James Bond’s first dinner jacket in Dr. No is a classic midnight blue with a beautifully bellied silk satin shawl collar and plenty of other traditional details. He wears it with a pleated-bib white cotton voile dress shirt that has double cuffs. The black silk bow tie is a narrow diamond point. One thing is missing: the cummerbund.
In the first half of the 20th century, a waist-covering in the form of a waistcoat or cummerbund was always worn with black tie. The original waist-covering was a waistcoat in white cotton pique, which was part of a man’s white tie ensemble, and early on it was replaced with a waistcoat in a cloth that matched the rest of the dinner suit. The cummerbund later became a popular alternative for warm weather. After World War II rationing, three-piece suits popularly gave way to two-piece suits, and dinner suits followed. The cummerbund became increasingly popular and was the dominant black tie waist-covering after the war. Ever since, it has been considered a standard part of black tie, and the waistcoat in its proper low-cut style became a rarity for the more sophisticated man.
However, the cummerbund was never a standard part of Bond’s black tie kit, although many assumed it was. Bond’s black tie look in Dr. No may follow most other traditions, but it breaks from the most traditional black tie in two ways besides lacking a waist-covering. First, the shirt has regular mother-of-pearl buttons instead of studs because it has a soft, pleated front that can easily be fastened with buttons. Studs are only truly necessary with a stiff shirt front. Second, the dinner jacket has double vents at the back rather than no vents. Neither of these transgressions—as some traditionalists view them—are as significant as wearing a dinner jacket without a waistcoat or cummerbund. By the 1960s, these were all acceptable deviations from classic black tie for the fashionable crowd in London. The cummerbund still held strong in America.
The cummerbund’s purpose is to cover the trouser waistband and the bottom of the shirt so the outfit looks complete when the jacket is worn open while seated. By covering the trouser waistband it hides the break in the front where it closes, which is especially important if the trousers have a button on the front rather than a hidden hook. It covers the ends of the braces, which is more important if the braces button to the outside of the trousers—the more comfortable way. It covers the bottom of a shirt’s bib. It also covers a visible button at the bottom of the shirt below where the studs end. A dress shirt for black tie traditionally takes three studs. More recently, four studs have been standard, either to accommodate a closer button spacing and/or lower trouser rises. Four buttons are visible on the front of Bond’s dress shirt in Dr. No, and if he wore a cummerbund it would cover the bottom button that is just above the trouser waistband.
Bond has little need for the services of a cummerbund in Dr. No because his trousers have an extended waistband with no visible button, he’s not wearing braces (the trousers have side-adjusters), and his shirt’s front pleats extends into the trousers (and possibly to the bottom of the shirt) and the shirt has no studs. He also wears his dinner jacket fastened when seated, because the bespoke cut and fit allow it to be comfortably closed when seated. The only time Bond exposes his trouser waistband is when he removes his dinner jacket at M’s order’s. The waistband fastens with a hook rather than an external button, so it still looks clean.
Today, many wear a cummerbund to hide a triangle of white shirt that shows below the jacket’s fastened button and above the top of trousers, but this was not its original purpose. It has become a useful stopgap in the modern era of low-rise trousers and poorly cut jackets. The trousers with a dinner jacket should be high enough to sit at the natural waist, and the jacket’s button—which should be a single button on a dinner jacket—should sit slightly above the top of the trousers, also at the natural waist. These classic proportions prevent the dreaded white triangle without using a cummerbund as a bandage.
While Bond has no need for a cummerbund, without it the dinner suit is brought one step closer to an ordinary lounge suit. For Bond, the dinner suit is a regular garment and a regular part of life. He’s not getting dressed up for the casino or for dinner like it’s a special occasion, and his lack of fancy details like studs or a cummerbund make his black tie gear look more ordinary and less like fancy dress. It takes the same effort for Bond to dress in a dinner jacket as it does for him to put on a lounge suit. The only extra piece is a pair of cufflinks, something Bond only wears occasionally with his lounge suits. In many of the films when Bond does wear cufflinks with his lounge suits, like in many of the Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig films, his black tie details are more traditionally by the book with waist-coverings and shirts with studs or a fly front.
