The standard suit has two pieces—a jacket and trousers—while the three-piece suit adds a waistcoat, also called a vest. The waistcoat’s primary purpose is for warmth, since the suit began as a sporty outdoor garment. The waistcoat makes smarter suits, such as those in dark worsteds and flannels, more formal than a two-piece suit. In sporty materials like tweed and corduroy, the waistcoat doesn’t add formality, just an extra layer of warmth. The three-piece suit has come and gone from fashion over the years, with its last popular era in the 1980s. Since World War II, the three-piece suit has often been considered either old-fashioned or dandy, but these meanings have been amplified since the three-piece suit fell out of mainstream fashion.
Three-piece suits have seen a slight renaissance in the past decade, as suits are now fancy occasion attire more than they are business dress. However, there are no occasions that require a three-piece suit. A two-piece suit will always do for any suit-wearing occasion.
One who wears a three-piece suit, particularly over the past 40 years, may be described as:
- Conservative
- Traditional
- Old-fashioned
- Wealthy
- Powerful
- Confident
- Mature
- Sophisticated
- Elegant
- Formal
- Fashionable
- Flashy
- A clothes horse
A three-piece suit doesn’t have to mean all of these things, especially since some of these traits are opposites of each other. Some traits may depend on the cloth and cut of the suit.
There’s no evidence that James Bond wore any three-piece suits in Ian Fleming’s novels. Fleming himself preferred two-piece suits and lent his own style to James Bond. With Fleming’s first novels set in the early 1950s, Bond’s preference for two-piece suits may have been part of the changes in fashion that came after war rationing. The three-piece suit, however, became an essential part of James Bond’s on-screen look. He wears a three-piece suit in more than half of the Bond films, and he has continued to wear three-piece suits well into the 21st century. They’re not exclusive to any particular era or actor, as every Bond actor has worn three-piece suits in the Bond films.
Bond does not wear any three-piece suits in the first two films, but he starts wearing them in Goldfinger. His odd waistcoat in M’s office and the two three-piece suits later in the film make for more striking looks than in the first two Bond films. But these looks might be considered too striking for James Bond. Three-piece suits are attention-grabbing, not something for a spy who needs to blend in. Bond doesn’t necessarily need to blend in—he’s not always that kind of spy; however, there’s no situation in the 21st century where a three-piece suit won’t draw extra attention compared to a two-piece suit.
Costume designer Lindy Hemming dressed Bond in a three-piece suit at the end of Casino Royale to establish that he has matured from a rookie into a fully formed version of the character. In Quantum of Solace, a new costume designer, Louise Frogley, re-imagined the same suit as a two-piece suit for the opening scene, which is a direct continuation from the end of Casino Royale. Maybe she didn’t think the three-piece suit was right for Bond. Maybe she didn’t think the character earned it yet, because Bond was still on his journey to becoming a mature character. Maybe she didn’t think it was right for the scene, whether because of the setting or because the scene involved intense stunts. The differences in these two films show that the three-piece suit must be chosen very carefully, as there’s a lot of meaning that comes with a three-piece suit.
On one hand, the three-piece suit is completely unnecessary for Bond. Many films just show Bond in two-piece suits. There’s no opportunity for them in films like Dr. No, You Only Live Twice and Licence to Kill, when Bond only wears suits in warm climates. But in films like From Russia with Love, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall, Bond isn’t overly focused on his image and thus does not need a three-piece suit, even though there are opportunities to wear them in London. These films aren’t portraying the smooth version of Bond who wears three-piece suits; they’re portraying a rougher version of Bond who wears the suit that he needs. The two-piece suit allows us to focus on the character.
On the other hand, the three-piece suit Bond is the one who makes the stronger impression in terms of style. Bond’s first three-piece suit, the glen check suit in Goldfinger, is one of the most iconic suits in cinema history. It’s the reason why so many people still talk about James Bond style. The three-piece suit in Casino Royale made such an impression, despite its limited time on screen, that it continues the conversation about Bond’s suits in a way that few other individual suits have. The three-piece suit emphasises the look of the character over the character itself, but it brings a stronger iconography to the character. Three-piece suits create an extra level of excitement.
