# Bluchers with a suit? Connery as Bond thought so...



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

Please forgive the shoddy photo. This was the coffin scene in diamonds are forever.

Of course, I realize that James Bond movies aren't the baseline we should be basing our standards on but I just thought it was noteworthy.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

I don't think it's good taste to wear shoes that are inappropriate with a suit when wearing a suit. I don't think bluchers are always inappropriate with suits -- that is, there are bluchers that are well within the bounds of good taste that would be a terrible choice with a business suit. Most bals that aren't egregiously tacky for one reason or another work reasonably well with a suit. The idea that bluchers never work with suits is just bizarre -- if we include more casual suits in the equation, at least.

Also, as Matt S.'s blog proves, Roger Moore wore loafers with a suit as James Bond, and Connery wears a super-short, super-wide pink tie in _Diamonds._ My opinion, for sartorial admirers of fictional secret agents, is that it's better to wear your clothes like James Bond than to wear clothes like James Bond's.


----------



## DoghouseReilly (Jul 25, 2010)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I don't think it's good taste to wear shoes that are inappropriate with a suit when wearing a suit.


Youthful, do you have an example of a blucher that wouldn't work with a suit?

I like Medwards' explanation on the differences of a blucher and balmoral. Bluchers may have had a country connotation at some point, but I don't believe they do nowadays. In the States, at least. That leads to an interesting question: if bluchers are country wear, what are Steve Maddens? 

I wear bluchers just as often with my suits as balmorals. If you stick to conservative styles, I don't see an issue with it.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

That depends on the blucher and the suit. The way I see it, the "no bluchers with suits" rule does date back to when bluchers were country clothes, and it refers to city suits. If I were to write a rule that I'd follow, it would be "no country shoes with city suits." By that rubric, there are bals that won't work with some suits.

For example, I really dislike it when people wear tan shoes with dark worsted suits. It's kind of the "Hooked on Classics" effect -- trying to make something classic more interesting by messing with the setting. Now, I like disco, and I like classical music, but I'm happy to keep them separate, and I don't know anybody serious about dance or classical music who like the Hooked On Classics approach. Similarly, I like worsted suits, and I like tan shoes, but they don't belong together.

So, a Walnut AE Strand would be a worse choice with a business suit suit than a black AE LaSalle or Benton. The bluchers that won't work with a given suit are basically identical to the bals that wouldn't work with the same suit -- except they're bluchers. Similarly, while the Strands might be at home with a lighter suit, or with a suit with more texture like a tweed, the LaSalles wouldn't work. Walnut AE MacNeils would be as bad with the business suit as the Strands, too, but black ones would be fine.

I'm going to continue going about my life as if Steve Maddens don't exist. :smile:

EDIT: I've just contradicted my earlier post. This is what I was trying to get across, but I didn't think it through all the way and probably should have just gone to bed.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I don't think it's good taste to wear shoes that are inappropriate with a suit when wearing a suit. I don't think bluchers are always inappropriate with suits --


I'm confused............


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

wrwhiteknight said:


> I'm confused............


There are shoes that don't work with suits, and shoes that do work with suits. The idea that "bluchers should not be worn with suits" is based on the idea that bluchers don't work with suits. I'm saying that bluchers _can_ work with suits. I'm not saying that my approach is "who cares! Wear any shoe with any suit! It doesn't matter!" The distinction between shoes that work with a given suit and shoes that don't should be based on color, formality, and a sense of appropriateness -- with lacing a very minor factor.


----------



## srmd22 (Jun 30, 2009)

Basically are you a technician and a strict adherent of traditiion (no bluchers with suits) or an artist (bend the "rules" to suit your tastes within the bounds of reason). The latter is clearly very subjective. I go with the latter, as stated by an above poster: dark or black bluchers are okay with suits in most circumstances, at least in the U.S. Now, in England, for all I know, you would be laughed out of the place.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

the dude is wearing black shoes with a suit! Why we are we even discussing this!!!!:devil:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

DoghouseReilly said:


> I wear bluchers just as often with my suits as balmorals. If you stick to conservative styles, I don't see an issue with it.


Same here.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

In the 30s, some, but not all, sophisticated dressers began wearing bluchers with suits. It is important to recognize that not all bluchers were worn, just those made on what at the time were called "town lasts", that is to say a sleek last. Still, it was quite clear that the balmoral, (UK oxford), version was more formal, in the dressy sense, than the blucher, (UK derby), version of the same shoe. Even today, those who wish to present a more formal image will chose the bal version, while those who wish to present a less formal image will chose a blucher.


----------



## jaydubbs15 (Jun 1, 2011)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I don't think it's good taste to wear shoes that are inappropriate with a suit when wearing a suit. I don't think bluchers are always inappropriate with suits -- that is, there are bluchers that are well within the bounds of good taste that would be a terrible choice with a business suit. Most bals that aren't egregiously tacky for one reason or another work reasonably well with a suit. The idea that bluchers never work with suits is just bizarre -- if we include more casual suits in the equation, at least.
> 
> Also, as Matt S.'s blog proves, Roger Moore wore loafers with a suit as James Bond, and Connery wears a super-short, super-wide pink tie in _Diamonds._ My opinion, for sartorial admirers of fictional secret agents, is that it's better to wear your clothes like James Bond than to wear clothes like James Bond's.


My Alden plain toe shell bluchers are my go-to shoe with suits when meeting with clients. In my opinion they are very elegant and masculine and perfectly appropriate with a suit. I recently tried on a pair of wingtip balmorals and while they are so elegant on a tall and slender man, they look a bit ornate for me -- I'm a short guy with a medium build. My next pairs will be the Alden monk strap shell oxford and the saddle shoe as well. I would certainly wear the monk strap oxford with a suit and the saddle shoe with a nice jacket and slacks, but probably not with a suit.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

jaydubbs15 said:


> My Alden plain toe shell bluchers are my go-to shoe with suits when meeting with clients. In my opinion they are very elegant and masculine and perfectly appropriate with a suit. I recently tried on a pair of wingtip balmorals and while they are so elegant on a tall and slender man, they look a bit ornate for me -- I'm a short guy with a medium build. My next pairs will be the Alden monk strap shell oxford and the saddle shoe as well. I would certainly wear the monk strap oxford with a suit and the saddle shoe with a nice jacket and slacks, but probably not with a suit.


Different strokes, I guess -- I wouldn't do Alden PTBs with a suit, but then I see other people wearing them and it looks good.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I must say, in all my years here, I think this must be the daftest most pointless non-issue thread ever. It's like asking, socks with loafers? Personal choice, there are no rules.

I could post half a dozen photos at least of the DoW and other worthies from the early 20th C for example wearing Gibsons (Bluchers) with a suit. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever. In fact, most men nowadays wear Gibsons with suits rather than Oxfords (Balmorals).

1941 and the DoW and the man next to him are both wearing Gibsons not Oxfords
https://clothesandfashion.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/balanicustomcom.jpg

https://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy5/CordeliaKing/Windsors3.jpg


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

srmd22 said:


> Basically are you a technician and a strict adherent of traditiion (no bluchers with suits)


Given that the "tradition" was relaxed at least 100 years ago, I'm not sure it merits the title anymore.

As I have written many, many times, there are lots of factors that go into the formality of a shoe. Open-versus-closed lacing is one of the _weakest_ factors. I can find you lots of bals that cannot sensibly be worn with a suit. The single most common shoe I see worn with business suits in my relatively staid clothing circles is a black cap-toed blucher. This whole bluchers-versus-bals is one of the top 10 most overclaimed, overstated "rules" on this forum. JMHO, of course, but one strongly held.

P.S. I'll sign on to Earl's post as well, except that I don't blame this particular thread.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

arkirshner said:


> Even today, those who wish to present a more formal image will chose the bal version, while those who wish to present a less formal image will chose a blucher.


Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

arkirshner said:


> In the 30s,..... Even today, those who wish to present a more formal image will chose the bal version, while those who wish to present a less formal image will chose a blucher.





Earl of Ormonde said:


> Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense.


If " bals are more formal then bluchers" was a nonsensical statement, we would welcome bluchers with dinner jackets and morningcoats.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Oh, like these: 

All else being equal, the bal is technically more formal. But the other signals in the mix are much stronger.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

I'm a week late here, but Connery often wore 2-eyelet derby shoes with his suits, in many of the Bond films. I have no problem with that. When I think of bluchers I think of what Alden makes, and those are casual shoes. Connery's shoes are far more elegant, with a bevelled waist, sleek last and long vamp. Daniel Craig wore the style in Casino Royale, and in Skyfall he's wearing 3-eyelet derby shoes, still very elegant. Some derbys work and others don't, but I think Connery's do.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

arkirshner said:


> If " bals are more formal then bluchers" was a nonsensical statement, we would welcome bluchers with dinner jackets and morningcoats.


No, what I am claiming as nonsnese is your generalisation that men adjudge the formality of a shoe by model (Blucher-Balmoral) rather than by appearance and suitability for a specific rig. I have Gibsons that are far more formal than some of my Oxfords.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, what I am claiming as nonsnese is your generalisation that men adjudge the formality of a shoe by model (Blucher-Balmoral) rather than by appearance and suitability for a specific rig. I have Gibsons that are far more formal than some of my Oxfords.


I think model is important for the level of formality. Model goes a long way to determine appearance and suitability for a specific rig.

So unless your oxfords are pink ostrich and your gibsons are patent (yuck!), I disagree...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I also happen to think that wearing bluchers with suits, especially those on a round, basic last is abhorrently unstylish and crude. For example, I have a pair of AE Leeds. I would never wear them with a business suit. It just looks off.

Of course, you can wear whatever you want. But why on earth would you want to? A sleek, elegant Balmoral compliments a business suit so much better.

