# Blucher Moc vs Camp Moc



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

I'm just curious as to people's opinions/preferences on both styles- I've been very happy with my Rancourt penny loafers and was looking at a second pair of shoes from them. Also, interested in any opinions on red brick soles vs brown soles.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

My preference is for the Blucher Moc design. I do have a pair of four eyelet mocs fitted with a red brick camp sole, but alas, they are a Quoddy Trail design, rather than a Rancourt design. However, I do have six pair of Rancourt's and have been thrilled with the performance of each! Good luck in your hunt. :thumbs-up:


----------



## maximar (Jan 11, 2010)

I always admired Blucher mocs for the look and support but I get the Camp bec of sheer lacing laziness. I have a both red brick and brown sole. I like the brown better bec the red doesn't look nice when dirty.


----------



## financialguy (Jun 24, 2017)

While I don't wear either (I'm a boat shoe guy), I much prefer the camp moc over the clunky looking Blucher moc. If I'm going to wear something like either of those, however, I choose some old Eastland moc toed boots that I've had for a good 20 years.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

Which? A tough choice for any Trad, even a Professor.

The correct answer is: both.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL.
Your post, Fraser Tartan, leaves me to wrestle with one of those proverbial intellectual conundrums: are we talking footwear or fellow castawaysicon_scratch?


----------



## ClarenceRogerVictorShir (Sep 2, 2016)

Sockless with Camp Moc? Acceptable

Sockless with Blucher Moc? Don't think so


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL.
> Your post, Fraser Tartan, leaves me to wrestle with one of those proverbial intellectual conundrums: are we talking footwear or fellow castawaysicon_scratch?


Once again, the correct answer is: both. 

I think camp mocs are more interesting to look at but I find that blucher mocs fit me better thanks to the lacing. They are more adjustable.


----------



## August West (Aug 1, 2013)

ClarenceRogerVictorShirley said:


> Sockless with Blucher Moc? Don't think so


I respectfully disagree. To my eye the only socks that look correct with a blucher moc are chunky wigwams and the like. For warm weather blucher wearing, sockless is the way to go.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## frankmartin (Mar 4, 2014)

I have two pairs of Rancourt blucher mocs (Baxter ranger mocs in both colors) and two pairs of camp mocs (brown/brown Gilman and chocolate bison Sherman). I wear the camp mocs more. I do wear both without socks. I actually wear the Gilman camp mocs the most. I bought all of them TTS. 
Red brick soles might make them less versatile, but I like them.


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

Fraser Tartan said:


> Once again, the correct answer is: both.
> 
> I think camp mocs are more interesting to look at but I find that blucher mocs fit me better thanks to the lacing. They are more adjustable.


What about the ankle high Ranger Mocs?

So all 3?

I have Rangers and Camp Mocs from Bean. I only wear the Camp Mocs inside the house and on the deck. I also think they are all fine with socks.


----------



## Walter Denton (Sep 11, 2011)

I would first buy whatever you think you might wear more often. Camp mocs were the first shoes I ever bought on my own more than 50 years ago but in recent years I haven't owned a pair. Boat shoes serve the same purpose for me now and I find them slightly more comfortable for walking. I always have a pair of blucher mocs available but I tend to wear them more in the fall and winter here in NC and always with Wigwam socks. They get much less wear than most of my other shoes. I'm lazy and I prefer to wear shoes that I don't have to tie every time I put them on.


----------



## TallLefty21 (Jul 19, 2016)

I just went through this decision last month. 

I bought a pair of Rancourt's penny loafers in early 2017 and wanted to add another pair, either the camp mocs or the blucher mocs. I went with the Gilman Camp Mocs, they got delivered last week. They are more versatile and personally more visually pleasing than blucher mocs and the loafer aspect was the cherry on top. Having a bad back and all I wear loafers as often as possible. I anticipate wearing them all F/W whenever there isn't a snowpack on the ground. That being said, I'm sure I'll add a pair of blucher mocs in the next 12 months to complete the holy trinity.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Can anyone address the differences between these blucher mocs?

*LLB men's handsewn blucher moc:*
https://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/11575?feat=moc-SR0&page=men-s-handsewn-moccasins-blucher-moc&csp=a

*LLB signature handsewn Jackman blucher moc:*
https://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/764...e-handsewn-jackman-blucher-mocs-leather&csp=a

...and, is there a better option than these for a comparable price?


----------



## WillBarrett (Feb 18, 2012)

OF is in Houston. It is almost always acceptable to sockless that far South unless business or ceremony dictate otherwise.


----------



## TallLefty21 (Jul 19, 2016)

gamma68 said:


> Can anyone address the differences between these blucher mocs?
> 
> *LLB men's handsewn blucher moc:*
> https://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/11575?feat=moc-SR0&page=men-s-handsewn-moccasins-blucher-moc&csp=a
> ...


I don't think it's hyperbole to call the handsewn ones an embarrassment. They look and feel as pleathery as a shoe possibly can. If you want to go the LL Bean route, spend the extra $10 and get the Signature Jackmans.

I have the Jackman Bluchers in Green, they're a big step up from the handsewn ones. Better, more substantial leather. I would say they're slightly more narrow than the handsewns. I got them for $40 so I'm very pleased given the price tag. At $99 they're a pretty good offering IMO. They're nowhere near as comfortable as Rancourts, obviously, but for $99 I imagine you won't find much better. Plus there's a 15% off sale going on right now.

Here are the two side by side from last year's Black Friday sale.


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

Signature moc is leather lined, the leather feels thicker, comes with both leather and rope laces, and is a much better value for the $10 difference IMHO.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Thanks, TallLefty21 and Fred. This is the kind of information I was seeking.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Does anyone know where the LLB Jackman Mocs are made? It says in the description "imported, components US made and imported"


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

I think it's the leather laces that are made in USA.


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

orange fury said:


> Does anyone know where the LLB Jackman Mocs are made? It says in the description "imported, components US made and imported"


A buyer in one of the online reviews said they were made in El Salvador. Reviews are very mixed. I might seek another brand, like Eastland or Sebago.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Most definitely purchase the Signature moc!



gamma68 said:


> Thanks, TallLefty21 and Fred. This is the kind of information I was seeking.


----------



## Dave (Mar 17, 2003)

Oldsport said:


> Most definitely purchase the Signature moc!


Forget about the current Bean Blucher Mocs (regular and Signature alike)! Instead, start monitoring eBay for vintage, made-in-USA blucher mocs, be they Bean Bluchers, Sebago Campsides, Eastland Falmouth, or Bass (whatever they called their blucher mocs back in the day)!

Obviously, as you can see in my avatar, I'm biased.


----------



## Semper Jeep (Oct 11, 2011)

I vastly prefer the blucher mocs over the camp moc style and have absolutely no problem going sockless in either.


----------



## swils8610 (Mar 12, 2016)

Camp Mocs for me...Quoddy. I have 3 diff pairs. 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## gamma68 (Mar 24, 2013)

Dave said:


> Forget about the current Bean Blucher Mocs (regular and Signature alike)! Instead, start monitoring eBay for vintage, made-in-USA blucher mocs, be they Bean Bluchers, Sebago Campsides, Eastland Falmouth, or Bass (whatever they called their blucher mocs back in the day)!


I followed your suggestion and found a pair of lightly worn USA-made Eastland blucher mocs in my size on eBay. Purchase made. I'm not sure if they're the Falmouth or not, but I'm looking forward to receiving them.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

I think of bluchers as my cold weather boat shoe, though I do occasionally wear them during Summer without socks.

I don't _need_ camp mocs, but I still want a pair.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Dave said:


> Forget about the current Bean Blucher Mocs (regular and Signature alike)! Instead, start monitoring eBay for vintage, made-in-USA blucher mocs, be they Bean Bluchers, Sebago Campsides, Eastland Falmouth, or Bass (whatever they called their blucher mocs back in the day)!
> 
> Obviously, as you can see in my avatar, I'm biased.


I'll reply even though this thread might be dead. My experience compels me to make a few comments. First, vintage is not necessarily a good idea for these shoes. I once bought a pair of perfect Sebago Campsides. The only problem is that the glue in them dies, and so the entire sole came off on the first wearing. I paid a cobbler to reglue the unworn Vibram sole, but it came off again almost immediately. Can't remember if I threw them away or gave them to somebody. I had the same experience with a pair of vintage Clark Wallabees. An entire sole fell away. They went into the garbage. Not worth taking a chance on repairs imo.

I had a pair of Rancourt camp mocs. IMO they make a great driving shoe. But I'm a lecturer who spends a lot of time on my feet. They didn't give me the support I needed. I tried a pair of Bean Signature Rangers. They were much better, so I gave the Rancourts to a relative with the same size feet. He loves them, and I love the Beans. Later, when Bean had a sale, I bought another ranger in a different colour, and bought 2 pair of their camp mocs in different colours. I value those 4 pair of shoes, and have no regrets about parting with the (admittedly beautiful) Rancourts. So at this point, my advice is to get the Bean Signatures--which are often available at a discount.


----------



## ROI (Aug 1, 2004)

orange fury said:


> I'm just curious as to people's opinions/preferences on both styles- I've been very happy with my Rancourt penny loafers and was looking at a second pair of shoes from them. Also, interested in any opinions on red brick soles vs brown soles.


I just resolved this quandary myself. Already in the closet is a pair of camp mocs from Quoddy and a pair of two-eyelet boat shoes from Rancourt. Just a few days ago, I went to the Rancourt site to assemble a custom four-eyelet blucher. In the back of my mind I was pretty sure I would go with the red sole. I think the red sole is just snotty. Ultimately, however, I decided on a sole that would be practical in fall/winter: a nobby Vibram. Here's the postcard of my design that Rancourt sent me:

In six months, I'll work up another dream shoe. The Quoddys are getting beat, stretched out, and the eyelets have popped out of the leather. Maybe a Rancourt camp moc with a red sole. Snotty.

I


----------



## xcubbies (Jul 31, 2005)

P Hudson said:


> I'll reply even though this thread might be dead. My experience compels me to make a few comments. First, vintage is not necessarily a good idea for these shoes. I once bought a pair of perfect Sebago Campsides. The only problem is that the glue in them dies, and so the entire sole came off on the first wearing. I paid a cobbler to reglue the unworn Vibram sole, but it came off again almost immediately. Can't remember if I threw them away or gave them to somebody. I had the same experience with a pair of vintage Clark Wallabees. An entire sole fell away. They went into the garbage. Not worth taking a chance on repairs imo.
> 
> I had a pair of Rancourt camp mocs. IMO they make a great driving shoe. But I'm a lecturer who spends a lot of time on my feet. They didn't give me the support I needed. I tried a pair of Bean Signature Rangers. They were much better, so I gave the Rancourts to a relative with the same size feet. He loves them, and I love the Beans. Later, when Bean had a sale, I bought another ranger in a different colour, and bought 2 pair of their camp mocs in different colours. I value those 4 pair of shoes, and have no regrets about parting with the (admittedly beautiful) Rancourts. So at this point, my advice is to get the Bean Signatures--which are often available at a discount.


Good quality shoes should be sewn, not glued to the sole.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^(ref post #29) ROI, Just a point of interest...
Is "snotty" a positive or a negative characterization? I sense from the text of your posting, it is a positive...yes, no? :icon_scratch:


----------



## ROI (Aug 1, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(ref post #29) ROI, Just a point of interest...
> Is "snotty" a positive or a negative characterization? I sense from the text of your posting, it is a positive...yes, no? :icon_scratch:


Snotty" is a term of mixed approbation and warning you hear among a certain class of menswear retailers and other clothing mavens. Snotty is a label of taste snobbery, as if something is so sophisticated that the general populace would not appreciate it. In this case, putting red rubber soles on a camp moc where you'd expect to find black or brown is entry-level snotty. You might hear something referred to as snotty at Alan Flusser's shop - a horizontally striped dress shirt, for instance, or an exotic combination of four plaid elements in one outfit. The kind of clothes or clothing details that appeal to clothing snobs are snotty.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Thank you, sir, for the clarification. I was truly confused and am now not!


----------

