# Patent Leather, A must?



## superpacker (Jul 16, 2008)

Here is something I have been curious about, and you guys seem to have all the answers. Must one where patent leather shoes with a tuxedo? I know that obviously one can not wear a wingtip or cap-toe brogue, but what about a beautifully crafted black calf plain-toe bal? I personally love my AE Park Avenues. They are so sleek, and the cap to is SO subtle, and they posses such a beautiful luster I just don't see in patent? Would wearing these be over the line?


----------



## zarathustra (Aug 24, 2006)

+ 1 to the park aves. I do it with my black polo tellmans. I hate patent leather and would rather spend the money on shoes that I can wear at other times.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

At most typical black tie affairs (I'm not including State dinners at the White House), as many men will be wearing something like you describe as will be wearing patent leather. I think the AE Park Avenue is an excellent choice. Just make sure it is well polished.

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

superpacker said:


> I personally love my AE Park Avenues. They are so sleek, and the cap to is SO subtle, and they posses such a beautiful luster I just don't see in patent? Would wearing these be over the line?


One of the aesthetic principles underlying evening formal and semi-formal wear is that one ought not to wear something that is associated with business clothes or casual clothes. Formalwear has its origins in upper-class clothing habits. This means that it is premised upon principles that are exclusionary, to keep out hoi polloi.

The Park Avenue is clearly a business shoe and would thus fail to satisfy the traditional standards for formalwear. Patent leather does satisfy those standards by being otherwise useless -- an indulgence that only someone wealthy enough can afford.

However, the principles I've described are, as Cruiser's post reflects, mostly obscure. To the extent they are known, they are often detested.

Bottom line: You asked whether Park Avenues would cross "the line." It depends on what line you are talking about. If "the line" means the traditional parameters, you ought to wear patent leather shoes, or calfskin pumps. However, if "the line" means whether the average attendee at your event will criticize you, the Park Avenues will do perfectly well.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

superpacker said:


> Here is something I have been curious about, and you guys seem to have all the answers. Must one where patent leather shoes with a tuxedo? I know that obviously one can not wear a wingtip or cap-toe brogue, but what about a beautifully crafted black calf plain-toe bal? I personally love my AE Park Avenues. They are so sleek, and the cap to is SO subtle, and they posses such a beautiful luster I just don't see in patent? Would wearing these be over the line?


While something like this -

https://www.shipton-usa.com/erol.html#2134X2327

might be ideal, a *plain toe* balmoral (oxford) in highly polished black calf will pass muster in most situations. With the added bonus of being useful elsewhere. Sorry, no cap toes allowed!


----------



## Zot! (Feb 18, 2008)

Taliesin said:


> One of the aesthetic principles underlying evening formal and semi-formal wear is that one ought not to wear something that is associated with business clothes or casual clothes. Formalwear has its origins in upper-class clothing habits. This means that it is premised upon principles that are exclusionary, to keep out hoi polloi.


That, and the nouveau riche. I remember watching _Mannor House_ on PBS, which was a reality series set in England during the Edwardian era, when wealthy business people started becoming "titled" in appreciable numbers (and there were were _multiple_ levels of evening dress). The head of the manner throws a dinner party, and wears the wrong color vest. The narrator explained that this could literally lead to ruination, as other wealthy gentlemen would conclude that he was a man of poor breeding character, and would not socialize or do business with him.

Thus, it wasn't just to exclude people who didn't have the _means_ to dress this way, but also to make it easier to tell whether someone "the right kind of people."


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

I must respectfully disagree with the assertion that the Park Avenue is clearly a business shoe. It is the most formal shoe that one can wear short of opera pumps. Patent leather is not actually more formal than polished calfskin bals, it's just that patent is only acceptable in formal situations, whereas the calf can also dress down. I actually dislike patent leather. It has always struck me as showy. Plus, it makes it more difficult to appreciate the quality of the shoe. Polished calf doesn't hide imperfections as easily. The cap toe is also more formal than a plain toe, although any further embellishments are clearly a no-no.

