one of those ones that are meant to shed water easily ,quick drying and looks like a sport thing. the photos provided have that fat rubber on them. They do look "smart" but if I were to gravitate to them I would feel as if I'm changing or rather 'lowering' my presentation regards maturity of choice and be promoting the mainstream digression away from dignified standards. At best it's a niche shoe type which niche isn't required in my life.Weather you go smooth or suede it's still based on a flaw.

 

Well, there's no accounting for taste - so they say. Moving on.

Another option I'm intrigued by is a pair of cordovan sneakers, the FEIT Biotrainer:

 

I find the concept of leather/smart/dress sneakers to be a bit oxymoronic, if I'm honest. And in particular white rubber sidewalls look juvenile/effeminate (Keds). If you need a pair of walking shoes then get walking shoes. Obviously it's a matter of priorities but at $600 for a pair of those FEITs, I'd rather spend $100 on a good pair of New Balance waterproof walking shoes and put the remainder towards cordovan Aldens at least!

 

I find the concept of leather/smart/dress sneakers to be a bit oxymoronic, if I'm honest.

Seconded. One may as well search for unicorns as search for a "grown-up" looking sneaker.

 

Tough crowd regarding sneakers! Come to the trad side where folks have strong affections for keds, vans classics, speedy CVOs and other white canvas shoes. Nothing wrong with having a pair of simple sneakers! You can't do yard work in your cap toes...

If you're into the CP style, check out Gustin's shoe offerings. They're basically a carbon copy of the CP styling but significantly cheaper. They tend towards calf in more traditional colors (white, tan, brown) but you may see something you like.

And, FWIW, those cordovan sneakers are not working. Plus that shell looks really spottily dyed. Perhaps its sold as surplus/defective for discount pricing...

 

So how about you? What would you pick if you had just one (non-white) sneaker?

For nicer sneakers I have three pairs of Butteros and a pair of Pantafolas, but if I had to pick only one pair of non-white, I'd probably go with my taupe suede Diemme Veneto Lows. They use CF Stead suede and you can often find them on Yoox for pretty cheap. That's where I got mine anyway. These aren't exactly the same as mine are taupe instead of gray and mine have a gum sole, but they are similar to this:

Just another brand to consider anyway, especially if you luck out and can find a pair from Yoox or another discounter. Diemme doesn't quite have the fanbase of CP or Buttero so they fly a little more under the radar.

 

OP, I don't have an answer. I just wanted to say that the examples you posted seem simple and modest enough that I wouldn't mind wearing them (i.e. I'm on your side), whereas the cordovan sneakers a) remind of me of dorky walking shoes (I mean, they are walking shoes); and b) such shoes aren't meant to last a long time anyway, meaning that the expensive horsehide is just conspicuous consumption ("Look at me, I can afford to throw cordovan away!").

I don't know what I'd wear as a tourist, if I were going to walk for miles on pavement: not brogues, most likely! As it happens, the only athletic shoes I own are for cycling. Athletic shoes to accommodate my feet are expensive, so I don't even bother, and I don't need them for Asian martial arts. All of which is to say, take my opinion for what little it's worth.

 

For nicer sneakers I have three pairs of Butteros and a pair of Pantafolas...

Can any of these accommodate a high instep? I could barely manage to lace up CVOs.

 

How about a pair of low top hiking boots. Plenty from companies like Vasque, Keen and Merrell, and while they are not quite as conservative as shoes, there are plenty in the browns and greys and they would seem to fill that gap nicely.

 

I'd go olive canvas myself, but Kent Wang has trainers very similar to the ones posted.
https://www.kentwang.com/shoes?cat=74

 

If you're interested a durable and somewhat minimalistic design, give Rancourt Court Classics a look. They're currently $260 and made in Maine. These have a Vibram sole which is a bit different than other sneakers.

I purchased a pair back when they were in their pre-sale phase for $200, but at $260 - I would still buy them. Great versatility, no branding, very comfortable, quality materials and solid construction.

In terms of sizing, they are definitely TTS. I'm an 11.5D brannock and 11.5 fits perfect with these. Full image album of my pair is available to see here.

 

To those chiming in and still suggesting athletic trainers, thanks for the input. For those advocating I don't buy sneakers at all, I hear there's sale on bay rum in aisle 9! Check it out!

But the point of the thread is really to discuss footwear that is not dressy (oxfords, brogues, pennies) and yet not so "sporty" as trainers. Living in Europe (as an American) and traveling as often as I do, I see my European friends play "spot the American tourist." A big bright "N" on the side of your ugly synthetic trainers is a dead giveaway. Watch out for pickpockets and aggressive callgirls while strolling downtown. But I suppose it depends where we are looking. In Germany, a lot of people wear Solomon cross trainers. In Milan, drivers are the thing (but the men don't seem to walk much in them). In Barcelona, leather sneakers or pointy dress shoes. It varies. But what I'm after would work just about anywhere. I want the feel of a premium hide that has molded itself to my foot, without the gait-controlling structure of a classic shoe - or the unstructured ankle-rolling feel of a moc. Enter the minimal leather sneaker.

If you're into the CP style, check out Gustin's shoe offerings. They're basically a carbon copy of the CP styling but significantly cheaper. They tend towards calf in more traditional colors (white, tan, brown) but you may see something you like.

And, FWIW, those cordovan sneakers are not working. Plus that shell looks really spottily dyed. Perhaps its sold as surplus/defective for discount pricing...

Didn't know about Gustin, though I like the look of it! Do they use the same factories/materials as some of these larger brands whose styles they're copying?

Yeah I know what you mean about those FEITs. They wouldn't be the ONE sneaker and their design is certainly... an acquired taste. But unique, yes. And comfortable, I'll bet. They come standard with extra cork footboards to micro-adjust sizing.

For nicer sneakers I have three pairs of Butteros and a pair of Pantafolas, but if I had to pick only one pair of non-white, I'd probably go with my taupe suede Diemme Veneto Lows. They use CF Stead suede and you can often find them on Yoox for pretty cheap.

Just another brand to consider anyway, especially if you luck out and can find a pair from Yoox or another discounter. Diemme doesn't quite have the fanbase of CP or Buttero so they fly a little more under the radar.

Hey thanks, I remember seeing Diemme way in the past but never committed them to memory. By and large, their styles seem a bit more fashion forward than I'd go for, though the Venetos are very minimal/smart. How do you find the durability and the overall comfort?

PS - Browsing Pantofola and I'm just smitten. How does their sizing compare to your Butteros?

If you're interested a durable and somewhat minimalistic design, give Rancourt Court Classics a look. They're currently $260 and made in Maine. These have a Vibram sole which is a bit different than other sneakers.

I purchased a pair back when they were in their pre-sale phase for $200, but at $260 - I would still buy them. Great versatility, no branding, very comfortable, quality materials and solid construction.

Another solid contender, though almost stitch for stitch replica of the CP Achilles. I'm intrigued by the horsehide lining and the Vibram outsole. Wonder how a Vibram outsole would compare to the vulcanized rubber as standard in CPs.

 

Gustin's website has some details about where the shoes are made and they certainly present it as premium, made in Italy construction. But then again so does everyone and I certainly do not know enough about Italian sneaker manufacturing to critically assess their descriptions. But then, that's also why I'd definitely pick up the <$200 Gustins over the identically styled >$400 CPs.

 

I like both that the OP displayed. My issue with the Common Projects is the prominent numbering on the side of the shoe. Perhaps the pair in question is void of these but those I've seen all have it.

 

...if I were to gravitate to them [the sneakers shown by the OP]I would feel as if I'm changing or rather 'lowering' my presentation regards maturity of choice and be promoting the mainstream digression away from dignified standards. At best it's a niche shoe type which niche isn't required in my life.Weather you go smooth or suede it's still based on a flaw.

My gibberish is a bit rusty so I may not have caught precisely what you were tossing out there, but I think it's that you really don't like sneakers and from the tone I'm inferring you feel similarly towards those who wear them. Am I far off? Do I win anything?

To my Boston friend who began this, I didn't know bay rum was a pejorative, but I sense your drift and even though I love the stuff I'll put the cork back in mine for I don't need to signal anyone downwind there's an old guy stumbling their way.Thanks for the tip.

