Summer loafers: with or without socks?

[Styleforum Ari]

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Either or. It depends on the outfit.

 

[adschus]

I wear very low cut socks so that the sock isn't visible.

 

[bry2000]

No show socks > no socks

 

[pasadena man]

Obviously down to individual preferences and comfort. I prefer socks with loafers for two aesthetic reasons. First, going sockless is likely to provide a less elegant, integrated, line than that produced with well-chosen socks. Secondly, as someone over 50, I don’t want to display my ankles, nor do I particularly want the opportunity to look at my peers’.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Obviously down to individual preferences and comfort. I prefer socks with loafers for two aesthetic reasons. First, going sockless is likely to provide a less elegant, integrated, line than that produced with well-chosen socks. Secondly, as someone over 50, I don’t want to display my ankles, nor do I particularly want the opportunity to look at my peers’.

but the real reason is you don’t want anyone to see that pot leaf tattoo you got in high school, right?

 

[Joffrey]

No socks, thanks.

 

[haloitsme]

Very short socks, so you can’t see it when wearing shorts. Normal socks when wearing long pants.

 

[thedose]

No socks is like no underwear.

I bet the next thread will be -- Summer linen trousers: with or without underwear?

 

[robxznyc]

Our preference is developed from personal hygiene/comfort and style needs. Obviously, a person who has skin conditions, sweaty feet, or is going to walk a lot that day would want to wear socks with any shoes. If I wear loafers with shorts I either don't wear socks or wear no show socks, depending on the comfort and size of the shoes and how long the no show socks can stay on. With full length pants, ether no socks or regular socks, depending on the occasion and the comfort and size of the shoes.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

When I think sockless, I think liner. To wear shoes without socks or anything else covering ones foot is an invitation to permanent foot stink in your shoes not to mention a bacterial or fungal infection.

So “sockless”? Yes. But a liner that is hidden from view? Always.

 

[Duke Santos]

When I think sockless, I'm assuming wearing no-show socks, particularly since you'd be wearing them that way in warm weather. So, assuming no-show socks vs. socks, I'm still going socks. Only exception would be if you're wearing them exceedingly casually (shorts, linen drawstring pants etc.) then I think a pair of unlined, suede loafers would work.

 

[pasadena man]

but the real reason is you don’t want anyone to see that pot leaf tattoo you got in high school, right?

When I was in high school, only sailors and convicts had tattoos. I was neither.

 

[Keith Taylor]

I love the idea of trousers and no socks in the idealised snapshot world of Instagram, where it's always sunny and reality doesn't exist beyond the edge of the frame, but it's one of those looks that doesn't seem to translate all that well to the real world for me. Outside the frame the real world has a bad habit of sending the sun behind the clouds or calling to let you know your kid had a bad fall at school, and suddenly that carefree look that seemed so great for relaxing outside a café with an improbably filtered view of a beautiful Amalfi seaside village becomes a bit silly, because now you're back in Des Moines and you're just a guy who forgot to put on socks.

P.S. Shorts and no socks is fine.

 

[acapaca]

When I think sockless, I think liner. To wear shoes without socks or anything else covering ones foot is an invitation to permanent foot stink in your shoes not to mention a bacterial or fungal infection.

So “sockless”? Yes. But a liner that is hidden from view? Always.

What does the liner do to prevent all that?