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 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:51 am

I loathe flat-front pants. The day I wear flat-front pants is the day I shoot myself in the head.

User avatar
rftdd888
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:08 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby rftdd888 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:24 am

pleats just look grandpa-ish.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:51 am

Flat-front pants are for guys 3 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than me.

User avatar
rftdd888
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:08 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby rftdd888 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:53 am

kalvano wrote:Flat-front pants are for guys 3 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than me.


oh. i thought we were speaking in generalities.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:55 am

rriles wrote:
kalvano wrote:Flat-front pants are for guys 3 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than me.


oh. i thought we were speaking in generalities.



Generally, flat-front pants make me want to kick the person in the shins and berate them for not dressing like a goddamned American instead of some pansy-ass European.

User avatar
rftdd888
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:08 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby rftdd888 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:06 am

kalvano wrote:
rriles wrote:
kalvano wrote:Flat-front pants are for guys 3 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than me.


oh. i thought we were speaking in generalities.



Generally, flat-front pants make me want to kick the person in the shins and berate them for not dressing like a goddamned American instead of some pansy-ass European.


95% of the american guys that i know who actually put some thought into their fashion choices (even guys who just read GQ) condemn pleated pants.

i bet if you had better perspective on this issue you'd understand where i'm coming from. You probably haven't seen flat front pants done right.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:09 am

rriles wrote:
kalvano wrote:
rriles wrote:
kalvano wrote:Flat-front pants are for guys 3 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than me.


oh. i thought we were speaking in generalities.



Generally, flat-front pants make me want to kick the person in the shins and berate them for not dressing like a goddamned American instead of some pansy-ass European.


95% of the american guys that i know who actually put some thought into their fashion choices (even guys who just read GQ) condemn pleated pants.

i bet if you had better perspective on this issue you'd understand where i'm coming from. You probably haven't seen flat front pants done right.



Communist.

User avatar
goawaybee
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby goawaybee » Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:21 am

yeah I have been anti-pleats any non-flat front pants since I was an early teen. The things just never made sense. Kind of like men wearing make up and wigs and what not. Just doesn't make sense. But I would wear a white linen suit everyday if weather/budget permitted.

Whatever works for you, as long as you wear it and are comfortable/feel good about it. Funny watching people that are unsure of their clothing, amplifies a bit more when they go out into public and can quickly become a little closet complex. Never so much about cost as it is confidence. Quality matters to some (the bee for one) but 8/10 couldn't tell the difference.

I do think it matters, more so in different regions/settings etc...not on some "i want a model girl thing" we all know that if that were your mission you got into the wrong game....skateboarding, slinging drugs, photography, musicians, artists...the less money you got the better. Talking top 10% of earning models, no reason to have a model girlfriend if she isn't earning her keep or paying for all your stuff right...so many other options.

Suits, yes styleforum is a fair sounding board for lack of other options. I think the mags/rags are trash but whatever. Opinions like assholes...all got one.

User avatar
rftdd888
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:08 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby rftdd888 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:24 am

if anything, i recommend this book

Dressing the Man, by Alan Flusser
http://www.amazon.com/Dressing-Man-Mast ... 817&sr=8-1

it's the bible for formal clothing. clear definitions of business, business casual, formal wear in it's entirety. explains different types of fabrics, when to wear them, what colors are traditionally acceptable for different settings/occasions.

also handles shirts, ties etc.

User avatar
Vegas_Rebel
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:18 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Vegas_Rebel » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:59 pm

How much of this advice is regional?

On one hand, law firms are law firms. On the other hand, typical attire in, say, NYC, is quite different than in Dallas or LA. I'd think walking in for an LA interview dressed like someone from the east coast would stand out more than wearing a suit a couple years out of date for the LA area.

Also, what's the deal with watches? I usually don't wear one (and haven't since I was six) but a couple hundred dollars on an anachronistic bauble seems outlandish to me, unless the goal is to get into a fashion pissing contest, in which case I understand, but no thanks. Someone mentioned that checking one's phone for time during an interview is a no-no, but wouldn't checking your watch during the interview be bad form as well? This person sitting across from you is considering paying you huge amounts of money - give them however long it takes.

