Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[vdubiv]

View attachment 1608758

I have a very similar pair of shoes in a very similar color and have worn them casually with jeans like this, and I can tell you they are some of my most complimented shoes.

I have lived all over the world and I have not really seen people dressing like most the pictures @dieworkwear posts. Most of them are in Black-n-White from days past. I think it's great to know the rules of formality, but in most cases they just don't apply anymore today. We are not British Royal family.

In all of my travels I don't know where people hang out dressed up in suits all day or night, in a level of the suit casual-to-formal range. Hell even places on Wall Street are getting away from the wearing suits to work dress code.

At the end of the day the way I see it, and the way I dress, is if I think it looks good and I feel comfortable and can exude my confidence then the outfit works.

 

[TheChihuahua]

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

View attachment 1608762


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

so that’s your arbitrary cut off for when classic menswear exists.

I happen to think the look of the 1960’s when wingtips became more mainstream is a good look too. And at half a century old, I think it is historically significant enough.

 

[dieworkwear]

I have a very similar pair of shoes in a very similar color and have worn them casually with jeans like this, and I can tell you they are some of my most complimented shoes.

I have lived all over the world and I have not really seen people dressing like most the pictures @dieworkwear posts. Most of them are in Black-n-White from days past. I think it's great to know the rules of formality, but in most cases they just don't apply anymore today. We are not British Royal family.

In all of my travels I don't know where people hang out dressed up in suits all day or night, in a level of the suit casual-to-formal range. Hell even places on Wall Street are getting away from the wearing suits to work dress code.

At the end of the day the way I see it, and the way I dress, is if I think it looks good and I feel comfortable and can exude my confidence then the outfit works.

It's true that classic men's style is mostly dead. My comments only flow forward if someone agrees they think there's something special about that period of dress and would like to emulate that sort of style.

so that’s your arbitrary cut off for when classic menswear exists.

Again, my comments only flow if someone agrees there's something special about that period and they want to dress like those men. It's not arbitrary if one admires style from those periods.

 

[ValidusLA]

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)

Its not disingenuous to point out when you incorrectly used a picture I posted and then tried to argue Strands aren't half brogues.

It is not a flex to point out your continued insistence that suits are categorically formal is flawed and based on a poor understanding of the range of the garment.

 

[TheChihuahua]

Its not disingenuous to point out when you incorrectly used a picture I posted and then tried to argue Strands aren't half brogues.

It is not a flex to point out your continued insistence that suits are categorically formal is flawed and based on a poor understanding of the range of the garment.

It is disingenuous to compare that semi brogue with a strand. They aren’t even close. I own strands and I own semi brogued like that and they aren’t in the same category. You are being disingenuous. There are so many layers within those categories, and I assume you know that.
And the whole “I guess you need to learn terminology” is ridiculous faux flexing. I don’t know you. You don’t know me. For you to say something like that in an internet message board, when you are the one who is being disingenuous, well...
I’m not here to engage in that nonsense.

I do appreciate the back and forth with DWW.

 

[ValidusLA]

I posted the picture of the half brogue from the page we were discussing from Flusser. There was only one half brogue on said page to choose from. I'm sorry it didn't match more closely to the specific half brogue in your closet. However, to argue they are intrinsically disconnected means you in fact do not understand the terminology or are being disingenuous yourself.

You were the one attempting to act superior by snarking "thanks for posting" by zooming in on the full brogue example on the page and linking that both to the Strand and to the conversation in general.

Goes back to my question - do you wear your McAllisters with moleskin? Since that's the one sentence on the page you apparently focused on.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I posted the picture of the half brogue from the page we were discussing from Flusser. There was only one half brogue on said page to choose from. I'm sorry it didn't match more closely to the specific half brogue in your closet. However, to argue they are intrinsically disconnected means you in fact do not understand the terminology or are being disingenuous yourself.

You were the one attempting to act superior by snarking "thanks for posting" by zooming in on the full brogue example on the page and linking that both to the Strand and to the conversation in general.

Goes back to my question - do you wear your McAllisters with moleskin? Since that's the one sentence on the page you apparently focused on.

And thank you again for posting a link to some dude’s rule book saying not all oxfords are formal.
And keep acting like you were trying to be sincere in comparing the strands to the brogues pictured.

and on cue, just like the prior poster predicted “well have you ever...” (in the “my bespoke stuff is better than your bespoke stuff” flex)
go back and re-read ardivini’s posts. You are fitting his stereotype perfect right now. And quite frankly, engaging in that type of nonsense isn’t why I’m here.

I have actually posted numerous times I don’t actually wear any of these outfit so so not sure why you keep repeating the question as to whether I do it.

my position is that not all oxfords are formal (they aren’t). So a rule that says “oxfords only with suits” due to the false premise of all oxfords being formal is wrong. If you want to start claiming strands are the same category as all other semi-brogues, or going into different directions, go for it. I have no interest in engaging with you on it as you are proving to be exactly what ardivini said you were a month or two ago.

