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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby HenryKillinger » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:59 pm

blowhard wrote:
delBarco wrote:
Emma. wrote:
delBarco wrote:Just bought a suit at dillards, the guy really knew what he was talking about so that helped. But apparently 36L's don't exist in the world of suits :(


You are one skinny hipster.


I found a 38L suit the company had in stock, and they're going to tailor an inch of the shoulders because it's just a bit too wide still, i'm praying that won't butcher it. Life's not all that easy when you're 150 pounds and 6'3



Dude, protein and gym...

indeed

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:13 pm

blowhard wrote:
delBarco wrote:
Emma. wrote:
delBarco wrote:Just bought a suit at dillards, the guy really knew what he was talking about so that helped. But apparently 36L's don't exist in the world of suits :(


You are one skinny hipster.


I found a 38L suit the company had in stock, and they're going to tailor an inch of the shoulders because it's just a bit too wide still, i'm praying that won't butcher it. Life's not all that easy when you're 150 pounds and 6'3



Dude, protein and gym...


roids might be tcr here.

Slimpee
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Slimpee » Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:43 pm

delBarco wrote:
Emma. wrote:
delBarco wrote:Just bought a suit at dillards, the guy really knew what he was talking about so that helped. But apparently 36L's don't exist in the world of suits :(


You are one skinny hipster.


I found a 38L suit the company had in stock, and they're going to tailor an inch of the shoulders because it's just a bit too wide still, i'm praying that won't butcher it. Life's not all that easy when you're 150 pounds and 6'3


Damn, I thought I was skinny at 6'2", 180ish, 42L. Hopefully your school has some sick freeweights!

User avatar
Mickey Quicknumbers
Posts: 2177
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Mickey Quicknumbers » Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:46 pm

1. almost impossible for me to gain weight while running 2. i'm naturally super-skinny framed 3. Cannot wait until I have an income so I can get some MTM suits.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby 03121202698008 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:03 pm

delBarco wrote:1. almost impossible for me to gain weight while running 2. i'm naturally super-skinny framed 3. Cannot wait until I have an income so I can get some MTM suits.


Then don't run.

elmagic
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:49 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby elmagic » Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:50 am

Emma. wrote:Anyone have any thoughts about J. Crew suits? They seem a little slimmer cut than Banana Republic (which don't fit me to well) and it looks like the price is right.


Depends on what you need them for. Interview? Probably not, because the Ludlow, which I believe is their most conservative cut, has really tiny lapels. Also, not the highest quality for the price.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby 03121202698008 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:43 pm

So, I ended up getting two suits, three shirts, and three ties for $680 at the Brooks Brothers outlet.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:11 pm

blowhard wrote:So, I ended up getting two suits, three shirts, and three ties for $680 at the Brooks Brothers outlet.


Win.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby jrs12 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:20 pm

The J. Crew Ludlow does have slightly slim lapels, but they're not so slim that anyone would look askance at a young guy for wearing them to an interview. The real problem is that their suits are just overpriced.

If you want a slimmer suit, I'd check out the Brooks Bros. Fitzgerald silhouette. It's widely available in their 1818 line, which is a good deal during the semiannual sales. Even at MSRP, the 1818 isn't a rip off. You can also sometimes find it at the Golden Fleece level of construction, but that's rare.

Unfortunately, there just aren't that many places to get good suits anymore. Brooks is ubiquitous, but most dept. stores are full of 80% junk and 20% flashy Italian suits that aren't really appropriate for interviews. If you have a Filene's in your city, that's where I get the best deals. $300-$400 for Samuelsohn or Hickey Freeman.

If you have one good interview suit, you're really ok. Don't stress about not having perfect suits for the rest of your wardrobe. For workdays, you'll just hang up your suit coat on the back of the door for most of the day anyway, and you'll rarely meet clients. As you make more money and are exposed to more fine clothing, you'll be able to gradually upgrade, and you'll also better understand what you're doing. (This last paragraph is not directed to anyone in particular.)

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby James Bond » Sat Aug 07, 2010 2:20 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.


I'm sorry, I thought we were talking here about what you'd wear to work, not what you'd wear to your local frat party formal. Sure, Ralph Lauren has some damn nice oxfords that you throw on with a tie, blazer, and khaki's, but that's not a suit.

If you go to work and rock your conservative white or light blue shirt with your conservative suit and have a button down collar with a formal tie you look like a dweeb. Brooks Brothers is not the Jesus of men's business apparel. They're more like the Target, with Men's Warehouse being Wal-Mart.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby HJO » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:17 pm

James Bond 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.


I'm sorry, I thought we were talking here about what you'd wear to work, not what you'd wear to your local frat party formal. Sure, Ralph Lauren has some damn nice oxfords that you throw on with a tie, blazer, and khaki's, but that's not a suit.

If you go to work and rock your conservative white or light blue shirt with your conservative suit and have a button down collar with a formal tie you look like a dweeb. Brooks Brothers is not the Jesus of men's business apparel. They're more like the Target, with Men's Warehouse being Wal-Mart.


--ImageRemoved--
--ImageRemoved--
--ImageRemoved--
--ImageRemoved--


I'm not saying that I would do this everyday, but it can be done. I would feel comfortable wearing any of these combos "to the office". It doesn't look dweeby at all to me and it may be we just have differing opinions, but in no way are you objectively right.

User avatar
daesonesb
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby daesonesb » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:22 pm

HJO wrote:
--ImageRemoved--


I'm not saying that I would do this everyday, but it can be done. I would feel comfortable wearing any of these combos "to the office". It doesn't look dweeby at all to me and it may be we just have differing opinions, but in no way are you objectively right.


Is it really a good idea to be wearing pinstriped suits as a jr. associate?
I went to a nordstroms to look at the fits of different suits, and they were pushing this black Hugo Boss suit pretty hard. I told them I wanted to see some shit in navy and they were like :| I think they thought that one's first suit ought to be black... but I dont think they knew a ton about it in hindsight.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby 03121202698008 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:24 pm

daesonesb wrote:
HJO wrote:
--ImageRemoved--


I'm not saying that I would do this everyday, but it can be done. I would feel comfortable wearing any of these combos "to the office". It doesn't look dweeby at all to me and it may be we just have differing opinions, but in no way are you objectively right.


Is it really a good idea to be wearing pinstriped suits as a jr. associate?
I went to a nordstroms to look at the fits of different suits, and they were pushing this black Hugo Boss suit pretty hard. I told them I wanted to see some shit in navy and they were like :| I think they thought that one's first suit ought to be black... but I dont think they knew a ton about it in hindsight.


Pinstripes are classic. Why wouldn't you be able to wear them? Obviously there are some flashy pinstripes that wouldn't be advisable.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:27 pm

+1

I have a Hugo Boss suit. It's nice, but it's not particularly impressive, especially for the price.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:28 pm

If you wanna do pinstripes do it with a navy suit. Nothing too thick either.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby 03121202698008 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:29 pm

zettsscores40 wrote:If you wanna do pinstripes do it with a navy suit. Nothing too thick either.


You don't like the one in the pic?

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:32 pm

blowhard wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:If you wanna do pinstripes do it with a navy suit. Nothing too thick either.


You don't like the one in the pic?


I'm not crazy about it. I don't think it looks bad but I just think stripes look better on navy/charcoal.

User avatar
daesonesb
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby daesonesb » Sat Aug 07, 2010 4:36 pm

GodSpeed wrote:+1

I have a Hugo Boss suit. It's nice, but it's not particularly impressive, especially for the price.


Yeah... I found that the jacket fit loose in the waist, given that the rest of the measurements were right. The guy's solution was to size the suit up one, and change to the more modern cut. It didn't really work at all. The material was also kind of shiny for my taste (not like mobster shiny, but enough to put me off the thing).

They had some great shoes, however, which I am fiending for.
--LinkRemoved--
http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/3122551?refsid=291320&refcat=0~2376778~2372807~6004711~6005343&SourceID=&SlotID=1&origin=related&cm_Sp=Related-Items-_-Product-_-Auto

They're made with no nails, just straight leather, here in the US (not like I can afford them right now).

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Waterman47 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:14 pm

That pinstriped suit is horrible.

Pinstripes that wide are COMPLETELY played out. Burn any suits that look like that, or cut off the sleeves and wear them ironically.

Pinstripes that are closer together are OK.

User avatar
Clint Eastwood
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:15 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Clint Eastwood » Sat Aug 07, 2010 5:14 pm

I feel like pinstripes would just make me look ridiculously 'long' or something.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:41 pm

HJO wrote:I'm not saying that I would do this everyday, but it can be done. I would feel comfortable wearing any of these combos "to the office". It doesn't look dweeby at all to me and it may be we just have differing opinions, but in no way are you objectively right.


A decent enough reason to not wear the button-down to the office is that I would give you incessant shit about it as a fellow associate. Any time we go to the courthouse, asking you whether you'd like to get dressed first; asking waitstaff in restaurants whether you meet the dress code at lunch; bringing new paralegals into your office to show them what not to wear; and so on. I'd be doing it just to give you a hard time, but why would you want to give me that opportunity?

You don't have to be worried about what the average suit-wearing person thinks about button-downs, or even what the average lawyer thinks of them. You have to be concerned that a single partner agrees with me. If even a single partner does, you're in trouble. They might just give you a hard time, but they might send you home, something that they might remember when it comes time to vote on you becoming a shareholder. Why are we still talking about this?

As to pinstripes, on an interview suit, definitely not. As an associate, you'll be inside, so you'll be able to tell what is cool or not. Almost everywhere, they'll be perfectly acceptable, so long as they're simple and classic (you might want to go exceptionally conservative with any pinstripes as a summer associate or if layoffs are pending). Windowpanes, lighter suits, and just about everything else comes in as well.

-Pufer

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby jrs12 » Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:59 pm

Waterman47 wrote:That pinstriped suit is horrible.

Pinstripes that wide are COMPLETELY played out. Burn any suits that look like that, or cut off the sleeves and wear them ironically.

Pinstripes that are closer together are OK.


Those pinstripes are most certainly not "played out" because they have been the same for 50 years. Classic men's style (as opposed to "fashion"--something that women and Italians have) does not get played out. You could probably buy that exact suit at J. Press every year between 1960 and today (though the shoulders probably have a bit more padding now than in the 60s), and it would have been appropriate for the office on every day between then and now. It may not be an Esquire or GQ look, but suits like that are still stocked in fine stores and purchased by knowledgeable consumers. That particular suit--light grey with thin, widely spaced stripes--is almost the quintessential lawyer's suit. It's sort of like the top-frame briefcase in that regard (maybe not as ubiquitous as in the past, but certainly "correct").

I'm not enjoying being the resident fuddy-duddy here. I'm actually a rabid fan of Neapolitan tailoring, with just a passing interest in the classic ivy-league look. I just think it's absurd that people are passing off their own stylistic preferences as unassailable sartorial wisdom.

nontradintexas
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby nontradintexas » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:20 am

Nightrunner wrote:I apologize in advance for the ridiculous need for clarification:

When y'all say "no button downs," do you mean I should procure suit shirts that are substantially different from a normal button-down shirt?


"Button-down" here is referring to the collar on the shirt.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby vamedic03 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:22 am

jrs12 wrote:
Waterman47 wrote:That pinstriped suit is horrible.

Pinstripes that wide are COMPLETELY played out. Burn any suits that look like that, or cut off the sleeves and wear them ironically.

Pinstripes that are closer together are OK.


Those pinstripes are most certainly not "played out" because they have been the same for 50 years. Classic men's style (as opposed to "fashion"--something that women and Italians have) does not get played out. You could probably buy that exact suit at J. Press every year between 1960 and today (though the shoulders probably have a bit more padding now than in the 60s), and it would have been appropriate for the office on every day between then and now. It may not be an Esquire or GQ look, but suits like that are still stocked in fine stores and purchased by knowledgeable consumers. That particular suit--light grey with thin, widely spaced stripes--is almost the quintessential lawyer's suit. It's sort of like the top-frame briefcase in that regard (maybe not as ubiquitous as in the past, but certainly "correct").

I'm not enjoying being the resident fuddy-duddy here. I'm actually a rabid fan of Neapolitan tailoring, with just a passing interest in the classic ivy-league look. I just think it's absurd that people are passing off their own stylistic preferences as unassailable sartorial wisdom.


TCR... I wish The Pufer would shut the hell up.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby vamedic03 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:32 am

Pufer wrote:
HJO wrote:I'm not saying that I would do this everyday, but it can be done. I would feel comfortable wearing any of these combos "to the office". It doesn't look dweeby at all to me and it may be we just have differing opinions, but in no way are you objectively right.


A decent enough reason to not wear the button-down to the office is that I would give you incessant shit about it as a fellow associate. Any time we go to the courthouse, asking you whether you'd like to get dressed first; asking waitstaff in restaurants whether you meet the dress code at lunch; bringing new paralegals into your office to show them what not to wear; and so on. I'd be doing it just to give you a hard time, but why would you want to give me that opportunity?

You don't have to be worried about what the average suit-wearing person thinks about button-downs, or even what the average lawyer thinks of them. You have to be concerned that a single partner agrees with me. If even a single partner does, you're in trouble. They might just give you a hard time, but they might send you home, something that they might remember when it comes time to vote on you becoming a shareholder. Why are we still talking about this?

As to pinstripes, on an interview suit, definitely not. As an associate, you'll be inside, so you'll be able to tell what is cool or not. Almost everywhere, they'll be perfectly acceptable, so long as they're simple and classic (you might want to go exceptionally conservative with any pinstripes as a summer associate or if layoffs are pending). Windowpanes, lighter suits, and just about everything else comes in as well.

-Pufer


Your spouting of hard set rules is really just silly. Guess what, you can wear subtle pinstripes, in a charcoal or navy suit, that is well-tailored and do absolutely fine. Guess what - if you get dinged because of pinstripes, you weren't going to get the job anyways. If you get fired because of pinstripes, you were going to get fired anyways.

Your line about being 'sent home' or not getting partner because of wearing pinstripes is absolutely ridiculous.

Get over yourself.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.