Street Style | Aaron Levine

I had lunch today with Aaron Levine, the design director for Hickey. Not only is Aaron a stylish guy, he’s as nice as they come. No wonder Hickey is so cool.


Comments on “Street Style | Aaron Levine

    Ryan on January 9, 2009 4:04 PM:

    Are those Indy boots he’s rocking? I’ve wanted those forever now…

    abh1wordpress on January 9, 2009 5:21 PM:

    Uh, oh. I’m feeling a Scott Shuman moment coming on.

    Ian on January 9, 2009 5:22 PM:

    I wandered into the not yet fully opened Hickey and had a great chat with a bunch of the staff about style and I’m pretty sure Aaron was there. Either way the experience left a strong positive impression with me about the brand.

    Michael Williams on January 9, 2009 6:26 PM:
    Quentin Chuddley-Stoker on January 9, 2009 6:30 PM:

    Aye, them are the ones I have.

    Again, has anyone got any cleaning and proofing tips?

    Something someone as lazy as me will be willing to do? Like a spray or some sort of prayer?


    Robin on January 9, 2009 6:45 PM:

    Dear Aaron,

    Please stop putting pot leaf motifs on Hickey’s nice clothing.


    p.s. Nice jeans.

    Rob on January 9, 2009 6:48 PM:

    Q – If those are the boots you have, they are not shell. I still think you should ask LeatherSoul for the best option, but you should be able to use most leather products on them. A lot of folks will say use Lexol, but Allen Edmonds makes “Leather Lotion”, which [IMO] is a better product for cleaning and conditioning leather shoes, and which I use on all my calfskin Aldens:

    JP on January 9, 2009 6:52 PM:

    I agree, the pot-leaf thing is a deal-breaker. Hickey is off that now, right?

    robbo on January 9, 2009 7:11 PM:

    what jeans is he wearing they are good

    Quentin Chuddley-Stoker on January 9, 2009 7:28 PM:

    Christ Rob, I said ‘easy’……

    Only joking, cheers for the advice.

    Does one know whether this ‘Leather Lotion’ can be purchased in the UK?

    c.a. on January 9, 2009 7:39 PM:

    the hickey stuff is on a mad sale right now on their website. agreed on the pot leaf killing a lot of good pieces, hopefully its gone on the new stuff.

    Ryan on January 9, 2009 8:06 PM:

    Quentin- You’re having isses all over the place, I would just never wear shoes! JK…

    wayne pate on January 9, 2009 8:28 PM:

    God Damn! What isn’t wrong with this man’s attire. The leg cuffs are spot on for these boots, they should get a room! Best part is the slack in the knees from multiple wears without washing. Don’t get me wrong I’m a happily married man. What are the jeans?

    Sam Jacobs on January 9, 2009 8:59 PM:

    I’m really starting to dig Hickey. Cool stuff.

    pit on January 9, 2009 10:52 PM:

    Cool outfit. Great rid of the weed leaves on the clothing then we can get down to some business. I know that Hickey is the line geared towards the younger demo but come on…

    Michael Williams on January 10, 2009 12:25 AM:

    Aaron and I spoke about the ubiquitous pot leaf — he gets it. If you notice, it is becoming more subtle than in seasons past.


    lander on January 10, 2009 1:16 AM:

    Great jacket- reminds me of a Filson. What is it?

    Erick on January 10, 2009 10:35 AM:

    Are you people serious? Look at the guy!

    First off, the jeans suck – cuffing one’s jeans may be “in style” but it looks stupid. It’s what mom’s do for little boys so that the child can grow into them. It’s lame – yes, I know that Brado and John Wayne did it in some movies – but it still looks stupid and in this case, makes the jeans look too short to boot.

    Second, fastening the jacket at the top and leaving it loose at the bottom only further enhances the fact that this guy has narrow, spindly shoulders and broad hips.

    Third, he looks like Pee Wee Herman on a weekend.

    Fourth, the Alden’s are not appealling – there is more than a little group-think going on about this shoe. They look like a small child’s workboot – especially becaus of the non-utilitarian flat stitching on top.

    The dark sunglasses are insufficent to counter-act the overall flood wearing, spindly build, nerd appearance.

    DJ on January 10, 2009 1:05 PM:

    Jacket is Barbour, jeans look like Jean Shop, based on the orange stitching under the cuff..

    But I’m going to have to agree with Erick, the way he wears the jacket is not flattering at all.

    wayne pate on January 10, 2009 1:09 PM:

    Erick, what’s it like being the village idiot.

    robbo on January 10, 2009 3:06 PM:

    erick go sit in the corner and count to 10

    do you know nothing about raw denim…pleb

    pit on January 10, 2009 4:06 PM:

    Since when are Aldens part of group think?? Please put on your rubber soled, square toed shoes with your bedazzeled Ed Hardy jacket and sit in the corner as Robbo suggested and rethink this.

    ephemeralcoherence on January 10, 2009 5:27 PM:

    aldens are actually pretty big with the men’s clothing forum members… so maybe there is some group think goin on. that said, i bet erick rocks true religions or some other heavily logo’d “jeans.”

    Big Kid on January 10, 2009 5:56 PM:

    I’ve rocked my Alden’s for about the last 5 months in Brooklyn and the city and I haven’t run in to anybody with a pair yet. If anything is group think right now in NY, its Red Wings.

    Memphis88 on January 10, 2009 7:28 PM:

    DJ, orange stitching is very common in dry selvage denim. This comment section has turned into something off The Sartorialist.

    AMS on January 10, 2009 8:18 PM:

    not a fan. too banker for my taste. the pot leaf is cool if you’re 14. although i did see a nice comfy sweater on their site. but who is really buying clothing right now?

    Erick on January 10, 2009 9:25 PM:

    I woldn’t wear anything but Levis. I know that offends the trendy/effeminate in the audience – but that’s that way it is. And, if you’re using the term “raw denim” well, guess what …….you’re probably effete as well. I can’t imagine a grown man, heterosexual, over 21, with an education using such a term – it’s a terms for marketing suckers.

    Yeah, I know Aldens – I have about 15 pair in shell cordovan and 3 pir in calf skin, but those particular Alden models are LAME – and I don’t care about the whole “Indy” thing – they look lame. And yes – they are the kind of thing I’d expect someone from Brooklyn to “rock” thinking he was effecting a look other than lame. And that’s the point – the Alden “Indy boot” look is for poseurs. It’s for Brooklyn-ites tyring to appear rugged. It’s a joke.

    Hey – look I’m 40 so, I’m outa’ touch. I don’t wear square toed shoes (as was stated and is I wear “raw” denim it’s with the view of letting it fade with wear). When I wear a Barbour or a hunting jacket it can be for something other than for buying a bagle and expresso at the shop on the block of some metropolis. The guy looks like a dweeb. He looks like a pussy. He looks like his jeans are hiked up too high on his waist and cuffed to high at the ankle. He looks like a poseur; if you don’t get that maybe it’s because you don’t think clothes have any function other than to make you look like one of the above. Hint: no serious person wears Alden “Indy Boots.” They fall apart for hiking, working, hunting, etc. (take a look at Filson). I’m sure they’re fine for the ruged terrain of Brooklyn, but then again, the aesthetics still suck and the flat stitching on the toe still looks lame. I mean the whole “Urban Cowboy” look had its heyday in Brooklynm but who the hell cares?

    Look at the guy, again – his look sucks! He screams pussy poseur and he looks like a dweeb.

    Erick on January 10, 2009 9:30 PM:


    Yes, I know I mis-spelled words in the above post (i.e. expresso for espresso) so, please don’t think that the use of a spell check makes your point more valid or undermines mine.

    Michael Williams on January 10, 2009 9:39 PM:

    Erick, for someone with so much Alden, you sure are coming up short in the tact department. Play nice people, let’s all be gentlemen here.


    JP on January 10, 2009 9:49 PM:

    Looks like Aaron isn’t the only one that’s been to the coffee shop.

    In the profound words of someone I can’t remember right now- “Can’t we all just get along?”

    We all have or own personal preferences. Arrogance has no place.

    I’m a Levi fan too, but I won’t be wearing LVC anymore, because they’re making no longer making them in the USA. Alden wouldn’t be my choice for boots- but I’m not going to kill anyone for wearing them, I will just do my thing.

    There is room for all of us.



    JP on January 10, 2009 9:51 PM:

    Oh crap. Typo- should be ‘our’ personal preferences… please no invalidating or undermining.


    Davies on January 10, 2009 11:12 PM:

    As one of the female readers around here, I think I might mention he looks quite nice. I really like the detailing on his shoes; when it comes to shoes I think men really benefit from the more subtle approach to style that menswear usually has. Women’s shoes often walk a fine line between interesting and tacky. My favorite part, though, is the unexpected bright red above his belt – I think it’s a shirt he’s wearing underneath his green shirt?

    robbo on January 11, 2009 2:51 AM:

    jp what is your source about lvc

    jon on January 11, 2009 4:05 AM:

    *reads Erick’s two posts*

    I mean … I think he looks cool. Just me, but I guess that makes me a faggot.

    Quentin Chuddley-Stoker on January 11, 2009 5:19 AM:

    I would like to see more pictures of Aaron (perhaps some in more uncompromising positions) before I can get an opinion on his sexuality.

    And a few of Erick wouldn’t go amiss. Lets see if he looks as tough as he sounds? Grrrrrrrr.

    JP on January 11, 2009 8:32 AM:


    In regard to LVC, I know someone that worked there and that is still very dialed-in.


    peter on January 11, 2009 10:57 AM:

    I think the problem is not the individual elements but, to me, he looks way too self conscious of what he is wearing. It would be nice if he had one item on that was a surprise. I would rather see an interesting mix instead of a uniform.
    I bet he is drives a Land Rover Defender. 4 door.

    Could the red be a Man United jersey?

    robbo on January 11, 2009 11:03 AM:

    well according to the guys on superfuture that isn’t true

    my lvc’s that i buy in london say made in usa

    Disaffected Prep on January 11, 2009 11:03 AM:

    Who knew raw denim and Barbour jackets got people so heated? Anyway, I noticed that he has a couple of buttons on the Barbour corduroy collar – and not the standard Barbour button. Thought that was pretty cool, though three may be too much for my taste. I’ve had debates about whether to leave the button on the collar with my friends – interesting what minutiae we can delve into.

    Can’t speak for Erick but I find it refreshing to see a Barbour, or Barbour-like clothing amidst the metropolis. I’ve never put a dead duck in the back pocket, but who cares?

    Michael Williams on January 11, 2009 11:26 AM:

    I have to agree. I think you can still buy LVC that is made in the usa. Some of the Capital E line is made here as well…


    robbo on January 11, 2009 12:17 PM:

    by the way , if you come to london every one in bloody shoreditch wears the aaron barbour known as the beaufort !!

    JP on January 11, 2009 12:58 PM:

    Watch the new stock from LVC- they moved production, no longer U.S.A.

    Yes, they are U.S. goods in the market now- buy them up now.


    Chris on January 11, 2009 2:20 PM:

    LVC raw denim will continue to be produced in the United States. Many of the distressed pieces have been outsourced for a number of years. Taylor Togs, which produced the deadstock 501s, 201s, etc., has closed, but Caitac in California is producing the new pieces. Not sure if their production will emerge for the S/S ’09 collection, or this coming autumn.

    angelo on January 11, 2009 3:03 PM:

    Just got a great deal ($208 down from $695) on my first piece of Hickey attire, a quilted blazer. They’re a really great label.

    robbo on January 11, 2009 4:36 PM:

    chris this is my understanding having spoken to the boys in cinch in london

    i kind of like erick, i see what he means about the brooklynites…

    where you live erickster

    Big Kid on January 11, 2009 4:46 PM:

    Hey Erick,

    Nobody likes an angry old man. Chill out there fella.

    Chris on January 11, 2009 5:57 PM:

    Yes, Robbo, the folks at Cinch usually know what they’re talking about- obviously the LVC line is more popular in Europe. The info I received was from a few people at Levi’s corporate level. The sales associates at the Levi’s shops in and around New York City are usually pretty clueless when it comes to details about the Vintage line.
    The current Capital E 501s I have only seen available at the Barney’s Co-op in downtown NYC. Only distressed models, nothing raw. Three different washes, all made in the United States. At the J. Crew Liquor Store in Tribeca, they have a 1947 501 rinsed version currently for sale, which I believe was produced exclusively for J. Crew, again, made in the States.
    I’m not an expert, nor “connected”, but I have a deep passion for the 501. I also don’t mean to come across as authoritative, it’s just the info that I’ve heard.

    JP on January 11, 2009 8:18 PM:

    Dear Chris,

    I hope you are right. I heard that all LVC is moving overseas for ’09. And not from a salesclerk either. This came from corporate in San Fran. I myself am in the menswear/apparel industry, so I tend to trust my sources, but maybe there is hope that it will stay in the U.S. I certainly hope so.



    moot on January 11, 2009 8:44 PM:

    Haha are you fucking with me? Weed leaf slipper for $595.00? He’s like a real life troll

    And he looks like a man-boy

    wayne pate on January 11, 2009 8:54 PM:

    Please put up a new post pronto so we can move on.

    Chris on January 11, 2009 9:49 PM:

    You could definitely be right, JP, the economic climate might have forced changes since the news I heard. I’m with you, though, in hoping for the best. It would be a shame if there were no American made Levi’s products left in the marketplace.
    And I understand Wayne Pate’s desire to move on! It seems we digressed with this talk about Levi’s, but I think it ties in with other posts Michael has made in the past regarding American production. Fine blog, btw!

    Girl on January 12, 2009 11:49 AM:

    I love this blog.

    Thaks for doing your part to impart style to the men of NYC and beyond. On behalf of the ladies I thank you.

    Also, just a note, but I was at the White Horse Tavern this weekend and was shocked at the amount of Barbour jackets I saw. We actually questioned whether all the gents had just been back from a hunt but then decided that might have been just a tad coincidental! Bravo.

    Thom on January 12, 2009 2:37 PM:

    [Scared at the comments.]

    Love that he looks like himself, if that makes sense.

    Bill on January 12, 2009 2:39 PM:

    The jacket is Barbour, but more importantly it’s an insulated Ventile Cloth model they no longer make. Ventile is pure cotton, but so dense that it breaks the machine-operators’ needles. Frequent needle-changes up the cost of manufacture. When they still made it, it was their most expensive jacket in this style. Ventile is wonderfully silent. It gets wet, on the outside, but the damp can’t penetrate. It breathes. The RAF used it in WWII for in-the-freezing-ocean survival suits for aircrew.

    jon on January 12, 2009 3:01 PM:

    …too contrived.

    Lesli Larson on January 12, 2009 4:21 PM:

    For bicycle sartorialists, there was a similar, 55 comment thread on the Velo-Orange blog about the the vintage parts selection for a custom built Velo Orange city bike (with “Anonyme” playing the roll of Erick).

    Interesting thread if you want to redirect obsessions away from Barbour and Indy boots:

    Also, I’m also not sure that Barbour jacket IS the ventile model. Looks like the standard issue waxed cotton to me. Looks like a straight ahead Bedale to me.

    Overall, I think the gent looks great.

    Lesli Larson on January 12, 2009 4:28 PM:

    Here’s the link again. On the Velo-Orange webiste (a good read), the thread is titled:

    Tom’s New VO Gentleman Bike


    H on January 14, 2009 9:39 AM:

    The point is that I don’t go into the woods and hunt in a suit, so don’t walk around the city looking like you’re about to fell a redwood.

    Bill on January 14, 2009 11:05 AM:

    Lesli’s right; *not* the Ventile. I must have hallucinated Ventile characteristics.

    Big Kid on January 14, 2009 2:12 PM:


    So you saying each garment that you wear has to be specific to the function or location? By your logic then, I shouldn’t be able to wear a polo shirt because I’m not on a horse in the Hamptons, or a pair of shorts in the city because I’m not riding a wave on the north shore… word…..ridiculous!

    H on January 15, 2009 9:58 AM:

    Big Kid,

    Some styles are so intimately tied to the activity they were built for that they ARE ridiculous outside of their domain. Combine that with the wearers of those garments being the exact opposite of their intended audience, and you have posing at its finest.

    So yeah, if you’re a Williamsburg hipster wearing board shorts in the city, you look like a huge tool. THAT’s my logic.

    JP on January 15, 2009 10:16 AM:


    I respectfully disagree.

    The guy is wearing a jacket, jeans, and boots- all everyday garb. It’s completely appropriate. Lots of people wear Barbour as their staple outerwear because it’s quality stuff.

    Let’s all get off this already. By your own words- your condemnation seems to be more about the wearer, than the clothes.

    Let’s all get off this already.

    H on January 15, 2009 10:55 AM:


    I’m not making a point about this guy so much as the issue that people are talking about.

    But, about this guy–yeah he looks like a tool.

    Bill on January 15, 2009 11:09 AM:

    Re the turn-ups, I assume those are to prevent indigo-transfer to the Aldens. If you wear rigid denim turned down, over a pair of leather shoes that shade, they very quickly acquire blue shadowy highlights. That unfortunately are utterly indelible. He can’t afford to get the jeans on the Aldens, and to my mind this says they are the wrong shoes for the outfit. Dark sneakers and turn down the cuffs, much better. The matte-finish ArmorAll cloths nicely remove blue transfer from white vulcanization.

    JP on January 15, 2009 11:21 AM:


    Some folks (not me) actually line the inside of the leg opening with plain ol’ masking tape to prevent color transfer to their footwear.

    Just make sure it’s out of sight– don’t want to look like a tool and someone takes your picture.

    You could end up flogged on a very cool blog.

    (H- just funnin’)

    H on January 15, 2009 11:33 AM:

    That’s actually a good idea, JP, although I don’t care enough about my shoes to go through the hassle. The same hassle that people go through to wear douchetastic hipster sunglasses :)

    Michael Williams on January 15, 2009 11:35 AM:


    Enough with the comments on this topic.


    Tom Paine on January 15, 2009 8:20 PM:

    Too bad that instead of a pot leaf on their pea coats, they’d put an ounce of pot in the pea coat’s pocket.

    Michael Williams on January 16, 2009 1:22 PM:

    Seriously — NO MORE COMMENTS.

    I will not be approving any more comments on this topic. Good, bad or indifferent. MOVE ON.


Comments are closed.