I notice that, without exception, the Japanese shoes (not boots) in this thread have flat, not round, laces.
I agree - which got me wondering why they're somewhat less common elsewhere. I was supplied round laces on EG, C&J (Peal), AS (Peal), etc. though I have flat laces on both Carmina and Meermin.Interesting! I hadn't noted that. What do you make of it?
For me, I find flat laces offer a dressier, more elegant appearance. So I think they suit these elegantly shapely shoes particularly well.
Slightly off-topic but continuing the theme, yesterday in the highly recommendable book "Everything is Bullsh!t", I read about how Daniel Radcliffe (from "Harry Potter") wanted to buy a work of art by someone called Jim Hodges. The dealer refused to sell him the work because he was "waiting for a more prestigious collector". (Radcliffe was able to buy the work only after the artist had personally intervened.)Mr. Okuyama says I am not worthy of a Masaru Okuyama shoe.
I was discussing art vs. craft with a theatre critic friend a few days ago after I'd been to the NY Museum of Art and Design, and I said that craft requires basic skill and technique but adheres to a template, while art requires greater skill/technique and creativity. Hence as a craftsman or woman develops both technique and creativity, they move from craft to art.There's something about quality and crafmanship that transcends ones personal tastes.
It becomes art. People who care about such things notice and appreciate despite a thing not necessarily appealing to their taste.
I find the basic double-monk shoe boring or unaesthetic but there are versions I like - e.g., the legendary Lobb Chapel, and my own pair of Ballys. I find that single monks give greater scope for acceptable originality and flair.Game try, though. Double monks aren't a design I enjoy either, and it becomes little less awkward as a boot.