|
cdb is purely casual but personally i think they look more awesome than sneakers or boat shoes
a black shirt is one of the most non-versatile things you could have. you don't have to match shirt and pant color. white and blue shirts are really versatile. and you can't go wrong with neutral colors like charcoal, grey, navy.
and you should treat an undershirt like your underwear- it shouldn't show.
No I mean, like, my red semi see-through short sleeve UCB button up with lapels is too wrinkled, and then I basically had 2 blue plaid long sleeve button ups that just didn't go as well as plaid shirts with such solid black pants. I flew out here to atlanta, so while I did bring 90% of my wardrobe, I didn't bring all of it (and I think I lost my solid blue really nice shirt in california, or maybe tenessee, i think ive lost a few undershirts and that one nice button up from moving so much).
I guess I should've just worn khakis as my 'nice' pants today, but oh well. I'll take pics of me in the shoes with more 'normal' clothes later.
and you should treat an undershirt like your underwear- it shouldn't show.
yea my gf made that clear to me today. I always thought that it was a good idea to like, get a blue undershirt, and then put a black shirt over top, with some unbuttoning at the top, to get some color going and 'style'. I didn't realize that was just stupidity.
Like I specifically bought a bunch of nice colored undershirts from h&m for that reason. I would wear like, my purple/blue/red mainly blue long sleeved button up, and underneath it, wear a red, or purple, or blue, undershirt, and have it show because of some buttons unbuttoned, and I thought that was like cool looking. I didn't realize it just made me look less of a man, and more like a kid, and I'm better off with no undershirt, and showing off chest.
I guess the lesson is wear a neutral undershirt for strictly practical reasons (like sweat or it's cold), or wear a similar colored undershirt. What I wore today I think was a v-neck dark grey shirt, so it matched the shirt basically, but showed some skin just the same if I didn't wear an undershirt, because I thought sweat would be an issue as we walked like 10 miles today going all over atlanta, and atlanta is hot.
|
CDB and Sperrys are both equally casual as sneakers, but more fashionable. Fashionable doesn't necessarily mean dressy. Like I said the shoes you got are far from bad. Once you break them in a little they will look even better casually with jeans then they do now.
Yeah there is nothing wrong with wearing an undershirt, I wear one almost everyday, but it shouldn't show. The best undershirts are heather grey v necks with a deep v. This way the shirt never shows, also grey works better then white because it matches your skin better wearing white under a white shirt it can usually be seen where if you are wearing grey no one can tell.
|
On March 23 2012 06:23 Belial88 wrote:
I've never heard of kenneth coles. Up until maybe 5 days ago, I've never heard of any of them, ae, aldo, etc.
I asked about cole haan in the op, as I've seen a few good looking ones for a better price, like a lot of times. No one said anything though, so I assumed they sucked. On the other hand, my gf said aldo was nice (again, she doesn't know anything, like me), and chill recommended them (sort of?).
Kenneth Cole shoes are pretty good, similar in quality to Aldo in my experience, but the prices are better. Cole Haan is a very high end brand, probably just one small step down from Gucci or Armani -- I only have one pair because even on sale they are still not cheap!
On March 23 2012 09:01 jamesr12 wrote:
Gosh some of the advice in this thread is awful. Do NOT buy kenneth coles or any other fashion brand shoes. Buy shoes from companies that make shoes, fashion brands almost always use cheap materials and poor construction with high mark ups. They will look like trash after a few wears.
This is not true, at least not in my experience. I've bought at least 8 pairs of Kenneth Cole shoes in the last 10 years or so and 5 of them are still my rotation. The other ones wore out mainly from me being careless and wearing them in the snow and slush. And they are quite comfortable. Your advice may make sense in general but I don't think it's accurate re Kenneth Cole in particular.
On March 23 2012 09:01 jamesr12 wrote:
@ziggurat, I agree with JWD 300+ dollar shoes are worth it when you can afford them. They look better, feel better, last longer, and age better. Also if you are buying new shoes as often as it sounds like you are you could have multiple pairs of 300 dollar shoes that still look great by now so there would be no need to wear the same shoes all the time. That said clearly if you are going to buy 300 dollar shoes you should know you like them and are going to like them for a long time which is why I would not recommend them to the OP.
I have heard thins advice before. I did this once about 12 years ago when I got my first real job, I decided I needed some sick black dress shoes and I paid something like $285 for Johnston and Murphy shoes. They didn't last that long, and I ended up feeling like I wasted my money. Maybe that's just a bad brand, but I think it might be more the fact that I live in a city that's hard on shoes. What brands would you recommend to buy at a $300 price point and how long would you expect them to last?
|
I have a pair of AE I have had for 5 years, got them back recently from their first re-crafting. I except them to last another 3-4 years before needing another re-crafting, then another 3-4 years after that before being retired. But who knows I wouldn't be surprised if they last longer then that, that would be at a minimum. My dad has a pair that are 30+ years old he does not wear that regularly anymore because hes retired and wears golf shoes and loafers almost exclusively, but they are still perfectly wearable.
|
Kenneth Cole shoes are pretty good, similar in quality to Aldo in my experience, but the prices are better. Cole Haan is a very high end brand, probably just one small step down from Gucci or Armani -- I only have one pair because even on sale they are still not cheap!
Is this really true? I have a hard time believing cole haan is one step down from gucci or armani, or that KC is good quality, similar to aldo. I didn't really hear aldo was high quality, even Chill said they were fairly low quality. I just went for aldo because they had solid brown oxford, were affordable, and just looked good.
This is not true, at least not in my experience. I've bought at least 8 pairs of Kenneth Cole shoes in the last 10 years or so and 5 of them are still my rotation. The other ones wore out mainly from me being careless and wearing them in the snow and slush. And they are quite comfortable. Your advice may make sense in general but I don't think it's accurate re Kenneth Cole in particular.
I think he was referring to me questioning about buying the dress shoes H&M had on sale. Maybe he wasn't, but that's how I took it.
By the way, the black dress shoes I got from graduation, are Johnston and Murphys. They need like a waxing or something, they don't look very nice now :X
Here's a pic of my new shoes with what I would wear normally:
![[image loading]](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-gJ2TZXW8HLQ/T28n9663p8I/AAAAAAAAAoQ/wIgPkaVTWpI/s512/2012-03-23_21-46-31_244.jpg)
My gf strongly insists that tucking in always looks bad for me, maybe because I'm so skinny or something about my hips. I don't know if I agree, or maybe just with jeans it's better to not tuck in.
|
Just go for sneakers, tbh they look way better xD.
|
That is not bad at all. The picture quality leaves something be desired but from what I can tell you look pretty good. I am with your GF I think that shirt belongs untucked. I wouldn't say you can never tuck shirts into jeans, but I think it is easier to pull off the untucked look with jeans then the tucked look.
My one critique may be the jeans themselves it is hard to tell from the picture but I think the fit could be better. What are they? Also I think they could be darker. Are they pre-faded?
Cole Hann is absolutely not a high end brand no less a very high end brand. You can frequently find them in the <$150 range. High end shoes are north of $500 with prices going way above that. Aldens, AE shell cordovan, and other brands I am just starting to learn about are what I would consider a high end shoe.
This and this are the beginning of the high end shoe world:
http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF1645_1_40000000001_-1
http://www.aldenshoes.com/Store/DrawProducts.aspx?CategoryID=106&ParentID=94&PageID=&Action=
|
My one critique may be the jeans themselves it is hard to tell from the picture but I think the fit could be better. What are they? Also I think they could be darker. Are they pre-faded?
I think I've lost a lot of weight from working 70+ hours/week. They aren't faded, they are quite dark. Might be flash, might be worn. They are fairly high quality pants from united colors of benneton.
|
These seem like an insane waste of $$. Did you inherit a lot of money or something? You might as well be shopping for shoes off this list.
|
These are sick shoes. I dislike leather shoes cuz it makes me looks old (I'm only 23) and I don't want dress that formally at all. I like boots, they are bit more subtle than sneakers yet offers mobility in case I need to make a dash for my life.
|
On March 26 2012 10:35 ziggurat wrote:These seem like an insane waste of $$. Did you inherit a lot of money or something? You might as well be shopping for shoes off this list.
I don't own either pair. The pair of AE's I own the strands in brown calf, not the shell cordovan version. I was just putting them out there to illustrate my point of what high end shoes are. I do hope I make enough money to be able to afford a nice pair of shell cordovan shoes one day however. They have advantages to calf leather which make them last longer and look better with age, but I wouldn't encourage them for someones "first big boy shoes" or even second or third for that matter. I feel like we have taken over this guys blog. oops.
|
Please, continue. I know it's going to be awkward next time I hang out with my friends, and they are wearing normal sneakers or whatever, and i got these goofy shoes.
|
On March 27 2012 04:53 jamesr12 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 10:35 ziggurat wrote:These seem like an insane waste of $$. Did you inherit a lot of money or something? You might as well be shopping for shoes off this list. I don't own either pair. The pair of AE's I own the strands in brown calf, not the shell cordovan version. I was just putting them out there to illustrate my point of what high end shoes are. I do hope I make enough money to be able to afford a nice pair of shell cordovan shoes one day however. They have advantages to calf leather which make them last longer and look better with age, but I wouldn't encourage them for someones "first big boy shoes" or even second or third for that matter. I feel like we have taken over this guys blog. oops.
One reason I would hesitate to spend too much money, even on really high quality shoes, is that the city where I live is really hard on shoes. We get a lot of snow, then they put salt and salt on the sidewalks, then it all melts, then it snows again, and so on. It's a common joke in Calgary that if you don't like the weather just wait 5 minutes because something different will be along soon.
So if I had $300 shoes I would only wear them indoors most of the time. This isn't really practical for me because I work in one building but need to make my way to another building a lot as part of my job. I feel like if I lived in LA or somewhere else where the weather is beautiful all the time these kind of shoes might make a lot more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
