Bond, the original

[briefman14867]

Not really a movie siting, but a photo from a movie set.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3822853.ece

[The Bondsman]

Nice shot! At first glance I thought they were Jockeys, .....but is that a vertical seam down the front of the pouch?
Any ideas what the brand could be if that be the case?
I actually had briefs marketed as "James Bond", ....but sadly wore them out. They were what would be called a low-cut bikini style with open mesh back and sides and a solid fly-less shaped pouch. Very comfortable too, and quite stylish, but what they had to do with James Bond I have no idea. Never saw him wearing similar in any of the movies.
I'm still wearing Bond's, ....just plain Bonds, to this day.....

[briefman14867]

I don't know what brand. Good question. Maybe some Brit could tell us--what were they selling in the UK in the 60s that look like that?

I like the picture. I was irritated by the article going on and on about how bad he looked in them. Stuart MacDonald is a dufus who should never join these boards.

[The Bondsman]

I was irritated by the article going on and on about how bad he looked in them.
Personally I think he looks great in them! Underwear certainly does not have to be skimpy to be "sexy", .....in fact too skimpy can often look a little too effeminate on men at times, ......I cannot imagine this same pic in a g-string being taken seriously. (Think Borat). Besides, he's right in the times.
Many will not agree here, but I do like to see men in traditional briefs that are more than a thin tourniquet around the hips, with all the goodies scrunched up into a tiny pouch like meat under cling-wrap at the butchers .
The pic above is a very "masculine" look, ....and I for one would not make him put his trousers back ON! He can stroll around my place like that anytime!

[Dad'sYfrontsLad]

a big hairy bloke in Y-Fronts - perfect! Cheers for posting that, Briefman :cool: