or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoes Explained
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shoes Explained - Page 3

post #31 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by HORNS View Post
What's the big deal of bringing this thread back up to the top?

IT's not a big deal. It's the Internet, dude. (Great post, btw, AHarris.) The bumper just seemed clueless, and we hates cluelessness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmusic View Post
It must have taken loads of time to prepare this article. It's great to be made aware of it. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by embowafa View Post
ditto.

great work, and an informative post that is applicable in 2003 and 2008.

OK, OK, I was too tough. I retract my snark. The people have spoken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Margaret View Post
Glad someone dug this up. Shouldn't it be pinned?

I believe a lot of it has been put into the wiki.
post #32 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimslade View Post
A thank you, and only five years later! You, sir, have truly brought this subject to life!
No love for your fellow writers, Grim? The man has written eight books. I see by your updated signature that you have probably visisted Saks yesterday.
post #33 of 121
excellent post by A Harris.
post #34 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmax View Post
No love for your fellow writers, Grim? The man has written eight books.

I see by your updated signature that you have probably visisted Saks yesterday.

DPW has written eight books? I did visit Saks, but struck out there. It was Barneys what did the damage. I should have taken pictures last night for the benefit of my internet friends, but I couldn't find the camera.
post #35 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimslade View Post
DPW has written eight books? I did visit Saks, but struck out there. It was Barneys what did the damage. I should have taken pictures last night for the benefit of my internet friends, but I couldn't find the camera.

perhaps snark is a way of life for you, i am not qualified to comment. i do wonder if you have missed the point here. the point being.... i mentioned the fact that I am a writer, not to impress ( i have plenty of devotees without seeking out a few more in SF), but to impress upon the next reader that a qualified critique of the " shoe review" was undertaken and that this piece is deserving of a first, second or even a third read. this type of expertize, shoes and clear writing, is worthy of note regardless the time of penning. compliments, especially about writing, here or elsewhere, should find voice when the mood strikes, don't you think? writing is very much a solitary sport, so recognition, when deserved, is usually welcomed by the creative mind.

look around at the written word contained in sf. many would do well to emulate mr harris in clear thinking and in the written expression of critical thought....enough said.

suffice to say that should you pen a piece that deserves recognition, i will be the first to compliment your efforts. I take from a brief review of past posts, that you know much about shoes so .....bless us with your wisdom.
post #36 of 121
Thank you for the compliment, undeserved as it is. I recognize that you will not order your life around considerations of what will and won't produce snark from me, but all of this could have been avoided with the ordinary practice of merely flagging the fact you were consciously bumping a five-year-old thread. Like so: "I thought this post was so great that it deserved a bump, so new users could benefit from its wisdom, its clarity and its admirable writing style..." That helps to avoid confusion.

Now, one may argue that the cost of that confusion is vanishingly small, but it's a courtesy to others, and the cost of the courtesy is equally minute.

I feel a bit foolish even putting this little lesson into words, as I would think it would be obvious to all. And it was not a "big deal" in the first place. But anyway, it was a knee-jerk reaction on my part. This was due at least in part to the fact that a number of people have recently and unwittingly responded to threads many years old as if the question posed in it had arisen yesterday.
post #37 of 121
I'm a bit busy right now, but promise to come back and review dpw and grims' posts in 2-3 years.
post #38 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eustace Tilley View Post
I'm a bit busy right now, but promise to come back and review dpw and grims' posts in 2-3 years.

They will be as relevant then as the moment they were posted, I promise.
post #39 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw View Post
perhaps snark is a way of life for you, i am not qualified to comment. i do wonder if you have missed the point here. the point being.... i mentioned the fact that I am a writer, not to impress ( i have plenty of devotees without seeking out a few more in SF), but to impress upon the next reader that a qualified critique of the " shoe review" was undertaken and that this piece is deserving of a first, second or even a third read. this type of expertize, shoes and clear writing, is worthy of note regardless the time of penning. compliments, especially about writing, here or elsewhere, should find voice when the mood strikes, don't you think? writing is very much a solitary sport, so recognition, when deserved, is usually welcomed by the creative mind. look around at the written word contained in sf. many would do well to emulate mr harris in clear thinking and in the written expression of critical thought....enough said. suffice to say that should you pen a piece that deserves recognition, i will be the first to compliment your efforts. I take from a brief review of past posts, that you know much about shoes so .....bless us with your wisdom.
Impressed as I am with the mention of your devotees, your confidence in the ability to offer "qualified critique", and your "expertize", may I humbly suggest that you emulate the distinguished Mr. Harris in his respect for capitalization in the begining of sentences and of the singular pronouns. If only for posterity.
post #40 of 121
I wanna get expertized. Also need to get organizized
post #41 of 121
I notice that some shoes are made with single thickness soles and some shoes are made with double thickness soles. Is there a practical reason for the double thickness soles?
post #42 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpw View Post
a. harris:just a quick complement on your excellent "shoe review". Concise, informative and very well written. Bravo! I, myself, have written 8 books so I know from whence I speak. Not so easy to produce a piece on what could have been a bit of a dry topic, yet you have managed to bring this subject to life. thank you, dpw

I missed this earlier. Thanks for your kind comments dpw!

Misterjase, double soles are mostly a stylistic choice. However, they do stand up better to heavy wear, resist rounding better, and offer more protection from whatever you might step on. A lot of English and Italian shoes with dressy single soles feel almost like slippers once they have broken in. You can feel what is underfoot, right through the sole. I've not decided if I like that feeling or not.
post #43 of 121
Bumped for brilliance.
post #44 of 121
Thanks , I learnt a lot.
post #45 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eustace Tilley View Post
I'm a bit busy right now, but promise to come back and review dpw and grims' posts in 2-3 years.



Regards.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoes Explained