Original article published 22 October 2010
I am in the process of rewriting and republishing old articles about James Bond’s outfits that are in need of a refresh and expansion. All former comments are preserved below.
When James Bond arrives in Istanbul in From Russia with Love, he’s wearing what at first looks like a typical charcoal grey suit, but in better lighting and close-up shots it reveals itself to be a slubby silk dupioni suit. The silk suit is worn as an alternative to a wool suit, but it has much more character. This suit has a gentle sheen but it’s not an overly shiny type of silk. It has approximately the same level of sheen as a modern Super 150s worsted wool or mohair-wool cloth. The pronounced slubs are this silk’s defining aspect, giving it a highly unusual texture for tailoring.
The silk suit or silk jacket is often considered a summer garment, but pure silk is not ideal for hot weather because it breathes poorly. Bond’s silk suit is lightweight, but in a dark charcoal shade it is more of a spring suit than a summer suit. Silk is a strong fibre, but it lacks the natural stretch that wool has. Though Bond wears this suit as a business suit, silk is too flashy for most lines of work, even in this conservative charcoal colour. A dark silk suit like this would be more appropriate for evening occasions like dinner at a nice restaurant or a night at the opera. For Bond it’s an effective travel suit because it drapes well and resists wrinkles, so Bond comes off the plane looking fresh (despite the movie magic).
Bond’s charcoal silk suit is one of five dark grey suits in From Russia with Love, along with suits in plain flannel, worsted plain-weave glen check, worsted pick-and-pick and flannel chalk stripe. It fits in well with the colour scheme of the film’s wardrobe, and despite being silk it hardly stands apart from the other suits on screen because it’s the darkest suit in the film without a pattern. It’s also not particularly memorable because the suit appears in only a few brief scenes. Roger Moore wore much more silk in his Bond films in suits, jackets and dinner jackets, and he wore them frequently in his first four films. Moore played a much flashier Bond than Connery did, while silk was a bit bold for Connery’s Bond’s ordinarily subdued tastes.
The suit has Anthony Sinclair’s typical cut, sometimes called the ‘Conduit Cut’ after Conduit Street where he was based. The jacket has two buttons in a low stance to emphasise his V-shaped torso, but soft extended shoulders with roped sleeve heads avoid unnecessarily building up his body. A little drape in the chest provides room for Bond’s Walther PPK while the a nipped waist and a close skirt keep him looking trim. The jacket’s fullness in the upper torso is especially important with silk because it has little natural stretch. The front has open lower quarters that are slightly rounded at the bottom.
The jacket’s narrow lapels follow 1960s fashions, and they have a medium-height gorge—the seam where the lapels and collar meet. The jacket is detailed with a single vent, straight jetted hip pockets and four buttons on each cuff. The jacket’s buttons are black or very dark grey polyester. Polyester buttons were typical on most of Connery’s suits and were the standard button on English bespoke suits in the 1960s, but they’re an especially good choice for this suit because they complement its sheen. Black mother-of-pearl buttons would also be a good choice for a dark silk suit.
Bond wears the jacket closed at all times, even when he sits down. The cut permits him to sit with it comfortable fastened. While in his hotel room he wears both of the jacket’s buttons fastened, unfortunately ruining the lines of this beautiful suit.
The suit trousers have double forward pleats, a trim leg with turn-ups, on-seam side pockets and one rear jetted pocket on the right. They’re hemmed short without a break for a neat look, but they look too short when worn with slip-on shoes that reveal Bond’s black socks. The waistband has a square extension with a hidden hook and bar closure and ‘Daks tops’ side adjusters with an elasticised tab on each side that fastens to one of three buttons.
The shirt of pale blue cotton poplin, with a sheen that suggests Sea Island cotton, is bespoke from Turnbull & Asser and matches most of the shirts that Sean Connery wears in Dr. No and From Russia with Love. It has a spread collar with a low stand, two-button cocktail cuffs and a narrow front placket. If it matches the other shirts in the film, it has shoulder pleats and two darts at the small of the back.
The tie is a narrow—approximately 7.5 cm wide—navy silk grenadine from Turnbull & Asser without tipping and is tied in a small four-in-hand knot. He wears a white linen handkerchief folded in his breast pocket. Connery does not match his pocket square to his shirt but instead uses it as a neutral pop of white to balance the darkness in the outfit.