An example of a shoe with clear business origins would be that American curiosity, the black wingtip.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I've worn highly shined black Park Aves with my civilian formal wear, for many years and never received a negative comment. As others have noted, patent leather shoes can seem of very limited utility.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Mr. Knightly said:


> I must respectfully disagree with the assertion that the Park Avenue is clearly a business shoe. It is the most formal shoe that one can wear short of opera pumps....The cap toe is also more formal than a plain toe, although any further embellishments are clearly a no-no.


The cap toe is, in general, not more formal than the plain toe. Vice versa. As Manton wrote in his wedding attire guide, addressing what shoes should be worn with white tie and black tie:



> Shoes must be patent leather plain oxfords-no decoration of any kind, not even a toe cap-or else opera pumps.


https://askandyaboutclothes.com/Tutorials/AntongiavanniWEDDINGATTIRE.htm


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Calf pumps carry the evening for me. Hate patent leather and also hate any shoe remotely "business" with a DJ.

Prince Alberts for the club though


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Mr. Knightly said:


> I must respectfully disagree with the assertion that the Park Avenue is clearly a business shoe. It is the most formal shoe that one can wear short of opera pumps. Patent leather is not actually more formal than polished calfskin bals, it's just that patent is only acceptable in formal situations, whereas the calf can also dress down. I actually dislike patent leather. It has always struck me as showy. Plus, it makes it more difficult to appreciate the quality of the shoe. Polished calf doesn't hide imperfections as easily. The cap toe is also more formal than a plain toe, although any further embellishments are clearly a no-no.
> 
> An example of a shoe with clear business origins would be that American curiosity, the black wingtip.


I think we have the Scots to thank for the black brogue?


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Zot! said:


> Thus, it wasn't just to exclude people who didn't have the _means_ to dress this way, but also to make it easier to tell whether someone "the right kind of people."


Good point. This appears in Moliere's Bourgeois Gentilhomme -- money is a necessary but not sufficient ingredient to move upward.


----------



## Pgolden (May 13, 2006)

I always wear my black Park Aves with a tux. They are, as has been mentioned, the most formal shoe available other than patent leather and any examination of pictures of the shoes worn with formal wear over the last hundred years will indicate that it is perfectly acceptable not to wear patent leather.



superpacker said:


> Here is something I have been curious about, and you guys seem to have all the answers. Must one where patent leather shoes with a tuxedo? I know that obviously one can not wear a wingtip or cap-toe brogue, but what about a beautifully crafted black calf plain-toe bal? I personally love my AE Park Avenues. They are so sleek, and the cap to is SO subtle, and they posses such a beautiful luster I just don't see in patent? Would wearing these be over the line?


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Pgolden said:


> They are, as has been mentioned, the most formal shoe available other than patent leather.


I don't think this is correct. See my posting above.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

About this notion that the Park Avenue is somehow a very "formal" shoe, the following thread is useful:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=79700

Important quotes:



medwards said:


> First, we have to differentiate between "formal" as in an occasion requiring a dinner jacket and "formal" in a business sense. In terms of the former, a patent leather plain-toed oxford or bowed opera pump are the most appropriate. In a business setting, a cap-toed oxford is coinsidered more formal than, say, a whole-cut oxford which is viewed as a more informal shoe.





manton said:


> A cap toe is a business shoe. A plain toe patent oxford is a formal shoe. Formal oxfords should not have a cap. Crockett & Jones, which should know better, nonetheless sells a cap toe patent formal shoe, and does not carry a plain toe patent formal shoe. The Edward Green model "Carnegie" is a correct formal oxford.





Andy said:


> We all know the meaning of formal and semi-formal; how about using "dressy" or more dressy or less dressy for business/social clothing that is not formal.


The conclusion I draw from this, as I stated above, is that the P.A. is a business shoe, not a formal shoe, and in that sense it is not, and cannot be, the "most formal" shoe one can wear apart from patent leather. A more accurate way to say it would be to point out that the P.A., as the most dressy business shoe, is the most similar to a formal shoe one can wear without actually wearing a formal shoe.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Taliesin said:


> About this notion that the Park Avenue is somehow a very "formal" shoe, the following thread is useful:
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=79700
> 
> The conclusion I draw from this, as I stated above, is that the P.A. is a business shoe, not a formal shoe, and in that sense it is not, and cannot be, the "most formal" shoe one can wear apart from patent leather. A more accurate way to say it would be to point out that the P.A., as the most dressy business shoe, is the most similar to a formal shoe one can wear without actually wearing a formal shoe.


Agree with Taliesin, plain toe, not cap. In roughly 50 years of reading about men's attire in dozens of books, and more magazine articles (At least any of repute.) I've never read it asserted otherwise, except here. :icon_smile:


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

You can get away with wearing Park Avenues. But, that doesn't make it right. Cap toe shoes are not appropriate with a dinner jacket.

If you don't like patent leather (and for good reason), I would go with prince albert slippers or calf pumps.


----------



## Duck (Jan 4, 2007)

SMUJD is right on. Perfect answer, close the thread.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

smujd said:


> You can get away with wearing Park Avenues. But, that doesn't make it right. Cap toe shoes are not appropriate with a dinner jacket.


Be that as it may, there are certainly a lot of well dressed men out there getting away with it. In fact, I would venture to say that in many situations you will find the less confident, less self-assured guys (the rookies) in patent leather while the more veteran black tie guys simply shine up their Park Avenues (or whatever) and glide confidently through life.

There's nothing wrong with patent leather, it just isn't something that everyone embraces. I will admit that a quality patent leather shoe is good for peeking up women's dresses, but I think I'm getting too old for that type behavior. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

I've always disagreed with Manton on this one, but we're really talking about two different things--calfskin and patent leather. The cap seems a shame on patent leather, since it breaks up the striking mirrored surface. In calfskin, a plain toe is too evocative of the extremely common and informal cap toe blucher.

Questions of correctness are always a little fuzzy with black tie. It's like it wants to be a real dress code, but right from its inception, there have been conflicting interpretations about semi-formal evening wear. Perhaps it's the American in me, but I like things like Gucci loafers and beige trench coats with black tie (though not at the same time). Even wholecuts, though quite fashion forward, can look very elegant with dinner clothes. Very stylish people have been doing things like this for decades.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Mr. Knightly said:


> Perhaps it's the American in me, but I like things like Gucci loafers and beige trench coats with black tie (though not at the same time). Even wholecuts, though quite fashion forward, can look very elegant with dinner clothes. Very stylish people have been doing things like this for decades.


I feel the same way, with a qualifier. To my eye, wearing Gucci loafers, a white OCBD, or a camel hair polo coat with black tie only looks right if the wearer somehow conveys very clearly that he has made a knowing choice. In other words, he might have a pair of patent leather opera pumps, or might have had such shoes in the past, but is now going with Gucci loafers because he's played by the rules and now wants to play around with stretching them a little.

This is, in my view, entirely different from "getting away with" wearing business shoes with a dinner jacket, which equates to a lack of effort and a desire to do the minimum possible, rather than to a knowing decision to bend the rules for the sake of individual style.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Taliesin said:


> This is, in my view, entirely different from "getting away with" wearing business shoes with a dinner jacket, which equates to a lack of effort and a desire to do the minimum possible, rather than to a knowing decision to bend the rules for the sake of individual style.


If you think that polishing a pair of shoes to a glossy shine rather than putting on a pair of patent leather shoes equates to "the minimum possible", I can only assume that you don't shine your shoes. The minimum possible is to put on a pair of shiny patent leather shoes in my opinion. They are the lazy man's way to a shine.

