OCI/callbacks/etc Men's Clothing Mega-thread

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:01 pm

Goddammit. Are the CT slim fit shirts comparable to BB? Or how are they cut? Euro slim?

User avatar
GeePee
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:35 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GeePee » Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:42 pm

kalvano wrote:Goddammit. Are the CT slim fit shirts comparable to BB? Or how are they cut? Euro slim?

From the looks of the measurements; not quite. The tailored fit is close to euro slim but they only make 8 shirts in that size that you probably won't want. I'll see how they wear but the slims seem to be slightly more forgiving than that.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Renzo » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:30 pm

HenryKillinger wrote:
Pufer wrote:As to Banana Republic, regardless of how great the fabric may be, you shouldn't buy a dress shirt sized simply "XL." Banana Republic's sleeve lengths are too long at every size (the average sized guy, regardless of girth, has a sleeve length somewhere around 33 or 34; an XL shirt from Banana has 35.5 inch sleeves, quite possibly 2-2.5 inches too long for the average American (and the average American does wear size XL) who would buy one - if he wore size small, however, the average height guy would have perfect sleeves). Banana has some nice stuff (although I think their ties have fallen off these last couple seasons), but I'm not sure that it's really the place to go for professional garb.

My theory on Banana Republic is that their clothing isn't necessarily made for the "average american" but for the average Banana Republic customer who is generally slimmer and/or taller than the average American. At least this seems to be the focus of all their marketing material. So while the average American who wears an XL is a certain height and might have 33-34 inch sleeves, the average Banana Republic Customer wearing an XL will be taller and have longer arms. I'm realizing that this has no real bearing on the discussion other than to say that if you're tall or athletically built, Banana Republic might have a better fit for you OTR, however it is an interesting thing to think about.


Agreed. I love BR shirts. But I wear a 36 in sleeve, so an XL fits me pretty well.

User avatar
Hodgy
Posts: 1981
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:38 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Hodgy » Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:04 pm

Jumping in late to just say that my BB non-irons are much better than my JAB non-irons. I only buy them when they are having those Christmas sales that are 3 for $150 or whatever. They do not come out of the dryer wrinkle-free but after hanging them up overnight they are wrinkle-free. They also hold up well when I travel. As for Pufer's point about the quality of the fabric, I think they are great but I have noticed that I own three different "feels". I don't have a problem with any of them but I do prefer two that are lighter and thinner.

As for wallets, my dad got me a JAB front pocket wallet for Christmas and it is the shit. I can't stand carrying a wallet in my back pocket anymore. Before that I had a PGA Tour bi-fold that I used until it fell apart, but sadly they don't make it anymore.

http://www.josbank.com/menswear/shop/Pr ... 050_101667

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:29 pm

Anyone have a CT suit? How are they? Classic fit or slim fit?

jkay
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby jkay » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:18 pm

Pufer's post = tl;dr.

Short version: non-iron shirts are TTT. I thought this was the clear majority rule.

Learn to iron, it takes like 3 minutes to do a shirt.

jkay
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby jkay » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:22 pm

oops, double.

User avatar
Hodgy
Posts: 1981
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:38 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Hodgy » Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:30 pm

jkay wrote:Pufer's post = tl;dr.

Short version: non-iron shirts are TTT. I thought this was the clear majority rule.

Learn to iron, it takes like 3 minutes to do a shirt.


Hell no, I like the non-iron dress shirts not because I hate to iron but because anytime you iron a dress shirt you are going to get a few press wrinkles. Actually, yes, I kind of dislike ironing at 6:30 in the morning if it means I can get an extra 15 minutes of sleep and not iron.

I'll take non-irons until I get regular cash money to spend on pick-up dry-cleaning.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Renzo » Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:53 pm

Hodgy wrote:
jkay wrote:Pufer's post = tl;dr.

Short version: non-iron shirts are TTT. I thought this was the clear majority rule.

