# Is a longwing lessformal than a short wing shoe?



## richb (Oct 2, 2005)

They appear so to my eye but I want to see if that's the general rule. Would a long wing generally be okay with a chino while a shirt wing generally not be as much?


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

I'm not sure it's a rule, but, yes, I think so.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Assuming all else is equal ( sole thickness and stitching, leather, colour etc.) they strike me as pretty..... equal. I suppose you could make an argument to distinguish levels of formality between the two, but it strikes me as hair-splitting.


----------



## TheoProf (Dec 17, 2012)

Every long wing I've ever seen has been a blucher. Many regular wingtips I've seen are balmoral. This could be the difference in formality that you are observing.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Arguably less formal. Inarguably more American.

As a blucher, either is perfectly fine with chinos, and a wingtip bal is the most acceptable with chinos.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Maybe by about this much [holds up thumb and forefinger pressed tightly together]

Seriously, I don't think there is much difference.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

It has less to do with the length of the wings and more to do with the general shape and construction of the shoe. A typical longwing is a heavy, storm-welted, double-soled blucher while a shortwing typically has more refined features:


----------



## wdrazek (May 29, 2013)

hardline_42 said:


> It has less to do with the length of the wings and more to do with the general shape and construction of the shoe. A typical longwing is a heavy, storm-welted, double-soled blucher while a shortwing typically has more refined features:


Not to disrespect anyone here but it is difficult for me to see how either of these shoes would be inappropriate with the right suit or coat and tie combination... let alone which would be adequate to pair with chinos.

I get that the 'brogue' style came down from shoes intended to be worn in the bogs and the mud. But seriously, look at these designs. They are beautiful, well crafted and with fine detail.

How are they inappropriate for a suit or coat and tie? Must they really be relegated to at best chinos or jeans... Or am I missing something here?


----------



## richb (Oct 2, 2005)

I think the view is that the single sole of the short wing is more formal and the double oak sole and reverse welt of the long wing make it less so, so it are those aspects driving the formality and not the long vs short wings. They could both be dressed up, but perhaps only the first shoe dressed down is the way I'm taking it.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

wdrazek said:


> Not to disrespect anyone here but it is difficult for me to see how either of these shoes would be inappropriate with the right suit or coat and tie combination... let alone which would be adequate to pair with chinos.
> 
> I get that the 'brogue' style came down from shoes intended to be worn in the bogs and the mud. But seriously, look at these designs. They are beautiful, well crafted and with fine detail.
> 
> How are they inappropriate for a suit or coat and tie? Must they really be relegated to at best chinos or jeans... Or am I missing something here?


For the reasons suggested by hardline, this particular blucher is sub-optimal for a suit. That does not make it less well-crafted or even beautiful in its own way.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Yes, but*



hardline_42 said:


> It has less to do with the length of the wings and more to do with the general shape and construction of the shoe. A typical longwing is a heavy, storm-welted, double-soled blucher while a shortwing typically has more refined features:


The longwing in the photo is black, a more formal color than the light brown of the brogued oxford. In terms of American practice, the double soled Black longwing blucher is a standard business shoe. I personally find them highly unappealing, but can't imagine anyone faulting an American businessman for wearing them with a suit and tie. Moreover, I think they are inappropriate for wear with chinos or jeans.

The brown brogued oxfords are much more appealing shoes. In spite of their dresser style they are not appropriate for wear with business suits because of their light brown color and somewhat rustic appearanc, emphasized by the wide 360 welt which looks like those made by AE. That's not to say that they wouldn't look good with a light colored suit, or IMHO a navy suit. But not for business wear, and certainly not in law or banking or boardrooms. I think they would work with jeans or chinos. That being said, I have a similar pair of John Lobb derbys. Beacuse of their especailly smart profile and closely trimmed welt they would pass muster for some business settings. Even though they are quite dressyI wear them with Levi's.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> The longwing in the photo is black, a more formal color than the light brown of the brogued oxford. In terms of American practice, the double soled Black longwing blucher is a standard business shoe. I personally find them highly unappealing, but can't imagine anyone faulting an American businessman for wearing them with a suit and tie. Moreover, I think they are inappropriate for wear with chinos or jeans.
> 
> The brown brogued oxfords are much more appealing shoes. In spite of their dresser style they are not appropriate for wear with business suits because of their light brown color and somewhat rustic appearanc, emphasized by the wide 360 welt which looks like those made by AE. That's not to say that they wouldn't look good with a light colored suit, or IMHO a navy suit. But not for business wear, and certainly not in law or banking or boardrooms. I think they would work with jeans or chinos. That being said, I have a similar pair of John Lobb derbys. Beacuse of their especailly smart profile and closely trimmed welt they would pass muster for some business settings. Even though they are quite dressyI wear them with Levi's.
> 
> ...


