If you said Anthony Sinclair tailored Sean Connery for Dr. No, you would be correct, but the answer may not be so simple.
Without a doubt, Anthony Sinclair tailored Sean Connery for Dr. No. The navy Chesterfield coat that Bond wears when he arrives at the office in Dr. No was sold at Christie’s for £7,475 in 1998, and now it lives in the Eon Productions archive. The coat’s label reads ‘Anthony Sinclair Ltd, 29 Conduit Street, W.1. Mayfair 6682’ with handwritten details reading, ‘January 1962. S.Connery Esq F252/14728’. The coat was on display at the Designing 007 exhibition at the Barbican Centre in London in 2012.
Dr. No‘s director Terence Young famously took Sean Connery to his own tailor for Dr. No. In the Dr. No DVD commentary, Eunice Gayson recalls this, and in the Inside Dr. No DVD documentary, Sean Connery says the same. Neither mentions this tailor by name. Young compliments Connery’s tailoring in the Dr. No Criterion Collection LaserDisc commentary but does not mention the tailor to be Sinclair until the From Russia with Love Criterion Collection LaserDisc commentary. However, in the 1993 documentary Hollywood U.K., Young credits Anthony Sinclair for making the Dr. No dinner jacket. Based on these comments, we assume that Anthony Sinclair was the only tailor for Dr. No. Young also credits Lanvin with making the dress shirt for this scene, but Turnbull & Asser have a record of making the voile dress shirt, and the shirt resembles Turnbull & Asser’s style. Could Young have been wrong not only about the maker of the shirt but also the maker of the dinner suit?
Benson, Perry & Whitley, Ian Fleming’s tailors, are also said to have worked on Dr. No. The book James Bond: Dr. No, curated by Paul Duncan and published by Taschen in 2024, has detailed notes from the production of Dr. No, including a scan of a cable requesting the third assistant director John Meadows to ‘COLLECT DRESS SUIT FOR CONNERY FROM PERRY BENSON AND WHITLEY CORK STREET FOR SHOOTING 26TH FEBRUARY PINEWOOD’. This is the date when the M’s office scene would be filmed.
While there’s a possibility that Benson, Perry & Whitley were only altering a dinner suit made by Anthony Sinclair, an interview with tailor Bob Bigg on Simon Crompton’s website Permanent Style states they were Connery’s tailors for Dr. No. One of Bigg’s first jobs was with Anthony Sinclair in the early 1960s. Bigg said that Benson, Perry & Whitley were the tailors for Dr. No, but Connery went to Sinclair for subsequent Bond films because Benson, Perry & Whitley could not handle the demand for so many suits. The number of tailored items doubled from Dr. No to From Russia with Love. For From Russia with Love, the suits are definitely Anthony Sinclair’s since there are photos of Connery with Sinclair in numerous different outfits from the film.
Bigg also states that Roger Moore had suits made at Sinclair too, but he went elsewhere because he didn’t like the suits, possibly because Sinclair used some fusing—perhaps his way of dealing with lightweight cloths. Moore was mostly using Cyril Castle in the 1960s through the mid 1970s, but some of his suits early in The Saint do not have Castle’s more distinctive cut and may be Sinclair’s.
The overall cuts and styles between Dr. No and From Russia with Love are extremely similar, but they’re not the same. The jacket looks fuller and boxier in Dr. No. The lapel is slightly wider in Dr. No and has a steeper gorge. The button stance is higher in Dr. No. The pockets are lower in relation to the jacket’s bottom button in Dr. No. The vents might be slightly shorter in Dr. No, and there are a variety of vent styles in From Russia with Love while all jackets in Dr. No have double vents. The trouser rise is higher and the cut is a bit fuller with deeper pleats in Dr. No. The Daks side adjusters are placed further toward the rear on the Dr. No trousers. The dinner jacket’s shawl collar in Dr. No has more belly. These details could be evidence that the clothes were made by different tailors. However, Sinclair also updated the way he cut for Connery over the years, as tailors do, for multiple reasons: to perfect the silhouette, to follow fashion trends, and to adjust for Connery’s changing physique. Examples of Sinclair’s tailoring from the mid-to-late 1950s also show that he was cutting clothes differently just a few years before the Bond series started. The changes between the tailoring in the first two Bond films could just as likely be an evolution of the work of one tailor as it could be the marks of a different tailor.
