Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[dieworkwear]

I'm not talking at all about the exotic MTO shoes. I'm talking about your (really, very clear, as I see it) implication that Mitchell is dressed properly in that outfit and the guy wearing oxfords with the tailored trousers and sportcoat is, decidedly, not.

You don't think some of your stuff, like in particular the bolded part above, comes across like clutching pearls? Dear God, not even a tailored jacket! Quelle horreur! That's the classist aspect that, deep down, some of this conveys.

Either that or a sort of middle-school in-group striving, which is probably even worse, for folks our age.

I don't know what we're talking about at this point. First I get called classist for saying that CM should involve a tailored jacket, and now we're back to guys in jackets.

I think oxfords can work with sport coats in very specific situations. But most guys don't wear them well because they disregard this history entirely. Many wear oxfords that don't make any aesthetic sense to me, and often they wear them without a tailored sport coat. I think there was something special about the older way of dressing that can inform our choices today. No idea what this has to do with Obama, classism, or the other things insinuated here. If someone prefers the "new classic" over the "old classic" (no idea how else to phrase this), then I think it's just a difference in taste. .

Regarding Mitchell, I am not interested in dressing "properly." I'm interested in the idea of dressing "well." I think you think that I value tradition as some kind of moral code (e.g. correct vs incorrect). I'm interested in tradition in terms of an aesthetic. I actually don't care about tradition in terms of values or whatever.

 

[acapaca]

I don't know how it is that you separate notions like 'proper' and 'coherent' from 'good'. Your 'well' has to be informed by something, and my reading is that it is informed by, one could say, how closely it aligns with a kind of historical mimicry -- and yes, one that is rooted in classism as its means for arriving at an aesthetic.

You say you think there was something special about the older norms that can inform our choices today, but you also say that you have no interest in exploring, at any level of depth, what those things might be and how they might inform our choices in a modern setting that bears little resemblance to the golden age of Hollywood. Thus, by 'inform our choices' I can only to take you to mean 'mimic'. Your mind seems fully closed to entertaining any ideas at all about how those norms of the 'old classic' era would dress if they were given a 2021 menswear toolkit, unless those ideas are limited to wearing faithful reproductions of the same items they wore all those decades ago.

Me, I see people like UrbanComp or EFV and I see them doing things that express a lot of individual style -- in spades, really -- with sensibilities that absolutely seem philosophically inspired by classic norms yet aren't afraid to include modern touches. I am far, far more impressed by that kind of dress than I am by one that is guided by old AA ads and paints by numbers.

 

[radicaldog]

Grey marl t-shirt, worn-in workwearish chinos, colourful socks, tan captoe oxfords in severe need of maintenance. I wear this sort of combination, and I think it works, but I doubt it's the sort of thing people are after here. I think it works because the shoes look 'whatever', in much the same way as casual shoes with tailored clothing look. Yes, it's easier to add a casual element to a formal outfit, but the reverse can work too.

 

[acapaca]

Let me try to illustrate what I mean a little better. You like to talk about coherence of outfits, and rightfully so. You want to see the entire outfit together before weighing in on how coherent it is, as you should. So let's say for the sake of argument that someone shows a flat layout of grey flannels, an OCBD, and throw a dart and pick any Spier sportcoat. They ask what type of shoe to put with it, and you say loafers.

But of course, that is only the beginning of the full, complete, and best answer -- because then we'll need to ask, "Okay, which loafers?" And now, to arrive at the best answer, the one that will make for the most coherent outfit, we're going to have to think about what sub-style of loafer we prefer, what material it should be made out of, what color. We'll definitely need to consider our options when it comes to the last, no doubt about that. We might have some issues to deal with when it comes to the sole. It's possible we may even consider the heritage or provenance of the maker, if we really want to get down to it. And all of this, of course, properly viewed through the lens of who is wearing this damn outfit and where they're wearing it to.

A lot to consider there, when it comes to making thoughtful choices. I claim that you don't need to even begin this level of contemplation when it comes to oxfords as a potential choice with this outfit, or any other where the jacket and pant are not made from the same cloth -- and you also don't even need to see the pictures -- because in your system all the thinking is already done for you. It doesn't matter the last of the oxford, the material, the color, the sole, the details, the wearer, the occasion. It only matters that it is an oxford, and thus is itself incoherent, by category and definition.

So, that's why this line of argument is tautological. The outfit is incoherent because the combination is incoherent. Okay, fine. Sure. Nothing wrong with believing that. But if that's what you believe, and for those reasons, then you sacrifice the right to claim that you can speak to the reasons for the incoherence. And in so doing, you -- in my opinion -- leave much on the table.

 

[Pandaros]

Is it possible that everything in the discussion is now getting a little overthought?

As I said pages and pages ago, it all seems to come down to personal taste and what one considers to be an informed aesthetic position. Since history, tradition, variations of taste are found in so many conflicting ways within the history of CM, there's a huge amount of openness and legitimate space to develop distinct aesthetic visions of what CM is and to have an informed position about any one of those conflicting aesthetics.

 

[mak1277]

If you can't wear a tailored jacket, just wear actual casualwear, as defined by SWD and not CM. Wear jeans and casual shoes. Wear a genuinely casual shirt. Wear a casual jacket.

You’re probably right about this, but the practical issue is that jeans aren’t allowed in many (most?) offices where the dress code is business casual. Almost every one of the dozens of offices I’ve been in has prohibited the wearing of “actual casual wear”. So the result is exactly what you detest, tailored trousers or chinos, button up, no jacket.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Is it possible that everything in the discussion is now getting a little overthought?

overthought is generous. How about dogmatic?

 

[Nobilis Animus]

Reasonable depends on the person purchasing them. $500 doesn't seem out of line. Even CMTing at my fairly reasonable bespoke tailor, when you include fabric, is in that ball park or more (depending on the fabric).

Are you saying $500 for trousers is an out of line cost for SF? I would say its really not.

Just the opposite, actually. I was saying that $500 for trousers is quite reasonable.

I would say that $500 is high even by StyleForum standards. Not many people here spend more than $300 for trousers. That said, the contention wasn't whether $500 is common for StyleForum members, but whether it's reasonable to say that's a very high price for pants. I think most people, even on StyleForum, would say it is.

This all started in the "beige sweater" thread, where some, including me, felt that NA was throwing price in people's faces. I don't think you need to spend $500 on pants to dress well. Mitchell's trousers are from Spier & Mackay. If I remember correctly, he pays $125 for them. His jeans are from Sid Mashburn ($100 on sale) and Abercrombie & Fitch ($50 on sale, and he always shops on sale). Yet, he looks great.

That's a totally disingenuous take, even by your standards. Here's what I actually said:

They definitely have some good fits and fabrics. S&M doesn't make their clothing in Canada/USA though, as far as I know. That's one of my personal non-negotiables when looking at a new purchase, unfortunately.

Anyway, all I'm pointing out is that trousers at $400 is not a shocking price. I mean here we are talking about Savile Row suits and bespoke boots on a near-daily basis, for goodness' sake. A $10,000 suit is no big deal, but we balk at $400 for half of it? I think that's a bit odd.

I did not say that one needed to spend $500 on trousers to dress well. I said that $400-500 was perfectly in-line with the level of goods discussed on the forum, and certainly not too much to pay for good quality, made in Europe/NA trousers. And it isn't.

It's also quite funny how you seem to think you're the only one who believes in coherence, DWW. Where did you get the idea that I, or anyone else in the thread, is fixated on labels? Is it not possible to build a good-looking outfit and have high quality? I think it is.

I don't know how it is that you separate notions like 'proper' and 'coherent' from 'good'. Your 'well' has to be informed by something, and my reading is that it is informed by, one could say, how closely it aligns with a kind of historical mimicry -- and yes, one that is rooted in classism as its means for arriving at an aesthetic.

