Web Search

Join The Community

Leo Gregory in Sunspel T-shirts: still cool after all these years

They are underwear that's become classic outerwear, in darks and lights. Get ones that sit at the hip and are made well

A few weeks back I was lucky enough to get a ride in a legendary motor. The Mercedes-Benz 300 SL “gull-wing” sports car of 1954 was the fastest production car of its day, and the first petrol-powered motor to feature fuel injection directly into the combustion chamber. This machine is quite simply a thing of beauty. With its smooth, streamlined curves, and extraordinary futuristic upwards-opening gull wing doors, it can’t be bettered.

It got me thinking: what other products could simply be rolled out half a century later and still hold their own? Funnily enough, I realised that I was wearing one.

At first glance, the humble T-shirt might not seem to have much in common with a piece of spectacular German engineering but, as with the 300 SL, it’s hard to improve on. It’s name, just like the “gull-wing”, comes from its shape — a simple T across the shoulders and down through the body. And its use as a casual outerwear garment dates from roughly the same time as Mercedes’ famous coupé.

T-shirts, though, have a long history as underwear garments — dating back to the 19th century when they were worn by stevedores and miners and apparently the US Navy, which had them as military issue around the time of the Spanish-American War.

The garment became a piece of outerwear only after the Second World War, when US veterans took to wearing them on civvy street. Prior to that you may have seen one on a labourer or ranch-hand, but not in everyday use. By 1951, though, when Marlon Brando wore one in A Streetcar Named Desire, the T-shirt was establishing itself as an alternative to a shirt for the youth of the day. Two years later, Brando immortalised the T-shirt, jeans and leather jacket combo when he donned them as ultra-rebel Johnny in The Wild One — and a new teenage uniform was born.

The Mutton is more of a T-shirt and suit man than a hairy biker and chooses his Ts accordingly. Thus my current favourites are short-sleeve crew necks by Sunspel, a small outfit in Long Eaton, Derbyshire, which I have mentioned in this column before as a hidden gem (even though it has collaborated with designers such as Paul Smith, Margaret Howell, Thom Browne, Richard James and Kris Van Assche).

Sunspel, founded in 1860, makes Ts in luxurious 100 per cent twofold Egyptian cotton: two very light cotton threads are twisted together and linked. The garments are strong, lightweight, smooth, breathable and of great quality so they don’t lose their shape.

They also feel as if they are tailored in a sleek way, which is pretty flattering (especially in the “darks” — black, charcoal and navy — which are always a good idea, as colours go, for those of us spreading gently into middle age). They are medium length, so they sit at the hip, have a bound neck, a double stitched hem and are machine washable at 40C. What more could a man want?

Sunspel now has a store at 10-12 Davies Street, Mayfair, London W1; sunspel.com

6 reasons not to give gifts this Christmas

Giving costly Christmas presents to all your friends and family is a pernicious practice and I'd like to ban it

The festive season is approaching and swaths of shoppers are getting ready to hit the nation’s high streets and e-tailers, gathering nick-nacks for loved ones, friends and colleagues. Not me, though. I’m more interested in banning Christmas presents.

My argument is not a religious one: it’s about the money moral dilemma that Christmas (or Hannukah, or Eid) raises. And my target is not the parcels from parents or grandparents that sit under the spruces. It is the ever-widening circle of present-buying that people feel a need to fulfil. And here’s why.

1) We have disconnected from why we give gifts.

The expectation of presents is not culturally exclusive to the West — anthropologists call it “ceremonial gift exchange”. The most common occasions for gift-giving are marriage or coming-of-age — in effect, this is a form of prudent banking. When someone is young and starting out in married life, others give cash or gifts as a start-up fund — a net inflow of goods.As people age and become more stable financially, they give gifts to newlyweds, so paying the system back.

Yet Christmas gift-giving outside the immediate family doesn’t work that way. Rather than focusing cash where it is needed, we simply swap presents, so there is no net movement of funds or goods.

2) It creates an unfair obligation on others.

At this point, fervent gift-givers will be spluttering over their wrapping paper. Their counter-argument, of course, is the pure joy of giving; many people thrive on this and it can be hugely pleasurable. But it is important to think about the recipients of the goodies. Generosity could actually be hurting them, not helping.

By giving a gift to someone, or their children, you oblige them to do the same, whether they can afford it or not.

3) It mis-prioritises our finances.

Christmas present-giving is often a “zero-sum” game in which people exchange gifts of similar value. For example: Sharon gives a £20 necklace to Violet; Violet gives £20 earrings to Sharon. The net result is that Sharon has spent £20 to get earrings; Violet has spent £20 to get a necklace. The problem arises if Sharon is loaded and Violet is skint. Without the gift-giving obligation, would Violet have chosen to spend her hard-earned £20 on a necklace? Perhaps she would have bought food for her children, paid some bills or put the money towards replacing worn-out shoes.Violet’s financial priorities have been skewed by gift-swapping.

4) We give gifts that aren’t used.

Whether it’s naff socks from Aunty Joan or novelty mechanical breasts from your workmates, unused gifts are sent to fulfil seasonal obligations — and that’s bad for both our finances and the environment.

So why give gifts? Perhaps because we are too embarrassed to suggest that we don’t. To help people to broach the subject, I have built a “no unnecessary present pact” tool at www.moneysavingexpert.com/prenupp which generates an “I won’t buy a gift if you won’t” e-mail or suggests a spending limit. Using an automated tool is deliberate — the recipient feels that this is part of a widespread philosophy and not just you being tight.

5) Kids are not born retail snobs.

Are we not teaching children to assign too much value to material acquisition, and bolstering the ad campaigns that say it is all about getting the latest toys?

Children are not born with the retail snobbery gene. When I was filming for GMTV recently, we asked two small children to help by pretending to be overjoyed about getting gifts. They knew that the boxes were empty but were still desperate to open them once the camera stopped. They spent ages playing trains in the cardboard boxes. So if children don’t judge gifts by the price paid, why do we judge our generosity to them by it?

6) “Inflationary giving” is a bad message for children.

Sadly, school-age children quickly become competitive, comparing who received what. By buying big gifts you create pressure on other parents who may be unable to afford to compete.

This has created an explosion of giftinflation. I recently overheard a 16-year-old in a coffee shop trying to persuade her aunt to intercede with her parents so that she could have a birthday limo trip around London, then out to dinner and a nightclub with her friends. Asked why, she named other girls who had done this and said she would look “stupid” if she didn’t manage to do the same.

My aim is not to stop festive fun but to challenge the blithe, habitual nature of gift-giving. Spending time making things that others appreciate, or just being more considerate, is more in keeping with the real spirit of the winter festivals. Perhaps the real gift is to release someone from the obligation of buying you a present.

Martin Lewis