112 replies to this topic

[Chief of SIS]

Can we rename this topic 'Is Craig's body adequate enough?' or 'lack of clothing' instead of 'Clothing'?

[byline]

Its really funny, as Roger never had any muscle.

True enough. Talk about someone who didn't look convincing in a fight. . . .

[The Shark]

Its really funny, as Roger never had any muscle.

True enough. Talk about someone who didn't look convincing in a fight. . . .

Nonsense. Look at the fight in Saida's Beirut dressing room in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, brawl with Chang in the Venetian glass museum in MOONRAKER, or with the yo-yo buzz saw-wielding mercenaries in Octopussy's bedroom in the eponymous film. Far more convincing, fluid confident, and yes - badass than Pierce Brosnan ever looked in a scuffle.

His arms look far though too thin in that photo at the top. In the bottom one he looks old, pallid and shrilled.

He may have been more fit in terms of cardiovascular capacity, but in CR he was far stronger - which is what Bond needs. Not a lightning fast athlete, but someone who can handle himself in a brawl. Like Connery.

You're confusing muscle size with actual strength. You take a look at bodybuilders who are 220-230lbs (16 stone), they're not very mobile or flexible- they simply lift heavy weights repeatedly. Boxers who are 150lbs (Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Meyweather, etc.) have considerable power when they punch and most times, they're not "winding up." Their punches often start with a twist of the waist. Yes they lift weights, but the amount out weight training deals directly with stamina and explosive power.

I know the perceived body image for Bond has been raised by by other Hollywood films (especially "300") but seriously, Bond is a spy who's supposed to blend in with the general public. How big does he really need to be?

As big as Sean Connery and Roger Moore, which is closer to Craig's build in CR than in QOS.

Its really funny, as Roger never had any muscle.

That's physically impossible. Of course had had muscle. It wasn't as developed or defined as Craig's, but he had a far sturdier build, and that's what counts. Not whether or not he can mimic a Duracell Bunny, or woo females audiences with his washboard abs.
On the set of SHOUT AT THE DEVIL (1976) after a fight scene (with no stuntmen or stage punching) with the legendary Lee Marvin, the fellow actor commented on Moore:

"The guy is built like granite. Nobody will ever underestimate him again."

[byline]

Its really funny, as Roger never had any muscle.

True enough. Talk about someone who didn't look convincing in a fight. . . .

Nonsense. Look at the fight in Saida's Beirut dressing room in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, brawl with Chang in the Venetian glass museum in MOONRAKER, or with the yo-yo buzz saw-wielding mercenaries in Octopussy's bedroom in the eponymous film. Far more convincing, fluid confident, and yes - badass than Pierce Brosnan ever looked in a scuffle.

Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. But that's what opinions are for.

[pgram]

Sounds to me there are quite a few out of shape people here. Tom Ford's suits are cut slim and the jackets have a slightly open chest, it makes for a nice, defined figure and Bond looked great in them.

Why?

Connery certainly wasn't out of shape in DR. NO FROM and RUSSIA WITH LOVE, where the suits he wore were entirely close chested, loose fitting (especially around the waist), 2 buttoned suites - Rather like the loose fitting Brioni suits Craig wore in CASINO ROYALE. Showing off one's build isn't for suits.

Why do I prefer them? Because they make their wearer look more physically imposing, relaxed, and powerful. Unfortunately in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, Craig's exercise routine was more cardio-centric, causing him to loose a hell of a lot of muscle (from lack of weight training) and fat (from exercise) - Making him look relatively thin, scrawny and unimposing. The suits he wore further accentuated this, due to their tight fitting cuts, with Craig resembling a worn out ragdoll after the action sequences.

When Bond arrives in La Paz, it looks like a strong wind could blow him over. Not good for the world's ultimate super spy. Due to already being too short and small framed for the part, Craig needs the added muscle weight to counter that natural handicap.

Well, first things first... Connery wore pleated trousers that went up to his waist. It was the norm back then, it's extinct now. The pleats, that are necessary only when you wear trousers all the way up to your waist were what made the look loose-fitting.

