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
GodSpeed
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:34 pm

lisjjen wrote:
GodSpeed wrote:
nontradintexas wrote:I think I can sum up the last few pages as such:

If you can afford $800 or more for a suit, $100 for a tie, and however much else for a shirt and shoes and socks and briefs - then by all means feel free to find the best name brand(s) you can afford. For your price, you gain the peace of mind that your suit is the highest quality, will last a long time, and will make the shabbily dressed people around you look like they are homeless. At least to the 5% of the population that can tell the difference in an $800 and a $200 suit at a glance.

If you can't, there are some decent alternatives. Know that the suit you get won't last you 15 years (probably), but then again, know that you have the money needed to buy food and pay rent. Yes, you are supposed to dress for the job you want, but if some biglaw interviewing partner won't hire you because your suit isn't fancy enough, that's probably not a firm you want to work for, anyway.

Perhaps there should be two threads on this subject - a "price is (little or) no object" thread and a "look, I'm a law student trying to survive" thread.


Simmer down there, duder.


Ever heard the figure of speech, "you have a beer wallet and a wine case?"


I think it's "wine taste"

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:10 pm

HenryKillinger wrote:Opinions please
<shoes>


So long as it's not an interview, you can get away with an angular shoe with a squared toe, or inexpensive wingtips. I don't think you should ever try to get away with both at the same time, at least with a suit.

HenryKillinger wrote:Does anyone have any opinions on Calvin klein suits?


Basic Calvin Klein stuff (Macys/Dillards/Mens Wearhouse) is the same basic, up-branded, mass-produced generic stuff that fills joints like Mens Wearhouse. Calvin Klein Collection is solid, but way, way above $300.

Comes down to whether it fits good, you like it, and it is nowhere near list price (you don't want to pay for the name). If you can check off all three of those, a Calvin Klein suit is fine as far as cheap suits go.

-Pufer

User avatar
GodSpeed
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:14 pm

sacks off 5th is having an awesome sale. 25% off everything, 50% off clearance stuff.

I went in there to get a white button down for my interview tomorrow. I walked out with that, 2 jeans, 2 ties and a pair of sunglasses for $250. The glasses were $90 of that.

User avatar
zettsscores40
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:17 pm

I spent 45 minute the other day talking to the woman at the place I got my tuxedo from about suits. Small, local place but they carry a huge selection of good quality suits at good prices. all priced around ~$300-$400. You can find good suits for good prices. Please for the love of God do not go buy cheap suits a couple of extra hundred dollars now may seem a lot but when you're buying suits with TC's around 120-140 you know they're high quality and are going to last and look and feel better. Yes everyone is struggling this economy sucks, no it's not about being fancy, it's about looking good. I look better in my $300 suit than some people do in a POS gucci suit. It's about finding good suits, with good fabrics that fit you. nontradintx is just babbling at this point

User avatar
GodSpeed
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:19 pm

zettsscores40 wrote:I spent 45 minute the other day talking to the woman at the place I got my tuxedo from about suits. Small, local place but they carry a huge selection of good quality suits at good prices. all priced around ~$300-$400. You can find good suits for good prices. Please for the love of God do not go buy cheap suits a couple of extra hundred dollars now may seem a lot but when you're buying suits with TC's around 120-140 you know they're high quality and are going to last and look and feel better. Yes everyone is struggling this economy sucks, no it's not about being fancy, it's about looking good. I look better in my $300 suit than some people do in a POS gucci suit. It's about finding good suits, with good fabrics that fit you. nontradintx is just babbling at this point

TBF, Gucci does have some nice suits. Not for the price and I'd never buy one, but they are nice. I have a Gucci tie. Oh, so soft and nice.

User avatar
zettsscores40
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:20 pm

A lot of Gucci stuff I've come across in terms of suits has been poorly put together. I used to have a pair of their loafers I fucking loved. God if I wasn't broke right now I'd go buy some.

