# monk strap shoe formality



## Brax (Dec 3, 2005)

I doubt that there is much debate about how formal most types of shoes are. For example, I only were oxfords with suits and I consider a derby more formal than a loafer. I am at a loss, however, about monk strap shoes. Are they formal enough for a suit or should they be put in the same category as a derby or maybe the loafer? I realize that not all monk strap shoes are the same. The Lobb Jermyn II is extremely elegant but is it formal enough for a suit? I love my EG Dovers but because it is a derby I'd never wear it with a suit. Leaving aside issues of color, lasts, etc., is a monk strap appropriate for suits? I'm not refering to double monk straps like the JL William II just the single strap variety.

Thanks,
FB


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Brax said:


> I doubt that there is much debate about how formal most types of shoes are. For example, I only were oxfords with suits and I consider a derby more formal than a loafer. I am at a loss, however, about monk strap shoes. Are they formal enough for a suit or should they be put in the same category as a derby or maybe the loafer? I realize that not all monk strap shoes are the same. The Lobb Jermyn II is extremely elegant but is it formal enough for a suit? I love my EG Dovers but because it is a derby I'd never wear it with a suit. Leaving aside issues of color, lasts, etc., is a monk strap appropriate for suits? I'm not refering to double monk straps like the JL William II just the single strap variety.
> 
> Thanks,
> FB


I think it depends on where you are and personal preference. I wear derbys/bluchers with suits, as well as some loafers. Obviously, this would not be appropriate for you. Technically, monk straps fall either one notch above or below a derby on the fomrality scale, depending on who you are speaking with. I, of course, enjoy them with lounge suits. Additionally many are sleek shoes that certainly have more the feel of an oxford/balmoral than a derby/blucher.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

Shoes with laces are more formal than shoes without. I would place the monkstrap on the same level as a loafer. They are loafers for people who hate loafers.


----------



## tmack3 (Jan 14, 2006)

I think a lot has to do with the style of the particular shoe. I think plaintoe monkstraps are Ok with a suit. Monks with an aprontop are not. 

I like monks because they are versatile which is good for when you're traveling.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

My understanding is that they are above derbys and below oxfords and that in all but the most conservative work environment they are OK with a suit on all but the most formal days.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Monk straps are derbies. 

It is often debated whether a "derby" can be worn with a "suit". However, there are different derbies and different suits. No Oxford is formal enough for a dress suit. Yet a derby is fine with a country styled tweed lounge suit. Even a particularly elegantly made black two islet derby can be made to work with a city lounge. Likewise a pair of black monks like the Philip II can work well.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Sator said:


> Monk straps are derbies.


Gee, I hadn't thought about that...



Sator said:


> ...No Oxford is formal enough for a dress suit...


Now I'm confused, too. Is a "dress suit" evening semi-formal?


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Orsini said:


> Is a "dress suit" evening semi-formal?


Formal evening dress. It's what most Europeans call a frack. The Germans also call it a Großegesellschaftsanzug.

The name of a suit is determined by the coat. If it has a lounge coat it is a lounge suit. If it has a morning coat it is a morning suit. If it has a dress coat it is a dress suit. Some people just call a "dress coat" a "tail coat", which is correct, but a morning coat is also a tail coat. In other words, a day wear tail coat is a morning coat/cutaway and an evening wear tail coat is a dress coat.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Sator said:


> Formal evening dress. It's what most Europeans call a frack. The Germans also call it a Großegesellschaftsanzug.
> 
> The name of a suit is determined by the coat. If it has a lounge coat it is a lounge suit. If it has a morning coat it is a morning suit. If it has a dress coat it is a dress suit. Some people just call a "dress coat" a "tail coat", which is correct, but a morning is also a tail coat. In other words, a day wear tail coat is a morning coat/cutaway and an evening wear tail coat is a dress coat.


Thank you. I had never read or heard that term for evening-formal before. I had always heard it called "tail coat" or "white tie and tails" in the US.

One term I have heard but never seen on this forum is "swallow-tail coat" for morning coat? Have you ever heard that?

I always look forward to seeing your posts. Your level of knowledge is quite impressive. I remember that picture of a German version of a stroller you posted once. That was magnificent!


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

*The pent-up water bursts the dam...*

I happily wear derbys and monkstraps (including a pair with an apron top) with business suits and I am in the world's most formal profession.

This forum can fixate on the 'cut' of a shoe. Yet the rules for shoes are the surely no stricter than the rules for business suits - where cut is an issue of fit and elegance, and only a few insist that a particular cut (for example double vents or notch lapels) _must _be worn.

So I would suggest that, instead of staring at your shoes to work out whether the quarters are stitched down to the vamp or not (the difference between an Oxford and a Derby) you consider the following:
1. Is the shoe sleek enough for business wear? If the welt is a country welt the answer is probably not.
2. Does the sole protrude out around the body of the shoe? The less the better for business wear.
3. Is the colour appropriate to the business you are in? In the UK brown shoes are almost universally out for business. Views differ elsewhere.
4. Is the shoe appropriate to the trouser? My apron monks look good with my bespoke suits, which have a relatively wide trouser. They are not so good with a much narrower MTM, which demands Oxfords. 
5. Is the shoe appropriate to the suit? A loud-ish check benefits from a restrained Oxford. A plain navy can be made more interesting by the flash of a gold buckle. 
6. What shape is your foot? If you have a very wide foot and can't afford bespoke shoes, you will almost always look smarter in a Derby, rather than having your ankles bulge over the closure of your Oxfords. 
7. Are your shoes clean? A clean shoe will always look more formal than a dirty one.
8. How conventional do you want to be? Sometimes the slavish adherence to a uniform is not what you want. Sometimes it is.

Formality as a requirement is ill-defined. Very few jobs require you to look formal (when there is such a requirement the stroller is still the best option). Most require you to look smart and appropriately dressed for the job you are doing. That is an overall look which embraces clean, not too loud, decent fit, no posing and a selection of colours which match each other without being ridiculous (thus we tend to avoid neon anything). Well made shoes complement that assemblage. Their precise cut is rarely so important as to compel or disqualify them.

When formal dress is required it is actually a shorthand for saying that the components of the dress are fixed within very tight limits and that the 'look' comes before comfort (wing collar, boiled shirt), normality (long coat, black tie), current fashion (patent shoes) or practicality (white tie, braided trousers). Such dress invariably harks back to past times and is intended to enhance an occasion by putting those present on their best behaviour. It works - but day-to-day business does not come close to being such an occasion and I fail to see the worth about approaching shoe choice as if it did.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

You're welcome. The term dress coat was probably always used more by tailors, and dates back to the earlier origins of the garment. Beau Brummell would have called his coat a dress coat. 

I once came across the term "swallow tail coat" to describe a dress coat, but usually it is used in both English and German (Schwalbenschwanz) to describe a morning coat. Some of these descriptive terms can be a bit inconsistent. However, all tailoring texts, both American and British, call an evening tail coat a "dress coat". All German tailoring manuals call it "ein Frack".


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Sator said:


> You're welcome. The term dress coat was probably always used more by tailors, and dates back to the earlier origins of the garment. Beau Brummell would have called his coat a dress coat.
> 
> I once came across the term "swallow tail coat" to describe a dress coat, but usually it is used in both English and German (Schwalbenschwanz) to describe a morning coat. Some of these descriptive terms can be a bit inconsistent. However, all tailoring texts, both American and British, call an evening tail coat a "dress coat". All German tailoring manuals call it "ein Frack".


 Once again, most impressive. Thank you, and good night.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Simon Myerson said:


> I am in the world's most formal profession.


You assist the loved ones of the departed? 

Seriously though, yours is a superb post. You enumerate and explain many issues that are too often lost or ignored amidst, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" pedantry.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

I consider monks to be equivalent to derbys in terms of formality. For a common sense consideration of when to wear what see Simon Myerson's post!

There are guidelines but they are long gone and no one pays any attention to them nowadays - witness how many intelligent business men wear loafers with suits - and this the most casual of all shoes.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

I love monk straps almost as much as side-gussetted shoes for their comfort factor

I own an Edward Green/Ralph Lauren Purple Label Montgomery wing tip full brogue monk strap

I wear it to court every other day (as I only own 2 pairs of shoes). I find it to be a very formal shoe and appropriate in a criminal court setting

I understand others will note a full brogued wing tips are a bit more informal, but I rank it right there with the semi-brogue

The Montgomery is an excellent shoe and at $618 dollars, was a sale bargain


----------



## Tonyp (May 8, 2007)

Ay329 said:


> I only own 2 pairs of shoes.
> 
> That is not very many shoes. You probably are wearing out your shoes pretty quickly.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I consider my Alden for Brooks Brothers shell cordovan monkstraps to be a little less formal than a pair of balmorals, but more so than loafers.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

_"You assist the loved ones of the departed? "_

Only when I prosecute the departed's killers , as I sometimes do. But thank you for the kind words which are reassuring and much appreciated.


----------



## encyclopedia (Jan 3, 2008)

I split monks into a) those where there is a separate tongue and it is a significant part of the image of the shoe, and b) those where there is no tongue or u can't c the tongue. I don't know the vocabularly. The jlp vale and william r type b...something more "open throated" for lack of a better word I call type a. Can't think of the jlp model name right now, but its the other single buckle monk and it isn't william-esque.

I find the idea I shouldn't wear type b shoes with a suit laughable. The vale/jermyn is an excellent shoe with a suit. My issue with loafers+suit trousers is that they sit too low and the break/line r all wrong. With jeans/informal stuff this isn't an issue.

Type a shoes do not go with a suit...they truly are derbies, and generally informal ones at that (most of what I've seen have big buckles, big straps, big soles etc - maybe there r exceptions). Again, presence of buckle/strap/too much noise will ruin the trouser/shoe transition.


----------



## 82-Greg (Apr 13, 2008)

Simon Myerson said:


> ...I am in the world's most formal profession.


What would that be?



Simon Myerson said:


> This forum can fixate on the 'cut' of a shoe. Yet the rules for shoes are the surely no stricter than the rules for business suits - where cut is an issue of fit and elegance, and only a few insist that a particular cut (for example double vents or notch lapels) _must _be worn.


+1

I would further argue that in the U.S. there are few who distinguish oxfords and derbies--particularly when we have adopted the name oxford to cover all laced shoes. Unfortunately for my argument, many of those who do distinguish those shoes participate on this or SF and will probably disagree.


----------



## 82-Greg (Apr 13, 2008)

Leather man said:


> There are guidelines but they are long gone and no one pays any attention to them nowadays - witness how many intelligent business men wear loafers with suits - and this the most casual of all shoes.


Considering many of the youngsters newly hired into my organization prefer to wear flip flops and/or sandals to work (with a casual work attire environment), I hesitate to criticize anyone who at least attempts to dress for work.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

World's most formal profession = the English Bar. 

I will defend this against all comers. My day wear consists of a business suit, shirt and tie. However, that is not good enough for court, so I have to change into a swallow tailed coat, black waistcoat, stiff collar, bands and a wig. A decent sized minority still wear the stroller every day. The big debate in my work place is whether you have to put your jacket on when you leave your desk. Opening a shirt collar is not an option if you use studs... 

It is also the only job I have encountered in which it is not uncommon for a senior person to tell a junior one (over whom he has no direct authority, all of us being self-employed), to get a haircut/new pair of shoes/decent tie/iron his shirt. This is less common than it once was (I was once sent home to clean my shoes) but it still happens.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

Tonyp said:


> Ay329 said:
> 
> 
> > I only own 2 pairs of shoes.
> ...


