Over the past couple of years, the patchwork trend has been spilling over from summer cottons into fall woolens. This year Brooks Brothers is offering patched items across a wide range of categories.
One might try to imagine how all of these items would look worn together and layered…….people might not even notice that one isn’t wearing any socks or trousers……
It perfectly describes their marketing and business plans: scraps of dissimilar patterns and textures cobbled together into something hit-or-miss.
The mixed jacket is good for parties and winter evenings at the club… but little else.
I like none of this. Why not make normal, well-made, great looking clothes that can be worn 15 years from now? Brooks has the name, but that’s about it right now, IMO.
I don’t think there is anything unusual about these clothes, except the badge on the arm of the rugby shirt. Brooks invented the patchwork “fun shirt.” And I would love to have a patchwork Harris tweed coat.
@CC:
Perhaps it’s the model they chose. He looks like a handsome man-child with a socially ambitious wife who stuffed him into a jacket a size too small for the trip to the Larsen’s sterile Christmas party in the ‘burbs.
“Hey there, Patty and Sam, glad you could make it! Ow, WOW, SAM! That is quite the unique coat you have on! Come in and get some cider, and if you want any of the really hard stuff, we have some Kendall Jackson.”
Brooks Brothers couldn’t locate a model willing to look happy and comfortable in their clothes for some reason. Perhaps he was forced to pay their asking price and now regrets the gig. ‘Angsty and stoically aloof’ is the new “Blue Steel”? I’d wear the thing, but that model makes it look repellent. Compare it to the first time you posted it: The torso mannequin (with the scarf) actually looks more fun to be with in the jacket than that model does.
I agree with Yankee; the model looks a bit stuffy for that particular jacket. The tie chosen doe not do much for it either. Another problem with the photo above is the very strong color-contrast between the jacket elements.
I have no idea which photo represents the actual coat, but the preview picture you previously posted depicted much more harmony amongst the various colors as compared to the photo above, where the right side and left sleeve for example, appear almost black.
Well the fun shirt has been around for an awfully long time; it’s an extremely specific article of clothing that in context sends particular social signals. I mean I think it says a lot about Brooks that they felt they had to actually call it a “fun” shirt. I don’t object to extending the idea to other articles of clothing, though I wouldn’t expect it to be everyone’s cup of tea –it runs the risk of looking too studied and then the whole devil-may-care spontaneity that’s really the only point of this sort of thing is lost. I do think a lot of what people are reacting to is the model’s rather dour expression; as several have pointed out he manages to look both aloof and miserable. Jacket looks too tight on him too.
Brooks keeps getting better and better!
One might try to imagine how all of these items would look worn together and layered…….people might not even notice that one isn’t wearing any socks or trousers……
It perfectly describes their marketing and business plans: scraps of dissimilar patterns and textures cobbled together into something hit-or-miss.
The mixed jacket is good for parties and winter evenings at the club… but little else.
I like none of this. Why not make normal, well-made, great looking clothes that can be worn 15 years from now? Brooks has the name, but that’s about it right now, IMO.
I don’t think there is anything unusual about these clothes, except the badge on the arm of the rugby shirt. Brooks invented the patchwork “fun shirt.” And I would love to have a patchwork Harris tweed coat.
I like that particular “fun shirt” if they ditched the logo. At least it is sort of muted monochromatic and not just jarring clashes.
Unless I’m mistaken, all of this is tailored in china… So sad.
Holy *Crap*.
Just say, “Hell no!”
don’t care for the mish mash.
That’s a nice quilt you’re wearing. Where did you get it, the Great Depression?
did they steal that shirt from Garth Brooks, circa 1992?
Fun shirt, yes (but I prefer bright colors, a fun shirt should look like a fun shirt!).
Everything else, oh hell no.
If I were to go back in time and wear that sport coat to my primary school back in the 1960’s, I would no doubt hear the following:
“Hey; I used to have a jacket just like that… before my dad got a job!
The “fun” (their word, not mine) sport coat is $648 (without taxes and S&H). Seriously? Spending that much to look like an unfunny joke?
@Educator
they stole it from Roger Daltrey, circa 1965
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eswQl-hcvU0&feature=relmfu
I’m surprised no one likes the sport coat. It received a better response when we previewed it here:
http://www.ivy-style.com/brooks-brothers-fall-2011-preview.html
@CC:
Perhaps it’s the model they chose. He looks like a handsome man-child with a socially ambitious wife who stuffed him into a jacket a size too small for the trip to the Larsen’s sterile Christmas party in the ‘burbs.
“Hey there, Patty and Sam, glad you could make it! Ow, WOW, SAM! That is quite the unique coat you have on! Come in and get some cider, and if you want any of the really hard stuff, we have some Kendall Jackson.”
Brooks Brothers couldn’t locate a model willing to look happy and comfortable in their clothes for some reason. Perhaps he was forced to pay their asking price and now regrets the gig. ‘Angsty and stoically aloof’ is the new “Blue Steel”? I’d wear the thing, but that model makes it look repellent. Compare it to the first time you posted it: The torso mannequin (with the scarf) actually looks more fun to be with in the jacket than that model does.
I agree with Yankee; the model looks a bit stuffy for that particular jacket. The tie chosen doe not do much for it either. Another problem with the photo above is the very strong color-contrast between the jacket elements.
I have no idea which photo represents the actual coat, but the preview picture you previously posted depicted much more harmony amongst the various colors as compared to the photo above, where the right side and left sleeve for example, appear almost black.
Good news, you match with whatever else you wear. Not so good news, people will think you are more mixed up than Betty Crocker!!
Hideously. Ugly. Garbage.
Three-tone shoes: an idea whose time may never come.
Except for pimps.
And maybe Richard.
Well the fun shirt has been around for an awfully long time; it’s an extremely specific article of clothing that in context sends particular social signals. I mean I think it says a lot about Brooks that they felt they had to actually call it a “fun” shirt. I don’t object to extending the idea to other articles of clothing, though I wouldn’t expect it to be everyone’s cup of tea –it runs the risk of looking too studied and then the whole devil-may-care spontaneity that’s really the only point of this sort of thing is lost. I do think a lot of what people are reacting to is the model’s rather dour expression; as several have pointed out he manages to look both aloof and miserable. Jacket looks too tight on him too.
Actually this picture of the model in the sweater is 100% better than the other picture at the home page.
@Christian – I love the jacket