# Most Versatile/Durable *Grown Up* Man's Sneaker - Make, Material & Color



## BostonHedonist (Aug 20, 2015)

At the risk of being run out of town on a pike, I need to open by saying I don't like the way it looks when a man's footwear is the brightest element of his outfit. Just seems rather juvenile. As such, I'm of the sort that thinks *white sneakers belong at the gym*.

::ducks a few tomatoes::

Most of my footwear are brogues and boots and I generally don't like anything that looks like it was made specifically for athletics. But for light traveling around Europe/Asia and frequent walking, I've realized that there is a hole in my wardrobe: the all-around leather sneaker.

So I will put the question to you fine gents: *What, in your opinion, would be the most durable and versatile make, maaterial and color of leather sneaker out there?*

So far, the two makes of sneaker that have intrigued me the most are Common Projects (great but way over priced these days) and Buttero (minimal with a bit of an Italian edge).

Common Projects Achilles:









Buttero Tanino:









Both of these are reportedly very durable, and extremely comfortable when broken in. They're also minimalist and more or less unbranded. Very smart looking.

In terms of color, everyone's got an opinion. I personally think the most versatile color is gray. Though gray is a bit boring. From there, perhaps navy blue and burgundy, followed by tan, black and medium-dark brown.

For material, I'm split between suede and calf. Both have their benefits, but I think calf can be dressed up a bit easier. Personally, I'm learning toward CPs in burgundy calf. But virtually everyone "fashion-focused" that I asked say burgundy sneakers are a crazy idea.

So how about you? What would you pick if you had just one (non-white) sneaker?


----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

one of those ones that are meant to shed water easily ,quick drying and looks like a sport thing. the photos provided have that fat rubber on them. They do look "smart" but if I were to gravitate to them I would feel as if I'm changing or rather 'lowering' my presentation regards maturity of choice and be promoting the mainstream digression away from dignified standards. At best it's a niche shoe type which niche isn't required in my life.Weather you go smooth or suede it's still based on a flaw.


----------



## BostonHedonist (Aug 20, 2015)

Well, there's no accounting for taste - so they say. Moving on.

Another option I'm intrigued by is a pair of cordovan sneakers, the FEIT Biotrainer:


----------



## howemi01 (Nov 2, 2014)

I find the concept of leather/smart/dress sneakers to be a bit oxymoronic, if I'm honest. And in particular white rubber sidewalls look juvenile/effeminate (Keds). If you need a pair of walking shoes then get walking shoes. Obviously it's a matter of priorities but at $600 for a pair of those FEITs, I'd rather spend $100 on a good pair of New Balance waterproof walking shoes and put the remainder towards cordovan Aldens at least!


----------



## Chillburgher (Mar 19, 2014)

howemi01 said:


> I find the concept of leather/smart/dress sneakers to be a bit oxymoronic, if I'm honest.


Seconded. One may as well search for unicorns as search for a "grown-up" looking sneaker.


----------



## shipworthy (Jun 19, 2014)

Tough crowd regarding sneakers! Come to the trad side where folks have strong affections for keds, vans classics, speedy CVOs and other white canvas shoes. Nothing wrong with having a pair of simple sneakers! You can't do yard work in your cap toes...

If you're into the CP style, check out Gustin's shoe offerings. They're basically a carbon copy of the CP styling but significantly cheaper. They tend towards calf in more traditional colors (white, tan, brown) but you may see something you like.

And, FWIW, those cordovan sneakers are not working. Plus that shell looks really spottily dyed. Perhaps its sold as surplus/defective for discount pricing...


----------



## Fred G. Unn (Jul 12, 2011)

BostonHedonist said:


> So how about you? What would you pick if you had just one (non-white) sneaker?


For nicer sneakers I have three pairs of Butteros and a pair of Pantafolas, but if I had to pick only one pair of non-white, I'd probably go with my taupe suede Diemme Veneto Lows. They use CF Stead suede and you can often find them on Yoox for pretty cheap. That's where I got mine anyway. These aren't exactly the same as mine are taupe instead of gray and mine have a gum sole, but they are similar to this:

Just another brand to consider anyway, especially if you luck out and can find a pair from Yoox or another discounter. Diemme doesn't quite have the fanbase of CP or Buttero so they fly a little more under the radar.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

OP, I don't have an answer. I just wanted to say that the examples you posted seem simple and modest enough that I wouldn't mind wearing them (i.e. I'm on your side), whereas the cordovan sneakers a) remind of me of dorky walking shoes (I mean, they _are_ walking shoes); and b) such shoes aren't meant to last a long time anyway, meaning that the expensive horsehide is just conspicuous consumption ("Look at me, I can afford to throw cordovan away!").