Learn to iron, it takes like 3 minutes to do a shirt.


Hell no, I like the non-iron dress shirts not because I hate to iron but because anytime you iron a dress shirt you are going to get a few press wrinkles. Actually, yes, I kind of dislike ironing at 6:30 in the morning if it means I can get an extra 15 minutes of sleep and not iron.

I'll take non-irons until I get regular cash money to spend on pick-up dry-cleaning.


Hell, I haven't washed or pressed my own shirt in 10 years, and I still by non-iron almost exclusively.

And, by the way, having a shirt washed and pressed should cost you about $1.10. How poor are you that you can't afford $6 a week not to have to iron.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby romothesavior » Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:39 pm

(this is primarily directed at Pufer, but others can chime in)

I own a charcoal suit that fits me really well for the most part (jacket is excellent all around, and the pants are good in the waist). However, I've had the suit a few years, and I think I've grown about a half inch since I did. I also knew next to nothing about fashion when I bought it, so I was wearing it around my hips rather than properly around my waist. Anyways, I've always felt the pants were a little short (half break, maybe close to none at all), and I want to take the cuffs out to add a bit more length. The suit isn't flashy or expensive, but I really like the color and the fit, and I don't want to buy a new suit. I already own 3 and I'm in the poorhouse right now.

I know the general rule is flat front = no cuffs and pleats = cuffs, but it seems like the only hard and fast rule is the latter. Is it okay to do cuffless with a single pleat pant?

User avatar
Pufer
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:32 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:05 am

romothesavior wrote:(this is primarily directed at Pufer, but others can chime in)

I own a charcoal suit that fits me really well for the most part (jacket is excellent all around, and the pants are good in the waist). However, I've had the suit a few years, and I think I've grown about a half inch since I did. I also knew next to nothing about fashion when I bought it, so I was wearing it around my hips rather than properly around my waist. Anyways, I've always felt the pants were a little short (half break, maybe close to none at all), and I want to take the cuffs out to add a bit more length. The suit isn't flashy or expensive, but I really like the color and the fit, and I don't want to buy a new suit. I already own 3 and I'm in the poorhouse right now.

I know the general rule is flat front = no cuffs and pleats = cuffs, but it seems like the only hard and fast rule is the latter. Is it okay to do cuffless with a single pleat pant?


Absolutely. So long as it's not an interview suit, it's fine to eschew cuffs on a pair of pleated pants given the prevailing preference for finished-bottom pants today. This style preference might not last, but this isn't exactly the most noticeable faux pas anyway (I mean, you have to compare two parts of your outfit to notice it, one of which is usually covered by your jacket).

Indeed, I've done this exact thing on a suit I got used off eBay with pleated pants ($495 list price Lauren in perfect condition for like $40 including shipping; I couldn't resist, even with the too-short pants). I wouldn't wear that suit to an interview, but it's fine for the office. One thing I'll mention is that I had a hell of a time getting the creases where the cuffs used to be to completely disappear on the pants after lengthening, so you might want to plan on a professional pressing after the tailor finishes up.

-Pufer

RPK34
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby RPK34 » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:22 am

Speaking of which, is there a "best" pant style? I generally prefer the full break and think it tends to look better on tall people. But it also doesn't seem to conservative.

User avatar
PKSebben
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby PKSebben » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:59 am

Absolutely. So long as it's not an interview suit, it's fine to eschew cuffs on a pair of pleated pants given the prevailing preference for finished-bottom pants today. This style preference might not last, but this isn't exactly the most noticeable faux pas anyway (I mean, you have to compare two parts of your outfit to notice it, one of which is usually covered by your jacket).


Absolutely -- no cuff pants are certainly the prevailing fashion right now even at my stuffy little firm. Pufer should really make a mega guide to suits for different levels of associates. There are suits appropriate for juniors, mids/seniors and partners. For example, a couple of BB / Jos Bank suits are just fine for your first year or so, but getting tailored shirts at the very least makes a huge fucking difference.

I'd also like to see Pufer make a suit / shirt / tie combo with pictures post. It's very weird in NYC because what I see around outside is not what I see in my firm -- I'd like to know how far I can push the limit.

Pufer, do you have thoughts on shirt cuffs? I'm a two-button round guy, and french for court.

User avatar
PKSebben
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby PKSebben » Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:01 am

RPK34 wrote:Speaking of which, is there a "best" pant style? I generally prefer the full break and think it tends to look better on tall people. But it also doesn't seem to conservative.


in law firms, mostly no break, but slimmer taller dudes I see in full break more often. Looks good on them, especially if you have sweet socks / shoes.

User avatar
PKSebben
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby PKSebben » Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:03 am

Renzo wrote:
Hodgy wrote:
jkay wrote:Pufer's post = tl;dr.

Short version: non-iron shirts are TTT. I thought this was the clear majority rule.

Learn to iron, it takes like 3 minutes to do a shirt.


Hell no, I like the non-iron dress shirts not because I hate to iron but because anytime you iron a dress shirt you are going to get a few press wrinkles. Actually, yes, I kind of dislike ironing at 6:30 in the morning if it means I can get an extra 15 minutes of sleep and not iron.

I'll take non-irons until I get regular cash money to spend on pick-up dry-cleaning.


Hell, I haven't washed or pressed my own shirt in 10 years, and I still by non-iron almost exclusively.

And, by the way, having a shirt washed and pressed should cost you about $1.10. How poor are you that you can't afford $6 a week not to have to iron.


seriously. Also, invest in a high quality steam press, too. Shit is amazing.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby romothesavior » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:21 pm

Thanks Pufer, I think that's what I'll do.

User avatar
Ernert
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:35 am

Re: Lets talk OCI suits (particularly shirts)

Postby Ernert » Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:53 pm

I'm still an 0L, but I'm thinking ahead in terms of suiting up... I was always told that if you are relatively tall, then 3-button suits are better than 2-button (keeping the top two buttoned when standing). Does that hold for OCI? I'm 6'5".

User avatar
leobowski
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby leobowski » Sun Jun 26, 2011 11:03 pm

Wearing your suit pants a little lower than your true waist is OK (but still much higher than jeans). If you have really long legs and a short torso, wearing your pants at your waist can look funny.

User avatar
Pufer
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:32 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:18 am

RPK34 wrote:Speaking of which, is there a "best" pant style? I generally prefer the full break and think it tends to look better on tall people. But it also doesn't seem to conservative.


There's a prevalent idea out there that full break is the modern trend. I tend to disagree. It is certainly true that it has come back in the last decade, but I ascribe its falling out of style to the reaction against the 80's pants trends (really big, lots of pleats, huge cuffs, length to the floor). It was a perfectly acceptable conservative cut before the 80s, and remains so now.

In my opinion, anywhere between a medium break (pant leg ends halfway between the top of your heel and the sole) and a full break (pant leg ends where your heel meets the sole) is totally safe. The average person will notice if you're wearing pants that are too short (even if they're not actually too short - think of how jeans are worn today and you'll have what length folks are expecting your pants to be), whereas they probably won't notice any difference between the medium and the full break.

I personally like to go about a quarter inch off the sole, just short of the complete full break. I also recommend a full break in my interview suit megapost because there's nothing that will draw the eyes more to your legs than a hint of hairy skin peeking through between your pant leg and your socks when you sit down - the full break insures against that while still being conservative enough for really any situation.

PKSebben wrote:Pufer should really make a mega guide to suits for different levels of associates. There are suits appropriate for juniors, mids/seniors and partners. For example, a couple of BB / Jos Bank suits are just fine for your first year or so, but getting tailored shirts at the very least makes a huge fucking difference.


