Originally Posted by Burton
Knowing this as you do, then why does my opinion bother you so much and why do you seek my approval?
Looks like you're not an internet expert in sarcasm either, huh.
We can go back and forth all day with this (cough cough) witty repartee but the fact remains that your basic premise - that shell cordovan = casual leather and thus = casual shoe - is flawed. That was built on... what? The creasing pattern of shell? The so-called waterproof-ness of it, which if you had experience with shell, would know is heavily overrated?
Even referencing so-called orthodoxy the concept of a cordovan monkstrap still passes. A monk is a derby. A derby is intrinsically not
a formal shoe. Cordovan is not thought of as a formal leather. The format accepts the combination, easily.
And even if it didn't, so what? Are you going to expand your antipathy to cover suede oxfords? Pebble-grained monks? Cordovan oxfords? Sleek lasted cordovan? Clunky lasted calf?
And we're not even considering the influence of colour? Or of last shape - elegant vs clunky?