Buying guide for your leather shoes: how to find your shoe style (Part 4)

Tell me.

Aren't you looking for a pair of shoes that can go with both a work suit and jeans for the weekend?

This is probably the request I have heard the most as a shoe salesman.

So, let me answer for all the shoe salesmen in the world: it doesn't exist.

It would be like asking a wine merchant: “I would like a wine that goes as well with a tournedos as with a wedding cake.”

No, it doesn't exist.

And that's a good thing. It means that some rules of common sense remain and that wearing a suit does not have the same aesthetic sense as wearing jeans. It means that we still have eyes to see the differences, to see that clothing is not a banal act of disguise but that a style is part of a context, that it requires care, spirit, a certain awareness of what surrounds us and, also, a sense of the other .

So why do some people persist in thinking that there is such a pair of shoes? It is because they confuse elegance with formality.

Elegance is judged in relation to an outfit.

Formalism is judged in absolute terms, piece by piece.

Let me explain: there are loafers, very elegant when paired with the right trousers, that will never go with a three-piece navy blue suit in cold wool. Why? Because it is not the same level of formality.

More than elegance, it is formalism that must be understood. The objective of this article is to give you the keys to be able to judge for yourself the level of formalism of a piece encountered on a web page or in a store.

So how to do it?

FIRST OF ALL: AUTOPSY OF A PAIR OF SHOES

This is just a reminder, so that you can clearly visualize the parts of the shoe mentioned throughout the article.

THE GREAT GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF FORMALISM:

A question: how can the formal character of a piece be demonstrated?

Let's take the example of the suit: it is the most formal thing a man has at his disposal (we will pass over the tailcoat, the tuxedo and the morning coat which have a special status).

Are all suits equal in the effect they produce? Are two men, as long as they wear a suit, of the same formal level? Or do aesthetic rules condition a priori the use of this piece in one context rather than another?

Ok so we observe that not all costumes are equal .

The very high level of formalism of the first is characterized by:

• A smooth cold wool;
• A dark color;
• A double-breasted buttoning;
• Pointed lapels;
• Piped pockets;
• An absence of motive;
• Structured shoulders with rollino.

Regarding the second costume, we have:

• A heavy, textured wool;
• A two-color pattern;
• Tailored lapels;
• An unstructured jacket;
• Probably flap or patch pockets (if you could see them).

With all these elements, we understand that we will not use the second suit for a traditional wedding or a formal ceremony. And the first suit will have difficulty being used in a context where wearing a suit is recommended but not mandatory, such as a country wedding as is the fashion.

Do you understand?

A formal piece will induce a withdrawal from oneself. A formal look is sober, economical, it does not include too many visual elements that make "noise" in and around the silhouette. A piece is formal when it refocuses on the essential, when its aesthetic serves the structure of the piece and does not distract with elements that are too heavy.

So for a suit, the texture, the patterns, the pocket flaps, a patch chest pocket, all these elements make the suit heavier .

For a shirt, it will be a button-down collar, the presence of a chest pocket (or two, with a gusset!), a thick fabric, darts in the back. Unlike a white poplin shirt with a French or cut-away collar with a hidden throat.

Well, it's the same thing with shoes.

When we talk about types of shoes, two broad categories come to mind: oxfords and derbies. The choice is often made between the two.

Should I wear one or should I wear the other?

So, how will the level of formality of these two categories of shoes be differentiated a priori?

Why will the Richelieu, whatever it may be, always be more formal than the derby?

It is necessary to understand their structure in order to assess their respective level of formalism.

The model on the right, the derby, is heavier in its structure.

It has sewn-on guarantors over the upper which weigh down the lines of the shoe , adding new plastic elements: volume, leather over the leather of the upper (we can see it in the lacing which is open).

The Richelieu's guarantors are sewn in continuity with the upper . No extra leather or volume. We can see this with the lacing which is closed. The seams are in the very structure of the shoe.

