Of all the London tailors who dressed James Bond, the name Doug Hayward carries the most recognition. He had a rich history with James Bond: he tailored Roger Moore in the 1980s for For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy and A View to a Kill, Sean Connery for 1983’s Never Say Never Again and Peter Sellers and Terence Cooper for the 1967 Bond spoof Casino Royale. In the 1960s he formed Major Hayward with Dimi Major, who tailored George Lazenby for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in 1969 after Major and Hayward parted ways. Hayward also tailored many people in the entertainment industry, including Michael Caine, Terence Stamp, Steve McQueen, Clint Eastwood, James Coburn, Alec Guinness, Tony Bennett, Michael Parkinson and Terry O’Neill. He also made suits for Bond-series shirtmaker Frank Foster.
Stories about Hayward are always about the man and rarely about his suits. His tailoring shop felt like a club than a shop, where Hayward was a laid-back and casual host. The shop was devoid of Savile Row’s stuffiness and pretense. The book From Tailors with Love: An Evolution of Menswear Through the Bond Films, which I wrote with Peter Brooker, tells many stories about Hayward from both clients and those who worked with him.
Hayward’s suits were just as unique as his manner. Like the atmosphere of his shop, his suits were devoid of Savile Row’s stiffness yet were no less of a luxury. The suits are soft and lightweight, offering comfort to those who aren’t comfortable in a traditional English suit. Unlike the quintessential English jacket with strong, padded shoulders, Hayward’s jackets have soft shoulders without padding, but they have roped sleeve heads to give the silhouette upper definition. While the English drape cut is also known as a soft style of English tailoring, Hayward’s suits were even softer but without the drape.
The fit is trim with a high waist and a flared skirt. Hayward generally placed the buttons in a low stance, though it changed with the times. Single-breasted jackets had two or three buttons. Double-breasted jackets often had four buttons with the bottom button to fasten—a 4×1 configuration that was more popular in Continental tailoring than with English tailoring, where it was mainly used for dinner jackets. Roger Moore wore these single-breasted and double-breasted styles in his Bond films, as well as a double-breasted blazer that was unusually cut like a 4×1 but had an extra row of buttons at the bottom. His double vents gently flared out. In his early years his notched lapels had a French-inspired fishmouth shape, but he later changed to a very straight gorge that follows the slope of the shoulder for a squarish lapel. Hayward had a preference for notched lapels on single-breasted dinner jackets, a style that goes back to the Edwardian era despite many claiming it’s incorrect. Hayward’s trousers had a trim fit in the hips and thighs but with little or no taper from the knee down.
The overall silhouette was a softened version of a traditional English style of tailoring, similar to how Neapolitan tailoring is also began as a softened take on English tailoring. Hayward’s look was inspired by the softer Italian tailoring, but it remained more English than Italian. It updated the English tailoring tradition to a more accessible style without losing the sharpness of English tailoring.
James Bond’s other English tailors—Anthony Sinclair, Dimi Major and Cyril Castle—tailored suits of lightweight cloths with soft shoulders, but they didn’t make their suits as soft as Hayward did. Since Hayward, English tailoring has overall become softer and lighter. Recently, Drake’s has been making very soft suits in a unique way that differs from the trendy Italian unstructured tailoring, but it lacks the neatness of traditional English tailoring that Hayward incorporated.
While most of Savile Row was unfazed by how fashion was changing around them thanks to the Teddy Boys of the 1950s, the Mods of the early 1960s and the Peacock Revolution of the late 1960s, Tommy Nutter moved into Savile Row with a bold new look in the late 1960s defined by oversized lapels, big shoulders and innovative approaches to tailoring. When Hayward started in the 1960s, his style was reaction to both the boldness of London’s fashion trends and Savile Row’s stodginess.
Unlike Roger Moore’s earlier tailor Cyril Castle, Hayward left gimmicks out of his tailoring. Gimmicks could be considered details like gauntlet cuffs, flared link cuffs, flapped breast pockets, hacking pockets on city suits, ticket pockets, flashy linings, contrasting undercollars, contrasting buttons, contrasting stitching or contrasting buttonholes. Peaked lapels on a single-breasted suit may even be seen as a gimmick, despite the style’s long history.
Gimmicks can be fun and creative, and they can enhance a suit’s silhouette. But they also draw attention to the clothes rather than to the person wearing them. Hayward focused on the person wearing the clothes, never the clothes themselves. His clothes were never more important than the man wearing them, and that’s one reason why people always talk about Hayward rather than the suits he made. He didn’t set out to revolutionise tailoring itself, just the culture around it. Yet the relaxed culture and the relaxed tailoring went hand in hand.
