When on holiday, a long-sleeved polo shirt
or regular Oxford button-down is usually the most stylish accompaniment to
shorts – see post here. However, there are times when a sportier, short-sleeved
polo is more suitable. On the beach, for example, or when playing sports such
as the tennis that so widely popularised it.
Buying a polo shirt, though, can be rather
frustrating. Most brands, when they decide to produce one, throw out any ideas
of quality and cut that they apply elsewhere. Ralph Lauren, despite my recent emotional post, produces some pretty poor polos. They are square in the body,
made no better than a £10 from Primark, and retain the anachronistic long tail
that was useful on horseback but is highly unflattering when most men wear them
untucked.
Among the big brands, Lacoste produces
probably the best, owing partly to the fact that it uses its own facilities and
has its own patented knitting processes – something I discovered during a
recent interview with Philippe Lacoste, grandson of René.
But the best polo shirt I have ever worn is
made by Orlebar Brown. The British company is fanatical about its materials (as
witnessed by its latest version of the best-selling Bulldog swimming trunk) and
the polo is no exception. The piqué cotton it uses is lightweight, making it
particularly breathable and easy to wear.
As to construction, the collar is made in
two pieces of the same piqué, like a shirt collar, rather than the ribbed,
folded strip on most high-street items. The placket is also made in two pieces,
unlike the single piece normally run through a machine on cheaper items. And
the gussets are reinforced with self-fabric triangle.
The cut is slim, but not restrictively
slow. This is not a fashion item. A medium on me is nicely shaped through the
waist, rather than being cut for an American with a particular penchant for
hamburgers. The collar is also a couple of millimetres higher than a normal
polo, no more. But the difference is marked and distinctly more
flattering.
Perhaps the most unusual design aspect of
the Orlebar polo is its curved front and rear hems. Having never asked, I don’t
whether this was intended to bridge the tucked in/tucked out wear options, but
it certainly does that. The curve makes the front and back long enough to effectively
tuck it in, while the short sides prevent it bunching when tucked out. Perfect.
The only thing I don’t like about the
Orlebar polo is the little triangle cut out of the sleeve hem, and the
rubberised button affixed just above it. There’s nothing wrong with them, but
they are functionless design details and the piece would be marginally better,
for me, without them.
Having said that, a big plus of the Orlebar
model is that it lacks any external branding. It is meant to be a classic item
– a polo improved, rather than updated.












Lovely and about time this product is made. I too dislike the current polo ranges for the same reasons, although the brand on the seam is still an external label in my books (albeit subtle) and thus still annoying. The extra detail on the sleeves in my opinion are probably a throw back from the old school american shirts of the 60's although loses its appeal on a polo. Love the collars!
ReplyDeleteAnother good post Simon, although I'm inclined to disagree a little on the relative quality of the Ralph Lauren Polos. I have several of the custom fit models from the polo range, which are accordingly a tad more fitted than the tent-like classic line. Compared to a few other Polo's that I have bought over the years, the RL's hold up better to repeated washing, maintain shape style and solidity. They look as fresh as when they were new.
ReplyDeleteIt's also the little details that RL put in, such as the nicely fitted arms and the collars that are specific to each size, rather than used across the range, keeps the shirts looking proportionately correct.
Where I do, however, agree with you, is on the matter of the extra long tails on the RL's which really mean tucked in is the only option with them. Its an odd design choice that doesnt plague the larger classic line. I have often been tempted to get a tailor to remove this feature and re-hem them the same as the front.
I will look out the brand above though, and will also check out the Lacoste shirts and see how their fit works on me.
Enjoy your new shirt!
David
Can you provide details about purchasing the Olebar polo shirt at wholesale for resale?
ReplyDeleteLike the look of this shirt, however the Riviera Polo by Sunspel takes some beating. They've been making clothes since 1860 and if it's good enough for James Bond (Daniel Craig)then it'll do for me.
ReplyDeleteRB
Agree completely, Simon . . . Orlebar Brown polos are great quality with superb fit. And the absence of any logos (in this day and age of the "label starved" consumer class) seals the deal for me. Three cheers for Adam Brown . . .
ReplyDeleteI find your post and knowledge very good, but your comments regarding Americans & hamburgers very offensive and lack taste and bad manners. Americans do not have a monopoly on girth. Just look around you in the UK, substituting hamburgers for pints! I know you to be better than that.
ReplyDeleteRB, I like Sunspel as well, but I wouldn't take what people have paid Daniel Craig to wear as much recommendation.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you'd have to contact Adam Brown at OB yourself for that.
Simon
Hi Simon,
ReplyDeleteCan you please elaborate on the quality of the Ralph Lauren and Lacoste shirts a little, are there any specific differences you could highlight?