If Craig wore less fitting suits, considering he 's considerably shorter than Connery, it'd make him look even shorter. It's not nuclear physics, just the height to width ratio. On the contrary, what he needs is tight fitting clothes, to show his physique. Open chested, slim waisted etc.

The odd 3-piece suit wouldn't be a bad idea either: not only does it make the wearer look taller, but also brings back an old-fashioned classiness that 'd been missing lately (say, the Brosnan era). He wore it in CR and it looked great (even though a bit too old-fashioned I 'd say, this pinstripe. With the machine gun in hand he looked like it was a still from a prohibition gangster movie- apart of course from the obvious Thomas Crown connection). Whatismore, 3-pieces are now back in fashion, mainly due to environmental reasons. Daniel Craig has done an excellent job promoting the look during interviews as well.

Which leads me to my last comment... DC has a far more informed opinion in men's clothing than most of us here (always in best-dressed lists). And he thought that Tom Ford was the best choice (and I agree, he looked as good as he can in QOS). It's a good thing when the actor has a say in these things (and knowledge, not like TD). I say, Craig knows best. This also includes most of his casual outfits, he does blend in, he doesn't look like he 's wearing costume. And like someone else said, most of them are looks that you can emulate within a budget. I know I have!

At the end of the day, even though I 'd like to see Bond in British attire, let's not forget he NEVER wore Savile Row.

[David Schofield]

And like someone else said, most of them are looks that you can emulate within a budget. I know I have!

At the end of the day, even though I 'd like to see Bond in British attire, let's not forget he NEVER wore Savile Row.

Though I've read similar views elsewhere, I cannot understand how it is a good thing that Bond's look as personified by Craig is one you "can emulate on a budget". Surely, James Bond should be unattainable, out of reach? Which is why Craig's very ordinariness often jars with me.

And I cannot see how you are so adamant that Bond "NEVER wore Savile Row". Fleming never explicitly says he did, sure, and nor that he didn't, but then he never said Bond used the bathroom either, did he?

[pgram]

And like someone else said, most of them are looks that you can emulate within a budget. I know I have!

At the end of the day, even though I 'd like to see Bond in British attire, let's not forget he NEVER wore Savile Row.

Though I've read similar views elsewhere, I cannot understand how it is a good thing that Bond's look as personified by Craig is one you "can emulate on a budget". Surely, James Bond should be unattainable, out of reach? Which is why Craig's very ordinariness often jars with me.

And I cannot see how you are so adamant that Bond "NEVER wore Savile Row". Fleming never explicitly says he did, sure, and nor that he didn't, but then he never said Bond used the bathroom either, did he?

Well, as far as the second comment is concerned, I was obviously referring to the movies (read the spy who came out of the closet articles for further reference)

About the first, the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd. It's called understated elegance. Take the leather jacket he wore in CR, for example: it was Armani, if I recall correctly, and definitely something I couldn't afford to buy. But the elegance of it (assuming one likes it) is something one can find in other leather jackets, way less expensive. So at the end of the day, it's about how exquisite and not how expensive it is. And this, by the way, is as British an attitude as attitudes go.

Edited by pgram, 30 November 2010 - 09:19 PM.

[David Schofield]

And like someone else said, most of them are looks that you can emulate within a budget. I know I have!

At the end of the day, even though I 'd like to see Bond in British attire, let's not forget he NEVER wore Savile Row.

Though I've read similar views elsewhere, I cannot understand how it is a good thing that Bond's look as personified by Craig is one you "can emulate on a budget". Surely, James Bond should be unattainable, out of reach? Which is why Craig's very ordinariness often jars with me.

And I cannot see how you are so adamant that Bond "NEVER wore Savile Row". Fleming never explicitly says he did, sure, and nor that he didn't, but then he never said Bond used the bathroom either, did he?

Well, as far as the second comment is concerned, I was obviously referring to the movies (read the spy who came out of the closet articles for further reference)

About the first, the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd. It's called understated elegance. Take the leather jacket he wore in CR, for example: it was Armani, if I recall correctly, and definitely something I couldn't afford to buy. But the elegance of it (assuming one likes it) is something one can find in other leather jackets, way less expensive. So at the end of the day, it's about how exquisite and not how expensive it is. And this, by the way, is as British an attitude as attitudes go.

I think you miss my points.

