What shoes am I still missing in my little collection?

[JFWR]

Whereas I do respect the varied opinions offered on this subject by various gentlemen, I think it is completely reasonable to wear oxfords, especially brogued oxfords, with less formal wear. As for a black captoe, whereas I'd not wear it with jeans or shorts, they work as great evening wear with anything slightly dressy.

 

[TheIronDandy]

I know exactly what you mean. When I started my shoe journey it became an addiction to have as many shoes possible without thinking about what I was trying to achieve. So this is how I ended up with 13 shoes from which I sold a few. The only one on the list are the cognac Santoni's I'm trying to get rid off and the cognac Francesco Benigno's.

These are the kinds of clothes I'm wearing now. most are from the summer that's why I'm wearing polos (don't mind the mask it is a photoshop lol):

View attachment 1488051

But im not "happy" with my style now. I'm aiming for the style Kirby Allison has. So that would be very formal.

I recently went through the same process you are going through, so if I may be so bold as to offer a piece of learning (that may or may not be applicable to you): remember that your 'organic" style developed for a reason.

I too pushed for a very formal style early on (worsted wool, double breasted suits, oxfords, silk ties), and I'm not going to lie: I like that look, and it looks good on me (citation: my mum says I look very handsome). But it doesn't work well for my lifestyle. I live centrally in the city, so I walk or ride the subway everywhere. I usually end up running errands after work, and will run up 12 000+ steps every day. Superfine worsted wool trousers are NOT great for that (source: the many worn out trousers I've racked up), and the viability of leather soled oxfords as a city hiking shoe can be debated. Fine wool feels a bit off on the subway (at least when you don't want to lean on anything because you worry it might stain your suit), and many of my friends have dogs which means many of my out of work activities include fur, dirty paws and doggy drool. And I live in a country where the climate gives us 8 months a year of soggy darkness. So the last few months, I've started going for slightly coarser materials: thicker flanells, tweed, oxford shirts, cavalry twill, corduroy and moleskin and quality knitwear. MTM dressy jeans. Subtle patterns rather than solid navy or charcoal. Still wear ties and pocket squared, but in more textured, less shiny styles. It still feels luxurious because I wear quality materials made by skilled tailors, but more practical, and slightly more forgiving of the odd dirty paw print.

The point is, to me finely tailored suits in 120s wool was a great look that was completely unpractical. I've seen two friends who did the same journey, and I've had this tendency confirmed by multiple people working in the classic menswear industry: people start with power suits, trying to look like Patrik Bateman or the cast from Mad Men, and then move into tailored casual after they find the style doesn't match their lifestyle.

I'm not saying this will apply to you, since I don't know what your lifestyle looks like. But it might be a good question to ask yourself. Remember, the people who inspire your style have made a career of that particular style, so it will no doubt work extremely well for their lifestyle. But make sure it works for yours as well.

With regards to shoes, it seems pretty clear you like the Magnani style of shiny, warm browns and striking patina. You got that look down though, so I would complement it with some more textured, less shiny pieces. Suede chukkas, as previously mentioned. Or grained leather loafers. Maybe some split-toe derbies. If you do want to move one step towards more formal clothes, maybe black penny loafers, as someone suggested. Versatile pieces that can be dressed up or down.

When I look at your collection of shoes, I see too many oxfords given how you dress. I also think you have too many tan shoes. Both are harder to wear than plainer, more casual shoes in dark brown. I think people buy oxfords and tan shoes because they catch the eye when you're shopping. But in a classic men's style outfit, shoes are not meant to catch the eye. The focus is typically on the shirt, tie, and jacket combo, the V-shape under your chin. Incoherent shoes become distracting and draw the eye downwards.

This is ridiculously spot on for my own shoe wardrobe. 3 pairs of brown oxfords, 2 of them tan. And then another pair of tan brogues. And I end up mostly wearing my loafers or Chelsea boots... The fact that tan shoes with patina, and oxfords in general, are rather eye catching definitely influenced those purchases.

I also think that many "nicer" product lines (like Loake export grade and C&J hand grade) are mostly oxfords may also influence. I love my C&J hand grade Oxfords (tan, of course), and I've been pretty impressed with the Loake export grade shoes I tried (especially considering the price) - their derbies just haven't felt as nice.

If you take a look at the outfits posted in the casual WAYWT thread on this forum, the vast majority of people would consider all of them "dressed up" or stuffy.

My experience is that that the vast majority of MEN who do not care about clothing would consider those outfits "dressed up" or stuffy. Most women will appreciate any effort made (if only because it's so rare to see any), and most men who are about clothing are too busy checking their phone to see how many likes their outfit of the day picture got to really care what YOU'RE wearing until you upload a picture of it

 

[Nobilis Animus]

I don't think throwing on any type of clothing, wearing any sort of scent, or doing any number of things on their own is going to automatically make anyone seem more attractive/stylish/whatever.

