Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[ValidusLA]

Simon is both adventurous and often not ashamed to admit when he's made styling mistakes.

I think that outfit does not look good, and he might agree.

The ability to break a rule does not negate its existence as such.

It is pretty much an accepted aphorism that "one must learn the rules to break them effectively."

If you want to deny their existence ad nauseum fine. Its silly though.

 

[TheChihuahua]

Simon is both adventurous and often not ashamed to admit when he's made styling mistakes.

I think that outfit does not look good, and he might agree.

The ability to break a rule does not negate its existence as such.

It is pretty much an accepted aphorism that "one must learn the rules to break them effectively."

If you want to deny their existence ad nauseum fine. Its silly though.

DWW made up a rule (or maybe its a rule that others here have fabricated in the past, and he just subscribed to it). Read the earlier posts in this thread and how ridiculously adherent he is to it. He's a true believer.

After people have posted plenty of pictures that look better than the uniform he thinks we all should be wearing (sports coats with split toe derbies or loafers), he softened his position but still isn't willing to admit his made up rule is nonsense.

Ridiculous to say that Simon doesn't look good in that picture, and that he should be wearing penny loafers or derbies or something. That picture looks great. You might not like it as one of your favorites, but it is not breaking any rules. (and DWW wasn't in the "only with suits, but learn to break the rule" camp earlier in this thread)

And the theories that you two have taken to try to defend this made up rule are just as comical.
Well, in the 1930's.... blah blah blah.
Or, Allan Flusser admits that not all oxfords are formal, but unless you own moleskin or cords you have to wear them only with suits (and really who cares what Allan Flusser says?).

No brown in town, oxfords only with suits!

 

[dieworkwear]

Also, for what it’s worth, I’m really not trying to be negative towards this topic. I appreciate the info provided here. I am asking these questions to learn, rather than argue or speak as an authority.

^ First day on StyleForum

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

^ Second day on StyleForum

 

[TheChihuahua]

View attachment 1608929

^ First day on StyleForum





^ Second day on StyleForum

Yup

one thing I will confidently speak with authority on is that the rules of no brown in town or oxfords only with suits don’t actually exits. Not even close.

but if everybody needs to be wearing sports coats and Penny loafers to be following some made up rules...

 

[ValidusLA]

View attachment 1608929


Yup

one thing I will confidently speak with authority on is that the rules of no brown in town or oxfords only with suits don’t actually exits. Not even close.

but if everybody needs to be wearing sports coats and Penny loafers to be following some made up rules...

Your continued insistence on correlating brown in town to oxfords with suits is really hilarious at this point.

No one here but you has proferred no brown in town as legitimate. No one but you has given it any current legitimacy.

I recommend googling "Logical Fallacies" or to save you time "Strawman Argument".

Though based on the fact you keep saying DWW "made up" this rule, I'm not sure what good it will do.

You certainly don't have to listen to Flusser, or Roetzel, or DWW for that matter.

However, continuing to insist that people invented concepts that are well understood by people who objectively have spent more time in the space and have a deeper understanding on it just makes you look ignorant.

 

[dieworkwear]

one thing I will confidently speak with authority on is that the rules of no brown in town or oxfords only with suits don’t actually exits. Not even close.

Like no brown in town? Huh? Stupid, not really a rule. Maybe in London in the evening, not in the real world.

FWIW, "town" refers to London. It doesn't mean "city."

 

[TheChihuahua]

Your continued insistence on correlating brown in town to oxfords with suits is really hilarious at this point.

No one here but you has proferred no brown in town as legitimate. No one but you has given it any current legitimacy.

I recommend googling "Logical Fallacies" or to save you time "Strawman Argument".

Though based on the fact you keep saying DWW "made up" this rule, I'm not sure what good it will do.

You certainly don't have to listen to Flusser, or Roetzel, or DWW for that matter.

However, continuing to insist that people invented concepts that are well understood by people who objectively have spent more time in the space and have a deeper understanding on it just makes you look ignorant.

Yawn

Your playing true to form of what ardivini predicted is hilarious.

You guys are the rules guys. Make up rules, and run with it.

And nobody who says "oxfords only with suits" or "no brown in town" can claim to have a deeper understanding of this space than anybody else. That's a hilarious comment.
(yes, "oxfords only with suits" is equally as ridiculous as "no brown in town" even if you don't want to admit it.)

 

[ValidusLA]

Yawn

Your playing true to form of what ardivini predicted is hilarious.

You guys are the rules guys. Make up rules, and run with it.

And nobody who says "oxfords only with suits" or "no brown in town" can claim to have a deeper understanding of this space than anybody else. That's a hilarious comment.
(yes, "oxfords only with suits" is equally as ridiculous as "no brown in town" even if you don't want to admit it.)

Continue to strawman. Continue to say things no one else mentioned. Considering that guy literally couldn't properly read a copy pasted dictionary definition, I'm not worried about your reads on his insults.

DWW had it right on him 12 or so pages ago

I don't even think about you? I think you're a bit dumb, but don't care if you stay on this forum.

 

[TheChihuahua]

Another example of Simon Crompton on the topic of wearing oxfords without suits. Looks like he doesn’t know the rules.

 

[ValidusLA]

Oh he knows them, he's decided to posit slightly amended ones.

Permanent Style

A sliding scale of formality

www.permanentstyle.com

Im this case, he pairs full brogues with flannels and cords. Just like Roetzel and Flusser!

Either way as it addresses the original post. He clearly has khakis nowhere near oxfords.

 

[TheChihuahua]

Oh he knows them, he's decided to posit slightly amended ones.

Permanent Style

A sliding scale of formality

www.permanentstyle.com

View attachment 1608957
Im this case, he pairs full brogues with flannels and cords. Just like Roetzel and Flusser!

Either way as it addresses the original post. He clearly has khakis nowhere near oxfords.

I think we are beyond the khaki discussion. If somebody said no oxfords with khakis, whatever.
But “oxfords only with suits” is not a rule.

that’s what I have taken exception to. Even Alan Flusser page that you posted says it’s not a rule. thanks again for sharing that.

This whole made up rules thing to meet one persons personal preference is what went wrong here.

and I don’t even wear oxfords casually! I have no stake in this game beyond the utter absurdity that I was reading.

 

[dieworkwear]

Me, when I see someone wearing oxfords without a suit:

 

[TheChihuahua]

Me, when I see someone wearing oxfords without a suit:

View attachment 1608967

That chihuahua is awesome, and he wouldn’t care if somebody was wearing whole cut oxfords with tailored trousers and a sports coat.

 

[emptym]

DWW made up all the rules. He's that badass.

Is chinos w/ oxfords in 2021 the black interview suit of 2011?

 

[dieworkwear]

That chihuahua is awesome, and he wouldn’t care if somebody was wearing whole cut oxfords with tailored trousers and a sports coat.

Animals are good like that.