I'd love to have a post like that, but, for the info to be universal, it would probably have everyone dressing ultra-conservatively like GodSpeed every day (absent the pink and green socks). There is such wide variation between firm cultures that there really isn't any particular way to speak to any sort of standard.

I mean, I know of a smallish specialty firm in Denver where all the junior attorneys are required to wear 90's power ties with abstract patterns (think Rush Limbaugh ties) because one of the partners insists that it's the way to go. I mean, my advice would be to not even have any 90's power ties in your closet (lest they sully the reputation of your more respectable ties), but that wouldn't cover that firm at all.

Most situations wouldn't be quite as stark as that, but there's still enough variation out there that I would probably only be issuing some pretty conservative advice for 90% of the firms out there.

PKSebben wrote:I'd also like to see Pufer make a suit / shirt / tie combo with pictures post. It's very weird in NYC because what I see around outside is not what I see in my firm -- I'd like to know how far I can push the limit.


That I could probably do. Like a photo array of ties that would be appropriate for different situations. I'll get on that as time permits.

PKSebben wrote:Pufer, do you have thoughts on shirt cuffs? I'm a two-button round guy, and french for court.


As a general rule, either one or two button is perfectly acceptable in all situations. French cuffs are more formal, but they're more formal in a paisley tie sort of way, in that they're not particularly businessy.

I personally generally avoid both two-button and french cuffs. I don't have anything against either, but I find that the ideal placement for the two buttons is invariably right in between where the two buttons are, and if I'm having the buttons moved to a perfect position anyway, I have a hard time justifying the existence of the second button (i.e., I've never understood the appeal in a style sense).

I actually kinda' like the idea of french cuffs (I like the idea of having silk knot cufflinks in every color of the rainbow to match my 1000+ ties), but I'm of the opinion that you should really have your suit sleeves cut shorter to wear with french cuffs (having them completely hidden just looks like your shirt doesn't quite fit right, as does having too-long shirt sleeves). Even though I recently purchased my 10th suit, I'm still of the opinion I don't have quite enough to justify having some of them cut differently than the others. That said, I would never wear french cuffs to an interview, and would probably think hard about wearing them to court unless there was some advantage to my client being seen as the kind of wealthy dude who can afford a lawyer with a flashy shirt.

-Pufer

User avatar
PKSebben
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby PKSebben » Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:40 am

Pufer wrote:
RPK34 wrote:Speaking of which, is there a "best" pant style? I generally prefer the full break and think it tends to look better on tall people. But it also doesn't seem to conservative.


There's a prevalent idea out there that full break is the modern trend. I tend to disagree. It is certainly true that it has come back in the last decade, but I ascribe its falling out of style to the reaction against the 80's pants trends (really big, lots of pleats, huge cuffs, length to the floor). It was a perfectly acceptable conservative cut before the 80s, and remains so now.

In my opinion, anywhere between a medium break (pant leg ends halfway between the top of your heel and the sole) and a full break (pant leg ends where your heel meets the sole) is totally safe. The average person will notice if you're wearing pants that are too short (even if they're not actually too short - think of how jeans are worn today and you'll have what length folks are expecting your pants to be), whereas they probably won't notice any difference between the medium and the full break.

I personally like to go about a quarter inch off the sole, just short of the complete full break. I also recommend a full break in my interview suit megapost because there's nothing that will draw the eyes more to your legs than a hint of hairy skin peeking through between your pant leg and your socks when you sit down - the full break insures against that while still being conservative enough for really any situation.

PKSebben wrote:Pufer should really make a mega guide to suits for different levels of associates. There are suits appropriate for juniors, mids/seniors and partners. For example, a couple of BB / Jos Bank suits are just fine for your first year or so, but getting tailored shirts at the very least makes a huge fucking difference.


I'd love to have a post like that, but, for the info to be universal, it would probably have everyone dressing ultra-conservatively like GodSpeed every day (absent the pink and green socks). There is such wide variation between firm cultures that there really isn't any particular way to speak to any sort of standard.