I have fairly medium sized feet, 9D US, but a lot of guys have larger feet. When I see someone with a super 100s business suit with size 13 brogued burgundy bluchers that sort of kills whatever chance at style that guy had.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I have to note that as a wearer of business suits over this last 30 years I have never accompanied that attire with derbys (bluchers). Plenty of guys around me have, and I thought it a less classy look. All of this was long, long before I knew that any 'rules' existed.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

My personal practice is to wear oxfords (aka balmorals) with suits, and use broguing to achieve a more casual look. My derbies (aka bluchers) I reserve for odd jackets. Not claiming this is a rule!:smile:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> My personal practice is to wear oxfords (aka balmorals) with suits, and use broguing to achieve a more casual look. My derbies (aka bluchers) I reserve for odd jackets. Not claiming this is a rule!:smile:


Whilst it may not be a 'rule' it can be considered as a 'guide' to good taste. :icon_smile:


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

I tend to favor Balmorals/oxfords/closed lacing with suits but by no means wear them exclusively. It really depends on the "look" I am trying to project. If less formal then certainly I am more inclined to wear wing tipped bluchers. Better to dress it down that way than to go without a tie.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

JBierly said:


> I tend to favor Balmorals/oxfords/closed lacing with suits but by no means wear them exclusively. It really depends on the "look" I am trying to project. If less formal then certainly I am more inclined to wear wing tipped bluchers. Better to dress it down that way than to go without a tie.


I agree with this, but prefer Balfour and Shaver's approach. In the US bit or tassel loafers are also an option, which for some reason I prefer to bluchers. I do own bluchers and they get a lot of wear -- with sport coat attire. That said, I don't consider bluchers with suits wrong -- just not generally preferable.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

Bluchers aren't wrong with suits at all (and if we want to be traditional about things, suits aren't formal). Bluchers tend to be less former than bals, of course, but in most cases it's a matter of how precisely you want to dial in the formality of your outfit.

AE McNeil, glen plaid suit (brown or navy), ecru shirt, silk knit tie...is a perfectly fine suit for many business purposes. But if you need to increase the formality for a big presentation then, yeah, charcoal suit, cap toe bals, white shirt, french cuffs, dark tie, etc. But the latter outfit is not the *only* type of suit that is acceptable, even for business.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

It seems like this one never goes away.

I am firmly in the camp that believes that the shoe itself, rather than the detail of its construction, is the determining factor. The majority of my "work" shoes are balmorals. But nothing against others.

To give a real-world example, my shoes last week (all black):

Mon: Church Diplomats
Tues: EG Wells (82 last)
Weds: EG Farringdon (82 last)
Thurs: EG Wells again
Fri: Foster/C&J Arlington

So, one day of balmoral semi-brogues, three days of bluchers, and tasselled loafers on Friday. At no point was I ostracised, blackballled, asked to leave, refused entry, or otherwise saw any evidence that my "wrong" shoes were even noticed.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

Geezer said:


> At no point was I ostracised, blackballled, asked to leave, refused entry, or otherwise saw any evidence that my "wrong" shoes were even noticed.


No fair bringing up that no one outside of AAAC really cares about this stuff... :-(


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Geezer said:


> It seems like this one never goes away.
> 
> I am firmly in the camp that believes that the shoe itself, rather than the detail of its construction, is the determining factor. The majority of my "work" shoes are balmorals. But nothing against others.
> 
> ...


The shoe itself is not its construction? That's one metaphysical shoe... 

Carefull you don't wind up wearing the shadow of your shoes...

Good collection btw! As far as quality is concerned at least, seeing as I don't get much use out of black bluchers.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> The shoe itself is not its construction? That's one *metaphysical shoe*...
> 
> Carefull you don't wind up wearing the shadow of your shoes...
> 
> Good collection btw! As far as quality is concerned at least, seeing as I don't get much use out of black bluchers.


I once owned a pair of those:


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Wimsey said:


> No fair bringing up that no one outside of AAAC really cares about this stuff... :-(


You may be right, on the other hand, you may be wrong. There is no evidence, and in the absence of evidence, what you have is an assertion you hope, but don't know, is true.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Geezer said:


> It seems like this one never goes away.
> 
> I am firmly in the camp that believes that the shoe itself, rather than the detail of its construction, is the determining factor. The majority of my "work" shoes are balmorals. But nothing against others.
> 
> ...


While you did not see evidence that your shoes were noticed that does mean they were not noticed. Most men are too polite to ostracize, blackball, ask you to leave, or refuse you entry, even if you wear flip flops. While all I know about British speech came from Pygmalion, I suspect that if your speech is less than optimal it would be noticed, even if it did not result in your being ostracized, blackballed, asked to leave, or refused entry.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> While you did not see evidence that your shoes were noticed that does mean they were not noticed. Most men are too polite to ostracize, blackball, ask you to leave, or refuse you entry, even if you wear flip flops. While all I know about British speech came from Pygmalion, I suspect that if your speech is less than optimal it would be noticed, even if it did not result in your being ostracized, blackballed, asked to leave, or refused entry.


Except I actually live and work in central London and am well aware of the variety of shoes worn with suits here, including by CEOs, pols, army officers, barristers and so on. The idea that conservative Brits all wear black shoes with suits in town is correct. The idea that they all wear captoe bals and that failure to follow suit will be held against you is simply untrue. Acceptable norms of dress in the British Establishment are rather broader in real life in London that they are said to be on internet clothing fora.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Geezer said:


> To give a real-world example, my shoes last week (all black):
> 
> Mon: Church Diplomats
> Tues: EG Wells (82 last)
> ...


I would prefer to dress in your collection of EGs, etc. to Loake Essentials corrected grain captoe oxfords, to be sure.:biggrin2: But I think I will stick to the habits I've grown up with.

I will also stick to black for town. I ran a thread sometime ago (I think you may have responded??) about brown shoes in a futile attempt to persuade myself against my instincts that this stricture had degraded for London, but I came away with my original view strongly confirmed.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> I would prefer to dress in your collection of EGs, etc. to Loake Essentials corrected grain captoe oxfords, to be sure.:biggrin2: But I think I will stick to the habits I've grown up with.
> 
> I will also stick to black for town. I ran a thread sometime ago (I think you may have responded??) about brown shoes in a futile attempt to persuade myself against my instincts that this stricture had degraded for London, but I came away with my original view strongly confirmed.


Strongly confirmed by yourself to yourself, as I recall. :icon_smile:

More generally. Re Oxfords and Derbys - I appreciate that all the arguments pro and contra have run their courses and indeed come full circle but here's the unadulterated truth of it: the shoes at the top look smarter.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Strongly confirmed by yourself to yourself, as I recall. :icon_smile:
> 
> More generally. Re Oxfords and Derbys - I appreciate that all the arguments pro and contra have run their courses and indeed come full circle but here's the unadulterated truth of it: the shoes at the top look smarter.


Not entirely, and agreed, respectively.

By agreed, I mean much in the manner that a smooth worsted wool suit is smarter, sleeker and more conservative than a birdseye. But both clothes can make good suits for the right occasion.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Geezer said:


> Except I actually live and work in central London and am well aware of the variety of shoes worn with suits here, including by CEOs, pols, army officers, barristers and so on. The idea that conservative Brits all wear black shoes with suits in town is correct. The idea that they all wear captoe bals and that failure to follow suit will be held against you is simply untrue. Acceptable norms of dress in the British Establishment are rather broader in real life in London that they are said to be on internet clothing fora.


I'm sorry to hear. Standards have apparently lapsed all over.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

Balfour said:


> I would prefer to dress in your collection of EGs, etc. to Loake Essentials corrected grain captoe oxfords, to be sure.:biggrin2: But I think I will stick to the habits I've grown up with.
> 
> I will also stick to black for town. I ran a thread sometime ago (I think you may have responded??) about brown shoes in a futile attempt to persuade myself against my instincts that this stricture had degraded for London, but I came away with my original view strongly confirmed.


If I remember that one, I said I occasionally tried to wear brown shoes with a suit, but could almost never bring myself to, because black in town is hard-wired in my psyche. Or words to that effect.

To be clear, I am not advocating bluchers with suits rather than bals. It's quite possible that I will wear nothing but cap-toe or punch-cap bals this week. But clothing books and fora often blur what is aesthetically desirable or historically preferred with what is socially acceptable.

Nothing wrong with Loakes, btw.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Not entirely, and agreed, respectively.


Sorry Mr B, that was a little cheeky of me.

But on that which we agree: I chose two similar shoes, same manufacturer, same angle, same lighting, same colour, in essence as 'like for like' examples as I could find - and yet... the top ones just look *so* much better for that one difference.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

Shaver is right that the bals pictured are more elegant than the equivalent bluchers.

Balfour is right that the equivalent bluchers are still elegant enough for a suit.

I am right that a pair of double-soled black Trickers full brogues are not suitable with a suit, even if they are both black and balmorals. 

And Bjorn, to return to the title of this thread, those standards have been slipping since at least the early 1960s. It is not a recent phenomenon.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Geezer said:


> To be clear, I am not advocating bluchers with suits rather than bals. It's quite possible that I will wear nothing but cap-toe or punch-cap bals this week. But clothing books and fora often blur what is aesthetically desirable or historically preferred with what is socially acceptable.


Quite. Or invent their own groupthink that is home-grown.

On that theme, as someone who speaks from experience and 'what I grew up with', what gets quite annoying is when someone decries something I've suggested as a 'clothing fora groupthink' prejudice. I laugh when I hear something described as 'SF approved': I would do better at trying to pin a tail on a donkey blindfolded than guess what that is.



Geezer said:


> Nothing wrong with Loakes, btw.


