RLPL Barksdale vs. Mackay. Which is more versatile?

[skalogre]

Originally Posted by NMW1982

Let's try to get back on topic--which shoe is better for which occasion and which one is better for a guy in his 20s? Mackay or Barksdale?

IMO Mackay for both. Sleek enough to look good with a suit and shapely enough to round out nicely darker jeans.

 

[josepidal]

Mackay; I own a pair in black and in dark oak. Ditto on non-loose, dark jeans.

Do you think they work with polo shirts, though, or is that pushing it way way too far?

 

[sysdoc]

I have to save that I am not a big fan of the Mackay. There are plenty of prettier EG captoes.

However, the Barksdale is a shoe that I don't like at all. To me, all loafers look either old-man or rather sloppy when worn by younger guys. I've always wondered if loafers are for people who can't or just won't bend down to tie their laces or close the buckle of their monks. I'll consider loafers once I'm so stiff that I depend on this type of shoe. I hope that'll never happen.

 

[A Y]

Originally Posted by The False Prophet

Generally, I will wear trim and fairly tapered shoes with narrow leg jeans, and rounder toed loafers with bootcuts (so the bottom covers the vamp and leaves only a little showing).

Some more food for thought: consider how cowboy boots were worn with bootlegged jeans by people working on ranches. For me, there's a certain rightness to seeing a sleeker shoe with a bootlegged silhouette because of this legacy.

--Andre

 

[montecristo#4]

Mackay. This is a no-brainer.

 

[JBZ]

Originally Posted by Roger

Well, I guess it remains for me to be the contrarian on this question. In my mind, most cap-toes, and particularly balmorals, just look out of place with anything remotely casual. The Mackay will look good with a suit, but a little less so with a sports jacket/odd trousers. Perfed bluchers would be fine in the latter case, but to my eye, sleek balmorals like these look badly incongruous with jeans, chinos, or, really, anything but a jacket and tie at least. The Barksdale, on the other hand, looks completely natural with jeans, chinos, and anything casual, but can, in addition, be appropriately worn with jacket/tie/odd trousers, and would look ideal with a jacket and turtleneck or jacket/open-collared shirt. Further, sleek, stylish, and high-end loafers like these can, if necessary, work with a suit too, not looking badly out of place.

This sums up my feelings, exactly. I'd wear the Barksdale with anything other than a suit (although there are better shoes for jeans, no question). I wouldn't wear the Mackay with anything but a suit or a jacket and odd trousers. For the record, I don't think the Barksdale (or loafers in general) are old-manish (although this is probably because I wear loafers all the time and I'm only 36). I'm actually wearing my Barksdales today, and I love them.

NMW1982 - you seem to be obsessing over this a bit too much. Both the Mackay and the Barksdale are excellent shoes from a quality standpoint. Go with the one that you like more. No one is going to criticize you for it, either way. Whichever you choose, you'll be wearing better shoes than 95% of the male population.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by JBZ

Whichever you choose, you'll be wearing better shoes than 95% of the male population.

More like 99.9%, or perhaps even higher.

 

[thinman]

Originally Posted by Roger

Well, I guess it remains for me to be the contrarian on this question. In my mind, most cap-toes, and particularly balmorals, just look out of place with anything remotely casual. The Mackay will look good with a suit, but a little less so with a sports jacket/odd trousers. Perfed bluchers would be fine in the latter case, but to my eye, sleek balmorals like these look badly incongruous with jeans, chinos, or, really, anything but a jacket and tie at least. The Barksdale, on the other hand, looks completely natural with jeans, chinos, and anything casual, but can, in addition, be appropriately worn with jacket/tie/odd trousers, and would look ideal with a jacket and turtleneck or jacket/open-collared shirt. Further, sleek, stylish, and high-end loafers like these can, if necessary, work with a suit too, not looking badly out of place.


I'm also in the dissenting camp. I agree with everything Roger wrote, except I won't wear loafers with a suit. If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to wear loafers with a suit, the Barksdales would be a reasonable choice (another choice would be Alden tassle loafers).

 

[SGladwell]

Originally Posted by NMW1982

Let's try to get back on topic--which shoe is better for which occasion and which one is better for a guy in his 20s? Mackay or Barksdale?

From someone in his late 20s, Mackay for every occasion. But in truth I'd save $200 and pick these shoes over either one.

 

[chorse123]

Well, the EGs are only $595 (before tax and shipping) after you use the SPRING2006 code.

 

[TomW]

the SPRING2006 was the last little bit of incentive I needed to pull the trigger. Now waiting for my Mackay's in Dark Oak....