Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by luk-cha, Apr 7, 2011.
Something like Saratorial_Splender posted some time ago. Wigmore in espresso calf and mole suede.
sigh, i guess so. though i donnt own any, i think many of them are quite lovely.
Thank you for the idea. Will do it tomorrow.
I like it! My vote would be for Dark Oak, though.
I do. Mid-grey pants, blue jacket. Grey suit would look great as well I think. I'm not sure I'd wear black suede wholecuts quite the same way, but the full brogue wingtip doesn't feel that dressy.
Getting dressed this morning - mid grey (PoW actually)trousers, white shirt, blue grey herringbone cashmere jacket - and was thinking that those black suede oxfords would look perfect with this!
Would wearing this without socks look terrible? What do you gents think?
Depends on the rest of the outfit. There was a good piece (maybe on dieworkwear?) arguing that going sockless works best with lighter shoes and pants, so that the contrast of the naked leg isn't too extreme. The fact that these shoes are dark makes it tough to pull off. With light/tan pants it may work, but hard to say.
i think it would be very hard to make those shoes look terrible, but i would not recommend sockless.
I usually wear a C&J Harvard loafer in dark brown shell sockless and it's perfect. This one -- the design looks slightly elongated and semi-formal...that's why I was in doubt.
I would also gladly wear a pair of wholecut loafers sock less.
But this one....I just can't tell by looking at pictures.
Midnight blue is a fantastic colour.
Wearing no socks ALWAYS looks terrible.Exceptions are made occasionally for Italian (ladies') fashion designers and anyone walking onto a boat, but apart from that, wear nice socks.
Oh that's not fair! I think it looks fine on younger, fitter guys who are dressed very casually and are in warmer climates. I don't think it looks good with a suit, or with dark colors in general, but tan pants, white shirt, blue jacket, light brown loafers? That can look great.
Unsightly, unhygienic and unmanly.
Sure, with long shorts and a polo shirt, or even as you describe, it seems to be acceptable (but I'm glad you draw the line at a suit). Like I said, if you're getting onto a boat or sitting in a beach side bar in the Bahamas, what the heck. A casual pair of moccasins or deck shoes with no socks, I get. But in the realm of "classic menswear", I still consider it below par: proper loafers that are too good for the beach, are too good for bare feet, and bare feet are never "classic menswear": what next? Baggy suits with just a vest underneath like MC Hammer?
Anyway, I appreciate I am an anachronism swimming against the tide here - cf. my ranting at people wearing "jeans" in the WAYWRN thread. These things are not "classic menswear", they are casual work wear for labourers and factory workers! At least in my addled, reactionary old mind. My only concessions are colourful socks and brown in town. Dandy is good. But denim and socklessness are just scruffy.
Right, enough of that, I'll go and listen to the wireless and calm down. Perhaps someone could post some lovely shoes and get us back on track?
100% agree. The only time I'm not wearing socks is when I'm on the beach.
Separate names with a comma.