Black Tie Event - Shoe Advice Needed

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

This opinion has been expressed several times in this thread, or rather, that wingtips (?) aren't good for dancing...

Would you guys mind explaining why?

A good formal shoe is like a classic Jaguar XKE while a wingtip can best be compared to a Land Rover. Like the XKE the formal shoe should be light, and allow you to move with consummate ease through the crowded conditions of a dance floor without bumping into anyone.

The problem with most wingtips is a combination of the weight of the shoe, the thickness of the sole, and the extra width of the sole extending beyond the upper portion of the shoe itself. In short they are designed to be "Land Rover" tough.

The weight of the wingtip makes it more difficult to lift the foot, while at the same time causing one to come down "harder" when placing their foot on the dance floor. The thickness of the sole makes it hard to "feel" the floor, making it necessary to lift the foot higher to glide forward (or backward) when moving around the floor. But the real killer is that extra 1/4 inch of sole sticking out all around the shoe, like the bumpers and fenders on an old car. Not only are you more than likely to scuff your partner's shoe, in all likelihood you will also trip over your shoes, especially if any sort of "footwork" is required.

Now you can find very light, designed for dancing, wingtips if you look around-- I have an old pair of patent leather wingtips with thin soles that were made in Italy and are a dream for dancing. Compared to a pair of ghillie brogues they are about half the weight.

Jaguar used to advertise their cars as the perfect blending of "Grace and Pace". The same applies to formal shoes. They should be graceful, not chunky or clunky, and make it easy for the wearer to keep up the pace when dancing.

[CMcG]

This opinion has been expressed several times in this thread, or rather, that wingtips (?) aren't good for dancing...

Would you guys mind explaining why?

I think that opinion is predicated on the assumption that a black tie formal event would feature a smooth and elegant style of dancing. Given that this is the Traditional Highland Dress section of the forum, that is probably a fair evaluation of traditional, formal events...

[Bugbear]

Post deleted, off topic.

[wildrover]

I think that opinion is predicated on the assumption that a black tie formal event would feature a smooth and elegant style of dancing. Given that this is the Traditional Highland Dress section of the forum, that is probably a fair evaluation of traditional, formal events...

Only time smooth and elegant does not apply is a mosh pit.

Every style of dance, from house to ballroom to blues, favors a lightweight shoe with a spectrum of traction ranging from the minimal grip of a skate/bmx flat to a near-gripless leather sole on a powdered floor. All favor feel rather than padding, except the skate shoes around the sides and ankles. A thick sole is a detriment when standing, since it reduces tactile sensitivity, a wide sole is a problem like MoR stated, and a sole that is both is more likely to cause a sprained ankle if you tread on someone or bring a foot down on edge when you're being athletic, even if it's just a quick side freeze, or a pause to the floor in the middle of a swipe. They just don't work. Great for walking, not so great for dancing, and I'm not talking about just that "upper deck on the Titanic" snooty style of dancing. They completely suck for swing, and they're just too clunky for blues, tango, breaking, swing, and hip hop. They're also the antithesis of classic house. They're a shoe you really have to force across a dance floor, and it's all because of a big, thick sole that's more at home on a sidewalk or in a garage. Don't get me wrong, they'll have to pry my Docs out of my cold, dead hands, but they're not dancing shoes.

There is only one environment outside of a mosh pit where that style of shoe is at all acceptable, and I don't call that dancing. More like bobbing the head with a drink in hand...and while I'm not gonna say there's anything wrong with it, there is no dancing involved whatsoever. Most people just don't dance, first out of embarrassment and second from lack of training. Dancers are made, for sure. Feet not moving? Then you're not dancing. Even close blues needs small freedom of movement and the ability to rotate in place.

A good formal shoe is like a classic Jaguar XKE while a wingtip can best be compared to a Land Rover. Like the XKE the formal shoe should be light, and allow you to move with consummate ease through the crowded conditions of a dance floor without bumping into anyone.

The problem with most wingtips is a combination of the weight of the shoe, the thickness of the sole, and the extra width of the sole extending beyond the upper portion of the shoe itself. In short they are designed to be "Land Rover" tough.

The weight of the wingtip makes it more difficult to lift the foot, while at the same time causing one to come down "harder" when placing their foot on the dance floor. The thickness of the sole makes it hard to "feel" the floor, making it necessary to lift the foot higher to glide forward (or backward) when moving around the floor. But the real killer is that extra 1/4 inch of sole sticking out all around the shoe, like the bumpers and fenders on an old car. Not only are you more than likely to scuff your partner's shoe, in all likelihood you will also trip over your shoes, especially if any sort of "footwork" is required.

Now you can find very light, designed for dancing, wingtips if you look around-- I have an old pair of patent leather wingtips with thin soles that were made in Italy and are a dream for dancing. Compared to a pair of ghillie brogues they are about half the weight.

