Sneakers With Tailoring: Yes, No, Maybe?

[ValidusLA]

More recent hits

If this next picture doesn't make you just want to give up hope, what does:

 

[JFWR]

More recent hits
View attachment 1674764
View attachment 1674765
View attachment 1674766
View attachment 1674767

If this next picture doesn't make you just want to give up hope, what does:
View attachment 1674768

You ain't gonna have me defend the styles of AE I don't like.

That being said, I like my dark blue suede shoes just fine. I don't see why blue suede can't work with casual stuff, especially given that "blue suede shoes" are a part of Americana by way of Elvis.

Those yellow shoes are friggin' grossly coloured.

 

[dieworkwear]

Okay, I understand that you hate the marketing of AE with the light colours and ****, but I don't see how AE isn't still producing everything you like to this day.

What's wrong with an AE in a nicer colour? Black, brown, oxblood, etc?

I don't like tan (in the sense of walnut) shoes, either. I own one pair of tan boots that I recoloured because I hated the colour after wearing them twice.

What's wrong with:

Or:

Or:

There is nothing wrong with those specific shoes. I have been painted on this board as a cosplayer, a rigid rule maker, and whatever else. Or that I'm adamant about suits-with-oxfords, despite me making caveats MANY TIMES. I have only argued about this incessantly for years becasue

1) This forum is now mostly a shoe forum
2) When you actually go into those shoe threads, you don't not always see the kind of tasteful shoes you linked above. No, instead, you see blue and purple and red and green hippo suede shoes. Or bi-color, bi-material shoes like woven leather on boots and eagle leather with sharkskin. And all types of tasteless designs. These shoes are then worn in incoherent ways.

If only people dressed more like Yasuto and Bruce, I would not have ranted about this for years.

This latest episode started with someone asking if they can wear charcoal Lands End chinos with AE oxfords. I said no, and people asked me to give reasons. I can either decline to give reasons or I can give reasons. I gave reasons and said it has no history in classic men's dress, which then devolved into a long argument.

3) What we see now is not even classic menswear. It's not even outfits. It's just online shoe culture that's promoted through blogs, forums, Instagram, and people egging each other on to buy more and more and more (all this through a system of getting "likes"). And talking about the intrinsic qualities of the shoe -- the construction, place of manufacture, or the supposed "classicness" of the design -- without talking about how that shoe relates to their wardrobe.

If people were buying the shoes you linked above, and they wore them in coherent ways, even if that included sport coats, I would be totally fine. That would be basically AAAC circa 2005 to 2010. But this is not the CM world we live in now. I've been vocal about this because CM has turned into a shoe forum with little connection to actual classic men's dress -- it's just insanely garish, nonsensical make-ups worn in incoherent ways.

 

[JFWR]

There is nothing wrong with those specific shoes. I have been painted on this board as a cosplayer, a rigid rule maker, and whatever else. Or that I'm adamant about suits-with-oxfords, despite me making caveats MANY TIMES. I have only argued about this incessantly for years becasue

1) This forum is now mostly a shoe forum
2) When you actually go into those shoe threads, you don't not always see the kind of tasteful shoes you linked above. No, instead, you see blue and purple and red and green hippo suede shoes. Or bi-color, bi-material shoes like woven leather on boots and eagle leather with sharkskin. And all types of tasteless designs. These shoes are then worn in incoherent ways.

If only people dressed more like Yasuto and Bruce, I would not have ranted about this for years.

This latest episode started with someone asking if they can wear charcoal Lands End chinos with AE oxfords. I said no, and people asked me to give reasons. I can either decline to give reasons or I can give reasons. I gave reasons and said it has no history in classic men's dress, which then devolved into a long argument.

3) What we see now is not even classic menswear. It's not even outfits. It's just online shoe culture that's promoted through blogs, forums, Instagram, and people egging each other on to buy more and more and more (all this through a system of getting "likes"). And talking about the intrinsic qualities of the shoe -- the construction, place of manufacture, or the supposed "classicness" of the design -- without talking about how that shoe relates to their wardrobe.

If people were buying the shoes you linked above, and they wore them in coherent ways, even if that included sport coats, I would be totally fine. That would be basically AAAC circa 2005 to 2010. But this is not the CM world we live in now. I've been vocal about this because CM has turned into a shoe forum with little connection to actual classic men's dress -- it's just insanely garish, nonsensical make-ups worn in incoherent ways.

Okay. Fair enough, dude. I think that's a balanced view.

I agree with you: some shoes are ridiculous. I disagree with you on certain things, like whether my strands in green shell count as ridiculous, but I grant you this.

Of the shoes I own, most of them are in black, brown, or oxblood. I have one pair of spectators in a light brown and white, one in blue and white, one navy blue shell chukka (nearly black), and one green pair. The rest of my collection - about 30 some shoes - are all in traditional colours.

 

[JohnMRobie]

I mean, I personally think AE still makes great looking shoes. I like their American style. Admittedly, I really do like the Duncan's spade sole and their Fifth Avenue there is really nice, too.

I personally prefer American and English style shoes as they are more conservative and timeless than say, French or Italian brands. I am not a big fan of the super fashion-forward shoes. I know C&J and EG have lasts that are more like that, with soft squares and stuff, but I generally like the nice, traditional type lasts, which I think AE still does well.

I suppose maybe we have different definitions of classic but these, from 1911 seem like they’d work pretty well now as well. You might not like soft squares or chiseled lasts but that doesn’t make them “super fashion-forward”

Allen Edmonds in normal colors are fine for what they are, I suppose. A $200-300 entry level dress shoe on most days that end in that are nothing special at all or exciting with average-ish quality.

 

[yorkshire pud]

There is nothing wrong with those specific shoes. I have been painted on this board as a cosplayer, a rigid rule maker, and whatever else. Or that I'm adamant about suits-with-oxfords, despite me making caveats MANY TIMES. I have only argued about this incessantly for years becasue

1) This forum is now mostly a shoe forum
2) When you actually go into those shoe threads, you don't not always see the kind of tasteful shoes you linked above. No, instead, you see blue and purple and red and green hippo suede shoes. Or bi-color, bi-material shoes like woven leather on boots and eagle leather with sharkskin. And all types of tasteless designs. These shoes are then worn in incoherent ways.

If only people dressed more like Yasuto and Bruce, I would not have ranted about this for years.

This latest episode started with someone asking if they can wear charcoal Lands End chinos with AE oxfords. I said no, and people asked me to give reasons. I can either decline to give reasons or I can give reasons. I gave reasons and said it has no history in classic men's dress, which then devolved into a long argument.

3) What we see now is not even classic menswear. It's not even outfits. It's just online shoe culture that's promoted through blogs, forums, Instagram, and people egging each other on to buy more and more and more (all this through a system of getting "likes"). And talking about the intrinsic qualities of the shoe -- the construction, place of manufacture, or the supposed "classicness" of the design -- without talking about how that shoe relates to their wardrobe.

If people were buying the shoes you linked above, and they wore them in coherent ways, even if that included sport coats, I would be totally fine. That would be basically AAAC circa 2005 to 2010. But this is not the CM world we live in now. I've been vocal about this because CM has turned into a shoe forum with little connection to actual classic men's dress -- it's just insanely garish, nonsensical make-ups worn in incoherent ways.

I wouldn't call those Leopardskin Nightmares you posted earlier as "Classics" exactly, would you??

 

[dieworkwear]

Check out the difference in online marketing. Here's Alden's IG page. Since they're a shoe company, you can expect that nearly all the photos will show shoes standalone objects. I generally don't like this type of presentation, but it's understandable for shoe companies. Still, the combinations presented are very tasteful.

Here's a photo of Floyd, a long-time Alden employee who sadly passed away last year. He was with the company for decades. His outfit is very tasteful: blue blazer, grey trousers, striped shirt, and a foulard tie. He's wearing saddle shoes, and while that would not be my choice, it still makes sense for this outfit. It's a classic American look.

Alden doesn't show the full outfit here, but they've paired tan suede chukkas with a brown pair of trousers. We don't know the full outfit, but you can wear this with a cream-colored fall/winter sport coat and a light blue OCBD. Or with a cream-colored sweater. Both would look nice with these shoes.

Alden's IG also shows us this pairing: raw denim jeans with shell cordovan boots. Makes sense! A workwear shoe with a workwear pant. The shoes are in a tasteful dark brown color.





I don't know if there's any relationship between Alden's marketing and how their customers wear their shoes, but you often also see very tasteful combos from Alden's customers. Here's someone wearing five-pocket cords with a rugby, a waxed Barbour, and Alden's boots. The combo makes sense and has a long history in classic men's style.





Here's someone wearing a tan suit with what look to be dark brown buckle shoes. The combination is unimpeachable. The tailoring is beautiful. Everything is well done.




This guy is wearing a baseball cap with jeans and sockless tassel loafers. Would I wear this specific combo? No, but it makes sense for his age and what I presume of his personality. Again, tasteful. And I'm glad to see younger people get into classic men's dress in a way that feels comfortable for them without losing the spirit of the clothes.





This is such a beautiful outfit. Raglan coat, tweed sport coat, white OCBD, black knit tie, and black loafers. Everything is great.





Now compare that to Allen Edmonds' marketing. I don't want to fill the page with too many examples since many have already been posted. But check out the video above. Someone might say this was a fun, tongue-in-cheek holiday campaign, but the totality of their IG page suggests otherwise. There are many blue suede shoes and weird makes. Many photos of men wearing chinos with oxfords. Tons of "business casual" outfits with no jacket, but just the dressiest shoes possible.

I also don't want to pull photos from their tagged section because that involves real people, and pointing out bad outfits in this way seems mean and unnecessary. And it's not about Allen Edmonds, but something that you commonly see across the board now -- a disconnect between shoe choice and outfits, a lack of taste, and wild pairings that don't make sense. You can go down the line with many shoe companies nowadays.

 

[acapaca]

Women don't necessarily dress to please men any more than men on this board dress to please women (if they did, I assure you they should not wear 99% of what's posted on this board).

I'm still waiting to hear what kind of dress it is that pleases this monolithic group called 'women', and I'm also dying to know who the one-percenters are here who have figured it out.

Or was that just another bold blanket statement based on flimsy hyperbole?

 

[dieworkwear]

I'm still waiting to hear what kind of dress it is that pleases this monolithic group called 'women', and I'm also dying to know who the one-percenters are here who have figured it out.

Or was that just another bold blanket statement based on flimsy hyperbole?

Don't think I ever said that I know what outfits please women. I said that women don't always dress to please men, just as men don't always dress to please women. I also said that, as proof, many of the outfits posted here would not be approved by women -- the tweeds that probably read as "fusty," the green and purple hatchgrain hippo shoes, and the SWD looks that don't even find favor on this side of the board.

I also don't think this is specific to women. Most people, regardless of their gender, would probably not like most of the things posted on this board because this is an enthusiast board aimed at a very specific section of people.

 

[emptym]

@dieworkwear, that's really interesting about AE. It make sense to me though, that their marketing and customers would be less refined than Alden's. I've long thought most of their models are slightly less refined than Alden equivalents. For example, I prefer Alden's captoe oxfords for their 5 lace holes vs AE's 6, the facings on the Alden ptb are more shapely than those of AE's version. Alden's lasts are nicer too.

That said, I was wearing a pair of AEs today, their Patriot penny loafers in brown calf. Great shoes. I do prefer how their vamps are a bit higher than Alden's LHS, but I prefer Alden's more asymmetrical, foot-shaped last. I think it was someone in the Vass thread who wrote recently that Alden and Vass have the most comfortable lasts, perhaps their long history of producing orthopedic shoes has given them a better understanding of feet than most makers.

Absolutely. But maybe it’s time to give up the Oxfords-with-suits-only thing, unless you want to make it into what British people refer to as “a bit”. I say this as someone who agrees with the vast majority of what you post, and who is grateful for your usual patience and openness and willingness to share your knowledge.

I disagree. It's a helpful general principle. It's not a universal, necessary law, but DWW has never presented it that way. He's presented it as a traditional rule, one which may admit exceptions. I agree with that and think it'd be helpful for younger guys to know and follow -- again, not blindly, not always and everywhere, but as something to keep in mind.

...That being said, I like my dark blue suede shoes just fine. I don't see why blue suede can't work with casual stuff, especially given that "blue suede shoes" are a part of Americana by way of Elvis...

I don't think that because Elvis sang a song about blue suede shoes that means any type of blue suede shoes can be worn any which way. I've had blue suede sneakers for decades. They go great with chinos, jeans, and... shorts.

 

[clee1982]

@dieworkwear
saddle shoes on the first one sounds kind bad to me...

with regard to shoes pairing, the example you show are more "obvious" for lack of better word

my shoes are like 75% oxford (including lazyman), 10% boot (including chukka/chelsea), then reminder being blucher and very few loafer (can't get good fit out of rtw). they're like 90% dark brown/burgundy/black (except some light color suede chelea)

I wear suit (pre covid) monday to thursday, thursday is sport coat, so I kind just wear oxford most of the time, other than strict formality and color aside there are very few times I can think of where I would go, hum adelaide really was better than that austerity brogue or the plain cap toe definitely was better than the one with medallion toe. They were all somewhat quite interchangeable (all smooth calf, all non patina, all non museum, and conservative dark color) unless it was super formal etc.

 

[yorkshire pud]

I'm still waiting to hear what kind of dress it is that pleases this monolithic group called 'women', and I'm also dying to know who the one-percenters are here who have figured it out.

Or was that just another bold blanket statement based on flimsy hyperbole?

They like a man in Uniform, Classic Menswear is mostly derived from Military Uniform items ?

 

[acapaca]

Don't think I ever said that I know what outfits please women. I said that women don't always dress to please men, just as men don't always dress to please women. I also said that, as proof, many of the outfits posted here would not be approved by women -- the tweeds that probably read as "fusty," the green and purple hatchgrain hippo shoes, and the SWD looks that don't even find favor on this side of the board.

I also don't think this is specific to women. Most people, regardless of their gender, would probably not like most of the things posted on this board because this is an enthusiast board aimed at a very specific section of people.

So...you don't know what pleases women, but you know that nothing on this board is it.

That's just profound. Maybe write a blog post about it. You'd think it's a topic that would be of interest to many of your readers.

 

[H. E. Pennypacker]

@dieworkwear, that's really interesting about AE. It make sense to me though, that their marketing and customers would be less refined than Alden's.

that’s not always the equation. I spend enough time in Alden’s thread to know there are more than a handful of people who aren’t necessarily refined in how they dress themselves. Also, there’s quite a few people in AE’s thread that dress better than a good amount of men in the Alden thread. I’ve actually come to the realization that’s the opposite of what @dieworkwear said of Alden. Alden’s strongest and loyalist enthusiasts are shoe aficionados and that’s it. They don’t care about the topics we are discussing here, in fact, I haven’t seen any of the regulars of Alden’s thread ever comment on these threads. Also, I’m referring to the Alden aficionados that have a large rotation of Aldens than a large rotation diverse rotation of shoemakers.

 

[dieworkwear]

I just scrolled through the IG tagged sections for both AE and Alden, and I'm struck by the difference in demographics. Allen Edmonds' customers seem to be mostly based in the US (assuming that their IG fans are representative). Whereas, Alden's fans are mostly based in South Korea and Japan.

It's weird to me that South Korean and Japanese men execute classic American style better than actual Americans (I realize this is the subject of David Marx's book, Amatora, but it still is very striking when you scroll through these tags).

These outfits are so tasteful and well done.





A brown suit with a pair of Alden's plain toe derbies. The color of the shoes contrasts enough with the pant, but also looks harmonious. Very well done. Also how amazing it is to see someone choose plain toe derbies instead of adding more and more details nowadays, like floating medallions, Norwegian welts, fiddleback waists, etc.




Another excellent combination: blue sport coat, grey trousers, light blue shirt, brown foulard tie, dark socks, and Alden's penny loafers. This guy's whole Instagram is very good and he does the "Amatora looks" very well.





Look at this guy. He dressed down his sport coat with Resolute's white denim jeans. And then he sensibly choose a semi-casual shirt and semi-casual shoes (Alden's suede chukkas). I don't know if he did this intentionally, but there's also a nice balance between the tan in his shoes and the tan in his sport coat. The shoes are classic and casual. A very harmonious outfit.





I like how this is simple, but sensible. Many guys don't find themselves in positions where they can easily wear a suit or sport coat nowadays. I think it's always better to at least wear some kind of casual jacket, but if you can't do that because of the weather, this is also fine. It's also the outfit that you'd find on AE's page, but a more classic version: tan chinos, sporty blue shirt, and classic brown derbies. This guy's IG is also very good.




This outfit is a little more fashion-forward: black corduory suit with black loafers. But it shows how far you can stretch modern while still being tasteful and classic. Like the other accounts mentioned above, this guy's IG is very good. He's based in Oslo.

These outfits span nearly every point on the formality spectrum. There's casual (chinos and a button-up shirt) to semi-formal (brown suit). It also spans the very classic (blue sport coat) to modern-classic (black corduroy suit). But you can see how the shoe choices are sensible in terms of formality, color, and material. The shoes work with the entire outfit. I don't understand why you would force dressy shoes into a casual outfit, or why you would choose unusual colors or material when such tasteful, elegant outcomes are possible with more classic choices.