Can somebody please explain why square toed shoes/long lasts are so derided around here?

[blahman]



Not really. Look at a baby's foot. Or the foot of a person that has never worn shoes. The forefoot is almost inevitably square (ish). There will be some variation of toe length but, if unrestricted, the toes will tend to splay out...every time.

It's only in feet that have worn shoes from an early age that the foot tends to take on a more pointed shape...as the toes are pushed inward and crammed up next to each other.

It is just this factor that brings the square toe back into fashion every so often--the appeal to "nature's way."

Loving DWFII's very informative posts.
This one just reminded me about my own feet being very pointing as I have been wearing some very narrow shoes from a very young age.

I have owned some really square toes shoes back in high school. Now days I prefer moderately chisel toed elongated shoes a la the lots of Ferragamos and Mantellassis.

Why are there not much complaint about C&Js on the 348 last?

 

[Gdot]

[quote name="blahman" url="/forum/thread/258487/can-somebody-please-explain-why-square-toed-shoes-long-lasts-are-so-derided-around-here/60#post_4714878"

Why are there not much complaint about C&Js on the 348 last?[/quote]

Hi Blahman,

Not sure I understand your question.......could you please say more?.

 

[VRaivio]

DWFII, thanks for bringing us down to earth. I haven't really looked at children's feet before, think I'll be ogling a bit more in the future. In a proper way, of course.

 

[Pliny]

the Vass U is square and longer. gets plenty of love here.

but cheap snouty square toes that curl up like some kind of 16C jester shoe. see them everywhere:

 

[Makoto Chan]



Everything SF espouses is to do with lasting style, which generally means moderation in aspects that otherwise fluctuate with fashion. Sometimes wide lapels will be fashionable, sometimes narrow lapels will be fashionable, but if you buy all your coats with moderate lapels you will always be stylish. The same concept applies to the shape of a shoe, with the continuum stretching from square-toed at one end, to long pointy shoes at the other. Even when they happen to be fashionable the extremes will often look silly to someone with an objective eye who isn't a slave to the whims of fashion, whereas a shoe with a moderate shape, though it may fall 'out of fashion', will never look silly or dated as the extremes might.

+1 to this. You can buy something fun or creative or trendy if your want to and sometimes that's a good choice, but the guiding, general principle is well stated above.

Also FWIW, I think a lot of the "nicest" shoes posted on the Shoe Appreciation thread are way too pointy... It could be fashion, it could be because most men get fatter as they get older and look better in a thinner shoe, or I could be off-base, I don't know.

 

[blahman]

^^ Or that there are a lot of hypocrites around here

 

[kev777]



^^ Or that there are a lot of hypocrites around here

It may not be as much hypocrite as afraid to admit, it always amazes how in PM how many people admit to.....

1 How many pair(s) of Church shoes they have and how much they like them and dont get the forum hate for them.

2 How many pair(s) of Loake 1880 shoes they have and think the forum dislike is unjustified.

3 Not having any love for many of the Crockett & Jones lasts notably the 348 and just dont get the Forum hype for C&J.

Just the ones that come to mind......

 

[mensimageconsultant]

But have square-toed shoes ever been part of high-end fashion, worn by most stylish, wealthy people? Also, the typical foot size increased significantly (along with height) in the past 100 years or so; foot size might affect the aesthetics of the square toe.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fessler/pubs/AHBFootSizeDimorphism.pdf

 

[dirtyturk]

shoes, like clothes, have a primary purpose which is functional and a secondary purpose which is visual. "classic style" is fashion that stick to the functional aspects derived from nature whereas "modern style" favors the visual over the practical.

Does a neon pink polystyrene suit breathe and drape like wool. No. But you might be considered "fashionable" so people will wear it. The same with pointy green burnished leather shoes or stiletto heels. They are uncomfortable, impractical, and soon will be "ugly" when the new fashion comes in to wear clogs again.

 

[Axel Ferguson]



It may not be as much hypocrite as afraid to admit, it always amazes how in PM how many people admit to.....

1 How many pair(s) of Church shoes they have and how much they like them and dont get the forum hate for them.

2 How many pair(s) of Loake 1880 shoes they have and think the forum dislike is unjustified.

3 Not having any love for many of the Crockett & Jones lasts notably the 348 and just dont get the Forum hype for C&J.

Just the ones that come to mind......

Yeah, nothing to do with the fact Church make decent shoes, Loakes are good for their price, or that this forum can be C&J echo chamber, nope.

 

[DWFII]



But have square-toed shoes ever been part of high-end fashion, worn by most stylish, wealthy people? Also, the typical foot size increased significantly (along with height) in the past 100 years or so; foot size might affect the aesthetics of the square toe.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fessler/pubs/AHBFootSizeDimorphism.pdf

Square toes, with variations of height, were popular among all classes from kings to commoner, from the mid 1600's to the late 1800's.

 

[Fuuma]



I doubt the shoes that are preferred on SF will go out style in our lifetime though.

That's because they're already out of style.

 

[Fuuma]



shoes, like clothes, have a primary purpose which is functional and a secondary purpose which is visual. "classic style" is fashion that stick to the functional aspects derived from nature whereas "modern style" favors the visual over the practical.

Does a neon pink polystyrene suit breathe and drape like wool. No. But you might be considered "fashionable" so people will wear it. The same with pointy green burnished leather shoes or stiletto heels. They are uncomfortable, impractical, and soon will be "ugly" when the new fashion comes in to wear clogs again.

Nothing more natural than wearing some buttonned woolens with insect cocoon remains tied like a noose around your neck, hell I see baboons dress like that all the time when they're lounging at the bar. Oh wait you're a moron.

 

[Costanza]

Aren't there more than one type of square toe? Wide. Long. Wide and long. Short. Narrow. Short and narrow. Some are more perverse than others.
The 'extremes' are extreme because they seem silly to a larger number of people.
As someone with a long foot, I avoid long lasts, whether round, square or pointed. I also usually look for a visual break in the length of a shoe through some detail. With the extreme shapes even normal feet look silly to me, except when scaling chain link. That goes goes for women's feet as well.

 

[TheBatman]

David,

Well, that's an interesting question. I actually like a LOT of different styles, This week I bought a new pair of white buck oxfords - made in the UK and very traditional, I have a pair of 30 year old suede penny loafers that I still wear and love, a few pairs of Ferragamo loafers that are classics of their era, I also like the longest, sleekest, John Lobbs that are really pretty darned pointy if you get down to it, I'm not currently in love with squarish toes in general at the moment - but I see some that I like. I'm currently fascinated with the shapes that Vass uses - but I don't they are all that timeless.

About the only shoe i really can't stand is the round toed 'timeless' styles as currently executed by Allen Edmunds, etc. etc.. Basically traditional American shoes just remind me of the old fuddy duddys hanging out in my dad's office when I was a kid. In those day's they were Florsheims and Johnston and Murpheys - but they were just the same as today's Allen Edmunds. I'LL NEVER WEAR THEM - not as long as I live. I've succeeded in the world for 30 years without them and I'm not going start now. I personally think they are the fugliest shoes ever made.

So I'm sorta casting about right now - looking for the perfect fits between what I personally appreciate and enjoy and what the world around me currently considers to be acceptable.

Even though some people around here seem to think that they dress soley to please themselves I'm here to tell you that is delusional. There is so much 'group think' going on around here.

I believe you have betrayed your bias. Your objection to rounded American lasts has to do with conditioning and associated memories. You don't dislike them because of aesthetics, but because you have memories of "old fuddy duddy's" wearing them.

Ironically, you sound like an "old fuddy duddy" by using that archaic expression.

And I strongly disagree with your assertion that "group think" is the driving force behind an aversion to square toed shoes that is prevalent, among the more refined gentlemen anyway. You are still begging the question. Why didn't group think drive an affinity for the square toe as opposed to aversion?

I submit it has to do with basic aesthetic rules that have been known about and studies for many centuries. You would do well to perhaps study some basic art and design material, even photography. I suggest looking into Adam Marelli, a photographer who employs the classic design principals in his work, the same principals that underlay all visually pleasing compositions. You can find his seminars on youtube which are excellent primers.

In short, the design/composition answer is that there are no natural right angles or sharp angles anywhere on the human body. The curve is a natural organic shape, and is thus pleasing to the eye. It guides the eye on a tour of the foot. If you look at great shoe lasts, you will see that the edges of the sole and other design elements on the shoe create arabesques, which are classical markers of beauty.

But like I said, unless you are aware of these things you won't be able to notice them.