# Bluchers with suits?



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Never mind, I found answer to the rest, however....

I would love to just wear my Lasalles for my meeting next week, but was wondering if maybe I should bite the bullet and pick up the Black Hales I saw at Nordstrom Rack ($219) and have my Black Bal / Evening shoe covered for the rest of my life?

Is the Chili color too light for a Charcol suit? I neither like nor want to look like the typical engineer in the Black pants and Black shoe look.

Thanks,

MC


----------



## Kelorth (Apr 29, 2009)

Use the search function, there are several post concerning your specific question.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Of note, the 'Players' in walnut calf from Nordstrom aren't Players, they're McAllisters (I'm wearing mine today, with a charcoal pinstripe suit).

Blutchers can routinely be worn with a suit, as I wear my MacNeils with a suit regularly. Balmorals are, however, more formal.

No, the chili is plenty dark for charcoal. As stated, I wear walnut with charcoal, much to the chagrin of some. I'm wearing this up top, and I think it goes together nicely.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Far be it for me give my personal opinion as to whether you should buy black Hales to wear with your charcoal suit or wear Chili Lasalles, however, I can set out a bit about the Anglo American tradition.

The most formal shoes, ("formal" used in the sense of more or less "dressy") are cap toe bals of which the AE Park Ave is an example. https://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF270_1_40000000001_-1

A bal is a closed laced shoe. The eyelets for the laces are in the vamp of the shoe.

The more decoration a shoe has the less formal it becomes. Thus the Hale is less formal than the Park Ave. because it has more decoration.

Hale

Even less formal is a brougue like the McAllister, because it has more decoration than the Hale.

Less formal than bals are bluchers, which are open laced shoes in which the laces are tied to two pieces or leather sewed onto the vamp.

Just as is the case with bals, the less decoration, the more formal. Thus the most formal blucher is a plain toe like theKenilworth:

Again, the more decoration, the less formality:

Madison Ave

A very informal shoe is the moccasin, a shoe in which the top is sewn on. A simple version is the Aztec:

A moccasin can be laced, blucher style:

The Lasalle is a form of moccasin with blucher lacing know as the Norwegian, in particular a split toe Norwegian because of the stitching on the toe.

Lasalle

The split toe Norwegian is an informal shoe, albeit more formal than an unlaced Norwegian like the penny loafer:

A solid charcoal suit is among the most formal suits. Traditionally, men have worn shoes of approximately the same level of formality as their suit.

Traditionally only bals were worn with city suits, ( "city" as contrasted with "country" suits like a glen plaid) like your charcoal. Today that tradition is not strictly observed, however, those knowledgeable men who may wear relatively formal bluchers with their city suits still wear bals on the most important occasions.

Black is the most formal color for shoes, although sophisticated dressers in the 30s began wearing dark brown with city suits. Still, whether black or brown, it is the tradition that shoes are as dark as the suit, or only a little lighter, eg. dark brown shoes with a charcoal suit.

The lighter the shoe, the more informal it is. Besides tradition there is an aesthetic reason that shoes are not noticeably lighter than one's suit and that is because the eye is drawn to lighter objects. When a man wears light shoes the observer's eye is drawn away from the man's face down to his shoes. While the light shoes may garner compliments like "nice shoes", especially from women, this is because the shoes stand out, not the man. While chili is marginally darker than walnut, it is quite a bit lighter than dark brown

To summarize, in the world of laced shoes, the Lasalle is quite informal, because it is a Norwegian by style and a chili by color. I would wear them with a summer cotton or linen suit but not with a charcoal suit, especially on an important occasion. By the way, a man in a charcoal suit with black bals like the Hale will not be mistaken for a man with black pants.


----------



## new shoes (Sep 2, 2011)

Would I buy a LaSalle for the purpose of wearing it with a suit? No, because I think it is a little too casual for that purpose and looks better with wool slacks. I would not hesitate, however, to wear it with a suit if I needed to. I would wear the LaSalles for your meeting and hold off on buying a more formal suit shoe until you are more sure on what you want and have found a good price.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

There are lots of threads on this matter. I have said many times, and at some length, that the claim of "bluchers are casual" is one of the most over-exagerated bits of forum lore. Many, many factors go into the formality of a shoe, including the color of the leather, the texture of the leather, the structure of the shoe, the sole material, the sole width, the amount of decoration, and last and *just about least*, the lace configuration.

I have a pair of plain black captoed bluchers - the same mediocre Cole Haans I suspect you're referencing. They were bought several years ago, and have slightly better leather than what is sold now, but they're no great shakes. I have worn them many times with a dark suit for court appearances or the like, particularly where I figured nicer shoes might draw unwanted attention/assumptions, or be scuffed during public transit use. In contrast, I have a pair of pebble-grained tan brouges with closed lacing. In addition to being significantly higher in quality, there is no doubt that they are *less* formal than the open-laced plain black pair. The point: to the extent lacing impacts formality, its signal is swamped by the signals from all the other characteristics of the shoe.

I would further point out that the Cole Haans you reference seem to have become the single most common pair of laced business shoes among professionals and senior business folks - probably because they represent the upper price that a person uninterested in clothes will pay for a pair of shoes, and the bottom level of quality and a person who is interested will tolerate. I have interviewed many lawyers and lawyers-to-be wearing those shoes. They have never interfered with an offer being extended to an otherwise desirable candidate.

For many men with a high arch, bluchers are the easiest way to get a pair of shoes that fit without spending $3k on bespoke. Most of the time, the lacing is mostly concealed by the bottom of a man's trouser's anyway.

I could go on and on. The short version is this: If you are concerned about social acceptance, disregard whether the lacing is open or closed and pay attention to other aspects of the shoe that will actually communicate to something other than the most fanatic clothes hobbyist. If you care simply because you care, or because _you_ prefer closed laces, fine. BTW, I think my shoes run about 6 pairs of bals for every blucher. I like bals. I just think that, in practical terms, there is *NO RULE AGAINST WEARING BLUCHERS WITH SUITS, EVEN FOR INTERVIEWS. *That is all.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I still think it looks odd to pair a dark worsted suit with bluchers. Doesn't lace configuration come before structure and after color?

I always wear black shoes with a closed lacing with a dark suit, I think that's a more 'even' look.


----------



## Gromson (Oct 11, 2009)

99% of people will only notice that you are wearing shoes. Only the "AAAC" crowd types will actually notice, and less than that will actually care, if you are wearing bals vs bluchers.

If you look at least vaguely 'dressy' you'll be fine.


----------



## Poindexter (Jul 22, 2010)

Gromson said:


> 99% of people will only notice that you are wearing shoes. Only the "AAAC" crowd types will actually notice, and less than that will actually care, if you are wearing bals vs bluchers.


Word.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Gentlemen,
Blucher's or Derby's with a suit, no. Wellingtons, all correct.
Black or grey shoe or pull-on boot with grey suit, yes. Two-tone black and grey bals, maybe in a grey suit depending on the day (any grey shoe is always verboten in some circles).
Grey suits in the evening, no.
Patent shoes not before evening unless the event is intended to run into evening... Not really Kosher, but Sliiiiide... by if you are a man who may carry the weight with the assembled company. Similarly, patent slippers, not black, not black tie evening event, depending on the company you keep, fine. (But a matter of questionable taste among some knowledgeable persons._
Formal evening shoes, patent leather loafer with silk grosgrain bow, or (might as well be) top-sider flip-flop shower shoes, patent leather bals be damned with black tie, unless military or former which is a pass for Merit by Service; Thank you very much--forever in your debt: wear whatever you please, anytime anywhere. You may quote me on that. 
As you may guess, I am very tolerant of the apparel choices made by other gentlemen with whom I am not an intimate, familiar with their personal history, and invited to comment. One is not given the privilege of opinion about others in ordinary circumstances, therefore, I generally assume they may do as they please without my opinion being inflicted upon them without some exceptional just cause. 
YMMV,
rudy
(But if you don't listen when Alan speaks, you overestimate your prospects, I think.)


