Sneakers With Tailoring: Yes, No, Maybe?

[mak1277]

Also, I'm always trying to force myself to wear my AE Walnut strands.

Good excuse to get a dove grey suit?

 

[Duke Santos]

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.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

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.

I see this a lot with TV announcers and I simply looks ridiculous. Very oldmanish.

 

[TheChihuahua]

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.

In fairness, I didn’t know of those abominations either! Maybe DWW was right?

nah, there is still no rule against a pair of oxfords being worn without a suit and tie.

 

[dieworkwear]

On 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

Both of these are painful. The people wearing them, the setting, the occasion, etc.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

^ do you have something against Abraham Lincoln?

 

[Waldo Jeffers]

On 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

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 sneakers

 

[JFWR]

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.'

Thank-you.

Go cry in the Gender Studies department.

 

[acapaca]

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?

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).

 

[dieworkwear]

The other thing is that Gutfeld is wearing $600 Lanvin sneakers. The idea of him shopping for designer sneakers at Neiman Marcus -- or perhaps his assistant -- makes the whole thing so corny.

Would be the same for Scott Pelley or those sports anchors.

But many of the other examples posted in this thread work. I also think the combo works on Patrick Johnson. When you meet him, he just comes off as a cool guy. There's something about his clothes, attitude, persona, etc. If you put his exact outfit on me, it wouldn't look right or have the same effect because I'm simply not that kind of guy. (I would probably lose the sweater here, but whatever).

 

[dieworkwear]

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 can never tell if you're being purposefully dense or if you genuinely don't understand.

This board is for enthusiasts. The outfits posted here are inspired by 1950s tailoring, shoe Instagram accounts, goth ninjas, and apocalyptic hobo space cowboys. You have people wearing fusty tweeds with split-toe loafers, Kapital ring coats with persimmon dyed boots, and jeans they purposefully haven't washed for six months.

You think women are going "oh yea, don't wash those jeans baby! get those sick fades!! and yea, you too! make sure you have that pie crust apron on your MTO red Norwegian split toes with a fiddleback waist. Handwelted baby!!!"

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.

Still utterly floored that you can ask me why can't men wear blue suede shoes with navy worsted suits. It makes me wonder if you wear suits at all or if this is all academic for you. Who walks out the door in a navy suit and wears blue suede shoes without thinking, "hm, maybe this isn't right." Where are you wearing these suits? To a menswear meet-up? To a shoe trunk show?

 

[JFWR]

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

Rockport:

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.

Now 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.

 

[acapaca]

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.

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:

Have no idea how to respond. I don't think of femininity as being cute, childlike, or little boyish. That seems bizarre.

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.)

 

[FlyingHorker]

I always enjoyed posting this a decade ago in these situations, still do.

 

[dieworkwear]

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

Rockport:

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 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.

I feel like this disconnect happens often on the shoe threads. People keep talking about the intrinsic quality of a shoe. How well it's made, whether the design is tasteful, whether it's produced in the US or UK, etc. But you can also have a tasteful shoe that's worn poorly. I'm talking about how many people here only focus on the intrinsic quality of a shoe.

To give examples. I'm into fountain pens and sometimes participate in fountain pen communities. There are some people who are super into fountain pens and get really excited about different filling systems, nibs, barrel materials, methods of manufacturer, etc. But they don't write very well because ... they're not actually into penmanship. They are just into fountain pens -- the buying and collecting thereof.

IMO, if you're into fountain pens, you should practice writing because the point of having fountain pens is presumably the experience of writing and the improvement of penmanship. The fountain pen should relate to something larger than itself. This is not always the case for people who are into fountain pens -- they think just about the object and the object then creates an online collecting community. IMO, the same has happened with watches, fragrances, and shoes.

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.)

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."

Whether someone finds this quality attractive in women is separate from how we define feminity as a concept. I like women who have traveled the world; traveling is not a necessary quality of femininity.