This fundamental difference supersedes all others: whatever you do, whatever you say, the Oxford will always be more formal than the derby. And that is why the Oxford will be welcome with a suit and the derby will not. Don't try to take a black derby, as clean as possible, to wear it with a suit, it doesn't work.

And, in the same way, you can't wear oxfords with jeans or chinos . What doesn't work: too many differences in the level of formality.

Get some nice derbies instead. When I see a guy in one-cuts and jeans, it reminds me of someone wearing a tuxedo with fins. It has the same effect on me. Really.

Ok. Now that this great principle is established for evaluating the formalism of a piece, let's go into more detail.

6 ELEMENTS THAT MODULATE THE FORMAL CHARACTER OF A ROOM

THE COLOR

"No brown in town!", translation "Wearing brown prohibited in town!". This is an old, now outdated, rigorous maxim.

But it is interesting to understand why it was popular. The idea that brown had no place in the city was that black was reserved for business, for serious things , that when you went to town you had to show a certain discretion in your attire, a certain formality.

Black is the color of self-withdrawal. That is why it is the most formal. This is also the reason why men's tuxedos are black, to be less noticeable and so that their companions at their side are better highlighted.

Black is therefore: being forgotten and bowing one's neck to established social rules.

So, brown is less formal and the lighter you go, the more relaxed you make the shoe model: a black Oxford is more formal than a brown one and, in the same way, a black derby is more formal than a brown one. But, to the extent that the great principle of structure prevails: a black derby will be less formal than a brown Oxford.

As for the other colours, aubergine (or burgundy) for the most part, it is more original because it is rarer but will be, in my opinion, equivalent to brown in its effect if it is taken in the same shade. So much so that an aubergine one-cut Richelieu, therefore dark, will have the same level of formalism as a dark brown one-cut Richelieu.

THE MATTER

Logically, smooth leather is the most formal! Then come velvet (or nubuck) and grained leather. The relief makes the shoe heavier.

Moreover, it is very rare that grained leather is used in the making of a Richelieu. Velvet, however, is much less rare.

THE ASSEMBLY

The reason why Berluti builds its models in Blake is largely because it refines its models (this is also Caulaincourt 's choice). Thus, the brand obtains shoes of great finesse.

The principle is simple: the more visible seams, the less formal the pair is . However, to say that, for the same type of Oxford, the Blake stitched will be more formal than the GoodYear, I am not sure. We have to see in practice.

But what is certain, on the other hand, is that between these two models of derbies, there is indeed a difference in formalism.

The clearly visible, and even contrasting, seams bring much more relaxation to the model. But that's not all, the thicker rubber sole also plays a big part.

THE SOLE

A rubber sole will visually be heavier and therefore less formal. However, you can find rubber soles that are thin enough to pass for leather soles.

THE SEAMS

If we still follow the basic principle, the more seams a model has, the less formal it will be considered.

Let's take the one-cut Richelieu because it's quite telling.

The presence of seams on the Carmina makes it a less formal model (a cap toe in this case). However, this does not mean that it is not formal. On the contrary, it is one of the most formal models there is. But it is just a little less formal than the one-cut , which is more refined, and without seams.

PERFORATIONS

In the excellent Kingsman, Colin Firth's character teaches his young pupil the basics of elegance. Or rather formalism, as he himself says. We understand that broguing , namely the perforations that decorate the upper, makes a shoe less formal . " Oxfords, not Brogues ", is a rule to follow to the letter according to him: always favor oxfords without perforations.

Well. This needs to be qualified. It is one of the old sartorial rules that no longer have any reason to exist in our lives, which are less governed by etiquette (norms, propriety).

If, in the past, perforations were used to evacuate water from the shoes of those who ventured into the wet countryside or even worked in leather shoes, now it is purely decorative. And I think it is fair to say that shoes with subtle and regular perforations are very aesthetic. But, Colin Firth's character is right, less formal.

