HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III

Back home again...


And there was a new belt from Equus at the post office waiting for me, so I couldn't resist trying it on:

Details on SC?

iammatt said:

I agree that if he could pull off a fluorescent marital aid attached to his forehead, it would be pretty damn next level. In reality, though, I am not sure where the urge to take a risk stand out for taking a risk in classic dressing comes from. You want to be a little different and still acceptable in court, leave the neon socks behind and work on your conversation skills. Not saying yours aren't great, just that in the environment in which this thread (mainly) exists, standing out because you are interesting is much better than standing out because your socks are.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure quite what you are implying with your remarks about conversation skills, given that this is a thread about what we are wearing and I am in no position to comment on the social skills of either you or luftvier, nor would I dream of doing so.

Luftvier's explanation makes sense to me. I have no disagreement with that. He's dressing for a particular context, of which I was not aware since I don't know him, and in that context, it's pretty much as top notch as you can get.

My comment was really directed at your blanket statement that it was far superior to anything else posted recently, which would would seem to imply that you mean irrespective of any such context. If one is talking style in general, that's where my comments come in. If I misunderstood the scope of your statement, then you can safely ignore my comment. And there's certainly no need to turn to argumentum ad absurdum: I don't think flourescent dildos were the kind of thing I was implying, although if that's the first thing you think of when someone mentions taking a few stylistic risks, I'd suggest you might want to keep it to yourself!



miran said:

I just blew 200 bucks today on this John Smedley polo---the fabric is thin and feels fabulous....but most important, how does it look and fit? Should I return? Now's your chance to let loose and vent all that frustration and bitterness...be brutal(ly honest)...

Click to expand...

To be honest I hope this is a joke. I really do not like the shirt.



kevinsp8 said:

Click to expand...

This is great, the only issue are the socks and shoes. Otherwise I really like the look, this is YOUR best one yet. Great job

iammatt's comments come from something that all who work with colors and patterns realize: it's far too easy to go wrong. How can it be done right?

The easiest is to wear solid everything and the same color, preferably grey, navy, or brown. You won't offend anyone. It gets progressively more difficult when you add different colors & patterns, and requires more than just throwing stuff together, or saying, "this purple tie with chartreuse saddles brings out the purple overcheck in my jacket, so that must mean it goes!"

Look at Lufty: all patterns are a different scale. All the patterns are muted. The colors complement each other. That is something that can be worn in the office.

That's not to say that mixing bright colors and patterns can't be done. Oldog/oldtrix does it very well. Mind you, he's the only one that does it well. If that is more your speed, check out his fits for inspiration.



FlyingMonkey said:

Quote:


I guess, but while I can see that this is well put together and it's all sound and obeys the rules, it's nothing I would think was remarkable. For my tastes, and this is where style is simply a matter of personal taste, it errs a little too much on the side of safety. It's only my opinion, but the step up from this is to be able to take a risk or two and carry it off.

Disclaimer: everything in luftvier's outfit is better quality than anything I own, so I am probably just jealous!

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong w/ subtlety. In fact, in a world full of people trying to stand out, it may be the greatest of risks. And iammatt wasn't making a judgment about Lufty's conversational skills. He was just saying that, in general, a lawyer who wants to stand out does so better by what he says than by what he wears.

Quote:

emptym said:

Nothing wrong w/ subtlety. In fact, in a world full of people trying to stand out, it may be the greatest of risks.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Clever, subtle in itself. I like it.

Quote:

dieselman89 said:

To be honest I hope this is a joke. I really do not like the shirt.

Click to expand...

i just realized hat it has contrast colors on each sleeve.. i couldn't scream NO!!! any louder



emptym said:

Nothing wrong w/ subtlety. In fact, in a world full of people trying to stand out, it may be the greatest of risks.

And iammatt wasn't making a judgment about Lufty's conversational skills. He was just saying that, in general, a lawyer who wants to stand out does so better by what he says than by what he wears.

Click to expand...

Sigged.



luftvier said:

Sigged.

Click to expand...

that's actually a homer simpson quote. true story.



iammatt said:

I agree that if he could pull off a fluorescent marital aid attached to his forehead, it would be pretty damn next level. In reality, though, I am not sure where the urge to take a risk stand out for taking a risk in classic dressing comes from. You want to be a little different and still acceptable in court, leave the neon socks behind and work on your conversation skills. Not saying yours aren't great, just that in the environment in which this thread (mainly) exists, standing out because you are interesting is much better than standing out because your socks are.

Click to expand...

Theres much truth in this. When I started here, I was an idiot. I looked like **** 90% of the time, but was convinced that I was "standing out" and that was worth it. Look at some of my old fits if they're still around. Awful styles, colors, cuts, and just general ugliness.

It took a lot of browbeating from other members, some experience in the Trad thread at AAAC, and the conservative business dress thread to really make me understand the concept that simpler is often better. Moreover, as a young attorney in private practice, I can't afford to look like a stylewhore. Many of my first suits were far too small and slim for me to project any credibility with the court or with clients. At the time, I thought I looked great. Now, in retrospect, I just shake my head.

Standing out is overrated. If you can dress well and coordinate, yet not get any complements IRL on your clothes, I think you've succeeded. At least, in my line of work. I look around and see a lot of attorneys who're wearing ostentatiously expensive clothing, but it just looks bad because 1) it's too flashy; 2) it doesn't fit; 3) it doesn't coordinate at all; or 4) some/all of the above. There are also those who dress like slobs. Both are extremes that stand out.

I've decided I want to be understated, yet well-coordinated. I don't always reach that goal.

Some of the best dressers here (past and present) manage that balance perfectly. Their coordination is masterful, yet you may not give them a second look IRL because it's "boring".

Yesterday. Four patterns. Not too crazy.



UrbanComposition said:

Yesterday. Four patterns. Not too crazy.

Spoiler: Closeup

Click to expand...

That's great. It was like a thousand degrees yesterday, so kind of silly, but great looking.