or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Ultimate Vass (Footwear) Thread (Pictures, reviews, sizing, etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ultimate Vass (Footwear) Thread (Pictures, reviews, sizing, etc...) - Page 996

post #14926 of 20271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

So a lazyman model is a loafer too?.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, sorry.
post #14927 of 20271
Quote:
Originally Posted by striker View Post
 

I agree with the gentlemen above who said that if the DMs fit properly, you should not be able to slip into it that easily without unbuckling it. I prefer loafers for  flight and travel, just not loafers from Vass. Perhaps the monks you own are those with a slight bit of elastic on the straps that facilitate that without unbuckling the strap

 

Just to share my personal experience, the Vass monks do not have the elastic component, I have to remove the top buckle to slip on and off the shoe, and I have a low instep so those with higher instep would find it even more challenging. In this regard, it is quite slow to remove and strap the buckle back on. I find that the blucher type split toe would be speedier of the two.

Agree with @striker – if the top strap has the elastic component then it’s much easier to slip on/off.

Vass do not offer this on their DM.

 

Then again, we come across many clients who do not buckle the top straps (or any straps) as

A trending or fashion statement when wearing DM’s

post #14928 of 20271

Unfortunately (or fortunately), I am not looking to make a bold fashion statement. :hide:

 

The consensus so far seems to be that the double monks fall closer on the "business" side of business casual while the Norwegers fall on the "casual" side of the spectrum.

 

Also, if I were to wear the double monks with both straps buckled, that it would not be easier to slip off, compared to a penny loafer.

 

Correct on both counts?

 

If so, would the DMs look incongruent with denim?

 

And, would the Norwegers look incongruent with a pair of wool trousers?

post #14929 of 20271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

So a lazyman model is a loafer too?

Strictly speaking a side-elastic shoe is not a loafer. The traditional name (although hardly ever used these days) is a "Cambridge shoe".

A loafer has no facility to open-up the shoe to make entry easier. Therefore a loafer is cut much lower and covers less of the foot than a shoe that can be opened (either by laces, elastics, straps and buckles, buttons or zips) to facilitate entry.

Hence a side-elastic as well as it's close relative the "elastic on instep" will be made on a shoe- and not a dedicated loafer last (sometimes elastic on instep can be cut quite low, so they might be classified as a loafer).
post #14930 of 20271
It's a slip-on but I wouldn't consider it to be a loafer.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post
 

So a lazyman model is a loafer too?.

post #14931 of 20271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Man View Post
 

Unfortunately (or fortunately), I am not looking to make a bold fashion statement. :hide:

 

The consensus so far seems to be that the double monks fall closer on the "business" side of business casual while the Norwegers fall on the "casual" side of the spectrum.

 

Also, if I were to wear the double monks with both straps buckled, that it would not be easier to slip off, compared to a penny loafer.

 

Correct on both counts?

 

If so, would the DMs look incongruent with denim?

 

And, would the Norwegers look incongruent with a pair of wool trousers?


The NMWA Norweger is not the typical "original / old" Peter last design on double leather. With the F last and tapering sole, it can easily be worn with wool trousers. It would be my pick.   

post #14932 of 20271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Man View Post
 

Unfortunately (or fortunately), I am not looking to make a bold fashion statement. :hide:

 

The consensus so far seems to be that the double monks fall closer on the "business" side of business casual while the Norwegers fall on the "casual" side of the spectrum.

 

Also, if I were to wear the double monks with both straps buckled, that it would not be easier to slip off, compared to a penny loafer.

 

Correct on both counts?

 

If so, would the DMs look incongruent with denim?

 

And, would the Norwegers look incongruent with a pair of wool trousers?

For the norwegers you posted, only if it's worsted/gabardine/fresco wool. Flannel and tweed would be fine.

post #14933 of 20271
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazwanazani View Post

For the norwegers you posted, only if it's worsted/gabardine/fresco wool. Flannel and tweed would be fine.

I disagree. I just read through the discussion but the norwegers would be a perfect shoe from a sportcoat and odd trouser look all the way to denim. I don't see them being worn with a suit unless one that isnt worsted (cotton, flannel, tweed, etc)

I have a pair on order from Sammy that are pebble dark brown and plan on wearing them with my sport coat and trouser combos.
post #14934 of 20271

This discussion has been good for the sales of Norwegers - been flying out the shelves over the last few days! ;)

post #14935 of 20271

Suit - no

Jeans or trousers/odd jacket - fine

post #14936 of 20271

@gdl203 I'm hoping to take 1 more off your shelf! I sent an email about sizing a few days ago.

post #14937 of 20271
Yes, in that sense I agree with you. The formality of a sport coat and a pair of odd trousers are below that of a suit and so would make the norweger appropriate.

I was specifying that for a light tan scotch grain with substantial stitching on the upper (not the smart, fine reverse stitching on dressier versions). It may work with wool trousers but definitely won't be as versatile compared to a darker shade of brown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @justinkapur View Post


I disagree. I just read through the discussion but the norwegers would be a perfect shoe from a sportcoat and odd trouser look all the way to denim. I don't see them being worn with a suit unless one that isnt worsted (cotton, flannel, tweed, etc)

I have a pair on order from Sammy that are pebble dark brown and plan on wearing them with my sport coat and trouser combos.
post #14938 of 20271
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post


Strictly speaking a side-elastic shoe is not a loafer. The traditional name (although hardly ever used these days) is a "Cambridge shoe".

A loafer has no facility to open-up the shoe to make entry easier. Therefore a loafer is cut much lower and covers less of the foot than a shoe that can be opened (either by laces, elastics, straps and buckles, buttons or zips) to facilitate entry.

Hence a side-elastic as well as it's close relative the "elastic on instep" will be made on a shoe- and not a dedicated loafer last (sometimes elastic on instep can be cut quite low, so they might be classified as a loafer).

Thanks for clarifications.  Good to know.

 

Was N. Tuczec who original designed the "Cambridge Shoe"?

post #14939 of 20271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

Was N. Tuczec who original designed the "Cambridge Shoe"?

I presume the elasticated shoe pre-dates the firm of Tuczek.

The elasticated boot (which became as “Chelsea boot” very popular in the 1960s) was invented in the 1840s by J Sparkes Hall of Regent Street London:





Presumably some bright thing came up with an elasticated shoe not long after.

In the States the elasticated style was known a “Congress”. A few years back, DW did post an advertisement from the early 1900s, showing a Congress style in a boot and shoe version.

169

117



John Lobb (London) calls the exposed elastic (not covered by strips of leather) “Tuczek style”

http://www.johnlobbltd.co.uk/catalogue/fullsize_images/Website_shoes_boots/Websiteshoes/Mensshoes/Elasticsidedshoes/Elasticsidesplain/elastic_plain_3.htm
post #14940 of 20271
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post

I presume the elasticated shoe pre-dates the firm of Tuczek.

The elasticated boot (which became as “Chelsea boot” very popular in the 1960s) was invented in the 1840s by J Sparkes Hall of Regent Street London:





Presumably some bright thing came up with an elasticated shoe not long after.

In the States the elasticated style was known a “Congress”. A few years back, DW did post an advertisement from the early 1900s, showing a Congress style in a boot and shoe version.

169

117



John Lobb (London) calls the exposed elastic (not covered by strips of leather) “Tuczek style”

http://www.johnlobbltd.co.uk/catalogue/fullsize_images/Website_shoes_boots/Websiteshoes/Mensshoes/Elasticsidedshoes/Elasticsidesplain/elastic_plain_3.htm

I wholeheartedly agree with description of the elastic/congress/chelsea boots. My pair of Burnham and I have another chelsea boot from Church are most comfortable footwear I have.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Ultimate Vass (Footwear) Thread (Pictures, reviews, sizing, etc...)