The Oxford-Shoe-Worn-Casually Appreciation Thread

[Stylewords]

Fixed.

Ok. Let's be clear:

Are you claiming there is a rule stating that combining oxfords with formal trousers and a sportcoat is wrong?

Because a lot of people have said it's a strawman and nobody is claiming that this is a rule.

 

[acapaca]

Well, it depends on how you define "rule." It's not a law in the sense of being universal, necessary, or absolute. Finding one person who's worn an oxford would shatter a rule conceived like that. But no one said it was a law like that. As people have mentioned, it's more of a general principal or thumb rule.

I'm questioning whether it really and truly is a broadly held principle. It was not one that I recall learning when I grew up. The principles I was taught were more along the lines of 'formal with formal, casual with casual', but that had more to do with form/color/material than with category for category's sake. To my eye, and even after considering hundreds of pages of discussion about it here, there are still some derbies that are more formal than some oxfords. Something analogous to this:

(In case the point is not obvious, men are generally taller than women but there are certainly some women taller than some men.)

As I mentioned, when I heard how strongly DWW felt about it, I set out to see if this really was a distinction most people made and I was missing out on. I mean, I don't want to look like an idiot, any more than anyone else does.

And what I'm saying is that I just don't see evidence that it's true. I think it's a niche opinion. I'll bear it in mind, but I'm also happy looking to all those other good dressers for inspiration, the ones who seem to either not be deathly afraid of making a 'mistake' or just don't care much about the rule in the first place. If it's the latter, it's probably because they see it as antiquated. It wouldn't be the only such antiquated thing, that's for sure.

 

[Northants bloke]

I really object to the notion that anyone wearing a pair of blue or green shoes doesn't understand classic menswear. I can't imagine anyone owning these colours who doesn't already have the more conventional brown and black dress shoes in some form. The idea at least as man in my 50's, that this as a result of upbringing really smacks of the worst kind of snobbery.

For the record, my dad didn’t live in the internet age. He stuck to the conventional classic choices because he only owned a slim wardrobe all bought locally. He wasn't a recreational shopper. He didn't really do the swinging 60s. He worked in a job he hated, got married and was a kind family man, had hobbies, dressed fairly cheaply but conventionally and in the 70's we still wore our Sunday best as a family.

Modern consumerism simply means that those of us interested in clothes and shoes are eventually going to feel they have satisfied their desire for the normal and would like to try out some else. The internet has obviously widened our choices even by reacquainting me with local shoe manufacturers and their outlets.

It's this weird kind of almost moral assumption that we need saving from certain choices that keeps me arguing on threads like this one. I have more than a dozen pairs of boots/shoes as well as shirts, sports jackets etc. I first posted my blue suede brogues precisely because they were different and was initially shocked by the arrogance of some people's responses. I like to experiment occasionally and to see what others here have discovered.

The eeyores mumbling in the corner just need to be quiet. They are like pub bores spoiling the party. The notion that a different choice may or not be better is irrelevant if I already hold both. Shh! ?

Now show me some more nice shoes and outfits. Please. ?

 

[Northants bloke]

Ok. Let's be clear:

Are you claiming there is a rule stating that combining oxfords with formal trousers and a sportcoat is wrong?

Because a lot of people have said it's a strawman and nobody is claiming that this is a rule.

Someone here most definitely did. Sorry.

 

[ValidusLA]

I really object to the notion that anyone wearing a pair of blue or green shoes doesn't understand classic menswear. I can't imagine anyone owning these colours who doesn't already have the more conventional brown and black dress shoes in some form. The idea at least as man in my 50's, that this as a result of upbringing really smacks of the worst kind of snobbery.

For the record, my dad didn’t live in the internet age. He stuck to the conventional classic choices because he only owned a slim wardrobe all bought locally. He wasn't a recreational shopper. He didn't really do the swinging 60s. He worked in a job he hated, got married and was a kind family man, had hobbies, dressed fairly cheaply but conventionally and in the 70's we still wore our Sunday best as a family.

Modern consumerism simply means that those of us interested in clothes and shoes are eventually going to feel they have satisfied their desire for the normal and would like to try out some else. The internet has obviously widened our choices even by reacquainting me with local shoe manufacturers and their outlets.

It's this weird kind of almost moral assumption that we need saving from certain choices that keeps me arguing on threads like this one. I have more than a dozen pairs of boots/shoes as well as shirts, sports jackets etc. I first posted my blue suede brogues precisely because they were different and was initially shocked by the arrogance of some people's responses. I like to experiment occasionally and to see what others here have discovered.

The eeyores mumbling in the corner just need to be quiet. They are like pub bores spoiling the party. The notion that a different choice may or not be better is irrelevant if I already hold both. Shh! ?

Now show me some more nice shoes and outfits. Please. ?

This post could have been made shorter by simply saying, "I want to post pics and get internet likes with no risk of criticism."

"Those of us interested in clothes and shoes are eventually going to feel they have satisfied their desire for the normal." I'll take a pass at this.

Even if we assume some level of truth in this statement, even if people want to move past "normal" (the fact that you use that word as good as admits that green and blue shoes are abnormal - not a word I generally associate positively), they are unlikely to do so in the same ways.

As an example, today I ordered two ridiculous jacket liners to put into a new DB blazer I'm commissioning. They are highly absurd and a profligate use of money. I feel confident DWW would not be interested in putting such a thing in a jacket (as many men would not). However, they are completely invisible from the outside. They are a personal pleasure that do not make a CM outfit into a peacock's plume. They aren't loud socks and bright shoes. They aren't a giant lapel flower or some weird chain.

Experimenting is one thing. Buying tacky stuff is another. A lot of people think green and blue shoes are tacky.

 

[dieworkwear]

Modern consumerism simply means that those of us interested in clothes and shoes are eventually going to feel they have satisfied their desire for the normal and would like to try out some else. The internet has obviously widened our choices even by reacquainting me with local shoe manufacturers and their outlets.

I agree people are engaging in this sort of thing because of the dynamics of the market. Neophilia, the internet, companies clamoring for profits and seeking out something to distinguish themselves from the pack, the break-up of menswear stores from one-stop-shop clothiers to microbrands that sell increasingly niche things, etc. I don't think this is resulting in better outfits. The market would be better if consumers were guided by knowledgable sales associates and tailors.

 

[Peter1]

Anyone wearing any oxfords with jeans is like someone who skis in jeans.

Fundamental lack of understanding.

Or maybe they just DGAF.

We skied in jeans when I was a kid. Only "spoiled rich kids" wore dedicated ski pants. The cool guys wore jeans, down vests and Billy Kidd (look him up, not the outlaw) cowboy hats...while pulling chicks, doing backscratchers and helicopters...jeans were excellent transition wear to the bar.

Ré oxfords / casual clothes: it's a very narrow window but it can be done.

 

[dieworkwear]

Realize few people care about this sort of thing anymore (e.g., "historical cosplay" etc etc etc). But George Frazier's 1960 essay "The Art of Wearing Clothes" is still a wonderful read for people who care about that period of men's style. Two excerpts:

The first:

As things were to turn out, there was a certain ominousness about this anecdote, for it reveals Brummell at the critical moment when he was beginning to lose one of the three ingredients that combine to make a man well-dressed—in this case, his credit with his tailor, Schweitzer & Davidson of Cork Street, Piccadilly. When, a bit later on, he began to lose his trim figure as well, he was no longer the glass of fashion mirroring the most elegant of all eras. Obviously, the credentials required for recognition as an authentically well-dressed man are not very readily come by. Thus in the case of a certain attractive young New York advertising executive who wears suits, shirts, and ties of impeccable taste, the disqualification lies in his weakness for bizarre footwear, particularly during the summer, when he frequently appears in what Murray Kempton has described as "those obscene ventilated shoes."

The second:

Even in its entirety, Biddle's wardrobe seems, by contrast, almost monastic. It includes seven so-called business suits—two double- and one single-breasted navy-blue serge; one double- and one single-breasted dark-blue pin-stripe flannel; one single-breasted charcoal-grey flannel. (They were made by either H. Harris of New York, who charges $225 and up for a two-piece suit, or E. Tautz of London who charges, as to do most topnotch British tailors, almost a quarter less.

All have skeleton alpaca linings and the sleeves have three buttons and open buttonholes. The single-breasteds have three-button, notched-lapel jackets.) For formal daytime wear, Biddle has a charcoal-grey cheviot cutaway, a single-breasted white waistcoat, and black trousers with broad white stripes. (With these, he wears a black silk ascot and a wide wing collar.) For semiformal daytime occasions, he has a charcoal-grey single-breasted cheviot sack coat and trousers, in either black or Cambridge grey, with broad white stripes. Besides a ready-made Aquascutum raincoat, Biddle owns three outer coats—a double-breasted blue chinchilla ($175 from Tautz), a single-breasted light drab covert cloth ($225, H. Harris), and a double-breasted polo coat with white bone buttons ($325, Harris). He has, in addition to a tweed cap, four hats, all of them purchased at Lock's in London too many years ago for him to recall exactly what they cost. One is a high-silk, one an opera hat, and the other two homburgs—one black and one green.