Many of my current polo shirts state I should dry them flat, how do most people do this? I don't have enough surface area to do this for a regular load!
Thanks for the great blog.
Could the notch in the sleeve be a mechanism that allows the hem to slide down over a bicep more easily? I often find that the "solid" band can feel restricted when one is carrying heavy items, but a notched version slides upwards with much less restriction.
ReplyDeleteThe effect may well by psychological, but it bares consideration.
Maybe they're preparing the masses for glove suspenders? ;)
DeleteAll joking aside, Simon, thanks for this article. These shirts look fantastic. Nothing annoys me more than the average quality of the polo most people have grown to accept. Personally I don't mind the detail on the sleeve, it makes the piece unique and clearly states this isn't just another Wal-Mart polo. Although, the quality of the material and stitching makes that pretty obvious on its own, so I can see your point about it not being necessary either.
And I can't tell you how much I agree about your sentiment about logos on dress clothing. That's why I would never buy a Columbia shirt, although I've seen a few with nice patterns that would otherwise be great to wear casually. That ugly black logo patch on the pocket is disgusting.
Not that I've noticed Nick, but I know what you mean.
ReplyDeleteSimon,
ReplyDeleteHave you tried the polos from Abercrombie & Fitch? I know the brand as such (and the stores in particular) are horrendous, but for me they are hands down the best polos I've tried (better than RL, Lacoste, Gant etc).
They are very fitted (called "Muscle Fit") which works very well for the (fairly) slim, and surprisingly well made.
S
Simon,
ReplyDeleteI've been greatly enjoying your blog for a while but am unable to find a means of sending you a question by e-mail, hopefully you will see this post. During the Diamond Jubilee service at St Paul's, the Royals all chose to wear black waistcoats with their morning dress, rather than the less severe grey or buff; would you be able to shed any light on why they did so? Or was it merely coincidence? Many thanks.
I really like your site, keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteS, I'm afraid my information is that the A&F polos are not made that well, but I could certainly understand if the fit is slimmer.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, my contact details are available on my site - simoncrompton.co.uk
Thanks
I have a pair of Orlebar Brown swimming shorts and, frankly, I'm not impressed. The only reason for wearing swimming shorts, as opposed to regular shorts, is if you go swimming in them. Otherwise you're just wearing shorts with built-in underwear that need washing each time you use them.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, in my experience Orlebars are next to useless for swimming. Why? Because they have eschewed elasticated waistbands. Now I'll be the first to admit that elasticated waistbands are not generally the most stylish of styles. When dry, my Orlebars look great. But there is a reason that every other swimming short on the planet is elasticated. It stops the shorts falling off when wet (since it is an inevitable rule of non-neoprene clothing that cloth will expand in water).
Instead of elastic, Orlebars have side adjusters. This has two severe disadvantages. The first is that, if you need to pull in the adjusters when wearing the shorts on land, you may find (as I do) that you have insufficient adjustment left to take in the additional slack when in the water. The second is that, unless you remember to pull in the adjusters before diving in, you run a severe risk of your shorts ending up around your ankles.
On a separate point... I am rather confused by your recommendation of a "long sleeve polo shirt or regular button-down oxford" as an accompaniment to shorts. Surely you would accept that in general, short sleeves and long trousers are a better look than long sleeves and short trousers? Once the weather is hot enough to justify shorts, it is more than hot enough to justify short sleeves. Conversely if it's cool enough to keep your arms covered, there is no reason to expose your legs. Unless you want to look like a football player warming up by the side of the pitch.
Simon,
ReplyDeleteI am a regular reader of your blog - thanks for the great work. I have worn and tried a variety of polos over the years. Lacoste is clearly not what it used to be. My first ones were given to me by my father over ten years ago - those shirts survived a good four-five years of callous and cold hearted abuse. My more recent purchases didn't last beyond two washes. Same experience with Ralph Lauren. Surprisingly, Banana Republic makes a much more durable product. I'm still using their shirts that I bought a couple years ago. I wonder if the quality of the product that Lacoste and Ralph Lauren market in the US versus elsewhere is different.
Simon,
ReplyDeleteThanks. I am not sure what "well made" means really in connection with polos but my A&F polos have held up through intensive use at least as well as my Lacoste, RL and Gant polos. By this I mean that they have kept their shape (both in collar and body) and retained their colour through repeated washings at both 40 and 60c. Is there something else I also should look for with regard to "well made"?
Thanks
S
Go for Canali if you want to spend 100 quid on a polo. Subtle colours, range is changing all the time, and perfectly cut!
ReplyDeleteDo you mean that Lacoste is better than the RL polo collection? Because the RL purple collection is very high quality
ReplyDeleteAs with all other clothing, there is a huge difference between polo and purple label, yes
Delete