Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[dieworkwear]

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.

I just posted two outfits where the Strand works with a suit.

And anyway, casual shoes can be worn with suits. The reverse is not always true.

Suits can be worn with oxfords, derbies, loafers, and even some boots.

So even if you classify the Strand as a casual shoe, what difference would it make for a suit?

 

[TheChihuahua]

Actually, you highlighted the section on the full brogue.

The strand is a half brogue.

Here's rhe close up on that. View attachment 1608722

now you are just being disingenuous.

a strand has much more broguing than that.
I have a pair of black cheaneys very similar to the shoe in the photo and I consider them to be pretty formal. I have a darker pair of weave strands and they don’t have anywhere near that formality.

But ultimately you are nitpicking and using Alan Flusser as a Bible. Why? At the end of the day, the idea that “oxfords only with suits” is a made up rule. It simply is. Try to spin it all you want, but you just come off like you are an editor for gentleman’s gazette trying to make up rules for a YouTube clip - exactly like what that other poster joked about earlier.

 

[TheChihuahua]

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.

So you are at the point of comparing Allen Edmonds to McDonald’s?
One is a pillar of American quality, whether you like them or not, an institution in the world of men’s fashion.
the other is a fast food restaurant synonymous with the dumbing down of America.

I do think that suits generally have a formality to them. But I’m open to learning more about the informal nature of suits (granted I don’t have a use for them where I am). I am not stooping to the level of being disingenuous or calling people I don’t know out as needing to learn more. That’s not why I’m here (although I do see some of you are here for that).

but this discussion is about shoes. And not all oxfords are formal. That’s a false assumption, and the link you even provided rebuts that assumption. So a rule of “oxfords only with suits” based upon “oxfords are formal” is a flawed rule. It just is. It’s what I would expect tk see in gentleman’s gazette (or that beginner guide that DWW posted that was a complete waste of 15 minutes of my life)

 

[RSS]

Some fellows infer things that were NEVER stated or even implied.

 

[ValidusLA]

now you are just being disingenuous.

a strand has much more broguing than that.

At this point it is clear you do not understand basic shoe terminology.

The Strand is a half brogue. The McAllister is a full brogue. Some individual shoes within each category may have more of less perforation.

 

[dench127]

A different perspective -- I try to avoid looking dressed up even though I spent 15 minutes brainstorming my outfit and testing it in front of the mirror. It's just harder to look sporty or comfortable when you throw oxfords into the mix.

 

[TheChihuahua]

At this point it is clear you do not understand basic shoe terminology.

The Strand is a half brogue. The McAllister is a full brogue. Some individual shoes within each category may have more of less perforation.

I know what a strand is.
Like you even said, there are distinctions within each category.
to compare a strand to that picture is disingenuous in my opinion.

but to get away from that, the whole premise that all oxfords are formal is why this made up rule is so foolish.
Strands are not formal. Mcallisters are not formal. They can be worn with suits, but don’t have to be. Anybody making up rules that mcallisters and strands are only for suits is wrong.

 

[ValidusLA]

So you are at the point of comparing Allen Edmonds to McDonald’s?
One is a pillar of American quality, whether you like them or not, an institution in the world of men’s fashion.
the other is a fast food restaurant synonymous with the dumbing down of America.

I was responding directly to this:

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.

In which you conflate popularity with quality or taste.

If you want to have a discussion of AE vs McDonalds I would say that they are opposite in that, unlike AE, McDonalds has increased in quality over the last couple of decades, whereas AE has precipitously slid into decline.

 

[ValidusLA]

but to get away from that, the whole premise that all oxfords are formal is why this made up rule is so foolish.
Strands are not formal. Mcallisters are not formal. They can be worn with suits, but don’t have to be. Anybody making up rules that mcallisters and strands are only for suits is wrong.

You are once again basing your argument on all suits being formal, which tells me nothing more than that you know little about suits.

 

[dieworkwear]

So you are at the point of comparing Allen Edmonds to McDonald’s?
One is a pillar of American quality, whether you like them or not, an institution in the world of men’s fashion.
the other is a fast food restaurant synonymous with the dumbing down of America.

I do think that suits generally have a formality to them. But I’m open to learning more about the informal nature of suits (granted I don’t have a use for them where I am). I am not stooping to the level of being disingenuous or calling people I don’t know out as needing to learn more. That’s not why I’m here (although I do see some of you are here for that).

but this discussion is about shoes. And not all oxfords are formal. That’s a false assumption, and the link you even provided rebuts that assumption. So a rule of “oxfords only with suits” based upon “oxfords are formal” is a flawed rule. It just is. It’s what I would expect tk see in gentleman’s gazette (or that beginner guide that DWW posted that was a complete waste of 15 minutes of my life)

I get the impression that you think people here are saying that semi-casual or casual shoes can't be worn with suits. I don't think anyone has said that. There's a rich history of men wearing suits with semi-casual shoes (not sneakers, but loafers, boots, derbies, and the like).

There's also a rich history of men wearing semi- and full-brogue oxfords with suits

I generally think that oxfords look best with a suit

If the total outfit is very smart and well done, and it includes at least a sport coat and tailored trousers, then in some cases, I can see an oxford going with a sport coat. Although, in these cases, I think the wearer would look better in a more casual shoe.

The further you move down the formality spectrum, the worst this looks. Oxfords -- whether cap toe, plain toe, semi-brogue or otherwise -- look bad to me when they're paired with jeans, chinos, or trousers worn without a jacket. Basically stuff like this:

One can say, "this is modern! I don't want to dress like old men from the 1950s." Which is totally fine. But if you think there's something special about how classic men's style was put together roughly from the 1930s to 60s, and with the period of the 80s, then I think it's useful to know how certain things were paired together. I dislike "modern business casual." Oxfords with chinos and jeans, tan shoes with dark suits, and all this other stuff seems very "modern" to me.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I get the impression that you think people here are saying that semi-casual or casual shoes can't be worn with suits. I don't think anyone has said that. There's a rich history of men wearing suits with semi-casual shoes (not sneakers, but loafers, boots, derbies, and the like).



View attachment 1608737
View attachment 1608739
View attachment 1608740
View attachment 1608741
View attachment 1608742
View attachment 1608743
View attachment 1608745
View attachment 1608746
View attachment 1608747
View attachment 1608749
View attachment 1608750
View attachment 1608752
View attachment 1608753



There's also a rich history of men wearing semi-brogues with suits


View attachment 1608751 View attachment 1608738



I generally think that oxfords look best with a suit

View attachment 1608754



If the total outfit is very smart and well done, and it includes at least a sport coat and tailored trousers, then in some cases, I can see an oxford going with a sport coat. Although, in these cases, I think the wearer would look better in a more casual shoe.

View attachment 1608755


The further you move down the formality spectrum, the worst this looks. Oxfords -- whether cap toe, plain toe, semi-brogue or otherwise -- look bad to me when they're paired with jeans, chinos, or trousers worn without a jacket. Basically stuff like this:


View attachment 1608758 View attachment 1608759



One can say, "this is modern! I don't want to dress like old men from the 1950s." Which is totally fine. But if you think there's something special about how classic men's style was put together roughly from the 1930s to 60s, and with the period of the 80s, then I think it's useful to know how certain things were paired together. I dislike "modern business casual." Oxfords with chinos and jeans, tan shoes with dark suits, and all this other stuff seems very "modern" to me.

no
I am fine with all those pictures

I disagree that semi-casual oxfords (yes, they do exist) have to be worn with suits.

an Allen Edmondsstrand or McAllister are not formal shoes, and are fine in more casual settings.

that is all.

 

[dieworkwear]

no
I am fine with all those pictures

I disagree that semi-casual oxfords (yes, they do exist) have to be worn with suits.

an Allen Edmondsstrand or McAllister are not formal shoes, and are fine in more casual settings.

that is all.

Do you have photos of the Strand and McAllister being worn in ways that took good outside of a suit?

 

[TheChihuahua]

You keep referencing the 1930’s to 1960’s
I’m not going to rummage through old journals of historical fashion, but my understanding is that the evolution of shoes took a major turn around the 1960’s. We had a president wearing brown wingtips instead of black captoe oxfords. The “no brown in town” rule became laughable. Etc..

man’s in my opinion, if a particular style is over half a century old, then it falls within the realm of classic menswear. Saying 1930s-1960s is arbitrary.Why not just go back to beau brummell and create all “rules” from that era?

anyway, I do respect the discussion (the disingenuous comments and faux flexing by another not as much). I disagre with what I view as a made up rule that is based on a false premise. (All oxfords are formal)

 

[dieworkwear]

man’s in my opinion, if a particular style is over half a century old, then it falls within the realm of classic menswear. Saying 1930s-1960s is arbitrary.Why not just go back to beau brummell and create all “rules” from that era?

It's not arbitrary to me because I don't want to dress like this

However, I would like to dress more like all the men I posted above (minus the modern stuff).

 

[TheChihuahua]

Do you have photos of the Strand and McAllister being worn in ways that took good outside of a suit?

I actually think you have posted some examples.
I will try to look later for others.