Questions on general style and shoes. Please help

[illmaticnyc]

Ive noticed my taste in clothes have changed a lot over the years. i like clothes that are more streamlined, fitted, modern. I work in finance sales and trading and want to look good but i dont want to overdo it with being so fashion forward. i also hate big slack pants and blousy baggy shirts. i like it fitted, clean, trendy but classic. GQish i suppose? or esquire?

1)Zara. what is your experience with their slacks and dress shirts? im 5'9, 165-170 lbs with a 31-32 waist. chest is 38-40. is their clothes a bit too fashion forward? i tried on some slacks and they were very narrow at the botton (this goes into a question later on). These pants look like the slimness of a prada suit i suppose. can i wear pants like this to work or is it too much.

2) Dress shirts. i tried the charles tyrwhitt slim fits which are pretty good but still a BIT baggy. id imagine id have to wear these with standard dress slacks from chlares tyrwhitt which fit great. i like them. the zara seems a bit more fitted.

3)shoes. with pants like the ones described, can i get away with wearing a shoe like the allen edmonds dryden? i dont own these but wanted to know if you guys think this shoe is too clunky for slim fitting pants. i dont want the clown shoe effect.

my problem is my neck. i have a 16.5 inch neck but never wear ties to work. i have a bit of a muscular build so any shirt i wear that fits around the chest will be too tight around the neck.

thanks for your help.

 

[illmaticnyc]

anyone?

 

[Jolly Green]

Here we go again.


As it relates to clothing, style is employing what works with your body type and personality. What works for some may not work for others.


If it fits and you're satisfied with the price/quality ratio, buy it. Use it. The search engine will result in a hundreds of threads re: C.T., Zara, A.E.'s. Certainly someone has discussed the relative quality of each product. Just saying.

 

[alliswell]

You're my size, so I'll generalize from my own experience. Your shoes are 12" long, and as a result, your ideal pants hem is 8 - 8.5" Any narrower and you'll have to wear your pants with no break and shoes with a narrower toebox than the Dryden. Any wider and your shoes will be lost. After that you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

As to whether slim pants are appropriate at work: consider that they don't look conservative, and will mark you as young and trendy at work. I work with Wall Street firms and these things do not seem to be rewarded. Your firm may be different.

 

[illmaticnyc]

Originally Posted by letmebefell

You're my size, so I'll generalize from my own experience. Your shoes are 12" long, and as a result, your ideal pants hem is 8 - 8.5" Any narrower and you'll have to wear your pants with no break and shoes with a narrower toebox than the Dryden. Any wider and your shoes will be lost. After that you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

As to whether slim pants are appropriate at work: consider that they don't look conservative, and will mark you as young and trendy at work. I work with Wall Street firms and these things do not seem to be rewarded. Your firm may be different.

ty for a response. maybe youc an give me some advice as to what to wear at wall st firms. i work for a private investment firm within their equity sales and trading office. mostly men at work, young guys, sales traders. i dont want to go overboard.

http://www.ctshirts.co.uk/p/gbpdefa...Relevance&page=1&back=False&canned=&browse=Y#

if you notice in that link there is a sizing guide. it says the bottom pants hem is 17 inches???? am i reading that correctly? however i tried on a pair of these and it didnt seem all that large.

what do you recommend as far as clothes go and what look at a wall st firm.

also, as for the drydens, do you think they would be a good shoe to wear in general at a wall st firm?

do you think you can pull them off with a prada suit.

tks so much

 

[alliswell]

That's a big job, man. I can help with the Drydens: they, as with pretty much all Allen-Edmonds, tend to the conservative. I imagine that by Prada you intend a slim fitting, smooth worsted dark suit, maybe even black. The Drydens will be too conservative for that look. However they're pretty good for a conservative suit.

In my experience, sales and trading dress will be on the casual end of the firm's dress policy. If the firm is business casual, the traders are in fleece vests; if the firm is in suits, the sales/traders are in loud ties. You'll have to be the judge of where you want to fit and how you want to be judged.

As to the pants - a 17" measurement is the same as 2x8.5".

 

[vitaminc]

Any advise for analysts in investment firms? I know west and east coast dress codes are vastly different but don't want to show up in major conferences in some obtrusive way...

 

[illmaticnyc]

Originally Posted by letmebefell

That's a big job, man. I can help with the Drydens: they, as with pretty much all Allen-Edmonds, tend to the conservative. I imagine that by Prada you intend a slim fitting, smooth worsted dark suit, maybe even black. The Drydens will be too conservative for that look. However they're pretty good for a conservative suit.