Taking fragrances as an example, just because it's low-hanging fruit, there are plenty of scientific studies, anecdotal evidence, and experiments that have proven the connection between olfactory stimulation and feelings of pleasure/attraction - enough to satisfy anyone.

Fragrances do work to attract others. Not in the sense of being some magical potion, but as a trait like any other - high cheekbones, deep voice, athletic build, etc - which helps make an attractive picture overall.

Now, there are certainly some enthusiasts who aren't interested in that, who prefer instead to simply smell a lot of things, and don't care if they wrinkle noses because their love of this niche scent is so great. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to pull a "No true Scotsman" and argue that they are the ones who truly love fragrances. You could say they are doing it for themselves, and that the fragrances being smelt by others is a secondary effect, but that actually reminds me more of those who put on designer clothes or suits at home but wouldn't dare be seen in them in public. Sure, it's a thing, but it's still sad and hardly dressing.

 

[Nobilis Animus]

Whereas I do respect the varied opinions offered on this subject by various gentlemen, I think it is completely reasonable to wear oxfords, especially brogued oxfords, with less formal wear. As for a black captoe, whereas I'd not wear it with jeans or shorts, they work as great evening wear with anything slightly dressy.

I'd say black shoes of any kind - oxford, boot, or loafer - is necessary for evening events where you're trying to look smart-casual or above.

Not because you'd otherwise be breaking some mouldering set of rules, but because polished black shoes just look far sharper.

 

[Nobilis Animus]

How you would like to dress (actually rocking a suit):




How SF imagines you'll dress (looking anachronistic):




How SF recommends you dress (so you don't look too formal):

 

[UrbanComposition]

I think men (on here at least) tend to wear shoes that are overly formal relative to the rest of the outfit and overly sleek. This looks discordant to my eye.

Look at Yukio Akamine. His shoes, outside of what he wears with suits are very sleek and even the shoes he wears with suits aren't the sleekest. He also wears sneakers with sport coats sometimes and regularly wears very lightly colored shoes to make things casual.

Or you can look at Antonio Liverano. He rarely wears sleek shoes. Here is a picture of him in what look to be playboy chukkas.

Or you can look at Antonio Panico. Or Bruce Boyer.

Many say Aldens are blobby and round, but I think they complement tailored outfits really well. This was part of the appeal of the whole Jason Jules/Drake's looks from several years ago (here is Jules in Alden chukkas and a suit). In basically all of those iconic pictures, Jules is wearing Aldens. Alden unlined loafers also look great with basically everything (maybe not a formal suit).

You could also look at a styleforum guy like Peter Zottolo. Maybe he can correct me, but it looks like he tends to wear more casual shoes and rarely wears oxfords.

Mark Cho is another example that comes to mind. He wears loafers that aren't very sleek with formal suits all the time and I think it looks very good.

These guys are all very stylish. If it works well enough for them, it works well enough for me. Now, you can certainly point to other stylish people who wear more formal shoes, but I think many of them would look better if they went more casual.

Also, one more thing: relatively plain shoes that don't have brogueing or captoes are very versatile because their formality is much more ambiguous. Here I am thinking of monkstraps (single or double), chukkas, ptbs (not derbies, but bluchers), chelseas, or even nsts. Of course, it partly depends on the shape, but shoes that don't have brogueing or captoes or wingtips or other stuff going on can do a lot more work.

I wear oxfords when I wear a suit, but with sport coats I tend to wear more casual shoes. For me, the top generally dictates what I wear on the bottom.

 

[wafflingwaffles]

I think, like with anything in life, it's a case of (1) avoiding the negative opposite and (2) rapidly diminishing returns

yes diminishing returns precisely. So this actually does support @dieworkwear’s point.
For the average guy going beyond suitsupply/spier/Dior sauvage/creed Aventus brings About rapidly diminishing returns in terms of social perception vs time/effort spent

 

[JFWR]

I'd say black shoes of any kind - oxford, boot, or loafer - is necessary for evening events where you're trying to look smart-casual or above.

Not because you'd otherwise be breaking some mouldering set of rules, but because polished black shoes just look far sharper.

Yes, nothing looks so nice as highly polished black shoes in the evening. Use blue polish for the inky black.

You can wear other colours, but black is king of the night.

 

[Nobilis Animus]

yes diminishing returns precisely. So this actually does support @dieworkwear’s point.
For the average guy going beyond suitsupply/spier/Dior sauvage/creed Aventus brings About rapidly diminishing returns in terms of social perception vs time/effort spent

This massively depends upon your social group and personality, though. Sure, most people wouldn't distinguish one maker from another, but in my experience women (or men!) with an eye for fashion can mostly tell when you're wearing something expensive/high quality.

