The London Lounge

Here is a topic that always raises an eyebrow. Wearing shoes with no socks. Personally I think it's very chic when done correctly. What are your thoughts?

I think tanned skin is a prerequisite. There comes a time of year when I have no right to subject strangers to the sight of my pale Scottish ankles. However, in the summer, with casual trousers and deck shoes or loafers, I think it's appropriate. Although strangely I think it can get too hot for bare feet - in Florence last summer in 35 degree centigrade heat my feet were so hot they were very uncomfortable in my loafers, and I regretted not wearing thin cotton socks. Which will bring us back to the trouble one has finding long linen socks, a subject explored (albeit without much success) on this forum last year.

Why not wear the type of socks that only cover the lower part of the foot (ankle socks?) and which completely covered by a loafer?

I wear them in the summer with loafers, as I find it more comfortable than going "commando".

BB

Personally, I've been going sockless for as much of the year as possible for as long as I remember.
A swarthy complexion helps avoid the "livid ankle" effect.

If you're not engaged in strenuous activity or the temperature is, infernally, above 30C the feet should be fine, especially if you wear suitably breathable shoes in warmer temperatues.

The anklet/pop-sock things you mention... AAAARGH! I've never seen ones that don't peek, veeery unattractively, above the shoe. I think i'd rather just wear socks then, or cut my feet off...

Linking this with the ongoing dicussions about "style" and "sprezzatura", I woudl say this:
IF you feel comfortable and lighter and freer not wearing socks, don't. Yay!
IF, however, you'd feel more comfortable WITH socks, don't go without just because you think it looks 'cool'.

It all depends on how relaxed I feel. Less pressure generally implies a turn upwards.

The normal procedure is to match socks with trousers. The next step for the confident is to complement but not match trousers. After that, it's choosing socks to complement your tie.

In the height of summer, however, when I'm off duty and feeling fewer pressures than normal, I choose socks to complement my aftershave. Which I never use.

Luca wrote: The anklet/pop-sock things you mention... AAAARGH! I've never seen ones that don't peek, veeery unattractively, above the shoe.

Of course you haven´t seen the ones that don´t show. They shouldn´t be seen.
But anyway, I have given them a try myself and I agree they don´t feel right.
Penhaligon´s talcum (Artemisia) plays the trick for me .

Manself wrote:Which will bring us back to the trouble one has finding long linen socks, a subject explored (albeit without much success) on this forum last year.

Last year I spent some time in various cities in Italy and there is a high street chain called Gallo if my memory serves me correctly where I found long socks with enough linen content to make them feel distinctly different from the other sock materials. So admittedly, they are not 100% linen or even 80% linen, but give a very cool and comfortable feel nonetheless.

If these socks were already mentioned last year, forgive me for not finding that quote on the forum.

Fine with open sandals, essential with flip flops, dreaful and certainly not "chic" with shoes.

hectorm wrote:

Luca wrote: The anklet/pop-sock things you mention... AAAARGH! I've never seen ones that don't peek, veeery unattractively, above the shoe.

Of course you haven´t seen the ones that don´t show. They shouldn´t be seen.
But anyway, I have given them a try myself and I agree they don´t feel right.
Penhaligon´s talcum (Artemisia) plays the trick for me .

More or less "invisible" socks are available. I use the kind that only barely cover the toes and the lowest part of ankle. They used to only be available in women's sizes but now at least H&M sell them in male sizes also.

BB

bond_and_beyond wrote:

hectorm wrote:

Luca wrote: The anklet/pop-sock things you mention... AAAARGH! I've never seen ones that don't peek, veeery unattractively, above the shoe.

Of course you haven´t seen the ones that don´t show. They shouldn´t be seen.
But anyway, I have given them a try myself and I agree they don´t feel right.
Penhaligon´s talcum (Artemisia) plays the trick for me .

More or less "invisible" socks are available. I use the kind that only barely cover the toes and the lowest part of ankle. They used to only be available in women's sizes but now at least H&M sell them in male sizes also.

BB

I've had both Falke Step and Burlington Dublin (article no. 21003) invisible socks and both have served me well in the lowest of loafers.

T

Manself wrote: Which will bring us back to the trouble one has finding long linen socks, a subject explored (albeit without much success) on this forum last year.

A Suitable Wardrobe now offers these.

I'm with DFR on this one. Perhaps shorts and boat shoes could be another acceptabe time to go without socks. I just can't imagine any others, at least for me.

Luca wrote:IF, however, you'd feel more comfortable WITH socks, don't go without just because you think it looks 'cool'.

Looks cool and feels hot

I'd say elegance is much about being comfortable and looking good at it (in this order). Wearing "English summer" suits in 40 degrees C, for instance, just because they look "stylish", doesn't do the trick.
There is a whole range of footwear that doesn't go well with socks at all - sandals, certain unlined moccasins, boat shoes, espadrilles etc. Beyond that, I think going sockless while wearing shoes that may be worn with socks is not much about comfort (except in case of chronically cold feet ), but about a (perceived or real) touch of sensuousness. And what may be sensuous in certain cases, may also be repulsive in others. Consider it carefully...

Flip-flops, DFR?!

NJS

Why, Nicholas, you thought you were the only one?