I'm a little confused on what this was all about?
He looks the same in both, only thing that stands out is a different coat, he didn't change his hair, looks, posture, anything.
The jeans, boots were bland so made no difference.
Outfit 1:
Clean-cut but nothing stands out, I'd expect results to be "average" which they were. He doesn't look bad but doesn't stand out.
Outfit 2:
Pretty much the same but a longer overcoat did 2 things:
The longer cut and dark color gives the appearance of being taller, which was the perception, by 2 inches, negligable really.
Secondly, since it's a more mature look, his overall perception would be slightly higher than some dressed casual... thus a marginally higher rating.
The rating really comes down to how stylish and mature he looked. His physical features were not changed at all and I couldn't see a lot different in his "fundamentals". If anything he need to work on them a lot to up things for outfit 2.
The higher ratings in 2 would have come from looking more mature and slightly more in fashion than the first outfit. Nothing to do with physical attractiveness.
i.e. James Bond is sexy, he fights crime wearing a tuxedo and looks good doing it.
He could do the same in oversized sweatpants but he wouldn't appear as such a sex symbol.
