WAYWRN: Classic Menswear, Casual Style



sugarbutch said:

I don't consider chukkas a default option with shorts.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

They can look good, but there's no inherent suitability in the context. Loafers are generally not my thing, but I reject Fuuma's categorical dismissal of their use with shorts. Of course, I'm probably just an MCer who can't dress casually...

Click to expand...

me too. must be our age...



F. Corbera said:

The only correct look with shorts is (a) no shoes (b) no shirt.
Just don't expect service.

Click to expand...

I had a brilliantly crafted retort to this, but in the interest of not being put in time out, I'll abstain.

fritzl said:

me too. must be our age...

Click to expand...

Not unless 25 is old for SW&D..



F. Corbera said:

The only correct look with shorts is (a) no shoes (b) no shirt.
Just don't expect service.

Click to expand...

No shoes, no shirt and I still get serviced. Watch out!



DocHolliday said:

No shoes, no shirt and I still get serviced. Watch out!

Click to expand...

I believe that Vox was making reference to FOOD service, not "full personal service", but, that being said, well done, you . . .

Cross post. Today.



bourbonbasted said:

There's a very classic, mainstream aesthetic that you are either unfamiliar with, or completely reject. I'm not sure which is the case, because you seem to wholeheartedly dismiss it every time someone posts, yet talk about it like no one in the world abides by it.
As stated above, Fuuma clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Loafers are perfectly acceptable with shorts. I prefer a driving loafer or penny.

Click to expand...

You know, when things are bad (and I'm sorry, this thread is awful), categorical statements are probably beneficial, at least in the short term.

I still don't get why you all don't just lurk SW&D for a while.



hendrix said:

You know, when things are bad (and I'm sorry, this thread is awful), categorical statements are probably beneficial, at least in the short term.
I still don't get why you all don't just lurk SW&D for a while.

Click to expand...

Not doubting the overall low quality of this thread at all. That said, I dress casually everyday for work. However, I'll admit that my casual wear is overtly preppy/trad/whatever-the-Hell-you-want-to-call-it. I've been dressing in a similar manner for literally my entire life. It works for me and is very natural. I don't post my casual fits because I'll like be called an overgrown fraternity kid.

However, just because my casual wear and interpretations of casual are the antitheses of what would be found in SW&D, doesn't make my style any less viable. In fact, it's been a staple of American culture and style for decades.

And even outside of all of that, I still don't get why anyone would think you can't wear loafers with shorts. They are inherently casual, lightweight and easy to get on and off, thus making them a natural choice when the weather gets warmer.



hendrix said:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

You know, when things are bad (and I'm sorry, this thread is awful), categorical statements are probably beneficial, at least in the short term.

I still don't get why you all don't just lurk SW&D for a while.

Click to expand...

i still don't get why?



bourbonbasted said:

Not doubting the overall low quality of this thread at all. That said, I dress casually everyday for work. However, I'll admit that my casual wear is overtly preppy/trad/whatever-the-Hell-you-want-to-call-it. I've been dressing in a similar manner for literally my entire life. It works for me and is very natural. I don't post my casual fits because I'll like be called an overgrown fraternity kid.
However, just because my casual wear and interpretations of casual are the antitheses of what would be found in SW&D, doesn't make my style any less viable. In fact, it's been a staple of American culture and style for decades.
And even outside of all of that, I still don't get why anyone would think you can't wear loafers with shorts. They are inherently casual, lightweight and easy to get on and off, thus making them a natural choice when the weather gets warmer.

Click to expand...

granted the above makes sense, although I'd hope that if there's an aesthetic that SW&D is biased against then perhaps that can be changed.


I can only speak for myself but:

a) i find almost all loafers ugly. moc stitchin or not, the design is just bad to me. This is minor

b) The main thing is the association. To me, at least, a loafer is something I never would have owned prior reading menswear blogs, where they are often listed as one of "5 staple shoes" or whatever. All of these lists of "staples" are usually based on misquotations from some archaic and/or inappropriate source. This only adds to a a design already verging on fogey (tassels, etc etc). When you add in the shorts part (which is not even part of traditional dress that GQ etc misquotes), you end up with this most blatant representation of an idea born of the worst parts of traditionalism and poor journalism.

To be clear I'm not saying that shorts and loafers is inherently bad, I would bet most people can do it well, I'm just explaining why the idea is something i'm averse to.

I too hope that biases can be changed. I have said in multiple threads that I respect all things SW&D because, just as with MC, everyone takes it seriously and has done their due diligence to find their true style. However, I think if I were to post salmon shorts, an OCBD, needle point belt and penny loafers in SW&D, or even in this thread, there would be some discomfort.

Agree to disagree on the design and appeal of loafers. I'm in the extreme other camp in that I pretty much own exclusively loafers, so I suppose we're just on different pages there. However, I know that the loafer hate is very real, so I would never dismiss people's opinions on that front.

In terms of the association argument, I see your points. However, I think the argument hinges on the idea that people are tossing on loafers with shorts only because they read it in a magazine, or on some blog. I'm sure there are tons of people who do this, but I'm not sure that bad journalism or incorrectly citing traditional style of dress is enough to dismiss a look entirely. I can understand that it turns you off that at some juncture things got misinterpreted, but again, getting back to sweeping generalizations, do you think it is advisable to say "no loafers with shorts" just because it has become a victim of trendy "journalism?"

OJFC.



bourbonbasted said:

In terms of the association argument, I see your points. However, I think the argument hinges on the idea that people are tossing on loafers with shorts only because they read it in a magazine, or on some blog. I'm sure there are tons of people who do this, but I'm not sure that bad journalism or incorrectly citing traditional style of dress is enough to dismiss a look entirely. I can understand that it turns you off that at some juncture things got misinterpreted, but again, getting back to sweeping generalizations, do you think it is advisable to say "no loafers with shorts" just because it has become a victim of trendy "journalism?"

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with you.

Context is also very important.

One the one hand these sweeping generalisations are reflex timesavers, on the other hand we don't want to end up all wearing the same uniform.

Unfortunately, few want to do the thinking for themselves, and usually ask for such advice.



F. Corbera said:

OJFC.

Click to expand...

WWVD?

Ma.strum defense parka
Ervell alpaca fairisle sweater
NdG grey jeans
Trickers stow boots.