Boat shoes - for the young folks?

[why]

Some things have transcended into mainstream culture. Denim is a fabric used for a lot of purposes, pea coats existed before the navy, and I don't think desert boots had much to do with the desert in the first place.

Boat shoes are loafers made specifically for boating. In other words, it was a classic concept (loafers) that was changed to fit a certain purpose -- not the other way around as with denim and pea coats. Keep your horse behind the cart.

I feel the same way about shoulder patches on jackets for people that don't shoot or hunt, racing leathers for people that don't own a motorcycle, dogtags in general, etc. These are functional items added to clothing for an intended purpose and they display to others what their purpose is and consequently what a person does for work or in their spare time. If said person doesn't actually do those things it seems really out of place.

Take combat boots for instance: nobody really wears true combat boots in their everyday civilian lives. They might wear something inspired by combat boots, but the actual functional elements are subdued or altered. Boat shoes created for everyday use are...loafers. And I wear loafers.

 

[Robert]

I don't let it bother me. Maybe people will think I own a boat if I wear them, a definite plus. So what's the harm? Eh?

& actually I think you're wrong about the desert boots. From what I've read, Clarks fashioned them after army-issue boots made for British soldiers deployed to Africa in World War Two.

& if as you say, things transcend into mainstream, what's your beef with boat shoes being worn generally and not just on boats?

 

[boozingalcoholic]

I rock sperrys when I need a simple shoe! Construction is reflective of its price and it *has* lasted me for a long time. It's a fairly cheap leather casual shoe when you think about it. 75 bucks versus Chucks (40, and its canvas).

I don't believe clothing can be categorize into age groups. It all comes down to *style* and execution.

Yes Bro dudes do love it. Northface, new balance, Polo, Sperrys - however all quality products! Can you argue against quality?

P.S.
OH yeah, they also make in wide sizes! This is really a blessing for wide footed ppl. Typically, to get a correct size shoe, ur looking at getting a dressier shoe aka more expensive.

 

[cldpsu]

Originally Posted by why

Some things have transcended into mainstream culture. Denim is a fabric used for a lot of purposes, pea coats existed before the navy, and I don't think desert boots had much to do with the desert in the first place.

Boat shoes are loafers made specifically for boating. In other words, it was a classic concept (loafers) that was changed to fit a certain purpose -- not the other way around as with denim and pea coats. Keep your horse behind the cart.

I feel the same way about shoulder patches on jackets for people that don't shoot or hunt, racing leathers for people that don't own a motorcycle, dogtags in general, etc. These are functional items added to clothing for an intended purpose and they display to others what their purpose is and consequently what a person does for work or in their spare time. If said person doesn't actually do those things it seems really out of place.

Take combat boots for instance: nobody really wears true combat boots in their everyday civilian lives. They might wear something inspired by combat boots, but the actual functional elements are subdued or altered. Boat shoes created for everyday use are...loafers. And I wear loafers.

I don't mean to insult you, but is anyone else thinking, who cares?

 

[why]

Originally Posted by Robert

& if as you say, things transcend into mainstream, what's your beef with boat shoes being worn generally and not just on boats?
It's like this: 1. Man wears a shirt to go hunting and notices the shoulder is torn 2. Man sees need to reinforce his shooting shoulder 3. Man reinforces the shooting shoulder with a leather patch 4. The hunting shirt is born So the hunting shirt is basically...a shirt with an added patch to make it more accomodating for hunting. Take off the patch and you've got a shirt. Now with boat shoes: 1. Man wears loafers on boat 2. Man notices it's difficult to get in and out of loafers on boat 3. Man has special shoes made with a different lacing style to get his wet feet in and out of the shoes quickly 4. The boat shoe is born So the boat shoe is...a loafer with a different lacing style. Both have non-aesthetic functional elements that I don't think are pervasive enough to not look odd in mainstream culture. They don't necessarily add anything to the clothing they're on besides a functional element. When that functional element is no longer needed, there's really no reason for it to be worn. Let's look at denim in comparison: originally it was only a man's garment and was necessarily for the hard manual labor common at the time of its inception. When men went off to war, women were needed in factories and to provide the same role men had. Before WWII especially women generally didn't wear denim because it served no purpose. Nowadays denim is very commonly worn by both sexes and its popularity among both sexes has made it pervasive enough to not look out of place. I'm sure I'll hear a lot of dissenting opinions on this. Times changes and attitudes shift slowly -- I personally see the boat shoe as something that's hitting a climax (or hit one last year) and will fade a bit back onto the feet of east coast old wealth families who wear them on their yachts. I think this is the main reason European designers really haven't embraced the design much if at all. They'll never go away, but the mainstream fad associated with them will die down a bit. A bit of a digresson, but some companies and people simply see clothing and fashion in terms of magnitude and not design. Look at bellbottoms or JNCO jeans -- they were simply things like a boot cut or wider leg taken to extreme magnitude as if having bigger leg openings or being able to fit textbooks in back pockets somehow makes the jeans better than before. It totally ignores aesthetics in the process.

 

[Robert]

Okay. So?

 

[why]

What are you having problems understanding? I think I was pretty clear that they're not more appealing than a loafer and I have no functional use for the different lacing style and thus no reason to wear them.

 

[cldpsu]

Well if your only reason for wearing something is because of functionality, have fun.

Fashion is more enjoyable for me then how your painting it.

 

[Robert]

Originally Posted by why

What are you having problems understanding? I think I was pretty clear that they're not more appealing than a loafer and I have no functional use for the different lacing style and thus no reason to wear them.

Okay. Pretty absurd. But okay.

 

[indesertum]

somebody show me how the navy blucher or boat shoe is done. navy seems a little odd of a color for a shoe.

i like the aesthetic of the boat shoe better because i dont like the camp sole on bluchers. that's just my opinion. the presence of a functionality doesn't mean you shouldn't wear it unless you use it for that function.

 

[converge]

Originally Posted by cldpsu

I don't mean to insult you, but is anyone else thinking, who cares?

+1

 

[why]

Originally Posted by cldpsu

Well if your only reason for wearing something is because of functionality, have fun.

No, my reason for not wearing something is because it has non-aesthetically-pleasing functional elements that serve no purpose for me. It's poseurish.

You can disagree if you want. I'll be wearing my landlubbing loafers.

 

[unjung]

Twenty-five years old here. I find them to be very comfortable and convenient for summers when I might switch between sandals and something a little more substantial. They're not trendy in my area, which is fine by me, but I do know older guys who include them as a basic part of their footwear collection. I plan to purchase a navy pair this summer.

 

[cldpsu]

I disagree that functionality doesn't necessarily add anything to clothing besides a functional element.

That's like saying the laces that hold a shoe in place on a wingtip don't add anything but functionality. I find them aesthetically pleasing and some of those blue laces on PS shoes not only serve their functional purpose, but add a nice contrast.

It's just a matter of taste.

 

[thedamnscott]

I go to a relatively preppy New England liberal arts school and they are a staple here. I'm wearing them right now and I'm 20. They are not age-restricted by any means. I rock the original brown Sperry's, they're pretty excellent. That being said, I see a lot of people on campus wearing the Sahara color, which I think looks pretty good most of the time.

.