Windsor's collar

[alden]

You may not like asparagus or pipe smoking but you have to like Windsor's collar and we get a good shot of it in this picture.



The very refined shirt collar is moderately open, with 2 cms of tie space to accommodate a knot that is neither large nor thick. The silk of the tie is supple, almost a foulard, and this look is very elegant indeed.

If you model your shirt's collars after this balanced image you cannot go wrong.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[pvpatty]

Does anyone know whether or not the Duke wore stiff collars? My guess is that he didn't, at least more often than not.

[storeynicholas]

Does anyone know whether or not the Duke wore stiff collars? My guess is that he didn't, at least more often than not.

I think that he veered away from stiff collars, except when formality required it. This is the best collar shape (sometimes I like it a little more cut away - and I´ll take the pipe and the asparagus too please.
NJS

[carl browne]

Very helpful, thank you Mr. Alden.

I note that the collar of the shirt stands well above the collar of the coat, that it is of moderate spread, framing the Duke's face, and that the collar points are not completely hidden under the jacket, but stop a little short. Things to keep in mind.

[carl browne]

And another thing:

Now I know why the duke had his trousers cut so full.

The Duke's position in the photo allows us to see the outline of his upper leg beneath his trousers. It's a twig--almost freakishly thin. This was clearly not a man who spent many hours in the gym.

Photo excepted, the full trousers would hide this flaw beautifully, giving him the illusion of substance. I imagine these trousers may have made him appear slightly shorter, but the thin legs are the greater issue. I know he also wore turn-ups (not pictured). Generally a mistake for a shorter man, but I think in his case they would add bulk.

Now that I think of it, everything about his ensemble (the cut of the coat, trousers, choice of cloth, patterns, the buttonhole, etc.) seems calculated to add bulk to his tiny frame.

This makes sense. As a man who could have inherited an empire upon which the sun never set, he could not afford ever to appear skinny or frail.

[storeynicholas]

And another thing:

Now I know why the duke had his trousers cut so full.

The Duke's position in the photo allows us to see the outline of his upper leg beneath his trousers. It's a twig--almost freakishly thin. This was clearly not a man who spent many hours in the gym.

Photo excepted, the full trousers would hide this flaw beautifully, giving him the illusion of substance. I imagine these trousers may have made him appear slightly shorter, but the thin legs are the greater issue. I know he also wore turn-ups (not pictured). Generally a mistake for a shorter man, but I think in his case they would add bulk.

Now that I think of it, everything about his ensemble (the cut of the coat, trousers, choice of cloth, patterns, the buttonhole, etc.) seems calculated to add bulk to his tiny frame.

This makes sense. As a man who could have inherited an empire upon which the sun never set, he could not afford ever to appear skinny or frail.

He reigned, as King and Emperor, for nearly one year. A friend of mine has calculated, according to the nautical almanack, that, by virtue of the British Overseas Territories (even bearing in mind the expiry of the lease on Hong Kong), there is still, in a sense, a British Empire on which the sun sets never yet. As for the Duke and his 'tiny frame' - he was not especially tall or broad - but neither was he exactly Tom Thumb! He held his weight in check; formerly , to enable hm to compete (with considerable success), in point-to-point races and, latterly, possibly, according to his wife's dictum that one can never be too thin or too rich. As the possessor of one of the most important private jewellery collections in modern history - she ought to have known!
NJS

[storeynicholas]

And another thing:

Now I know why the duke had his trousers cut so full.

The Duke's position in the photo allows us to see the outline of his upper leg beneath his trousers. It's a twig--almost freakishly thin. This was clearly not a man who spent many hours in the gym.

Photo excepted, the full trousers would hide this flaw beautifully, giving him the illusion of substance. I imagine these trousers may have made him appear slightly shorter, but the thin legs are the greater issue. I know he also wore turn-ups (not pictured). Generally a mistake for a shorter man, but I think in his case they would add bulk.

Now that I think of it, everything about his ensemble (the cut of the coat, trousers, choice of cloth, patterns, the buttonhole, etc.) seems calculated to add bulk to his tiny frame.

This makes sense. As a man who could have inherited an empire upon which the sun never set, he could not afford ever to appear skinny or frail.

He reigned, as King and Emperor, for nearly one year. A friend of mine has calculated, according to the nautical almanack, that, by virtue of the British Overseas Territories (even bearing in mind the expiry of the lease on Hong Kong), there is still, in a sense, a British Empire on which the sun sets never yet. As for the Duke and his 'tiny frame' - he was not especially tall or broad - but neither was he exactly Tom Thumb! He held his weight in check; formerly , to enable hm to compete (with considerable success), in point-to-point races and, latterly, possibly, according to his wife's dictum that one can never be too thin nor too rich. As the possessor of one of the most important private jewellery collections in modern history - she ought to have known! And do not forget that, so far as his personal appearance was concerned, he had every advice: from that of body servants to the heads of all the great houses, to help him.
NJS