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.
texaslawyer
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby texaslawyer » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:59 pm

I see a tailor advertised in The Wall Street Journal called Mohans Tailors, they aren't cheap, but their clothing is some sort of sharp. They also travel around the country and take orders that way. Believe it or not I've gotten Bill Blass and Ralph Lauren suits in thrift stores that had never been worn. Imagine buying $700 suit for under $20. Such a deal poopsie ! Also, I've gotten Ferrgamo shoes in a thrift store as well. That's the reason God created Gentiles, someone had to buy retail !

User avatar
Lily
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:01 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Lily » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:00 pm

texaslawyer wrote:I see a tailor advertised in The Wall Street Journal called Mohans Tailors, they aren't cheap, but their clothing is some sort of sharp. They also travel around the country and take orders that way. Believe it or not I've gotten Bill Blass and Ralph Lauren suits in thrift stores that had never been worn. Imagine buying $700 suit for under $20. Such a deal poopsie ! Also, I've gotten Ferrgamo shoes in a thrift store as well. That's the reason God created Gentiles, someone had to buy retail !


awesome. (:

texaslawyer
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby texaslawyer » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:12 pm

One doesn't have to spend a fortune to look sharp. I do strongly believe in dressing for the occasion. I will say in smaller towns down here (Florida) women could get away with fairly nice dresses and men could get away with a blazer, tie and nice slacks. However in the major cities suits are the order of the day. You won't be taken seriously if you aren't dressed appropriately. Especially in Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando or Lauderdale or West Palm. If you're in Tallahassee you better dress to the 9s because it's the capital. Many people don't think that it matters in Florida, but I'm here to say it does.

User avatar
Lily
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:01 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Lily » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:20 pm

texaslawyer wrote:One doesn't have to spend a fortune to look sharp. I do strongly believe in dressing for the occasion. I will say in smaller towns down here (Florida) women could get away with fairly nice dresses and men could get away with a blazer, tie and nice slacks. However in the major cities suits are the order of the day. You won't be taken seriously if you aren't dressed appropriately. Especially in Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando or Lauderdale or West Palm. If you're in Tallahassee you better dress to the 9s because it's the capital. Many people don't think that it matters in Florida, but I'm here to say it does.


Are you attending law school in Florida?

AndyB617
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:38 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby AndyB617 » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:27 pm

you should definitely go with the seersucker suit. it exudes class.

User avatar
Lily
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:01 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Lily » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:33 pm

AndyB617 wrote:you should definitely go with the seersucker suit. it exudes class.


The Florida House has "Seersucker Suit Day" every year during session. No lie.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2009/04/fun-on-the-house-floor.html

Even the Governor wore one:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/Imaging/PhotoAlbums/HousePhotoOriginal2894.jpg

AndyB617
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:38 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby AndyB617 » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:39 pm

that is phenomenal.

User avatar
excelsiorcaelo
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:53 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby excelsiorcaelo » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:47 pm

::shudder::

texaslawyer
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby texaslawyer » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:32 pm

Yeah ! How about with white belts and white shoes !!!!!!!! NOT AT A DOGFIGHT OR A TRASH BURN!!!!!!!! :evil:

bigben
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby bigben » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:19 pm

jrs12 wrote:Don't listen to anyone who thinks that GQ is anything more than entertainment media. "Fashion" is about what designers and writers tell you to wear, but they're not the ones giving you a job. Be a GQ-reading metrosexual all you want on the weekend. It doesn't mean that you have better style.

A common misconception about the metro-movement is that men started caring about style. The truth is that men have always cared about style, but in a different way. Style for men used to be a grassroots phenomenon. They decided what they liked and what was acceptable. This was a problem for the industry, because it meant that style changed at a glacial pace, and men generally needed new clothes only when their old ones wore out. This has all changed now. The industry has finally managed to model the young male consumer on young women.

If you want to pay attention to "what's hot," knock yourself out. Just remember that an older generation of men will see your attire as affected and effete. Clothes are language, and while a dark brown suit may send a sophisticated message (that you are eurocentric, obsessed with aesthetics--an iconoclast), it's not the correct message for interviewing at a law firm. Black suits may have become more prevalent in a lot of workplaces, but there's nothing more conservative than a big law firm, so go with the safe choice. If you're asking yourself if you can "get away" with something, then your mentality is incorrect. Don't try to get away with anything. Try to fit in.

The guys in sack suits who will be your bosses--they don't much care for contemporary fashion--but you're fooling yourself if you think they don't know clothes.



excellent post

texaslawyer
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby texaslawyer » Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:15 pm

bigben wrote:
jrs12 wrote:Don't listen to anyone who thinks that GQ is anything more than entertainment media. "Fashion" is about what designers and writers tell you to wear, but they're not the ones giving you a job. Be a GQ-reading metrosexual all you want on the weekend. It doesn't mean that you have better style.

A common misconception about the metro-movement is that men started caring about style. The truth is that men have always cared about style, but in a different way. Style for men used to be a grassroots phenomenon. They decided what they liked and what was acceptable. This was a problem for the industry, because it meant that style changed at a glacial pace, and men generally needed new clothes only when their old ones wore out. This has all changed now. The industry has finally managed to model the young male consumer on young women.

If you want to pay attention to "what's hot," knock yourself out. Just remember that an older generation of men will see your attire as affected and effete. Clothes are language, and while a dark brown suit may send a sophisticated message (that you are eurocentric, obsessed with aesthetics--an iconoclast), it's not the correct message for interviewing at a law firm. Black suits may have become more prevalent in a lot of workplaces, but there's nothing more conservative than a big law firm, so go with the safe choice. If you're asking yourself if you can "get away" with something, then your mentality is incorrect. Don't try to get away with anything. Try to fit in.

The guys in sack suits who will be your bosses--they don't much care for contemporary fashion--but you're fooling yourself if you think they don't know clothes.



excellent post

You're 100% correct. If you want to be a big time lawyer, look like one! Great post.

User avatar
jpin22
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:02 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby jpin22 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:27 pm

any advice on where to get dress shirts for under the suit? Looking for a really nice white shirt and light blue shirt that doesnt have button down collars.

User avatar
excelsiorcaelo
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:53 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby excelsiorcaelo » Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:40 pm

jpin22 wrote:any advice on where to get dress shirts for under the suit? Looking for a really nice white shirt and light blue shirt that doesnt have button down collars.

--ImageRemoved--

"By appointment to HRH the Prince of Wales: shirtmakers"

Bask in the pretension!

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:35 pm

If you only have two shirts, you might have to wear them back-to-back, so I'd probably go wrinkle-free so you can iron them easily by yourself at home.

I like the Jos. A. Bank Traveler shirts, and most reviewers tend to agree with me.

-Pufer

User avatar
gobucks101
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby gobucks101 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:23 pm

So all I own is one black suit and I feel like bingeing on a really good suit that I will also be able to use for interviews later on. Thoughts? http://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCatProd ... color=Navy
Image

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:39 pm

Nice suit, but rather risky for an interview with the pinstripes and the fashion-forward cut. For an interview in the conservative legal profession, the only thing that you want the interviewer to notice about your suit is that you can wear one properly. This means solid color, traditional cut.

-Pufer

User avatar
gobucks101
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:43 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby gobucks101 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:43 pm

Yea I was hesitant about that. I was looking at this one as well which is more conservative
Image
--LinkRemoved--

texaslawyer
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby texaslawyer » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:15 am

Gobucks101 you can't go wrong with Brooks Brothers.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby reasonable_man » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:28 am

This little number screams Biglaw... Go big or go home..

--ImageRemoved--

texaslawyer
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby texaslawyer » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:35 am

Reasonable_man you're probably right, but at my age (57) Big Law doesn't want me, absent special circumstances. However, who knows ?

User avatar
wendyone
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:32 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby wendyone » Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:15 am

You can go wrong with Brooks Brothers if you shop online. They're not very expedient.

But oh, the comfort!

texaslawyer
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby texaslawyer » Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:47 am

Wendyone I have a Brooks Brothers suit that I bought on EBAY for $45. Off the rack it would be about $700. It's one of my favorites. My favorite suit is a navy blue Givenchy herring bone which retails for $1000. I got it on EBAY for about $70. Clothes make the person.

User avatar
holdencaulfield
Posts: 478
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby holdencaulfield » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:04 am

I just bought an awesome suit. When I put it on, it looked and fit amazing. It's a basic, dark navy suit (nothing basic about how good awesome it is), and I want to wear my favorite black dress shoes with the suit. What do you guys think of these with a dark navy suit?

--ImageRemoved--

texaslawyer
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby texaslawyer » Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:22 am

Looks hot to me ! This will translate into confidence in your interviews.

User avatar
Dingo McPhee
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:29 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Dingo McPhee » Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:03 am

holdencaulfield wrote:I just bought an awesome suit. When I put it on, it looked and fit amazing. It's a basic, dark navy suit (nothing basic about how good awesome it is), and I want to wear my favorite black dress shoes with the suit. What do you guys think of these with a dark navy suit?

(picture of sweet black loafers)

Traditional thinking is that the formality of a suit requires lace-up shoes, preferably cap-toe oxfords:
Image

Loafers are more casual shoes - you wear them when you're "loafing" around.

But of course 1) you may not own or be able to get lace-ups or 2) you don't care about "the rules" or 3) you just like the look, in which case you should do whatever you like.

(Random aside: it's also been said that one should never wear a button-down collar with a suit or tie for the same reason. Button-downs are more casual/sporty - they were created so polo players' collars wouldn't hit them in the face during a match.)




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.