# Derby Type Shoe with a Suit ?



## RNAVARRO23 (Jun 1, 2009)

Are "Derbys" too casual to wear with a suit ? When are they appropriate ?


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

I think that the answer is yes, they are too informal, but I'm out of step with the board consensus on this beaten-to-death topic.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

RNAVARRO23 said:


> Are "Derbys" too casual to wear with a suit ? When are they appropriate ?


Derbys (normally called bluchers in America) are generally regarded as less formal than balmorals ("oxfords" in the UK). Nonetheless, they are considered perfectly appropriate for all occasions, except with business suits (which is a bit more complicated) or formal wear. Regarding business suits, there is a broad consensus that bals are always appropriate for suits and probably preferable to bluchers. But there is no consensus that derbys are "too casual" in the sense of being inappropriate. On that there is plenty of disagreement, even among the most knowledgable sartorialists. My own view is that I would not normally wear bluchers with a suit (except perhaps more informal suits such as poplin or seersucker) if I owned a suitable dress bal alternative. On the other hand, assuming money is dear, I would not regard it as necessary to purchase dress bals if your bluchers are otherwise suitable dress shoes. Folks have strong feelings on this issue, with some people believing that bluchers should *never* be worn with suits and others believing that any distinction between bals and bluchers is a silly artiface contrived by uber-traditionalists. But my sense is that most knowledgable folks would agree that wearing dress bluchers with a suit is by no means a serious foul, but bals are more appropriate.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The most hidebound view is that they are not OK with a business suit, but this is honored more in the breach than the observance. Besides, some men with a high instep find it difficult to find wearable oxfords, and really need bluchers all the time. 

IMHO, the key is to evaluate the overall impression of formality that the shoe gives, rather than trying to parse out individual elements as being acceptable or not acceptable with this or that piece of clothing. A black, high-polish, captoed blucher with a single leather sole looks far more formal than a pebble-grained, brouged wingtip oxford with a danite sole.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Should be wearing round-toe oxfords with a suit, especially for work. I suppose for a evening out (not formal) then you could wear a derby with a suit.

Outside of Ask Andy World, you will get away with a derby, depending on style. In my four-shoe rotation for work, I did have a derby and it did not make a difference, although after adding another round-toe oxford the derby is out of work-rotation. 

For an interview or an important business meeting, should always be round-toe oxford.


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*Bluchers with a suit?*

IMO, it depends on the shoe. The C&J Blucher has a very thin, more refined sole, and goes quite well with a suit. The thick-soled Bluchers do not. As for English round-toed shoes, I avoid them like the plague. Thank goodness C&J handgrades are more stylish than your typical round toes.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

I would think you could wear this with a business suit, no?

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...t_Id=833145&Parent_Id=522&default_color=Black

Are you really saying these are too informal because they are double soled?

I am wondering, does this mean you all think the cap toe bal is the only appropriate shoe to wear with a business suit?

It's funny that the blucher predates the balmoral, and I believe may predate the lounge suit, but is not considered "appropriate" to wear with one!


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

J.Marko said:


> I would think you could wear this with a business suit, no?
> 
> https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...t_Id=833145&Parent_Id=522&default_color=Black
> 
> Are you really saying these are too informal because they are double soled?


Smart shoes and you will get-away wearing them with suit, a lot better then people in fancy loafers with suits.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ToryBoy said:


> Outside of Ask Andy World, you will get away with a derby, depending on style.


For that matter, outside of Ask Andy World very few people even know of or make a distinction between the two types of shoes.

Cruiser


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> For that matter, outside of Ask Andy World very few people even know of or make a distinction between the two types of shoes.


True. It reminds of that scene in 'The Devil Wears Prada' when they are getting a collection ready. The two belts have the same colour leather but different buckles yet Andrea thinks they look the same.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

This amusing quote seems apropos:

"The native independence of American character regards with disdain many of the stringent social laws which are recognized in England and on the continent. Thus, the dress which many of our countrymen adopt...would subject them to serious annoyance abroad."

"Martine's Handbook" 1866


----------



## Drogue (Mar 24, 2009)

RNAVARRO23 said:


> Are "Derbys" too casual to wear with a suit ? When are they appropriate ?


