Sneakers With Tailoring: Yes, No, Maybe?

[Hellbent]

I’m with Derek on this. All the stuff he posted looks good. Everything from AE and the likes look bad.
Dress shoes with jeans? Not CM. It can be done with a sort of rock star artist poet swagger look, but not in business/smart casual sense. I mean there are exceptions when it sort of could work, but I don’t think it should be an option people generally should consider.

 

[Northants bloke]

Cheaney's opinions.
DWW opinions.

Whatever- I'll happily read both but some 'golden age' source of inspiration from olden days America is meaningless. I prefer modern examples.

I buy my Cheaneys (lots) and a few Loakes fromntheir factory outlets but I don't like everything they sell. Personal tastes.

 

[mak1277]

​

Whatever- I'll happily read both but some 'golden age' source of inspiration from olden days America is meaningless. I prefer modern examples.

So you’re not into CM. That’s fine.

But don’t expect the CM board to agree with the things you like. It’s like going into a vegan message board and getting mad that they don’t like cheeseburgers.

 

[Mercurio]

I can't believe this has to be said.

You're going to base what is in good taste based off the expressed opinions, that merge with current trend, of people with commercial interests in those products?

This is like when robot Zuckerberg goes on camera and says FB isn't doing anything mischievous with your data.

I do not base what is good taste based on others' opinions as I prefer to have my own, based on my formation and experience related to my culture and environment that it's probably quite different from yours.

 

[ValidusLA]

I do not base what is good taste based on others' opinions as I prefer to have my own, based on my formation and experience related to my culture and environment that it's probably quite different from yours.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

You clearly thought their opinion was worth something, or you wouldn't have posted. You quoted them, in bold, in blown up text...so....clearly you thought that sourcing them was lending some weight to your argument.

 

[Northants bloke]

​

So you’re not into CM. That’s fine.

But don’t expect the CM board to agree with the things you like. It’s like going into a vegan message board and getting mad that they don’t like cheeseburgers.

Your definitions are based on your experience.

I wouldn't bring up chinos in an MTM. This thread and the chinos/oxfords threads were intrinsically about when and how to mix. It was a pity their basis was undermined when a slightly broader perspective would have been more interesting.

As an SF member who likes my sports jackets, oxford shirts and Northampton footwear, I'm hardly an alien.

 

[acapaca]

This aesthetic has no relationship to the photos of Yukio, Boyer, Roetzel, or "Golden Age CM." It's just 1990s business casual.

Yes, and that's why -- no matter how many times you keep going to back it -- it has absolutely zero to do with the notion that good taste prevents someone from wearing oxfords with anything but a suit.

The only relevance of this dead horse you keep beating is to establish that the aesthetic you keep turning back to is not only bad but is bad in innumerable ways. Yes, we can all see that. Congratulations, you have identified the obvious.

 

[dieworkwear]

Yes, and that's why -- no matter how many times you keep going to back it -- it has absolutely zero to do with the notion that good taste prevents someone from wearing oxfords with anything but a suit.

The only relevance of this dead horse you keep beating is to establish that the aesthetic you keep turning back to is not only bad but is bad in innumerable ways. Yes, we can all see that. Congratulations, you have identified the obvious.

Finally, I'm glad we agree that CM should involve a tailored jacket, and that green and purple and blue oxfords are bad.

 

[JFWR]

I don't think people should consider just their trousers when choosing shoes. I think this idea has come up because people only see these outfits from the ankle down on Instagram. So they just think of shoe + sock + trousers.

Instead, I think people should think about the totality of their outfit and how everything relates. Instead of wearing dark suits, wear lighter-colored suits. The outfit on the right is bad; the outfit on the left is good.

View attachment 1676234


There are a few reasons

The focus of a tailored outfit is typically the v-shaped section just under your chin, which is formed by your shirt, jacket, and tie. When you wear lighter-colored shoes with a dark-colored suit, the shoes stick out like a beacon and draw the eyes downward. They are not harmonious. They are distracting.

View attachment 1676239

Here's another example of a pair of tan shoes worn well. You can imagine this as a mid-grey suit with mid-brown shoes, but both items are lightened a few shades. Even if the shoes are warm-colored and bright, everything looks harmonious. Would not be so if they were worn with a mid-grey suit.


View attachment 1676240

The same principle applies to sport coats. Dan Roan is on the left here in a navy sport coat, dark grey trousers, and tan shoes. Lance Armstrong is on the right in a similar outfit, but instead of tan shoes, he sensibly chooses dark brown.

Roan's outfit has two focal points competing for attention: his face and the shoes. The shoes are distracting, but many guys wear outfits like this because they like looking at their own feet and think the presence of cool shoes means they're stylish. They do not see the entirety of their outfit from a third person's point of view (or they do rarely, only when they're looking in the mirror). So they don't appreciate the discordance.

Armstrong's outfit, on the other hand, supports him. Your eyes are drawn upwards towards his face and rest there. You are not distracting by his shoes. The same principle applies to wearing an elegant pocket square, instead of an exploding bright red satin one. You don't want jarring things in your outfit because jarring is tacky.

View attachment 1676243 View attachment 1676244


Here are some other good examples of tan shoes being worn well. Even if the trousers are dark, the eye is still pulled upwards by the presence of a lighter-colored coat. Using Alan Flusser's terms, the v-shaped section of the outfit is now again the "cynosure" (only time I've seen that word anywhere, but I like it).


View attachment 1676245



Much like the example above with the pearl grey suit and tan shoes, you can wear lighter-colored jackets with even lighter-colored pants and tan shoes. Here, again, the shoes are not distracting. They are darker than the trousers (which feels comfortable to the eye) and they follow a basic formula for CM -- just lightened up a few shades. The above is basically a green sport coat with tan trousers and mid-brown shoes, but the color intensity, saturation, and warmth are all similar, so there's harmony.

View attachment 1676246 View attachment 1676250


This is not even CM to me. It's just business casual. The outfits are bad, especially the guy on the left who has made the outfit worse with tacky socks. IMO, the outfits would not be improved by handwelting, hand-stitching, or full-grain leather. The aesthetic is just business casual. The lack of a jacket, discordance in formality, reliance on tan shoes, etc etc etc. Can substitute blue or grey or purple shoes and it would be the same thing. This aesthetic has no relationship to the photos of Yukio, Boyer, Roetzel, or "Golden Age CM." It's just 1990s business casual.

So I dislike the above for all sorts of reasons: they draw the eye downward when not worn well, they're associated with a bad period of dress, and they're incongruent/ inharmonious.

So, to summarize, light jackets with light shoes?

Also: did you mean the outfit on the right? As the outfit on the left is a dark navy suit with tan shoes.

 

[Mercurio]

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

You clearly thought their opinion was worth something, or you wouldn't have posted. You quoted them, in bold, in blown up text...so....clearly you thought that sourcing them was lending some weight to your argument.

I simply meant that I have my own opinion on what you call “good taste”, is it difficult to understand?

On the other hand, which was my argument? In the case of one, is that the world isn't just black and white: you are with us or against us. No, there are nuances, different ways of thinking, many approaches, not just one. You can have your own without having to follow what others view as “correct”.

 

[ValidusLA]

I simply meant that I have my own opinion on what you call “good taste”, is it difficult to understand?

On the other hand, which was my argument? In the case of one, is that the world isn't just black and white: you are with us or against us. No, there are nuances, different ways of thinking, many approaches, not just one. You can have your own without having to follow what others view as “correct”.

Just a snarky way of saying it. Could have stated it that way in the first place.

Still. It is at odds to post giant quotes from Cheaney's blog and then say you don't care about other people's opinions. Those stances are at odds.

 

[acapaca]

​

So you’re not into CM. That’s fine.

But don’t expect the CM board to agree with the things you like. It’s like going into a vegan message board and getting mad that they don’t like cheeseburgers.

Well, but this gets back to the broad question of whether CM as a language can evolve as literal languages do -- and more to the point, perhaps, whether it amounts to anything more than cosplay for those who think it can't or doesn't or shouldn't.

What is being argued by some, the way I understand it, is that there are universal principles that do not, and perhaps cannot, evolve within the context of CM. I claim that if this is true, those principles are still open to interpretation. (If it's not true, then I think it's clear that it is indeed cosplay.) I also believe that the principles are more broad, at least in their application, than what it is being acknowledged or claimed here.

For example, one broad principle might be that tasteful dress exhibits harmony. I think we'd all agree with that. But harmony is about more than just fabrics and colors, and it's also about more than just the ways in which items were worn in the past. Harmony includes social settings and situational context as well. Would anyone argue against that either?

If tastemakers all around you are shifting the margins of what is and is not acceptable, you may find yourself out of sync if you don't shift along with them. The result may that you lose harmony, even when you don't change a thing.

 

[acapaca]

Finally, I'm glad we agree that CM should involve a tailored jacket, and that green and purple and blue oxfords are bad.

Is this CM? That's the outfit I was talking about without a sportcoat. Maybe I don't know, or recall, what else you mean.

 

[Mercurio]

Just a snarky way of saying it. Could have stated it that way in the first place.

Still. It is at odds to post giant quotes from Cheaney's blog and then say you don't care about other people's opinions. Those stances are at odds.

My intention wasn't to be "snarky", sorry about that: English is not my mother tongue, I try my best to communicate my thoughts with it.

The giant quotes were due to a simple "cut and paste" from Cheaney's blog without further formatting, except what I was pointing out: a different view from what has being expressed along this thread.

 

[dieworkwear]

Is this CM? That's the outfit I was talking about without a sportcoat. Maybe I don't know, or recall, what else you mean.

View attachment 1676260

I think Simon would look better in a pair of more casual shoes, but I would consider that a good outfit. I also don't think that has any relationship to the point I'm trying to make.

I think you've taken a particularly hard stance on this because I'm criticizing shoes you've purchased, so it has become personal. We seem to both agree that the outfit above is good. How do you suggest your blue Adalaides can be worn in a similarly good way?