Dressing too well?

[MrDaniels]

This is my question: Does the average Blue Collar/ Working Class stiff even notice the finer points of a suit? I am sure it occurs to them on some level that "oh, this guy is dressed-up because of his job" but do they really notice a French cuff? Would they notice that a working buttonhole was unbuttoned? Would a three-piece suit look that out-of-place when they see men on TV and movies wearing them all the time?

I could see a guy with super-slick trappings like a double-breasted suit with big stipes, a contrasting collar shirt, a tie bar and a collar bar, a gleaming gold Rolex and diamond-studded cufflinks looking a bit too slick to be trusted; but in the realm of items you could get away with if you were an investment banker don't all men in suits look about the same to the uneducated?

 

[celery]

Originally Posted by Motol12

I would first like to thank everyone for their insight and feedback, and would also like to try and clarify a few points.

First, as to celery, who believes I am a douchebag because of the way I listed my attire. I listed my day to day clothing choices like that because I felt it would help the reader get a picture of the "look" of the items. This is a group of people who are well-versed in those matters and I felt it would help. I did not do it to be pretentious, although I am sorry if it came across like that. In the future I will simply list them as celery has suggested.

Well, I will have to apologise. After reading all these replies, I must say I was pretty ignorant to how common an occurence this was.

My reasonable doubt has been reversed and I do take back what I said earlier. Again, my apologies.

 

[tlmusic]

Originally Posted by MrDaniels

This is my question: Does the average Blue Collar/ Working Class stiff even notice the finer points of a suit? I am sure it occurs to them on some level that "oh, this guy is dressed-up because of his job" but do they really notice a French cuff? Would they notice that a working buttonhole was unbuttoned? Would a three-piece suit look that out-of-place when they see men on TV and movies wearing them all the time?
I live in Michigan, and I believe that the average "Blue Collar/ Working Class stiff" (we have lots of them here) would indeed notice things like French cuffs and pocket squares. Even "Blue Collar/ Working Class stiffs" wear dress shirts from time to time (especially blues ones

) but none of their shirts have gold or silver attached at the end. It's as noticeable to them as wearing a ball cap with the wrong team on it, or the leather jacket with the wrong corporate logo (Ford vs. GM, for example). Pocket squares can be quite conspicious--especially the foulard silk ones. They are probably the closest things in menswear to an item that a woman (regardless of social status) would wear. So, to a "Blue Collar/ Working Class stiff", a colorful silky thing with flowers looks girly. ..and it's not like a tie, which is something you might be forced to wear. Lastly, only a serious clothing aficianado will notice functional buttonholes. However, even a nine-year-old could tell if they are unbuttoned. I can just imagine a kid asking "Mr____, why are your sleeves flapping all around, ha ha? Are you missing a button?"

 

[overdog]

Originally Posted by MrDaniels

This is my question: Does the average Blue Collar/ Working Class stiff even notice the finer points of a suit? I am sure it occurs to them on some level that "oh, this guy is dressed-up because of his job" but do they really notice a French cuff? Would they notice that a working buttonhole was unbuttoned? Would a three-piece suit look that out-of-place when they see men on TV and movies wearing them all the time? I could see a guy with super-slick trappings like a double-breasted suit with big stipes, a contrasting collar shirt, a tie bar and a collar bar, a gleaming gold Rolex and diamond-studded cufflinks looking a bit too slick to be trusted; but in the realm of items you could get away with if you were an investment banker don't all men in suits look about the same to the uneducated?
Things I noticed when I was a stiff: Suits -Number of suit buttons -Single or double breasted -Color and pattern Shirt -Collar style -Color and pattern -French cuffs (if they really stood out) Tie -Knot -Color and pattern -Tie bar Shoes -Rarely noticed shoes, unless they really stood out (i.e. very pointy, very square, extra thick sole) Before I really got into clothes, I would have to be looking really carefully to even notice things like number of vents on a suit or lapel style (peak or notch). And no way I would ever think to look at things like different gorge heights, button stances, lapel widths, sack or darts, etc. I guess I just wasn't very observant back then.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

waist suppression is veru noticable also, they may not know whats different, but when they see it they will know it looks expensive.

