Boots with or without laces for traveling & clubbing?

[charles111]

Never been a boot wearer, but I'm considering getting some boots for traveling & clubbing. I heard Chelsea boots are pretty popular and the ones I've seen seem to come without any laces. I'm also considering laced boots like these: https://www.nordstrom.com/s/johnsto...m_term=468114&utm_content=20220524_proddescr1



My question is are laces or no laces more appropriate for certain situations like going out to dinner, to the club, or just traveling in general? Personally, I think I like the laces version.

 

[rjc149]

Unless I'm mistaken about Chelsea boots (I don't own, wear, or frankly really like them) they are slip-on boots with an elastic gusset, and never feature laces. These would be appropriate for any of the activities you've described -- especially flying, where a slip-on would be easier to wear through security.

The boot you posted is a hiking-style boot which looks most appropriate in the woods IMO, although this aesthetic is making its way into streetwear.

Personally I think the Chelsea would be the better choice for clubbing or dinner out.

In regards to laces, the traditional rule is that you don't wear no-lace footwear or boots with suits -- loafers, Chelsea boots, etc. -- although this is pretty anachronistic and old-school. Aside from that rule, if you choose to follow it, whether your footwear is laced or not has no bearing on a typical casual night out.

 

[dougc33]

Unless I'm mistaken about Chelsea boots (I don't own, wear, or frankly really like them) they are slip-on boots with an elastic gusset, and never feature laces. These would be appropriate for any of the activities you've described -- especially flying, where a slip-on would be easier to wear through security.

The boot you posted is a hiking-style boot which looks most appropriate in the woods IMO, although this aesthetic is making its way into streetwear.

Personally I think the Chelsea would be the better choice for clubbing or dinner out.

In regards to laces, the traditional rule is that you don't wear no-lace footwear or boots with suits -- loafers, Chelsea boots, etc. -- although this is pretty anachronistic and old-school. Aside from that rule, if you choose to follow it, whether your footwear is laced or not has no bearing on a typical casual night out.

I thought Chelsea boots were a little bit embarrassing?

Chelsea boots – a little embarrassing?!

Am I alone in thinking that there is something embarrassing about wearing Chelsea boots if you usually try and wear only sophisticated shoes? It's like someone extolling the virtues of a Kiton suit and then buying elastic waist pants from K-Mart. I mean, we're supposed to appreciate...

www.styleforum.net

 

[rjc149]

I thought Chelsea boots were a little bit embarrassing?

Chelsea boots – a little embarrassing?!

Am I alone in thinking that there is something embarrassing about wearing Chelsea boots if you usually try and wear only sophisticated shoes? It's like someone extolling the virtues of a Kiton suit and then buying elastic waist pants from K-Mart. I mean, we're supposed to appreciate...

www.styleforum.net

 

[breakaway01]

I wouldn't focus so much on whether a boot has laces or not but on the overall style of the boot as a whole, taking into account other elements as well.

For example the boot you posted is definitely a casual hiking-style boot. Not something you could wear with a suit, for example, and probably not my first choice to go clubbing in. There are other styles of boots with laces that are much more formal than that, for example (not that I think this style of boot is suitable for clubbing, either).

In contrast, Chelsea boots are one style of no-lace boot but even among Chelsea boots, there are more casual styles and sleeker/more formal styles. Compare these two styles, for example:

Yet another style of boot to consider for going out/clubbing might be a side-zip boot.

 

[JFWR]

Buying a pair of sneaker soled hiking boots like those from J&M (which, I'd like to note, is a pretty terrible brand in terms of craftsmanship/materials) is not going to be a wise choice for dinner/clubbing. Those boots would look remarkably out of place in those contexts.

Chelsea boots can definitely be worn out for dinner and clubbing.

 

[rjc149]

Whether you'd consider it a boot or a shoe, have you looked into chukka boots? These are extremely versatile in both form and function, and come in a wide variety of styles, from rugged and casual, to sleek and dressy -- even 'dress' chukkas which can go with suits (although I personally wouldn't wear chukkas with a suit).

