Thin and Athletic built guys - Do you wear 'traditional cut' OCBD shirts?

Oldsport

Super Member
Hey Thin and Athletic built guys - Do you wear 'traditional cut' OCBD shirts? Aren't they just too big and billowy? What make do you like?

Thanks
 

DCR

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
I do, but I also wear regent fit depending on if it was a recent purchase. I don't find a huge difference and I usually have a jacket on regardless.
 

Fading Fast

Connoisseur
Like DCR above, I wear the Regent fit OCBD from BB (and similar cuts from other brands) as the traditional cut OCBD is way too large on me (they billow / looks like I'm wearing a tent / etc.).
 

89826

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
I do wear full-cut OCBD shirts. I like the extra material; I pull on the back of the shirt so the extra is in the rear. That is the classic look, as I see it.

As David Mercer says, baggier is better. I don't like the skinned-rat look.
 

Fading Fast

Connoisseur
To add some color, on my 6'1", 150lbs frame with a 40" chest and 32" waist, the Regent (and similar brands') fit is not "skinny" or "tight" on me, but just not blousey or billowy. The Regent fit, fits me not much differently than a full-cut OCBD fits a regular guy with a stocky or full (not overweight) frame.
 

DCR

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
I'm wearing a PPBD in Regent at the moment. 6'0, 205. 44 inch chest 34 waist. Fits fine without being snug.
 

TimF

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
To add some color, on my 6'1", 150lbs frame with a 40" chest and 32" waist, the Regent (and similar brands') fit is not "skinny" or "tight" on me, but just not blousey or billowy. The Regent fit, fits me not much differently than a full-cut OCBD fits a regular guy with a stocky or full (not overweight) frame.

Brooks Regular and Traditional fits have an extra inch on the tail length. So there's something to consider for slim trads who complain about their shirt pulling out of pants.
 

Lawschooled

Starting Member
180m 65kg, 36-37" chest, 30" waist and I wear the BB OCBDs in the Milano fit ( 15.5/34). They fit by no means skinny in the contemporary sense, but provide enough room to comfortably move around or work at a desk without being restrictive, yet they are not overly billowy.

I always cringe when "traditionalists" insist skinny fit shirts are the devil and full cut the only correct and also trad way to go, because body types vary so extremely. I have a rel. thick neck for my waist and chest and could probably wrap myself twice in the "traditional" fit OCBDs. Sure, a 200lb guy will look ridiculous in a Milano fit, but that's simply not the body type the fit is made for.

/rant: the pictures on the BB website depicting the fits are complete garbage, the Milano sits on my like the Madison on it's model. I can only assume that the "slimmer" cuts were deliberately pulled tighter on the back for the photo-shoot.
 

New Old Stock

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
Steve_McQueen.jpg

McQueen had an athletic build & appeared to have no problem with a traditional shirt.

I have both fits. When i wear milano fit its untucked without a tie. Shirts that will be tucked in and worn under a jacket can look like a parachute for all I care as long as the sleeve lengths and neck fit well. But the more comfortable I become with the "Trad" style (Im relatively new to it) the more I dislike the milano shirts.
 

89826

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
Riding a motorcycle with no helmet and smoking a cigarette. Appealing and foolhardy- the hell with uncertain, in-the-future consequences.
 

Fading Fast

Connoisseur
Brooks Regular and Traditional fits have an extra inch on the tail length. So there's something to consider for slim trads who complain about their shirt pulling out of pants.

I didn't know that - thank you. The Regent fit, compared to other brands, still has a pretty long tail though. I've only had the "untucking" issue with a few of the more modestly priced (cheaper :)) OCBDs I've bought.

What a nice problem to have. I envy you.

At 54, it takes work. I eat a third or less (and better and healthier, but less fun overall) than I did in my twenties, I drink a lot less and work out twice as much (I'm not exaggerating) all to stay at the same weight I was in my twenties and to stay in shape in general. I really started to take care of myself when I turned 40 and, while it's a lot of work as noted, I feel better physically and mentally than I did at 40 - which keeps me motivated to continue working hard at all of it.
 

orange fury

Connoisseur
180m 65kg, 36-37" chest, 30" waist and I wear the BB OCBDs in the Milano fit ( 15.5/34). They fit by no means skinny in the contemporary sense, but provide enough room to comfortably move around or work at a desk without being restrictive, yet they are not overly billowy.

I always cringe when "traditionalists" insist skinny fit shirts are the devil and full cut the only correct and also trad way to go, because body types vary so extremely. I have a rel. thick neck for my waist and chest and could probably wrap myself twice in the "traditional" fit OCBDs. Sure, a 200lb guy will look ridiculous in a Milano fit, but that's simply not the body type the fit is made for.

/rant: the pictures on the BB website depicting the fits are complete garbage, the Milano sits on my like the Madison on it's model. I can only assume that the "slimmer" cuts were deliberately pulled tighter on the back for the photo-shoot.

This. I’m a similar build (155 lbs, 5’11”, 38 chest/32 waist), and I wear the 15.5/34 Milano fit ocbd. There’s still excess fabric- it’s not skin tight, but it is fitted. The traditional fit ocbd has enough excess fabric on me that I could make a second shirt out of it- it just looks sloppy. I could make a similar argument for pants- most here love the Bills Khakis M1 fit, but it looks like I’m wearing a dress with how wide the legs are. The M2 fits on me like the M1 fits on bigger guys- nothing wrong with that, it’s understanding what fits my body type.

This topic hits a nerve with me every time it comes up. The supposed “trad” insistence on ultra full cut shirts is ridiculous- if that’s what fits you and what you like then great, but it doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong. Wear what fits and what you’re comfortable in.
 

New Old Stock

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
Glad to see there are other +5'10''/>160 members.
Feel free to join our just-made-up club, Skin & Bones.
We meet for lunch once a month, but don't eat anything.
Here is our club tie;
black-skull.jpg


& a shameless plug... should any of my fellow club members be looking to sell some clothing, drop me a line.
 

Vecchio Vespa

(aka TKI67)
Many years ago in high school I was about six feet with a 28” waist. I wore the Hugger by Gant exclusively. That was up to 1967. When I emerged from law school and built my business wardrobe I was not as trim but still probably a 30” waist. I went to Brooks for my working clothes and loved the baggier fit. After Brooks underwent its changes I was fine with other places like J. Press for suits, but their shirts felt too tight. Saved by Gitmans. I just like a looser fit. It’s more comfortable to me, and being of a traditional bent I can handle the way it looks no problem, sort of like not caring that I wear my slacks shorter than the average Texan (no break).
 

rbstc123

Super Member
This. I’m a similar build (155 lbs, 5’11”, 38 chest/32 waist), and I wear the 15.5/34 Milano fit ocbd. There’s still excess fabric- it’s not skin tight, but it is fitted. The traditional fit ocbd has enough excess fabric on me that I could make a second shirt out of it- it just looks sloppy.

Similar size here: 5’ 10” / 155 lbs / 33” waist
I wear the BB Regent fit 15.5 / 33. The Milano wasn’t an option when I initially built my wardrobe and I have about 30 Regent fit (used to be “Slim Fit”) shirts. IMHO the Regent fit is basically a Trad fit for my build as there is extra fabric around the waist and extra room in the sleeves. I do have one BB Milano fit and while it fits and looks good on me the arm holes are cut a bit too high for my taste. For this reason I stick with the Regent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

winghus

Super Member
180m 65kg, 36-37" chest, 30" waist and I wear the BB OCBDs in the Milano fit ( 15.5/34). They fit by no means skinny in the contemporary sense, but provide enough room to comfortably move around or work at a desk without being restrictive, yet they are not overly billowy.

I always cringe when "traditionalists" insist skinny fit shirts are the devil and full cut the only correct and also trad way to go, because body types vary so extremely. I have a rel. thick neck for my waist and chest and could probably wrap myself twice in the "traditional" fit OCBDs. Sure, a 200lb guy will look ridiculous in a Milano fit, but that's simply not the body type the fit is made for.

/rant: the pictures on the BB website depicting the fits are complete garbage, the Milano sits on my like the Madison on it's model. I can only assume that the "slimmer" cuts were deliberately pulled tighter on the back for the photo-shoot.
180 meters tall 65kg, I assume you're "pencil thin?"
 

Lawschooled

Starting Member
180 meters tall 65kg, I assume you're "pencil thin?"
I would call it athletic thin. My body fat percentage is genetically very low. I can eat as much as I want without gaining substantial weight and maintain a high level of fitness without having to exercise much/at all.

Sucks for shopping and thrifting though.
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.

Deals/Steals

Trad Store Exchange