# AE University's with jeans?



## nnjacob (Apr 1, 2015)

With the current anniversary promotion happening, I'm thinking of picking up a pair of black university wingtips from Allen Edmonds. Most of my wardrobe is pretty casual though, so I'm a little concerned that these might be a bit too formal (especially with jeans). I know there are some strong opinions about wearing a balmoral with jeans, but for what it's worth I have a pair of walnut strands I don't mind wearing with some nice jeans and a button-down.

The rubber sole on the university's is definitely a plus, but is black too formal for anything but a suit or jacket?


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Oxfords and jeans do not work together. If you insist on wearing jeans maybe try blucher boots.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Personally, I don't care for black shoes with denim. Just a personal preference. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to pull it off though.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Anniversary promotion? Tell me more, as I see nothing on the website...


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Dmontez said:


> Oxfords and jeans do not work together. If you insist on wearing jeans maybe try blucher boots.


100% agree with regard to black plain or cap toe oxfords. I tried it once on a whim (with AE Park Avenues), it looked stupid. Even with black jeans.

With the Strands, it's okay, though, as all the broguing makes it look more casual.

I'm wearing AE Jeffersons today in walnut with jeans and it looks fine.


----------



## nnjacob (Apr 1, 2015)

watchnerd said:


> Anniversary promotion? Tell me more, as I see nothing on the website...


The sale officially starts tomorrow, but the sale prices are up on AllenEdmonds.com and ShoeBank.com. (For instance, https://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF6213_1_40000000001_-1?style=6213)


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Photo taken just now: AE Jefferson wingtips in walnut, Levi's 514 rigid denim, Bugatchi socks



(I don't know why it came out sideways when I posted here...)


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I see nothing wrong with the University's with jeans but not in black. Definitely not in black. I don't understand why AE even offers them in black. Walnut is your color with denim though Bob's Chili would also work. Pity they don't offer that style in tan.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

+1 for wearing them with denim. I know black is basic but at times I wonder who makes the final call at Allen Edmonds as to the color combinations they offer.


----------



## mreams99 (Jan 7, 2015)

The Lexington is also on sale, and would good with jeans (but not in black).


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

mreams99 said:


> The Lexington is also on sale, and would good with jeans (but not in black).


I also have the Lexington, in bourbon. Yes, it also goes well with jeans. The blucher / Derby style goes well with jeans.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

127.72 MHz said:


> I wonder who makes the final call at Allen Edmonds as to the color combinations they offer.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## nnjacob (Apr 1, 2015)

How about a McAllister in merlot? I'm definitely not opposed to a blucher, but I really like the wingtips on the mcallister and would like something that could be dressed up if necessary.


----------



## DRWWE (Jul 6, 2009)

I wear their black McTavish wingtips (Rough Collection) with jeans all the time. I like the look. Of course these shoes are a bit more casual than the Universities.


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> I also have the Lexington, in bourbon. Yes, it also goes well with jeans. The blucher / Derby style goes well with jeans.


I have the Lexington's in walnut and I do not like them with jeans. They are too clean a line, too finished. I will be looking for a pair of the Strandmoks for jeans and chinos.


----------



## barneco (Mar 4, 2014)

I have the McAllister in bourbon that I wear with a nice dark denim on a regular basis. Many would have objections to not only the bal, but also a wingtip with demin, but I think it works well. I think merlot would be "ok" but a chili/bourbon/walnut would be even better, imho.



nnjacob said:


> How about a McAllister in merlot? I'm definitely not opposed to a blucher, but I really like the wingtips on the mcallister and would like something that could be dressed up if necessary.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

watchnerd said:


> I'm wearing AE Jeffersons today in walnut with jeans and it looks fine.


No, it doesn't.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

ChrisRS said:


> I have the Lexington's in walnut and I do not like them with jeans. They are too clean a line, too finished. I will be looking for a pair of the Strandmoks for jeans and chinos.


I think the bourbon finish solves that problem by adding the 'roughed up' coloring detail to a blucher.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Dmontez said:


> No, it doesn't.


Yeah it does.


