# (Casual) Interview Attire



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

I've landed an interview for an on-campus job/internship within the University Relations office at my college. I don't have a lot of time between now and the interview (Thursday) so I am limited to what I already own, but I feel I have more than enough options to work with.

I don't have a well enough fitting suit at the moment but given the position I'm pretty sure wearing one to the (brief) interview isn't expected. *My goal* is to look as professional as possible without over-doing it.

I do however plan on looking well put together. Right now I have a few different jackets at my disposal and plenty of shirts/ties.

Help me choose from the following...

Navy 3/2 jacket, Navy 2B blazer (brass buttons)

White OCBD / Blue OCBD / Blue Spread Collar / White Spread Collar

Light colored chinos / Dark-grey pants

Burgundy Penny Loafer / Brown penny / Black captoes

Pretty much any tie you can imagine, but here are some I thought might work well.










Navy jacket with white oxford, #4 Repp...


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I would say that you have some excellent options. I have no doubt that you'll look at least as good if not better than your competition.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Hm, would they even expect you to wear a tie or jacket though? Tread carefully. A well pressed shirt and trousers with shined shoes may be all you need.

That said, I would wear the two button blazer, white spread collar, dark grey trousers, black captoes, and the BB#4 stripe tie. You can go all Trad once you get the job.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Just curious... what's wrong with wearing the 3/2 navy?


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

Jovan said:


> You can go all Trad once you get the job.


It is odd to hear trad described as something that most people would notice and one that if they did notice that they would dislike.

ADoucett - Try to observe the office. Maybe you can pass through that building? If they are in suits go with grey pants, 3/2 navy, burgundy pennies, and whatever tie you want. If they wear chinos, then switch out the trousers for chinos.


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

I think you'd be safest in a navy blazer, dark gray trousers, white OCBD and any one of the ties that you show. The gray trousers will step it up a notch over the chinos. I suspect you'll show them that you are a serious candidate. I've hired a number of university positions over a number of years and can guarantee you'll be competitively dressed. Good luck!


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

adoucett, you're a well dressed guy by nature. I think you'll show well. If my understanding is correct, the function of any University Relations department is to present the University to the outside world. If that's correct, folks in the University Relations group will be meeting with local civic leaders, state legislators on funding issues, significant alumni on fund-raising matters, and other assorted VIPs. 

If that guess is kinda close to correct, I'd wear:

• 2B Blazer
• White OCBD
• the leftmost tie
• gray trousers (unless they're so dark that there is no tonal contrast with the Blazer)
• Burgundy Pennies

Were I doing the interview, I'd want to know how each candidate would represent the University to its constituents and financial supporters. The questions I'd be asking myself would be:
• How would he appear to the the mayor, the Governor, the State Senate Majority leader, the Board of Trustees, and the top donors to the University?
• When I make a clear mistake (on purpose) in my conversation with you, how cleverly and circumspectly can you correct me
• Does he get flustered when I ask a tough question? 

I would never ask a question about apparel. Dressing appropriately isn't enough to get you the job, but dressing inappropriately is enough to get you dropped from consideration.

If you were a hot feces software developer, I wouldn't give a rat's rear end about how you dressed. If your role was to be regularly meeting with people who can/could help or hurt the University, I'd care a lot about how you dress.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

oxford cloth button down said:


> go with grey pants, 3/2 navy, burgundy pennies, and whatever tie you want.





fishertw said:


> I think you'd be safest in a navy blazer, dark gray trousers, white OCBD and any one of the ties that you show.





Billax said:


> I'd wear:
> 
> • 2B Blazer
> • White OCBD
> ...


I concur. And I agree with Billax about the leftmost tie.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

oxford cloth button down said:


> It is odd to hear trad described as something that most people would notice and one that if they did notice that they would dislike.


No disrespect meant with what I'm about to say, nor do I think Jovan meant any either, but Trad has been out of the mainstream for so many decades now that to most who came of age later than the late 60s, it can appear dumpy and careless, though I understand that true Trad followers, few though they be, would feel quite the opposite.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

I appreciate all the feedback, especially those who went into detail! 

Without providing too much unnecessary detail, but for purposes of clarification, 

The Interview is with a woman who is a director in the department. The position I would be applying for involves mainly assisting in communicating/marketing the research being done at the University, especially in the sciences. 

If it were a gig at the dish room I wouldn't be putting so much thought into it, but since this is a bit more of a professional environment, I'm trying to put my best foot forward without seeming too overzealous


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

Jovan said:


> That said, I would wear the two button blazer, white spread collar, dark grey trousers, black captoes, and the BB#4 stripe tie. You can go all Trad once you get the job.


This was my thought EXACTLY. Go conservative, but classy. There is nothing about that outfit that will outshine YOU. And in my opinion, that's exactly what you want -- to stand out for who you are not for your clothes at an interview.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> No disrespect meant with what I'm about to say, nor do I think Jovan meant any either, but Trad has been out of the mainstream for so many decades now that to most who came of age later than the late 60s, it can appear dumpy and careless, though I understand that true Trad followers, few though they be, would feel quite the opposite.


It was more that the choices I thought were optimal appear "serious" to most people now. Naturally, if you see a bunch of people in the place you're interviewing wearing button-downs, sack suits, pocket squares, etc. then you can wear them too. But otherwise one should try to appear more conventional and safe.

It should go without saying that I actually like the Trad look (regardless of Peak's association of it with Republicans), but it's not something one should go into an interview with.


----------



## Spin Evans (Feb 2, 2013)

Excellent job on getting the interview! I think everyone has weighed in very well on the interview attire question. 

If you haven't already, consider what those in this position wear on a daily basis. Are blazers and sport coats a rare (or ridiculed) sight on campus? Is the school itself a fairly conservative entity, or one that is less so? And finally, is the individual with whom you are interviewing of an age that can accept, rather than feel threatened by, a blazer?


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Jovan said:


> That said, I would wear the two button blazer, white spread collar, dark grey trousers, black captoes, and the BB#4 stripe tie. You can go all Trad once you get the job.


Word for word what I was going to say


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

You seem set on the clothing choices, so I will put my .02 in on the interview itself. As Billax noted, the interviewer has the luxury of knowing many of his questions ahead of time - you need to prepare for as many potential ones as possible. And when they ask if you have any questions, have one ready - you should probably have few prepared, in case some get answered during the interview (one of my favorites is to ask what success looks like for your position in 6-9 months). And good luck!!!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> It should go without saying that I actually like the Trad look (regardless of Peak's association of it with Republicans)...


Well I liked Ike. Mr. Doucett, if you present in the interview as you do in that pic, you should do just fine. (And would that be a table of booz behind you? Hmmmm, Trad indeed.)


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Ike was a politician of the now-rare breed that didn't always go with party lines on every issue and could get along with both sides because of that.

I wish you luck on your interview, adoucett.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

adoucett: I am a professor emeritus and former department head at a large research university. The advice above about attire will take you in the right direction from your good start. Certainly, learn what men in the department are wearing and have some thoughtful questions ready. Read everything available about the department and learn whatever you can about the person interviewing you - her education, previous positions, publications etc. From a personal perspective, I would offer a final suggestion that you display manners of the type that the interviewer will notice and appreciate - rising when she does, using such words as "please" and "thank you" and conveying a general sense that you will be an agreeable person to have around. You are approaching this exercise in a sensible way. Let us know if you are successful. Good luck.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

It's very odd to me to hear that trad is inappropriate interview or even office attire. To me, a 3/2 roll jacket is much classier and even formal looking than a contemporary 2-button jacket. I don't understand this at all. As OCBD suggests, trad is not some strange costume we put on like Star Trek fans dressing as their favorite character. It's a classic, timeless mode of attire. Classic always trumps contemporary, in my book.

As long as all other things are equal, such as quality and condition of the fabric (i.e., it's not worn and threadbare), there is absolutely nothing wrong with wearing traditional clothing for an interview, e.g., the 3/2 roll jacket.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan and I made remarks that may have miffed some, but that wasn't the intent. It was a brand of reality which I think sometimes gets overlooked here. And like Jovan, I too like some trad. However this...



Duvel said:


> It's a classic, timeless mode of attire. Classic always trumps contemporary, in my book.


...is uninformed. Trad was a style of dress that bloomed in the 50s and 60s (I was there for that) then faded. Greaser was a style of dress that also bloomed at the same time, then faded. But classic? I'm not so sure. Classic is often in the eye of the beholder and often that eye looks back to before it was born and thinks that events and styles before their time are historic or classic. So go back further. Darted, well-fitted clothing is far, far older and long-lived than the brief flowering of trad. However, trad, even today, is a valid style. But it doesn't necessarily "...trump contemporary" as you say, though you correctly qualify with "...in my book.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Okay, point taken, I guess. Uninformed as supposedly I am, I did say "in my book," as you point out. In any case, I stand by my position that wearing trad, especially if all that means is a 3/2 jacket, is hardly inappropriate for a casual interview.



