Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Anyone catch this article? Anyone work at B&B?

I was happy to read this article in today's WSJ. Perhaps this firm's mindset will spill over to other firms and organizations. The writer states that the founding partner wears a 3 button suit. My guess is it's a Armani/Boss highly sylized 3 button and not the one that makes this group excited, but it's a suit.

I had to chuckle when the founding partner uses the phrase "those square-toed club shoes" when describing what the younger set might wear.

For those who don't get the paper, I'm sure it is available at www.wsjonline.com.

asf
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
It says his suits are customand feature a center vent. I find this to be a questionable configuration unless its a sack (which his surely are not) and surely not Armani or Boss. But I was delighted with the article.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
Here is the article https://online.wsj.com/article/SB123380523253950975.html

This little passage was interesting ....Young lawyers who arrive ignorant of the power-suit ensemble get a little tutoring from Mr. Gardner "in a mentoring way," he says. Let's just say that if Mr. Gardner invites you for a quick cup of joe at Starbucks, you might want to reconsider your footwear. Next door to the Starbucks in the lobby is a shoeshine shop. "You know," he tells those with scuffed shoes, "I'm going to get my shoes shined. Why don't you join me?"...."Shined shoes are a point of pride here,"
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,396 Posts
So the associate bought a pair of Captoe Farragamo's at a price of say$500.00 Sounds like they are paying pretty well over at Bickel and Brewer! I find Farragamo to be a little to poorly made to pay more the $250.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,186 Posts
The comments with the article sketch out the usual debate:

Suits don't matter
"...Also, if you take a good look around NYC at some of the wealthiest people, many of them are indistinguishable from your "average Joe" on the street. However, if you take a look at every Enterprise "management trainee", you'll notice they are "dressed for success", even though they are in a dead-end car rental counter job.

In summary: The clothes *do not* make the man (or woman)"

Clothes DO make the man
"It seems to me that "business casual" has resulted in casual business. Thus the economic soup within which we find ourselves."

I think dressing well is a sign of self-respect and respect for others. As in the first comment above, many pro-casual people like to point out that service employees dress up in suits -- and hey, they're losers, right?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Chicanery?

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I work in a law office where coat and tie every day is the norm and I certainly enjoy looking swell.

However, these two sound like absolute wankers. The picture makes the two of them look like buffoons.

Anyone who truly had class wouldn't be so harsh to another's attempts to dress properly or make getting dressed for the workplace an undue burden---not so much the business professional dress code but having to live by their bosses' [ahem] "style mantras".

Moreover, getting dressed well can't account for sloppy lawyering. It makes me wonder if at that firm they spend more time thinking about what to wear than practicing law. Not that I don't enjoy browsing Ask Andy when taking a break at work:icon_smile:

Now, if you could expense your clothes for work, that would be something. I once had a boss in New York whose accountant deducted her clothes as "tools of the trade". I always wondered if that ever caught up to her.

Best,

Jonathan
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,567 Posts
I wonder, if it could exist, what power-Trad would be?
3r2 solid hard finish worsted in charcoal or navy with stiffly starched and properly rolled white OCBD and either navy or burgundy pindot tie worn with Alden straight tip bal in black calf. Over this a charcoal Chesterfield with velvet collar and subtle navy or wine scarf.

Trad doesn't have to mean rumpled, ill-fitting or frumpy. To borrow a phrase, it's attention to details.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,279 Posts
I saw the article on my train ride home. The two partners featured in the article strike me as a couple of guys who emulate the sartorial style of Gordon Gekko or Denny Crane from Boston Legal. I'm also not comfortable with the idea of a partner taking an associate out for coffee and telling him that he needs Ferragamo shoes.

That said, it seems like these guys have the right idea, in many respects. It's certainly a dramatic improvement over attorneys claiming that they should show up for work in jeans and t-shirts.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Valid points from most of you. When I posted this note, I was just calling attention to the article about a firm that requires its members to dress and not look like slobs.

As someone who wears a suits 95% of the time, I think it is nice to see others do it as well.
af
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
The irony, of course, is that many "trads" on this board think that looking like a slob is the proper way to dress (e.g. thinking a big collar roll or wearing of an unironed shirt is a good thing or desirable).
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,500 Posts
The irony, of course, is that many "trads" on this board think that looking like a slob is the proper way to dress (e.g. thinking a big collar roll or wearing of an unironed shirt is a good thing or desirable).
I don't agree that "many" think that. The roll collar and unironed Brooks shirt are fine for business casual or casual wearing of a blazer or odd coat and khakis.

It's been my experience that the consensus on this board is that when a SUIT is worn, the appropriate shirt is an ironed and/or starched pinpoint BD or straight collar.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
That is a nice ad for a little 9 partner law firm.

But I ask you, would you trust your money or business to a firm that aspires to dress like Gordon Gekko? Not trad.
I don't trust my money to anyone but me, New York Life, and USAA Investment Management.

But to answer your question a little deeper, I've yet to make a significant business transaction with someone not wearing a suit, and I don't intend to start.

I sell suits for a living and wouldn't dream of not wearing a coat to work (although when the temps hit 100 all bets are off) and I refuse to deal with someone who is a "professional" but can't be troubled to wear a tie.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
This look might be fine for an aggressive law firm, but a bit strong for many of us working stiffs. I'm all in favor of looking nice, but you can go overboard. If I were to show up at work in an outfit like what these guys wear, I'd look as ridiculous as they would wearing biking shorts.

BTW, is it really wise to ape the investment banker look nowadays?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
I don't agree that "many" think that. The roll collar and unironed Brooks shirt are fine for business casual or casual wearing of a blazer or odd coat and khakis.

It's been my experience that the consensus on this board is that when a SUIT is worn, the appropriate shirt is an ironed and/or starched pinpoint BD or straight collar.
You're right, PC. I overstated it. I stand corrected. I guess my point was that trad, in itself, is a look that can sort of embrace schleppyness, whereas these guys from the law firm seem to be pushing the spit-shined, top button-buttoned look. Any way you cut it, my post wasn't so great.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,396 Posts
You can look like a million bucks without spending a million. There are lots of guys that buy $200 suits and know how to coordinate a shirt, tie, ps and wear nice polished shoes and socks. I know alot of lawyers including my self and my partners that wear quality suits and even the high end stuff. You have to take pride in what you wear and what you do. I am not sure what some people are thinking is trad. I think of it as classic american styling. that doesn't mean sloppy or frumpy, neat, pressed, shined and put together always does the trick.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
You're right, PC. I overstated it. I stand corrected. I guess my point was that trad, in itself, is a look that can sort of embrace schleppyness, whereas these guys from the law firm seem to be pushing the spit-shined, top button-buttoned look. Any way you cut it, my post wasn't so great.
I think your on to something anyway. There is a whole sub-genre that Richard Merkin called the "Gentle Art of Shabby Dressing", GQ January 1990. He speaks of Brown circa 1961 and seeing school scarves threadbare from multi generational use, frayed BB button downs, jazz age Shetland sweaters, ancient Harris tweed jackets with beautiful patinas and "if there were elbow patches(and there often were),they were due to an absence of material..." Merkin speaks of something almost organic vs a "studied seediness"
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top