This makes sense since broguing adds visual elements and therefore a certain heaviness.

Although, again, a brogue with perforations will always be more formal than a derby without.

Let’s review the different types of broguing that exist:

THE FULL BROGUE

It can be a Richelieu or a derby.

This is the shoe with the most perforations, so it is the least formal . But be careful, it is not enough to count the holes to know that we are dealing with a full brogue .

To be a full brogue , the shoe must have perforations on five elements:

• The hard end (which must also be W-shaped, it is the wing-cap toe );
• The slap (under the laces);
• The quarters (right and left of the eyelets);
• The flanks;
• The foothills.

THE SEMI BROGUE

Same features as the full brogue except for the wing cap : instead we have a cap toe .

THE BROGUE QUARTER

It can have a cap toe or a wing-cap toe, but it is more commonly found with a straight toe. The difference with the full brogue is mainly that it does not have a medallion on the hard toe. It has fewer perforations, it is the most formal of the brogues .

It is often found in business circles, because it is a way of allowing yourself a little fantasy when you wear one-cut or straight-toe Oxfords every day, which can become a little austere in the long run.

THE LONGWING BROGUE

We find it a lot on American brands. Quite rarely elsewhere. But it is a very appreciable model when it is interpreted in a derby shape I find. Besides, we find very few longwing brogue oxfords, as the aesthetic of the perforations thus arranged suits the casual look of a derby better.

That's it for broguing . Of course, perforations are found on other models, such as double-buckles. So if there's only one thing to remember: the more perforations, the less formal the model.

Speaking of double loops, I think it's time to take a closer look at some special cases.

SPECIAL CASES

If you trust your common sense, there should be no problem. Now you can come across any pair of shoes, you have the keys to understand the level of formality of the shoe.

And so you know what it is possible to put it with and in what context. You have to trust yourself.

Some models, however, may seem more difficult to understand. I continue to say that with common sense, you can get by, but it is still useful to see them together. If I have forgotten any, I await your comment to discuss them together.

MOCCASINS: SNEAKERS BUT BETTER

It doesn't cover the entire foot, it doesn't have laces. Its structure makes it much less dressy. Wearing loafers with your jeans and chinos isn't the worst idea you could have. In summer, the bleach jeans outfit (a good old Levi's 501), with a white t-shirt and loafers, we haven't done anything better.

But then rather round loafers like the Weston 180.

If you really want to pair loafers with more formal pieces, I recommend mismatching. A sport coat and dress pants.

PS: for boat shoes, it's the same level of formality, or even a notch below.

THE CASE OF PATENT SHOES: THE ULTIMATE IN FORMAL?

I'm not going to beat around the bush: patent leather shoes are an aberration and you should avoid them. If we apply the same logic that I developed in the second part of this guide and explained in the first , concerning rectified leathers , it is highly possible that brands that produce patent leather shoes use average to poor quality leathers.

Why coat it with a layer of varnish if the leather is beautiful?

And even patent leathers were born with the industrialization of shoe production. Historically, when you wanted shiny shoes , you just had to glaze the hard toe and the counters of your most beautiful Oxfords.

So yes, formal black shoes with carefully glazed hard toes are also formal, but you must not fall into the trap of industrially varnished shoes.

DOUBLE LOOPS: WHAT ARE THEY EXACTLY?

Ah! The good question!

To tell you a little secret, when I worked for a shoemaker, about 70% of people aged 20 to 35 asked me for double buckles.

These shoes, which were a bit outdated, are once again gaining a certain appeal. So much the better!

Maybe you're looking for this type of shoe yourself, but you don't really know why. You're intrigued by this model. Maybe you have a colleague who has a pair or two. You want to take the plunge but you don't know if you really should.

If we put the model to the formalism test, how would you evaluate it?

It's still a loaded model, don't you think? The two buckles first. And then the construction: it's a derby when you think about it! The guard starting from the inside of the shoe is only longer than the one from the outside but it's still an open system.