I don't know what I'd wear as a tourist, if I were going to walk for miles on pavement: not brogues, most likely! As it happens, the only athletic shoes I own are for cycling. Athletic shoes to accommodate my feet are expensive, so I don't even bother, and I don't need them for Asian martial arts. All of which is to say, take my opinion for what little it's worth.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

Fred G. Unn said:


> For nicer sneakers I have three pairs of Butteros and a pair of Pantafolas...


Can any of these accommodate a high instep? I could barely manage to lace up CVOs.


----------



## Woofa (Dec 23, 2014)

How about a pair of low top hiking boots. Plenty from companies like Vasque, Keen and Merrell, and while they are not quite as conservative as shoes, there are plenty in the browns and greys and they would seem to fill that gap nicely.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I'd go olive canvas myself, but Kent Wang has trainers very similar to the ones posted.
https://www.kentwang.com/shoes?cat=74


----------



## Deusis (Sep 17, 2015)

If you're interested a durable and somewhat minimalistic design, give Rancourt Court Classics a look. They're currently $260 and made in Maine. These have a Vibram sole which is a bit different than other sneakers.

I purchased a pair back when they were in their pre-sale phase for $200, but at $260 - I would still buy them. Great versatility, no branding, very comfortable, quality materials and solid construction.

In terms of sizing, they are definitely TTS. I'm an 11.5D brannock and 11.5 fits perfect with these. Full image album of my pair is available to see here.


----------



## BostonHedonist (Aug 20, 2015)

To those chiming in and still suggesting athletic trainers, thanks for the input. For those advocating I don't buy sneakers at all, I hear there's sale on bay rum in aisle 9! Check it out!

But the point of the thread is really to discuss footwear that is not dressy (oxfords, brogues, pennies) and yet not so "sporty" as trainers. Living in Europe (as an American) and traveling as often as I do, I see my European friends play "spot the American tourist." A big bright "N" on the side of your ugly synthetic trainers is a dead giveaway. Watch out for pickpockets and aggressive callgirls while strolling downtown. But I suppose it depends where we are looking. In Germany, a lot of people wear Solomon cross trainers. In Milan, drivers are the thing (but the men don't seem to walk much in them). In Barcelona, leather sneakers or pointy dress shoes. It varies. But what I'm after would work just about anywhere. I want the feel of a premium hide that has molded itself to my foot, without the gait-controlling structure of a classic shoe - or the unstructured ankle-rolling feel of a moc. Enter the minimal leather sneaker.



shipworthy said:


> If you're into the CP style, check out Gustin's shoe offerings. They're basically a carbon copy of the CP styling but significantly cheaper. They tend towards calf in more traditional colors (white, tan, brown) but you may see something you like.
> 
> And, FWIW, those cordovan sneakers are not working. Plus that shell looks really spottily dyed. Perhaps its sold as surplus/defective for discount pricing...


Didn't know about Gustin, though I like the look of it! Do they use the same factories/materials as some of these larger brands whose styles they're copying?

Yeah I know what you mean about those FEITs. They wouldn't be the ONE sneaker and their design is certainly... an acquired taste. But unique, yes. And comfortable, I'll bet. They come standard with extra cork footboards to micro-adjust sizing.



Fred G. Unn said:


> For nicer sneakers I have three pairs of Butteros and a pair of Pantafolas, but if I had to pick only one pair of non-white, I'd probably go with my taupe suede Diemme Veneto Lows. They use CF Stead suede and you can often find them on Yoox for pretty cheap.
> 
> Just another brand to consider anyway, especially if you luck out and can find a pair from Yoox or another discounter. Diemme doesn't quite have the fanbase of CP or Buttero so they fly a little more under the radar.


Hey thanks, I remember seeing Diemme way in the past but never committed them to memory. By and large, their styles seem a bit more fashion forward than I'd go for, though the Venetos are very minimal/smart. How do you find the durability and the overall comfort?

PS - Browsing Pantofola and I'm just smitten. How does their sizing compare to your Butteros?



Deusis said:


> If you're interested a durable and somewhat minimalistic design, give Rancourt Court Classics a look. They're currently $260 and made in Maine. These have a Vibram sole which is a bit different than other sneakers.
> 
> I purchased a pair back when they were in their pre-sale phase for $200, but at $260 - I would still buy them. Great versatility, no branding, very comfortable, quality materials and solid construction.


Another solid contender, though almost stitch for stitch replica of the CP Achilles. I'm intrigued by the horsehide lining and the Vibram outsole. Wonder how a Vibram outsole would compare to the vulcanized rubber as standard in CPs.


----------



## shipworthy (Jun 19, 2014)

Gustin's website has some details about where the shoes are made and they certainly present it as premium, made in Italy construction. But then again so does everyone and I certainly do not know enough about Italian sneaker manufacturing to critically assess their descriptions. But then, that's also why I'd definitely pick up the <$200 Gustins over the identically styled >$400 CPs.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I like both that the OP displayed. My issue with the Common Projects is the prominent numbering on the side of the shoe. Perhaps the pair in question is void of these but those I've seen all have it.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Desirable Result said:


> ...if I were to gravitate to them [the sneakers shown by the OP]I would feel as if I'm changing or rather 'lowering' my presentation regards maturity of choice and be promoting the mainstream digression away from dignified standards. At best it's a niche shoe type which niche isn't required in my life.Weather you go smooth or suede it's still based on a flaw.


My gibberish is a bit rusty so I may not have caught precisely what you were tossing out there, but I think it's that you really don't like sneakers and from the tone I'm inferring you feel similarly towards those who wear them. Am I far off? Do I win anything?

To my Boston friend who began this, I didn't know bay rum was a pejorative, but I sense your drift and even though I love the stuff I'll put the cork back in mine for I don't need to signal anyone downwind there's an old guy stumbling their way.Thanks for the tip.

I wish I could offer some good leather sneaker suggestions, I like the idea and your pics, somewhat similar to Chucks, tho I wouldn't recommend them (Chucks) because I want to be the sole single lone individual here who is proud to be a wearer of Chucks, life long, unlike the guy above who thinks white sidewalls are fem, confuses Chuck Taylor with Elizabeth, but may be on to something since when wearing them I often am able to reach High C. The gray ones you pictured above. Get those. Those are nice. Converse also makes/made something called 'Premiere', a very beautiful sneaker. I have them in suede, soft leather and washed canvas.


----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

'Peak'  - "but I think it's that you really don't like sneekers and from the tone I'm inferring you feel similarly towards those who wear them' ....I'll come clean, I like sneekers but I don't wear them. I have sneekers and use them in casual, really casual circumstances this is 1 or 2 times a year for short duration as I call to mind. And I like some people that wear sneekers but not all and not because they wear sneekers. Still, I dont advocate sneekers. A parallel -I like football, hockey, but I dont watch it. If sneekers would go the way of staying in the gym and on the court then I feel we'd all be better off for it because it means that other value changing would have also taken place, It,s idealistic . Since you seemed to be asking Peak.


----------



## JeffTL (Aug 7, 2012)

The Allen Edmonds Voyager might do the trick. They aren't the most stylish things in the world, but they aren't bad and the reviews seem to suggest they are quite comfortable. Plus they're recraftable, which is always nice (especially since the uppers are of good enough quality to deserve it if you still like the shoes).


----------



## YoungSoulRebel (Feb 10, 2015)

Doesn't get any "manlier" than the Jack Purcell.


----------



## Fred G. Unn (Jul 12, 2011)

BostonHedonist said:


> Hey thanks, I remember seeing Diemme way in the past but never committed them to memory. By and large, their styles seem a bit more fashion forward than I'd go for, though the Venetos are very minimal/smart. How do you find the durability and the overall comfort?
> 
> PS - Browsing Pantofola and I'm just smitten. How does their sizing compare to your Butteros?


I'll try to post some comparison pics for you tomorrow morning. You also might want to check out Epaulet's offerings too. They have a nice looking sneaker on a gum sole and a GAT too:



JeffTL said:


> The Allen Edmonds Voyager might do the trick.


Bicycle toed sneakers?! Sorry man, I think those are kinda hideous.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

JeffTL said:


> The Allen Edmonds Voyager might do the trick.





Fred G. Unn said:


> Bicycle toed sneakers?! Sorry man, I think those are kinda hideous.


We've gone from "grown up" to geriatric.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> We've gone from "grown up" to geriatric.


I'm 54, but I'll die before I wear those.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

SlideGuitarist said:


> I don't know what I'd wear as a tourist, if I were going to walk for miles on pavement: not brogues, most likely!


I'd go for a pair of suede chukkas with a soft crepe sole. Unbelievably comfortable and tremendously versatile. I would not wear sneakers.



SlideGuitarist said:


> As it happens, the only athletic shoes I own are for cycling.


Me too. And golf. For casual wear, I have far better options. Though I will say that on some level I find cordovan sneakers to be conceptually cool. Perhaps because they look a bit LESS like they belong in a high school gym.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

BostonHedonist said:


> To those chiming in and still suggesting athletic trainers, thanks for the input. For those advocating I don't buy sneakers at all, I hear there's sale on bay rum in aisle 9! Check it out!


To those advocating wearing sneakers as casual wear, get off your Mommy's computer, finish your homework, brush your teeth and go to bed!


----------



## BostonHedonist (Aug 20, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> I like both that the OP displayed. My issue with the Common Projects is the prominent numbering on the side of the shoe. Perhaps the pair in question is void of these but those I've seen all have it.


A bit of acetone maybe?



JeffTL said:


> The Allen Edmonds Voyager might do the trick. They aren't the most stylish things in the world, but they aren't bad and the reviews seem to suggest they are quite comfortable. Plus they're recraftable, which is always nice (especially since the uppers are of good enough quality to deserve it if you still like the shoes).


Maybe as a bowling shoe....

But on the topic of sneakers from more "traditional" shoemakers, Church's recently came out with a line that I think is noteworthy. Their uppers are quite a bit more refined in design than CP clones and the silhouette looks much more lasted.










Love the way the upper remains unbroken from the toebox to the heel.


----------



## Fred G. Unn (Jul 12, 2011)

As promised, here's a comparison shot:



From L to R - Diemme, Buttero, Pantafola, National Standard
The Butteros are the longest, but they are also maybe the most narrow. Virtually everyone seems to size down in them, but I wear 'em TTS because I need the width. The National Standards are maybe a touch smaller than the Diemme and Pantafolas.


----------



## BostonHedonist (Aug 20, 2015)

Fred G. Unn said:


> As promised, here's a comparison shot:
> 
> From L to R - Diemme, Buttero, Pantafola, National Standard
> The Butteros are the longest, but they are also maybe the most narrow. Virtually everyone seems to size down in them, but I wear 'em TTS because I need the width. The National Standards are maybe a touch smaller than the Diemme and Pantafolas.


Nice looking setup Fred. Love those Butteros and the cut of the Pantofolas looks great. Matter of fact, I just bought a pair of burgundy CPs and pair of navy blue butteros. I think burgundy is a vastly underrated color for sneakers.

Are you the same size in Pantofola as in Buttero? Because so far CP and Buttero seem the most generously sized of any shoes I've tried on.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

RogerP said:


> To those advocating wearing sneakers as casual wear, get off your Mommy's computer, finish your homework, brush your teeth and go to bed!


Lol that was a good one Roger !

Have to say though out here in San Diego, I have to admit yes I do wear athletic shoes for casual wear.

Anyway, when I was in Europe a few months back, heeding the advice to not look like a tourist in Paris, heaven forbid, I eschewed the wearing of white athletic shoes and only wore black ones. I did some cycling and walking and so forth.

So the bicycle toe AEs don't look so bad in retrospect, though I too thought them somewhat ugly when I first saw them mentioned here.

Now as far as what is worn in Paris, the "sneakers" are in all sorts of crazy colors and designs, and to my eye they look somewhat effete and strange, maybe even effeminate, but that is just me. The dress shoes tend to be extremely pointy and look a trifle absurd to this American's eye, but horses for courses as they say.

Just goes to show there is bit of as to what your culture has accustomed you.

Reminds me of a Mexican American fellow I met several years ago, he was telling me about one of his relatives visiting from Durango, where they have vaqueros (cowboys) and such. His relative told him that if one didn't wear boots then they weren't a real man, and so forth.

Sorry that was a little off topic.

I'd love to wear the perfect shoe for all occasions but you know I over packed as it was. I was up till 2am the night before unpacking and repacking. I wanted to make sure to have weather appropriate clothing for England and France and I stumbled on various threads with people obsessing over whether they might be mistaken for tourists in Paris, oh the horror.

Lol, it turned out it wasn't cold at all there, it was quite warm and I lugged those suit cases around for naught ! Still learning to pack light and making some progress !

Wow, rambling aren't I ? ? ?


----------



## mreams99 (Jan 7, 2015)

How about a pair of Red Wing chukkas?


