Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[Potatoe]

Oxfords are only for suits, IMO.

You do realize how soul crushing this advice is.

I'm sure most here have 6+ pairs of Oxfords and only wear a full suit a few times per year.

Not a shock you are getting so much push back on something that deep down we all know is basically correct.

 

[leadbelly2550]

I came upon this because I was hunting for information on khakis, not pairing khakis with shoes. Interesting commentary.

I grew up thinking shoes with broguing were pretty formal; my dad often wore wing tips with suits. Later on, curiosity led me to learn that traditionally, broguing was considered less formal. I also think that what people consider formal has become blurred over time - oxfords with broguing, oxfords with (gasp) rubber soles, made with suede leather, and so on. i'm not a big fan of the holes, makes shoes a little more annoying to polish, but I do have a pair of derby shoes with broguing on the toe cap and a little detail around the heel counter.

I have never liked oxfords because they often don't fit my wide-in-the-forefoot feet, whereas derby style shoes work better. as a result, the derby is what I wear with suits - occasionally shell cordovan loafers with a suit. Alden 990, Alden 986, both well-worn and re-soled once. benefit, though, is that a derby, even a very nice plain toe pair, can work with khakis if you're otherwise dressed up, decent shirt and a blazer. that said, i lean more toward loafers or a shoe with a split toe (something that looks like an allen edmonds delray, for example) with cotton trousers.

I say the khaki guy should wear what he wants. there are dressed-down oxfords that would work.

 

[Uli]

Sorry,

but Oxfords are made for Suits. Some nice Derby will do the job.

My question, what about double monks acceptable?

best regards

 

[ValidusLA]

Sorry,

but Oxfords are made for Suits. Some nice Derby will do the job.

My question, what about double monks acceptable?

best regards

If people bother to respond, you will get all three of these answers, equally vociferously from different corners:
1) Double monks are great with suits!
2) Double monks are better with casual outfits!
3) Double monks are an iGent abomination, and those who wear them should be mocked!

 

[LC7]

Sorry,

but Oxfords are made for Suits. Some nice Derby will do the job.

My question, what about double monks acceptable?

best regards

Thoroughly unhelpful comment.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I've actually tried about a half dozen loafers over the last couple of months but am sick of doing returns. I haven't found one that fits right, is priced right, or doesn't make my feet look tiny and therefore screw up the balance with the rest of my outfit (I'm rather tall and thin).

Derbies would make sense, obviously, but I'm not really seeing any at A-E's price point or from A-E itself (their classic styles are largely out of stock right now for some reason, and none are weatherproof, which I would prefer).

the Allen Edmonds delray is a great loooing derby.

 

[TheChihuahua]

Yes, but in an actual outfit, a cotton suit (like the one pictured above) will look different than just cotton chinos worn without a jacket. It's not about the intersection of just the pants with the shoes, but the totality of the outfit and the message the outfit sends. I choose the first photo because he's wearing a cotton suit. Without the jacket, you end up with the second photo, which is this sort of "business casual" look prevalent nowadays. (Not a good look, IMO).

It's possible to wear charcoal or navy chinos, but I think you have to be careful about the pairing. I think it's easier to wear a more traditional color such as tan.

For one, cotton fades in patchy ways. It's not like wool, in that regard. This fading will show up more readily on dark colors, such as charcoal and navy. With some aesthetics, such as workwear, that kind of beat-up look can be charming. In a classic tailored outfit, it will look ... not great.

Secondly, most men will have an easier time getting dressed if they stick to lighter colors for pants and darker colors for sport coats. The cynosure of a tailored outfit is the V-shape space formed between the jacket's opening, shirt, and tie. This is why it's hard to wear bright-colored shoes, such as tan, or unusual colors for pants. Such things draw the eye downward.

When you stick to this formula -- dark jacket + light shirt + dark tie + light pants -- the focus is centered on that V-shape space. It's possible to reverse this in some cases -- a lighter jacket paired with dark pants -- but doing so requires a bit of know-how.

With charcoal trousers, it can be hard to pair dark colored jackets because the combination becomes too muddy. In the worst cases, the tone of the jacket and pants are too close together, and it may almost look like you're wearing a mistmatched suit. With tan chinos + navy sport coat or brown tweed, this is never an issue.

