# Brown shoes, blue pants, pics?



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

I started a thread on brown shoes, grey pants. I am convinced that a nice brown dress shoe will give me a new look with greys, both light and dark, and to go to a brown that is darker than tan, but lighter than chocolate.

I know brown shoes will go with khaki color, tan, and olive. But what about blue? Anyone got pics of blue pants, brown shoes, so that I can see rather than picture it in my mind's eye?


----------



## rich_202 (Jun 20, 2009)

You're in for some great posts here. Blue with brown look fabulous. 

I will always wear brown shoes with navy pants. Black paired with blue just screams cop or doorman to me. I know the British will disagree.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

What's with all these threads you're starting about pants with brown shoes? Assuming you actually have a pair of brown shoes, why not just buy a mess of different colored pants and see what works? You're a Memphis lawyer right? There must be some mesotheleoma victims you can get to pick up the tab.​


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

rich_202 said:


> Black paired with blue just screams cop or doorman to me. I know the British will disagree.


I'm not British and I disagree. I think black shoes look fine with blue, much better than brown. In fact, I've never been able to wrap my arms around brown shoes for wear with a suit of just about any color. Brown looks much too casual to me.

Having said that I really like cordovan (burgundy) with navy blue. It looks every bit as dressy as black and provides contrast with the blue. If I don't won't to wear black for some reason, it's hard for me to put on a pair of brown shoes when I can go with burgundy instead. I reserve my brown shoes for khakis and jeans.

Cruiser


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not British and I disagree. I think black shoes look fine with blue, much better than brown. In fact, I've never been able to wrap my arms around brown shoes for wear with a suit of just about any color. Brown looks much too casual to me.
> 
> Having said that I really like cordovan (burgundy) with navy blue. It looks every bit as dressy as black and provides contrast with the blue. If I don't won't to wear black for some reason, it's hard for me to put on a pair of brown shoes when I can go with burgundy instead. I reserve my brown shoes for khakis and jeans.
> 
> Cruiser


I agree with this. Burgundy shoes work well with all shades of blue and grey. I'm not a fan of brown with blue, but I'm okay with dark brown and grey. But I think burgundy is a better match. I save brown for khaki, tan and brown.


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

I am in equal measure fascinated and dispirited to witness this forum fragment into an anything-goes 'multiverse' (mirroring the world in which we now live). We have members who wear spats and detachable collars for no better reason than that they "like them" - which is, I suppose, harmless enough (although a deviant psychologist might opine otherwise) - and others who think it appropriate to wear tracksuits and flip-flops in public spaces not specifically dedicated to sports or leisure activities. (Why these latter should be interested in this forum is another question for our deviant psychologist.)

Worse still, in my opinion - and this may be just another symptom of the same malaise - we are forced to read a plethora of posts which do no more than merely express a personal preference; without, and this is my point, offering a reasoned analysis. The statement "blue [is] much better than brown" is not helpful; it begs the question why and it is therefore of no assistance to those striving to make a careful, considered evaluation. One might say, with greater force (in my opinion), that brown is preferable to black: after all, it is richer and more interesting; it offers greater choice, etc. One should also add, however, that brown will not always be appropriate: funerals, court appearances, etc. In other words, there are RULES and we break them only when armed with the requisite knowledge (lest we create a solecism).

Finally, we could begin our quest from the 'opposite' direction and study the attire of some of the world's best-dressed men; Edward VIII, Fred Astaire, Gianni Agnelli, Diego Della Valle, Luca di Montezemolo, Mariano Rubinacci, etc, have all worn brown shoes with dark suits. If it was good enough for Fred, it's good enough for me.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

I have had in the past the burgundy or cordovan shoe in a tassel that I would wear with blue and grey suits. At some point, I thought that black screamed 'dress' and 'serious' and saw that for the most part, fellow and older attorneys were wearing Park Avenue, those that were well dressed at least. So I tended to migrate to only black shoes and have not had a burgundy pair for over 10 years. I have many more black shoes than brown, but really, other than 4 pair of running shoes, and 3 pair of flip flops, I have only 8 pair of shoes that I wear for busines/casual

Black: Park Avenue balmoral, Ferragamo bit loafer with lug bottom, Cole Haan penny loafer, Peter Huber black sueded shoes that are like slippers; AE Hillcrest shoe that I want to rotate to rain wear (it is a heavy shoe, and I prefer something sleeker like the Park Avenue)

Brown: Clunky UGG brown shoes; Sperry Topsider brown; Cole Haan Bergamo tan loafers (oldest pair) thin sole; Coach chocolate bit loafer, pointier toe.


So I have nothing really that I can wear to the office when I dont have clients, but I dont want a black pair of pants. That is when the Cole Haan or Ferragamos come in handy. But say I wear the navy or charcoal grey pants to the office with a sweater in winter, or a BB striped shirt. My usual go to shoe would be the black loafers. But coming here a bit more lately and looking at the shoe of the day pics, brown is, as stated above, something a bit more interesting. My dilemna is convincing myself that getting a AE laceup shoe is not going to scream dress shoe when I am wearing a pair of BB linen pants. Until I get other shoes, the Cole Haan thin soled loafers have to do. My wife says that a medium dark brown tassel loafer will be what I need but I dont think I can wear it well with the charcoal grey suits, thus my desire for laceup. I am about to be 50 and daughter wants me in things her boyfriend wears, but he is 25. I saw a pair of Johnston Murphy saddle shoes, monochromatic, in a great shade of brown with the rubber on the heel and then the forefront of the sole. $99 and they fit great.


----------



## From Vancouver (May 24, 2009)

Up until quite a few years ago I had only known black shoes, then I happened on a well-dressed man in a great navy suit and brown shoes while I was crossing the street. He looked great to me, and the blue and brown set each other off just so. That moment was so profound that I have not worn a pair of black shoes since (aside from one funeral and one wedding).


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

From Vancouver said:


> Up until quite a few years ago I had only known black shoes, then I happened on a well-dressed man in a great navy suit and brown shoes while I was crossing the street. He looked great to me, and the blue and brown set each other off just so. That moment was so profound that I have not worn a pair of black shoes since (aside from one funeral and one wedding).


Then I do not think I am remiss in making the inquiries on how to pair brown with blue pants or greys.

I had my Cole Haan loafers polished today. They used a KIWI medium tan and then Meltonian brown cream that looked like it had a deep red. Anyway, it darkened up my tan shoes and made it look so much more appealing. Wore it with dress linen khaki colored pants and a blue button down linen shirt.

Anyone think this pair of Ferragamos are a steal and could be worn with dress pants in khaki, olive, grey and blue and then paired with say grey suits in court?

I have some Ferragamo bit loafers in black that have the same sole and have seen a local Congressman and many 30 to 40'ish attorneys wearing similarly.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Cavaliere said:


> I am in equal measure fascinated and dispirited to witness this forum fragment into an anything-goes 'multiverse' (mirroring the world in which we now live). We have members who wear spats and detachable collars for no better reason than that they "like them" - which is, I suppose, harmless enough (although a deviant psychologist might opine otherwise) - and others who think it appropriate to wear tracksuits and flip-flops in public spaces not specifically dedicated to sports or leisure activities. (Why these latter should be interested in this forum is another question for our deviant psychologist.)
> 
> Worse still, in my opinion - and this may be just another symptom of the same malaise - we are forced to read a plethora of posts which do no more than merely express a personal preference; without, and this is my point, offering a reasoned analysis. The statement "blue [is] much better than brown" is not helpful; it begs the question why and it is therefore of no assistance to those striving to make a careful, considered evaluation. One might say, with greater force (in my opinion), that brown is preferable to black: after all, it is richer and more interesting; it offers greater choice, etc. One should also add, however, that brown will not always be appropriate: funerals, court appearances, etc. In other words, there are RULES and we break them only when armed with the requisite knowledge (lest we create a solecism).
> 
> Finally, we could begin our quest from the 'opposite' direction and study the attire of some of the world's best-dressed men; Edward VIII, Fred Astaire, Gianni Agnelli, Diego Della Valle, Luca di Montezemolo, Mariano Rubinacci, etc, have all worn brown shoes with dark suits. If it was good enough for Fred, it's good enough for me.


NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO READ ANYTHING. You can avoid threads that offend you by not clicking on them. Is it really that hard?


----------



## rabidawg (Apr 14, 2009)

memphislawyer said:


> Anyone think this pair of Ferragamos are a steal and could be worn with dress pants in khaki, olive, grey and blue and then paired with say grey suits in court?


I would not encourage that purchase. The sole is not appropriate for courtroom wear.


----------



## Single malt Mark (Apr 11, 2009)

I think brown shoes look good with blue pants or a blue suit, as long as it is at least a medium brown; nothing too light. Actually, I don't like a dark brown with blue, either, just a medium brown.


----------



## rabidawg (Apr 14, 2009)

Some options around that price range currently on Ebay that might work better for the mixed suit/odd trouser use:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm not fond of bicycle toes, but they're a sight better than the vibram-soled ones.

In terms of city suits, I personally think reddish-brown or dark brown looks better than outright countrified brown that you'd normally see on long wings or wingtips. I've seen a lot of guys here and on Style Forum do it really well.


----------



## rabidawg (Apr 14, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I'm not fond of bicycle toes, but they're a sight better than the vibram-soled ones.


Bicycle toes?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Er... split toes and that round thing on top. I don't know the word for it.

In any case, if I wore brown shoes with a navy suit I'd probably like a pair of brogued wholecuts in dark brown.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

I agree about tossing the idea of the Ferragamos and I do like the two AE suggestions a couple of posts back.

Brogued wholecuts, what is that?

I have seen the Manhattan for $159 and a pair of Weybridges starting at $99 but I somehow think the Weybridge is an affectation at times.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Cavaliere said:


> I am in equal measure fascinated and dispirited to witness this forum fragment into an anything-goes 'multiverse' (mirroring the world in which we now live). We have members who wear spats and detachable collars for no better reason than that they "like them" - which is, I suppose, harmless enough (although a deviant psychologist might opine otherwise) - and others who think it appropriate to wear tracksuits and flip-flops in public spaces not specifically dedicated to sports or leisure activities. (Why these latter should be interested in this forum is another question for our deviant psychologist.)
> 
> Worse still, in my opinion - and this may be just another symptom of the same malaise - we are forced to read a plethora of posts which do no more than merely express a personal preference; without, and this is my point, offering a reasoned analysis. The statement "blue [is] much better than brown" is not helpful; it begs the question why and it is therefore of no assistance to those striving to make a careful, considered evaluation. One might say, with greater force (in my opinion), that brown is preferable to black: after all, it is richer and more interesting; it offers greater choice, etc. One should also add, however, that brown will not always be appropriate: funerals, court appearances, etc. In other words, there are RULES and we break them only when armed with the requisite knowledge (lest we create a solecism).
> 
> Finally, we could begin our quest from the 'opposite' direction and study the attire of some of the world's best-dressed men; Edward VIII, Fred Astaire, Gianni Agnelli, Diego Della Valle, Luca di Montezemolo, Mariano Rubinacci, etc, have all worn brown shoes with dark suits. If it was good enough for Fred, it's good enough for me.





Jovan said:


> NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO READ ANYTHING. You can avoid threads that offend you by not clicking on them. Is it really that hard?


Jovan, that's a bit strong. Love It Or Leave It doesn't become you. Stilted writing style aside, Cavaliere makes some good points; he's interested in the why of fashion choices, not just the preference for them, and I would concur.​


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

memphislawyer said:


> I agree about tossing the idea of the Ferragamos and I do like the two AE suggestions a couple of posts back.
> 
> Brogued wholecuts, what is that?
> 
> I have seen the Manhattan for $159 and a pair of Weybridges starting at $99 but I somehow think the Weybridge is an affectation at times.


"Broguing" is that hole punching pattern you see on most wingtips or long wings. Wholecuts are a type of shoe that use one piece of leather all around with only one seam in back.

An example of brogued wholecuts (my own):


----------



## kirk.s (Jul 14, 2009)

as for a picture of brown shoes with blue suit below is a link to a picture that i think is a really nice, stylish/semi-formal look.

The shoes are slightly more of an oxblood(well a darker brown at least) colour as opposed to brown. This was motivation to me when i bought a pair oxblood coloured full brogues to wear with my birdseye navy suit.

I agree with cruiser in that i think the lighter browns look a little more casual.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qjpwnPW4...Do/GFwTXTskl5g/s1600-h/9088ZstripesuitWeb.jpg


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Went into JAB with the wife and got the JM Burks
https://www.josbank.com/JAB_Partner.process?Section_Id=1600&Product_Id=206477&p_Id=3&link_Id=2

I got it for $168 and tax rather than the $199 on sale


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

memphislawyer: Please don't take this badly, but those aren't very attractive shoes. I know they're a good deal, but the "moc" detail is going to look quite dated (in a bad way) in a few years, if the shoes even hold up that long.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Jovan, I know you are only helping, so now, I am not taking it the wrong way. I am also looking for the brown AE Park Avenue as a serious consideration. The moc part, is that the stiching from say the side of the foot, around the toe and the other side? That sort of stiching then is on my Cole Haan loafers and is subdued. Now the stiching on the side, half way up? Yeah, I dont understand it. Im wearing them to work now (Friday morning) so I am trying to see how they feel and then how they look. I have a couple of guys whose opinion I trust and I will ask them.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

A moc toe refers to the stitching of the top of the front to the sides, that if undone would allow the top to be peeled back like a trap door. It's very common and looks good usually, as it does on the JM shoes you bought. The extra slit stitching on the side is for decoration only and, despite the remark above, will not look dated or undated or anything to do with dates. It's just there as a small flourish and to me looks swell. The Johnston Murphy is a solid mid-line shoe that should give you good service.​


----------



## WingtipTom (Sep 6, 2006)

memphislawyer said:


> Anyone got pics of blue pants, brown shoes, so that I can see rather than picture it in my mind's eye?


Here you go!










These are my light brown/caramel/walnet/whateveryouwanttocallthem Aldens that I have paired, on occasion, with a navy blue suit. I hope this helps.


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Jovan, that's a bit strong. Love It Or Leave It doesn't become you. Stilted writing style aside, Cavaliere makes some good points; he's interested in the why of fashion choices, not just the preference for them, and I would concur.​


Thank you for your support, Peak and Pine. Now, what is wrong with my writing style?


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

Jovan said:


> NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO READ ANYTHING. You can avoid threads that offend you by not clicking on them. Is it really that hard?


How am I to know whether or not I'm going to be offended unless and until I've read an offensive post? I did not, in any event, say that I was offended; but I am now offended by your (unnecessary) use of capital letters. Still, I forgive you; you must have climbed out of bed and found an unusual number of alligators in your backyard.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Cavaliere said:


> Thank you for your support, Peak and Pine. Now, what is wrong with my writing style?


You're welcome. As to the writing style (which I had referred to as _stilted_), I made the comment, perhaps unfairly, based solely on your use of the word _one_ as a pronoun. I never know if that is first, second or third person; I never know where it fits in grammar, but it always sounds distant, aloof and stilted. (And to others reading this, pls don't rush in with Googled explanations. I could have done that, but prefer to leave it an obnoxious mystery)

Now, rereading your post (which I liked the first time), have found I like it better the second time and the _one _thing becomes less bothersome knowing I've become more nettlesome.​


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Cavaliere: I misread your post and apologise for that. I thought you were saying you were forced to read threads about track suits, sneakers, jeans, etc. but re-reading I see they were two separate thoughts. I made a knee-jerk reaction and that wasn't cool.

I still take slight exception to your "anything goes" part, however.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

^That was very nice, Jovan. Now we've both apoligized.​


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> ​You're welcome. As to the writing style (which I had referred to as _stilted_), I made the comment, perhaps unfairly, based solely on your use of the word _one_ as a pronoun. I never know if that is first, second or third person; I never know where it fits in grammar, but it always sounds distant, aloof and stilted. (And to others reading this, pls don't rush in with Googled explanations. I could have done that, but prefer to leave it an obnoxious mystery)
> 
> Now, rereading your post (which I liked the first time), have found I like it better the second time and the _one _thing becomes less bothersome knowing I've become more nettlesome.​


Thank you for your explanation. As a writer of numerous (non-fiction, I hasten to add) books and articles whose every sentence is subject to at least three re-writings - I can spend hours agonizing over whether to include a comma or a semi-colon - I was (naturally, as a fastidious, not to say, OCD, individual) - alarmed by your original comments; I agree with you that the use of the word 'one' in the context in which it was used sounded distant and aloof; it is however quite correct and I am inclined to think that its dissonance (to your ears) is due to cultural factors. Strangely, my concern was whether I should have used 'may' (as opposed to 'might').