 

[noobanker]

Why would anyone say that suits don't get you laid?
Obviously looks are important for getting laid.
Also, for the older gentlemen in this thread, these days women will be open to practically anything w/ strangers that they just met 5 minutes ago from Tinder (or insert any other app)

 

[noobanker]

How you would like to dress (actually rocking a suit):

View attachment 1488875


How SF imagines you'll dress (looking anachronistic):

View attachment 1488876


How SF recommends you dress (so you don't look too formal):

View attachment 1488878

that middle picture is pure lol. i can't imagine anyone who's not wearing a costume dressing this way in public.

 

[wafflingwaffles]

This massively depends upon your social group and personality, though. Sure, most people wouldn't distinguish one maker from another, but in my experience women (or men!) with an eye for fashion can mostly tell when you're wearing something expensive/high quality.

I mean if you're in like an Armoury or Hodinkee or Creed meetup then obviously maybe 90% of the attendees would recognise a difference in quality and would hence perceive you differently so I do take your point about social group. But I also think that the proportion of people regularly in social groups who can recognise those differences make up a tiny proportion of even the SF readership...

for the 10-90th percentile social group that the SF readership interacts with I would guess that the point re diminishing returns that @RogerC was making (I believe) is that 95% (maybe 99%) of those social groups' members won't be able to identify a difference in quality (as opposed to a difference in style) between your average well-altered SuitSupply VBC 110s and a really expensive US$10K bespoke with really nice fabric. Similarly they won't be able to differentiate a difference in quality between a mainstream designer scent (let's say Montblanc Explorer) and a really expensive niche scent. Or a difference in quality between say Allen Edmonds oxfords and Yohei Fukuda oxfords.

(I certainly can't recognise easily the difference in quality between the above-mentioned items)

Of course they'd be able to tell that those things look/smell/are different, but they would scarcely perceive those things things as being different in quality and hence they would likely not perceive you any differently once you reach that minimum threshold (beyond which there are massive diminishing returns in terms of money/effort/time in terms of sourcing those goods)

 

[noobanker]

sure but the point re diminishing returns that @RogerC was making (I believe) is that 95% (maybe 99%) of the population won't be able to identify a difference in quality (as opposed to a difference in style) between your average SuitSupply VBC 110s and a really expensive US$10K bespoke with really nice fabric. Similarly they won't be able to differentiate a difference in quality between a mainstream designer scent (let's say Montblanc Explorer) and a really expensive niche scent. Or a difference in quality between say Allen Edmonds oxfords and Yohei Fukuda oxfords.

Of course they'd be able to tell that those things look/smell/are different, but they would scarcely perceive those things things as being different in quality and hence they would likely not perceive you any differently once you reach that minimum threshold (beyond which there are massive diminishing returns in terms of money/effort/time in terms of sourcing those goods)

I mean if you're in like an Armoury or Hodinkee or Creed meetup then obviously maybe 90% of the attendees would recognise a difference in quality and would hence perceive you differently

I would imagine people might pick up on some differences that they can't quite put a finger on.

But then again, you're probably right. Other than fit, I'm not sure you will get anything more in terms of sexual attraction from going beyond suitsupply with a VBC fabric.

 

[wafflingwaffles]

I would imagine people might pick up on some differences that they can't quite put a finger on.

But then again, you're probably right. Other than fit, I'm not sure you will get anything more in terms of sexual attraction from going beyond suitsupply with a VBC fabric.

I agree, I think people can tell the difference between even a S&M/SuitSupply and a US$10K suit - but I think for most people it's perceived on a subconscious level (and even so they might not perceive the more expensive suit as "better" just "different) and hence it doesn't I think measurably translates into how the wearer is perceived socially by the vast majority of the population

But then again - maybe I'm just betraying my lack of perceptiveness here!

 

[zanci]

In my opinion, if you put the SuSu and the bespoke suit, and the fit is the same, people will notice. You can see the better/finer material. Also, people always are interested in my perfume (nasomatto baraonda), while the smell is a bit niche, I think the main difference is just that it is a perfume extract, and hits you and the people with a subtle but strong smell, which is totally different than if you apply a lot of the normal priced/cheap eau de toilette. Above all, people notice my coats, as they tend to be longer (different as the mainstream brands which are just a longer jacket), about the shoes, more expensive ones tend to shine better and I could go on and on....

Above all, I think the main thing is how you wear it, some people here still button both buttons, some rock it totally. The problem is, almost none of the jobs require a suit anymore, and if they require it, many people wear it with burden and that shows.