Pairing oxford shoes with chinos

[emptym]

...It only becomes laughable when someone tries to apply their own preferences to devise universal laws...

I like your philosophy of dressing and don't begrudge your wearing blue oxfords w/ chinos. But I don't think anyone has tried to devise universal laws. As @jaaz16 reminded us, DWW points out in his first post in the thread that it's his opinion:

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.

It is, however, a relatively informed opinion. As breakaway01 has said, dressing is a skill that can be improved. That's a key point imo.

We tend to think of life/ethics in two extremes, either:
(1) it's a matter of following universal, necessary rules
("Do this always and everywhere...") or
(2) it's totally relative
("Everyone's different, so no one can tell anyone what to do.").

The first extreme rests its thought on logical proofs. The second extreme says everything purely based on personal opinion.

But there's a third, middle/moderate option, which acknowledges not universal rules so much as general principles, since particular situations are different, but not totally different. And it has room for personal opinion, but opinions grounded in part on knowledge of both traditional wisdom and new circumstances.

In this middle position, ethical behavior is not a matter of universal control, nor total randomness, but shifting probabilities. Looking both ways, wearing a seatbelt, or getting vaccinated won't ensure one's safety, but it does increase the probability.

Dress, I think, is mostly in this middle position. It's not about universal, necessary laws, proven logically, nor is it entirely subjective. It isn't a universal law that oxfords + chinos is bad, nor is it simply personal preference. One shouldn't be a slave to tradition, nor to fashion. And what helps with this is knowledge and respect of both tradition and fashion.

 

[breakaway01]

Wow, aggressive first sentence!!! (lucky for me I work alone without interference from the guys in suits, most of whom have recently been fired from the business for incompetence BTW)

I believe if somebody asks for a fit check or an opinion on something, then great advise away.

If they aren't looking for a critique, maybe you should keep your pie-hole shut ?

I was being deliberately provocative with my first sentence because you and @acapaca seem to be equating judgment and feedback with solely negative emotions. That is not what feedback is for. And sometimes someone does not know when they could be doing something better. This attitude of ‘never give unsolicited feedback’ is for people with fragile egos who don’t really want to improve. Yes, another provocative statement.
And I note that you chose not to answer my very simple questions.

 

[yorkshire pud]

People would likely make fewer expensive mistakes if instead of going full yasssss kweeen when someone MTOs something crazy that won’t work with their outfits or tries to order trousers that fit like leggings they got some feedback that says “hey thats an interesting idea but it’ll look like crap and you might not have any idea what you’re doing”

In English please??

 

[yorkshire pud]

If someone is not open to critique, why bother posting on SF?

Maybe we should make a "WAYWRN - Likes and Compliments Only" thread.

View attachment 1671551

Well, they might be here for the thousands of other threads besides WAYWRN

maybe they are interested in music/art/food/cars, it's all here just beyond CM and the fusty old rulebook ?

 

[TheChihuahua]

I also maintain a certain skepticism of self-represented 'authority' in the arts, especially in matters that seem to have room for interpretation or that may be malleable over time. I sometimes wonder if Permanent Style is starting to lose the plot a little bit. Consider this cover image on their website at the moment:

View attachment 1671470

It's hard to count the ways in which that image runs counter to the 'received wisdom' being issued here.

exactly…

Especially when they use terms like “informed choice” or “trained eye” or try to justify their aesthetic preference with some authority by claiming a “connection to history” when their preference has no more connection than that which they disavow.

it’s a lot like music. Everyone has certain tastes.
but if one person was saying “Pearl Jam has a better connection to history than Dave Matthew’s band (or Vice versa) for those of us with a trained eye…”
I think people would sort of chuckle and be like “uhhh, neither are Bach, you are just making sh*t up…”
When if that same person said “I like Pearl ham better than Dave Matthews because (insert an actual reason…)”. Most people would say that’s ok, that’s your preference.

 

[ValidusLA]

Well, they might be here for the thousands of other threads besides WAYWRN

maybe they are interested in music/art/food/cars, it's all here just beyond CM and the fusty old rulebook ?

And you think those threads don't maintain a healthy criticism?

There was a 20 page Punchout about the shape of Pott silverware in the Design Objects thread. And that's not particularly rare.

If they are here to converse and learn, no problem.

If you post pictures, be open to criticism.

 

[yorkshire pud]

I was being deliberately provocative with my first sentence because you and @acapaca seem to be equating judgment and feedback with solely negative emotions. That is not what feedback is for. And sometimes someone does not know when they could be doing something better. This attitude of ‘never give unsolicited feedback’ is for people with fragile egos who don’t really want to improve. Yes, another provocative statement.
And I note that you chose not to answer my very simple questions.

I didn't answer your questions on purpose ?

 

[TheChihuahua]

I think that this veers too far into the “anything goes” realm where any outfit looks good. I will say that one thing I appreciated about the older SF is that members were more willing to call out bad outfits. Right now it feels like many bad outfits are being posted and getting likes, and there is too little critical discussion of why a particular fit works or doesn’t work.

i tend to agree, and I think some criticism is fine.
but base the criticism in actual reasons. Not some made up self proclaimed authority like DWW does.

for example: re: derbies. I don’t mind split tie derbies, and I do like the 2 eyelet whole cut style sleeker derbies. I think that a brogued winged type can look good. I find plain toe or cap toe derbies, especially in black, to be way too clunky and look like boots and this is a tough look with a sleeker/sharper suit look (although a dressed down sports coat look they look fine).
I don’t think this clunky look goes well with many suit looks, or many smarter sports coat looks.

