The Leather Blouson in A View to a Kill


In the 1980s Bond started wearing leather jackets, an item he’s worn as recently as Skyfall. In A View to a Kill it’s a dark brown, zip-front leather blouson, detailed with narrow leather straps. Shoulder straps go over the top of the shoulder seam and button down to shorter straps attached to the sleeve. A strap continues lengthwise down the sleeve to about six inches from the base of the sleeve, where another strap starts and buttons to the cuff. There is also a strap down each side of the front of the jacket under the front yoke, ending at vertical welt pockets. The jacket has a stand-up collar with an extended tab on the left side to close over the other side. The back has inward-facing side pleats below the yoke.


The pale blue shirt, probably oxford cloth, is made by Frank Foster and has a button-down collar, front placket and rounded, single-button cuffs. The charcoal flannel trousers have a flat front and plain bottoms. The trousers are worn with a black leather belt, and the shoes are black slip-ons with a moccasin toe, half strap and leather soles, Moore’s usual shoes for his later Bond films. The socks are black.


This jacket is on display at the Dezer Collection, and you can find out more about it on the From Tailors with Love blog.


    • Well, leather jackets aren’t to my personal taste but it works for the setting. I don’t care much for button-down collars either, but it also works well with this outfit. I would personally have gone a little lighter with the trousers and worn a brown belt and brown shoes, to keep all the leather brown.

    • Yes, it’s a little strange. In some screen shots it appears black and in others dark brown. I always thought it to be the latter, to be honest, and the trousers also to be a very dark brown to match. I have a book called “James Bond; A Celebration” in which Moore is pictured, alongside his least favourite leading lady, Grace Jones, (can’t say I blame him either!) with the jacket he changes into after this one, the Zorin employe jacket. He is still wearing the same shirt and trousers, naturally, as worn with this ensemble and from the photograph in the book, the trousers are definitely dark brown.

      • On the blu-ray the jacket looks more brown, especially when you see it in comparison to Grace Jones’ black jacket. Also in the daylight scenes it’s clearly brown. I didn’t notice any brown in the trousers, in the film or in any of my books. There are some good photos in The James Bond Archives, and the trousers look charcoal in photos on top of the bridge. I’m interested to see your picture.

  1. Matt,

    Have you read “Bond on Bond” by Roger? In the book he claims that Turnbull & Asser and an American shirtmaker (can’t remember the name) made his James Bond shirts, while he wore Frank Foster privately. Might Roger be getting this wrong?


    • Frank Foster told me that he made shirts for all of Moore’s Bond films. And most of the shirts in the films look like Frank Foster shirts. His shirts are easy to spot. Turnbull & Asser told me they made a shirt for Live and Let Die (probably the striped one). Moore also says in the book most of the shirts are made by Washington Tremlett, who I know for sure made his pyjamas. There are other things wrong in the book, like that his Italian suits were made by Angelo Litrico. As we’ve seen sold at auction, his Italian suits were from Angelo Roma, which is Angelo Vitucci. Litrico is probably what the ghost writer thought when Moore said Angelo. Litrico is much better known than Vitucci.

      • There are several errors in Bond on Bond, but hey he’s 80-odd and let’s not forget it was ghost-written. If you serach for images of SRM on Getty Images or Rex Features its pretty obvious he wore the same shirt style privately as well as on screen.

        I had always thought that the shirt T&A made for L&LD was the ruffled evening shirt seen in various promotional pictures but not in the film…

  2. Is it really Bond’s first leather jacket, Matt ? I thought Moore had worn some in other Bond movies. Nice look though, even if I’m not fan of shirts worn with leather jackets.

  3. Roger Moore’s face looks more leathery than his jacket. Not sure this outfit really suits his age in this film, seems to be dressed a little ‘young’ (if that makes sense).

  4. I think this is the only time I’ve seen Bond wear a button-down collar.

    Funny you don’t like button-down collars at all. I think they’re rather smart for casual attire at least. I wear them with ties sometimes, though usually with sport coats. With button-down shirts and city suits, it’s better to choose dressier fabrics like pinpoint, royal oxford, or broadcloth.

    • Jovan:- I have to apologize to you. When we were posting about the SKYFALL jumper/long sleeved shirt combo, I was going to declare that no Bond has ever worn a business shirt with a casual top, apart from the cardigan in OHMSS. Here in AVTAK he does exactly that, with buttoned shirt cuffs under the jacket cuffs. In other words, the SKYFALL look is consistent with an earlier Bond look. The result here is rather Disco Dad, but the leather jacket does look like a quality item. Thankfully they skipped the “Miami Vice” plague of huge shoulder pads, very common in ’85.

      • I don’t see how unbuttoning cuffs under a jacket makes any sense. I also don’t see the problem with buttoned cuffs under a jumper. The shirt here is a sports shirt, not a business shirt. Moore wears a similar outfit with a cotton jacket at the end of Octopussy. More relevant to the Skyfall outfit, Brosnan wears a jumper with buttoned shirt cuffs in GoldenEye. It’s a classic look. Folding shirt cuffs back only works if the jumper’s sleeves are too short or the shirt’s sleeves are too long. I know it’s currently a fashionable look to fold them back, but there’s nothing wrong with buttoning the shirt cuffs.

  5. Nice jacket, if very 1985. The leather looks very supple. Not sure I like it with the shirt and pants. Contrary to Steve, above, I think the combination of the older man’s shirt and pants (and the usual slip on shoes) with a relatively younger leather jacket is exactly the confused look a man of Roger’s age would wear and obviously that is not meant as a compliment. This jacket would have looked fine on a contemporary like, say, Tom Selleck (40 in 1985), who would not have worn it with a button down shirt, but probably with a long sleeve polo or a long sleeved bush shirt and jeans or chinos, if my Magnum, P.I. memories are correct. Would work much better.

    Overall, high marks for the jacket, low marks for the combination and for Roger who, the screen caps make clear (as did his frail appearance and movements in the rest of the movie), unfortunately stayed one film too long.

    • I think it’s interesting how there is universal consensus that Moore was far too old in this movie in light of the fact that, for at least the first half of Skyfall, Daniel Craig looks older and more haggard than Moore ever did. I realize Bond is supposed to be despondent and a bit “down and out” during the first reel of Skyfall, but it’s still interesting to note that youthful good looks don’t seem to be an issue any more, whereas bulging pecs are de rigueur.

      • Daniel Craig looks older than Roger Moore? What are you smoking? The man has a six pack and the physique of an athlete!

        That being said, I think ol’ Roge looks younger and better in AVTAK than in Octopussy. Might be the face tuck..


      • Dan and James, while I also think that AVTAK was THE movie Moore shouldn’t have done, I agree 100% with you about Daniel Craig -who is one of my favorite Bonds-‘s appearance in Skyfall. And I think that he looks awful in the whole movie. When he’s shaved, that’s better, but his very short haircut is still here and make him look older and colder than usual. It may be very caricatural, but the word Putin came to my mind… And with the poor tailoring, he looks very short too.
        When I think of Moore in AVTAK, he looks like a 60 year old man to me.
        Daniel Craig in Skyfall may look like an about 50 year old man, but let’s not forget that it’s Craig’s third movie and AVTAK was not Moore’s third one, so the result is different, but it’s rather disastrous in both cases for me. That said, the comparison can only work in term of faces. Shure Moore hadn’t a six pack abs, etc. But in Skyfall, I sometimes think of Craig as a young and athletic body with a face that is 10 years older. Rather difficult to admit for me, since he’s one of my favorite Bonds !

  6. I actually really like this combination – and since when can’t a guy in his 50s wear a leather jacket? It is hardly a fashion statement! For me this is the kind of cool, elegant casual look that costume designers have struggled to get right for 007 ever since.

    • James,
      I did not mean to suggest a 50 something cannot wear a leather jacket. Just that this particular look of half-casual, half-formal is, unless the 50 something is about to jump on a motorcycle after a day at the office, not a good one. In my experience, older men often mix this sort of stuff together and it just doesn’t look good (full disclosure, I am 40, so I am not that young). I think the jacket would look much better with a less formal shirt and pants. Otherwise, he might as well be wearing a blazer, which would at least match the rest of that ensemble.

  7. Matt,

    That’s interesting, and I must look out for the book you mention. I can try to colour photocopy and scan the photograph in the book I refer to before E mailing it to you but I’m not sure how good the quality of the reproduction would be. The book’s author is a Peter Haining and I spotted now an old copy on E bay for less than $10 incl. p and p.


