Sneakers With Tailoring: Yes, No, Maybe?

[JFWR]

I don't view navy adelaides as impossible to wear. I had several reasons for buying them, but filling a hole in my wardrobe was not one of them. I had and have no need for those as part of an outfit, no. But to go from there to criticizing someone for owning them would, in my opinion, take it too far.

But yes, your point is taken that it illustrates a divide. I, like many others who come to this forum, I am sure, can buy a piece of clothing just because I want to own it and not feel bad about it. I can also feel some pleasure, even if only a small amount, in supporting artisans or brands that I admire. I imagine there is a range of motivations among the members of this board, and that 'figure out how not to look like a newb' is not the only one.

Not only that, but I honestly think you can pull off those navy adelaides just fine in the right context.

I have read that navy shoes were often paired with navy suits previously. I don't see why you can't go "all in" on a navy. They also seem like they would be exactly the type of "fancier" shoes that would suit a men's wear outfit for evening entertainment and fun.

Sometimes we buy shoes for fun occassions, not just for work.

 

[dieworkwear]

Not only that, but I honestly think you can pull off those navy adelaides just fine in the right context.

I have read that navy shoes were often paired with navy suits previously. I don't see why you can't go "all in" on a navy. They also seem like they would be exactly the type of "fancier" shoes that would suit a men's wear outfit for evening entertainment and fun.

Sometimes we buy shoes for fun occassions, not just for work.

How do you feel navy shoes (any style, excluding sneakers and boat shoes) can be worn in a way that fits with classic men's style?

And when were navy suits worn with navy shoes?

 

[JFWR]

How do you feel navy shoes (any style, excluding sneakers and boat shoes) can be worn in a way that fits with classic men's style?

And when were navy suits worn with navy shoes?

https://bespokeunit.com/shoes/trouser-coordination/navy-blue-shoes/ - Bespoke unit does not give a citation for their assertion however, we find that navy shoes were frequently featured in the 1940s here:

1940s Shoes for Men: History and Buying Guide

Learn the history of 1940s men's shoes and buy new 1940s shoes for men such as oxfords, wingtips, saddle shoes, slip-ons, loafers, boots and sandals.

vintagedancer.com

As for how I could imagine navy shoes working -

Provided we are talking about a dark navy, given that navy traditionally can stand in for black, why can't these shoes be worn in any circumstance where black would be called for, at least as far as calf and cordovan are concerned (in other words: excluding patent)?

Or perhaps more qualifiedly: if you think that navy doesn't pair with black (which I have never understood aesthetically), then perhaps we can say: a very dark navy can be worn with any outfit that would have called for black shoes except for black. I myself disagree with this view (see below), but I am willing to entertain the argument, and say if you can wear black, you can wear a suitably dark navy.

Isn't the effect of navy usually to be darker than black in nighttime settings, thus the dark navy tuxedo being acceptable?

Example: Here are my pair of navy shell cordovan chukkas.

Would these be unacceptable in any circumstance that a pair of black chukkas would be?

I mean, perhaps you'd dislike they have a brown sole edge on them, but suppose they had instead been black on the edges. What would distinguish this from a black leather chukka to the point it would be unacceptable to wear these?

 

[物の哀れ]

It’s telling that the guide only considers combinations of shoes and trousers and not the entire outfit.

 

[JFWR]

It’s telling that the guide only considers combinations of shoes and trousers and not the entire outfit.

Telling of what, precisely?

"It is telling the book didn't tell me how to build a hosue when it was telling me how to build a bathroom"?

 

[emptym]

is 'timed out' basically a mod ban?

Yeah, it's a temporary ban. Several of his posts were reported by like several different members (for "stalking, trolling, gaslighting, bullying, general stupidity," etc.) and a mod warned him to stop, but he kept going and even took it to other threads. As Fok has said many times, the forum is like a bar. We're tolerant of a lot of behavior, but when a significant group of patrons wants someone out, and the owner and bouncers agree, they're out. Sometimes temporarily, sometimes for good.

I agree with the notion that there are no rules. There are cultural and regional norms...

I think your disagreement is mainly just semantics. What you call "rules" others call "laws" and what you call "norms" others call "rules." I don't think anyone's arguing for rules in the sense that you mean.

What I meant was that they seem geared toward traditional styles, particularly from that part of the world.

Passus does have pretty traditional styles. Their lasts look too elongated though, imo.

...We are all iGents, and I probably wrote the best exegesis of the phenomenon back in the day before Will Boehlke became the second coming of Peter Tosh.

Could you share a link pls? For some reason I thought you'd coined the term. I searched for the earliest use of "igent" and the oldest one I found was FNB in 2008. Could have first been used on Ask Andy.

...You could say that their recommendations are just for marketing, but here are some more (among others):

Yeah, I think it's all marketing. They want people to buy their shoes. As Cheaney themselves mentioned in one of the links you posted, guys wear jeans everywhere now. So to marketing old styles for current uses makes good business sense.

I don't mean the vintage pair, but the pair below.

How do you suggest these can be worn in relationship to the aesthetic discussed?

View attachment 1676273

Those aren't so bad imo. I wouldn't wear them, but I like them a lot more than dark oxfords with natural soles and light laces. The socks, however... not a fan.

Well, certainly not like that, because that was me trying them on for fit or breaking them in, right? I've still not worn those out of the house, but I suppose I would wear them with a navy suit if and when I do.

I can tell you that they are fantastic shoes, no doubt about that. A joy to handle. I can also now tell you that the Chisel 2 last fits me very well in size 7, though, which I was able to discover by making the purchase. (The Meccariello boots I have in the same last in 7.5 are, sadly, looser in the instep than I would like.)

I might sell them instead of wearing them, though. I'd hate to think I'm the kind of idiot who would wear navy shoes with a navy suit, and surely there's nothing else I would think to put them with.

Yes, this seems like a perfect example of something being nice as an object but not as part of a whole. Imo they go pretty well with those charcoal pants. I think they'd go better with shades of gray, and maybe brown, than with blue.

Isn't that how any outfit is conceived?

You have something you want to wear, then you think what pairs with it.

That could be any feature of your assemble: It could be a tie, a pocket square, a jacket, a shirt, a pair of trousers, a watch, etc.

Suits simplify this because you already know what your jacket is going to pair with (your trousers). But you still have to consider one's accessories and shoes and such.

There's some truth to that, but some like to think of what an item would pair with before buying it. I think I first learned this on the forum, years ago. As you mentioned, this is true for any item. There are ties, shirts, etc. that look good on their own, but it's helpful to think about what they'd go with, even before buying them.

 

[JFWR]

Yeah, it's a temporary ban. Several of his posts were reported by like several different members (for stalking, trolling, gaslighting, bullying, general stupidity, etc.) and a mod warned him to stop, but he kept going and even took it to other threads.

I think your disagreement is mainly just semantics. What you call "rules" others call "laws" and what you call "norms" others call "rules." I don't think anyone's arguing for rules in the sense that you mean.

Passus does have pretty traditional styles. Their lasts look a too elongated though, imo.

Could you share a link pls? For some reason I thought you'd coined the term. I searched for the earliest use of "igent" and the oldest one I found was FNB in 2008. Could have first been used on Ask Andy.

Yeah, I think it's all marketing. They want people to buy their shoes. As they mentioned, guys wear jeans everywhere now. So to marketing old styles for current uses makes good business sense.

Those aren't so bad imo. I wouldn't wear them, but I like them a lot more than dark oxfords with natural soles and light laces. The socks, however... not a fan.


Yes, this seems like a perfect example of something being nice as an object but not as part of a whole. Imo they go pretty well with those charcoal pants. I think they'd go better with shades of gray, and maybe brown, than with blue.

There's some truth to that, but some like to think of what an item would pair with before buying it. I think I first learned this on the forum, years ago. As you mentioned, this is true for any item. There are ties, shirts, etc. that look good on their own, but it's helpful to think about what they'd go with, even before buying them.

I mean, I certainly agree that it is wise to consider what you are purchasing before you purchase it. You don't want to buy something you have to buy a ton of new clothes to wear, in general. Nevertheless, sometimes you do want to buy that piece that you want to build an outfit around. This might be a nice jacket, this might be a nice pair of shoes, this might be anything.

For instance, I bought a leather jacket the other day for a steal. Now I want to buy some clothes that I think would look good with it, which means changing up my style game a bit.

I'm also thinking in terms of my wardrobe when I am getting dressed in the morning.

Which tie should I wear with which jacket? What shoes should I put on with these trousers? Should I wear a suit, or a sport coat and odd trousers? etc. Generally you start with "This is the item I want to wear" and build around that. "Ah yes, I want to wear my brown jacket today, so what would go with that?"

 

[emptym]

Telling of what, precisely?

It's better than simply thinking of the shoe as a beautiful object. But just a step. Ideally one would consider the whole outfit.

Btw, neither of those blogs seemed very authoritative or convincing to me about blue shoes. Anyone can have a blog. Someone posted Gentleman's Gazette earlier. They're probably better than average, but they make a lot of mistakes. It's for good reason that DWW, PutThisOn, and PermanentStyle are well regarded. Not that they're perfect either. No one is.

...For instance, I bought a leather jacket the other day for a steal. Now I want to buy some clothes that I think would look good with it, which means changing up my style game a bit...

Buying something primarily because of the price is another common, well-known and well-discussed noob mistake. One I've been guilty of. Which is not to say that your purchase was a mistake. Maybe the change will be good. And even if not, experimentation can be good.

 

[JFWR]

It's better than simply thinking of the shoe as a beautiful object. But just one step. Ideally one would consider the whole outfit.

Btw, neither of those blogs seemed very authoritative or convincing to me about blue shoes. Anyone can have a blog. Someone posted Gentleman's Gazette earlier. They're probably better than average, but they make a lot of mistakes. It's for good reason that DWW, PutThisOn, and PermanentStyle are well regarded. Not that they're perfect either. No one is.

Buying something primarily because of the price is another common/well-known/well-discussed noob mistake. One I've been guilty of. Which is not to say that your purchase was a mistake. Maybe the change will be good. And even if not, experimentation can be good.

Yeah, true: don't buy **** you don't need even if it is good.

It looked amazing, I wanted to buy it, and the cost was amazing. It also fit, so there you go. Now I get to try out some new styles. Cool!

 

[dieworkwear]

https://bespokeunit.com/shoes/trouser-coordination/navy-blue-shoes/ - Bespoke unit does not give a citation for their assertion however, we find that navy shoes were frequently featured in the 1940s here:

1940s Shoes for Men: History and Buying Guide

Learn the history of 1940s men's shoes and buy new 1940s shoes for men such as oxfords, wingtips, saddle shoes, slip-ons, loafers, boots and sandals.

vintagedancer.com

As for how I could imagine navy shoes working -

Provided we are talking about a dark navy, given that navy traditionally can stand in for black, why can't these shoes be worn in any circumstance where black would be called for, at least as far as calf and cordovan are concerned (in other words: excluding patent)?

Or perhaps more qualifiedly: if you think that navy doesn't pair with black (which I have never understood aesthetically), then perhaps we can say: a very dark navy can be worn with any outfit that would have called for black shoes except for black.

Isn't the effect of navy usually to be darker than black in nighttime settings, thus the dark navy tuxedo being acceptable?

Thanks for digging up those links. I think of the second link similar to how radicaldog described Alden's use of polyester in blue oxfords in the past. It was not in good taste, and just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it was good. Zoot suits were also worn in the past, but we would not wear them today. In the sense that the term "classic menswear" used to be used on this board, they don't fit with that aesthetic. I also think they're better described as a passing fashion that proved to not be long lasting, closer to the use of sneaker soles with dressy uppers today (hopefully that will also pass).

Regarding the use of blue shoes in place of black, if I can't tell the difference between the two colors, then sure, I would think they're fine. If the shoes are so dark blue that they register as black -- perhaps in a dimly lit restaurant or bar -- then yes, I would think they're fine in any outfit that calls for black oxfords. But then I think it's weird to set up the "goodness" of a shoe relative to some other object that's easily obtained. If the "goodness" of a pair of dark blue shoes is in how closely they resemble black shoes ... why not just wear black shoes?

To the degree that I can tell the difference, however, I think the meaning is changed. A navy suit with a light-colored shirt, dark tie, and black oxfords looks very elegant to me. That same outfit would not register the same if the person was wearing obviously navy shoes.

Let's take the man's outfit on the right. How does this outfit read? What do you think when you see it?

I think of the American West, the cowboy, masculinity, and a certain nobleness associated with working under the open sky.

As a color, purple is pretty close to blue. If you open Photoshop, you can turn blue into purple by simply adding red to the color.

How would the outfit above read if the man was wearing a purple denim jacket with a purple shirt and purple jeans? Would you still read "American cowboy?" Or "masculinity" and "honest working man?" Or would you read something else?

That's how I feel about navy shoes. I don't think navy shoes substitute for black simply because they are two different types of items, so they send different social messages.

 

[JFWR]

Thanks for digging up those links. I think of the second link similar to how radicaldog described Alden's use of polyester in blue oxfords in the past. It was not in good taste, and just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it was good. Zoot suits were also worn in the past, but we would not wear them today. In the sense that the term "classic menswear" used to be used on this board, they don't fit with that aesthetic. I also think they're better described as a passing fashion that proved to not be long lasting, closer to the use of sneaker soles with dressy uppers today (hopefully that will also pass).

Regarding the use of blue shoes in place of black, if I can't tell the difference between the two colors, then sure, I would think they're fine. If the shoes are so dark blue that they register as black -- perhaps in a dimly lit restaurant or bar -- then yes, I would think they're fine in any outfit that calls for black oxfords. But then I think it's weird to set up the "goodness" of a shoe relative to some other object that's easily obtained. If the "goodness" of a pair of dark blue shoes is in how closely they resemble black shoes ... why not just wear black shoes?


View attachment 1676339


To the degree that I can tell the difference, however, I think the meaning is changed. A navy suit with a light-colored shirt, dark tie, and black oxfords looks very elegant to me. That same outfit would not register the same if the person wears wearing obviously navy shoes.


View attachment 1676338

Let's take the man's outfit on the right. How does this outfit read? What do you think when you see it?

I think of the American West, the cowboy, masculinity, and a certain nobleness associated with working under the open sky.

As a color, purple is pretty close to blue. If you open photoshop and put up a blue color, you can turn it purple by just adjusting the color selection and adding red. With enough red, the blue turns purple.

How would the outfit above read if the man was wearing a purple denim jacket with a purple shirt and purple jeans? Would you still read "American cowboy?" Or "masculinity" and "honest working man?" Or would you read something else?

That's how I feel about navy shoes. I don't think navy shoes substitute for black simply because they are two different types of items, so they send different social messages.

This is a very well considered post, Dieworkwear. Very nicely considered.

I agree with you that the image you posted evokes classic American cowboy aesthetics. Despite the guy being a bit fashion-modelly (i.e. "pretty boy"), he still evokes a certain rugged charm due to the ideal of the cowboy. You are right: this outfit would look discordant in purple, despite the fact that purple is a near relative of blue.

However, in contrast, consider this:

If the indigo dye of the jeans was darkened, you get some of the purple undertones coming out that the dye does not show when dyed lighter. I don't think it would be discordant if he was wearing a very deep blue that had shades of purple. In fact, that is closer to the more traditional jeans, which were often very, very dark, compared to what many wear today. I would say someone wearing a very dark indigo, with its purple overtones, would fit in very well with the cowboy aesthetic as it actually was worn in, say, the early 20th century when jeans became more and more predominant out West.

Now if he looks like Prince, then he's gone too far. I agree. Cowboys shouldn't look like Prince.

Now back to the question of blue shoes:

There are many reasons why one might choose dark navy over black dress shoes and boots, just as one might choose a dark navy tuxedo over a black one.

For evening wear, you might appreciate that the subtle difference in colour brings a nice, dark appearance, that black will often lack due to the lighting. Black can often appear more grey in dim light, whereas navy blue tends to deepen in darkness. For instance, it is a well known trick to treat black shoes with blue polish to achieve just this effect, especially when going for a highly polished look.

Likewise, one might want the blue to come out during the day so that you have a subtle, but interesting shift from the norm. The hint of blue there, even if it is approximating black, might appeal for its originality and such. It might look interesting, without being overly distracting.

The chukkas I posted also have a nice brown sole edge, which if they were black, would not work nearly as well. In the right light, the brown compliments the blue in a way it would not compliment the black. Now, conversely, if I wanted to in a sense hide the fact they were navy, I'd prefer a black sole edge. Either way, it depends on what you're going for here.

Various browns are often expressive of this idea, too. Sometimes you want a brown veering towards the red end of the spectrum, other times you want it veering more towards the black end of the spectrum, and other times you want it towards the yellow.

For instance, take Colour 8. Colour 8 in shell cordovan is a reddish brown. It's not quite as burgundy as an oxblood, but it approximates redness more, than say, an espresso brown would.

Conversely, my blue suede shoes which you don't like are much less navy than these. Like, they are visibly blue, in a way that I wouldn't try to replace a pair of black shoes with. They don't fill that niche.

 

[物の哀れ]

Isn't that how any outfit is conceived?

You have something you want to wear, then you think what pairs with it.

No.

I'll give you an example.

We're still in lockdown where I live and we're transitioning to Spring.

I'm looking forward to eating out again and I'm starting to think about what I might wear to a trendy restaurant.

I might want dress in a louche way, so I might wear a linen suit with a tee and loafers or sneakers.

I might want to lean into something more edgy, so I might wear a leather jacket and side zips.

I'm not sure where I'll land, but I'm thinking about the outfits and what they communicate first, then I'm thinking about the pieces that compose them second.

 

[acapaca]

It is indeed hard to find much to put those shoes with. I think this is the best I could do, apart from just solid navy (I don't think they would have a chance with charcoal), though these suits may be too dandy for CM.

Spoiler: Suits

If we were allowed to wear sportcoats, I guess I would choose one of these, apart from just a navy blazer.

Spoiler: Forbidden

 

[JFWR]

No.

I'll give you an example.

We're still in lockdown where I live and we're transitioning to Spring.

I'm looking forward to eating out again and I'm starting to think about what I might wear to a trendy restaurant.

I might want dress in a louche way, so I might wear a linen suit with a tee and loafers or sneakers.

I might want to lean into something more edgy, so I might wear a leather jacket and side zips.

I'm not sure where I'll land, but I'm thinking about the outfits and what they communicate first, then I'm thinking about the pieces that compose it second.

Sucks you're still in lock down! Hope you won't be, soon.

Okay, so you generally aim for "style" over "specifics" first. Makes sense.

I suppose I have a more settled style, at least in the contexts of actually dressing nicely. When I look in my wardrobe, I am like: okay, so, I want to wear a blue jacket today, so what do I pair this with? If I wear these pants, can I wear these shoes? Man, i want to wear these shoes, so I definitely need to go with this...etc.

 

[JFWR]

It is indeed hard to find much to put those shoes with. I think this is the best I could do, apart from just solid navy (I don't think they would have a chance with charcoal), though these suits may be too dandy for CM.

Spoiler: Suits

View attachment 1676341 View attachment 1676342
View attachment 1676343

If we were allowed to wear sportcoats, I guess I would choose one of these, apart from just a navy blazer.

Spoiler: Forbidden

View attachment 1676344 View attachment 1676345 View attachment 1676346

I personally like these combinations.