You say you think there was something special about the older norms that can inform our choices today, but you also say that you have no interest in exploring, at any level of depth, what those things might be and how they might inform our choices in a modern setting that bears little resemblance to the golden age of Hollywood. Thus, by 'inform our choices' I can only to take you to mean 'mimic'. Your mind seems fully closed to entertaining any ideas at all about how those norms of the 'old classic' era would dress if they were given a 2021 menswear toolkit, unless those ideas are limited to wearing faithful reproductions of the same items they wore all those decades ago.

Me, I see people like UrbanComp or EFV and I see them doing things that express a lot of individual style -- in spades, really -- with sensibilities that absolutely seem philosophically inspired by classic norms yet aren't afraid to include modern touches. I am far, far more impressed by that kind of dress than I am by one that is guided by old AA ads and paints by numbers.

And there's the rub. It's quite likely that were these menswear icons alive and kicking today, they would dress with a full awareness and use of the more interesting and stylish parts of modern fashion, inspired by classical norms.

This whole conversation is a two-fold expression of confusion and mimicry. On the one hand, there are people on the forum without any first-hand knowledge of the world in which their aesthetic operates making up observations and rules on the basis of a 'language' they do not speak, and from which the proprietors are keen to exclude them. On the other hand, those same posters also fail to realize that they often use these class-based aesthetics of CM to attack the styles of other people, without much more than an appeal to an imaginary era instead of reasons.

DWW has claimed that he sees nothing with respect to values in his critiques, and that 'old classic' vs 'new classic' is just a difference in taste - implying that neither one can be good or bad taste. Yet his posting history absolutely reeks with evidence to the contrary. It's quite obvious that his ideas of traditional CM is informed by a very specific subset of men's dress in the 20th century, particularly the Americanized version of said tradition - very Ivy, much cliche. At the same time, we are met with a dizzying array of seemingly-opinionated advice from this quarter, but ultimately are left only with that which proves to be more of the same circular logic. It's like someone saying that they 'prefer the aesthetics of French Art,' and being unable to explain to me the difference between Impressionism and Art Deco.

If CM is nothing more than staid, boxy business suits and rigid rules from which one mustn't stray over-much, unless one's youth and good looks have first faded, then it's no wonder that the practitioners of such a philosophy should feel physically and mentally out of place in the modern era. Yet tailoring is decidedly not dead in some social circles. And, in fact, it used to be more vibrant than the paragons of CM have led us to believe. Don't take my word for it:

50 years ago the tailors I was around made what ever you wanted, so any shape lapel. The tailors who refuse are missing some lessons. In the 60s SR made the general business suit, but for the after hours they made some outrageous clothing. Today SR is a shadow of itself.

 

[NotJeffBagwell]

Why not just post all of your weird DWW fan fiction to its own separate thread.

 

[Nobilis Animus]

Why not just post all of your weird DWW fan fiction to its own separate thread.

DWW has set himself up as some kind of interpreter of classic aesthetics in this thread. Some of us are simply pointing out how ironic and hollow that is.

 

[Pandaros]

DWW has set himself up as some kind of interpreter of classic aesthetics in this thread. Some of us are simply pointing out how ironic and hollow that is.

What I don't like is how personal it has become.

He's absolutely right to be an interpreter of classic aesthetics. And so are you. There's an infinite number of equally valid interpretations that can be made about what classic is. The nice thing about a forum is that you get to hear all of them, because they all come from reflected and informed positions.

What's not nice is when something is blown beyond what it is: conflicting and informed matters of taste. No one can be wrong here; their taste just doesn't agree with another person's.

 

[Stylewords]

There's really no need to go round in circles. DWW is never going to be able to pull a stone tablet out of his butt with a rule on when to wear oxfords. Put on your ugly multicoloured oxfords with your jeans and enjoy them. You don't need anyone's permission.