----------



## Cavaliere (Oct 25, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Cavaliere: I misread your post and apologise for that. I thought you were saying you were forced to read threads about track suits, sneakers, jeans, etc. but re-reading I see they were two separate thoughts. I made a knee-jerk reaction and that wasn't cool.
> 
> I still take slight exception to your "anything goes" part, however.


Jovan, that is gracious of you. Now, why did you just have to go and spoil it all with your parting salvo?

Let me explain: the Ask Andy of yore seems to be a very different space from that of today; it was more, for want of a better word, homogeneous; there once existed a consensus. Ask Andy has fallen prey - like the world it inhabits - to heterogeneity: forum members are unable any longer to agree on what were once the most basic 'rules', such as the fact that a man's tie should overlap slightly with the trouser waistband or that it is unacceptable to wear flip-flops to dinner at Le Bernardin.

At the other end of the spectrum, we find men who think nothing of wearing spats. Well, if spats are appropriate, why not Victorian-era frock-coats, stand collars, original 1920s Oxford bags (at a widest point width of 32 inches). And why stop there? I'm quite certain that some day soon someone will invite forum members to comment on the appropriateness of 18th century wigs. I can see it now: someone, somewhere will even tell you how to powder them!

We live in a 'multiverse'.

Finally, I repeat: it is not helpful simply to express a preference. I dislike, for example, button-down collars with double-cuffs. Now, you may disagree with me, but if I tell you why - namely, they compromise the sportive look and heritage of the BD - that is surely something to consider (and, if you wish, disregard). That was once, alas, the beauty of Ask Andy.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I do navy trousers with brown shoes frequently, here are a few from the WAYWT thread:










Not navy, more of a robin's egg, but still blue and brown:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Cavaliere said:


> Jovan, that is gracious of you. Now, why did you just have to go and spoil it all with your parting salvo?
> 
> Let me explain: the Ask Andy of yore seems to be a very different space from that of today; it was more, for want of a better word, homogeneous; there once existed a consensus. Ask Andy has fallen prey - like the world it inhabits - to heterogeneity: forum members are unable any longer to agree on what were once the most basic 'rules', such as the fact that a man's tie should overlap slightly with the trouser waistband or that it is unacceptable to wear flip-flops to dinner at Le Bernardin.
> 
> ...


Was not intended as a "salvo," but I see error in that argument. You said it yourself, the beauty of this forum is that we are free to disagree with each other. :icon_smile_wink:

The problem I see is that you're proceeding from a slippery slope viewpoint. No one here, as far as I can see, has worn anything more "archaic" than morning coats and I very much doubt anyone is going to come in here discussing 18th century period dress. I think we can both agree that hats, sock garters, and balmoral boots are much more functional than wigs, tights, or elaborate tricorns and can still serve a purpose now. I'm sure we can also see that double breasted waistcoats, spats, carnations in the lapel hole, or other "dated" foppery are better ways to proceed than wearing flip-flops and shorts to a four star restaurant. Forum members like Cardcaptor Charlie (sorry, but it is obvious you are referencing him here :icon_smile_big are not our enemy. They have a sense of dressing for the occasion and our with us in trying to get the general public back on track with it.

I still maintain that you are free to ignore the threads about wearing track suits, sneakers, or shorts to civilised functions. You cannot really fight the diversity of members posting here since the website has become popular. However, if you have a problem with it, you should contact Andy himself.

Just my two cents.


----------



## memphislawyer (Mar 2, 2007)

Gnatty, thank you. I really prefer the mahagony shoes to darker brown in those pics for some reason.


----------