I hate to group all people of a class into a catergory, as many think differently, but generaly speaking what i mentioned about the blue collar people is from my experience, i just want to note it doesnt apply to all.

One of my good friends is a working class guy, and he was talking about my shoes for two weeks after i stopped in the shop to see him dressed up.

He gets dressed up on occassion, and i know he may save up a few bucks and ask me to help him find a pair of shoes eventually.

Some appreciate it, some dont.

 

[AR_Six]

I think the OP's personality is reflected in his description of his style in presenting a case as well as his decision to cite brands and details in his first post. He's simply a meticulous person with a penchant for attention to detail.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

Originally Posted by Motol12

Just to revise what I said about being boring. I don't mean that I speak in a manner reminsent of the economics teacher from Ferris Bueller. During my opening statements and closing arguments I use rhetorical devises and speak, I feel, effectively and interestingly. I'm not Johnny Cochran though, I don't use theatrical gestures, six or more alliterative words in a row, bombastic comparisons of witnesses to Nazis, or any of the other ultra-flamboyant techniques seen on both the OJ trial and courtroom drama's everywhere. Where I get boring however, is in my examinations. I tend to drag points out and spend a lot of time going into the nitty-gritty details of things rather than the bigger picture. That's something I need to work on certainly, and attempt to strike a balance between giving detail but not boring the jury.


the guys on law and order arent johnny cochrans ethier, but they paint a picture with words. Something a good speaker does.

I'm not faulting you as i'm not there to listen to your examinations, but just something i've picked up on.

I've done riviting speaches and engaged the audience quite well, and facts only, and find the audience rarely interested in facts.

I would say, in the seat of a juror, most of them are probably dreading the job, so they're going to pay attention to something that grabs there attention, shakes them and puts them into the shoes of the person you're trying to do right by......or they're bored and looking for reasons to hate the rich people in the room.

 

[modagg]

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

I take it you haven't been to the executive suite there, either?

I'm only 22 and still in school so you are correct I don't have the big corner office with the view but please give me a few years before you start giving me a hard time. But If its that big a deal to you, my mum is an executive. Hopefully take your kid to work day is coming up soon, I could go hang out with her for a day.

 

[JimInSoCalif]

Originally Posted by tlmusic

I personally have no problem with the way you listed your attire. This is a clothing forum, after all. It didn't seem like you were bragging--rather, you were describing in great detail, so that those who are educated and experienced could understand better.

I agree with this. The OP provided good information for our understanding.

If he only changes one thing from what he wore, I still think it should be to eliminate the contrast collar shirts. I own a couple but seldom wear them and then only for social occasions.

Cheers, Jim.

 

[koolhistorian]

Sorry if you felt offended! I will go with a story that is probably very well known to you as a lawyer - it is about Cicero (who was the most formidable trial lawyer of Rome). Cicero's success was based, largely, by the use of what was called then the "School of Rhodes" vs. the dominant "Asianic" school - i.e. the very thrifty use of gesture, clear but potent language, logic over rhetoric. When your juror said to you that you look to "slick tongued lawyer" (and that can be given by a sum of factors, not only by dress, but also by the conjunction of dress, demeanor and rhetoric) he was transmitting to you a message that you fit too well into the mental image of the "bad" lawyer created in the american mind. Add to that the ongoing debate in the US about how presidential candidates are "plastering" their image - Obama too slick, McCain too young, etc. - and you have a more complete image. I had used the image of politicians because, by the nature of their occupation, they must be "catch all" - and I will give you another example - how many elected officials in the US and Europe wear pocket squares? If I remember well only one (the former belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs)! Ask yourself why. For the FC things are different, in Continental Europe, at least in the Latin side of it, you must wear double cuffs (but white or blue solids) if you are in a "power position". Also it could be a very individual reaction from that juror, he hates well dressed men. I know such people, I clash with them at least once per week. Hope it helped you!

 

[manofstyle]

Originally Posted by Motol12

A funny thing happened to me in court today. The verdict came back in a five day trial I had been on, and the defendant was found not guilty on all counts, I lost big time. Any time I finish a trial and I have time, and the judge agrees, I ask if any of the jurors are interested in speaking with me about the case. This time one of the jurors told me "I really found myself distracted by how you were dressed. I mean, with the cufflinks and pocket thingy and everything you just screamed 'slick, silver-tounged lawyer' and I couldn't really trust what you were saying." That really surprised me, so I remembered what I wore on all four days of the trial, and I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on the waredrobe choices and if you share the opinion of the juror.

Day 1 (jury selection, opening statements, some witnesses): White french cuff shirt from Brooks Brothers, grey pinstripe Hickey Freeman 'Madison', and a solid medium blue necktie.

Day 2: (More witnesses): Light blue contrast coller french cuff shirt from Ben Silver, three-piece navy pinstriped suit suit from RLPL (vintage), and a red necktie with a subdued white paisely print necktie from JoS A. Bank.

Day 3: (More witnesses): White french cuff shirt with blue/grey stripes from Armani Collezioni, brown nailhead suit from Paul Stuart, and a grey necktie with white pencil stripes.

Day 4: (More witnesses): French blue button cuff shirt from Ben Silver, charcoal grey suit from the JoS A. Bank Signature Gold collection, and a black necktie with french blue dots (small but noticable) from Ralph Lauren Chaps.

Day 5: (Final witnesses, closing arguments and jury deliberation): Bespoke white french cuff shirt from Turnbull and Asser, navy suit from Brooks Brothers Golden Fleece, and a red necktie with navy blue pencil stripes from Brooks Brothers.

Day 6: (jury deliberation and verdict): Ecru button-cuff shirt from JoS. A Bank, tan suit from Ben Silver, and a medium and light blue alternating dot tie with a tan box pattern around each dot from Bill Blass.

On all days but three I wore black wingtip shoes (brown on day three,) and on every day I wore a linen pocket square with an architect fold.

This might seem petty and strange, but this trial was the result of several years of preparation and I'd hate to think that something I take pride in (my appearence) had a measured effect on the outcome.

It's unhealthy that you remember all of this.

 

[MrDaniels]

Check this out:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/2...EJ28HXMPAJLg--

The attorney's name is Jose Baez and he is defending that woman in Forida who is accused of murdering her child. You have got to be KIDDING me (and what is he doing with a vest in Florida in July?)

 

[Limniscate]

OP how long have you worked in the NYC DA's office? Where'd you go to law school? You must have done well; I heard that's a tough job to get. I just graduated from UT and am taking the bar next week.

My professor for advanced criminal defense always told us not to use fancy words and to watch how we dress in front of a jury.

 

[dirk diggler]

Originally Posted by modagg

I'm only 22 and still in school so you are correct I don't have the big corner office with the view but please give me a few years before you start giving me a hard time. But If its that big a deal to you, my mum is an executive. Hopefully take your kid to work day is coming up soon, I could go hang out with her for a day.

I would suggest you take a moment or two to re-read my post in relation to yours. The reference was to how poorly they dress as well.

 

[cpac]

Originally Posted by temporaryachilles

I once worked with a litigator who had an interesting approach to his wardrobe. Outside of the courtroom, he wore nice, well-tailored suits with quality shirts and ties -- clothes commensurate with his position in society. At trial, he wore an inexpensive, ill-fitting suit in order to be perceived as an ordinary guy who was forced to dress up for court. It worked well for him.

I think this is conventional wisdom among litigators faced with a jury trial. Honestly, I'm surprised the O.P. didn't consider the probable effect of his dress upon jury perception.