OCI/callbacks/etc Men's Clothing Mega-thread Forum
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.
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.
- zettsscores40
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
No one was talking about not being able to wear pinstripes. It was w/r/t buttondown collars. Perhaps Hooked on Phonics would be a good investment along with that suit.
- vamedic03
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Oh sorry, I guess if you're a senior associate, have a great book of business, then you'll fail to make partner because of buttondown collars. Please, get real.zettsscores40 wrote:No one was talking about not being able to wear pinstripes. It was w/r/t buttondown collars. Perhaps Hooked on Phonics would be a good investment along with that suit.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Just spent a decent amount of time in courtrooms this past week for this volunteering thing I was doing, and I noticed that many of the judges kept a business casual dress code with their clerks (mostly khakis/slacks with a polo or the female equivalent thereof). The judges wore a shirt and tie under their robes, but, perhaps surprisingly based on this thread, one or two (I saw four different judges over the week IIRC) had a button-down-collar themselves. It was a state district court. This seemed somewhat less formal than I was expecting. The lawyers were all suit and tie, however.
Was the courthouse less formal than most or was my expectation off?
Was the courthouse less formal than most or was my expectation off?
Last edited by Thomas Jefferson on Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
- zettsscores40
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
No, but it still looks like shit. It's a casual collar. If you even think about wearing a BD or a pinstriped suit to an interview you deserve to be slapped around for a while.
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:47 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
What's the relationship between "looks like shit" and "it's a casual collar"?zettsscores40 wrote:No, but it still looks like shit. It's a casual collar. If you even think about wearing a BD or a pinstriped suit to an interview you deserve to be slapped around for a while.
If you're arguing about aesthetics, then you're wasting your time. It's not really something about which one can argue.
If you're arguing about propriety in the United States, then you're simply wrong. You are, of course, free to retain your anglophilic proclivities, but please refrain from projecting them.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Pufer
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:32 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Back in the mid-90s, Chief Justice Rehnquist became so incensed during the argument of counsel for the United States that he didn't pay attention to a single argument made, and called an emergency meeting of the Justices as soon as argument was concluded to discuss the attire of the attorney.vamedic03 wrote:Oh sorry, I guess if you're a senior associate, have a great book of business, then you'll fail to make partner because of buttondown collars. Please, get real.zettsscores40 wrote:No one was talking about not being able to wear pinstripes. It was w/r/t buttondown collars. Perhaps Hooked on Phonics would be a good investment along with that suit.
The attorney's mistake? She wore a conservative, chocolate brown skirt suit before the Supreme Court. This abominable move resulted in the Chief Justice having sent a letter to the Solicitor General admonishing the attorney for her incredibly poor judgment.
Did Rehnquist wildly overreact to something that nobody else even noticed? No doubt.
Is there a "hard set rule" saying that chocolate brown suits are prohibited in court? Of course not.
Should the attorney from the Solicitor General's office have realized that you don't wear chocolate brown suits to court? Absolutely.
It is undeniable that button-down collars are a deviation from the universally accepted norms of professional dress (note the use of the term "universally accepted"). They may well be acceptable in most situations, with most crowds, but that is irrelevant. What you have to be worried about is Rehnquist (who, himself, wore chocolate brown suits, button-down collars, and even cravats from time to time - when you're at the top you can do whatever you want). If a female lawyer made it a point of wearing a chocolate brown suit to a law office where Rehnquist was a partner, do you seriously think that he would give a shit about how big her book is when it came time to vote for that associate to become partner? Do you think he would think twice about sending a brand new associate home to change?
-Pufer
- Waterman47
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
I don't care how long those wide pinstripes have been made, they look horrible. You don't play for the Yankees.
And I agree that button-down collars don't look as good with suits as regular collars. But if you really want to wear one, who cares? You're not gonna get shot or disbarred for it. No point in arguing.
And I agree that button-down collars don't look as good with suits as regular collars. But if you really want to wear one, who cares? You're not gonna get shot or disbarred for it. No point in arguing.
-
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:01 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
After 21 pages of debating whether a button-down should be worn or not, can't we all just STFU? No one is going to suddenly see the light and change their opinion. If the people who want to wear a button-down wear one at the office, the non-button-down people can look down on them.
Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.
Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.[/quote]
Bye now.
- wiseowl
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Thomas Jefferson wrote:[quote="nontradintexas"]After 21 pages of debating whether a button-down should be worn or not, can't we all just STFU? No one is going to suddenly see the light and change their opinion. If the people who want to wear a button-down wear one at the office, the non-button-down people can look down on them.
Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.
Bye now.[/quote]
Actually, his was the best post in a long time on this thread. I used to read it every so often for good info and recent trends, but it's become a circle of peacocks clucking at each other.
Summary: for an interview, wear a charcoal or navy suit, with third choice a navy pinstripe. Wear either a white or light blue shirt. Wear either a red or blue tie, with third choice yellow. With few exceptions, wear a black belt and black shoes.
For the office: wear whatever the hell you please. Every person has a different build, complexion, and geographic location that will dictate what is appropriate far more than a bunch of 23 year olds
- leobowski
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
I'm thinking about adding leather elbow patches to a couple of my sportcoats (corduroy and tweed). Is that legit or too old-professorish?
- Thomas Jefferson
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
When would you be wearing them?leobowski wrote:I'm thinking about adding leather elbow patches to a couple of my sportcoats (corduroy and tweed). Is that legit or too old-professorish?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- vamedic03
- Posts: 1577
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Actually, his was the best post in a long time on this thread. I used to read it every so often for good info and recent trends, but it's become a circle of peacocks clucking at each other.wiseowl wrote:Thomas Jefferson wrote:[quote="nontradintexas"]After 21 pages of debating whether a button-down should be worn or not, can't we all just STFU? No one is going to suddenly see the light and change their opinion. If the people who want to wear a button-down wear one at the office, the non-button-down people can look down on them.
Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.
Bye now.
Summary: for an interview, wear a charcoal or navy suit, with third choice a navy pinstripe. Wear either a white or light blue shirt. Wear either a red or blue tie, with third choice yellow. With few exceptions, wear a black belt and black shoes.
For the office: wear whatever the hell you please. Every person has a different build, complexion, and geographic location that will dictate what is appropriate far more than a bunch of 23 year olds
but, they'll call you a dweeb...
- leobowski
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Thomas Jefferson wrote:When would you be wearing them?leobowski wrote:I'm thinking about adding leather elbow patches to a couple of my sportcoats (corduroy and tweed). Is that legit or too old-professorish?
Generally at social events and at occasionally at work (federal public defender's office, pretty lax dress).
- Thomas Jefferson
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
At social events I think you'd be more than alright with them, and I don't think they'd be a problem for the occasional Friday at work given what you said about where you work. I don't have a problem with the old professor look (bow ties to frat outings in UG ftmfw) and others can speak better to the work-appropriateness than I can, however.leobowski wrote:Thomas Jefferson wrote:When would you be wearing them?leobowski wrote:I'm thinking about adding leather elbow patches to a couple of my sportcoats (corduroy and tweed). Is that legit or too old-professorish?
Generally at social events and at occasionally at work (federal public defender's office, pretty lax dress).
- leobowski
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Cool thanks! I've also been experimenting with shirt-stays, you don't really see them much outside of military dress but they are pretty sweet. I don't have to re-tuck my shirt halfway through the day.
I also saw someone in court rocking a tie chain the other day, that was pretty sweet.
I also saw someone in court rocking a tie chain the other day, that was pretty sweet.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- HenryKillinger
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:56 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
please do not 'rock' the tie chain. Its sickeningly ostentatious. Tie bar at the absolute most.leobowski wrote:Cool thanks! I've also been experimenting with shirt-stays, you don't really see them much outside of military dress but they are pretty sweet. I don't have to re-tuck my shirt halfway through the day.
I also saw someone in court rocking a tie chain the other day, that was pretty sweet.
- leobowski
- Posts: 511
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
HenryKillinger wrote:please do not 'rock' the tie chain. Its sickeningly ostentatious. Tie bar at the absolute most.leobowski wrote:Cool thanks! I've also been experimenting with shirt-stays, you don't really see them much outside of military dress but they are pretty sweet. I don't have to re-tuck my shirt halfway through the day.
I also saw someone in court rocking a tie chain the other day, that was pretty sweet.
Oh I would never rock one but some older guys can pull it off. A simple tie bar on the other hand, is completely legit.
-
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:44 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
Actually, his was the best post in a long time on this thread. I used to read it every so often for good info and recent trends, but it's become a circle of peacocks clucking at each other.wiseowl wrote:Thomas Jefferson wrote:[quote="nontradintexas"]After 21 pages of debating whether a button-down should be worn or not, can't we all just STFU? No one is going to suddenly see the light and change their opinion. If the people who want to wear a button-down wear one at the office, the non-button-down people can look down on them.
Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.
Bye now.
Summary: for an interview, wear a charcoal or navy suit, with third choice a navy pinstripe. Wear either a white or light blue shirt. Wear either a red or blue tie, with third choice yellow. With few exceptions, wear a black belt and black shoes.
For the office: wear whatever the hell you please. Every person has a different build, complexion, and geographic location that will dictate what is appropriate far more than a bunch of 23 year olds
How about a charcoal suit with fairly subtle pinstripes for an interview (like this: --ImageRemoved--? Also, for the red/blue ties, should they be solid or is it ok to have stripes that match the suit (e.g. red tie, navy blue stripes -- sort of like the one posted)? --ImageRemoved--
- romothesavior
- Posts: 14692
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
wiseowl wrote:
Actually, his was the best post in a long time on this thread. I used to read it every so often for good info and recent trends, but it's become a circle of peacocks clucking at each other.
Summary: for an interview, wear a charcoal or navy suit, with third choice a navy pinstripe. Wear either a white or light blue shirt. Wear either a red or blue tie, with third choice yellow. With few exceptions, wear a black belt and black shoes.
For the office: wear whatever the hell you please. Every person has a different build, complexion, and geographic location that will dictate what is appropriate far more than a bunch of 23 year oldsopiningbitching in an internet thread.
This is so credited.
And if anyone I worked with made fun of me and said things at restaurants like, "Does he meet the dress code?" because I was wearing a BD, I would probably punch that person in the nose. Unless they were my boss. In which case, I doubt anyone that childish and silly would make partner anyways. What a ridiculous argument.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Pufer
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:32 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
PirateCap'n wrote:How about a charcoal suit with fairly subtle pinstripes for an interview (like this: --ImageRemoved--? Also, for the red/blue ties, should they be solid or is it ok to have stripes that match the suit (e.g. red tie, navy blue stripes -- sort of like the one posted)? --ImageRemoved--
Only thing I'd change is to add "or blue" after the word red.GodSpeed wrote: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.
-Pufer
- GodSpeed
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
black power tie?
okay, i know. that was terrible
okay, i know. that was terrible
- Pufer
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:32 am
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
I actually have one of those, only in a more subtle power-symbol print.
Never have had occasion to wear it, however (of course, that's true of most of my 800+ ties).
-Pufer
Never have had occasion to wear it, however (of course, that's true of most of my 800+ ties).
-Pufer
- GodSpeed
- Posts: 236
- Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm
Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)
800 ties? Christ.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login