If you have mobility issues, you should wear what's comfortable for you. However, many people think that traditional leather shoes are uncomfortable simply because they don't know much about shoes. 🧵
IMO, most people find leather shoes uncomfortable because they don't know their actual shoe size. They also don't know about lasts, which are the wooden or plastic forms used to shape uppers. And they don't know how to tell when shoes fit or how to solve fit issues.
I don't have time today to do a thread on those issues, but I want to point out a few things.
First, there are more options on the market than traditional leather and sneaker soles. You can get crepe, Nitrile cork, Dainite, Medway, or any number of soles.
Here's a pair of suede chukkas built on lightweight rubber soles. When you are standing, no one will be able to tell these are rubber soles. From the side, they look like traditional leather soles.
Second, not all leather soles are the same. For one, they can come in different thicknesses. Below, we see single leather soles, double leather soles, and a construction called HAF soles (a combo of double at the forepart and single at the waist). Some leather soles are softer.
Alden has a construction they call their flex welt sole, which is a single leather layer that has been treated with oils. This makes the soles super flexible and slightly water resistant. No break-in time is required.
Next, most shoes are built with some kind of structure inside. This includes lining (often leather) and some kind of stiffener used for the heel and toe (often Celastic, which is a fabric impregnated with plasticizers)
You generally want this in a pair of shoes because it adds durability: the heel and toe stiffeners prevent these areas from collapsing, and the lining helps the uppers not wear down prematurely.
However, if you find the uppers uncomfortable, some makers also offer unlined shoes. These still have some structure—they are not totally unlined, as then the shoes would look weird and fit like socks. But have less structure.
Compare these two chukkas. The ones on the left have lining and Celastic stiffeners, while the ones on the right don't. See how the ones on the right look a bit floppy? They will feel like slippers on your feet. Some like this feeling; some don't. It's a matter of preference.
Here is a pair of Meermin loafers ($200) made from French Softcalf and a flex Goodyear welted construction. There is minimal lining inside, which is why you see the uppers are kind of wavy (little structure). These are very lightweight and slipper-like.
You can do this for any number of styles: a soft suede upper paired with a unlined construction and what some makers call a "city sole" (which is thin but durable rubber). In this way, you can get a softer, more comfortable dress shoe.
Will these feel as cushy as sneakers? No, of course not. Sneakers are basically pillows on your feet. I am also not against sneakers. I think they look great in a wide range of casual outfits.
I just think that "dress sneakers"—this hybrid of dress shoes with a sneaker sole—are uniquely ugly. They are like t-shirts with a tuxedo print. They are worse than traditional leather dress shoes and classic sneakers. You'd be better off with normal Nikes, Vans, Adidas, etc.
I recognize that some people have mobility issues but still have to function in professional environments that require dressier shoes than actual sneakers. For such people, I think dress sneakers are fine.
But the vast majority are not such people. Mitch McConnell? Reasonable. Kevin McCarthy? 🫤
Leather shoes may not be as comfortable as sneakers, but they are comfy enough for long walks if you know how to buy them. I will do more threads about this on another day.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the 1950s, Irving Penn traveled across London, Paris, and NYC to take portraits of workers in their work clothes. These clothes at the time were not considered glamorous — they would not have shown up on fashion runways — but they demonstrate a simple aesthetic principle 🧵
Consider these outfits. How do you feel about them? Are they charming? Repulsive? Stylish?
If you consider them charming and stylish, as I do, then ask yourself: what makes them charming and stylish? Why are you drawn to the outfits?
As I've mentioned before, I think outfits look better when they have "shape and drape." By shape, I mean the outfit confers a distinctive silhouette. If these men took off their clothes, we can reliably guess their bodies would not be shaped like this:
If you're just dipping your toes into tailored clothing, start with a navy sport coat. This is something you can wear with a button-up shirt and pair of trousers, or something as casual as a t-shirt and some jeans. It's easily the most versatile jacket.
Key is to get something with texture so it doesn't look like an orphaned suit jacket. Spier & Mackay has great semi-affordable tailoring. Their navy hopsack Moro is made from pure wool and a half-canvas to give it shape. Classic proportions and soft natural shoulder
There's a pervasive belief that we no longer produce clothes in the United States. This is not true. In this thread, I will tell you about some great made-in-USA brands — some that run their own factories, while others are US brands contracting with US factories. 🧵
I should first note this thread focuses on well-made, stylish clothes produced in ethical conditions. For me, producing in the US is not enough. It means nothing if the clothes are ugly, crappy, or produced in sweatshop conditions. My article for The Nation below.
JEANS
Gustin produces MiUSA jeans using raw Japanese denim. "Raw" means the fabric hasn't been pre-distressed, allowing it to naturally fade with use, reflecting your actual body and lifestyle. I like their fuller 1968 Vintage Straight fit. They also do lots of other stuff.
Let's first establish good vs bad ways to think about style. The first pic is correct — style is a kind of social language and you have to figure out what type of person you are. The second pic is stupid bc it takes style as disconnected objects ("this is in" vs "this is out").
I should also note here that I'm only talking about style. I'm not here to argue with you about ergonomics, water bottle holders, or whether something accommodates your Dell laptop. I'm am talking about aesthetics.
Watch these two videos. Then answer these two questions:
— Which of the two men is better dressed?
— How does each come off?
I think Carney is better dressed, partly because his clothes fit better. Notice that his jacket collar always hugs his neck, while Pierre Poilievre's jacket collar never touches him.
The level of craftsmanship that goes into a lot of Japanese menswear simply doesn't exist in the United States. You can do this for many categories — suits, jeans, hats, etc.
In this thread, I will show you just one category: men's shoes 🧵
For this comparison, I will focus on Japanese bespoke shoemaking vs. US ready-to-wear. The level of bespoke craftsmanship shown here simply doesn't exist in the US, so a Japanese bespoke vs. US bespoke comparison would be unfair. US bespoke is mostly about orthopedic work.
So instead, I will focus on the best that the US has to offer: ready-to-wear Alden.
On a basic level, top-end Japanese shoes are better because they are handwelted, whereas Alden shoes are Goodyear welted. The first involves more handwork and can be resoled more often.