I'm taking the advice here with a grain of salt, but I also realize I'm fashion/style-ignorant. I bought two suits from MW a couple years ago because they looked decent - I have no idea what the technical specs on them are. That said, having mentored with a partner at a local firm for several months, no one has said 'WTF is up with your suit, dude?' so either I got lucky, it really doesn't matter that much, or my mentor is just exceedingly polite.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Mon Jun 14, 2010 2:26 pm

Vegas_Rebel wrote:Also, what's the deal with watches? I usually don't wear one (and haven't since I was six) but a couple hundred dollars on an anachronistic bauble seems outlandish to me, unless the goal is to get into a fashion pissing contest, in which case I understand, but no thanks. Someone mentioned that checking one's phone for time during an interview is a no-no, but wouldn't checking your watch during the interview be bad form as well? This person sitting across from you is considering paying you huge amounts of money - give them however long it takes.



Watches are basically a fashion thing these days. Personally, I love my watch and feel weird without it.

Also, a nice watch is a subtle clue that you know how to dress well.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Renzo » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:38 pm

kalvano wrote:Also, a nice watch is a subtle clue that you know how to dress well have a small dick and lots of money.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:02 pm

Renzo wrote:
kalvano wrote:Also, a nice watch is a subtle clue that you know how to dress well have a small dick and lots of money.


Sure, go with that.

User avatar
bigchris1313
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:38 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby bigchris1313 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:33 am

Renzo wrote:
kalvano wrote:Also, a nice watch is a subtle clue that you know how to dress well have a small dick and lots of money have money to burn and--just maybe--a modicum of good taste.


Don't tell me TLS's many adherents worshiping at the cult of BigLaw aren't someday hoping to attain horological nirvana...

Image

Of course, the idea of a BigLaw practitioner having time to help his son with homework is ludicrous, but you get the idea.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:27 pm

Actually, buying a Patek makes Renzo correct. Though if you have $30K plus to spend on a watch, I don't really think you care what others think.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Renzo » Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:00 pm

kalvano wrote:Actually, buying a Patek makes Renzo correct. Though if you have $30K plus to spend on a watch, I don't really think you care what others think.

I'd put a lot more watches than just a Patek in that category. Being able to buy a gold Rolex with diamonds in the face does not say "I know how to dress" as much as it says "I spent 1/2 your annual income on a fucking watch."

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:03 pm

Renzo wrote:
kalvano wrote:Actually, buying a Patek makes Renzo correct. Though if you have $30K plus to spend on a watch, I don't really think you care what others think.

I'd put a lot more watches than just a Patek in that category. Being able to buy a gold Rolex with diamonds in the face does not say "I know how to dress" as much as it says "I spent 1/2 your annual income on a fucking watch."



Typically, someone who buys a watch like that doesn't care how much it costs because it's unimportant.

However, if that's your attitude, prepare to be irritated with a lot of people as you progress through your legal career.

I've already got my celebratory graduating law school watch picked out.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Renzo » Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:12 pm

kalvano wrote:
Renzo wrote:
kalvano wrote:Actually, buying a Patek makes Renzo correct. Though if you have $30K plus to spend on a watch, I don't really think you care what others think.

I'd put a lot more watches than just a Patek in that category. Being able to buy a gold Rolex with diamonds in the face does not say "I know how to dress" as much as it says "I spent 1/2 your annual income on a fucking watch."



Typically, someone who buys a watch like that doesn't care how much it costs because it's unimportant.

However, if that's your attitude, prepare to be irritated with a lot of people as you progress through your legal career.

I've already got my celebratory graduating law school watch picked out.


Oh, don't get me wrong, I do too.

I'm just saying that someone who can dress can make a $100 outfit shine, and no amount of money can make some people look anything but polished sh*t. Being able to afford a McLaren isn't the same as being able to drive.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Tue Jun 15, 2010 8:48 pm

Renzo wrote:
kalvano wrote:
Renzo wrote:
kalvano wrote:Actually, buying a Patek makes Renzo correct. Though if you have $30K plus to spend on a watch, I don't really think you care what others think.

