Ask A Question, Get An Answer... - Post All Quick Questions Here (Classic menswear)

[AmericanGent]

My question:

What color shoe is most versatile? I'm going to buy a pair of Clark's desert boots, I'm a 20 year old student, wardrobe consists of colorful shirts, blue/brown v necks, chinos/jeans, mostly.

I'm thinking black or darker brown. But I like the tan Clarks a lot as well.

Thanks in advance.

With a casual shoe like the clarks boot it really doesn't matter that much. I wear a brown chukka, but that is my preference because of my wardrobe. In suits I wear brown more often than black. Brown can be worn with almost everything that you would wear black with except black suit, funeral, etc.

I will do.
I do also have a blue linen single breasted suit I could wear. But it's brighter than navy and was worried it might be too bright.

Living here in Naples I can say that "too bright" is not really a concern for most folks. They wear orange, lemon yellow, etc. Pink pants are a common sight.

I'm thinking that either choice would be fine- but if you can reach the family that would help. The blue linen suit sounds safe while the navy DB blazer with cream could either be the perfect choice, of it may come off a little yacht-clubish. (Personally- If it is summer in southern Italy, daytime or more relaxed event I'd go for the Thurston Howe III.)

 

[sanchito]

What makes you think jeans are any more flattering than any other type of pant? And don't forget that you can get these things altered - if they fit great elsewhere but are loose in the waist, then take them to a tailor and have the waist taken in.
It's really impossible to answer your question in isolation, without knowing about what sort of clothes you want to wear these pants with, what you want to wear them for, etc. Really, you need to spend some time lurking and reading through the archive here to start forming your own opinion, then maybe come back with more specific questions. And this has doubtless been discussed before anyway, perhaps you could search for those discussions.

Thanks for the reply...let me rephrase that, the fit on slim jeans is better off the rack than pants...as far as lurking and reading through the threads, sorry, but it's a bit daunting reading through thousands of pages and hoping that someone may be asking the same questions I am...I thought this thread was appropriate...

Houndstooth blazer, cord blazer, standard navy blazer, sweater tie combos...since I have never been comfortable wearing pants I was looking for guidance...primarily color I suppose...I'm thinking of starting off with either Brooks Brothers or J Crew.

 

[eqcitizen]

I'm looking to round out my shoe collection. I'm mid-20's and wear business casual for work, so don't need too many dress shoes at the moment. You can see by what I have below that I'm not in the high-end/baller category. The shoes with stars (*) are one's that I'm considering purchasing. Maybe not the exact brand, but at least the type of shoe. Are there any pairs I should/shouldn't get? Any I should replace or get rid of? Any that I might want to add to round out the collection? I'm not a big fan of loafers, monks, high boots.

-- Dress --
Black AE Park Ave
Brown AE Strand
*Black Kent Wang Plain toe bal - Nice but also check into Meermin's
*Brown Kent Wang Captoe or Brown AE Park Ave - I would probably rather have an oxblood or dark maroonish red. They look a little better with navy suits IMO

-- Casual --
Brown AE Kenilworth
Walnut AE Kenilworth
Snuff AE Amok Chukka
Brown Loake Kempton Chukka
*Beige Bucks and/or Chukka (something like Church's Sahara or similar) to replace my old Calvin Kleins - Go for the bucks over more Chukkas
*White's Semi Dress Boots or similar for bad weather - Look into Oak Street bootmakers as well

Light Brown/Snuff Sebago Docksiders
Navy Sebago Docksiders

Grey Suede Puma Luxe
*White Kent Wang Sneakers to replace old white sneakers

(I made a few comments on the above in bold)

I am always of the opinion that more shoes can never hurt (well, it only hurts the bank account....and that just for a little while). I was looking at your list and you have most of the basics covered and you have some relatively nice shoes in that list. I didnt see any Norwegian toes or any wingtips and I would try and get a dress boot (something like the AE Fifth st or the like) but that is just me. But mostly the shoes that I didnt see above, you mentioned that you didn't like (monks, loafers, etc). Also, since you do have the basics, why not start to save up for something of greater quality like a crockett and jones, alden or edward green or even (if you can stomach the cost) a pair of John Lobbs or G&G? Otherwise not a bad list.