 

[dieworkwear]

You’re probably right about this, but the practical issue is that jeans aren’t allowed in many (most?) offices where the dress code is business casual. Almost every one of the dozens of offices I’ve been in has prohibited the wearing of “actual casual wear”. So the result is exactly what you detest, tailored trousers or chinos, button up, no jacket.

Yes, I agree. I don't have a good solution for those situations.

Me, I see people like UrbanComp or EFV and I see them doing things that express a lot of individual style -- in spades, really -- with sensibilities that absolutely seem philosophically inspired by classic norms yet aren't afraid to include modern touches. I am far, far more impressed by that kind of dress than I am by one that is guided by old AA ads and paints by numbers.

Yes, I agree that both EFV and UrbanComp are tremendously well dressed. FWIW, UrbanComp also agrees with this "oxfords are for suits" view.

Take this with a grain of salt, coming from an American that leans casual but understands when to dress up:

I mostly agree with Derek insofar as oxfords should only be worn with suits. They obviously can be worn with more casual outfits, but only if they've got casual details (suede, lug soles, brogueing, etc). Even then, derbies are almost always better. Every time I see, for example, suede brogued Vass oxfords with jeans, OCBD, and a sportcoat, I think the guy had jeans at his office and just left work. It's not a bad look; it looks quite smart, which may be the "vibe" you're feeling, and may indeed be as "casual" as you get, but try just one step more: a pair of loafers, chukkas, or derby boots would be more cohesive.

Like me, he doesn't understand why you would try to force a pair of oxfords into a casual outfit when there are simply better options.

Real question @Psyko , not trying to be argumentative:

why would you choose to “make oxfords work” rather than just have a pair of chukkas?

He is simply less vocal about this issue and much more gracious and polite than me, so he doesn't get involved in these long arguments like I do.

@物の哀れ posts very "contemporary" versions of CM on here that push the envelope. Guys wearing baseball caps with sport coats or denim shirts with formal suits. I've liked all of the photos he's shared (they are of other people, often people he sees on Instagram). I don't believe in historical cosplay, and I'm not militant in terms of coherence. I'm actually fine with a much higher level of discordance than many traditionalists on this board.

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. I'm arguing against two things.

1. A total disregard for history when it comes to CM. I think history can inform us on how to make better dress choices. It's not that we have to recreate historical looks, although I think people can dress well that way, too. It's that I think history can help us make better choices.

2. I'm also arguing against a very specific look and trend on this board. Guys buying shoes that have no relationship with history, and wearing them in business casual or internet-y ways. Green loafers with sport coats, red oxfords with chinos, bi-material boots with jeans, etc. That doesn't seem connected to the Golden Age aesthetic that was once the foundation of this forum.

Every time I've discussed this issue, I've noted that I greatly admire Bruce Boyer's style. He often wears oxfords with sport coats. I'm not militant about this rule, but this

Feels more connected to this history

Than this

 

[dieworkwear]

Look at these outfits promoted on Allen Edmonds Instagram. The last photo even shows the combination that is the premise of this thread: can oxfords be worn with chinos. How do these outfits have any connection to that "Golden Age" aesthetic?

I've been careful to not use members' photos because I don't want to single out real-life people. I assume the models below will never see this thread. But you often see outfits like these on this board. Arguably even wilder and less coherent since the shoes are red, green, and blue, rather than tan or black. It's common to see people here now wear blue boots with jeans and green oxfords with chinos. Or to put it generously, tan oxfords with chinos and what I can only assume is a jacket-less outfit (I often don't know since it's typically just a shoe pic). Even if they're wearing a sport coat, the aesthetic feels unmoored.

 

[Leiker]

In April of this year, it came out that the FBI had seized some of Rudy Giuliani's personal records and phone for an investigation. I have been in contact with him via DMs for a few years now. When the FBI seized Rudy's phone, I asked the FBI if they could arrest my friend for buying purple pants

I can't promise I won't do this over those blue suede shoes and white laces.


View attachment 1667879

Does he ever respond to you?