Bond never needs to wear a three-piece suit, but it can be a useful tool in storytelling and character building. It usually portrays a confident and powerful Bond who is in control. If Bond isn’t confident, powerful or in control, a three-piece suit is not the right fit for him. It serves as the character’s metaphorical armour as well as plot armour. If Bond is wearing a three-piece suit, it’s almost certain that he’s going to come out ahead at the end of the scene. Despite Bond often wearing three-piece suits to the office for a serious business look, the three-piece suit is often used for the lighter side of Bond, while the two-piece suit is for the darker side of the character. This is not a rule, but it is a trend.
Do you like it when James Bond wears three-piece suits, or should he stick to two-piece suits?
I would also consider that adding a waistcoat shortens the actor playing Bond, by removing most of his shirt and tie, and therefore could impact in how strong the actor/character looks. Each actor playing Bond is over 6’, apart from Daniel Craig, and he’s shot from below in CR, perhaps to emphasise his power/strength, and he’s shot from quite a distance in SPECTRE, with a rather dark and empty background, so there’s nothing to suggest his height.
I’m even shorter than Craig at 5 ft. 9, yet I have no such issue with waistcoats, and all of mine are at six buttons, be it straight six or last button offset. The trick is to tailor them really snug (not tight, snug), and also to utilize styles such as flat hem waistcoats. Button spacing, length from shoulder line to tip (very important, fit, cut, all of those matter. Everyone can look good in a properly cut waistcoat.
Also, the rest of the outfit matter, from the fit and length of the coat (keep it proper), to the width of the trousers, which should always be reasonably tapered anyways (in my opinion and experience, the opening should be tapered enough to be evident, but still open enough to slip past the calf when seated). You can have a striking suit, but of all things being equal, balance is still key to start off all things.
“A two-piece suit will always do for any suit-wearing occasion” – maybe not quite.
Admittedly non a very Bondian exception to that principle, but I happened to be aware of this, so had to share: “It is not acceptable for male counsel to appear without a waistcoat unless the jacket is double breasted. If a single breasted jacket is worn, counsel should wear a waistcoat.”
However, a check of the 2022 Code of Conduct reveals no reference to waistcoats.
The sort of thing Bond – if no-one else (other than members of the Northern Irish Bar) – would know!
I’ll admit this – I’m not a lawyer, never have been, never will be, never dream to be. But even for a lawyer, here’s the case –
If I’m on a hurry to deliver a case in front of the judge and jury in the middle of November-December, with temperature near or at water being frozen temperature, I wouldn’t want to be bothered by an overcoat, or the thought of forgetting and losing it. Make a comparison between the cost of a waistcoat and an overcoat. Which is more? Which is more likely to be lost? Which is more acceptable for one to keep on person at all times?
This was also the reason why I refuse to have an overcoat. On the course of a day, I have to do an excessive amount of thinking. I don’t have enough time, many days, to even remember when I need to go to the restroom. I wouldn’t want to be bothered by another piece of personal belongings that I have to take off and potentially leave behind, lost forever.
Maybe someone who can afford to be frivolous with money can get a new coat, but many of us who pinches pennies could agree, one less liability increases reliability.
Remember, those Northern Irish male lawyers will need need to wear wigs and gowns as well…
Ah… Okay. That explained it.
I tend to think of three piece suits as more of a Seventies thing than Eighties. I think of three piece suits worn relatively casually, by Travolta in Saturday Night Fever, Al Pacino in Scarface, Apollo Creed in Rocky, and of course Caine in Get Carter. In the Eighties I think double breasted was more of a thing. I recently bought a three piece suit but figured out I find it much more comfortable without the waistcoat. Does a waistcoat impede use of a shoulder holster, I wonder?
Scarface is an 80’s movie, released in December 1983 (I remember it from purchasing the single Rush Rush with Debbie Harry).
I stand corrected!
I think they mentioned Scarface because the film begins in 1980 and a lot of the fashion in it is very late ’70s since most people in 1980 were still wearing their ’70s clothes.
A waistcoat shouldn’t impede the use of shoulder holster, however, it will induce a protocol disruption. Whereas with a two piece, you put the holster on after the shirt and trousers are on, with a waistcoat, the garment must go on first before the holster. Otherwise, properly tailored, nothing will be impeded. Matter of fact, an open jacket three piece suit ensemble will conceal a holster better than plain two piece enclosed.
It’s a tricky balance. Personally, I love three-piece suits, but they can come across as affected in a lot of places today. The same is likely true for Bond. He could definitely wear them for meetings with M or other important government officials, or for certain high society events like the auction in “Octopussy.” But other than that, he should probably stick to two-piece suits.
I wouldn’t necessarily say he should strictly stick to two piece. A waistcoat can afford you a lot more advantages than you can imagine, such as extra pockets and another layer for warmth, especially if made of another fabric. Cheaper than an overcoat, for sure, and less likely to be lost, because you’re less likely to take it off.
Where do you live that you can get by without an overcoat? The last place I lived where that was the case was Florida.
I lived for years in Edinburgh and London without an overcoat. Got my first while living in New York.
Giselle,
Where I live, most people cannot survive without a long coat that reaches knee length either. That’s why, if carpets can be shaped, I’d probably send it to Anthony Sinclair and tell them to make a suit out of those for me. That’s why my cold weather tailored outfits are all super heavy. But it’s not always the case that heavy equals absolute warmth, so I make do substituting with odd waistcoats made of, say, heavier tweed, moleskin, brush cottons, and the likes. My body thermal retention and regulation is also very poor, so I get cold very easily, especially my chest, so the focus is there. I live in the Pacific Northwest.
Kamal,
Yeah, NY has gotten a lot colder over the years. If I ever have to be there, my suit will have to be overcoat weight cloth for sure. But I still won’t do a traditional overcoat itself. Imagine $3,000 – $5,000 being forgotten in some corner and never seen again – can’t be me.
I suspect for most people in North America, like me, it’s easier to wear something worsted in a light or medium weight and use an overcoat or topcoat. A suit made of a winter weight tweed or flannel or what have you can be a little much due to how overheated public interiors are during the cold months. At the same time, I understand your concern. I lost a thrifted Mackintosh-type raincoat a decade ago to a local French restaurant who claimed they didn’t find it there. Maybe one of the owners took it for themselves and didn’t say anything! I was pretty heartbroken even though I only spent $40 for it as opposed to $4000.
Travers, I am not sure whether you’re joking or not regarding overcoats ? Certainly a waistcoat could never perform the same function. And regarding the unfortunate possibility of loosing his own overcoat, unless you’re very absent minded or a bit too much intoxicated, I don’t see how it’s possible given how obvious it is and how big the item is. I have lost many umbrellas and gloves, but never an overcoat. Also, $ 3-5000 is about the price of a bespoke overcoat. If you can afford it, good for you ! But if you can’t or are too afraid to loose it, you can find many great quality items in second hand for about 10% of that price. Bespoke pieces included.
Giselle,
Honestly, thank you for always being able to understand me and/or see through to my logic and modus operandi. I have little to no problem wearing heavier suits, and what more, I don’t know if people here have a serious mental issue, but workplaces never turn heaters up to that level of warmth. It’s always Artic condition during Fall and Winter. I used to want to move to California because of this.
Le Chiffre,
I’m not joking. Yes, to me, a waistcoat is infinitely useful, and yes, I have a waistcoat made out of 28oz tweed that keeps my chest really, really warm. But I guess I did not include the factor of shirting, where, during colder seasons, my shirts, too, are of heavier, warmer wearing materials. But yes, they do what is needed, besides my heavyweight, fully lined suits (yes, the trousers are lined to the ankles).