I don't think the colour is relevant to the discussion, it just happened to be the pictures chosen. How would you respond if both were medium brown? The longwing would surely be the one to wear with jeans and chinos, and the wingtip would be the better choice for a suit. The regular 360 degree welt on the wingtips is still more formal than the storm welt on the longwings.


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

I don't believe anyone actually declared a longwing to be "inappropriate" with a suit. It is simply not as formal. If it is a common shoe of the well dressed businessman, that makes sense, but there are many settings more formal than the office.


----------



## Kreiger (Nov 6, 2011)

More evidence in support of the "details determine formality, but wing length is not such a detail" argument:









Edward Green Oakdale longwing bal in black. An elegant shoe to be worn with suits.


----------



## TheoProf (Dec 17, 2012)

Kreiger said:


> More evidence in support of the "details determine formality, but wing length is not such a detail" argument:
> 
> View attachment 8126
> 
> ...


Agreed. Although, it is the rare bal longwing. It is also sleeker than most that I've seen. My point is that this is an exceptional example of this particular shoe genre and not the common offering.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

The OP's question is only a debatable issue if you assume both hypothetical shoes have the same lacing. Is a refined shortwing bal more formal than an LWB, given similar colors? Of course. Is that EG longwing bal more formal than a shortwing blucher? Yes.

Given two medium-brown bluchers, however, with the same welt finishing and general detailing, I would say that the wing length is but a minor issue in terms of formality.


----------



## Kreiger (Nov 6, 2011)

Of course. These shoes are a great counterpoint to the black gunboat longwings posted above, which are admittedly over 99% of the longwings you see. Point is, and I think you agree, that the long wing itself isn't what makes the gunboats informal. Likewise, in these shoes from Vass, the short wing surely is not, in itself, adding to the formality of the shoe.









It also is true that the informal short wing shoe is much more common than a more formal longwing, but I think this is based more on traditional shoe designs than the fact that a long/short wing is more or less formal.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Kreiger said:


> Of course. These shoes are a great counterpoint to the black gunboat longwings posted above, which are admittedly over 99% of the longwings you see. Point is, and I think you agree, that the long wing itself isn't what makes the gunboats informal. Likewise, in these shoes from Vass, the short wing surely is not, in itself, adding to the formality of the shoe.
> *
> It also is true that the informal short wing shoe is much more common than a more formal longwing, *but I think this is based more on traditional shoe designs than the fact that a long/short wing is more or less formal.


Bold part is very important.

That said, the last and welt on those Vass are a little too Hungarian for my taste. If I had something like that, I'd wear it less formally than I would wear a pair of LWB.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Kreiger said:


> Of course. These shoes are a great counterpoint to the black gunboat longwings posted above, which are admittedly over 99% of the longwings you see. Point is, and I think you agree, that the long wing itself isn't what makes the gunboats informal. Likewise, in these shoes from Vass, the short wing surely is not, in itself, adding to the formality of the shoe.
> 
> View attachment 8127
> 
> ...


Yes, exactly. It's not the length of the wing that grounds the difference in formality, but other design features which commonly accompany one or the other.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Matt S said:


> I don't think the colour is relevant to the discussion, it just happened to be the pictures chosen. How would you respond if both were medium brown? The longwing would surely be the one to wear with jeans and chinos, and the wingtip would be the better choice for a suit. The regular 360 degree welt on the wingtips is still more formal than the storm welt on the longwings.


Color is important. Black is inherently more formal than other colors. The comparison would have been more reasonable had, as you suggest, both pairs been the same color.

A more useful comparison would, I think, have been between pairs of shoes identical in all respects except the length of the "wings." But, I think such a comparison would not have been particularly interesting. It would have ignored how the interaction of various factors contributes to the overall impression made by each pair of shoes.

Part of the problem with this discussion as it was framed by the OP, is the use of a pair of American gunboats as the longwing example. The similarly rough hewn Vass Budapester (I think it is that model) with goyser/Norwegian stitchdown welt, is clearly less formal/dressy than the comparably rustic AE example. It should be noted, however, that this is not necessarily because of the difference in wing length. The Vass example has double soles. Goyser/Norwegian stitchdown welts are rougher looking than storm welts and the shape of the respective pairs of shoes is very different, the Budapesters revealing their central European military boot heritage.

Individual factors can't be considered in isolation, but in combinaion with the other attributes of the shoes in question ranging from particular design features to accepted practices. Also, local fashions and individual preferences and prejudices come into play.

After many years of suited up employment I still cannot understand how such an ungainly shoe style as the gunboat has remained so universally accepted as appropriate for office wear.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

This is as close as I could find to an 'all else being equal' comparison. Same manufacturer, similar colour, one calf one shell. You'll just have to imagine the Longwing without the storm welt.

Shortwing:



Longwing:


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

wdrazek said:


> Not to disrespect anyone here but it is difficult for me to see how either of these shoes would be inappropriate with the right suit or coat and tie combination... let alone which would be adequate to pair with chinos.
> 
> I get that the 'brogue' style came down from shoes intended to be worn in the bogs and the mud. But seriously, look at these designs. They are beautiful, well crafted and with fine detail.
> 
> How are they inappropriate for a suit or coat and tie? Must they really be relegated to at best chinos or jeans... Or am I missing something here?


That's not the question.

The long wing's storm welt makes the shoe clunkier. An extremely subtle difference, but instantly and largely noticeable to the trained eye.

This shoe is even more elegant and sleek than the AE pictured in hardline's post. If you still can't see the difference in the welt and elegance of the last, I can't help you understand.


----------



## Spex (Nov 25, 2012)

Since we are talking about this, is any wingtip that's not a longwing automatically a shortwing? I recall an AE model that basically had a toe cap with a wingtip shape and I recall them describing it as a shortwing. Is it correct to call the McAllister, which has a longer wing than the model I'm describing, a shortwing? Thanks.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*But, if*

One of the features of the longwings we've been looking at is that they can be seen as a variation of the golosh <https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?73571-Finally-Got-My-Edward-Green-Shannon-Boots> such as these EG Shannon boots. EG and other companies also make golosh oxfords. Somewhere in the Ask Andy archives is an image posted by Medwards of a pair of Cleverley golosh oxfords. Although the golosh wrap-around feature ought to make shoes less sitable for wear with suits the Shannons in the attachment, and the Cleverleys in the archives, could be worn with a suit on almost any social or business occasion.

My point here is to suggest that if a shoe is suffeciently trim and smart-looking a nominally less formal design feature can be rendered in a way that makes it suitable for dressy occasions.

Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Useful comparisons*

RogerP makes the point with this comparison. It is very clear that the longwing is less dressy than the less than long wing and that the difference is primarily due to the presence of the longwing wrap-around design feature.

The fortuitous presence of the storm welt on the longwing suggests a comparison with the black gunboats. The shoes are very similar in terms of heir design features. Yet the differences in color and leather finish, and, I think, the American agreement that gunboats are for business, illustrate how subtle distinctions can influence the level of formality of shoes.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Leather soled wing tips, either long or short wings, are dress shoes. Outside of the hipster scene, neither is especially appropriate with chinos.



richb said:


> They appear so to my eye but I want to see if that's the general rule. Would a long wing generally be okay with a chino while a shirt wing generally not be as much?


----------



## richb (Oct 2, 2005)

I admit I'm still a style noob in many ways, but that seems like it may be perhaps a bit if an overly broad statement. Aren't there quite a few wings made for casual wear such as the AE McTavish?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

DG123 said:


> Leather soled wing tips, either long or short wings, are dress shoes. Outside of the hipster scene, neither is especially appropriate with chinos.


I couldn't disagree more. Longwings go especially well with khakis, corduroys, moleskins, flannel and plenty of other hearty fabrics that are not strictly "dressy."