In my experience, sales and trading dress will be on the casual end of the firm's dress policy. If the firm is business casual, the traders are in fleece vests; if the firm is in suits, the sales/traders are in loud ties. You'll have to be the judge of where you want to fit and how you want to be judged.

As to the pants - a 17" measurement is the same as 2x8.5".

1)what part of the industry do you work? i just got started.
2)would you say a 17" measurement is a conservative width or more towarsd the slim side?
3)i bought some ck klein pants and i swear theyre bigger than 17 inches.
4)what shoes do you recommend with a slim fit pant smaller than 17?
5)why must there be no break for slim fit pants?
6)what clothes brand do you recommend for wall st?

tks again

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by illmaticnyc

my problem is my neck. i have a 16.5 inch neck but never wear ties to work. i have a bit of a muscular build so any shirt i wear that fits around the chest will be too tight around the neck.

thanks for your help.

I don't quite understand this: If you were very muscular, I should expect you to either (a) have a proportionately thick neck or (b) that any shirt that fit around the chest would be loose (not tight) if you had a 16.5-inch neck. If you do have abnormalities of fit like this, a custom shirtmaker would seem like the answer to your problems.

 

[illmaticnyc]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

I don't quite understand this: If you were very muscular, I should expect you to either (a) have a proportionately thick neck or (b) that any shirt that fit around the chest would be loose (not tight) if you had a 16.5-inch neck. If you do have abnormalities of fit like this, a custom shirtmaker would seem like the answer to your problems.


my neck is a 16.5 chest is 38-40.

waist 31-32.

my neck is thick for my body since my frame isnt big to begin with. when my neck was a 17.25 my chest was a 44 because of my back and chest. lost a lot of weight due to an injury.

any shirts i buy to fit my chest is small in the neck since shirts of a 38-40 size are typically not large in the neck hence why i cannot button.

custom shirts might work but id like to see what i can get off the rack first.
tks!

 

[academe]

1. With those neck and chest measurements I think you need to go the MTM route as most OTR shirts will fit poorly. 2. Zara is relatively inexpensive in Asia and Europe and not very good quality. In Europe/Asia, they're seen as low- to mid-priced fashiony clothes; the kind of thing you might buy for a season because it's cheap and then let go after a few months because it's out of fashion (and possibly falling apart). In the US, they're more heavily marked up and they're trying to capture a more affluent demographic; I think they're over-priced and your money would be better spent on MTM shirts and better-made trousers. 3. Rather than trying to buy everything online, I would go to a mid- to high-end department store and just try on different trousers by different brands/designers. The problem I've found is that many designers tend to have relatively non-standard sizing. A 32" waist for Charles Tyrwhitt or another British/European manufacturer might be a 30" or 31" for American companies like Banana Republic or Brooks Brothers. 4. The same would go for shoes; I know that AE and Aldens are popular amongst the more "trad" American members on the forum, but for a sleeker, less clunky shoe, you may want to go with a European or British shoe, e.g., higher-end Ferragamos, Jil Sander, Paul Smith, etc. etc. I know that these brands don't necessarily get as much love here, because they tend to be more "fashion-forward," but it would be better to look at the shoes themselves and try them on, rather than just going on the advice of others and buying online (more or less sight unseen). 5. It's preferable to have no or very little break for slim fit trousers because it's thought that the break ruins the line of the trousers and leads to ugly bunching of the fabric around the ankles. This may be more acceptable for super-causal clothes like jeans, but is more frowned upon for more formal clothes. 6. If you're in the US, why don't you take a look at Brooks Brothers? They have some more trimly cut suits (Fitzgerald and Regent lines?) that you might like. 7. For the sake of my sanity, please use capitals, proper punctuation, and fewer abbreviations for words.

 

[illmaticnyc]

Originally Posted by academe

1. With those neck and chest measurements I think you need to go the MTM route as most OTR shirts will fit poorly.

2. Zara is relatively inexpensive in Asia and Europe and not very good quality. In Europe/Asia, they're seen as low- to mid-priced fashiony clothes; the kind of thing you might buy for a season because it's cheap and then let go after a few months because it's out of fashion (and possibly falling apart). In the US, they're more heavily marked up and they're trying to capture a more affluent demographic; I think they're over-priced and your money would be better spent on MTM shirts and better-made trousers.

3. Rather than trying to buy everything online, I would go to a mid- to high-end department store and just try on different trousers by different brands/designers. The problem I've found is that many designers tend to have relatively non-standard sizing. A 32" waist for Charles Tyrwhitt or another British/European manufacturer might be a 30" or 31" for American companies like Banana Republic or Brooks Brothers.

4. The same would go for shoes; I know that AE and Aldens are popular amongst the more "trad" American members on the forum, but for a sleeker, less clunky shoe, you may want to go with a European or British shoe, e.g., higher-end Ferragamos, Jil Sander, Paul Smith, etc. etc. I know that these brands don't necessarily get as much love here, because they tend to be more "fashion-forward," but it would be better to look at the shoes themselves and try them on, rather than just going on the advice of others and buying online (more or less sight unseen).

5. It's preferable to have no or very little break for slim fit trousers because it's thought that the break ruins the line of the trousers and leads to ugly bunching of the fabric around the ankles. This may be more acceptable for super-causal clothes like jeans, but is more frowned upon for more formal clothes.

6. If you're in the US, why don't you take a look at Brooks Brothers? They have some more trimly cut suits (Fitzgerald and Regent lines?) that you might like.

7. For the sake of my sanity, please use capitals, proper punctuation, and fewer abbreviations for words.

Will do and thank you for your post. Very helpful.

1) What would be considered slim fit dress pants? Can a slim fit dress pant be also timeless and classy for years to come? I would like to try to avoid purchasing new clothes every fashion season. I want to dress nice to work but stylish to that same effect.

2)Brooks Brothers is great but the clothes still feel a bit too big on me. I will definitely give the Fitzgerald and Regent lines a shot.

3) Can you get decent wear out of those fashion forward shoes? I've noticed people saying they do not last very long in terms of quality.

Thank you for your great input.

 

[academe]

Originally Posted by illmaticnyc

Will do and thank you for your post. Very helpful.

1) What would be considered slim fit dress pants? Can a slim fit dress pant be also timeless and classy for years to come? I would like to try to avoid purchasing new clothes every fashion season. I want to dress nice to work but stylish to that same effect.

2)Brooks Brothers is great but the clothes still feel a bit too big on me. I will definitely give the Fitzgerald and Regent lines a shot.

3) Can you get decent wear out of those fashion forward shoes? I've noticed people saying they do not last very long in terms of quality.

Thank you for your great input.


1. I think slim-fit dress pants are relatively timeless. The main difference between slim-fit and not is if you still have the figure and waistline to wear them. They look a little less becoming on older, slightly portly gentleman (no offense intended!). Not sure what I would advise for brands or manufacturers. The slim fit pants I have are by Versace (mainline), Marni, Calvin Klein Collection and Haute. Strangely, Costume National dress pants aren't always as slim as you might expect given the cut of their sports coats. Martin Margiela are sometimes roomy or not depending on the season...It's hard to generalize. I would just go and look.

2. I haven't had much success with Brooks Brothers and it's not really available now that I live in Scotland, so I'm not sure what I would advise. Other members of the board may have better recommendations. Might also go to the store and talk to the sales reps about what you need. The shirts, as I say, will probably have to be MTM, but you might be able to find pants and suits that are more slim-cut.

3. Many of the Italian and British shoemakers offer a range of shoes, ranging from the more fashion-forward to the more classical. If you're buying for a business environment, you would probably go for their more conservative offerings. As to to the quality of manufacturer, try using the search function if you have a particular brand in mind. For example, there has been an extensive discussion here at SF about the quality of different Ferragamo lines. Many of the the new Jil Sander shoes are made by Church's and should hold up well. They may not be as well made as Crockett & Jones or Edward Green, but the pair I have are very comfortable, relatively simple/timeless and seem of excellent quality. There's also been some discussion here about Ralph Lauren shoes on the forum; many of the English-made Polo shoes are made by Crockett & Jones, while their more lofty Purple Label, English-made shoes are made by Edward Green. The advantage is that you might be able to get Ralph Lauren shoes at a hefty discount in the US, whereas C&J, Edward Green, etc. are less easily available at outlet prices. You'll have to do a bit of research and make a few trips to the mall to check for sizing and fit...

 

[illmaticnyc]

Originally Posted by illmaticnyc

Will do and thank you for your post. Very helpful.

1) What would be considered slim fit dress pants? Can a slim fit dress pant be also timeless and classy for years to come? I would like to try to avoid purchasing new clothes every fashion season. I want to dress nice to work but stylish to that same effect.

2)Brooks Brothers is great but the clothes still feel a bit too big on me. I will definitely give the Fitzgerald and Regent lines a shot.

3) Can you get decent wear out of those fashion forward shoes? I've noticed people saying they do not last very long in terms of quality.

Thank you for your great input.

How intensive and is it even worth it to have a tailor do this? Ive noticed some of my pants cuffs are a big too large (id like to tailor them to 16 or 17 inches from currently at around 20 inches.

is this a huge job?

id imagine by taking in the cuffs youd have to take in the leg area as well