    He also wore a button down collar with the suede blouson seen earlier in this movie

    and both privately and in other movies at this time. Check out You Tube for “Happy Anniversary 007”, the 1987 documentary. He wears a white shirt in this style with a blazer and tie and on a 1985 interview for the British breakfast TV show “TV Am” wears a blue button collar shirt and tie with a sports coat. I don’t particularly care for button down collar shirts worn with ties but worn with a casual jacket, open neck, like this I find ok.


    I agree that he didn’t look at his best in this movie and it was an unfortunate film for Moore to finish his Bond tenure on. However, if you watch the 1987 documentary which I mention above, he actually looks better in this and had he made The Living Daylights would have actually looked better than he did in A View to a Kill. (Plus, no Timothy Dalton and a seemless move to Brosnan.

    • David,

      I agree with you that Roger looked much better in that 1987 special than he did in a AVTK. In AVTK, he looks much thinner than his previous two movies, whicih makes him look frail,the removal of the mole changed his looks a bit, and he may have had a slight brow lift, though it wasn’t very effective. He looks every bit his age (and I believe that he is actually wearing a toupee inthis movie, and possibly in Octopussy as well, as the hairline is noticeably different from even the restyled pompadour he returned to in FYEO). But I don’t think he should have continued in the role. His age on his face was a little too much in some scenes in Octopussy (the pre-title scenes when he is prisoner in the truck, and the dinner and bedroom scenes with Magda in particular) but he basically still sells the role, physically. Maybe he would have returned to form had he stayed in The Living Daylights. But I think the Bond series was in serious trouble by 1987, beyond just the leading man and the creative exhaustion of the team, and I don’t think Brosnan would have worked as well as he did in 1995. The action movie scene had moved away from Bond quickly after 1981, with Raiders of the Lost Ark, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, and numerous Stallone/Schwarzenegger movies setting a new pace and drawing in the audiences. Roger Moore style Bond films were not going to (and did not) sell to a mass audience after 1983. Licence to Kill was an attempt to address this, but it didn’t quite work for numerous reasons. By 1995, the Die Hard-inspired trend has bascially played itself out, and Bond was able to return, updated for the 1990s in setting and with a more technological flair (for better and for worse). Anyway, just a conjecture….

  8. I think the very short haircut is intended to hide hair loss without having to resort to a toupee’….

  9. I honestly don’t see how one can think 2012 Craig looks older than 1985 Roger Moore. Yes, Craig looks his 44, but he looks robust and sells the role physically. And he doesn’t have the sunken look and frail movements that Roger did in 1985. While I can suspend my disbelief as well as anyone, Roger in 1985 was just not believable in the role, both physically in the action scenes and in his ability to bed the world’s most attractive women almost 30 years his junior.

    Plus, one thing that is lost in what I presume to be a male-dominated blog posting here, is that women love Daniel Craig. I know of no woman who thought Timothy Dalton was sexy, and none who found 1985 Roger Moore appealing (now, the 1981 and prior Moore is a different story, based on my admittedly small sample size of women who watch Bond films or discuss them with me (maybe 50 or so, over the last 32 years). But I guess this is in everyone’s eyes.

    • I’d agree with that. For those growing up in my generation, certainly, Roger Moore’s James Bond always seemed a little sleezy and unattractive. It might well be that the feeling was very different when he took the role, but by the end of his stint that’s how he was regarded. The leather jacket look here seems to encapsulate that for me.

      By contrast, Craig is someone women and men find attractive

      • Hal,

        Perhaps we belong to different generations, but I always admired Moore’s elegance, self-deprecating charm, and overall style. As for physical appearance, next to Moore in his prime Craig looks like a wizened troll.

      • Dan, I agree with you and I grew up on the 1979-1985 Roger Moore films. I just think he looked and was too old for the role certainly by 1985. As for comparisons, Moore (and Connery and Brosnan) are playing a very different character in very different eras than Craig, making comparisons difficult.

  10. See for me, the problem was never Moore’s age – he was a very handsome older guy in ’85 – it was that Eon seemed to be pretending he was 40 (the action, the younger girls etc). Moore and Maud Adams had great chemistry in Octopussy – whereas he came across as Tanya Roberts’ uncle (falling asleep in her bedroom etc). Had they embraced and written to his age, he was good for another movie. They kind of did this in the awful NSNA but Moore could have made ageing a little funnier than Connery’s ham-fisted delivery in his 007 swansong.