If you buy dark chinos, it will be easier to wear them without a tailored jacket, such as with a sweater. But I am again not a fan of those business casual looks. If someone wants to dress casually, I think there are better casualwear options. If someone wants to wear a tailored jacket, I think they can choose better pants.

I guess my folllow up here:
Would a suit with no tie still pull it together in terms of the totality making oxfords an acceptable option in your opinion?

 

[TheChihuahua]

Yes, because this is the first time ever someone on the internet (me) has taken someone's stupid statement (yours) and inflated it for effect.

Your continued insistence that style rules are primarily functions of igent bloggers trying to get clicks from poor saps frankly reveals more about your understanding of style and your insecurities than it contributes to the discussion.

If you disagree with the "rule", why don't you explain why you think its a bad one?

Or provide examples of a counterpoint?

Right now you are just engaging in iconoclasm for the sake of doing so. Edgy!

I appreciate a lot of people’s opinions here, that said...

I tend to agree that a lot of these”rules” are silly and a product of YouTubers trying to sound knowledgeable. Like that dude gentleman’s gazette, just making stuff up and trying to sound like an authority.
Or other people with their notion that if something doesn’t fly in downtown London then it’s against some rule.
Like no brown in town? Huh? Stupid, not really a rule. Maybe in London in the evening, not in the real world. Or brogued shoes are country shoes? Maybe at some London evening club, but not in the real world.

I appreciate people’s opinions (like what DWW is expressing, and backing up with pictures that he thinks support his opinion). That is valuable to me and I enjoy the read.

but I do agree that most of these “rules” are nonsense. Especially in light of the diminished role classic menswearplays in society in general.

a lot of the rules disregard people’s locations (a look in New England may be easier to pull of than a look in LA), and assumes a formality that simply doesn’t really exist in the real world.

 

[TheChihuahua]

You do realize how soul crushing this advice is.

I'm sure most here have 6+ pairs of Oxfords and only wear a full suit a few times per year.

Not a shock you are getting so much push back on something that deep down we all know is basically correct.

personally I wear a suit every day and wear less formal dress outfits maybe once or twice a month, if at all. So doesn’t bother me at all.

but a shoe like the walnut strand that dieworker posted above, that’s not really a go to shoe for a suit. Neither are the weave strands. So if those aren’t shoes for suits, but against the rules without suits because they are oxfords, then when would a walnut strand ever be “allowed”?

for what it’s worth, i thought this was perhaps the best photo that DWW posted in that post (to each their own I guess).

The derby with the sports coat isn’t a bad look, and it can be pulled off nicely. But some of those pictures he put in that thread don’t look good to me. Is the person dressed up? Or are they casual? I guess that’s the point of the sports coat look, you are not really formal but you are still looking smart. But on some level it can look sloppy or uninspired if not pulled off properly.

to me, neither of these looks are particularly inspiring. They both have a “too dressed up for trying to look nonchalant but stylish” but lack formality of what one would want to be wearing in a professional setting.
has more of the look of “we had to get dressed up a bit today for a family picture day” than a style that would actually work in the real world.
And the shoe choice in the first one is terrible. Looks like orthopedic shoes. Put some AE dark brown strands on him!

 

[dieworkwear]

but I do agree that most of these “rules” are nonsense. Especially in light of the diminished role classic menswearplays in society in general.

a lot of the rules disregard people’s locations (a look in New England may be easier to pull of than a look in LA), and assumes a formality that simply doesn’t really exist in the real world.

While true, part of the point of this forum is to help guys learn the language of classic men's style if they didn't grow up wearing a coat and tie.

I guess my folllow up here:
Would a suit with no tie still pull it together in terms of the totality making oxfords an acceptable option in your opinion?

I still would opt for a derby. I simply think it makes for a more elegant choice.

Sorry,

but Oxfords are made for Suits. Some nice Derby will do the job.

My question, what about double monks acceptable?

best regards

I think a double monk is fine with a suit, although I would personally choose a single monk before a double.

 

[TheChihuahua]

While true, part of the point of this forum is to help guys learn the language of classic men's style if they didn't grow up wearing a coat and tie.



I still would opt for a derby. I simply think it makes for a more elegant choice.

