Help request regarding men's shoes....1950s or 1960s?
- Thread starter laurenm
- Start date
Pinkcoke
Alumni
I would say they are a 50's style based the similar women's pairs I've handled but they could be a classic style made much more recently with the brand label running horizontal across the lining like that, also the heel doesn't appear to be leather from here which would suggest quite modern to me. Is is plastic? (the sides of the heel, not the base)
It's hard to tell the old from the new on the classic styles that never change!
It might help to see what lining has been used inside the toe/sides.
It's hard to tell the old from the new on the classic styles that never change!
It might help to see what lining has been used inside the toe/sides.
Jonathan
VFG Member
They were commonly called 'Correspondants' in England where the style evolved in the early 20th century, because they were the sort of shoes correspondants in divorce cases always seemed to wear... but they are just a two tone summer sports shoe style that has been popular since the 1920s. This version looks 1970s to me - the slightly beigey colour of the white is a 70s feature, and the toe is rounded, which isn't common in men's shoes until the 1970s. Also, Stacy Adams was (is? not sure if they are still in business but I think they went under fairly recently) a conservative shoe maker, so these were probably made for that Hampton summering set....
Stacey Adam's still make these (or similar) shoes, and the current label appears to be the same as yours. So they could be very modern.
Cross posted there. It's a common mistake, but the correct term is actually co-respondent, rather than correspondant, shoes.
In divorce case was the respondent (the wife), and the co-respondent (her lover). Correspondant means something different.
In divorce case was the respondent (the wife), and the co-respondent (her lover). Correspondant means something different.
I've always loved the term 'co-respondent shoes' (and the shoes). I don't know if it's true, but recently I heard something slightly different about the story. It was apparently often the case, when a man wanted to divorce his wife without having to pay out, he had to prove adultery. So the husband would actually hire the sleazy guy in his two-tone shoes, to seduce his wife or at least appear to, and become the co-respondent.
Pinkcoke
Alumni
not unless you worked for the company making them! The fact they have the material content on them matches the dating of 70's onwards (laws in various countries came into effect in the 70's regarding material content on clothing and other items) combined with the label being the same as the current one it sounds as though they are quite modern. If the company were still active they could tell you how old they are (depending on how responsive your recipient is)...
Ruth: LOVE the story!
Ruth: LOVE the story!
Thanks! I'm not sure if it's true, there's a lot of different stories about how they become known as co-respondent shoes. There are variations of the story: In amicable divorce cases, they still had to prove adultery because that was the only way you could get divorced in those days. So the noticeable two-tone shoes were deliberately left outside hotel rooms, as a cue for the maid to 'surprise' the adulterous couple inflagrante. The maid was then a witness in the divorce case, and would be paid for her trouble.
Jonathan
VFG Member
Pardon for my misspelling... however, the co-respondent term in regards to a shoe style was English slang and not used this side of the Atlantic - like winklepicker and brothel creeper... In the title I would call them two-tone brogues, that is the industry term for the style, and the more commonly recognized description, especially in the U.S. where those shoes were made.
They are often called correspondent shoes (over here I mean). Like I said, it's a common mistake, so common the incorrect term is probably better known than the correct one.
I've also seen them called spectator shoes, but I don't know where that comes from.
I've also seen them called spectator shoes, but I don't know where that comes from.
laurenm
Registered Guest
This discussion got me thinking of the Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto that I have yet to visit. They have what looks like an interesting podcast series as well.
http://www.batashoemuseum.ca/index.html
http://www.batashoemuseum.ca/podcasts/index.shtml
http://www.batashoemuseum.ca/index.html
http://www.batashoemuseum.ca/podcasts/index.shtml
joules
VFG Member
You'll enjoy this article, I'm sure. Jonathan was the curator at The Bata:
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/an-interview-with-vintage-shoe-collector-jonathan-walford/
http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/an-interview-with-vintage-shoe-collector-jonathan-walford/
laurenm
Registered Guest
also found this, the third paragraph discusses the shoes and claims the term is used for both mens and womens varieties...apparantly Wallace Simpson famously wore them. The author clearly is unimpressed with the shoes no matter what their definition or origin.....
I found these paragraphs here:http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1056313&page=2&s=d80447adb52ea3ef4e90e170ca9d87f3
2. Topical Words: Co-respondent /k@UrI'spQnd@nt/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The British government has for some years been trying to make the
language of the civil law more easily comprehensible to the layman
(see http://wwwords.org?CLCW). The last attempt was only partially
successful, the force of tradition being too strong for words like
"writ" or "plaintiff" easily to vanish in favour of "claim form"
and "claimant" outside formal proceedings. Last week the government
proposed changing terms in the family courts, which years ago were
called divorce courts. The intermediate judgement, the degree nisi
(from the Latin meaning "unless") is to be called a conditional
order and the final decree absolute will become the divorce order.
The person called the co-respondent becomes the second respondent.
This last change hardly seems an improvement, though I guess the
aim is to remove some of the historical stigma attached to the
role. "Co-respondent" came into the language following the 1857
Matrimonial Causes Act to describe the person who has sex with an
adulterous spouse. Divorce was then difficult to obtain and often
resulted in a public dirty-laundry-washing spectacle as matrimonial
matters were thrashed out in open court, providing juicy reading
for readers of the gutter press. Jerome K Jerome bitterly noted in
1899 in Second Thoughts of An Idle Fellow: "Now we are passionate
lovers, well losing a world for love - a very different thing to
being a laughter-provoking co-respondent in a sordid divorce case."
Marcel Berlins commented in the Guardian on 25 February: "Legally,
the word covers both men and women, but the public image of a co-
respondent was usually that of a somewhat spivvy, silver-tongued
individual with a questionable past, charming his way into the bed
of an innocent young wife. In fact, before the days of 'no-fault'
divorce, you risked not only social death but financial ruin if you
were a co-respondent: you could be sued by the angry cuckold and
have to pay large sums in damages." This view that co-respondents
were male is made explicit in the definition of "co-respondent" in
the Oxford English Dictionary, unchanged from its first drafting
around 1893: "In a divorce suit, a man charged with the adultery
and proceeded against together with the respondent or wife."
Even if government proposals stamp out "co-respondent" from the
legal system, it will be retained in "co-respondent shoes", those
two-tone horrors that for most men went out with the lounge lizards
of the 1930s (they're also called spectator shoes). A G MacDonell
wrote in How Like an Angel in 1934 about "Those singularly
repulsive shoes of black and white which are called co-respondents
(quite wrongly called, incidentally, for co-respondents at least
get or give some fun and these shoes do neither)." In view of the
male bias of the term, it is notable that one of the most famous
wearers of the shoes was the divorced Wallis Simpson, whose love
affair with Edward VIII caused his abdication in 1936.
The shoes are said to have got that name because they were often
left outside hotel rooms, ostensibly to be cleaned, as an easily
identifiable signal that hanky-panky should be assumed to be taking
place within. This was because the only permitted cause for divorce
at the time was adultery by one partner. For a couple to arrange a
divorce in an amicable way, one member - it was commonly the man -
had to be caught in flagrante with another woman. A minor industry
grew up in which housemaids in hotels augmented their meagre wages
by giving evidence of having found the supposedly adulterous couple
in bed together. This origin for the shoes' name could just be a
tale, of course. The true source may be just that in the 1930s they
were the fashionable wear of a spivvy male type, which the Belfast
Telegraph described in a piece of April 2007 about the cad: "Once
you could tell him from 20 yards away by his Tattersall check
waistcoat. Or the co-respondent shoes. Or his driving gloves. No
gentleman would be seen dead wearing any of them, and the thing
about the cad is that he lacks the instincts of a gentleman."
Though fundamental changes in divorce law has long since abolished
this mucky and degrading business, the term has survived. Indeed, I
am told that co-respondent shoes are making a comeback. Their name
will provide a continuing link to a part of British social history
thankfully now over.
I found these paragraphs here:http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1056313&page=2&s=d80447adb52ea3ef4e90e170ca9d87f3
2. Topical Words: Co-respondent /k@UrI'spQnd@nt/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The British government has for some years been trying to make the
language of the civil law more easily comprehensible to the layman
(see http://wwwords.org?CLCW). The last attempt was only partially
successful, the force of tradition being too strong for words like
"writ" or "plaintiff" easily to vanish in favour of "claim form"
and "claimant" outside formal proceedings. Last week the government
proposed changing terms in the family courts, which years ago were
called divorce courts. The intermediate judgement, the degree nisi
(from the Latin meaning "unless") is to be called a conditional
order and the final decree absolute will become the divorce order.
The person called the co-respondent becomes the second respondent.
This last change hardly seems an improvement, though I guess the
aim is to remove some of the historical stigma attached to the
role. "Co-respondent" came into the language following the 1857
Matrimonial Causes Act to describe the person who has sex with an
adulterous spouse. Divorce was then difficult to obtain and often
resulted in a public dirty-laundry-washing spectacle as matrimonial
matters were thrashed out in open court, providing juicy reading
for readers of the gutter press. Jerome K Jerome bitterly noted in
1899 in Second Thoughts of An Idle Fellow: "Now we are passionate
lovers, well losing a world for love - a very different thing to
being a laughter-provoking co-respondent in a sordid divorce case."
Marcel Berlins commented in the Guardian on 25 February: "Legally,
the word covers both men and women, but the public image of a co-
respondent was usually that of a somewhat spivvy, silver-tongued
individual with a questionable past, charming his way into the bed
of an innocent young wife. In fact, before the days of 'no-fault'
divorce, you risked not only social death but financial ruin if you
were a co-respondent: you could be sued by the angry cuckold and
have to pay large sums in damages." This view that co-respondents
were male is made explicit in the definition of "co-respondent" in
the Oxford English Dictionary, unchanged from its first drafting
around 1893: "In a divorce suit, a man charged with the adultery
and proceeded against together with the respondent or wife."
Even if government proposals stamp out "co-respondent" from the
legal system, it will be retained in "co-respondent shoes", those
two-tone horrors that for most men went out with the lounge lizards
of the 1930s (they're also called spectator shoes). A G MacDonell
wrote in How Like an Angel in 1934 about "Those singularly
repulsive shoes of black and white which are called co-respondents
(quite wrongly called, incidentally, for co-respondents at least
get or give some fun and these shoes do neither)." In view of the
male bias of the term, it is notable that one of the most famous
wearers of the shoes was the divorced Wallis Simpson, whose love
affair with Edward VIII caused his abdication in 1936.
The shoes are said to have got that name because they were often
left outside hotel rooms, ostensibly to be cleaned, as an easily
identifiable signal that hanky-panky should be assumed to be taking
place within. This was because the only permitted cause for divorce
at the time was adultery by one partner. For a couple to arrange a
divorce in an amicable way, one member - it was commonly the man -
had to be caught in flagrante with another woman. A minor industry
grew up in which housemaids in hotels augmented their meagre wages
by giving evidence of having found the supposedly adulterous couple
in bed together. This origin for the shoes' name could just be a
tale, of course. The true source may be just that in the 1930s they
were the fashionable wear of a spivvy male type, which the Belfast
Telegraph described in a piece of April 2007 about the cad: "Once
you could tell him from 20 yards away by his Tattersall check
waistcoat. Or the co-respondent shoes. Or his driving gloves. No
gentleman would be seen dead wearing any of them, and the thing
about the cad is that he lacks the instincts of a gentleman."
Though fundamental changes in divorce law has long since abolished
this mucky and degrading business, the term has survived. Indeed, I
am told that co-respondent shoes are making a comeback. Their name
will provide a continuing link to a part of British social history
thankfully now over.