Peak and Pine said:


> Jovan and I made remarks that may have miffed some, but that wasn't the intent. It was a brand of reality which I think sometimes gets overlooked here. And like Jovan, I too like some trad. However this...
> 
> ...is uninformed. Trad was a style of dress that bloomed in the 50s and 60s (I was there for that) then faded. Greaser was a style of dress that also bloomed at the same time, then faded. But classic? I'm not so sure. Classic is often in the eye of the beholder and often that eye looks back to before it was born and thinks that events and styles before their time are historic or classic. So go back further. Darted, well-fitted clothing is far, far older and long-lived than the brief flowering of trad. However, trad, even today, is a valid style. But it doesn't necessarily "...trump contemporary" as you say, though you correctly qualify with "...in my book.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Peak and Pine said:


> Jovan and I made remarks that may have miffed some, but that wasn't the intent. It was a brand of reality which I think sometimes gets overlooked here. And like Jovan, I too like some trad. However this...
> 
> ...is uninformed. Trad was a style of dress that bloomed in the 50s and 60s (I was there for that) then faded. Greaser was a style of dress that also bloomed at the same time, then faded. But classic? I'm not so sure. Classic is often in the eye of the beholder and often that eye looks back to before it was born and thinks that events and styles before their time are historic or classic. So go back further. Darted, well-fitted clothing is far, far older and long-lived than the brief flowering of trad. However, trad, even today, is a valid style. But it doesn't necessarily "...trump contemporary" as you say, though you correctly qualify with "...in my book.


Duvel is on point. You come across as the iGent-Know-It-all, who frankly doesn't know anything. You are referring to the late period of the Ivy league Look, not Trad in general. You allussion to classic is more in line with how trad is actual;ly viewed here...


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

It's probably also worth noting that in this day and age a college-aged student showing up in anything other than a t-shirt and/or hoodie is somewhat of a miracle.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Sad, but so true.



adoucett said:


> It's probably also worth noting that in this day and age a college-aged student showing up in anything other than a t-shirt and/or hoodie is somewhat of a miracle.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Duvel said:


> It's very odd to me to hear that trad is inappropriate interview or even office attire. *To me, a 3/2 roll jacket is much classier and even formal looking than a contemporary 2-button jacket.* I don't understand this at all. As OCBD suggests, trad is not some strange costume we put on like Star Trek fans dressing as their favorite character. It's a classic, timeless mode of attire. Classic always trumps contemporary, in my book.
> 
> As long as all other things are equal, such as quality and condition of the fabric (i.e., it's not worn and threadbare), there is absolutely nothing wrong with wearing traditional clothing for an interview, e.g., the 3/2 roll jacket.


Three-roll-two sacks actually look more casual to me because of the vestigial buttoning style, amount of lapel roll, and relaxed structure in the shoulders and body. Button-down collars are also a more casual option, I doubt anyone could disagree with that. Do you wear one with black tie, even if the dinner jacket is constructed like a sack? (And please, no one reference Thom Browne or Black Fleece.) I do think it's a classic style, but one for once you get the job. Like pocket squares. Why chance it? Play it safe.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I don't think that it's possible to look "too professional" at an interview. My wife recently hired someone as a gopher at the law firm where she works. She was about to offer the job to someone else when this guy surfaced at the last minute. They called him in and he was dressed better, she says, than most of the lawyers. It made a huge impression. No one else, apparently, had even bothered to wear a tie to the interview.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

Peak and Pine said:


> Jovan and I made remarks that may have miffed some, but that wasn't the intent. It was a brand of reality which I think sometimes gets overlooked here. And like Jovan, I too like some trad. However this...
> 
> ...is uninformed. Trad was a style of dress that bloomed in the 50s and 60s (I was there for that) then faded. Greaser was a style of dress that also bloomed at the same time, then faded. But classic?


I have a different opinion. Trad was not a style of dress that bloomed in the 50s and 60s. TNSIL or The Ivy League Style that exploded in the 50s and 60s, but was around well before that. Trad is the modern iteration (there were others before it) of this style. Is it the exact same? No it is not. It is not period clothing. Does it contain many of the same elements such as OCBDs, stripes ties,and loafers? Yes it does.

My only issue with not suggesting that ADoucett wear a 3/2 sack or OCBD is that I think that is assumes that the there is a high chance that someone would notice. Most people do not know what a 3/2 sack is and I had to use the internet to prove to my coworkers that my OCBD was less dressy than most shirts. What I am saying, is that what many of here view as common knowledge may be esoteric.

If they are going to think you are anything they are going to think you are preppy. That goes for all the outfits. I would take the bet that they wouldn't say rad.

I am enjoying the conversation.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm not nearly as schooled in the fine points of traditional men's style as many of you. I can read the internetz, and I have my own experience, which includes some part-time retail sales work in traditional men's shops as a college student in the 1970s. But beyond that, I don't know much. Nevertheless, I might offer that it seems to me that 3/2 versus 2-button is a matter of preference and doesn't have much to do with formality or casualness. Does it? Doesn't formality/casualness have more to do with a combination of factors, not only cut but also fabric, color, details, etc.?

