Here is another few pics of the Snowdon's in shiny black. The lenses just don't look that blue it seems in person(example - Blair's pics above)except online.
I'm sticking by my post back in February that the Rome sunglasses are tortoise frames with brown lenses. Even though the frames look black, I don't think I've ever seen a pair of black sunglasses with brown lenses - they're typically grey, or gradient grey. The brown lenses are a much better pairing with tortoise frames.
I'll think we'll just have to wait and see what news comes from TF closer to the film's release.
Does anyone else find it odd that they didn't just put him in the Billy Reid Peacoat again? It would be nice to see some staple items in his wardrobe!
It sure would be nice but it wouldn't pay off for all the companies ;%
Well I'm not sure Billy Reid ever paid for their peacoat to appear in SF, it got selected on DC's recommendation from personally wearing one already. Then BR have reaped the advantage.
Seems the same for John Varvatos, as they didn't even seem to initially recognise the marketing gift their product had received by being used in the new movie.
Matchless obviously have a movie tie-in marketing strategy, which probably means they have paid a licensing fee to Eon or whoever to use official 007 marketing. Those sort of licenses are SUPER expensive, hence the pricing on their Marvel movie jackets.
Trouble is, if their anything like Belstaff with their movie tie-in stuff, the mega price tag doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the product
Personally I will probably wait for JV to bring out a similar beige coloured suede jacket in their house style and get that instead if I want a light coloured summer jacket B-)
I feel the same way. I find Matchless (and Belstaff before them, when it was owned by the same people) marketing strategy rather annoying. They are not just featuring in movies by "accident" (like Billy Reid, JV, Npeal) but are systematically producing jackets for Blockbuster movies. To me, that's simple product placement, like Coke and Heineken in Skyfall or Ford and Sony Ericsson in CR. Won't buy their products!
Does anyone else find it odd that they didn't just put him in the Billy Reid Peacoat again? It would be nice to see some staple items in his wardrobe!
It sure would be nice but it wouldn't pay off for all the companies ;%
Well I'm not sure Billy Reid ever paid for their peacoat to appear in SF, it got selected on DC's recommendation from personally wearing one already. Then BR have reaped the advantage.
Seems the same for John Varvatos, as they didn't even seem to initially recognise the marketing gift their product had received by being used in the new movie.
Matchless obviously have a movie tie-in marketing strategy, which probably means they have paid a licensing fee to Eon or whoever to use official 007 marketing. Those sort of licenses are SUPER expensive, hence the pricing on their Marvel movie jackets.
Trouble is, if their anything like Belstaff with their movie tie-in stuff, the mega price tag doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the product
Personally I will probably wait for JV to bring out a similar beige coloured suede jacket in their house style and get that instead if I want a light coloured summer jacket B-)
I feel the same way. I find Matchless (and Belstaff before them, when it was owned by the same people) marketing strategy rather annoying. They are not just featuring in movies by "accident" (like Billy Reid, JV, Npeal) but are systematically producing jackets for Blockbuster movies. To me, that's simple product placement, like Coke and Heineken in Skyfall or Ford and Sony Ericsson in CR. Won't buy their products!
This blatant product placement sells to many people on this forum!
I feel the same way. I find Matchless (and Belstaff before them, when it was owned by the same people) marketing strategy rather annoying. They are not just featuring in movies by "accident" (like Billy Reid, JV, Npeal) but are systematically producing jackets for Blockbuster movies. To me, that's simple product placement, like Coke and Heineken in Skyfall or Ford and Sony Ericsson in CR. Won't buy their products!
It sure would be nice but it wouldn't pay off for all the companies ;%
Well I'm not sure Billy Reid ever paid for their peacoat to appear in SF, it got selected on DC's recommendation from personally wearing one already. Then BR have reaped the advantage.
Seems the same for John Varvatos, as they didn't even seem to initially recognise the marketing gift their product had received by being used in the new movie.
Matchless obviously have a movie tie-in marketing strategy, which probably means they have paid a licensing fee to Eon or whoever to use official 007 marketing. Those sort of licenses are SUPER expensive, hence the pricing on their Marvel movie jackets.
Trouble is, if their anything like Belstaff with their movie tie-in stuff, the mega price tag doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the product
Personally I will probably wait for JV to bring out a similar beige coloured suede jacket in their house style and get that instead if I want a light coloured summer jacket B-)
besides, it's fun to see Bond in new clothing every film
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
I feel the same way. I find Matchless (and Belstaff before them, when it was owned by the same people) marketing strategy rather annoying. They are not just featuring in movies by "accident" (like Billy Reid, JV, Npeal) but are systematically producing jackets for Blockbuster movies. To me, that's simple product placement, like Coke and Heineken in Skyfall or Ford and Sony Ericsson in CR. Won't buy their products!
This blatant product placement sells to many people on this forum!
Yes and no. I would agree that products from the movie are a draw, certainly they are for me. But having had a long history of replica movie prop (not clothes) collecting, I have found on many occasions licensed products are rarely of the same enjoyable quality as 'found parts' or fan made items, which also tend to be more accurate for a number of reasons.
I mean, do T&A really do 'blatant' product placement? More the fact that they are a high quality shirt maker, which is the kind of history and kudos movies such as Bond want to tie into and then T&A enjoy the benefit of the association and the real world sales that it attracts.
I'm sticking by my post back in February that the Rome sunglasses are tortoise frames with brown lenses. Even though the frames look black, I don't think I've ever seen a pair of black sunglasses with brown lenses - they're typically grey, or gradient grey. The brown lenses are a much better pairing with tortoise frames.
I'll think we'll just have to wait and see what news comes from TF closer to the film's release.
Kind regards,
Craig
AWFUL LOOK. Is this the scene where he goes undercover as a porter standing outside a hotel opening doors?
Although the boss now claims that he spotted their jumper in SF, N Peal had absolutely no idea that their product featured in the final scenes until Jany Temime gave us the list of all the wardrobe choices that she and DC made. Then after I contacted Neville in the Burlington Arcade store and told him, within a week they had a standee with DC in the Blue Wave front and centre.
Still waiting for my lifetime 80% off discount card....
Does anyone else find it odd that they didn't just put him in the Billy Reid Peacoat again? It would be nice to see some staple items in his wardrobe!
It sure would be nice but it wouldn't pay off for all the companies ;%
Well I'm not sure Billy Reid ever paid for their peacoat to appear in SF, it got selected on DC's recommendation from personally wearing one already. Then BR have reaped the advantage.
Seems the same for John Varvatos, as they didn't even seem to initially recognise the marketing gift their product had received by being used in the new movie.
Matchless obviously have a movie tie-in marketing strategy, which probably means they have paid a licensing fee to Eon or whoever to use official 007 marketing. Those sort of licenses are SUPER expensive, hence the pricing on their Marvel movie jackets.
Trouble is, if their anything like Belstaff with their movie tie-in stuff, the mega price tag doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the product
Personally I will probably wait for JV to bring out a similar beige coloured suede jacket in their house style and get that instead if I want a light coloured summer jacket B-)
I feel the same way. I find Matchless (and Belstaff before them, when it was owned by the same people) marketing strategy rather annoying. They are not just featuring in movies by "accident" (like Billy Reid, JV, Npeal) but are systematically producing jackets for Blockbuster movies. To me, that's simple product placement, like Coke and Heineken in Skyfall or Ford and Sony Ericsson in CR. Won't buy their products!
This blatant product placement sells to many people on this forum!
Yes and no. I would agree that products from the movie are a draw, certainly they are for me. But having had a long history of replica movie prop (not clothes) collecting, I have found on many occasions licensed products are rarely of the same enjoyable quality as 'found parts' or fan made items, which also tend to be more accurate for a number of reasons.
I mean, do T&A really do 'blatant' product placement? More the fact that they are a high quality shirt maker, which is the kind of history and kudos movies such as Bond want to tie into and then T&A enjoy the benefit of the association and the real world sales that it attracts.
AWFUL LOOK. Is this the scene where he goes undercover as a porter standing outside a hotel opening doors?
Don't understand the need for his tie to stick out further than his chin. It's like advertising to adversaries, 'Grab here to strangle me.'
The tie should certainly stick out a little, which is helped by the tie pin and the waistcoat. What likely happened in that photo is that in moving about, his tie pulled up from under his waistcoat. There's no way for it to slide back down. in the trailer the tie doesn't stick out that much with that outfit. The blackness of the outfit, however, is appropriate in the context of the film. However, I don't know if the flashiness of the Tom Ford/Tommy Nutter design fits with Bond in the story. And I don't want to know the answer to that from those who have read the script! I don't agree that Bond looks like a porter, dressed in a suit that's supposed to look like it's from a flashy Savile Row designer.
AWFUL LOOK. Is this the scene where he goes undercover as a porter standing outside a hotel opening doors?
Don't understand the need for his tie to stick out further than his chin. It's like advertising to adversaries, 'Grab here to strangle me.'
The tie should certainly stick out a little, which is helped by the tie pin and the waistcoat. What likely happened in that photo is that in moving about, his tie pulled up from under his waistcoat. There's no way for it to slide back down. in the trailer the tie doesn't stick out that much with that outfit. The blackness of the outfit, however, is appropriate in the context of the film. However, I don't know if the flashiness of the Tom Ford/Tommy Nutter design fits with Bond in the story. And I don't want to know the answer to that from those who have read the script! I don't agree that Bond looks like a porter, dressed in a suit that's supposed to look like it's from a flashy Savile Row designer.
Don't understand the need for his tie to stick out further than his chin. It's like advertising to adversaries, 'Grab here to strangle me.'
The tie should certainly stick out a little, which is helped by the tie pin and the waistcoat. What likely happened in that photo is that in moving about, his tie pulled up from under his waistcoat. There's no way for it to slide back down. in the trailer the tie doesn't stick out that much with that outfit. The blackness of the outfit, however, is appropriate in the context of the film. However, I don't know if the flashiness of the Tom Ford/Tommy Nutter design fits with Bond in the story. And I don't want to know the answer to that from those who have read the script! I don't agree that Bond looks like a porter, dressed in a suit that's supposed to look like it's from a flashy Savile Row designer.
A comical outfit, but thankfully Bond isn't dressed anything like that.
Does anyone else find it odd that they didn't just put him in the Billy Reid Peacoat again? It would be nice to see some staple items in his wardrobe!
Let's remember the BR peacoat was a) part of a chauffeur disguise; and b) worn in Shanghai in the summer. I own that unlined coat; how warm would it be for snowy Switzerland?
I feel the same way. I find Matchless (and Belstaff before them, when it was owned by the same people) marketing strategy rather annoying. They are not just featuring in movies by "accident" (like Billy Reid, JV, Npeal) but are systematically producing jackets for Blockbuster movies. To me, that's simple product placement, like Coke and Heineken in Skyfall or Ford and Sony Ericsson in CR. Won't buy their products!
It sure would be nice but it wouldn't pay off for all the companies ;%
Well I'm not sure Billy Reid ever paid for their peacoat to appear in SF, it got selected on DC's recommendation from personally wearing one already. Then BR have reaped the advantage.
Seems the same for John Varvatos, as they didn't even seem to initially recognise the marketing gift their product had received by being used in the new movie.
Matchless obviously have a movie tie-in marketing strategy, which probably means they have paid a licensing fee to Eon or whoever to use official 007 marketing. Those sort of licenses are SUPER expensive, hence the pricing on their Marvel movie jackets.
Trouble is, if their anything like Belstaff with their movie tie-in stuff, the mega price tag doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the product
Personally I will probably wait for JV to bring out a similar beige coloured suede jacket in their house style and get that instead if I want a light coloured summer jacket B-)
You feel the same about Aston Martin presumably. They pay a fee to have their cars in the films
I don't think they pay EON anymore - but building the DB10 exclusively for the film must have cost a fair whack. I think the car deal is now with Tata Motors for their Jaguar Land Rover models. They probably pay a serious sum of money to have their cars shown.
I feel the same way. I find Matchless (and Belstaff before them, when it was owned by the same people) marketing strategy rather annoying. They are not just featuring in movies by "accident" (like Billy Reid, JV, Npeal) but are systematically producing jackets for Blockbuster movies. To me, that's simple product placement, like Coke and Heineken in Skyfall or Ford and Sony Ericsson in CR. Won't buy their products!
Well I'm not sure Billy Reid ever paid for their peacoat to appear in SF, it got selected on DC's recommendation from personally wearing one already. Then BR have reaped the advantage.
