Greetings! I am wondering if any of you sartorial sages have opinions on how much a person can stylistically get away with based on their career. For example, if one is a college professor, one has license to explore some remote areas of the classic menswear spectrum. For example, this guy: http://www.thesartorialist.com/paris/on-the-street-after-chanel-paris-7/ ... and if someone met him on the street and asked him what he did, when he replied "I teach physics at the college," it would make sense. He would be "in uniform" so to speak. However, if you met this guy: http://www.thesartorialist.com/men/on-the-street-via-piranesi-milan-11/ ... and when you asked what he did, he replied "grocery clerk" you would probably think this guy is overdressed, even though he isn't at work. So, the question I am getting at is this: is there such a thing as a casual "uniform?" I am not saying that there is anything wrong in any way with a grocery clerk dressing well. I am just saying that we all have an image of what a person's casual "uniform" should be based on their career/vocation. Is it not possible to be casually "overdressed" because your life isn't exciting enough, or your career isn't sexy enough, to back up your style? Barring the fact that a grocery clerk probably couldn't afford C&J's, would such shoes like these seem incongruous with the person even if they were given a pair or inherited them? You may opine in 5,4,3, 2.... Engage!