Not at all. I've worn Loakes for many years, but the lower end of their range have some shoes best reserved for those on a budget (i.e. you can get a reasonably priced, conservative shoe in corrected grain leather). The 1880 range, by contrast, has some good offerings.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Geezer said:


> Shaver is right that the bals pictured are more elegant than the equivalent bluchers.
> 
> Balfour is right that the equivalent bluchers are still elegant enough for a suit.
> 
> ...


Very reasonably expressed Geezer.

It makes me feel rather churlish to respond in this fashion (but I will grit my teeth and soldier on). Whilst I do not mind derbys in the least for casual wear, a derby with a cap toe looks like something British Rail issues to it's staff.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Sorry Mr B, that was a little cheeky of me.
> 
> But on that which we agree: I chose two similar shoes, same manufacturer, same angle, same lighting, same colour, in essence as 'like for like' examples as I could find - and yet... the top ones just look *so* much better for that one difference.


I think what I was saying in my second paragraph (which was an edit, and may have come after your response; in which case, my apologies) is I see it more as a case of horses for courses. The top shoe you posted, is sleeker and more elegant. It would - in black:devil: - compliment a dark worsted wool suit better. But the second shoe would be more appropriate for - and therefore, in my view, look better with - a more casual outfit of say brushed cotton trousers and a tweed jacket (although I would probably opt for some broguing with that). So, for me, the top shoe is not so much better, only better in specific circumstances.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Geezer said:


> Shaver is right that the bals pictured are more elegant than the equivalent bluchers.
> 
> Balfour is right that the equivalent bluchers are still elegant enough for a suit.
> 
> ...


+1, agreed.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> I think what I was saying in my second paragraph (which was an edit, and may have come after your response; in which case, my apologies) is I see it more as a case of horses for courses. The top shoe you posted, is sleeker and more elegant. It would - in black:devil: - compliment a dark worsted wool suit better. But the second shoe would be more appropriate for - and therefore, in my view, look better with - a more casual outfit of say brushed cotton trousers and a tweed jacket (although I would probably opt for some broguing with that). So, for me, the top shoe is not so much better, only better in specific circumstances.


I'll be honest, and accept the criticisms which may come my way in the so doing, I even prefer my brogues that accompany bucolic casual to be of a closed lacing pattern. To my taste only a wing-tip really suits the open lacing style.

T K Maxx have an interesting range of shoes available at up to half price discount at the moment. Loakes and Cheaney's too - including these at £200 (which isn't bad).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> I think model is important for the level of formality. Model goes a long way to determine appearance and suitability for a specific rig.


That is my whole point, I don't think it does.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

You'll just never convince me that shoes like these cannot properly be worn with a suit:


----------



## mhdena (Jan 4, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> You'll just never convince me that shoes like these cannot properly be worn with a suit:


Definitely suit suitable!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> You'll just never convince me that shoes like these cannot properly be worn with a suit:


Over here, I agree that the black derbies (aka bluchers) would be (dark) suit appropriate.

If I were pushing the envelope on the brown shoe convention, I would still avoid the middle pair. Were I to wear brown shoes with a dark suit, it would be oxford captoes in a darker shade of brown. But I still can't bring myself over that hurdle.

This may be a UK / US thing, but there's no way that the third pair are appropriate - over here - to conservative business dress. Ken Clarke MP could perhaps pull them off ...


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Over here, I agree that the black derbies (aka bluchers) would be (dark) suit appropriate.
> 
> If I were pushing the envelope on the brown shoe convention, I would still avoid the middle pair. Were I to wear brown shoes with a dark suit, it would be oxford captoes in a darker shade of brown. But I still can't bring myself over that hurdle.
> 
> This may be a UK / US thing, but there's no way that the third pair are appropriate - over here - to conservative business dress. Ken Clarke MP could perhaps pull them off ...


Oh, agreed on all points. The lighter brown pair would be appropriate with a tan gabardine suit, or a summer suit in a lighter color. Maybe a brown glen plaid with lots of cream or white in the pattern. The final is obviously not for "conservative business dress" wear, though they would not be any more reserved if worn with a sport coat, or jeans, or swin trunks for that matter. Whether they are too dandified for a given wearer or situation has nothing to do with whether they are appropriate for a suit.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Oh, agreed on all points. The lighter brown pair would be appropriate with a tan gabardine suit, or a summer suit in a lighter color. Maybe a brown glen plaid with lots of cream or white in the pattern. The final is obviously not for "conservative business dress" wear, though they would not be any more reserved if worn with a sport coat, or jeans, or swin trunks for that matter. Whether they are too dandified for a given wearer or situation has nothing to do with whether they are appropriate for a suit.


Phew! Suspected you were coming at it from that perspective.

On the last pair, I think the only point I would make is that I would tend to wear more 'conservative' shoes with suits, but that may be more to do with the balance between the occasions when I wear suits and odd jackets. I have a couple of country suits, but would still look to brown brogued (oxford or derby) with those. iGent sacrilege, I know, but I don't do suede.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Oh, agreed on all points. The lighter brown pair would be appropriate with a tan gabardine suit, or a summer suit in a lighter color. Maybe a brown glen plaid with lots of cream or white in the pattern. The final is obviously not for "conservative business dress" wear, though they would not be any more reserved if worn with a sport coat, or jeans, or swin trunks for that matter. Whether they are too dandified for a given wearer or situation has nothing to do with whether they are appropriate for a suit.


Doesn't it? Doesn't pretty much anything go in that case ... ?

I was thinking we were discussing business attire. Not conservative per se, but correct.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Phew! Suspected you were coming at it from that perspective.
> 
> On the last pair, I think the only point I would make is that I would tend to wear more 'conservative' shoes with suits, but that may be more to do with the balance between the occasions when I wear suits and odd jackets. I have a couple of country suits, but would still look to brown brogued (oxford or derby) with those. iGent sacrilege, I know, but I don't do suede.


I happen to love suede, but to each his own.

But I think this exchange proves my point, which is that other factors regarding the shoe - texture, color, etc. - are far more important in determining how it can be worn than whether the lacing is open or closed. Sure, if you find a clunky, plain-toed blucher in pebble-grain tan leather with a vibram sole, you can say that's not really appropriate for a suit, or certainly not a business suit. But it ain't 'cause of the lacing!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> Doesn't it? Doesn't pretty much anything go in that case ... ?


No, dandification and correctness are two different spectrums or axes. They are very dandified things that are 100% correct, but would still be out of place in some contexts.

Nobody disputes that having a PS is correct - if anything, it is more correct than an empty jacket breast pocket. But witness the countless and doubtlessly-wise threads counseling prospective employees not to wear them during a job interview. Too dandified.

The last shoes shown would be too dandified for some wearers in some contexts. But that doesn't mean they aren't appropriate for suits, even in a business context. I'd certainly wear those to the office if I owned them, though not to court, nor to interview middle-management witnesses with engineering backgrounds (for example). Formality or correctness aren't why - excess dandification is the reason.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> I happen to love suede, but to each his own.
> 
> But I think this exchange proves my point, which is that other factors regarding the shoe - texture, color, etc. - are far more important in determining how it can be worn than whether the lacing is open or closed. Sure, if you find a clunky, plain-toed blucher in pebble-grain tan leather with a vibram sole, you can say that's not really appropriate for a suit, or certainly not a business suit. But it ain't 'cause of the lacing!


I agree that there are more important considerations than the oxford versus derby factor. But your example risks the fallacy of the 'parade of horribles': For sure, if you attend a black tie event as a stumbling drunk, barge into your host's wife and spill your champagne over her, then your crimson bow-tie and notch lapel dinner jacket are probably going to pass without censure.

Actually, I don't feel that strongly about the distinction between derbies and oxfords (as I said earlier in the thread). But surely we are focusing our attention on how significant that difference is, rather than seeking to establish that demonstrably inappropriate things are demonstrably inappropriate.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Well, yes and no. I think that when people have this argument, a number of those on the no-bluchers-with-suits have in their mind a certain archetype of derby, and it's one clearly designed for casual wear and walking on rural paths and roads. I provided illustrations of three examples of bluchers that cut against that stereotype. One you conceded to be suit appropriate - the black one. The others you contested on grounds of color or texture. I think that's revealing of what the real issues are.

I've posted about this on many occassions, but the no-open-laces thing is something that I had honestly never hear until reading it either online or in Roetzel. It's not a thing in America except among the iGentry. History is replete with photos of famously good dressers wearing open-laced shoes under suits. I see properly-dressed men every day "violating" this supposed rule while still complying with all the rules that I believe to actually exist (and most conventions, too).

If you isolate the actual element - open lacing - it's simply not incompatible with suits. It has _some_ correlation with other casual features, but it's not a material cause of casualness. It's not an attached tounge's fault that it's often made in tan, not black, or welted to a double-thick sole, or bereft of a toe cap. The "no bluchers" crowd is engaging in guilt by association!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> No, dandification and correctness are two different spectrums or axes. They are very dandified things that are 100% correct, but would still be out of place in some contexts.
> 
> Nobody disputes that having a PS is correct - if anything, it is more correct than an empty jacket breast pocket. But witness the countless and doubtlessly-wise threads counseling prospective employees not to wear them during a job interview. Too dandified.
> 
> The last shoes shown would be too dandified for some wearers in some contexts. But that doesn't mean they aren't appropriate for suits, even in a business context. I'd certainly wear those to the office if I owned them, though not to court, nor to interview middle-management witnesses with engineering backgrounds (for example). Formality or correctness aren't why - excess dandification is the reason.


In your model, I think they are incorrect... With business suits. Not even close to being correct. Mainly because they are bluchers. Just my 5 c

And you do qualify your statement: "doesn't mean they aren't appropriate for suits, even in a business contex" with "though not to court, nor to interview middle-management witnesses with engineering backgrounds (for example"...

So not really appropriate for all business then? That's what, to me, make them incorrect.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> So not really appropriate for all business then? That's what, to me, make them incorrect.


So pocket squares are not appropriate for business either then? French cuffs? Collar pins?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, yes and no. I think that when people have this argument, a number of those on the no-bluchers-with-suits have in their mind a certain archetype of derby, and it's one clearly designed for casual wear and walking on rural paths and roads. I provided illustrations of three examples of bluchers that cut against that stereotype. One you conceded to be suit appropriate - the black one. The others you contested on grounds of color or texture. I think that's revealing of what the real issues are.
> 
> I've posted about this on many occassions, but the no-open-laces thing is something that I had honestly never hear until reading it either online or in Roetzel. It's not a thing in America except among the iGentry. History is replete with photos of famously good dressers wearing open-laced shoes under suits. I see properly-dressed men every day "violating" this supposed rule while still complying with all the rules that I believe to actually exist (and most conventions, too).
> 
> If you isolate the actual element - open lacing - it's simply not incompatible with suits. It has _some_ correlation with other casual features, but it's not a material cause of casualness. It's not an attached tounge's fault that it's often made in tan, not black, or welted to a double-thick sole, or bereft of a toe cap. The "no bluchers" crowd is engaging in guilt by association!


I can see the force of that as an argument against the utter refusniks.

I find myself between the position of the utter refusniks and the position that would say that the right sort of derbies / bluchers are equally appropriate to oxfords / balmorals. I would sum it up as:

- Of the shoes you posted, I agree one could wear the black derbies / bluchers.

- I agree there are more egregious factors than oxford / balmoral versus derby / blucher.

- Of the shoes Shaver posted (but changing the colour to black), the oxfords / balmorals would be my preferred choice for a smooth worsted wool dark suit.

- I wear oxfords / balmorals with suits as my personal habit (and I have never claimed this for a rule).


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> No, dandification and correctness are two different spectrums or axes. They are very dandified things that are 100% correct, but would still be out of place in some contexts.
> 
> Nobody disputes that having a PS is correct - if anything, it is more correct than an empty jacket breast pocket. But witness the countless and doubtlessly-wise threads counseling prospective employees not to wear them during a job interview. Too dandified.
> 
> The last shoes shown would be too dandified for some wearers in some contexts. But that doesn't mean they aren't appropriate for suits, even in a business context. I'd certainly wear those to the office if I owned them, though not to court, nor to interview middle-management witnesses with engineering backgrounds (for example). Formality or correctness aren't why - excess dandification is the reason.


This I entirely agree with (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I accept the inarticulate premiss that there are "rules"). There are things that are perfectly appropriate by the axioms of classical dress, but may be situationally or socially inappropriate and therefore ill-advised.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> So pocket squares are not appropriate for business either then? French cuffs? Collar pins?


I'm thinking they are not (age-) appropriate for young guys going to interviews, but otherwise very much ok and correct. Are young guys going to job interviews "business"?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I'm thinking they are not (age-) appropriate for young guys going to interviews, but otherwise very much ok and correct. Are young guys going to job interviews "business"?


This may be cultural. I don't know the practice in Sweden that well, I'm afraid.

But -adding to CuffDaddy's examples - in the UK, you could go to a Board level meeting at a FTSE 100 company (equivalent of Fortune 500), a meeting with a Cabinet Minister, a Board level meeting of a major regulator, an unrobed appearance before a High Court judge in Chambers, and you would often find no-one wearing a pocket square.

If one were to wear a pocket square, is there a risk that someone might notice this and see this as out of the ordinary and perceive something to be 'off'? Yes. It might not be that high, but it is a risk.

Do I wear pocket squares? I often do, but conscious of what it might communicate.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Yes, of course a job interview is business. So is meeting with a client in your office. So is working in and around your office with your colleagues. I wear suits for that. But there are things I will wear for that which I will not wear to court. The idea that either an item is appropriate for *ALL* business or it is not approriate is, frankly, absurd. You cannot possibly mean what you wrote earlier.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour, Bjorn, I would like to reference a thread I started a few years ago (on a day when I was snowed into my house and unable to do much but post overlong things on AAAC!): https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?110081-The-Dandy-Quotient

I would contend that the issues you are both discussing are really issues of dandification, which raise questions about how dandy one can be without overdrawing one's metaphorical budget.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

Crikey! This thread is still going.

Cuffdaddy: the black EGs are fine, despite being longwing blucher full brogues. I have over the years drifted away from balmoral full brogues for business, and have never liked longwings. But they are the sort of thing that I might buy if I found them in my size in EG's sale and there were no better options: they are well executed on a nice last (an 888 I think; I would run a mile from them on a 202). 

The G&Gs in the middle are a bit too "fashion forward" (I guess I may prefer "fashion backward"): when I wear a tan suit for two warm days each summer, I gravitate to very conservative shoes to balance out the "dressiness". And the two-tone EGs I very nearly bought in their last sale, but I knew I would in reality hardly ever wear them, and then only on casual summer weekends, especially as I have plenty of brown shoes, including reverse calf ones.

The pocket handkerchief thing is both a distraction from the original thread and informative to it. Balfour is right that they are a pretty rare sight these days among politicians, big businessmen, and so on. The "dressier"professions, often self-employed or in "performance" roles are more likely to wear them: successful barristers, fine art auctioneers, and - for some reason - cavalry officers. A far more noticeable statement than open-laced shoes.

For anyone disturbed by my blucher/loafer heavy week last week, today saw me in balmorals. EG Midfords on an 82 last, to be precise. One of my favourite shoes. Elegant without being showy or stylised. (Others would include the Beaulieu austerity brogue and the good old Chelsea captoe, though on the modern lasts or the Fosters/Wildsmith 88.)


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Yes, of course a job interview is business. So is meeting with a client in your office. So is working in and around your office with your colleagues. I wear suits for that. But there are things I will wear for that which I will not wear to court. The idea that either an item is appropriate for *ALL* business or it is not approriate is, frankly, absurd. You cannot possibly mean what you wrote earlier.


No, but the idea that for an item of dress to be 'correct' to be considered proper business attire it should be at least (!) wearable in most business situations. This, to my mind, is not absurd.

A closed lacing construction shoe is more elegant, more formal, than its open lacing equivalent. I'm not saying other aspects of shoes are not as or more important (color for one, certainly) but a blucher is not correct business attire. Notwithstanding what most people wear.

I kinda get the feeling that this is simply something that most well dressed men get consistently wrong and, having invested a hefty sum of money into black and burgundy bluchers, simply want to reach a consensus on ignoring.

It would be better to simply suggest to any newbie that he should balmorals for work if he works in a suit. Preferably black...

There are actually no drawbacks with wearing only balmorals with your business suits, are there? It's not like there isn't balmorals in different configurations out there to be had? So the question remains, whyever wear bluchers for business? It doesn't make sense.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> I kinda get the feeling that this is simply something that most well dressed men get consistently wrong and, having invested a hefty sum of money into black and burgundy bluchers, simply want to reach a consensus on ignoring.


Is this some kind of AAAC koan? If well-dressed men get something consistently wrong, is it still wrong?

Answer: Nope, it isn't. Especially when the thing is as perfectly arbitrary as this lacing thing.

BTW, I don't believe I currently have any bluchers that I wear with suits. So I don't have any ulterior motive, other than getting at the right answer to the question of whether there's a rule against bluchers with a suit. (There isn't, at least not in America.)

As for why, why should men have any striped suits? Solid suits are more flexible and more universally appropriate. But substantially all well-dressed men wear a stripe, at least occassionally, and sometimes regularly. Why have the word "sprint" when we already have "run"? Pleasing variation and subtle shades of meaning. Especially for those of us who still wear a suit (nearly) every work day, we don't always need to be at our most formal. In fact, being at our most formal all the time would make us forbiding. I'm not a maitre d' - I don't want to be percieved as wearing a uniform.

This discussion is making me want to go buy some bluchers just to wear with navy and charcoal 3-piece suits.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> No, but the idea that for an item of dress to be 'correct' to be considered proper business attire it should be at least (!) wearable in most business situations. This, to my mind, is not absurd.
> 
> A closed lacing construction shoe is more elegant, more formal, than its open lacing equivalent. I'm not saying other aspects of shoes are not as or more important (color for one, certainly) but a blucher is not correct business attire. Notwithstanding what most people wear.
> 
> ...


Bjorn

I agree 100% that balmorals should be the default option; that they should be advised to those seeking guidance; that they should be preferred for interviews and other occasions when one wishes one's mind at rest and not distracted by worrying about the microscopic chance that one's choice of shoes might adversely one's chances; and that a work shoe rack entirely consisting of bals, even solely of captoe bals, is not a bad choice.

I am, after all, someone who owns three pairs of (wear aside) identical black balmoral captoes (and another identical pair in brown; and near-identical punchcaps in both colours in each of two subtly different models). And, until one finally died the other week at the age of twenty, three identical pairs of black balmoral full brogues (and - sigh - two more identical pairs in brown).

But it does get a bit bloody boring wearing the exact same utterly correct Roestel-approved shoes every single day of one's working life.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Is this some kind of AAAC koan? If well-dressed men get something consistently wrong, is it still wrong?
> 
> Answer: Nope, it isn't. *Especially when the thing is as perfectly arbitrary as this lacing thing.*
> 
> ...


Does it matter that it is arbitary, though, CuffDaddy? I believe that it does not. For it simply looks better. Like certain colours complimenting or certain textures of cloth.

Of course there is no 'rule'. There's no rule about not wearing Ugg boots or Crocs with a suit. But being able to see that it's a poor choice, does that make it arbitrary? I would suggest that it is much more intrinsic than that.

Anyone who want's to wear derbys (bluchers) with a suit - please, go ahead. Be my guest. Most guys already do, simply because they don't know any better. A shoe is a shoe to the majority of guys.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Geezer said:


> Bjorn
> 
> I agree 100% that balmorals should be the default option; that they should be advised to those seeking guidance; that they should be preferred for interviews and other occasions when one wishes one's mind at rest and not distracted by worrying about the microscopic chance that one's choice of shoes might adversely one's chances; and that a work shoe rack entirely consisting of bals, even solely of captoe bals, is not a bad choice.
> 
> ...


Agreed, but still more correct


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> There's no rule about not wearing Ugg boots or Crocs with a suit.


There absolutely is such a rule. A man who made a habit of wearing Ugg boots with his suit would certainly not be regarded as well-dressed, and would likely suffer some business or social consequences of his eccentricity. And one would have a hard time finding contra-evidence in the form of well-dressed men wearing Uggs with suits. That means it is a rule, or at least a strong convention.

I don't mean to start citing myself as an authority, but my views on this concept are laid out at length here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...les-and-quot-Rules-quot&p=1065945#post1065945



> But being able to see that it's a poor choice, does that make it arbitrary? I would suggest that it is much more intrinsic than that. Does it matter that it is arbitary, though, CuffDaddy? I believe that it does not. For it simply looks better. Like certain colours complimenting or certain textures of cloth.


Almost all tastes are culturally-contingent, of course, and I have long argued that there are few "deep truths" in clothing. But there are different levels of arbitrariness. Certain color pairings may work well because of things wired into our brains, and those colors would work as paint on walls, or flower arrangements, or clothing combinations. Those are not fully arbitrary. But the closed-versus-open thing... there's just an arbitrary teaching, resulting from historical accident, that one is more "formal" or "elegant" than the other. But there's no there there, other than the accident of history. A blucher shoe can be made on the same last as a balmoral. It can be made in the same shade, from the same leather, and given the same sole. In fact, an inch or less of the lacing is likely to be displayed when one is standing, what with the hem of one's trousers obscuring the view.

I'm not saying that arbitrary rules and conventions don't count. But they get less defernence that rules that are not wholly arbitrary, and they require greater proof before being accorded "rule" status.

If you want to state that you _prefer_ bals with a suit, I have nothing to say against that (I might even say the same). But when you start saying that bluchers are "wrong," that bals are "appropriate," and that men should "know better," that's a claim of RIGHTNESS, not mere preference. And that claim is unsupportable, at least in America.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> There absolutely is such a rule. A man who made a habit of wearing Ugg boots with his suit would certainly not be regarded as well-dressed, and would likely suffer some business or social consequences of his eccentricity. And one would have a hard time finding contra-evidence in the form of well-dressed men wearing Uggs with suits. That means it is a rule, or at least a strong convention.


My doubt in respect of your point is based upon the appalling state of the shoes I have seen on guys, who are otherwise impeccably dressed. This would suggest that there is little consequence, and even less convention. But we are (or at least I am :redface running the risk of perhaps broadening the discussion too much with this theme.



CuffDaddy said:


> I don't mean to start citing myself as an authority, but my views on this concept are laid out at length here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...les-and-quot-Rules-quot&p=1065945#post1065945


Please, cite away. I'm always keen to read your well reasoned views and will follow the link and do just that, momentarily.



CuffDaddy said:


> Almost all tastes are culturally-contingent, of course, and I have long argued that there are few "deep truths" in clothing. But there are different levels of arbitrariness. Certain color pairings may work well because of things wired into our brains, and those colors would work as paint on walls, or flower arrangements, or clothing combinations. Those are not fully arbitrary. But the closed-versus-open thing... there's just an arbitrary teaching, resulting from historical accident, that one is more "formal" or "elegant" than the other. But there's no there there, other than the accident of history. A blucher shoe can be made on the same last as a balmoral. It can be made in the same shade, from the same leather, and given the same sole. In fact, an inch or less of the lacing is likely to be displayed when one is standing, what with the hem of one's trousers obscuring the view.
> 
> I'm not saying that arbitrary rules and conventions don't count. But they get less defernence that rules that are not wholly arbitrary, and they require greater proof before being accorded "rule" status.
> 
> If you want to state that you _prefer_ bals with a suit, I have nothing to say against that (I might even say the same). But when you start saying that bluchers are "wrong," that bals are "appropriate," and that men should "know better," that's a claim of RIGHTNESS, not mere preference. And that claim is unsupportable, at least in America.


I prefer bals (derbys) with a suit. I prefer them _because_ they look intrinsically better.

Anyway, the last time you and I got into a deep shoe discussion I came out the other side considering suede correspondents (I still have an urge for them) so I'm quitting whilst I can. :icon_smile:

Now to read your cited thread......


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> There absolutely is such a rule. A man who made a habit of wearing Ugg boots with his suit would certainly not be regarded as well-dressed, and would likely suffer some business or social consequences of his eccentricity. And one would have a hard time finding contra-evidence in the form of well-dressed men wearing Uggs with suits. That means it is a rule, or at least a strong convention.
> 
> I don't mean to start citing myself as an authority, but my views on this concept are laid out at length here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...les-and-quot-Rules-quot&p=1065945#post1065945
> 
> ...


And if we quoted sources on menswear saying that bluchers are wrong with suits?

Arbitrary would mean that there is a randomness or completely personal choice in this case, but that does not seem to be the case. The balmoral is more elegant due to the closed lacing. The only blucher that would approach a balmoral in elegance is a single monk shoe. Would you wear bluchers with black tie?

I would say that the no bluchers with business suits is a rule/strong convention, though of course there are no rules, and that the fact that it is more rarely observed in America means nothing for its viability. Many of the conventions we discuss are rarely observed by the general public.

Certain core professional City dress "rules", though obviously no longer as widely observed in the City itself, are based in a certain immaculate sense of balance and style. This is, IMO, one of them.

I would be the first to admit that standards vary among better dressed Swedes. But they do vary just as much among better dressed Americans. I don't think we should settle for "good enough". And, as has been observed elsewhere, there is little support to be found in the fact that lots of people are doing something wrong simultaneously, even if they are Americans.

Bluchers with suits are a bit like shoes with french patine with suits.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> .....I don't mean to start citing myself as an authority, but my views on this concept are laid out at length here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...les-and-quot-Rules-quot&p=1065945#post1065945......


Good post, I don't agree with it all but still well worth reading. Maybe even worthy of a 'sticky' or one of those 'terms and conditions' which you have to tick that agree you have read and understood the content before proceeding to AAAC membership.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> And if we quoted sources on menswear saying that bluchers are wrong with suits?


There are such sources. They are at odds with the evidence of what well-dressed men actually do and have done for decades. Not men generally. Well-dressed men. They are also at odds with the evidence of what impact wearing bluchers with suits does in terms of a man's standing in society. Those sources are, at best, overstated. At least for America. Things may be different in the UK or elsewhere.



> Arbitrary would mean that there is a randomness or completely personal choice in this case, but that does not seem to be the case.


That's not exactly what arbitrary means.



> The balmoral is more elegant due to the closed lacing.


You keep saying that as though it is self-evident. It isn't. If it's inherently more elegant, you'll have to show it.



> I would say that the no bluchers with business suits is a rule/strong convention, though of course there are no rules, and that the fact that it is more rarely observed in America means nothing for its viability. Many of the conventions we discuss are rarely observed by the general public.... And, as has been observed elsewhere, there is little support to be found in the fact that lots of people are doing something wrong simultaneously, even if they are Americans.


I have taken pains to be clear that I am talking about what well-dressed men do. I'm not making a "everyone wears sweatsuits to the opera, so f*** it all!" argument. There absolutely are rules (go see my thread link). This isn't one of them. Nor is it even a convention. When well-dressed men do something fairly regularly, and when there are no consequences to the action, it isn't a rule. When lots of well-dressed men do a thing, and when doing the thing is not remarkable, nor is it an impediment to not being thought well-dressed, it's not a convention.



> I don't think we should settle for "good enough".


My argument is not remotely grounded in "good enough." I don't see much argument being made for bals being inherently better other than just repetitive cries of "they just _are!!!!_" If that's the only justification, then that makes in an arbitrary rule. If the arbitrary rule is neither a rule nor a convention based on the usage of well-dressed men, well then it's just a preference.



> Bluchers with suits are a bit like shoes with french patine with suits.


This seems a non sequitur. What's a "patine"? If it's a patina, then we've found another thing to bicker about!


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Agreed, but still more correct


"Correct" implies better. Conventional, or traditional, might be better less loaded words.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> It isn't. If it's inherently more elegant, you'll have to show it.


I think elegance and/or a higher degree of formality is very much in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, many, if not most closed throat shoes are more elegant/formal/dressy than many if not most blucher/derbies. Does that make it a rule? Certainly not! Does that mean that all balmorals/oxfords are more elegant/formal/dressy than all blucher/derbies? Again, certainly not!

As an elderly gent long practiced in pulling up my own pants, and who flatters himself with the notion of having some small modicum of taste, I will trust my own judgment to decide on a case by case basis whether a particular shoe on a particular occasion is elegant/formal/dressy enough to compliment my other attire. Should I (Gasp!) exceed the bounds of propriety (It happens!) I will go quietly when the shoe police come and take me away.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> There are such sources. They are at odds with the evidence of what well-dressed men actually do and have done for decades. Not men generally. Well-dressed men. They are also at odds with the evidence of what impact wearing bluchers with suits does in terms of a man's standing in society. Those sources are, at best, overstated. At least for America. Things may be different in the UK or elsewhere.
> 
> That's not exactly what arbitrary means.
> 
> ...


Excellent responses there CD. You said everything I wanted to say.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> A closed lacing construction shoe is more elegant, more formal, than its open lacing equivalent.


Says who? That is simply a matter of opinion and personal taste.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Says who? That is simply a matter of opinion and personal taste.


I may be about to 'crash and burn' badly, but ever impulsive, _here goes_:

The human brain responds to enclosed objects, they appear to us as somehow 'complete' and are thus more satisfying. We are driven to close doors and drawers. Joins, bindings, bonded surfaces generally work toward seamlessness. The craft of the artisan is in concealment. A more Rustic aesthetic may appeal to some but it is a deliberate disconnect from an intrinsic response which, whilst granting pleasure to the individual, cannot be considered more elegant.

.
.

..
.
.
.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> I may be about to 'crash and burn' badly, but ever impulsive, _here goes_:
> 
> The human brain responds to enclosed objects, they appear to us as somehow 'complete' and are thus more satisfying. We are driven to close doors and drawers. Joins, bindings, bonded surfaces generally work toward seamlessness. The craft of the artisan is in concealment. A more Rustic aesthetic may appeal to some but it is a deliberate disconnect from an intrinsic response which, whilst granting pleasure to the individual, cannot be considered more elegant.


hhhmmmm..............

"Has the Jury reached.....

"No, m'lud not as yet"


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ ah well, at least I had a decent stab at explaining why I am right and you are wrong. :tongue2:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> ^ ah well, at least I had a decent stab at explaining why I am right and you are wrong. :tongue2:


Yeeeesss.....Bailiff take that man down, Contempt of Court, 4 hours detention.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> The human brain responds to enclosed objects, they appear to us as somehow 'complete' and are thus more satisfying. We are driven to close doors and drawers. Joins, bindings, bonded surfaces generally work toward seamlessness.


OK, now you're trying to give a rationale for balmorals being inherently more elegant than bluchers. I like it!

But based on your stated preference, I take it you're a big fan of these:

Nice and closed up, right? Certainly more elegant than this open mess:










There's certainly no contest between the lovely closed-ness of this architectural triumph:

and this holy (hole-y?) mess:










We won't even touch on the pervasively perforated putresence that lies in Spain:










As for woodworking, compare the seamless beauty of this number:









to the seamy item here:

Yes, if there's one thing the human brain can agree upon, it's that closed uniformity is the source of true beauty and elegance, notwithstanding the protests of various rustic rubes in their breezy shacks.

P.S. This is great fun.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> I think elegance and/or a higher degree of formality is very much in the eye of the beholder. IMHO, many, if not most closed throat shoes are more elegant/formal/dressy than many if not most blucher/derbies. Does that make it a rule? Certainly not! Does that mean that all balmorals/oxfords are more elegant/formal/dressy than all blucher/derbies? Again, certainly not!


As is often the case, Flanderian, I can't find anything with which to quibble in your post.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> OK, now you're trying to give a rationale for balmorals being inherently more elegant than bluchers. I like it!
> 
> But based on your stated preference, I take it you're a big fan of these:
> 
> Nice and closed up, right? Certainly more elegant than this open mess:


Hmm those two jackets are almost the same except one has only a vestigal button hole because the collar is designed to be worn turned down. I would suggest as a comparison that is more akin to using a silly lacing configuration on a close laced shoe. Disallowed. :icon_smile_wink:



CuffDaddy said:


> There's certainly no contest between the lovely closed-ness of this architectural triumph:
> 
> and this holy (hole-y?) mess:


You happen to have chosen, in the Pantheon, one of my favourite buildings. Drat you. However the Brutalist styling of the at&t building *is* pleasing to the eye. The issue with most Brutalist architecture is that the bleak stained concrete (the Pantheon is made from concrete too, as a point of interest) makes it look dreary -a lick of paint would spruce the at&t building up no end and in doing so elevate it's beauty. Score draw.



CuffDaddy said:


> We won't even touch on the pervasively perforated putresence that lies in Spain:


This style of fussy baroque jumble is *not* pleasing to the eye. Some may appreciate recursive intricacy but it cannot be described as elegant as it is intentionally designed to be complex. Point to me. :icon_smile:



CuffDaddy said:


> As for woodworking, compare the seamless beauty of this number:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now, here you are doing the type of thing I am often guilty of. To support your position you have chosen an ugly piece of furniture and compared it to a beautiful one. However both are enclosed. Thus you have rather shot yourself in the foot.



CuffDaddy said:


> Yes, if there's one thing the human brain can agree upon, it's that closed uniformity is the source of true beauty and elegance, notwithstanding the protests of various rustic rubes in their breezy shacks.
> 
> P.S. This is great fun.


This _*is*_ fun and what's more I'm winning! :wink2:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> This _*is*_ fun and what's more I'm winning! :wink2:


Mmmm... I suspect that rather depends on whose scorecard you're looking at.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> You happen to have chosen, in the Pantheon, one of my favourite buildings. Drat you. However the *Brutalist styling of the at&t building is pleasing to the eye*. The issue with most Brutalist architecture is that the bleak stained concrete (the Pantheon is made from concrete too, as a point of interest) makes it look dreary -*a lick of paint would spruce the at&t building up no end and in doing so elevate it's beauty. * Score draw.


*splutter* :icon_pale::icon_scratch::icon_pale:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Mmmm... I suspect that rather depends on whose scorecard you're looking at.


The scorecard of post 87 suits me just fine.

We are beginning a bulletproof balmoral bulwark against the blasted blucher barbarians. :tongue2:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> *splutter* :icon_pale::icon_scratch::icon_pale:


You can't observe the monolithic splendour? The throb of minimalist joy? It's as a Klein in concrete. Presumably you don't like modern Art, either? Carbuncles and all, eh? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> You can't observe the monolithic splendour? The throb of minimalist joy? It's as a Klein in concrete. *Presumably you don't like modern Art, either? *Carbuncles and all, eh? :icon_smile_wink:


I actually enjoy the Impressionists very much indeed.:wink2:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Nobody disputes your right to prefer minimalism, Shaver. Now put down that femur!










:devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

BAUHAUS!!! CORBUSSIER!!!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Nobody disputes your right to prefer minimalism, Shaver. Now put down that femur!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One of the great shots of cinema history, that femur transformed to space station. A precis of the human urge and so eloquently and simply achieved by that edit. But I digress.......

I'm not so sure it's minimalism I prefer neccessarily, although I do like sleek lines and tidiness.

The derby has a flavour of home-made about it. The open throat looks easier to achieve. One almost fancies that you could sew a piece of leather like that at home. Not so the closed throat - do you see what I mean?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> I actually enjoy the Impressionists very much indeed.:wink2:


Turner. THE great English artist. :icon_smile:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Nobody disputes your right to prefer minimalism, Shaver. Now put down that femur!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course intricate complexity in art and clothing is ALWAYS preferable ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^^ it's the official anti-sprezz gambit.

:devil:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> The derby has a flavour of home-made about it. The open throat looks easier to achieve. One almost fancies that you could sew a piece of leather like that at home. Not so the closed throat - do you see what I mean?


Once I realized that the real difference between "open" and "closed" lacing is that the tounge of the closed lacing is separate, all the magic kind of went out of it. They both looks equally hard to get right to me now.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Once I realized that the real difference between "open" and "closed" lacing is that the tounge of the closed lacing is separate, all the magic kind of went out of it. They both looks equally hard to get right to me now.


A commendably minimalist explanation! :icon_smile_wink:

However whilst the vamp, tongue and quarter are in an altered configuration the tongue of the closed lace shoe may remain as part of the vamp.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I guess that's true for shoes where the vamp and quarters are not the same. Although wouldn't that really be a blucher with very long (whatever the name of the pieces of leather pierced with holes for shoelaces)s? Maybe an illustration would help.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Always a pleasure to assist. :icon_smile:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Says who? That is simply a matter of opinion and personal taste.


It is simpler, it has less complexity, and conform in structure better with formalwear. It is more restrained in its design.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> It is simpler, it has less complexity, and conform in structure better with formalwear. It is more *refined* in its design.


FTFY.

Anyway we are on the same side.

Earlier in the thread, you may not have had chance to catch up, CuffDaddy himself tasted bitter defeat during his attempted defence of the blucher, derby, gibson, what have you. :devil:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Some of the views expressed in this thread strike me as bordering on the pedantic. I have to say - living in shoe town itself - I have accumulated a very large collection of shoes indeed (I was going to say an excessively large collection, but obviously that is a non sequitur) (not that owning a lot of shoes has much to do with it) but I almost feel that some of the points of view here are three stops beyond Barking. (Or a sandwich short of a picnic.) I _often wear derbies [bluchers] with suits._ Sometimes Oxfords - just as I feel like it. (And sometimes loafers or even chukkas.) I have never found my choice of shoe to be a hindrance in my life, and it has never crossed my mind that I might be 'wrong'.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> *Some of the views expressed in this thread strike me as bordering on the pedantic*. I have to say - living in shoe town itself - I have accumulated a very large collection of shoes indeed (I was going to say an excessively large collection, but obviously that is a non sequitur) (not that owning a lot of shoes has much to do with it) but *I almost feel that some of the points of view here are three stops beyond Barking*. (Or a sandwich short of a picnic.) I _often wear derbies [bluchers] with suits._ Sometimes Oxfords - just as I feel like it. (And sometimes loafers or even chukkas.) I have never found my choice of shoe to be a hindrance in my life, and it has never crossed my mind that I might be 'wrong'.


Stick with us Langham - you'll observe plenty more of it. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

MORNINGTON CRESCENT!!!


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> MORNINGTON CRESCENT!!!


Spot on!!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> MORNINGTON CRESCENT!!!


I don't get it.

:devil:


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I don't get it.


i don't get it... must be a your-side-of-the-pond thing...

FWIW, i _*never*_ wear bluchers with a suit... for me it would be impossible, i don't own a pair :biggrin2:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I don't get it.
> 
> :devil:


Three stops beyond Barking I think but an obscure train of thought to Americans I suspect.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> There are such sources. They are at odds with the evidence of what well-dressed men actually do and have done for decades. Not men generally. Well-dressed men. They are also at odds with the evidence of what impact wearing bluchers with suits does in terms of a man's standing in society. Those sources are, at best, overstated. At least for America. Things may be different in the UK or elsewhere.
> 
> That's not exactly what arbitrary means.
> 
> ...


I would like to see a well-researched author stating that bluchers are good with business suits. If no such evidence is presented, I think we need to consider doctrine as being on my side in this, which is not wholly unimportant. And I do think that's what arbitrary means. Is it not?

As for being self-evident, see my other reply to EoO.

I am also talking about what well dressed men do (wrong). I'm not sure I follow your definition of a rule as being the absence of social punishment. I'm sure we are discussing something that, while being interesting as a topic, will not warrant disbarment from the club if not followed. And though its not an impediment per se, it's a minus.

I do see an argument forming in favor of balmorals/oxfords being more suitable with business suits.

Patine is the coloration of a new shoe to make it appear older, patinated. Very popular in France. Can be quite stunning, but inappropriate for a business suit.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Three stops beyond Barking I think but an obscure train of thought to Americans I suspect.


Nah, Dagenham is three stops beyond Barking (on the District Line).

Mornington Croissant is a stop on the Paris Metro, maybe he meant to type that?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

https://lespatinesseptiemelargeur.tumblr.com/

Patine


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Nah, Dagenham is three stops beyond Barking (on the District Line).
> 
> Mornington Croissant is a stop on the Paris Metro, maybe he meant to type that?


Well it must be an even more obscure train of thought.:tongue2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Damn. I wanted to get off at sublime. 

Now I'll have to turn around at ridiculous!!


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Damn. I wanted to get off at sublime.
> 
> Now I'll have to turn around at ridiculous!!


I make that journey regularly.

Bjorn, here's Roetzel, on bluchers, in _Gentleman_:

Accompanying a picture of a black PTB: "Derbys or bluchers are suitable for anyone who is not obliged for professional reasons to wear elegant oxfords. In black they are formal enough to conform to the dress code..."

Accompanying a picture of a dark brown captoe blucher: "Derbys with smooth toecaps are not quite as elegant as plain oxfords but are nevertheless an acceptable alternative to the most formal style of shoe. They are sometimes worn in brown to go with a business suit."

He seems to agree with Shaver, more-or-less -- even if bluchers are okay, he prefers bals.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I make that journey regularly.
> 
> Bjorn, here's Roetzel, on bluchers, in _Gentleman_:
> 
> ...


=Oxfords are elegant and should be worn if professional reasons warrant it. I think the black ptb is a particularly odd animal, neither fish nor fowl.

Would we see prince Charles in bluchers and a business suit? I'm thinking not though I may be wrong.

Oh, and the highest marks to those participating in the debate simply (only) by exclamations of disbelief and disgruntlement, we couldn't do this without you. Or could we?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> ...Oh, and the highest marks to those participating in the debate simply (only) by exclamations of disbelief and disgruntlement, we couldn't do this without you. Or could we?


Are you guys gonna sit still for that? :devil:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Are you guys gonna sit still for that? :devil:


Barking like mad dogs!


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> =Oxfords are elegant and should be worn if professional reasons warrant it. I think the black ptb is a particularly odd animal, neither fish nor fowl.
> 
> Would we see prince Charles in bluchers and a business suit? I'm thinking not though I may be wrong.
> 
> Oh, and the highest marks to those participating in the debate simply (only) by exclamations of disbelief and disgruntlement, we couldn't do this without you. Or could we?


The rule for Prince Charles is the same as the rule for Prince Rogers Nelson: he can do whatever he wants with his clothes and still be pretty cool, but that doesn't mean you or I can do the same and be as cool.

Whether he would wear bluchers with a town suit is irrelevant, since it's not as if anybody else could chose to wear the shoes pictured in the close-up. His footwear choices are made on a separate plane where what other people think doesn't matter. I mean, one of the arguments in this thread is whether or not one can wear bluchers in a business setting without suffering mild embarrassment -- I don't know enough to have a say either way, but I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say that the average bank employee would cop a bit of a ribbing for turning up in the shoes pictured.

I do, however, agree with you about black PTBs.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Three stops beyond Barking I think but an obscure train of thought to Americans I suspect.


'Finchley Central' moreso.....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

VictorRomeo said:


> 'Finchley Central' moreso.....


Or even London Below: beware Night's Bridge. cf Gaiman


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Or even London Below: beware Night's Bridge. cf Gaiman


I think we're all getting it now!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Or even London Below: beware Night's Bridge. cf Gaiman


Beware of doors...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> It is simpler, it has less complexity, and conform in structure better with formalwear. It is more restrained in its design.


In your subjective opinion. Don't write it as if it is a fact.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Or even London Below: beware Night's Bridge. cf Gaiman


Coincidentally still reading it. Nearly finished.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Langham said:


> Three stops beyond Barking I think


Yes, I am.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> =
> 
> Would we see prince Charles in bluchers and a business suit? I'm thinking not though I may be wrong.


IMO the picture you have chosen doesn't, on the face of it, fortify the argument in favour of Oxfords.


----------



## coase (Apr 29, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> I don't mean to start citing myself as an authority, but my views on this concept are laid out at length here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...les-and-quot-Rules-quot&p=1065945#post1065945


Dear CD,

I want to thank you for referencing this earlier post of yours. I had never run across it in my Ask Andy searches and it encapsulates many thoughts I've had but could never have said quite so eloquently nor judiciously. And since I've struggled to learn the traditions, while also developing my own sense of what is personally acceptable/desirable/suitable, those remarks have been very helpful.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

If open-laced shoes are prohibited with business suits, someone needs to hurry up and invent a time machine so we can go back and straighten these clowns out:










In the meantime, maybe you English gents can chunnel over to Italy and set this piker in his place:










Gazooks, what terrible, inelegant clodhoppers! It's a shame that the rule or "strong convention" against bluchers with suits is so secret that many of the world's great dressers cannot avail themselves of its wisdom. Oh, the humanity!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Just a few more of men who weren't necessarily style icons, but who were establishment figures from the days when virtually all men of means knew how to dress properly.

Alan Forbes:










John Foster Dulles:










Julio Munoz (apparently a Spanish industrialist; remember when we had "industrialists"?):


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm not ready to stake my life on it, but Jimmy Stewart's shoes here appear to be open-laced:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Not a business suit per se, but a suit with bluchers:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I am deeply disappointed.

One of the forum's most eloquent members, normally capable of compelling debate and insightful reasoning, has resorted to posting a slew of pictures in a futile bid to buttress his position. :devil:


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

What did I start? 

I was simply showing an example that bluchers with suits, while certainly not the ideal, can be perfectly acceptable with lounge suits. Contrary to what many an igent will imply.....


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> I would like to see a well-researched author stating that bluchers are good with business suits. If no such evidence is presented, I think we need to consider doctrine as being on my side in this, which is not wholly unimportant.


The burden is on those who claim the existence of a rule or convention, just as it is in the law. I might wonder if it's legal to drink diet cola on the second tuesday of the month while juggling tennis balls. I will search in vain for a law or case pronouncing the legality of the practice; absence of such a rule is all that one will get. So those who contend something is prohibited have the burden of showing the prohibition. You don't get to shift the burden to the other side just by unilaterally proclaiming "doctrine... on my side."

As for writings as a source, writings on men's clothing are commentary. They can be persuasive, but they are not "the law." The real authority is what well-dressed men do, and what knowledgeable people think about those who engage in a certain practice. If that varies substantially with the commentary, then the commentary is inaccurate as to what is or is not "acceptable." The commentary may (or may not) make an appealing argument for a CHANGE, but a commentator cannot make law.

I've already posted evidence of well-dressed men wearing bluchers with suits. I believe that this conclusively settles the matter of whether there is a rule or strong convention in play - there is NOT. You are free to continue to hold any preference that you wish - but it's just a preference, not a rule. Some writers prefer to avoid the use of semi-colons, and hold that writing without such marks is better; that's a fine preference, but it's not a rule.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

firedancer said:


> What did I start?


Some good clean fun amongst friends!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> One of the forum's most *longwinded* members, normally capable of *bloviating*, has resorted to posting *actual evidence*.


FTFY.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> FTFY.


Hmm I'm not sure I know what you mean. I have an inkling it may be supposed to mock my writing style, perhaps?
It would be a sore mis-representation though, for I have been very pithy for a long while now. No bloviation since AK's days, when it was something of a pastime of ours.

Do I need a lawyer? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> The burden is on those who claim the existence of a rule or convention, just as it is in the law. I might wonder if it's legal to drink diet cola on the second tuesday of the month while juggling tennis balls. I will search in vain for a law or case pronouncing the legality of the practice; absence of such a rule is all that one will get. So those who contend something is prohibited have the burden of showing the prohibition. You don't get to shift the burden to the other side just by unilaterally proclaiming "doctrine... on my side."
> 
> As for writings as a source, writings on men's clothing are commentary. They can be persuasive, but they are not "the law." The real authority is what well-dressed men do, and what knowledgeable people think about those who engage in a certain practice. If that varies substantially with the commentary, then the commentary is inaccurate as to what is or is not "acceptable." The commentary may (or may not) make an appealing argument for a CHANGE, but a commentator cannot make law.
> 
> I've already posted evidence of well-dressed men wearing bluchers with suits. I believe that this conclusively settles the matter of whether there is a rule or strong convention in play - there is NOT. You are free to continue to hold any preference that you wish - but it's just a preference, not a rule. Some writers prefer to avoid the use of semi-colons, and hold that writing without such marks is better; that's a fine preference, but it's not a rule.


