mens dress shoe advice Forum

[romothesavior]

This is all correct, but not everyone has $$$$ to invest in shoes among other things as a 1/2L. Now that I know I'll have some income yea I'm upgrading to real shoes, but back then I (and many other 1Ls going into OCI) simply don't have the resources to buy top-notch everything, so I got what looked best in the short run to look passable for the week.

I hear you. But the idea that its "f-ing stupid" to buy nice shoes, and "no one looks at your feet" and "no one is going to notice the difference" is just 100% false. I think it is pretty difficult to tell the difference from a distance and without touching between a nice suit and a cheap one, or a nice shirt and a cheap one, or a nice tie and a cheap one, without having Pufer-like knowledge of dress clothes. With those items, you can go cheaper very easily and still look good if they fit right. But with shoes, its easy to tell the difference, and even an untrained eye can do it. I've said it 100 times IRL and on TLS: nothing ruins an otherwise good look faster than crappy shoes.

If someone really can't spend more than ~$100 on shoes, then I'd say to go with some Bostonians or Florsheims (the NON-patent leather shiny garbage) in a captoe. They will be passable, but they 1) won't lost as long, 2) will be noticeably cheaper, and 3) may very well end up costing more in the long run. For a little more than that price range, you can find J&M and Cole Haan on sale in the mid-100s. Both are decent shoes, but like another person said, going for this "midrange" of prices is kind of silly. AE Seconds and non-seconds brand new on sale can be gotten for a little over $200, and I got a pair of the Brooks Brothers AE McAllisters for like $130 shipped last year.. Or alternatively, you can buy lightly used AEs and Aldens for under $200 on Ebay. I've gone that route many times and have never regretted it.

If I can just TL;DR my point:

Okay the shoes posted in the OP were terrible. But paying 200-400 for fucking shoes is just stupid. No one is looking at your shoes. I have used 40-80 dress shoes for the last two summers and it worked out great. No one notices what the brand is as long as the style is right. Just don't buy really crappy shoes and no one will be able to tell the difference.

LOL at posting Brooks Brothers shoes. What a waste of money. If you are a partner or an associate that has paid their student loans off then go nuts and splurge on BB shoes. Otherwise get some quality knock offs and put your money towards your loans.

[lolwat]

eBay is the best and AE shoes are so common on there. Just be a little careful. But you should probably never spend retail prices on shoes unless you need them THAT DAY (or some other really pressing reason).

[RELIC]

WALL OF BS

In all of your BS you are assuming that people are looking at your shoes and judging you based upon them. This just isn't happening to a summer associate or even a 1st-2nd year attorney. You aren't interacting with clients. And partners aren't judging you based on the way you are dressing (unless it is atrocious). You basically just need to pass a cursory glance that you look presentable and then 95% of the other judgement you will get will have to do with your work product and interactions regarding that work product.

I get your quality argument but all of that is basically for your benefit. I have an $80 pair of cheap dress shoes that have lasted five years now. They are real leather and I have maintained them really meticulously. I buff and shine them at least once a week. There is no reason for a young summer associate or associate with a bunch of debt to get in even more debt based on some antiquated assumption that "clothes make the man". No one is going to care what shoes you are wearing when you are writing a brief at 11pm (or if you even have shoes on). If the shoes make you feel better then cool but telling everyone they "need" to invest in expensive shoe is just BS.

[romothesavior]

If the shoes make you feel better then cool but telling everyone they "need" to invest in expensive shoe is just BS.

Yeah except for the fact that I never once said that ITT.

[Borg]

This is all correct, but not everyone has $$$$ to invest in shoes among other things as a 1/2L. Now that I know I'll have some income yea I'm upgrading to real shoes, but back then I (and many other 1Ls going into OCI) simply don't have the resources to buy top-notch everything, so I got what looked best in the short run to look passable for the week.

I hear you. But the idea that its "f-ing stupid" to buy nice shoes, and "no one looks at your feet" and "no one is going to notice the difference" is just 100% false. I think it is pretty difficult to tell the difference from a distance and without touching between a nice suit and a cheap one, or a nice shirt and a cheap one, or a nice tie and a cheap one, without having Pufer-like knowledge of dress clothes. With those items, you can go cheaper very easily and still look good if they fit right. But with shoes, its easy to tell the difference, and even an untrained eye can do it. I've said it 100 times IRL and on TLS: nothing ruins an otherwise good look faster than crappy shoes.

If someone really can't spend more than ~$100 on shoes, then I'd say to go with some Bostonians or Florsheims (the NON-patent leather shiny garbage) in a captoe. They will be passable, but they 1) won't lost as long, 2) will be noticeably cheaper, and 3) may very well end up costing more in the long run. For a little more than that price range, you can find J&M and Cole Haan on sale in the mid-100s. Both are decent shoes, but like another person said, going for this "midrange" of prices is kind of silly. AE Seconds and non-seconds brand new on sale can be gotten for a little over $200, and I got a pair of the Brooks Brothers AE McAllisters for like $130 shipped last year.. Or alternatively, you can buy lightly used AEs and Aldens for under $200 on Ebay. I've gone that route many times and have never regretted it.

If I can just TL;DR my point:

Okay the shoes posted in the OP were terrible. But paying 200-400 for fucking shoes is just stupid. No one is looking at your shoes. I have used 40-80 dress shoes for the last two summers and it worked out great. No one notices what the brand is as long as the style is right. Just don't buy really crappy shoes and no one will be able to tell the difference.

LOL at posting Brooks Brothers shoes. What a waste of money. If you are a partner or an associate that has paid their student loans off then go nuts and splurge on BB shoes. Otherwise get some quality knock offs and put your money towards your loans.

I agree with you completely on the shoes, quality makes a huge difference in terms of longevity and you will be able to wear a good pair of Aldens for damn near 10 years if you treat them right. I disagree on shirts though. There is NOTHING that looks worse than a flimsy collar with points that curl slightly upwards. I don't care if you have a $3,000 bespoke suit, a Patek Philippe on your wrist, and $600 Ferragamo shoes, a bad shirt can destroy the entire look. You don't need to buy $150 shirts, but whatever you have should be really well constructed.

[Randomnumbers]

WALL OF BS

In all of your BS you are assuming that people are looking at your shoes and judging you based upon them. This just isn't happening to a summer associate or even a 1st-2nd year attorney. You aren't interacting with clients. And partners aren't judging you based on the way you are dressing (unless it is atrocious). You basically just need to pass a cursory glance that you look presentable and then 95% of the other judgement you will get will have to do with your work product and interactions regarding that work product.

I get your quality argument but all of that is basically for your benefit. I have an $80 pair of cheap dress shoes that have lasted five years now. They are real leather and I have maintained them really meticulously. I buff and shine them at least once a week. There is no reason for a young summer associate or associate with a bunch of debt to get in even more debt based on some antiquated assumption that "clothes make the man". No one is going to care what shoes you are wearing when you are writing a brief at 11pm (or if you even have shoes on). If the shoes make you feel better then cool but telling everyone they "need" to invest in expensive shoe is just BS.

Except people are looking at your shoes and judging you based on them. Maybe not everyone, but the percentage of people who will notice is certainly not minuscule. To say that no one is looking at them is completely false. No one is telling a law student to run out and drop a ton of money on multiple pairs of shoes - one cheap but reasonable pair is enough to get you through the interviews. But once you land the job, it's definitely worth it to start fleshing out your wardrobe with good shoes.

A) Plenty of people will notice.
B) They are more comfortable.
C) They'll last longer. In the long run, that once nice pair of Allen Edmonds will be cheaper than buying multiple pairs of shitty shoes to do the same job.

Unless you really can't afford to on a big law salary (I'm not sure what this would look like - perhaps you are the sole supporter of a massive soup kitchen and paying off student loans and sending your siblings through college because your parents are dead), it's easy enough to imagine a scenario where some asshole looks at your feet, sees shitty shoes, and judges you - yes, this is a total dick move, but do you really think these people don't exist in big law/business?, and in some fashion this disapproval costs you ~300$ - maybe in lost business, maybe you don't get on a certain case you want, etc. I can't imagine (perhaps my mind is faulty) a scenario where someone judges you dissaprovingly for wearing park avenues.

There is simply no reason not to 'play the game' when it comes to apparel. Nice shoes last longer, are more comfortable, and frankly, people will notice if you are wearing shitty shoes. It's not as if we are suggesting that people engage in feet-binding because otherwise evil men will judge them.

[Bronte]

WALL OF BS

In all of your BS you are assuming that people are looking at your shoes and judging you based upon them. This just isn't happening to a summer associate or even a 1st-2nd year attorney. You aren't interacting with clients. And partners aren't judging you based on the way you are dressing (unless it is atrocious). You basically just need to pass a cursory glance that you look presentable and then 95% of the other judgement you will get will have to do with your work product and interactions regarding that work product.

I get your quality argument but all of that is basically for your benefit. I have an $80 pair of cheap dress shoes that have lasted five years now. They are real leather and I have maintained them really meticulously. I buff and shine them at least once a week. There is no reason for a young summer associate or associate with a bunch of debt to get in even more debt based on some antiquated assumption that "clothes make the man". No one is going to care what shoes you are wearing when you are writing a brief at 11pm (or if you even have shoes on). If the shoes make you feel better then cool but telling everyone they "need" to invest in expensive shoe is just BS.

You can get by without Allen Edmonds. It's okay if you want to buy cheaper shoes. But don't act like people are recommending you buy a Bentley. The difference between an $80 pair of shoes and a $200-300 pair of shoes is negligible in terms of financial responsibility.

[Tiago Splitter]

You can get by without Allen Edmonds. It's okay if you want to buy cheaper shoes. But don't act like people are recommending you buy a Bentley. The difference between an $80 pair of shoes and a $200-300 pair of shoes is negligible in terms of financial responsibility.

But then step 2 is that if you want those AE's to last several years you can't wear them more than twice a week, so you need three pairs.

[Bronte]

You can get by without Allen Edmonds. It's okay if you want to buy cheaper shoes. But don't act like people are recommending you buy a Bentley. The difference between an $80 pair of shoes and a $200-300 pair of shoes is negligible in terms of financial responsibility.

But then step 2 is that if you want those AE's to last several years you can't wear them more than twice a week, so you need three pairs.

Oh you don't have to tell me. When I default on my loans they are going to send a repo man straight to my shoe collection.

[laxbrah420]

are penny loafers TCR for business casual shoes?

[Bronte]

are penny loafers TCR for business casual shoes?

Yes people wear loafers with business casual. There are also more casual lace-ups, like these http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/pr ... 0000001_-1.

[bk1]

While I agree that people will notice shoes, I question whether it's going to make a large difference. I mean if you look absolutely awfully put together on all clothing fronts then maybe (considering the shoes listed in OP, OP might be in danger of that). But I think even if you have crappy looking shoes (e.g. some very worn cheap heinous looking rubber soled monstrosities) and people notice, it's not going to have more than a marginal affect your advancement (whether that be in an interview, during an SA, etc). That said, I personally wouldn't risk it and looking good will help you in interviews overall.

I also think that while students should generally be able to afford even a $250 pair of Allen Edmonds, I do know people who were stretched to absolute max on their 9 month law school loan budget and $250 would have been a burden for them at certain times (e.g. right at the beginning of summer, right at the beginning of fall). So it isn't inconceivable that right before an SA or right before OCI, burning a couple hundred dollars on shoes wouldn't be all that easy for at least some law students.

[84651846190]

I seriously question the intelligence of *any* man buying shoes that cost more than $300. You can get excellent dress shoes for under $200. Anyone who tells you otherwise is the type of person who buys something expensive for the sake of having something expensive and then spends the rest of his life explaining to other people in lengthy screeds why it's important to have expensive things.

[84651846190]

No one is looking at your shoes.

This is not true. I know many attorneys and businessmen that can peg a person by looking at his shoes, suit, knot, and watch... Gotta know who you are dealing with

Protip (from a successful trial attorney): don't wear an expensive watch during a jury trial... You don't want the jury thinking you are some rich attorney, you want them on your side, a man of the people ... Wear a sports watch or something low key

Wearing a watch is archaic. By the time we are in our 50s, literally no one will wear watches.

[84651846190]

Also, this thread has 100% neglected the most important determining factor regarding what kind of shoes you should buy: WHERE YOU WORK. If you work in NYC or DC, you better have some nice, quality shoes because all the finance and biglaw pricks you work with will notice. If you work with some chill bros on the West Coast, it doesn't matter nearly as much what kind of shoe you wear. Similarly, if you're in court all the time or meeting with clients, you better be wearing your AEs or non-rubber soled Cole Haans. But if you're doing doc review in a dark basement for 12 hours a day, you could come to work in some sketchers and a fedora and no one would likely give a fuck.