The dinner jacket is usually thought to be a step up in formality from the lounge suit, but many historically considered it merely a variation of the lounge suit for the evening, at a time when dressing up meant wearing white tie and tails. When Bond doesn’t wear some of black tie’s unique accessories, he’s decreasing its smartness in treating it like a lounge suit. Bond still maintains the key parts of black tie: a traditionally appointed dinner suit, a fancy shirt and a black bow tie. To the traditionalist, the waist-covering is a necessity for black tie to maintain what makes it unique. To a practicalist like Bond, the waist-covering is disposable.
In 18 of the first 21 films of the James Bond series, plus Never Say Never Again and 1967’s Casino Royale, Bond wears his dinner jackets without a cummerbund. In only two films during this time does Bond wears a cummerbund, and both times it serves as a gadget in addition to being a stylish accessory. The public found Daniel Craig’s lack of a cummerbund noteworthy in Casino Royale, even though it was far from a first for Bond. At the time, the lack of a cummerbund was positioned as something new to show off Craig’s toned stomach. Many of those with and without Craig’s body type finally saw it was time to dispense with wearing a cummerbund for good. The cummerbund became a regular part of Bond’s evening wear for three consecutive films starting with Quantum of Solace, but many were finished with cummerbund after they finally noticed that Bond was not wearing one in Casino Royale.
I always enjoy wearing a cummerbund on the admittedly rare occasions that I wear black tie. I think it adds interest and texture. My cummerbund also has a couple of small pockets built into it which are handy as my dinner jacket does not have functioning side pockets.
That last point is kind of funny, how Craig’s Bond was the final death blow for the accessory despite the fact he was the only one to regularly wear it.
There’s a certain irony isn’t there?
The amusing thing here is that some people mistakenly believe Daniel Craig was the first Bond to not wear a waist covering in Casino Royale, others still believe Bond has always worn a cummerbund because of how he wore one since Quantum of Solace!
If a waistcoat is worn as part of black tie, should it be low cut?
Yes, it should. It should never be the styles that are worn with a lounge suit.
It’s always disappointing when the latter are the only thing on offer with women’s dinner suits now.
Hey Matt have you seen the new thunderball swim shorts from Jantzen and Anthony Sinclair ?
Here is a link to it : https://us.anthonysinclair.com/collections/swimwear
Here is a link to the article explaining the process of recreating them: https://masonandsons.com/blogs/the-periodical/licence-to-swim-jantzen-x-anthony-sinclair-recreate-connerys-trunks-from-thunderball
Also they have made a tortoise version of the thunderball sunglasses
Heres a link to the glasses: https://theocularium.com/en-us/products/n135?variant=55323207074168
I would love to get your thoughts on the new swim shorts and sunglasses .
I saw the swim shorts last month and I was really impressed! I plan to review them here.
I reviewed the black sunglasses here, which I don’t imagine are much different from the tortoise: https://www.bondsuits.com/reissued-cool-ray-n135-sunglasses-styled-by-anthony-sinclair/
I think I’ll be getting a tortoise version too.
I saw this from Mason and while I really enjoyed reading about the revival of the trunks $250 is a lot of money for a pair of polyester shorts! And I type this as someone who owns a couple of pairs of CraigBond Orlebar Brown trunks. I don’t recall what I paid but I’m sure it was less than $100 each. I hope I don’t come off as a cheapskate here. I think there’s a small area of ‘happy medium’ between being willing to pay over the odds for an item because you appreciate the work that’s gone in to have it reproduced from a vintage classic design, and not wanting one’s admiration for the Bond milieu to allow exploitation!
Plus we all have to keep in mind that we can wear very close facsimiles of Bond’s clothes and accessories but it still doesn’t make us as cool as Bond himself.
I quite agree. Unless you have a killer athletic body, you will just look ridiculous in these shorts. The belt is bigger and much more showy than the original. The way this company is trying to make money on every item and accessory Connery has ever worn in his Bond movies is really irritating. I bet they could sell « Sinclair » espadrilles for $250 or socks or boxer shorts if they thought they would sell. Using both the name of Sinclair and Connery constantly as an excuse to sell overpriced stuff really irks me, especially for utilitarian stuff that isn’t at all related to tailoring such as sunglasses, swimming trunks and so on. I presume we will have a dithyrambic review of these , but I am used to them now.