On the movie Savile Row stuff, are you and the "Spy Who Came out of the Closet" articles 100% sure Savile Row was NEVER used in the movies? There are far too many assumptions there made from a series that began nearly 50 years ago. I'd hoped, therefore, you wer using the Fleming version.

Further, it doesn't matter if the leather jacket ws Armani. Or the kit Tom Ford. If you and I can replicate it by something that looks similar and has similar elegance (though not Armani which is unaffordable, but with something way less expensive????!!!) then I's sorry, its far too ordinary for James Bond. It's not exclusive enough. Bond should be unattainable for we mere mortals.

[pgram]

And like someone else said, most of them are looks that you can emulate within a budget. I know I have!

At the end of the day, even though I 'd like to see Bond in British attire, let's not forget he NEVER wore Savile Row.

Though I've read similar views elsewhere, I cannot understand how it is a good thing that Bond's look as personified by Craig is one you "can emulate on a budget". Surely, James Bond should be unattainable, out of reach? Which is why Craig's very ordinariness often jars with me.

And I cannot see how you are so adamant that Bond "NEVER wore Savile Row". Fleming never explicitly says he did, sure, and nor that he didn't, but then he never said Bond used the bathroom either, did he?

Well, as far as the second comment is concerned, I was obviously referring to the movies (read the spy who came out of the closet articles for further reference)

About the first, the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd. It's called understated elegance. Take the leather jacket he wore in CR, for example: it was Armani, if I recall correctly, and definitely something I couldn't afford to buy. But the elegance of it (assuming one likes it) is something one can find in other leather jackets, way less expensive. So at the end of the day, it's about how exquisite and not how expensive it is. And this, by the way, is as British an attitude as attitudes go.

I think you miss my points.

On the movie Savile Row stuff, are you and the "Spy Who Came out of the Closet" articles 100% sure Savile Row was NEVER used in the movies? There are far too many assumptions there made from a series that began nearly 50 years ago. I'd hoped, therefore, you wer using the Fleming version.

Further, it doesn't matter if the leather jacket ws Armani. Or the kit Tom Ford. If you and I can replicate it by something that looks similar and has similar elegance (though not Armani which is unaffordable, but with something way less expensive????!!!) then I's sorry, its far too ordinary for James Bond. It's not exclusive enough. Bond should be unattainable for we mere mortals.

Well, I don't think I miss your points, I just think I 'm explaiing mine.

Savile Row: I am as sure as one can be, considering there's been records and reports on Bond's clothing. Now, if there is something that 's not known, not reported and not retrievable, then there 's no point discussing it. I discuss on what has been or can be confirmed.

Replication: I think the key word is emulate: you can only go as far as have the same quality, you can go up to, say, 60 or 70%. That's distance enough, in my book. If in yours it isn't, though, that 's fine with me. I just think that part of Bond's coolness is that he can act as a role model, and that includes the clothing as well. If the distance is too large, it's not a role model, it 's a monument.

But I do agree with you, just up to a point (I don't agree with all the stylistic choices in any era, including Craig)

Edited by pgram, 30 November 2010 - 09:40 PM.

[The Shark]

Sounds to me there are quite a few out of shape people here. Tom Ford's suits are cut slim and the jackets have a slightly open chest, it makes for a nice, defined figure and Bond looked great in them.

Why?

Connery certainly wasn't out of shape in DR. NO FROM and RUSSIA WITH LOVE, where the suits he wore were entirely close chested, loose fitting (especially around the waist), 2 buttoned suites - Rather like the loose fitting Brioni suits Craig wore in CASINO ROYALE. Showing off one's build isn't for suits.

Why do I prefer them? Because they make their wearer look more physically imposing, relaxed, and powerful. Unfortunately in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, Craig's exercise routine was more cardio-centric, causing him to loose a hell of a lot of muscle (from lack of weight training) and fat (from exercise) - Making him look relatively thin, scrawny and unimposing. The suits he wore further accentuated this, due to their tight fitting cuts, with Craig resembling a worn out ragdoll after the action sequences.

When Bond arrives in La Paz, it looks like a strong wind could blow him over. Not good for the world's ultimate super spy. Due to already being too short and small framed for the part, Craig needs the added muscle weight to counter that natural handicap.

