Wearing Ferragamo & Brioni Too early?

[jakeyt]

I was reading an article about Goldman Sachs (yes I know) and how associates and analysts would be laughed at if they wore a pair of Ferragamo shoes too early in their career. Because it is sort of a 'status' thing to show you've made it and reserved for VPs and Managing Directors. What are your thoughts on wearing high-end brands too early? Plausible or laughable? Is it something to take in to account? To some degree, I think so. An associate dressed better than their boss is ridiculous. Yet, I wonder, who would really know if someone was wearing John Lobb shoes or Ferragamos vs. some lower end brand?

 

[Pawz]

All I had to do to outdress my boss was change clothes in the mornings.

...And you're overthinking. I highly doubt anyone would notice or care in the real world; the article was just a plug.

 

[bourbonbasted]

I think what you are alluding to is someone wearing these brands to peacock or to brag about having them in their wardrobe. The only way anyone is going to easily spot a brand (unless they are incredibly astute or experienced) is by branding. I'm sure the Ferragamos (likely Studio) had some sort of label on them or something to give them away. Much like one can easily spot the bit on a pair of Gucci loafers. I think if the same person were wearing Tremezza shoes no one would be the wiser.

When it comes to things like suits it gets a little easier to spot things like fit, fabric and construction. However, even then, it's doubtful someone could tell the difference between Brioni or Ralph Lauren from a distance (again unless they are incredibly astute).

Likely the article stems from people trying to show off their status and that is what gets under the skin of the really successful guys. It's not about having the clothes or wearing them, but having to announce to the room that you have them and are wearing them (think big Rolexes). Either way it's dumb, IMO. If someone chooses to spend their money on clothes and accessories, at any age, so be it.

 

[nmprisons]

I have dressed better than every single boss that I have ever had. Not one of them has ever noticed, let alone cared. Right now, I am wearing a Ralph Lauren Signature suit (thanks ZBromer) and Vass shoes. He is wearing cords and birkenstocks. get over it.

 

[mr monty]



I was reading an article about Goldman Sachs (yes I know) and how associates and analysts would be laughed at if they wore a pair of Ferragamo shoes too early in their career. Because it is sort of a 'status' thing to show you've made it and reserved for VPs and Managing Directors. What are your thoughts on wearing high-end brands too early? Plausible or laughable? Is it something to take in to account? To some degree, I think so. An associate dressed better than their boss is ridiculous. Yet, I wonder, who would really know if someone was wearing John Lobb shoes or Ferragamos vs. some lower end brand?

There are many Ferragamos that most SF folks will laugh at

 

[Superfluous]

No, they shouldn't be able to tell.

 

[Gdot]

I think many of you are underestimating the complexities of large, conservative corporations. What you wear matters quite a bit in some. And looking too dapper is indeed not good. As a matter of fact, I say it is worse than looking too frumpy.

Many financial and legal service firms are very keen that their employees look professional but not sumptuous. As they believe their clients will be turned off by hiring consultants that look too expensive.

So even though I agree that concealed labels do not matter I also contend that in many environments sumptuous fabrics, luscious ties, expensive shoes, etc. etc. are definitely a no no.

 

[in stitches]



I think what you are alluding to is someone wearing these brands to peacock or to brag about having them in their wardrobe. The only way anyone is going to easily spot a brand (unless they are incredibly astute or experienced) is by branding. I'm sure the Ferragamos (likely Studio) had some sort of label on them or something to give them away. Much like one can easily spot the bit on a pair of Gucci loafers. I think if the same person were wearing Tremezza shoes no one would be the wiser.
When it comes to things like suits it gets a little easier to spot things like fit, fabric and construction. However, even then, it's doubtful someone could tell the difference between Brioni or Ralph Lauren from a distance (again unless they are incredibly astute).
Likely the article stems from people trying to show off their status and that is what gets under the skin of the really successful guys. It's not about having the clothes or wearing them, but having to announce to the room that you have them and are wearing them (think big Rolexes). Either way it's dumb, IMO. If someone chooses to spend their money on clothes and accessories, at any age, so be it.

i read the op and was going to say the same. thanks for saving me the effort. this is correct.

@gdot, also a solid point. i think bourbons post with your addition pretty much sums it up.

btw lol at ferragamo and brioni together in the same class.

 

[CousinDonuts]

When I worked in the IB world as an analyst (when biz casual was still ok) many of my colleagues wore the Ferragamo or Gucci horsebit loafers. Some had the sleeker dress-shoe looking, but most the more casual version with the clunkier rubber sole. That shoe was worn universally across all levels: analyst, associate, VP and MD.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Most of the people I know in IB dress pretty conservatively. I don't think it matters how much you spend as long as you don't look like a peacock. One guy I used to know who was a Managing Director at Goldman had a boss that had a pet peeve about the color of ones buttons on their shirt. He could wear anything he wanted as long as the buttons were white. Odd.

 

[Klobber]



I was reading an article about Goldman Sachs (yes I know) and how associates and analysts would be laughed at if they wore a pair of Ferragamo shoes too early in their career. Because it is sort of a 'status' thing to show you've made it and reserved for VPs and Managing Directors. What are your thoughts on wearing high-end brands too early? Plausible or laughable? Is it something to take in to account? To some degree, I think so. An associate dressed better than their boss is ridiculous. Yet, I wonder, who would really know if someone was wearing John Lobb shoes or Ferragamos vs. some lower end brand?

How would you know what the boss wears unless all the logos are visible on his shoes, belt, and ties? I presume the boss, if he is even wearing a suit, would not wear one with any visible external logos (i.e. such as a GG pattern on some older Gucci suits).

If the boss truly loved tailored clothing, he would very likely appreciate his junior employees wearing tailored clothing - it would particularly highlight something they both have in common. The boss would be a real dickhead if he looked at a pair of John Lobbs shoes on an employee and made an issue of it. This would be against the norm, and if someone thinks it may be normal, I would have to suggest he/she lay off the weed for a while .

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Aren't a lot of people going to work for Goldman from really rich families already? Surely they already have nice clothing.

 

[rathebaindc]



Aren't a lot of people going to work for Goldman from really rich families already? Surely they already have nice clothing.

rich =/ well dressed

 

[New Shoes1]

Most of the people I know in IB dress pretty conservatively. I don't think it matters how much you spend as long as you don't look like a peacock. One guy I used to know who was a Managing Director at Goldman had a boss that had a pet peeve about the color of ones buttons on their shirt. He could wear anything he wanted as long as the buttons were white. Odd.

This is the answer. The only young associates that get a few odd looks are the ones that dress very trendy and flashy. No one cares about labels as long as you are dressed conservatively enough to look like a responsible professional.

 

[entrero]



rich =/ well dressed

::read "rich families". What he's saying is people from old money, republicans if you will call them. And yes they have a tendency to dress better