In a single day, I have a lot of thinking to do. My mind runs almost non-stop. The Pacific Northwest is not for the faintest of heart, or those who see the world with rosy lenses. Every street corners can easily take for the worse turn, every public transit rides always demand I am ready to pull my sidearm when it comes to, and/or that I need to take off running. Even bars and restaurants can always have that one day. My suits are already at 16-20oz weight limits. An additional waistcoat, of a material way heavier than that, will protect my chest and lungs far better, and far more efficient, against the lung-cutting air.
I want all of my garments to be customized to my specifications and liking, and I prefer the fit to be exactly to how my tailor and I sees it best, too. Thrifting is good if those factors are trivial, but to me, they make for everything. My choice of fabric, cut, style, pockets (extremely important in the detail department), and fit. Hence why I simply cannot settle. I gave up entirely on the idea of an overcoat because of that. It’s not just the things that I carry alone, but my garments, too, are part of my equipment.
I know, I’m sort of a freak. But situation and environment dictates everything, as is the mission.
Travers, what exactly is your job if it’s not too much to ask ? Private security, police officer ? Regarding thrifting, I understand your point of view but as long as you know a good alterations tailor, he or she can do wonders. Not only regarding the fit, but also adding internal or external pockets, modifying the degree of shoulder padding, etc. But I guess if you carry a firearm everyday, it definitely would get in your way, especially a classic length one.
Le Chiffre,
My job is not of the security sector, and my professional carry (compact thereabouts) is not my personal carry (full size .45 1911). Also, I carry for my safety, that the area I live in can get kinetic almost momentarily, and because I can (at least for now). Where I am at, it’s a sartorial wasteland, and I’m lucky enough to have some of my off the rack waistcoats tailored to acceptable standards, but it’s never perfect, and I’ve seen a lot of botched jobs on jackets and coats that, while I won’t single anyone out, I’ll say it’s impossible for me to completely bank my hope on an entire big project on any of them.
I am a difficult person, I’m fully aware, but I also need what works for me, and me alone. If it’s a short term piece that I can ditch at any time, well, it goes one way. But the environment, weather, nature of my work, societal/locality nature, and then some, dictates that I have a wardrobe that is uncompromising. I can have improvisations – hence the waistcoat – but if something will impede me in any given manner, I won’t have it in my inventory.
That and, making it worth my money, every buck to penny.
I think Bond should have at least one three-piece in his (Doubtless commodious) wardrobe, but I do feel that it’s something he wears to fool people into thinking he’s civilised rather than his instinctive go-to.
Or, you know, to show ‘M’ that he’s a trustworthy professional and/or convince the government he’s a Civil Servant who sometimes shoots people, not any mere gunslinger.
Yes!
I got the impression from interviews with Lindy Hemming that she made a lot of choices with GE around trying to enhance and build up Pierce’s slender frame; something she worried less about with the subsequent films. Perhaps the three piece suit was part of that approach, along with the tendency to wear almost all his suit jackets unbuttoned in that film.
Bond doesn’t seem to care much about wearing waistcoat slips, not even at his own wedding.
I think they’re rather fussy, and I think Bond would agree.
Occasionally, Bond’s waistcoat featured lapels, which is a nice touch. Slips is a posh detail, worn by royalty at formal events, to create an illusion of layering.
I would only wear waistcoat slips with morning attire, but I find one still looks well-dressed without them. Like this dapper chick wearing Huntsman!
https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/daisy-knatchbull-first-lady-wear-morning-suit-8879035r
Giselle, uhmm… The link doesn’t work… Do you have the original picture saved digitally? Any chance of imgur or something similar?
Working for me, not sure what the issue is.
Oh. Now it works… Weird…
Most misconceptions about three piece suits are really uncalled for, quite frankly. Well executed, it can still be as understated and elegant.
The other solution is an odd waistcoat of a muted color. Either way, never hurts wearing a three piece suit. If all of the reasons listed above over the last 40 years justify frowning upon three piece suits, then I could say much the same about polo shirts and the “old money” look that is very popular with trust fund people.
Something also just came across my mind – late night syndrome, pardon me – that I thought I should share with everyone.
