Morning Dress - Footwear

What you always wanted to know about Elegance, but were afraid to ask!
Post Reply
floatinjoe
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:28 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA
Contact:

Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:23 pm

I am getting married this July and will be wearing Morning Dress. I still need to secure footwear. Originally, I wanted a pair of balmoral boots, but between the relative unavailability of “off the shelf” pairs, the cost of special order ones and the overall time those require, I have to seek out other options.

Currently my plan is to purchase a pair of black balmoral punched captoes. The ones I have in mind are from Alden. They have both the Alden Men's Perforated Straight Tip Bal Calfskin, Style #: 901 and the Alden Men's Perforated Cap Toe Bal Oxford Shell Cordovan, Style #: 9016.

The #901 costs $406 and the #9016 is $527.

I guess I have two major questions, and one minor one. The first major, Are these even the right types of shoes I should be looking at, for use with Morning Dress?
The second is, Is it worth the extra $121 to obtain these shoes in Cordovan compared to the Calfskin?

The minor question is, Does anyone have any pictures of cap toe shoes being worn with spats?

Thank you for your help, any and all feedback is appreciated.

Mike
Costi
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:47 pm

I'd say any of the two pairs pictured would be "right" with morning dress. Were I you, I'd go for calfskin, as cordovan, charming as it may be in shades of brown, tends to take up a special character with time which I am not sure is to be appreciated with a black punched captoe Oxford.
I hope the enquiry for pictures of spats is pure curiosity and not in any way connected with your wedding wardrobe plans :wink:
floatinjoe
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:28 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA
Contact:

Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:57 pm

Costi,

In regards to the cordovan, I'd be purchasing the black cordovan, not the typical brown/ox blood.

As far the spats, they are a sincere possibility. I haven't decided whether or not it will happen. It will depend on if I can find spats I like and what they look like as part of the ensemble. I know they've truly been gone since the 1930s, and on their way out before that, but I like the look. Plus, neither the bride nor any of the guests would be shocked to see me in them.

Mike
kilted2000
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:00 am
Location: Memphis,Tn/Chester UK
Contact:

Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:28 am

^May I ask what it is about your personal style that allows people to not be shocked by spats?
floatinjoe
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:28 pm
Location: Alexandria, VA, USA
Contact:

Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:14 pm

Most all of my friends and family have acknowledged my taste for the early 20th century. This includes fashion, furniture, or popular culture (to include movies, music, and literature). Many of them have stated that I was born a few decades to late. My bride-to-be likes to tell people that I have an "old soul".

Growing up, I was found in ties, overcoats, and fedoras almost daily (and I attended a public school with no dress code). I'm particular about what I wear. A couple of weekends ago, we spent time with the wedding photographer and then some of our future wedding guests. A number of times I was asked what type of hat I'd be wearing on the big day. What I found interesting about that was I didn't have a hat with me on this trip. It has become that some things are expected, and other things wouldn't surprise people.

It isn't that I dress from a different era, it is more that I take the time to ensure the different parts of my outfit compliment each other. I don't have a problem mixing colors or patterns. I will go for a slightly different look, but it is one that will most always be complimented. This is something that a lot of people no longer do. I have found that when people see someone who is well put together, they think of the 1930s and 40s. Maybe it is because that was when people did take pride in their appearance.

As for the spats, I like the way they look. I don't know if I'll wear them, but the option will probably be there all the way until I'm in the church waiting for the bride to come down the aisle.

But back to the shoes. Does anyone have any thoughts on the cordovan verses calfskin?

Mike
couch
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:47 am
Contact:

Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:03 pm

I think Costi has it right. Shell cordovan is very durable but it tends to lighten at creases, and its creases tend to be somewhat bulky and less delicate than those in calf. These qualities can add character and contribute to the patina of a brown or oxblood shoe, and especially a more casual shoe. For daytime dress wear, and for your wedding, however, the more refined and less bulky effect of fine calf would probably be more elegant, and with care a good Alden calfskin punch cap should last many years.

Some members preferred to get the LL limited edition punch-cap balmoral boot (stimulated specifically by manton's proposal of a shoe for bad weather) in shell rather than calf (Will had already bought Alden versions in shell), but I don't recall whether any of the shell examples were black. You might peruse these threads if you haven't for some relevant discussion:

http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... f=2&t=6770

http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... f=2&t=7868
Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests