That's kind of a strange question, though I appreciate how it fits into this thread. If you are referring to VictorSF's shoes, then, in my opinion, they are a good illustration of how wearing something "just because" contributes to the #menswear/pitti/more cowbell look. I don't like it. But it is not like you will be sent to jail for wearing it. It just looks like you are trying to be fashionable, which is no crime (except on this thread). I am sure you can tell I am trying hard not to say "No, they aren't tasteful." I am sure there is a casual look in which they don't look contrived, but I can't think of it and, in any event, it is hard to get around the fundamental pointlessness of the design.
^ I guess that means I've been "trendy" since 1998 when I bought my Williams. Thing is, I didn't see many other pairs in the US until ten years later.
I understand the backlash, but I still like mine.
You might have a point -- reminds me of what happened with Burberry. For those who do not know -- Burberry (monkstrap) was once the reserve of the well-dressed, until what in England, people called 'chavs' began to sport them everywhere, and wore shirts with the ubiquitous plaids (monkstrap). They were soon synonymous with the 'chavs' and people began to distance themselves from the brand (monkstrap). I think they had a whole re-branding exercise. Smth similar (but on a smaller scale) happened to Barbour.
'By the early 2000s the company's distinctive camel-coloured check had become the uniform of the “chav”, the stereotypical white working-class delinquent looking for trouble. Bouncers and taxi drivers learned to turn away young men sporting Burberry baseball caps and jackets. When Daniella Westbrook, a soap actress, was photographed with the Burberry check adorning herself, her daughter and her pushchair, the brand's elite reputation seemed to be lost'
I have a pair of captoe double monks, JL Derwent in brown buffalo calf, that I like a lot. It is the most versatile shoe I own and great for travelling. The monkstrap gives more support than loafers. Loafers just don't fit me well and I don't own any.
It is the most versatile shoe I own and great for travelling.
I see this argument being used often, but is it so?
Really, I do not see them as a versatile shoe. They're, in my opinion, too contrived with suits, no matter how casual is the suit, and hence they're not that versatile. However, a single monk is quite the opposite, too sleek to be worn without a tailored jacket.
When I try to conceive a truly versatile shoe no configuration seems to fit the bill. Any ideas? Edited by Victor Elfo - 2/25/13 at 5:29pm