For formal evening wear, Biddle has tails ($175, Tautz), a double-breasted dinner coat with satin shawl lapels ($150, Tautz), and, for warm weather, two single-breasted, shawl-collared white gabardine dinner coats ($98 each, Tautz). His evening shirts, with which he wears a conventionally-shaped bow tie, have pleats, roll collars, and are made for him by Dudley G. Eldridge of New York at $28 each. Biddle's sports clothes include three tweed jackets ($160 each, Harris), three pairs of charcoal-grey flannel slacks, and a half-dozen button-down shirts made by Eldridge out of silk that he, Biddle, bought in Spain. His shoes, of which he has three pairs of black for daytime wear and one patent leather and one calfskin for evening wear, were made by Paulsen & Stone of London, who also made for him, for sports wear, a pair of black moccasins, a pair of black loafers, and two pairs of white canvas shoes with brown leather toes and rubber soles (which he wears with either prewar white flannels or an ancient double-breasted light-grey sharkskin suit).

Photos of Biddle:

 

[ValidusLA]

Realize few people care about this sort of thing anymore (e.g., "historical cosplay" etc etc etc). But George Frazier's 1960 essay "The Art of Wearing Clothes" is still a wonderful read for people who care about that period of men's style. Two excerpts:

The first:




The second:




Photos of Biddle:

View attachment 1702800 View attachment 1702801 View attachment 1702802

Nice.

This reminds me. Do you think there is any tailor today making a good Tautz Lapel, or is that detail truly in the realm of the forgotten/cosplay?

 

[dieworkwear]

Nice.

This reminds me. Do you think there is any tailor today making a good Tautz Lapel, or is that detail truly in the realm of the forgotten/cosplay?

I wouldn't consider it cosplay. But it's a bit of a nerdy clothing detail.

I don't know if any modern tailors making that lapel now, but it doesn't seem like a difficult thing to copy.

 

[Northants bloke]

The efficacy of criticism depends on shared goals. Yours is to maintain the faith. Mine is running through the meadows and gazing at the flowers. It seems self evident to me that a thread like this is experimental. In any case, the assumptions or rules are not quite as universal as previously suggested and this is a good thing. Some experiments form a new orthodoxy, others are blind alleys. Fine. Only time will tell. Personally I am giving a miss the current trend for baggy, boxy tailoring. I'm not going into battle to denounce others particularly younger generations who wear them to differentiate themselves from us.

UC made the valid criticism that while they didn't match his taste, a blind hem would improve coherence. He also suggested metal eyelets that I thought less useful but still a reasonable point of view.

A choice can be different and valid without being entirely conventional. Tastes change. I am certain you don't dress identically to all the generations of ValidusLAs that have stood before. Get over it. I am quite able to like looks in other people that I wouldn't wear myself.

Here's another one.
I can't remember if I have posted before.

 

[DoubleDouble]

^Oh, wait. Were you serious (@DoubleDouble)?

No one saying "X looks good on artists" can be 100% serious, but I was serious in saying a derby would look worse in there. More generally, I've seen oxfords worn with more casual clothing like Tony is doing there, especially by Japanese people, especially with slouchy fits. Oxfords clearly don't work better than most shoes in most combinations posted here. They are "plausible" shoes that end up looking a bit off (because they are too formal). Might as well wear them in "implausible" ways, at least it ends up being interesting.

 

[Stylewords]

Someone here most definitely did. Sorry.

Yes, I agree. Though some seem to skirt around the issue out of cowardice by using other phrasing as they realise that stating there is a rule whereby oxfords cannot be worn with odd trousers/sportcoats is patently absurd.

 

[mak1277]

People accuse me of setting up strawmen, but this forum is full of insane views.

In my opinion there’s not even any point in engaging with the insane views. Those we respect, however, should be held to a higher standard.

 

[Cause Moe]

People accuse me of setting up strawmen, but this forum is full of insane views.

People accuse you of a fallacy, and you reply with a non-sequitur (also fallacious). Classic! Accusing them of insanity is a nice touch, too.

And then the bad sitcom laugh track continues; the old once-upon-a-time black-and-white photos of the era of steam locomotives and hand-cranked telephones. Priceless.