    Also, yes, AVTAK returned significantly less than Octopussy BUT a $130 million return on a $30 million outlay is still a big success by any standards (and remember these films are hardly all about the first year of release, the whole series still makes millions per year on TV and DVD). Living Daylights had the spike you always get with a new actor but Dalton never caught on as Bond and if he had done Goldeneye things might not have gone so well.

  11. This “who looks better Moore or Craig” comparison debate, while obviously off the remit of the blog, is interesting, if the stuff of conjecture.

    What we can say validly, when comparing Craig at his current age of 45 to Moore at that point, then only having taken on the 007 mantle, is that objectively (personal preference for either actor aside), Moore looked far, far fresher and youthful looking in 1973 than Craig did in 2012. The producers have actually stated their intention to have Craig equal Moore’s 7 picture run which will – assuming the movies continue to be released at their average 2 year interval – leave Craig at about 53 or 54 when he’ll bow out. Unless Craig’s ageing process radically slows, I think he will look far more aged than Roger Moore did at the comparative age or indeed Pierce Brosnan (who at 49 when making DAD looked several years younger than Craig does now).

    James St John Smythe’s observation regarding the producers continuing to pair Moore with leading ladies of the same age as in his early Bond movies is a very relevant point. In “FYEO” they had the sense to have him refuse to sleep with the late teen female ski protégée (or maybe the character found her as irritating as the audience and was just too gentlemanly to admit this!) and a 37 year old Maud Adams was an excellent of partner in “Octopussy” (although her inclusion may have had more to do with Roger’s fondness for her than the producers, who’d originally suggested Faye Dunaway for the role). If they had continued this trend in AVTAK it would have been fine. Instead they opted for a 29 year old actress (masquerading as a cinematic Barbie doll) who looked 5 years younger. Someone like Dunaway for example would have been great and he could have, like Cary Grant, played an ageing, elegant leading man one more time in Living Daylights before handing the mantle to Brosnan (although I agree with Christian’s observation that Brosnan’s time was probably better suited to the early 1990’s).

    I agree with Dan that it’s unfair to refer to Moore as “sleezy (sic)” or “unattractive”. His Bond may look “uncool” or whatever to someone currently in their teens or twenties but Moore both in person and on film exudes old style decency and grace and is the consummate, quintessential gentleman not just in appearance but (by all accounts) in his behaviour to other people.

    • David,

      You are correct on all accounts; I have come to the conclusion that Moore-hatred has three primary sources:
      1. The general vulgarization/slobbification of the culture, which leads people to misunderstand or resent the image of the Old World gentleman. On other blogs, fanboys have complained that Christian Bale’s interpretation of Batman amounted to “James Bond in a batsuit”. Actually the two characters couldn’t be more different, but the fact that Bale sported a good haircut and Armani suits was enough to associate him with James Bond in the popular mind.
      2. Moore most often played unconflicted, cheerfully self-assured, sartorially immaculate heroic characters. That is bound to annoy younger viewers accustomed to slovenly, angst-ridden anti-heroes (Mel Gibson in the Lethal Weapon movies, Bruce Willis in the Die Hard movies, any of the slobs in the Fast & Furious movies).
      3. The current fashion for “dark and gritty” action movies does not dispose the public favorably towards a sunnier, more aesthetically pleasing interpretation of the James Bond character.

      Having said that, my 27-year old daughter is a huge Roger Moore fan. When the two of us sit down together to watch one of his movies, it’s like being reunited with an old friend. She especially loves his double-breasted blazers, which are invariably described as old-mannish by self-appointed fashion pundits.
      Don’t give up the fight!


      • James, David, and Dan,

        I agree with your remarks, all well-made and very persuasive. And to be clear, I am a big fan of Roger Moore’s Bond and have defended him many times on this blog. I just think AVTK is near-indefensible as was Moore’s casting in it. And it seems to me there is quite the reluctance to criticize Moore on this blog, which is the mirror-image of those who unfairly attack him. All of the actors have been dressed in questionable sartorial choices at times, and all have various positives and negatives in their portrayals (and the requirement of a physically convincing actor seems to split people on this blog – or it could be asked if the suave sophistication is mutually exclusive or at least rare with the physicality the role requires – only Connery and Lazenby seemed to pull both off convincingly, in my opinion.)

        It seems most people naturally rally around the actor they prefer. With the exception of Brosnan, I am good with the actors’ portrayals and the varying tone of the films, and even Pierce occasionally surprised me.

      • Also, David, I believe in FYEO and Octopussy, Moore is at least tacitly playing an older Bond. If Bond is forever 37-40 or so, these two movies reference dates (Tracy’s death in 1969, Bond’s pursuit of Major Dexter-Smythe 20 years after the end of the Korean War) that would place Bond’s age around 50. It works quite well for Moore, as does Maud Adams’ casting.

        By contrast, in AVTK, Bond is back to 37-40.

      • Christian, I agree overall but am curious to know the thinking behind your last assumption?

      • Christian,

        You are right on the money when you ask whether the suave sophistication is mutually exclusive or at least rare with the physicality the role requires. You are also right in stating that only Connery and Lazenby seemed to pull both off convincingly. This is another way in which Lazenby is grossly underestimated – he was both dapper and stylish AND convincingly brutal; Craig is convincingly brutal but not very elegant, while Moore was elegant but only sporadically truly lethal. For all of his fussiness, Brosnan was very convincing in his fight with 009 in Goldeneye, however.

      • David,

        My assumption on Bond’s age in AVTK is a default – Bond, both the literary and the film version, seem to be around 40, give or take a few years. Without a specific reference to other events that would push Bond’s age up, like in FYEO and Octopussy, I presume that the default age for the character is 37-40. Also, AVTK is out of step with the prior two movies, with Moore’s tougher characterization from them not really carrying over to AVTK and the feeling of aging, which seemed prevalent in FYEO is not present. And, Maud Adams’ casting certainly set up on older Bond nicely as opposed to Tanya Roberts. So my assumption is just that – a default presumption not contradicted by evidence.


        I agree with your characterization of Roger Moore’s various portrayals, but I also think he was at his most effective when he showed some angst or hurt: i.e., the mention of Tracy by Tanya at the bar in The Spy Who Loved Me; his quiet pushing away of Holly Goodhead as he staggers out of the centrifuge in Moonraker, foregoing the expected one-liner; all of FYEO, where he seems wary of and tries to protect Melina from the toll vengence takes, even though he engages in it himself. This adds a dimension to Moore’s characterization of Bond that I find interesting, contrasting nicely with the cheeriness he often projects, which may, as seen in that moment in Spy, indeed just be a mask for deeper pain.

      • Christian,

        I agree; furthermore, Moore was as brutal as any of the other Bonds when he kicked Locque’s car off the cliff in FYEO. Could it be – gasp – that he actually had some range as an actor?

  12. Gentlemen I’ll leave you with a little thought you won’t find in the Bond histories but which was reported in the trade papers (specifically Screen International at the time) – Moore and Broccoli did start negotiating on the Living Daylights but Moore wanted more than $5 million (at his age it was danger money) and it went to Brosnan. The Moore TLD was a VERY different proposition and according to Screen would have suited his age AND had the first lead Bond villainess (Bette Davis is mentioned). A step too far, perhaps.

    I actually love AVTAK, it isn’t the best, or even escpecially good but I love it just the same.

  13. James,

    Now that is an interesting scenario and with Moore’s well documented penchant for money haggling, quite plausable! That proposal would have been a much better movie than what we got and actually Bette Davis could have made an excellent villianess. As I have said, for my money, Moore actually looked better in 1987 than 1985, for whatever reason, and I think he would have pulled it off, if they had have cast a Maud Adams type and aged leading lady for him. Having said that, the actual movie of The Living Daylights, actor aside, was better than AVTAK IMO.

  14. Re Moore’s supposed sleaziness, have been going through the box set with my wife, and Connery is, at times, sleazy and downright unpleasant! His supposedly seductive look at Tilly when driving, his forcing himself on Pussy in the stable, shall we say these are very uncomfortable viewing for a contemporary audience. Moore, whilst he has scripts that are somewhat condescending to women in some of his films, never looks threatening to a woman in the way that Connery could sometimes do.

    And whilst this look – the leather jacket with more formal trousers – isn’t great, and whilst Sir Roger was too old in this film, he still looked very good in a suit, and looked better than Connery post Thunderball. And it’s easy to forgive Moore, who brought a great sense of fun to the films.

    He was also, incidentally, a Bond who could hint at the vulnerability which we really saw in QoS – witness the scene in TSHLM when Amasova mentions him having been married. His reaction is very British (I speak as a Brit)!

