Page 45 of 233
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:28 pm
by romothesavior
blowhard wrote:
What do you think about these but in a burgundy (lighter) for a dark navy suit? The sales guy at Macys said they sell a lot of these in burgundy for that reason. I think I'm going to buy these in black but I need to go over $100 so I can get 25% off tomorrow.
That is the exact same pair Bronte posted two pages ago. We all said they look pretty good. Burgundy is fine, but it may be too light for an interview. I'd stick with black or the darker cordovan shade.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:30 pm
by 03121202698008
romothesavior wrote:blowhard wrote:
What do you think about these but in a burgundy (lighter) for a dark navy suit? The sales guy at Macys said they sell a lot of these in burgundy for that reason. I think I'm going to buy these in black but I need to go over $100 so I can get 25% off tomorrow.
That is the exact same pair Bronte posted two pages ago. We all said they look pretty good. Burgundy is fine, but it may be too light for an interview. I'd stick with black or the darker cordovan shade.
Yeah, I know. I was asking about the burgundy though... I'd probably wear the black shows for interviews but someone mentioned wearing cordovan for everyday wear earlier...
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:04 am
by 03121202698008
Before I go back to the store...burgundy shoes (lighter reddish color) with a dark navy suit? Yes or no?
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:09 am
by romothesavior
blowhard wrote:Before I go back to the store...burgundy shoes (lighter reddish color) with a dark navy suit? Yes or no?
I'd say yes, but too light for an interview. I have a pair of shoes exactly like the ones in the picture in a light reddish burgundy color and wear them with navy often.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:12 am
by Duralex
The most conservative answer is no--the shade of burgundy/cordovan/oxblood needs to be as dark or darker than the suit. I tend to think there's a little leeway here, but if you want to play it safe get 'em darker.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:20 am
by romothesavior
Duralex wrote:The most conservative answer is no--the shade of burgundy/cordovan/oxblood needs to be as dark or darker than the suit. I tend to think there's a little leeway here, but if you want to play it safe get 'em darker.
Nothing wrong with it for wearing around the office.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:21 am
by romothesavior
Also, does anyone here have an opinion on button-down collars on dress shirts?
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:31 am
by Duralex
Agree that they're fine for the office--I had the impression he wanted dual-purpose. I like the way burgundy looks--and it wears well. Develops 'character' where black just starts to look shabby.
Button down debate can be like a holy war. I tend to think it depends on the shape of your face/neck. If it's flattering for you it might be worth it to look for suits that go well with them. I can't say exactly what that means, but I know it when I see it. Some jackets look right with them, some really don't.
That probably isn't too helpful.
Flusser doesn't have much to say about it except that they can look "casually stylish" but are "too often favored by exactly the kind of men who should avoid them--the double-chinned set. Softer-chinned men need slightly higher and firmer collars to compensate for the lack of a strong line under their face."
(Style and the Man, p.26)
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:33 am
by 03121202698008
Duralex wrote:Agree that they're fine for the office--I had the impression he wanted dual-purpose. I like the way burgundy looks--and it wears well. Develops 'character' where black just starts to look shabby.
Button down debate can be like a holy war. I tend to think it depends on the shape of your face/neck. If it's flattering for you it might be worth it to look for suits that go well with them. I can't say exactly what that means, but I know it when I see it. Some jackets look right with them, some really don't.
That probably isn't too helpful.
I'm getting the same shoes in black/burgundy. I'd wear black for the interviews. I have to break $100 to get 25% off and that is the best deal I can find on a decent leather-soled shoe.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:34 am
by Waterman47
romothesavior wrote:Also, does anyone here have an opinion on button-down collars on dress shirts?
I laughed.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:37 am
by Duralex
Yeah...I wasn't sure.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:38 am
by Thomas Jefferson
Waterman47 wrote:romothesavior wrote:Also, does anyone here have an opinion on button-down collars on dress shirts?
I laughed.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:44 am
by BunkMoreland
for what it's worth, I was feeling adventurous and popped in my pocket square for my cleary interview recently. If dude noticed he didn't say anything at all, and I got a callback. Don't fret too much over this stuff guys.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 5:05 am
by Mr. Fancy
BunkMoreland wrote:for what it's worth, I was feeling adventurous and popped in my pocket square for my cleary interview recently. If dude noticed he didn't say anything at all, and I got a callback. Don't fret too much over this stuff guys.
same. i actually recieved multiple complements on mine and got more call backs than not - so it couldnt have hurt too much
. you def can dress in a way that interviewers notice while still being conservative.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 11:50 am
by HenryKillinger
I think David Beckham's suit needs some attention here.
--ImageRemoved--
I commend him for the three piece, but everything else is facepalm.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:24 pm
by Clint Eastwood
HenryKillinger wrote:I think David Beckham's suit needs some attention here.
--ImageRemoved--
I commend him for the three piece, but everything else is facepalm.
Yikes.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:57 pm
by zettsscores40
HenryKillinger wrote:I think David Beckham's suit needs some attention here.
--ImageRemoved--
I commend him for the three piece, but everything else is facepalm.
Meh it's Hollywood and he's rich and famous. He can get away with it.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 1:59 pm
by HenryKillinger
zettsscores40 wrote:HenryKillinger wrote:I think David Beckham's suit needs some attention here.
--ImageRemoved--
I commend him for the three piece, but everything else is facepalm.
Meh it's Hollywood and he's rich and famous. He can get away with it.
But why does he
want to get away with
that?
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:18 pm
by Renzo
HenryKillinger wrote:zettsscores40 wrote:HenryKillinger wrote:I think David Beckham's suit needs some attention here.
--ImageRemoved--
I commend him for the three piece, but everything else is facepalm.
Meh it's Hollywood and he's rich and famous. He can get away with it.
But why does he
want to get away with
that?
It looks like something a 1940's gang boss would have made for himself while in prison.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:19 pm
by zettsscores40
HenryKillinger wrote:zettsscores40 wrote:HenryKillinger wrote:I think David Beckham's suit needs some attention here.
--ImageRemoved--
I commend him for the three piece, but everything else is facepalm.
Meh it's Hollywood and he's rich and famous. He can get away with it.
But why does he
want to get away with
that?
Cause he can.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:19 pm
by HenryKillinger
I'm having a hard time figuring his lapel out. Is that a double notch on the right (his left) lapel?
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:21 pm
by Renzo
HenryKillinger wrote:I'm having a hard time figuring his lapel out. Is that a double notch on the right (his left) lapel?
I think it's just an ugly suit-induced optical illusion
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:32 pm
by HenryKillinger
Renzo wrote:HenryKillinger wrote:I'm having a hard time figuring his lapel out. Is that a double notch on the right (his left) lapel?
I think it's just an ugly suit-induced optical illusion
It is indeed. I ctrl+zoomed in like crazy and its actually an exaggerated peak lapel. The button hole on his left lapel just looks like a shadow created by a notch. Damn these low resolution photos.
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:11 pm
by zettsscores40
How do you guys feel about tie bars on a regular basis?
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 5:32 pm
by seespotrun
zettsscores40 wrote:How do you guys feel about tie bars on a regular basis?
The same way I feel about pencil protectors.