# LL Bean Ranger Oxford...



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

The OPH talks about this shoe as having a "thick sole (which) adds height, making it suitable for long walks." Cheesy description, yes...but I'm intrigued by it nonetheless. I know Bean no longer makes it and I've never actually seen a pair. I've read the few older threads that mention them and those who owned them, but does anyone still have them? Any pictures floating about (DocD, I'm counting on you here)? Is this Sebago shoe close to those original Ranger's?

https://sebago.com/Product/NGP/Classics-Handsewns/Mens/Cape-Horn.aspx

Curious...

TT:teacha:


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

TradTeacher said:


> The OPH talks about this shoe as having a "thick sole (which) adds height, making it suitable for long walks." Cheesy description, yes...but I'm intrigued by it nonetheless. I know Bean no longer makes it and I've never actually seen a pair. I've read the few older threads that mention them and those who owned them, but does anyone still have them? Any pictures floating about (DocD, I'm counting on you here)? Is this Sebago shoe close to those original Ranger's?
> 
> https://sebago.com/Product/NGP/Classics-Handsewns/Mens/Cape-Horn.aspx
> 
> ...


No.

The Ranger was basically the bean blucher in a lighter color leather (more tan) with a light tan rubber sole that had a molded heel - more like a rubber dress shoe sole/heel. As I remember it, the rubber sole and heel color was more like what you'd see on a desert boot, but I don't remember it being described as a gum sole. What you posted looks more like a boat shoe than a blucher moccasin.


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

Alas, this is the only picture I could find:






​The Ranger Moc was similar to the blucher, but taller and with a sturdier sole. They were great shoes (at least that's how I remember them).

You might find some of this discussion useful.

Cheers,

EGF


----------



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

Thanks. I guess I didn't realize it was more boot-like. 

I like the look of the shoe in that pic, Gads. Is that an actual Bean Ranger Moc pic or a similar looking shoe by a different maker? I'm assuming it's the former...

TT:teacha:


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

Here's a (much) bigger pic of the Bean Ranger Mocs, in their last incarnation:







​And here's an old and well-loved pair. Note the difference in color: I remember mine as being closer to the "brown" leather of the current bluchers than the dark shade shown above. Also note four eyelets vs. five; the design seems to have changed several times over the years:






​Quoddy doesn't show anything quite like this on their website, but I would think it would be a good seller for them. I'd buy them, anyway.

EGF


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

egadfly said:


> Alas, this is the only picture I could find:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No - this is not the Ranger Moccasin mentioned in the OPH. It's not the same shoes as Bean sold under that name up until circa. 1990. The Ranger in the OPH ,and the original style, was a low-cut shoe - like their blucher moccasin and the sole - maybe it was a crepe sole - was much thicker with a pronounced heel.


----------



## TradTeacher (Aug 25, 2006)

Here's a pair from Russell:

These have the crepe sole Rocker is talking about:
https://www.russellmoccasin.com/shoes_chukka/chukka_chukka.html

Close?

TT:teacha:


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

Rocker said:


> No - this is not the Ranger Moccasin mentioned in the OPH. It's not the same shoes as Bean sold under that name up until circa. 1990. The Ranger in the OPH ,and the original style, was a low-cut shoe - like their blucher moccasin and the sole - maybe it was a crepe sole - was much thicker with a pronounced heel.


Sorry, I've no idea what the OPH mentioned. My rangers looked like the "after" shot in my last post; the "before" pic is the last version of the shoe as sold by Bean on its website. However, as I said, the design -- and presumably also the source -- of the shoes changed over time.

I recall the soles of my mocs as being similar to the bluchers, but I may be misremembering. Certainly it was not a "crepe" sole.

EGF


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

TradTeacher said:


> These have the crepe sole Rocker is talking about: https://www.russellmoccasin.com/shoes_chukka/chukka_chukka.html


These are somewhat like the shoes I remember (though Rocker's recollection may differ from mine).

I would put the Rangers as somewhere between the Gokey "Sauvage" and .

EGF


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

I wasn't meaning to be argumentative about this. It's just that that original poster mentioned the Bean Ranger Moccasin being referred to in the OPH; all I was trying to say was that Bean doesn't sell the model that existed back when the OPH came out, the shoes he posted didn't really look like the Ranger and neither does the new Bean model.

Somewhere around my house I have a 1982 Bean Christmas catalog - I'll try to find it and post a scan of the shoe.


----------



## JBZ (Mar 28, 2005)

Hi all. I don't post here much anymore, but this thread caught my eye. If you like the style of Bean's ranger moc, Alden does something similar, albeit more expensive. Here's a link to the shoe on the Alden Shop website:

https://www.aldenshop.com/DrawOneShoe.asp?CategoryID=116


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

Rocker said:


> I wasn't meaning to be argumentative about this. It's just that that original poster mentioned the Bean Ranger Moccasin being referred to in the OPH; all I was trying to say was that Bean doesn't sell the model that existed back when the OPH came out, the shoes he posted didn't really look like the Ranger and neither does the new Bean model.
> 
> Somewhere around my house I have a 1982 Bean Christmas catalog - I'll try to find it and post a scan of the shoe.


Thanks -- no argument intended on this end, either.

As I recall, the Rangers I had looked more or less like the 'used' shoes I posted above, but I'd be very curious to see the 1982 version, if you can find the catalog; that's somewhere around the age mine would be if I still had them (maybe closer to 1985-86).

EGF


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I remember seeing the shoe that Bean called "Ranger Oxford" in the Bean catalogues from approximately 1981-82. Unfortunately, I never owned a pair. At that time, it was a lower cut shoe than what's pictured above -- it had nothing of an "ankle boot" look to it. The heel was more like the heel on a dress shoe, not like the heel on the blucher moc.


----------



## dustindeed (Nov 17, 2006)

from what people are describing, it sounds like the current might be similar to the ranger oxford of old.


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

I owned a pair of the Bean Ranger Oxfords in the mid-1980s. Bought them at a tent sale in Freeport. They had thicker rubber soles, with a more pronounced heel that any of the other shoes posted on this thread. The upper was similar to the Blucher moccasin, though it was a thicker leather. For some reason I think it was elk. The color was described as mocha. A number of years back I wrote Bean asking if they'd ever reintroduce the Ranger Oxford, as they were amoung the most comfortable and versatile informal shoes I've owned. They responded by bringing my attention to another shoe that they called a Ranger, but was nowhere the same quality.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

xcubbies said:


> I owned a pair of the Bean Ranger Oxfords in the mid-1980s. Bought them at a tent sale in Freeport. They had thicker rubber soles, with a more pronounced heel that any of the other shoes posted on this thread. The upper was similar to the Blucher moccasin, though it was a thicker leather. For some reason I think it was elk. The color was described as mocha. A number of years back I wrote Bean asking if they'd ever reintroduce the Ranger Oxford, as they were amoung the most comfortable and versatile informal shoes I've owned. They responded by bringing my attention to another shoe that they called a Ranger, but was nowhere the same quality.


That sounds exactly like the one I remember and is the one being described in the OPH.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Yes xcubbies, that's the shoe I remember from the catalogs of that period.


----------