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> If you think that polishing a pair of shoes to a glossy shine rather than putting on a pair of patent leather shoes equates to "the minimum possible", I can only assume that you don't shine your shoes. The minimum possible is to put on a pair of shiny patent leather shoes in my opinion. They are the lazy man's way to a shine.
> 
> Cruiser


Did you intentionally miss the point of my post for rhetorical purposes, or should I restate what I've written? The argumentative tactic of purporting to tell me what I think is not especially polite nor, once pointed out, especially effective.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Taliesin said:


> Did you intentionally miss the point of my post for rhetorical purposes, or should I restate what I've written? The argumentative tactic of purporting to tell me what I think is not especially polite nor, once pointed out, especially effective.


I have no idea what you are thinking. All I can do is to respond to what you said, and you said:

_"This is, in my view, entirely different from "getting away with" wearing business shoes with a dinner jacket, which equates to a lack of effort and a desire to do the minimum possible"_

I will admit that I'm not the smartest guy here; however, I don't know any other way to interpret that other than you are saying that to wear a pair of Park Avenues with a tuxedo is the same as (equates to) a lack of effort and a desire to do the minimum possible.

And as for being argumentative, I don't think offering up my opinion on what you said is argumentative at all, unless of course you think that any opinion other than your own is argumentative. I was not making that assumption when I responded to what you said. I was merely offering another viewpoint.

Do you also frown on men who tie their own bow ties rather than use pre-tied ones? If one is to be applauded for taking the time and effort to tie his own tie, shouldn't he also be applauded for taking the time and effort to polish his own shoes to a glossy shine rather than wearing artificially shiny shoes? Just a thought and not meant to be argumentative.

If you like patent leather shoes, then by all means wear patent leather shoes. Just ease up on the judging of guys who don't. And there are a lot of well dressed men who don't and they aren't "getting away" with anything. They are just as appropriately dressed as you are in your patent leather.

Here's what the December 2007 issue of GQ had to say on the subject:

_"Lose the patent. Skip those shiny tux shoes and stick with well-polished black lace-ups instead."_

Now I know that you are going to say that GQ doesn't know what they are talking about. I would submit that you just don't agree with them on the subject. That's your right but I would put as much stock in what they say as what someone else says. I mean aren't we always going to pick and choose what we want to believe and/or agree with. These things evolve and some folks want to evolve with the times and some don't. That's fine too. It's all about personal choice and in many cases, such as here, there is no real right or wrong.

And FWIW, I don't mean this to be confrontational. It's just another viewpoint.

Cruiser


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

Taliesin said:


> I feel the same way, with a qualifier. To my eye, wearing Gucci loafers, a white OCBD, or a camel hair polo coat with black tie only looks right if the wearer somehow conveys very clearly that he has made a knowing choice. In other words, he might have a pair of patent leather opera pumps, or might have had such shoes in the past, but is now going with Gucci loafers because he's played by the rules and now wants to play around with stretching them a little.
> 
> This is, in my view, entirely different from "getting away with" wearing business shoes with a dinner jacket, which equates to a lack of effort and a desire to do the minimum possible, rather than to a knowing decision to bend the rules for the sake of individual style.


I believe that you can convey that same message with Park Aves (though I still consider them more conventionally "correct" than Gucci bit loafers). I'll submit myself as what I hope is an example. I wear a tailored DJ with grosgrain peak lapels. My tie is also grosgrain. My formal shirt is tailored and is a thick herringbone (the slight texture goes well with the grosgrain). I believe that most of my choices are fairly discerning and suggest that I have put care into my appearance. If a discerning eye notices my footwear, they will probably realize that my choice was conscious. I should also note that I have 2 pair of Park Aves, one gets more regular use, and has some marks to show for it. The other pair is immaculate and only for black tie or extremely important occasions.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> I will admit that I'm not the smartest guy here; however, I don't know any other way to interpret that other than you are saying that to wear a pair of Park Avenues with a tuxedo is the same as (equates to) a lack of effort and a desire to do the minimum possible.


Ok, I'll use the specific instance of Park Avenues rather than Gucci loafers, which should clarify things. My point was that there's a difference between wearing Park Avenues with a dinner jacket because one thinks it looks good, even knowing that it breaks the traditional rules, versus "getting away with" wearing Park Avenues with a dinner jacket simply because one doesn't want to go through the trouble and expense of buying formal shoes. I'm not suggesting which one of these you fall into, so there's no need to personalize it. To continue with the analysis and again sticking solely with the P.A. example, it is my opinion that wearing the Park Avenues with the dinner jacket only looks dashing or elegant if the wearer is able to convey that he has chosen to wear the P.A.s because he has affirmatively selected this look, not because he simply lacks, and can't be bothered to secure, actual formal shoes. Make sense?



> And as for being argumentative, I don't think offering up my opinion on what you said is argumentative at all, unless of course you think that any opinion other than your own is argumentative. I was not making that assumption when I responded to what you said. I was merely offering another viewpoint.


Not really. I don't want to focus on this, but you attempted to reduce my point to an absurdity, and then to disparage patent leather shoes as "the lazy man's way to a shine." That's silly, and didn't treat my argument with any respect. And note again that you are, as you did before, speculating about what I think, and then rebutting that purported thought (as you said: "unless of course you think...."). This is a straw man technique.



> If you like patent leather shoes, then by all means wear patent leather shoes. Just ease up on the judging of guys who don't. And there are a lot of well dressed men who don't and they aren't "getting away" with anything. They are just as appropriately dressed as you are in your patent leather.


My first paragraph, above, clarifies what I'm judging, which is not patent vs. non-patent.



> It's all about personal choice and in many cases, such as here, there is no real right or wrong.


There are aesthetic and historical principles, however. One can choose to ignore them, of course, but personal choice only exists in context.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Mr. Knightly said:


> I believe that you can convey that same message with Park Aves (though I still consider them more conventionally "correct" than Gucci bit loafers). I'll submit myself as what I hope is an example. I wear a tailored DJ with grosgrain peak lapels. My tie is also grosgrain. My formal shirt is tailored and is a thick herringbone (the slight texture goes well with the grosgrain). I believe that most of my choices are fairly discerning and suggest that I have put care into my appearance. If a discerning eye notices my footwear, they will probably realize that my choice was conscious. I should also note that I have 2 pair of Park Aves, one gets more regular use, and has some marks to show for it. The other pair is immaculate and only for black tie or extremely important occasions.


I agree. I hope my previous post clarifies this.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

I wear either calfskin pumps or velvet monogrammed slipper; I think there should be a distinction between daytime and black tie footwear.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> Here's what the December 2007 issue of GQ had to say on the subject:
> 
> _"Lose the patent. Skip those shiny tux shoes and stick with well-polished black lace-ups instead."_


While I don't agree with your position on this issue, I certainly do agree you are entitled to hold whatever view you wish, and think your argument is very well put. However, I would *not* quote GQ as an expert source for *anything* sartorial. Before abandoning that rag after perhaps 25 years, and almost that many years ago, I had read some of dumbest and least knowledgeable statements regarding men's attire that were ever written stated as fact.

I feel that many of the posters on AAAC are literally more knowledgeable about men's clothing than the people who write and publish GQ. And I know you certainly are.


----------



## suitsyousir (Aug 8, 2008)

Gentlemen, 

Pardon me for not introducing myself before - I am quite an avid reader of this site and felt compelled to throw this into the argument:

At Sandhurst, one never wears patent leather. Brogues are fine if you're Scottish. Spit-shined, of course. And for G-d's sake, no wing collar. 

Thus endeth the lesson from the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst - and may the Lord have mercy on Bates patent leather - corfram - shoes.


----------



## Pale Male (Mar 24, 2008)

*Rules are for bending*

I find it most useful to know the actual "rule" before bending, breaking, or simply ignoring. Black Patent Pumps a must? Yes. Well, I simply won't wear patent leather so perhaps calfskin pump? Homburg is required? Sorry, I'll wear my Charcoal Fedora. But they're my choices and I'll take my chances yet make no excuses.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

Do any patent leather shoe manufacturers still make them the old way, treating ordinary leather with a boiled linseed oil varnish?


----------