[laxbrah420]

Also, this thread has 100% neglected the most important determining factor regarding what kind of shoes you should buy: WHERE YOU WORK. If you work in NYC or DC, you better have some nice, quality shoes because all the finance and biglaw pricks you work with will notice. If you work with some chill bros on the West Coast, it doesn't matter nearly as much what kind of shoe you wear. Similarly, if you're in court all the time or meeting with clients, you better be wearing your AEs or non-rubber soled Cole Haans. But if you're doing doc review in a dark basement for 12 hours a day, you could come to work in some sketchers and a fedora and no one would likely give a fuck.

I would think that somebody asking specifically for dress shoes is not interested to know that Rainbows might be appropriate at the beach

[84651846190]

Also, this thread has 100% neglected the most important determining factor regarding what kind of shoes you should buy: WHERE YOU WORK. If you work in NYC or DC, you better have some nice, quality shoes because all the finance and biglaw pricks you work with will notice. If you work with some chill bros on the West Coast, it doesn't matter nearly as much what kind of shoe you wear. Similarly, if you're in court all the time or meeting with clients, you better be wearing your AEs or non-rubber soled Cole Haans. But if you're doing doc review in a dark basement for 12 hours a day, you could come to work in some sketchers and a fedora and no one would likely give a fuck.

I would think that somebody asking specifically for dress shoes is not interested to know that Rainbows might be appropriate at the beach

OP said this: "Would these pairs be appropriate as an associate?" This could mean either working in a courtroom or a basement. It matters which one.

[BitterSplitter]

.

[ChaseInk]

I seriously question the intelligence of *any* man buying shoes that cost more than $300. You can get excellent dress shoes for under $200. Anyone who tells you otherwise is the type of person who buys something expensive for the sake of having something expensive and then spends the rest of his life explaining to other people in lengthy screeds why it's important to have expensive things.

Wow

[84651846190]

I seriously question the intelligence of *any* man buying shoes that cost more than $300. You can get excellent dress shoes for under $200. Anyone who tells you otherwise is the type of person who buys something expensive for the sake of having something expensive and then spends the rest of his life explaining to other people in lengthy screeds why it's important to have expensive things.

Wow

?

[Anonymous User]

Any input on whether these are acceptable for business casual on the West Coast (Silicon Valley)? Plan to alternate with a a couple black pairs and burgundy loafers. http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/pr ... 0000001_-1

[nelaw2010]

The only shoe you'll ever need. Hell, you already have at least $100k in student loans, what's another $425???

http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/bruno-magli ... ts-_-1_4_B

[laxbrah420]

The only shoe you'll ever need. Hell, you already have at least $100k in student loans, what's another $425???

http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/bruno-magli ... ts-_-1_4_B

http://www.colehaan.com/colehaan/catalo ... oup=528739
These are the exact same and you can go take a date out to dinner with the savings...

[Bronte]

I seriously question the intelligence of *any* man buying shoes that cost more than $300. You can get excellent dress shoes for under $200. Anyone who tells you otherwise is the type of person who buys something expensive for the sake of having something expensive and then spends the rest of his life explaining to other people in lengthy screeds why it's important to have expensive things.

Wearing a watch is archaic. By the time we are in our 50s, literally no one will wear watches.

Ouch, going after the shoes and the watches. Listen, if you don't like nice stuff, don't buy nice stuff. But just like you think there's this "type" that is always explaining in lengthy screeds why expensive things are important, there is also this "type" that interjects himself in discussions of expensive things, completely ignorant on the subject, trying to explain why it's so important not to have expensive things. In between are reasonable people. Where do you think you fit?

[RodneyRuxin]

I seriously question the intelligence of *any* man buying shoes that cost more than $300. You can get excellent dress shoes for under $200. Anyone who tells you otherwise is the type of person who buys something expensive for the sake of having something expensive and then spends the rest of his life explaining to other people in lengthy screeds why it's important to have expensive things.

Wearing a watch is archaic. By the time we are in our 50s, literally no one will wear watches.

Ouch, going after the shoes and the watches. Listen, if you don't like nice stuff, don't buy nice stuff. But just like you think there's this "type" that is always explaining in lengthy screeds why expensive things are important, there is also this "type" that interjects himself in discussions of expensive things, completely ignorant on the subject, trying to explain why it's so important not to have expensive things. In between are reasonable people. Where do you think you fit?

I think you're being a bit unfair in your characterization. He also contradicted that by saying if you work in NY (biggest biglaw market) that nice shoes are needed.