In a not-unusual continuity error for this film, Bond wears two pairs of shoes with this suit. He wears his usual black three-eyelet cap-toe derbys when on location in Istanbul, and he wears black slip-ons at the hotel studio set. While the lace-up derby is a more traditionally appropriate shoe to wear with a suit, the slip-ons have a trim and sleek silhouette that looks appropriate with the suit in a Fleming-Bond manner.
Bond carries a topcoat, trilby and black attache case with him throughout the scenes when he wears this outfit, throwing both on the bed when he arrives in his hotel room. The Chesterfield-style topcoat was made by Anthony Sinclair of a black and white herringbone heavy wool melton. The coat is considerably lighter in colour than the suit, providing a pleasant contrast with it. Despite the Chesterfield style, the coat is less formal than a typical chesterfield of its light colour. It has a fly front, narrow peaked lapels, a welt breast pocket, straight hip pockets with flaps and a rear single vent. It does not have a velvet collar, which is commonly found on Chesterfields. Bond does not wear the topcoat at all in the film, only behind the scenes, but on screen it serves as a sophisticated prop.
The trilby that Bond carries throughout these scenes is dark green and has a tapered crown with a centre dent and a narrow snap brim. It is from Lock & Co and matches the hat that Bond wears in Dr. No.
Now Pay Attention
| SUIT | |
| Tailor | Anthony Sinclair |
| Fabric | Charcoal grey silk dupioni |
| JACKET | |
| Front buttons | 2, low stance |
| Lapels | Narrow notch |
| Shoulder | Soft with roped sleeve heads |
| Breast pocket | Welt |
| Hip pockets | Straight, jetted |
| Vents | 1 |
| Cuff buttons | 4 |
| TROUSERS | |
| Front | Double forward pleats |
| Support | ‘DAKS Tops’ 3-button side-adjusters |
| Front/side pockets | On-seam side pockets |
| Rise | High |
| Leg | Narrow, straight |
| Hem | Turn-ups |
| SHIRT | |
| Shirtmaker | Turnbull & Asser |
| Fabric | Pale blue cotton poplin |
| Collar | Spread |
| Cuff | 2-button cocktail |
| Front | Placket |
| TIE | |
| Brand | Turnbull & Asser |
| Fabric | Navy grenadine |
| Knot | Four-in-hand |
| SHOES | |
| Shoemaker | Unknown |
| Style | Black 3-eyelet cap-toe derby and black slip-on |
One of the things I notice from Connery's jackets is that they seem a little short. I'm actually watching Dr. No right now, and his jacket *only just* seem to cover his seat.
I'm also curious as to what Connery's jacket size would be. Granted, he's wearing bespoke, but I have the feeling that the modern off-the-rack equivalent would probably be…42 regular? 44 regular? Connery did some bodybuilding in his younger days, and I think he looks to be at his beefiest in Dr. No, but even there, he's not huge. I'd say 42 reg.
On the other hand, I think I remember reading somewhere where Turnbull and Asser still keeps all the files it's ever compiled over the years, and there was a picture accompanying the article that had Sean Connery's client card, and his neck size was 17. That's pretty big; about an inch bigger than I'd expect, and indicative of a suit size larger than 42. Unfortunately, I can't pin down this photo, so all I have to go on is my addled memory.
Sean Connery was 6'2.5" tall, and so probably would be a long length. I'd suspect his chest size is about a 44. It was popular in the 60s, as it is now, to cut the jacket on the shorter side. They were cut shorter to lengthen his legs because much of Connery's height is in his torso. That's one reason why his trousers had a very long rise. The key is to make the legs look the longest possible whilst still keeping everything proportionate. And I would believe that Connery has a 17" neck. Cary Grant had the same and he was skinnier than Connery.
Didn’t he have a 13 inch drop when he was in shape? 46in chest, 33inch waist?
Yes, according to GQ he had a 46″ chest and 33″ waist around the time of Thunderball.
At the Fleming exhibit at the IWM they had a few coats of Connery's. I was quite surprised by the size, to be honest. I always knew he was big, but it was apparent that he was at the very least a 44" chest.
