I bet he's not worried about his shoes.
(found by bighappyfunhouse)
Sunday, 31 July 2011
Saturday, 30 July 2011
If a man wearing a suit and canvas oxfords jaywalks, how many crimes is he committing?
I am still going a bit mental about shoes - and I plan to write yet another post after this one to show off how much I've learned - but I think I may have found a pair to wear, or at least narrowed the choice down.
While I have been quite taken with the idea of spending a small fortune on an exceptionally well-made hand-made pair that should, hopefully, then last me the rest of my life with a few re-solings here and there, it's still perilously expensive for our tight wedding budget. Sure, the idea of minimising waste, never needing to throw an old pair of shoes away again, is appealing - go environment! - and, just as importantly, significantly reducing the time spent trying on shoes in snooty stores, for the remainder of my limited lifespan, will be something to brag about.
Imagine that! When I'm older, I can say with justification that I will have lived an extra 17 months or something compared to other schmucks who kept shoe-shopping past their late twenties. Yep, I reckon I will even do proper maths to work out how many days I have saved for activities other than staring at my feet in small, slanted mirrors.
Nevertheless, I imagine I'd be pretty miffed if I attended a friend's wedding and was told that there were not enough chairs for everybody to sit down, or we'd all have to share a meal and cut back on drink, because the groom wanted to buy some fancy shoes. In my wedding hierarchy of needs, I place booze above shoes.
But hark! Salvation is at hand. There's a shoe store in Perth that I'd never gone into until yesterday. It's called Ginger's for Gentlemen, so you can see why I didn't bother going in. One could reasonably expect the shoes to all be feisty weirdoes with freckles instead of broguing. As usual, however, discrimination is wrong in both meanings of the word. I went in in desperation. I came out impressed. I'll need to aks the attendant, or do more internet research, but I think they also stock and create shoes that are able to be resoled over a lifetime. Buying my shoes at a local Perth store gives a nice feeling, too, not least because I will be able to try the shoes on before I buy them to make sure they fit. (Come on internet, where's my app for that? Your excellent prices will only go so far.) They are having a sale at the moment, too. Serendipity, much?
Now I just have to pick which black oxfords in store to buy. Am I deluding myself by considering the following as potentials?
The style is right - they are back oxfords. Well, I wanted captoes, but I can let that slide.
The price is right - they are not 600 pounds.
The material is questionable. They're canvas, which is vegan, so I have consistency of opinion, which is nice, but I have also since read that dress shoes simply must be leather. How much of a faux pas it it, really?
Is it terribly dreadful, like leaving the label of a suit's designer/manufacturer showing on your sleeve cuff, or is it one of those stupid 'rules' like "Never start a sentence with the word because", which aren't even rules at all, just asinine trite tripe trotted out by well-meaning high school teachers who don't know any better. Because of 'rules' such as that, the art of skilled rhetoric has been set back a bazillion years! (Hyperbole has, luckily, escaped this fate.)
I'm just not sure at the moment. Ginger's does have leather oxfords, too, which are more expensive but still reasonable, and a choice of a brogue captoe, so I will be fine no matter what I decide.
... so long as they don't sell out of my size while I dither about....
While I have been quite taken with the idea of spending a small fortune on an exceptionally well-made hand-made pair that should, hopefully, then last me the rest of my life with a few re-solings here and there, it's still perilously expensive for our tight wedding budget. Sure, the idea of minimising waste, never needing to throw an old pair of shoes away again, is appealing - go environment! - and, just as importantly, significantly reducing the time spent trying on shoes in snooty stores, for the remainder of my limited lifespan, will be something to brag about.
Imagine that! When I'm older, I can say with justification that I will have lived an extra 17 months or something compared to other schmucks who kept shoe-shopping past their late twenties. Yep, I reckon I will even do proper maths to work out how many days I have saved for activities other than staring at my feet in small, slanted mirrors.
Nevertheless, I imagine I'd be pretty miffed if I attended a friend's wedding and was told that there were not enough chairs for everybody to sit down, or we'd all have to share a meal and cut back on drink, because the groom wanted to buy some fancy shoes. In my wedding hierarchy of needs, I place booze above shoes.
But hark! Salvation is at hand. There's a shoe store in Perth that I'd never gone into until yesterday. It's called Ginger's for Gentlemen, so you can see why I didn't bother going in. One could reasonably expect the shoes to all be feisty weirdoes with freckles instead of broguing. As usual, however, discrimination is wrong in both meanings of the word. I went in in desperation. I came out impressed. I'll need to aks the attendant, or do more internet research, but I think they also stock and create shoes that are able to be resoled over a lifetime. Buying my shoes at a local Perth store gives a nice feeling, too, not least because I will be able to try the shoes on before I buy them to make sure they fit. (Come on internet, where's my app for that? Your excellent prices will only go so far.) They are having a sale at the moment, too. Serendipity, much?
Now I just have to pick which black oxfords in store to buy. Am I deluding myself by considering the following as potentials?
The style is right - they are back oxfords. Well, I wanted captoes, but I can let that slide.
The price is right - they are not 600 pounds.
The material is questionable. They're canvas, which is vegan, so I have consistency of opinion, which is nice, but I have also since read that dress shoes simply must be leather. How much of a faux pas it it, really?
Is it terribly dreadful, like leaving the label of a suit's designer/manufacturer showing on your sleeve cuff, or is it one of those stupid 'rules' like "Never start a sentence with the word because", which aren't even rules at all, just asinine trite tripe trotted out by well-meaning high school teachers who don't know any better. Because of 'rules' such as that, the art of skilled rhetoric has been set back a bazillion years! (Hyperbole has, luckily, escaped this fate.)
I'm just not sure at the moment. Ginger's does have leather oxfords, too, which are more expensive but still reasonable, and a choice of a brogue captoe, so I will be fine no matter what I decide.
... so long as they don't sell out of my size while I dither about....
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Shoe madness
Hullo. I know it has been a while between posts but I have been overseas meeting imminent in-laws and stealing wedding ideas from same. Really, I intended to blog about that on my return, and to finish off the long-awaited, much-anticipated finale regarding my proposal to Vicky. Both of those things will have to wait, however, as I'm currently going a bit mental about shoes. You can't really stop fixations, anyway, without hard work or expensive therapy and I can't have that. I've a wedding to plan and pay for.
I had the shoes all planned, you see. I was going to wear these because I thought they would provide an acceptable level of eccentricity to my outfit. Also, they are vegan shoes, which is commendable, without looking ridiculous and plasticky, which is remarkable, and they are a nice blue colour. I figures this would work nicely with my pale blue liberty wedding tie and my blue gingham pocketsquare, both of which I picked up on the overseas holiday. Blue ought to contrast nicely with my dark charcoal suit (that fits perfectly, I might add, Off-The-Rack, with no shoulder divots, a snug-buttoned fit that still features room to move, a length at which my fingers curl appropriately under the end, and my much-sought-after peak lapels). Blue is also something of a wedding colour, innit? Or is that just for the ladies? Either way, I have read that blue is a symbol of faithfulness, purity and loyalty, and there isn't anything wrong with that, even if it sounds a bit labrador-ish.
Anyway, despite my best intentions and brilliance, I left it too late and now the internet no longer seems to stock my size in that Fluevog shoe. Boo, internet! This has made me sad.
(I'm also miffed that I missed my chance - by mere seconds - to buy a Paul Smith grey waistcoat, at nearly 80% off [I had a thing for an additional 30% off already reduced prices] to go with my suit. It sold out when I clicked on 'add to cart'. Vicky thinks that a waistcoat will look dashing. I rather hope that I will look dashing without one. Sure they are awesome and I do appreciate how some consider them essential for formal attire, which I'm going for, and they are still the best place to keep one's fobwatch - but at what price awesome?)
So, I have been scouring the internet for new wedding shoes and, of course, not finding any that I like that come under 600 pounds, which, let's be reasonable, is a bit ridiculous for a pair of shoes on my salary, no matter how spectacular and handmade and wonderful they are, with or without a free shoe tree.
While searching, I have learned a lot. I now know the difference between oxfords and derbys (or balmorals and bluchers for the seppos*), and why the difference matters, and what a vamp is, outside of an orally-fixated teenager's maudlin love obsessions.
However, I am yet to buy anything. Also, I should clarify that although I have learned an awful lot about shoes for somebody who is neither rich or a cobbler, and have been staying up far too late shoe-searching on the intertubes instead of sleeping, I swear that I have not grown a vagina.
It's all just to look superb on my wedding. Come the 22nd of October, I'll be back to wearing No Sweat Ethletic sneakers most everywhere.
So, yeah, can anybody recommend a good pair of oxfords for a wedding? I'm thinking about the ones below, but it may be a bit too much Ben Sherman, which isn't my name, obvs.
I had the shoes all planned, you see. I was going to wear these because I thought they would provide an acceptable level of eccentricity to my outfit. Also, they are vegan shoes, which is commendable, without looking ridiculous and plasticky, which is remarkable, and they are a nice blue colour. I figures this would work nicely with my pale blue liberty wedding tie and my blue gingham pocketsquare, both of which I picked up on the overseas holiday. Blue ought to contrast nicely with my dark charcoal suit (that fits perfectly, I might add, Off-The-Rack, with no shoulder divots, a snug-buttoned fit that still features room to move, a length at which my fingers curl appropriately under the end, and my much-sought-after peak lapels). Blue is also something of a wedding colour, innit? Or is that just for the ladies? Either way, I have read that blue is a symbol of faithfulness, purity and loyalty, and there isn't anything wrong with that, even if it sounds a bit labrador-ish.
Anyway, despite my best intentions and brilliance, I left it too late and now the internet no longer seems to stock my size in that Fluevog shoe. Boo, internet! This has made me sad.
(I'm also miffed that I missed my chance - by mere seconds - to buy a Paul Smith grey waistcoat, at nearly 80% off [I had a thing for an additional 30% off already reduced prices] to go with my suit. It sold out when I clicked on 'add to cart'. Vicky thinks that a waistcoat will look dashing. I rather hope that I will look dashing without one. Sure they are awesome and I do appreciate how some consider them essential for formal attire, which I'm going for, and they are still the best place to keep one's fobwatch - but at what price awesome?)
So, I have been scouring the internet for new wedding shoes and, of course, not finding any that I like that come under 600 pounds, which, let's be reasonable, is a bit ridiculous for a pair of shoes on my salary, no matter how spectacular and handmade and wonderful they are, with or without a free shoe tree.
While searching, I have learned a lot. I now know the difference between oxfords and derbys (or balmorals and bluchers for the seppos*), and why the difference matters, and what a vamp is, outside of an orally-fixated teenager's maudlin love obsessions.
However, I am yet to buy anything. Also, I should clarify that although I have learned an awful lot about shoes for somebody who is neither rich or a cobbler, and have been staying up far too late shoe-searching on the intertubes instead of sleeping, I swear that I have not grown a vagina.
It's all just to look superb on my wedding. Come the 22nd of October, I'll be back to wearing No Sweat Ethletic sneakers most everywhere.
*Vicky tells me that 'seppos' is offensive, though the internet, even conservapedia(!), tells me that it can also be 'playfully admiring'. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle,so please don't take any undeserved offence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)