# Balmorals and Bluchers - Shoes 101



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I know almost nothing about shoes. 

What is a Balmoral and what is a Blucher??

(Please don't ban this poor ignorant soul!!)

I can be dense. Would you have pictures?

I know one is preferred over the other as far as wearing with suits.

Thank you for your help.

I can't believe that someone who has posted here as long as I have doesn't know this, but I don't. (I know shoes are important; I'm just not into them as much as I should be. I have a very limited budget for shoes and clothes in general.)

One good thing; any shoes I would buy will continue to fit as I lose weight!!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The difference is in the lacing. On balmorals, the two sets of eyelets meet at the base, on bluchers they do not. Here's a shot of each:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

thank you for your help!

Is the shoe on top a Balmoral?

Are Balmorals the ones we are supposed to wear with a suit?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

A balmoral is also referred to as an oxford. These days however many mistakenly use the term to apply to both bals and bluchers.

Traditionally a balmoral/oxford is worn with suits and bluchers are considered more on the casual side, perhaps to be worn with a blazer/sportcoat and trousers.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> thank you for your help!
> 
> Is the shoe on top a Balmoral?
> 
> Are Balmorals the ones we are supposed to wear with a suit?


The shoe on top (i believe the AE shelton) is technically a balmoral however it is a saddle shoe and in my opinion more appropriate with a jacket and trousers rather than a suit.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> The shoe on top (i believe the AE shelton) is technically a balmoral however it is a saddle shoe and in my opinion more appropriate with a jacket and trousers rather than a suit.


Agreed!


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

As the pictures demonstrate, there is a continuum of formality within each class. While, as a general proposition, bals are considered more formal, a plain toe, two eyelet blucher on a sleek last is, in my opinion, more formal than a semi-brogued bal or the saddle shoes, to name a few examples. So, some bluchers may be equally or more acceptable with city suits than some bals. Of a bal and a blucher of the same class, say full brogue, the bal has a slight lead in formality. As in many things, fit should be paramount. Bluchers are often more foregiving of those with high insteps.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Bluchers are often more foregiving of those with high insteps.


And/or wide feet. In fact balmorals are generally harder to fit, but (as WingTipTom demonstrates over and over) it's well worth the effort.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

The oft-noted challenge is that Americans and British participants on this Forum use the same terms to mean different things. In British usage, an *oxford* is a closed-throated shoe with a laced front. This is what Americans call a *Balmoral* or (*bal*). Here's the classic image:

https://img201.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0177yf1.jpg

https://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chelsea400as2.jpg

On the other hand, Americans tend to use the term *oxford* to mean virtually any lace-up shoe while in the classic British sense a *Balmoral* is a specific type of oxford with its seam running horizontally along its sides, like this

https://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0193sw0.jpg

The shoes that Americans on this Forum generally say are *bluchers* are termed *derby* shoes in the UK and are identifiable by their open throat front over the instep like this:

https://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=derby9kk.jpg

Traditionally, balmorals/oxfords have been town shoes and appropriate (in the right colours of course) for wearing with business suits while derby/bluchers have been their more informal brethren more suitable for country and casual wear. However, this topic has been discussed many times on this Forum and there is certainly a large contingent that finds derby/bluchers perfectly acceptable for town wear, particularly in the US. Moreover, as has been noted above, there is a continuum of formality within each genre and whether a particular shoe fits the occasion may well depend on that specific shoe's styling, construction, leather, colour, finish and related details.


----------



## Buffalo (Nov 19, 2003)

See below for more disussion:

[https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=63549&highlight=blucher+v.+bal


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Here is a close-up shot of the 'open laced' flaps around a derby (blucher in American English):

In this picture I have stuck a pink straw under the flap of the open lacing. If you can do this on a lace up shoe, then it is a derby:

https://imageshack.us

Now try doing that with a straw on a pair of Oxford (balmoral in American English) shoes:

Can't do it? Then the shoe/boot has 'closed lacing' and it is an Oxford.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

*A bit more historical background*

Moving on from basic discussion...

The only new insight I have is that I suspect that the American tendency to call an Oxford a "balmoral" predates to the time when Oxfords really were mostly balmorals. The reason is that the Oxford was originally a boot rather than a shoe.

In the late 19th century to early 20th century when this type of boot was worn, you were mostly correct in calling an Oxford boot a balmoral. Most - but not all - Oxford boots are balmoral boots.

In the next close up (the Shannon from Edward Green) you can see that long horizontal seam that runs along the side of the Oxford boot. This means that it is just as correct to call this a balmoral boot as it is to call it an Oxford boot:

(As an aside I should add that in British English this type of balmoral boot is also called a 'galosh Oxford'.)

Here is an example of a well dressed American wearing balmoral boots, as featured in the French magazine _Monsieur_ in 1923:

https://imageshack.us

Now, Oxford _*shoes*_ (unlike Oxford _boots_) are only rarely of the balmoral type and are thus mostly lacking that long horizontal seam that characterises them as a balmoral.

After the 1920s shoes started to become increasingly more common. I suspect that in America the term 'balmoral' to describe footwear with closed lacing had become so entrenched that Americans kept calling all Oxford shoes "balmorals".


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Thank all of you for taking the time to respond to this!!


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

*English Balmoral*


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

italian style blucher.










i prefer derby/bluchers over bals. just a bit more ornate and bit more going on up there, not too dainty looking and can look very substantial.

although bals can be same thing, yes, but i prefer it to be derbies like that.

basically , i just want to add that blucher defined by the vamp being continuous with the tongue.
bals, the tongue and vamp are seperate pieces.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

By the British definition of Balmorals and Oxfords, are they equal in formality?


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

I know I'm late (good answers above) so I'll just repeat what's in The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes:

_*OXFORD *describes all lace-up shoes that don't rise above the ankle. It was originally a half boot introduced in 1640 and worn by Oxford University students in England. Oxford then became a shoemaker's term to distinguish low cut shoes from boots. _

_*Oxfords are divided into two different lace-up systems:*_

*1.*_ The *Blucher* is named for Field-Marshall Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher, Prussian commander at the battle of Waterloo in 1815. He devised this type of lace system for army wear in 1810. It laces up center front through six pairs of eyelets, and the tongue and vamp are cut in one piece with an open throat.

These are also know as *Derby *(men's shoes) or Gibson (women's shoes)._

_*2.* *Balmoral or Bal*__ is named after the Queen Victoria's Scottish castle, which is still in possession of the British Royal Family and was first worn there in the 1850's.

The tongue is cut in a separate piece from the vamp and joined with stitching across the vamp. It has a closed throat, which means the leather piece through which the laces pass is joined at the bottom in a "V" (closed lacing)._

_*Mixed Terminology:* In some countries *"Oxford" * refers to a shoe with closed lacing (*"Balmorals"*), and *"Derby"* is used to refer to open lacing (*"Blucher"*)._

And yes, Balmorals are considered slightly more dressy than Bluchers (Derby).


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Matt S said:


> By the British definition of Balmorals and Oxfords, are they equal in formality?


Yes.

They are both often called Oxford shoes anyway, with balmorals being called galosh Oxfords. John Lobb St James for example tend to use the latter terminology.


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

i prefer the word 'oxford' over 'bal- mor -al'.
and the word 'derby' over 'blU -cher'

both former words more refined sounding than their corny latter partner words.


----------



## nemethnm (Jan 7, 2007)

It's interesting to note that the Balmoral (and to some extent the Oxford?) are descended from boots. Am I correct in saying that boots used to be formal shoes until the 1920's? Also, are boots still ok to wear for business?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Brian13 said:


> i prefer the word 'oxford' over 'bal- mor -al'.
> and the word 'derby' over 'blU -cher'
> 
> both former words more refined sounding than their corny latter partner words.


If you talk about "derbies" in our part of the world, Brian, 99.9999% of the people you're talking to will think you're talking about hats!

I don't know if a prosaically named English city (think "cow-crossing") sounds more elegant than the name of a castle in Scotland or if a city in central England sounds more refined than the name of an illustrious Prussian field marshal.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

nemethnm said:


> It's interesting to note that the Balmoral (and to some extent the Oxford?) are descended from boots. Am I correct in saying that boots used to be formal shoes until the 1920's? Also, are boots still ok to wear for business?


Not exactly. Boots may still be worn for formal occasions but few men do so.

Yes.


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> If you talk about "derbies" in our part of the world, Brian, 99.9999% of the people you're talking to will think you're talking about hats!
> 
> I don't know if a prosaically named English city (think "cow-crossing") sounds more elegant than the name of a castle in Scotland or if a city in central England sounds more refined than the name of an illustrious Prussian field marshal.


i certainly understand the elegant histories of the words, but doesnt BLOO-SHER sound pretty weird?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Brian13 said:


> i certainly understand the elegant histories of the words, but doesnt BLOO-SHER sound pretty weird?


I'm always reminded of Frau Blucher (insert horsey sounds) whenever I think of bluchers.


----------



## passingtime (Jun 23, 2005)

For the British there is no differentiation between an oxford or a derby as to formality, that role is performed by the colour. The same applies to decoration, a cap toe, punched cap toe, and a full brogue are all equally acceptable. Oddly, wholecuts are the only place where you might run into problems.


----------



## Harrydog (Apr 2, 2005)

Can you have a balmoral derby? (I suspect not...) but here is a derby with the straight side seam.



You get a better side view on the Lobb site.


----------



## OldSkoolFrat (Jan 5, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm always reminded of Frau Blucher (insert horsey sounds) whenever I think of bluchers.


I had a, "hunch," that someone would reference Young Frankenstien. ic12337:

As elegant as Balmorals are and despite the fact that they were first worn by Scots at Balmoral Castle, I prefer Bluchers. There is something about the fit of the closed throat on Bals that makes the top of my foot hurt by the end of the day. The open throat on the Blucher style allows just enough room in that area for my foot.


----------



## smlaz (May 13, 2005)

I of the wide foot and high instep usually wear my derby/blucher oxford shoes as they have more "give". Funny though, the RM Williams boots I have are forgiving enough, and the black Turnouts are formal enough for a dinner suit as they are whole cut and unadorned with cap or wing etc. I haven't found any lack of formality in my black cap-toes, and the brown algonquins can be pretty snappy with a gray or blue suit. Wearing a suit at my firm constitutes having one's colleagues shout "wow" and raising thier eyebrows in suspicion of one's motives and questioning me as to the "occasion". I enjoy it. You should see what they wear on "casual" Fridays!


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Harrydog said:


> Can you have a balmoral derby? (I suspect not...) but here is a derby with the straight side seam.


You see this configuration from time to time, particularly on wingtips. I don't know what you call it, either, but I do like it.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

nemethnm said:


> It's interesting to note that the Balmoral (and to some extent the Oxford?) are descended from boots. Am I correct in saying that boots used to be formal shoes until the 1920's? Also, are boots still ok to wear for business?


I do it. I might hesitate (only a little) wearing a pair for a job interview but apart from that at a glance a traditional black pair of cap toe Oxford boots look discreet enough that they scarcely different from a pair of Oxford shoes. I prefer Oxford boots because of the better ankle support and for the fact that they both conceal the socks as well as stopping them from falling and gathering around the ankles.

As far as historical origins go all Oxford shoes (galosh Oxfords/balmorals included) are descendants of Oxford boots.


----------