 

[ValidusLA]

And thank you again for posting a link to some dude’s rule book saying not all oxfords are formal.
And keep acting like you were trying to be sincere in comparing the strands to the brogues pictured.

and on cue, just like the prior poster predicted “well have you ever...” (in the “my bespoke stuff is better than your bespoke stuff” flex)
go back and re-read ardivini’s posts. You are fitting his stereotype perfect right now. And quite frankly, engaging in that type of nonsense isn’t why I’m here.

I have actually posted numerous times I don’t actually wear any of these outfit so so not sure why you keep repeating the question as to whether I do it.

my position is that not all oxfords are formal (they aren’t). So a rule that says “oxfords only with suits” due to the false premise of all oxfords being formal is wrong. If you want to start claiming strands are the same category as all other semi-brogues, or going into different directions, go for it. I have no interest in engaging with you on it as you are proving to be exactly what ardivini said you were a month or two ago.

I can't remember what he called me? I think he said i was brown nosing DWW? It's funny cause someone called me a troll yesterday for disagreeing with him. Name calling is so diverse.

Your last paragraph, once again, insists that all suits are formal. This is a far more ridiculous rule that you are in fact inventing while you simultaneously claimed DWWs oxfords with suits rule was "Gentleman's Gazette." Such loops of logic!

I'm not "claiming" Strands are in the same category as other semi brogues. Semi or half brogue oxfords are in fact a category. To which strands belong. Within any category there is of course varied expressions. Within this particular category, level of perforation or color might be the most obvious. I'm not sure what part of this you have trouble grasping?

What category would you say Strands belong to, if not semi brogue?

 

[TheChihuahua]

I can't remember what he called me? I think he said i was brown nosing DWW? It's funny cause someone called me a troll yesterday for disagreeing with him. Name calling is so diverse.

Your last paragraph, once again, insists that all suits are formal. This is a far more ridiculous rule that you are in fact inventing while you simultaneously claimed DWWs oxfords with suits rule was "Gentleman's Gazette." Such loops of logic!

I'm not "claiming" Strands are in the same category as other semi brogues. Semi or half brogue oxfords are in fact a category. To which strands belong. Within any category there is of course varied expressions. Within this particular category, level of perforation or color might be the most obvious. I'm not sure what part of this you have trouble grasping?

What category would you say Strands belong to, if not semi brogue?

I did not say all suits are formal
I did not disagree with any of the pictures DWW posted with derbies or loafers with suits

I am not sure where you are getting that.

I disagree with the following:
“Oxfords only with suits” (because oxfords are all formal)

that’s not my rule. That’s from the gentleman’s gazette or something that was adhered to 100 years ago so people are trying to pass it off here as gospel.

I believe that some oxfords (like strands, which are a semi-brogue but are a rather informal semi brogue due tot he level of their broguing, and often the colors used) are not a “formal” shoe.
a strand can be worn with a suit. A McAllister can be worn with a suit.
but as strand and mcallisters are not all that formal, they can also be dressed down in situations less than a suit.

I have no idea how that leads to you thinking I am saying “all suits are formal”

 

[ValidusLA]

I'm glad you are finally admitting that suits dont have to be formal. Where I'm getting it from is your repeated attestation that the only reasons we were saying oxfords go with suits is because oxfords are formal (your general wording). The logical flow from that is you believe suits are intrinsically formal. See below:

2. Clearly illustrates your belief in the intrinsically formality of suits.
I pointed you you were implying this and you seemed to agree:


I'm glad you are now admitting that point was wrong.

If you now understand not all suits are formal, you can better understand how less formal oxfords might pair with suits.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I'm glad you are finally admitting that suits dont have to be formal. Where I'm getting it from is your repeated attestation that the only reasons we were saying oxfords go with suits is because oxfords are formal (your general wording). The logical flow from that is you believe suits are intrinsically formal.

Ok, so maybe you missed it in the barrage of posts today:
- oxfords only with suits
At 9:34 pm, in explaining his basis for this rule, DWW said that to him, the demarcating line is that an Oxford is a formal shoe.

This is not my repeated attestation. This is what DWW said as to justify his rule, and I think that this as the basis of his rule is flawed as not all oxfords are formal shoes.

we were never discussing the formality of suits (besides my question posed what the purpose of the strand was if it cannot be worn without a suit, as many people (not necessarily me) believe they are too informal for suits). I even said in the post you quoted that a strand can be paired with a suit. So you’ve really lost me on that issue and as it’s not even a topic here, I am going to move on. I do agree that not all suits are formal. Sorry for any prior confusion

the “rule” of “oxfords only with suits” is based on the false premise that all oxfords are formal shoes. That is a false premise, and it’s a made up rule. Bottom line.

understandable how you missed that due to the volume of posts.

 

[dieworkwear]

Ok, so maybe you missed it in the barrage of posts today:
- oxfords only with suits
At 9:34 pm, in explaining his basis for this rule, DWW said that to him, the demarcating line is that an Oxford is a formal shoe.

This is not my repeated attestation. This is what DWW said as to justify his rule, and I think that this as the basis of his rule is flawed as not all oxfords are formal shoes.

