Anonymous wrote:The lighter shades of brown and walnut are very attention seeking. Just doesn't look all that manly. Masculinity is understated, not desperate for attention or interested in being trendy. There are obviously plenty of tasteful black shoes that don't look like the awful 90s meme pictured earlier. Does Macron wear brown shoes? I think not. Only the goofball in Canada does at the summits, and he looks like an immature airhead.

You also have to consider who pushes these "trends". It's not bankers and white shoe lawyers, it's the fashion and advertising industry that needs to convince schmucks that something is "in" to generate sales. They don't care that you look like a tool, they just care that you were manipulated into buying $400 trendy loafers and $20 goofy socks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I just find it odd how men's fashion has evolved so little since the 1920's. Literally, men are wearing suits that are remarkably similar to what men wore 100 years ago. Women's fashion changes every season and honestly to me most of the time the men look like they're wearing some kind of weird dated halloween costumes. Why is that?

“Men’s fashion”. Shivers.

Men wear black shoes during the week. Guys and boys can wear brown. If some 30 year old male associate prances around the office in brown shoes and colorful socks ... he won’t be taken seriously. Ladies, don’t dress your men for their work clothes. You can opine on weekend wear, fine, but don’t throw him off base at work because you think mauve or orange is “in”.

+1
The "guy" in one of the photos looks like rumpelstiltskin or Peter Pan! If you want to dress like that when attending a soiree on the weekend, no problemo. But people will judge you as an attention seeker (drama queen) or effeminate guy if you wear that at work.

For real: How old are you? I am a lawyer at a huge firm downtown. I’m 37. Plenty of extremely wealthy, successful, macho lawyers I work with wear brown shoes with navy suits or pants. If men are paying so much attention to other men’s shoes, and not their work product, they have too much time on their hands.

Also, Rumpelstiltskin? I am not sure what he had in common with Peter Pan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I just find it odd how men's fashion has evolved so little since the 1920's. Literally, men are wearing suits that are remarkably similar to what men wore 100 years ago. Women's fashion changes every season and honestly to me most of the time the men look like they're wearing some kind of weird dated halloween costumes. Why is that?

“Men’s fashion”. Shivers.

Men wear black shoes during the week. Guys and boys can wear brown. If some 30 year old male associate prances around the office in brown shoes and colorful socks ... he won’t be taken seriously. Ladies, don’t dress your men for their work clothes. You can opine on weekend wear, fine, but don’t throw him off base at work because you think mauve or orange is “in”.

+1
The "guy" in one of the photos looks like rumpelstiltskin or Peter Pan! If you want to dress like that when attending a soiree on the weekend, no problemo. But people will judge you as an attention seeker (drama queen) or effeminate guy if you wear that at work.

Anonymous wrote:Prince Harry again...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I just find it odd how men's fashion has evolved so little since the 1920's. Literally, men are wearing suits that are remarkably similar to what men wore 100 years ago. Women's fashion changes every season and honestly to me most of the time the men look like they're wearing some kind of weird dated halloween costumes. Why is that?

“Men’s fashion”. Shivers.

Men wear black shoes during the week. Guys and boys can wear brown. If some 30 year old male associate prances around the office in brown shoes and colorful socks ... he won’t be taken seriously. Ladies, don’t dress your men for their work clothes. You can opine on weekend wear, fine, but don’t throw him off base at work because you think mauve or orange is “in”.

Anonymous wrote:I wear brown every day

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I just find it odd how men's fashion has evolved so little since the 1920's. Literally, men are wearing suits that are remarkably similar to what men wore 100 years ago. Women's fashion changes every season and honestly to me most of the time the men look like they're wearing some kind of weird dated halloween costumes. Why is that?

Anonymous wrote:I guess the 90s style disheveled look is still a comfort to some.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to wear brown shoes like that without having 2" of sock showing? DH is very tall and I think it just looks like we didn't tailor his pants well enough. We are getting 2 new suits custom made from a tailor this spring so that's why I'm asking. I had always tried to get his pants to come to the top of his sole in the back. He's 32.

I love brown shoes. I think they're stylish. Also, it's easier to fake cheap leather with black shoes than brown.

Get the pants leg cut at an angle, longer in back and shorter in front. Tell the tailor you want a slight break, which would look best with flat fromt pants (no cuff). The back of the pant should come maybe an inch from the welt (the stitching where the leather upper meets the sole). Have him wear the shoes for the fitting and make sure it looks the way you want it. The Tom ford no-break look with the pants ending above the shoe is not a good one in my opinion.

Thank you! This was helpful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to wear brown shoes like that without having 2" of sock showing? DH is very tall and I think it just looks like we didn't tailor his pants well enough. We are getting 2 new suits custom made from a tailor this spring so that's why I'm asking. I had always tried to get his pants to come to the top of his sole in the back. He's 32.

I love brown shoes. I think they're stylish. Also, it's easier to fake cheap leather with black shoes than brown.

Get the pants leg cut at an angle, longer in back and shorter in front. Tell the tailor you want a slight break, which would look best with flat fromt pants (no cuff). The back of the pant should come maybe an inch from the welt (the stitching where the leather upper meets the sole). Have him wear the shoes for the fitting and make sure it looks the way you want it. The Tom ford no-break look with the pants ending above the shoe is not a good one in my opinion.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to wear brown shoes like that without having 2" of sock showing? DH is very tall and I think it just looks like we didn't tailor his pants well enough. We are getting 2 new suits custom made from a tailor this spring so that's why I'm asking. I had always tried to get his pants to come to the top of his sole in the back. He's 32.

I love brown shoes. I think they're stylish. Also, it's easier to fake cheap leather with black shoes than brown.

Anonymous wrote:Black is for court, interviews, and funerals. Black goes with charcoal and black pants, can go with navy in a more formal environment, but for everything else a shade of brown looks better.

Different shades of brown have been acceptable (and desirable) for a long time. Color 8 cordovan if you want to go down the rabbit hole of fine shoes, but those can look like eggplant, so who know what you would think of the wearer’s parents.

The tan/almond shoes can be really nice with light grey, blue, or other light colored pants (anyone who wears them with navy is a d-bag). The pair shown on page 1 are not a great representation, too orange and a little tiger striping, they should be a little lighter and more natural - often with some burnishing.

I do find it funny that a person that buys Goodyear welted tan shoes somehow didn’t have a father figure and has been gelded, while a guy wearing black plastic bicycle shoes is doing something right.