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

I agree , my initial statement was too broad.
Yes, due to the recent trend popularity of wingtips, AE's line builders have introduced 5 or 6 causal wingtips shoes and boots, including the McTavish. Distressed leather uppers and, or, rubber soles puts all of these firmly within the casual category. 
Alden does not buy into fashion trends, so Alden offers no casual wingtip styles.
I think the OP was questioning whether dress wingtips , such as the various wingtip styles seen in the photos of this thread, were appropriate for casual use. In my opinion, the answer is no.


richb said:


> I admit I'm still a style noob in many ways, but that seems like it may be perhaps a bit if an overly broad statement. Aren't there quite a few wings made for casual wear such as the AE McTavish?


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Longwings go especially well with khakis, corduroys, moleskins, flannel and plenty of other hearty fabrics that are not strictly "dressy."


I agree. The typical gunboat longwings are hardly dress shoes. They are much more at home with rustic country clothing than a city suit.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

DG123 said:


> I agree , my initial statement was too broad.
> Yes, due to the recent trend popularity of wingtips, AE's line builders have introduced 5 or 6 causal wingtips shoes and boots, including the McTavish. Distressed leather uppers and, or, rubber soles puts all of these firmly within the casual category.
> Alden does not buy into fashion trends, so Alden offers no casual wingtip styles.
> I think the OP was questioning whether dress wingtips , such as the various wingtip styles seen in the photos of this thread, were appropriate for casual use. In my opinion, the answer is no.


Pretend this shoe is brown. You don't think it can be worn with chinos? It's not a very dressy shoe. It's better suited for winter wear, like tweeds, corduroy, moleskin, than chinos because of the weight, but for heftier chinos I wouldn't hesitate to wear a longwing.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Matt S said:


> Pretend this shoe is brown. You don't think it can be worn with chinos? .


Any footwear "can" be worn with chinos. If a guy wanted to he could pair his chinos with flip flops sandals, western boots, Air Jordan's, huaraches, patent leathers, running shoes, or just about any type of footwear he can get on his feet. He can do it and nobody will stop him.
I just find it more preferable (and appropriate) to stay within the categories for which particular footwear was designed. The manufacturers catalogues to separate their footwear lines by category. For example, AE has dress, casual, athletic, golf , slippers etc... For his chino days, if the OP stays within the categories as listed by the brand he is buying, I expect he will be appropriately dressed.
Some consumers like to go outside the manufacturers suggested categories, such as wearing dress shoes for casual use, or beach thong sandals to a downtown restaurant, and that's their choice.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

I didn't mean "can" in a literal sense. But I see you don't think they are appropriate. The double sole and storm welt make it a casual shoe to me. I don't consider these dress shoes, but rather a smart casual shoe. Allen Edmonds has some very similar shoes in their casual section:



The difference would be the grain leather, reenforced eyelets, and flat laces. But it has dressier soles. It's not a huge difference.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> I couldn't disagree more. Longwings go especially well with khakis, corduroys, moleskins, flannel and plenty of other hearty fabrics that are not strictly "dressy."


I couldn't agree more with your disagreement.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

This thread is fanning the flames of my desire to own a true pair of gunboats. This pair is high on the list. Anyone care to guess the maker?


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

DG123 said:


> Alden does not buy into fashion trends, so Alden offers no casual wingtip styles.


So you don't consider Alden's blue suede wingtip to be a casual shoe?


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

RogerP said:


> This thread is fanning the flames of my desire to own a true pair of gunboats. This pair is high on the list. Anyone care to guess the maker?


Dinkelacker?


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

In Alden's catalogue I have not seen any navy suede shoes, only some brown suede models in both the casual and dress categories.
The navy Alden you are referring to is a stock item or a retail store special make up item ?



smmrfld said:


> So you don't consider Alden's blue suede wingtip to be a casual shoe?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

StephenRG said:


> Dinkelacker?


Bingo.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

DG123 said:


> In Alden's catalogue I have not seen any navy suede shoes, only some brown suede models in both the casual and dress categories.
> The navy Alden you are referring to is a stock item or a retail store special make up item ?


Leather Soul has them, have seen them other places as well. Question remains the same.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Alden's stock line is divided into categories, such as dress or casual, which the consumer may use as a reference point. Alden's stock line offers somewhat traditional, practical styling in a good selection of width sizing.
Alden does sell to some fashion oriented boutique retailers who order short production runs of their own design ideas for colors-materials-outsoles etc... Without seeing a photo of the navy suede shoe you are referring to, I will guess that since it was ordered by Leather Soul, it is likely an Alden dress shoe upper pattern, using Alden's customary fine dress suede, but detailed by Leather Soul to have a casual appearance.



smmrfld said:


> Leather Soul has them, have seen them other places as well. Question remains the same.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Beautiful Shoes, but not, I believe, gunboats.*



RogerP said:


> This thread is fanning the flames of my desire to own a true pair of gunboats. This pair is high on the list. Anyone care to guess the maker?


I would have thought perhaps Vass Budapester on the New Peter last. These are beautiful shoes, but they are not, IMHO gunboats. These are, like Vass Budapesters <https://www.vass-cipo.hu/Eng/Modellek_01_Budapest/Modell_01_011_Kicsi.html> double soled longwing shoes with a heavy walking-shoe welt. I believe, though am not certain, that the goyser stitchdown welt is the same as the Norwegian welt used on heavy duty leather mountain boots. These shoes are derived from Austro-Hungarian military footwear. I am especially taken by the turned up toe box of the Vass Budapester on the Budapester last, as discernable in the linked photo. They and the Dinkelakers are beautiful. American businessmen's gunboats, a la Florsheims as lusted after by trads, are not beautiful.

As others have noted, many heavily brogued "winged" double soled shoes are derived from British country shoes, "with the holes originally functioning to let water drain out when tramping through bogs." I do not believe any of these, including my pair of tan JL Derbys, to be gunboats.

The only shoe in this thread which I believe qualifies as a gunboat is the black pair in the original post. Notwithstanding that those shoes satisfy criteria for country or casual wear, anyone knowledgable enough to make the call would immediately recognize them as one of the standard shoes worn by American businessmen.

Although I do not like gunboats. I do really like Budapesters. (Perhaps I am aspiring to emulate Schweik.) If I could imagine where or when I'd wear them I'd have had a pair by now. If anyone can offer an opinion as to whether they'd look OK with casual clothes, including Levi's, I'd be grateful. Contemporary photos of people actually wearing them would be especially helpful.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

DG123 said:


> Leather soled wing tips, either long or short wings, are dress shoes. Outside of the hipster scene, neither is especially appropriate with chinos.


You do know that full brogues originate as a country shoe, yes?


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Matt S said:


> Pretend this shoe is brown. You don't think it can be worn with chinos? It's not a very dressy shoe. It's better suited for winter wear, like tweeds, corduroy, moleskin, than chinos because of the weight, but for heftier chinos I wouldn't hesitate to wear a longwing.


I don't care if it's black. Nothing screams country shoe more than a storm welt. I guess double soled would be the other one.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

DG123 said:


> Any footwear "can" be worn with chinos. If a guy wanted to he could pair his chinos with flip flops sandals, western boots, Air Jordan's, huaraches, patent leathers, running shoes, or just about any type of footwear he can get on his feet. He can do it and nobody will stop him.
> I just find it more preferable (and appropriate) to stay within the categories for which particular footwear was designed. The manufacturers catalogues to separate their footwear lines by category. For example, AE has dress, casual, athletic, golf , slippers etc... For his chino days, if the OP stays within the categories as listed by the brand he is buying, I expect he will be appropriately dressed.
> Some consumers like to go outside the manufacturers suggested categories, such as wearing dress shoes for casual use, or beach thong sandals to a downtown restaurant, and that's their choice.


You clearly have no knowledge of the history of footwear. That shoe is country-wear through and through. Double soled, storm welted, and made from cordovan. Nothing screams water-resistant more than that except modern made hiking boots made from goretex.

Whatever, you clearly won't ever get it, so why am I wasting my time typing this.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Leighton said:


> That's not the question.
> 
> The long wing's storm welt makes the shoe clunkier. An extremely subtle difference, but instantly and largely noticeable to the trained eye.


I don't think it is subtle - especially with the double oak sole and I don't think your eye has to be trained at all to notice a huge difference in sleekness and elegance. YMMV.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Yes, I am aware that a century ago men were traipsing about the countryside wearing tweed suits, neckties, and brogued shoes. 
But I am not sure what that has to do with the OP's question about wearing dress shoes with chinos.



Leighton said:


> You do know that full brogues originate as a country shoe, yes?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

DG123 said:


> Leather soled wing tips, either long or short wings, are dress shoes. Outside of the hipster scene, neither is especially appropriate with chinos.


I cannot agree with this. A leather sole does not render wing tips automatically dress shoes. As mentioned by others, many wing tip shoes, especially long wings, are offered in styles more optimal for khakis and cords than business suits.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

DG123 said:


> Yes, I am aware that a century ago men were traipsing about the countryside wearing tweed suits, neckties, and brogued shoes.
> But I am not sure what that has to do with the OP's question about wearing dress shoes with chinos.


The OP did not ask about wearing dress shoes with chinos. He asked about wearing wing tips with chinos, and not all leather-soled wing tips are dress shoes in the sense of being appropriate (or at least optimal) for a business suit.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I don't think black American (a la Forsheim) gunboats look good with chinos. (I find them especially unappealing, if not loathsome, under any circumstances, but that's beside the point.) As occasionally noted in Ask Andy, black shoes don't look good with chinos. 

Because of their unique assignment to business-wear status in the US, American gunboats might be deemed by those who insist on adhering to rules about what to wear even more inappropriate for wear with chinos than certain other winged shoes which they judge to be too dressy for informal wear. 

IMHO, if one wants to wear brown or tan gunboats or any other wingtips with chinos, or Levi's, or Bermuda shorts, or Lederhosen, etc. it will look good or bad depending on how you do it. If I liked gunboats or other typically Midwestern clunky shoes I'd wear tan ones with chinos. As it happens, I wear dressy shoes such as EG Chelseas and JL Derbys with chinos and Levi's (sorry Andy). I wear black plain captoed oxfords with Levi's, but not perfed captoe oxfords as in my opinion, the latter look too dressy for Levi's. Whereas the nominally more formal plain black captoe doesn't. Go figure.

Perhaps a trad reading this thread might be able to comment on whether American gunboats worn with chinos might fall into the GTH category of sartorial expression.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The color black is serving as an unintended misdirection. Black blucher gunboats don't work well with much of anything, especially if pebble grain. Same shoe in brown is great with cords or chinos, but not a suit.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

DG123 said:


> Yes, I am aware that a century ago men were traipsing about the countryside wearing tweed suits, neckties, and brogued shoes.
> But I am not sure what that has to do with the OP's question about wearing dress shoes with chinos.


I can understand your position if you're saying that wing tips should be worn with trad country attire, but since a wingtip is by definition a more casual shoe, I fail to see why they can't/shouldn't be paired with chinos.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm certainly not criticizing anyone else's decisions, but the day I drop 5 Benjamins on shoes to wear with chinos will be the day you can dress me in a shirt with sleeves that tie in the rear.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

OK, I'll weigh in from a TNSIL perspective, and, more accurately, my own, because we all know that this sort of debate can go on forever. And reading it has been true fun, one of the better threads here lately, I think.

I can't imagine wearing either gunboats or short wings with chinos. I am sure that might fly in certain hipster spots frequented by Thom Browne and friends, but not in the real world, or at least the world I live in. Bucks, penny loafers, sure, but gunboats and wingtips are for playing dress-up. Wingtips, as others have said, are more elegant. I can't think of a better way to put it. Longwings are for kicking ass. Longwings are also winter/fall shoes, I think. I would never wear gunboats to, say, a banquet, or evening affair of any kind, for that matter. I would wear wingtips to those sorts of gatherings. I would wear longwings to court, or to a job interview, or to any other setting where you want to exude power or confidence.



Gurdon said:


> I don't think black American (a la Forsheim) gunboats look good with chinos. (I find them especially unappealing, if not loathsome, under any circumstances, but that's beside the point.) As occasionally noted in Ask Andy, black shoes don't look good with chinos.
> 
> Because of their unique assignment to business-wear status in the US, American gunboats might be deemed by those who insist on adhering to rules about what to wear even more inappropriate for wear with chinos than certain other winged shoes which they judge to be too dressy for informal wear.
> 
> ...


----------

