Gant Yale Co-op and Gitman Vintage... I'll pass, thanks.

I'm not sure what Gant and Gitman are playing at right now. Most of the sartorial community was excited to hear that these companies would be bringing back older versions of their oxford button-down shirts. That is, until they didn't offer them in exact sizes. Not exactly true to the "heritage" they keep banging on about on their websites. A more minor nitpick is that both shirts come with an eight button front, whereas the standard back when they were first produced was six or seven buttons.

I like the details, such as the back collar button, locker loop (I'm pretty sure the original Yale Co-op shirts didn't have a huge "GANT" stitched on it, you narcissists), and double track stitching on the Gitman Vintage. At these prices though, I'd rather go somewhere else and request these details on a shirt that fits exactly.

I like to be able to wear a tie with my oxford shirts. As a 16" collar, 35" sleeve, I can only wear Large (16 1/2" collar, 35" sleeve) shirts without a tie, unless I want to cinch the collar in an ugly way. Alas, it seems these shirts are marketed to guys who want to wear their ties loose from the beginning of the day and will throw these shirts out as soon as the next fad comes in. A missed opportunity. They could have pleased both traditionalists and hipsters.

As always, judge for yourself...
Gant Yale Co-op
Gitman Vintage



Comments

  1. I'm confused: " As a 16" collar, 35" sleeve, I can only wear Large (16 1/2" collar, 35" sleeve) *shirts without a tie*, unless I want to cinch the collar in an ugly way."

    Did you mean to state that you can only wear Large shirts *with* a tie?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I meant I can't wear them with a tie because the collar is too big. Only a small percentage of guys actually fit sport shirt sizing exactly. The appeal of OCBD shirts is that they can be worn with or without a tie just as easily (unless they're short sleeve).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sport shirt sizing is also a purely economic move. It takes more patterns, more skill and more time to produce exact sizes. And clothing companies (either rightly or wrongly, depending on your POV) simply feel the consumer won’t really know the difference anyway.

    For similar reasons, clothing companies have pushed flat front trousers of late. They require less material and skilled labor to make, Hence, profit margins go up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When you charge over $100 for something in sport shirt sizes that traditionally came in exact sizes, that is unarguably wrong.

    I disagree with you about flat front trousers. Those are merely a style choice and one that I happen to like. They go in and out of style from decade to decade. It's the low rise stuff that's got to go. They look good on no one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ Hunter Goss. You need to try making a pair of flat-front trousers or see them being made. They're not easier to make.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments respectful.

Spam will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Popular Posts