The only crucial thing missing, in my humble opinion, are a pair of something fun. How about a set of saddle shoes, spectators or maybe a pair of colored suede wingtips (make em blue if you like Elvis).

 

[kmitch101]

(I made a few comments on the above in bold)

I am always of the opinion that more shoes can never hurt (well, it only hurts the bank account....and that just for a little while). I was looking at your list and you have most of the basics covered and you have some relatively nice shoes in that list. I didnt see any Norwegian toes or any wingtips and I would try and get a dress boot (something like the AE Fifth st or the like) but that is just me. But mostly the shoes that I didnt see above, you mentioned that you didn't like (monks, loafers, etc). Also, since you do have the basics, why not start to save up for something of greater quality like a crockett and jones, alden or edward green or even (if you can stomach the cost) a pair of John Lobbs or G&G? Otherwise not a bad list.

The only crucial thing missing, in my humble opinion, are a pair of something fun. How about a set of saddle shoes, spectators or maybe a pair of colored suede wingtips (make em blue if you like Elvis).

Thanks for the suggestions. I saw a version similar to Kent on the Meermin site in the plaintoe (http://meermin.es/ficha_articulo.php?id=1920#) and they would definitely be cheaper. Not sure how the quality compares? And they're a little less sleek possibly. I wish Kent offered some more shades like a merlot in the captoe because I do like the sleek shape.

Any suggestions for some dirty bucks?

The leather sole Oak Street Trench looks very nice. I'd imagine the quality is on par with White's just without the customization? Only thing I would want to do is add a vibram half sole.

 

[bennyy]

how does Church's shoes run? I want to pick up some Derbys and I wear size 7/40 in everything...Yet the store only has size UK5.5 left measuring 11.25" outsole

 

[squishmaster]

I have recently gotten into ordering M2M shirts and suits online and have been glad that there are so many customization options. One thing that I never considered before was getting a peak lapel suit. The reason for this is that I am 6'3" (1.91 m) and heavy-set. I had always thought that peak lapels, like double-breasted suits, were designed for shorter and skinnier men. Is this true? Should I even consider buying a peak lapel at my size (54L), or should I just consider that it will be out of fashion soon anyway, and so I should stick with the classic medium-width notch that I have always worn?

 

[NORE]

Depends on the last but I have found Church's shoes to run pretty true to size.

 

[mimo]

Benny, in my experience they're true to size, but the lasts I've had tend to be pretty long - a classic English extended toe. So if your foot is narrow, you might find them big. If it's wide, they'll be fine but maybe a touch tight across the toe. They do a wide fitting in most of their sizes. But yeah, for an average width foot, they should fit just right, just maybe with a slightly longer toe sticking out than you're used to if you usually wear American shoes.

In your case, it sounds like a 5.5 would be too small for you if you normally take a US7. But shop around. Check out www.herringshoes.co.uk if you like Church's - they always have some clearance items, and you can search by size. I would suggest a 6.5F is more likely to fit you. They are also very helpful with recommendations and shipping - I'm wearing Church's I bought from them as I type, and I've had several other pairs from them too. Try their own brand made by Cheaney too - very good value.


N.B. it's easy to get mixed up about width fittings in English shoes:

Loake, Barker, Alfred Sargeant, Cheaney, CHURCH'S: E= Narrow F = Medium, G = wide. Church's also do H= extra wide for some shoes

Edward Green, John Lobb, Crockett and Jones, Gaziano & Girling: E= Medium, F = wide

Tricker's: some stuff to do with numbers, I think 5 = medium!

So don't get caught out: F is regular width for Church's i.e. US D or M width.

 

[donjuan17]

What are your thoughts on Church's 'Prague' loafers? They seem to be discontinued.
Details on them include:
-360 Goodyear welt
-Steel shank
-Almond toe

 

[mimo]

What are your thoughts on Church's 'Prague' loafers? They seem to be discontinued.

