We would like to welcome Pete and Harry as an official Affiliate Vendor. Pete and Harry, co-founded by Erik (EFV) one of our long time members and friends, offers a wide variety of products, clothes, watches and accessories, antique, vintage, “pre-loved” and new - all at unparalleled prices. Please visit their new thread and give them a warm welcome.
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!
I see this a lot with TV announcers and I simply looks ridiculous. Very oldmanish.I'm watching the Fox pregame show, and two of the guys are attempting. Quinn has bright white shoes with a navy suit, and it looks ridiculous. Then again, Brady Quinn might be the worst dressed man on television this side of Jeremy Clarkson. Other guy has the walnut sneakers with white sole, and it still doesn't work.
In fairness, I didn’t know of those abominations either! Maybe DWW was right?You know, now that I’ve seen some of the abominations on the AE Instagram, I might be coming round to this view. It may be a good defensive principle, meant to guard against new enthusiasts’ excesses—comparable to a lower speed limit for new drivers only, say.
its easy to be a critic but I think I hate the “cool guy” most of all because of his pocket square, which I can’t see ever incorporating into an outfit with sneakersOn sneakers with tailoring, I think some people are cool enough to do it, and they have the tailoring and shoes that work in combination. Some people are super square and don't have these things, which results in two strikes. Don't know if it would work even if they had the right pieces. Some people just don't look good in anything except the most conservative of dress. The gap between their personality and the clothes makes them look even squarer.
This looks good to me
View attachment 1675134
Both of these are painful. The people wearing them, the setting, the occasion, etc.
View attachment 1675133 View attachment 1675135
Go cry in the Gender Studies department.I believe I should alologise for my ill-chosen language earlier in terming some (unnamed) people on this thread, 'idiots.' I recognise now that this was inaccurate and, furthermore, did reflect not my real feelings.
The word I was looking for was 'wankers.'
He said 99%. That's far closer to 'all' than it is to 'most'. And it's how everyone understands it.Twice in the post you quoted, he said "most" things posted here wouldn't please women, or anyone else. Why would you say he thinks "nothing" would?
I can never tell if you're being purposefully dense or if you genuinely don't understand.He said 99%. That's far closer to 'all' than it is to 'most'. And it's how everyone understands it.
But sure, if he wants to post some pictures from here of things that 'women' find pleasing, along with some explanations, that would be great. Otherwise, it's just another example of what seems to be a particular crusade of his to point out how poorly it is that many (most? 99% of?) men on this board dress (in, of course, his opinion).
I have no doubt you're right, that you have no idea what women want to see on men. After all, you also said this upthread:I have no idea what women want to see on men, but I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with the stuff enthusiasts talk about. I said that men on here dress for other men; just as many women dress for other women.
If cute and youthful as attractive female traits are bizarre to you, then I'm just not sure you have a great grasp on how the majority of the world works. And, that aligns with how you also don't seem to have a great grasp of how and why others wear CM in the way they do, from beginners to experts. Your viewpoints, while expansive in scope, often seem shallowly informed. (But none the less strident for it.)Have no idea how to respond. I don't think of femininity as being cute, childlike, or little boyish. That seems bizarre.
I feel like you keep talking about the intrinsic quality of a shoe whereas I'm talking about the extrinsic quality. Yes, Allen Edmonds still produces some tasteful, well-made shoes. I wish men wouldn't wear them in incoherent ways.Anyway, @dieworkwear, I agree that Allen Edmonds has a lousy marketing team on their IG. Given I have no access to whether AE was doing good or bad - their revenue is 162 million, which isn't that big - I can't tell you whether it is effective or not.
I will note that lower-end mens wear is moving drastically towards more casual styles.
I mean, look what comes up with Florsheim under "dress":
Men’s Dress Shoes | Wingtip Shoes, Oxfords & More | Florsheim
Same with Cole Haan:
Men's Dress Shoes | Cole Haan
Shop Men's Classics | Rockport
Wolf and Sheppherd:
SHOP ALL | Feel the difference | WOLF & SHEPHERD – Wolf & Shepherd (wolfandshepherd.com)
Johnston and Murphy:
Men's Lace-Up & Oxford Shoes | Johnston & Murphy | Johnston & Murphy (johnstonmurphy.com)
So, the casualization of companies that once catered towards men's dress shoes - some of which used to be very respectable brands, like Florsheim and J&M - is pronounced across the entire lower-tier.
Not Allen Edmonds is considered a better maker than these brands at this point. Most AEs are made with full grain calf skin, they're goodyear welted, they have leather insoles with cork filler, etc. Alongside some of the new competitors in that market space re: direct to consumer stuff, like Meermin, AE is considered an acceptable rung on the ladder of legitimate quality.
Nevertheless, they feel pressure from below, especially as men seem to be buying these shoes frequently. Sadly, I've seen far more dress sneakers than dress shoes on men's feet in NYC this summer. Most of my colleagues at the university, moreover, decidedly wear Rockports in older, more traditional styles. I am possibly the only man I've met in this town, besides @audog, that has leather soled shoes right now.
So you see AE going after that market with louder coloured shoes, dress sneakers, etc, in their marketing. Their marketing is definitely trying to capture the millennial and Gen-Z audience, which do seem to prefer that kind of shoe look - though I've seen old men, stupidly, go for it, too.
This doesn't mean that AE doesn't keep producing dress models, or that those are crap.
I really hope your job doesn't require you to have high reading comprehension. I said that I don't think of femininity as being cute and childlike. I recognize that some do. But when I think of femininity, I don't think of Chung Lee jumping up and down and going "tee hee."I have no doubt you're right, that you have no idea what women want to see on men. After all, you also said this upthread:
If cute and youthful as attractive female traits are bizarre to you, then I'm just not sure you have a great grasp on how the majority of the world works. And, that aligns with how you also don't seem to have a great grasp of how and why others wear CM in the way they do, from beginners to experts. Your viewpoints, while expansive in scope, often seem shallowly informed. (But none the less strident for it.)