Basted for Bond: Examining Roger Moore’s Douglas Hayward Clothes

23

The latest “Basted for Bond” infographic breaks down the jackets, trousers and waistcoats that Roger Moore wears in For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy and A View to a Kill, made by legendary celebrity tailor Douglas Hayward. Though the low button two jacket is the mainstay of Moore’s Hayward wardrobe, he also wears button three jackets, very low-buttoning double-breasted jackets and a morning coat, all and more examined in the following infographic.

Basted-for-Bond_Douglas-Hayward

23 COMMENTS

  1. As close to sartorial perfection as it comes, in my book.

    Just a question, re; the “lower gorge” jacket. From your individual posts on all the Hayward clothing I always understood that his signature look was a high gorge coupled with a low button stance jacket which was what made his stand head and shoulders above the low gorge and low button look which we saw in some other Bond movies. So, which suit had you in mind with the lower gorge? The tan AVTAK suit, perhaps?

    Finally, regarding the 3 button 3 piece suits, I think you mentioned previously that the FYEO and Octopussy versions had the bottom of the lapel roll above the top button so the top button, when the jacket is either open or the middle button alone buttoned (as Moore did), will be clearly visible whereas the lapel rolls through the top button in the AVTAK 3 button suit so the top button will be somewhat obscured. Have I got that correct?

  2. Excellent infographic as usual! Though the low button stance dates the jackets, I like it, especially on Roger Moore. Together with the long/medium rise trousers the proportions are beautiful in my opinion.

  3. The saggy, droopy button stance from this era looks just as bad as the sternum-level stuff on sale today, in my opinion.

  4. I agree that this style gives a perfect silhouette and find it very close to Anthony Sinclair in overall proportions, style and look. Unbeatable, in my opinion.

  5. I’ve always found Hayward’s work on the series reasonably unremarkable compared to Sinclair, Major, and Roma’s work.

    Considering that the best dressed man is the one who stands out the least, this can only be a good thing. Bravo.

    • This is one of those maxims that gets repeated a lot, but doesn’t make much sense. The best dressed man is the one whose clothing fits – both the occasion and the body – and has some quality. If that makes the man stand out because other people are doing it wrong, then so be it.

    • FS, I quite agree. Dent’s maxim was certainly true in a period where people dressed well everyday and had some notions about style and some tailoring culture, let’s say until the beginning of the seventies. Dressing well was something normal and quite obvious. Now this maxim is unfortunately out of date.
      Nowadays, you often stand out for most people, sometimes just because you are wearing a quality suit, or a well-fitting suit, or both. But most of the time, unfortunately, you stand out… just because you are wearing a suit, period ! It’s really irritating. For example, when I wear suits, there are two typical remarks : -You must be working today !, or : -Are you going to a wedding ?!
      It can really get on my nerves sometimes -and perhaps some people on this website have had the same experience- ! So, I reluctantly prevent myself from explaining to these persons that such thing as a stroller and a morning coat still exist and have a precise purpose, and I continue to walk, praying for better days…

    • LeChiffre,

      I, too, find it infuriating when people ask “What are you all dressed up for?” – here are some possible replies, in increasing order of snarkiness: “Because I enjoy it”, “Because I’m a grownup”, “Because I’m going to my parole hearing”, or “Because it’s my last chance to wear this outfit before my sex-change operation”. Take your pick…

  6. Great article Matt, as usual !
    It has given me the idea to look again at every article concerning Moore’s clothing during his ‘Hayward tailoring’ period, and what I can say is that Octopussy is certainly the best movie of the Moore era, in term of clothing, and it features many timeless and elegant suits and sport coats. I can’t decide which one is the dapper dresser, Moore or Jourdan. This movie is certainly as timeless in style as are OHMSS, TWINE, FRWL or even Casino Royale, in my humble opinion.
    Anyway, it’s a shame Moore didn’t resign as Bond after Octopussy, which was quite good. But it looks like it’s a habit for Bond actors : their last movie is always their worst one (in term of plot, acting skills and the Bond actor showing his age and a not-so-Bondian physique : the clothing can still be great, as it is in DAD) : DAF, AVTAK, LTK, DAD… I strongly hope for him that Craig will not follow such examples !)

    Regarding Hayward’s tailoring style, I quite like it. The very low button stance works well with Moore and everything has rather timeless proportions. Only the natural shoulders I think are not a perfect choice for Moore. Lightly padded shoulders would have looked better, like the ones of his Castle suits in LALD and TMWTGG. He doesn’t have Connery’s or Craig’s shoulders.
    The only thing I don’t like about Hayward tailoring is these frogmouth pockets on trousers. I mean, it looks so much like jean pockets, and it thus instantanly breaks the formality of a suit. And when it’s on a dinner suit, well… no comment ! I guess I would perhaps even prefer no pockets at all to these.