I think oxfords are a formal shoe in the same sense that suits are a formal garment. This does not mean that there aren't casual suits. It just means that a suit is more formal than a sport coat, even if we have linen suits and navy sport coats.

 

[ValidusLA]

Well it took you many many posts to actually say you don't think all suits are formal. We can now branch out.

To be more correct. Not all suits are of the same formality. Suits are generally more formal than say... a sport coat and odd trousers, and certainly more formal than any outfit with chinos.

Oxfords, as an over-category are generally formal. Quarter brogues, half brogues like the Strand, or full brogues/wingtips like the McAllister are sub-categories within the Oxford with declining formality within that large category. The formality of those subcategories is than affected by material and color.

So a black wholecut, like the C+J Alex, is on the far, lets say, left (formal) side of the spectrum, whereas the walnut McAllister is on the far right.

Now if we look at the derby spectrum you might find a black plain toe derby on the far left of that spectrum and a london braided in cognac on the far right.

The most formal derby probably overlaps with the least formal oxford - making them both frankly sort of odd shoes that I think are hard to actually pair well with anything. I would never wear a walnut McAllister nor a black plain toe derby.

As I was typing this, DWW posted this. Its a good summation of the point:

I think oxfords are a formal shoe in the same sense that suits are a formal garment. This does not mean that there aren't casual suits. It just means that a suit is more formal than a sport coat, even if we have linen suits and navy sport coats.

The end of the story is that oxfords are too formal for chinos.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I think oxfords are a formal shoe in the same sense that suits are a formal garment. This does not mean that there aren't casual suits. It just means that a suit is more formal than a sport coat, even if we have linen suits and navy sport coats.

I don't disagree generally.

Where I disagree is that all oxfords are formal, thus "oxfords only with suits"

There are a number of informal oxfords. The AE strands (I get it, you don't like them). The AE Mcallisters (heavy brogue, casual colors). Suede oxfords are fairly informal. Lighter brown captoes with a touch of broguing are pretty informal.
So where I disagree is that, due to the formality of Oxfords, they can only be worn with suits. They can look great with sports coats or more casual/smart settings. Maybe not as nice a split toe derby, but nicer than some of the clunkier derbies.

I think a lot of less formal oxfords look good in settings more casual than what a suit generally lays out.

I am not a fan of more formal oxfords in more casual settings. But as mentioned ad nauseam, not all oxfords are formal.

 

[dieworkwear]

I don't disagree generally.

Where I disagree is that all oxfords are formal, thus "oxfords only with suits"

There are a number of informal oxfords. The AE strands (I get it, you don't like them). The AE Mcallisters (heavy brogue, casual colors). Suede oxfords are fairly informal. Lighter brown captoes with a touch of broguing are pretty informal.
So where I disagree is that, due to the formality of Oxfords, they can only be worn with suits. They can look great with sports coats or more casual/smart settings. Maybe not as nice a split toe derby, but nicer than some of the clunkier derbies.

I think a lot of oxfords look good in settings more casual than what a suit generally lays out (and not saying that suits are all formal)

Ultimately, what matters is the look.

If someone doesn't want to dress like the men I posted, then there's little room for common ground. There are many aesthetics to choose from, so I'm not saying that's the only way. Half my wardrobe has nothing to do with those looks -- none of my casualwear derives from those periods or styles. But when it comes to tailored clothing, I draw a lot of inspiration from those periods -- the 1930s through 60s, and with a bit of the 80s. That doesn't mean I like period correct dress. Many people put together outfits inspired by those eras, but don't look like they're in period clothes (I think the Armoury does a good job of modernizing classic men's style without taking away the spirit). I strongly dislike modern business casual.

If someone feels the same way, I would encourage them to think more about how to create coherent outfits, as the language was used during those periods. I think Vox's guide is good in thinking about city vs. country, formal versus informal, etc.

Think about what creates a coherent, harmonious, and elegant look.

Many times, when I see oxfords worn outside the context of suits, they are worn with chinos, jeans, fun socks, tan shoes with dark suits, and other very modern combinations. The clothes are ill-fitting. The person is wearing a tie bar. The pocket square has a contrast-colored border. Etc etc etc. All in all, the outfit looks very bad to me.

If someone happens to have beautifully tailored clothes and the outfit otherwise looks nice, then I think they may be able to get away with an oxford and a sport coat. Would say most of the time, that is not the case. The outfit just ends up looking this, at best. The whole thing is incoherent, modern, ill fitting, and (to my eye) ugly. See below.

Compare the above with the outfit below. I think Bruce looks good, even if I strongly prefer a derby.

A lot of the guys who insist on oxfords outside of suits have other issues with their outfits. The problem isn't just oxfords worn outside the context of suits, but the general lack of interest in how classic men's style was put together in the past. (They may not even want to look like those guys, which is again fine.) But if you're interested in that period of dress, then I think it's helpful to think about this language and pay attention to the very small nuances in clothes. A lot of times, guys who say they like classic men's style aren't actually wearing classic clothes, just modern iterations of suits and sport coats.