Show us your new shoes

[FreeLitres]

They are crying out for a bit of conditioner and cream polish!!! They would look transformed.

I do tend to be a shine freak though;

Edited by FreeLitres on Tuesday 16th February 20:44

[Du1point8]

FreeLitres said:

They are crying out for a bit of conditioner and cream polish!!! They would look transformed.

I do tend to be a shine freak though;

Edited by FreeLitres on Tuesday 16th February 20:44

Front is a bit scuffed, the rest is supposed to look that way and yes Im trying to find a place in Sydney that has conditioner and cream polish... they seem a bit backwards over here when it comes to shoes.

They are not supposed to be shiny at all.

[technodup]

FreeLitres said:

Definately more of a statement shoe than a classic shoe for formal occasions/meetings IMO.

I still fancy getting a pair though!

Do it. I've got the Terence boots with the skulls and quite a pointed toe. Anything's better than some of the samey boringness we usually see on this thread.

Compared with women the choice we have in shoes is slim, be a bit different.

[InductionRoar]

technodup said:

o it. I've got the Terence boots with the skulls and quite a pointed toe. Anything's better than some of the samey boringness we usually see on this thread.

Compared with women the choice we have in shoes is slim, be a bit different.

Really?

I think men have a massive amount of choice in shoes/boots.

[technodup]

InductionRoar said:

Really?

I think men have a massive amount of choice in shoes/boots.

We have endless variations of brown, black or trainers. Although currently very few white trainers which weren't designed in the 70s. If anyone can point me to all white non retro trainers feel free.

Women have shoes, sandals, boots of every style, colour, fabric, height, length etc. Endless variety.

The very fact that JW's colourways and the odd green pair we seen on here are seen as 'out there' confirms the traditional black/brown staus quo for me.

Not that I'd be wearing a pair of purple snakeskin boots myself but I think we are quite limited in comparison.

[InductionRoar]

technodup said:

e have endless variations of brown, black or trainers. Although currently very few white trainers which weren't designed in the 70s. If anyone can point me to all white non retro trainers feel free.

Women have shoes, sandals, boots of every style, colour, fabric, height, length etc. Endless variety.

The very fact that JW's colourways and the odd green pair we seen on here are seen as 'out there' confirms the traditional black/brown staus quo for me.

Not that I'd be wearing a pair of purple snakeskin boots myself but I think we are quite limited in comparison.

Men have a massive amount of choice - so much more than women. It is just that most men are too set in their ways to try something new so they never look.

Shoes: Oxfords, Derbys, Bluchers, Ghillies (if you are brave or sartorially challenged), Wholecuts, Adelaides, Loafers, Monkstraps, Double Monkstraps etc

Boots: Chelsea, Jodhpur, Oxford, Derby, Chukka, Button etc

Factor in all the possibilities of construction, materials, brogueing, (double and triple) wingtips, cap toes, colour, patina, Norwegain welt, different lasts, hand-sewn aprons (split toe), medallions... as you say endless variety.

I for one am thankful that we have all this choice available to us. The only issue is that my wallet does not feel the same way.

Generally speaking only the "boring" options are posted on here because the more obscure shoes would be so infrequently worn it is hard to justify the cost until you have built up a selection of "the basics" Plus you are gently ribbed by the resident comedians (in the name of banter you understand) if you post anything that isn't black or brown with a round toe - if such things bother you.

[schmunk]

http://oldleathershoe.com/wordpress/?p=173

[technodup]

InductionRoar said:

Shoes: Oxfords, Derbys, Bluchers, Ghillies (if you are brave or sartorially challenged), Wholecuts, Adelaides, Loafers, Monkstraps, Double Monkstraps etc

Boots: Chelsea, Jodhpur, Oxford, Derby, Chukka, Button etc

Factor in all the possibilities of construction, materials, brogueing, (double and triple) wingtips, cap toes, colour, patina, Norwegain welt, different lasts, hand-sewn aprons (split toe), medallions... as you say endless variety.

Thanks for making my point for me. Endless minor variations always in black or brown. Your average non shoe person wouldn't notice the difference between a Derby and an Oxford, or a monk or double monk. They'd sure notice the difference in the woman with the flat black pumps versus the high heeled pink strappy numbers though. Or the knee high boots, or the Louboutin style court.

I find it really difficult to find shoes and trainers I like (although admittedly I have quite a narrow view). There is choice, but not enough for me make even semi regular purchases. I suspect as a woman I'd be the opposite.

[InductionRoar]

technodup said:

InductionRoar said:

Shoes: Oxfords, Derbys, Bluchers, Ghillies (if you are brave or sartorially challenged), Wholecuts, Adelaides, Loafers, Monkstraps, Double Monkstraps etc

Boots: Chelsea, Jodhpur, Oxford, Derby, Chukka, Button etc

Factor in all the possibilities of construction, materials, brogueing, (double and triple) wingtips, cap toes, colour, patina, Norwegain welt, different lasts, hand-sewn aprons (split toe), medallions... as you say endless variety.

Thanks for making my point for me. Endless minor variations always in black or brown. Your average non shoe person wouldn't notice the difference between a Derby and an Oxford, or a monk or double monk. They'd sure notice the difference in the woman with the flat black pumps versus the high heeled pink strappy numbers though. Or the knee high boots, or the Louboutin style court.

Minor variations?

A shoe has to be foot shaped so therefore the general architecture is a given but every other parameter can be entirely personalized.

In your example you chose to compare the two most commonly confused men's styles (Oxford and Derby) with two very different women's styles (pump and strappy number) whilst introducing different colours in the women's example to create further distinction between them. Proof if proof were needed that you can argue anything by being selective with your information.

Surely a fairer analogy for the men's options would be a pair of black penny loafers and a pair of red wholecut crocodile lace ups? I think most people would see a similar degree of difference between both the men’s and women’s then.

[Funkycoldribena]

Du1point8 said:

I have a pair of pointy(ish) brown shoes that I wear with my blue suit for work and even suit nights out.

Are you a giant?

[pti]

RevsPerMinute said:

I don't wear trainers other than for sport, but loved the look of these and needed some comfy winter shoes for my impending ski holiday.

What are these?

[technodup]

InductionRoar said:

Surely a fairer analogy for the men's options would be a pair of black penny loafers and a pair of red wholecut crocodile lace ups?

I don't see a lot of them in the wild though, which is kind of the point.

I could blow your mind and suggest it's possibly even worse in clothing terms but I don't want to start anything. I'm quite happy in a dark suit. I know there are infinite variations in fabric, cut, lapel, length, buttons etc but at the end of the day for many a dark suit is a dark suit.

Either way I'm not trying to argue here. I must have 15 black shirts, essentially the same to most people but all different to me. Slim fit, very slim fit, covered buttons, epaulets, poppers, lined sleeves, single/dbl cuff etc. I just think women have much more variety to choose from.

[InductionRoar]

technodup said:

InductionRoar said:

Surely a fairer analogy for the men's options would be a pair of black penny loafers and a pair of red wholecut crocodile lace ups?

I don't see a lot of them in the wild though, which is kind of the point.

I could blow your mind and suggest it's possibly even worse in clothing terms but I don't want to start anything. I'm quite happy in a dark suit. I know there are infinite variations in fabric, cut, lapel, length, buttons etc but at the end of the day for many a dark suit is a dark suit.

Either way I'm not trying to argue here. I must have 15 black shirts, essentially the same to most people but all different to me. Slim fit, very slim fit, covered buttons, epaulets, poppers, lined sleeves, single/dbl cuff etc. I just think women have much more variety to choose from.

I thought we were discussing the options available rather than the frequency at which we see them worn.

I'm not trying to argue either and I totally agree - women have the upper hand when it comes to choice of clothes.

Women tend to have a more "disposable fashion" outlook to clothes in my experience. Men are generally more classic in their style (particularly for smart and formal dress) and those styles have (within the boundaries of fit, lapel, cut etc) been largely unchanged for over 80 years.

I do however, maintain that a lot of men complain about the lack of choice for them in shoes but when given the (almost limitless) options available they still choose the conventional brown and black Oxford or Derby for whatever reason.

[technodup]

InductionRoar said:

I thought we were discussing the options available rather than the frequency at which we see them worn.

I suspect one is a function of the other.

Outside of Jeffery West I can't think of anywhere I've regularly seen more unusual colours. I'm sure they are available if you look hard enough but that's the point I'm making, it's usually just brown and black.

Although maybe I should be careful what I wish for, I can't find a pair of plain white trainers as they've all jumped on the multicoloured and/or retro bandwagon.

[CharlesdeGaulle]

technodup said:

I must have 15 black shirts, essentially the same to most people but all different to me. Slim fit, very slim fit, covered buttons, epaulets, poppers, lined sleeves, single/dbl cuff etc.

O/T, but really? I don't have a single black shirt. Whilst I can see that those trendier than I might want one, does anyone really have 15?

[InductionRoar]

technodup said:

InductionRoar said:

I thought we were discussing the options available rather than the frequency at which we see them worn.

I suspect one is a function of the other.

Quite possibly. Although I think the price of the more flamboyant shoes dictates where they are worn.

[technodup]

CharlesdeGaulle said:

technodup said:

I must have 15 black shirts, essentially the same to most people but all different to me. Slim fit, very slim fit, covered buttons, epaulets, poppers, lined sleeves, single/dbl cuff etc.

O/T, but really? I don't have a single black shirt. Whilst I can see that those trendier than I might want one, does anyone really have 15?

It turns out no, I've not got 15 after all.



I think that's 18. But there are another couple floating about somewhere, so I think maybe 20 or 21. Plus various greys, whites and then your standard work striped etc. 40odd probably total. Strictly no checks though.

Edit: Strictly speaking that Ted Baker one is actually more purple than black.

Edited by technodup on Wednesday 17th February 20:45

[CharlesdeGaulle]

technodup said:

I think that's 18. But there are another couple floating about somewhere, so I think maybe 20 or 21.

Blimey.

[Johnny]

My new cycling shoes turned up and are rather lovely. And slipper like compared to my others.

[Blown2CV]

Strong look zippo