The notion or joke that many English tailors make, especially of heavier, sturdier, tighter fabrics, would be to call them “bulletproof”. I know, it’s an over exaggeration, and frankly, while a 20oz thornproof tweed won’t be able to stop even a .22LR, at least, it feels robust enough that I tend to think, layered properly, it will be blade proof.
In that sense, the waistcoat plays a potentially protectively important role, especially when we account for modern technologies. What if the waistcoat is fitted to the standards of a light ballistic vest, aesthetically, technologically, and ballistically? What if we have some kind of class IIIA, at minimum, material that can either reinforce, or substitute the canvas entirely, and by having a self-cloth back, interline that with the same interlining for a ballistic vest kind of garment?
Ponder upon it.
I don’t think it would be too new of a concept – note, concept – that had already existed before. During the Great War, Allied troops – primarily British and Americans – were issued leather jerkins, which were worn as outer garments, but if anything, many survived some flying fragments from exploding ordnances on the battlefield, before they either rot away, or were too damaged to keep going. A certain kind of minimal protection was always appreciated. Same logic as to why flak vests, body armors from the late 1980s to today, are designed like vests, rather than a full ensemble that covers everything.
The waistcoat, on its own, or as part of a three piece suit, holds more potential than we can extract out of. Be it for an ordinary citizen, or for a figure like Bond or similar, the possibilities are endless. The sky used to be the limit; yet we are going to outer space again, so there’s simply no guarantee that this is just “it”.
Again, ponder upon it.
The nice thing about owning a three-piece suit, or suits, is that you can leave the waistcoat behind if you feel it’s the wrong occasion and you still have a regular two-piece. There is nothing different that marks a three-piece other than that third piece (the waistcoat) itself.
This hits all the sweetest spots so far. Thank you for outlining the versatility. I was so caught up with defending the ensemble, I forgot the versatility. The suit is more than formality; it’s also utilitarian in nature. We forgot both of those.
Also, frankly, why is it did we ditch the odd waistcoat? A cheaper alternative, not as “showy”, but still ensures warmth and many more.
This exactly. I used to always get three pieces if I could.
Currently wearing my replica – with the odd adjustment to my taste – of the navy/black herringbone from Goldfinger – and today I’m wearing it as a three-piece; a little bit of warmth and so I don’t have to wear an overcoat. But I’ll be wearing it as a two-piece tomorrow.
That’s a great suit! Did you get the covered buttons and all?
It’s a strange thing but I am fairly ambivalent whether we see Bond in a three piece in the next film. I suppose I wouldn’t bat an eye if he wore one to the office or at say a funeral in a cold place (think TWINE or Thunderball). Then again, I wouldn’t miss it. Context would be key, if the situation is appropriate, I would be fine with it, otherwise it’s a distraction.
It will be interesting to see if, in the next film, they treat Bond as a new agent a la Casino Royale did or if we will be presented with an experienced Bond like in Dr No. Personally, I don’t like the repetitive reintroduction to a character when franchises repeatedly reboot themselves. Then again, hitting us over the head that Bond is established already as a double O would be just as annoying. Perhaps the best approach would be an office scene with Bond in a three piece; serving as a signal to the audience that Bond is experienced, but we don’t need to really get into it.
I certainly hope we see him in a three-piece suit again. It persists in fashion despite Craig not wearing one in the last movie.
To be honest, I’d want them to treat him like they did with every new actor to play Bond. Some little differences up front, like Roger Moore and his espresso machine, but ultimately treating him like he’s always just been there. I think that’s the best way going forward since the character is well-established in pop culture mythology. We already did a hard reboot with Casino Royale 20 years ago and will be again with the upcoming video game. (I think Patrick Gibson is fantastic from what I’ve seen of the gameplay/trailers, however, and doing justice to the idea of a fresh-faced secret agent.)
We shall see, and again, no issue if he does end up wearing one.
There will certainly be the temptation to make something of the new Bond and new era; I hope the filmmakers resist and just pretend he’s always been there, as you said. And since we are hoping for things, maybe they dress him in a blue blazer, bring back a classic look. I’m wanting that much more than the three piece.