Bic Pentameter
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2002
- Messages
- 839
- Reaction score
- 81
The general consensus on the Styleforvm seems to be that when it comes to shoes, brown (and all of its glorious shades) is the cat's meow and that "black is black." Some commentators have even expressed the opinion that only one pair of black shoes is enough. On Friday and Saturday, I attended an international conference at which an interesting fellow captured my attention. I noticed him first on Friday afternoon. This gentleman was not dressed well by any StyleForvm standards, but he was trying. He presented himself in a pair of dark colored slacks and a white button down shirt.
However, I was most struck by his footwear. His shoes were black leather laceups. On one foot was a smooth toed blucher. On the other was a cap toed balmoral. Clearly, he was wearing two very different styles of shoe in differently textured leathers, a left shoe from one pair and a right shoe from another. I was pondering the reason for his choice of footwear last night, and considering whether my observation of this specimen was StyleForvm post worthy. Perhaps he had packed only one pair of shoes, but they were mismatched. Being far away from home, he decided to wear the blucher and the balmoral instead of shopping for a new pair. Fair enough. I have gone on a business trip and realized only upon landing that one of the pair of socks I packed was mismatched, or that my belt was brown but the only pair of shoes I packed was black.
Another thought occurred to me. Perhaps this fellow was light years ahead of the StyleForvm orthodoxy and, extending the distain we hold for matching necktie and pocket square to its natural conclusion, had decided to gently bend the rule that shoes should match. He must have decided to to spice up the look of plain boring black shoes by mixing and matching...
I was curious to see what he would wear to Saturday afternoon's final festivities. I was not disappointed. Not 4 short hours ago, I observed this fellow wearing one black cap toed balmoral, and one black Norwegian style lace up...!
I doubt anyone in attendance besides me even noticed his choice in footwear.
Bic
However, I was most struck by his footwear. His shoes were black leather laceups. On one foot was a smooth toed blucher. On the other was a cap toed balmoral. Clearly, he was wearing two very different styles of shoe in differently textured leathers, a left shoe from one pair and a right shoe from another. I was pondering the reason for his choice of footwear last night, and considering whether my observation of this specimen was StyleForvm post worthy. Perhaps he had packed only one pair of shoes, but they were mismatched. Being far away from home, he decided to wear the blucher and the balmoral instead of shopping for a new pair. Fair enough. I have gone on a business trip and realized only upon landing that one of the pair of socks I packed was mismatched, or that my belt was brown but the only pair of shoes I packed was black.
Another thought occurred to me. Perhaps this fellow was light years ahead of the StyleForvm orthodoxy and, extending the distain we hold for matching necktie and pocket square to its natural conclusion, had decided to gently bend the rule that shoes should match. He must have decided to to spice up the look of plain boring black shoes by mixing and matching...
I was curious to see what he would wear to Saturday afternoon's final festivities. I was not disappointed. Not 4 short hours ago, I observed this fellow wearing one black cap toed balmoral, and one black Norwegian style lace up...!
I doubt anyone in attendance besides me even noticed his choice in footwear.
Bic