 

[charles111]

Yeah, I've looked into Chukka too, but I read some comparisons and the consensus seemed to be that chelseas were more versatile? As I mentioned in the OP, I know virtually nothing about boots. I don't really know what's considered appropriate for certain settings

 

[Spinster Jones]

I'm also considering laced boots like these:

Don't consider those. Those are flat out ugly. If you're into this style get the Paraboot Avoriaz. These are probably what you're after, anyhow. Wears quite nicely with wollen pants etc.

 

[JFWR]

Yeah, I've looked into Chukka too, but I read some comparisons and the consensus seemed to be that chelseas were more versatile? As I mentioned in the OP, I know virtually nothing about boots. I don't really know what's considered appropriate for certain settings

I'd imagine the formality heirarchy would go something like:

1. Dress oxford boots
2. Dress derby boots/chelsea boots (leather/shell) (tied)
3. Leather/shell chukkas
4. Suede chelseas
5. Suede chukkas
6. Country boots (like Crockett and Jones' Coniston) and Moc totes (like Alden Indy Boot) (tied)
7. Work boots.
8. Hiking boots
9. Fishing boots (rubber ones).

I'd place your boots that you posted from J&M as work or hiking boots, neither of which would look reasonable as night time wear.

Obviously, colour plays a factor in this, too. Black boots are more formal than brown or oxblood, generally speaking, and leather/shell is more formal than suede or grained leathers.

 

[breakaway01]

Yeah, I've looked into Chukka too, but I read some comparisons and the consensus seemed to be that chelseas were more versatile? As I mentioned in the OP, I know virtually nothing about boots. I don't really know what's considered appropriate for certain settings

I think either chukka or Chelsea boots would be suitable for going out. For clubbing though you want to avoid the more casual/rustic versions of each.

 

[comrade]

Unless I'm mistaken about Chelsea boots (I don't own, wear, or frankly really like them) they are slip-on boots with an elastic gusset, and never feature laces. These would be appropriate for any of the activities you've described -- especially flying, where a slip-on would be easier to wear through security.

The boot you posted is a hiking-style boot which looks most appropriate in the woods IMO, although this aesthetic is making its way into streetwear.

Personally I think the Chelsea would be the better choice for clubbing or dinner out.

In regards to laces, the traditional rule is that you don't wear no-lace footwear or boots with suits -- loafers, Chelsea boots, etc. -- although this is pretty anachronistic and old-school. Aside from that rule, if you choose to follow it, whether your footwear is laced or not has no bearing on a typical casual night out.

These are my go to boots for clubbing:

Maronibrater

Bark-tanned leather/felt, black/anthracite

www.ludwig-reiter.com

 

[TheJoker932]

Never been a boot wearer, but I'm considering getting some boots for traveling & clubbing. I heard Chelsea boots are pretty popular and the ones I've seen seem to come without any laces. I'm also considering laced boots like these: https://www.nordstrom.com/s/johnsto...m_term=468114&utm_content=20220524_proddescr1



My question is are laces or no laces more appropriate for certain situations like going out to dinner, to the club, or just traveling in general? Personally, I think I like the laces version.

cuban heels every time

 

[rjc149]

These are my go to boots for clubbing:

Maronibrater

Bark-tanned leather/felt, black/anthracite

www.ludwig-reiter.com

Clubbing the fish you just caught?

 

[rjc149]

Yeah, I've looked into Chukka too, but I read some comparisons and the consensus seemed to be that chelseas were more versatile? As I mentioned in the OP, I know virtually nothing about boots. I don't really know what's considered appropriate for certain settings

Chukkas probably have the edge in versatility since they are laced shoes that go with jeans or chinos equally well. Not to say that Chelseas don't, but they seem most at home with denim. If that doesn't matter to you, then it's really a matter of the look you're going for and which you prefer. Either would be 100% appropriate for a night out to casual or semi-casual venues.

Chelseas are somewhat iconic as a staple of mod fashion and 60's artist culture, while chukkas have military heritage, originally designed to be practical and comfortable in desert conditions during WWII. Whether it matters to you, Chelsea boots were originally designed for Queen Victoria (so the story goes) and most iterations retain a unisex aesthetic.