Well, first things first... Connery wore pleated trousers that went up to his waist. It was the norm back then, it's extinct now. The pleats, that are necessary only when you wear trousers all the way up to your waist were what made the look loose-fitting.

I'm not asking for pleated trousers, and never had. Please, lets not take this on a tangent, and somehow assume I'm asking for all extinct clothing trends found in the 60s Bonds to be resurrected. Just the one - looser fitting suits.

Perhaps I should be precise. I'm talking about jackets, not trousers. I want a return to open waist/open chest look from CASINO ROYALE.

If Craig wore less fitting suits, considering he 's considerably shorter than Connery, it'd make him look even shorter. It's not nuclear physics, just the height to width ratio. On the contrary, what he needs is tight fitting clothes, to show his physique. Open chested, slim waisted etc.

I never thought Craig looked like shortarse in CASINO ROYALE. Physically imposing, rather like Connery. And that's probably to due with what the camera can do to body proportions. In fact, not even in QUANTUM OF SOLACE did I think he appeared short - just small framed, due to the loss of weight and tight clothing. Craig looked the best as he can in the previous film.

That's what I complaining about. Not once during the Craig era have I noticed his height. Which is why I'm often surprised when I watch any of the premiers and media circuses. They've done a fine job covering that up on the films.

The odd 3-piece suit wouldn't be a bad idea either: not only does it make the wearer look taller, but also brings back an old-fashioned classiness that 'd been missing lately (say, the Brosnan era). He wore it in CR and it looked great (even though a bit too old-fashioned I 'd say, this pinstripe. With the machine gun in hand he looked like it was a still from a prohibition gangster movie- apart of course from the obvious Thomas Crown connection). Whatismore, 3-pieces are now back in fashion, mainly due to environmental reasons. Daniel Craig has done an excellent job promoting the look during interviews as well.

I wasn't a fan of the pinstripe suit he wore in CR's final scene, nor the excessively high-collared shirt. He's worn better three piece suits at premiers.

[Loomis]

Watched a bit of CASINO ROYALE the other day. Would a gentleman really wear that low-cut black top Bond sports in the Nassau hotel bar, exposing acres of bare chest? Fleming would be turning in his grave.

[Loomis]

I know the perceived body image for Bond has been raised by by other Hollywood films (especially "300") but seriously, Bond is a spy who's supposed to blend in with the general public. How big does he really need to be?

I think the perceived body image for Bond has now been raised so high by Craig that some fans won't be satisfied unless the next 007 is played by someone like Roland Kickinger.

[David Schofield]

And like someone else said, most of them are looks that you can emulate within a budget. I know I have!

At the end of the day, even though I 'd like to see Bond in British attire, let's not forget he NEVER wore Savile Row.

Though I've read similar views elsewhere, I cannot understand how it is a good thing that Bond's look as personified by Craig is one you "can emulate on a budget". Surely, James Bond should be unattainable, out of reach? Which is why Craig's very ordinariness often jars with me.

And I cannot see how you are so adamant that Bond "NEVER wore Savile Row". Fleming never explicitly says he did, sure, and nor that he didn't, but then he never said Bond used the bathroom either, did he?

Well, as far as the second comment is concerned, I was obviously referring to the movies (read the spy who came out of the closet articles for further reference)

About the first, the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd. It's called understated elegance. Take the leather jacket he wore in CR, for example: it was Armani, if I recall correctly, and definitely something I couldn't afford to buy. But the elegance of it (assuming one likes it) is something one can find in other leather jackets, way less expensive. So at the end of the day, it's about how exquisite and not how expensive it is. And this, by the way, is as British an attitude as attitudes go.

I think you miss my points.

On the movie Savile Row stuff, are you and the "Spy Who Came out of the Closet" articles 100% sure Savile Row was NEVER used in the movies? There are far too many assumptions there made from a series that began nearly 50 years ago. I'd hoped, therefore, you wer using the Fleming version.

Further, it doesn't matter if the leather jacket ws Armani. Or the kit Tom Ford. If you and I can replicate it by something that looks similar and has similar elegance (though not Armani which is unaffordable, but with something way less expensive????!!!) then I's sorry, its far too ordinary for James Bond. It's not exclusive enough. Bond should be unattainable for we mere mortals.

