The camel toe loafer. I'm moving to the end of a dirt road in Wyoming because the end is very near

I will find out about those flip flops.  Hell, it may've only been one or two guys and now the ol' faulty memory is making me spin a yarn about the legions of guys who wore them.  I will ring up a few old boys and find out.  Though one has to be careful.  Looking back on it, there were a few (many) guys who were into clothes.  Maybe one guy 1 or 2 guys knew who I could talk clothes with.  But almost no one would admit an interest.  Though looking back, everyone must've been interested.  A lot of guys just wouldn't dare admit it.

I think I remember those ecru soles.  do you have a photo of what they looked like.,  I remember one kid had something with chunky soles and looking back, one has to admire his bravery.  Because if I'm thinking of the same thing, he got a lot of shit for it.  Looking back, there was both a lot of daring and individuality and at the same time, a lot of conformity.  And I think such a contradiction can exist.

Speaking of drapers, a big fan of the ponce Drapers at Brooks.  Brooks does a navy blue (and maybe a Burgundy -- or they did) and I think Drapers proper only did the black and the Burgundy.  I liked the basic Draper slipper but not the "mule". That was too ponce.

Last edited by Horace (2020-02-12 00:29:11)

Dapper is a horrible word.   Agreed.
The person using it knows it too. 
Can it be said without irony?

Re: “ambitious† for art.  I think this works if one is
describing a failed attempt.  But it has to be a heroically
failed attempt.  And an attempt seriously made. So all those renaissance era
sonnet sequences or epic poems or even in a more modern
period, certain novels or poems (preppy James Merrill, scion of said banking house)
are “ambitious† but come up short.
Partly because of the work itself and partly because the period
itself no longer permits such work or art.

Thus, ambitious is a good word to throw around (sparingly!) in a
a critique of art but never at a deb party.  And never with investment
bankers.  Lawyers and doctors like.  Accountants don’t know what you’re
talking about.  Nor do hedge fund guys.  Some journalists. Some not.

More on "shoe"

https://jpressonline.com/blogs/news/shoe-vs-weenie?utm_campaign=TTN%3A%20Shoe%20vs.%20Weenie%2003.03%20%28Qk7UQA%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email&_ke=eyJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJwbHN1bGxpdmFuNjJAZ21haWwuY29tIiwgImtsX2NvbXBhbnlfaWQiOiAiTWhmYjM0In0%3D

It's all good, as the kids say, I suppose, but it would be polite to at least cite or reference your source.  I'm not surprised though.  Leaving off the occasional coincidence, I don't think the idea of citing your sources is the done thing for the kids nowadays.

I was just having this conversation re: Quoddys and Rancourts with a friend whose wife's family makes the thread for made-in-Maine loafers. His feeling was that the cost was fairly justified, in those companies at least. I know Quoddy uses an extremely small team of craftspeople for its shoes, and they are skilled workers. I have no idea what the overhead is for Alden - I know shell is expensive, but Alden is also a trendy #menswear shoe now so they can charge what they want.

Not a shoe, but I recently looked at buying another pair of AO sunglasses. I bought mine a few years ago for $95, they're $150 now. Same sunglasses. Makes you wonder.