Looking more professional, a fashion thread

[cjmewett]

[ QUOTE ]

the majority of people do not know how to dress. i think giving them license to experiment with "bolder" shirts and ties is a recipe for disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]
The implication was "...once you know what you're doing."

If you're new at this, you're going to be a lot better off with this look


or this


than trying to pull off this one


or this.


[ QUOTE ]
though johnston and murphy shoes are fine, this recommendation, combined with your obvious knowledge, may lead people to believe that they are the gold standard for fine footwear, which is, of course, not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought we were doing "dressing for dummies"? For people buying their first professional wardrobe, Johnston & Murphy is pretty close to the "gold standard." A guy who's wearing a suit for the first time in his life doesn't need anything more expensive or well-constructed than this.

If we're talking about people who want to spend a little more money and get a nicer product, there are a lot of options. As I would probably tend to go with Charles Tyrwhitt


Allen Edmonds

or something custom made (assuming we're talking balla, money-is-no-object), I'll let others give the high-end shoe recommendations.
[ QUOTE ]
on the socks thing, i think "mixing it up" is never correct and is very 80's in the wrong way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does this mean you always wear black, grey, brown, or navy? You'd never wear these, for example


or these?


I don't think there's anything 80s or "wrong" about wearing bolder solid or striped socks with a suit. I do think you have to be confident and to some extent be "guy who dresses very well" to be able to pull it off, just the same as you would with a lot of bold color shirt/tie combinations.
[ QUOTE ]
also, in most casual to semi-casual situations, no socks is a fine option.

[/ QUOTE ]Am I being leveled?

I think this is horrible, horrible advice, especially if we're talking about professional dress (as I thought we were). Maybe this is a California thing, but if you want to talk about "80s in the wrong way," no socks is it. I've rarely seen a man pull this off without looking ridiculous.

[lapoker17]

yeah - i'd never wear any of those socks and i am certainly confident and well dressed - the only guys i ever see who mix it up with socks and look ok are like flamboyant lawyers in their 60s and nutty older professors. just not cool.

haha sorry - the no socks thing wasn't directed at you, nor did it have anything thing to do with "business dress" or whatever - a simple non sequitir - i didn't even realize this thread was specifically about business dress! i did say casual, so i thought that would make it separate from my other comments, but should've made it a new paragraph.

[cjmewett]

Ok, as a follow-up to the socks issue (assuming we're talking casual), what sort of shoes are you wearing on your sweaty hoofs?

[lapoker17]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, as a follow-up to the socks issue (assuming we're talking casual), what sort of shoes are you wearing on your sweaty hoofs?

[/ QUOTE ]

you name it, baby! i've got tons of shoes.

[The DaveR]

CT shirts are made in China. If you're going to pay for English shirts make sure they're made in England.

J&M is not "the gold standard" for dress shoes.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
CT shirts are made in China. If you're going to pay for English shirts make sure they're made in England.

[/ QUOTE ]What shirt maker would you recommend?

[ QUOTE ]
J&M is not "the gold standard" for dress shoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

He qualified his statement by saying it's the gold standard for people starting out building a wardrobe. Not that it's the gold standard for all dress shoes.

[ QUOTE ]
For people buying their first professional wardrobe, Johnston & Murphy is pretty close to the "gold standard." A guy who's wearing a suit for the first time in his life doesn't need anything more expensive or well-constructed than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CT shirts are made in China. If you're going to pay for English shirts make sure they're made in England.

[/ QUOTE ]What shirt maker would you recommend?

[ QUOTE ]
J&M is not "the gold standard" for dress shoes.

[/ QUOTE ]

He qualified his statement by saying it's the gold standard for people starting out building a wardrobe. Not that it's the gold standard for all dress shoes.

[ QUOTE ]
For people buying their first professional wardrobe, Johnston & Murphy is pretty close to the "gold standard." A guy who's wearing a suit for the first time in his life doesn't need anything more expensive or well-constructed than this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

In most cities you're just not going to be able to get English shirts. A&S is standard, so is Harvie & Hudson and others. But the point is that CT isn't much different in construction from your standard Nordstrom shirt although it will have more flair. CT and Thomas Pink are very good at marketing a certain image but there's nothing great about the shirts themselves.

I think AE shoes are much better made than J&M for about the same price. J&M are somewhat gaudy and pretty shoddy IMO. I expect dress shoes to last 10+ years and I doubt you'll get that kind of mileage from J&M.

[cjmewett]

[ QUOTE ]
CT shirts are made in China. If you're going to pay for English shirts make sure they're made in England.

J&M is not "the gold standard" for dress shoes.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be helpful if you actually read the posts you mean to respond to.

1.) It should be abundantly clear that I am not asserting that J&M are the best shoes you can buy.

2.) AE and J&M are NOT "roughly the same price," unless by "roughly the same price" you actually mean "about double."

3.) CT is English in cut and design, and their shirts cost 50%-75% of what you'll pay at most Jermyn Street shirtmakers. So I'm not sure if this qualifies as "paying for English shirts and not getting them."

4.) If your shirt snobbery requires a finer standard than CT, Pink, Turnbull & Asser, Gieves and Hawkes, Hawes and Curtis, etc. then this probably isn't the appropriate thread for you. Why do you derisively suggest that CT shirts "aren't much better than what you get at Nordstrom"? Faconnable, for example, seems to be of perfectly acceptable quality.

Clothes/shirt snobbery is fine and all, but the genesis of this thread was a question from a guy who's essentially learning how to dress. You're coming in here and telling him that the $200 shoes and $125 shirts that others are recommending to him are pieces of [censored]. At this rate, don't you think you're just encouraging people to give up the ol' ghost on trying to dress well?

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
2.) AE and J&M are NOT "roughly the same price," unless by "roughly the same price" you actually mean "about double."


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. J&M is between $100 and $150. AEs list at $305.

[cardsharkk04]

[ QUOTE ]

*Don't ever wear a colored shirt with contrast (white) cuffs and collar. Just don't. Trust me. While we're on the topic of Pat Riley, don't ever wear a shirt with rounded leading edges on the collar. Or big long points. Or anything else "fashionable" or otherwise freakish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?