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

RogerP said:


> To those advocating wearing sneakers as casual wear, get off your Mommy's computer, finish your homework, brush your teeth and go to bed!


Outstanding post.

Of course I think of a Beaufort and Bean boots as "active wear".


----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

I liked that post too, and it can be reused again and again, I hope it's not copyrighted.


----------



## BostonHedonist (Aug 20, 2015)

Then I got only one question for ya.










What are thooooooose?


----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

[ B Hed ] Then I have only one more question for you'










What are those?[/QUOTE]

"take a hike"


----------



## italianstallion (Feb 16, 2014)

Adidas Stan Smith 2 in plain white leather.

Special editions abound. The mahogany leather is particularly nice IMO:


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

I was in Patis in June on the way to LeMans for the 24 hour race and wore Cordovan Ranger Mocs for two days and did not feel like I stood out as a tourist. I also wore an OCBD and British Tan trousers and olive trousers. I did not feel that I stood out as a tourist.
Not sure that gym shoes, however you classify them, are appropriate for travel.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Sorry, but I think that just about every shoe pictured on this thread was almost aggressively ugly. They seem to be made for people who don't really want to wear sneakers.

I lean toward the classics: Jack Purcells, Cons. I just got a pair of Adidas Sambas and I'm still breaking them in, but they may be working well. 

If you're talking sneakers you always want comfort, and I think K-Swiss tennis shoes can be extremely comfortable.


----------



## BostonHedonist (Aug 20, 2015)

It's kind of silly, isn't it, how so many people have an obsession with not looking like a tourist? It's no easy feat if you're carrying a camera or a map... or speaking another language. I'd say one should only consider this line of thinking so far as not looking like a _target_ (the sort of person who is clearly new to travel and bought everything they're wearing for the 'big trip').

At any rate, I guess the aesthetic of the minimal leather sneaker - something casual that resembles trainers yet has an obscenely long lifespan compared to synthetic footwear - is lost to a great many people (though why those folks feel the need to detract from an otherwise-productive discussion is a mystery to me).

I wonder if perhaps it is better to just go right to the New Balances of the sneaker world when considering sneakers; to just let any shred of material luxury go in the name of comfort.

Hm, no, I still just don't care for footwear that isn't made from some animal hide or another.


----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

Thank you for your recent post, you sound well educated, But I would like to here more convincing argument, please.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

If we're really talking sneakers here, I have no intention of looking past function to find "grown-up style." Sneakers are all about function, and grown-ups IMO choose their sneakers accordingly. Saucony works best for me; their last provides excellent support for the long walks for which I typically rely on sneakers. Don't much care about looks, as if I cared about looks I wouldn't be wearing sneakers.


----------



## Chris Giakoumakos (Aug 28, 2015)

All the sneakers pictured so far are hideous looking. From what I understand, the OP wants a pear of "fashion" sneakers, not for the gym, not to go running in , but something super casual, maybe that he can wear when he takes his dog to poop in the park. In that case , the brand you are looking for is PUMA.


----------



## Chris Giakoumakos (Aug 28, 2015)




----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

Chris Giakoumakos said:


> All the sneakers pictured so far are hideous looking. From what I understand, the OP wants a pear of "fashion" sneakers, not for the gym, not to go running in , but something super casual, maybe that he can wear when he takes his dog to poop in the park. In that case , the brand you are looking for is PUMA.


How is it that this is a dog pooping sneeker? or what makes it so?


----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

it took a while for me but its not an exciting job and rather embarrassing too so wear these to make people think your not self conscious; its the equivalent of blowing your nose in public and incorporating this>


----------



## Fred G. Unn (Jul 12, 2011)

BostonHedonist said:


> At any rate, I guess the aesthetic of the minimal leather sneaker - something casual that resembles trainers yet has an obscenely long lifespan compared to synthetic footwear - is lost to a great many people (though why those folks feel the need to detract from an otherwise-productive discussion is a mystery to me).
> 
> I wonder if perhaps it is better to just go right to the New Balances of the sneaker world when considering sneakers; to just let any shred of material luxury go in the name of comfort.
> 
> Hm, no, I still just don't care for footwear that isn't made from some animal hide or another.


