Photo Credits: Life Magazine
The other day while looking at some other traditional promoter sites, I came across a comment from our dear friends at Ivy Style www.ivy-style.com. “Saddle shoes are the white flag of dignity. You might as well be wearing a clip-on bow tie and squirting carnation. Saddle shoes are for bowling alleys, Shirley Temple, and WASP 101. I’d rather wear flip-flops.” — Christian Chensvold, editor, Ivy-Style.com
How about that and after reading this comment, I sulked for a lost opportunity to order a pair of of Ralph Lauren black and white saddle shoes. After I finished sulking, I felt sorry for Mr. Chensvold, as he and many others I am sure, have not learned the pleasure of saddle shoes. In particular, the black and white (navy/white & brown/white) are a pleasure that many have long forgotten since their hay day in the 1950s. At one time, I would say the shoe was even more popular than the penny loafer. How did they lose their charm and common usage........that is debatable, but I place the blame mostly on the color. Regardless, I celebrate my black and white Bass saddle shoes, and I will be wearing them tomorrow with a navy blazer and repp tie. Go out buy a pair, you will love them. And yes, I do realize our friends from England do not find them attractive, but hey, they have a lot of other things right when it comes to classic men's wear.
42 comments:
Thanks for standing up for saddles in the current style war. I think they are terrific and own a number of pairs in different color schemes. Pfui to the haters!
I personally can get on board with this one. I am a fan of two-tone shoes, but these are just a tad too much Carlton Banks for me.
NOT get on board
Saddle shoes are great! I thought I was the only one who liked them.
Richard, do you or does anyone know if WalkOver is still in business? They made a beautiful black and white saddle shoe with a black sole. They were so well made;I had my last pair for 15 years and have been dissatified with other brands I see-WalkOver to me is very hard to top. If you have aby information I would very much appreciate it.
Although I like two-tone shoes, I could never wear a saddle shoe specifically. I suppose it's because I don't associate it with style.
The first photo here looks like it may have been taken at a golf course as saddle shoes have often had spikes. While I don't mind the two-tone, I've never been able to get over the chunky sole. I prefer something a bit sleeker. Alas, to each his own, right?
Tom C.,
I loved my old Walkover saddle shoes. Recently I searched for the company everywhere only to discover that they had been bought out and dno longer exist. You'll have to try your luck on the second hand circuit.
While I was disappointed to hear all those discouraging remarks about saddle shoes, I was first rather impressed that they called you out by name - shows you've made a real impression on this online community. Secondly, figured this is why it was so hard to find a good pair of saddle's across 2008.
Ho Hum.
Saddle shoes are for golfers. No clothing associated with sport should be worn by a gentleman in a non-sporting context. I submit that a man who wears clothing in the wrong context is no better than a man who wears motorcycle garb and t-shirts to a funeral. Both are out of place.
Richard, read the book, Class, by Paul Fussell. Seriously, read it. It will change your life for the better. You will come to recognize yourself as a mere outsider looking to fit in. You will stop wearing repp ties, you will stop wearing saddle shoes, you will stop wearing ties with animal motifs on them, you will stop wearing bowties, you will stop wearing eye-sore outfits that do not coordinate well, you will stop wearing slippers and jackets with ugly crests on them that stand for nothing other than commercial greed by fashion retailers. After reading the book, you will come to see the error of your ways. In the world of the refined, less is more and you have not learned that yet. I think that shortly after you finish the book and reflect upon it, you will get back to wring about WASP culture. But then again, if you're not truly a WASP (and you're NOT) what could you add? Perhaps you will develop into an adult who wears adult clothing rather than these little boy clown outfits.
Here's a link to the book. Please read it. Writing a blog without knowing about the blog's subject matter is not something of which to be proud.
http://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/dp/0671792253
Gee, Rich - then you're in good company if it's true what the above coward - I mean 'anonymous' poster said about class. All of Washington would have to shut down if clothing were worn out of context. If that's the case then everyone in America who does not live on a ranch or know how to ride a horse must stop wearing cowboy boots. If you don't ride English, then put away the tweed hacking jackets, and black riding boots. I mean it, now. stop it!
Alas, if Anonymous would heed his own advice he'd know it lacks 'class' to correct someone and not sign their name. A big no-no.
Damn, I go to sleep and I wake up to this? Kat, I think you hit this one out of the park.
Damn, WASP doesn’t wear bow ties, or Albert slippers? That’s a first!
OK, here my question Richard. Do you fit any of the following below?
Are you White? Well we all know that answer.
Are you Anglo-Saxon, meaning is your family origins of the Saxon peoples?
Are you a Protestant, meaning do you belong to either of these Christian faiths, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal or any other Evangelical church?
The anonymous post brings me back to what I have been saying over, and over again, “Clothes do not a man makes!” I will pick up a copy of the book that you speak of, but I do not think it will change my mind on what shoes I will wear, or tie I will wear. I personally wear these items because I like them, not to seem as if I belong to some secret club. And to follow up with what Kat has said, there are many people who wear trophy buckle who don’t rodeo does this mean that they are “playing” at cowboy? No, these buckles reflect many things. Though I have a few that I have actually won, the one I wear the most is not one I won, but had custom made, just as a custom shirt or shoe. It’s not the prettiest, or most glamorous in my trophy case, but it has a deeper meaning behind it because it was made to commemorate the date I married my wife, and that my friends is the greatest prize I have every won, if I can us the words of the late Chris LeDoux. So with that, am I to assume that in order for Richard to be a WASP, he must revert to the standards of the Pilgrims and wear nothing but black and white or drab clothing?
Anonymous,
I don't think it's a good idea for you to be coming on Richard's blog and writing nonsense. If you don't like his blog, don't visit it. Your criticism must either be constructive or non-existant, even though I don't agree with saddle shoes myself.
Anonymous:
Your didactic posting has me wondering if you can even answer a substantive question rather than borrow the thin credibility of pop non-fiction from a mass market bookstore. That is, can you even establish that golf is the only occasion to wear two tone shoes?
Describing a sociological paperback as a work to change one's life speaks more of you than those you patronize by suggesting it. Your lower middle class self-consciousness is more than apparent.
While much of this blog is laughable, you put far too much meaning into what is plainly entertainment. This not even recalling that the internet has always been the escape for the commoner and a place where anonymity and aspiration can tender the potent delusions of a life that will never be more than digital!
That other anonymous guy is awesome. Please Dick, not the creepy green saddle shoes again.
Richard, this blog is so entertaining. You seem have a robust ego-but you show it in such a way that is never overbearing.
This comments on this blog are so funny. I have never been witness to a collection of people who have such a very high opinion of themselves and feel the need to write in such highbrow language, looking down on the "commoners". With some exceptions, this forum seems to attract the snobbiest people who seem so shallow that when they die they will be buried only 3 feet under. Reading this daily has become such a guilty pleasure!
It may sound silly but two of the boys on the TV show gossip girl (Chuck Bass and Nathaniel Archibald)seem to wear a huge amount of waspy clothing. From the aformentioned saddle shoes to blazers to smoking jackets. You should check it out if you don't believe me.
Uh yeah, those guys in the first picture are clearly on a golf/sport outing (e.g. picinic). Or do you also like short sleeve button-down shirts?
Elisabeth,
That is why he turned the Anon posting back on. Because without them his site would be a funeral - with the same three losers posting all the time about how great Richard's bad taste is.
I have to say that I don't like saddle shoes. Single-colored saddles are all right, but the two-tones just don't do it for me. It's the type of thing that could only fly in Charleston, or if you are doing the Charleston. And Christine, when I'm buried, they could put me 12 feet deep. But I won't work because I'm irrepressible.
Saw Jimmy Buffett in a pair of blue and tan saddle shoes years ago in Galveston at the Opry House. Have always wanted a pair.
Anonymous Pop-Sociology Consumer:
I guess it is safe to identify you from your onomatopoetic additions to the comment space.
You offer the picture on the blog as an example? A Life magazine photo no less. Perhaps my internet etiquette has escaped me. I was referring to all instances and use of saddle shoes in the last several decades. There is after all a series of loosely related events passing outside of the computer screen.
I quite enjoy your reasoning though. As you are using the internet, would not the appropriate dress be that of a gamer or hacker? You really should post a picture of the ensemble: baggy faded black jeans, skate shoes, a clever t-shirt, hooded sweat shirt and bottle of mountain dew?
non-such,
I don't know what the you are trying to say. I feel so stupid reading this site sometimes....
But anonymous, you are right! This would be worse than a funeral without the anonymous comments. But I don't think Richard has bad taste. His only problem is his denial about his girth.
I have to say I agree with Christian on this one. I know saddles were hugely popular at one time but so were bowling shirts.
I will say I can admire the workmanship in these, just as I do in wingtips.
To all the anon posters...as a fellow blogger myself...if you're going to attack the blogger do it on the merits of the content. The personal angle is so tiresome.
If that guy actually read Class he would know that Paul Fussell thought the middle class was the most snobbish and rule bound because of their insecurity. This guy sounds very middle class. All Fussell is great, but The Great War & Modern Memory and Abroad are especially worth reading. And I will go on record as liking saddle shoes.
If you would like to actually learn about Society I recommend reading E. Digby Baltzell, Stephen Birmingham and Cleveland Amory.
And I would just like to make sure everyone is aware that know one, unless they are a child, who posts on this blog is a Wasp.
Ugh, there is no such thing as a true Aristocracy in this country anymore. Anyone who believe this needs to step into the real world. We live in the United States,the only Aristocracy left are in the UK, and other countries where one can hold a true title. Unless you, are an Astor, or Vanderbuilt, then I see no point in those making these harsh comments.
Poloist,
Your comments show how little you know. There is still an aristocracy in this country they just do not have as much power as they used, just like the queen. And please the Vanderbilts are nouveau.
I know more then you may think. The point I am making is this; there is a different kind of wealth and class on the rise in America today. And you yourself have proven a point on a post that I just wrote on my blog this morning by calling the Vanderbilt’s "Nouveau.” This in turn shows me that you know just about nothing on the subject as well. Also, to compare those living in this country to the Queen is just down right disrespectful to the Queen. No one and I mean no one in this country has inkling, with the exception of maybe the President, of power close to what she has even if it is that she is nothing more then a figurehead.
You in your attempt to be snide in your post also proved another point that I made in my blog post. If there were any Aristocracy left in this country they do not have the same powers as the days of old. This due to the GI-Bill and those coming back from WWII entering into colleges and Universities and gaining knowledge. So with that, you if you are, and I somehow doubt this, are one of the dying breed of this so-called Aristocracy are becoming more and more obsolete. There are no such titles as Dukes, Crown Princes, or any other titles in the United States of America, hence, as of late the only “real” Aristocracy can be found in such lands where these sort of people can be found. Yes, there are those living amongst us in the U.S., but the normal everyday Joe, as you Repubs like to put it, do not see them as any different then he or she.
Also, with the computer age more and more people have become wealthy, but people such as yourself still hold your nose up at these people as they are not worthy, why is this? As I have written in my post, the top three men on the Forbes list as being the richest people in the world, are self made men, what’s wrong with this? As the rich get richer the profile of America is forever changing. With an annual discretionary income of at the lest $125,000 come from the middle class, those people you seem to want to call out as dumb or ignorant, or use as an insult in this post. Close to 70% of the affluent have had their wealth less then 15 years. They are climbing the to the top of the income pyramid through hard work, something I’m doubting you know anything about, and entrepreneurial sprit, often netting 60K per month in disposable income. And if you really want to get down to it, 92% earned their wealth, while only 8% inherited it. So you tell me, where this true Aristocracy is? Those on these televisions shows spending exuberant amounts of wealth on clothing and cars, etc, are they your Aristocracy? If so, we really are in trouble.
AND TO DRIVE MY POINT HOME
Aristocracy conjures up visions of bygone ages when noblemen believed that the blood in their veins distinguished them from the common herd. Despite the rhetoric about property rights that has dominated the current debate, the real question is whether we should allow the children of the super rich the status of nobles by inheriting their parents' wealth and the social and political privileges that wealth confers. The movement to repeal estate taxes is in reality nothing less than an effort to establish an American aristocracy
The fight against aristocracy goes back to the nation's founding and is part of our democratic tradition. Nobody feared aristocracies more than Thomas Jefferson. In Jefferson's day, aristocracies were far-reaching. European nations had powerful nobles who inherited their status, promoted their own self-interested politics and often considered their interests to be superior to those of the majority. They demanded legal privileges unavailable to others. In contrast, Jefferson hoped to create a society in which all citizens were considered equal.
