or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by aldenwear

I am proud of coming from the side of the tracks from which I came.     Where I come from, we call those trousers "plain britches" (versus "fancy britches") and we would say that wearin' them plain britches with them goin'-to-Sunday-meetin'-shoes is pretendin' you are steppin' through high cotton.  We would encourage you not to go puttin' on airs that way.  (Two winks).     Now, where you come from, what is the difference between chinos and kakhis?  Aren't they roughly...
That ain't me wearing the jeans so tight the buttons barely made it to cover an exceedingly small waist and rear.   I am physically incapable of wearing anything nearly so tight without offending the laws of nature and decency. I would not do that to the world.
Apologist.     What is the world coming to?    And how can the answer to this question be at all positive when style leaders who have strayed from The Path are encouraged with such, I am sure well-intentioned, enabling?   And how can that answer be positive when I am shirking my duties with my apparently quixotic battle in support of the rules of style and good taste?   Break long over.  Back to work.  
Really good looking.  congratulations.
Great looking shoes and, as always, impeccably maintained and presented.  But, sadly, completely and totally inappropriate for chinos.     Like wearing a morning coat with denim short pants.     i agree that men of good will, etc.  But wrong is wrong.  (kidding).
No apologies necessary and I am sorry I left that impression. I was simply surprised by Mac's views on the subject. uote name="BeSpiffington" url="/t/85589/the-official-alden-thread/58620#post_6561716"] [/quote]Aldenwear, please accept my apologies sir, it was not my intention to intrude on an otherwise interesting conversation.[/quote]
You are missing my point. As the quote in my post indicated, m question was posed to this thread's esteemed Uncle who opined exactly the opposite of your view and the suggestion of my question. And as Mac has already expressed, people of goodwill can agree to disagree. quote name="BeSpiffington" url="/t/85589/the-official-alden-thread/58620#post_6561684"] Both are quite lovely shoes. In my humble opinion the balmoral 9015 is better suited for more formal occasions....
As to both opinions expressed here - relative dressiness of 9015 v. 2145 and that neither is a chino shoe - this was always my understanding.
No reason to laugh.  I asked the same question about two weeks ago.  If you search, you will find a fulsome and generous answer.     There is a little eccentricity here, but it is an exceedingly cordial - which is very pleasant for the web -- and incredibly informative forum. Just see yesterday's fascinating explanation of the genesis of goodyear-welting and the evolution of its status.  
The blucher version - 2145 - is more dressy than the balmoral model - 9015?  And either of them can be successfully worn more casually than business casual?  
New Posts  All Forums: