Interview clothing

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

as a further aside, what do you lot consider suitable to spend on work clothes?

Are sneers drawn at the sight of a Thomas Pink shirt? Do Paul Smith suits make you gag?

Depends what you do really but a spot of investment sometimes helps.

Shirts = mainly Lewins, shoes = Barkers and Churchs, ties = random selection, suits = tailor made by small company that nobody has ever heard of (I also get a few shirts from there).

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

as a further aside, what do you lot consider suitable to spend on work clothes?

Are sneers drawn at the sight of a Thomas Pink shirt? Do Paul Smith suits make you gag?

Depends what you do really but a spot of investment sometimes helps.

Shirts = mainly Lewins, shoes = Barkers and Churchs, ties = random selection, suits = tailor made by small company that nobody has ever heard of (I also get a few shirts from there).

Small company no one has hear of? Bloody hipster.

Matthewfalle

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

I think that is how some people feel about brown shoes.

Those people cannot be helped. A brown suit, however, is the preserve of beach weddings, Roger Moore bond films and cop movies set in 1970s San Francisco. Anyone can see that.

Ok there are only two candidates for a role and they are identical twin bros with exactly the same experience.

One of them is wearing brown suit with brown shoes the other is wearing black shoes, smart trousers and a short sleeved shirt.

Which do you hire?

Why do they have to be "bros"?

Do you only employ men?

Is your organisation that sexist and misogynistic in today's day and age to actively not recruit women into roles that the could do equally - if not better - than men?

Or do you feel under threat from women? Is the atmosphere in your office that "laddy" and 1970s outdated that women are seen as inferior?

BAD

Matthewfalle

type:epyt wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

as a further aside, what do you lot consider suitable to spend on work clothes?

Are sneers drawn at the sight of a Thomas Pink shirt? Do Paul Smith suits make you gag?

Unless they were gauche enough to ask/check (or worse, you make a point of mentioning it), who would know what label is on your clothing?

I do make an effort for work, but our dress code is smart-casual so I can dress up/down as is my want ... Sometimes it is PS, others it’s a plain Gap t-shirt ...

On the subject of shoes/colour ... I only ever wear boots (derby boots with a suit) and the colour is isually dictated by the colour of my shirt, socks, bag, coat or what I wore yesterday (never the same pair or colour 2 days running) …

This already shows that you have far much more spare time than me

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

as a further aside, what do you lot consider suitable to spend on work clothes?

Are sneers drawn at the sight of a Thomas Pink shirt? Do Paul Smith suits make you gag?

Depends what you do really but a spot of investment sometimes helps.

Shirts = mainly Lewins, shoes = Barkers and Churchs, ties = random selection, suits = tailor made by small company that nobody has ever heard of (I also get a few shirts from there).

This exactly - same as me.

Why buy stuff that won't last as long, look and feel as good and give a sense of self pride?

surrey_commuter

Matthewfalle wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

I think that is how some people feel about brown shoes.

Those people cannot be helped. A brown suit, however, is the preserve of beach weddings, Roger Moore bond films and cop movies set in 1970s San Francisco. Anyone can see that.

Ok there are only two candidates for a role and they are identical twin bros with exactly the same experience.

One of them is wearing brown suit with brown shoes the other is wearing black shoes, smart trousers and a short sleeved shirt.

Which do you hire?

Why do they have to be "bros"?

Do you only employ men?

Is your organisation that sexist and misogynistic in today's day and age to actively not recruit women into roles that the could do equally - if not better - than men?

Or do you feel under threat from women? Is the atmosphere in your office that "laddy" and 1970s outdated that women are seen as inferior?

BAD

How presumptive of you to blunder into my analogy so that you can get offended.

Neither are women because it removes the option of hiring the one with the biggest t1ts.

There you go snowflake is that enough to to get you crying into your falafel?

Frank Wilson is on the selection panel so there are a lot more exclusions than women

Now fvck off out of my analogy and get back to your safe place

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

as a further aside, what do you lot consider suitable to spend on work clothes?

Are sneers drawn at the sight of a Thomas Pink shirt? Do Paul Smith suits make you gag?

Depends what you do really but a spot of investment sometimes helps.

Shirts = mainly Lewins, shoes = Barkers and Churchs, ties = random selection, suits = tailor made by small company that nobody has ever heard of (I also get a few shirts from there).

