Suit of the Week: BOSS
This post may contain affiliate links and Corporette® may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
For busy working women, the suit is often the easiest outfit to throw on in the morning. In general, this feature is not about interview suits for women, which should be as classic and basic as you get — instead, this feature is about the slightly different suit that is fashionable, yet professional. Also: we just updated our big roundup for the best women's suits of 2026!
It's feels like an age since we've featured a suit from Hugo Boss! I really like this color — would we call that pale teal? seaglass? The brand's name for the color is “Reef,” which doesn't seem descriptive. (Actually they probably wanted to avoid naming the color Algae, which, fair.)
In any event: this feels like a nice twist on a light blue suit, and I can see it being really lovely in spring and summer — and I even think you could bring it into fall with darker colors like a navy, black, brown, or even some almost-black shades of purple.
The suit is listed as being “water repellant,” which also confused me at first — the product page touts that you can “seamlessly transition from the boardroom to the taproom no matter what the weather has in store.” But… if you knew rain was in the forecast, wouldn't you just bring an umbrella? But I do guess it's a nice attribute to have!
My guess is I wasn't the only one confused by the “water repellant” descriptor — because the suit is on a great sale. The blazer is 60% off with lots of sizes left; also marked down are matching pants in both an ankle cut and bootcut, as well as several dresses and matching tops. (There is also a double-breasted blazer and wide leg pant in the color, both full price.) The suiting pieces are $99-$649, all at Nordstrom.
Sales of note for 6/5:
- Nordstrom – Designer clearance up to 40% off!
- Ann Taylor – Up to 40% off your purchase
- AYR – Ooh, good sale section — but lots on final sale. Readers love (LOVE) these comfy work pants and these jeans.
- Boden – 15% off new women's wear styles with code
- J.Crew – 30% off full price styles
- J.Crew Factory – Extra 50% off clearance + 40-60% off everything else
- Loft – 55% off everything + free shipping (and 6/5 only: $10 tanks)
- M.M.LaFleur– Up to 70% off, plus new styles added! (Try code CORPORETTE15 for 15% off)
- Nordstrom Rack – Clear the Rack! Nice selection of Vince, Veronica Beard, Reiss and Rag & Bone, a ton of affordable work basics from Calvin Klein and dresses from Maggy London, Eliza J, and Donna Morgan
- Talbots – 6/5 only: $50 off every $200 (plus, $99 dresses)
oops, just posted on the other thread but I’ll repeat here: does anyone have any tips for nasal vestibulitis? trying to decide if i need to go to the urgent care today but it seems like such a really small issue. but Dr. Google really seems to be freaking out and the few medical webpages I’ve reviewed do seem to say it’s something good to catch early.
Can you at least call your insurer’s nurse line about your actual symptoms? It would be nice to be set up with a primary care so that you can be seen same day and not have to deal with urgent care, but you can probably find a decent urgent care or minute clinic or family medicine walk-in type place that can prescribe.
My view is that we don’t work hard to be part of civilization so that we can handle our health issues like it’s 10,000 BCE. Or I guess 600 BCE if we’re utilizing writing as a technology to get input from a community. Modern healthcare is just better.
i’m the one who was deciding between the nurse and the MD for my primary and I just saw the nurse last week… I think she’s on vacation so I could see the MD today but then I’ll get @#$ for why I saw her associate… or I could book a 3:30 appointment at urgent care up the street. messaged nurse (ARPN or something) and no response.
I think you won’t get flack for seeing the nurse last week! They all share a practice, and it’s usually the MD who is in higher demand anyway. It’s fine!
Thank you for suggesting nurse’s hotline – I’d never called before but it was really helpful. She agreed I should be seen within next 24 hours and then transferred me to a customer service guy who told me there wouldn’t be a price difference.
How do you all feel about the recent push to force (encourage) lawmakers to retire earlier? I’m in Connecticut and I’m torn over a local election. Our rep in the House is a good guy – delivers for the district and seems to actually care about local issues and all-round keeps his head down and does good work. But he’s 80 and been in office for 30 years. He’s being primaried by someone who’s 46, almost solely based on age. I like the incumbent, I do, but man, I wish he had just gracefully retired and passed the baton to the next generation instead of having to go through a challenge based on age. I don’t want to be accused of ageism, but man, 80 seems like a good time to retire, no? I guess I’ll feel different when I’m 80.
80 is pretty old. Sometimes people here make comments about 60 and 70 year olds being elderly or frail and I kind of side-eye that (even though I’m only 40) but 80 is old. The reality is very few people have the physical stamina and mental acuteness needed to do a demanding job at that age. I side-eye any politician on either side of the aisle who wants to run for office at 80 or beyond.
My mom is still mad at RBG for not retiring earlier.
Me too.
At this point to me it’s not about age, but about perspective. People like RBG are showing us that, no matter their capabilities, they’ve lost perspective on the future and aren’t strategic anymore. There are other roles where they could still be very valuable, but there’s no need for the rest of us to risk so much for their careers.
Agree. Someone elderly can be excellent at their job and concurrently demonstrate incredible selfishness by staying in it so long that their departure becomes a cataclysmic event for the people they serve.
When specifically do you think she should have retired and what would the balance on the court be today if she had?
She should have retired in July of 2014. Her party had the Senate and the White House, and she was an 81 year old cancer survivor.
Early during Obama’s first term. Specifically. What do you think the balance on the court would be today if she had done that?
And if she had, what would the current composition of the court be, assuming everything else stayed the same?
What do you mean by “everything else” and why do you make that assumption? Why are you beating around the bush in this hamfisted attempt to avoid making your point?
Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves. Every time I hear it it strikes me as superficial reactionary thinking by people who aren’t familiar with the Court or the Federalist Society, like “oh look, I can critique my own side, too.” RBG would have had to retire in mid/late 2015 at the latest for her to have been replaced by Obama. That’s 5 years before she died. Why is everyone acting like she had a crystal ball and should have foreseen Trump’s victory over Hillary and acted accordingly?
Is your mom mad at the Federalist Society? Is your mom mad at Justice Kennedy for retiring in 2018, voluntarily, with full knowledge that Trump would replace him? Does she even know who he is? Is she mad at McConnell, for refusing to seat Garland? Is she mad at the GOP for not honoring the same “rule” they used to refuse to seat Garland when they pushed Barrett’s confirmation through a few weeks before the 2020 election? Or the people who voted for Trump, twice?! She’d better be.
It really irritates me that people point the finger at RBG while overlooking the myriad intentional bad acts of so many men that are responsible for changing the balance of power on the court. I refuse to blame RBG for failing to do one thing that would not have prevented this outcome, especially because that outcome was a long-sought result by hundreds of activists and politicians. I do not blame women for failing to foresee and prevent the intentional bad acts of others (especially men). Even if she had retired, we would still have a 5-4 conservative majority on the court, so it’s far from obvious that things would be materially different.
I should clarify, it’s extremely far from obvious that she could have been replaced by Obama unless she’d retired prior to 2012, given the GOP’s extensive efforts to obstruct his nominees, but we know based on how Garland was treated (Scalia died in Feb 2016) IIRC, that there was no chance by that point in time.
yeah the Scalia stuff was so crazy, I think it’s really hard to say what would have happened with an RBG retirement. I guess there probably would have been less resistance to a replacement that wouldn’t have shifted the makeup of the Court, but I do not think it’s a given that Obama would have been able to appoint RBG’s replacement if she’d retired during his presidency. The Rs fully stole a Supreme Court seat and that’s the thing we should still be mad about.
I’m mad at all the other things you listed. I still thing she should have retired in the 2010-2015 range. It shouldn’t be the goal to die on the bench.
Her choosing not to retire was one of many things that went wrong and I agree that things wouldn’t have been materially different. Although who can say for certainty. I do think part of the shade she gets is part of broader anger at Democrats for failing to succession plan in general. Perhaps her retirement 5-10 years before she died wouldn’t have changed the conservative majority we have today but maybe it would have encouraged other high ranking Democrats to step aside and pass the torch, which I think would have had a bigger impact
Half of my Republican friends are screaming that Thomas and Alito need to retire so they aren’t replaced by President Newsom, and half claim they are too valuable.
Honestly I’m team overhaul the system at this point. Set up the court so there’s no lifetime appointment and one (or two or whatever number) justice nominated every presidential term. If someone dies during their term or otherwise resigns, the president appoints a replacement but they only serve out the remainder of the person’s term. The whole system has become insane.
Agree. The current rules and traditions only matter if they are respected. As far as I can tell, that has not been the case for most of my adult life. Since the system doesn’t work, it is time for us to change the system.
Yes, this. Nobody should be a judge for life and we shouldn’t just keep playing games with which side can live longer and die at the right time. This is currently benefiting the Republicans, but there’s no reason that this couldn’t go the other way in a few years, so reforming the court at least theoretically is nonpartisan.
I agree that 80 is probably too old. I’m pretty progressive but don’t agree with calls I’ve seen to limit lawmakers to retire at 65 or 75. I don’t think a hard cut off is appropriate, and the reality is that not everyone declines at the same rate and experience and connections do matter and can be used for good. I think the loud calls for hard cut offs in the 60s or early/mid 70s, or for term limits, are strong reactions to the huge extent to which power is concentrated in the Silent Generation and older Boomers and that there’s been so many high profile lawmakers still in office when they are clearly unfit to be there. But age isn’t the only problem or even the most significant problem in my view. What I’d prefer to see is competitive elections and lawmakers that feel some obligation to be responsive to voters, but who am I kidding.
This. In political science, gerontocracy is a symptom that a political system is becoming less democratic. The focus should be on what’s making it possible. Implementing cut offs won’t make things more democratic.
Can you elaborate on what you said about gerontocracy being a symptom of a less democratic government? How so?
It’s often a sign that it’s possible to amass power and influence through networking over time without being successfully challenged, including by electoral processes.
Incumbents have a huge advantage in our political system because of the amount of money required to run for office, so it’s not like you’re able to freely choose between older and younger candidates. Strong younger candidates often just don’t run, because they don’t think they can compete with the older incumbent. I don’t love the idea of term or age limits, but there’s absolutely no way that elections for open seats would favor older candidates as strongly as we do currently. I find it disingenuous when people say that voters are supporting these 80 year olds. They’re often running unopposed in their party or without a serious challenger, so the only option is to vote for the other party or for someone not necessarily qualified. I’d like to see more party support for real challenges to older candidates as well as encouragement to step down on their own.
Congressional term limits seem like a good way to solve this issue.
+100, reasonable term limits please!!!
Legislators are elected directly, and their constituents are reelecting them knowing how old they are. Imposing restrictions on that doesn’t quite sit right with me, though I’d probably vote for the younger candidate in that situation if they were a solid pick beyond simply being younger.
I feel differently about presidential elections (term limits, age, etc) since the president isn’t directly elected.
If you are financially able to but do not retire before 80, you probably need to take a long, hard look at your priorities. You’ve likely (though not necessarily) let your career become your god or your addiction, e.g., you are addicted to the power or the prestige. So, yes, I would vote against someone based on age. The fact that you still want to hold office after 30 years, and at that age, does not speak well of your character. Yes, there could be exceptions, but I think they would be rare.
Ageism is real, but not when you’re in a position of power like a federal rep or senator (or president, or supreme court justice) in my humble opinion. I think those are unique positions and age DOES matter, and 80 is for certain beyond the line that I’d draw. Heck, I’m 41 and can barely keep up with protecting my own elementary school kid from modern technology. I cannot and will not be convinced that a legislator with that kind of power is any more on top of it than I am, and that’s scary to me.
So, assuming the challenger is otherwise qualified and has given every indication they will continue to carry on in representing the voice of the electorate, I vote for 46 over 80 every time in that situation.
In general, I think older people can do just about anything and shouldn’t have hard ruled out based only on an age number, but the situations with Senator Feinstein, Biden, and now Trump were/are totally unacceptable.
I actually think the primary is the healthier outcome. It’s ok to say you don’t want an 80 year old representing you, whether this persons in particular or anyone that age. Mandatory age or term limits always seem like changing the rules because we don’t like who is winning. Fundamentally, I think that’s anti democratic.
IMHO, there is a wide gulf between not hiring a 55 year old and not voting for an 80 year old.
That suit looks so cheap on the model. The jacket is poorly tailored and the pants are neither slim nor wide so they just look skimpy.
Another house and moving question. We bought the stereotypical worst home in our expensive school district. We cash flowed a renovation and it’s fine.
We came into a mid six figure sum about the time the renovation finished and we’ve had a positive household cash flow since. We have healthy retirement savings, ect. My husband recently broached the topic of purchasing a residential rental property as an investment. He thinks we have plenty in the market in investment accounts and I agree.
Here’s the issue. Our home is not, strictly speaking, on par with the majority of homes in the area. Think: two acres, 10 foot ceilings, each bedroom with its own bath, pools and sports courts. Does it make sense to upgrade our actual life before buying rentals? The home next to ours, same exact home just not renovated, recently sold for twice when we bought ours for. My sweet parents, who are conservative with money, are gently pointing out that we could sell and be in a much nicer home.
My husband will say, being extremely conservative, that our primary residence should be extremely easy to maintain. Taxes and maintenance are much lower here than if we moved to something nicer. He will say that if times ever got tough it’s easier to sell the investment property than struggle to pay our taxes or maintain our home. I agree in theory but in reality it’s hard to reciprocate certain invitations and I’m embarrassed to say I sometimes feel bad about how modest our home is. What would you do? Lobby to upgrade your primary home by moving? Or stay in the modest house and keep investing in other residential properties?
I’ll add that I’m familiar with residential tenants and being a landlord and renovations. We’ve done it before and my parents have always had a few residential properties. I know what I’m getting into. My main objection is why are we living in a house less nice than one we could be living in? So philosophically, do you buy the best house you can reasonably afford? Or invest a few other smaller properties?
It’s a matter of values. Do you value enjoying your life? Or do you value amassing more wealth?
+1 and also neither answer is wrong.
Not what you’re asking but are you in a blue state? A deep blue one? Anyone remotely considering buying a rental should be on top of proposed rent control/rent stabilization measures. The one proposed in MA right now that is currently on track to hit the ballot in November is insanely punitive to landlords. This is not a political statement! I know it’s designed to go after Big Bad Landlord but it hits non-owner occupied properties of all sizes just the same as large institutionally owned ones. I know several people who have small rentals – two families and single family homes – who don’t even know this is on the ballot or what the impact will be for them. I had an eye opening convo with a friend with a single family rental on the Cape who, rightly or wrongly, only wants to increase rent to cover operating expenses and had NO. IDEA. the law (that’s currently very on pace to pass) would prevent that. But covering operating expenses is pretty much her whole investment thesis.
All that to say, just make sure you’re on top of not only your current landlord laws but any future proposed, now or several years out from now. It’s a threat in blue states way more than anywhere else, obviously, but something to be mindful of.
I have no interest in owning a vacation property or maxing out on the nicest home I could afford and even less interest in being a landlord; that said, I don’t think there’s a correct answer here. It seems like you’re weighing getting a significantly nicer house against having a vacation home that you rent out when not in use (I think? I’m having a hard time following the landlord/investment bit). Those are two very different priorities.
Is your house genuinely not as nice as the homes of other families in your area? IDK, I think of the toniest suburbs in my neck of the woods (the North Shore of Chicago) and while there are plenty of insane estates, they also all have lots of normal-sized 3 bed/ 2 bath older homes on smaller lots, albeit often nicely renovated. As someone with a (nicely renovated IMO) smaller home in a wealthy suburb, I certainly wouldn’t measure myself against the people with tennis courts and swimming pools in their backyards.
Yes, you can sell your house for twice what you paid, but how much will you spend on the new house? But if you don’t have to stretch, if college and retirement are covered of and if jobs are stable, I don’t see why you shouldn’t upgrade. I guess the tricky part is both partners have to be on the same page, since the house is presumably a joint asset.
The part you didn’t cover is what your “healthy” retirement savings look like. I think there’s a huge swing of what people mean when they say this. Are you talking $500k or $5 million?
I will add, though, that I personally admire people who live beneath their means and I would never judge anyone for having a modest home (quite the opposite). I know not everyone feels this way though.
Closer to the later number. The kids college is squared. The issue is my husband wants a bit more of our assets in local residential real estate and less in the market. I don’t disagree but I’m wondering why that can’t be in a house we’d enjoy.
If you have liquidity aside from what’s in the market, I’d ride out the market. Everything I lost in the 2008 crash (and the dot com bubble before that) has come back so strongly. I know people talk about getting out of the market, and times may be changing, but staying in has been a huge boon for my family generationally.
This is such a complex question to answer. But I’ll tell you that I’m essentially you a decade or two down the road. We bought a fixer upper that I never really liked, in a wonderful neighborhood, and put some extra money into rental properties. Over the years we’ve wondered about whether that cash should have gone to a nicer house, but now that our kids are done with school we’ve moved to a house we love outside of the school district, and after years of job changes, economic dislocations (eg 2008 killing our retirement savings for awhile), we’re really happy to have the diversification in our savings.
Here are the questions you really need to answer: Why are you so embarrassed? Do you really not like your house, or are you just pressured to keep up with the Joneses? If the latter, then a new house is never going to be enough – it’ll be cars for the kids, vacations you can post on Insta, private lessons, etc.
Thank you! This is helpful. Part of it is keeping up, if I’m being honest. I don’t care if people think we’re poor, but I hate that I can’t host large gatherings like we’ve been invited to. It keeping us a bit held back.
Part is the lack of outdoor space which the kids are really craving.
What’s the timeline on your main house? How old are the kids? We are in a near identical situation and decided to dump another $100k into our current house, put $500k toward retiring 4-5 years earlier, and put the rest in the bank for vacation/car type splurges.
Importantly, we plan to move when our now middle school age kids are out of school so it doesn’t make sense to move twice in 15 years.
I buy the least amount of house that meets my needs. That and the luck of remaining healthy and employed is how I have 2 rental properties and a solid nest egg despite never making anywhere near 100k/year. Avoid the lifestyle creep and you’re more likely to continue on the good financial path you’re currently on.
My question would be how cramped is your family and how old are your kids?
In most areas, an extra $500k doesn’t get you 2+ acres and tennis courts.
Between that limitation and the reality that any home you move to will also cost twice what it would have ten years ago, be honest about what a “better” home means.
You say your current house is fine, do you really mean that? Do be you actually want a fancier house or do you just want to keep up with the Joneses?
Upgrading your home sounds like lifestyle creep waiting to happen. And maybe that’s fine, given your new financial situation, but it’s something I’d think about a lot. What do you value? Is hosting big parties something you really, truly want to do, or is it fantasy land?