Seems the same for John Varvatos, as they didn't even seem to initially recognise the marketing gift their product had received by being used in the new movie.
Matchless obviously have a movie tie-in marketing strategy, which probably means they have paid a licensing fee to Eon or whoever to use official 007 marketing. Those sort of licenses are SUPER expensive, hence the pricing on their Marvel movie jackets.
Trouble is, if their anything like Belstaff with their movie tie-in stuff, the mega price tag doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the product
Personally I will probably wait for JV to bring out a similar beige coloured suede jacket in their house style and get that instead if I want a light coloured summer jacket B-)
You feel the same about Aston Martin presumably. They pay a fee to have their cars in the films
do you think AM ever payed EON?
I know that they had to buy the DB5 for GF. thought that Eon just got provided with the others in the following years without paying for them?!
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Comments
Reply:
matchlesslondon@mr_swinderman stayed tuned on our website in the fall!
I tried! Ha
I'm a little afraid
If the other is Barratt then I guess £1200
Guess they maybe take advantage of movie tie ins?
I'll think we'll just have to wait and see what news comes from TF closer to the film's release.
Kind regards,
Craig
It sure would be nice but it wouldn't pay off for all the companies ;%
Well I'm not sure Billy Reid ever paid for their peacoat to appear in SF, it got selected on DC's recommendation from personally wearing one already. Then BR have reaped the advantage.
Seems the same for John Varvatos, as they didn't even seem to initially recognise the marketing gift their product had received by being used in the new movie.
Matchless obviously have a movie tie-in marketing strategy, which probably means they have paid a licensing fee to Eon or whoever to use official 007 marketing. Those sort of licenses are SUPER expensive, hence the pricing on their Marvel movie jackets.
Trouble is, if their anything like Belstaff with their movie tie-in stuff, the mega price tag doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the product
Personally I will probably wait for JV to bring out a similar beige coloured suede jacket in their house style and get that instead if I want a light coloured summer jacket B-)
This blatant product placement sells to many people on this forum!
besides, it's fun to see Bond in new clothing every film
Yes and no. I would agree that products from the movie are a draw, certainly they are for me. But having had a long history of replica movie prop (not clothes) collecting, I have found on many occasions licensed products are rarely of the same enjoyable quality as 'found parts' or fan made items, which also tend to be more accurate for a number of reasons.
I mean, do T&A really do 'blatant' product placement? More the fact that they are a high quality shirt maker, which is the kind of history and kudos movies such as Bond want to tie into and then T&A enjoy the benefit of the association and the real world sales that it attracts.
And amen to that, otherwise my wardrobe would not have been updated since the 1990's!!
AWFUL LOOK. Is this the scene where he goes undercover as a porter standing outside a hotel opening doors?
Still waiting for my lifetime 80% off discount card....
The Bond Vivant - Twitter
The Bond Vivant - Facebook
The Bond Vivant - YouTube
Don't understand the need for his tie to stick out further than his chin. It's like advertising to adversaries, 'Grab here to strangle me.'
T&A didn't have their name featured within the film, and the Bond films paid for the clothes. On the other hand, Brioni's name in DAD was terrible.
The tie should certainly stick out a little, which is helped by the tie pin and the waistcoat. What likely happened in that photo is that in moving about, his tie pulled up from under his waistcoat. There's no way for it to slide back down. in the trailer the tie doesn't stick out that much with that outfit. The blackness of the outfit, however, is appropriate in the context of the film. However, I don't know if the flashiness of the Tom Ford/Tommy Nutter design fits with Bond in the story. And I don't want to know the answer to that from those who have read the script! I don't agree that Bond looks like a porter, dressed in a suit that's supposed to look like it's from a flashy Savile Row designer.
A comical outfit, but thankfully Bond isn't dressed anything like that.
Let's remember the BR peacoat was a) part of a chauffeur disguise; and b) worn in Shanghai in the summer. I own that unlined coat; how warm would it be for snowy Switzerland?
You feel the same about Aston Martin presumably. They pay a fee to have their cars in the films
I know that they had to buy the DB5 for GF. thought that Eon just got provided with the others in the following years without paying for them?!
Did you manage to find out what the jacket was?