Americans today agree that hard work ought to be rewarded, but inheritance of great wealth and power works against this core American value. Jefferson hoped to replace a permanent aristocracy with what he called a "natural aristocracy" of talent and virtue, but he recognized this meant giving the children of each
generation an equal start.
HUM, THAT’S FUNNY, I MUST KNOW SOMETHING!
Why don't you post the list of aristocrat american families, bub?
Curious,
He can build a list from here to kingdom come; it will not make his argument any stronger. This word has been used in the American culture so much that it has become the norm. There is no such thing as an American Aristocracy. If you are titled and living in the US, it is not because the US gave you the title. There is no such thing as HRH, the Prince of the United States. Or, no such thing as Lord, Wallingford of Dallas. There is no such thing as MUSE, such as the Brits have MBE’s. Get my point? These are just a bunch of people who in their own day were the common people, they made some money in either Tobacco, slavery, gun powder, guns, shipping, etc, all the while sending their daughters back to Europe to marry the super wealthy or those who are titled. So now these people feel that they have some sort of connection to the Aristocracy. Now these same people due to their wealth had control of the government as well. As with wealth you gain power. This only served to suit the needs of those who were wealthy. However, this was to change after WWII due to as what I said before, the GI-Bill as more and more people were attending college, Knowledge is now the power, and with it wealth.
This period basically only served the whites and a select few of blacks. Even today the number of blacks who finish college is still rather low compared to whites. However, this number too is now on the rise. This portion may not seem important, but it does play a portion in what I am telling you. It’s due to the power and influence of some of these wealthy elite’s that these bills were passed. I’m going to assume that they did not believe that it would come to their own undoing. When the floodgates of knowledge have been open, everyone has a chance to become apart of the social elite. Then, the computer age came along, more people became educated, hence more wealth, and so on.
Yes there is still the common man living in the world today. The “blue collar man” as he is called. However, even he on some small scales has gained some wealth. I know contractors who make close to 250K in this country. He did not earn his money from it being handed down from his fathers, fathers, father, but something worth much more, a trade. This too goes to show you that one does not have to be studied in order to be apart of the social elite.
This country is made up of self-made men. There is no such thing as “blue blood” in this country. Those who believe there is are just fooling themselves. They want to believe that they are someone better then the lot, when they are merely just one of the lot. The fraise American Aristocracy, is nothing more then that a fraise. To show who is wealthy in this country, and those times have changed, as there is much more wealth in this country. And these people are of different nationalities, and faiths. Just as it is suppose to be in this great UNITED States of America. So with that, his/her argument is rather weak.
Wealth does not make you part of the elite.
My problem with the nouveau riche (who have always existed and were the first members of society) today is that they have no taste, they are rude, and they are mean.
Mind you, Jefferson did not believe in democracy. “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
The GI Bill is not what killed society and you are a fool if you believe it did. The income tax killed society. Once a fortune was made the descendants of the fortune maker mostly devoted their lives to science, and the arts. Many where extremely liberal and helped form the civil rights movement. These people you say made their money from slavery FUNDED the Union Army in the war.
So, by your own statement, you yourself are not of the elite, as you have been nothing but the items you have listed on this blog. You most certainly have been rude and mean in your comments to the author of this blog, never mind the attitude you have displayed towards me. Pot calling the kettle black, pot calling the kettle black my friend. Are you sure you want to debate with me? So what makes you apart of the elite? It sure isn’t food stamps, and waiting in a bread line. Maybe you should look at the true meaning of words. There has been a slew of folks getting into major trouble who are the “elite”. So tell me what about these people, are they no longer apart of the “elite” because they have gotten themselves into a bit of a miss-hap? See the ignorance in your thinking? Or is it that you are so much of a “simpleton” to even get it. Maybe you should have just bought you Ivy degree from one of those fake on line stores, you could have saved your parents a $hit load of money. Your statements are becoming not only laughable, but also just down right annoying.
You are just making my case for me every time you speak. Oh, and I have given you the definition of “elite” at the bottom of this post.
Elite (also spelled Élite) is taken originally from the Latin, eligere, "to elect". In sociology as in general usage, the élite is a relatively small dominant group within a large society, which enjoys a privileged status envied by individuals of lower social status.
The position of an elite at the top of the social strata almost invariably puts it in a position of leadership and often subjects the holders of elite status to pressure to maintain their position as part of the elite. However, in spite of the pressures, the existence of the elite social stratum is usually unchanged.
AND YOU WANT TO BE
Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite—a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.[1] Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of the elite. Those opposed to elitism are considered supporters of anti-elitism, populism or the political theory of pluralism. Elite theory is the sociological or political science analysis of elite influence in society - elite theorists regard pluralism as an utopian ideal.
Elitism may also refer to situations in which an elite individual assumes special privileges and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity or themselves. At times, elitism is closely related to social class and what sociologists call social stratification. Members of the upper classes are sometimes, though inaccurately, known as the social elite. The term elitism is also sometimes used to denote situations in which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an in-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. This form of elitism may be described as discrimination.
Blah, blah,
Don’t try to give me a history lesson. It is more then a well-known fact that there were Union generals who still owned slaves even after the emancipation. Also, I am not saying that the GI-Bill was the only reason for the decline in your little world, but it plays its hand in it. You think that you are finding small holes in my argument, but you are not. Do you honestly believe that the north did not make any money off the backs of the Negro? Who’s the fool now? I am also not, let me say it again, NOT saying that they did not have their hand in the civil rights movement, blacks could not have done this on their own by sitting in peace rallies. I know this, but you are still not offering me anything I do not know.
You are still not telling me who in this country is giving out titles; hell I want one if someone is. You don’t get it. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ARISTORCACY IN THE US! YOU PEOPLE MADE IT UP, TO MAKE YOURSELVES LOOK BETTER THEN WHAT YOU ARE, get it. People like you are falling for it. Again, there are no Counts, Countesses, Dukes, or any other titles other then Senator, Governor, Congressman, Mayor, or President that will count as being anything close to being a nobleman in this country.
Again, here is a definition for you since you seem to be having trouble.
Aristocracy is a form of government, which rule is established in through an internal struggle over who has the most status and influence over society and internal relations. Power is maintained by a hereditary elite, from a caste, class or family (dynasty or even some individuals). See Aristocracy (class)#History for the historical roots of the term.
Aristocracies have most often been hereditary plutocracies (see below), with a belief in their own superiority. They often include a monarch who although a member of the aristocracy, rules over it as well as over the rest of society.
The term "aristocracy" is derived from the Greek language aristokratia, meaning 'the rule of the best'.[1]
Nothing wrong with saddle shoes,even the ludicrous Tommy Hildiger pair I bought for 30 $ in 1997.There is something wrong however with misguided attempts at class warfare-enjoying the blog richard.
max
Can't stand them. They don't seem to look right to my eye. Maybe the anglophile in my eyes. I had a pair 18 years ago when I was 4 in Africa; hated them then and still do.
I do not claim to be a member of Society."There has been a slew of folks getting into major trouble who are the “elite”" I assume that you are referring to Bernie Madoff and his thugs. If you were well versed on this topic you would know that they are not anywhere close to being in Society. Stop deluding yourself into thinking that money is the only thing that gives you cache or power. Obviously the Union profited off of black people. The Union committed heinous crimes, as did the confederacy. I was merely using that as an example. I don't want to get into a personal fight with you as I have agreed with many of your postings.
Anonymous,
I am not refering to Madoff. Also, I'm am not deluded into thinking that only those with money are the elite. There are elite fighters, there are elite artist, etc. I know this, as my father belongs in one of these catagories. However, the subject here is a topic of Aristocracy i.e. Money, so I kept it to "those" elite with money rather then the other.
I'm sorry, but I take it personal when someone say that I'm deluded, or that I know little about a subject when I know damned well I know better. If you are not the anonymous who said such things, then please except my apologies.
accept my apologies. I thought about this when I went to bed, nd I can't believe I made this mistake.
I'm coming to this way too late, but anyone that believes "no clothing associated with sport should be worn by a gentleman in a non-sporting context" needs to give up the lounge suit, the oxford cloth button down collar shirt, tweeds, and so on.
Also, I'm pretty sure anyone that names their blog Wasp 101 has tongue firmly in cheek.
Oh, and by the way, if Thomas Jefferson "didn't believe in democracy" why did he found the Democratic-Republican party?
Post a Comment