The Ultimate "HARDCORE" Shoe Appreciation Thread (Bespoke only)

[LesMust]

Last month I bought a pair of Buday brogues in Budapest, traditionally hand made shoes,
just like Vass, the most famous brand in Hungary, but Buday is a bit more modern and sometimes a bit more Italian.
I wear them here with Jacob Cohen jeans, but I bought them to wear with a suit.
GEO

 

[IronRock]

^^ Not something I could pull off but I think I like 'em... Wish the laces were the same dark green as the toe.

 

[fritzl]



dunno - could be i guess, but not in the JM Weston ideal

i'm not sure, i'm aware of this, hehe

 

[bengal-stripe]



And after all of that, it's a red herring to talk about pattens or clogs. They aren't shoes. For all (and more ) of the reasons just mentioned.

This is the crux of the matter. I have deliberately avoided to talk about ‘shoes’ but talked about ‘footwear’.

You have this shoe-centric view (and I mean this term in the same way as ‘ethno-centric‘ or ‘Euro-centric‘) of all things footwear. You have frequently constructed that linear history, putting yourself into a direct line of several thousand years of ‘shoemaking’. (Just the same way as old art-history used to construct that linear development from the ancient Egyptians to ’Abstract Expressionism’, discarding everything on the way which did not fit the thesis.)

In the history of the world and throughout the various cultures, ‘shoes’, (as we might recognize them) have played only a minor role, compared to other and alternative forms of footwear.

A ‘shoe’ is not automatically and innately superior to other forms of footwear.

He talks about pattens too.

I feel it's important to note that I have a certain bias. I don't like pattens, clogs, or wooden soled shoes. I don't know why this is, and objectively there is nothing wrong with them. They are part of the record. I just don't care much for them……I will warn you that I may not be doing them justice.

At least, he is aware of his prejudices.

 

[stilmacher]

Vintage Cleverley bespoke:

 

[DWFII]



This is the crux of the matter. I have deliberately avoided to talk about ‘shoes’ but talked about ‘footwear’.

You have this shoe-centric view (and I mean this term in the same way as ‘ethno-centric‘ or ‘Euro-centric‘) of all things footwear. You have frequently constructed that linear history, putting yourself into a direct line of several thousand years of ‘shoemaking’. (Just the same way as old art-history used to construct that linear development from the ancient Egyptians to ’Abstract Expressionism’, discarding everything on the way which did not fit the thesis.)

In the history of the world and throughout the various cultures, ‘shoes’, (as we might recognize them) have played only a minor role, compared to other and alternative forms of footwear.

A ‘shoe’ is not automatically and innately superior to other forms of footwear.

I don't believe I've ever said that shoes were "automatically and innately superior" to any other forms of footwear. But it kind of reminds me of the old saying about democracy--"it's the worst way of governing...until you compare it with everything else."

Shoes as you know them, perhaps...but AFAIK every culture and society since the beginning of recorded history has made or attempted to make shoes. Pattens are not shoes. Clogs are not shoes. But currans, moccasins, ghillies, and maybe...stretching things...even green rubber wellingtons, are all shoes. And anyone who deliberately set out to make soft moldable foot coverings for trade or compensation was a shoemaker.

What "other and alternative forms" were you thinking of?

That said I don't know how you get from a conversation about heels on shoes (and my statements in response to another member's question about heels on shoes) to pattens and clogs without some confusion as to what a shoe is or some ignorance of how a shoe is made and what is involved. And it seems to me that to talk about "footwear" in a discussion that is specifically about shoes is to introduce an element of misdirection.

I readily admit a shoe-centric POV. I've said it over and over again, right here on Style Forum. In fact, I don't really claim much in the way of expertise about anything else.

June Swann is shoe-centric. Marc Carlson is shoe-centric. The head of the shoemaking faculty at Colonial Williamsburg is shoe-centric. I would go so far as to suggest that Anthony Delos is shoe-centric and that all the other shoemakers who post here on Style Forum are shoe-centric. That's very nearly the definition of being a shoemaker.

People who aren't shoe-centric tend to conflate concepts and terminology...and even history...in ways that may seem logical and marvelous to themselves but strike anyone who knows shoes in depth as being "inconsistent with reality."

And yes, I do see myself in a direct line of shoemakers stretching back thousands of years...perhaps not the foremost branch going forward but still there. And I do have, as silly as it may sound, a deep spiritual connection and a profound admiration for the "old guys" and the work they did. That respect is founded on understanding...gathered first-hand...not on speculation and fantasy.

Most of us who are shoe-centric, myself in particular, would be happy to find out that shoes had heels earlier than is now known and accepted--it would expand our base of knowledge and understanding.

But a person only confuses themselves further when they start inventing explanations for things that might have been or never were. I suspect it betrays a lack of attention--what is known is fantastic enough, just as it is, without embroidering it.

The unknown is just that--unknown. Admitting that you don't know what is unknowable is no fault. Constructing fantasies to fill in the gaps, and passing it off as anything but speculation, is.

Reality is not menu driven. You can't pick and choose what aspects you will accept or believe in.

 

[fritzl]



Vintage Cleverley bespoke:

congratulations, bravo c.

 

[kolecho]



Vintage Cleverley bespoke:

I like this full chisel toe shape.

 

[fritzl]



^^ Not something I could pull off but I think I like 'em... Wish the laces were the same dark green as the toe.

do you know how to exchange laces? well, then...

btw. the toe is blue, the quarter is green and the middle part of the heel seems to be green either.

 

[isshinryu101]



Last month I bought a pair of Buday brogues in Budapest, traditionally hand made shoes,
just like Vass, the most famous brand in Hungary, but Buday is a bit more modern and sometimes a bit more Italian.
I wear them here with Jacob Cohen jeans, but I bought them to wear with a suit.
GEO

I simply love distinctive shoes. Especially when they're bespoke. It's a great reflection of the man who chose every detail to be just the way it appears.

Great shoes & even BETTER expressions on the faces of those you walk by.

 

[VRaivio]

This thread is among the finest and most pleasing feasts for senses on SF...

 

[VRaivio]

Let's share the love: here's my bespoke John Lobb Ltd. black semi-brogues with dark brown laces. A hint of colour only visible on very clear days.

 

[The Shoe Snob]



Last month I bought a pair of Buday brogues in Budapest, traditionally hand made shoes,
just like Vass, the most famous brand in Hungary, but Buday is a bit more modern and sometimes a bit more Italian.
I wear them here with Jacob Cohen jeans, but I bought them to wear with a suit.
GEO

Great color combination!! Love to see men wearing shoes, that are 'outside the box'....

-Justin

 

[Achillus]

To be honest, even if the colours looks great, that shoes is hard to pull off in a daily base.

 

[Fantastic Mr Foxx]



To be honest, even if the colours looks great, that shoes is hard to pull off in a daily base.

"In a daily base"? Ik weet dat je uit nederland komt, maar je moet echt aan je engels werken!