In other words, could I not have a 3/2 jacket that looks much more formal than a 2-button, and vice versa? And then, if one of each were compared side by side, and each were formal in all respects, would there be any difference?

Or, to add another wrinkle, is the 3/2 in fact more formal because it is more classic than the 2-button? To support the assumption in that last, I see the 3/2 as more classic because it is less changeable, less prone to "fashion" directions, e.g., where the buttons can be placed.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

oxford cloth button down said:


> I am enjoying the conversation.


As am I. And, yes, we do disagree. But I am grateful for your tone (especially since you chose not to shoot personal as that guy a few posts above with the bad spelling did). I have seen your Main Street pics and they could have been me in '62. And that's a compliment because I looked pretty good in '62. The stuff I've seen you post certainly is timeless. Whether it is 'classic', the term thrown around here so much, well, I'm not so sure. Purely as coincidence, last evening I opened a trunk that contained the jacket I was wearing for my high school pic. i come across this every five years or so, always try it on, always still fits, but for the first time I noticed it was a sack coat. Imagine. Only in retrospect am I aware that I was Trad. As we all were I guess, here in the privileged part of Northern New England. Anyhow, I enjoy peeking in here at the Trad Forum every so often. But I really should do just that, peek. And then shut up.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I think some of the privileged part of Northern New England must have trickled down to the underprivileged parts of the Midwest where I grew up! My yearbook photos show that I, too, was wearing sack jackets as well as cuffed chinos and what appear, by today's standards, to be traditional fit OCBDs. I hardly was aware of any of this back then, of course. It was just what my mother made her son wear to school.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

I've been reflecting for a while about the divergence of responses to member adoucett's request for suggestions on what to wear for his interview. For me, such wide divergences reflect failures by commenting members (including me). Such failures can take one of at least three forms: failures of fit, failures of authenticity, and failures of coherence. Having viewed adoucette's posts for some time, I'm willing to eliminate failures of fit. So, I think the variance in recommendations comes from - not so much from differences in taste - but misunderstandings of authenticity and/or misunderstandings in coherence.

Authenticity is that everything worn is/was appropriate to the classic period of Ivy Style (c. 1960-1967). Here is a picture I took today of an outfit that is perfectly authentic, i.e. everything was regularly worn during the high water mark of Ivy Style), but fails the test of coherence (things that innately fit with other things).









Here, everything is authentic (Ivy style, and available and popular in the 1960s), but an individual element does not fit with the rest of the outfit. It's the shirt in case you hadn't guessed. It is a Banker's Stripe, PPBD, Brooks Brothers button down with the original Polo collar. It's wonderfully authentic - and absolutely wrong for the tone of the outfit as the stripes are way too thin and thus very formal. It's way too formal - and it shows! As a consequence, the entire look fails. Later today (i've got a meeting now) I'll have photos of the other major fail, lack of coherence. This failure requires that one understand time, place, and age. After that, feel free to disagree and disparage....

My hope is not that you'll agree with me, but that you'll consider these two elements when putting together your apparel of the day.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I've promised to shut up in this thread so I'm not allowing myself to comment directly on your post, but, strictly theoretically, if I were allowing myself to respond I would say that you make good, often over-looked points, albeit somewhat in the weeds on the shirt stripe thing.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Billax, that's wrong, huh. I'm going to have to chew on this a while, because I don't see it. To me, if anything makes the outfit look too formal it is the pocket square.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

I hope adoucette did well in his interview today. I'll bet he did, since his options included classic, timeless items (I think the two go together). And let's get real. Very few people out there know what a sack jacket or a 3/2 roll is. I'd wager no one in the University Relations office does. But I'll bet they appreciated that he dressed professionally and didn't wear the ubiquitous jeans/T-shirt/hoodie slop combo.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Peak and Pine said:


> ...Trad has been out of the mainstream for so many decades now that to most who came of age later than the late 60s, it can appear dumpy and careless...


This is the most puzzling comment I've ever seen on this forum.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Same here. Best wishes to adoucette.

I have the pleasure of serving on a selection committee for a vacancy in a couple of weeks. It will be interesting to see how our candidates dress. I hope nobody shows up looking dumpy and careless,



gamma68 said:


> I hope adoucette did well in his interview today. I'll bet he did, since his options included classic, timeless items (I think the two go together). And let's get real. Very few people out there know what a sack jacket or a 3/2 roll is. I'd wager no one in the University Relations office does. But I'll bet they appreciated that he dressed professionally and didn't wear the ubiquitous jeans/T-shirt/hoodie slop combo.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Duvel said:


> Billax, that's wrong, huh. I'm going to have to chew on this a while, because I don't see it. To me, if anything makes the outfit look too formal it is the pocket square.


The Chambray sport coat, tapered poplin trow, casual striped socks and beef roll penny loafers all scream casual. The pocket square color is quite casual, picking up only the stripe in the socks. The tie could go either way, but in context of the rest of the outfit - reads casual. For the shirt to fit in, you'd have to trade out the banker's stripes for candy stripes, University stripes, tape stripes, Bengal stripes, even barber stripes, anything wider than Banker's stripes - but the VERY formal, narrow stripes just destroy an otherwise coherent outfit.

Authenticity errors are errors of time and place. For sake of argument, let's assume we've traded out the Banker's Stripe for A Uni stripe. Everything's coherent. But then, let's trade in the Chambray jacket for this Hank Williams Country and Western jacket:










It's authentic by itself, of course, but as the jacket for an otherwise Ivy Style outfit... it creates an inauthentic look!

Authenticity and Coherence are both important to a successful look!

I'm a big adoucett fan. I think his judgement is good, and I, too, hope his interview went well.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Interesting. I see that the narrow stripes might seem more formal than wider stripes, but I don't see the jarring incoherence in this outfit that you do.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Billax said:


> I've been reflecting for a while about the divergence of responses to member adoucett's request for suggestions on what to wear for his interview. For me, such wide divergences reflect failures by commenting members (including me). Such failures can take one of at least three forms: failures of fit, failures of authenticity, and failures of coherence. Having viewed adoucette's posts for some time, I'm willing to eliminate failures of fit. So, I think the variance in recommendations comes from - not so much from differences in taste - but misunderstandings of authenticity and/or misunderstandings in coherence.
> 
> Authenticity is that everything worn is/was appropriate to the classic period of Ivy Style (c. 1960-1967). Here is a picture I took today of an outfit that is perfectly authentic, i.e. everything was regularly worn during the high water mark of Ivy Style), but fails the test of coherence (things that innately fit with other things).
> 
> ...


I don't see anything wrong with it, perhaps other than the fact that the sport coat and shirt look a little close in shade from a distance. Though, I'd probably sooner wear a university stripe or gingham shirt.



gamma68 said:


> This is the most puzzling comment I've ever seen on this forum.


I don't see how it's puzzling, it's merely his opinion. I don't entirely agree with it though.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Eric W S said:


> Duvel is on point. You come across as the iGent-Know-It-all, who frankly doesn't know anything. You are referring to the late period of the Ivy league Look, not Trad in general. You allussion to classic is more in line with how trad is actual;ly viewed here...


Peak and Pine is discussing how the truest parts of the trad style can appear dated to some. Why risk that the interviewer may think your suit or jacket is dated. The blazer is a safer choice.

I'm disappointed in your direct insult to Peak and Pine as well.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

This thread certainly has taken a long and winding road from the original post, with an unfortunate turn here and there.

On the question of risking the impression of looking dated, isn't traditional style supposed to look rather timeless? If something is timeless, it's not dated. Dated to me would be a trendy thing one was hanging onto, e.g., disco platform shoes or an '80s hairstyle.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Jovan said:


> I don't see how it's puzzling, it's merely his opinion. I don't entirely agree with it though.


Trad = dumpy and careless is what's puzzling. At least to me. People seem to think I'm "overdressed" when I do Trad.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

I'm very surprised to see a moderator pop up here and chastise a post. I've seen FAR worse comments at this forum that have resulted in nothing but cricket chirps.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Duvel said:


> This thread certainly has taken a long and winding road from the original post, with an unfortunate turn here and there.
> 
> On the question of risking the impression of looking dated, isn't traditional style supposed to look rather timeless? If something is timeless, it's not dated. Dated to me would be a trendy thing one was hanging onto, e.g., disco platform shoes or an '80s hairstyle.


Duvel hits the nail on the head here.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

gamma68 said:


> This is the most puzzling comment I've ever seen on this forum.


I think you veer toward hyperbole, but I'll take you at your word and try to un-puzzle it.




> And let's get real. Very few people out there know what a sack jacket or a 3/2 roll is.


So we agree. On that at least. Yet I think that when people see things with which they are unfamiliar, the sight is often accompanied by a snap judgement. Like when I saw a car I'd never seen before, I thought, wow that looks great. It was a Tesla. So, not to put words in your mouth, but you think, I think, that when this vast majority, by your own math above, encounter this never-before-seen Trad look that they may have a Tesla-like reaction. I, on the other hand, think that their reaction will be that you've forgotten to button your top button and that you've got on a jacket that fits like, well, like a sack. And that I translate into dumpy and careless.

W.F. Buckley (whom I was lucky enough to meet, twice!) always looked dumpy and carelessly dressed, which is to say, with him at least, he looked wonderful. Trad is a valid style. For some. Not mine obviously, but it certainly has it's place. As does a discussion of its pros and cons. Fair enough?


