Sneakers With Tailoring: Yes, No, Maybe?

[yorkshire pud]

I can’t believe that you literally operate with zero rules on how to dress. You just are unaware or unwilling to admit it. Do you just randomly pick items from your wardrobe to wear on a given day? If you are interviewing for a job, do you really not think at all about what to wear and why? Can’t take you seriously at all.
Maybe we just differ on language. What is “good taste” if not some application of a heuristic on what looks good? And what is that heuristic based on? You might not call them rules but that’s what they are.

"Don't be a slave to the rules" is what he is saying, if something looks good but isn't traditionally 1950s Anglo-American Classic Menswear and veers slightly from the "rules and regulations"

So What?

Even DWW has come out in favour of sneakers with a suit, and is prepared to bend the rules occasionally !

We all bend different rules when it suits us, rules are meant to be broken that's evolution ?

 

[breakaway01]

"Don't be a slave to the rules" is what he is saying, if something looks good but isn't traditionally 1950s Anglo-American Classic Menswear and veers slightly from the "rules and regulations"

So What?

Even DWW has come out in favour of sneakers with a suit, and is prepared to bend the rules occasionally !

We all bend different rules when it suits us, rules are meant to be broken that's evolution ?

Never said one should be a slave to the rules. Read what that poster was saying—which is that no rules should ever apply.

 

[yorkshire pud]

I'm not sure you really believe this, you just think you do.

Say you are in a business meeting and you notice one of the new junior hires in accounting seems to be dressed oddly. You wonder what looks off about his clothes and realize it’s because they are two different colors and patterns, split down the middle. One leg of his trousers is pinstriped gray flannel, the other leg is navy blue.

One side of his shirt is sky blue gingham, the other side is light pink. One of his shoes is black, the other is burgundy.

One side of his jacket is pinstriped gray and the other side is navy blue, but it’s opposite to the pants.

He has two neckties on one over the other, with one tucked under one arm and the other going under the other. One is paisley and the other is polka dotted.

Half his head is shaved and tattooed with a pattern that looks like a chessboard, and you can’t see the other side of his head because he's got a baseball cap on, but half of it is cut out so you can see his checkerboard tattoo.

You look at his chair and see that he's draped a cape over it. One half of the cape is embroidered with lions and the other half with what looks like the planet Saturn and stars, and rocket ships.

He’s also propped two umbrellas against his chair. One has a handle shaped like a rocket ship, the other like a lion.

How do you think he looks?

It sounds like the tea lady spiked you with LSD ?

 

[yorkshire pud]

Never said one should be a slave to the rules. Read what that poster was saying—which is that no rules should ever apply.

I don't need to, the great thing with "unwritten rules" is that you can interpret them without reading them whatsoever ?

 

[JohnMRobie]

But yet, if you shop in the right places and take advantage of tailors and shopkeepers that know their trade at least as well as the more experienced members on this forum, the average guy here might do well to leave the decisions in their capable hands, and not his own. It rubs both ways, you know.

Sometimes I think the sad news needs to be broken to a few people here that they are not in fact the sole keepers of some mysterious grail of knowledge. But best, I think, not to shatter those illusions.

I think it’s highly doubtful that even a majority of people are shopping in places with experienced shop keepers and tailors.

Even amongst the people who are interested in looking better and buying a suit for more than just wearing to a wedding, job interview and a funeral they’re more likely to end up at Macy’s or Jos. A Bank for a buy 1 get 7 suits deal than a menswear boutique with an experienced tailor or shop keeper.

Let’s say you go a step further and they are dedicated to knowing they want to try and dress better - maybe they’ll end up at Indochino or SuSu. I’ve brought friends to SuSu to get a suit and watched the 20-something sales associate hand people the wrong size suits, try to hem their trousers at their ankle, try to convince them to further taper the leg that is already wrapping around their calf like a sausage casing.

The advice and experienced shop keepers you mention exist - They’re great. People should shop there and support them. I’d bet maybe 5% of the population ever finds them.

On this site I thought we cared about these things which is why it’s so weird to see people completely ignoring the fact that these rules largely define CM. People cheering with joy about some marble shell MTO event from whichever entry level shoe brand is running the event this time and all the things they’re going to have made up in the elusive “remnants from a babies diaper” colorway shell

or some bi-color, bi-material brogue that they’ll wear with shorts or pairing cap toe oxfords with a high shine and chinos to stick it to the man. People walking around in shorts and $1,000 balmoral boots because the color and leather were cool. It looks ******* stupid and it isn’t CM or coherent.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Just as a note, if there is a 'rules' vs. 'no rules' camp, I am in the 'rules' camp. My differences with some in that camp come more from whence and how we derive these rules, how they evolve, if they remain relevant and how new rules are emerging. And I recognise more than some people want to here, the performative and playful aspect of following rules that are not, or are no longer, socially normative.

 

[UrbanComposition]

My favorite guy on the interwebs that breaks the rules is Kevis Mansi. He obviously loves clothes and isn’t afraid of different styles, and while he is seemingly a scofflaw, he’s masterful at making it all come together with colors, patterns, textures, and similar levels of formality. In short: he breaks some rules rules but follows others.

If you absolutely MUST wear oxford shoes with casual pants, at least follow basic color/pattern theory so your fit is more coherent.

 

[emptym]

This post in the thread on whether people notice your shoes expresses one of the main reason guys want to wear oxfords with everything, namely a subtle feeling of superiority:

Yes they do. Specially ladies and well dressed men.

One of my secret pleasures is knowing that I am one of the best shoed guys in the room and confirming my preception when I catch the quick glances that people give to my shoes.

That sense of superiority is challenged when people say oxfords are not "the best," and this leads people to say there's no rules, no experts. The root is a challenge to their ego.

Sure, but that's literally a rule then, right? Don't wear yellow suits unless you're a performer on stage or a rock star.

+1. Go to a nice store and get advice from a good salesperson also assumes rules and experts.

I'm not convinced that the "anti-rule" people even believe what they're saying. They are simply taking a position for the sake of argument. Specifically for the "shoe guy" segment of that group, look at how they discuss the details of shoe design.

- Suede and country grain are more casual than smooth calfskin
- Black is more formal than brown
- Broguing is more causal than plain toe
- Double leather sole is more casual than single

So on and so forth.

Where do these ideas come from? Do you think that the average person on the street knows this type of arcane history? If someone asked you how to design a "country shoe," you would have very specific ideas about how those details come together to express something meaningful. If some random person said, "well, I think broguing is formal," you would say they're wrong.

This is information you've picked up off the internet, not from random people on the street. The difference is that you're mainly interested in shoes, and not the broader subject of outfits. So you dismiss the idea that the same level of specificity and arcane knowledge might have a role in the broader project of creating a good outfit. But how can it be that shoe design can be so specific, and not the broader goal of creating a pleasing outfit? How can someone spend time arguing over the details of a shoe, but say that they're so freeform about worsteds and tweeds, drape and clean silhouettes, yellow paired with green, shawl collars with patch pockets, etc?

Well said.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's exactly those other details that I have in mind when I'm thinking about coherence. I think worsteds are more formal than tweeds, wool generally more formal than linen or cotton, and so on. I don't think suede can't ever tend toward the formal, but sure, suede and grained less formal than smooth calf, which is less formal matte than polished to a high shine. And yes, earth tones more down-to-earth and navy/black on the sharper side.

It's why I think a brogued, grained oxford is considerably less formal than a smooth calf split-toe, and even more so if the derby has a shine. And why I think a corduroy or tweed suit is less formal than grey trousers and a navy blazer. Given the overlap, I'll leave the logic tree to you.

For all that you like to keep going back to the AE ads with the tan Strands...there's a reason those guys aren't wearing black captoes with their jeans and chinos -- or really, even black at all. It's because they get these things too. We all get them, if we've got any sense at all. They just draw their lines in different places. But that in no way means they draw their lines without regard to congruence. Without regard to historical norms from a golden era? Sure. But that's not the same thing. Not at all.

Maybe I'm wrong, but haven't you also argued against rules, experts, history, and tradition? The "details" you mention in the first paragraph and "things" you mention in the third are rules, which come from history, tradition. Certainly not all people "get them." Which is why there are "experts" and the need for teaching. To your earlier question about where people get their style, it's not mainly by observation but by being taught, first from their parents, grandparents, and then mentors, peers, etc. Observation is important, but from very early ages, people are taught rules of style.

In your second paragraph, you mention "It's why I think a brogued, grained oxford is considerably less formal than a smooth calf split-toe, and even more so if the derby has a shine. And why I think a corduroy or tweed suit is less formal than grey trousers and a navy blazer. Given the overlap, I'll leave the logic tree to you."

The logic here gives priority to material (corduroy, grain) over form (suit, oxford). If that logic is applied consistently, one would wear a shined derby with a navy blazer and grained oxford with tweed suit, ie, one would follow DWW's rules. But if we added DWW's rule of dressing down the outfit with one's shoes, we're led to grained oxford with navy blazer. So it seems that DWW should be dressing like you, and you like him.

 

[yorkshire pud]

I also think everybody will have a slightly different "rulebook" depending on age location, culture and what kind of social life they lead etc.

If you think mens style peaked in the 1940s, you will be a lot less inclined to break the "rules" than somebody who thinks style peaked in the 1960s

Just as a note, if there is a 'rules' vs. 'no rules' camp, I am in the 'rules' camp. My differences with some in that camp come more from whence and how we derive these rules, how they evolve, if they remain relevant and how new rules are emerging. And I recognise more than some people want to here, the performative and playful aspect of following rules that are not, or are no longer, socially normative.

Interesting how the hat "rules" of the golden age no longer apply to the sticklers

They appear to have been forgotten completely.