I'd put a lot more watches than just a Patek in that category. Being able to buy a gold Rolex with diamonds in the face does not say "I know how to dress" as much as it says "I spent 1/2 your annual income on a fucking watch."



Typically, someone who buys a watch like that doesn't care how much it costs because it's unimportant.

However, if that's your attitude, prepare to be irritated with a lot of people as you progress through your legal career.

I've already got my celebratory graduating law school watch picked out.


Oh, don't get me wrong, I do too.

I'm just saying that someone who can dress can make a $100 outfit shine, and no amount of money can make some people look anything but polished sh*t. Being able to afford a McLaren isn't the same as being able to drive.



Oh yeah, I'll go with that. But on the flip side, a nice watch compliments a nice suit / outfit well.

Putting a Breitling on with your cargo shorts and concert tee doesn't dress it up at all. However, something nice with a nice outfit helps.

That's all I meant.

User avatar
Cactus
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Cactus » Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:52 pm

kalvano wrote:
rriles wrote:
kalvano wrote:Flat-front pants are for guys 3 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than me.


oh. i thought we were speaking in generalities.



Generally, flat-front pants make me want to kick the person in the shins and berate them for not dressing like a goddamned American instead of some pansy-ass European.


Sartorially speaking, it doesn't get much more American than flat-front trousers. Granted, traditional American style has its roots firmly planted in British soil, but flat-front trousers are a staple of the American trad style, not counting regional differences in taste (i.e. those in the Southern region of the U.S. tend to favor pleated trousers.)

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:41 pm

Cactus wrote:
kalvano wrote:
rriles wrote:
kalvano wrote:Flat-front pants are for guys 3 inches shorter and 50 pounds lighter than me.


oh. i thought we were speaking in generalities.



Generally, flat-front pants make me want to kick the person in the shins and berate them for not dressing like a goddamned American instead of some pansy-ass European.


Sartorially speaking, it doesn't get much more American than flat-front trousers. Granted, traditional American style has its roots firmly planted in British soil, but flat-front trousers are a staple of the American trad style, not counting regional differences in taste (i.e. those in the Southern region of the U.S. tend to favor pleated trousers.)



I'd like to kick you in the shins now, too.

User avatar
HenryKillinger
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:56 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby HenryKillinger » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:49 pm

kalvano wrote:
Cactus wrote:
kalvano wrote:Generally, flat-front pants make me want to kick the person in the shins and berate them for not dressing like a goddamned American instead of some pansy-ass European.


Sartorially speaking, it doesn't get much more American than flat-front trousers. Granted, traditional American style has its roots firmly planted in British soil, but flat-front trousers are a staple of the American trad style, not counting regional differences in taste (i.e. those in the Southern region of the U.S. tend to favor pleated trousers.)



I'd like to kick you in the shins now, too.

Flat fronts are easier to press at home when needed... 'nuff said.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:54 pm

Press at home? Don't do that with quality slacks.

User avatar
HenryKillinger
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:56 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby HenryKillinger » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:08 pm

kalvano wrote:Press at home? Don't do that with quality slacks.

I don't spend to much money on my suits. Nordstrom Rack, Macy's sales, I've even gone to Marshalls and bought a suit that I then had tailored elsewhere. My work sometimes requires me to do things that put a lot of wear on a pair of slacks so there is no point in spending tons of money on them. My business casual slacks are all from Marshall's.

I'm generally not what one might call a clothing snob who refuses to buy discounted dress clothes. I actually tend to take more pride in finding something that looks high quality at a fraction of the cost.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:11 pm

HenryKillinger wrote:
kalvano wrote:Press at home? Don't do that with quality slacks.

I don't spend to much money on my suits. Nordstrom Rack, Macy's sales, I've even gone to Marshalls and bought a suit that I then had tailored elsewhere. My work sometimes requires me to do things that put a lot of wear on a pair of slacks so there is no point in spending tons of money on them. My business casual slacks are all from Marshall's.

I'm generally not what one might call a clothing snob who refuses to buy discounted dress clothes. I actually tend to take more pride in finding something that looks high quality at a fraction of the cost.



Ah. Then feel free to press at home.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.