Why did you start wearing square-toed shoes?

[SkinnyGoomba]

LOL @ Bic's wingtip comments, good stuff.

Reminds me, after i bought my Darlton tassel loafers one of my girlfriend's friends commented "wow man, nice wingtips".

 

[dave333]

Never and it was pretty win.

 

[GradSchooler]

I picked up a pair a couple of years ago at Aldo. This was before my SF days and I just needed a simple brown loafer. Found a pair cheap at Aldo. It never even occured to me that toe shape was an issue. Now they sit in the closet and I will never wear them again. Should probably give those away to charity. Better square toed shoes than no shoes in Ontario in the winter.

 

[HomerJ]

Originally Posted by Bic Pentameter

Some of us overthink this. The average guy goes to DSW, or Ross, or the Kenneth Cole shop in the mall. He thinks he is an 8.5 or a 9. Maybe that is what his mother told him when he was 17 years old. Maybe the Nikes he wore to the shop are a 9, or a 8.5 or what have you, so he goes to the section with a big "9" or big "8 1/2" above it. He peeks in the boxes. He thinks he wants a dress shoe, or a casual shoe. In all likelihood, "dress shoe" probably means black. "Casual shoe" probably means "not a wingtip." He thinks that if the shoes bear a name he has heard somewhere, such as Cole Haan, Floresheim, or something with lotsa vowels in it, then the shoes must be all right. He sees a shoe that he thinks is "dressy" or "casual." He tries it on. If he can squeeze his feet into the shoe, he checks the price. If it is within his budget, he goes to the register to complete his purchase so that he can do more important things with his time. I would be surprised if your average male even knows that leather is stretched over something called a last to make a shoe, or thinks that the a manufacturer could make the same shoe in different lasts resulting in different toe shapes. Shoes are to keep you from stubbing your toe and to keep you from stepping in dog doo doo. Who the heck cares about the shape of the toe? I bought a pair of square toed shoes once. I was in Chicago had some free time at a convention, and extra money from my per diem. It was my first visit to Filene's Basement. I wanted bargains. I knew I was an 8.5 or a 9. I went to the shoe section that had a big "8.5" above it. I peeked into the boxes. Eventually, I found a pair of black shoes that were marked "9." They were blutchers, with a somewhat rounded but distinctly square toe. I squeezed my foot into them. I looked at the price. I think they were $39.99. They were made in Italy, and the brand name had lotsa vowels in it. I liked them so much, and my foot squeezed into them so well, I scoured the shelves to find a pair in brown. I went to the register and bought them. This was before I joined the Styleforum and the shape of the toe did not enter my mind. They turned out to be glue jobs, and thus could not be resoled. If I could have resoled them, I would still wear them today, current Style Forum membership notwithstanding. Bic
A friend in my wedding didn't have any suits to wear so I hooked him up with a nice Corneliani. I left the dress shoes up to him. He showed up in square toe pleather bicycle shoes. I think he went through the process you described.

 

[mensimageconsultant]

Originally Posted by Bic Pentameter

Some of us overthink this. The average guy goes to DSW, or Ross, or the Kenneth Cole shop in the mall. He thinks he is an 8.5 or a 9. Maybe that is what his mother told him when he was 17 years old. Maybe the Nikes he wore to the shop are a 9, or a 8.5 or what have you, so he goes to the section with a big "9" or big "8 1/2" above it. He peeks in the boxes. He thinks he wants a dress shoe, or a casual shoe. In all likelihood, "dress shoe" probably means black. "Casual shoe" probably means "not a wingtip." He thinks that if the shoes bear a name he has heard somewhere, such as Cole Haan, Floresheim, or something with lotsa vowels in it, then the shoes must be all right. He sees a shoe that he thinks is "dressy" or "casual." He tries it on. If he can squeeze his feet into the shoe, he checks the price. If it is within his budget, he goes to the register to complete his purchase so that he can do more important things with his time.

