All suits are the same

[MikeDT]



What utter garbage.

Do you even own a suit?

Maybe don't feed the troll is the most apt comment.

Hmmm.. One thinks the OP could be another sock of Jeromestyle.

 

[cptjeff]



Truth be told, a lot of what is espoused on the forum as being stylish, at one point or another - brown shoes over black except in the most formal circumstances, glenplaid anything, pocket squares (even folded Kennedy style), pattern matching (poll 100 people, and the majority of them will say that the acceptable number of patterns in a suit/shirt/tie combination is one,) would probably get as many disapproving looks as a Tom Ford suit.

Sorry Doc, I've gotta disagree with you here (if it's any consolation, Manton and I have disagreed for nearly 10 years now).

Honestly, I don't think so. There are a lot of people who know when people are dressed well, even if they have no idea how to achieve it themselves. Some of the more extreme SF experimentation might get disapproving looks, but a well executed look that's appropriate for the setting in terms of formality will be recognized as such. Certainly, there's a segment that's afraid of stepping outside of what they perceive to be the rules, and will attack anything out of their comfort zone. These people exist in just about any walk of life and are generally best ignored. Those are the people who will hate on any pocket square, be scared shitless of any pattern on a suit that's not a pinstripe, or have no clue how to wear ties with multiple colors. But I really think those people are a lot fewer than imagined, and that far more are either oblivious, or recognize somebody as well dressed but have no clue or no motivation to go about doing it themselves.

 

[LA Guy]



Honestly, I don't think so. There are a lot of people who know when people are dressed well, even if they have no idea how to achieve it themselves. Some of the more extreme SF experimentation might get disapproving looks, but a well executed look that's appropriate for the setting in terms of formality will be recognized as such. Certainly, there's a segment that's afraid of stepping outside of what they perceive to be the rules, and will attack anything out of their comfort zone. These people exist in just about any walk of life and are generally best ignored. Those are the people who will hate on any pocket square, be scared shitless of any pattern on a suit that's not a pinstripe, or have no clue how to wear ties with multiple colors. But I really think those people are a lot fewer than imagined, and that far more are either oblivious, or recognize somebody as well dressed but have no clue or no motivation to go about doing it themselves.

These are the same people that might find matching bowties and pocket squares for groomsmen to be spiffy. In other words, yes, they can discern if someone has made an effort to look good, but not much beyond that.

 

[hellodocks]



At the same time, one of the most common complaints on the forum is that the average lawyer/banker/CEO wears atrocious clothing. Clearly, what is expected is really the bare minimum. If someone were to write the Styleforum wiki on suits (I'd like this, btw, in case anyone is volunteering), the "rules" as they are expected to be followed could all be summarized in one short paragraph.

Well, speaking from personal experience here (and though I deviate from this statement), when you're working 80 hours a week, after dragging yourself out of bed at 5:15 each and every morning after far too few hours of mental rest, let alone physical, one of the last things through your head is whether you can look anything except professional.

I will agree with you that that's an absolute shame, because there are many simple ways to get around that, but that's the gospel truth. The guy who runs my division shows up daily in a relatively predictable, conservative ensemble without fail. And why not? He has to represent the Firm in every way possible, frivolities aside.

 

[yachtie]

At the same time, one of the most common complaints on the forum is that the average lawyer/banker/CEO wears atrocious clothing. Clearly, what is expected is really the bare minimum. If someone were to write the Styleforum wiki on suits (I'd like this, btw, in case anyone is volunteering), the "rules" as they are expected to be followed could all be summarized in one short paragraph.

Well, speaking from personal experience here (and though I deviate from this statement), when you're working 80 hours a week, after dragging yourself out of bed at 5:15 each and every morning after far too few hours of mental rest, let alone physical, one of the last things through your head is whether you can look anything except professional.

I will agree with you that that's an absolute shame, because there are many simple ways to get around that, but that's the gospel truth. The guy who runs my division shows up daily in a relatively predictable, conservative ensemble without fail. And why not? He has to represent the Firm in every way possible, frivolities aside.

I believe Sator's point is this: Even within the parameters of having to convey an image of "respectability" necessary in a business environment, there are considerably more options than what is promoted on the forums as "acceptable" dress.