User avatar
GodSpeed
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:22 pm

zettsscores40 wrote:A lot of Gucci stuff I've come across in terms of suits has been poorly put together. I used to have a pair of their loafers I fucking loved. God if I wasn't broke right now I'd go buy some.


I wont buy anything made by gucci ever again. My belt fell apart, my wallet looked like shit after 6 months and the face of my watch fucking fell off not once, but twice (after the fuckers charged me $150 to repair it). My mom and sister's purses last about 1/10th as long as their other ones. The tie was a gift and I loved it, but I flat out refuse to buy anything from them again.

With that said, some of their suits are very nice. For that price though, you can get 2 or 3 MTM suits.

User avatar
zettsscores40
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:26 pm

GodSpeed wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:A lot of Gucci stuff I've come across in terms of suits has been poorly put together. I used to have a pair of their loafers I fucking loved. God if I wasn't broke right now I'd go buy some.


I wont buy anything made by gucci ever again. My belt fell apart, my wallet looked like shit after 6 months and the face of my watch fucking fell off not once, but twice (after the fuckers charged me $150 to repair it). My mom and sister's purses last about 1/10th as long as their other ones. The tie was a gift and I loved it, but I flat out refuse to buy anything from them again.

With that said, some of their suits are very nice. For that price though, you can get 2 or 3 MTM suits.


I've only ever had their shoes. My suit experience has been second hand. I have family members who would rather buy something crappy with a brand name on it like Gucci rather than get something of better quality that might not be so fancy. :roll: My sister has complained about her purse too. You know who is really underappreciated for watches? Kenneth Cole. I've had mine since 7th grade and other than me fucking up the back and not taking care of it, not a single problem. For a day to day watch, not bad.

User avatar
GodSpeed
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:31 pm

zettsscores40 wrote:
GodSpeed wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:A lot of Gucci stuff I've come across in terms of suits has been poorly put together. I used to have a pair of their loafers I fucking loved. God if I wasn't broke right now I'd go buy some.


I wont buy anything made by gucci ever again. My belt fell apart, my wallet looked like shit after 6 months and the face of my watch fucking fell off not once, but twice (after the fuckers charged me $150 to repair it). My mom and sister's purses last about 1/10th as long as their other ones. The tie was a gift and I loved it, but I flat out refuse to buy anything from them again.

With that said, some of their suits are very nice. For that price though, you can get 2 or 3 MTM suits.


I've only ever had their shoes. My suit experience has been second hand. I have family members who would rather buy something crappy with a brand name on it like Gucci rather than get something of better quality that might not be so fancy. :roll: My sister has complained about her purse too. You know who is really underappreciated for watches? Kenneth Cole. I've had mine since 7th grade and other than me fucking up the back and not taking care of it, not a single problem. For a day to day watch, not bad.


I have/had so much KC shit and not ONCE has anything disappointed me. It's all outstanding quality.

It's just not my personal style (that urban/street "in jeans formal" type look), but their stuff is absolutely great for what it is. I have a messenger bag and a soft leather suitcase type thing from them along with a few belts. All great stuff.

User avatar
zettsscores40
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:36 pm

GodSpeed wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:
GodSpeed wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:A lot of Gucci stuff I've come across in terms of suits has been poorly put together. I used to have a pair of their loafers I fucking loved. God if I wasn't broke right now I'd go buy some.


I wont buy anything made by gucci ever again. My belt fell apart, my wallet looked like shit after 6 months and the face of my watch fucking fell off not once, but twice (after the fuckers charged me $150 to repair it). My mom and sister's purses last about 1/10th as long as their other ones. The tie was a gift and I loved it, but I flat out refuse to buy anything from them again.

With that said, some of their suits are very nice. For that price though, you can get 2 or 3 MTM suits.


I've only ever had their shoes. My suit experience has been second hand. I have family members who would rather buy something crappy with a brand name on it like Gucci rather than get something of better quality that might not be so fancy. :roll: My sister has complained about her purse too. You know who is really underappreciated for watches? Kenneth Cole. I've had mine since 7th grade and other than me fucking up the back and not taking care of it, not a single problem. For a day to day watch, not bad.


I have/had so much KC shit and not ONCE has anything disappointed me. It's all outstanding quality.

It's just not my personal style (that urban/street "in jeans formal" type look), but their stuff is absolutely great for what it is. I have a messenger bag and a soft leather suitcase type thing from them along with a few belts. All great stuff.


Yep same here. Love their accessories.

lonerightly
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:51 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby lonerightly » Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:01 pm

Reading through this thread, it seems like the average price range for a law student is somewhere in the 200-300$ range, which like many in this thread have said can get you a decent suit at places like the rack if you are lucky. And that's a big if, because if you are looking for both a suit in your size, along with a primary color like charcoal or navy, and on top of that are limited to that price point then it takes a lot of luck.

Personally, I think only a few suits are worth in excess of $800, Brioni, Kiton, Purple Label, to name a few, it's what you can get below that price point that is really crucial. MTM is a really great option here, for about $400-$500 you can get a really great fitting suit which is number 1 priority, with great fabrics and in the color you want.

Just as an example, I've had two MTM suits made for me by a tailor in LA called Thick as Thieves. Each suit was between 450-500 shipping including. I am very happy with the results.

Even for 500$ it is very difficult to find a fully canvassed suit, without even taking into account tailoring costs. So if you are paying that much for Joseph Abboud, or similar brands I would highly recommend looking into MTM suits.

User avatar
GodSpeed
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:01 pm

Hm. So I just realized I might be getting a good amount of clothing soon.


Suits: $500
Add canvas lining- $300
Shirts: $80

Budget ~~ $2700 (2500 + I have $200 store credit).

I have 4 GREAT suits that I love (none with lining). I have a great black one in addition, but I don't like wearing black suits to work. I have 2 or 3 other suits that are decent and can be worn to work without reservation, but not my favorite (one is lower quality material, the other is 3 button, both fit well).

I have ~10 shirts I love and can wear to work, and 15 I can wear to work.

I'm thinking 4 suits, two lined for $2400 and 4 dress shirts for the remaingg $300.

That leaves me with 10 suits total that I can wear to work, 8 of which I love and about 14 or 15 dress shirts I really like a lot. Or should I get less suits/lined suits and more shirts?

"ZOMG! You're spending so much money poeple": Eat shit. I'll be a paid attorney. I'm buying clothes for work.

User avatar
HJO
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby HJO » Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:11 pm

GodSpeed wrote:Hm. So I just realized I might be getting a good amount of clothing soon.


Suits: $500
Add canvas lining- $300
Shirts: $80

Budget ~~ $2700 (2500 + I have $200 store credit).

I have 4 GREAT suits that I love (none with lining). I have a great black one in addition, but I don't like wearing black suits to work. I have 2 or 3 other suits that are decent and can be worn to work without reservation, but not my favorite (one is lower quality material, the other is 3 button, both fit well).

I have ~10 shirts I love and can wear to work, and 15 I can wear to work.

I'm thinking 4 suits, two lined for $2400 and 4 dress shirts for the remaingg $300.

That leaves me with 10 suits total that I can wear to work, 8 of which I love and about 14 or 15 dress shirts I really like a lot. Or should I get less suits/lined suits and more shirts?

"ZOMG! You're spending so much money poeple": Eat shit. I'll be a paid attorney. I'm buying clothes for work.



Are these MTM or what? I guess it just depends how much you want/need to expand your wardrobe, If you really need 4 more suits than your plan sounds fine, obviously if you only needed 2 or 3 you could come close to getting something bespoke. If it were me and I already had 6 suits I liked I would probably spend more money and get 2 that were made, not tailored, specifically for me. Congrats on the Job though, I plan on getting pretty ignint with it once I get my $160,000 big law job.