I would be surprised if your average male even knows that leather is stretched over something called a last to make a shoe, or thinks that the a manufacturer could make the same shoe in different lasts resulting in different toe shapes. Shoes are to keep you from stubbing your toe and to keep you from stepping in dog doo doo. Who the heck cares about the shape of the toe?

I bought a pair of square toed shoes once. I was in Chicago had some free time at a convention, and extra money from my per diem. It was my first visit to Filene's Basement. I wanted bargains. I knew I was an 8.5 or a 9. I went to the shoe section that had a big "8.5" above it. I peeked into the boxes.

Eventually, I found a pair of black shoes that were marked "9." They were blutchers, with a somewhat rounded but distinctly square toe. I squeezed my foot into them. I looked at the price. I think they were $39.99. They were made in Italy, and the brand name had lotsa vowels in it. I liked them so much, and my foot squeezed into them so well, I scoured the shelves to find a pair in brown. I went to the register and bought them. This was before I joined the Styleforum and the shape of the toe did not enter my mind. They turned out to be glue jobs, and thus could not be resoled. If I could have resoled them, I would still wear them today, current Style Forum membership notwithstanding.

Bic

More praise for that post.

There's no way the average guy knows what a "last" is. Also, you're right - square-toes could be purchased in part because Kenneth Cole is trusted. The mystery still is why perhaps millions of men have chosen to wear shoes that objectively are ugly, which ought to outweigh the other reasons to buy them. Maybe, through the familiarity-is-attractive pathway, wearing bulky athletic sneakers conditioned their visual systems to think boxy is good?

 

[OttoSkadelig]

Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant

More praise for that post.

There's no way the average guy knows what a "last" is. Also, you're right - square-toes could be purchased in part because Kenneth Cole is trusted. The mystery still is why perhaps millions of men have chosen to wear shoes that objectively are ugly, which ought to outweigh the other reasons to buy them. Maybe, through the familiarity-is-attractive pathway, wearing bulky athletic sneakers conditioned their visual systems to think boxy is good?

i think we are kidding ourselves if we believe that most of the things we have been culturally conditioned to believe are ugly are TRULY ugly in an absolute sense. people may have once thought that square-toed shoes give a muscular look. maybe muscular was in back then and italian pointy-toed elegance was viewed as outdated or for dandies and sissies. remember, doc martens were big not much earlier.

same deal with bootcut jeans. quite funny how everyone thought they looked great 5 years ago, and now they're ugly all of a sudden!

in renaissance europe large, voluptuous women were considered the apex of desirability. now, thin is in. which one, in an absolute sense, is more beautiful? depends on your perspective and the non-visual elements that may subconsciously coloring your opinions (in this case, large = capable of bearing lots of babies, proxy for personal wealth, etc., at a time when these were all "desirables".)

 

[mensimageconsultant]

Name a long historical era in which squared-toed footwear was considered attractive. Squared-toe shoes indeed look somewhat masculine, but that and "pretty" generally don't go together.

Bootcut jeans aren't objectively "ugly," which implies some disgust. Nor do they look particularly good.

The claimed cultural ideal of women's weight sometimes hasn't matched actual male preferences. Despite the paintings, hundreds of years ago most men still valued "slim." (Books from the time make that clear.) And most men don't like today's skinny runway model look.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant

Name a long historical era in which squared-toed footwear was considered attractive.
Late 1600's to mid 1800's*...almost a geological era. Also if testimony here is to be believed, some as yet undetermined time in the mid to late 20th century. *see Shoes by June Swann...past keeper of the Shoe Collection and curator at the Northampton Museum

 

[derv]

Many African-American men in Chicago still wear square toes.

 

[The Thin Man]

I just checked Zappos, which I think is still the biggest online shoeseller, for what are the most popular models for what they call "oxfords" (basically lace-ups, excluding boat shoes).

The most popular are:
1. Rockport Margin
2. Rockport World Tour Classic
3. Deer Stags Times
4. Bostonian Akron
5. Dockers Perspective
6. Bass Brockton
7. Rockport Evander

The Dockers and the Evander are square-toed, so the platypus-bill foot is alive and well. The others are round-toed, with the two top Rockports more of a bulbous round, perhaps for the long-term square-toe lovers who are ready to dip their feet back into more circular shoes.

 

[TheDroog]

I purchased square-toed shoes all through college and deep into my twenties. Why? They are inexpensive shoes that don't look like the old, fuddy-duddy shoes my dad wore.

I suspect most young guys buy shoes in the same manner. You walk into a department store or DSW looking for dress shoes that cost <$100. (After all, who pays more than $100 for shoes?) Your options are ugly Bostonian tassel loafers or oxfords that only people 50+ years old would wear ... or square-toed Kenneth Coles. The KCs look pretty edgy, and you're pretty sure you can wear them with both suits and jeans. And, oh snap!, they're on sale for $60. Done. You lay down your cash and you're now the proud owner of some sweet KC Reactions.

 

[OttoSkadelig]

Originally Posted by mensimageconsultant

Name a long historical era in which squared-toed footwear was considered attractive. Squared-toe shoes indeed look somewhat masculine, but that and "pretty" generally don't go together.

Bootcut jeans aren't objectively "ugly," which implies some disgust. Nor do they look particularly good.

The claimed cultural ideal of women's weight sometimes hasn't matched actual male preferences. Despite the paintings, hundreds of years ago most men still valued "slim." (Books from the time make that clear.) And most men don't like today's skinny runway model look.

the fact that a certain look has only been popular in one time period doesn't necessarily prove anything. for example, top hats were really big only in the victorian period. that doesn't say anything in particular about whether they look great or not in an absolute sense.

anyway, rather than picking over examples, my point was more general -- that what we define as "ugly" is frequently -- not always -- the result of social conditioning. there are some things that are naturally ugly in an absolute sense (e.g., a pink shirt with neon green stripes) and there are probably scientific reasons for why we would consider such things ugly (complementarity of colors and how the brain processes colors.) but there are plenty of other things that millions once considered nice-looking but now look idiotic (e.g., big 80s hair.)

(i also believe we subconsciously attach a premium to conforming; if many otherwise attractive people adopt a style, they transfer some of their attractiveness to that style and it becomes a part of a "look" that you want, and you end up considering something attractive because others are wearing it, no matter how it looks in an absolute sense. the history of fashion abounds with examples of this.)

 

[onix]

Despite all the hates, I still have a pair of Kenneth Cole soft square toes rubber sole bought 5 years ago pre-SF. They look good, fit nicely, and durable. Admittedly, the leather finish is not that nice, but they don't scuff much to begin with. So yeah, for all of the square toe haters, there are different types of square toes. Also, EG, G&G and AS all have square toe shoes, FWIW.

 

[jonnyt]

I only very recently threw away two pairs of Gucci leather soled and Prada rubber soled shoes that I'd had for 10 years and 5 years respectively. I happily wore them in rotation up until a couple of months ago. All the shoes I have now are Northampton made and are round or chiselled but then again, I'm 32 now so I feel more comfortable buying more traditional shoes. Back when I started my first job 10 years ago I didn't know what Goodyear welting was, thought Jermyn St was for old men, I hadn't heard of Edward Green and couldn't have afforded a pair even if I had.
I haven't started buying traditional shoes because of a 'rule' I've read on SF but because to my eye now, they look better. My fashion sense has changed in many ways over the past decade. Then again, I'm not ruling out the (however unlikely) possibility of getting a squarish pair of shoes down the line depending on what takes my fancy in 10 , 20, 30 years...

 

[francisl]

To my recollection I've never bought or worn a pair of square-toed shoes. When I was a kid I just remember trying to find shoes that wouldn't look out of place - I hated fashion for ages, so I just wanted to not have particularly ugly shoes. Headed to Clarks, saw what was popular and went for it, not much thought.

Since I began liking fashion I've never gone for square-toed shoes, not so much because I *knew* it was some sin because for ages I didn't, I just never liked them when I saw them. Crisis averted.