I wish I could offer some good leather sneaker suggestions, I like the idea and your pics, somewhat similar to Chucks, tho I wouldn't recommend them (Chucks) because I want to be the sole single lone individual here who is proud to be a wearer of Chucks, life long, unlike the guy above who thinks white sidewalls are fem, confuses Chuck Taylor with Elizabeth, but may be on to something since when wearing them I often am able to reach High C. The gray ones you pictured above. Get those. Those are nice. Converse also makes/made something called 'Premiere', a very beautiful sneaker. I have them in suede, soft leather and washed canvas.

 

'Peak' - "but I think it's that you really don't like sneekers and from the tone I'm inferring you feel similarly towards those who wear them' ....I'll come clean, I like sneekers but I don't wear them. I have sneekers and use them in casual, really casual circumstances this is 1 or 2 times a year for short duration as I call to mind. And I like some people that wear sneekers but not all and not because they wear sneekers. Still, I dont advocate sneekers. A parallel -I like football, hockey, but I dont watch it. If sneekers would go the way of staying in the gym and on the court then I feel we'd all be better off for it because it means that other value changing would have also taken place, It,s idealistic . Since you seemed to be asking Peak.

 

The Allen Edmonds Voyager might do the trick. They aren't the most stylish things in the world, but they aren't bad and the reviews seem to suggest they are quite comfortable. Plus they're recraftable, which is always nice (especially since the uppers are of good enough quality to deserve it if you still like the shoes).

 

Doesn't get any "manlier" than the Jack Purcell.

 

Hey thanks, I remember seeing Diemme way in the past but never committed them to memory. By and large, their styles seem a bit more fashion forward than I'd go for, though the Venetos are very minimal/smart. How do you find the durability and the overall comfort?

PS - Browsing Pantofola and I'm just smitten. How does their sizing compare to your Butteros?

I'll try to post some comparison pics for you tomorrow morning. You also might want to check out Epaulet's offerings too. They have a nice looking sneaker on a gum sole and a GAT too:

The Allen Edmonds Voyager might do the trick.

Bicycle toed sneakers?! Sorry man, I think those are kinda hideous.

 

The Allen Edmonds Voyager might do the trick.

Bicycle toed sneakers?! Sorry man, I think those are kinda hideous.

We've gone from "grown up" to geriatric.

 

We've gone from "grown up" to geriatric.

I'm 54, but I'll die before I wear those.

 

I don't know what I'd wear as a tourist, if I were going to walk for miles on pavement: not brogues, most likely!

I'd go for a pair of suede chukkas with a soft crepe sole. Unbelievably comfortable and tremendously versatile. I would not wear sneakers.

As it happens, the only athletic shoes I own are for cycling.

Me too. And golf. For casual wear, I have far better options. Though I will say that on some level I find cordovan sneakers to be conceptually cool. Perhaps because they look a bit LESS like they belong in a high school gym.

 

To those chiming in and still suggesting athletic trainers, thanks for the input. For those advocating I don't buy sneakers at all, I hear there's sale on bay rum in aisle 9! Check it out!

To those advocating wearing sneakers as casual wear, get off your Mommy's computer, finish your homework, brush your teeth and go to bed!

 

I like both that the OP displayed. My issue with the Common Projects is the prominent numbering on the side of the shoe. Perhaps the pair in question is void of these but those I've seen all have it.

A bit of acetone maybe?

The Allen Edmonds Voyager might do the trick. They aren't the most stylish things in the world, but they aren't bad and the reviews seem to suggest they are quite comfortable. Plus they're recraftable, which is always nice (especially since the uppers are of good enough quality to deserve it if you still like the shoes).

Maybe as a bowling shoe....

But on the topic of sneakers from more "traditional" shoemakers, Church's recently came out with a line that I think is noteworthy. Their uppers are quite a bit more refined in design than CP clones and the silhouette looks much more lasted.

Love the way the upper remains unbroken from the toebox to the heel.

 

As promised, here's a comparison shot:



From L to R - Diemme, Buttero, Pantafola, National Standard
The Butteros are the longest, but they are also maybe the most narrow. Virtually everyone seems to size down in them, but I wear 'em TTS because I need the width. The National Standards are maybe a touch smaller than the Diemme and Pantafolas.