Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[adrianvo]

What would be your argument, besides "Break the rules!" for choosing an oxford over a derby w/ chinos?

I never made that claim, but I prefer derbies over oxfords with chinos. However, I think oxfords can look great with chinos.

A dark navy heavy twill pleated cotton chinos with cuffs and a pair of brown captoe or brogue suede oxfords can look amazing.

please explain to me how iconoclasm is not descriptive?

Again, I don't think you know what this word means, considering the context you used it in.
Check the definition, and you'll probably get it.

I'm giving you a reference point. You have asserted that I have gotten my ideas about style from Youtube. I'm explaining to you how that is false.

I didn't claim that either. Just where the "rules" were pushed as absolutes in recent years.

Also do I sell my suede oxfords now? What makes Bruce able to "pull it of"?

No.
Nonchalance and confidence.

 

[ValidusLA]

Again, I don't think you know what this word means, considering the context you used it in.
Check the definition, and you'll probably get it.

noun

1. 1.
   the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.
   
   
2. 2.
   the rejection or destruction of religious images as heretical; the doctrine of iconoclasts.

So, how does your "Reject the Rules, Because!" stance not fall into (1)?

Were you only familiar w/ (2)?

 

[dieworkwear]

I never made that claim, but I prefer derbies over oxfords with chinos. However, I think oxfords can look great with chinos.

A dark navy heavy twill pleated cotton chinos with cuffs and a pair of brown captoe or brogue suede oxfords can look amazing.

Navy chinos don't age well.

The reason why I made the earlier post is not to embarrass you, just to say that you seem new to this subject. Again, that's fine. Everyone starts somewhere. But your comments are so shrill, bombastic, and overconfident, it's ... annoying. Given that you seem very new to this subject. The navy chinos thing is an example, as people who have direct experience with navy chinos can tell you they have limited value in a CM context.

 

[ValidusLA]

I didn't claim that either. Just where the "rules" were pushed as absolutes in recent years.

I would focus more on what looks good to you, and not what some douche-tubers put into "10 THINGS TO AVOID TO LOOK GOOD FOR THE LAIDIES!!!!"-videos. If you have a good eye for aesthetics, why do you need limitations?

 

[adrianvo]

noun

1. 1.
   the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.
   
   
2. 2.
   the rejection or destruction of religious images as heretical; the doctrine of iconoclasts.

So, how does your "Reject the Rules, Because!" stance not fall into (1)?

Were you only familiar w/ (2)?

I'm aware of the complete definition, but found the context puzzling. You're close to calling me out for blasphemy for suggesting that style rules are silly.

If your intent was that extreme, then I guess you picked the right word.

View attachment 1578795

I'm seriously concerned about your reading capabilities. Read it out loud 10 times or so. It may help to spot a difference between your claim and the meaning behind my post.

Navy chinos don't age well.

This is the only coherent post I've ever seen you write, and I agree.

Cotton is terrible at holding dark dyes (especially along the seams), which is why I stick to wool and linen (or blends of the two) in general. My point was that from an aesthetic point of view, it does look good.

The reason why I made the earlier post is not to embarrass you, just to say that you seem new to this subject. Again, that's fine. Everyone starts somewhere. But your comments are so shrill, bombastic, and overconfident, it's ... annoying. Given that you seem very new to this subject.

Music to my ears.

I know what the reason was, it was a weak attempt at avoiding direct confrontation since you have no counter-arguments.

If your only answer to things you can't argue with is "b-but muh experience!!", then you have no argument.

I understand that what little confidence you have relies on feeling experienced, and for that reason you have to reaffirm this belief constantly.

Being new to the forum does not equal new to the subject. Sorry to burst your little bubble there.

 

[ValidusLA]

I'm aware of the complete definition, but found the context puzzling. You're close to calling me out for blasphemy for suggesting that style rules are silly.

If that was your intent was that extreme, then I guess you picked the right word.

For someone who repeatedly accuses me of reading comp problems, you are bad at the uptake of this:

Style rules are lame, and was popularized by "alpha-male"-obsessed YouTubers who can't keep their hands still for half a second while talking.

1.
the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.

For your continued assault on not claiming I am honing to YouTube rules, if the above quote of yours doesn't do it for you, there is also this:

Oh dear. I wasn't aware of how serious you took YouTube style rules, but I'm sure you'll find it in your heart to forgive me.

You can spit word vomit and claim other people lack comprehension all you want, but you are literally talking in circles.

 

[dieworkwear]

Cotton is terrible at holding dark dyes (especially along the seams), which is why I stick to wool and linen (or blends of the two) in general. My point was that from an aesthetic point of view, it does look good.

Keep buying navy trousers.

 

[Panama]

I think chinos and button downs can be fine. I just think they look better with a tailored jacket, meaning a sport coat.

If you don't want to wear the sport coat, then I think you'd do better in other kinds of casualwear.

I can't speak to what life is like in Eastern Europe. I lived in Moscow, Russia for a while and can see how some styles aren't appropriate in some cities. But I think if you ditch the sport coat, then it's worth just pursuing non-classic-menswear aesthetics. IMO, classic men's style revolves around the tailored jacket (some exceptions, such as Barbours with Shetland sweaters, etc). I just think life becomes easier when you explore other aesthetics. Again, I think the reason why business casual is so bad is that we have not found a professional replacement for the tailored jacket.




I don't know. Some guys can pull certain things off; some can not. Style is also about more than clothes. I find Bruce to be stylish partly because of his personality, interests, knowledge in certain subjects, manner of speaking, etc.

What other kinds of casual wear?

 

[adrianvo]

For someone who repeatedly accuses me of reading comp problems, you are bad at the uptake of this:



1.
the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.

For your continued assault on not claiming I am honing to YouTube rules, if the above quote of yours doesn't do it for you, there is also this:



You can spit word vomit and claim other people lack comprehension all you want, but you are literally talking in circles.

I guess I have to spell it out for you:

Relating certain norms to YouTube culture does not mean that I imply that's where you picked it up. Was that really so hard?

You literally excluded the entire mid-section to create your own meaning of the word. The aforementioned "rule" is in no way an established "belief" of this "institution", either way.

Next attempt, please.

 

[ValidusLA]

I guess I have to spell it out for you:

Relating certain norms to YouTube culture does not mean that I imply that's where you picked it up. Was that really so hard?

You literally excluded the entire mid-section to create your own meaning of the word. The aforementioned "rule" is in no way an established "belief" of this "institution", either way.

Next attempt, please.

Holy crap. Look again.

The action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs and institutions or established values and practices.

Notice in red "or".

 

[Panama]

View attachment 1578795

 

[Panama]

This is thread is actually very strange when you consider the origin of the OXFORD shoe was as a casual shoe worn by University of Oxford students. They certainly did not wear lounge suits, which had not been invented until later that century and I can't see them attending lectures in frock coats of the day.

 

[dieworkwear]

This is thread is actually very strange when you consider the origin of the OXFORD shoe was as a casual shoe worn by University of Oxford students. They certainly did not wear lounge suits, which had not been invented until later that century and I can't see them attending lectures in frock coats of the day.

?

Oxfords derive from balmoral boots, or dress boots. During Victorian times, men did not wear shoes (or what they would call "low cut" shoes). Shoes were for women. Men wore boots with closed facings. There were different types of closed-facing boots, but they were all associated with what were considered formal or gentleman clothes. Here's an example of a man getting married in balmoral boots

Around the turn of the 20th century, men's dress became more casual. The lounge suit slowly replaced the frock coat, and the low shoe eventually replaced the boot. (Notably, other womenswear items became mainstreamed as men's items around this period. The union suit, which is a kind of one-piece underwear, was originally a women's garment and considered a "feminist" thing to wear. Men later picked it up. The union suit then later became the t-shirt).

During the 1930s and '40s, British men wore closed facing "low shoes" (oxfords) in the city; and open faced shoes (e.g. derbies) in the country. Often demarcated by material and color -- black is for city, brown for country; calfskin for city; suede and grain for country.

You see this in early Apparel Arts. They recommended men wear black oxfords with worsted suits in the city; brogued derbies for the country.

City clothes at this time were considered more formal; country clothes casual. And, of course, the sport coat was originally for sport, and it took American students in the inter-war years to turn it into an everyday casual garment. Even during this period, the sport coat was considered casual, and thus, of course, worn with casual shoes.

 

[Panama]

?

Oxfords derive from balmoral boots, or dress boots. During Victorian times, men did not wear shoes (or what they would call "low cut" shoes). Shoes were for women. Men wore boots with closed facings. There were different types of closed-facing boots, but they were all associated with what were considered formal or gentleman clothes. Here's an example of a man getting married in balmoral boots

View attachment 1578813


Around the turn of the 20th century, men's dress became more casual. The lounge suit slowly replaced the frock coat, and the low shoe eventually replaced the boot. (Notably, other womenswear items became mainstreamed as men's items around this period. The union suit, which is a kind of one-piece underwear, was originally a women's garment and considered a "feminist" thing to wear. Men later picked it up. The union suit then later became the t-shirt).

During the 1930s and '40s, British men wore closed facing "low shoes" (oxfords) in the city; and open faced shoes (e.g. derbies) in the country. Often demarcated by material and color -- black is for city, brown for country; calfskin for city; suede and grain for country.

You see this in early Apparel Arts. They recommended men wear black oxfords with worsted suits in the city; brogued derbies for the country.


View attachment 1578814 View attachment 1578815 View attachment 1578816


City clothes at this time were considered more formal; country clothes casual. And, of course, the sport coat was originally for sport, and it took American students in the inter-war years to turn it into an everyday casual garment. Even during this period, the sport coat was considered casual, and thus, of course, worn with casual shoes.

We do know for certain that in 1846 Joseph Sparkes Hall, the inventor of the Chelsea boot, stated in The New Monthly Magazine that “Dress pumps are the only shoes now worn. The Oxonian shoe … is the best for walking. It laces up the front with three or four holes. It is none other than high lows now called Oxford shoes.” So, at least by then, the name Oxford had caught on in public.


So Opera Pumps were not worn? And

 

[dieworkwear]

We do know for certain that in 1846 Joseph Sparkes Hall, the inventor of the Chelsea boot, stated in The New Monthly Magazine that “Dress pumps are the only shoes now worn. The Oxonian shoe … is the best for walking. It laces up the front with three or four holes. It is none other than high lows now called Oxford shoes.” So, at least by then, the name Oxford had caught on in public.


So Opera Pumps were not worn?

Yes, dress pumps were worn. But dress pumps are not oxfords as we use the term today.