I think we're taking the balmoral/blucher debate too far when we're applying it to a CXL strand with contrast edging and stitching that is clearly intended to be casual. I'm in the camp of only wearing balmorals with my suits and never wearing a dress calfskin balmoral with anything other than a suit. Like others, though, I wear my suede balmorals with an odd jacket and slacks all the time because it is an inherently more causal shoe due to the suede make-up. Indeed, I won't wear them with a worsted suit because I find them too casual for that context.
I see the Rush Street in the same way. It's make-up is clearly intended to be casual and works much better with jeans than its calfskin counterparts. Nobody is going to care that the lacing is closed when it is being worn with jeans.
Wear a pair of Park Avenues with jeans and, I agree, you look like you do not know what you are doing. I can't say the same for the CXL Rush Street with jeans, though.
I mostly agree, but my point is that I think people should know that the rush street is "wrong" to begin with. Now depending upon your perspective, that may be wrong in a good or bad way, but there are a ton of people in this thread that don't know any different. This is why I gave my illustration with the neumok: similar camp as the rush street.
More of my point is that because they are "wrong" they are "advanced" shoes if you will. You're game needs to be on with the rest of your fit if you are going sport those models. However, I see the exact opposite in here it seems. People's first shoes seem to be neumoks or walnut strands or rush streets etc. There seems to be such a dearth of traditional knowledge in this thread and yet SF as a whole seeks to dress to a higher standard.
For the record I have previously owned 3 separate colors of neumok and LOVE AE.