Now that is a discussion based on aesthetics.

as opposed to me saying “I don’t like derbies because I have a trained eye and people who wear derbies with suits usually present an air of uninformed choices and look like they just started wearing tailored clothes and lack historical context when derbies were a country shoe not to be worn with suits as per the 1957 JC Penney’s catalogue…”

 

[yorkshire pud]

And you think those threads don't maintain a healthy criticism?

There was a 20 page Punchout about the shape of Pott silverware in the Design Objects thread. And that's not particularly rare.

If they are here to converse and learn, no problem.

If you post pictures, be open to criticism.

Let me explain, this whole thread is worthless because it has descended into bullying because a few "costume guys" can't get over a "rule" from the nineteenth century.

None of the pictures within it have even made me think about acting offended!!!

 

[ValidusLA]

Let me explain, this whole thread is worthless because it has descended into bullying because a few "costume guys" can't get over a "rule" from the nineteenth century.

None of the pictures within it have even made me think about acting offended!!!

As someone who has had rhe misfortune for being here for months in this thread, the thread has descended because a couple people refuse to believe that a rooting in understanding of the rules will lead to better outcomes.

Then every once in a while, new iconoclasts join in to try to prove how fuddy duddy the old guard is.

The same points are made over and over, with new voices raising the objections while refusing to engage with the true premise.

This is the worst thread on SF as of Sept 2021.

 

[Northants bloke]

exactly…

me specially when they use terms like “informed choice” or “trained eye” or try to justify their aesthetic preference with some authority by claiming a “connection to history” when their preference has no more connection than that which they disavow.

it’s a lot like music. Everyone has certain tastes.
but if one person was saying “Pearl Jam has a better connection to history than Dave Matthew’s band (or Vice versa) for those of us with a trained eye…”
I think people would sort of chuckle and be like “uhhh, neither are Bach, you are just making sh*t up…”
When if that same person said “I like Pearl ham better than Dave Matthews because (insert an actual reason…)”. Most people would say that’s ok, that’s your preference.

Exactly. You are entirely free to say you don't like my chinos with oxfords. You are entitled to give your reasons and I am further entitled to question whether they stack up.

If I was judging a piece of musical composition it would be entirely in the context of previously agreed criteria whether its a 32 bar jazz standard, loop driven edm or a Bach chorale. Does it achieve it's stated brief in terms of genre, audience and resources.

Classic menswear is not as tightly defined as a Bach chorale which has benefitted from 250 years of hindsight.

eg Much derided skinny trousers being modelled by British prince's pretending to be real serving cavalry officers.

 

[yorkshire pud]

As someone who has had rhe misfortune for being here for months in this thread, the thread has descended because a couple people refuse to believe that a rooting in understanding of the rules will lead to better outcomes.

Then every once in a while, new iconoclasts join in to try to prove how fuddy duddy the old guard is.

The same points are made over and over, with new voices raising the objections while refusing to engage with the true premise.

This is the worst thread on SF as of Sept 2021.

The voting statistics suggest otherwise!!!!

Knowing the rules is one thing, enforcement of them isn't for me, sorry ?

 

[TheChihuahua]

The voting statistics suggest otherwise!!!!

Knowing the rules is one thing, enforcement of them isn't for me, sorry ?

and completely making up rules is a totally different thing.

although I do like that move as a trolling tactic:
Step 1: Make up rule
Step 2: Find old JC Penney’s catalogues to fit made up rule
Step 3: Whenever anybody finds old JC Penney’s catalogue that contradict made up rule, accuse that photo of being in bad taste.

then…
Step 4: Show a bunch of pictures against the rules and claim:
“… see, these are informed rule breaking. It’s ok to break rules if you know the made up rules…”

definitely going to add this to my message board lexicon

 

[yorkshire pud]

and completely making up rules is a totally different thing.

although I do like that move as a trolling tactic:
Step 1: Make up rule
Step 2: Find old JC Penney’s catalogues to fit made up rule
Step 3: Whenever anybody finds old JC Penney’s catalogue that contradict made up rule, accuse that photo of being in bad taste.

then…
Step 4: Show a bunch of pictures against the rules and claim:
“… see, these are informed rule breaking. It’s ok to break rules if you know the made up rules…”

definitely going to add this to my message board lexicon

We don't have JC Penney in England, the illustrations remind me of Bertie Wooster and his chums ?

 

[blewnote1]

I recall posting -- long ago -- a photo of me wearing a double-breasted Richard Anderson in a diagonal pinstripe. Few liked it and I got LOTS of feedback. Style forum was more educational in those days. And you are right, that rarely happens these days.

What was their dislike of this suit based on? What did you learn from their criticism?

I'm curious because I've seen diagonally striped suits like this in a bunch of old Apparel Arts/Esquire images, but never in person and I think it looks good (at least from the image you posted... Maybe the tie is also diagonally striped which would indeed be weird).