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
aIvin adams
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:29 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby aIvin adams » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:48 pm

HJO wrote:
James Bond is not credited.


i agree w him. i would only wear a button-down collar with a tie if it was a nontraditional tie. i would not wear a button-down/tie combo unless it was a deliberate move like wearing a bola tie or some other obnoxious style

User avatar
yhezel
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:21 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby yhezel » Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:20 pm

Any opinions on the Hugo Boss Astro Hill suit to start building a wardrobe?

Also, can someone recommend another suit with a similar style?
Last edited by yhezel on Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby BunkMoreland » Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:01 pm

Opinions: on interviews, whether or not a small white linen pocket square in TV fold would be appropriate

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby vamedic03 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:29 pm

aIvin adams wrote:
HJO wrote:
James Bond is not credited.


i agree w him. i would only wear a button-down collar with a tie if it was a nontraditional tie. i would not wear a button-down/tie combo unless it was a deliberate move like wearing a bola tie or some other obnoxious style


You can agree with him all you want, but either y'all are wrong, or Brooks Brothers, J.Press, and other very traditional men's clothing companies are wrong... FWIW, I'll assume y'all are wrong. Not all of menswear is defined by Esquire.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby vamedic03 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:31 pm

BunkMoreland wrote:Opinions: on interviews, whether or not a small white linen pocket square in TV fold would be appropriate


Personally, I'm not a fan of pocket squares as I think they tend to look tacky, but if you keep it subtle, go for it.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:33 pm

Waterman47 wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:
GodSpeed wrote:
Waterman47 wrote:Speaking of basketball, I noticed that the trend of horribly high cut 6-button suits has died out, for the most part.

2006 NBA Draft:

Image

2009 NBA Draft:

Image


For some reason, basketball players have the absolute worst taste in suits.

Take a fashion top (but no other tips) from Arod:

--ImageRemoved--

That's a great 3 button suit.


Like the tie.


Pretty sure it's a RL tie. Almost bought one but ended up passing.

And I love the cut and fit of the suit but I hate wide chalk stripes. Looks too Mafia-ish IMO, and not in a good way.


Yeah I agree with that looking too mafioso. I have a suit very similar to that except with narrower stripes. Hate the pants though. Bought it 3 years ago when I didn't have a clue about mens clothing so the pants are pleated.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Renzo » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:34 pm

vamedic03 wrote:
aIvin adams wrote:
HJO wrote:
James Bond is not credited.


i agree w him. i would only wear a button-down collar with a tie if it was a nontraditional tie. i would not wear a button-down/tie combo unless it was a deliberate move like wearing a bola tie or some other obnoxious style


You can agree with him all you want, but either y'all are wrong, or Brooks Brothers, J.Press, and other very traditional men's clothing companies are wrong... FWIW, I'll assume y'all are wrong. Not all of menswear is defined by Esquire.

I've never set foot in a J.Press, don't own anything by Brooks Brothers, and have never once read an issue of Esquire. And as a neutral party, I say button-downs with ties makes you look like a low-rent used appliance salesman. It's really a terrible look.

User avatar
Waterman47
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Waterman47 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:37 pm

BunkMoreland wrote:Opinions: on interviews, whether or not a small white linen pocket square in TV fold would be appropriate


Just know that it would set you apart from everyone else. If you're comfortable with that, go for it.

I personally wouldn't do it because it might look like you're trying too hard. The rest of the ensemble better be impeccable, IMO.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:46 pm

Waterman47 wrote:
BunkMoreland wrote:Opinions: on interviews, whether or not a small white linen pocket square in TV fold would be appropriate


Just know that it would set you apart from everyone else. If you're comfortable with that, go for it.

I personally wouldn't do it because it might look like you're trying too hard. The rest of the ensemble better be impeccable, IMO.


At first I was like "no way" but you MIGHT be able to pull it off. I'd say no though. Honestly, it's not going to win you any points for doing it and you stand to lose a lot if someone doesn't like it.

Actually, that's a good rule of thumb for interviews. Everything deviating from the traditional uniform(Navy/dark charcoal, solid suit, red power tie, white shirt, black shoes, black belt), at best, will do nothing for you and at worst will cost you the job.

Conservative doesn't mean bland or boring or even not good. I dress extremely conservatively and I frequently get compliments. In fact, I think it's EASIER to look good being conservative than it is trying to be GQ at a charity ball or something. It's done well so rarely, especially by the under 30 crowd, that a 25yr old with a solid navy suit, black LEATHER SOLED shoes, black belt and strong red tie actually stands out.

notanumber
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby notanumber » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:58 pm

vamedic03 wrote:
aIvin adams wrote:
HJO wrote:
James Bond is not credited.


i agree w him. i would only wear a button-down collar with a tie if it was a nontraditional tie. i would not wear a button-down/tie combo unless it was a deliberate move like wearing a bola tie or some other obnoxious style


You can agree with him all you want, but either y'all are wrong, or Brooks Brothers, J.Press, and other very traditional men's clothing companies are wrong... FWIW, I'll assume y'all are wrong. Not all of menswear is defined by Esquire.


+1. Brooks Brothers invented the OCBD in 1900. Though a bit more informal than a spread collar, it has been a corporate wardrobe staple for the past century and looks fantastic with the right outfit. Ken Cosgrove on Mad Men rocks the look pretty well.

BunkMoreland wrote:Opinions: on interviews, whether or not a small white linen pocket square in TV fold would be appropriate

Not for an interview unless you're an older candidate (late 30s). It's too difficult for a young person to pull off without looking costume-y.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby vamedic03 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:00 pm

yhezel wrote:Any opinions on the Hugo Boss Astro Hill suit to start building a wardrobe?

Also, can someone recommend another suit with a similar style?


It appears that its only available in black, so, no, its not a good entry level suit. Look at navy or charcoal.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:07 pm

Well if a fictional character on a tv show based on a 1960s ad agency does it it must be good enough for us.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:15 pm

Some people say never, some people say never in certain situations. I've never seen anybody say swing for the fences so why risk it? It's a less formal look. You don't want that for any interview. Maybe at the office later down the line sure but never for any kind of interview IMO.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:17 pm

vamedic03 wrote:
James Bond wrote:
jrs12 wrote:Pufer,

I've pretty much agreed with everything that you said on this thread until the button-down rant. While the aesthetics are debateable, the BD stigma you describe is simply nonexistent in the United States at this point, at least east of the Rockies. You might as well berate people for not wearing hats outdoors. As Paul Fussell pointed out (yes, I know he wasn't right about everything), the button-down collar is now almost an upper-class calling card. It's also an extraordinarily conservative choice. Personally, I like it for business, because it seems to send the message that you're there to work, not to fuss about your clothes.

For an evening social event, sure, I'll go with a spread collar.


I'm not going to find and read whatever "rant" you're talking about, but button down collars are made to be worn without a tie. That's their entire purpose. Wearing one with a tie makes you look like a dweeb, not a conservative. The rule is, buttons - no tie and tie - no buttons.



Please inform Brooks Brothers and J. Press of your revelation regarding button down collars. Its perfectly acceptable to wear a button down collar with a tie and suit. Its a traditional preppy look.


It is perfectly acceptable to wear a button down collar with a tie, sure, so long as the collars on your shirt are long enough. It is not, however, perfectly acceptable to wear a button down collar with a suit. Common does not acceptable make.

The "traditional preppy look" (the "Harvard style," as it were) does not include suits. The "preppy" doesn't generally wear a suit; he wears a sport coat or a blazer and an informal striped tie. The button down collar is perfectly acceptable with a tie if, and only if, you are not wearing a suit. With a suit, it is only acceptable if you are not wearing a tie (you're dressing down the suit to sport coat territory).

The exception to this is the "Ivy League style," which is quite related to the Harvard style (after the preppy graduates from Yale, grows up, and takes over the family business after a few years spent yachting, he starts dressing in this style). This is your J. Press, a company whose primary claim to fame is that they completely eschew stylistic considerations in order to appeal to a particular group of power-elites. This style requires completely shapeless sack suits, wide ties (often with gaudy, prominent tie bars), and colorful button-down collared shirts. Basically, if you want to look rich, but you don't want to look good in accords with any modern aesthetic, you will dress in the Ivy League style.

Most gentlemen will have button-down collared shirt in their closet for some purpose, but you can be sure that purpose will have nothing to do with business. Everyone who legitimately sports the Ivy League style at the office is a douche; everyone else who wears a button down collar with their suit is a boob.

-Pufer

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby vamedic03 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:41 pm

Pufer wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:
James Bond wrote:
jrs12 wrote:Pufer,

I've pretty much agreed with everything that you said on this thread until the button-down rant. While the aesthetics are debateable, the BD stigma you describe is simply nonexistent in the United States at this point, at least east of the Rockies. You might as well berate people for not wearing hats outdoors. As Paul Fussell pointed out (yes, I know he wasn't right about everything), the button-down collar is now almost an upper-class calling card. It's also an extraordinarily conservative choice. Personally, I like it for business, because it seems to send the message that you're there to work, not to fuss about your clothes.

For an evening social event, sure, I'll go with a spread collar.


I'm not going to find and read whatever "rant" you're talking about, but button down collars are made to be worn without a tie. That's their entire purpose. Wearing one with a tie makes you look like a dweeb, not a conservative. The rule is, buttons - no tie and tie - no buttons.



Please inform Brooks Brothers and J. Press of your revelation regarding button down collars. Its perfectly acceptable to wear a button down collar with a tie and suit. Its a traditional preppy look.


It is perfectly acceptable to wear a button down collar with a tie, sure, so long as the collars on your shirt are long enough. It is not, however, perfectly acceptable to wear a button down collar with a suit. Common does not acceptable make.

The "traditional preppy look" (the "Harvard style," as it were) does not include suits. The "preppy" doesn't generally wear a suit; he wears a sport coat or a blazer and an informal striped tie. The button down collar is perfectly acceptable with a tie if, and only if, you are not wearing a suit. With a suit, it is only acceptable if you are not wearing a tie (you're dressing down the suit to sport coat territory).

The exception to this is the "Ivy League style," which is quite related to the Harvard style (after the preppy graduates from Yale, grows up, and takes over the family business after a few years spent yachting, he starts dressing in this style). This is your J. Press, a company whose primary claim to fame is that they completely eschew stylistic considerations in order to appeal to a particular group of power-elites. This style requires completely shapeless sack suits, wide ties (often with gaudy, prominent tie bars), and colorful button-down collared shirts. Basically, if you want to look rich, but you don't want to look good in accords with any modern aesthetic, you will dress in the Ivy League style.

Most gentlemen will have button-down collared shirt in their closet for some purpose, but you can be sure that purpose will have nothing to do with business. Everyone who legitimately sports the Ivy League style at the office is a douche; everyone else who wears a button down collar with their suit is a boob.

-Pufer


Wow, you seem to harbor some anger towards button down collars with suits... chill out and recognize that men's business wear has very few hard rules...

notanumber
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby notanumber » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:45 pm

Eh... I was browsing the Cravath and Davis Polk attorney profile pages and more than a few partners were wearing button down collars for their head shots. So if your standard for "acceptable" is "acceptable to wear at a major white shoe law firm" then it seems fairly acceptable. If, on the other hand, one needs to appease the internet sartorial police, then it might give offense to some of the more conservative among them.

But for an interview I'll certainly agree that the target should be "as inoffensive as possible" which means a spread collar. Once you're at a firm you can figure out what the unspoken dress code is and work within that code to your taste.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby HenryKillinger » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:49 pm

vamedic03 wrote:
Pufer wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:
Please inform Brooks Brothers and J. Press of your revelation regarding button down collars. Its perfectly acceptable to wear a button down collar with a tie and suit. Its a traditional preppy look.



-Pufer


Wow, you seem to harbor some anger towards button down collars with suits... chill out and recognize that men's business wear has very few hard rules...

you have mocked Pufer and therefore you will be shunned.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:52 pm

HenryKillinger wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:
Pufer wrote:
vamedic03 wrote:
Please inform Brooks Brothers and J. Press of your revelation regarding button down collars. Its perfectly acceptable to wear a button down collar with a tie and suit. Its a traditional preppy look.



-Pufer


Wow, you seem to harbor some anger towards button down collars with suits... chill out and recognize that men's business wear has very few hard rules...

you have mocked Pufer and therefore you will be shunned.


This. Pufer is never wrong.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Renzo » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:54 pm

vamedic03 wrote:Wow, you seem to harbor some anger towards button down collars with suits... chill out and recognize that men's business wear has very few hard rules...

One of which happens to be button-downs with suits make people look like circus clowns.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:32 am

amyLAchemist wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=125087&start=25

ITT I take on Godpseed's role of telling people, in this case women, they aren't professional in their dress. :lol:


everyone thinks they're a GQ model or whatever the female equivalent of that is. :roll: Although GQ does give some decent advice don't try dressing like the guy on the cover (at least most of the time) for work/interviews. If you're in a boutique, posh office or w/e then sure go for it. Other than that I don't see the point in risking it. The reward is minimal and you won't look that good (there's models are doing it, not your average Joe ie most of us ITT). Even GQ says buttondowns are a no-no with a suit for those trying to emulate modern style.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby romothesavior » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:50 am

Well, I'm wearing a button-down with a suit tomorrow, mostly because I have no other shirts to wear (most of my wardrobe has been moved to STL). Is it ideal or trendy? According to GQ, no. But a hell of a lot of people do it, and the button down has been worn with suits (yes suits, not just sports jackets) periodically throughout the past century, so I certainly won't be looking or feeling awkward in it.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:51 am

One thing I haven't seen discussed is hairstyles. I think we've covered facial hair.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:51 am

romothesavior wrote:Well, I'm wearing a button-down with a suit tomorrow, mostly because I have no other shirts to wear (most of my wardrobe has been moved to STL). Is it ideal or trendy? According to GQ, no. But a hell of a lot of people do it, and the button down has been worn with suits (yes suits, not just sports jackets) periodically throughout the past century, so I certainly won't be looking or feeling awkward in it.


What's the event?

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:52 am

zettsscores40 wrote:
amyLAchemist wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=125087&start=25

ITT I take on Godpseed's role of telling people, in this case women, they aren't professional in their dress. :lol:


everyone thinks they're a GQ model or whatever the female equivalent of that is. :roll: Although GQ does give some decent advice don't try dressing like the guy on the cover (at least most of the time) for work/interviews. If you're in a boutique, posh office or w/e then sure go for it. Other than that I don't see the point in risking it. The reward is minimal and you won't look that good (there's models are doing it, not your average Joe ie most of us ITT). Even GQ says buttondowns are a no-no with a suit for those trying to emulate modern style.

+1
I've been saying everything you just said for a while for a while now. You really shouldn't be trying to look like GQ model, even once you get the job. Pants with no break, for example, look terrible if you're doing anything but posing for a cover page.

And like I said a few posts above, you have much more to lose and almost nothing to gain by trying to be trendy. Just dress WELL- clean, well fitting and with the times (not 6 months ahead of it or 10 years behind it). You'll gain almost nothing by being ultra fashionable even if someone likes it and you stand to lose a lot with anyone you offend.

Dealing with juries has taught me a lot about dressing properly. Not turning off 4 people > impressing 1 person.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby romothesavior » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:53 am

zettsscores40 wrote:
romothesavior wrote:Well, I'm wearing a button-down with a suit tomorrow, mostly because I have no other shirts to wear (most of my wardrobe has been moved to STL). Is it ideal or trendy? According to GQ, no. But a hell of a lot of people do it, and the button down has been worn with suits (yes suits, not just sports jackets) periodically throughout the past century, so I certainly won't be looking or feeling awkward in it.


What's the event?


Going to watch a trial for my internship. (I'm a 0L interning in HR at a Fortune 100 company this summer, and an attorney invited me to come watch a trial.)




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.