Manolo for the Men Fashion and Lifestyle Advice for Men

November 19, 2008

Bondage by Tom Ford

Filed under: Celebrity,Men's Fashion,Shirts,Suits,Tailoring,Ties,Trousers — Izzy @ 5:28 pm

The Los Angeles Times has a long but excellent article on the new wardrobe 007 in Quantum of Solace, the latest James Bond movie. Ditching Brioni, Bond now has Tom Ford as his custom tailor. That helps to explain the above three-piece suit, a style Ford has tried to re-popularize in recent years. While a three-piece is appropriate now that the franchise is looking back to its early years (e.g., Sean Connery wore one in Goldfinger), it’s a shame that the vest was cut so voluminously and short. Also, Connery’s Bond knew not to fasten the bottom button.

In any case, Ford, acting like a sartorial Q, at least gave Bond some tricks up his pants:

one of Bond’s coolest secret weapons this time around is a small button tab inside the cuff of each trouser leg that never has a second of screen time, and whose sole purpose is to keep 007’s pant legs precisely where they should be

Izzy has never before heard of such a thing, and is curious how it works. Another interesting tidbit from the article is that the costume designer

desperately wanted to source a very specific, very expensive suiting fabric known as “mohair tonic,” a wool-cashmere blend with a subtle sheen not unlike that of a subdued sharkskin suit. “It was extremely popular in the ’60s; all the Mods and all the wannabe Bonds wore it,” she said. “I’m sure Sean Connery would have worn it at least once.” According to a Ford rep, when a sufficient quantity could not be found, the Tom Ford team developed the proprietary fabric to specification in its Italian mills (and cloaked in Bond-worthy industrial secrecy, she declined to identify the specific mill).

Note that the costume designer does not say that Bond himself ever wore such shiny fabric, which, whatever its merits, has never been considered high class.

6 Comments

  1. Note that the costume designer does not say that Bond himself ever wore such shiny fabric, which, whatever its merits, has never been considered high class.

    Yes, but also note that Bond himself was not considered high class. My recollection of the books is that part of Bond’s psychology is based on the fact that he’s a striver — he’s got the upper class education but not the upper class breeding. Others see him in this light, and are happy to let him do their dirty work for them, but they don’t really see Bond as one of them.

    Comment by C.S. — November 20, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

  2. Mohair not top class? It’s worn by the best dressed men in the world, from the late Gianni Agnelli to the current Prince of Wales. And Tonic was some of the best of it but it’s no longer made.

    Also, Craig’s vest is a five button model. The unbuttoned button, if you will, is the bottom one on a six button vest which, if present on Craig’s vest, would have been down where it could not have been buttoned in the first place due to the cut.

    Comment by Will — November 20, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

  3. THIS is how it’s done.
    And don’t any of you forget it. As it seems no one will ever dress this fashionably again except for me and my employees.

    Comment by Fashion style of leadership — November 20, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

  4. Isn’t there a difference between a fabric with “sheen” and “shiny” fabric? I can’t imagine anything made with mohair looking cheap.

    Anyhoo, don’t mind me, I’ll just sit here in the corner and drool over Mr. Craig, if you don’t mind.

    Comment by Glinda — November 25, 2008 @ 3:31 pm

  5. I agree with Will—mohair not top class…? And Craig’s vest being “voluminously cut”…? Bit your tongue twofold, Izzy. I own a bit of Gucci-era Tom Ford as well as a number of pieces from his eponymously named line and “voluminous” simply has never really been in the man’s sartorial vocabulary. James Bond looks better than he ever has.

    Do you have any idea what mohair COSTS…? “Never been considered high class”… Mohair…? That’s the equivalent of saying that Shakespeare’s canon of literature is just “meh”.

    Comment by SAA — November 30, 2008 @ 6:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress