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 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:21 pm

Duralex wrote:You're wrong about that, but I really don't give a shit. Whatever. Wear the Brooks Brothers one button blue suit with light blue tab collar oxford and blue and red rep tie banker uniform if it makes you feel better.

Image


LOL @ the 0L

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Duralex » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:26 pm

LOL @ the 0L


...who works at a law office every day, and has been surrounded by lawyers his entire life....

/nerdrageimplosion

Seriously, I'd be amazed if anyone really missed out on a job based on a tie unless it was truly hideous. FWIW, I'm with you on the button downs and french cuffs.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:34 pm

Duralex wrote:
LOL @ the 0L


...who works at a law office every day, and has been surrounded by lawyers his entire life....

/nerdrageimplosion

Seriously, I'd be amazed if anyone really missed out on a job based on a tie unless it was truly hideous. FWIW, I'm with you on the button downs and french cuffs.


And what you are talking about is PERFECTLY appropriate for the office. It's NOT appropriate for an interview.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Duralex » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:48 pm

If you say so--I haven't been through that particular gauntlet yet. To my eye, a subtle b&w tie w/the right suit and shirt doesn't seem nearly as out of place in a formal interview setting as the other things you mentioned. It's true that I'm mostly thinking about what people wear to the office and court. I'm definitely not hiring anyone.

Although from what I do overhear about hiring I can say that these days it's generally a plus if you dress well at all, as a surprising number of people don't for whatever reason. Suits that don't really fit their wearers are everywhere. As are bubbly-necked glued suits. (Don't buy a glued, aka fused, suit. Ask if not sure.)

Also, on the shoes: if money's tight you might consider Bass Weejuns before going with the rubber soled oxfords. ~$130 retail, less at an outlet or web discounter.

--LinkRemoved--

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Waterman47 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:54 pm

My new suit, which I will wear to an interview proudly despite the fact that it's not charcoal/navy. Might even rock it exactly like this minus the tie bar with a fatter knot.

Image

Some of you [Kanye] worry bout the wrong things, the wrong things... [/Kanye].

User avatar
Mr. Fancy
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:22 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Mr. Fancy » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:02 pm

Is that a picture of you? If so, I would wear a thinner belt and get the sleeves tailored as they look baggy, while the rest of the suit is slim.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Waterman47 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:08 pm

schrutebeetfarms wrote:Is that a picture of you? If so, I would wear a thinner belt and get the sleeves tailored as they look baggy, while the rest of the suit is slim.


Great eye, I am contemplating whether to take the sleeves in or not. They're a bit baggy, but I don't know if I trust that a tailor won't butcher the rest of the suit if asked to open up the arms. Looking for a reputable master tailor in DC if anyone knows one.

jrs12
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:47 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby jrs12 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:43 pm

The sleeves are long, not baggy. Anybody can shorten them. Be firm with your tailor. Most will try to make your suit sleeves as long as your shirt sleeves should be. The shirt sleeve goes to the end of the wrist. The suit sleeve goes 1/4 to 1/2 an inch higher than that, so you can show a little linen.

And regarding the earlier comments about button-downs:
I'm not about to get into a debate about relative aesthetic value. If you don't like the look of a BD, that's fine. BUT it's indisputably an appropriate collar to wear with business suits on this side of the pond. Pufer's description of J Press and Ivy style (which is more of an "influence" than a pure style these days) is terribly inaccurate. Loud shirts are not a part of the look, nor have they ever been when suits are worn. J Press ties are not wide. I don't own any, but I'm quite familiar with their products.

I have also never disputed that BDs shine without ties. In fact, I do not wear any shirts without ties that are not button-downs. With suits, I wear more of a mix.

There's no doubt that button-down collars with suits are not an elegant look, but not everybody aspires to elegance. The button-down conveys relaxed conservatism. It also shows that you know clothing, because contra the assertions of some rubes who have probably spent far more time reading about fine clothing than wearing it, the button-down is not the choice of a novice. On the other hand, unlike many educated clothing choices one could make, the BD demonstrates that you are not a dandy. Perhaps some of the animus stems from the inept offerings by inferior manufacturers--most do not get the collar roll right. Brooks Bros of course does it well. I prefer Gitman Bros for the fit and quality of construction, and they do a fine button-down.

In any event, there's nothing lost if you choose not to wear a button-down collar with a suit. They're not for everyone. I just don't want people to take confidant ignorance (or anti-wasp bigotry) as gospel truth. Most of you will probably figure this out on your own, I suspect.

All of the information in this post is true, correct, complete, and made in good faith.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby HenryKillinger » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:48 pm

Waterman47 wrote:My new suit, which I will wear to an interview proudly despite the fact that it's not charcoal/navy. Might even rock it exactly like this minus the tie bar with a fatter knot.

Image

Some of you [Kanye] worry bout the wrong things, the wrong things... [/Kanye].

No joke, I think that's the suit that I literally just brought home from getting tailored.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby vamedic03 » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:51 pm

jrs12 wrote:The sleeves are long, not baggy. Anybody can shorten them. Be firm with your tailor. Most will try to make your suit sleeves as long as your shirt sleeves should be. The shirt sleeve goes to the end of the wrist. The suit sleeve goes 1/4 to 1/2 an inch higher than that, so you can show a little linen.

And regarding the earlier comments about button-downs:
I'm not about to get into a debate about relative aesthetic value. If you don't like the look of a BD, that's fine. BUT it's indisputably an appropriate collar to wear with business suits on this side of the pond. Pufer's description of J Press and Ivy style (which is more of an "influence" than a pure style these days) is terribly inaccurate. Loud shirts are not a part of the look, nor have they ever been when suits are worn. J Press ties are not wide. I don't own any, but I'm quite familiar with their products.

I have also never disputed that BDs shine without ties. In fact, I do not wear any shirts without ties that are not button-downs. With suits, I wear more of a mix.

There's no doubt that button-down collars with suits are not an elegant look, but not everybody aspires to elegance. The button-down conveys relaxed conservatism. It also shows that you know clothing, because contra the assertions of some rubes who have probably spent far more time reading about fine clothing than wearing it, the button-down is not the choice of a novice. On the other hand, unlike many educated clothing choices one could make, the BD demonstrates that you are not a dandy. Perhaps some of the animus stems from the inept offerings by inferior manufacturers--most do not get the collar roll right. Brooks Bros of course does it well. I prefer Gitman Bros for the fit and quality of construction, and they do a fine button-down.

In any event, there's nothing lost if you choose not to wear a button-down collar with a suit. They're not for everyone. I just don't want people to take confidant ignorance (or anti-wasp bigotry) as gospel truth. Most of you will probably figure this out on your own, I suspect.

All of the information in this post is true, correct, complete, and made in good faith.


Definitely TCR.

FWIW my J.Press ties are actually slightly narrower than my Hugo Boss or Hickey Freeman ties.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Duralex » Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:04 am

I think jrs makes good points--but for those who are feeling lost when it comes to this sort of thing the very broad rules (like avoiding button downs) can be helpful.

I'm partial to Turnbull and Asser myself, when it comes to those sorts of styles (at least their shirts. Ties, not so much.)

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:10 pm

jrs12 wrote:The sleeves are long, not baggy. Anybody can shorten them. Be firm with your tailor. Most will try to make your suit sleeves as long as your shirt sleeves should be. The shirt sleeve goes to the end of the wrist. The suit sleeve goes 1/4 to 1/2 an inch higher than that, so you can show a little linen.

And regarding the earlier comments about button-downs:
I'm not about to get into a debate about relative aesthetic value. If you don't like the look of a BD, that's fine. BUT it's indisputably an appropriate collar to wear with business suits on this side of the pond. Pufer's description of J Press and Ivy style (which is more of an "influence" than a pure style these days) is terribly inaccurate. Loud shirts are not a part of the look, nor have they ever been when suits are worn. J Press ties are not wide. I don't own any, but I'm quite familiar with their products.

I have also never disputed that BDs shine without ties. In fact, I do not wear any shirts without ties that are not button-downs. With suits, I wear more of a mix.

There's no doubt that button-down collars with suits are not an elegant look, but not everybody aspires to elegance. The button-down conveys relaxed conservatism. It also shows that you know clothing, because contra the assertions of some rubes who have probably spent far more time reading about fine clothing than wearing it, the button-down is not the choice of a novice. On the other hand, unlike many educated clothing choices one could make, the BD demonstrates that you are not a dandy. Perhaps some of the animus stems from the inept offerings by inferior manufacturers--most do not get the collar roll right. Brooks Bros of course does it well. I prefer Gitman Bros for the fit and quality of construction, and they do a fine button-down.

In any event, there's nothing lost if you choose not to wear a button-down collar with a suit. They're not for everyone. I just don't want people to take confidant ignorance (or anti-wasp bigotry) as gospel truth. Most of you will probably figure this out on your own, I suspect.

All of the information in this post is true, correct, complete, and made in good faith.


You should have stopped right there.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:12 pm

Duralex wrote:If you say so--I haven't been through that particular gauntlet yet. To my eye, a subtle b&w tie w/the right suit and shirt doesn't seem nearly as out of place in a formal interview setting as the other things you mentioned. It's true that I'm mostly thinking about what people wear to the office and court. I'm definitely not hiring anyone.

Although from what I do overhear about hiring I can say that these days it's generally a plus if you dress well at all, as a surprising number of people don't for whatever reason. Suits that don't really fit their wearers are everywhere. As are bubbly-necked glued suits. (Don't buy a glued, aka fused, suit. Ask if not sure.)

Also, on the shoes: if money's tight you might consider Bass Weejuns before going with the rubber soled oxfords. ~$130 retail, less at an outlet or web discounter.

--LinkRemoved--


There is not a single shoe there appropriate for the office or an interview.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Duralex » Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:51 pm

Care to elaborate? Or are you just here to crap in the thread? I'm guessing you think a lace-up is required.

At any rate I didn't say they were ideal....I said they were decent for an inexpensive option. I'm beginning to think you people are far removed from the real world. This feels like East Coast white shoe wannabe navel gazing. They wear cowboy boots with their suits in Texas, for crissakes.

Also, this thread was not just about interviewing. The question about leather soles and expense of multiple pairs was regarding dressing for work. There's nothing wrong with a tasseled, kiltie loafer with the right suit. So unclench your sphincter. (In all seriousness, loafers withs suits is something of a perennial sartorial debate. Just google it. As I alluded to, I'm in the camp that says yes to some and no to others.)

Before you dismiss jrs so handily, you might consider that there are trial attorneys who do quite well by consciously cultivating a country lawyer image (right in the middle of L.A.) which may involve wearing a button down shirt to court (horror of horrors!)

But since you're dispensing wisdom, please tell us: what's the appropriate holster for one's sidearm while attending a viewing of Jersey Shore? Tooled leather? Or is that too outre?

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:40 pm

Duralex wrote:Care to elaborate? Or are you just here to crap in the thread? I'm guessing you think a lace-up is required.

At any rate I didn't say they were ideal....I said they were decent for an inexpensive option. I'm beginning to think you people are far removed from the real world. This feels like East Coast white shoe wannabe navel gazing. They wear cowboy boots with their suits in Texas, for crissakes.

Also, this thread was not just about interviewing. The question about leather soles and expense of multiple pairs was regarding dressing for work. There's nothing wrong with a tasseled, kiltie loafer with the right suit. So unclench your sphincter. (In all seriousness, loafers withs suits is something of a perennial sartorial debate. Just google it. As I alluded to, I'm in the camp that says yes to some and no to others.)

Before you dismiss jrs so handily, you might consider that there are trial attorneys who do quite well by consciously cultivating a country lawyer image (right in the middle of L.A.) which may involve wearing a button down shirt to court (horror of horrors!)

But since you're dispensing wisdom, please tell us: what's the appropriate holster for one's sidearm while attending a viewing of Jersey Shore? Tooled leather? Or is that too outre?


No, not here to crap on the thread people might actually follow your advice. Slipons are fine for business casual, not for a law office. Just b/c people do it doesn't make it correct. Your joke at the end also sucks.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Duralex » Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:59 pm

Joke was funny enough for me, and one day you'll realize the world is bigger than your little bubble.

Image

Horrible by your standards, right? Each to their own. If you're quibbling over the finer points of dress you're probably doing OK compared to the general population.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:05 pm

Did I say horrible? They don't look good for THE OFFICE OR AN INTERVIEW. Jesus.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Duralex » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:09 pm

My point is that in my milieu that would be perfectly acceptable dress. At the office. Pretty sharp, in fact. (It's right out of the current Polo collection.)

Jesus, indeed.

FWIW, I do own the universal interview/banker suit GodSpeed described.
Last edited by Duralex on Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
LAWYER2
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby LAWYER2 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:11 pm

I don't know if it's been mentioned or not but I would advise ANYONE who will ever wear a suit to visit this site and forums. I learned things my grandfather didn't know about tying ties,and matching the right pair of shoes, etc http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:12 pm

You need to hang out around different people. Loafers are casual shoes. You can wear them with a suit on special occasions but lol @ the law office.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Duralex » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:13 pm

I guess their fortunes are illusory and their careers empty because some dude on the internet disapproves of their footwear. At least they have happy feet.

Also: The Politicization of Tasseled Loafers -- NY Times (1993)

To say "tasseled loafer" in Washington is not just to describe a simple shoe, but to utter a political phrase, often part of an epithet.

It is frequently connected to the word "lawyers," as in those tasseled-loafered lawyers!, although no law degree is required to wear them. And despite its earlier image as the shoe of the postgraduate preppy, it is today a kind of everyman's shoe, available in all price ranges.

Nonetheless, the shoes have been deployed in recent years as metaphorical weapons in the nation's political wars.

When George Bush wanted to hurl a wounding barb during the last Presidential campaign, he complained that Bill Clinton was supported by "every lawyer that ever wore a tasseled loafer."

Mr. Bush may have had reason to believe the charge potent as he had himself once been the target of a tasseled-loafer insult. When he ran for President in 1980, he complained that Ronald Reagan had bested him in a debate in New Hampshire by using unfair tactics. One of Mr. Reagan's aides retorted in a widely disseminated remark that those with Mr. Bush's private-school pedigree were generic sore losers. "Those tasseled-loafer guys always cry foul when they lose," the aide said.

As the nation debates issues like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Clinton health-care plan, Congressional aides may be heard referring to the "tassel loafers," a newly made up term referring to the lobbyists, often lawyers, who try to influence legislation.

In France, the tasseled loafer makes its own peculiar political statement. John Vinocur, the executive editor of The International Herald Tribune, said that the shoes were worn, actually flaunted, by young rightists in the mid-1980's who wished to demonstrate their distaste for the Socialist Government.

To them, the preppiness of the shoe represented American prosperity and free-market conservatism. Thus, it became part of the battle uniform of the young soldier of la contre-revolution.

That all became blurred, Mr. Vinocur said, when many French leftists soon followed suit and abandoned sandals and other proletarian footwear in favor of the tasseled loafers. "It helped them get tables in the better restaurants," he said.


At least we can get some decent cocktail party material out of this.
Last edited by Duralex on Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:17 pm

Duralex wrote:I guess their fortunes are illusory and their careers empty because some dude on the internet disapproves of their footwear. At least they have happy feet.


Nice strawman and refutation bro.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Duralex » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:23 pm

I've kind of given up arguing the finer points of men's fashions with a dude who thinks its a good idea to carry a gun to class and labels women he disapproves of "cunts." Forgive me if I'm not overly impressed with your views on the outward markings of a gentleman.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:28 pm

Duralex wrote:I've kind of given up arguing the finer points of men's fashions with a dude who thinks its a good idea to carry a gun to class and labels women he disapproves of "cunts." Forgive me if I'm not overly impressed with your views on the outward markings of a gentleman.


When did I say carry guns to class? Cool ad hominem though. You're doing everything but arguing.

User avatar
Duralex
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:25 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Duralex » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:31 pm

Aww you beat me to calling the "cool ad hominem, bro." I was reaching for the edit button. You're right about the gun thing--looking at your history, you said you probably wouldn't despite being able to. I read it too quickly and remembered it as "I went and got permission." The idea of worrying over the appropriateness of your shoes while wearing a pistol everywhere struck me as somehow hilariously absurd.

How can you "argue" about something like this anyway? There's no code. There's no evidence. We don't have experts. It's a matter of taste. Possibly even a matter of geography (viz. the cowboy boot thing.)




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.