• STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

The Oxford-Shoe-Worn-Casually Appreciation Thread

Mirage-

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2021
Messages
236
Reaction score
252
If that is your read, I find it hard to believe we are reading the same threads.

I think in general he has been quite consistent, and new detractors have risen with different attacks that have had to be answered with centering on the same argument.

Ultimately, and hilariously, the pro oxford group are the ones seeking an absolute - "Oxfords with any pants." And pivoting and pivoting again to try to get there.
Are they, though? I believe only Nobilis, or almost only him, have stated they can (under some conditions) go with jeans. Most have positioned themselves somewhere in the formality scale between DWW's position and "jacket+chinos". No one, iirc, proposed oxfords with shorts or sweatpants as good.
But, see, you keep grouping any and all opposition to DWW's strict rule into a single camp of "Oxfords with literally anything", so that then you can ridicule that as preposterous by the opinion of most (including me), and somehow conclude DWW must therefore be right.

DWW started out saying that while Boyer does separates with oxfords, he dislikes it and think it "less bad", as he often phrased it. Or "less offensive", in the latest edition, which is even worse.
Then, you have been attempting to redefine "less bad" as meaning "fine, but suboptimal", which is not the same thing, unless you define "bad" as "absence of perfection" in which case we all dress bad, and will forever.
And in any case, I'm not convinced even your amended version is true in any meaningful sense, i.e. I do not feel there would be a clear and obvious improvement in the good looks previously mentioned, if they swapped shoes with derbies or loafers.

I liked Crompton's posts about rules and how to break them: they always advised to follow the spirit of the rule, rather than the exact stipulation of the rule, which is really what I've been proposing since the start: wear formal shoes with formal-enough outfits. Which imo includes many separates.



Apparently a few members of the pro oxford with everything camp have pissed off enough people to get banned.
Putting aside the details of this specific case, I personally don't like the idea that moderation be majority-driven, or even "e-steem driven", i.e. decided by people with the most internet points in here.
I hope that is not what emptym actually meant in the following, which seems to suggest that someone can be punished simply for being unwanted by "respected regulars" rather than actually crossing some sort of line of accepted behavior.

when a good number of people express their irritation with someone, the mods warn the person to take a break (usually more than once), and the person continues. Fok has said many times that the forum is like a neighborhood bar. If a certain number of patrons, particularly respected regulars, are annoyed with someone, they can get tossed out, sometimes for a while, sometimes for good.
 
Last edited:

ValidusLA

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
2,638
Deleted. Posted too early.
 
Last edited:

ValidusLA

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
2,638
Are they, though? I believe only Nobilis, or almost only him, have stated they can (under some conditions) go with jeans. Most have positioned themselves somewhere in the formality scale between DWW's position and "jacket+chinos". No one, iirc, proposed oxfords with shorts or sweatpants as good.
But, see, you keep grouping any and all opposition to DWW's strict rule into a single camp of "Oxfords with literally anything", so that then you can ridicule that as preposterous by the opinion of most (including me), and somehow conclude DWW must therefore be right.
This is why I think you are reading from when you came into the posts in September.

Going backwards, Chihuahua, later NA, and some others who appear to no longer be forum members were spouting off dozens of times a day and arguing vociferously for the "natural elegance" of oxfords. And making arguments against derbies in oufits as being inherently clunky, orthopaedic, whatever.

The number of posts from moderates, if you consider yourself such is dwarfed by the posts of people proclaim oxford supremacy.

Putting aside the details of this specific case, I personally don't like the idea that moderation be majority-driven, or even "e-steem driven", i.e. decided by people with the most internet points in here.
I hope that is not what emptym actually meant in the following, which seems to suggest that someone can be punished simply for being unwanted by "respected regulars" rather than actually crossing some sort of line of accepted behavior.
I actually agree with this for the most part.

I care much more who is on my side than how many.

EDIT: To a certain degree though, SF is free to join, that doesn't mean everyone here has to put up with abuse from every johnny come lately.

If you disagree with this, and if you really have read the original thread, can you tell me you wish AdrianVo was still posting?

What did Nobilus do exactly? I don't know what Cruiserfication means
I am also not super clear.

I will say from the point of NA, I do get the feeling that he has been picking fights in random threads w/ DWW because they fundamentally butt heads on all things it seems.

Like...I've had multi page arguments w/ DWW about shoes and w/ like...Foo about silverware. But I don't go following them around picking fights in multiple threads.
 

JFWR

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
5,139
I don't disagree that this is good.

But is there anyone (literally...anyone?!) still arguing against oxfords with tailored trousers and a sport coat (with or without tie)?
Yes. We've been furiously debating this for a month now.
 

The Thin Man

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
561
Reaction score
80
What did Nobilus do exactly? I don't know what Cruiserfication means
Cruiser was a member of the Ask Andy About Clothes forum about 10 to 13 years ago. He posted incessantly, often in response to posts that drew on historical or personal knowledge of classic menswear, basically saying that all clothing is good and that he didn't see the difference between cheap and expensive clothes. He had a tendency to derail potentially interesting conversations as soon as they got started. The entire forum was just awash in his earnest posts finding snobbery in just about anything. He was a kind of kudzu for the forum, choking out its life.
 

ValidusLA

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
2,638
The entire forum was just awash in his earnest posts finding snobbery in just about anything. He was a kind of kudzu for the forum, choking out its life.
Gotta give a trigger warning before dropping the K-word!
 

emptym

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
9,339
Reaction score
6,088
Yeah, by "cruiserfication" I was referring to when someone, or a few people, dumb down a forum and drive its most knowledgeable members away by making a large number of uninformed posts.

Those interested in more could search this forum for "cruiserfication," "cruiserification" (notice the added "i"), or just "Cruiser."

Edit: Here's one use of it:
I had no idea who you were until a few days ago (a phenomenon otherwise known as "cruiserification"). My opinion is that your comments are stupid, idiotic, ignorant, lack any sort of credibility and - most of all - are simply way too numerous. I hope I did not insult you.
And here's a thread where Cruiser's influence on AAAC was discussed:
 
Last edited:

acapaca

Distinguished Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
1,067
Reaction score
1,151
I think you're overly fixated on the specificities of the "rule" and not the spirit of the outfit.

In other words, if I've said many times that many well-dressed men wear oxfords with sport coats, and I cite Bruce as an example of a masterfully well-dressed person, how can it be that I also think that anyone who wears oxfords with a sport coat doesn't know how to dress?
Wait, *I'm* the overly fixated one? You're the one with a hard-on for 'shoes as objects' that you simply cannot resist any temptation to show us all, every single time a mere hint of an opportunity arises.

It's the 'spirit of the outfit' that I and others have argued from the very beginning, as @Mirage- has recently pointed out so well. We countered what we saw was an antiquated rule with the much simpler one, the one everyone gets, that 'the more formal the clothes, the more formal the shoes'. You know, the same principle as in the guide to coherent outfits for beginners, about dialing in all the sliders with harmony.

That seemed to me/us, like I think it does to everyone, as a naturally coherent position to take. And it also seemed obvious, to me/us, that categories of shoes themselves come with ranges of formality. As in, some oxfords -- as well as some derbies, some boots, and some loafers -- are more city/country than others.

If the above is true, than a categorical imperative against an entire class of clothes with an entire class of shoes, each with a spectrum of formality and hence overlap with the other on the city/country spectrum, is logically incoherent from the get go. And anyone with any innate sense at all about these things knows it.

You can backtrack all you want, but you can't get around the fact that you've been using this 'rule' for months now, if not years, as a pretense for criticizing people who you think don't know their #menswear history as well as you do. Yes, we get it, you are the smartest person in the class, and you have written the book on how to dress so that no one notices you. Do we really need you to insert that same view, over and over again ad nauseam, in every remotely related thread?
 

物の哀れ

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Messages
140
Reaction score
635
Wait, *I'm* the overly fixated one? You're the one with a hard-on for 'shoes as objects' that you simply cannot resist any temptation to show us all, every single time a mere hint of an opportunity arises.

It's the 'spirit of the outfit' that I and others have argued from the very beginning, as @Mirage- has recently pointed out so well. We countered what we saw was an antiquated rule with the much simpler one, the one everyone gets, that 'the more formal the clothes, the more formal the shoes'. You know, the same principle as in the guide to coherent outfits for beginners, about dialing in all the sliders with harmony.

That seemed to me/us, like I think it does to everyone, as a naturally coherent position to take. And it also seemed obvious, to me/us, that categories of shoes themselves come with ranges of formality. As in, some oxfords -- as well as some derbies, some boots, and some loafers -- are more city/country than others.

If the above is true, than a categorical imperative against an entire class of clothes with an entire class of shoes, each with a spectrum of formality and hence overlap with the other on the city/country spectrum, is logically incoherent from the get go. And anyone with any innate sense at all about these things knows it.

You can backtrack all you want, but you can't get around the fact that you've been using this 'rule' for months now, if not years, as a pretense for criticizing people who you think don't know their #menswear history as well as you do. Yes, we get it, you are the smartest person in the class, and you have written the book on how to dress so that no one notices you. Do we really need you to insert that same view, over and over again ad nauseam, in every remotely related thread?
This is classic cruising.
 

ValidusLA

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
2,638
*Puts on his translation hat*
You're the one with a hard-on for 'shoes as objects' that you simply cannot resist any temptation to show us all
Hard on for shoes as objects = Point about consumerist practices that if more members picked up early might save them hundreds or thousands of dollars on shoes they will wear twice.

And anyone with any innate sense at all about these things knows it.
"Anyone" = The four people who agree with me.

Do we really need you to insert that same view, over and over again ad nauseam, in every remotely related thread?
Insert = When people start other threads and make points prescient to the original point, tag you, and continue on with the same stuff since March.
 

JFWR

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
5,139
This is why I think you are reading from when you came into the posts in September.

Going backwards, Chihuahua, later NA, and some others who appear to no longer be forum members were spouting off dozens of times a day and arguing vociferously for the "natural elegance" of oxfords. And making arguments against derbies in oufits as being inherently clunky, orthopaedic, whatever.

The number of posts from moderates, if you consider yourself such is dwarfed by the posts of people proclaim oxford supremacy.



I actually agree with this for the most part.

I care much more who is on my side than how many.

EDIT: To a certain degree though, SF is free to join, that doesn't mean everyone here has to put up with abuse from every johnny come lately.

If you disagree with this, and if you really have read the original thread, can you tell me you wish AdrianVo was still posting?



I am also not super clear.

I will say from the point of NA, I do get the feeling that he has been picking fights in random threads w/ DWW because they fundamentally butt heads on all things it seems.

Like...I've had multi page arguments w/ DWW about shoes and w/ like...Foo about silverware. But I don't go following them around picking fights in multiple threads.
To be clear, I am not an oxford supremascist. I have no problem with derbys, bluchers, boots, or even loafers (though I don't personally own any loafers as they don't fit me). My position is that oxfords -are- more elegant than these other shoes, but this doesn't mean there isn't a reason to own or wear these other types of shoes.

I wear derbys, bluchers, and chukkas frequently. I like them. But if I had to pick a favourite shoe type, I'd say the oxford, and I do think the oxford is inherently more versatile in the number of styles it can pull off well.

Meanwhile, let's be quite honest: @dieworkwear has consistently maintained that if you wear oxfords without suits, you're basically not dressing CM, and that the outfits look ugly and ridiculous to him. This position has been supported by several others.
 

Featured Sponsor

LARGE METAL WATCHES WITH TAILORING

  • Yes, I’m tacky like that.

  • No way José! Dress watch with leather strap for me!

  • No watch at all.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
467,114
Messages
9,999,279
Members
210,986
Latest member
cannaeal5
Top