There is also a penchant for following some set of arbitrary "rules" relating to what's "acceptable" even though such "rules" do not exist in real life. It does two things for the follower:

1. They don't have to think

2. They gain instant acceptance into the "group".

Although that may assuage the nail-biting cowards it is also the death of "style"; which, by its nature, is individualistic.

I wish I had a dollar for each post that states "I wish I could wear that".

Please, get some balls people.

 

[fxh]

At the same time, one of the most common complaints on the forum is that the average lawyer/banker/CEO wears atrocious clothing. Clearly, what is expected is really the bare minimum. If someone were to write the Styleforum wiki on suits (I'd like this, btw, in case anyone is volunteering), the "rules" as they are expected to be followed could all be summarized in one short paragraph.

Well, speaking from personal experience here (and though I deviate from this statement), when you're working 80 hours a week, after dragging yourself out of bed at 5:15 each and every morning after far too few hours of mental rest, let alone physical, one of the last things through your head is whether you can look anything except professional.

I will agree with you that that's an absolute shame, because there are many simple ways to get around that, but that's the gospel truth. The guy who runs my division shows up daily in a relatively predictable, conservative ensemble without fail. And why not? He has to represent the Firm in every way possible, frivolities aside.

I believe Sator's point is this: Even within the parameters of having to convey an image of "respectability" necessary in a business environment, there are considerably more options than what is promoted on the forums as "acceptable" dress.

There is also a penchant for following some set of arbitrary "rules" relating to what's "acceptable" even though such "rules" do not exist in real life. It does two things for the follower:

1. They don't have to think

2. They gain instant acceptance into the "group".

Although that may assuage the nail-biting cowards it is also the death of "style"; which, by its nature, is individualistic.

I wish I had a dollar for each post that states "I wish I could wear that".

Please, get some balls people.

Yachtie , I get the impression from reading these forums that in USA there is a strong thread of bothncovert and overt conservatism in clothing with real experimentation, other than the odd costume, frowned upon. In addition there seems to be a strong deference to perceived authority in USA workplaces.

And a sense that people don't necessarily advance on ability or merit but on displaying a willingness to do long hours and adequate work whithout rocking the boat.

This all results in an anxious seeking to ascertain, without explicitly asking, what is acceptable to the boss.

 

[hellodocks]



Yachtie , I get the impression from reading these forums that in USA there is a strong thread of bothncovert and overt conservatism in clothing with real experimentation, other than the odd costume, frowned upon. In addition there seems to be a strong deference to perceived authority in USA workplaces.

And a sense that people don't necessarily advance on ability or merit but on displaying a willingness to do long hours and adequate work whithout rocking the boat.

This all results in an anxious seeking to ascertain, without explicitly asking, what is acceptable to the boss.

That's a fair shot, close but not 100%. Basically, if you're familiar with the history of fashion, you know of sumptuary laws, particularly in Italy coming out of the Medieval period. That is analogous to how I would characterize today's American workplace, particularly in the most prestigious industries (law, finance). People want to stand out for their work and nothing else, so if that means having less fun with your wardrobe than you'd like, so be it, it's more fun taking home the biggest bonus every year-end than it is picking a more daring material for your bespoke suit, pattern matching between your shirt + suit + tie, or outstanding shoes.

I have seen a few people who practice the finance equivalent of go-to-hell clothing in the office, but by in large, things are reserved for a reason: self-preservation. And it's far easier to point fingers at people and bandy about terms like "covert and overt conservatism" when you're not the one with a high six- or even seven-figure compensation on the line.

 

[fxh]

iPad won't let me scroll down to finish the above.

The striving to fit in leads to the perceived safe choice of co ours and cuts of suits etc.

I know that here what sat or says is true,. That is there is a lot of leeway if someone was to wear a more fashion cut or style, say belted jacket, or slightly flared, but dressy smart pants, they would not be pulled aside and have a word in their shell like .

Back in the 70 s I used to wear things such as a loud check 3 piece flared pants cuffed, with 3button jacket half belted. People thought it was smart and fashionable and neat looking. I also had a DB deep green plain, flannel, suit with slightly flared pants in the French style.

I imagine well thought out suits, jackets as sat or proposes would be perfectly successful. Or am I missing something rigid and narrow and afraid of innovation in USA society?

