Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[dieworkwear]

I have a pair of blue suede oxfords from the early part of that era. What do you imagine they were used for?

View attachment 1625150

I assume to generate profits.

Do you have examples of classically dressed men from that era wearing blue suede oxfords well?

 

[emptym]

... It’s a fictional igent rule by a blogger. Nothing more.

If he made it up, then how would you account for the fact that I and others here were taught it before the internet existed, perhaps before DWW was born?

I have a pair of blue suede oxfords from the early part of that era. What do you imagine they were used for?

View attachment 1625150

My guess would be that it was made for an entertainer, maybe an artist. I grew up in Las Vegas, and unusual combinations were pretty common for costumes. But they'd be very rare compared to shoes made for everyday use. How many vintage blue suede oxfords does one find vs. black or brown calf, for example?

 

[acapaca]

I assume to generate profits.

Do you have examples of classically dressed men from that era wearing blue suede oxfords well?

Well, a lot of pics from that era are black-and-white, so it's kinda hard to tell.

It does get to another question I've been wondering about, though, which is: How representative do you think the Apparel Arts images, or whatever else that remains, are of typical dress from the era? I mean, what we are talking about here is a sort of everyday use of clothes. Do those images represent the same sort of everyday use?

In other words, how likely (or not) do you think it might be that men of that era wore their oxfords not uncommonly in ways that didn't make it into movies or Apparel Arts drawings, or had any real reason to? My next question would be how the typical man's wardrobe of the time compared to those of today, in terms of size and breadth of options, but I'll stop there for now.

 

[mhip]

You guys need to train your eyes more!

in all seriousness the shorts and oxfords is a great look. I’m not saying it falls within classic menswear but it’s a great look in a sprezzatora sense.

Didn't Pharell used to do that a lot?
I used to see pics and think, the **** Pharell?!?

 

[Panama]

I assume to generate profits.

Do you have examples of classically dressed men from that era wearing blue suede oxfords well?

Photos were generally black and white. So they were probably wearing burgundy or mustard suede Oxford shoes...

 

[dieworkwear]

Well, a lot of pics from that era are black-and-white, so it's kinda hard to tell.

It does get to another question I've been wondering about, though, which is: How representative do you think the Apparel Arts images, or whatever else that remains, are of typical dress from the era? I mean, what we are talking about here is a sort of everyday use of clothes. Do those images represent the same sort of everyday use?

In other words, how likely (or not) do you think it might be that men of that era wore their oxfords not uncommonly in ways that didn't make it into movies or Apparel Arts drawings, or had any real reason to? My next question would be how the typical man's wardrobe of the time compared to those of today, in terms of size and breadth of options, but I'll stop there for now.

Very true. This is a comic published in a 1935 issue of The New Yorker. A very dandy man is dressed in a social setting where others are more conservative attired. The caption reads: "They say he reads Esquire." This comic was published two years after Apparel Arts turned into the more consumer-facing title, Esquire.

I think even when Apparel Arts was more orientated towards the industry, it's fair to say that the average man did not dress like the people in those illustrations. For one, if they did, there would be no need to publish Apparel Arts. The magazine was originally for people in the clothing industry, so they could advise men on how to dress. If such norms were common, then there would be no reason to take direction from clothiers.

But back then, clothiers also played an important function where they advised men on how to dress for certain times, places, and occasions. There's a very ugly history here where often, these norms were directed from the top down. That means that people took direction from aristocrats, Hollywood stars, wealthy elites, etc. They set the tone for "good taste." It's hard, if not impossible, to separate this class history from the history of men's dress.

I don't know anything about the history of blue suede shoes. It may be that those oxfords became popular for a short period after Elvis released his song. Or they were popular as a fashion item or worn by entertainers. Genuinely don't know.

It sounds sycophantic to say that "rich people did not dress this way." But I do like that particular section of men's dress -- the 1930s through '80s, excluding the '70s, and mostly drawn from a certain class of people. There's no way to really square my democratic politics (small d) with this view, but I like that section of men's style. I think it looks really elegant and tasteful, but this is probably informed partly by that class history.

So it may be that, when you scroll through these photos, you can spot some man on the street wearing something outside of these "rules." I genuinely don't know, as I don't scan through historical photos. I only look at the ones of the people who set the tone for classic men's dress during those periods. Vox catalogs a lot of this stuff on his website, but there are many other sources for such materials -- issues of Apparel Arts, old Esquire magazines, and general photos of famous people from those periods.

 

[Panama]

Photos were generally black and white. So they were probably wearing burgundy or mustard suede Oxford shoes...

Actually Green. 1930's Green suede Oxfords...

 

[emptym]

...How representative do you think the Apparel Arts images, or whatever else that remains, are of typical dress from the era? I mean, what we are talking about here is a sort of everyday use of clothes. Do those images represent the same sort of everyday use?...

This is a great question. As I alluded to earlier, maybe vintage shoes/stores would be a better indication. Or one's grandfather's closet. I've been shopping at vintage stores for at least 30 years (The Attic in LV, Bobbys from Boston, Keezers in Cambridge, several places in NY, DC, SF, Toronto, etc.) and dark brown, burgundy, and black are the most common ime, followed by two-tone spectator or saddle shoes, which might include some blue.

 

[acapaca]

It was the norm in what is often considered the golden age of menswear to wear certain combinations of clothing items, determined largely by the formality of the occasion and the seasons. These norms are documented in thousands of pictures in iconic magazines like Apparel Arts and early issues of Esquire, as well of thousands of photos, some of which were shared by DWW and feature on Voxsartoria’s website. There is a community of people today who admire those norms and think they still look good today, and that they look good partly because they form part of an coherent scheme of norms. The idea of dressing perfectly from head to toe for the occasion and the season is a satisfying concept for many.

Then I suppose it is demonstrably true that according to the norms of the time men wore oxfords to the ballgame. I would imagine they were also 'normally' worn to the doctor's office, the bank, the grocery store. Yet what we seem to have here is a strong feeling that oxfords are overly formal, no matter the occasion, for even the somberest of sportcoat/trouser combinations.

If that's true, then it's worth wondering if, on many occasions, the 'dressing down' of the parts above the ankle is at least as out of tune with historical norms as the 'dressing up' of the parts below.

 

[TheChihuahua]

If he made it up, then how would you account for the fact that I and others here were taught it before the internet existed, perhaps before DWW was born?

You were taught as a child or young man that the ONLY acceptable time to wear a pair of shoes with the Oxford lace system was while wearing a suit and tie? No other time is that acceptable?

who taught you that?

if you said that you were taught that one should never wear white athletic socks with leather shoes, I would agree. If you told me that you were taught not to wear suspenders and a belt at the same time, I would nod. Don’t wear brogued shoes with a tuxedo? Sure. Don’t button the bottom button of your sports coat, or do so only when the higher button is fastened? Sure. Wear a collared shirt in public? Ok. Denim is for yard work? Fine. A gentleman tucks in his shirt in public? Fine

but somebody actually taught you that the ONLY acceptable time to wear a pair of shoes with a close laced system was while wearing a suit, and you must leave your tie on at all times?

I don’t know you, so I’m not going to call you a liar, but I’m suspect about that claim…. Might be a little revisionist history of your background to try to justify why you are defending a made up igent rule.

 

[dieworkwear]

If that's true, then it's worth wondering if, on many occasions, the 'dressing down' of the parts above the ankle is at least as out of tune with historical norms as the 'dressing up' of the parts below.

I posted many photos in this thread of people wearing casual shoes with suits. Here are some AA scans also showing this combo -- casual shoes with sport coats, then oxfords or casual shoes with suits

Have gigs of these images, but I assume people don't want to scroll forever.

 

[acapaca]

I'm not entirely sure you got my point, or that I stated it well. I was trying to claim that if dressing with formality in accord with the occasion is the overarching goal, men of those historical eras would not have worn sportcoat combinations in settings where they are common today.

 

[dieworkwear]

I'm not entirely sure you got my point, or that I stated it well. I was trying to claim that if dressing with formality in accord with the occasion is the overarching goal, men of those historical eras would not have worn sportcoat combinations in settings where they are common today.

Oh, yes, that's true. That world has mostly disappeared. I'm only interested in the aesthetic. Not the social norms of that era.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I'm not entirely sure you got my point, or that I stated it well. I was trying to claim that if dressing with formality in accord with the occasion is the overarching goal, men of those historical eras would not have worn sportcoat combinations in settings where they are common today.

exaclty. That seems to be what DWW doesn’t understand.

according to the golden age of menswear, that sport coat look was not appropriate in professional environments.
so the mere fact one is dressing Biz Caj Plus means they aren’t following a golden era uniform.

so DWW is taking pictures of guys dressed casually, but with a touch of style by wearing sports coats, but in recreational settings. And using that to create some igent fake rule that this how one must wear a sports coat.

but at the end of the day, none of this applies to sports coats in professional settings as that is not what these pictures represent. The sports coat in the professional should probably be dressed up a touch by wearing oxfords (or at least that’s an option one has)

 

[TheChihuahua]

So DWW posts a bunch of pictures to show that his rule is somehow real, but these pictures include guys wearin oxfords in non-suit and tie situations.

guy on the left here is wearing a sports coat recreationally with ocfords

this dude isn’t wearing a tie, and iswearing this more in a recreational/social setting it appears. but he’s wearing oxfords? Now can that be?