John Lobb Darby II, what's the thought? Wearable with suit?

[m0bbie]

Hello,

I am new to the John Lobb, and wondering if this is a good buy or not.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/190793388589?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

I already love the shoes, judging by the pictures. Was this a good buy? Good price? or just okay?

Let's say I wear this with gray, charcoal, navy, blue, or tan suit, is it wearable?

Thanks...

 

[michaelvl]

- Bluchers also called Derbies (shoes with open lacing) are considered shoes for casual attire.
- Balmorals also called Oxfords (shoes with closed lacing) are considered shoes for business/formal attire.

The shoe you bought is a Blucher type shoe, it's also a full brogue shoe, the less brogueing on a business shoe the better. Basically the only good things it has going on formal wise is that it's black and is made from calf leather.

Example's of "correct" shoe choice for business attire are: a black whole cut Oxford or a black cap toe Oxford.

Having said that, the knowledge of "correct" attire in the real world is shockingly low, if you are not working in finance, law or upper management I doubt that many would find fault in you wearing those shoes with a suit, I personally wouldn't wear them with one myself.

 

[m0bbie]

- Bluchers also called Derbies (shoes with open lacing) are considered shoes for casual attire.
- Balmorals also called Oxfords (shoes with closed lacing) are considered shoes for business/formal attire.

The shoe you bought is a Blucher type shoe, it's also a full brogue shoe, the less brogueing on a business shoe the better. Basically the only good things it has going on formal wise is that it's black and is made from calf leather.

Example's of "correct" shoe choice for business attire are: a black whole cut Oxford or a black cap toe Oxford.

Having said that, the knowledge of "correct" attire in the real world is shockingly low, if you are not working in finance, law or upper management I doubt that many would find fault in you wearing those shoes with a suit, I personally wouldn't wear them with one myself.

What about beige/tan linen/cotton suit? or maybe a navy sport coat with beige/tan chinos?

 

[RogerP]

- Bluchers also called Derbies (shoes with open lacing) are considered shoes for casual attire.
- Balmorals also called Oxfords (shoes with closed lacing) are considered shoes for business/formal attire.

The shoe you bought is a Blucher type shoe, it's also a full brogue shoe, the less brogueing on a business shoe the better. Basically the only good things it has going on formal wise is that it's black and is made from calf leather.

Example's of "correct" shoe choice for business attire are: a black whole cut Oxford or a black cap toe Oxford.
Having said that, the knowledge of "correct" attire in the real world is shockingly low, if you are not working in finance, law or upper management I doubt that many would find fault in you wearing those shoes with a suit, I personally wouldn't wear them with one myself.

I have practiced law for 20 years. While I don't dispute your assessment of what is "correct" - these shoes with a suit would be a better option than what 75% or more of my colleagues are wearing at any given time. Shoes seem to be the last area appropriately addressed even by those who are otherwise fairly well put together. Never mind the distinction between Balmoral and Blucher - shockingly few seem to get beyond footwear that is both visibly cheap AND in poor condition.

Rant off.

I personally would not feel constrained to wear these shoes with casual attire alone.

 

[gyasih]

I agree with the above poster most people wouldn't even notice. We, on SF, and other similar forums tend to look at things much differently.

Even with my above comment, I wouldn't start my wardrobe with those shoes and definitely not a used pair.

 

[Quadcammer]

black blucher wingtips are probably the last thing I'd buy, much less well used john lobbs, but anyway.

They will look stupid with tan. They will be fine with navy and gray suits, although bluchers are typically not worn with suits.


I think you are going about your wardrobe building the wrong way. Things like these shoes and the light suit don't seem to be solid wardrobe staples

 

[m0bbie]

Okay, got it.

One thing though, I don't know if you guys missed it, but the color is "Dark Oak", and to my sight, these appear to be dark brownish... Or my eyes were just wrong?

 

[lee_44106]

Paying $410 for used shoes.......that's just being a sucker, in my opinion.

You could've purchased brand new shoes for less.

 

[RogerP]

I'd love to know where I can get John Lobb shoes like this, new for less than US$410. No, seriously - let me know.

 

[HomerJ]



Okay, got it. 

One thing though, I don't know if you guys missed it, but the color is "Dark Oak", and to my sight, these appear to be dark brownish... Or my eyes were just wrong?

Looks like dark brown to me. Would look best with a sport coat. I've worn a similar pair of C&J with a suit though.

Here's a gratuitous ***** SHOT of the fit.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I'd love to know where I can get John Lobb shoes like this, new for less than US$410.  No, seriously - let me know.

I assumed he meant new shoes in general. I scored a few pairs of Lobbs for about $400 before but it's pretty damn rare. Sold one (not my size), kept one, returned one (turned out shoes were mismatched!)

 

[RogerP]

I assumed he meant new shoes in general. I scored a few pairs of Lobbs for about $400 before but it's pretty damn rare. Sold one (not my size), kept one, returned one (turned out shoes were mismatched!)

If so, by that reasoning, heck, you could get new shoes for $49.99! Does that make one a "sucker" for buying a pair of used Lobbs in excellent condition for $400? Are shoes of comparable quality widely available new-in-box for less?

I don't doubt that others, like myself, have scored some major bargains over the years - but as you point out, it would be damn rare indeed to grab shoes like this new, at this price.

 

[woolymammoth]



Okay, got it. 

One thing though, I don't know if you guys missed it, but the color is "Dark Oak", and to my sight, these appear to be dark brownish... Or my eyes were just wrong?

Dark Oak is for all intents and purposes dark brown (in my experience)...these are Dark Oak Lobb 1999...