“With the early films, it is not just about the clothes, it’s the attention to detail within the ensembles – the emphasis on perfect fit, the accessorising, the variety,” observes ardent James Bond devotee and aesthete Shary Rahman. “Bond films of today focus a lot more on people and less on what they are wearing.”

Then came the Dalton years where Bond fell victim to the late-80s and early-90s habit of oversizing everything. This worked really well for louche American characters like Julian Kay in American Gigolo, but it was improper for 007. The Brosnan era thrived with the Brioni-ification of Bond, where that briefly-worn navy blazer in GoldenEye and the gasp-inducing tuxedo for Craig in Casino Royale really stood out. 

There is no legitimate argument to be fully against fashion houses. If they manage to do it correctly, they can meet the needs of the scale and wear-and-tear of the film’s production to which some tailors may struggle. Yet too many British houses have been overlooked, which seems ludicrous considering the abundant depth chart. 

Dunhill’s recent revival should put them in serious consideration. Simon Holloway, the brand’s new creative director, unveiled a classical masterclass at the National Portrait Gallery last London Fashion Week, and restored Dunhill’s dashing heritage. They also have an excellent bespoke department too at their Mayfair flagship, Bourdon House.