The London Lounge

I find the combination shoulder-roll of lapel-flower-tie-handkerchief to be truly elegant. I don't know about the boots. What do you think?

In its day maybe - now it looks hideous.

A lot of extremes in this picture (lapel roll, shirt collar height/tie gap, giant shoes, tiny flower...).

Boots aren't for me.

I wear a flower and a hankie whenever the occasion calls for it. That is, whenever the occasion calls for a flower; I wear a hankie every day.

As for boots, those look a little clunky. But in general, dress boots have grown on me.

manton wrote:I wear a flower and a hankie whenever the occasion calls for it. That is, whenever the occasion calls for a flower; I wear a hankie every day.

As for boots, those look a little clunky. But in general, dress boots have grown on me.

Yes, I agree, there are better examples of dress boots than that:

That is definitely the least obtrustive buttonhole I've seen.

I think he looks very good. I dislike the look of boots with that sort of outfit but I imagine that was more acceptable in that time.

Cantabrigian wrote: I dislike the look of boots with that sort of outfit but I imagine that was more acceptable in that time.

In those days boots were the norm - that is the reason John Lobb is called a "bootmaker". If you look in the catalogues back then you will struggle to find any shoes at all, with the exception of opera pumps. Shoes were something worn mostly by women.

Sator wrote:

Cantabrigian wrote: I dislike the look of boots with that sort of outfit but I imagine that was more acceptable in that time.

In those days boots were the norm - that is the reason John Lobb is called a "bootmaker". If you look in the catalogues back then you will struggle to find any shoes at all, with the exception of opera pumps. Shoes were something worn mostly by women.

Do you know when dress shoes for men were introduced or when they became common if not standard?

Wow. I was looking at that first picture, and all I could see was everything BUT the boots. As I scrolled down, I was thinking "yes....yes....yes....NO."

That looks sick.

My dad has some like that---from Vietnam.

Just a few thoughts about them boots:
1. There is some sort of “unscharf” blemish on the scanned page at the tip of the boot which makes it appear clunky.
2. As the gentleman’s feet are in the foreground of the picture (probably 1 m closer to the camera than the head of the wearer) they apper much larger than they probably were in reality.
3. As the boots are doubtlessly bespoke (given the time frame) couldn’t it be that the gentleman simply had a somewhat larger ankle that the boots needed to accommodate? The young man in the picture Sator posted wears very graceful boots indeed, but has unusually thin and delicate ankles for a man. I think most everyday boots (because they were the norm, as Sator pointed out) would have looked like the ones in Gruto’s picture (except perhaps those reserved to formal dress). They are not much unlike the ones my shoemaker made for me.

A nineteenth century boot catalogue (not a single shoe in sight):





A recent eBay listing for an unused pair of Victorian Oxford boots:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... &rd=1&rd=1

the boots in Sator's scan look a bit over-accentuated in my opinion, did they were that pointy?

But the ebay boots look stunning and the condition seems to be perfect (unworn...). That's how a boot should look like after a lifetime . I especially like the upper cream leather part of the boots.

P.S. The socks/stockings of the first man are interesting.

Lots of wheels turning in this ensemble. I wonder if the boots would look less ponderous, had the gentleman's legs been uncrossed. As it is, my eye falls too hard on that one, boot.