# Proper shoes with morning dress



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

I'm attending a wedding this weekend, an occasion to crack out the morning dress again. I've received conflicting advice on the traditional/appropriate shoes: is it formal-ish dress calling for a plain cap-toe, or a traditionally country costume that calls for brogueing?

So what is it? Hallam (plain cap-toe), Weymouth (medallion), or Westfield (semi-brogue)?


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Morning dress is formal. The best of the options you have mentioned is the Hallam in black. A punch cap would also be an acceptable alternative if have one.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

From the Fosters site:
"such as a smart black slip-on for weddings (1/2 over your normal size .., this shoe slips easily over your shooting or sporting socks)"

I do not know if this is the correct shoe but the idea of a shoe large enough for a thicker sock for winter weddings in the UK seems a good idea.


----------



## SartoNYC (Feb 22, 2005)

*The one correct shoe for Morning Dress is the*

plain black cap toe oxford. No brogueing. Balmoral not blucher.


----------



## Leon (Apr 16, 2005)

Boots.


----------



## videocrew (Jun 25, 2007)

Technically, a balmoral boot is correct. The only RTW option that i know of is the Edward Green Shannon. It is stunning: 

but so is the price. Remember, morning dress is a style designed for horseback riding. If you wanted to go custom-made, Lobb will make you those with linen tops to keep your ankles cool:

These would be ideal, but your wallet probably disagrees.

The most accessible alternative is a balmoral with a punched cap toe. Medallion-toe would be frowned upon. Plain cap toe is fine, but that punched cap is so cool.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I believe Manton suggests the black punch cap boot as the ideal shoe for morning dress.

Edit: As seen above!


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

videocrew said:


> Remember, morning dress is a style designed for horseback riding.


While it is true that the tail coats worn with evening dress and morning dress have equestrian origins, in their modern format they have long since lost this functional aspect. The reason both morning and dress coats have a cutaway front is to allow the wearer to ride with greater ease. Morning dress is intended as formal wear, as the daytime equivalent of evening formal dress:










Likewise, the dress coat:










The term "morning coat" possibly arose from the fact that gentlemen did wear them for their morning exercise of riding. However, it remains just as likely that the term arose from the fact the "Newmarket coat" or "riding coat" started to become acceptable as morning dress some time in the latter 19th century. When gentlemen first wore their Newmarket coats with morning dress polite society was horrified. Whatever the case, the morning coat stopped becoming standard equestrian attire well over a hundred years ago. The dress coat (worn with white tie) was retired as a riding coat probably around the 1820-30s.

If the morning coat is equestrian attire, it should be remembered that the standard lounge coat is originally beach and country resort leisure wear. Older fashion plates such as this Edwardian example are fastidious in depicting lounge suits being worn only on the beach or countryside:










So if we going to call morning coats "country equestrian attire" we should call the lounge suit "beach wear".

Amen to that.

Sadly, the creators of the Edwardian fashion plates were already fighting a losing battle, for by that time "beach wear" had already come to be increasingly widely accepted as city wear, as can be seen in this plate from 1909:










As you can see, the second chap from the right has condescended to wear a lounge suit (a brown one at that!) into town instead of wearing tails. What a cad!


----------



## videocrew (Jun 25, 2007)

Sator said:


> While it is true that the tail coats worn with evening dress and morning dress have equestrian origins, in their modern format they have long since lost this functional aspect.


Well obviously this is not the ideal modern riding attire (though John Lobb will make you something for that purpose too). I was merely attempting to explain the origin of the boots with "formalwear" standard, which intuitively seems odd to most people who are not 19th century landed gentry.

Nevertheless, very interesting post.

This would be an excellent choice for those of us who are not in the habit of ordering bespoke balmoral boots from royally warranted bootmakers: https://www.aldenshop.com/DrawOneShoe.asp?CategoryID=38


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

AlanC said:


> I believe Manton suggests the black punch cap boot as the ideal shoe for morning dress.
> 
> Edit: As seen above!


Ever since I wrote in the Wikipedia article on morning dress that an Oxford boot (aka balmoral boot, or galosh Oxford) and button boot are traditional formal dress boots suitable for wear with morning dress, I have seen it being quoted frequently especially since Manton too seems to have approved.

Nonetheless, standard Oxford shoes such as this cap toe are perfectly fine:

One thing I would like to clarify is that dress boots are by no means _preferable_ to shoes with morning dress, even if old fashioned dress boots are a rather dandified sort of option:


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

videocrew said:


> Well obviously this is not the ideal modern riding attire (though John Lobb will make you something for that purpose too). I was merely attempting to explain the origin of the boots with "formalwear" standard, which intuitively seems odd to most people who are not 19th century landed gentry.


Wellingtons, chukkas, Chelseas, Hessians, and jodhpurs are all equestrian in origin, but - interestingly - button boots and balmoral boots are exceptions to the rule about boots having an equestrian origin. The balmoral boot is thought to be the brain child of Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria. If he did intend them for riding at Balmoral Castle, history has failed to record the fact, and in that era it was more likely that he would have worn Wellingtons or hunting styled top boots for riding anyway. Queen Victoria often wore balmoral boots as dress boots herself - made by John Lobb, St James - thus popularising them amongst Victorian women.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Shannons appropriate for evening wear?*

Would the genuinely stunning Shannons in the post be correct for evening wear with a suitably dressy lounge suit? Would they be dressier, say than the black Chelseas also pictured? I would feel overdressed wearing the boots to the office. Whereas, a pair of black Chelseas sees to me appropriate for the office.

I ask because I am still in search of the elusive ideal stepping out in the evening black shoe.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Here is an example from around 1900-10 of balmoral boots worn with a dinner jacket:










It is possible to order the Shannon with a plain toe, a cream coloured suede upper, and a calf leather (or patent leather base for wear with a dinner jacket). This would make it much more stylish for evening dress.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Thank you*



Sator said:


> Here is an example from around 1900-10 of balmoral boots worn with a dinner jacket:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting image. It looks as if it was posed in a studio rather than an actual room. Do you have any information about the individuals in the photograph? The shoes do not appear to me as particularly attractive.

Thank you for the passing along information on the Shannon possibilities. A plain toe has a certain appeal. I will explore the possibilities when I can actually make it to an EG trunk show.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

culverwood said:


> ...the Fosters site...


Could you please post the URL?


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

https://www.wsfoster.com/

While I would never want to contradict Sator. On purely aesthetic grounds to me the Balmoral boot looks like a practical working man's boot rather than a refined city item of clothing. The picture of the wedding couple in the studio looks like a working man with his best boots on rather than a fashion plate.

Nevertheless I agree that a normal Oxford shoe is appropriate today though I do not think anyone but a few on this site would mind if any well polished black shoe was worn.


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

Excellent -- I'll take Sator's advice and go with the plain cap-toe, although the number of well-reasoned but diametrically-opposed answers confirms my impression that this isn't a settled question. Thanks for all the replies.


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Rather than a plain cap-toe like the EG Chelsea, I would suggest a wholecut or naval oxford.

*W_B*


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

would the John Lobb Chatham in black be an acceptable choice for this type of morning dress?

it is a plain captoe bal but only thing i see that can prevent it so is the storm-welt and bulkier toe.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*Thank you.*



culverwood said:


> https://www.wsfoster.com/


Thank you.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

*OK, maybe no AE Broadstreets with a tux. But ...?*

Another thread (https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=94271) got me interested in the topic of shoes for formal and semi-formal. But after Googling around I'm starting to wonder, more generally, how clear the guidelines are.

On this thread it seems agreed that daytime formal calls for bal shoes or boots with no medallion. And yet the Duke of W apparently wore medallion-toe bluchers with a morning suit, including for his wedding:

https://42ndblackwatch1881.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/the-duke-of-windsors-sartorial-style-formalwear

Is the reconstruction wrong? Did he break the rules? (I thought he was one of the rule-setters.) Have the rules changed since then?

Not trick questions, just trying to learn. Please correct any errors in my terminology.


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

Reading his "Windsor Revisited" he was in many ways a rule-setter by being a rule-breaker! That said, although the one picture I can lay my hands on of him in morning dress does not show shoes, I would have been most surprised to learn that he would have worn open-laced shoes, especially for his own wedding. The picture description notes that the waistcoat is not the one worn at the wedding, so I would be cautious about assuming that anything other than the coat and trousers were.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

As this thread has reappeared I have to say that I now think a shoe such as the C&J Kempton is the most appropriate.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

I wear a pair of well-polished high shine black Oxfords with toe-cap. When in doubt, keep it simple.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

culverwood said:


> As this thread has reappeared I have to say that I now think a shoe such as the C&J Kempton is the most appropriate.


Very nice.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

culverwood said:


> As this thread has reappeared I have to say that I now think a shoe such as the C&J Kempton is the most appropriate.


That's a beautiful shoe, but I'd hesitate to wear such a shoe with morning dress. I might wear it with a suit, but I'd probably save it for with a sports coat and dark grey flannels. IMO, A stitched cap or punched cap Oxford is still ideal for morning dress.


----------