 

[thatboyo]

Yes they do. Specially ladies and well dressed men.

One of my secret pleasures is knowing that I am one of the best shoed guys in the room and confirming my preception when I catch the quick glances that people give to my shoes.

Fitting that this guy has a tan shoe for an avy.
Personally I do quick glances more at ugly shoes.

 

[ValidusLA]

Fitting that this guy has a tan shoe for an avy.
Personally I do quick glances more at ugly shoes.

100%

If I see a guy wearing a nice shoe who is poorly dressed I likely ignore it. If he's well dressed I may compliment his outfit and/or shoes.

If the shoes are awful...the aforementioned and mis-romanticized quick glances.

 

[Proleet]

"Don't be a slave to the rules" is what he is saying, if something looks good but isn't traditionally 1950s Anglo-American Classic Menswear and veers slightly from the "rules and regulations"

So What?

Even DWW has come out in favour of sneakers with a suit, and is prepared to bend the rules occasionally !

We all bend different rules when it suits us, rules are meant to be broken that's evolution ?

except when it comes to oxfords and everyone not adhering to the rules is a shoe guy who ”only looks at the shoes and not the whole outfit” while that’s exactly what he is doing with his rules about oxfords…
(this became crystal clear when suede Oxfords supposedly wouldn’t work to replace other suede shoes in the posted outfit).

 

[yorkshire pud]

100%

If I see a guy wearing a nice shoe who is poorly dressed I likely ignore it. If he's well dressed I may compliment his outfit and/or shoes.

If the shoes are awful...the aforementioned and mis-romanticized quick glances.

Well dressed or Following the "Rules"?

In principal I agree, if somebody looks good you will spend more time looking at the finer details regardless of the "rules" (In this case detail becomes important)

If somebody looks bad, you move quickly on regardless of "rules" compliance (detail becomes irrelevant)

Following the "rules" and being well dressed aren't necessarily the same thing, the rules (such as they are) are fairly trivial and aimed at a very specific group of people in the mid twentieth-century

At least as far as I can tell

 

[acapaca]

Maybe I'm wrong, but haven't you also argued against rules, experts, history, and tradition?

No, I argue against being slave to those things. I think an inflexible approach is a good way to get yourself left behind.

That said, I was taught that you don't wear a button-down collar with a double-breasted jacket, yet nowadays I see it all the time. (And I'm sure there are pictures of people doing it a long time ago too, on horseback or off.) But it still looks wrong to my eye, so I'm not gonna do it. Anyone else can knock themselves out, though, as far as I'm concerned. Some of the guys I see pull it off with panache, and at least I find their outfits interesting.

You may be right about parents, grandparents, and mentors doing more to teach style than peers and the visible public, but that doesn't mesh with my own observations. It has seemed more common than not to me that young guys rebelled against their dads' styles in their teenage years, or at least were far more attuned to what classmates and pop culture figures were wearing. The scenario you describe sounds...quaint.

As far as prioritizing material over form...It's clear to me that many people here view form as more categorical in nature while I view it along a spectrum, and in just one dimension (of formality) at that. I don't see disjoint sets of suits and separates that have no overlap.

 

[dieworkwear]

Well dressed or Following the "Rules"?

In principal I agree, if somebody looks good you will spend more time looking at the finer details regardless of the "rules" (In this case detail becomes important)

If somebody looks bad, you move quickly on regardless of "rules" compliance (detail becomes irrelevant)

Following the "rules" and being well dressed aren't necessarily the same thing, the rules (such as they are) are fairly trivial and aimed at a very specific group of people in the mid twentieth-century

At least as far as I can tell

I agree that following the rules and being well-dressed are not necessarily the same thing. Would even argue that the only thing that's important is being well-dressed/ stylish. The point of the "rules" is to help you get there, assuming you want to dress in a classic men's style way. So the rules play second fiddle to being stylish.

But when people post photos of grey suede John Varvatos oxfords with contrast laces, and ask "why can't you wear these with jeans?" then the only recourse is to discuss "rules." How else can you discuss this? If we only talk about aesthetics, then I can only say "well that's ugly." And another person says "well that's stylish." That would be the end of the convo. If pressed, I can only give historical or sociological reasons for why I think that combination is bad.

No, I argue against being slave to those things. I think an inflexible approach is a good way to get yourself left behind.

You are setting up a strawman ("being a slave to rules") that literally no one has argued. You view me as being rigid on rules, yet I've constantly cited people who have worn oxfords well with sport coats. The point is that there are some people who are so unmoored from tradition, their style is continually drifting away from classic men's style and I would argue, the aesthetic ugly. You've then replied with, "well there are no rules," "it's all opinion," and "this is how things are evolving." @breakaway01 pointed out that this is a descriptive view of the world, not normative, which is how we ended up here.

You clearly do believe in some rules. This is the point. The "anti-rule" crowd does have a normative view of style. But you seem to say "meh, whatever" when pressed on whether some shoe + outfit combinations are bad.