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I have remarked many times before, but I'll repeat myself again, that I have never seen this "no bluchers with a suit" rule in any printed guide to men's style--not in Flusser, not in Roetzel, nor elsewhere. It seems to exist mostly in the world of the clothing fora. I'll have to say I rather prefer bluchers for wear with a casual suit.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I'll have to say I rather prefer bluchers for wear with a casual suit.


It's hard to argue with that. I think the people who say that only oxfords should be worn with suits are thinking mostly about dark worsteds. Even so, I also consider 2/3-eyelet derby shoes and monk shoes to be amongst the most elegant of shoes and still quite appropriate with a dark suit.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Matt S said:


> It's hard to argue with that. I think the people who say that only oxfords should be worn with suits are thinking mostly about dark worsteds. Even so, I also consider 2/3-eyelet derby shoes and monk shoes to be amongst the most elegant of shoes and still quite appropriate with a dark suit.


I was thinking only of dark worsteds...


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Triathelete: Relax, take a deep breath and wear those chili calf LaSalles. You will look fine and I suspect the only actual comments you might hear as a result, will be complimentary. Most folks do not obsess over such minor considerations, as we herein seem prone to do! Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide us feedback as to how things went, after your meeting?


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Thanks. I will relax and do what you say. You know, it's kind of funny, this whole obsession thing. As you can see by my username, I am a Triathlete. You want to talk about obsessing over the small details! Don't even get me started on how to squeeze 15 seconds out of a 25 mile bike split!!!


----------



## lbv2k (Feb 16, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> There are lots of threads on this matter. I have said many times, and at some length, that the claim of "bluchers are casual" is one of the most over-exagerated bits of forum lore. Many, many factors go into the formality of a shoe, including the color of the leather, the texture of the leather, the structure of the shoe, the sole material, the sole width, the amount of decoration, and last and *just about least*, the lace configuration.
> 
> I have a pair of plain black captoed bluchers - the same mediocre Cole Haans I suspect you're referencing. They were bought several years ago, and have slightly better leather than what is sold now, but they're no great shakes. I have worn them many times with a dark suit for court appearances or the like, particularly where I figured nicer shoes might draw unwanted attention/assumptions, or be scuffed during public transit use. In contrast, I have a pair of pebble-grained tan brouges with closed lacing. In addition to being significantly higher in quality, there is no doubt that they are *less* formal than the open-laced plain black pair. The point: to the extent lacing impacts formality, its signal is swamped by the signals from all the other characteristics of the shoe.
> 
> ...


Very well said CD. very well said.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

Triathlete said:


> Thanks. I will relax and do what you say. You know, it's kind of funny, this whole obsession thing. As you can see by my username, I am a Triathlete. You want to talk about obsessing over the small details! Don't even get me started on how to squeeze 15 seconds out of a 25 mile bike split!!!


You are focusing on the wrong thing, it is the transitions that you can make up that 15 seconds. 

I know, what you are saying, though, you never want the equipment to be a possible excuse for your results- you want it out of the equation. This site has made me question wearing black shortwings with a dark colored worsted suit many times, and my current obsession with finding my bal captoes. 
Yet, no matter the occasion or location, my dress is at par or better with most in the room.

I think if you have the means having a couple of options in shoes is great, just to have a rotation, and remove any doubts.

Now what about Wholecuts.... where do these fall? It's a ball, some have designs others don't, where do these fall in the perceived hierarchy of shoe appropriateness?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Wholecuts are a fairly new design. Many people mistakenly believe they must be at the top of the formality pyramid because they are simpler, but that's a falacy. First, simplicity is not synonymous with formality in men's dress - otherwise, formal trousers wouldn't have cashmere stripes in the day and piping down the sides at night. Second, formality is not derived from some objective formula, but through an aggregation of socially-contingent rules/expectations/agreements/prejudices. 

I have never done a scientific survey, but I suspect that a wholecut actually reads as slightly less formal to most observers, in that a very plain toe is rarely seen on dress shoes, but is common on casual shoes. A plain-toed conventional bal has history on its side, such that those who feel that way can be dismissed (if the wearer wishes) as ignorant, but wholecuts don't have any such pedigree. In my mind, at least, they represent a fashion-forward choice that stand on their own aesthetic merit (or lack thereof) without the force of history to back them. They strike me as effeminate, but not improper. That's just my reaction.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Wholecuts are a fairly new design. Many people mistakenly believe they must be at the top of the formality pyramid because they are simpler, but that's a falacy. First, simplicity is not synonymous with formality in men's dress - otherwise, formal trousers wouldn't have cashmere stripes in the day and piping down the sides at night. Second, formality is not derived from some objective formula, but through an aggregation of socially-contingent rules/expectations/agreements/prejudices.
> 
> I have never done a scientific survey, but I suspect that a wholecut actually reads as slightly less formal to most observers, in that a very plain toe is rarely seen on dress shoes, but is common on casual shoes. A plain-toed conventional bal has history on its side, such that those who feel that way can be dismissed (if the wearer wishes) as ignorant, but wholecuts don't have any such pedigree. In my mind, at least, they represent a fashion-forward choice that stand on their own aesthetic merit (or lack thereof) without the force of history to back them. They strike me as effeminate, but not improper. That's just my reaction.


I'm with CD on the formality of wholecuts. I reach for my McAllisters (wingtip bal) over the Fairfax (brogue wholecut) every time when in a suit. Frankly, I'll wear horsebit loafers many times over the Fairfax as well (I have them in black and chestnut).


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Wholecuts are a fairly new design. Many people mistakenly believe they must be at the top of the formality pyramid because they are simpler, but that's a falacy. First, simplicity is not synonymous with formality in men's dress - otherwise, formal trousers wouldn't have cashmere stripes in the day and piping down the sides at night. Second, formality is not derived from some objective formula, but through an aggregation of socially-contingent rules/expectations/agreements/prejudices.
> 
> I have never done a scientific survey, but I suspect that a wholecut actually reads as slightly less formal to most observers, in that a very plain toe is rarely seen on dress shoes, but is common on casual shoes. A plain-toed conventional bal has history on its side, such that those who feel that way can be dismissed (if the wearer wishes) as ignorant, but wholecuts don't have any such pedigree. In my mind, at least, they represent a fashion-forward choice that stand on their own aesthetic merit (or lack thereof) without the force of history to back them. They strike me as effeminate, but not improper. That's just my reaction.


Yes, wholecuts are a fairly new design. Where shoes are concerned, it is accurate to say, that with very few exceptions, the simpler the the more formal the shoe. One of the few exceptions is the wholecut, which as you suggest, has been, and continues to be considered fashion forward. (it is interesting that 'fashion forward" when referencing wholecuts is not as radical as the term can be used to reference say "skinny suits").

As far as I can tell, the most appropriate use is with a suit, worn in the evening, on social occasions. As I am fairly conventional most of the time this is how I wear my plain, no perforations, black pair.

Your observation, " formality is not derived from some objective formula, but through an aggregation of socially-contingent rules/expectations/agreements/prejudices" strikes me as most sound, something that everyone should always keep in mind.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I'm with CD on the formality of wholecuts. I reach for my McAllisters (wingtip bal) over the Fairfax (brogue wholecut) every time when in a suit. Frankly, I'll wear horsebit loafers many times over the Fairfax as well (I have them in black and chestnut).