As long as they're smart, I don't think they're ever too casual for a business suit. As has been said, few outside AAAC would know the difference. To uneducated eyes (including mine), a plain toe or cap toe Derby with a high shine finish can easily look more formal than an Oxford brogue with a matte finish.

In fact, I'm planning on wearing high shine Derby's with a DJ tomorrow to a 'black tie preferred' event. While I'd rather wear dress Oxfords, I don't own any, and the high shine Derby's look better than my matte Oxfords. But this may be a personal thing - I'd always wear shoes with a high shine, if not patent, with a satin-faced dinner suit.


----------



## AndTun1 (Jul 22, 2005)

RNAVARRO23 said:


> Are "Derbys" too casual to wear with a suit ? When are they appropriate ?


In this day & age you can get away with wearing a nice derby with a suit, most people won't notice the difference. I have seen lots of loafers with suits lately. I like wing tips or a split toe shoes for suits.


----------



## rmanoj (Mar 6, 2009)

Derbies are fine with more casual suits - I can't conceive why anyone would object to, say, brown derbies with a tweed suit. I wouldn't wear black derbies with a city suit (oxfords look more elegant in that context anyway), but no one will notice or care unless you are in an extremely, and I mean extremely, conservative line of work.


----------



## Tonyp (May 8, 2007)

General rule is to wear oxfords with business type suits such as navy, grays or pinstripes. derbys worn with flannels or tweeds. As was said, it all depends on the shoe. I would never wear a rubber type soled shoe with a suit. Leather soles only. It is always going to look better to wear a oxford with a suit. If it is a serious suit then a Black oxford may work best or an oxblood color would also work with blue or gray.


----------



## Timeless Fashion (Apr 12, 2009)

People dress fairly casually in Florida. I assume you are from Miami/Dade County where it can vary depending on what kind of business you are in. I have seen quite a few people wear bluchers/derbys with suits in South Florida and it may be quite appropriate.

Now if you travel to London for business and wear a brown blucher with a dark business suit, then you will be out of place as many of our British members here will tell you.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

Then this would be wrong with a three or four season charcoal suit or navy pinstripe?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Beau said:


> Then this would be wrong with a three or four season charcoal suit or navy pinstripe?


I would not say "wrong," but most people would agree that bals would be a superior option for dark business suits. However, I would not feel the need to run out and buy some dress bals if money was dear. Few people would really notice, and the few that do would not consider your choice "wrong" so much as less than ideal. In any case that is a handsome shoe that would work very nicely for sport coat and tie situations, as well as more casual suits as suggested by Tonyp.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I don't know if it will show up in this picture that I scanned, but here is an ad for the HSM Gold Trumpeter in which the model is wearing a split toe blucher. Very few in the United States make a distinction with regard to the difference in these styles.

https://img194.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scan0001btc.jpg

Cruiser


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I don't know if it will show up in this picture that I scanned, but here is an ad for the HSM Gold Trumpeter in which the model is wearing a split toe blucher. Very few in the United States make a distinction with regard to the difference in these styles.
> 
> Cruiser


It not help when manufacturers say anything to sell their products. For example AE selling derby patent-leather shoes and suggest wearing them for semi-formal events; they also suggest split-toe shoes are ideal for professional attire.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I must say, I passed all my fairly long life blissfully oblivious to the "no bluchers with a suit" rule until I came upon the forum culture. Except possibly for Manton's "The Suit," which itself is largely a product of the forum culture, I have never seen the practice proscribed in any printed guide to men's style like Flusser, Roetzel, Molloy, etc. At most it is said that bluchers are "less formal" than shoes with closed lacing. Roetzel specifically says they are okay with a suit.

Most men are quite oblivious to the distinction between bals and bluchers, as others have noted, and fewer indeed would be those who are not themselves Internet Gentlemen who would fault a man for wearing bluchers with a suit.

For whatever it's worth, President Obama wore a pair of split toe bluchers at his inauguration, thereby breaking the tradition of the past few presidents of wearing AE Park Avenues.


----------



## Politely (May 8, 2008)

I'd say it depends on what the people in your area and line of work wear, the occasion, the suit & tie you're wearing, maybe the weather, and in close cases, the time of day. :icon_smile: Local standards vary. But generally speaking, most of the population won't know or care. And of the few that do notice, most of them won't mention it. And of the few that do mention it, you can simply tell them it's a deliberate stylistic choice or to go away and mind their own business. 

To the extent you're just canvassing opinions, I think plain black oxford captoes are probably the most formal suit shoe - although I'm sure some will disagree. As generally between oxfords and derbys, I'd say ... it depends on the color, brogueing, sole, lacing, stitching, species & finish of leather ... whether they have tassels... etc.


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> For whatever it's worth, President Obama wore a pair of split toe bluchers at his inauguration, thereby breaking the tradition of the past few presidents of wearing AE Park Avenues.


Well that is hope and change I can believe in. "W" was at least an Alden fan.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Beau said:


> Then this would be wrong with a three or four season charcoal suit or navy pinstripe?


I would consider this wrong to wear with a suit. This is a casual shoe that would be much more appropriate with odd trousers. A cap-toe or plain-toe blucher with a suit is best. The fewer the eyelets, the more formal.


----------



## windsor (Dec 12, 2006)

That shoe looks like the Alden Norwegian Split Toe Blucher, #961. I would think the split toe with hand stitching, moves it toward the informal side and it would be perfect for wear with a sport coat, but a little less than perfect with a business suit. Country suit would be a good match too.


----------



## pkincy (Feb 9, 2006)

Personally I would never wear a derby with a business suit. But that is just me.

Interestingly enough, I quite often wear a monk with a suit. I have the RLPL Grant in Dark Oak and the Vale in Chestnut Museum Calf.

My slip ons however are only worn casually. Also my suede's and spectators are only worn casually.

Perry


----------



## RNAVARRO23 (Jun 1, 2009)

Is a monk strap considered more formal than a derby ?


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

pkincy said:


> Personally I would never wear a derby with a business suit. But that is just me. Interestingly enough, I quite often wear a monk with a suit.


That is strange, because I would have though someone who wears monks with a suit, would also wear derbys too.



RNAVARRO23 said:


> Is a monk strap considered more formal than a derby ?


I do not think we can really rank the shoe-styles, because we should wear shoes that are appropriate for that occasion/environment. For example, wearing patent oxfords with a business suit would be wrong, even though they are semi-formal shoes. Calfskin oxfords are not formal at all, they are smart (the smartest shoes) and business attire shoes; derbys are smart but not business attire; monks are more smart-casual; while loafers are casual but smarter then sneakers.

Wearing laced shoes with a casual outfit like t-shirt and jeans would inappropriate, monks and loafers or even sneakers would be appropriate.

Although I would say:
Oxfords
Derbys
Monks
Loafers


----------



## Beau (Oct 4, 2007)

pkincy said:


> Personally I would never wear a derby with a business suit. But that is just me.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I quite often wear a monk with a suit. I have the RLPL Grant in Dark Oak and the Vale in Chestnut Museum Calf.
> 
> ...


Then this would be inappropriate with business suit, too?

In 1990 I visited the Alan Flusser shop in DC. The guy who ran the store was wearing a charcoal chalkstripe 150s 2 button suit and a similar shoe. It made a great impression on me, one of luxury. I finally bought a pair two years ago and wear them in the fall and winter with suits to work. I must be a rube.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

A plain toe monk shoe may be more appropriate with a suit than a cap toe 6-eyelet derby. A plain toe 2 or 3-eyelet derby I'd say is about the same as a plain toe monk, if not better.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

RNAVARRO23 said:


> Is a monk strap considered more formal than a derby ?


In my view yes, only because they are more versatile. Dress monks are a terrific business suit option, derbys somewhat less so. But both work equally well in less formal contexts. I disagree with ToryBoy that monks are less formal than derbys.

One must remember that several factors go into assessing the formality of a shoe, not just derby/oxford/monk. Indeed, many derbys work better with a suit than many oxfords. (I'm sticking with the UK vocabulary here.) But all things equal, I'd say monks pair more easily with a business suit than derbys. But I realize some folks disagree, in large part because they see monks as a variant of slip on loafers. I don't, however. The buckle is an alternative to laces.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Matt S said:


> A plain toe monk shoe may be more appropriate with a suit than a cap toe 6-eyelet derby. A plain toe 2 or 3-eyelet derby I'd say is about the same as a plain toe monk, if not better.


I agree with this.


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

RNAVARRO23 said:


> Is a monk strap considered more formal than a derby ?


Monks are laceless derbies.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

LaoHu said:


> Monks are laceless derbies.


Not all perhaps.
This one is a laceless derby:









But what about this. It has a seam like a balmoral on the inner side of the shoe, but it holds the foot in quite differently.


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

Beau said:


> Then this would be inappropriate with business suit, too?
> 
> In 1990 I visited the Alan Flusser shop in DC. The guy who ran the store was wearing a charcoal chalkstripe 150s 2 button suit and a similar shoe. It made a great impression on me, one of luxury. I finally bought a pair two years ago and wear them in the fall and winter with suits to work. I must be a rube.


I think the Alden 904 is a great shoe to wear with a suit. The question of whether it is appropriate for business dress depends on local norms. If you want to follow Manton's Conservative Business Dress (CBD), probably not, but that's an extreme example.


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

Matt S said:


> Not all perhaps.
> This one is a laceless derby:
> 
> 
> ...


Point taken. Thanks!


----------



## glowell222 (Apr 20, 2009)

Derbies go just fine with most business suits. I think I recall that James Bond fellow wore a pair with a tuxedo in a recent movie....


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

Using all U.S. terminology: It seems to me fair to say that in the U.S. oxfords (meaning either bals or bluchers) are accepted wear with suits. Either type of oxford could be too casual for business wear, depending on the details. 

Does that sound about right?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

J.Marko said:


> Using all U.S. terminology: It seems to me fair to say that in the U.S. oxfords (meaning either bals or bluchers) are accepted wear with suits. Either type of oxford could be too casual for business wear, depending on the details.
> 
> Does that sound about right?


Yes, if by "accepted" you mean "acceptable." Some folks do view bluchers as being unacceptable for suits, but I think in the US most gents would just say bals are preferable "all things equal," which goes to your point that details matter. There are a number of things that go into a shoe's level of formality, and one is bal styling being more formal than blucher. But certainly many bluchers pair acceptably well with business suits, and many pair better than many bals. It is certainly not a faux pas to wear dress bluchers with a business suit, even though some gents might not choose to do this themselves -- me being one of them. I don't prefer bluchers with suits, but I absolutely don't think that a fellow who wears them is commiting an error, assuming of course that the bluchers' other details suggest sufficient formality. I hope I'm not adding to the confusion.


----------



## pkincy (Feb 9, 2006)

Matt S said:


> But what about this. It has a seam like a balmoral on the inner side of the shoe, but it holds the foot in quite differently.


And that is precisely the JL Vale in Chestnut Museum Calf that I wear with a suit along with the RLPL (EG) Grant which is here:









Perry


----------



## pkincy (Feb 9, 2006)

I definitely can see the suede bal with a suit also. I just would not do it in a formal business setting. More to be worn with a casual suit such as tweed.


----------



## balder (Jan 23, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> The most hidebound view is that they are not OK with a business suit, but this is honored more in the breach than the observance. Besides, some men with a high instep find it difficult to find wearable oxfords, and really need bluchers all the time.
> 
> IMHO, the key is to evaluate the overall impression of formality that the shoe gives, rather than trying to parse out individual elements as being acceptable or not acceptable with this or that piece of clothing. A black, high-polish, captoed blucher with a single leather sole looks far more formal than a pebble-grained, brouged wingtip oxford with a danite sole.


I am one of those men with a high instep and I find it almost impossible to find an oxford shoe that I can wear.I have been persevering with a pair of Loake full brogues that I bought nearly a year ago but still cannot wear them for more than a couple of hours and certainly cannot walk far in them.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I can (and do) wear oxfords, but if my instep were a quarter inch higher, I'd be in the same boat, Balder. I've had to hand many otherwise suitable shoes back to sales clerks over a tight instep (and also for narrowness in the ball of the shoe).


----------



## Roikins (Mar 22, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> For whatever it's worth, President Obama wore a pair of split toe bluchers at his inauguration, thereby breaking the tradition of the past few presidents of wearing AE Park Avenues.


He seems to like those shoes as he's wearing them again in this photo. Although, the man in the jeans and wearing flip-flops is interesting since his jacket's last cuff button is undone.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Roikins said:


>


what a strange photo

footwear: flip-flops, oxfords, derbys, sneakers 
mixture in the clothes option too


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

ToryBoy said:


> what a strange photo
> 
> footwear: flip-flops, oxfords, derbys, sneakers
> mixture in the clothes option too


Very strange.

That is a nice shirt Obummer is wearing - I wonder who makes it?


----------



## Roikins (Mar 22, 2007)

ToryBoy said:


> what a strange photo
> 
> footwear: flip-flops, oxfords, derbys, sneakers
> mixture in the clothes option too


It's like a little of everything. I forgot .

"President Barack Obama talks with aides outside the U.S. Ambassador's residence in Paris before returning to Washington, June 7, 2009."


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

I come at the Blu-Bal + Suit equation with practicality. There are levels of formality or professionalism you achieve as you dress up and down. You can wear Bluchers with suit, and they look really good with more casual suits. The more serious you want to seem, the more Oxford you go and tend to trim it all back to the cap toe.

If you have some high level meeting at work one day, wear the cap toe Bals. When you don't have to be so immaculate or sternly presentable, you can wear Bluchers. 

These days I doubt 99% of people in your office would know or notice the difference in shoes between open or closed throated models.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

ToryBoy said:


> what a strange photo
> 
> footwear: flip-flops, oxfords, derbys, sneakers
> mixture in the clothes option too


Truer words have never been spoken...and so well!


----------



## rafa (Mar 31, 2009)

I've never understood the issue between oxfords and derbys. Maybe because I'm from California and work in high tech. I mean, will some of the senior members of this board not do good business with someone simply because that person is wearing the wrong shoe?

Anyway, I would not wear those shoes with navy or charcoal because of the color, not because of the split toe or because it is a derby. The shoes would look great with jeans and a good sportscoat at happy hour on Thursdays.

Oops. Didn't see page 2 of this thread. My comment is in context with the shoes on the first page.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

rafa said:


> I've never understood the issue between oxfords and derbys.


This type of discussion is primarily limited to forums such as this. I suspect that 99 out of 100 people don't know the difference, or care if they do. That isn't meant to imply that these things aren't fun to discuss here, but in the world at large they tend to become non-issues.

For example, I was 50 years old before I began wearing the "correct" shoe with my suits. I'm 60 now and I don't think anyone has noticed the change yet. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

My father notices the difference, but only in that he like oxfords are dislikes derbies. Therefore he will wear oxfords with anything and everything. It bothers me to see him wearing oxfords with a polo shirt.


----------



## Cottonshirt (Mar 15, 2009)

J.Marko said:


> It's funny that the blucher predates the balmoral, and I believe may predate the lounge suit, but is not considered "appropriate" to wear with one!


...as do the Wellington boot, open-toed sandals and clogs, but I wouldn't wear these with a lounge suit either.


----------



## Luis-F-S (Apr 6, 2009)

Frankly; since I own over 40 pairs of shoes (at least 18 AE's and several Aldens) and due to my high instep only two are Bals, I routinely wear bluchers with a business suit. My only Bals are patent and the Shelton. I'd much rather be able to stand on my feet and attend a function comfortably than satisfy some obscure sartorial edict. I suspect there are still far more longwings worn in the business world than probably most any single shoe.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

While in principle a Derby is less formal than an Oxford, there's still a considerable range, and a cap-toe or wingtip Derby may be sufficiently formal where a Norwegian or bicycle (blecchh) toe will not be. I doubt anyone will look askance if you turn up wearing EG Farringdons with a suit, either.


----------

