New Old Stock

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
146
United States
New York
New York
Picked this up in my local Brooks yesterday. I was ready to read an advertisement disguised as a 'guide', but was pleasantly surprised. Although painted with broad strokes (its only 12 pgs anyhow...) this lays out a decent framework for the young man starting at square one.
What do you believe they left out?

1.jpeg
2.jpeg
3.jpeg
4.jpeg
5.jpeg
6.jpeg
7.jpeg


More scans in next post...
 

TKI67

Super Member
1,177
United States
Texas
Austin
Not a bad guide at all. I do, however, question wearing velvet slippers with black tie, despite the obvious nod to comfort they would offer.
 

fishertw

Super Member
1,917
United States
North Carolina
Boone
Interesting that they refer to a 3/2 roll in Blazers when Brooks no longer (as far as I know) still offers an off the rack 3/2 blazer. (But I agree with the sentiment and will keep my 3/2 for as long as possible)
 

TKI67

Super Member
1,177
United States
Texas
Austin
Interesting that they refer to a 3/2 roll in Blazers when Brooks no longer (as far as I know) still offers an off the rack 3/2 blazer. (But I agree with the sentiment and will keep my 3/2 for as long as possible)
I noted that as well, but I checked my natural inclination to think of BB as it used to be. I also noted that they said no cuffs with plain front trousers. No cuffs? I’m certainly never going to give up my 1 3/4” cuffs on all plain front trousers other than 501s!
 

TKI67

Super Member
1,177
United States
Texas
Austin
FiscalDean’s comment set me to pondering. I’ve always liked sack suits. I find them quite comfortable. I wonder if the recent changes in suit offerings, where sacks are hard to find and supposedly traditional places like Brooks are selling suits with tight fitting jackets that are short and have high armholes have contributed to a younger generation deciding suits aren’t for them? Why would you drop a grand on a suit that just isn’t comfortable when you can just say they are passé and wear khakis and a shirt?
 

never behind

Senior Member
754
United States
IN
Zionsville
Someone help me with this - they rec’d a slight break (front barely grazing top of the shoe), but also the pant cover the sock while in stride. In my experience a slight break will show sock when walking.
 

TKI67

Super Member
1,177
United States
Texas
Austin
Someone help me with this - they rec’d a slight break (front barely grazing top of the shoe), but also the pant cover the sock while in stride. In my experience a slight break will show sock when walking.
Good point. Brooks Brothers has a number of areas in which it would benefit from greater consistency. It’s as if they were once the Coca-Cola Company but someone lost the formula!
 

August West

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
413
United States
NJ
Northern
Someone help me with this - they rec’d a slight break (front barely grazing top of the shoe), but also the pant cover the sock while in stride. In my experience a slight break will show sock when walking.
If the front is barely grazing the top of the shoe, I'd consider that no break.

With a slight break, I think it would depend on what kind of shoe you are wearing. Perhaps you may see some sock with a loafer, but I don't think you would with a long wing, balmoral etc. Without photos though, the terms "slight break" and "no break" can be subjective.

My AM "no break" pants can sometimes become more of a PM "slight break", depending on what I do for lunch, and/or how many crunches I did (or did not do) that particular day.
 
Ratio Clothing Custom Shirts