Dress sneakers are an oxymoron to me. I believe they should only be worn casually with other oxymorons like "dress denim" and ridiculous items like designer tracksuits and skinny fit stretch suits. I would never wear any of those things. These are items are probably best for "clubbing", which is not something I do. Sneakers are athletic wear, and I only wear them as such.

 

Just here to say I totally lolled at the title of this thread. Dress sneakers. Priceless. Carry on.

 

It depends what you dress them with.
Business attire? then it's an oxymoron.
Jeans/Khaki's/chino's? have at it.

 

Sneakers can be obscenely expensive but they are never 'dress'.

 

Our youngest grandson is 14 and a Freshman in high school. He seems to be the heir most likely to carry on my legacy as a shoe whore. His collection presently consists of 13 or 14 pair of boots, shoes and sneakers, with seven or eight of those pair(s) being high end sneakers, several of which he considers to be "Dress Sneakers." However, I say again, he is only 14 years of age and such misjudgements are to be expected! LOL.

 

with seven or eight of those pair(s) being high end sneakers

Do you realize what "high end" sneakers actually cost? Many people consider $150-ish to be high end. Adidas Yeezy sneakers retail for about $220. But, comparing them to high end sneakers is like comparing Allen Edmonds to John Lobb. Look up brands like Balenciaga, Maison Margiela, and Giuseppe Zanotti.

 

I feel sneakers should be worn every day but I don't consider them as "dress".

 

IMO, the concept of dress sneakers has about the same validity as would casual white tie.

That said, I have no problem with well designed, handsome leather trainers as ultra casual footwear.

 

I don't know if these qualify as dress sneakers, but they are quite nice. They are Museum Calf.

 

Prefectly nice for wear with a pair of selvedge jeans and a casual shirt.

 

I think they are fad. They remind me of the sketchers everyone was wearing 12 years ago, but now in leather.

And I don't think they look good with anything other than when the ocassion calls for a polo and jeans.

 

Obviously, when we talk about "dress" sneakers, we don't mean "dress" as in something you'd wear to a formal occasion or with a suit; we mean it in the sense of "dressing up" an outfit in a relative way.

"Nice" sneakers, which of course exist (at least, they exist in the world of people who don't use words like "shan't" or "horrid" - "normal" people, let's call them), simply are less over-designed than functional trainers or running shoes, and may be made of nicer materials (leather, a heavy canvas, etc) in more muted colors (browns and tans and so on.)

So, for example, a pair of vintage-inspired suede SeaVees Hermosas is "nicer" than a pair of Converse high-tops, or a running shoe. They might "dress up" a casual outfit to a greater degree than a technical athletic shoe would.

So I would say "dress sneakers" are less an oxymoron than a valid concept misadjectivated.

"Hon? Have you seen my *nice* sneakers?"

"The cognac suede ones? Yes, I put them where *you're* supposed to put them. In the shoe closet."

"Oh. Okay."

DH

 

Obviously, when we talk about "dress" sneakers, we don't mean "dress" as in something you'd wear to a formal occasion or with a suit; we mean it in the sense of "dressing up" an outfit in a relative way.

I can't immediately think of an outfit that would be elevated by any pair of sneakers, regardless of the adjective.

 

As with anything else in life, there’s a time and a place for everything.

I have some leather sneakers that I will throw on with casual outfits.

They’re really no different in terms of formality than deck shoes or camp Mocs that most here would not hesitate to wear. So why not sneakers?

 

 

Honestly, in high school when I started wearing a tie and dress shirt every day, I wore a pair of Reebok's which were leather, solid black but had a rubber sole. I didn't know any better. Also, at the time my family was short on money, so I eventually graduated to a pair of Florsheim's which belonged to my grandfather. I didn't know any better, and a pair of AEs or even Clarks or Rockports were out of the question. I got one pair of shoes either every fall, or when there were holes in them.

I very rarely wear sneakers anymore, except for the tennis courts. I make enough money that I can buy regular shoes when I want, but I have no desire to wear 'dress' sneakers with suits, I simply have educated myself to know better.

In short, there are no dress sneakers, but there are options available which the average person could accept as practical and kind of dressy if there were no other options.

 

Yes, most of the Forum (myself included) are not part of the "dress sneakers" crowd. Yes, there is a not-inconsequential contingent out there (read: young, ie < 35) for whom dress sneakers are not only trendy but not at all eyebrow-raising. So ultimately, it's up to you and the crowd you hang with.

 

Epaulet makes some great sneakers that kick things up a notch.

 

 

More twerp chic.

 

^^
:crazy::fool::wtf:

 

The Gucci's are about the same price and ugly! At least the Lobbs are wearable (If you want to look like you are 19 years old!) I prefer these (Latest Lobb purchase):

Granted there are some double monk haters - but the JL Chapel has been on my list for a while.
Another JL monk:

One point - the 19 year old can probably wear a pair of adult shoes (in this case monks) and his friends will still think he looks pretty cool. I wear a pair of dress sneakers and my friends will think I have lost it...

 

So much awesomeness there! I must hasten to fill this previously unknown gap in my shoedrobe! :amazing: Frankly, I'm now not at all sure how I've made it this far without a suit that benefits from rolling up both sleeves and trousers.

 

gap in my shoedrobe

While I understand that your comment was satirical in nature, the "gap in my shoedrobe" part of the comment was the part that really made me laugh. Your shoedrobe is the stuff of legend. I can't imagine that there would be a gap there large enough to even fit a flip-flop in sideways.

 

I just bought a pair of chocolate Great's Royale to go with jeans. I like them a lot.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

Okay - sneakers rank above flip flops. Just barely. They're better than crocs, too, I suppose. But still not something that "elevates" an outfit outside of such outliers (and I suppose we can throw in bare feet as well). Kind of like me saying there's nothing lower than a snake's belly and you saying "Oh yeah, I don't think you're trying, what about worms?" If I got that text from my wife, I'd be reaching for a pair of loafers to elevate my outfit, not sneakers.

 

I agree. When I was a teen in the 80's (and very early 90's ) loafers and boat shoes were hugely popular. The cools kids wore them with casual clothes like nice jeans, chinos, polos, etc. Flash-forward a couple of decades and sneakers are being worn with suits. And by people old enough to know better.

 

I have a few, mostly from Santoni - but would never consider them "dress".
With cargo pants (very comfy to stroll around a city in a trip) - yes, please.
With jeans or casual chinos plus a t-shirt or maybe polo shirt - yes.
With anything even slightly resembling business casual - no. If I need business casual but still walk a lot around the city on foot, which happens quite often - I have some rubber-soled derbys or loafers, or a crepe soled chukkas.
Sneakers with a sportcoat or suit - bring me the flame-thrower