I know there is much debate over what constitutes a correctly cut suit. I would just say that there are traditionalists who have certain opinions. However, the cut of a suit has been a dynamic process over many, many years, resulting in different trends.
For example, the hem of the jacket has been raised in recent years and many prefer their cuffs longer. There are many other examples, obviously.
Connery's coat length might seem high, but to my mind it is just right. It flatters his shape and that, after all, is one of the most important aspects in a suit.
Nothing flatters the male physique more than a suit, and Connery had a natural build that was perfect for suits, unlike the Debonair Cary Grant (who had a large head, thick neck, bow legs and narrow chest) and who used fine tailoring to even things out. I feel that after Terence Young went the real, natural Sean Connery began to come across more than the refined character trained by Young. After a while, I suppose he got bored and stopped trying. Compare Connery's Bond in From Russia With Love with Diamonds Are Forever – He appears to be scruffier in appearance, (long neck hair, bushy sideburns, overweight, bad teeth) less refined in manners, bored-looking and his Scottish brogue thicker, while earlier he attempted to either sound English or speak more clearly. You can see this progression throughout his period as Bond, he seems to be more self-confident, assert Sean Connery more. The producers thought it best to get someone rough and tough and refine them, than to get someone fey and refined and make them seem tough. It worked, but I think some of the polish wore off!
Back to the suits, the sixties Sinclair/Conduit cut looks fantastic and ever-contemporary. To me it represents the standard suit shape, perfection. And any deviation over or below that cut is faddish and ultimately dates. It is the standard to which we return, infinately more form flattering than the broad lapels and ties (and trousers) of the seventies (Moore) and then the high-buttons of the nineties. It's all about flattering or enhancing the male shape which is the one relative constant that cannot be deviated from. I think perfection was reached here. Note that there is not much hourglassing here at the waist, as in today's interpretations of the sixties style cut. I prefer this.
Are all suit tailors familiar or atleast know of the “Conduit cut”? Bc I plan on buying a “Glen-Check” suit in March and wanted to tailor it to the “Conduit Cut”. Does anyone know how would they explain to a tailor how and what a conduit cut looks like and how to get it just right? Please help if you can i’d greatly appreciate it.
Just show them the pictures. Most tailors will have a house style, but should vary it to give you what you want.
It’s not that simple. Even if the tailor is willing to try (and many established tailors will not), he might be making a style out of his comfort zone and it might not turn out so well. Some tailors are comfortable in making different styles. It’s best to go to someone who already makes a middle-of-the-road Savile Row style suit, not as clean as Huntsman but not as relaxed as Anderson & Sheppard.
Can you tell us more about the cloth of the suit’s picture, please ?
You say it is a charcoal grey, but in the movie, particulary in indoor scenes, it seems to me one can notice some very dark purple in the colour ; it seems to me it isn’t as a simple dark grey like the one Connery wore at his arrival in Jamaica or for his travel in the Orient Express.
And -just being curious :) -what can you teel us about this dupioni silk ? I presume it is lightweight worsted cloth, the fabric seems solid, but I am not as expert as you are ;)
Dupioni silk is very shiny, thus when grey it can easily pick up the colours around it. If he wore it in a forest it would appear green. It’s definitely not a purple suit. Dupioni silk seems to always be solid. Dupioni is lightweight, but it’s silk so it isn’t worsted wool. I wrote more about it here: https://www.bondsuits.com/?p=39
Thanks for your precisions, but your link is missing ^^
Matt , l recently had a grey Dupioni silk suit made bespoke for me at Anderson & Shepperd . The people there told me that Silk suits tend to wear poorly. They told me that silk suits are not durable and that the trousers , in particular tend to wear out very quickly through the seat and thighs. How true is this statement ?
They have more experience with silk than I have. I have silk/linen blend trousers that I have did not wear so well. Silk has little elasticity, which may be why it doesn’t wear so well.
Having worn a Gray Dupioni Silk suit once every week for a year now ( made Bespoke by Anderson and Sheppard ) , l have reached the following conclusion : It is an extremely impractical and delicate fabric which ( while OKAY for a jacket ) is simply not robust enough for a suit if you plan to wear it more than a few times. The Trousers tend to wear through VERY quickly and they also lose their shape at the knees very fast. It feels like a very big loss , considering how l saved six case’s pay to invest in that suit.
