• STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

ValidusLA

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,223
Reaction score
1,221
Simon is both adventurous and often not ashamed to admit when he's made styling mistakes.

I think that outfit does not look good, and he might agree.

The ability to break a rule does not negate its existence as such.

It is pretty much an accepted aphorism that "one must learn the rules to break them effectively."

If you want to deny their existence ad nauseum fine. Its silly though.
 

TheChihuahua

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
563
Reaction score
564
Simon is both adventurous and often not ashamed to admit when he's made styling mistakes.

I think that outfit does not look good, and he might agree.

The ability to break a rule does not negate its existence as such.

It is pretty much an accepted aphorism that "one must learn the rules to break them effectively."

If you want to deny their existence ad nauseum fine. Its silly though.
DWW made up a rule (or maybe its a rule that others here have fabricated in the past, and he just subscribed to it). Read the earlier posts in this thread and how ridiculously adherent he is to it. He's a true believer.

After people have posted plenty of pictures that look better than the uniform he thinks we all should be wearing (sports coats with split toe derbies or loafers), he softened his position but still isn't willing to admit his made up rule is nonsense.

Ridiculous to say that Simon doesn't look good in that picture, and that he should be wearing penny loafers or derbies or something. That picture looks great. You might not like it as one of your favorites, but it is not breaking any rules. (and DWW wasn't in the "only with suits, but learn to break the rule" camp earlier in this thread)

And the theories that you two have taken to try to defend this made up rule are just as comical.
Well, in the 1930's.... blah blah blah.
Or, Allan Flusser admits that not all oxfords are formal, but unless you own moleskin or cords you have to wear them only with suits (and really who cares what Allan Flusser says?).

No brown in town, oxfords only with suits!
 

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
22,347
Reaction score
54,798
Also, for what it’s worth, I’m really not trying to be negative towards this topic. I appreciate the info provided here. I am asking these questions to learn, rather than argue or speak as an authority.
^ First day on StyleForum


well, in my opinion that rule is fatally flawed and ridiculous.

^ Second day on StyleForum
 

TheChihuahua

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
563
Reaction score
564
View attachment 1608929
^ First day on StyleForum





^ Second day on StyleForum
Yup

one thing I will confidently speak with authority on is that the rules of no brown in town or oxfords only with suits don’t actually exits. Not even close.

but if everybody needs to be wearing sports coats and Penny loafers to be following some made up rules...
 

ValidusLA

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,223
Reaction score
1,221
View attachment 1608929


Yup

one thing I will confidently speak with authority on is that the rules of no brown in town or oxfords only with suits don’t actually exits. Not even close.

but if everybody needs to be wearing sports coats and Penny loafers to be following some made up rules...
Your continued insistence on correlating brown in town to oxfords with suits is really hilarious at this point.

No one here but you has proferred no brown in town as legitimate. No one but you has given it any current legitimacy.

I recommend googling "Logical Fallacies" or to save you time "Strawman Argument".

Though based on the fact you keep saying DWW "made up" this rule, I'm not sure what good it will do.

You certainly don't have to listen to Flusser, or Roetzel, or DWW for that matter.

However, continuing to insist that people invented concepts that are well understood by people who objectively have spent more time in the space and have a deeper understanding on it just makes you look ignorant.
 

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
22,347
Reaction score
54,798
one thing I will confidently speak with authority on is that the rules of no brown in town or oxfords only with suits don’t actually exits. Not even close.
Like no brown in town? Huh? Stupid, not really a rule. Maybe in London in the evening, not in the real world.
FWIW, "town" refers to London. It doesn't mean "city."
 

TheChihuahua

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
563
Reaction score
564
Your continued insistence on correlating brown in town to oxfords with suits is really hilarious at this point.

No one here but you has proferred no brown in town as legitimate. No one but you has given it any current legitimacy.

I recommend googling "Logical Fallacies" or to save you time "Strawman Argument".

Though based on the fact you keep saying DWW "made up" this rule, I'm not sure what good it will do.

You certainly don't have to listen to Flusser, or Roetzel, or DWW for that matter.

However, continuing to insist that people invented concepts that are well understood by people who objectively have spent more time in the space and have a deeper understanding on it just makes you look ignorant.
Yawn

Your playing true to form of what ardivini predicted is hilarious.

You guys are the rules guys. Make up rules, and run with it.

And nobody who says "oxfords only with suits" or "no brown in town" can claim to have a deeper understanding of this space than anybody else. That's a hilarious comment.
(yes, "oxfords only with suits" is equally as ridiculous as "no brown in town" even if you don't want to admit it.)
 

ValidusLA

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,223
Reaction score
1,221
Yawn

Your playing true to form of what ardivini predicted is hilarious.

You guys are the rules guys. Make up rules, and run with it.

And nobody who says "oxfords only with suits" or "no brown in town" can claim to have a deeper understanding of this space than anybody else. That's a hilarious comment.
(yes, "oxfords only with suits" is equally as ridiculous as "no brown in town" even if you don't want to admit it.)
Continue to strawman. Continue to say things no one else mentioned. Considering that guy literally couldn't properly read a copy pasted dictionary definition, I'm not worried about your reads on his insults.

DWW had it right on him 12 or so pages ago

I don't even think about you? I think you're a bit dumb, but don't care if you stay on this forum.
 

TheChihuahua

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
563
Reaction score
564
Another example of Simon Crompton on the topic of wearing oxfords without suits. Looks like he doesn’t know the rules.

999E6299-2AB4-4124-93F0-F38876E749E6.jpeg
 

ValidusLA

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,223
Reaction score
1,221
Oh he knows them, he's decided to posit slightly amended ones.
SmartSelect_20210512-172506_Chrome.jpg
Im this case, he pairs full brogues with flannels and cords. Just like Roetzel and Flusser!

Either way as it addresses the original post. He clearly has khakis nowhere near oxfords.
 

TheChihuahua

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
563
Reaction score
564
Oh he knows them, he's decided to posit slightly amended ones.
View attachment 1608957
Im this case, he pairs full brogues with flannels and cords. Just like Roetzel and Flusser!

Either way as it addresses the original post. He clearly has khakis nowhere near oxfords.
I think we are beyond the khaki discussion. If somebody said no oxfords with khakis, whatever.
But “oxfords only with suits” is not a rule.

that’s what I have taken exception to. Even Alan Flusser page that you posted says it’s not a rule. thanks again for sharing that.

This whole made up rules thing to meet one persons personal preference is what went wrong here.

and I don’t even wear oxfords casually! I have no stake in this game beyond the utter absurdity that I was reading.
 

emptym

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
9,218
Reaction score
5,544
DWW made up all the rules. He's that badass.

Is chinos w/ oxfords in 2021 the black interview suit of 2011?
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

Favorite Shorts Length

  • Above the knee

  • Knee length

  • Below the knee

  • None of the above

  • Mid-thigh ("short shorts")


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
461,468
Messages
10,013,353
Members
208,304
Latest member
hapybirhtome
Top