Oh I think you posted some great examples of derbies. I have actually come to really appreciate the split toe derby look with the sports coat that you have advocated in the past. I like learning about these looks (even if in my location that would be a tough look to actually find a use for).

that said, growing up in an environment where people did dress well, and people wearing wingtip oxfords with less than a suit on a regular basis, I am totally comfortable with that look. Maybe it wasn’t popular in California, but then again that more elongated stylish Italian shoe look wouldn’t have been popular in the New England country club scene 20-30 years ago. And those derbies (I think that’s prince Phillip) are wearing are pretty brutal.

 

[apShepard]

Rules are for lameos and cops.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I think oxfords are only for suits.

To me, the demarcating line is oxford (meaning, the design of the facings). It doesn't matter to me the color, broguing, sole construction, etc. I think of oxfords as a formal shoe.

If someone is wearing a sport coat, then I think they do better in derbies, chukkas, or loafers.

As you make this outfit more casual (e.g. no jacket or swapping pants from wool to cotton), then I think there's an even stronger case to choose more casual.

For one, I think the outfit looks more coherent.

Secondly, I have bad associations with guys who wear oxfords in non-suit get-ups. Again, just reminds me of a lot of bad business casual or "church" type looks (not that it's about church, but there's a certain uniform many men wear nowadays when they want to "look nice" but don't have any particular interest in clothes. It's often chinos (a "step up" from their usual jeans), dress shirt (step up from their t-shirts), v-neck sweater (seemingly a step up from crewnecks), and oxfords (their "nice shoes"). Just looks bad to me, and I think most guys can do better in other outfits.

Thirdly, I think tailoring always looks better when it's casual, sporty, easygoing, etc. The one exception is a very formal rig, like black tie, or very formal suits, such as grey and navy worsted with black oxfords. But otherwise, I like when sport coat ensembles look easygoing and carefree. Recently been into whipcord trousers because I think they're more casual and sporty than flannels.

Example, this is flannel:

View attachment 1578770



The ribbed, darker brown pair of trousers here is whipcord

View attachment 1578772 View attachment 1578771 View attachment 1578773


So instead of choosing an oxford with that kind of causal tailoring (e.g. not a suit), I also think the entire outfit looks better when the shoes are similarly casual. So it looks like these are your normal clothes and not your "dressed up" clothes.

As posted earlier: I think sport coat outfits look better with black tassel loafer, brown pennys, suede chukkas, split toes, etc.

Imagine the above pants with these coats

View attachment 1578776



And these sportier, more casual shoes:


View attachment 1578774 View attachment 1578775 View attachment 1578777 View attachment 1578778


To me, that's more coherent, stylish, and cooler than this choice:


View attachment 1578779

I chuckle a bit because (1) I do appreciate this post. Great job with the pictures.
but at the same time (2) the AE strand and the split toe derby, to me, look best. I like the tassel loafer and the penny loafer. And the chukka would look good. But that dark brown strand would look great with those outfits.

maybe not in California where the look is a bit sleeker. But fall in New England? Give me the strand Oxford.

also the idea of peoplereaching above their comfort zone in the “church look”... I don’t disagree that happens, but to me that’s not oxfords with chinos. In my experience that’s more likely to happen with the derby look. (Not with a well done derby, but a derby can go wrong pretty quickly)

 

[dieworkwear]

Rules are for lameos and cops.

I would think of it less as a rule and more as knowing how to write a sentence. It's possible to write a beautiful sentence without following grammatical rules, but knowing how to do so also requires some knowledge of language. A lot of classic men's style is about language.

 

[apShepard]

I would think of it less as a rule and more as knowing how to write a sentence. It's possible to write a beautiful sentence without following grammatical rules, but knowing how to do so also requires some knowledge of language. A lot of classic men's style is about language.

I apreciatee your knowledge DWW. You know more about cm than I ever will. I don't even really disagree, I think loafers look better with sport coats. That being said, I come from a poor part and work in cs. I wear jeans and polos to work and will probably really need to wear a suit at my funeral. I have a pair of suede oxfords that are my best shoes in my wardrobe and wear them with sport coats in the weekend, which is the only time when I get the chance to indulge in fashion. At some point I make the conscious decision to wear something that maybe isn't ideal but makes me feel better.

I don't even want to hear the usual stick about going into true casual wear for casual ocasions. The things I like in casual wear are things like Yohji Yamamoto and ann demeulemeester. If wearing a Spot coat and oxfords noadays is weird, looking like a nazgul as an adult is really weird.

Also, look how delicious they look