Well, I don't think I miss your points, I just think I 'm explaiing mine.

Savile Row: I am as sure as one can be, considering there's been records and reports on Bond's clothing. Now, if there is something that 's not known, not reported and not retrievable, then there 's no point discussing it. I discuss on what has been or can be confirmed.

Do you recall a little scene in Dr No where James Bond has met Leiter and Quarrell?

Leiter asks Bond where he got his suit. Bond replies: "My tailor, Savile Row."

Now I'm pretty sure Bond didn't just say that to one-up a boufanted Yank in a Brooks Brothers sack-suit or a Cayman Islander in his T shirt and jeans. He said it because it's true.

Yes, in James Bond's world he was tailored in Savile Row. The actor Sean Connery was tailored, of course, by Anthony Sinclair of Conduit Street ("the Conduit Street Cut").

But there is a difference between James Bond's world and that inhabited by the actor.

See my point?

[Messervy]

I know the perceived body image for Bond has been raised by by other Hollywood films (especially "300") but seriously, Bond is a spy who's supposed to blend in with the general public. How big does he really need to be?

the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd.

This is very not true: Bond is not about blending in.
I really don't understand why some people want to see Bond as your ordinary spy. Sure, spies are supposed to blend in, look casual, and not draw attention. But obviously, Bond is anything but an ordinary spy.
It always amazes me to see that people love Bond cars, Bond gadgets, Bond's tastes in drinks, the movies' fancy locations, etc. but whenever it comes to clothing (or watches, as I saw on another thread here) all of a sudden we should revert to plain ordinary.
Why is it that clothes should be "affordable" and should allow Bond to blend in, when he drives an Aston Martin?
Bond shouldn't blend in, that wouldn't be Bond anymore. Bond is escapism, and this comes (among other things) through great tailoring.

Or we could have Bond driving a Vauxhall, wear sweaters and drink Coke. Yeah, groovy!

Edited by Messervy, 01 December 2010 - 11:12 AM.

[Achille Aubergine]

It always amazes me to see that people love Bond cars, Bond gadgets, Bond's tastes in drinks, the movies' fancy locations, etc. but whenever it comes to clothing (or watches, as I saw on another thread here) all of a sudden we should revert to plain ordinary.
Why is it that clothes should be "affordable" and should allow Bond to blend in, when he drives an Aston Martin?

It's obviously a misjudgment. I can't be more agree !
In one hand we want dreaming by him, but in the other hand, some people want James Bond to be more "down to earth". It's illogical.
But maybe it's a "Bourne syndrome effect" ?

[The Shark]

I know the perceived body image for Bond has been raised by by other Hollywood films (especially "300") but seriously, Bond is a spy who's supposed to blend in with the general public. How big does he really need to be?

the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd.

This is very not true: Bond is not about blending in.

Not in Fleming. Bond always wore the attire of a mundane successful businessman. He never had the most expenssive cloths in the room, and that was always intentional. That doesn't mean he wasn't well dressed, and showed impeccable taste. Just that he never wanted to make that kind of statement to others - He wanted to convey the bog standard 'cruel lips, scar on cheek, cold blue eyes, weighs about 65 kg' descriptions collated by the villains, as in FRWL. And that's because for Bond (and ultimately Fleming, since 007 was his idealised self) first impressions were essential, when relying on his instincts. That is - How one dresses, carries themselves, physiognomy, facial expression - Even before a single word is uttered. So of course, Bond didn't want to let others know that he had the largest wallet in the room, he wanted to convey the size of something else.

Besides, the most effective gadgets in the series (i.e. the attaché case) are all disguised in the daily totems of a businessman; nearly all of the sports cars he's owned fall in to that same stockbroker image.

[jaguar007]

Further, it doesn't matter if the leather jacket ws Armani. Or the kit Tom Ford. If you and I can replicate it by something that looks similar and has similar elegance (though not Armani which is unaffordable, but with something way less expensive????!!!) then I's sorry, its far too ordinary for James Bond. It's not exclusive enough. Bond should be unattainable for we mere mortals.

