No brown in town? A journey into shoes

It will come as no surprise to you, dear readers, to discover that I have several bêtes noires, particularly in matters of dress, and one of them is the unfortunately prevalent practice of wearing tan-coloured shoes with grey suits. I cannot fully explain why this should be so. Partly, I suppose, it is an aversion in general to shoes being lighter than the clothes worn with them – think about it, it’s quite rare, really – but there is something deeper than that. I suppose, at bottom, it is a combination of finding it visually unappealing, and, for want of a better comparison, thinking that those who indulge in such a look tend to be the sort of people who appear on The Apprentice (“When it comes to business, I’m a tiger” etc).

So far, so good. No tan shoes with a grey suit. But I have recently been pondering the validity of the “no brown in town” rule. How sound is it? Are there exceptions? By “town”, of course, we generally now mean “with formal clothes”. I do not think there are many people who would say that brown shoes should never be worn within the metropolis. But in the days when a gentleman would automatically be wearing a suit, it had a certain pithy point to it.

Of course rules are less strict now. However, it is worth thinking about them, because sartorial strictures often emerged from a point of fundamental common sense, or some basic notion of what looked right. I will admit straight away that there is one very clear exception which I make to the “no brown in town”, and that is when the sun comes out and it is time for a linen suit. I know not everyone takes the same approach, but when dressed in a pale linen suit, I think black shoes look somehow too harsh, too much of a contrast, and you will find me in a pair of brown Oxfords, perhaps tobacco-coloured suède brogues or even – gasp! – co-respondent shoes. (A digression: a colleague at work was delighted to be informed that two-tone shoes are so-called because the sort of chap who would wear them was the sort of chap likely to be cited as co-respondent in divorce proceedings. Equally, he was amused to learn that Americans, rather more primly, refer to them as “spectator shoes”.)

I do think that I would adhere to a black-only policy towards shoes in the most formal of dark lounge-suit situations, primarily in terms of work. As most people wear suits in navy or charcoal, or some variation, I think that black tends to look best, and a well-polished black shoe is a thing of a beauty which will always flatter the wearer. Even lighter grey suits – I have a mid-grey three-piece in Prince of Wales check, of which I am very fond – still respond best to black shoes. However, anyone with aspirations to style and elegance will realise that suits are not just for business.

For more social occasions, I think it is not unreasonable to apply slightly different, perhaps even more relaxed, standards. I would not, for example, go tieless to work, but to a reasonably smart party a suit with a crisp shirt open at the neck might be just the ticket. So it is with shoes. Here, then, it is not a matter of arbitrary standards, but of what looks good. My own view (i.e. the correct one) is that grey suits simply will not stand up to shoes other than black. Perhaps it is the slight coldness, the hardness, of charcoal, a marvellous thing in its own way, that is a mismatch with the warm richness of the palate of browns. With a black suit, if one wears such a thing outside the funeral parlour or crematorium, brown is an absolute no-no.

When it comes to navy, I am not so sure. Again, I think tan is out. Too light, too attention-seeking. But a pair of well-shined chestnut brogues might be a gainly addition to the ensemble, or perhaps dark brown suède loafers. Choice of sock here is key; I favour scarlet, generally, but if one is making a statement with one’s shoes, it may be de trop to have noteworthy socks too. I understand that women have a maxim, “Cleavage or legs”, and it has some applicability in this case too. But a case-by-case basis might be the way forward.

Then we come to the vexed question of oxblood. I have rather a fondness for oxblood leather; if it is done right, it has a lustre which brown can rarely match, and a lightness of touch that sombre black simply lacks. Done badly, one is simply a man wearing purple shoes. For a navy suit, though, it may provide an acceptable via media. Its warmth matches that of the cloth. For a social occasion which requires smartness, it suggests that the wearer has not just wearily donned his working clothes, but has thought about his wardrobe, and chosen carefully.

In conclusion, then, “no brown in town” has had its day, but that does not mean a free-for-all. It’s like anything else about clothes, really. Just think about what you’re going to wear. A bit of thought is repaid many times over.

Of course, none of the above applies if you are the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP. Some people are just exceptions.