Hayward’s look was for a certain elite group of people, but like Hayward these people often didn’t come from money. While the nouveau riche are stereotypically known for loud and gaudy taste, Hayward’s tailoring was the definition of the currently popular phrase ‘quiet luxury’. Savile Row tailoring may be quiet luxury compared to modern fashion brands, but Hayward’s clothes truly whispered luxury, despite their high cost and high quality. They were for those with money who didn’t care to look like the upper class but still wanted the best without broadcasting it. Hayward’s silhouette is instantly recognisable, but only to those who are intimately familiar with it. The Hayward club was filled with a list of important people that extended far beyond the entertainment industry, but the uniform was a secret one.
It was brilliant tailoring without drawing any attention to itself whatsoever. You didn’t care that anyone didn’t notice – you knew. They [Hayward’s clients] were out to dress well, and feel good – which we did.” – Michael Caine
Perfect quote!
Great philosophy for life in general.
Hayward suits are almost frustrating. In my opinion, no one has ever looked as good in a suit as Roger Moore does when tailored by Hayward. The way the jacket tapers down his shoulders is art. But put Connery in a Hayward suit and that magic disappears and the whole presentation becomes so nondescript that it loses any kind of specialness. I suppose it has something to do with other actors having more squared off shoulders and more athletic frames which creates a very different silhouette than Moore’s large, but average build, but the end result is awfully boring.
.
I’m not sure I see this at all. It only looks nondescript in that the Connery outfit is quite low contrast, but the actual coats are cut similarly. The slight differences we see would come down to their different builds, most likely (Connery was V shaped again in the 80s), or the coatmaker responsible.
Well, I estimate that Connery’s suit jacket has more belly curve at lapel than others in article photos so I don’t think the actual coats are cut similarly. Nevertheless, I agree the point Giselle and Matt said, how a (more soft and less structured) suit look like is affected by who wears it.
The cuts may not be identical, but they are very similar. Different cutters likely worked on them. The chest on Connery’s suit is bowing open a little, which is partially responsible for that belly you noticed.
Connery looked excellent in the Ecru Hayward suit in NSNA
I can’t say I see what you do. All clothing is going to look slightly different depending on the wearer. An Anthony Sinclair suit can’t make you look like Sean Connery, only Sean Connery can look like Sean Connery. But it can enhance your body’s best features.
That’s true. Anthony Sinclair suits looked extremely different on Sinclair than they did on Connery. A suit with more structure like Huntsman or Tom Ford will look more the same on different body types.
Giselle and Matt,
As someone who wears Anthony Sinclair suits on an almost daily basis, I have to add –
Even though his cut and style is understated, simple, and elegant – and no, it doesn’t make anyone “James Bond” either, truly – the Anthony Sinclair cut exudes a certain magnitude of pride, confidence, and power in ways no other cut of suits could ever do. Sure, you could go peacock with the Pitti, or slap a gigantic lapel from the Nutters cut, or even have shoulder pads thicker than the walls of asylums, but I haven’t seen anything that gives a person such a powerful expression as that of Sinclair’s cut.
I have said this before, and I’ll say it again, regardless of the ridicules – I have worn Sinclair’s suits to the effect of a domineering presence, be it in my early days at a prestigious institution, or during my days working as of late. Hell, I even intimidated and arrested criminals wearing my Sinclair suit. I suppose that’s the uniqueness of the cut – it is simple, but puzzling, and is exceedingly powerful in its very own right.
If there is an English tailor, whose suit I would commissioned for a typical everyday, every occasions, “throw it on and forget about it” general purpose suit, I think a two piece navy blue from Hayward’s would be it. I remember an article you wrote about someone else’s Hayward piece, some ten plus years ago, and when I saw the suit, that was what I instantly thought – so understated, so humble of a suit, that if I was to run into town for something or another, I’d throw it on, without a tie, and run it.
That’s not to say my Anthony Sinclair suits can’t do that – I’ve worn my Sinclair suits to hell and back before – but there’s just something unique to Hayward’s that gives you that kind of peace of mind.
But until then…
Humble is a good way to put it. The suits made little statement, but they’re not bland compared to most American suits. There’s not a huge difference between Sinclair’s and Hayward’s styles. Sinclair’s jackets had more shape, drape and fullness, and they were stiffer. Hayward’s trousers were trimmer in the hips and thighs, but the overall width of the leg changed with the times for both tailors.