These differences are minor compared to what’s the same between Dr. No and From Russia with Love. The suit jackets are cut with a soft shoulder, drape in the chest and an extended front dart. The trousers have double forward pleats with Daks-style side adjusters and turn-ups. The dinner jackets both have silk gauntlet cuffs. None of these traits proves that the suits were made by the same tailor or by different tailors. Both tailors were located in the vicinity of Savile Row—Sinclair at 29 Conduit Street and Benson, Perry & Whitley at 9 Cork Street—and they both cut in a Savile Row style. The Savile Row style of tailoring is a spectrum of different levels of shoulder padding, stiffness and drape, but much stays the same from tailor to tailor, particularly in the way trousers are made. Both Anthony Sinclair and Benson, Perry & Whitley shared a similar spot on the spectrum. Tailors during this era varied more in skill than they did in style. Anthony Sinclair specialised in lightweight cloths, but Benson, Perry & Whitley were no stranger to them either. Terence Young, a very stylish man, directed both Dr. No and From Russia with Love, and he likely asked for similar clothes when dressing Bond for both films. Young was heavily involved with Connery’s wardrobe and went to many fittings at the tailors, as he stated in the Dr. No Criterion Collection LaserDisc commentary.
Sean Connery’s distinctive physique is another reason why the suits in both films look so similar, especially since the.
Ian Fleming’s own golfing jacket from Benson, Perry & Whitley, made in 1963, has a different cut than what Sean Connery wears in Dr. No. It is cut with the more old-fashioned fisheye darts on the front instead of the extended front darts that Connery’s clothes have. But this does not mean that Connery’s clothes could not have been from Benson, Perry & Whitley. Tailors sometimes cut differently for different clients, and Fleming’s and Connery’s bodies put different demands on their tailors. Tailors may even cut differently for the same clients to make certain patterns look more attractive. Anthony Sinclair himself did this, as was reported in Gentleman’s Quarterly. Fleming’s jacket was also likely cut using an older pattern of his, and he may have used a different cutter at the firm than Connery used. Fleming’s jacket shares the same style of gauntlet cuff found on Connery’s dinner jacket and has two buttons on each cuff like Connery’s navy blazer has.
Benson, Perry & Whitley are an appropriate and authentic choice for James Bond, especially because they were Ian Fleming’s tailor. They were a prominent tailor at the time, and they later made suits for David Niven for the 1967 James Bond spoof Casino Royale. Though they were not located directly on Savile Row, shortly before the production of Dr. No, the legendary Savile Row tailor Henry Poole had just moved next door after being forced to vacate their Savile Row premises due to redevelopment, so they were in good company in Cork Street. If Benson, Perry & Whitley did make the dinner suit for Dr. No, it’s possible they also made the three lounge suits and the navy blazer for the film, leaving Sinclair only to make the Chesterfield. It’s also possible they only made the dinner suit and Sinclair made everything else.
No matter who tailored all of Sean Connery’s suits, jackets and trousers for Dr. No, Anthony Sinclair still remains the tailor most associated with Sean Connery’s James Bond, and with James Bond overall. There’s evidence of Sinclair’s work in five out of Connery’s original six Bond films, thanks to photographs and auction sales. Goldfinger is the only Bond film where no definitive record of the tailor’s involvement currently exists, though the style of tailoring resembles Sinclair’s.
Great article Matt, the debate is open ! I don’t think the telegram is a solid proof. It could just have meant the Sinclair dinner suit was ready to be picked up at Benson, Perry and Whitley. They could have shared a workshop as many tailors do. Or Sinclair could have been closed for a particular reason, or whatever. Apparently after reading the full interview, Mr. Bigg didnt really enjoy working with Mr. Sinclair. Perhaps he unconsciously mixed some facts up.
Speaking of David Niven, I remember some pictures of him with Stewart Granger in Rome, in which he wore what seemed to be a 2-button grey suit, cut very similarly to the one in Dr. No, with a full chest and soft shoulders. The year was 1956. The lapel gorge had the same angle. Its not a definite proof as well, but its fun to notice.
Regarding the Goldfinger suit, I thought there was definite proof it was from Sinclair. Didn’t Mr. Paine recreated the whole iconic 3-piece for the Designing 007 exhibition, using a pattern that was kept in the Sinclair archives ? I thought I read that somewhere, probably on your blog.
Anyway, it’s good news for anyone owning a Benson, Perry and Whitley second hand piece…
Now, gonna grab a bourbon (it’s the Moore in me I guess) and enjoy the comments !
Sinclair and Benson, Perry and Whitley had their own workshops, but it’s possible that Sinclair had to outsource alterations. Bigg could have mixed up facts, but Terence Young could have too. I already believe Young mixed up the shirtmaker, since there is a record of Turnbull making that shirt.
Richard Paine recreated the Goldfinger suit based on a suit from You Only Live Twice.
Niven’s suit is lovely, and while it is similar to the Dr. No suit, it’s really just a Savile Row style suit and could be from one of probably 50 tailors who were working at the time.
Forgot the link :
https://www.threads.com/@michaelwarburton1/post/C6b9f-uoLFJ/david-niven-and-stewart-granger-rome-1956
I have to say I prefer Granger’s look. He looks much more put together. He would have made a good Bond, although too old by the 60s.
With both the paper evidence and tailor Bigg’s testimony, I’m pretty convinced. Both tailors cut more or less middle of the road so I think it wasn’t unreasonable to mistake the two. The Dr No suits always struck me as unusually different with regard to minor details that this now makes a lot more sense.
“I just cut him [Connery] an ordinary classic Savile Row suit – a combination of elegance and first class materials down to the last button.” – Anthony Sinclair
N.b. None of these tailors would be considered off-Row tailors (though many of those tailors are excellent) because Savile Row tailoring has always encompassed the general area. Meyer & Mortimer is arguable the original SR tailor (they made for Beau Brummel) but they’ve never been on the Row itself; as the interview itself notes, Norton’s was on Conduit Street, Dege on Clifford Street, etc.
Both Benson and Sinclair would be considered Savile Row tailors. For instance, the 1980s book ‘The Savile Row Story’ has a directory of current Savile Row tailor shops at the end, and both Cyril Castle and Anthony Sinclair are listed (though Sinclair’s shop is Richard Paine by then).
The distinction between off-Row and Row tailors is less about the street, more about the specific tailoring tradition. I’ve had good experiences with both.
Thank you. I changed it to say that they’re not directly on Savile Row.
Cyril Castle was in the Savile Row neighbourhood, but their style was quite different from most in the neighbourhood. Do you believe they still fall into the Savile Row tradition?
I think so. The 80s book describes Conduit Street as one of the hubs of SR tailoring, then goes right into describing Cyril Castle and his “friend and rival” Anthony Sinclair. The author explains that the rent had gotten so expensive that Castle had to sublet half of his shop, and it was even worse for Sinclair who had to himself sublet the back of a shop selling gag gifts as his tailoring space until the retired.
Cutter & Tailor describes Cyril Castle as apprenticing with his father of the same name, then moving to another city, then back to London to work for a City firm, then back to his own/the family business. I think the fact that he was in that vicinity while having apprentices and outworkers who moved between his firms and others in that tradition indicates that he was considered part of it.
(Not directly relevant but when I was looking through archives, I found Cyril Castle’s wedding announcement in a Jewish magazine that itself I almost worked for, and his wedding was held at the synagogue down the street from where I lived!)
Fascinating! I do have the Savile Row book you mentioned.
That’s fascinating about Castle’s wedding announcement. I suspected he could be Jewish, especially since many in the tailoring industry are. My ancestors were. I was named after my great-grandmother, in a roundabout way, whose Yiddish name sounded like Cyril. Perhaps it’s one reason I am so drawn to Castle’s work.
I thought you might! It was brought up a fair bit in our early forum days.
Yes indeed. Was Doug Hayward Jewish too, or am I misremembering?
“Tailor and Cutter” noted in the early 20th century that Jewish tailoring workshops were some of the most prominent and efficient in London, because they adopted specialized subdivision by task fairly early on.
I would think that City tailors had an even higher Jewish share because many of the old Jewish neighbourhoods are right there. (Most have become Asian neighbourhoods since; and before it was a Jewish area, it was a Huguenot area, so there’s a building that was first a Huguenot church, then a synagogue, then an Asian mosque! The living history of spaces is one of the things I love most about cities like New York in London.)
I haven’t heard about Hayward being Jewish. If he was, I suspect he would have been famous enough to have been featured in the Jewish London fashion exhibition at the Docklands museum a couple years ago, but he wasn’t. Many of his contemporaries were. Hayward did associate with Jews in the business, like Henry Rose and Frank Foster. He also hired people of all backgrounds, which is no surprise as he lacked the stuffiness of Savile Row in both manner and style. Sinclair unfortunately had prejudices, which Andrew Ramroop told me about. It turned out to be Sinclair’s loss.
New York is far behind London in that regard, and we sadly demolished too much on purpose here when we should repurpose. But it’s better than the bombings London faced.
That’s both very disappointing but also totally unsurprising given his background and the time in which he was active. Mr. Ramroop is having the last laugh though, he’s one of the most skilled and respected tailors in the world!
A great article, Matt, and a very enjoyable read! And a fun mystery to-boot. I think your conclusion that it is both equally possible that the Dr No suits were by Benson, Perry & Whitley and/or Anthony Sinclair is the right landing point. At any rate it seems that BP&W had some involvement, and the fact they were also Ian Fleming’s tailor is compelling (or one hell of a coincidence). With the increasing passage of years it seems unfortunately less likely that more undiscovered evidence will come to light to resolve these interesting questions, but you never know. I guess BP&W’s archives are no longer extant?
After reading part 2 of the interview with Bob Biggs, my new theory is that Anthony Sinclair called up a hungover and confused Terence Young after a night of drinking at the pub and told him “I am ready to proceed with your order of 70 suits for From Russia with Love”. Hah!
Bigg appears to be quite the character!
That explains why Young wasn’t commissioned to direct the next film, Goldfinger!
Great post, really interesting, though we will likely never get the full answer to this. Memories can be faulty and with many of the principal participants dead, we cannot ask follow up questions. That said, I can envision several scenarios that explain the seeming contradictions.
Say for example, early in production, Broccoli and Saltzman need to source tailoring. They naturally ask Fleming who directs them to his tailor BP&W. Sometime later, Terence Young is trying to mold Connery in his image, so among other things, he takes Connery to his tailor AS. Most of the costumes are already complete or in the process of so he has them make an additional piece, the overcoat (it’s not really necessary and is only in a few shots). Then years later Young misremembers the exact nature of what was done but remembers AS being in evolved with the dinner jacket scene.
Similarly, perhaps BP&W were contacted by production as I described above. But in this scenario they are only able to complete the dinner suit before Young steps in. This blog describes him as being very involved with dressing Bond; for example, in another post Matt suggests that he is responsible for the grenadine ties. So he takes Connery to AS for the rest of the tailored clothing thus explaining him being at the fittings.
Either scenario could explain the telegram specifying which tailor and address to go to; if there were just a single one being used, there may not have been needed such specificity. Of course, it could just be that BP&W were struggling to meet production demands, as mentioned, and so an additional tailor was brought in.