Small company no one has hear of? Bloody hipster.

I'm offended now - calling me a hipster But they do make good suits that don't need a mortgage.

type:epyt

Matthewfalle wrote:

type:epyt wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

as a further aside, what do you lot consider suitable to spend on work clothes?

Are sneers drawn at the sight of a Thomas Pink shirt? Do Paul Smith suits make you gag?

Unless they were gauche enough to ask/check (or worse, you make a point of mentioning it), who would know what label is on your clothing?

I do make an effort for work, but our dress code is smart-casual so I can dress up/down as is my want ... Sometimes it is PS, others it’s a plain Gap t-shirt ...

On the subject of shoes/colour ... I only ever wear boots (derby boots with a suit) and the colour is isually dictated by the colour of my shirt, socks, bag, coat or what I wore yesterday (never the same pair or colour 2 days running) …

This already shows that you have far much more spare time than me

It only really takes time when you forget what the plan was and then either have to change the clothing or the shoes ...

TheBigBean

The single best thing about wearing a suit is that it requires no thought. You can even wear the same one every day for an entire year as one presenter demonstrated. So, for me, work clothes are either slob wear or suits and nothing in between.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

All else being equal, whichever one looks as though more thought and care has been given to the choice. Either could look good or terrible. Conformity isn't of any real value in my field. An ability to make clear aesthetic choices is.

There's enough fashion in architecture for me to wonder whether this statement is true.

I said it wasn't valued not that it didn't exist. It does depend on the kind of office we're talking about of course. More commercial practices have a more corporate dress code. At the other end of the spectrum there are a lot of carefully curated wardrobes.

I think it is an interesting dicussion, but maybe not one for this thread. Perhaps it is not true, but in my mind an architect who believes in the beauty of brutalism simply won't get a job at a practice that likes shiny glass. The same is true with clothing - dressing like a goth or a banker won't do, but conforming with the other non-conforming artists is perfect.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

sorry I obviously did not explain myself. Candidate walks through a large open plan office for an interview wearing brown shoes. He is invited back for a second interview and wears brown shoes because he has not noticed that everybody else is dressed more formally. He is rejected for a lack of awareness and poor judgement not for wearing brown shoes.

Personally, if I was interviewing I'd aim to hire the best candidate. And if they were wearing the wrong shoes tell them after. If the interview process itself is incapable of identifying a lack of awareness without relying on shoe related faux pas, then the interview panel need to have a rethink. Or be sacked for lack of awareness and poor judgement!

Depends what the job is.

The point stands that the OP asked for advice and the best advice is to be as smart as possible.

True but only if the job is "black shoe wearer"!

And yes, smart makes sense. And black shoes make sense because, as we can see, some strange folk have a problem with brown shoes and you have no idea if the interview panel includes such like. But if the interview panel are sufficiently nuts as to have rules about who should and who should not wear cufflinks in an interview situation then you are best off not getting the job.

Exactly - if you want to wear a pony tail, facial piercings and brown shoes then there will be many organisations where you would not be happy.

Not sure where you work to have an interview panel but most places just have one bigot rather than one on a panel

If you only have one person interviewing then the process can't be shown to be fair (for either interviewer or interviewee). I work in the public sector; you normally have two technical interviewers and possibly one HR. Of course, this doesn't stop collusion but it does make it much harder; the panel need to go through a process of agreeing scores rather than just going on hem length.

Trouble is that we have a system now where basically those who are best at playing a box ticking game get the job rather than those who are best at the job. And, for what it is worth, technically speaking you could turn up dressed as Mickey Mouse and it couldn't affect your chances - the approach is that you are marked for the correct things you say and nothing else at all.

Our idea of professionalism is that I am no longer allowed to interview in pub/wine bar. I had to introduce eating into the selection process after accidentally employing a vegetarian. On another occasion I employed a so called bloke who thought it socially acceptable to order gin and tonic in a pub.

Old school vs new school approach or perhaps public vs private. SC's approach means an otherwise excellent candidate with brown shoes misses out whilst Rolf's approach always gets the Jack of all trades master of none.

Pross

Matthewfalle wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

I think that is how some people feel about brown shoes.

Those people cannot be helped. A brown suit, however, is the preserve of beach weddings, Roger Moore bond films and cop movies set in 1970s San Francisco. Anyone can see that.

Ok there are only two candidates for a role and they are identical twin bros with exactly the same experience.

One of them is wearing brown suit with brown shoes the other is wearing black shoes, smart trousers and a short sleeved shirt.

Which do you hire?

Why do they have to be "bros"?

Surely Bros would turn up in ripped jeans with Grolsch bottle tops on their laces?

Matthewfalle

Pross wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

I think that is how some people feel about brown shoes.

Those people cannot be helped. A brown suit, however, is the preserve of beach weddings, Roger Moore bond films and cop movies set in 1970s San Francisco. Anyone can see that.

Ok there are only two candidates for a role and they are identical twin bros with exactly the same experience.

One of them is wearing brown suit with brown shoes the other is wearing black shoes, smart trousers and a short sleeved shirt.

Which do you hire?

Why do they have to be "bros"?

Surely Bros would turn up in ripped jeans with Grolsch bottle tops on their laces?

Interviewer: So Mr Goss, have you any questions for us here at Dullard & Arse, bankers and accountants to the corrupt?

Mr G: Yes. When will I, will I be famous? When will I have my picture in the papers?

Matthewfalle

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Do people wear brown suits as well as brown shoes?

good God no.

I think that is how some people feel about brown shoes.

Those people cannot be helped. A brown suit, however, is the preserve of beach weddings, Roger Moore bond films and cop movies set in 1970s San Francisco. Anyone can see that.

Ok there are only two candidates for a role and they are identical twin bros with exactly the same experience.

One of them is wearing brown suit with brown shoes the other is wearing black shoes, smart trousers and a short sleeved shirt.

Which do you hire?

Why do they have to be "bros"?

Do you only employ men?

Is your organisation that sexist and misogynistic in today's day and age to actively not recruit women into roles that the could do equally - if not better - than men?

Or do you feel under threat from women? Is the atmosphere in your office that "laddy" and 1970s outdated that women are seen as inferior?

BAD

How presumptive of you to blunder into my analogy so that you can get offended.

Neither are women because it removes the option of hiring the one with the biggest t1ts.

There you go snowflake is that enough to to get you crying into your falafel?

Frank Wilson is on the selection panel so there are a lot more exclusions than women

Now fvck off out of my analogy and get back to your safe place

Good points well presented.

I accept your answer. Hat.

BelgianBeerGeek

Not important. They will accept my firm, crushing handshake, and ask me what remunation package I might deign to join their tawdry firm on. I win. Every time.

Matthewfalle

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Not important. They will accept my firm, crushing handshake, and ask me what remunation package I might deign to join their tawdry firm on. I win. Every time.

Incorrect mon ami.

Anyone who tries to crush MF's hand gets responded to with a limp lettuce of a handshake - you don't out psyche him like that.

MF said that he always find that crushing handshakers are a bit under confident, strive for attention and support their egos through shyyyte jobs like finance middle management. They are also underdeveloped in the penis department and play golf.

A nice handshake is always a winner. Or a fist bump if necessary.

SAD

BelgianBeerGeek

MF, mon cher, mon vieux,
Une element don pisse take.
Enough cod Frainglais. Much talk of threads, grooming and the like. I detest a crushing handshake in lieu of a sincere one. I have sore hands and do not grip firmly. And a grinning monkey in a poor suit wrenching me hand off, farook ‘em.
A bientot, mes Amis.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Depends what you do really but a spot of investment sometimes helps.

Shirts = mainly Lewins, shoes = Barkers and Churchs, ties = random selection, suits = tailor made by small company that nobody has ever heard of (I also get a few shirts from there).

I just bought a pair of Church's - my nose hasn't stopped bleeding since!

Matthewfalle wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ok there are only two candidates for a role and they are identical twin bros with exactly the same experience.

One of them is wearing brown suit with brown shoes the other is wearing black shoes, smart trousers and a short sleeved shirt.

Which do you hire?

Why do they have to be "bros"?

Do you only employ men?

Is your organisation that sexist and misogynistic in today's day and age to actively not recruit women into roles that the could do equally - if not better - than men?

Or do you feel under threat from women? Is the atmosphere in your office that "laddy" and 1970s outdated that women are seen as inferior?

BAD

Or maybe SC didn't feel qualified to step into the minefield of working out what the equivalent female sartorial default/faux pas would be!

Or maybe SC is so in with the chicks that he doesn't feel the need to stereotypically assume that "bros" are men.

Stevo_666

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Depends what you do really but a spot of investment sometimes helps.

Shirts = mainly Lewins, shoes = Barkers and Churchs, ties = random selection, suits = tailor made by small company that nobody has ever heard of (I also get a few shirts from there).

I just bought a pair of Church's - my nose hasn't stopped bleeding since!

Maybe they take you to a place much higher up that you're accustomed to and you have altitude sickness Rolf?

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Depends what you do really but a spot of investment sometimes helps.

Shirts = mainly Lewins, shoes = Barkers and Churchs, ties = random selection, suits = tailor made by small company that nobody has ever heard of (I also get a few shirts from there).

I just bought a pair of Church's - my nose hasn't stopped bleeding since!

Maybe they take you to a place much higher up that you're accustomed to and you have altitude sickness Rolf?

You could be right. On the bright side I enjoyed being served by, effectively, a butler. You don't get that in Schuh.....

sungod

me punter meeting: shoes: jeffrey west pointy, shirt: white cotton like an egyptian, cufflinks: custom made from mrs s, tie: nice ferré or richard james, suit: savile row with outrageous lining, give 'em a show for their money

me office today: old how to destroy the universe t-shirt, chinos, pair of converse so old they were made in usa

i'd probably go with the former for an interview, but ffs don't be boring, clones are interchangeable, be you

Stevo_666

sungod wrote:

me punter meeting: shoes: jeffrey west pointy, shirt: white cotton like an egyptian, cufflinks: custom made from mrs s, tie: nice ferré or richard james, suit: savile row with outrageous lining, give 'em a show for their money

me office today: old how to destroy the universe t-shirt, chinos, pair of converse so old they were made in usa

i'd probably go with the former for an interview, but ffs don't be boring, clones are interchangeable, be you

I googled Jeffrey West and it came up with images of brown winkle pickers. Bad Sungod

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

sungod wrote:

me punter meeting: shoes: jeffrey west pointy, shirt: white cotton like an egyptian, cufflinks: custom made from mrs s, tie: nice ferré or richard james, suit: savile row with outrageous lining, give 'em a show for their money

me office today: old how to destroy the universe t-shirt, chinos, pair of converse so old they were made in usa

i'd probably go with the former for an interview, but ffs don't be boring, clones are interchangeable, be you

I googled Jeffrey West and it came up with images of brown winkle pickers. Bad Sungod

Wasn't Jeffrey West that serial killer from Leeds bloke?

WTAF is he doing making shoes?

CONFUSED

Ben6899

Matthewfalle wrote:

Wasn't Jeffrey West that serial killer from Leeds bloke?

WTAF is he doing making shoes?

CONFUSED

*Fred

*Gloucestershire

I know it was a joke, but I can't have that weirdo being associated with West Yorkshire!

My tailor wears Jeffrey West shoes (black ones)... lovely.

Matthewfalle

Ben6899 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Wasn't Jeffrey West that serial killer from Leeds bloke?

WTAF is he doing making shoes?

CONFUSED

*Fred

*Gloucestershire

I know it was a joke, but I can't have that weirdo being associated with West Yorkshire!

.

Are you saying that West Yorkshire produces a better class of weirdo?

webboo

Yes
Peter Sutclffe.

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Wasn't Jeffrey West that serial killer from Leeds bloke?

WTAF is he doing making shoes?

CONFUSED

*Fred

*Gloucestershire

I know it was a joke, but I can't have that weirdo being associated with West Yorkshire!

.

Are you saying that West Yorkshire produces a better class of weirdo?

Bloody Southerners, aren't they.

Stevo_666

Webboo wrote:

Yes
Peter Sutclffe.

And Thomas Mair.

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Webboo wrote:

Yes
Peter Sutclffe.

And Thomas Mair.

sounds like its full of lunatics up there.

forget that for a game of soldiers - i'm staying here, God's own country.

oblongomaculatus

I've never worn a suit, ever. Last day of school was the last time I wore a tie (when it went in the bin on the way out). For my last job interview wore jeans, a polo shirt and trainers. Ten years on, I'm still there. In the past, if I've been turned down for a job because I'm not in a suit and a tie (not that they ever give that as a reason) I've thought, good, I don't want to work for anyone who still thinks suits are necessary.