I mean, I know of a smallish specialty firm in Denver where all the junior attorneys are required to wear 90's power ties with abstract patterns (think Rush Limbaugh ties) because one of the partners insists that it's the way to go. I mean, my advice would be to not even have any 90's power ties in your closet (lest they sully the reputation of your more respectable ties), but that wouldn't cover that firm at all.

Most situations wouldn't be quite as stark as that, but there's still enough variation out there that I would probably only be issuing some pretty conservative advice for 90% of the firms out there.

PKSebben wrote:I'd also like to see Pufer make a suit / shirt / tie combo with pictures post. It's very weird in NYC because what I see around outside is not what I see in my firm -- I'd like to know how far I can push the limit.


That I could probably do. Like a photo array of ties that would be appropriate for different situations. I'll get on that as time permits.

PKSebben wrote:Pufer, do you have thoughts on shirt cuffs? I'm a two-button round guy, and french for court.


As a general rule, either one or two button is perfectly acceptable in all situations. French cuffs are more formal, but they're more formal in a paisley tie sort of way, in that they're not particularly businessy.

I personally generally avoid both two-button and french cuffs. I don't have anything against either, but I find that the ideal placement for the two buttons is invariably right in between where the two buttons are, and if I'm having the buttons moved to a perfect position anyway, I have a hard time justifying the existence of the second button (i.e., I've never understood the appeal in a style sense).

I actually kinda' like the idea of french cuffs (I like the idea of having silk knot cufflinks in every color of the rainbow to match my 1000+ ties), but I'm of the opinion that you should really have your suit sleeves cut shorter to wear with french cuffs (having them completely hidden just looks like your shirt doesn't quite fit right, as does having too-long shirt sleeves). Even though I recently purchased my 10th suit, I'm still of the opinion I don't have quite enough to justify having some of them cut differently than the others. That said, I would never wear french cuffs to an interview, and would probably think hard about wearing them to court unless there was some advantage to my client being seen as the kind of wealthy dude who can afford a lawyer with a flashy shirt.

-Pufer


You don't live in NYC, do you?

User avatar
Pufer
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:32 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Mon Jun 27, 2011 1:16 am

PKSebben wrote:
Pufer wrote:
RPK34 wrote:Speaking of which, is there a "best" pant style? I generally prefer the full break and think it tends to look better on tall people. But it also doesn't seem to conservative.


There's a prevalent idea out there that full break is the modern trend. I tend to disagree. It is certainly true that it has come back in the last decade, but I ascribe its falling out of style to the reaction against the 80's pants trends (really big, lots of pleats, huge cuffs, length to the floor). It was a perfectly acceptable conservative cut before the 80s, and remains so now.

In my opinion, anywhere between a medium break (pant leg ends halfway between the top of your heel and the sole) and a full break (pant leg ends where your heel meets the sole) is totally safe. The average person will notice if you're wearing pants that are too short (even if they're not actually too short - think of how jeans are worn today and you'll have what length folks are expecting your pants to be), whereas they probably won't notice any difference between the medium and the full break.

I personally like to go about a quarter inch off the sole, just short of the complete full break. I also recommend a full break in my interview suit megapost because there's nothing that will draw the eyes more to your legs than a hint of hairy skin peeking through between your pant leg and your socks when you sit down - the full break insures against that while still being conservative enough for really any situation.

PKSebben wrote:Pufer should really make a mega guide to suits for different levels of associates. There are suits appropriate for juniors, mids/seniors and partners. For example, a couple of BB / Jos Bank suits are just fine for your first year or so, but getting tailored shirts at the very least makes a huge fucking difference.


I'd love to have a post like that, but, for the info to be universal, it would probably have everyone dressing ultra-conservatively like GodSpeed every day (absent the pink and green socks). There is such wide variation between firm cultures that there really isn't any particular way to speak to any sort of standard.