+1. Also, WTF happened to this thread?! "I think that just about every shoe pictured on this thread was almost aggressively ugly" and "all the sneakers pictured so far are hideous looking" are not terribly helpful comments. I get it that some people don't wear sneakers in non-athletic endeavors and that's fine (I don't most of the time either), but the OP started a thread looking for some "minimalist and more or less unbranded" sneaker options to CP and Buttero and now we have pics of Puma dog pooping shoes and Lee Riders snot rags?!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

This thread could be worse. There could be photos of chukka boots or desert boots. 
I am genuinely interested in this style of footwear like the first Puma pair shown, that appear to have dainty little slipper soles on them. Are these possibly as uncomfortable as they look? I see people of a certain aesthetic wearing these svelte little shoes under relatively loose jeans and the visual balance is all off. Also, for what physical activity are they really intended? Are these really purely a fashun thing?


----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

Fred G. Unn said:


> +1. Also, WTF happened to this thread?! "I think that just about every shoe pictured on this thread was almost aggressively ugly" and "all the sneakers pictured so far are hideous looking" are not terribly helpful comments. I get it that some people don't wear sneakers in non-athletic endeavors and that's fine (I don't most of the time either), but the OP started a thread looking for some "minimalist and more or less unbranded" sneaker options to CP and Buttero and now we have pics of Puma dog pooping shoes and Lee Riders snot rags?!


"everybody to ther druthers"


----------



## Fred G. Unn (Jul 12, 2011)

Tempest said:


> Also, for what physical activity are they really intended? Are these really purely a fashun thing?


LOL! Also, the fact that they are posted in a thread about "minimalist and more or less unbranded" sneaker options when they have 3 logos on one side, and a very visible one on the tongue is pretty hilarious too. I'm pretty sure that's not what the OP was looking for.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Tempest said:


> *This thread could be worse. There could be photos of chukka boots or desert boots.*
> I am genuinely interested in this style of footwear like the first Puma pair shown, that appear to have dainty little slipper soles on them. Are these possibly as uncomfortable as they look? I see people of a certain aesthetic wearing these svelte little shoes under relatively loose jeans and the visual balance is all off. Also, for what physical activity are they really intended? Are these really purely a fashun thing?


Are you suggesting that sneakers are a better choice over chukkas? Now you must be trolling. I understand the OP wanted a grown up sneaker, whatever that means, but chukkas are a way better option.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

immanuelrx said:


> Are you suggesting that sneakers are a better choice over chukkas?


Probably. Tempest is of the view that chukkas are the most bizarre form of footwear imagineable. Which tells you more about Tempest than it does about chukkas.



immanuelrx said:


> Now you must be trolling.


Must be Tuesday.


----------



## Walter Denton (Sep 11, 2011)

For light traveling around Europe/Asia and frequent walking, why wear sneakers at all? The most comfortable walking shoe I have is the Allen-Edmonds Wilbert.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Walter Denton said:


> For light traveling around Europe/Asia and frequent walking, why wear sneakers at all? The most comfortable walking shoe I have is the Allen-Edmonds Wilbert.


Personally I don't like the way wilberts look and I own two pair. They are very comfortable though. I use them as work shoes when I know I will be getting dirty and am moving heavy equipment. Still, Wilberts are also a better option than sneakers.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

immanuelrx said:


> Are you suggesting that sneakers are a better choice over chukkas?


In terms of looks, it's feint praise to look better than a chukka bootie. Uggs and Wallabees miss the cut, but that's about it. 
It's possible that Chuckuhs are the most comfortable thing ever. Were I ever to see them in a store, or on a person's feet, or anywhere besides half-century old photos and online clothing fetishist photos, I'd have a chance. But really, I have better odds of walking on the moon.
I think there is a reason that they are virtually unknown to the real world, and that is because they profoundly homely, ill-proportioned, and primitively plain at the very best. Cankle boots just look weird, giving an odd animal-hoof appearance to the human foot.


----------



## Chris Giakoumakos (Aug 28, 2015)

Tempest said:


> This thread could be worse. There could be photos of chukka boots or desert boots.
> I am genuinely interested in this style of footwear like the first Puma pair shown, that appear to have dainty little slipper soles on them. Are these possibly as uncomfortable as they look? I see people of a certain aesthetic wearing these svelte little shoes under relatively loose jeans and the visual balance is all off. Also, for what physical activity are they really intended? Are these really purely a fashun thing?


-Are they uncomfortable as they look?
I don't get it. Why the PUMA sneakers I posted look uncomfortable?

