Note: These guidelines assume you are interviewing for a professional or office position. Before your interview, it’s always a good idea to try to find out how people at the company, or in that industry, dress on a day-to-day basis—or even better, how you could expect them to dress when interviewing you. This allows you to mirror your interviewers’ style of dress and level of formality, helping to create an unconscious feeling of familiarity and a sense that you belong. But when in doubt, dress up rather than down; such research is primarily useful to avoid the awkwardness of showing up in a suit and tie to meet three interviewers wearing polo shirts and khakis, or vice versa.

1. A solid navy or grey suit, in wool or wool blend, two-button, two-piece, single-breasted, notch-lapel. Any other pattern serves no substantive benefit and may in fact be distracting; pinstripes may be seen as flashy, as would peak lapels on a single-breasted suit. And, as Morgan Freeman noted in The Dark Knight, "Three buttons is a little nineties, Mr. Wayne." In terms of colour, navy and grey are the most conservative; however, black is becoming more common, and if it meets all the other criteria, a black suit will be acceptable for any but the most conservative occupations.

2. A white shirt with a plain point or moderately-spread collar (not button-down). People wearing white shirts are perceived as more trustworthy than those wearing any other colour. However, if you have extremely yellow teeth or extremely pallid skin, solid light blue serves as a good second choice, because it works with any colour of suit and virtually any tie. These are the two shirt colours favoured by politicians the world over for their inoffensiveness and versatility, two qualities also desirable to an interviewee. But avoid French cuffs, since they can be perceived as flashy; if you do wear them, choose subtle cufflinks that are at least 1/2", and not more than 3/4", in diameter.

3. A darker, solid-coloured or subtly-patterned tie. The tie should always be darker than the shirt, lest you look like a mafioso. Plain dark red or burgundy is a good choice, as is medium silver-grey. For patterns, a small dot, nailhead, or geometric pattern is safest. And if your tie is striped or patterned, keep it to a maximum of three (ideally only two) colours or shades; anything else risks looking dated. Also avoid large patterns, such as paisley. And NO SATIN. Lastly, ensure that your tie knot is tight, pulled right up to your collar, and not overly large. Check it in the bathroom mirror before you go into the interview (you did arrive 10-15 minutes early, right?).

4. Round-toed black lace-up dress shoes. Note that every single descriptor in this list is essential. If they’re not round-toed, they’ll look dated. If they’re not black, they’ll look flashy. If they’re not lace-up, they’ll look too casual. And if they’re not dress shoes, they’ll just look inappropriate. A plain cap toe (pictured at right) is always a good choice and will never be inappropriate. You can also get away with a small row of perforations across the top of the cap. Wing-tips are a little bit stuffy and not quite as versatile, so try to avoid them.

5. A black dress belt, no wider than 1.25 inches. The belt should match your shoes in both its colour and the finish of its leather (i.e. texture and level of shine). Choose a simple prong buckle rather than a plaque or any other design. The tone of the buckle’s metal should match your watch. The choice of silver or gold is up to you, although silver is more current.

6. Socks that match the colour of your pants. Solid or subtly ribbed, in wool or cotton depending on the weather. Not faded; ideally, washed once, inside-out, in cold water. I find that a good percentage of nylon (25-35%) and a small percentage of spandex (5-10%) greatly helps dress socks to stay up properly.

7. No pocket square, unless you’re interviewing with a menswear store, a rapper, or the NBA.

8. A simple, elegant, moderately-sized (less than 35mm in diameter) dress watch, preferably with a leather strap. The colour of the metal and leather should match the other things you're wearing (silver and black, preferably). A plain white face with Roman numerals is ideal. Absolutely no sports watches or *shudder* digital watches.

Generally speaking, no aspect of your outfit should be loud, flashy, or conspicuous in any way. You want to project a general aura of being well-put-together, without any one item drawing attention to itself. People should be left with the impression that you looked good, but not quite be able to put their finger on why. Ideally, your clothes will serve as a backdrop, allowing your non-physical strengths to shine through, but at the same time subtly enhancing your overall appeal—like the setting of a gemstone.

So, you get the job, and then you discover that the dress code is “business casual.” Sweet! Now you’re home free, right?

Well… not quite.

But we’ll talk about that next time.

We often hear the rule "don't wear white after Labour Day," but we less often hear about the point when it's okay to start wearing white. In the United States, that day is Memorial Day; but in Commonwealth countries (including Canada), which don't observe Memorial Day, we get to start a week earlier, on Victoria Day.

Incidentally, the rule doesn't apply to white shirts, but it does apply to pretty much everything else: pants, shorts, shoes, jackets, and belts (and for women, all of the above, plus skirts and handbags). It's also a good rule of thumb for when it's appropriate to wear linen or seersucker.

You only get a little over three months to indulge in the pleasure of pristine white. Make the most of it!

I've been sick the last couple days, but I managed to catch The Kennedys on the History Channel last night. I am in love with this cardigan worn by Tom Wilkinson as Joe Kennedy Sr. Even the pockets have tipping!

This past Friday my wife and I visited the Salvation Army Thrift Store in the Kerr Village area of Oakville, a suburb of Toronto known for being full of rich people. I think I can fairly safely say that, at the least, people in Oakville must own really nice stuff, because what they get rid of is pretty amazing:

Each item in the above photo was $1.99, except for the shoes, which were $8.99. I don't often have good luck with clothes at thrift stores, but I can usually find at least one tie that's decent. But finding two that are so perfectly preppy is unprecedented. First we have the very nautical Chubb Marine Underwriters tie, which would look perfect with a blazer:

Silk face, polyester lining, 3 1/8" wide, made in USA.

And then of course we have the game-bird critter tie:

All silk, 3 1/2" wide, made in England.

I'm not completely certain what kind of bird it is, but going by this picture, I'm pretty sure it's a grouse.

But I think I'm probably most excited about the Sebago burgundy tassel loafers:

Leather upper, leather sole, made in USA.

I love tassel loafers, and these will go just perfectly with khakis, navy or grey dress pants - hell, even my white linen/cotton pants. Of course they need a little spit and polish, but there's nothing seriously wrong with them, so they'll clean up very nicely. They look a lot better even after just putting in shoe trees.

And the runner-up for Most Exiciting Item is definitely The Kennedys: Portrait of a Family by Richard Avedon. I actually gasped out loud when I pulled it off the shelf. It features never-before-seen family portraits of the Kennedys taken by Richard Avedon and donated to the Smithsonian before his (Avedon's) death.

Next weekend? The Oakville Value Village!

I’ve often been known to overdress. I went to a party a couple of weeks ago, and one of the hosts made fun of me for wearing a cardigan and a button-down shirt to such a casual event. He was wearing a pair of old jeans and a Carhartt T-shirt. Evidently, here was a guy who didn’t give much thought to the meaning of his clothes—even though, to the interested listener, they had plenty to say. That’s the thing about clothes: they speak for you, even if you're not paying attention. (To my mind, the way of dressing that carries the least expressive information about a person is the one that is most predicated on quantitative rather than qualitative concerns: buying the cheapest, most practical, most durable clothing one can find at mass-market or discount retailers, and wearing everything until it falls apart, regardless of changes in fashion.) But his comment got me thinking about why I wore what I wore to that party, and just generally about why I dress the way that I do. And I realized that it was, in part, a response to the way that other people dress.

As I’ve mentioned before, I believe that when people put effort into their appearance, it demonstrates respect for the people around them. But some people put effort into cultivating an appearance that is calculated to shock or affront others. Then they’re sending a different message altogether. The message that I personally get is, “Not only do I not care what you think of me, but I’ve taken the trouble to make sure you can tell that I don’t. In fact, I reject you, your values, and everything you stand for.” In other words, if no effort is a shrug, this kind of effort is a middle finger. I’m actually insulted by it.

Now, much as I’m socially liberal and unconventional in some ways, in other ways, I’m quite conservative. One of those ways is in matters of etiquette and protocol. I don’t value tradition for tradition’s sake, but in a lot of cases, I’ve made as reasoned and objective an evaluation as I can, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the traditional way is the preferable way—primarily because, at least as far as social conduct is concerned, the traditional way is the one that shows the most respect for other people and is most likely to preserve civility and courtesy in the public sphere.

So this is a significant part of why I dress the way I do: as a reaction against counterculture. Just look at me: I’m an upper-middle-class heterosexual white male, university-educated, a lawyer. I might be too young to be “The Man,” but I probably qualify as “The Man: The Next Generation.” And when I see people dressing in a way that I interpret as a rejection of tradition, I take it as a rejection of the values of civility and courtesy in general. So I dress conservatively, neatly, “properly,” in order to communicate my rejection of their rebellion. They wear their pants halfway down their ass? I put on a tie. They get another tattoo? I get another pair of penny loafers. They rip their jeans? I press my khakis. Each salvo of theirs provokes a retaliatory volley of my own, a war of values fought vicariously through personal appearance. On the one side, order; on the other, chaos.

By this time, some of you might be thinking that I’m a hypocrite. Isn’t it one of the central premises of this blog that clothing ought to be used as a mode of self-expression? Doesn’t that preclude judging people’s clothing choices, and saying that one way of dressing is “better” than another? Why are different styles spoken of as being opposed to one another? Shouldn’t they be allowed to coexist?

But what I’m talking about here is how I conceive of my identity as being bound up with certain social mores, and how I perceive others’ identities (as expressed through their clothing) as being in opposition to (and therefore threatening towards) those mores—and by extension, my own identity. In other words, I’m not saying that these people shouldn’t be free to communicate through what they wear; I just disagree with what they’re saying. The right to express is not debatable, but the merit of the content of that expression certainly is.

Yes, I am making a judgment. Do you disagree? Leave a comment, and let the debate begin.