Now that you mentioned the trousers, my take on Hayward, as well, is that his style would pair best with darted front. Keeps it all neat and slick. I’d still keep the cuffs, but I think dropping the pleats would compliment the cleanliness of Hayward’s cut.
Hayward frequently did frogmouth pockets, which inherently have a dart on the front. For Moore he did a clean flat front, which is one reason why the trousers were so trim at the hips.
Frogmouth pockets are underrated. I see them a little more on women’s trousers, but they would be equally at home on men’s trousers, especially the ones that still insist on being closely fitted (though are finally, slowly going out of fashion).
Giselle,
Personally, unless it’s country or casual trousers, I don’t think frogmouth pockets belong to suits. I especially appreciated them on my Goldfinger tweed/cavalry twill outfit, though.
I personally think darts should be the next big comeback, and at the same time, flat front should be retired. Then again, for casual, odd trousers, I think it’s just another perfect excuse for frogmouth pockets. LOL!
To each their own. I really like the detail of frogmouth pockets because they’re just more functional overall. They also don’t bow out like slanted pockets do. If I ever do get a MTM women’s dinner suit, it’s also the style of pocket I’ll get it.
Interesting debate about frogmouth pockets. They always feel pretty unnatural to me since when one is standing still or walking, your arms are hanging at the sides of your body… obviously. So any kind of side pocket seems more easy to reach than frogmouth ones. I understand their utility regarding horse riding, but besides that reaching out for them isn’t natural for me, and I find them counter intuitive for that reason. Recently I started wearing jeans again and I can’t put my hands in my pockets the way I used to, it feels weird ! It’s probably different for people who don’t put their hands in their trousers pockets often (be they suit trousers or any other kind of trousers).
Regarding pockets bowing out, my experience is onseam trousers pockets have this problem regularly. With regular slanted pockets, it doesn’t appear as quickly.
I understand what you’re saying. I found frogmouth pockets to be unnatural at first, especially because I haven’t worn jeans in about 30 years, but I find that I like the security of the pockets. Nothing will ever fall out of them, like they can with side pockets in the seat of a car or in a very soft sofa that you sink into. That said, I’ve rarely had the problem of items falling out of my trouser pockets, unlike my father. He used to have a chair that whenever he sat in it, you could hear everything crashing out of his pockets onto the floor.
I see your point, Matt. Maybe your father should have ordered a bespoke chair
Personally, if the slanted pocket is deep enough, I don’t have this problem. I also find items in frogmouth pockets can sometimes be difficult to reach if the waist and hips of the trousers are closely fitted. If you can’t reach for your keys or some change easily, it becomes an irritating problem.
I couldn’t imagine dinner suit trousers or a dark 3-piece suit with frogmouth trousers though. For better or worse, they are associated with jeans to me, which were originally worn by horse riding cow boys, which makes sense. I think on-seam trousers pockets are the dressiest kind of pocket, after no pocket at all !
N.b. within the context of this discussion, I don’t think your Anthony Sinclair suits count as a reference point–not to diminish them, rather, because the above is a comparison of the two *cutters* and unless you were a customer of Mr. Sinclair himself whilst he was in business, it wouldn’t reflect his cutting. (That said, it’s good that the revived AS reflects his house style unlike the revived Douglas Hayward).
Cutters are a big variable, as are tailors. The same pattern can result in completely different-looking jackets depending on the tailor/coatmaker.
With all due respect, but with Mr. Richard Paine, the one and only apprentice of Mr. Sinclair, providing guidance, counseling, and pattern making, and as well the keen eyes and understanding of Mr. (David) Mason when he attended to my fittings, I dare say they come so close that any distance is barely noteworthy. The principles were all there – draped chest, zero shoulder pad, soft, elegant, a composition that cannot be separated – so yes, outside of very minute, easily ignored details, it is very much accountable for a direct comparison.
That and, do remember, for a summary, I already distinguished the difference between the two suits, even samples by the original cutters – Sinclair cut has a certain distinguishing powerfulness to it, while Hayward’s cut is very humble.
I agree with Travers here. Judging at Mr. Paine’s picture standing next to David Mason in the grey suit he cut for himself, I can definitely see the Sinclair heritage. Travers, I wasn’t sure you were talking about mtm or bespoke regarding your Sinclair suits and their « power » feel ? If it is bespoke, it would be nice if you could share a picture with us ! The only other example we have of recent Sinclair bespoke is Matt’s bespoke dinner suit, which certainly looks great.
It is difficult to compare my bespoke suit to Connery’s because we are shaped so differently, but it has many of the same hallmarks. That said, my bespoke dinner suit was cut by Henry Rose, who at the time had more than half a century of experience cutting in a way that is comfortable for him. However, he also has experience cutting for different houses with their own styles (including Hayward) so he knows how to modify things to match other houses. He’s retired now, so Anthony Sinclair now have someone else doing their bespoke cutting.
I don’t know if Travers is referring to bespoke or MTM here… and while I know they reverse engineered a pattern from the Connery YOLT suit as a starting point, I find their current house style only loosely based on the Sinclair of old, with far too many modern details.
Their MTM is not accurate to the original, but their bespoke is much closer. I’ve never seen MTM that passes for English bespoke. The YOLT suit was used to create a pattern for their replicas of Connery’s suits for Designing 007, but they had Richard Paine there to translate Sinclair’s style to their bespoke customers since Sinclair’s style was his own.
Travers, I don’t think you understood my point.
I am not saying your suit is subpar in any form. I also said that I’ve seen plenty of revived AS coats that reflect the house style.
I am just saying that inasmuch as Hayward, Sinclair, and Castle are compared in the Connery/Moore examples we see, it is about the *specific* cutters rather than a firm or house style. Tom Mahon and Colin Harvey both cut for HM King Charles (when he was PoW) at A&S before the firm abandoned the house style in all but name, but their cutting was still different. Both looked great.
Le Chiffre, I agree that Richard Paine’s own clothes and Matt’s suit cut by Henry Rose look fantastic and reflect the cut that Sinclair was doing in the 60s (that Paine continued when he took over the business).
That said, sometimes customer choice can totally destroy it. I had a very dim view of the revived AS at first because my first encounter of it was the suit a guy at a Bond site had made, where he got ultra low-waist trousers, with an ultra long waistcoat to reach the waistband, making the waistcoat as long as the coat itself. The resulting suit looked like the three pieces that American mall brands were putting out in 2008.
It seems like they have gotten much stricter about enforcing proper proportion since (which is good because that’s actually one of the whole points of an English tailor).
Le Chiffre, I am still within the MTM range of tailoring, and my plan for full bespoke is at the end of this year. Yes, financially, things had been difficult, and had only looked up this month so far. My goal has always been to go full bespoke with the firm since receiving my “year one” suit back in December 2016. But even for MTM, it is something else. Granted, if you have body image issues or pathological inferiority complex, nothing can help you; but the Anthony Sinclair cut is definitely something else entirely. No, you will *never* become James Bond or Sean Connery, and not even if your last name is Connery. But the suits, so long as you let David and his crew do the work, especially with shapes and silhouette, it will turn out to be the sharpest piece you have ever seen, yet is impossibly comfortable. I’ve slept in my suits, ran a mile straight in them, winning debates, arguments, sealing deals in sales, and catching two major criminals in my local area, all with my suits. It will definitely give you a look that put stones into your shadow, and unlike other cuts where you have to posture yourself, the cut that is inherently Anthony Sinclair put you at such ease, all you have to do is put it on. I’m not even waxing poetic with you on it. I’ve been a customer since 2016, and will probably be cremated in an Anthony Sinclair suit as well.
Tredstone, outside of such factors as side body cuts and measurement ratio, with which, is something that is the nature of the beast, it comes as close as you can have it. So long as the suit is configured the way it was originally – rope sleeve head, slightly extended unpadded shoulder lines, full, draped chest, shaped waist, straight pockets, narrow to medium notched lapels, with a minimally flared skirt, and full, high-waisted trousers that tapers towards the ankle – then I dare say you can’t go wrong. The suits today, MTM or bespoke, are just as faithfully Anthony Sinclair as it was when the man himself was still with us. There’s more to a suit from a house than just the little details. After all, have you seen how other houses looks compare to their progenitors? Take Huntsman for example, and Anderson and Shepard to add. I’d say the Anthony Sinclair of today is far more faithful to the original compare to the aforementioned houses.
Matt, when I commission my bespoke suit at the end of this year, I will ask for the full original Sinclair treatment, and I will definitely try and send photos of the finished product. I’ll make sure to ask for your best contact details by then.