User avatar
Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Thomas Jefferson » Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:12 pm

Why all the button-down collar bashing ITT? I've always thought them to be the more conservative choice. I wouldn't wear a button-down collar to an interview as they have admittedly gained a less formal rep, but I have found them to give a much more reserved appearance. Case in point: Ben Stone
Image

User avatar
Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Thomas Jefferson » Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:40 pm

betasteve wrote:Fact: If you want want to be known as having any idea about men's business wear, you'd never but a tie on with a button down collar.


I'm not disagreeing that that's how you'll most likely come off to most people. As I admitted outright, I wouldn't wear one to an interview. I'm more asking why they're regarded as such. I've always found them to give a very reserved look, so I'm curious as to why they're almost taboo, sorta like black suits (which I agree are a no-go).

User avatar
HJO
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:04 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby HJO » Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:53 pm

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
betasteve wrote:Fact: If you want want to be known as having any idea about men's business wear, you'd never but a tie on with a button down collar.


I'm not disagreeing that that's how you'll most likely come off to most people. As I admitted outright, I wouldn't wear one to an interview. I'm more asking why they're regarded as such. I've always found them to give a very reserved look, so I'm curious as to why they're almost taboo, sorta like black suits (which I agree are a no-go).


I think unless done right, they can make a suit look frumpy. Also, because they are commonly worn with more casual pieces like sportcoats or often without a jacket at all they can give off the sense that you didn't "dress up". I love wearing button down collars and I do it often, it is a very classic look and one that has a lot of history as far as traditional dress goes. It is just not meant for a setting where fitting in and being as formal as possible (TAD) is expected.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby lisjjen » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:21 pm

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
betasteve wrote:Fact: If you want want to be known as having any idea about men's business wear, you'd never but a tie on with a button down collar.


I'm not disagreeing that that's how you'll most likely come off to most people. As I admitted outright, I wouldn't wear one to an interview. I'm more asking why they're regarded as such. I've always found them to give a very reserved look, so I'm curious as to why they're almost taboo, sorta like black suits (which I agree are a no-go).


Why would you want a reserved look at an interview? Sure, there's nothing particularly wrong with it... so if mediocrity is what you're after.

User avatar
Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Thomas Jefferson » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:24 pm

lisjjen wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
betasteve wrote:Fact: If you want want to be known as having any idea about men's business wear, you'd never but a tie on with a button down collar.


I'm not disagreeing that that's how you'll most likely come off to most people. As I admitted outright, I wouldn't wear one to an interview. I'm more asking why they're regarded as such. I've always found them to give a very reserved look, so I'm curious as to why they're almost taboo, sorta like black suits (which I agree are a no-go).


Why would you want a reserved look at an interview? Sure, there's nothing particularly wrong with it... so if mediocrity is what you're after.


Not in an interview. Rather everyday business wear.

User avatar
Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Thomas Jefferson » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:26 pm

HJO wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
betasteve wrote:Fact: If you want want to be known as having any idea about men's business wear, you'd never but a tie on with a button down collar.


I'm not disagreeing that that's how you'll most likely come off to most people. As I admitted outright, I wouldn't wear one to an interview. I'm more asking why they're regarded as such. I've always found them to give a very reserved look, so I'm curious as to why they're almost taboo, sorta like black suits (which I agree are a no-go).


I think unless done right, they can make a suit look frumpy. Also, because they are commonly worn with more casual pieces like sportcoats or often without a jacket at all they can give off the sense that you didn't "dress up". I love wearing button down collars and I do it often, it is a very classic look and one that has a lot of history as far as traditional dress goes. It is just not meant for a setting where fitting in and being as formal as possible (TAD) is expected.


Makes sense, I suppose.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby lisjjen » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:28 pm

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
lisjjen wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
betasteve wrote:Fact: If you want want to be known as having any idea about men's business wear, you'd never but a tie on with a button down collar.


I'm not disagreeing that that's how you'll most likely come off to most people. As I admitted outright, I wouldn't wear one to an interview. I'm more asking why they're regarded as such. I've always found them to give a very reserved look, so I'm curious as to why they're almost taboo, sorta like black suits (which I agree are a no-go).


Why would you want a reserved look at an interview? Sure, there's nothing particularly wrong with it... so if mediocrity is what you're after.


Not in an interview. Rather everyday business wear.


Not my style. But we can't all be the same.

User avatar
lisjjen
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby lisjjen » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:32 pm

Btw Godspeed, and everyone else who is cheering for the $800 suit. I do have a $600 Joseph Aboud charcoal pinstripe. Here's the problem, I lost 70lbs and thereby $600. Thought that might be an interesting addendum to the conversation.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:43 pm

lisjjen wrote:Btw Godspeed, and everyone else who is cheering for the $800 suit. I do have a $600 Joseph Aboud charcoal pinstripe. Here's the problem, I lost 70lbs and thereby $600. Thought that might be an interesting addendum to the conversation.



A good tailor can fix it for you. It won't be absolutely perfect, but you'll easily be able to wear it and be fine.

Just don't get all fatty again. No going back.

User avatar
BunkMoreland
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:16 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby BunkMoreland » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:50 pm

I dispute heartily that button-downs with ties are a no-no. Check out that styleforum website that's been linked here multiple times in this thread.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby kalvano » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:51 pm

Button-downs with neckties are fine.

If you drive a Buick and wear bifocals.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:15 pm

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
betasteve wrote:Fact: If you want want to be known as having any idea about men's business wear, you'd never but a tie on with a button down collar.


I'm not disagreeing that that's how you'll most likely come off to most people. As I admitted outright, I wouldn't wear one to an interview. I'm more asking why they're regarded as such. I've always found them to give a very reserved look, so I'm curious as to why they're almost taboo, sorta like black suits (which I agree are a no-go).


They're sport collars. You wear them to play polo. Back in old-timey England, wearing one to the office under your jacket would be like wearing a bright orange golf shirt under a suit to work today in the US.

In the 1890s, Brooks Brothers introduced a line of mens shirts based on the British polo shirt in America to go with its new off-the-rack sack suits. The suits could come off the rack ready to wear by anyone without tailoring, and the button down collars were appealing because they didn't flap around or become misshapen with wear.

It's worth remembering that, up until the 1950s, Brooks Brothers was quite considered quite common and gauche amongst the well-heeled in New York. A lawyer would get his suit from his tailor, and would have his custom made traditional dress shirts, with collars either stiffly starched after each wearing by the servants, or-if he had real money-with whalebone or brass collar stays.

The common man-an insurance salesman in a Manhattan office building, say-would go to Brooks Brothers and purchase a sack suit off the rack and a button-down collar shirt that needed nothing more than a good ironing between wearings to remain presentable (perhaps the insurance salesman's wife was too busy with the kids to forever be washing shirts, measuring bluing, and soaking collars in starch solutions, and he couldn't afford a bunch of whalebone collar stays).

The lawyer would know that the insurance salesman was a mere commoner, but that was okay. At least he made the effort, so, sure, I'll buy insurance from him.

In the 1950s, the Brooks Brothers-style button-down-collar shirt caught on in the suburban department store, and millions of Americans with newfound disposable income and shiny new Studebakers flocked to the local J.C. Penney and Co. haberdashery department to buy their sack suits and button-down-collared-shirts so they had some nice Sunday-go-to-meetin' garb. All the baby-boomers saw their dads and grandfathers wearing this stuff, so they got the impression that it was every bit as formal as anything else, so they started wearing it themselves. We all saw them, and it continues.

While all this was going on, the powers-that-be continued not paying attention to what the commoners were doing at Sears, and continued on with their point collars. Plastic collar stays and $1.50 dry cleaners now exist, so there is no longer any reason for any prospective powers-that-be to be caught dead in button-down-collared dress shirts, especially at an interview.

-Pufer




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.