It is therefore less formal than a Richelieu.

But, given that it is now part of the Wall Street look accompanied by the striped suit and the shirt with contrasting collar, and also that it has been adopted (to say the least!) by all the peacocks of the Pitti, I would say that it is the only derby that is acceptable with a formal suit. However, beware of the immediate and inevitable connotations.

I would rather recommend wearing it with a mismatched outfit, or at least an outfit that takes into account the fact that this model is a bit special, that it is a bit at the crossroads between formal and informal.

See Alessandro Squarzi for example.

If you want to wear it with a classic suit, here is something to inspire you:

I think that this way we pay homage to the ambivalent nature of double loops. I'm sorry, it's Squarzi again, but I think he knows how to wear them.

SPECTATOR SHOES: I REALLY WANT TO WEAR THIS BUT I DON'T KNOW IN WHAT CONTEXT

With a model like that, you attract attention. Unless you really know what you're doing, I wouldn't recommend it.

It's a model that looks vintage, 20s, 30s, it looks Fred Astaire.

The level of formality of the spectator shoe depends of course on the form it takes: derby or oxford. However, the black and white, by their contrast, make it not really formal. In addition, the numerous perforations that characterize it make these shoes to be reserved for casual occasions.

It is difficult to be formal and original.

THE BOOTS

The same general principles that we saw for oxfords and derbies apply to ankle boots: construction, material, colors, perforations, sole and assembly. So much so that you can absolutely find formal ankle boots to wear, in winter, with your formal suits and conversely ankle boots (but that goes without saying) to wear casually.

There are Richelieu ankle boots:

Derby boots:

WILL THE SHAPE OF THE SHOE HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE FORMALITY OF THE SHOE?

Yes and no. It mainly affects elegance.

But since the choice of shape should first and foremost be dictated by the body (as seen in the third part of this guide ), I would say that this should not come into play.

Thin models are said to be more elegant by some and others believe that on the contrary it is more the round ones. But no one is right.

If the roundness of the model matches your foot and, in addition, it fits well with the proportions of your outfit, then you will succeed in achieving a high level of elegance.

INSPIRATIONS

HOW TO WEAR A FORMAL OXFORD

OLD STYLE, BLACK OXFORDS AND GREY SUIT:

For very formal occasions. I recommend black one-cut or cap toe oxfords. This works with all gray suits and blues (from night to navy). The tie should be simple, a tie with very small white dots for example. And the shirt in white or blue poplin.

MORE CONTEMPORARY, NAVY SUIT AND BROWN VELVET OXFORD SHOES:

Here, the oxfords are brown and suede. But, this outfit would have worked with smooth brown leather shoes. Note that there is no need to overdo it when you have a suit that is perfectly tailored to your body shape.

These oxfords can easily be imagined in a mismatched outfit.

HOW TO WEAR A DERBY PROPERLY

AMERICAN STYLE, WITH JEANS AND A SPORTS JACKET:

ENGLISH STYLE, FLANNEL PANTS AND CARDIGAN:

CASUAL CHIC, FOR EVERY DAY:

MORE INSPIRATIONS, JUST LIKE THIS:

THE FINAL WORD...

Not all shoes go with all suits just because they are leather.

If you wear a very formal shoe with jeans, you won't look "classier".

To dress well, it is essential to build your outfits according to the level of formality of the pieces that you are going to match in an outfit: if you want to wear Oxford shoes in a casual way, you will have to choose a model which, through the color, the material, the assembly, etc., will reduce the difference in formality between this pair of shoes and the casual pieces with which you are going to associate it.

If you had to choose only one pair of leather shoes, I would recommend them in aubergine or burgundy. For me, this is the color that allows the most color and style combinations. What do you think?

Elegant men's shoes: brogues and boots made in England. Chelsea boots, assembled in the purest English bootmaking tradition. Only the best for your feet.