    Anyway, a big thank you to Matt for making me gradually enjoying some of the features of Moore’s Bond wardrobe over the years. If you are not a fan of the actor you can still enjoy his clothes, and I guess watching Octopussy again is in order !

    Keep up the great work, Matt, and a good week to every reader and comment poster of this blog !

    • It’s true that all Bond actors “go to the well” one too many times in terms of their physical condition.

    • Horrible wardrobe aside, Licence to Kill doesn’t really belong on that list. It was a great, stripped down, return to Fleming that foreshadowed in many ways the approaches taken in the Craig-era. It was just the wrong movie at the wrong time.

    • Brandon,

      LTK is a matter of personal taste as a movie – I found it to be a huge letdown (as well as a downer), but then again, I am a Moore fan. What is unquestionable is that Dalton didn’t look good; he was still trim, but he had huge bags under his eyes and was visibly losing his hair. He just looked weary, which perhaps was the intended effect, come to think of it. But I still contend that Bond is an aspirational figure, and I can’t imagine anybody in his right mind aspiring to be Bond the way he is portrayed in LTK. I think a trimmed down (i.e., not Superman-sized) Henry Cavill would be a good choice for the next Bond, especially after seeing him in The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

  7. Dan and Le Chiffre, I feel your pain regarding these tedious questions and the worst thing is the questioner doesn’t, most times anyway, realise that he’s being so idiotic. This is why I call myself a “dinosaur” but I’m past caring. Spot on re the actor and the “last movie phenomenon”. I’m controversial (again) in having said many times that I believe Moore could have made one more as, objectively, he looked better in 1986/7 than he had 2 years at the time of AVTAK. Regarding Octopussy, yes, the wardrobe was excellent (office 3 piece suit, tan 2 piece, white dinner jacket and a great classic black version and yes, the best safari outfit of the series!) but I’d be hard pressed to rate it above the other 2 movies which bookended it. FYEO had some great suits, even AVTAK too. Re the trousers, Matt may correct me but, from his posts and an observation if the movies, only some trousers had the frogmouth pockets; the light brown ones worn with the blouson in FYEO plus the dark brown ones on Octopussy had no pockets, only scarcely visible coin pockets below the beltline. These are, for me, the best option of all.

    • Matt, the trousers must be all Hayward. Apart from the implausibility of using one tailor for the suits and sports coats and another for trousers, there is confirmation of this from Eon themselves as stated by Lindsay Frost under your post on the I’ve blouson from FYEO. Do we know that Hayward put frogmouth pockets on all the suits anyway? We only see those from the mid grey flannel from
      the same movie. I can’t recall seeing the trousers from the other suits. As regards the pockets being in the Octopussy evening wear this has got to be those trousers worn with the white jacket. Perhaps they were the same trousers as worn with the full dinner suit. In any case, I agree that in such instance, the clean front as with the FYEO dinner suit would be preferable because of the inbuilt cummerbund sitting above the trousers.

  8. I have much stronger feelings about the movies than the clothes, series-wide. I will offer this opinion on wardrobe, however. Moore’s suits look fantastic in all of his 80s Bond movies and have aged much, much better than virtually all of his 1970s attire. More generally, Moore himself looks great in the 80s Bond pics; he just looks a little too old for the part. Hayward-dressed Moore as wealthy industrialist or banker or head of MI-6 — he would look every inch the part. But, he should not have been fake-climbing bridges and fake-swimming in fake crocodile rafts by that point in his career.

    Roger Moore should have cashed his last Bond check after “For Your Eyes Only,” his second-best Bond film, after TSWLM, which has to be, incidentally, in the top 5 of the series and trumps anything from the Craig era. Oh, on a side note, frog mouth pockets simply look ridiculous. The Hayward suits look fabulous, in spit of this atrocity. Really, even the descriptor — frog-mouth — tells one how ugly they are.

  9. Thanks again for such terrific andc nformative work Matt. Here in the UK a film has been showing on TV recently. The Big Sleep, Michael Winner, 1978. It star Robert Mitchum as Philip Marlowe but the suits, particularly, also star. The opening sequence describes the outfit in Marlowe’s voice over but it is the elegant cut the catches the eye. Mitchum had been a client of Henry Poole but Winner, the director, was a client of Hayward’s. Nothing is mentioned in the credits but the link and furthermore the cut seems to suggest Hayward’s hand. Clips can be seen on YouTube.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.