Except every Bond has worn several outfits that can be replicated for less money. Connery's golf attire in GF, much of his wardrobe in TB, Moore's slacks and long sleeve sweater jacket in FYEO, Dalton's khakis and long sleeve polo in TLD, Brosnan's sweater in GE etc. Craig is not the first Bond who has worn clothes that appear attainable.

[Messervy]

I know the perceived body image for Bond has been raised by by other Hollywood films (especially "300") but seriously, Bond is a spy who's supposed to blend in with the general public. How big does he really need to be?

the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd.

This is very not true: Bond is not about blending in.

Not in Fleming. Bond always wore the attire of a mundane successful businessman. He never had the most expenssive cloths in the room, and that was always intentional. That doesn't mean he wasn't well dressed, and showed impeccable taste. Just that he never wanted to make that kind of statement to others - He wanted to convey the bog standard 'cruel lips, scar on cheek, cold blue eyes, weighs about 65 kg' descriptions collated by the villains, as in FRWL. And that's because for Bond (and ultimately Fleming, since 007 was his idealised self) first impressions were essential, when relying on his instincts. That is - How one dresses, carries themselves, physiognomy, facial expression - Even before a single word is uttered. So of course, Bond didn't want to let others know that he had the largest wallet in the room, he wanted to convey the size of something else.

Besides, the most effective gadgets in the series (i.e. the attaché case) are all disguised in the daily totems of a businessman; nearly all of the sports cars he's owned fall in to that same stockbroker image.

Yes, you're quite right, and that emphasises my point. I didn't say Bond's supposed to wear the most expensive clothes. What I said is that he's not here to "blend in" (i.e, he's not your ordinary casual-looking spy). Take Connery's suit when in Switzerland chasing Goldfinger, for instance: exquisitely stylish, yet nothing ostentatious.

[pgram]

And like someone else said, most of them are looks that you can emulate within a budget. I know I have!

At the end of the day, even though I 'd like to see Bond in British attire, let's not forget he NEVER wore Savile Row.

Though I've read similar views elsewhere, I cannot understand how it is a good thing that Bond's look as personified by Craig is one you "can emulate on a budget". Surely, James Bond should be unattainable, out of reach? Which is why Craig's very ordinariness often jars with me.

And I cannot see how you are so adamant that Bond "NEVER wore Savile Row". Fleming never explicitly says he did, sure, and nor that he didn't, but then he never said Bond used the bathroom either, did he?

Well, as far as the second comment is concerned, I was obviously referring to the movies (read the spy who came out of the closet articles for further reference)

About the first, the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd. It's called understated elegance. Take the leather jacket he wore in CR, for example: it was Armani, if I recall correctly, and definitely something I couldn't afford to buy. But the elegance of it (assuming one likes it) is something one can find in other leather jackets, way less expensive. So at the end of the day, it's about how exquisite and not how expensive it is. And this, by the way, is as British an attitude as attitudes go.

I think you miss my points.

On the movie Savile Row stuff, are you and the "Spy Who Came out of the Closet" articles 100% sure Savile Row was NEVER used in the movies? There are far too many assumptions there made from a series that began nearly 50 years ago. I'd hoped, therefore, you wer using the Fleming version.

Further, it doesn't matter if the leather jacket ws Armani. Or the kit Tom Ford. If you and I can replicate it by something that looks similar and has similar elegance (though not Armani which is unaffordable, but with something way less expensive????!!!) then I's sorry, its far too ordinary for James Bond. It's not exclusive enough. Bond should be unattainable for we mere mortals.

Well, I don't think I miss your points, I just think I 'm explaiing mine.

Savile Row: I am as sure as one can be, considering there's been records and reports on Bond's clothing. Now, if there is something that 's not known, not reported and not retrievable, then there 's no point discussing it. I discuss on what has been or can be confirmed.

Do you recall a little scene in Dr No where James Bond has met Leiter and Quarrell?

Leiter asks Bond where he got his suit. Bond replies: "My tailor, Savile Row."

Now I'm pretty sure Bond didn't just say that to one-up a boufanted Yank in a Brooks Brothers sack-suit or a Cayman Islander in his T shirt and jeans. He said it because it's true.