Huntsman and A&S had both warned me against getting a pure silk suit . I followed Huntsman’s advice but decided to ignore Anderson and Sheppard and commission the suit anyway. The did a fantastic job with the suit , but the fabric is just not robust.
I can see why the filmmakers had Connery’s Bond wear only one silk suit in the series. It would not last even one fight scene without taking damage.
But… It’s a beautiful looking fabric.
Is this suit apropriate for formal church visit or wedding ?
I was told that I would look too official or bussines like in this suit. I was suggested Glen Urquhart Check Suit (from FRWL) would be better, but I think Glen Urquhart Check looks too light colours for late autumn or winter time.
What would You suggest ?
This is a slubby silk suit, so it’s not at all business-like. It’s one of the flashiest suits that Connery wears in all his Bond films. It’s probably too flashy for church. At a wedding, it’s good for a groom. As a wedding guest, it depends on if your culture encourages you to dress in an ostentatious manner or if you are supposed to let the bridge and groom stand out.
Thank you for answer Matt.
Its not problem here if you are better dressed than a groom, unless if you wear a tuxedo….then you would be overdressed because even grooms rarely currently wear them, but things are improving :)
I think I will go with Glen Urquhart but I will go Brosnan style and pair it with flashy blue tie similar to his in Goldeneye.
Could you do a write-up on the unworn coat from this movie? (I think it’s seen in some behind the scenes shots?)
I touched on it in another article, but I could write a whole blog on it.
Good idea !
Would you be able to estimate the back length of Connery’s suit jackets in this movie, Matt ?
I can guess about 32 inches long.
Not including the collar I guess ?
This silk dupioni suit seems a surprisingly somewhat fashion-forward choice for Connery’s Bond. Especially considering he’s wearing it under cover of business travel and is still wearing it upon going straight to the office of his contact, who is the senior agency representative in Istanbul. I love that it exists, but I do wonder who in Eon or the production team who commissioned this particular suit (e.g. was it costuming, or was it made at the discretion of Anthony Sinclair who perhaps had some leeway to deliver X number of suits across Y different colours)?
I assume Terence Young likely made the choice. Silk was more of a sophisticated stylistic choice than a fashion forward choice.
Given what we know about Terence Young and his sartorial preferences, I think you are correct.
Silk also makes sense on a thematic level. First there is the semi exotic setting in Istanbul, and silk can be considered somewhat exotic. And the less business-like aspect of the fabric aligns with the more relaxed attitude of the Cold War in Istanbul, remember Bond being told the game is played differently when picked up by Kerim Bey’s son. And then when Bond meets with Kerim Bey, the office setting is in stark contrast to London both in looks and personnel (his wife/mistress is lazing about the office). So again, the suit subtly emphasizes this contrast.
Kerim’s mistress (the one he’s about to plow before the bomb goes off) also seems to be wearing a slubby silk (dupioni?) dress.
Indeed, and I think she was lying on a sofa covered in silk pillows.
Maybe they had her in that outfit just because it looked good but maybe it was part of the set up for the surprise bomb attack. Silk is luxurious and exudes confidence, just like how Bond wears it. So when the bomb goes off, the audience is surprised because Kerim is about to indulge in such nice things. Similarly when we see Kronsteen and Klebb summoned before Blofeld, Klebb is nervous and in a sickly green outfit but Kronsteen is relaxed and in a luxurious navy silk jacket. So when Kronsteen is the one who gets the poisoned boot, it’s a surprise.
I may be reading too much into it, but it’s fun to speculate.
Matt, what if – purely, hugely what if – high twist, open weave, probably 10oz silk, almost like how wool is woven in Fresco manner?
Considering that silk doesn’t wear that well, I don’t think such a thing is worth it even if they could do it. Better to get a blend of wool and silk, I think.
I’m even thinking silk and ramie, since ramie has an exceptionally long and durable staple. What do you think? It would probably ended up being 8oz max for weight, though.
I didn’t mind the short hem, I think it goes fine with such loafers. However the jacket’s forearms seemed cut pretty narrow. You can see in the movie that after Connery reached for his attache case, the suit sleeve did ride up and stayed this way, causing the shirt sleeve to show way too much. I think such problem appeared in Dr No as well.
Sean Conner’s exact suit measurements as taken by Anthony Sinclair himself in 1961/2 were as follows:
Jacket length 31.25 inches
Chest 46.5 inches
Seat 42.5 inches
Trouser waist 36 inches
Inside leg 32 inches
Outside leg 43.5 inches
That’s weird. So Connery had shorter legs (or at least a shorter inseam) than Craig?
I think tailors cut trousers much shorter in those days and probably left more room around the crutch. The outside seam is very long and the trousers would have been right up to the waist.
There’s more going on than that. I am much taller than Craig but my inseam is slightly less than Connery’s.
I can corroborate this. My inseams are wildly different depending on the cut. I’ve worn inseams as short as 32″ for very tapered legs and as long as 34″ for flared legs. I’m 6’1 but proportionately have more torso than leg, sadly. But that’s where high waisted trousers come in handy and make everyone, including Connery, have anime character legs.
Very interesting find with that tailoring card! There were some other measurements attached to this I think if it is from the google image, including cross-back, nape to waist and seat.
In tailoring, would this mean that this is the cut of the suit jacket itself rather than actual wearer measurement / size? If so, would this cut translate to a modern 46, 44, or other size? The trouser waist is apparently cut for 36 inches too. Is this a 36 waist, or to fit a smaller measurement like 34 or 35, with leeway?
I take a 36 waist myself, but trouser measurement is 38.5 for example, hence my query.
I am only curious as sizing is often not mentioned when people discuss how a suit looks on the big screen, and speculatively, something that looks one way on a person may not look identical on another, even one size apart, or with different proportions.
It would be very interesting to see an article discussing the suit sizes of the Bond actors. Perhaps this could help people to copy, or adapt for themselves the fashions very well? (E.g – how something looks for someone akin to Pierce Brosnan’s size might not look the same as for someone with Sean Connery’s proportions – not necessarily better or worse, just different, or vice versa).
>In tailoring, would this mean that this is the cut of the suit jacket itself rather than actual wearer measurement / size?
No, these are measurements. Ready to wear clothing is made on pattern blocks for the specific model.
>(E.g – how something looks for someone akin to Pierce Brosnan’s size might not look the same as for someone with Sean Connery’s proportions – not necessarily better or worse, just different, or vice versa).
I don’t think this really holds. Slim guys can wear anything, because they’re like a frame; the art of tailoring is essentially to, in some way or other, transform a man into a sort of V shape. (This is part of why Daniel Craig’s undersized clothes looked so terrible.)
There are certain things that might be favored to elongate the torso (like a double breasted that buttons at the bottom, causing a sweeping line and the illusion of height), but I have seen shorter fellows looking fantastic in high buttoning military style DB coats as well. Really it’s just the art of the tailor; leave it to him (or her) to get your proportions just right.
I don’t think the high rise on trousers in a man’s suit is intended to make the legs look longer as the jacket is covering the trousers anyway. It is more to avoid the ghastly showing of the shirt between the top of the trousers and the fastening button on the jacket, a very unfortunate trend in recent ‘fashion’.
According to most bespoke tailors, the length of the jacket should be equal to the inseam length of the trousers.
A high rise is meant to provide a natural place for the trousers to sit at the waist. The low-rise trouser trend, which seems to be coming to an end, was indeed very unfortunate.
I’ve never heard that the length of a jacket should be equal to the trouser inseam. They’re going to be similar in most cases, but people have different proportions.
Well, let’s just say it’s a nice side effect.
Yes Matt. It’s a question of whether the trousers should sit at the waist or just above the hips. My tailor who is a former head cutter at Gieves and Hawkes advises that they are far more comfortable above the hips where a belt can be comfortably worn whereas if they are fitted at the waist they inevitably slip down and then look untidy.
Of course everyone has different proportions and the jacket length equaling the inseam would be for an averagely proportioned build (in terms only of torso to leg) which makes Connery’s proportions in this regard pretty normal for his overall height. An inseam of 32 inches probably sits at least 2 inches above the bottom of the foot.