    • Agreed to all of the above. Connery as Bond may be legendary, being the first, but I certainly hope modern audiences (particularly young men) are watching with a more critical eye now. Moore’s characterization did continue Connery’s overt misogyny at first. See the way he tricks Solitaire into sleeping with him in LALD and slaps around Andrea in TMWTGG and nearly breaks her damn arm. Thankfully they appeared to understand that this would no longer fly in the ’70s afterwards, though he was still a condescending pr*ck to Anya in TSWLM. I agree with George Lazenby’s remarks at the time that Bond needed updating for the ’70s, but wish he had simply pushed for the change he wanted while in a position of power to do so instead of just leaving the role unceremoniously.

      I’m in the minority here, but I very much like Daniel Craig in the role because of the vulnerability he gave a character who is otherwise, more or less, portrayed as cold killer with dry humour. Though part of that is certainly due to the scripts. Daniel Craig did however play against type in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and did it quite well at that. He was still a little muscular for the character as described in the books, despite his attempts to “eat anything [he] wanted” and “stop working out”, but his Mikael Blomkvist was spot on acting-wise. The part where he gets grazed by a bullet, then runs scared and panting all the way to the shack where he’s still muttering and in shock… just perfect.

      • I agree that some of Connery’s behavior is distasteful to modern sensibilities; his forcing himself on Pussy in the stable is hard to watch today. I also find Moore’s treatment of Andrea in TMWTGG as unwatchable as it is out of character. His tricking Solitaire is not in the same league – I view it more as an instance of Moore’s mischievous characterization, and besides, the cards had already “told” them they would be lovers back in New York! In TSWLM, Anya, if anything, is the condescending one. As for Lazenby, (as much as I like him in the role) I suspect that his hippie sensibilities would have made for a very odd (and hirsute) updating of the 007 role.

      • @Dan Ippolito – I will always defend Sir Roger, but c’mon, the card trick with Solitaire was pretty sleazy! She was a virgin!

  15. Moore has been often criticised for his old mannish a casual wear in many of his 1980’s outings, but especially in AVTAK his casual wear was similar to what Clint Eastwood was wearing as Dirty Harry at the same time. A leather blouson, button down collar shirt and flannel slacks, nobody really has a go at his outfits. They say his looks rugged and manly in his leather jackets etc. He was also using Douglas Hayward as his tailor around the same time as Moore. He is only three years younger then Roger Moore. Interesting I think.

    • Well summed up, Ryan. I’ve just returned to this post and thread and interesting to read the comments (including my own) from 7 years ago! I think it’s a matter of “horse for courses”. Christian initially mentioned the leather jacket and how Tom Selleck might wear it. Selleck would pull such an ensemble off fine because it was his image and he’s American. Roger was a true blue Brit and had the jacket been worn this way it would have not alone looked hugely at odds with his established Bond look but frankly, absurd. The flannel trousers and sportier Foster shirt toned the outfit down and made it much more subtle and discreet. As you correctly point out, Ryan, Eastwood wore very similar outfits as Dirty Harry etc. at that time and nobody says a thing. And he’s American too so what’s a dyed-in-the-wool Brit to do?

      • David, Clint Eastwood dresses of the whole quite classic through out the series with nods to fashion trends of the day. His casual outfit of a navy cotton/nylon windbreaker, red t-shirt and beige straight leg chinos from Magnum Force hasn’t dated at all really. The rise on the chinos is high, but lowered a bit would make the chinos look more modern. His brown suede leather sneakers still work well. Even his chocolate brown blazer from the film could look more modern if changed slightly really.

    • I think it has to do with Eastwood looking much younger than Moore whether you like it or not, no matter their small age difference. Had Moore worn an outfit similar to Eastwood in Magnum Force, the one mentioned above, keeping his button down collar shirt, it may have worked much better. A navy cotton windbreaker is rather timeless and can work at any age. A dark leather jacket is different.
      That being said I must confess this leather jacket looks much better than the grey suede one, which has an old granpa look.

      • I really don’t think Roger Moore looked that much older then Clint Eastwood say in 1983. Clint is only 3 years younger then Roger. In Sudden Impact Clint was starting to look quite middle aged really, extremely fit looking for his early 50’s but middle aged none the less.

  16. Matt, would you go as far as to saying this is a leather Harrington jacket? I’m not sure about the rules behind what makes a blouson a Harrington, but I see several resemblances to the famous Quantum one.

  17. Good afternoon everybody, Sorry for my bad english. Congratulations for this Amazing work and so interesting discussions.
    Don you know the leather jacket brand?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

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