Quote:
Originally Posted by oldog/oldtrix 
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday
Not with a capital C, I'd say. Though some chukkas and chelseas can pass in a lower c environment.
Bal boots are too unusual to pass the capital C test, IMO.
Bal boots are too unusual to pass the capital C test, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton
I wear dress boots in the rain and snow to work. Maybe not CBD but practical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRINI
They're only unusual if when I'm sitting down though.
Otherwise, they look like normal bals.
WHat makes these less c than anything else IMO is the colour.
Hoping to rectify that with a refinish to dark oak.
Otherwise, they look like normal bals.
WHat makes these less c than anything else IMO is the colour.
Hoping to rectify that with a refinish to dark oak.
They'll look great in dark oak (although I like them as they are).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raralith
Interesting thread, and I'll try to contribute with a classic albiet not shapely SF silhouette:
Southwick sack suit, 3/2 roll, undarted, very little waist suppression
SM Black Captoes
Southwick sack suit, 3/2 roll, undarted, very little waist suppression
SM Black Captoes
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanComposition
MoK, don't mind the tie, just wish it was a bit more matte. Also agree that it'd look better with a solid suit.
Thans - it's not that shiny (the low morning sunshine probably exacerbates it) but I'sd like it in a matte silk/wool blend, and the solid suit is a definite 'in retrospect'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH
Aren't balmoral boots technically more formal than shoes? Like the phrase "suited and booted". I am sure there is a military context to it.
Formal boots certainly pre-date shoes, and were considered more correct for several years, however in terms of contemporary dress I think it's their uncommon nature that would make them non CBD.
Down: 