Imo the FRWL swimming shorts had a much simple and nicer design, they even looked more flattering on Connery. Connery could wore anything -even dungarees- and still look good, the common man unfortunately can’t.
Years of research and development was put into these swim shorts to replicate the original. They are branded with Jantzen for authenticity. The belt is authentic to the original Jantzen, but Connery’s belt was changed from what Jantzen made. And for those who think they will look silly in the original length, they offer a longer version too. When Orlebar Brown tried replicating the Thunderball shorts, they didn’t do them justice (a black waistband with empty belt loops instead of a belt, and no way of tightening the waist). Whether or not you like the original shorts is one thing, but for those who do like the original (and I do), these are the real thing. Having handled these and seen the effort put into them, I think the price is justified.
Le Chiffre, I’m going to be blunt and say your comment questioning Matt’s integrity is out of line. I’ve known him for 15 years now, he’s a close friend, and anyone who has read his reviews of clothing here can see that he’s critical when he needs to be and doesn’t shy away from giving his opinion on things that should be better, even when they’re gifted to him. If you don’t want to spend $250 on shorts, nobody is forcing you to. I got a perfectly serviceable pair of J. Crew swim shorts many years ago that were much more affordable and did the job of looking retro. I couldn’t even justify buying a bikini set for myself that’s anywhere north of $50 these days. But for those who have the money and want something extra special, these are what they’re looking for. “Quiet luxury.”
Giselle, I think Mr. Spaiser -as he proved it- seems old enough to « defend » himself. I didn’t question his integrity (geez, that’s a strong word. It’s not a trial here). I just miss the time when articles reviewing products were less frequent (however, it also means that the blog is well known and successful so I am happy for Matt) and, most importantly, when commenters didn’t took themselves too seriously (underline it).
I noticed you have a habit of replying here like if it’s your own blog, usually with a condescending tone as well. A few times I was tempted to reply to some pretty blunt remarks you made -like Peter Sellers being an awful human being : oh, I guess you knew the man personally ? -, which were indeed out of line, but I preferred to remain silent. This is a bit much. What I enjoy here is the fact that Matt usually accepts every comment, even the most critical. If you want to behave like the head of the comments police here, be my guest. It’s your attitude that I usually find borderline. You will probably reply to this, since everyone on the internet want to have the last word, but don’t expect me to. I have said my piece.
“There’s no cause for alarm, gentlemen!” – Goldfinger
Personally I don’t mind reviews where an blogger, reviewer, influencer, etc gets an item for review from the company through some connection or relationship. However I do think full transparency is the best policy for establishing trust with the readership (e.g., was it gifted, what is the relationship, is there an expectation of a positive review, etc). Assuming that transparency is present, the reader can decide for themselves what to take with a grain of salt.
Le Chiffre, fair enough and my apologies. I thought you were insinuating something about his integrity with your use of the word “dithyrambic”. My mistake.
tredstone, I’m a lady, but I get your quote’s meaning. ;) Matt does always indicate when he’s been gifted something for the purposes of review or not. It’s not just transparency for the sake of it, but legally required.
Funny that you say that, Le Chiffre, because I think this might be the first of the Bond replicas from Mason that actually caught my interest. My summer wear for almost 20 years now has been straight hem “bush shirts” and swimming trunks like this go with them where the more technical looking types today don’t. I will likely pick up a pair as I’ve been looking for something like this for a decade or so.
FWIW I have never found this blog to be shilly of Mason, and I say this as someone who is somewhat skeptical (that isn’t a euphemism for antagonistic) about their operation due to the aggressive marketing they did via other Bond blogs for years.
I will say I wish they didn’t use “Anthony Sinclair” branding on products like this or the sunglasses, where it makes no sense. (Frankly I even dislike that they use it for the ready to wear suits and jackets, which have no resemblance to Sinclair and Paine’s cut, and I was glad that they stopped but I guess that lost them a lot of money so they went back to it.)