 

[yachtie]

At the same time, one of the most common complaints on the forum is that the average lawyer/banker/CEO wears atrocious clothing. Clearly, what is expected is really the bare minimum. If someone were to write the Styleforum wiki on suits (I'd like this, btw, in case anyone is volunteering), the "rules" as they are expected to be followed could all be summarized in one short paragraph.

Well, speaking from personal experience here (and though I deviate from this statement), when you're working 80 hours a week, after dragging yourself out of bed at 5:15 each and every morning after far too few hours of mental rest, let alone physical, one of the last things through your head is whether you can look anything except professional.

I will agree with you that that's an absolute shame, because there are many simple ways to get around that, but that's the gospel truth. The guy who runs my division shows up daily in a relatively predictable, conservative ensemble without fail. And why not? He has to represent the Firm in every way possible, frivolities aside.

I believe Sator's point is this: Even within the parameters of having to convey an image of "respectability" necessary in a business environment, there are considerably more options than what is promoted on the forums as "acceptable" dress.

There is also a penchant for following some set of arbitrary "rules" relating to what's "acceptable" even though such "rules" do not exist in real life. It does two things for the follower:

1. They don't have to think

2. They gain instant acceptance into the "group".

Although that may assuage the nail-biting cowards it is also the death of "style"; which, by its nature, is individualistic.

I wish I had a dollar for each post that states "I wish I could wear that".

Please, get some balls people.

Yachtie , I get the impression from reading these forums that in USA there is a strong thread of bothncovert and overt conservatism in clothing with real experimentation, other than the odd costume, frowned upon. In addition there seems to be a strong deference to perceived authority in USA workplaces.

And a sense that people don't necessarily advance on ability or merit but on displaying a willingness to do long hours and adequate work whithout rocking the boat.

This all results in an anxious seeking to ascertain, without explicitly asking, what is acceptable to the boss.

Truth be told fxh, I don't think the fourms accurately convey the environment of the American workplace. There is a good deal of self-selection happening on the forums. While wearing pink tweed to the bank may raise some eyebrows, reality is nowhere near as prescriptive as what's posted.

 

[DocHolliday]



I disagree that it has to be so. It's certainly useful to be aware of these conventions, but I think that the conventions are not as many nor as binding as some seem to think, as Sator has pointed out.

Well, I didn't really say it has to be so. But the guys making threads asking "What suit should I buy?" aren't usually the ones with a closet full of conservative clothes. The right answer for 99 percent of such threads is "something conservative in solid charcoal or navy." How many guys who would consider a Tommy Nutter really would feel the need to consult the forum on its appropriateness?

Sure, it's tiresome to read the gray-suit spiel for the millionth time, but that's the nature of a general-interest clothing forum.

I believe Sator's point is this: Even within the parameters of having to convey an image of "respectability" necessary in a business environment, there are considerably more options than what is promoted on the forums as "acceptable" dress.

There is also a penchant for following some set of arbitrary "rules" relating to what's "acceptable" even though such "rules" do not exist in real life. It does two things for the follower:

1. They don't have to think

2. They gain instant acceptance into the "group".

Although that may assuage the nail-biting cowards it is also the death of "style"; which, by its nature, is individualistic.

I wish I had a dollar for each post that states "I wish I could wear that".

Please, get some balls people.

I feel like a lot of posts in this thread are railing against a SF that no longer exists. The conservative business dress thread came about because WAYW had become a free-for-all, and it was promptly beaten into the ground. The "conservative groupthink" of yesteryear has been replaced with the equally doctrinaire -- and equally unrealistic -- belief that the single most important factor in choosing our dress should be to please our whims and egos.

 

[fxh]

Yachtie , I get seeking to ascertain, without explicitly asking, what is acceptable to the boss.

That's a fair shot, close but not 100%. Basically, if you're familiar with the history of fashion, you know of sumptuary laws, particularly in Italy coming out of the Medieval period. That is analogous to how I would characterize today's American workplace, particularly in the most prestigious industries (law, finance). People want to stand out for their work and nothing else, so if that means having less fun with your wardrobe than you'd like, so be it, it's more fun taking home the biggest bonus every year-end than it is picking a more daring material for your bespoke suit, pattern matching between your shirt + suit + tie, or outstanding shoes.