-What physical activity are they intended?
These are not running shoes or walking shoes. For these, you would have to go to a place like fit2run, and get help from the stuff there, as they measure your foot, you foot's arch, etc, and they give you a highly specialized shoe. The PUMA that I posted are intended for: 
a walk in the playground wih the grandson (do you really want to get sand on your shiny broques?)
a quick run at wallmart ( ok,ok Fresh Market )
a barbeque ( you are barbequing. Would you rather have bbq sauce on your 900$ suede shoes or your 90$ suede PUMA?)
In Thailand ( in most palces they make you leave your shoes outside the establishment. Do you really want to leave your 1250 Edward Greens alone, outside the beach resaturant, alongside with 50 other pair of shoes?)
In your hotels gym (unless you want to go work out wearing oxfords)
-Are these a purely fashion thing?
For all the reasons that I explained above, no. They serve a purpose.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Wish I had some pics of the crazy looking "sneakers" well they could be called athletic shoes or tennis shoes I suppose, that I saw in Paris.

There was a suggestion that wearing white athletic shoes might be a good way to attract aggressive prostitutes. If that is one's aim then by all means go ahead, but one must be aware of the risks.

The chief danger is if you happen to be with your significant other, and the working girl addresses you by name.

Should this happen, remind those present that there are many tourists having similar features and who share names in common; therefore mistakes of this kind are not unusual.

However, it might better to just avoid the whole affair by not wearing white athletic shoes in the first place.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

What about suede skateboard shoes? I wore them in brown all through college and they were great. Personally, today (almost 10 years out) I'd wear dirty bucks with a red brick sole, but if you have your heart set on sneakers, brown suede with dark sidewalks looks OK with slacks.


----------



## mreams99 (Jan 7, 2015)

Tempest said:


> In terms of looks, it's feint praise to look better than a chukka bootie. Uggs and Wallabees miss the cut, but that's about it.
> It's possible that Chuckuhs are the most comfortable thing ever. Were I ever to see them in a store, or on a person's feet, or anywhere besides half-century old photos and online clothing fetishist photos, I'd have a chance. But really, I have better odds of walking on the moon.
> I think there is a reason that they are virtually unknown to the real world, and that is because they profoundly homely, ill-proportioned, and primitively plain at the very best. Cankle boots just look weird, giving an odd animal-hoof appearance to the human foot.


If you have an opinion on chukkas, don't hold back!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Chris Giakoumakos said:


> -Are they uncomfortable as they look?
> I don't get it. Why the PUMA sneakers I posted look uncomfortable?
> 
> -What physical activity are they intended?
> ...


You make it sound in each instance as if the choice rests between cheap sneakers and $1k shoes. This would be a false assumption to say the very least. In each example you raise, I can think of a myriad of more aesthetically pleasing and better quality alternatives that do not cost a fortune. Not $89.99, granted, but if one can afford no more than that, quality is off the table anyway. Those Pumas would serve no purpose for me whatsoever.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mreams99 said:


> If you have an opinion on chukkas, don't hold back!


It is entirely possible that this may not be a genuinely held opinion but merely another attempt to get a rise out of my friend RogerP.


----------



## BostonHedonist (Aug 20, 2015)

*Most Versatile/Durable *Grown Up* Man's Sneaker - Make, Material & Color*

Well, things certainly have become interesting here.

I still find it ludicrous to suggest that sneakers/trainers have no place in casual wear, and then turn around and suggest some "hybrid" walking shoe that looks like the result of a derby attempting to mate with a pediatric shoe.

Like it or not, there are designs in casual shoes that approach similar levels of aesthetic iconography as you find in oxfords - albeit among different groups.

I think many may be having a knee-jerk reaction to the cultural shift currently afoot (NPI) that has been described as the "casualization" of modern dress. While I have mixed feelings about it myself, I have only two words for the most vehement detractors: yoga pants.

Now then, to the original topic. I've purchased two pairs of trainers to play with. Common Projects Achilles and Buttero Taninos. Both Italian, hand made of fine leather and with similar Margom soles.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

BostonHedonist said:


> While I have mixed feelings about it myself, I have only two words for the most vehement detractors: yoga pants.


I'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make here. Is it that the popularity of yoga pants is such that we should all embrace them as an aspirational aesthetic? At AAAC, we generally aim a little bit higher than the lowest common denominator.

As to your choices - again - there are so many vastly superior options for the smart casual wear that I can discern neither rhyme nor reason for these.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Is there no middle ground between the court/skate shoe, with the uppers sinking into the tall foxing, and whatever style those Pumas are, where there is presumably a thick padded insole constrained by the upper to allow the minimal ballet slipper sole thickness?


