• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

Is it acceptable to pair oxfords with chinos?

  • Yes, anytime, anywhere.

    Votes: 45 27.4%
  • Whenever you've got that "chino + oxfords" feeling.

    Votes: 28 17.1%
  • In a pinch (other pants at the cleaners, traveling, Halloween costume...)

    Votes: 36 22.0%
  • No, except maaaybe in a life or death situation.

    Votes: 55 33.5%

  • Total voters
    164

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
69,972
You're the one promoting the idea that lighter shoes are distracting. I might not have thought much about it either if you hadn't made such a big fuss about it, compete with diagrams and cognitive theories.

I really don't get your second sentence. You've asked me to "prove" my theory to you, so I laid out some ideas on why tan shoes don't work with charcoal suits. I think the reason is similar to why you can't wear blue shoes with blue suits.

Now I'm getting snark for laying out my ideas. "Complete with diagrams and cognitive theories."
 

Panama

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
833
Reaction score
368
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.
Loafers and Chukkas are not better than Oxfords, the best shoe ever designed. And no one has provided a sufficient reason. Being a girl and unable to tie shoelaces doesn't count for Loafers.
 

acapaca

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
1,072
Reaction score
1,174
I don't know about charcoal, but tan shoes with navy suits is not in a different ballpark from the two images of yours I highlighted for review. It's not even in a different neighborhood. It might not even be on a different street. It is most certainly not 'random'.

Take that first picture, with the navy suit, white shirt, and grey tie. From the ankle up, you might see hundreds of guys dressed like that on any given day in the Japan or Korea subways. And probably 99% of them will have on black shoes. There's nothing else in the outfit that the brown shoes are harmonizing with, unlike the other outfits in that set of pictures that also have brown shoes (of varying shades and styles). But yet, it still feels totally natural to you.

I would submit that it's closer to the neighborhood of the southern European guy in the tan shoes and navy suit than it is the Asian guy in the black oxfords. Make of that what you will.
 

Panama

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
833
Reaction score
368
This is what I've been trying to say!

Why would you force something into an outfit when the other options are better and easier and more stylish anyway? This has a great history with Ivy style. If someone doesn't like loafers, they can wear plenty of other styles -- split toes, chukkas, or whatever else.

Along with the pant + shoe combination, it shows better taste with the socks (matches the pants and extends the leg line). It's not some random fun sock (although, I generally don't have a problem with people wearing unusual socks. It's just the way history is totally abandoned at every corner that makes the total outfit look bad).
Those Loafers look awful. It's looks like he has two meat pies on his feet...
 

patrickBOOTH

Stylish Dinosaur
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
38,393
Reaction score
13,643
Reminds me of the time @patrickBOOTH put his dirty ass shoes on his steak, and then took a photo as a flex. Like "here are my expensive shoes and my fancy steak!"

But, like, bro did you just put your dirty ass shoes on your food?
In defense, the shoes were much fancier than the steak. It was a boneless short rib. I'll have to post a v2.0 with some Templeman's and wagu.
 

Panama

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
833
Reaction score
368
I think people miss what's going on when they don't make the connection between that dress sneaker style and the strange shoes now sold through MTO programs, J. Fitzpatrick, and many other makers. The only distinction here is that the other has a more casual sole, so it's bad if you think dressing well is dressing up. But to me, both are bad -- the dress shoe sneaker, the blue suede oxfords, the weirdly designed shoes, etc.

If someone wants to dress casually, I think they should just buy a casual shoe that fits whatever aesthetic that defines their wardrobe -- hiking boots, work boots, actual sneakers, loafers, derbies, etc.

If someone wants to dress in a CM manner, I think they should buy shoes that fit that tradition and language.
I would rather have blue suede Oxfords over the porky guy's who can't bend over Loafers.
 

Panama

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
833
Reaction score
368
Got it, ok.

In that case, to answer a prior question, I think, yes, my opinion has changed. With that framework, oxfords with chinos is incorrect because it wouldn't have been expressed or paired together during the relevant timeframe.
But they were....
 

VegasRebel

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2020
Messages
127
Reaction score
232
But they were....
Why? Please explain further?

I just took the timeframe and oxfords with chinos not matching the timeframe to be the objection, and since I took several people to have the same objection assumed they were right. I don't independently know that they don't fit within that timeframe, so I can't really explain further.
 

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
69,972
Loafers and Chukkas are not better than Oxfords, the best shoe ever designed. And no one has provided a sufficient reason. Being a girl and unable to tie shoelaces doesn't count for Loafers.

Assuming this comment was made in earnest, it's such a weird way of looking at style. This isn't even a view on style; it's a view on objects. It basically says people are stylish if they own this specific object.

Might as well people are stylish if they own a Rolex Submariner.

"The Rolex Sub is the best watch ever designed, so if you want to be well dressed, just put this object on your body."

"'Sequoia' is the most beautiful word in the English language. If you want to improve your writing, just drop the word 'sequoia' somewhere in there."
 

ValidusLA

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
4,053
Reaction score
5,912
Being a girl and unable to tie shoelaces doesn't count for Loafers.

Shoes Panama wears to cement his manliness: MOAR LACES!
delight-3050-sexy-boots-48.png
 

Panama

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
833
Reaction score
368
Assuming this comment was made in earnest, it's such a weird way of looking at style. This isn't even a view on style; it's a view on objects. It basically says people are stylish if they own this specific object.

Might as well people are stylish if they own a Rolex Submariner.

"The Rolex Sub is the best watch ever designed, so if you want to be well dressed, just put this object on your body."

"'Sequoia' is the most beautiful word in the English language. If you want to improve your writing, just drop the word 'sequoia' somewhere in there."
I assumed sequoia was native American. I haven't Googled as you are not keen on that.
 

Panama

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
833
Reaction score
368
Shoes Panama wears to cement his manliness: MOAR LACES!
View attachment 1670868
1. That's not a shoe, as already posted above I do not wear Loafers or boots.
2. That is not a suitable boot for a girl. I would imagine they be sent home from Nursery or School.
3. You really shouldn't share your deviant kinks in public.
 

TheChihuahua

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2020
Messages
937
Reaction score
923
You're the one promoting the idea that lighter shoes are distracting. I might not have thought much about it either if you hadn't made such a big fuss about it, compete with diagrams and cognitive theories.

exactly.
I don’t think most people would see tan shoes with a blue suit and think “wow, what a distraction!”

most people would say, “oh,that’s a pretty common look….” And they would either like it or dislike it depending on their preference.

Now it your hobby was reading through 1940’s drawings of dudes in the country side at polo matches or fox hunts or something, maybe you would see that combo and think it doesn’t look as natural? But why the heck would anybody care about whether something that is widely accepted today looking natural in the 1940’s (and then claim they aren’t endorsing 1940’a cosplay)?

also what I keep losing in all of this is:
@dieworkwear, you say you spend a lot of time on the streetwear and denim dudes forum, correct?

so do you ever let the two worlds merge? Or do you think if you are going to dress well it has to be a 1940’s acceptable attire/outfit, and if you are going to go a bit more relaxed you sag pants and throw on the hoodie like Beiber? Either dress like a teacher from a private school in the 1980’s, dress like a Ralph Lauren model, or go with the hoodie and sagging pants and wild sneakers?

like, for example, somebody posted a bunch of Vegas tailoring photos, and some people had fun making fun of them. But ultimately, those Vegas tailors don’t care what some dude in England was wearing at a polo match in 1953. All they care about is something that looks good today while still providing an air of formality. (And we can debate whether it looks good or not, but that’s not the point of my comment).

so do you ever dress in a touch more formal manner, without regard to looking like you are from an American Apparal drawing from 1948? Or do you view it as a hard and fast line, if you are dressing with any sort of formality then you have to look like an AA illustration, otherwise one should look at pictures of Justin beiber or go to the ramp loauren section of their local shopping mall for inspiration?
 
Last edited:

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
27,320
Reaction score
69,972
exactly.
I don’t think most people would see tan shoes with a blue suit and think “wow, what a distraction!”

most people would say, “oh,that’s a pretty common look….” And they would either like it or dislike it depending on their preference.

Now it your hobby was reading through 1940’s drawings of dudes in the country side at polo matches or fox hunts or something, maybe you would see that combo and think it doesn’t look as natural? But why the heck would anybody care about whether something that is widely accepted today looking natural in the 1940’s (and then claim they aren’t endorsing 1940’a cosplay)?

also what I keep losing in all of this is:
@dieworkwear, you say you spend a lot of time on the streetwear and denim dudes forum, correct?

so do you ever let the two worlds merge? Or do you think if you are going to dress well it has to be a 1940’s acceptable attire/outfit, and if you are going to go a bit more relaxed you sathe pants and throw on the hoodie like Beiber?

like, for example, somebody posted a bunch of Vegas tailoring photos, and some people had fun making fun of them. But ultimately, those Vegas tailors don’t care what some dude in England was wearing at a polo match in 1953. All they care about is something that looks good today while still providing an air of formality. (And we can debate whether it looks good or not, but that’s not the point of my comment).

so do you ever dress in a touch more formal manner, without regard to looking like you are from an American Apparal drawing from 1948? Or do you view it as a hard and fast line, if you are dressing with any sort of formality then you have to look like an AA illustration, otherwise one should look at pictures of Justin beiber or go to the ramp loauren section of their local shopping mall for inspiration?

I generally don't mix SWD with CM, no.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 45 40.5%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 44 39.6%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 5 4.5%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 18 16.2%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 25 22.5%

Forum statistics

Threads
504,437
Messages
10,573,973
Members
223,697
Latest member
Martinezeye
Top