like the Lands' End shirts in tailored fit, especially for $37 or less since I've typically got a gift card. But with the 25% off they're running at BB if you use your store card (dad has one), those are only about $20 more.
> 
> I know everyone around here loves BB, so I'm hesitant to switch from something I know fits me really well to an "unknown". Probably relevant that said job is 100% travel and the LE non-iron thing is appealing, even though it makes the fabric a bit stiffer. Last thing I want is to be ironing my shirts in the hotel room every day 12 months a year.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Get the BB OCBDs instead. Better collar, better fabric, more fit options. You won't regret it.

LE makes a decent OCBD for the price, but the the button spacing is too small. As a result the bottom button with the horizontal buttonhole always ends up above your belt. It also doesn't look that good with the collar open. AFAIK, they have still yet to fix this.

I second 32rollandrock, oxford cloth takes a fraction of the time to iron compared to other shirtings. So does twill, but it doesn't breathe as well. If you want your shirts to survive the plane trip, it's best to fold them up or have a commercial laundry do so if you use them. No need to resort to non-iron.


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

Jovan said:


> ...the the button spacing is too small. As a result the bottom button with the horizontal buttonhole always ends up above your belt.


The tall sizes do not have this problem, as they are significantly longer in the body.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Not all of us wear 36" sleeves and longer, though!


----------



## jamesensor (Jan 29, 2010)

I like the slim fit hyde parks -- the BB are a little nicer, but not a huge difference to me. No reason to get a non-iron OCBD. I'll grab a BB pinpoint white non-iron every once in a while, but thats for help when i need a crisp dress shirt for a long day. OCBDs are more causal and dont need that perma-crisp.


----------



## Walter Denton (Sep 11, 2011)

I have both and I find I don't like the Lands End as much as the BB when wearing a tie. The Lands End collar points seem to be a bit shorter than the BB and don't roll as nicely, at least on me.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Both LE Hyde Parks _and _BB OCBDs have been the core of my shirt wardrobe for 25-30 years. Frankly, I like them both pretty much equally...though they do have their differences. The problem is, LE has reduced the selection of Hyde Parks they offer to basically white and blue. I've not bought any since they were offering them in the same line-up of solid colors that BB offers and annouced that they would be discontinuing them. I stocked up, and they decided to bring them back in white and blue. Some who have bought the newer Hyde Parks contend it is not the shirt the older models were. I don't know and will probably stick with BB from here on out since I have more confidence in their consistancy and sticking with the real deal...and there is more variety (5 solids and 2 stripes).

As for non-irons, I have to say that I run hot and cold on them. Most on this forum only run cold. However, you asked for an opinion on which of the two is the better shirt. When it comes to non-irons, in my experience Brooks Brothers is--by far--the better shirt when it comes to doing what non-irons are supposed to do, and that is shunning wrinkles. I find that the BB non-irons I've had can truly be worn without ironing. The LE non-irons come out too wrinkled to wear without a substantial touch up. Without making a judgement on whether you should go with must irons or non-irons, I just say BB has the best non-irons I've found.

Finally, if it matters, when I travel I don't carry non-irons. For ease of packing, I have my cleaners fold instead of hanging. Of course, I don't carry non-irons to the cleaners, so that's not really an option for me. After all most of the appeal in buying a non-iron is not having to go to the trouble or expense of taking it to the cleaners.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

BB collar is slightly bigger (and better for me for tie wearing) and I am on record as favoring the baggy BB fit. It makes me feel slimmer....yes, that's it.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The same guys who wear Traditional Fit in BB could probably wear Regular Fit just as well...


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

Jovan said:


> The same guys who wear Traditional Fit in BB could probably wear Regular Fit just as well...


BB Regular is almost the same as LE Traditional. I happily wear this size for softer sport shirts, but for an OCBD I need something slimmer. Stiff oxford cloth billows out in a bad way when there's too much of it.