I think you need to ask what YOUR thoughts are on them.

Church's have become extremely unpopular on this forum over the last few years because of a perceived drop in quality and their expansion into more "fashionable" lines since the Prada takeover. There is some justification.

But if you like them, and can afford them, they are still a very respectable goodyear welted shoe with a famous name.

I haven't seen these before until I just looked them up. I like them. That colour of suede is typical (and traditional) Church's too. I'd just say that there are a hell of a lot of suede loafers around. You could quite feasibly get something as good from Barker or Grenson or even Loake, for a lot less money and similar quality.

At the end of the day, it's your money, they're not the most expensive of Church's, and the only thing that really matters is whether you love them.

The site I mentioned in my previous post has them in stock, but not in all sizes.

 

[donjuan17]

I think you need to ask what YOUR thoughts are on them.

Church's have become extremely unpopular on this forum over the last few years because of a perceived drop in quality and their expansion into more "fashionable" lines since the Prada takeover. There is some justification.

But if you like them, and can afford them, they are still a very respectable goodyear welted shoe with a famous name.

I haven't seen these before until I just looked them up. I like them. That colour of suede is typical (and traditional) Church's too. I'd just say that there are a hell of a lot of suede loafers around. You could quite feasibly get something as good from Barker or Grenson or even Loake, for a lot less money and similar quality.

At the end of the day, it's your money, they're not the most expensive of Church's, and the only thing that really matters is whether you love them.

The site I mentioned in my previous post has them in stock, but not in all sizes.

I ask because I'm a bit new to the "higher end" shoe business. The pair I'm looking at is not in the suede but in black. I could cop them for about half price too!
If you've seen my posts elsewhere you'll see I'm looking for a decent loafer that will age well.

-Thanks.

 

[Scalable]

How do you guys manage to tie your shoelaces without having your neatly-tucked shirt get all pulled out of shape in the back?

I do the military tuck with my shirts and always wear a belt, but whenever I bend down, I can feel my shirttails rising from beneath my trousers, eager to escape. When I get up, the shirt back has usually ballooned significantly.

 

[mimo]

Well, they're a distinctive style, so if you love them, go for it. But in terms of quality, there are a lot of goodyear welted black loafers around, and as long as they are decent leather (not the really shiny "bookbinder" or "polished binder" as they sometimes say), they should last plenty if you look after them. Find a pair that you really love the look of, make sure the pics are good enough to see a little bit of grain in the leather, and if the pics are too small, then a kind of leaden dullness rather than plasticky shine, is a good sign.

The standard goodyear welting process is a pretty good baseline of quality, whatever the brand. It's not as good as hand-welted (let's not even get into that now), but if you take care of them and don't wear them every day, they could last as long as you do with the occasional re-sole by a proper cobbler (or the manufacturer). The real variations will be in the quality of the upper leather, the durability of the sole, and the shape of the last on which the shoe is made. Other things like whether they put plenty of real cork in the sole for support you will notice once you've had a few different pairs.

Anyway, if they're half price that sounds good! Just maybe shop around a bit - how they look and feel to you is more important than the brand.

 

[12345Michael54321]



The pair I'm looking at is not in the suede but in black.

While I'm a big fan of loafers, and have no particular problem with black shoes, I do think that black loafers are often a poor combination.

The loafer tends to be a relatively casual dress shoe. Whereas black tends to lend formality to a pair of shoes. Consequently, black loafers just strike me as being self-contradictory. Like a "Hello Kitty" machine gun, or a rap version of the King James Bible. (Okay, perhaps not quite so glaring a contradiction as all that, but still...)

I recognize that exceptions exist, of course. For example, I've long thought that horsebit loafers look best in black. But what sartorial guideline doesn't have the odd exception or two?

Well, just my take on it. If the loafers were brown, I'd probably have no great objection to the. But in black... I wouldn't buy them. And the fact that you can get them for half price doesn't really change my opinion.
--
Michael

 

[bennyy]

wow most descriptive answer to my question in a short amount of time. thank you