Page 43 of 232

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:19 pm
by Bronte
So, there's been discussion about wearing a red power tie to interviews. Do we mean this literally? In other words, is any conservative tie appropriate, or is a red tie with white dots literally the only viable option?

For example, is this tie acceptable?: http://www.thetiebar.com/order_page.asp ... sTiesOnly=

Or are we all to where this tie?: http://www.thetiebar.com/order_page.asp ... sTiesOnly=

Maybe some photos of ties that people in the know find acceptable. For second round interviews, one would have to where a different tie, no?

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:28 pm
by BunkMoreland
Bronte,

I have had success in interviews wearing the blue with dots tie as well.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:34 pm
by seespotrun
Bosque wrote:I picked up a pair of these at the begining of the summer on sale. I love them:

--ImageRemoved--


Do want. Love Florsheims. Nice purchase, Bosque.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:57 pm
by TCScrutinizer
BunkMoreland wrote:
TCScrutinizer wrote:
romothesavior wrote:Finding a reasonably-priced leather soled shoe is proving difficult.



Just go to JC Penney and buy a pair of Rockports. They are by far the most comfortable dress shoes I've worn in any price range.



eww.....


Whatever. I could run a marathon in them, if I could run a marathon at all. They make them extra wide for my fat trailer trash feet.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:30 pm
by James Bond
Waterman47 wrote: wear them ironically.


GTFO, hipster

Go back to your wolf t-shirts

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:39 pm
by Bosque
seespotrun wrote:
Bosque wrote:I picked up a pair of these at the begining of the summer on sale. I love them:

--ImageRemoved--


Do want. Love Florsheims. Nice purchase, Bosque.


Only critique I have of the shoe: the "shock absorber" in the heel wears down quick. I have only been wearing them for about three months (although I have been doing it every day, and I have had to walk on some rather gravely sidewalks for 15 or so blocks twice a day at minimum), and I already need to get them patched up.

But other than that, best shoe I have ever had. If you get a pair, you might want to go a 1/2 size lower than you usually do.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:35 am
by Bronte
Regarding the leather vs. rubber sole discussion, I bought a pair of Bostonian Akron cap-toes today at Macy's, as we were discussing above. I believe they do in fact have leather soles.

The Bostonian's sole looks like this:
Image

And I checked out a pair of Allen Edmonds Park Avenues at Nordstrom, which look like this (except new):
Image

Both seem, to the layman's eye at least, to have a leather sole with a rubber layer on the heal. Either way, it seems like the Bostonian Akron cap-toe is a pretty good deal for a starving law student, especially now that the Park Avenues are back up to $325.

Got them for $75:
Image

Feel free to object as I can still return them.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:04 am
by TCScrutinizer
Somewhere Veblen is laughing his ass off.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:15 am
by Waterman47
Bronte wrote:Regarding the leather vs. rubber sole discussion, I bought a pair of Bostonian Akron cap-toes today at Macy's, as we were discussing above. I believe they do in fact have leather soles.

The Bostonian's sole looks like this:
Image

And I checked out a pair of Allen Edmonds Park Avenues at Nordstrom, which look like this (except new):
Image

Both seem, to the layman's eye at least, to have a leather sole with a rubber layer on the heal. Either way, it seems like the Bostonian Akron cap-toe is a pretty good deal for a starving law student, especially now that the Park Avenues are back up to $325.

Got them for $75:
Image

Feel free to object as I can still return them.


No objections. Great find.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:19 am
by romothesavior
Bronte, I had the same pair of shoes in my hand last night at Macy's and almost bought them. I probably will go back and get them sometime. Good find, IMO.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:35 am
by Bronte
Waterman, others, thanks for your help. Romo if you do go back and get them, make sure to ask for the $74.99 online price. They were listed in-store at $89.99.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:47 am
by seespotrun
Bronte wrote:Waterman, others, thanks for your help. Romo if you do go back and get them, make sure to ask for the $74.99 online price. They were listed in-store at $89.99.


Yea, I've bought that exact same pair 3 times over (in cordovan and black). The price always fluctuates between $75-90. If you get a free shipping deal, it makes sense to do it online; but if not, the shipping cost makes the difference negligible.

Anyway, they are a great pair of shoes for the money. Until I'm gainfully employed, making it rain and such, I'm not gonna drop $300+ on a pair of shoes.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:52 am
by 03121202698008
What color shoes with a Navy suit? Dark Brown? Can I wear black shoes with a navy suit? A quick google suggests that is the norm...

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:54 am
by seespotrun
blowhard wrote:What color shoes with a Navy suit? Dark Brown?

IB everyone tells you black.

Black is acceptable, but cordovan is TCR.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:55 am
by Duralex
Dark brown or black. If brown, they shouldn't be noticeably lighter than your suit's shade of navy. (And belt must match shoes, of course.)

Cordovan or oxblood is probably flashier than most people here are looking for, especially in the inexpensive range where you don't really want to attract close attention to your shoes.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:56 am
by romothesavior
Duralex wrote:Dark brown or black. If brown, they shouldn't be noticeably lighter than your suit's shade of navy. (And belt must match shoes, of course.)


IMO, this is why I usually go with black. Black is black. Finding a belt to match the shade of dark brown isn't difficult, but it looks stupid when its messed up.

But yeah, cordovan belt/shoe combo is very win.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:56 am
by zettsscores40
Black for an interview, dark brown with everything else. Both look good IMO. As long as they're dark as your suit you should be good to go. Brown looks better IMO.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 11:58 am
by 03121202698008
seespotrun wrote:
blowhard wrote:What color shoes with a Navy suit? Dark Brown?

IB everyone tells you black.

Black is acceptable, but cordovan is TCR.


Why is cordovan TCR? According to the results on google, cordovan is acceptable but black is more formal.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:00 pm
by 03121202698008
Also, any suggestion on picking a good tailor for suits? I need to get my pants hemmed and maybe my jacket adjusted a little.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:01 pm
by seespotrun
betasteve wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:Black for an interview, dark brown with everything else. Both look good IMO. As long as they're dark as your suit you should be good to go. Brown looks better IMO.

This is TCR.

I really can't wrap my head around this anti-cordovan trolling that ensues in all of these threads on TLS.

Why black for an interview? Cordovan is every bit as professional-looking as black.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:04 pm
by Duralex
I think it's a matter of taste at that point--cordovan can look very refined where black just looks standard-issue. Black shoes are "more formal" in theory and I'll defer to others on this but I don't think even interviewing reaches quite that height of formality/reserve: it's not a black tie dinner or a funeral. However, inexpensive cordovan shoes can be hard to find, you need a matching belt, and if you're only going to buy one pair they're going to be black.

On the tailor: I can't give tips on how to pre-select, except word of mouth (which is how the people I know found the ones they use--maybe Yelp?) but I can emphasize that you should go through a trial period. Get a pair of trousers finished. Then get a decent but not super expensive sport coat or similar altered. Then try the tailor on a suit. (You may not have time for this kind of courtship, but I'm afraid of getting suits I'm planning on holding onto for a while altered by someone unproven.)

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:07 pm
by zettsscores40
blowhard wrote:Also, any suggestion on picking a good tailor for suits? I need to get my pants hemmed and maybe my jacket adjusted a little.


Go to Ojen's on State Street. My aunt and uncle own a boutique and offer to tailor everything for free for me but I'd rather pay money for Ojen to do it. She's amazing. She's pricey but you won't be disappointed.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:10 pm
by zettsscores40
seespotrun wrote:
betasteve wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:Black for an interview, dark brown with everything else. Both look good IMO. As long as they're dark as your suit you should be good to go. Brown looks better IMO.

This is TCR.

I really can't wrap my head around this anti-cordovan trolling that ensues in all of these threads on TLS.

Why black for an interview? Cordovan is every bit as professional-looking as black.


Because black is more formal. Err on the side of caution during interviews IMO and once your foot is in the door rock dark brown all you want IMO. It's just a safer pick. It can't help you. People out there still believe brown+navy is like committing murder. Why risk it? Just throw on black for the day.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:13 pm
by seespotrun
zettsscores40 wrote:
seespotrun wrote:
betasteve wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:Black for an interview, dark brown with everything else. Both look good IMO. As long as they're dark as your suit you should be good to go. Brown looks better IMO.

This is TCR.

I really can't wrap my head around this anti-cordovan trolling that ensues in all of these threads on TLS.

Why black for an interview? Cordovan is every bit as professional-looking as black.


Because black is more formal. Err on the side of caution during interviews IMO and once your foot is in the door rock dark brown all you want IMO. It's just a safer pick. It can't help you. People out there still believe brown+navy is like committing murder. Why risk it? Just throw on black for the day.

Brown + navy is committing murder? Traditionally, blue+black was frowned upon. At least that's what I had been told.

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:13 pm
by romothesavior
seespotrun wrote:Brown + navy is committing murder? Traditionally, blue+black was frowned upon. At least that's what I had been told.

+1. Nothing wrong with navy and dark brown.