----------



## TheQue (May 29, 2013)

I am not the shoe aficionado of the forum by any means. However, I would like to know when all the black shoe hate came into play. Without question, a black shoe will go fine with denim. I would argue that brown goes with denim better, I choose to wear my walnut strands with denim, but that does not imply that black is in any way inappropriate.

To answer your question, from my point of view, yes the black universities will go with denim. Are they your best choice? I do not think so, but black is certainly the most versatile color.


-Ray


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

Dmontez said:


> No, it doesn't.


I know this has been gone over, but is the argument that the roughness of jeans just doesn't look right with the more finished shoe? There's an AE store right by my house, and I need some walnut shoes. I'm trying to finesse this purchase w/r/t versatility.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I think that that is the argument and it's one I agree with. What I really like is the look of a suede shoe with denim because it repeats the roughness of the fabric. Unfortunately, AE has discontinued the suede McAllisters, a shoe that I thought was absolutely perfect with jeans. :redface:


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Black boots, or black uniform clumpy shoes, Doc Martins, go with jeans. Black derbys, oxfords or loafers do not, IMHO. 

In high school in the early 1960's many young men, myself included, wore black dress shoes and white socks with jeans.

Gurdon


----------



## pghbarrister (Mar 24, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Personally, I don't care for black shoes with denim. Just a personal preference. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to pull it off though.


+1 This.


----------



## Bama87 (Oct 18, 2014)

pghbarrister said:


> +1 This.


I'd have to agree as well.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Dmontez said:


> Oxfords and jeans do not work together. If you insist on wearing jeans maybe try blucher boots.


Well, stalwart brogue bluchers can be done, but this crazy juxtaposition of sleek shiny dress shoes with denim is a contrivance I've only seen done by online people trying to reconcile disparate items in one frame. It looks like refugees handed random clothing to me. Rugged casual shoes go with rugged casual pants, and dressy refined shoes...


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Tempest said:


> Well, stalwart brogue bluchers can be done, but this crazy juxtaposition of sleek shiny dress shoes with denim is a contrivance I've only seen done by online people trying to reconcile disparate items in one frame. It looks like refugees handed random clothing to me.  Rugged casual shoes go with rugged casual pants, and dressy refined shoes...


Exactly.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Tempest said:


> Well, stalwart brogue bluchers can be done, but this crazy juxtaposition of sleek shiny dress shoes with denim is a contrivance I've only seen done by online people trying to reconcile disparate items in one frame. It looks like refugees handed random clothing to me. Rugged casual shoes go with rugged casual pants, and dressy refined shoes...


It simply cannot be said better than this.

I have one pair of jeans that I wore during the 3 months of cold down here. I only wore them in the casualest of settings, and I would wear 1 of 3 shoes either blue suede chukkas, Alden tanker boots in color 8, or Vans. The Alden boots only worked in my opinion because they have a commando sole.

Watchnerd it's my opinion that the picture you posted only proves that you should never wear oxfords with jeans.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tempest said:


> this crazy juxtaposition of sleek shiny dress shoes with denim is a contrivance I've only seen done by online people trying to reconcile disparate items in one frame.


Only seen it online? Are there no hipsters near you? It's all about crazy juxtapositions in their world. SF and Brooklyn are full of this in real life, and much more.

What I do is nothing compared to the full ensemble that my millenial subordinates wear. And, yes, disruption and juxtaposition is the intended look (which is also why crazy socks or sockless are the necessary icing).

FWIW, the rest of the ensemble today was a plaid dress shirt, a chocolate cardigan, and tortoise-shell hornrimmed glasses. And extra beard oil.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Here's some more shock for the system.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Shock for the system? It's much more than that. I don't know which pic is the most disturbing. The fourth is OK only because I can't see the shoes clearly enough. 

I would have to say the first pic is the most jarring. Putting a John Lobb bal on a model with that gaping V is the shoe equivalent of the RL Purple suit that's bursting at the buttons on the model. Who would showcase a shoe like that, except a clueless photographer? I can't even get to the juxtaposition with the jeans, the V is too disgusting on a shoe of that caliber.

The second pic looks like a man who got dressed in the dark, and just grabbed whatever shirt, jacket, pants, and shoes he found by feel first. Then it was too dark to find his sock drawer. It's a look that says "I don't know how to coordinate clothes, so I just put on one of each item. I just don't care, as long as my body is covered, and my feet don't get cut by a bottle cap on the sidewalk. And by the way, I don't care what you think, because I know I'm the top dog in this town. Siri told me so."

The third is so contrived as to be laughable. Yes, every man folds up the cuff of one sleeve. And everyone partially pops their collar in a manner that would fall down 30 seconds after the picture was taken if he moved at all. Sure, after that why not put glossy bals and rough jeans together? And why not put a briefcase in his hand to add a little gravitas? You can almost picture the artistic director wracking her brain to find as many inconsistent juxtapositions as possible to put into one photo. The more the merrier seems to be the rule.

Just because you can find people dressing this way, or ads of bizzare clothing commbinnations, does not mean they look good.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

momsdoc said:


> Just because you can find people dressing this way, or ads of bizzare clothing commbinnations, does not mean they look good.


It means it looks good to some people (obviously the artistic directors and merchants who made the photos), just not you.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

So did the Edsel.

Look, everyone has different tastes. What makes something stylish, is if you can look at the picture 20 years later and say "Damn, that looks good."


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

momsdoc said:


> So did the Edsel.


Alas, I'm too young to have any memories of the Edsel. And perhaps the generation gap is the crux of the menswear issue, too.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

momsdoc said:


> Look, everyone has different tastes. What makes something stylish, is if you can look at the picture 20 years later and say "Damn, that looks good."


So absent a time machine, the only logical conclusion would be that I have to look at things from 20+ years ago and see which ones still look good.

While I understand the logic, I feel no need to constrain myself that tightly. If I can't have some imaginative fun with clothing, that takes away half the joy.

That's one of the things I admire about extreme dandyism (haven't seen any here yet, although full madras suits might qualify): they're playful.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

No need for a time machine. You can be imaginative and creative, and have fun with your clothing. Just that to do it right takes knowledge and effort. It's not just throwing things together to be "creative". It's working with an understanding of how different colors, textures, lines, and styles can be combined in a myriad of coherent ways that compliment each other. It's about synergy rather than discordance. 

This is something that takes time and trial and error to learn. Sometimes an outfit will be a home run, other times it may just be passable, but never should it be odd or disturbing, if you know the basic rules, and make a concious effort to utilize them. These "guidelines" didn't come out of thin air. They are the result of successful implementations, of artistic, aesthetic, conventions. 

I wore a blue Seersucker suit with a pink shirt, with navy suede saddle shoes on Monday. It was fun, it was dandyish. It was even odd for NJ in April. It wasn't something that would embarrass me in 10 years, or give anyone the impression that I didn't know what I was doing. I may have looked like a Peacock, but not like a Rube.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

momsdoc said:


> No need for a time machine. You can be imaginative and creative, and have fun with your clothing. Just that to do it right takes knowledge and effort. It's not just throwing things together to be "creative". It's working with an understanding of how different colors, textures, lines, and styles can be combined in a myriad of coherent ways that compliment each other. It's about synergy rather than discordance.


Do you really think the artistic directors who put together the photo shoots above don't understand these things?

Or is it just as simple as that they have a different aesthetic sense and you don't care for their taste?


----------



## TheQue (May 29, 2013)

momsdoc said:


> The second pic looks like a man who got dressed in the dark, and just grabbed whatever shirt, jacket, pants, and shoes he found by feel first. Then it was too dark to find his sock drawer. It's a look that says "I don't know how to coordinate clothes, so I just put on one of each item. I just don't care, as long as my body is covered, and my feet don't get cut by a bottle cap on the sidewalk. And by the way, I don't care what you think, because I know I'm the top dog in this town. Siri told me so."


I seriously do not see what's wrong with the second picture. All of his metals match (even his glasses), all of his leather matches (Shoes, belt, watch), Jeans and a white shirt obviously go together. The jacket is not my style, but the blue and white checks clearly match the outfit. He could definitely use a pair of socks (I have never been a fan of no socks even with loafers); but in no way does it look like he "Got dressed in the dark."