Jaguar used to advertise their cars as the perfect blending of "Grace and Pace". The same applies to formal shoes. They should be graceful, not chunky or clunky, and make it easy for the wearer to keep up the pace when dancing.

That makes perfect sense. The wingtips I've encountered in the past, made for dancing, did not exhibit any of the detrimental characteristics you've highlighted. I've only danced in my dress shoes a couple times (regretted it both times...epic blisters), and they are fairly narrow, with a sole not noticeably beyond the sides of the shoe, and they are very lightweight. I far prefer them to a lot of what I see offered these days, which is thick & clunky in comparison...looks like I'd trip over my own feet, if I weren't walking like one of those wind-up cymbal monkeys.

At any rate, now I know specifically what to look for in a dress shoe, and why.

[rtc872]

The style of shoe does have much to do with dancing but also fitting if with the overall look of the outfit. With back tie in the past the lighting would have been dimmer and a greater appreciation was for the play on textures. You suit a fine wool. The lapels covered in silk (be it grosgrain or plain). Silk stockings and a delicate shiny shoe. As you can see a brogue shoe amongst that doesn't follow the play of textures. It is too textured. The same as wearing brogues with baggy jeans look too delicate for the outfit. Everything has it's place.

Black tie is all about simplicity of textures.

[JerseyLawyer]

Do not the Manolo get started on the disgraceful state of the modern American formal wear! If the Manolo sees one more pastel ruffle shirt, or the brightly-colored plaid cumberbund and matching bowtie set he will hurl. Especially do not mention the shoes! Ayyyyy! The shoes, the shoes! Such horrors.

Somewhat off topic, but lo on twenty or more years ago now, the band that I played with had as its formal outfit (get ready for this...) - Regulation doublet, white shirt, frilled white shirt front edged in green, bow tie, cummerbund, fly plaid, kilt, tartan hose, and shoes with shoe buckle flaps. Oh, and balmoral with white cockade.

They made the decision subsequently to eliminate the tartan hose and shoe buckles, but it took a good ten years or so to completely eliminate the "dress" uniform.

And allow me to add that eliminating the tartan hose and shoe buckles to wear instead off-white hose and ghillie brogues did not do the look any favors.

[CMcG]

A better explanation of why formal shoes are a certain way has more to do with tradition and appearance than dancing; saying shoes should be smooth and elegant for dancing because people should be dancing smoothly and elegantly is a rather circular argument. Besides, not everyone dances.

If it really was all about dancing, people would be wearing something tailor made to the style of music and dance, which in some cases might be something more athletic than formal. Sorry wildrover, but several of the styles you listed are anything but smooth and elegant. And if one has that much trouble moving around or avoiding their partners feet because of dress shoes with a bit more cushion and grip, then they probably need exercise and dance lessons.

I don't buy the proposition that one can't dance properly in a chunkier shoe. I've done it and I've observed plenty of people doing the same. It does make perfect sense, however, that THCD has a well established look and that a lighter, more refined shoe is the correct choice for black tie formal attire.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

A better explanation of why formal shoes are a certain way has more to do with tradition and appearance than dancing;

Your "better explanation" couldn't be farther from the truth.

Today's gentleman's formal evening shoe has evolved from the dancing pumps of the 18th and 19th centuries. When one would arrive at a ball, held either in a private residence or public assembly rooms, one would remove his heavy shoes or boots, and slip on a pair of light weight pumps, quite often carried in the tails of one's coat for convenience.

If one looks at a formal evening shoe today, even those worn with formal Highland attire, one will easily see that it is little changed from the days of Robert Burns or Sir Walter Scott. It is light weight, has a thin leather sole, and a low heel to prevent it being caught in the hem of a lady's gown. As shoes go, it is the equivalent of a gentleman's small sword as opposed to the cudgel wielded by an oaf.

[Lyle1]

When dancing is involved, thinner soles also allow you to "feel the floor" (to use a dancer's term), and smooth or, even better, suede soles are preferred because they allow the foot to glide or slide across the floor. Heavy shoes and shoes with rubber soles will stick to the floor, particularly when turning.

[CMcG]

Your "better explanation" couldn't be farther from the truth.

Today's gentleman's formal evening shoe has evolved from the dancing pumps of the 18th and 19th centuries. When one would arrive at a ball, held either in a private residence or public assembly rooms, one would remove his heavy shoes or boots, and slip on a pair of light weight pumps, quite often carried in the tails of one's coat for convenience.

If one looks at a formal evening shoe today, even those worn with formal Highland attire, one will easily see that it is little changed from the days of Robert Burns or Sir Walter Scott. It is light weight, has a thin leather sole, and a low heel to prevent it being caught in the hem of a lady's gown. As shoes go, it is the equivalent of a gentleman's small sword as opposed to the cudgel wielded by an oaf.

OK, I'm wrong. Shoes designed for 18th century ballroom dance, and having changed little over the years, have nothing to do with tradition.

Especially when people wear them and don't dance.