Yes, in James Bond's world he was tailored in Savile Row. The actor Sean Connery was tailored, of course, by Anthony Sinclair of Conduit Street ("the Conduit Street Cut").

But there is a difference between James Bond's world and that inhabited by the actor.

See my point?

Believe it or not, I do remember this line, and I did when I wrote my previous posts. As you say, he wore Anthony Sinclair who was not Savile Row. Why he said he wore Savile Row, is mere speculation by your side (even though I agree with you, it's still mere speculation). Let's expand a bit then, shall we? The actor DC wore Tom Ford, but the brand was never mentioned in the film, therefore, according to your rationale, the spectator can speculate what it was. I say, he wore Savile Row in QoS, too. Kilgour, to be precise...

[David Schofield]

And like someone else said, most of them are looks that you can emulate within a budget. I know I have!

At the end of the day, even though I 'd like to see Bond in British attire, let's not forget he NEVER wore Savile Row.

Though I've read similar views elsewhere, I cannot understand how it is a good thing that Bond's look as personified by Craig is one you "can emulate on a budget". Surely, James Bond should be unattainable, out of reach? Which is why Craig's very ordinariness often jars with me.

And I cannot see how you are so adamant that Bond "NEVER wore Savile Row". Fleming never explicitly says he did, sure, and nor that he didn't, but then he never said Bond used the bathroom either, did he?

Well, as far as the second comment is concerned, I was obviously referring to the movies (read the spy who came out of the closet articles for further reference)

About the first, the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd. It's called understated elegance. Take the leather jacket he wore in CR, for example: it was Armani, if I recall correctly, and definitely something I couldn't afford to buy. But the elegance of it (assuming one likes it) is something one can find in other leather jackets, way less expensive. So at the end of the day, it's about how exquisite and not how expensive it is. And this, by the way, is as British an attitude as attitudes go.

I think you miss my points.

On the movie Savile Row stuff, are you and the "Spy Who Came out of the Closet" articles 100% sure Savile Row was NEVER used in the movies? There are far too many assumptions there made from a series that began nearly 50 years ago. I'd hoped, therefore, you wer using the Fleming version.

Further, it doesn't matter if the leather jacket ws Armani. Or the kit Tom Ford. If you and I can replicate it by something that looks similar and has similar elegance (though not Armani which is unaffordable, but with something way less expensive????!!!) then I's sorry, its far too ordinary for James Bond. It's not exclusive enough. Bond should be unattainable for we mere mortals.

Well, I don't think I miss your points, I just think I 'm explaiing mine.

Savile Row: I am as sure as one can be, considering there's been records and reports on Bond's clothing. Now, if there is something that 's not known, not reported and not retrievable, then there 's no point discussing it. I discuss on what has been or can be confirmed.

Do you recall a little scene in Dr No where James Bond has met Leiter and Quarrell?

Leiter asks Bond where he got his suit. Bond replies: "My tailor, Savile Row."

Now I'm pretty sure Bond didn't just say that to one-up a boufanted Yank in a Brooks Brothers sack-suit or a Cayman Islander in his T shirt and jeans. He said it because it's true.

Yes, in James Bond's world he was tailored in Savile Row. The actor Sean Connery was tailored, of course, by Anthony Sinclair of Conduit Street ("the Conduit Street Cut").

But there is a difference between James Bond's world and that inhabited by the actor.

See my point?

Believe it or not, I do remember this line, and I did when I wrote my previous posts. As you say, he wore Anthony Sinclair who was not Savile Row. Why he said he wore Savile Row, is mere speculation by your side (even though I agree with you, it's still mere speculation). Let's expand a bit then, shall we? The actor DC wore Tom Ford, but the brand was never mentioned in the film, therefore, according to your rationale, the spectator can speculate what it was. I say, he wore Savile Row in QoS, too. Kilgour, to be precise...

No, Sean Connery wore Anthony Sinclair suits. Sean Connery = the actor. James Bond tells us HE wore Savile Row. There really can't be any other reason for his comment. Therefore, Bond's suits in DN at least are Savile Row.

As Craig-Bond doesn't say where his suits are made, or contradict that they are Tom Ford, any assumption they are otherwise is pure speculation.

