Sometime in the last two years, it became fashionable for men to wear brown shoes with blue or black pants. I thought there was a rule against this. How did the new trend start and should it be stopped? — David, Flushing, N.Y.
During the 12 years I lived in London, there was one rule my banker friends would often recite to me: “No brown in town,” meaning no brown shoes at work. It’s an axiom that originated circa the Victorian era, when gentlemen spent their weekends hunting and otherwise marching over the vales of their country estates in — yup — brown shoes and boots to match the brown mud.
When they returned to their offices during the week, they swapped brown shoes for polished black, matching their belts and shoes, the better to continue the unbroken line of their suits — and denoting their white-collar status. The appearance of brown shoes in town thus became a statement about class as well as country, given that other nationalities, especially the Italians and the French, never hewed to quite the same dress code.
Like most erstwhile dress codes, however, this one has pretty much fallen by the wayside, a victim of the casual Friday-ization of every day and the demise of the suit and tie. After all, when your jacket and trousers no longer match, it’s less of a big deal when your shoes don’t match either. In fact, it kind of makes sense, especially if the vibe you are going for is relaxed.
Compared with the rise of the sneaker as dress shoe — and not only the sneaker, but the really weird Frankenstein sneaker — brown shoes can look not shocking, but rather establishment.
Source link