Sockless Grooms

[Anonymous]

Wedding vendor here. Love them or hate them, I typically only see them at expensive and formal weddings in mansion/luxury hotel settings. $150,000 or more kind of days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They might be wearing no show socks - not sock less. I for one blame sock technology advancements. This is a horrendous look for a formal event. If you are in key west or something - might be fine

That's not the point. The point is the no-sock *look,* which is hideous on men in formal wear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sockless men in general isn't an issue. It's the whole look/vibe of these grooms in their tuxes wearing pants that are too short or too narrow, no socks with black velvet "tuxedo" slippers. Can someone explain what look they are going for?

Vintage Euro. It’s very elegant.

No.

It's not

No really. Do an internet search. This is old money aristocracy/ Ivy League style. If it looks freakish to you, you probably grew up poor or middle class.

It’s back because “quiet luxury” and “old money” style is trendy.

Stop following TicTok for what is old money and quiet luxury, because you clearly haven't a clue. Please don't come back with your BS about how you are old money or your BF is or whatever. Sockless is for boat shoes and shorts on the deck of your sailboat. Not a wedding. Good God.

Never heard of Stubbs and Wootton, huh?

DP. I have. Overpriced, effeminate men's slippers for the effete set. Knock yourself out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wedding vendor here. Love them or hate them, I typically only see them at expensive and formal weddings in mansion/luxury hotel settings. $150,000 or more kind of days.

Well, yes - it's a fact that money can't buy taste.

[Anonymous]

I’ll never forget the time I went to an evening event with Wilbur Ross in Trump 1. He was wearing those fancy velvet slippers at a tech company evening event and the DC grinds were agog. Maybe if it had been a banking event it wouldn’t have been noticed?

But, I heard several comments about it later, made me laugh because it’s such an old school, possibly excessively formal thing to wear. But as Jack Donaghy from 30 rock said when Liz Lemon asked him why he was wearing a tux, “It’s after 5. What am I? A farmer?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wedding vendor here. Love them or hate them, I typically only see them at expensive and formal weddings in mansion/luxury hotel settings. $150,000 or more kind of days.

Rich people trying to look poor. Yeah that's always been a thing.

"Look at me! I can't afford socks and times are tough for me also!" Ick.

[Anonymous]

This is the weirdest fashion thread ever. Half of you don’t seem to actually be interested in it.

The “smoking loafer” has always been a thing. Like for hundreds of years.

[Anonymous]

It's been popular in the Utah Mormon community for almost 10 years. Look it up.

A high percentage of those guys are closeted gays.

[Anonymous]

Those pictures sre so funny.

Those guys need red satin Hugh Heffner style smoking jackets with giant black lapels. And they need to ditch the neckties and open the shirts to their navels.

Then their pictures would look cohesive, but only if the bride is wearing a sheer corset style miniskirt wedding dress with a voluminous tulle train.

For the person who keeps claiming this is a rich "old world" look, 1960s Playboy Mansion style is not "old world European" or wealthy generational elegance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the weirdest fashion thread ever. Half of you don’t seem to actually be interested in it.

The “smoking loafer” has always been a thing. Like for hundreds of years.

Yes.

At home.

For after dinner cognacs in front of the fire.

Not in public at a formal event, unless that event happens to involve Hugh Heffner or the Doc from the Love Boat.

Definitely not for a wedding where you will have those pictures for eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sockless men in general isn't an issue. It's the whole look/vibe of these grooms in their tuxes wearing pants that are too short or too narrow, no socks with black velvet "tuxedo" slippers. Can someone explain what look they are going for?

Vintage Euro. It’s very elegant.

No.

It's not

No really. Do an internet search. This is old money aristocracy/ Ivy League style. If it looks freakish to you, you probably grew up poor or middle class.

It’s back because “quiet luxury” and “old money” style is trendy.

Stop following TicTok for what is old money and quiet luxury, because you clearly haven't a clue. Please don't come back with your BS about how you are old money or your BF is or whatever. Sockless is for boat shoes and shorts on the deck of your sailboat. Not a wedding. Good God.

Never heard of Stubbs and Wootton, huh?

They're slippers from the early 90s. Funny that you think that's "old money". It's not even old. Unless you're 12. Back to TikTok for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sockless men in general isn't an issue. It's the whole look/vibe of these grooms in their tuxes wearing pants that are too short or too narrow, no socks with black velvet "tuxedo" slippers. Can someone explain what look they are going for?

Vintage Euro. It’s very elegant.

No.

It's not

No really. Do an internet search. This is old money aristocracy/ Ivy League style. If it looks freakish to you, you probably grew up poor or middle class.

It’s back because “quiet luxury” and “old money” style is trendy.

Stop following TicTok for what is old money and quiet luxury, because you clearly haven't a clue. Please don't come back with your BS about how you are old money or your BF is or whatever. Sockless is for boat shoes and shorts on the deck of your sailboat. Not a wedding. Good God.

Never heard of Stubbs and Wootton, huh?

They're slippers from the early 90s. Funny that you think that's "old money". It's not even old. Unless you're 12. Back to TikTok for you.

Yes.

And in the early 90s, they were slippers for wearing inside with your PJs. Not outside at a wedding

[Anonymous]

They’re from the 18th century.

You kids are just proudly displaying your lack of knowledge about history and fashion, and your lack of sophistication.

Nothing like arrogant Dunning-Krugers with strong opinions who are mean to their friends. What a group you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re from the 18th century.

You kids are just proudly displaying your lack of knowledge about history and fashion, and your lack of sophistication.

Nothing like arrogant Dunning-Krugers with strong opinions who are mean to their friends. What a group you are.

In the 18th century, no one, anywhere, and certainly not wealthy people, would have worn velvet bed slippers anywhere outside of their private residences. The only people going without stockings (ie sockless) in the 18th century were the extremely poor people who didn't have money to buy shoes.

[Anonymous]

I’m not the target market, but yeah, they’ve been around a long time and British Aristocracy made them famous. Long before Hugh Hefner.