Can somebody please explain why square toed shoes/long lasts are so derided around here?

There seems to be universal hate for long lasts, squarish toe boxes, etc. etc. on this site. Yet I see shoes of this type on the Italian style gods - and certainly see plenty of them on the streets in Italy. This leaves me wondering what is the reasoning behind the Styleforum hatred for slightly 'fashion forward' shoes. Or am I misinterpreting something?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Do the millionaires/billionaires you work for wear them? (serious question)

Achilles,

There is no general rule. Some wear some pretty outlandish clothes. Others are exquisitely tasteful. Some are quite assumming and others flaunt everything they ever owned at you. They were never the point of my mentioning them - it is the places that they hang out in that tend to be the most influentual for me. Because these places are often filled with people who are very well dressed. I'm afraid people twisted around what I've been saying - or I said it poorly.

I will say that I see lots of long/sleek lasts still on the fashionable sets in Italy. At least as recently as the last men's fashion week in Milan - when I happened to be there.

I'm just trying to find out where Style Forum gets it's rules from - there seem to be some things are fairly universally accepted as fact that I just don't undersand.

But I'm willing to learn.

I think they look cheap personally. I think I read it on here that they are cheaper/easier to make, not sure if it's true. When I see square toed shoes I instantly think DSW ( unfortunately I purchased a pair pre-SF from DSW for $30, I wore through the soles in two months. I don't even walk much )

I wasn't trying to offend you or even bring up past conversations, I was just curious what the upper class wears shoe wise



Gdot said:

I'm just trying to find out where Style Forum gets it's rules from - there seem to be some things are fairly universally accepted as fact that I just don't undersand.

Click to expand...

Everything SF espouses is to do with lasting style, which generally means moderation in aspects that otherwise fluctuate with fashion. Sometimes wide lapels will be fashionable, sometimes narrow lapels will be fashionable, but if you buy all your coats with moderate lapels you will always be stylish. The same concept applies to the shape of a shoe, with the continuum stretching from square-toed at one end, to long pointy shoes at the other. Even when they happen to be fashionable the extremes will often look silly to someone with an objective eye who isn't a slave to the whims of fashion, whereas a shoe with a moderate shape, though it may fall 'out of fashion', will never look silly or dated as the extremes might.

This is a verbatim transcript from the session that first developed square toed shoes.

Shoe person at a fashion forward designer's place Number1 - "Oh look, there's a pair of shoes that feature a toe box that corresponds to the shape of the human foot."

Shoe person 2 - "That's nice."

Shoe person 1 - "Wait, we have to introduce a new model of shoe in order to sell new shoes to people because the Lobb's they bought will last twenty years."

2 - "I know, let's make a different kind of shoe."

1 - "Brilliant. How will it be different?"

2 - "Hmmmm. Maybe we could make the toe box, I dunno, square?"

silence....

1 - "BRILLIANT! We'll be rich! Let's put our branded logo feces all over it too so people know where it came from!"

Serious, it looks like ****. Don't wear it.

nvm my mistake.



harvey_birdman said:

This is a verbatim transcript from the session that first developed square toed shoes.

Shoe person at a fashion forward designer's place Number1 - "Oh look, there's a pair of shoes that feature a toe box that corresponds to the shape of the human foot."

Shoe person 2 - "That's nice."

Shoe person 1 - "Wait, we have to introduce a new model of shoe in order to sell new shoes to people because the Lobb's they bought will last twenty years."

2 - "I know, let's make a different kind of shoe."

1 - "Brilliant. How will it be different?"

2 - "Hmmmm. Maybe we could make the toe box, I dunno, square?"

silence....

1 - "BRILLIANT! We'll be rich! Let's put our branded logo feces all over it too so people know where it came from!"

Serious, it looks like ****. Don't wear it.

Click to expand...

Wow Birdman - sounds like you were around for the invention of the square toed shoe! I never knew we had such celebrities around here!

I don't know where the derison originated from, but mt_spiffy did not help.



Sanguis Mortuum said:

Everything SF espouses is to do with lasting style, which generally means moderation in aspects that otherwise fluctuate with fashion. Sometimes wide lapels will be fashionable, sometimes narrow lapels will be fashionable, but if you buy all your coats with moderate lapels you will always be stylish. The same concept applies to the shape of a shoe, with the continuum stretching from square-toed at one end, to long pointy shoes at the other. Even when they happen to be fashionable the extremes will often look silly to someone with an objective eye who isn't a slave to the whims of fashion, whereas a shoe with a moderate shape, though it may fall 'out of fashion', will never look silly or dated as the extremes might.

Click to expand...

Thank you Sanguis, I do completely understand this concept in general. I guess where it all breaks down for me intellectually is that what is considered 'timeless' today will still be considered totally 'not done' at sometime in the near enough future. At least if history is any indication of the future. What is considered timeless seems to always be being tweaked - thus making it timeless only in its constant change.

I also wonder where the idea of 'creativity' 'fun' 'delight' falls into the question. For if there truly were only one 'objective' aesthetic that was timeless and classic and we were all to adopt it, how would clothing then allow any room for self expression, differentiaion, signals of compliance to norm, demonstration of sophistication, power, wealth, etc. etc. Because we would all be sporting essentially the same aesthetic, right? And it seems to me that this would defeat much of what clothing has meant to human society for as long as it's existed.

Too much thought I know, I guess I'm looking at it more from a 'social investigation' perspective than from a 'what to wear' perspective here and that's not really the point of this forum.

I'm enjoying getting my work wardrobe updated in the process though!



Gdot said:

There seems to be universal hate for long lasts, squarish toe boxes, etc. etc. on this site. Yet I see shoes of this type on the Italian style gods - and certainly see plenty of them on the streets in Italy. This leaves me wondering what is the reasoning behind the Styleforum hatred for slightly 'fashion forward' shoes. Or am I misinterpreting something?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Click to expand...

You've mentioned that you've seen these types of shoes on the "Italian style gods", but you've not mention whether or not you like them.
So....
Do you like them?
Are you looking for a reason not to like them?

Just curious.



Gdot said:

Thank you Sanguis, I do completely understand this concept in general. I guess where it all breaks down for me intellectually is that what is considered 'timeless' today will still be considered totally 'not done' at sometime in the near enough future. At least if history is any indication of the future. What is considered timeless seems to always be being tweaked - thus making it timeless only in its constant change.

Click to expand...

I doubt the shoes that are preferred on SF will go out style in our lifetime though.



davidc said:

You've mentioned that you've seen these types of shoes on the "Italian style gods", but you've not mention whether or not you like them.
So....
Do you like them?
Are you looking for a reason not to like them?

Just curious.

Click to expand...

David,

Well, that's an interesting question. I actually like a LOT of different styles, This week I bought a new pair of white buck oxfords - made in the UK and very traditional, I have a pair of 30 year old suede penny loafers that I still wear and love, a few pairs of Ferragamo loafers that are classics of their era, I also like the longest, sleekest, John Lobbs that are really pretty darned pointy if you get down to it, I'm not currently in love with squarish toes in general at the moment - but I see some that I like. I'm currently fascinated with the shapes that Vass uses - but I don't they are all that timeless.

About the only shoe i really can't stand is the round toed 'timeless' styles as currently executed by Allen Edmunds, etc. etc.. Basically traditional American shoes just remind me of the old fuddy duddys hanging out in my dad's office when I was a kid. In those day's they were Florsheims and Johnston and Murpheys - but they were just the same as today's Allen Edmunds. I'LL NEVER WEAR THEM - not as long as I live. I've succeeded in the world for 30 years without them and I'm not going start now. I personally think they are the fugliest shoes ever made.

So I'm sorta casting about right now - looking for the perfect fits between what I personally appreciate and enjoy and what the world around me currently considers to be acceptable.

Even though some people around here seem to think that they dress soley to please themselves I'm here to tell you that is delusional. There is so much 'group think' going on around here.

How about G&G's squarer last (TG73?)



Achilles_ said:

I doubt the shoes that are preferred on SF will go out style in our lifetime though.

Click to expand...

Achilles,

I don't think it's nearly that simple. Some things will go out, and then come back in, but no particular style really lasts without being subtly altered every few seasons in order to keep you buying clothes. (Unless you wish to dress like Prince Charles - whose style I do admire but wouldn't want to duplicate.)

It wasn't very many years ago that the black oxford was considered not just timeless - but more or less required - and yet today's 'classic style' doesn't seem to include them in many people's mind at all (thank God).. Not so long ago (20 years ago) brown shoes with blue suits would have had you the laughing stock of the office. Now we can't do black shoes with Navy at all - according to the 'fashion police' around here.

I by way - want to reserve my right to wear black, brown, burgundy, caramel and white with a Navy Suit if it floats my boat and I can find a way to make it all come together aesthetically. I realize that certain rules must be followed - but I'd really rather not.

This decade's 'timeless' classic will be next decades 'old hat'. It's always changing - if it doesn't a multi billion dollar a year industry will collapse - and I can promise you that's not going to happen.

Sure - some things are more timeless and classic than others - but even that is so specific to culture and location that it's hardly objective.

I promise youthat only a small portion of what you are wearing today will you deem to be appropriate 10 years from now - certainly not in 20.

Unless of course human nature fundamentally changes.