I have seen a few people who practice the finance equivalent of go-to-hell clothing in the office, but by in large, things are reserved for a reason: self-preservation. And it's far easier to point fingers at people and bandy about terms like "covert and overt conservatism" when you're not the one with a high six- or even seven-figure compensation on the line.

I cant edit well with this iPad.

I see what you are saying, but you have just described what you accuse me of " bandying about." covert and overt conservatism.

I'm not talking about GTH or FU clothes here , and that's another problem I see. On USA forums there's only two possibilities severe conform or FU clothes. I'm suggesting, and I think sator and yacht are too, that there are other possibilities. Somewhere in between.

Anyway it doesn't make a lot of sense when you see how real finance workers dress , like slob by geeks mostly. Legal slightly better but most wouldnt know the difference between SB lapel or DB lapel if if sat opposite them in a meeting for an hour would they?

 

[yachtie]



iPad won't let me scroll down to finish the above.

The striving to fit in leads to the perceived safe choice of co ours and cuts of suits etc.

I know that here what sat or says is true,. That is there is a lot of leeway if someone was to wear a more fashion cut or style, say belted jacket, or slightly flared, but dressy smart pants, they would not be pulled aside and have a word in their shell like .

Back in the 70 s I used to wear things such as a loud check 3 piece flared pants cuffed, with 3button jacket half belted. People thought it was smart and fashionable and neat looking. I also had a DB deep green plain, flannel, suit with slightly flared pants in the French style.

I imagine well thought out suits, jackets as sat or proposes would be perfectly successful. Or am I missing something rigid and narrow and afraid of innovation in USA society?

Only in the minds of posters that have taken it upon themselves to worry about such things. People who are not confident in their abilities will always seek to remove any additional variables that would serve to separate them from the crowd.

 

[yachtie]

Yachtie , I get seeking to ascertain, without explicitly asking, what is acceptable to the boss.

That's a fair shot, close but not 100%. Basically, if you're familiar with the history of fashion, you know of sumptuary laws, particularly in Italy coming out of the Medieval period. That is analogous to how I would characterize today's American workplace, particularly in the most prestigious industries (law, finance). People want to stand out for their work and nothing else, so if that means having less fun with your wardrobe than you'd like, so be it, it's more fun taking home the biggest bonus every year-end than it is picking a more daring material for your bespoke suit, pattern matching between your shirt + suit + tie, or outstanding shoes.

I have seen a few people who practice the finance equivalent of go-to-hell clothing in the office, but by in large, things are reserved for a reason: self-preservation. And it's far easier to point fingers at people and bandy about terms like "covert and overt conservatism" when you're not the one with a high six- or even seven-figure compensation on the line.

I cant edit well with this iPad.

I see what you are saying, but you have just described what you accuse me of " bandying about." covert and overt conservatism.

I'm not talking about GTH or FU clothes here , and that's another problem I see. On USA forums there's only two possibilities severe conform or FU clothes. I'm suggesting, and I think sator and yacht are too, that there are other possibilities. Somewhere in between.

Anyway it doesn't make a lot of sense when you see how real finance workers dress , like slob by geeks mostly. Legal slightly better but most wouldnt know the difference between SB lapel or DB lapel if if sat opposite them in a meeting for an hour would they?

They don't. Hell, they don't notice the difference between a SB and DB SUIT most of the time.

Note to hellodocks: people with seven figure salaries are not going to be sacked for wearing checked suits.

 

[yachtie]



[I feel like a lot of posts in this thread are railing against a SF that no longer exists. The conservative business dress thread came about because WAYW had become a free-for-all, and it was promptly beaten into the ground. The "conservative groupthink" of yesteryear has been replaced with the equally doctrinaire -- and equally unrealistic -- belief that the single most important factor in choosing our dress should be to please our whims and egos.

I am not seeing this. My lament is for the creeping "Andyfication" of SF which is what I am seeing- particularly among the noobs.

 

[DocHolliday]

I'd blame that more on the emphasis on casual 'n' cheap than on hidebound groupthink. Couple that mindset with the disappearance of a lot of the senior posters and you have the perfect breeding ground for "Get yourself a solid navy blazer from Penneys."