Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[dieworkwear]

So this is where you lose me:
1. You created a rule (a hard and fast rule that you have repeated numerous times): oxfords only with suits

2.The basis of the rule is because “generally speaking” oxfords are more formal

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

first, I would agree that many oxfords tend to be more formal.
but in your own post you just said this was a “generally speaking” concept, not a hard and fast rule.

seems to me that your rule should be that more formal shoes should be worn with suits, as opposed to saying “no oxfords with suits” but then admitting that the formality of the Oxford is only a general concept.

one of the reasons I am so thrown aback by your rule, is it flies in the face of what a lot of traditional companies even offer for products.
take Allen Edmonds for example. Say what you will about that company, but they are worthy of respect in what they have contributed to this field.
they have a shoe called a strand, and another called a McAllister. Both are oxfords. But both are heavily brogued, and come in more brown’ish or oxblood/mahogany style colors.
Neither shoe is made primarily for suit wearing (they go well with daytime professional suit wear, but are much more of a casual shoe than say the Allen Edmonds delray which is a split toe derby)

so is Allen Edmonds wrong in their production of the strand or the McAllister? Should those shoes be discontinued as it is against the rules to wear them casually? Are people wrong for having those shoes in their collection?
According to your rule, there is no place for a shoe like that.

sorry if I have gone too far with this conversation, I just saw this thread yesterday and was shocked at what, to me, felt like reading gentleman’s gazette made up rules.

also I don’t agree at all that derbies are more formal than loafers. Some derbies can be more formal, some loafers can be more formal. I think, generally speaking, they are about equal in formality. That said, I also think it’s easier to dress up most loafers than it is to dress up most derbies (altbough there are some nice derbies out there).

man’s as stated previously, I think you are interjecting your own region way too much into this rule. In California the sports coat look with a derby might come off better given the general nature of the area. But say New England in the fall, a shoe like the Allen Edmonds McAllister might be a better choice.

Take a look through the Golden Age of classic men's style, which is roughly between the period of 1930s and 1960s, with a small blip in the '80s. Vox has a good archive of historically well dressed men during these periods. By and large, almost everyone is wearing a derby with suits or sport coats, and then oxfords for only suits.

voxsartoria

Their vanity is greater than their misery.

voxsartoria.com

One can say that they don't want to dress like historical people, which is completely fine. But as classic men's style is discussed on this forum, it's about those periods. When we say "classic style," we are referring to a collection of looks from those periods -- Ivy, trad, Mod, the Contential look, A&S drape, etc.

This is not a California thing. It's something that was historically practiced. Casual shoes (e.g. derbies and loafers) were historically worn with sport coats and suits. Oxfords were reserved for suits.

Oxfords with chinos and a button-up shirt is very "business casual," which to me is the worst look. It's just a vanilla bland look that confers none of the benefits of tailoring, and none of the expression possible in casualwear. It's a Kinkos copy center.

 

[dieworkwear]

withiut commenting on the jeans, apparently Allen Edmonds needs to discontinue the strand all together.
1. It’s not a formal enough shoe for suit wear
2. It’s an Oxford, so it can only be worn with suits.

so it has no place.

Why would one need to discontinue the Strand? Where did you get this from what I wrote?

 

[ValidusLA]

Saying he's "inventing" a rule is just not...true.

Nor is he importing California. California is like... the least rules-aware place in the world.

Go read Flusser's Dressing the Man, or to save time here is the page on oxfords.


Now, Flusser breaks the "rules" himself all the time. But they still exist, and they act as good guidance for those attempting to pur together personal style.

You can totally break the rules, but doing so well usually involves understanding them first.

I think your entire point on the Strand for example shows a misunderstanding of what a suit can be ...maybe? Its a half brogue and pairs well with many less formal suits.

 

[TheChihuahua]

Why would one need to discontinue the Strand? Where did you get this from what I wrote?

well,
1. You created a rule: oxfords only with suits
2. The strand is an informal shoe. It can be paired with a suit, but it’s generally an informal shoe. A daytime shoe, violates other “rules” (no brown in town, too much broguing)

so when is an Allen Edmonds strand appropriate?
Is it limited to just that occasional light colored suit that it matches?

seems kind of odd that one of their most popular shoe has a utility of about 5-10 times per year.

 

[dieworkwear]

well,
1. You created a rule: oxfords only with suits
2. The strand is an informal shoe. It can be paired with a suit, but it’s generally an informal shoe. A daytime shoe, violates other “rules” (no brown in town, too much broguing)

so when is an Allen Edmonds strand appropriate?
Is it limited to just that occasional light colored suit that it matches?

seems kind of odd that one of their most popular shoe has a utility of about 5-10 times per year.

I think most people wear the Strand in a way that looks bad. But I don't know why it's difficult to understand what I said. I said that I think oxfords are for suits. Is the Strand an oxford? Yes. Then it's for suits.

 

[TheChihuahua]

Saying he's "inventing" a rule is just not...true.

Nor is he importing California. California is like... the least rules-aware place in the world.

Go read Flusser's Dressing the Man, or to save time here is the page on oxfords.
View attachment 1608693

Now, Flusser breaks the "rules" himself all the time. But they still exist, and they act as good guidance for those attempting to pur together personal style.

You can totally break the rules, but doing so well usually involves understanding them first.

I think your entire point on the Strand for example shows a misunderstanding of what a suit can be ...maybe? Its a half brogue and pairs well with many less formal suits.

thank you for sharing.
according to that page, “oxfords only with suits” is a made up rule. It’s certainly not what Allan Flusser says. He has an Oxford listed as a shoe for informal wear.

and that’s pretty much the style of shoe I paired above saying that they are not formal shoes.

so again, thank you for sharing.

 

[ValidusLA]

So. That's a full brogue. Akin to the McAllister.

Which he still recommends with tweed and flannel suits or with corduroy or moleskin trousers.

So yes, the most brogued pair he recommends with (primarily) suits of casual and country materials, but he allows for pairing with casual country trousers.

Do you wear them with moleskin? Do you own any?

 

[dieworkwear]

This is perhaps the worst shoe on the market. Walnut colored Strands.

Pages and pages of men wearing them with very slim chinos

Fun socks

Jeans

Or dark suits like this (this is obvs not the Strand, but guys basically pair them like this all over downtown in every major city. It looks awful)

If you want to wear a tan oxford, then you're better off pairing it with a lighter colored suit

Traditionally, the focus of a coat-and-tie outfit is on the V-shape under a person's chin. This is the intersection of the jacket, tie, and shirt. When you wear tan shoes with dark suits, it drags the eye downward. This is why it's also hard to wear patterned pants.

Most men don't have light colored suits. They only have dark worsteds. So they would be better off buying something else. It's true that the walnut Strand is one of the most popular shoes on the market. I don't know how the company promotes it, but this is a photo from one of their campaigns.

Tan oxfords with chinos, jeans, fun socks, and dark suits is basically the equivalent of guys in that photo above. It's a very modern look and one that I think looks quite bad.

 

[ValidusLA]

thank you for sharing.
according to that page, “oxfords only with suits” is a made up rule. It’s certainly not what Allan Flusser says. He has an Oxford listed as a shoe for informal wear.

and that’s pretty much the style of shoe I paired above saying that they are not formal shoes.

so again, thank you for sharing.

This entire quote illustrates the problem.

You are operating under the rubric of "Suits = Formal." Which is sometimes but not always true.

Most guys think of "suits" as dark worsteds worn to the office. Which is how you are using them in this convo. But that barely scratches rhe surface of a what a suit is.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I think most people wear the Strand in a way that looks bad. But I don't know why it's difficult to understand what I said. I said that I think oxfords are for suits. Is the Strand an oxford? Yes. Then it's for suits.

but a strand is not really for suits. I guess that’s the disconnect.

So. That's a full brogue. Akin to the McAllister.

Which he still recommends with tweed and flannel suits or with corduroy or moleskin trousers.

So yes, the most brogued pair he recommends with (primarily) suits of casual and country materials, but he allows for pairing with casual country trousers.

Do you wear them with moleskin? Do you own any?

So the shoes that I have been discussing, and what others are discussing, that I even posted a picture of before you gave that link, Allan Flusser agrees is an informal shoe and not limited to suits.

again, thank you for sharing and shedding light onto the fact that “oxfords only with suits” is a made up gentleman’s gazette rule.

I have mentioned a bunch that I don’t wear any oxfords casually with any regularity. But what does that matter? The rule is made up, that’s all I am saying. It’s ridiculous and many well dress people wear oxfords casually, even if somebody might have a preference not to. maybe it’s not a look in California, but say New England in the fall when the weather is a bit cooler and a bulkier shoe is a bit more stylish, a brogued alien Edmonds McAllister is a great choice even without a suit. To make a rule that it’s not is straight up gentleman’s gazette.
(of course that can be twisted to show people in jeans wearing black captoe oxfords, which I am not endorsing either)

 

[TheChihuahua]

This entire quote illustrates the problem.

You are operating under the rubric of "Suits = Formal." Which is sometimes but not always true.

Most guys think of "suits" as dark worsteds worn to the office. Which is how you are using them in this convo. But that barely scratches rhe surface of a what a suit is.

And you and DWW are operating under the rubric of “oxfords are formal shoes”
They aren’t always. Not at all.
the walnut strands are not a formal shoe. Obviously DWW doesn’t like them, but they are among Allen Edmonds best selling shoes for a reason.

I don’t endorse black captoe oxfords with jeans.
but a brogued pair of brown wingtip oxfords in a casual setting is not against any made up rules.

 

[dieworkwear]

but a strand is not really for suits.

I personally don't care for the Strand, but I don't understand why you keep saying this.

This is fine with a dark worsted suit in grey or navy

This is OK with a lighter colored suit

 

[ValidusLA]

but a strand is not really for suits. I guess that’s the disconnect.

So the shoes that I have been discussing, and what others are discussing, that I even posted a picture of before you gave that link, Allan Flusser agrees is an informal shoe and not limited to suits.

again, thank you for sharing and shedding light onto the fact that “oxfords only with suits” is a made up gentleman’s gazette rule.

Actually, you highlighted the section on the full brogue.

The strand is a half brogue.

Here's rhe close up on that.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I personally don't care for the Strand, but I don't understand why you keep saying this.

This is fine with a dark worsted suit in grey or navy



View attachment 1608721 View attachment 1608717 View attachment 1608719

I like strands. They can be worn with a suit.
Especially the darker ones. But to call them “formal” is a bit of a stretch

but the one you highlighted above, the walnut strands. Those are one of AE most popular shoes, for better or worse.But they are a much more casual shoe.

 

[ValidusLA]

And you and DWW are operating under the rubric of “oxfords are formal shoes”
They aren’t always. Not at all.
the walnut strands are not a formal shoe. Obviously DWW doesn’t like them, but they are among Allen Edmonds best selling shoes for a reason.

I don’t endorse black captoe oxfords with jeans.
but a brogued pair of brown wingtip oxfords in a casual setting is not against any made up rules.

So you admit you assume all suiting is formal?

If that's the case, that assumption probably needs to be addressed before you learn about shoes.

Walnut strands are indeed very popular. So is McDonald's. Doesn't mean you should eat it.