Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[dieworkwear]

hey, you are the one who soiled yourself looking at that site.
And the whole notion of creating the “rules” to be an igent you tube authority is where it gets comical. (ie, trying to be a rules authority)

and why discuss “classic menswear” if we aren’t going to follow rules? Well I guess we all get something different out of these discussions. One thing I don’t care about is the 1930-1960’s looks. They aren’t bad per se, but I don’t view them as any sort of authority as to what is proper than say the 1980’s banker look that Alan Flusser made famous with Gordon, or newer looks of Simon crompton wearing oxfords without a suit. Or looks of better dressed gentleman at the country clubs that I recall seeing when younger (wingtip oxford with golf pants and a polo was seen plenty, heck the foot joy classic golf shoes were leather soled wingtips back then).

like I have said, I do agree that generally oxfords work better with suits. But some rule of “oxfords only with suits” is either some made up gentleman’s gazette type BS or something comical in today’s world like “no brown in town.” There are too many less formal oxfords out there to say it’s against the rules to wear them without a suit.

I would put Simon and Flusser in the same field in terms of classic men's style. I think they both advocate for a very classic, reasonably restrained, and very rooted sense of style. Something informed by the past.

I don't think Simon would advocate for the previous looks you posted -- the Asian guy in a slim fit, mauve overcoat, blue jeans, and tan oxfords, or the guy in a slim fit sport coat, low rise trousers, and tan oxfords. I think those are outside of the real of classic men's style. They are not informed by the past, anyway.

 

[TheChihuahua]

Well you forced my hand.

You keep saying nonsense like this, despite the fact I just disproved it!



It is, quite visibly, not some GG type stuff.

the gentleman’s gazette comment is more about your belief that these rules are real. Nobody loves his rules more than gentleman’s gazette. Not whether you actually agree with his rules, but rather that you think the rules are out there and need to be viewed with some respect or authority.
thats the gentleman’s gazette aspect of your position.

no brown in town is not a rule in 2021
Brogued shoes are only for the country is not a rule in 2021
Oxfords only with suits is absolutely not a rule either. It might be a preference for some, but it absolutely is not a “rule.”

no belt and suspenders at the same time is a valid rule.

and we can all debate the merits of a dive watch with a suit all we want as well.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I would put Simon and Flusser in the same field in terms of classic men's style. I think they both advocate for a very classic, reasonably restrained, and very rooted sense of style. Something informed by the past.

I don't think Simon would advocate for the previous looks you posted -- the Asian guy in a slim fit, mauve overcoat, blue jeans, and tan oxfords, or the guy in a slim fit sport coat, low rise trousers, and tan oxfords. I think those are outside of the real of classic men's style. They are not informed by the past, anyway.

when you asked for the example of the one I liked, I expressly said that I understand that is outside the realm of classic men’s wear. I understand that.

and I’m not some denim with oxfords advocate. I can’t remember the last time I even owned a pair of jeans. You asked for an example of one you posted that looked good, and I think that looked good. Not from a classic menswear perspective, but from a regular real world perspective. (Also they rest of the outfit wasn’t included in the picture I looked at)

 

[ValidusLA]

the gentleman’s gazette comment is more about your belief that these rules are real. Nobody loves his rules more than gentleman’s gazette. Not whether you actually agree with his rules, but rather that you think the rules are out there and need to be viewed with some respect or authority.
thats the gentleman’s gazette aspect of your position.

All proscriptions of what can and should be with what is a "rule." "There are no rules" is itself a rule.
Your stated opinion of what oxfords can be worn with is demonstrably closer to GG's opinion. From what I posted above, it seems they are much closer to your "no rules need apply" mantra then a rule of "oxfords go with suits" which is rooted in something.
Try to spin your attempted insults however you want, they appear to be much closer to your views than ours.

no brown in town is not a rule in 2021

No one said it was.

Brogued shoes are only for the country is not a rule in 2021

Same.

Oxfords only with suits is absolutely not a rule either. It might be a preference for some, but it absolutely is not a “rule.”

Saying true 2 statements does not make your 3rd statement correct.

and we can all debate the merits of a dive watch with a suit all we want as well

Only if you're James Bond, I guess.

 

[dieworkwear]

the gentleman’s gazette comment is more about your belief that these rules are real. Nobody loves his rules more than gentleman’s gazette. Not whether you actually agree with his rules, but rather that you think the rules are out there and need to be viewed with some respect or authority.
thats the gentleman’s gazette aspect of your position.

no brown in town is not a rule in 2021
Brogued shoes are only for the country is not a rule in 2021
Oxfords only with suits is absolutely not a rule either. It might be a preference for some, but it absolutely is not a “rule.”

no belt and suspenders at the same time is a valid rule.

and we can all debate the merits of a dive watch with a suit all we want as well.

I think you're more concerned about this as being a rule, rather than it being part of something that goes into an aesthetic. I'm personally not that hung up on whether it's considered a "rule." I'm more concerned about how to create certain looks.

Oxfords with jeans/ chinos often look like this

I think all of those are bad. I think the wearers would look better in a more casual shoe, and better still if they focused on a more classic aesthetic. That may include adopting more "rules" (if you want to use that term). I would say it's just about ways to help guide someone towards a better look.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I think you're more concerned about this as being a rule, rather than it being part of something that goes into an aesthetic. I'm personally not that hung up on whether it's considered a "rule." I'm more concerned about how to create certain looks.

Oxfords with jeans/ chinos often look like this


View attachment 1608896 View attachment 1608897
View attachment 1608898 View attachment 1608899


I think all of those are bad. I think the wearers would look better in a more casual shoe, and better still if they focused on a more classic aesthetic. That may include adopting more "rules" (if you want to use that term). I would say it's just about ways to help guide someone towards a better look.

fair enough

And I’m not advocating any of those looks

but validis still seems to think “oxfords only with suits” is a rule. And you were pretty committed to it as well.

There are lots of times when oxfords look great without suits.

And there are plenty of times when a bad choice of derbies can destroy a non-suit outfit bu really making it look sloppy. (Not saying I am against derbies with sports coats, but they can similarly ruin an outfit)

 

[dieworkwear]

There are lots of times when oxfords look great without suits.

I think this convo would be a lot more useful if you posted examples of outfits you like. I've tried to do that for my posts. Vague descriptions only go so far.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I think this convo would be a lot more useful if you posted examples of outfits you like. I've tried to do that for my posts. Vague descriptions only go so far.

you have posted them. I have commented on them.
I am on my mobile phone. I’m trying to keep up. I don’t have a database of this stuff in hopes of getting into an interweb debate whether no brown in town is still a valid fashion statement.

there are many pictures in this thread of people who look great in oxfords not wearing suits.

these appear to be oxfords to me. I like this look.

 

[ValidusLA]

fair enough

And I’m not advocating any of those looks

but validis still seems to think “oxfords only with suits” is a rule. And you were pretty committed to it as well.

There are lots of times when oxfords look great without suits.

And there are plenty of times when a bad choice of derbies can destroy a non-suit outfit bu really making it look sloppy. (Not saying I am against derbies with sports coats, but they can similarly ruin an outfit)

I've said before. Rules can be broken. Successfully sometimes. Logically this means they are not ironclad.

But denying the existence of "rules" and therefore not understanding their genesis is more likely to lead to breaking them poorly and looking silly.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I've said before. Rules can be broken. Successfully sometimes. Logically this means they are not ironclad.

But denying the existence of "rules" and therefore not understanding their genesis is more likely to lead to breaking them poorly and looking silly.

meaning they aren’t really “rules” but rather guidelines?

And if you want to say as a generality that oxfords are bets worn with suits, fine. I would actually agree.

but that’s a lot different than a “rule” of “oxfords only with suits” which is where this discussion was 24 hours ago.

 

[dieworkwear]

you have posted them. I have commented on them.
I am on my mobile phone. I’m trying to keep up. I don’t have a database of this stuff in hopes of getting into an interweb debate whether no brown in town is still a valid fashion statement.

there are many pictures in this thread of people who look great in oxfords not wearing suits.

these appear to be oxfords to me. I like this look.
View attachment 1608901

I think Simon would look better with a different color combination and shoes. Although I generally like the way he dresses.

Anyway, I probably don't have anything more to add to this convo.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I think Simon would look better with a different color combination and shoes. Although I generally like the way he dresses.

Anyway, I probably don't have anything more to add to this convo.

So, out of respect to your request I took the time to find a photo. And that’s the response?

do you think Simon broke the rules in that photo?
Do you think he looks bad in that photo?
do you think he needs to wear the uniform that you seem to be endorsing (split toe derbies or loafers), and anything else is poor taste?

I think that picture is better than most of the derbies and loafers you have posted. But that’s not even the point. The point is, that picture is within the realm of acceptable. Therefor to say it goes against some rule?

that outfit passes with flying colors
Any rule to the contrary is not really a rule.
any thought that everyone in that type of outfit needs to be wearing loafers or split toe derbies is a false theory.

 

[dieworkwear]

So, out of respect to your request I took the time to find a photo. And that’s the response?

do you think Simon broke the rules in that photo?
Do you think he looks bad in that photo?
do you think he needs to wear the uniform that you seem to be endorsing (split toe derbies or loafers), and anything else is poor taste?

I think that picture is better than most of the derbies and loafers you have posted. But that’s not even the point. The point is, that picture is within the realm of acceptable. Therefor to say it goes against some rule like no brown in town would be foolish.

OK, you're right. It's foolish. I will start wearing oxfords with jeans/ chinos now.

 

[TheChihuahua]

OK, you're right. It's foolish. I will start wearing oxfords with jeans/ chinos now.

Do what you want. If you want to always wear sports coats with loafersor split toe derbies, go for it.

butseems a bit disrespectful to make up a rule, and anybody who’s not following your uniform is breaking that rule.

you have your style. Why not show respect to other people’s style. I don’t think Simon crompton looks bad there, but he’s not wearing your uniform so you can’t admit it looks good. Not everybody needs to be wearing loafers and a sports coat.

ardivini pegged this thread perfectly on the early posts. He was obviously much more aware of how this discussion would turn.

 

[dieworkwear]

Do what you want. If you want to always wear sports coats with loafersor split toe derbies, go for it.

butseems a bit disrespectful to make up a rule, and anybody who’s not following your uniform is breaking that rule.

you have your style. Why not show respect to other people’s style. I don’t think Simon crompton looks bad there, but he’s not wearing your uniform so you can’t admit it looks good. Not everybody needs to be wearing loafers and a sports coat.

ardivini pegged this thread perfectly on the early posts. He was obviously much more aware of how this discussion would turn.

I don't think Simon looks good in that photo. But I generally like the way he dresses. I just don't care for that outfit. I don't like the color combo or the choice of shoes.

I think others here have said that they've heard this "rule" before, so it can't just be that I made it up from whole cloth.

I don't have any more fuel for this convo, tbh. I woke up today at 8am to read your seemingly very irritated and strident message. It's now 4pm -- 8 hours later -- and you're still seemingly very strident. I think I've tried to be respectful in my tone, outside of saying that I dislike modern business casual (I don't know how to phrase that politely).

That's all I have for now. I have to get back to work. Sorry if this seems terse; I just don't care to carry things on.