Sneakers With Tailoring: Yes, No, Maybe?

[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 them second.

Also: I suppose that I do also sometimes think in terms of "look" as well. As I mentioned recently, I bought a leather jacket. Now I have a "new look" to try my hand at. I am definitely not going to be wearing this leather jacket with the same kind of clothes I'd wear with a sport coat, nor the same type of shoes. When I think leather jacket, I definitely think in a totally different mindset.

 

[Stylewords]

99% of the time when someone says they don't bother about "the rules", whatever the activity, you can bet they do it badly.

 

[dieworkwear]

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.

I think you're treating outfits more as an art form, and I'm focused on the social message. I don't think of getting dressed as some purely creative project, like how you might paint abstract art. "Add a bit of interesting color here" or "put this shape with that shape." I think of the history, norms, social messages, etc. You can add personality and individuality within that framework, but it's again like writing a sentence. Good writing has structure and meaning. Within that structure, you can add creative expression, but you have to have meaning.

You've set up a paradox: if your shoes are interesting enough to add visual interest, then they become distracting, much like the tan shoes discussed earlier. If the shoes are subtle enough to not be noticed and thus pass for being "normal," then they have almost no visual impact in terms of novelty. If the shoes register as black, then they're black (and I think you should just go for black shoes). If they're a weird shade of black or obviously navy, then they draw the eye downward.

That said, I again think of this in terms of social messaging. Many years ago, I went to get lunch with someone from this forum. They wore a grey suit with dark brown alligator loafers (shown above). These loafers are not subtle; they are very flashy. They draw the eye downward. Yet, I thought the person was beautifully dressed for a few reasons: the quality of their tailoring, the unusual quality of the shoes (most alligator shoes are very ugly), and this person's glasses (thin, blonde tortoiseshell). As a whole, the outfit looked very elegant and the shoes, while flashy, register as "classic" to me because of how they play into these notions of "good taste" (or Bourdieu's "legitimate taste.") Even if I rarely see alligator loafers today, the outfit makes sense.

Georg Simmel wrote a really good essay in 1904 titled "On Fashion." It was about how fashion changes. Simmel himself was not particularly interested in clothes, but he was interested in sociology. He was one of the first to really draw out the social dynamics of dress. This is an excerpt that I often quote from him:

Fashion is the imitation of a given example and satisfies the demand for social adaption; it leads the individual upon the road which all travel, it furnishes a general condition, which resolves the conduct of every individual into a mere example. At the same time it satisfies in no less degree the need of differentiation, the tendency towards dissimilarity, the desire for change and contrast, on the one hand by a constant change of contents, which gives to the fashion of today an individual stamp as opposed to that of yesterday and tomorrow, on the other hand because fashions differ for different classes – the fashions of the upper stratum of society are never identical with those of the lower; in fact, they are abandoned by the former as soon as the latter prepares to appropriate them.“

Simmel here is talking bout how fashion changes, which only tangentially relates to what we're discussing here. We are not talking about how fashion changes, but whether one can add interesting elements here and there into an outfit (I think you can but you have to be cognizant of other things). The relevant point from Simmel here is the sociology of dress: that fashion is primarily about how we associate with and identify other groups. In Simmel's model, "first adopters" move on when outsiders adopt a style and weaken the in-group signal. In other words, we read taste in terms of social groups.

Again, Pierre Bourdieu expands on this when he studies taste more broadly. How do we determine taste? Who determines good taste? How do we form our taste? Bourdieu believes that much of this is about class signaling and cultural capital, and that "good taste" is a mask for the dominance of the upper class. (Something Simmel laid out in 1904).

So what do we think of when we see someone in navy shoes? You can say it's adding visual interest, but I just think of tacky dandies, shoe enthusiasts, Allen Edmonds ads with grey suede oxfords, cubicle farmers downtown, and people who simply don't know how to dress. I think of Berluti, who you also have described as tacky.

There is a long history of people here who have tried to make their outfits more "interesting." I think this springs from a couple of things: they are unhappy with the quality of their tailoring and think that novelty can improve the look. Or they recognize the discordance of tailoring with their environment and lifestyle, so they try to "rusticate" the look by adding some unusual, nontraditional element (in the past, this was fun socks). Instead of approaching CM like this, I think they would do better to 1) improve their tailoring, and 2) learn to dress in a more coherent and casual manner.

Fundamentally, shoes are not supposed to be "interesting" in a CM outfit, even if there are notable exceptions (such as the shoes above, although I will add, their novelty is also the reason why alligator shoes are extremely hard to wear well).

 

[JFWR]

I think you're treating outfits more as an art form, and I'm focused on the social message. I don't think of getting dressed as some purely creative project, like how you might paint abstract art. "Add a bit of interesting color here" or "put this shape with that shape." I think of the history, norms, social messages, etc. You can add personality and individuality within that framework, but it's again like writing a sentence. Good writing has structure and meaning. Within that structure, you can add creative expression, but you have to have meaning.

You've set up a paradox: if your shoes are interesting enough to add visual interest, then they become distracting, much like the tan shoes discussed earlier. If the shoes are subtle enough to not be noticed and thus pass for being "normal," then they have almost no visual impact in terms of novelty. If the shoes register as black, then they're black (and I think you should just go for black shoes). If they're a weird shade of black or obviously navy, then they draw the eye downward.

View attachment 1676340


That said, I again think of this in terms of social messaging. Many years ago, I went to get lunch with someone from this forum. They wore a grey suit with dark brown alligator loafers (shown above). These loafers are not subtle; they are very flashy. They draw the eye downward. Yet, I thought the person was beautifully dressed for a few reasons: the quality of their tailoring, the unusual quality of the shoes (most alligator shoes are very ugly), and this person's glasses (thin, blonde tortoiseshell). As a whole, the outfit looked very elegant and the shoes, while flashy, register as "classic" to me because of how they play into these normative notions of "good taste" (or Bourdieu's "legitimate taste.") Even if I rarely see alligator loafers today, the outfit makes sense.

Georg Simmel wrote a really good essay in 1904 titled "On Fashion." It was about how fashion changes. Simmel himself was not particularly interested in clothes, but he was interested in sociology. He was one of the first to really draw out the social dynamics of dress. This is an excerpt that I often quote from him:



Simmel here is talking bout how fashion changes, which only tangentially relates to what we're discussing here. We are not talking about how fashion changes, but whether one can add interesting elements here and there into an outfit (I think you can but you have to be cognizant of other things). The relevant point from Simmel here is the sociology of dress: that fashion is primarily about how we associate with and identify other groups. In Simmel's model, "first adopters" move on when outsiders adopt a style and weaken the in-group signal. In other words, we read taste in terms of social groups.

Again, Pierre Bourdieu expands on this when he studies taste more broadly. How do we determine taste? Who determines good taste? How do we form our taste? Bourdieu believes that much of this is about class signaling and cultural capital, and that "good taste" is a mask for the dominance of the upper class. (Something Simmel laid out in 1904).

So what do we think of when we see someone in navy shoes? You can say it's adding visual interest, but I just think of tacky dandies, shoe enthusiasts, and people who simply don't know how to dress. I think of Berluti, who you also have described as tacky.

There is a long history of people here who have tried to make their outfits more "interesting." I think this springs from a few things: they are unhappy with the quality of their tailoring and think that novelty can improve the look. Or they recognize the discordance of tailoring with their environment and lifestyle, so they try to "rusticate" the look by adding some unusual, nontraditional element (in the past, this was fun socks). Instead of approaching CM like this, I think they would do better to 1) improve their tailoring, and 2) learn to dress in a more coherent and casual manner.

Fundamentally, shoes are not supposed to be "interesting" in a CM outfit, even if there are notable exceptions (such as the shoes above, although I will add, their novelty is also the reason why alligator shoes are extremely hard to wear well).

This was probably your finest post I've seen you post here.

I think perhaps this has fully articulated the very definite gap between our aesthetic understandings.

My approach to fashion, when I really tend to it, is to think in terms of visual appeal in regards to colour combinations, interestingness, cultural artifacts that speak to the individual's background and personality, as well as overall elegance, traditional looks, social setting, etc. This is not to say I disregard what has worked in the past, or ignore "looks", as those do factor in, but I am thinking of fashion more as a painter, less than a sociologist. Or perhaps the difference between your view and mine is that of prose vs. poetry. Yes, meaning is important--I don't like poems that don't make sense at all--but so are the qualities of music, harmony, rhythm, etc.

Going back to our specific, concrete example: Why would you choose navy over black? Because you might want to play at the edges of the norm. Here you have a pair of shoes which are not black, but which are close to black. They give you some advantages that black doesn't have, but most of the advantages black does. Here we push the boundary a bit, and enter into a new and interesting world that doesn't clash with all the taste. Now you have a little flash of colour, a little darker than black, a little "oh my, that's intriguing" or "oooh, that looks good". Perhaps that makes me a dandy, but I don't dress just to fit in - I also dress to stand out hopefully in a good way.

Contrariwise, what I despise about Berlutti is just how garish their shoes are. I can't find the image of this, but I once saw one where it looked like the shoes were "ripped" with alligator parts. I described them as looking like Spiderman getting beat up in a fight. It had the same effect as a pair of dress suits with the look of Spiderman's uniform was poking through the leather. It was disgusting. It was also like, 3000 dollars. I wanted to die when I saw them.

Or you look at these monstrosities and it is like:

Oxford and Derby collections by Berluti - US

Discover the Berluti shoe collections. Creations that combine elegance and creativity, the bootmakers timeless craftsmanship and leather expertise. Berluti

www.berluti.com

Egad, man, why would you ever buy these? Yuck!

Incidentally, Dieworkwear, let me ask you something for my own amusement: what kind of paintings do you like? I myself like the Pre-Raphaelites and 19th century art in general, but also Titian, and sometimes some Rubens.

 

[dieworkwear]

Incidentally, Dieworkwear, let me ask you something for my own amusement: what kind of paintings do you like? I myself like the Pre-Raphaelites and 19th century art in general, but also Titian, and sometimes some Rubens.

TBH, the only art I follow are memes and animal videos. Like this

 

[JFWR]

As an addition: I mean, I have said I dress with a specific aim as well. I go to work looking in a certain way as that is the image I want to evoke, etc. I go out looking in a certain way, as I want people to approach me in a certain way, or think of me in a certain light. But in terms of the specifics, I am definitely thinking in terms of overall aesthetics, and not just "what is according to Hoyle".

 

[emptym]

99% of the time when someone says they don't bother about "the rules", whatever the activity, you can bet they do it badly.

I would guess they do it well enough to be better than many, perhaps even most. This makes them think they're world-class, perhaps the best. But that's hubris.

,..There is a long history of people here who have tried to make their outfits more "interesting." I think this springs from a couple of things: they are unhappy with the quality of their tailoring and think that novelty can improve the look...

I think one of the blogs JFWR linked identified the main reason: "If you can find some navy shoes, get your hands on them. They’re uncommon, which raises their cool factor, and they’re incredibly stylish if you can work them right." (edit, and JFWR's post, written as I was writing, attests to this: "I also dress to stand out hopefully in a good way."

View attachment 1676013
This girl undoubtedly looks cool in her derbies. I can’t tell whether the bad little boy is wearing oxfords or derbies.

When you realize derbies go better with shorts than oxfords:

Even if the derbies are leather and the oxfords cotton.
Seriously though, this is my favorite old pic of a kid w/ shoes, but also such a sad pic.

 

[JFWR]

I would guess they do it well enough to be better than many, perhaps even most. This makes them think they're world-class, perhaps the best. But that's hubris.

I think one of the blogs JFWR linked identified the main reason: "If you can find some navy shoes, get your hands on them. They’re uncommon, which raises their cool factor, and they’re incredibly stylish if you can work them right." (edit, and JFWR's post, written as I was writing, attests to this: "I also dress to stand out hopefully in a good way."

When you realize derbies go better with shorts than oxfords:
View attachment 1676360
Even if the derbies are leather and the oxfords cotton.
Seriously though, this is my favorite old pic of a kid w/ shoes, but also such a sad pic.

I mean, I wasn't endorsing everything said in the blog. I think they can be cool, but it is not just because they're uncommon.

But yeah, at least some of my sense of style is to stand out, hopefully in a good way, when I am dressing nicely.

 

[ValidusLA]

I would guess they do it well enough to be better than many, perhaps even most. This makes them think they're world-class, perhaps the best. But that's hubris.

I think one of the blogs JFWR linked identified the main reason: "If you can find some navy shoes, get your hands on them. They’re uncommon, which raises their cool factor, and they’re incredibly stylish if you can work them right." (edit, and JFWR's post, written as I was writing, attests to this: "I also dress to stand out hopefully in a good way."

When you realize derbies go better with shorts than oxfords:
View attachment 1676360
Even if the derbies are leather and the oxfords cotton.
Seriously though, this is my favorite old pic of a kid w/ shoes, but also such a sad pic.

That pic gets me in the feels every time man.

 

[acapaca]

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.

There is no doubt that the man's outfit conveys a certain message, nor any that the message would be markedly different if he were wearing purple. But where do they sell purple denim jackets and jeans? Do they sell them at the same stores, or in the same departments, where you figure that guy bought his?

What specifically do you read when you come across men wearing purple denim jackets and jeans? What goes through your mind? How often do you see those guys? When you see them, are they usually wearing their stuff in the same way that guy is?

I mean, the message would also be wildly different if the stuff were neon green. But they don't really sell that stuff in neon green, do they? At least with navy shoes you can find them made by reputable craftsmen and sold at fine stores. Does Iron Heart or whoever sell purple jeans? If they don't, and neither does anyone else of their ilk, do you not think that makes a difference to the strength of your argument?

 

[dieworkwear]

There is no doubt that the man's outfit conveys a certain message, nor any that the message would be markedly different if he were wearing purple. But where do they sell purple denim jackets and jeans? Do they sell them at the same stores, or in the same departments, where you figure that guy bought his?

What specifically do you read when you come across men wearing purple denim jackets and jeans? What goes through your mind? How often do you see those guys? When you see them, are they usually wearing their stuff in the same way that guy is?

I mean, the message would also be wildly different if the stuff were neon green. But they don't really sell that stuff in neon green, do they? At least with navy shoes you can find them made by reputable craftsmen and sold at fine stores. Does Iron Heart or whoever sell purple jeans? If they don't, and neither does anyone else of their ilk, do you not think that makes a difference to the strength of your argument?

The photo I posted is from a Levi's lookbook.

Levi's also sells a purple version of that outfit.

Here's a photo from a Wrangler page with the two pieces even worn together.

These purple Levi's jeans are almost close to blue. Would these look the same in that original photo? Would the outfit communicate the same message?

 

[acapaca]

Yes, and AE sells Strands. Do any high-end, reputable makers of denim offer purple jackets and jeans alongside their standard fare? Do you have pics of this stuff being worn in the wild?

 

[acapaca]

Is this okay, or is it too much contrast with the navy suit?

 

[dieworkwear]

Yes, and AE sells Strands. Do any high-end, reputable makers of denim offer purple jackets and jeans alongside their standard fare? Do you have pics of this stuff being worn in the wild?

Why would it make a difference if high-end makers offered the style? Why is "quality" here being put over aesthetics?

I can pull up photos of people wearing purple jeans and jackets, but would rather not, as they're just normal people posting on fashion sites. For the most part, I try to leave normal people out of my criticisms, although I posted the photos from the NYT article. But if it's just some dude trying to have fun and post his photos on IG or a community, I would rather not post his photos and say "this looks terrible," particularly if they're not involved in this conversation and/ or include his face.

 

[dieworkwear]

Is this okay, or is it too much contrast with the navy suit?

View attachment 1676394

I can't really tell anything in these types of photos. Again, I don't think "shoe pics" are very useful. It almost functions as a product photo.

I respect people's decision to not want to post full outfit photos (I also don't post fit pics). But just stating that I don't think shoe pics are very useful in judging outfits because they only show 10% of the outfit. It would be like judging an outfit based on someone's photo of their watch + shirt cuff + jacket sleeve cuff. Such a photo only communicates one thing: the watch as an object.

That said, I think brown shoes are generally fine with navy suits.