I was very disappointed with the Fairfax. AE could have emulated CJ's Weymouth https://www.bensilver.com/The-Weymouth-Oxford-in-Dark-Brown,6117.html but instead of putting the perforations on the toe, and then leaving well enough alone, they had to go keep punching holes.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

I wanna wear *these *with my charcoal suit! :icon_saint7kg:









And they have both open lacing *and* punch decoration!

I've also read the suggestion that bluchers don't work with suits. I think Will B. at ASW may have once suggested it in his blog, though I'm not certain.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Flanderian said:


> I wanna wear *these *with my charcoal suit! :icon_saint7kg:
> 
> View attachment 3505
> 
> ...


....and they are dark, and on a sleek last !!!! (can't tell from monitor if they are black or very dark brown)

There are bluchers and there are bluchers; style and color count for something. To my mind, because they are sleek and dark, these shoes are fine with a charcoal suit. On the other hand, a light colored, split toe Norwegian is not appropriate for business, once again, style and color count for something.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
They are burgundy/Oxblood on my monitor...and very handsome, I might add!


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> I was very disappointed with the Fairfax. AE could have emulated CJ's Weymouth https://www.bensilver.com/The-Weymouth-Oxford-in-Dark-Brown,6117.html but instead of putting the perforations on the toe, and then leaving well enough alone, they had to go keep punching holes.


I agree with those sentiments, but AE has, and always will be, a very American style oriented company. The C&J are quite notably British (or European, in general), whilst the AEs are quite the American take on a wholecut. For the cost of the Fairfax (discounted seconds), I'm quite happy with them, and would look elsewhere for a medallion toed wholecut.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

arkirshner said:


> ....and they are dark, and on a sleek last !!!! (can't tell from monitor if they are black or very dark brown)
> 
> There are bluchers and there are bluchers; style and color count for something. To my mind, because they are sleek and dark, these shoes are fine with a charcoal suit. On the other hand, a light colored, split toe Norwegian is not appropriate for business, once again, style and color count for something.


They're espresso brown calf made by Perry Ercolino. And that they are sleek and dark is also the reason I find them "dressy." Think they should work rather well with navy also.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> They are burgundy/Oxblood on my monitor


Yes, the espresso brown does look pretty close to oxblood in the photo.


----------



## M Go Crimson (Aug 20, 2011)

A bit off topic, but would/have any of gents wear balms with jeans? I wear McAllisters in walnut with jeans quite frequently. (I'm in my early-mid 20s, don't bite my head off for wearing jeans please)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
I would certainly wear my walnut calf McAllisters with my Levi 501's and probably have on past, but, alas, forgotten occassions. However, my response to your question is driven more by the walnut color, rather than the Balmoral design of the shoes. The walnut color really works with casual!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Wearing dress shoes with jeans or other very casual pants looks odd to me. I know it's a youth/fashion trend, but I find it unattractive, not least because I did so for the first 18 years of my life. Then I learned better. And the only reason I did so as youngster was that my wardrobe consisted of only two pairs of shoes, (Other than gym sneakers.) and *both *were dress shoes as they had to serve for the most formal of occasions (Going to church.) to the least (Playing football.) One pair was largely worn out, and the other was soon to be so.

So once released from ignorance and penury, I had no desire to return.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Have ordered these and intend to wear hem with jeans and chinos and other casual trousers:



Wasn't looking for a double monk but they were very cheap on sale and I've wanted to try Bexley out to see if they are any good (for the money).


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

Respectfully, I disagree. My wife notices these kinds of things all the time. I have many female friends who notice AND feel it is their duty to point it out to people. Men, probably not so concerned about it, except for the "AAAC crowd types."

My opinion on the pairing is that it looks a bit odd. 


Gromson said:


> 99% of people will only notice that you are wearing shoes. Only the "AAAC" crowd types will actually notice, and less than that will actually care, if you are wearing bals vs bluchers.
> 
> If you look at least vaguely 'dressy' you'll be fine.


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

In the immortal words of a previous poster . . .

"WORD!"



RM Bantista said:


> Gentlemen,
> Blucher's or Derby's with a suit, no. Wellingtons, all correct.
> Black or grey shoe or pull-on boot with grey suit, yes. Two-tone black and grey bals, maybe in a grey suit depending on the day (any grey shoe is always verboten in some circles).
> Grey suits in the evening, no.
> ...


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Bernie Zack said:


> Respectfully, I disagree. My wife notices these kinds of things all the time. I have many female friends who notice AND feel it is their duty to point it out to people. Men, probably not so concerned about it, except for the "AAAC crowd types."
> 
> My opinion on the pairing is that it looks a bit odd.


Women have a knack for noticing shoes, period. When questioned (and I've done so with 'professionals' in the fashion industry), they have no idea of the difference between a blutcher, balmoral, wing tip, long wing, cap toe, etc.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

I wear my Delrays with dark suits. What do you guys think of that?

https://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF1208_1_40000000001_-1


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

triklops55 said:


> I wear my Delrays with dark suits. What do you guys think of that?
> 
> https://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF1208_1_40000000001_-1


Because of the split toe, I think there are usually better options, but the Delray is fine in my view especially if you are trying to tone down the suit's formality just a bit. Depending on circumstances I wear tassel as well as bit loafers with dark suits, and I would not view the Delray, in black, as really being all that more informal.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

triklops55 said:


> I wear my Delrays with dark suits. What do you guys think of that?
> 
> https://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF1208_1_40000000001_-1


As Mr. Petrik points out, there are better choices. If the number of shoes in your rotation requires you wear them with suits, so be it. That they are black raises the formality just are that they are split toe Norwegians lowers the formality. To my mind, the best pairing for black split toe Norwegians is with mid grey pants and a blazer.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I think the black split-toes would also be a fine combination with a glen plaid suit. Those who espouse the "no bluchers with suits" supposed-rule forget that the convention used to be that many of the suits worn to the office today would have been confined to the race track, golf course, or shooting field in the olden days. If you're being so bold as to wear a suit with a colored check to the office, then you can probably also risk a split toe on your shoe.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

I figured AAAC fellas would object to the split toe. I am pretty short of black shoes, except for loafers and bluchers, and don't want to buy a pair of Park Avenues to wear with my suits, because I don't really want to look like every other guy reading this forum, or too businesslike.

I don't wear suits to the office, but rather for nights out to the ballet, opera, good restaurants and the such. I doubt anyone would say: (gasp) "Can you believe it? He's wearing shoes with a split toe and a suit!"

IMO, the Delrays work fine with navy suits. They are sleek, have a leather sole, are quite plain by most standards and mine have a really good shine from years of diligent polishing. But then, I would also wear light colored shoes (double gasp) with a blue suit in the daytime.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

triklops55 said:


> I figured AAAC fellas would object to the split toe. I am pretty short of black shoes, except for loafers and bluchers, and don't want to buy a pair of Park Avenues to wear with my suits, because I don't really want to look like every other guy reading this forum, or too businesslike.
> 
> I don't wear suits to the office, but rather for nights out to the ballet, opera, good restaurants and the such. I doubt anyone would say: (gasp) "Can you believe it? He's wearing shoes with a split toe and a suit!"
> 
> IMO, the Delrays work fine with navy suits. They are sleek, have a leather sole, are quite plain by most standards and mine have a really good shine from years of diligent polishing. But then, I would also wear light colored shoes (double gasp) with a blue suit in the daytime.


There have been no objections. The comments here simply set out the Anglo-American tradition as to split toes with suits . There has not been a gasp, or double gasp, for many, many years. The last icons fell well before the start of the current millennium. You may wear what you want , whenever you want, wherever you want, and unless you walk into a bank with a firearm you will never hear a gasp.

The strongest male tradition is the tradition of attempting to attract women. When you go out in the evening if the women you are with like your shoes, (and women do look at shoes), you have chosen well.


----------