[pgram]

And like someone else said, most of them are looks that you can emulate within a budget. I know I have!

At the end of the day, even though I 'd like to see Bond in British attire, let's not forget he NEVER wore Savile Row.

Though I've read similar views elsewhere, I cannot understand how it is a good thing that Bond's look as personified by Craig is one you "can emulate on a budget". Surely, James Bond should be unattainable, out of reach? Which is why Craig's very ordinariness often jars with me.

And I cannot see how you are so adamant that Bond "NEVER wore Savile Row". Fleming never explicitly says he did, sure, and nor that he didn't, but then he never said Bond used the bathroom either, did he?

Well, as far as the second comment is concerned, I was obviously referring to the movies (read the spy who came out of the closet articles for further reference)

About the first, the idea is not to look too ostentatious or flamboyant. To be able to blend in with the crowd. It's called understated elegance. Take the leather jacket he wore in CR, for example: it was Armani, if I recall correctly, and definitely something I couldn't afford to buy. But the elegance of it (assuming one likes it) is something one can find in other leather jackets, way less expensive. So at the end of the day, it's about how exquisite and not how expensive it is. And this, by the way, is as British an attitude as attitudes go.

I think you miss my points.

On the movie Savile Row stuff, are you and the "Spy Who Came out of the Closet" articles 100% sure Savile Row was NEVER used in the movies? There are far too many assumptions there made from a series that began nearly 50 years ago. I'd hoped, therefore, you wer using the Fleming version.

Further, it doesn't matter if the leather jacket ws Armani. Or the kit Tom Ford. If you and I can replicate it by something that looks similar and has similar elegance (though not Armani which is unaffordable, but with something way less expensive????!!!) then I's sorry, its far too ordinary for James Bond. It's not exclusive enough. Bond should be unattainable for we mere mortals.

Well, I don't think I miss your points, I just think I 'm explaiing mine.

Savile Row: I am as sure as one can be, considering there's been records and reports on Bond's clothing. Now, if there is something that 's not known, not reported and not retrievable, then there 's no point discussing it. I discuss on what has been or can be confirmed.

Do you recall a little scene in Dr No where James Bond has met Leiter and Quarrell?

Leiter asks Bond where he got his suit. Bond replies: "My tailor, Savile Row."

Now I'm pretty sure Bond didn't just say that to one-up a boufanted Yank in a Brooks Brothers sack-suit or a Cayman Islander in his T shirt and jeans. He said it because it's true.

Yes, in James Bond's world he was tailored in Savile Row. The actor Sean Connery was tailored, of course, by Anthony Sinclair of Conduit Street ("the Conduit Street Cut").

But there is a difference between James Bond's world and that inhabited by the actor.

See my point?

Believe it or not, I do remember this line, and I did when I wrote my previous posts. As you say, he wore Anthony Sinclair who was not Savile Row. Why he said he wore Savile Row, is mere speculation by your side (even though I agree with you, it's still mere speculation). Let's expand a bit then, shall we? The actor DC wore Tom Ford, but the brand was never mentioned in the film, therefore, according to your rationale, the spectator can speculate what it was. I say, he wore Savile Row in QoS, too. Kilgour, to be precise...

No, Sean Connery wore Anthony Sinclair suits. Sean Connery = the actor. James Bond tells us HE wore Savile Row. There really can't be any other reason for his comment. Therefore, Bond's suits in DN at least are Savile Row.

As Craig-Bond doesn't say where his suits are made, or contradict that they are Tom Ford, any assumption they are otherwise is pure speculation.

You obviously can't understand my point or the distinction between a fact and an opinion. It's OK, I don't mind. Aris Thessaloniki won Atletico Madrid yesterday, so I 'm not in a mood to argue any more. You win, he wore Savile Row.

[David Schofield]

You obviously can't understand my point or the distinction between a fact and an opinion. It's OK, I don't mind. Aris Thessaloniki won Atletico Madrid yesterday, so I 'm not in a mood to argue any more. You win, he wore Savile Row.

Then I'm pleased that you have the satisfaction of your footballing success.

[jaguar007]

I had always felt that the Savile Row exchange in Dr. No was a passcode.