Last edited by Leer R. (2014-11-17 14:33:46)

Or it's a woman's shirt (wouldn't surprise me).

You are invited, too. But no Schnitzens for you...

Nah, not late 50s. This was debated before in another thread... Mine is from 1958-60 I suppose...

Look into my blog, it is the title pic. It  also says 'all cotton'...

No breast pocket, and customized (at least there was a tag on it by BB that it has been customized) with a back collar button...

Why not? Zach told me it is 1957-1961. The price (don't find the tag at the moment) and the lack of a breast pocket indicate late 50s or early 60s, too. I suppose there were more tags on the market than the ones on your shirts?

This would indicate it is between 1949 and the 60s:

http://putthison.com/post/49779346900/dating-brooks-brothers-shirts-i-was-cleaning-up-my

Late 60s

http://vintagefashionguild.org/label-resource/brooks-brothers/

Last edited by Leer R. (2014-11-17 14:22:57)

When I was measuring mine, I was pulling it taught.

It for sure is a bit weird. Discussing collar length... Not that I didn't fall into it, too. But it truly reflects... Some kind of disorder (in all of us). OCD, right?

I am going to introduce another factor which will undoubtedly spur more debate and, possibly, incite invectives directed at me.

I went through this exercise a while back for another forum member. I recall that my oldest BB shirt (circa 1950's) had a smaller collar length than ones from the 70's, 80's, 90's, and current versions. The longest collar length (70's and 80's versions) measures  3 and 7/16". The 1950's shirt measures only 3".

And yet it has that nice, full roll we so desire.

Between the iterations, I found that there was a slight difference in the placement of the buttons for the collar, perhaps all of 1/16" or 3/32" in various directions.

My conclusion is that the placement of the buttons can account for the roll in spite of the differing collar lengths, of which we have assumed the longer lengths are solely responsible for the the shape of the roll.