But before we veer so far off from the topic of the article, remember, Anthony Sinclair and Douglas Hayward represents what should be known as the hidden gems of West End tailoring, and especially in such a tumultuous age of cultural and stylistic clashes. At the base line, both of their stylistic concepts survived through the decades – the idea of keeping it simplistic to the point of utmost complex and sophistication – with the exception of Sinclair being a byproduct of late 1950’s – early 1960’s optimistic, powerful elegance, while Hayward represents a slightly more 1980’s regressive, humbling simplicity. Think of it this way, their styles differed, but at the end, complimented each other beautifully.
Kamal, I do firmly understand what you said, and my take was not that you said my suit was inferior. My very stance was that unless it was butchered – yes, I saw the ones you were talking about, complete butchery of the tailoring, but I will explain in a bit – the very silhouette, cut, and form of the Anthony Sinclair suits of today is every bit a direct descendant of the Anthony Sinclair then, barring minor details that most people vexes over. Insofar as relating to the conversation, read my response to Le Chiffre, Tredstone, and Matt above.
Insofar as what you saw, that is simply the byproduct of bespoke. People make terrible decisions, and that’s what happens – terrible results. I used to be blinded by the gimmicks of the iGentry world as well, and I let some of it diluting my vision with Anthony Sinclair cut – by the way, David (Mason), if you happen to read this, it is my public apology over some of the dumb requests I made when we first met, with which, your stylistic counseling got me to understand better how the Anthony Sinclair cut is suppose to be. Insofar as the poor first impression you had, you must understand some key components here –
_The journalists were just getting stuffs made from a named house to write an article
_Like it or not, they have their own vision, experiences, and experiences
_They want a piece of their own (not just the tailoring), disregarding how Anthony Sinclair (and subsequently Mason and Sons) members having their own house style and vision
_The readers saw what the readers saw
I repeatedly and publicly thanked the work that Matt has done, because as I dwell deeper into the world of Bond:s tailoring over time, the more I see how Bond’s suits and image was supposed to be conveyed – at least for Connery’s Bond, tailored by Anthony Sinclair. For the most part, I am confident in saying that Matt and I had maintained stricter Anthony Sinclair standards than those journalists you happened to see. I have stated above, and I’ll say it again – come the end of this year, when I commission a fully bespoken suit from Anthony Sinclair, I’m asking for the full house style treatment, from cut to shape.
Something of a confession to all of you – outside of my obsession with dark navy/midnight herringbone, my suits with Anthony Sinclair, since day one, had enforced the strict rule of maintaining the original shape, cut, and flow, right down to having double forward pleats and cuffs (turn-ups) on all of them, except two.
My favorite style of tailoring.
Reject flamboyancy. Return to understated elegance.
I saw it referenced somewhere that the ‘gentleman’s club’ atmosphere of Hayward’s tailoring shop was the basis for Geoffrey Rush’s character’s ambitions in ‘The Tailor of Panama’ based on the book by John Le Carre – himself an SIS agent until outed by Russian stooge Kim Philby.
I had heard the same. I believe Hayward was also invited to a UK premiere of the movie.
Roger Moore was my indoctrination to the Bond franchise, in fact FYEO was the first Bond film I saw in the cinema. Moore always had a quiet elegance to his portrayal of Bond—the Hayward style suited him well … pun intended.
I like the Hayward cut on Moore, but in general it’s not that versatile. I think it works mostly with tall, large men and/or slightly out of shape. Caine, Burton, Moore come to mind. I prefer Sinclair style for the general silhouette which seems more timeless (no padding either but more roping at the shoulders, vents less long, jacket waist not as high). Connery looked pretty fine in Hayward in NSNA, it was some costuming / styling detail problems that let some outfits down (an unflattering all grey outfit, a dinner suit with notch lapel for a grand ball). He looked his best in the cream suit and navy blazer. Regarding Moore, if you forgot the gimmicks like the link button cuff, in my opinion Castle did cut the most elegant silhouette for Moore. But it’s obviously a bit unfair to compare it with Hayward’s since Moore’s silhouette changed a lot in a 8 years.
There’s a great line from Michael Caine in a documentary in which he and Moore are in Hayward’s shop. Talking about a tailor here, he said « he will make you the best inseam measurement ! ». Roger agreed.
I’m not going to lie, this article’s description of Hayward definitely makes it sound the sort of establishment 007 would favour – expensive, unfussy and full of interesting people.
Also, lightweight without being insubstantial.
Also, let’s face it, other Bonds have worn a suit remarkably well (It is part of the job description), but nobody did it more style than the late Sir Roger (Always the Bond most expert in the fine art of passing himself off as a mere gentleman playboy … right up until the villain’s corpse hit the floor even as Bond nailed the punchline).