-Ray


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

TheQue said:


> I seriously do not see what's wrong with the second picture. All of his metals match (even his glasses), all of his leather matches (Shoes, belt, watch), Jeans and a white shirt obviously go together. The jacket is not my style, but the blue and white checks clearly match the outfit. He could definitely use a pair of socks (I have never been a fan of no socks even with loafers); but in no way does it look like he "Got dressed in the dark."
> 
> -Ray


You mean other than the top 3 buttons being open on his shirt, and the guy genuinely looks like a dbag?

Watchnerd, there's a difference between "having fun" with your clothing options, and looking like a fool.

take a look at the guys from The Armoury in Hong Kong, they know what the hell they are doing while keeping things fun, although they can go a little overboard on the "sprezz" for my taste.

When I first started trying to dress well I took the advice of a lot of advertisements and bloggers whom I now realize were just flat out wrong. I thought going sockless with oxfords/bluchers was okay, and my pants needed to be slim through the ankle, and pop of color everywhere! It took a lot of trial and error, and understanding how to dress for my body type before I begun to look ok.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Oxfords of any colour should never be worn with blue denim
Other black formal or semi-formal shoes DO NOT work with blue denim either. It isn't even open for discussion
Brown country brogues can work with blue denim, but never city brogues.
Black formal or semi-formal shoes DO, however work with black denim.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Obviously black shoes and jeans can be a problem, but I occasionally wear my black AE Quinton brogues with jeans on wet winter days.

Today, I'm wearing burgundy Loake Strands with fairly presentable 501's and a Charles Tyrwhitt OCBD. There's no "crazy juxtaposition" going on. Guaranteed to be better dressed than most men I meet today, without being over-dressed.

Main thing on the agenda this morning is a trip to the hardware store.
Wearing anything other than jeans would be considered "dressing up" round here.

My wife did try to get me to wear a t-shirt this morning, (her rational being "it's a lovely sunny day), but that certainly wouldn't go with the shoes. 
Maybe later, if I get round to repairing the fence.


----------



## mreams99 (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm not a shoe expert. I've learned that the design elements of the shoe help determine whether it's considered "dressy" or "casual". For example:
1. Color: black is dressy, light brown is more casual. In general, the darker the shoe, the more dressy it becomes.
2. Leather texture: smooth leather is dressy, rough or heavily textured leather is more casual. 
3. Lacing: closed lace designs are considered more dressy.
4. Ornamentation: smooth designs (whole cuts and cap toes) are more dressy. Wingtips and heavily brogued designs are a little more casual.
5. Sole material: leather is dressy, heavily lugged soles are casual.

Now many shoes have a mix of details that aren't all aligned as dressy or casual. That is more interesting in my opinion. But you can look at the overall sum of all these elements to determine whether the shoes are more casual to determine if they'd look good with jeans.

This is all my opinion, based on what I've learned over the last few months. Your opinion my vary. Which is fine with me.


----------



## mreams99 (Jan 7, 2015)

What I forgot to mention was that shoes that mix dressy and casual elements are more versatile.


----------



## mreams99 (Jan 7, 2015)

So to answer the original question....
Yes, I think the combination that you mentioned (AE University in black) is too formal for jeans. If you change the color to something like bourbon or walnut, it becomes a little less dressy and it might look OK with jeans.
The Rogue, McGregor, and Lexington are options with an open lacing design to consider.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> So did the Edsel.
> 
> Look, everyone has different tastes. What makes something stylish, is if you can look at the picture 20 years later and say "Damn, that looks good."


Actually I run into people like that on a daily basis and chuckle. There's really nothing original about it.

When I see someone like that I assume they got the entire look from an ad, then ran out and put the outfit together based on the ad.

It doesn't look good, in real life and in print. There's something to be said for style and originality. Those guys stick out like sore thumbs and that's really not what you want.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Odradek said:


> ....Today, I'm wearing burgundy Loake Strands with fairly presentable 501's and a Charles Tyrwhitt OCBD. There's no "crazy juxtaposition" going on. Guaranteed to be better dressed than most men I meet today, without being over-dressed......


Charles Tyrwhitt makes OCBDs?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

TheQue said:


> I am not the shoe aficionado of the forum by any means. However, I would like to know when all the black shoe hate came into play. *Without question, a black shoe will go fine with denim*. I would argue that brown goes with denim better, I choose to wear my walnut strands with denim, but that does not imply that black is in any way inappropriate.
> 
> To answer your question, from my point of view, yes the black universities will go with denim. Are they your best choice? I do not think so, but* black is certainly the most versatile color*.


I think if that was "without question", we wouldn't be 2 pages into this thread. And, I strongly disagree that black is the most versatile color when it comes to shoes. I'd advise against stating matters of opinion as if they are facts, using words like, "without question" and "certainly".


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Odradek said:


> Loake Strands...to the hardware store.
> Wearing anything other than jeans would be considered "dressing up" round here.


Do tell me if you spot anyone else Adelaide style shoes then. I'd assume that a decent pair of work boots would be the haughtiest thing seen.
I have no idea how people reconcile that nasty visible jean hem, or worse the rolled cuff, against a refined shoe.
If someone could tell me now jeans and dress shoes is not just the flip side of sneakers with a suit, please make the case.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Dmontez said:


> there's a difference between "having fun" with your clothing options, and looking like a fool.


If you can't wear a look with confidence, it's not for you.

I draw the line at sockless with rolled up jeans, but brogue brown wingtips (with socks) are in my comfort zone.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> If you can't wear a look with confidence, it's not for you.
> 
> I draw the line at sockless with rolled up jeans, but brogue brown wingtips (with socks) are in my comfort zone.


The guys in those pics certainly look confident yet foolish all the same. Just my opinion.

I'd never want to stand out in a crowd for the wrong reasons.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> The guys in those pics certainly look confident yet foolish all the same. Just my opinion.
> 
> I'd never want to stand out in a crowd for the wrong reasons.


And that all depends on the crowd....if you wear those outfits in a place full of heavily tatted, ear-gauged, deep faded-shave hipster youth, you're going to stand out a lot less than if you wore a more conservative AAAC-approved rig.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Where men's clothing is concerned, especially shoes, I don't believe black is the most versatile color by a long shot. Black works well with a black trousers, a couple shades of grey, maybe three shades of grey, and that about covers it. Oxblood, burgundy, #8, whatever you wish to term it goes with everything *except* black. This includes denim. 
My 2 centavos.



TheQue said:


> I am not the shoe aficionado of the forum by any means. However, I would like to know when all the black shoe hate came into play. Without question, a black shoe will go fine with denim. I would argue that brown goes with denim better, I choose to wear my walnut strands with denim, but that does not imply that black is in any way inappropriate.
> 
> To answer your question, from my point of view, yes the black universities will go with denim. Are they your best choice? I do not think so, but black is certainly the most versatile color.
> 
> -Ray


----------



## espressocycle (Apr 14, 2014)

I think the University is funky enough to go with jeans, even black ones provided dark and fairly slim tapered jeans. I would draw the line at a cap toe.


----------



## Bama87 (Oct 18, 2014)

#1, 3, and 4 all look terrible and I really belive that is putting it mildly. I don't think #2 look as bad as the other three, but I still wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Getting back to the origional question, do *BLACK* "dress" shoes work with blue jeans, I'm still yelling no. Of course I can't stand black shoes, in general, with blue jeans.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

127.72 MHz said:


> Where men's clothing is concerned, especially shoes, I don't believe black is the most versatile color by a long shot. Black works well with a black trousers, a couple shades of grey, may three shades of grey and that about covers it. Oxblood, burgundy, #8, whatever you wish to term it goes with everything *except* black. This includes denim.
> My 2 centavos.


Others who are in the business of style for a living agree:

"*1) Brown Brogues

*Keep them sleek and they can easily be worn with your workhorse navy and gray suits, while the brogueing (the decorative punching on the toes and seams that gives these shoes their name) *makes them casual enough to wear with chinos or jeans*.

*Our Picks - Brown Brogue *[edit: they had many more, but reduced to AE model due to similarity to AE University]


, $345 (pictured above)"
Source: https://www.blacklapel.com/thecompass/how-to-build-your-dress-shoe-wardrobe/


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

espressocycle said:


> I think the University is funky enough to go with jeans, even black ones provided dark and fairly slim tapered jeans. I would draw the line at a cap toe.


AE calls it a wingtip, but the style is also known as a U-cap, so in my mind it's somewhere between wingtip and cap toe.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tempest said:


> If someone could tell me now jeans and dress shoes is not just the flip side of sneakers with a suit, please make the case.


Because sneakers are athletic wear.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

The list of shoes better than a black oxford for pairing with jeans is very, very, very long.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Pic 5: Right most guy with a walnut brown/faded blue combo.










Pic 6: A more burnished brown / bourbon with very dark blue look:










Pic 7: Brown suede oxfords with mid-blue wash jeans


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

The black shoes I wear with jeans are desert boots, boats and camp mocs - all fit the "rough with rough" doctrine, which makes sense to me. The only shined shoes I wear with jeans are cowboy boots, and that combination only to certain kinds of social events that occur in cattle country, but perhaps nowhere else.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

watchnerd said:


> Because sneakers are athletic wear.


Ah, see I was lumping jeans and sneakers into the same "play clothes" category.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Some excellent pictorial examples in this thread of how to dress poorly. 

Oh, and I don't hate black dress shoes - in fact I feel that they are a foundational element in a well rounded shoe wardrobe. But they do not pair well with jeans. I don't hate hiking boots, either. But they don't pair well with a suit.

If you are of the view that items of widely disparate levels of formality can be successfully paired, then go right ahead and wear anything with anything whenever and wherever you please. Nobody is stopping you.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

RogerP said:


> Oh, and I don't hate black dress shoes - in fact I feel that they are a foundational element in a well rounded shoe wardrobe. But they do not pair well with jeans.


+1, agree.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

watchnerd, it seems to me as though you are posting pictures against your argument. The only guy I have seen that looks well dressed is the only one that is wearing a suit (picture 5 far left) everyone else looks sloppy, and the trousers that should have been worn instead of jeans would have made them look 1000x better. 

I really do not understand why someone would prefer to wear jeans with a blazer rather than lightweight wool, or twill cotton. I have never worn pants, or found pants that can compete for comfort against wool, and in every single one of those pictures wool would have been the best option.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Dmontez said:


> The only guy I have seen that looks well dressed is the only one that is wearing a suit (picture 5 far left) everyone else looks sloppy


I think that guy looks pretty 'meh'. I think the guy to his right looks the best.



Dmontez said:


> watchnerd, it seems to me as though you are posting pictures against your argument.


That's only because we don't have the same definition of what looks good.

Your argument amounts to: "I don't like that look." Which is fine. But it's not some kind of universal truth.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Interesting observation. We have the fashion forum and the Trad forum. Perhaps there's a middle ground for fellas who are not into skinny leg trousers and jackets that are too tight my almost any standard. Not knocking that look,.... But is there a place for gents who are not into the religion of "Trad" yet not into the tight trousers and jackets? I love 3/2 sack jackets and suits with flat front trousers but I have no issue with wearing a darted jacket or a suit with pleats.

I wonder if the term Traditional American men's clothing could encompass what I've described,...

I have a black pair of almost suede Mephisto wings with the heavy latex rubber sole from about twenty years ago. They still look new. I have paired them with Denim and have received favorable comments about the look. But I'd still go with another color than black as a first choice.



RogerP said:


> Some excellent pictorial examples in this thread of how to dress poorly.
> 
> Oh, and I don't hate black dress shoes - in fact I feel that they are a foundational element in a well rounded shoe wardrobe. But they do not pair well with jeans. I don't hate hiking boots, either. But they don't pair well with a suit.
> 
> If you are of the view that items of widely disparate levels of formality can be successfully paired, then go right ahead and wear anything with anything whenever and wherever you please. Nobody is stopping you.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

127.72 MHz said:


> Interesting observation. We have the fashion forum and the Trad forum. Perhaps there's a middle ground for fellas who are not into skinny leg trousers and jackets that are too tight my almost any standard. Not knocking that look,.... But is there a place for gents who are not into the religion of "Trad" yet not into the tight trousers and jackets? I love 3/2 sack jackets and suits with flat front trousers but I have no issue with wearing a darted jacket or a suit with pleats.


This forum is described as:

"A forum for questions and answers about men's fashion topics, bespoke, custom, made-to-measure & tailored clothing, accessories and furnishings."

That's an incredibly broad remit covering just about everything relating to menswear.

Why the desire to further segregate? Do we really need an echo chamber where everyone has identical aesthetics?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Tempest said:


> Do tell me if you spot anyone else Adelaide style shoes then. I'd assume that a decent pair of work boots would be the haughtiest thing seen.
> I have no idea how people reconcile that nasty visible jean hem, or worse the rolled cuff, against a refined shoe.
> If someone could tell me now jeans and dress shoes is not just the flip side of sneakers with a suit, please make the case.


I doubt there's anyone in town wearing Adelaides. Certainly none at B&Q.
After lunch I ran a few errands round town and then brought my children to the park, where my daughter met a friend and her dad. 
He was dressed in a black Hugo Boss T-shirt, cargo shorts and Birkenstocks.
This man is a millionaire property developer. Owns a Bentley, a Porsche and a very flash Land Rover. I doubt he spend much thought on clothes or shoes.
Made me feel like I was over-dressed.



watchnerd said:


> This forum is described as:
> 
> "A forum for questions and answers about men's fashion topics, bespoke, custom, made-to-measure & tailored clothing, accessories and furnishings."
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with that.


----------



## Bama87 (Oct 18, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> Pic 5: Right most guy with a walnut brown/faded blue combo.


Guy third from left........oh my. Sweet socks.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

watchnerd said:


> Pic 5: Right most guy with a walnut brown/faded blue combo.


The guys to far left and right are the only ones who look vaguely normal. The two middle guys are refugees from Pitti Uomo.

Pics 6 & 7 had to be deleted due to over skinny jeans, and some jacket cuff issues.

If you want more dressing up but including jeans, there's a whole blog in which it features a lot.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

FLCracka said:


> Charles Tyrwhitt makes OCBDs?


They do a few, but bizarrely, when I went to grab a link to them from their US website, those shirts don't show up.
They are available on the UK version of the website.

https://www.ctshirts.co.uk/mens-shirts?q=gbpdefault|||||||2186,||||||||


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Bama87 said:


> Guy third from left........oh my. Sweet socks.


Yeah, he effed up. Either go sockless (or wear those invisible sockless socks) or wear socks. Don't wear little shorty socks like I wear to go running.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> Pic 5: Right most guy with a walnut brown/faded blue combo.


The guy on the far right is being ignored by the rest. I wonder why? Must be the ridiculous wash on the jeans.

Also, notice his hand is completely inserted into his food bag?


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> The guy on the far right is being ignored by the rest. I wonder why? Must be the ridiculous wash on the jeans.
> 
> Also, notice his hand is completely inserted into his food bag?


That's probably a bottle of Thunderbird.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

SlideGuitarist said:


> That's probably a bottle of Thunderbird.


Not so likely in that location, though (Italy).


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

^Ballers.

Now getting back to the original topic, here is the shoe in question.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

With jeans, better in brown / walnut.


----------



## nnjacob (Apr 1, 2015)

Thanks for the input. Now I'm considering a McAllister in merlot instead. Keep in mind I don't wear jeans every day -- It's more that I'd like something that can work for business casual and the occasional weekend.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

nnjacob said:


> Thanks for the input. Now I'm considering a McAllister in merlot instead. Keep in mind I don't wear jeans every day -- It's more that I'd like something that can work for business casual and the occasional weekend.


Getting a brown/tan/walnut/merlot/oxblood wingtip is a low risk decision, because even if you decide you don't want to wear it with jeans, it's still a great shoe to have as part of your collection.


----------

