The Look goes on...

[am55]

Another 'how do you do it?' question.

Back in the day we supported our trousers with narrow braces when in casual mode and our more formal, bespoke trou were 'self-supporting' using side adjusters in different designs.

Today I wear belts with more casual trousers and with the odd suit, but increasingly it is braces / suspenders with suits and more formal trousers. Mrs K just bought me these red jobs for Valentine's.

View attachment 1133186

Which method(s) do you favour?

Interesting question Mr K and my answer is that if I had the choice and the setting, I'd always pick braces (Thurston's) and always buttoned, not clipped. The comfort is unparalleled and your trousers just fall right, which I find they do not with any other method, since the trousers then fall from the sides rather than hang from the front and back, if that makes sense. Unfortunately the setting usually does not allow.

A chap I knew moved recently to our tropics and I saw him three times in the first year. The first time, he stuck by his old school habit of double breasted suit (a thick pinstriped worsted, naturally), tie and braces. The next two, the weather had managed to shed him of his coat and tie, although the braces bravely remained as a vestige of his former self in more civilised climes. Thereafter it was side loops and belts. What then of the Old World "spine", well, we live in an age of comfort, trouser line be damned... perhaps that explains the popularity of the painted on look, no problem with keeping a straight crease there.

 

[Mr Knightley]

Interesting question Mr K and my answer is that if I had the choice and the setting, I'd always pick braces (Thurston's) and always buttoned, not clipped. The comfort is unparalleled and your trousers just fall right, which I find they do not with any other method, since the trousers then fall from the sides rather than hang from the front and back, if that makes sense. Unfortunately the setting usually does not allow.

A chap I knew moved recently to our tropics and I saw him three times in the first year. The first time, he stuck by his old school habit of double breasted suit (a thick pinstriped worsted, naturally), tie and braces. The next two, the weather had managed to shed him of his coat and tie, although the braces bravely remained as a vestige of his former self in more civilised climes. Thereafter it was side loops and belts. What then of the Old World "spine", well, we live in an age of comfort, trouser line be damned... perhaps that explains the popularity of the painted on look, no problem with keeping a straight crease there.

Yes, buttoned on, of course. The clips won't see any use.

Interesting story. I think exceptional heat in England in the summer of 1911 has been identified as causing one of the first nails in the coffin of suspenders / braces. Belts became seen as a cooler option. I suppose the iGent's love of higher-waisted trews has seen braces enjoy something of a come-back of late (albeit in very limited circles).

 

[Clouseau]

I only wore braces (clips) during a short period, early 80s. TBH it was the part of the clobber i liked the less.
Just a matter of personal preference of course. I always wear a belt, as trousers with belt loops without a belt look bad imho. In summer i wear a light elastic woven belt, the rest of the time leather belts of different widths and color.
Now i reckon that with some outfits it would look better to not wear a belt, in that case i would be more enclined in wearing trousers with side adjusters.
On the subject of braces with suits, i am always surprised to see the Igents showing willingly their wide braces, sometimes very colorful. I remember that in the time a real gentleman here would have never shown his braces, that tended to be as discreet as possible in neutral colors. A practical item, not a show off one. Different time different behavior i suppose.

 

[Botolph]

When wearing a suit in which the trousers don’t have side adjusters, I typically wear a pair of cream-colored button-on braces underneath. I forget the brand.
I don’t recall doing it in the last twenty years or so, but I have worn a belt with a suit before— though it was a thin, black belt to match the shoes, and wasn’t noticeable under the jacket anyways. I did, in my early skinhead days, wear clip-on braces(we say suspenders) with a suit. Like the Inspecteur however, it was the part of the whole look I least liked. I normally wore a belt with casual clothing. Still do.
I’m a bit OCD about matching belts and good shoes or boots- burgundy/burgundy, or black/black. If I’m wearing sneakers or other casual shoes it’s whatever non-black belt I have.

 

[cerneabbas]

When wearing a suit in which the trousers don’t have side adjusters, I typically wear a pair of cream-colored button-on braces underneath. I forget the brand.
I don’t recall doing it in the last twenty years or so, but I have worn a belt with a suit before— though it was a thin, black belt to match the shoes, and wasn’t noticeable under the jacket anyways. I did, in my early skinhead days, wear clip-on braces(we say suspenders) with a suit. Like the Inspecteur however, it was the part of the whole look I least liked. I normally wore a belt with casual clothing. Still do.
I’m a bit OCD about matching belts and good shoes or boots- burgundy/burgundy, or black/black. If I’m wearing sneakers or other casual shoes it’s whatever non-black belt I have.

I just saw your post about Loake 771 on the MtoS thread.
I do like the suede 771 that you and MrK have,the Dainite sole is a positive and I think that the suede version looks better than the leather one.
I notice that Loake have a Burgundy version of their Waverley (Dainite soled) in their Special offers for £125 ! its made in England,I have the black ones and I like them,its a different last to the 771,it might be the same last as the Royal ? anyway if you want a Burgundy plain with Dainite sole its worth looking at.

 

[Botolph]

I just saw your post about Loake 771 on the MtoS thread.
I do like the suede 771 that you and MrK have,the Dainite sole is a positive and I think that the suede version looks better than the leather one.
I notice that Loake have a Burgundy version of their Waverley (Dainite soled) in their Special offers for £125 ! its made in England,I have the black ones and I like them,its a different last to the 771,it might be the same last as the Royal ? anyway if you want a Burgundy plain with Dainite sole its worth looking at.

Nice, thanks; those look great. Loake unfortuntely doesn’t ship to the USA anymore though.

 

[cerneabbas]

Nice, thanks; those look great. Loake unfortuntely doesn’t ship to the USA anymore though.

Loake have also stopped selling through Pediwear, seems strange but there must be reasons.
I don't know how they choose their Special Offers, maybe they are try outs to see if there is any interest before producing in bulk.
I would be interested in these Waverley's if the leather is more like the 1880 leather rather than the plasticy stuff especially at that price as the black ones are £180 so £125 would seem to be a real bagain.

 

[Clouseau]

Loake have also stopped selling through Pediwear, seems strange but there must be reasons.
I don't know how they choose their Special Offers, maybe they are try outs to see if there is any interest before producing in bulk.
I would be interested in these Waverley's if the leather is more like the 1880 leather rather than the plasticy stuff especially at that price as the black ones are £180 so £125 would seem to be a real bagain.

I had a look at the Waverley, and the last (1639) is the same than the Royals. A bit too pointed maybe (to my taste) for plains/smooths.

 

[Kingstonian]

Loake have also stopped selling through Pediwear, seems strange but there must be reasons.
I don't know how they choose their Special Offers, maybe they are try outs to see if there is any interest before producing in bulk.
I would be interested in these Waverley's if the leather is more like the 1880 leather rather than the plasticy stuff especially at that price as the black ones are £180 so £125 would seem to be a real bagain.

Discount shoe sales in Strutton Ground are good if you want cheap Loake and can visit Mon to Friday. However, Berwick 1707 seem to be a better offering in some cases. Their grain leather looks better than high shine polished in my opinion. Closer to £100 than £150 too.

https://discount-shoe-sales.com/footware

 

[cerneabbas]

I had a look at the Waverley, and the last (1639) is the same than the Royals. A bit too pointed maybe (to my taste) for plains/smooths.

I compared my Plains/Smooth shoes, the most 'pointy' is the Mephisto Taylor, the Loake Waverley and the Heschung Crocus are about the same width at the toe but the Heschung is more 'bulbous' the Loake is a different shape...it looks more 'blunt'....not great descriptions.
Anyway the Loake looks quite chunky,it doesn't have the seam on the inside that MrK dislikes on the 771...for £125 a Goodyear welted MiE shoe will not be found,imo the only question would be the type of leather,if the plasticy leather 771 is £180 then the Waverley has to be its equal (at least) in quality it could possibly be better and its £55 cheaper.

 

[cerneabbas]

Discount shoe sales in Strutton Ground are good if you want cheap Loake and can visit Mon to Friday. However, Berwick 1707 seem to be a better offering in some cases. Their grain leather looks better than high shine polished in my opinion. Closer to £100 than £150 too.

https://discount-shoe-sales.com/footware

When I saw the Berwick 1707 online pictures I was quite impressed,the only ones I have seen in the flesh were a few in Debenhams,they weren't in the designs that interested me.
I agree that Loakes high shine leather isn't the greatest but I suppose like the seams it keeps the price down,the 1880 range uses better leather but the price rises.
People compare Loake to Alfred Sargent and say that Loake are inferior but the AS shoes are probably double the price ! these Burgundy Loake Waverleys wont be as good as the Heschung Crocus but the Loakes are £125 the Heschung are about three times that !
At £125 the Loakes have to be a good buy price wise,if the leather is decent they could be an absolute bargain,plus they will be limited production.

 

[Kingstonian]

When I saw the Berwick 1707 online pictures I was quite impressed,the only ones I have seen in the flesh were a few in Debenhams,they weren't in the designs that interested me.
I agree that Loakes high shine leather isn't the greatest but I suppose like the seams it keeps the price down,the 1880 range uses better leather but the price rises.
People compare Loake to Alfred Sargent and say that Loake are inferior but the AS shoes are probably double the price ! these Burgundy Loake Waverleys wont be as good as the Heschung Crocus but the Loakes are £125 the Heschung are about three times that !
At £125 the Loakes have to be a good buy price wise,if the leather is decent they could be an absolute bargain,plus they will be limited production.

I have the Loake 1880 - a Kempton chukka in tan leather. They did take some breaking in. They were stiff at top of the boot and chafed. A Dainite sole and a darker colour would have would have been preferable with hindsight.

I do find the laces come undone on Loake Royals possibly due to the stiff leather. Again I would prefer a Dainite sole as the shoe is less stiff. Hoggs of Fife used to offer a Loake in grain leather with a Dainite sole and I much prefer them to Royals with a leather sole.

 

[cerneabbas]

I have the Loake 1880 - a Kempton chukka in tan leather. They did take some breaking in. They were stiff at top of the boot and chafed. A Dainite sole and a darker colour would have would have been preferable with hindsight.

I do find the laces come undone on Loake Royals possibly due to the stiff leather. Again I would prefer a Dainite sole as the shoe is less stiff. Hoggs of Fife used to offer a Loake in grain leather with a Dainite sole and I much prefer them to Royals with a leather sole.

I agree about the Hoggs of Fife Kenmore made by Loake in pebbled grain being superior to the Royal but 5 years ago the Kenmore was £210 I don't know what the Royal was then but its £180 now and I guess that the Kenmore would be at least £240 if it was available now ?
I remember many years ago suggesting on the other thread that approaching Loake with a view to a group buy of Royals in a better leather might be a good idea.
The Royal is available with a Dainite sole in Black or Dark brown as the Sovereign but its the same leather on the upper.
I have the Kempton in black with a Dainite sole and I like it I also have the Pimlico chukka in Brown with a Dainite sole its more chisel toed than the Pimlico.

Going back to the Burgundy Plain/Smooth with a Dainite sole,really there's not much choice, not sure if the Church Shannon comes in Burgundy or if they have a Dainite sole but they would be the thick end of £500 anyway,apart from that I am struggling to think of any other alternative.

Again I note that whilst we all come from a similar starting point we never get consensus on any item ! however I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing,imo it shows that whilst we all had similar influences we are now confident enough to choose what we like as individuals rather than wearing a 'uniform' as we did years ago,this imo is another difference between the two threads and long may the difference continue.

 

[Kingstonian]

I agree about the Hoggs of Fife Kenmore made by Loake in pebbled grain being superior to the Royal but 5 years ago the Kenmore was £210 I don't know what the Royal was then but its £180 now and I guess that the Kenmore would be at least £240 if it was available now ?
I remember many years ago suggesting on the other thread that approaching Loake with a view to a group buy of Royals in a better leather might be a good idea.
The Royal is available with a Dainite sole in Black or Dark brown as the Sovereign but its the same leather on the upper.
I have the Kempton in black with a Dainite sole and I like it I also have the Pimlico chukka in Brown with a Dainite sole its more chisel toed than the Pimlico.

Going back to the Burgundy Plain/Smooth with a Dainite sole,really there's not much choice, not sure if the Church Shannon comes in Burgundy or if they have a Dainite sole but they would be the thick end of £500 anyway,apart from that I am struggling to think of any other alternative.

Again I note that whilst we all come from a similar starting point we never get consensus on any item ! however I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing,imo it shows that whilst we all had similar influences we are now confident enough to choose what we like as individuals rather than wearing a 'uniform' as we did years ago,this imo is another difference between the two threads and long may the difference continue.

Yes Hoggs of Fife shoe was dearer. However, they had sales around Christmas with good discounts. That’s when I bought mine. Sadly I don’t think they offer the Kenmore any longer.

I did try to see a brown Sovereign in Discount Shoes but he did not have one in stock. ‘Look elsewhere and I will get in for you’ was the advice. I was told the brown is different to the Royal ox blood colour. However the Berwick pebble grain changed my mind on what I would choose when/if I need another pair.

 

[Mr Knightley]

Just got my Florsheim long wings back from the repair shop and I am very happy with the results.

They have at the same time made the shoes look less ‘chunky’ and improved the wearability - I hope!

Edit - Pictures: