I liked some of his designs for Brooks, but in general he seems to have no sense of, uh, proportion.  The short trou are Arse.

I fail to see how a lack of interest in $5000+ shrunken formal wear indicates a lack of interest in the brand as a whole.  Behind all the quibbling about proportion and price, the real question has always been:  Can Thom Browne's clothing outlive the hype and controversy.  Fashionistas are notoriously fickle folk, especially in NYC, and it will be interesting to see what Browne does when the inevitable happens and he ceases to be an NYC fashion darling and becomes just another New York designer.

I thought Browne initial marketing and presentation was nothing short of genius, in those pre-surfer/lifeguard fetish, pre goth-carnival days, when he had local NYC bands playing in his store wearing his clothes.  Yes, it was gimmicky, but it made me (and other young guys like me) rethink the possibilities of tailored clothing.  It was an odd combination of hipster irreverance and ultra high-end "man-couture" chic that was both seductive and impossible for the vast majority of us scruffy, suit clad hipsters.  I had never been to a tailor before I started seeking 7.5 inch bottoms and 2 inch cuffs on my trousers.  Before Browne I knew nothing about the 3/2 roll, about natural shoulders, about the so-called 'rules' for breaks in trousers, for jacket length, for lapel width.  I wasn't aware there were rules until I saw them broken.  Before Thom Browne I thought I would be buried in my Levis.

I’m having a hard time figuring out how ridiculously short trousers are better than absurdly long trousers; maybe it’s a safety thing, no risk of tripping over the hems.

As for Browne’s reference to the clothes of the 60s:  I wore those clothes, I sold those clothes, those clothes were friends of mine; Tom Browne’s clothes, sir, are not those clothes.  The other night TCM was remembering Sidney Pollack and showed his first movie directorial effort, The Slender Thread, from 1965 with Sidney Poitier.  Poitier’s one “costume” in the movie is a fine example of what Browne parodies (or perverts, if you prefer).  Trim, natural shoulder sport coat, but long enough to cover the seat and no pulling at the shoulders, upper arms, or chest; and close fitting, narrow legged, flat front trousers with extension waist band and no belt loops, but hemmed just above the shoe tops not mid-calf.  The look is sleek and streamlined with no superfluous fabric or details, and it appears graceful not spasdic.

I've looked at some of Browne's RTW, and the fabric and workmanship is quite good, in my view a squandering of good fabric and workmanship.  But if it gives young men an understanding and appreciation of those aspects of men's wear such that they look for it in clothes that fit, Browne will have made a fine contribution to the sartorial world.

It's just a matter of time before posts start appearing on the fora announcing deeply discounted Thom Browne suits at Kohl's, TJ Maxx and Daffy's.  One size fits all.

I do believe suits were a kind of uniform back then albeit a generally stylish uniform. Miuccia Prada once said that she would like to dress the world as chic robots--or something to that effect--and I imagine Browne shares that interest as well.

You know, I don't care too much for those oversized cuffs on those suits. I think a cuffless pant would look nice.