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Simon Myerson said:


> A decent sized minority still wear the stroller every day.
> 
> It is also the only job I have encountered in which it is not uncommon for a senior person to tell a junior one (over whom he has no direct authority, all of us being self-employed), to get a haircut/new pair of shoes/decent tie/iron his shirt. This is less common than it once was (I was once sent home to clean my shoes) but it still happens.


Be certain to inform Will (A self-professed anglophile) concerning the wearing of strollers, as he thinks he might enjoy one for use here in the U.S.

Your second reamark should be constructive. There are many professions were this practice would be beneficial. Too bad it would most likely be met with explitives, or worse, loud laughter on the behalf of the beneficiaries. (At least in the U.S.)


----------



## nmprisons (Mar 20, 2008)

I love wearing a pair of black, plaintoe monstraps (mine are C & J handgrades) with a dark suit when I am going out to a nice restaurant that requires a jacket and tie. I am a young guy and I don't like to look too stuffy at dinner and I think the monkstraps are a bit more playful, but not too informal.

In fact, I wore a pair with a charcoal suit, blue shirt, and red, blue, and charcoal tie last night to per se and got a couple of compliments on them.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

Flanderian said:


> Be certain to inform Will (A self-professed anglophile) concerning the wearing of strollers, as he thinks he might enjoy one for use here in the U.S.


Where did you get that impression? I've had one for twenty years, to the point where the jacket needs replacing.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Will said:


> Where did you get that impression? I've had one for twenty years, to the point where the jacket needs replacing.


 
Sorry, Will.  Thought I recalled reading that on your blog. I think you might have once discussed strollers, and perhaps mentioned acquiring another, which I then confused.


----------



## Brax (Dec 3, 2005)

Simon Myerson said:


> World's most formal profession = the English Bar.
> 
> It is also the only job I have encountered in which it is not uncommon for a senior person to tell a junior one (over whom he has no direct authority, all of us being self-employed), to get a haircut/new pair of shoes/decent tie/iron his shirt. This is less common than it once was (I was once sent home to clean my shoes) but it still happens.


I actually took one of my associates out and bought him a pair of black AE Park Avenues to wear with his suit because his derbies looked all wrong. He will be more appropriately dressed than most others whenever he steps into the courtroom.

Leather Man pointed out than many intelligent men wear loafers with suits. While true, it is not correct and the more we stick to the rules (not pedantic ones) the better we'll be. I believe that there are certain rules which need to be followed. There may not be many but they do exist and I accept them without reservation. A few that I can think of.

1. Tuxedos should not have notch lapels, vents or cuffs.
2. No vests with tuxedos but waistcoats are, of course, fine.
3. Shoes and belt should be in the same color family.
4. No socks when wearing shorts and loafers (reverse formality rule).
5. No fabric briefcases to court.

I'm sure that there are others and that some will disagree with these.

BTW, I wear some dark brown oxfords with some of my suits. But as Simon mentioned, they are inappropriate for London so the one case that I had with Clifford Chance in London, I put away all non-black oxfords.

Thanks for everyone's input. I think that the discussion was illuminating.
FB


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

Oh dear, I have a fabric bag for Court as well


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Brax said:


> I actually took one of my associates out and bought him a pair of black AE Park Avenues to wear with his suit because his derbies looked all wrong.


:icon_cheers::icon_cheers::icon_cheers:


----------



## fritzl (Jun 5, 2006)

Brax said:


> I actually took one of my associates out and bought him a pair of black oxfords to wear with his suit because his derbies looked all wrong.


I am glad, I am not this guy. I have an high instep and a wide forefoot. So the only way to wear oxfords, is to have them made especially for me.

Sator, I am surprised about your reaction. You must have seen tons of derbies on your latest sartorial excursion to Vienna. :icon_smile:


----------



## maltess (Sep 9, 2008)

What about double monk shoes, in what category they fell in? are thet more formal that a single monk?


----------