I agree a lot of people could/should probably go slimmer.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^
Just because they could, doesn't mean they should. I've always liked the traditional cut, whether I was slim or not at the time. It lends more "substance" to the shirt. As Mercer says...Baggy is better. But that's a matter of personal taste.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*BB. My .02*

Looking at my closet I count something on the order of about 20-25 shirts. About three quarters are brooks brothers. Two of those are non-iron. One of those non-iron shirts has been sent to the laundry along with my other "gotta-iron" shirts for, what...about 6-7 years? Its held up fine and feels comfortable enough. The other non-iron always looks great right out of the dryer.

Having said all that, here is where I've ended up - 
1. BB regular (traditional baggy) fit
2. All cotton must-iron
3. A few Press cotton shirts. Personally, I think the BB shirts might be better fabric. I won't know for another 10 years or so.
4. I never iron my shirts at home. Send 'em out. The value of my time and my obsessive attention to perfection means that I long ago passed the point at which it was cost effective for me to iron my shirts. They come back looking better from the laundry, and I've learned how to fold them so that they look great when I take them out of the suitcase.
5. I've got to hand it to brooks. Their basic OCBDs really last. The one I'm wearing today is old enough that the collar is unlined. Fits great, looks great, feels great. Must be 20+ years old. Maybe 30.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Well put, Markus. 

Initial quality is not as telling a metric as some would think. Show me a current Lands End shirt in five years and I'll show you a dish rag. An OCBD I bought three years ago started going thread bare in spots as though it was springing leaks. Now it's happening to a few paintbrush shirts that can't even be 2 years old yet. 

I still have the Brooks Brothers shirts I bought 7-8 years ago and there isn't a whole lot of difference between those few and the newer ones in terms of real visible wear. 

My issues with current LE have nothing to do with fit, colors, etc, but the fact that they simply aren't built for the long haul and that's about all I'm interested in buying any more.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Trip English said:


> Show me a current Lands End shirt in five years and I'll show you a dish rag. An OCBD I bought three years ago started going thread bare in spots as though it was springing leaks. Now it's happening to a few paintbrush shirts that can't even be 2 years old yet.


Fortunately, I have not had the same experience as Trip. Most of my older LE shirts - Hyde Parks, pinpoints, and regular OCBDs - have lasted for many years, and still look good. The shirts I've purchased in the last couple of years are also in fine shape.

Except for a very brief period early in my marriage, all of my shirts are professionally laundered and ironed. Not sure if that's made a difference, or it's simply a matter of LE having different vendors making different model shirts during different time periods. (Whatever the case, I've been very fortunate.) Maybe the wearer's usage plays a role, too?

To Salty's point, my new BB OCBDs are better than my newest supima Hyde Parks (about two years old) - softer and more substantial, although I'm not crazy about the collar roll (tends to get too "William F. Buckleyish" on me). I own a bunch of LE non-irons as well, and some are great directly out of the dryer, while others need a touch-up if perfection is what one seeks.

Speaking of ironing, my wife and I decided a long time ago that we both work too hard to spend an inordinate amount of time ironing shirts. While some say that it takes just a couple of minutes, our experience was that it took far longer, but I suppose this is a function of how particular one happens to be. For us, the minor expense of professional laundering is well worth it for dress shirts...


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

IMO, the BB is a much better shirt, but if you watch and wait you can get them from LE for more like $15-20. That's a big difference.

...and I wish I could iron a shirt in 5 minutes.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Saltydog said:


> ^^^
> Just because they could, doesn't mean they should. I've always liked the traditional cut, whether I was slim or not at the time. It lends more "substance" to the shirt. As Mercer says...Baggy is better. But that's a matter of personal taste.


Regular Fit isn't very slim, it's just right. You should try it. It's the way BB shirts used to fit before the average waistband expanded...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Regular Fit isn't very slim, it's just right. You should try it. It's the way BB shirts used to fit before the average waistband expanded...


I settled on the BB "slim" fit, which is not slim at all, but very comfortable for a guy of my modest size.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

I will commit heresy here and say that I prefer the Lands End shirts to the BB.

Yes, BB invented the OCBD and is the original. 

But like many mass produced goods, BB does not seem to adjust their patterns for sizes outside of medium. For example, for those of us who are tall, BB does not seem to alter their patterns to proportionately fit the larger sized shirts body. The collars on the BB OCBD are positioned far too low on my neck. Also, the yoke is only about 1.5 inches wide at the sleeve (which looks out of proportion on a 16.5, 35 shirt) and positioned far too forward in on the shoulder for me. These details would probably work on a smaller shirt, but look out of proportion on a larger shirt.

Lands End and several other manufacturers seem to keep the details in better proportions. Also, I like the locker loops, sleeve buttons, and other details that may not be original, but work for an OCBD.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Tom Buchanan said:


> I will commit heresy here and say that I prefer the Lands End shirts to the BB.
> 
> Yes, BB invented the OCBD and is the original.
> 
> ...


Gosh, your comments on the BB fit prompts me to try on the shirts I bought from them over the weekend and have a look in the mirror again. I'm tall and slender (6'4"), and wear a 16/35 in the must iron. I'm curious as to how the proportions on the shirt become me or not now. Thanks for your perspective.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

I haven't tried the Lands End ones, but I think the BB OCBD's are really, really great. My favorite shirt.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Brio1 said:


> Gosh, your comments on the BB fit prompts me to try on the shirts I bought from them over the weekend and have a look in the mirror again. I'm tall and slender (6'4"), and wear a 16/35 in the must iron. I'm curious as to how the proportions on the shirt become me or not now. Thanks for your perspective.


I will be interested to learn your impressions. Perhaps I am just strange in my fit requirements.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

I am 5'10", 35" waist and a 41R jacket and I wear the BB traditional fit. Some find it excessively baggy, whereas I find anything slimmer so be annoyingly tight. Just personal preference on these matters. I prefer the fuller cut.


----------



## Walter Denton (Sep 11, 2011)

I am 6'0", 36 inch waist and a 42R jacket and I also prefer the BB Traditional fit. I don't like a slim fitting shirt. Of course, I'm an old guy


----------



## Bricktop (Feb 10, 2010)

I'm 6' 0" and could use a salad or two. The traditional fit is fine for me. Anything tighter would be less flattering to both me and the shirt.


----------



## AncientMadder (Apr 21, 2011)

To everyone who prefers the traditional fit: all that extra fabric poofing out in the back doesn't bother you?

I recently acquired a traditional fit BB shirt and am trying to convince myself that it looks okay. I'm used to wearing slimmer cut shirts and am curious about the preference for traditional fit. Is it mainly an issue of comfort or of aesthetics—or of both?


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

For me--both. It may well be a generational thing. I'd be interested in knowing how many guys over 60--or even 55 for that matter--prefer a slim cut shirt. Even if you don't gain weight as you get older...fighting a middle aged spread and/or a certain degree of man-boobs becomes harder every year. There frankly aren't too many men of a certain age who look good in a tight fitting shirt. Most will find see (and I didn't think it would happen to me either) that despite all you do, past a certain point you want to hide as much as possible--without looking sloppy. But that's probably fodder for another thread.


----------



## lct01 (May 13, 2007)

I'm a "close to average" 40 years old man (42-36 jackets - pants measurements) and have worn Traditional Fit Brooks Brothers shirts regularly during the last 6 or 7 years. To think that there is an "ideal" fit is to assume that there is a single body type. I am not exactly thin, but have a thin neck so I typically buy my shirts in the 14.5-33 size. To wear Regular or Slim Fit I would have to, either wear the shirts too tight on the body or too loose on the neck and none of the two options make me feel overly enthusiastic. I enjoy this forum very much and have learned many things through my readings (though I rarely post) but regarding Non-Iron shirts, reading some of the previous posts I think that, sometimes the line between "personal preference" and "fact" becomes a little bit blurry, therefore I can only share my personal experience and opinions which are, indeed, subjective: I have worn Brooks Brothers non-iron shirts not less than 4 days per week for, as I have said, 6 or 7 years. Some of my current shirts are 4-5 years old and still in good shape being washed (on average) once every 10-12 days. Despite the chemical treatment most of the Non-iron shirts I have worn breath well (I have lived in the Caribbean since I was born so I know a little bit about warm weather), even better that a few broadcloth must iron Brooks Brothers shirts I have. I prefer Non-iron (though I have to admit that my experience is limited to Brooks Brothers) mostly because they're practical and because, regarding durability and comfort, I have not been able to perceive any significant disadvantages. Thank you.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Saltydog said:


> For me--both. It may well be a generational thing. I'd be interested in knowing how many guys over 60--or even 55 for that matter--prefer a slim cut shirt. Even if you don't gain weight as you get older...fighting a middle aged spread and/or a certain degree of man-boobs becomes harder every year. There frankly aren't too many men of a certain age who look good in a tight fitting shirt. Most will find see (and I didn't think it would happen to me either) that despite all you do, past a certain point you want to hide as much as possible--without looking sloppy. But that's probably fodder for another thread.


I'm not suggesting getting a tight fitting shirt, just one with a little less material around the midsection. Their default fit used to be the equivalent of what is now Regular Fit at Brooks Brothers.


----------



## Walter Denton (Sep 11, 2011)

Saltydog said:


> For me--both. It may well be a generational thing. I'd be interested in knowing how many guys over 60--or even 55 for that matter--prefer a slim cut shirt. Even if you don't gain weight as you get older...fighting a middle aged spread and/or a certain degree of man-boobs becomes harder every year. There frankly aren't too many men of a certain age who look good in a tight fitting shirt. Most will find see (and I didn't think it would happen to me either) that despite all you do, past a certain point you want to hide as much as possible--without looking sloppy. But that's probably fodder for another thread.


I agree that it may be a generational thing. I'm over 60, 6'0" tall and weigh 175. I don't think I'm terribly overweight but I just wouldn't feel comfortable in anything slimmer than a BB traditional fit. I wouldn't like the look either.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

There's a cultural aesthetic as much as a morphological issue. In Europe, the men stay much thinner into old age (I'm speaking very generally here) and the cut of clothing is always slimmer. In England, Denmark, France, Sweden, Italy, etc. the default fit is a slim tapered pant leg, a more fitted shirt, and a suppressed waist on jackets. Even when the men are heavier, the tailoring is closer to the body and, I think, very flattering. 

The slimmer fit has been going strong for nearly a decade and has been adopted by retailers at every level of quality. Nothing on the horizon points to general trend back to baggy clothing. Something tells me that when guys like me and Hookem are in our 60s we'll be giving a bunch of twenty-somethings the dickens about their baggy pant legs.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Oh, I'll join in on that. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Walter Denton said:


> I agree that it may be a generational thing. I'm over 60, 6'0" tall and weigh 175. I don't think I'm terribly overweight but I just wouldn't feel comfortable in anything slimmer than a BB traditional fit. I wouldn't like the look either.


As Jovan (and others) have said in previous posts, the BB "slim fit" is anything but slim (as in "skinny"). Relative to the traditional fit, it is tapered, but I've found the fit to be comparable to other shirts I've owned that were designated "traditional."

I like my shirts to be comfortable and non-constricting, but the traditional BB fit has just too much material around the midsection for someone my size...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Regular Fit! Again, this is what to try if you're apprehensive of anything slim fit, if only in name. I have a Luxury Regular Fit shirt and like the fit enough that I probably won't have it taken in. (Admittedly, it's not a shirt you'd wear with anything but a coat.) Just the right amount of fullness without being tent-like, which Traditional Fit seems to be on anyone from thin to average body type.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Regular Fit!


I know that's what you've been writing about recently, but a while back you made the point that I'm making - BB "slim" isn't actually slim/tight. In fact, its measurements were similar to the LE traditional Hyde Park, which is why I bought a few from Brooks.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Ah, I see.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Sounds to me like people are talking about fashion, not style. I'm 49, 5' 11.5", currently weigh 155 and have a 31 inch waist. I wear BB in regular fit because I prefer the trad style. Fashion has swung from RLP's "big shirt" to a trimmer look, as has happened every decade or so of my life. I'm not changing my style.

In reply to AncientMadder, that material has traditionally been hidden by your blazer or suit jacket, so it isn't really an issue--except that it gives you more room to move without your shirt constricting you. I might even suggest that if you are constricted by what you wear, you should start moving more. Looser clothes and more activity might be good for all of us.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Trip English said:


> There's a cultural aesthetic as much as a morphological issue. In Europe, the men stay much thinner into old age (I'm speaking very generally here) and the cut of clothing is always slimmer. In England, Denmark, France, Sweden, Italy, etc. the default fit is a slim tapered pant leg, a more fitted shirt, and a suppressed waist on jackets. Even when the men are heavier, the tailoring is closer to the body and, I think, very flattering.
> 
> The slimmer fit has been going strong for nearly a decade and has been adopted by retailers at every level of quality. Nothing on the horizon points to general trend back to baggy clothing. Something tells me that when guys like me and Hookem are in our 60s we'll be giving a bunch of twenty-somethings the dickens about their baggy pant legs.





Jovan said:


> Oh, I'll join in on that. :icon_smile_big:


With all due respect...and I feel I've gotten to know both of you through our forum interchanges well enough to say that sincerely...the arrogance of youth is indeed amusing. Certainly, I was full off it even in my 40's. I suspect you will look back one day and realize that you had absolutely know idea _what_ you would are wouldn't be doing or thinking in your 60's. Particularly about fashion.

Frankly, I thought I would still be running 10ks, logging 35 miles a week, lifting weights regularly, mountain hiking and carrying my bag and walking 18 holes in 90+ degree weather well into my 60's and beyond, as I maintained the "athletic build" I hear so many claim they have on these forums when describing themselves. I'm not saying they don't. Certainly, I did. But, I envy your positive attitude--and hope you both defy time, gravity and the natural effects of aging along with possible unexpected injury and all too common infirmity. (Not to mention the cumulative effect of many more years of the stresses and pressures of life have on one--not to mention ever declining metobolic rates and "T" levels )

As for the old guys in Europe wearing trim fitting clothes--I don't keep up with Euro style that much, nor care to. Perhaps they are genetically superior or have greater will power to look good in their designer threads than we slovenly Americans. You can find the same thing in Hollywood I suppose. But I wish you good luck in your quest for the fountain of youth. I have enough faith in both of you to think that--if you fail to locate it--you will not make fools out of yourselves trying to look like sugardaddies in your older years. (Btw, the young folks of your senior years will pay about as much attention to you as I suspect you will to me.)

It's really not bad...and certainly worth the trip and better than the alternative. Certainly there are compensations--many of them--but wearing skinny clothes ain't typically one of them. Cheers from an old fogey thrust kicking and screaming into the realities of the senior years


----------



## dparm (Nov 18, 2008)

There's a big difference between a 'slim cut' and a true tailored item. Slim often just means more tapered in certain spots and smaller arm holes. I think too many young guys opt for slim cuts because it gives the illusion of custom tailoring. And when magazines like GQ, Esquire, etc show celebrities on the cover with very form-fitting suits and shirts, it only reinforces that idea that "body hugging = good". Unfortunately the slim cuts don't look flattering on everyone and often times fit poorly because you have restricted range of motion. I once tried a "slim fit" casual shirt from Banana Republic and every time I sat down it would poof up in weird spots but stretch and get tight in others...so no thanks.

I'm amazed at how many excellent responses there are to my original question! I'm going to stop off at BB tomorrow and try on some dress shirts to see what I think.

And FWIW, I am 26 years old, 6' tall, and about 180lbs. Not the slimmest guy ever but I wear a 42R jacket and typically 36/32 or 34/32 pants. I have shorter legs but longer arms so my dress shirts are generally 16/35 or 16.5/35.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Dparm, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about young folks equating a size down to tailoring. It's the germ of a good idea, to be sure. They realize they want something that fits them, but they either can't afford better clothing or don't know where to look for it.

And Salty, though the waistlines in Europe are generally trimmer, the cuts are slimmer across the board. This is going to sound like a completely random sartorial reference, but if you've ever seen CSI (and being a living human being, I assume you have), the Jim Brass character is a good example of a stockier gentleman who wears a closer cut. Having seen Paul Guilfoyle on the streets I wonder if there isn't some personal influence on the character's wardrobe.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

dparm said:


> There's a big difference between a 'slim cut' and a true tailored item. Slim often just means more tapered in certain spots and smaller arm holes. I think too many young guys opt for slim cuts because it gives the illusion of custom tailoring. And when magazines like GQ, Esquire, etc show celebrities on the cover with very form-fitting suits and shirts, it only reinforces that idea that "body hugging = good". Unfortunately the slim cuts don't look flattering on everyone and often times fit poorly because you have restricted range of motion. I once tried a "slim fit" casual shirt from Banana Republic and every time I sat down it would poof up in weird spots but stretch and get tight in others...so no thanks.
> 
> I'm amazed at how many excellent responses there are to my original question! I'm going to stop off at BB tomorrow and try on some dress shirts to see what I think.
> 
> And FWIW, I am 26 years old, 6' tall, and about 180lbs. Not the slimmest guy ever but I wear a 42R jacket and typically 36/32 or 34/32 pants. I have shorter legs but longer arms so my dress shirts are generally 16/35 or 16.5/35.


I think you're missing the point. Most of us aren't espousing _body hugging_, just a closer fit. Neither did any of us say that a slim fit was essential for everyone.

Banana Republic shirts are hardly a good example of slim fit clothing. They, like Express, make weirdly fitting "slim fit" shirts with sleeves that are attached at a diagonal angle, thus giving you no room to move your arms up, to the front, or to the back unless you want it to pull out of your trousers or be uncomfortable. A lot of fashion retailers are doing this now, the only reason I can think of being that they want to skimp on cloth. A properly cut slim fit shirt will have smaller armholes, yes, but the sleeves will be attached at a straight line from the shoulder. The smaller armholes also help you move around more. No shirt should be so tight that you can't move in it. That's what crosses the line from tailored or slim fit to ridiculous fashion slave.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

I recently bought a few white BB shirts in the traditional fit due to shrinkage issues with this color in slim fit. It is odd how much more this shirt tends to shrink than the other colors. Perhaps I will exchange them for the regular fit.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I experienced very little shrinkage with the Trad. Fit white OCBD. The fact that I got a half size larger in the neck than I should have (for some reason I was convinced I was a 16 1/2") led to me selling it on the thrift exchange thread though.

By all means though, keep them. You can always get them taken in by an alterations tailor. I had a rather voluminously fitting LE PPBD taken in at the sides and sleeves no problem. However, be sure to tell them that you want the selvage stitched the same way. The one I used (who is apparently notorious for being overpriced for their work) just serged the ends together and then sewed above that, even on the sleeves. I can't roll up my sleeves without a silly white serge thread showing on the exposed selvage.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

Brio1 said:


> I recently bought a few white BB shirts in the traditional fit due to shrinkage issues with this color in slim fit. It is odd how much more this shirt tends to shrink than the other colors. Perhaps I will exchange them for the regular fit.


I have an ecru that has shrunk too, in the collar and maybe elsewhere.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

*Fit preferences*

I started a thread recently about shirt fit _preferences_. This is heading in that direction. Keep it going over there, maybe?


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

P Hudson said:


> Sounds to me like people are talking about fashion, not style. I'm 49, 5' 11.5", currently weigh 155 and have a 31 inch waist. I wear BB in regular fit because I prefer the trad style. Fashion has swung from RLP's "big shirt" to a trimmer look, as has happened every decade or so of my life. I'm not changing my style...


+1. Every once in a while someone captures the essence of (what I interpret to be) "trad" in an offhand comment. Good on you.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

P Hudson said:


> Sounds to me like people are talking about fashion, not style. I'm 49, 5' 11.5", currently weigh 155 and have a 31 inch waist. I wear BB in regular fit because I prefer the trad style.


Not sure if it's fashion, style, or simply aesthetic preference. My tastes are unquestionably traditional, and I like a well-constructed shirt with ample room, but the BB OCBD traditional fit is simply too large for me. Its billowing shape is not flattering at all on me, and is exacerbated by my lack of height (5'8" including exaggeration). Certainly, jacket/blazer/sport coat minimizes this effect, but occasionally I take off my jacket, so camouflaging wasn't an option.

The BB "slim fit" approximates the LE traditional fit, and while I hated ordering something called "slim," it was the best choice for me. Not "slim" at all, with sufficient room - and still traditional.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

As one who has already contributed far too much palaver to this discussion, the more I think about it--the more I think, _what difference does it possibly make?_ I seem to remember that this started as a thread about LE Hyde Parks and BB OCBDs. I say, BB makes 4--count 'em 4--different fits and LE makes 2. Is not who makes a good ocbd and who wears what the greater question? After all, skinny, fat, young, old or in-between isn't enough that we all love OCBDs. Everyone will wear whatever size suits their individual taste, style and body-type best. I'm much more interested that someone wears a good heavy duty ocbd as opposed to something else...and why...than which fit they wear. We all get worked up...when actually it is a moot point. I can't tell someone else what fits them best and what fits me best in my opinion has no bearing on what fit you wear. Freely admitting my part in chasing this crazy rabbit, methinks we have digressed into beating a dead horse (couldn't get the appropriate icon to work).


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Saltydog said:


> Is not who makes a good ocbd and who wears what the greater question? After all, skinny, fat, young, old or in-between isn't enough that we all love OCBDs. Everyone will wear whatever size suits their individual taste, style and body-type best...


I hate it when wisdom and common sense ruin an inane and frivolous thread battle!:smile:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I didn't realise there was a serious argument going on, just seemed like a spirited debate to me.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Oh, I don't think it was a serious argument...just getting a little "metro" as well as being off the subject. There is actually another thread on the forum discussing fit if one wants to participate. My point was simply that what started out as a discussion of the merits of the two brands of shirts (or lack thereof) digressed into how fitted different people like their garments. (A topic so subjective in the light of individual taste as to be irrelevant IMHO when discussing the overall merits of the OCBD in general,) As I freely admitted...I had probably contributed more than my share to this jumping of the shark. Really not that big a deal one way or the other.


----------



## arnaudr (Oct 30, 2011)

Non-iron is a misnomer. In many markets, its ETI or Easy-to-Iron. 
Secondly, post ETI treatment, the cotton is almost non-cotton. IMO, you are better off wearing a poly-cotton shirt with cotton on the warp and poly on the weft. Ironing those would be almost as easy. Must better absorption performance. Lasts longer.
Having said that, your dress shirt should never be anything less than 100% cotton. Hence, at comparable prices, BB is certainly better.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

Back to practical stuff -- has anyone bought from the latest crop of LE HP? How are they? Especially the yellow...


----------



## teamtc (Jun 21, 2011)

I'd contemplated the yellow, but held off, as the buttons look particularly cheap in the picture.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Yellows are indeed very tricky. I like BBs Supima OCBD yellow...but not the pinpoint yellow. LE has had so many different shades, without seeing their latest version in real life it would be impossible to know what shade it is--or how it will look with your coloring.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

arnaudr said:


> Having said that, your dress shirt should never be anything less than 100% cotton. Hence, at comparable prices, BB is certainly better.


Both the BB and LE HP are 100% Supima cotton.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> Both the BB and LE HP are 100% Supima cotton.


There's no question BB's fabric is nicer, or finer, anyway. LE is more "rustic," for want of a better term. Both are nice.


----------



## Fratelli (Nov 10, 2011)

Tom Buchanan said:


> I will commit heresy here and say that I prefer the Lands End shirts to the BB.
> 
> Yes, BB invented the OCBD and is the original.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a custom shirt with a higher collar would be a better fit for you as compared to an off-rack item.


----------



## SconnieTrad (Mar 16, 2011)

Lands End Hyde Park's in the color "Bright Leaf Windowpane" are in the overstock section this week. Sizes are limited for regulars, but lots of options for talls.
Here's the link:


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

SconnieTrad said:


> Lands End Hyde Park's in the color "Bright Leaf Windowpane" are in the overstock section this week. Sizes are limited for regulars, but lots of options for talls.
> Here's the link:


I have a 15.5x34 regular that I was going to sell. Practically new, worn/washed just a few times. If anyone's interested, PM.

Or trade for a 15.5x34 Tailored fit in another color.


----------