Please remember, although he successfully poses as one, James Bond is not a gentleman. Ultimately, he is a blunt instrument, a cold-blooded killer, with a license to kill. And this is reflected in his appearance. Like wearing black tie without a waistcoat or cummerbund, avoiding studs and generally preferring cocktail cuffs rather then cufflinks, wearing a sports watch with black tie and tailoring, avoiding OTC-socks, dainite rubber soles instead of leather soles, etc…
Interesting theory. Why would you say that wearing cocktail cuffs or avoiding OTC socks necessarily makes one less than a gentleman in appearance? All the other things you list have become more or less acceptable in the last 60 years as well. From where I’m standing, his attitudes towards women and non-white people are what really betray his lack of gentlemanliness, not his style sense (as inconsistent as it can be at times depending on the film).
Because a gentleman doesn’t want to expose his white, hairy calves in public? And doesn’t necessarily want to imply that he can’t afford the expense of wearing cufflinks & studs? It would actually be a good idea for Bond to wear cufflinks as a portable “gold reserve” that he could sell to cover unexpected expenses as a field agent. In fact, this is one of the reasons why he wears an expensive wristwatch.
I’ve never noticed anyone’s hairy calves in public when they’re sitting down, but maybe that’s just me!
Sounds like you’re on the Paul Haggis “you didn’t come from money” “wear a suit with disdain” nonsense bandwagon.
Bond is both a blunt instrument and a gentleman. A gentleman means a nobleman, not someone who is a stickler to 1930s dress codes, speaking as someone rather sympathetic to those dress norms myself. You should also know that those rules were not codified as a written law, rather your valet, your tailor, and so on would keep you from wearing something incorrect or in the case of a tailor, refuse to make it.
The things you name aren’t even strictly speaking incorrect. Odd that you went for them when there was obvious low hanging fruit like the abysmal fit of Craig’s Tom Fords or the fact that he wore a two button dinner jacket, neither of which an English tailor would allow. (Terry Haste once had an Italian customer argue that dinner jackets are supposed to be two button, but he didn’t indulge it.)
You don’t seem to understand the culture you purport to advocate.
Looking at that shot from Dr. No, with the quartermaster, it’s rare for a movie to have so many small characters immaculately dressed. I know it’s partly due to the era, and some actors probably wearing their own clothes, but still. The quartermaster. M. The gentleman arriving to the club. Most people at the baccarat table. Etc. What a feast for the eyes.
Unfortunately the stop gap function you describe is one of necessity still these days. I know far too many people that have the dreaded white triangle showing at parties when they forget to wear one.
I genuinely like how a cummerbund looks, though the most recent dinner suit I had made included a band of silk at the waist band which given the correct rise of the trousers would allow me to omit the cummerbund if I chose. But I do understand why many people don’t wear them, and while Bond may be a factor, I think it’s mostly an issue of finding the thing unusual and an extra step.
To the point about Craig being associated with the no cummerbund look. I suspect it’s largely due to the emphasize on his black tie outfit in both the film and the marketing for Casino Royale. One of the most prominent posters shows him in black tie with I guess wind blowing the jacket open and clearly no cummerbund present.
I’ve seen someone wear a cummerbund UNDERNEATH a waistcoat because their trousers weren’t high enough.
A cummerbund and waistcoat together sounds like the goofiest look imaginable.
And, James Bond’s treatment of women and non-white people, while not close to stellar, is still miles ahead of Frank Gallagher’s treatment of women and non-white people!
My emoji’s didn’t get posted. The first sentence in my last post about the cummerbund with the waistcoat had a scary emoji.
The comparison between James Bond and Frank Gallagher in regard to subpar treatment of women and non-white people had a laugh emoji.
Nah… I think the goofiest would be to wear the cummerbund over the waistcoat !
Tim, I can’t say I’ve watched Shameless but I’ll take your word for it. I know that some pretty good actors, including Jeremy Allen White, were in it.
Excellent article, as always. While you note that 007 ended the cummerbund, what are your thoughts on Connery’s lack of suspenders or braces, as the British might say? Did other 007s dispense with these as well? Many thank!