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

BostonHedonist said:


> Well, things certainly have become interesting here.
> 
> I still find it ludicrous to suggest that sneakers/trainers have no place in casual wear, and then turn around and suggest some "hybrid" walking shoe that looks like the result of a derby attempting to mate with a pediatric shoe.
> 
> ...


You are right, but it is not here. I am sure the Style Forum would be more receptive of your love of sneakers. AAAC is more for traditional men's wear. Feel free to post whatever you choose about sneakers and other non-traditional men's wear items but don't be surprised when you receive push back.


----------



## Chris Giakoumakos (Aug 28, 2015)

https://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/0/4/5/5/3/2/webimg/697691161_o.jpg?nc=41
Just bought these of eBay.


----------



## Chris Giakoumakos (Aug 28, 2015)

https://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/0/4/5/5/3/2/webimg/697691167_o.jpg


----------



## Desirable Result (Feb 15, 2014)

Chris Giakoumakos said:


> https://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/0/4/5/5/3/2/webimg/697691161_o.jpg?nc=41
> Just bought these of eBay.


For what purpose ?
These remind me of the green pants I got from epaulet that have that enzyme process that went bad and I have mixed feelings about.


----------



## BostonHedonist (Aug 20, 2015)

"Love of sneakers" is a bit strong. I much prefer my Alden Shell LHS loafers or Tricker's country boots. But I am prone to long walks through the city and my current footwear wasn't quite working. I remember fondly the last time i bought a pair of sneakers. It was eight years ago on my first trip to Berlin. Ah what a time that was. 


@Desirable - Enzyme process?


----------



## howemi01 (Nov 2, 2014)

Again to each his own but from a practical standpoint neither of those shoes seem the right answer to the question of what makes sense for pounding pavement. Maybe my noir-ish vision of walking through a city differs from the main, but it doesn't seem to me that's what those are for.

Standing at a poolside bar in the Bahamas with a linen shirt and shorts? Maybe moreso.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Can someone more familiar with Italian accents let me know how to pronounce Buttero? Surely it is not Butter-Oh.


----------



## Forper (Sep 25, 2015)

air force Is pre 2003, the old sneaker shape that modern forces don't have plus thicker, tougher, pebblier leather.


----------



## dddrees (Apr 5, 2015)

I only wear sneakers to the gym and to do chores. So my grown up shoes for extreme casual wear are the following:


----------



## Forper (Sep 25, 2015)

wow nice beefrolls. What brand/material are they?


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

Woofa said:


> How about a pair of low top hiking boots. Plenty from companies like Vasque, Keen and Merrell, and while they are not quite as conservative as shoes, there are plenty in the browns and greys and they would seem to fill that gap nicely.


i second this. The point is you're going to be walking a lot and you need support and everything else hiking shoes offer. After much trial and error I got a pair of Haglofs from STP, no obnoxious signage, Asics technology for unbelievably comfy feel, great support, and black for visual unobtrusiveness. They are so unlike other hikers that some buyers complain they look too dressy on the trail, which translates into looking just right in the city (I'm wearing them in NYC right now) without the look of a dress shoe in the shape of a sneaker or a hipster sneaker -- I don't do skinny jeans. I wouldn't wear them to anything that required formality, but they can't be beat for traipsing. There are many brands, though I don't much care for those that seem to scream I'd Rather Be Hiking.


----------



## dddrees (Apr 5, 2015)

Forper said:


> wow nice beefrolls. What brand/material are they?


Thank you, and they are Rancourts in Caramel Cordovan.


----------



## fiftyforfifty (Jul 13, 2015)

Walter Denton said:


> For light traveling around Europe/Asia and frequent walking, why wear sneakers at all? The most comfortable walking shoe I have is the Allen-Edmonds Wilbert.


If you are in travelling mood the best option is good quality sneakers, they'll make you enjoy walking around


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

fiftyforfifty said:


> If you are in travelling mood the best option is good quality sneakers, they'll make you enjoy walking around


No. But they will certainly make you look like a tourist.


----------



## italianstallion (Feb 16, 2014)

Danner Tramline?


----------



## howemi01 (Nov 2, 2014)

I am not endorsing the pro-sneaker camp but I've never really bought the "only tourists wear sneakers" aphorism. There are sneakers (white Reeboks) and there are sneakers, I suppose, but I think it takes more than that to stand out in a foreign country, if that's what you are looking to avoid.

What people of Europe may walk around in:


----------

