or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Can somebody please explain why square toed shoes/long lasts are so derided around here?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can somebody please explain why square toed shoes/long lasts are so derided around here? - Page 5

post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Not really. Look at a baby's foot. Or the foot of a person that has never worn shoes. The forefoot is almost inevitably square (ish). There will be some variation of toe length but, if unrestricted, the toes will tend to splay out...every time.

It's only in feet that have worn shoes from an early age that the foot tends to take on a more pointed shape...as the toes are pushed inward and crammed up next to each other.

It is just this factor that brings the square toe back into fashion every so often--the appeal to "nature's way."


Loving DWFII's very informative posts.
This one just reminded me about my own feet being very pointing as I have been wearing some very narrow shoes from a very young age.

I have owned some really square toes shoes back in high school. Now days I prefer moderately chisel toed elongated shoes a la the lots of Ferragamos and Mantellassis.

Why are there not much complaint about C&Js on the 348 last?
post #62 of 74
Thread Starter 
[quote name="blahman" url="/forum/thread/258487/can-somebody-please-explain-why-square-toed-shoes-long-lasts-are-so-derided-around-here/60#post_4714878"

Why are there not much complaint about C&Js on the 348 last?[/quote]

Hi Blahman,

Not sure I understand your question.......could you please say more?.
post #63 of 74
DWFII, thanks for bringing us down to earth. I haven't really looked at children's feet before, think I'll be ogling a bit more in the future. In a proper way, of course.
post #64 of 74
the Vass U is square and longer. gets plenty of love here.

but cheap snouty square toes that curl up like some kind of 16C jester shoe. see them everywhere:
Edited by Pliny - 7/30/11 at 6:26am
post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguis Mortuum View Post


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.

+1 to this. You can buy something fun or creative or trendy if your want to and sometimes that's a good choice, but the guiding, general principle is well stated above.

Also FWIW, I think a lot of the "nicest" shoes posted on the Shoe Porn thread are way too pointy... It could be fashion, it could be because most men get fatter as they get older and look better in a thinner shoe, or I could be off-base, I don't know.
post #66 of 74
^^ Or that there are a lot of hypocrites around here :P
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahman View Post

^^ Or that there are a lot of hypocrites around here :P

It may not be as much hypocrite as afraid to admit, it always amazes how in PM how many people admit to.....

1 How many pair(s) of Church shoes they have and how much they like them and dont get the forum hate for them.

2 How many pair(s) of Loake 1880 shoes they have and think the forum dislike is unjustified.

3 Not having any love for many of the Crockett & Jones lasts notably the 348 and just dont get the Forum hype for C&J.

Just the ones that come to mind......
post #68 of 74
But have square-toed shoes ever been part of high-end fashion, worn by most stylish, wealthy people? Also, the typical foot size increased significantly (along with height) in the past 100 years or so; foot size might affect the aesthetics of the square toe.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fessler/pubs/AHBFootSizeDimorphism.pdf
post #69 of 74
shoes, like clothes, have a primary purpose which is functional and a secondary purpose which is visual. "classic style" is fashion that stick to the functional aspects derived from nature whereas "modern style" favors the visual over the practical.

Does a neon pink polystyrene suit breathe and drape like wool. No. But you might be considered "fashionable" so people will wear it. The same with pointy green burnished leather shoes or stiletto heels. They are uncomfortable, impractical, and soon will be "ugly" when the new fashion comes in to wear clogs again.
post #70 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by kev777 View Post


It may not be as much hypocrite as afraid to admit, it always amazes how in PM how many people admit to.....

1 How many pair(s) of Church shoes they have and how much they like them and dont get the forum hate for them.

2 How many pair(s) of Loake 1880 shoes they have and think the forum dislike is unjustified.

3 Not having any love for many of the Crockett & Jones lasts notably the 348 and just dont get the Forum hype for C&J.

Just the ones that come to mind......

Yeah, nothing to do with the fact Church make decent shoes, Loakes are good for their price, or that this forum can be C&J echo chamber, nope.
post #71 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant View Post

But have square-toed shoes ever been part of high-end fashion, worn by most stylish, wealthy people? Also, the typical foot size increased significantly (along with height) in the past 100 years or so; foot size might affect the aesthetics of the square toe.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fessler/pubs/AHBFootSizeDimorphism.pdf

Square toes, with variations of height, were popular among all classes from kings to commoner, from the mid 1600's to the late 1800's.
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles_ View Post


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

That's because they're already out of style.
post #73 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtyturk View Post

shoes, like clothes, have a primary purpose which is functional and a secondary purpose which is visual. "classic style" is fashion that stick to the functional aspects derived from nature whereas "modern style" favors the visual over the practical.

Does a neon pink polystyrene suit breathe and drape like wool. No. But you might be considered "fashionable" so people will wear it. The same with pointy green burnished leather shoes or stiletto heels. They are uncomfortable, impractical, and soon will be "ugly" when the new fashion comes in to wear clogs again.

Nothing more natural than wearing some buttonned woolens with insect cocoon remains tied like a noose around your neck, hell I see baboons dress like that all the time when they're lounging at the bar. Oh wait you're a moron.
post #74 of 74
Aren't there more than one type of square toe? Wide. Long. Wide and long. Short. Narrow. Short and narrow. Some are more perverse than others.
The 'extremes' are extreme because they seem silly to a larger number of people.
As someone with a long foot, I avoid long lasts, whether round, square or pointed. I also usually look for a visual break in the length of a shoe through some detail. With the extreme shapes even normal feet look silly to me, except when scaling chain link. That goes goes for women's feet as well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Can somebody please explain why square toed shoes/long lasts are so derided around here?