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Hmm. I remember seeing Cary Grant in North by Northwest wearing a sack suit. I was about 10 or 11. All I thought was that he looked sharp. Yes, I noticed the buttonhole, but with the confidence that Grant wore the suit, it seemed perfectly normal. After that, I saw a man at church on Sunday in a suit and wondered why he didn't have that top button undone as it should be, as Cary Grant does it.

As for dumpy and careless, can't you look that way in any style? Sure, while I never had the pleasure of meeting the guy, I know that Buckley looked that way. I feel that was an affectation on his part. He easily could have chosen to wear the same gear less dumpy and careless. 

For myself, I certainly don't feel like I look dumpy in a 3/2 blazer, and I'm definitely careful about how I dress.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Duvel said:


> As for dumpy and careless, can't you look that way in any style? Sure, while I never had the pleasure of meeting the guy, I know that Buckley looked that way. I feel that was an affectation on his part. He easily could have chosen to wear the same gear less dumpy and careless.


Once again, Duvel hits the nail on the head. Just because Buckley chose to affect a "dumpy" or "sloppy" look doesn't mean everyone automatically equates Trad with dumpy/sloppy.

I guarantee the university employee who met with adoucette was thrilled to see a college student wearing a jacket and tie. I'd also bet that employee gave absolutely no thought as to whether the top button should or shouldn't be buttoned, or took notice if the jacket fit "like a sack." Most Brooks Brothers employees today don't even know what a sack jacket is, for Pete's sake.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Duvel said:


> As for dumpy and careless, can't you look that way in any style?


A good point, Doove. You certainly can. But I think it's, chuckle, easier to with Trad. And I'm sure _you _don't look dumpy and careless (which incidentally is either the name of two of the Seven Dwarfs, or of my two kids, I can't remember which). You should post pics. Maybe you have and I missed them (I was in an AAAC coma for three years until last month).

And without trying to be condescendingly self depreciating, I too often look dumpy and careless. I'm 70 years old for Christ's sake. And I regard dress simply as background, background to personality, of which mine is huge. My best to you. Post pics.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I'm too "bashful" to post fit pictures. Or is it humble? (Is that another dwarf?) Honestly, I don't think I'm good enough for that just yet, in spite of my obvious impeccable taste. 

I'm approaching 60, and frankly, yes, I don't really give a dam if I'm seen as dumpy and careless or tidy and neat. I just want to be comfortable--while also looking good, of course.

RE the comments above about the sack fit, I've always thought the term was something of a misnomer, or at least open for misinterpretation. It has nothing to do with a jacket fitting like a sack. Some of my sack blazers have a nice bit of waist suppression.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> I too often look dumpy and careless. I'm 70 years old for Christ's sake. And I regard dress simply as background, background to personality, of which mine is huge. My best to you. Post pics.


Post pics yourself. Seriously.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I'm actually preparing to do just that. Seriously.


Just this morning did I get a handle on Picasa and posted pics of my feet at the grave site of my cat (see WAYWN thread, the non-trad version) and I posted another on the spectator shoes I made last night (see Can I make a plain wingtip into a spectator? currently running).

But I suppose you're talking about a full-fit pic. I don't do poses, real life or on the internet. Nor will I stand in front of a bathroom mirror with light from a 13w CFL and snap a grainy shot while staring into a Tracfone as so much of the stuff I see here is done, if that's what you mean. But you will get a chance to see me full face and wearing some sort of clothes next week when I post pics of me and America's only stand-alone, free-standing walk-in closet that I built this summer in one of my yards. Look for it.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Well, there ya' go.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

Well, this thread certainly took on a life of its own!

Thanks to everyone who offered suggestions. I decided the most important aspect of the outfit, above trad/not trad, formal/informal was what I personally would feel most comfortable and confident wearing. Thankfully I believe I've developed a decent sense of what that entails over the past couple years on this forum, and with the guidance offered here I believe I made wise choices.

After all, the interview is about the _interview_, not a spot check of attire! That being said, by wearing what I felt projected the most confidence for me, I think the attire only served as a positive asset during the interview.

Now I just have to hope that don't get passed over because I'm non-work study. The interviewer flat-out told me "We prefer hiring them because we can pay them less"

:eek2: So much for qualifications!


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

gamma68 said:


> Trad = dumpy and careless is what's puzzling. At least to me. People seem to think I'm "overdressed" when I do Trad.


I don't think Trad is dumpy and careless, but I can see how someone could. Trad seems to be an attempt to dress down at all times, within the bounds of classic clothing.

Its leading proponent all seem to less more informally than I do, so I think of it as classic casual.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Billax said:


> I've been reflecting for a while about the divergence of responses to member adoucett's request for suggestions on what to wear for his interview. For me, such wide divergences reflect failures by commenting members (including me). Such failures can take one of at least three forms: failures of fit, failures of authenticity, and failures of coherence. Having viewed adoucette's posts for some time, I'm willing to eliminate failures of fit. So, I think the variance in recommendations comes from - not so much from differences in taste - but misunderstandings of authenticity and/or misunderstandings in coherence.
> 
> Authenticity is that everything worn is/was appropriate to the classic period of Ivy Style (c. 1960-1967). Here is a picture I took today of an outfit that is perfectly authentic, i.e. everything was regularly worn during the high water mark of Ivy Style), but fails the test of coherence (things that innately fit with other things).
> 
> ...


Brilliant. Under the picture someone could have put the caption What's wrong with this picture? and later given the answer: The shirt stripes are two narrow. From this a reader could file the example in memory and perhaps recalled it should he come upon a similar combination.

By putting the picture in the context of two axis, Authenticity and Coherence you have provided not just an example to look at, and perhaps recall, you have provided analytic tools for thinking, not just about the contents of this picture but tools for thinking about every picture and every ensemble not only Trad but also Classical.

As always, it is a pleasure to learn from you.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> Brilliant. Under the picture someone could have put the caption What's wrong with this picture? and later given the answer: The shirt stripes are two narrow. From this a reader could file the example in memory and perhaps recalled it should he come upon a similar combination.
> 
> By putting the picture in the context of two axis, Authenticity and Coherence you have provided not just an example to look at, and perhaps recall, you have provided analytic tools for thinking, not just about the contents of this picture but tools for thinking about every picture and every ensemble not only Trad but also Classical.
> 
> ...


Aren't the shirt stripes ok in width, more so since they could otherwise approach the width of the secondary shirt stripe, while the actual problem is actually the color tonality of the shirt (the wrong blue and the wrong intensity)?


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> Aren't the shirt stripes ok in width, more so since they could otherwise approach the width of the secondary short stripe, while the actual problem is actually the color tonality of the shirt (the wrong blue and the wrong intensity)?


Also, is not the button-down style of shirt informal?


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Thank you, Mr. Kirshner. A compliment from an experienced, thoughtful guy such as you is a compliment indeed!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Aren't the shirt stripes ok in width, more so since they could otherwise approach the width of the secondary short stripe, while the actual problem is actually the color tonality of the shirt (the wrong blue and the wrong intensity)?


Thus working better kinda like this (best I could do on my phone):


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

williamson said:


> Also, is not the button-down style of shirt informal?


Yes, the button down collar is the least formal collar, however, Billax's jacket is a very informal jacket, (consider the fabric, color, and buttons). 
As collar and jacket are both informal the pairing meets the coherence test.



Bjorn said:


> Aren't the shirt stripes ok in width, more so since they could otherwise approach the width of the secondary shirt stripe,


Sure, but I am sure Billax is going for more than ok. A wider stripe oxford cloth is lower in formality and a better choice with the very informal jacket.



Bjorn said:


> while the actual problem is actually the color tonality of the shirt (the wrong blue and the wrong intensity)?
> 
> Billax promised us after concluding his meeting he will post the second part of the lesson. I look forward to part 2 and suspect he will address your astute observation.


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

My apologies for not responding in a more timely manner. Moreover, my apologies for posting these comments on a thread that was important - and time sensitive - to adoucett.

My earlier post dealt with failures of Coherence. This post deals with failures of authenticity.

My basic contention is that styles develop over time, through trial and error. Much as with architecture, where the modernist style developed over a couple of decades, the Ivy League style similarly developed over a twenty year period. I contend that most of this experimentation occurred on Ivy League campuses, which were then all-male, save for Cornell. Within the Ivies it is pretty clear, at least to me, that Princeton and Yale were the two schools that contributed most to the solidification of the Ive League Look. Many clothing elements were tried and many then rejected, but over a longish period of time, the Ivy League Look emerged - and was clearly recognizable. At that point, it became a style.

Moving to my point, failures of authenticity can occur in a number ways.

a) mixing of styles

An egregious mixing of style and fashion would be to wear these shoes with any Ivy League Look:










Square-toed shoes, aka Pilgrim shoes, have, to the best of my knowledge, NEVER been a part of the Ivy League Look. They are completely inauthentic, while also being, to my eyes, incoherent.

b) mixing of time periods

In the early-mid 1960s, the Ivy style was at its sleekest and slimmest. Ties and jacket lapels were in the 2" - 2 1/2" range. Hat brims were also stingy, at about 2". Trousers were slim fitting and tapered. Less than a decade later, the fashion in the Ivy League Look (I distinguish fashion from style) was wide lapels and wide ties. Four inch lapels (accompanied by droopy gorge placement) and four inch blade width on ties were the norm. Mixing slim, tapered trousers with a wide lapeled jacket is, of course, incoherent, but it is also, to me, inauthentic. Even within a style, fashions can, and do, change. Thus, to be authentic, all elements of one's outfit have to be similarly located in time, though not necessarily manufactured in that time period.

c) mixing levels of formality

This inauthenticity is difficult to spot and, given the limits of one's wardrobe, is often difficult to avoid. Formality mixing came to mind in earlier posts on this thread. Mr. adoucette listed his available apparel for his interview and asked for suggestions for an outfit. Among the responses were a number that suggested a Blue Blazer with Black Captoe shoes. Given Mr. adoucette's place in life (a college student) and, concomitantly, the size of his closet, he had one combination that was - to me - perfect: a Blue Blazer, white OCBD, repp tie and Burgundy penny loafers. Black Captoes are *very* formal business shoes. They are terrific with navy suits and gray suits. The Issue I - and many others - have with Black captoes is that they are WAY too formal for a Blue Blazer and gray trousers. Thus, though every element of the Blue Blazer, Gray trousers, spread collar, Black Cap-toe shoe look is authentically Ivy... these elements are not authentic together.

Just my $0.02


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Every time it is my privilege to read a post such as the above, I come away from the experience feeling that I have been both entertained and educated. We may frequently garner facts from our readings, but Billax also provides us with understanding, a much rarer result...time well spent any way you look at it. Thank you, my friend!


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Agreed! Definitely.

Billax, I think in the case of your original photos (of your outfit), the trouble that I'm having is that the alleged incongruity is subtle, at least to me. I don't disagree that one has to be aware of this, but to me you are talking about a very fine distinction in your example.



eagle2250 said:


> ^^Every time it is my privilege to read a post such as the above, I come away from the experience feeling that I have been both entertained and educated. We may frequently garner facts from our readings, but Billax also provides us with understanding, a much rarer result...time well spent any way you look at it. Thank you, my friend!


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Duvel said:


> Agreed! Definitely.
> 
> Billax, I think in the case of your original photos (of your outfit), the trouble that I'm having is that the alleged incongruity is subtle, at least to me. I don't disagree that one has to be aware of this, but to me you are talking about a very fine distinction in your example.


I can see how one can think that. For me, having worn only one style for 56 years, putting on an Ivy outfit every day for more than 20,100 days, what were once minor failings of authenticity or coherence have become very large to me.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

I aspire to such an enlightened state!


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Hi Duvel,

My last word on the topic. Here's a comparison with the loosely woven J. Press Chambray sport coat on top, the the Brooks PPBD in a Bankers Stripe, then the Bar stripe tie, then a Brooks Broadcloth in a Candy Stripe. Even though the Candy stripe is only one notch wider than the Banker's stripe in BB's stripe hierarchy, yes, I think it looks far less formal and thus far more appealing than the same outfit with a Banker's stripe shirt. Of course, YMMV.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Thank you, Billax. I will have to take your word for it.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

Good news Gentlemen, just got offered the position! 

Not sure how large a role the attire played in the decision process but it certainly didn't detract from my interview! 

Thanks to all again for the suggestions and advice.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

adoucett said:


> Good news Gentlemen, just got offered the position!
> 
> Not sure how large a role the attire played in the decision process but it certainly didn't detract from my interview!
> 
> Thanks to all again for the suggestions and advice.


Congratulations, this was the most important part of the thread. Now to get us back off track please by telling us how other male applicants or interviewers were dressed. I would love to hear.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

Duvel said:


> Thank you, Billax. I will have to take your word for it.


Duvel, he is saying that he is wearing a formal shirt with an informal jacket. This is the issue.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Thank you. I think I got that. It still doesn't look wrong to me.



oxford cloth button down said:


> Duvel, he is saying that he is wearing a formal shirt with an informal jacket. This is the issue.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Congratulations!



adoucett said:


> Good news Gentlemen, just got offered the position!
> 
> Not sure how large a role the attire played in the decision process but it certainly didn't detract from my interview!
> 
> Thanks to all again for the suggestions and advice.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Congrats!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

adoucett said:


> Good news Gentlemen, just got offered the position!
> 
> Not sure how large a role the attire played in the decision process but it certainly didn't detract from my interview!
> 
> Thanks to all again for the suggestions and advice.


Congratulations!


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

Congratulations, adoucette! When you say, "_Not sure how large a role the attire played in the decision process but it certainly didn't detract from my interview!" _I believe you're right. You dressed in a way that didn't detract from who you are. Who you are was plenty good enough!


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

adoucett said:


> Not sure how large a role the attire played in the decision process but *it certainly didn't detract from my interview!*


That's the idea. 

Congrats!


----------

