Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[dieworkwear]

no. You are wrong.
the suede chukkas aren’t a bad selection of your goal is to dumb down the outfit (make it more Caj). If you are trying to fit in with streetwear and denim dudes, then sure.

but objectively speaking, the oxfords are a step above. Anyone with a trained eye would agree.
The suede chukkas look like he’s trying too hard to be Caj.

For me, the "dumbing down" of menswear is associating "dressing well" with "dressing up." It reduces looks to one single dimension ("is that formal or dapper or tailored or dressy?"), instead of thinking about the coherence of the outfit, the history, and the totality of the look.

 

[acapaca]

It reduces looks to one single dimension ("is that formal or dapper or tailored or dressy?"), instead of thinking about the coherence of the outfit, the history, and the totality of the look.

And without history there is no coherence, or totality, by your lights.

Man, you are really hung up on reliving that one slice of history. I can understand why you would be, as a sort of menswear historian yourself (and perhaps someone with a certain set of aspirations). But the lengths to which you go in your advocacy strike me as, shall we say, quixotic.

 

[dieworkwear]

And without history there is no coherence, or totality, by your lights.

Man, you are really hung up on reliving that one slice of history. I can understand why you would be, as a sort of menswear historian yourself (and perhaps someone with a certain set of aspirations). But the lengths to which you go in your advocacy strike me as, shall we say, quixotic.

I think you keep painting me in the most extreme manner, just to bolster your argument. Half my wardrobe is made of casualwear that has nothing to do with that period. None of my casualwear is about Golden Age looks. I also like many CM outfits that are not historical reproductions. I've linked some in this very thread, including photos of Ethan Newton wearing a band t-shirt with a black suit and UrbanComp wearing a black denim Western shirt with a grey Donegal suit. None of those things are "Golden Age."

I'm simply saying that the past can inform our choices today.

If this is not true, what's even the meaning of "classic menswear?" That's literally the name of this side of the board.

 

[thatboyo]

Like this post if you’ve ever been personally victimized by DWW.

 

[radicaldog]

For me, the "dumbing down" of menswear is associating "dressing well" with "dressing up."

Another one for the "extremely elementary points frequently missed on StyFo" list.

Maybe there needs to be a different subforum: Forget About Style, Avengers of Formality Assemble! Or something.

 

[blewnote1]

I'm working my way through the 60+ pages of this thread, kinda bummed out by some of the snarkiness in the early parts and hoping that people chilled out a bit as I read more. I did a quick search to see if any one brought up Apparel Arts and Esquire to show that you can in fact pair oxfords with attire other than suits and didn't see the image I'm about to post.

This is from Esquire in 1937:

Here's from Apparel Arts:

The first image is probably woolen trousers, and the second tropical wool or maybe linen, but if they were well tailored chinos I think the effect would be similar. This is from just a quick skip to Ethan Wong's blog post about the Esquire Man, but I'm sure if I went through old issues I could find more images to back this up.

I agree with Ethan that menswear in the "golden age" (where presumably many of the "rules" we now follow were invented) was more experimental/playful or whatever a good word for not stodgy and rigid is than we think it was. Do I think plain captoe oxfords look good with chinos? Probably not. Do I think you can rock some oxfords with some chinos? Definitely.

 

[Mercurio]

If this is not true, what's even the meaning of "classic menswear?" That's literally the name of this side of the board.

The problem here is that the forum decided to establish just two broad main categories: CM and SW&D as if clothing and style was "black" and "white", when, in reality, there are many others that don't "fit" into those concepts. On the other hand, we are making "history" every day, as would be seen in the years to come: fashion of the pandemic years.

 

[NotJeffBagwell]

Like this post if you’ve ever been personally victimized by DWW.

I... I can't believe that these people are real.

It's like somebody programmed like ten anti-DWW bots and just let them loose.

Or they're like video game NPCs that keep respawning.

 

[VegasRebel]

On the other hand, we are making "history" every day, as would be seen in the years to come: fashion of the pandemic years.

Maybe I've just missed it, but I'm actually surprised not to have seen a few detailed threads about materials / patterns / etc. for masks, and matching facemasks to the rest of the outfit.

 

[TheChihuahua]

I'm working my way through the 60+ pages of this thread, kinda bummed out by some of the snarkiness in the early parts and hoping that people chilled out a bit as I read more. I did a quick search to see if any one brought up Apparel Arts and Esquire to show that you can in fact pair oxfords with attire other than suits and didn't see the image I'm about to post.

This is from Esquire in 1937:

Here's from Apparel Arts:

The first image is probably woolen trousers, and the second tropical wool or maybe linen, but if they were well tailored chinos I think the effect would be similar. This is from just a quick skip to Ethan Wong's blog post about the Esquire Man, but I'm sure if I went through old issues I could find more images to back this up.

I agree with Ethan that menswear in the "golden age" (where presumably many of the "rules" we now follow were invented) was more experimental/playful or whatever a good word for not stodgy and rigid is than we think it was. Do I think plain captoe oxfords look good with chinos? Probably not. Do I think you can rock some oxfords with some chinos? Definitely.

I posted some apparel arts or other classic pictures earlier.

I was told those pictures didn’t count.
only the pictures that fit the made up rule narrative count, the others were all just men of poor taste for their time.

Apparently that’s the move from the golden age of SF. Apparel Arts was used to settle debates, but if the apparel arts photo went against the side one supported the next line was to call that particular picture in poor taste and claim that picture didn’t count.

 

[ValidusLA]

Honestly the fact this post started with a strong opinion, but one that was softened immediately (in bold) and was really not all that strident:

Oxfords are only for suits, IMO.

Some here have made the case that some very specific oxfords (e.g. brown suede ones with broguing) can be worn with very formal sport coat outfits (e.g. navy sport coats with grey trousers, white shirt, black grenadine, etc). I disagree, but that combo is less bad to me than oxfords with chinos.

And has devolved into this absolute all or nothing war is somewhat absurd.

A poster who isn't even here anymore, and may have been one of the worst SF has seen to date, basically decried rules as not existing or only being the purview of iGents.

This thread has given us Le Chewawa's great crusade to make the term "Caj" a thing, and (despite the fact no one is buying it) his attempt to convince an entire forum of people that derbies are only for people with foot problems.

Recently Nobilis (who, btw man I generally really like your posts we just are on different sides of this thread) has come into the thread, and frankly I think it may have more to do with his dislike for DWW's general point of view than the actually oxfords with chinos look.

Basically the thread is a **** show.

Even if we were to accept that, in some circumstances, an oxford is maybe slightly ok without a suit. I think anyone w/ a modicum of taste could agree that a derby, loafer, chukka, or even a goddam dbl monk (LE CRINGE!) would be better with chinos than an oxford.

And if we aren't able to discuss degrees of better or more stylish without becoming a flame war, we may as well burn the forum down.

 

[acapaca]

I also like many CM outfits that are not historical reproductions. I've linked some in this very thread, including photos of Ethan Newton wearing a band t-shirt with a black suit and UrbanComp wearing a black denim Western shirt with a grey Donegal suit. None of those things are "Golden Age."

And I'm trying to figure out why you seem to apply different criteria in different circumstances. If there is some way in which a band tee is more coherent or appropriate in a CM look than, say, a Vilalta-style derby with a commando sole (which I can only assume you would haaate), I'm not understanding it from your explanations. And that's in large part because your explanations seem to always come down to historical precedent, or lack thereof, above all else.

I am not aware of any form of art, visual or language or otherwise, in which deviation from a prescribed slice of tradition is dismissed out of hand. But that seems to be where we are here.

 

[TheChihuahua]

. I almost never wear 'straight' classic menswear but when I do I don't mess with the formula.

sorry and not to call you out particularly, but it appears you view classic menswear more as cosplay than an every day life option?
You rarely do wear more classic styles, but when you do you try to make it rigid and strict?

(also, don’t confuse the newer examples that are being posted that are somewhat comical as validation for DWW fabricating a rule and pushing it as he tries to further his Biz Caj agenda. The extreme examples which show oxfords looking bad without suits don’t make DWW’s made up rule a real thing. It’s completely made up, and as @Nobilis Animus has noted, he is resaorting to going to extremes because he knows that his original theory has been completely destroyed)

 

[Stylewords]

Honestly the fact this post started with a strong opinion, but one that was softened immediately (in bold) and was really not all that strident:



And has devolved into this absolute all or nothing war is somewhat absurd.

A poster who isn't even here anymore, and may have been one of the worst SF has seen to date, basically decried rules as not existing or only being the purview of iGents.

This thread has given us Le Chewawa's great crusade to make the term "Caj" a thing, and (despite the fact no one is buying it) his attempt to convince an entire forum of people that derbies are only for people with foot problems.

Recently Nobilis (who, btw man I generally really like your posts we just are on different sides of this thread) has come into the thread, and frankly I think it may have more to do with his dislike for DWW's general point of view than the actually oxfords with chinos look.

Basically the thread is a **** show.

Even if we were to accept that, in some circumstances, an oxford is maybe slightly ok without a suit. I think anyone w/ a modicum of taste could agree that a derby, loafer, chukka, or even a goddam dbl monk (LE CRINGE!) would be better with chinos than an oxford.

And if we aren't able to discuss degrees of better or more stylish without becoming a flame war, we may as well burn the forum down.

Absolutely. The problem is that both "sides" to the debate have fallen easily into personalising their attacks/disgreements. I know this is the internet, but we should be above that. It's very childish.

 

[dieworkwear]

I'm working my way through the 60+ pages of this thread, kinda bummed out by some of the snarkiness in the early parts and hoping that people chilled out a bit as I read more. I did a quick search to see if any one brought up Apparel Arts and Esquire to show that you can in fact pair oxfords with attire other than suits and didn't see the image I'm about to post.

This is from Esquire in 1937:

Here's from Apparel Arts:

The first image is probably woolen trousers, and the second tropical wool or maybe linen, but if they were well tailored chinos I think the effect would be similar. This is from just a quick skip to Ethan Wong's blog post about the Esquire Man, but I'm sure if I went through old issues I could find more images to back this up.

I agree with Ethan that menswear in the "golden age" (where presumably many of the "rules" we now follow were invented) was more experimental/playful or whatever a good word for not stodgy and rigid is than we think it was. Do I think plain captoe oxfords look good with chinos? Probably not. Do I think you can rock some oxfords with some chinos? Definitely.

I agree spectator oxfords can be worn without a suit. Although, I don't think those are the types of oxfords discussed in this thread, and they were touched on earlier as being one of the more extreme examples of a "casual oxford."

I've also said that oxfords can be worn without a suit in special circumstances. Without repeating all the ways one can do this, I've mention again that I think Bruce Boyer is tremendously well dressed, and he often wears things like this.

With regard to chinos and oxfords, I'm really arguing against this type of look below, which has spread online. This is a photo from Allen Edmonds' Instagram, which I'm posting here again.

It's the casual pants + fun sock + fancy shoes. The shoes are often tan. If not, then they're some odd color or material, such as blue, green, and red, bi-material combinations, exotic skins, etc. The outfit looks odd to me, and has no connection with any kind of history or even spirit of experimentation. It's just guys who are really into shoes.

In this specific instance, the person in the photo is even wearing washed out, double-need, blue chinos with tan oxfords. Blue pants are hard to wear in a CM outfit; chinos hard to wear with oxfords. I think this person would have done better if they considered the nuances in clothes (and yes, the past).

Even when guys wear oxfords with sport coats, they're often so dismissive of the history, the combo doesn't work, the fabric on the jacket is odd, the cuts are odd, etc. It's not just the shoes, but the total outfit.

And I'm trying to figure out why you seem to apply different criteria in different circumstances. If there is some way in which a band tee is more coherent or appropriate in a CM look than, say, a Vilalta-style derby with a commando sole (which I can only assume you would haaate), I'm not understanding it from your explanations. And that's in large part because your explanations seem to always come down to historical precedent, or lack thereof, above all else.

I am not aware of any form of art, visual or language or otherwise, in which deviation from a prescribed slice of tradition is dismissed out of hand. But that seems to be where we are here.

I've said earlier that, if I had to pinpoint, I suppose it's because the band t-shirt with a dark suit has sometimes been worn well by cool people, so it develops a new and interesting subversive meaning.

The combo above just says to me: "I'm really into shoes." It strikes me as uncool, and the aesthetic is not pleasing.