I mean, I know of a smallish specialty firm in Denver where all the junior attorneys are required to wear 90's power ties with abstract patterns (think Rush Limbaugh ties) because one of the partners insists that it's the way to go. I mean, my advice would be to not even have any 90's power ties in your closet (lest they sully the reputation of your more respectable ties), but that wouldn't cover that firm at all.

Most situations wouldn't be quite as stark as that, but there's still enough variation out there that I would probably only be issuing some pretty conservative advice for 90% of the firms out there.

PKSebben wrote:I'd also like to see Pufer make a suit / shirt / tie combo with pictures post. It's very weird in NYC because what I see around outside is not what I see in my firm -- I'd like to know how far I can push the limit.


That I could probably do. Like a photo array of ties that would be appropriate for different situations. I'll get on that as time permits.

PKSebben wrote:Pufer, do you have thoughts on shirt cuffs? I'm a two-button round guy, and french for court.


As a general rule, either one or two button is perfectly acceptable in all situations. French cuffs are more formal, but they're more formal in a paisley tie sort of way, in that they're not particularly businessy.

I personally generally avoid both two-button and french cuffs. I don't have anything against either, but I find that the ideal placement for the two buttons is invariably right in between where the two buttons are, and if I'm having the buttons moved to a perfect position anyway, I have a hard time justifying the existence of the second button (i.e., I've never understood the appeal in a style sense).

I actually kinda' like the idea of french cuffs (I like the idea of having silk knot cufflinks in every color of the rainbow to match my 1000+ ties), but I'm of the opinion that you should really have your suit sleeves cut shorter to wear with french cuffs (having them completely hidden just looks like your shirt doesn't quite fit right, as does having too-long shirt sleeves). Even though I recently purchased my 10th suit, I'm still of the opinion I don't have quite enough to justify having some of them cut differently than the others. That said, I would never wear french cuffs to an interview, and would probably think hard about wearing them to court unless there was some advantage to my client being seen as the kind of wealthy dude who can afford a lawyer with a flashy shirt.

-Pufer


You don't live in NYC, do you?


Suburban Denver at present. Soon to be Phoenix.

-Pufer

User avatar
sambeber
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:05 pm

Re: Lets talk OCI suits (particularly shirts)

Postby sambeber » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:42 am

Can anyone comment on a wool vs. superfine wool suit?

BTW, JAB and BB are running some decent July 4th sales right now.

Aston2412
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:23 am

Re: Lets talk OCI suits (particularly shirts)

Postby Aston2412 » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:43 am

JAB is always running a sale. It's been buy 1 get 2, 2 shirts and 2 ties for as long as I can remember now.

grash
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:35 pm

Re: Lets talk OCI suits (particularly shirts)

Postby grash » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:15 am

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. The nearest BB to Charlottesville is 62 miles.

alumniguy
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Lets talk OCI suits (particularly shirts)

Postby alumniguy » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:52 am

Two button suits are back in style. I don't think a three button suit (especially for a tall guy) are ever out of style. Yes, top two buttons are fine (or middle only), but never button all three.

I don't think law students should be worrying about suits. I'd worry more about doing well on exams. All one really needs for OCI is a navy colored suit, some white and light blue shirts and a few matching ties. You could wear the same exact outfit for every interview and 99.5% of the people interviewing you will not know what you wore to the initial interview. There is no need to pay full price on this stuff ever. There are sales (some say right now at BB) and, at least for shirts and ties, you can always go to discount stores like Nordstrom's Rack or Saks Off Fifth. If you go to a Marshall's/TJMaxx, I would stick to the higher end shirts/ties because those stores carry a lot of crap.

I think this was discussed before (but I didn't read the thread). Get clothing that fits you properly - brand doesn't matter. You don't want to look like a child playing dress-up. Have nice, non-squared shoes (stay away from fake, shiny leather). I think a good shoe is much more valuable than spending additional money on several suits.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.