Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[acapaca]

Why not with chinos? Simply because oxfords are, or have been for a long while at least, very formal shoes, due to their sleekness. "Only with suits" seems too prescriptive a statement to have any validity in menswear, but the principle behind it makes sense (i.e. only with the more formal/sleek outfits). How much you are willing to push the boundary of what is appropriate with them, is probably largely down to culture, environmental factors, personal sensibility etc etc.
Indeed, I find they are perfectly fine with fairly formal separates, as shown as by Crompton or Boyer, usually in suede.
For the same reason though, I also dislike t-shirts with blazers as a combination that is too dissonant. Clearly, many others here disagree, including DWW himself curiously, if I recall correctly.

Top quality post on the whole, but in this passage you managed to arrive at a summary more coherent than anything we've spent the last 77 pages going round and round about. Very well said. I heartily endorse your point of view.

I can't help but read some of these threads, particularly in light of the interesting discussion going on right now about what is 'cool', and imagine them in a school setting. You've got your rebels, your innovators, your guys who don't give a ****. And you've got your hall monitors, your schoolmarms, and for lack of a better term, since 'nerds' these days seem to be en vogue, your dweebs. And then of course you have everyone in between.

I think there are ideas of value that the shrewd apprentice can learn from both ends of the spectrum. But in terms of motivations and approach -- let's say, historical fealty on the one hand and personal expression on the other -- the advice above is the kind that resonates more with me.

 

[VegasRebel]

Even more interesting to me, why is AE moving that way? As fewer men dress in CM, those who remain are more likely to pony up for Alden or a British shoe? That would be my wholly uneducated guess, but AE now feels almost completely divorced from 2015 AE to me.

My 2c - AE is have a difficult time on both ends. If you're looking for shoes around their sale price ($200-300) there are other brands with a lot to offer, some of which are arguably a better value proposition. Meermin, Loake, Beckett Simonon, Thursday Boot Co, Scaroso, Ace Marks, etc. They all have their own tradeoffs, but at $200-$300 you're probably not getting any of AE's actual made in America shoes, which was part of their draw (for Americans, anyway.) If you want customization, you can go somewhere like Undandy and put together whatever you want in a shoe, as crazy as you like.

At the higher end ($400+) there are brands that have better leather quality, better stitch counts, more refined lasts, etc. For the Park Avenue and other staple shoes, AE is still making them in America, but at that price range their main American competitor is Alden, who I haven't heard the same QC rumblings about. Outside of America there are lots of heritage English and Spanish brands making a strong showing. Tricker's, J.Fitzpatrick, TLB Mallorca, Carmina, Carlos Santos, etc. High end Chinese shoes are starting to appear, though I haven't tried any.

On top of all that, there's been plenty of talk about AEs quality control going down, letting even the sub-$300 shoes compete with AE's staples like the Park Avenue at $395. I'd guess most people aren't buying even $300 shoes - Hence the Johnston Murphy's and Cole Haans - and AE finding itself under assault at both the lower and higher end price points, may be looking to pivot even further down. But they're still relying on the name, and their price isn't matching their styling. But even in their wheelhouse, they're getting out-valued. Their staple Park Avenue black cap-toe oxford, $395, rarely on sale.

Meermin black cap-toe oxfords, $195:

Half the price, and of comparable quality and make. One really needs a reason to go for the AE at that point (though there are reasons.) The same is true of their more casual options. Most of my closet is (vintage) AE, but when I'm looking at new shoes, I'm generally looking elsewhere. I like them, but not enough to overpay for them.

 

[acapaca]

I'd guess most people aren't buying even $300 shoes - Hence the Johnston Murphy's and Cole Haans

"You walk into a shoe store with a hundred and fifty bucks, you come out with one shoe!"

 

[mak1277]

How do you define the difference between chinos and fatigues?

Easiest way to know are the patch pockets on the front.

 

[reidrothchild]

Allen Edmonds is 10 years away from being Johnston Murphy and 15 away from being Cole Haan at this point. They may move there quicker based off the looks they are promoting.

Even more interesting to me, why is AE moving that way? As fewer men dress in CM, those who remain are more likely to pony up for Alden or a British shoe? That would be my wholly uneducated guess, but AE now feels almost completely divorced from 2015 AE to me.

I agree that AE is completely divorced from 2015 AE and is cranking out some truly hideous stuff these days. From a business standpoint, however, I actually think AE is headed in a better direction than 5 years ago. AE has kind of occupied the mushy middle in terms of pricing, style, and comfort for too long. They're not quite luxury items people lust over, but at a retail price of $350-400 these days for their core line of dress shoes, they aren't exactly cheap either.

Guys who are more established in their careers and can afford $400 shoes probably already have the basics covered, so why buy another cap toe oxford from AE? I've got AE's I purchased in 2009 that look as good as the day they were purchased and can just be recrafted once the soles wear out anyway. 22 to 25-year olds just starting out most likely aren't spending $400 on their first "work" shoes, and if they are, they're probably not inspired by the stuff AE has historically put out.

To me, the biggest shift has been the fact that office wear has been trending towards comfort over aesthetics for over a decade now. My local men's store stopped stocking AE and now stocks Cole Haan, Bruno Magli, and Scarpe di Bianco. The owner told me no one was buying AE anymore because leather soled GYW dress shoes with a cork insole can't compete with either the Blake-stitch/flex constructed Italian stuff or the hideous Cole Haan franken-dress-sneakers in terms of comfort.

If AE didn't follow suit and start cranking out suede Strands with white sneaker soles--ugly as they may be--I doubt they'd still be around making GYW dress shoes 5 years from now.

 

[am55]

Cool fashion people wearing derbies with their CM-meets-SWD outfits:

 

[Cause Moe]

'Sequoia' is the most beautiful word in the English language.

No, "cellardoor" has that reputation.

 

[RedVelvetWounds]

But then take Foo's outfit. It's perfectly correct and skilfully composed, but it's also cosplay, in the sense that the only reason an American guy his age dresses like that in NYC is that he likes the style of a certain era. You can just tell that there's something phoney or at least theatrical going on there. In fact that same guy a few years later did a u-turn and started cosplaying a Hedi/rocker type. I don't think he looks remotely elegant or tasteful in either style, even though the CM look is more flattering in terms of volumes.

At what point does it stop being cosplay? Obviously there's nothing admirable about switching between styles constantly but assume Foo wears a suit every day for years. Doesn't it then just become his normal? Or assume he's been wearing "rocker" type outfits for ten years straight because he's always loved rock and metal. Isn't that just his authentic style then? Or is there something wrong with the combination of these styles, his age and geographical location?

 

[JohnMRobie]

My 2c - AE is have a difficult time on both ends. If you're looking for shoes around their sale price ($200-300) there are other brands with a lot to offer, some of which are arguably a better value proposition. Meermin, Loake, Beckett Simonon, Thursday Boot Co, Scaroso, Ace Marks, etc. They all have their own tradeoffs, but at $200-$300 you're probably not getting any of AE's actual made in America shoes, which was part of their draw (for Americans, anyway.) If you want customization, you can go somewhere like Undandy and put together whatever you want in a shoe, as crazy as you like.

At the higher end ($400+) there are brands that have better leather quality, better stitch counts, more refined lasts, etc. For the Park Avenue and other staple shoes, AE is still making them in America, but at that price range their main American competitor is Alden, who I haven't heard the same QC rumblings about. Outside of America there are lots of heritage English and Spanish brands making a strong showing. Tricker's, J.Fitzpatrick, TLB Mallorca, Carmina, Carlos Santos, etc. High end Chinese shoes are starting to appear, though I haven't tried any.

On top of all that, there's been plenty of talk about AEs quality control going down, letting even the sub-$300 shoes compete with AE's staples like the Park Avenue at $395. I'd guess most people aren't buying even $300 shoes - Hence the Johnston Murphy's and Cole Haans - and AE finding itself under assault at both the lower and higher end price points, may be looking to pivot even further down. But they're still relying on the name, and their price isn't matching their styling. But even in their wheelhouse, they're getting out-valued. Their staple Park Avenue black cap-toe oxford, $395, rarely on sale.

View attachment 1671064

Meermin black cap-toe oxfords, $195:

View attachment 1671065

Half the price, and of comparable quality and make. One really needs a reason to go for the AE at that point (though there are reasons.) The same is true of their more casual options. Most of my closet is (vintage) AE, but when I'm looking at new shoes, I'm generally looking elsewhere. I like them, but not enough to overpay for them.

I get to a chicken and egg debate in my head. Is it #shoestagram driving the change, the manufacturers chasing it or the retailers pushing it? For most, I’m going to guess it’s not #shoestagram which is a subset of a subset of the menswear interested population. The crazy MTOs on here, sure definitely #shoestagram to blame but for the general public I just don’t buy that there is a significant portion of the guys who buy shoes lurking on SF or Instagram looking at shoes to buy. A huge number of my friends and acquaintances call any leather shoe that isn’t a boot “work shoes” - Maybe they know the term oxford or brogue from Kingsman but I’ve been asked multiple times by friends what the difference between oxfords and brogues are - I just don’t buy that these are the guys sitting on online MTO tools designing bi-color, bi-material green suede shoes or thinking it through.

For better or worse I believe AE is still viewed, largely by people in the US and who largely have never heard of SF or wouldn’t come on here, as the gold standard. They are accessible in nearly every market whereas Edward Green and CJ have, what, something like 10 stockists each in the US? For the more fashion forward guy then it’s probably Ferragamo, Gucci loafers, maybe Santoni which are available in nearly every market that has a Nordstrom. There is still an assumption that you get what you pay for and that you’re getting quality stuff if you shop at Nordstrom or Neiman over Macy’s or Dillards or AE over Cole Haan or J&M.

So when AE roll out their “dress sneakers” or whatever abomination of a strand in some funky bi-color suede combination they’ve come up with, or Nordstrom puts the Santoni “dress sneakers” in all sorts of crazy patinas out there is a certain level of trust in the brand and the stockist that it’s okay to get and wear. Nordstrom wouldn’t sell it if it wasn’t ok and look they’re $500 - They must be good?

With regards to oxfords and chinos and the casualization of the work uniform generally and those pairings I wonder how much is driven by a reluctance to fully embrace the drive to casual? We’ve gone from chinos and OCBDs and knitwear with boat shoes or loafers to the electric blue suit with skinny lapels and tan strands to now it’s okay to wear chinos, an OCBD and a fleece vest with my firms logo embroidered on it (RIP, Patagonia partnerships) but how much reluctance is there to wear sneakers with that outfit? Particularly if my experience with sneakers are limited to Nike or New Ballance.

If I know very little about different rules or history and how things work together coherently then “work shoes” still get worn because regardless of what I’m wearing for the rest of my outfit, I’m going to work and I’ll grab a pair of “work shoes” which could be oxfords if that’s what they’ve got. Maybe they’ll grab their strand sneakers as they get more comfortable dressing down or kind of realize their new work outfit doesn’t work with their old work shoes. It doesn’t make it a good option or one that looks good but it does make it more socially acceptable even if it looks bad.

For the guys on here who actually care about these things though I’m firmly of the belief that it’s a goddamn abomination and there are much better options to wear. If we’re going to nitpick about whether a 3, 3.5 or 4” lapel works better or whether my jacket is .5” short or long then why do we neglect to think about how shoes or a tie or whatever it is work with an outfit and abandon that and say yeah wear those oxfords with chinos that’s a good look.

 

[VegasRebel]

If I know very little about different rules or history and how things work together coherently then “work shoes” still get worn because regardless of what I’m wearing for the rest of my outfit, I’m going to work and I’ll grab a pair of “work shoes” which could be oxfords if that’s what they’ve got. Maybe they’ll grab their strand sneakers as they get more comfortable dressing down or kind of realize their new work outfit doesn’t work with their old work shoes. It doesn’t make it a good option or one that looks good but it does make it more socially acceptable even if it looks bad.

For the guys on here who actually care about these things though I’m firmly of the belief that it’s a goddamn abomination and there are much better options to wear. If we’re going to nitpick about whether a 3, 3.5 or 4” lapel works better or whether my jacket is .5” short or long then why do we neglect to think about how shoes or a tie or whatever it is work with an outfit and abandon that and say yeah wear those oxfords with chinos that’s a good look.

I agree with both these thoughts. People who are wearing "work shoes" are probably the majority, and maybe they're just doing it because it's socially acceptable or they don't really think about it. Or it was in an AE picture on the website, and if they are promoting it it must look good, right?

For the people on forums like these, I think it's a bit more complicated. Even if people don't agree, it seems clear no one (in this thread, anyway) is ignoring shoes as part of the outfit, it's just that some people think it doesn't look bad and others do. It's not that they're neglecting to think about it, it's that they have thought about it and think it's the way to go for that outfit.

That seems to me to trend toward the look not only being socially acceptable, but 'looking good' on down the line as it becomes more familiar. If anything, this thread seems to me to reinforce the idea that what 'looks good' is what one's familiar with and wishes to emulate, and the more popular oxfords with chinos, or even dress sneakers, become, and the more socially acceptable they are, the more familiar and comfortable it'll seem to a lot of people. I think that's more likely with oxfords and chinos than with dress sneakers, since dress sneakers are still new enough to maybe be a trend, and doesn't really seem to appeal to either group. Dress shoe purists want distinct dress shoes and sneakers, and sneakerheads would probably prefer a pair of Common Projects if they're going to spend $500 on a sneaker (or at least a Thursday Boot Co leather sneaker if they want to spend $200 or less.)

That said, if you hop over to the AE thread here, there's some hype for the Park Avenue sneaker, fwiw.

 

[emptym]

...It's not even a CM look. It's an SWD look. I think of it as being connected to a particular Japanese fashion scene made up of "Beams guys."...

As @radicaldog mentioned, it seems in between. The Beams guys are connected to the Japanese "rugged Ivy" group, which, as the name indicates is connected to a kind of New England CM style.

...My interest in the proportions issue, understood as the “relationships between the parts and the whole or between various things related to each other” comes for many years...

Good post, particularly this line. Was it Aristotle or Aquinas who defined wisdom as the ability to relate the parts to each other and the whole?

It is harder to have good parts and relate them well than simply to have some good parts. And suit/sportcoat fit is much tougher to get right (and show on instagram/SF) than a pair of shoes.

he seemed to criticize mixing CM with SWD...

I think he said he doesn't do it personally. But he admires some who do.

Yeah, the overabundance of Norwegian split toes was very strange. I didn't know that style was so in vogue in 1960.

When my maternal grandfather died, I got a pair of his dress shoes: black Florsheim split toes. They were pretty sleek and like some pairs in the catalogue. I'm guessing he got them in the 60s.

...
If AE didn't follow suit and start cranking out suede Strands with white sneaker soles--ugly as they may be--I doubt they'd still be around making GYW dress shoes 5 years from now.

Good point. I agree that the rise of hybrid shoes (blue suede oxfords with white laces, tan wingtips with sneaker soles, etc.) is driven largely by the desire to sell shoes, both to younger guys getting their first "dress shoes" and to older ones who already have most classics covered.

Other causes would include, as you mention, the drive to comfort (though imo, well-fitting leather soled shoes are super comfortable, at least on urban surfaces) and, as @Jmr928 said, "a reluctance to fully embrace the drive to casual."

 

[Mirage-]

Hey @dww, do you consider this look CM or SWD. I always tought of it as something in between but I might be wrong. Thanks. View attachment 1670968

The above shows the kind of look (I think Crompton calls it "casual chic") which is precisely my idea of good, CM-inspired casualwear, and my original argument against DWW's statement that you are best either wearing a tailored jacket, or rather ditching CM ideas and proportions altogether in favour of some other aesthetic.
So actually what he thinks of this is a great question, which he kind of dodged, saying that this would be considered CM by most people here on SF and well accepted into the casual CM thread.
Although I'd maybe say this is closer to workwear than to SW, if I really had to define an outside influence? But still, it's definitely much closer to CM than either in my mind.

On a side note I know it's largely because of the forum division, but "SWD" is weird as an aesthetic name, because indeed denim isn't streetwear per se. Obviously, it comes from workwear. Skinny, or baggy and sagging jeans, I consider streetwear (and terrible, sorry). Clean and straight or moderately tapered, like the jeans Crompton wears, I consider casual CM.
Just remember not to wear them in your daily visits to the country club though...reportedly.

 

[TheChihuahua]

The above shows the kind of look (I think Crompton calls it "casual chic") which is precisely my idea of good, CM-inspired casualwear, and my original argument against DWW's statement that you are best either wearing a tailored jacket, or rather ditching CM ideas and proportions altogether in favour of some other aesthetic.
So actually what he thinks of this is a great question, which he kind of dodged, saying that this would be considered CM by most people here on SF and well accepted into the casual CM thread.
Although I'd maybe say this is closer to workwear than to SW, if I really had to define an outside influence? But still, it's definitely much closer to CM than either in my mind.

On a side note I know it's largely because of the forum division, but "SWD" is weird as an aesthetic name, because indeed denim isn't streetwear per se. Obviously, it comes from workwear. Skinny, or baggy and sagging jeans, I consider streetwear (and terrible, sorry). Clean and straight or moderately tapered, like the jeans Crompton wears, I consider casual CM.
Just remember not to wear them in your daily visits to the country club though...

good post. What I was thinking as well.

 

[reidrothchild]

Good point. I agree that the rise of hybrid shoes (blue suede oxfords with white laces, tan wingtips with sneaker soles, etc.) is driven largely by the desire to sell shoes, both to younger guys getting their first "dress shoes" and to older ones who already have most classics covered.

Other causes would include, as you mention, the drive to comfort (though imo, well-fitted leather soled shoes are super comfortable, at least on urban surfaces) and, as @Jmr928 said, "a reluctance to fully embrace the drive to casual."

Whole-heartedly agree that well-fitted leather soled shoes are super comfortable. The problem is that it takes some leg work to find a last that fits properly. When I was buying AE's, I could go into a store and try on every last in multiple sizes to nail my fit. Nowadays, with everyone shopping online more, I wonder if the certainty of knowing a sneaker-soled shoe will be comfortable right out of the box, whereas a GYW leather-soled shoe is more of a crap shoot that might necessitate a return/reorder, isn't also driving the shift?

 

[Mirage-]

good post. What I was thinking as well.

I hope you didn't just say that for that last bit, it was obviously a friendly jab at your obsession for country clubs that don't admit denim. I don't actually consider denim to be limiting any more than most other casual attire.
And if I go to the countryside I mostly go hiking, not to country clubs with dress standards, assuming there are many to be found around here in the first place.