Black brogue

[marcelo]

A black full brogue may be perceived, in a way that I had not fully realized thus far, as a sort of contradictio in adjecto. I have been wearing this pair of shoes for some time now without much attention to some of the restrictions suggested here.



Costi’s point, as always(!), is quite illuminating, but it seems to restrict considerably the choice for a black full brogue. When we speak of today's “relaxed rules”, I think we should have in mind not only the combinations - within the strict limits of elegance - which would have been formerly rejected in the city, but also what after all counts as a city. Between London and a tiny village in the mountains, there certainly are more places to wear black full brogues than dreamed of in our sartorial philosophy.

[storeynicholas]

A black full brogue may be perceived, in a way that I had not fully realized thus far, as a sort of contradictio in adjecto. I have been wearing this pair of shoes for some time now without much attention to some of the restrictions suggested here.



Costi’s point, as always(!), is quite illuminating, but it seems to restrict considerably the choice for a black full brogue. When we speak of today's “relaxed rules”, I think we should have in mind not only the combinations - within the strict limits of elegance - which would have been formerly rejected in the city, but also what after all counts as a city. Between London and a tiny village in the mountains, there certainly are more places to wear black full brogues than dreamed of in our sartorial philosophy.

The most obvious place to wear them, to avoid contradiction, might be when travelling between the town and country (in either direction). However, many people do wear this style with business suits. I also agree with Costi's overall views on the subject.
NJS

[Costi]

[...] I am much less precise than you are in my choice of shoes. I wear, or would wear, black shoes of any description (plain, captoe, half or full brogue) with "city/business" suits (navy or dark grey with stripes), with "city/non business" suits [...]

Frog in Suit

Dear Frog in Suit,

We may agree or disagree on what we DO, but that is different from what we KNOW. Depending on situation, we may decide to break or ignore rules. Of course rules are meant for guidance, not blind following; it is also true that they reflect the customs of a certain period, but for this very reason they are a usefulul aid in understanding the origins, whys and wherefores of such customs. There is a good reason why brogues are not correctly (i.e. according to rules) worn with business suits: the heavy decoration, usually thick sole and robust last don't work well with the smoothly finished, untextured surface of a fine worsted, or with the sober cut of a city suit. Applied to tweeds, as you well noted, it is the colour (black) that doesn't work well unless the tweeds are of the black&white variety (herringbones, "pepper and salt" donnegals etc.).
I never said it was a crime or a tasteless abomination to wear black brogues, only that we must be aware of their proper use so we know HOW and WHEN to apply or break the rules. NJS had a very good suggestion at that, I think: while wearing full brogues with morning dress would be a scandal, wearing them with a DB flannel suit cut along city lines while travelling to the country may be an interesting idea.

[Costi]

[...]When we speak of today's “relaxed rules”, I think we should have in mind not only the combinations - within the strict limits of elegance - which would have been formerly rejected in the city, but also what after all counts as a city. Between London and a tiny village in the mountains, there certainly are more places to wear black full brogues than dreamed of in our sartorial philosophy.

Absolutely! Especially if you own them

[Costi]

Here is an excerpt from etutee's excellent post Vol. I No. VI (Sept 05') CONCERNING SHOES from AA / ESKY (I won't put it in "quote" format as it is easier to read this way; comments belong to etutee; my bolding):

AX-GRINDING FASHIONS…

Fashion promotion, which has its basis in an effort to sell something merely because the manufacturer wants to sell it, also has its boomerangs. The most striking example of this occurred a number of years ago, in the promotion of black shoes. “Brown shoes are incorrect after six o’ clock” was the basic slogan in this campaign and this was a perfectly truthful statement as far as it went. But a fallacy cropped up as a sequel to this slogan –that any black shoe was formal and correct for evening wear. The idea that black shoes, any black shoes, could be worn with impunity for any and all occasions, led to the promotion of dull black calf oxfords for day wear and evening wear as well. The promotional scheme to sell more black shoes to men was instituted at the request of leather tanners who were not selling any appreciable quantities of black leather for men’s shoes. But it eventually resulted in the buying of only black shoes by the great bulk of American men. About 85% of the total volume for years has been in black shoes. Then came a campaign “Shoes Mark the Man” with efforts to teach men to buy correct shoes for the occasion.

It came nearer the mark than anything done before, but it was not sufficiently understood be the trade to be projected intelligently and consistently. The main thing wrong with the “Shoes Mark the Man” campaign was the fact that neither the producer nor the consumer in this country was prepared to carry it through. Even if the millions of consumers has seized upon the idea and attempted to put it into practice they would have been handicapped from the start because neither the stores nor the manufacturers has shoes to sell which represented the idea of particular type of shoes for the occasion. Shoes that were correct in pattern for city wear were wrong in leathers;--if in black, they were in pebbled grain, if in tan, they were in a shade to light for anything except the outdoor use.

The problem was to bring men into the stores to buy brown or tan shoes for certain occasions and black shoes for others. The matter of color was all important; the surface finish of different types of leather—an equally important feature was seldom touched upon in this era of pebbled and Scotch grain and brogue effects.

THE STYLIST’S BOOMERANG…

To go back to the origin of these styles. Years ago saw the first Scotch and English heavily brogued golf shoes for men, made by the best English boot maker to wear on golf courses in climates that were wet and misty more often than not. They were worn with heavy wool hose. Brought over to this country, the first models were enthusiastically adopted by the young collage men who found them ideal for use on campus paths or gravel or cinders. Incidentally, they made the success if heavy wool hose. Very soon these same shoes were duplicated in black as well as tan, and were worn by every younger man the country over for all occasions except the one for which they were designed.* There was very little difference between the shoes in black pebbled grain leather and the original shoes that were sold for playing golf. Younger men, and later older men too, bought one pair and made them serve—and serve. This naturally cut down an extra sale on a pair of smooth leather shoes of the more conservative type that had very little perforation and were of lighter weight than the heavy brogue shoes. But the greatest anachronism of all was the fact that majority of these shoes were in black instead of tan because men were beginning to learn that brown shoes after six were incorrect! It never occurred to the trade to remind them that black brogued types or any shoes suggesting a sports type, were also incorrect after six.

* This is to be clearly understood once and for all.

Plus, understand what they have said above. In other words merely substituting black leather does not entails that the shoe is a proper town one. Many details like the last, design and texture must be taken into account before making a proper decision. I am not a fan of generic statements such as “no-browns after this that” or “no black after then and this”…for these exact reasons. There are always some exceptions to be found. More on this below.

CINDERELLA IN BROWN…

As a matter of fact, brown shoes are perfectly correct at one minute after six if they were correct at one minute before six. The idea that every man must change into black shoes at the fatal stroke of six no matter what his attire happens to be, has all the ludicrous aspects of Cinderella’s predicament at the stroke of midnight. If evening dress is worn or if one happens to have on a dark suit, naturally he wears black shoes but if one happens to be wearing a dark brown, hard-finished worsted suit completed by brown topcoat and soft felt hat, and there is no occasion to dress in dinner coat or tails, then naturally he will wear shoes of dark reddish brown that are correct with this turnout. Should he happen to be caught after six o’ clock in this attire, correct in every detail, and is not required to dress for dinner, he is just as well dressed with brown shoes as he was before the ominous six o’ clock.

There…how is that for a change?

[...]

FASHION IS FUNCTIONAL…

A breakdown of statistics regarding the fashion sponsored by men who are leaders here or abroad, at the famous men’s collages, at important sporting events, yield one fact. It is that certain fashions are worn and started as trends by men who have selected them for particular and specific uses. The man who wears those brown buckskins at the United Hunt for just an occasion as the Prince of Wales wore them several years ago, would not dream of wearing them to his office in Wall Street.
This above paragraph is one of the most important in this article. This IS the key note. See the whole movement of it, and how it changes over time when people follow a specific style.[/i]

[Frog in Suit]

[...] I am much less precise than you are in my choice of shoes. I wear, or would wear, black shoes of any description (plain, captoe, half or full brogue) with "city/business" suits (navy or dark grey with stripes), with "city/non business" suits [...]

Frog in Suit

Dear Frog in Suit,

We may agree or disagree on what we DO, but that is different from what we KNOW. Depending on situation, we may decide to break or ignore rules. Of course rules are meant for guidance, not blind following; it is also true that they reflect the customs of a certain period, but for this very reason they are a usefulul aid in understanding the origins, whys and wherefores of such customs. There is a good reason why brogues are not correctly (i.e. according to rules) worn with business suits: the heavy decoration, usually thick sole and robust last don't work well with the smoothly finished, untextured surface of a fine worsted, or with the sober cut of a city suit. Applied to tweeds, as you well noted, it is the colour (black) that doesn't work well unless the tweeds are of the black&white variety (herringbones, "pepper and salt" donnegals etc.).
I never said it was a crime or a tasteless abomination to wear black brogues, only that we must be aware of their proper use so we know HOW and WHEN to apply or break the rules. NJS had a very good suggestion at that, I think: while wearing full brogues with morning dress would be a scandal, wearing them with a DB flannel suit cut along city lines while travelling to the country may be an interesting idea.

Dear Costi,

Put this way, I have no argument with you. You know the rules and I have but a weak grasp of them. In this particular case (city suit and black light brogues) I think I shall continue to ignore the rule. Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum , I know....

In passing, I would note that not all black brogues have thick soles (Mine are no thicker-soled than my captoes).

I draw two conclusions: one , I need more shoes (I should keep an eye on the London sales), two, I do not, repeat do not, need a b & w tweed suit (there is a J.J. Minnis coating in 18-19 oz. which I have had my eye on for a while: http://www.hfw-huddersfield.co.uk/hardy ... 960481404?). I am sorely tempted (would it do for a suit?) but cannot possibly justify it to my Dear Wife, understanding and forgiving though she may be.....

The problem as I see it is that the railway companies should be made to install changing rooms on their trains so one can be correct in all circumstances .

Frog in Suit

[Costi]

The problem as I see it is that the railway companies should be made to install changing rooms on their trains so one can be correct in all circumstances .

Frog in Suit

Hehe!

Well, the fact that you already own a pair of black brogues should make for a pretty strong argument in front of your Dear Wife that you DO need a grey herringbone jacket, if not a whole suit. Otherwise, what you paid on the shoes would be money misspent!
The J&J Minnis sample looks quite handsome, but I think they got it spot on as there is something about it saying "overcoat" to me (perhaps the ratio between the length and the width of the "bones"). Nevertheless, there are superb black&white herringbone tweeds out there!

[radicaldog]

Apologies for the change of topic, but I was intrigued by Costi's distinction between city and business suits. I have a vague grasp of what he is getting at, yet I'd be very grateful if someone (perhaps Costi!) could please expand on this important distinction.

RD

[Costi]

Dear RD,

I didn't mean to make a distiction between city and business suits (business suits ARE city suits), but between various kinds of dress within the "town dress" category: business dress, leisure dress, ceremony dress etc.: we don't go for a walk in a park on Sunday afternoon wearing a SB pinstriped dark blue 3 piece suit, as we don't go to an opera first night wearing flannel trousers and a blazer, nor do we go to a simple business lunch in full morning dress.
I suppose my phrasing was somewhat... wooly

[storeynicholas]

Dear RD,

I didn't mean to make a distiction between city and business suits (business suits ARE city suits), but between various kinds of dress within the "town dress" category: business dress, leisure dress, ceremony dress etc.: we don't go for a walk in a park on Sunday afternoon wearing a SB pinstriped dark blue 3 piece suit, as we don't go to an opera first night wearing flannel trousers and a blazer, nor do we go to a simple business lunch in full morning dress.
I suppose my phrasing was somewhat... wooly

My take on this - picking up on your reference to pinstripes is that, say, a navy blue suit could be both a city and a business suit but a pinstripe is primarily a business suit and the distinction is as you say - because, apart from formal occasions, you can wear a navy suit nearly anywhere in town but you wouldn't choose to wear a pinstripe to a lounge suit dinner party with friends on a Saturday evening.
NJS

[NCW]

Oh dear. I have rather put my foot in it here.

I think there is a very broad spectrum of rules, from those that are intrinsic to humanity (for example the effect of far too much or too little drape produces an appearance of fatness, hence wrong) to those which are totally cultural (the pocket square must go on the left). In between, we try and convince ourselves old rules apply by fudging them into the former category, with arguments along the lines of 'the broad sweep of the double breasted style lapel leads the eye up to the face more than the step, hence it is dressier', which may have some slight truth to it, but is not really adequate at all.

In the light of this, I think that the 'no black brogues' rule is reasonably towards the side of the cultural; things like 'black is more sombre and muted, hence more formal, but the pattern on the shoes distracts the eye, looking busy, hence is less formal; ergo the two do not mix' is a good example of such a backwards argument (in fact, Costi thought of a better one than I did: 'the shape of the last does not work well with the texture of worsted'). These sorts of ideas are all very well, but no-one could possibly be expected to work out the relationship between last and worsted texture from first principles, hence the argument implicitly imports a lot of cultural baggage (though it is, to us, a good point).

Now, I see no problem with demanding that we follow these cultural preconditionings, but if they do not occur to someone, it is hard to justify the need to introduce them. Hence, to those who perceive the problems with black brogues, they are real problems and the article should be avoided (I am all for the maximum preservation of tradition), but where it has been lost, there may come a point when it is not worthwhile re-intoducing it (possible a point already reached). I certainly suspect we have passed the point where we could re-form the world in the image of black brogue disfavour. The ideal compromise I conclude is to bend and remake the rules slowly, in the light of the genuine principles that are not fudged, treating the past as good, but not worrying when arguments that once seemed valid no longer justify the rule. Moreover, without being too postmodern about it, rules certainly exist, change slowly, but are not the same for every person (even in the same situation).

Therefore, I have decided I do not actually care that much if, within the tasteful confines set out above, others own and wear black brogues. After all, it was AA which liked them in the first place. But for now, I will not.

[storeynicholas]

NCW - If you did 'put your foot in it', I for one am unconvinced but, if you did, at least we can be sure that it was well-shod: what more could we ask?
NJS

[marcelo]

Dear Costi,

Something still puzzles me and I should like to apologize in advance for my lack of a clear understanding of this most interesting thread. You had suggested – or I had understood you had suggested – that an ideal situation to wear a pair of black brogues would be in the evening. (You said: “…in the evening, if you wear your grey herringbone tweed or flannels on an evening out - but that sounds more like an evening out in the country. In the last situation I think the black brogue works perfectly.”)

But if the passage you quoted from AA is authoritative on this subject matter, should we not instead reject the brogue in the evening? The passage I have in mind affirms the following: “It never occurred to the trade to remind them that black brogued types or any shoes suggesting a sports type, were also incorrect after six.”

Might I ask you to share your knowledge on this topic, even considering that I may be asking you to repeat a point you have already made? My question, to be more precise, concerns the propriety of wearing black brogues after OR before six.

[radicaldog]

Thanks for the clarification, Costi.

I suppose that, using the language of necessary and sufficient conditions, we could say that virtually all city suits (e.g. a plain light navy worsted -- I'm leaving odd jackets out of the picture here, even though they are appropriate for business in Continental Europe) are appropriate for business, but some are more business-y than others (e.g. a dark navy blue pinstripe). I reckon that's pretty much what Storeynicholas said as well.

End of digression. Apologies.

[Jordan Marc]

Wait a minute, gents. There may be an elegant solution to the appropriateness of wearing brogues with city suits. It's called an austerity brogue, which is a wing-tip without any punching whatsoever. The only decoration on this sleek model is two row stitching (spaced a scant 1/8-inch apart) and gimping (read: pinked edging) along the seam of the winged toe-cap, the join between the vamp and the quarters, and along the seam of the counter. Instead of a thick, clumsy sole extending all the way back to the breast (inner curve) of the heel, the sole under the ball of the foot measures 5/16-inch in thickness. Further, it's cut close to the upper, and there is a delicate waist that is either beveled or fiddle-backed. With a heel that's pitched rather than stacked, this shoe is the epitome of a light, elegant lace-up for business, luncheons or dinners. Made up in smooth calf, say, box or willow, it's a beautiful 'unbrogue'. And for those who like a whisper of texture, a fine grain hide such as black kangaroo is gorgeous and easily takes a high polish.

For stunning examples of austerity brogues, search the sites of John Lobb, Cleverley, Gaziano & Girling, and Crocket & Jones for snaps.

JMB