More seriously, and appreciating that you are in dialogue with several members (well me and Bjorn, at least) who whilst agreeing on basic principle, extend that principle to differing ends.

It is my position that it is not a law and certainly not a convention but instead it is good practice. Appreciation of Art, to the Artist who creates it, is resultant of an ability to discern that which is inherently more pleasing visually. Unlike Law, which relies upon burdens of proof and statutes, Art relies upon aesthetics which we must accept as instinctive. It is reasonable to expect that logic can apply to legal issues but less so to Artistic endeavour. Inherent to Art is it's intangibility, that it is 'just so'. Try as we might, if we are so compelled, only artistic technique can be reduced to laws not the Art itself. Styles can be categorized broadly but the boundary between styles is difficult to isolate.

I am going to suggest, here, that dressing is Art. That on occasion we must accept a coherent or precise definition is unattainable. We have enjoyed the notion, together, of connoisseural ennui on another thread - and for many famously well-dressed men (those with an almost endless access to clothing and shoes) I suspect this may be a driver behind more outre choice. What would these well dressed men choose if their wardrobes were limited to the more usual amounts?


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Iam going to suggest, here, that dressing is Art. That on occasion we must accept a coherent or precise definition is unattainable. We have enjoyed the notion, together, of connoisseural ennui on another thread - and for many famously well-dressed men (those with an almost endless access to clothing and shoes) I suspect this may be a driver behind choice. _What would these well dressed men choose if their wardrobes were limited to the more usual amounts?_


That, I think, is a really excellent question, and one which I wish I'd kept in mind as I bought clothes. I can't say something like "If only I'd taken all the money I spent on different unusual tweeds and spent it on one really great one," since I've spent probably less than $70 on tweed jackets in my life, but I do wish I'd exercised more restraint and focused on the classics.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Hmm I'm not sure I know what you mean. I have an inkling it may be supposed to mock my writing style, perhaps?
> It would be a sore mis-representation though, for I have been very pithy for a long while now. No bloviation since AK's days, when it was something of a pastime of ours.
> 
> Do I need a lawyer? :icon_smile_wink:


Actually, I was the subject of my own joke there - in contrast to my usual style, for a few posts, I decided to let the pictures do most of the talking.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

The idea that no derby style shoes shoulld be worn with a suit is just another internet "Permanent Rule of Eternal Style" as Sator once put it and arrant nonsense


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I am going to suggest, here, that dressing is Art.


Almost. Dressing is a language that may be used artistically.

Any man is entitled to his preference as to which sentences are most beautiful, but there are rules of grammar that have to be observed in order for the meaning to cohere. When a discussion asks what is "acceptable," then that is a question of grammar. So that's the approach that is called for by this thread.

If what you want is a discussion about whether you and others like a balmoral or a blucher better with a suit, that's a different discussion. As to that, I simply say: Which bal', which blu', and which suit? It's all in the specifics. But, as I said, that's a different discussion than whether bluchers are "acceptable" with suits. They are. They have been. They shall be.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Actually, I was the subject of my own joke there - in contrast to my usual style, for a few posts, I decided to let the pictures do most of the talking.


Sorry CuffDaddy - it's clearly a guiltiness on my part that allowed me to feel the bite of the witticism. I have been known to drone on in the past and indeed am often seen as superfluous by some, even now. 

Just to be certain that the casual reader does not mistake my thrust allow me to echo your sentiment 'good clean fun amongst friends'.

There is nothing as beneficial to the quality of one's opinions and beliefs as being taken to task over them by someone, such as yourself, possessed of talent, craft and guile.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> possessed of talent, craft and guile.


Now, Mr Shaver, back in the day that was the euphemism for "sneaky bastard" now heaven forfend I should suggest you are guilty of disguising such an accusation in such a manner...but.......


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Now, Mr Shaver, back in the day that was the euphemism for "sneaky bastard" now heaven forfend I should suggest you are guilty of disguising such an accusation in such a manner...but.......


If you don't stop stirring it, Earl, I'll tell you how Neverwhere finishes!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Almost. Dressing is a language that may be used artistically.
> 
> Any man is entitled to his preference as to which sentences are most beautiful, but there are rules of grammar that have to be observed in order for the meaning to cohere. When a discussion asks what is "acceptable," then that is a question of grammar. So that's the approach that is called for by this thread.
> 
> If what you want is a discussion about whether you and others like a balmoral or a blucher better with a suit, that's a different discussion. As to that, I simply say: Which bal', which blu', and which suit? It's all in the specifics. But, as I said, that's a different discussion than whether bluchers are "acceptable" with suits. They are. They have been. They shall be.


hmmmm... if I accept (and it is an if) the proposal that dressing is a language then it would be one that is more rudimentary than I believe would stand up to the rigour or scrutiny of grammatical structure.

Of course we may use our clothes as something by which to communicate, certainly we may utilise garments to convey our intent. But in this it is more like the unofficial international sign language - you know the kind of the thing; the gestures and pointing that allows two people who do not speak the same language to achieve a small measure of communication. It may be used as a language for simplistic themes and blunt messages. Now, we could describe dressing as a message and afficianados might believe that the level of communication is sophisticated. But is it subtle enough to allow for a conversation? It is not, and therefore surely cannot be considered a language.

However what dressing certainly allows for is a statement, as does Art.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> If you don't stop stirring it, Earl, I'll tell you how Neverwhere finishes!


NOOOOO!!!!! Please sir, don't sir, I promise to be good sir.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Have you read American Gods by the same author? I'm not keen on modern authors by and large, more a reader of the classics. However Gaiman is so good at capturing the imagination and spinning a good old fashioned yarn. American Gods, with it's theme of all mythologies from all cultures, is a pure delight.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Have you read American Gods by the same author?


Not yet, it's in my pile of books to read,I've got a friend keeps on at me to read it. I've read Anansi Boys and Good Omens (with Terry Pritchard) both of which I liked. I gave up however on Stardust, I thought it was terrible.

Same friend recently lent me the non-fiction Necronomicon - Dead Names by Simon, which I am now reading, fascinating stuff.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> In your subjective opinion. Don't write it as if it is a fact.


All opinions are subjective


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> The burden is on those who claim the existence of a rule or convention, just as it is in the law. I might wonder if it's legal to drink diet cola on the second tuesday of the month while juggling tennis balls. I will search in vain for a law or case pronouncing the legality of the practice; absence of such a rule is all that one will get. So those who contend something is prohibited have the burden of showing the prohibition. You don't get to shift the burden to the other side just by unilaterally proclaiming "doctrine... on my side."
> 
> As for writings as a source, writings on men's clothing are commentary. They can be persuasive, but they are not "the law." The real authority is what well-dressed men do, and what knowledgeable people think about those who engage in a certain practice. If that varies substantially with the commentary, then the commentary is inaccurate as to what is or is not "acceptable." The commentary may (or may not) make an appealing argument for a CHANGE, but a commentator cannot make law.
> 
> I've already posted evidence of well-dressed men wearing bluchers with suits. I believe that this conclusively settles the matter of whether there is a rule or strong convention in play - there is NOT. You are free to continue to hold any preference that you wish - but it's just a preference, not a rule. Some writers prefer to avoid the use of semi-colons, and hold that writing without such marks is better; that's a fine preference, but it's not a rule.


I don't really sort things into rule and non-rule, which should be evident above. For the reasons stated above I consider bluchers a strong minus with suits. You apparently don't. Doctrinal writing on the subject is with me. You object that doctrine isn't really worth anything. Oh well...

I have made a similar statement that I don't find your postings on well dressed men wearing bluchers with suits as evidence that bluchers are suitable with business suits. Indeed, I find their choice of footwear less than optimal, since they could conceivably have worn balmorals.

When I claim that bluchers with a suit is inappropriate, and you claim they are appropriate, we are equally charged with the burden of evidence to argue in favor of our respective opinions. So I object against pinning the burden of evidence on me.

You are free to consider the choice between bluchers with business suits or not a preference, I would argue that balmorals are more 'correct'. Which would make it more than a preference. And, again, books on the subject are not entirely worthless...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not yet, it's in my pile of books to read,I've got a friend keeps on at me to read it. I've read Anansi Boys and Good Omens (with Terry Pritchard) both of which I liked. I gave up however on Stardust, I thought it was terrible.
> 
> Same friend recently lent me the non-fiction Necronomicon - Dead Names by Simon, which I am now reading, fascinating stuff.


And Stardust was great. GREAT.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> All opinions are subjective


...but they are not equally so!!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

This thread is something else (in a good way, although I suspect an acquired taste).



CuffDaddy said:


> The burden is on those who claim the existence of a rule or convention, just as it is in the law. I might wonder if it's legal to drink diet cola on the second tuesday of the month while juggling tennis balls. I will search in vain for a law or case pronouncing the legality of the practice; absence of such a rule is all that one will get.





Bjorn said:


> When I claim that bluchers with a suit is inappropriate, and you claim they are appropriate, we are equally charged with the burden of evidence to argue in favor of our respective opinions. So I object against pinning the burden of evidence on me.


I respect the both of you, and probably agree more often with CuffDaddy on the merits. But I think the legal analogy is flawed (albeit amusing): The existence of a legal principle has hard consequences (e.g. criminal or civil sanctions). The existence of a rule or convention as to appropriate dress at worst results in social opprobrium among the discerning.

But even if the analogy was fitting, the talk of burdens is misplaced. Under that flawed analogy, this is not a question of evidence, but of law. All the absence of authority determines is that the law is unsettled. That is only to be resolved in the favour of one party - broadly speaking - where the criminal law is in issue.

If an analogy was to be drawn with the law at all, the better approach would be to describe the overarching legal doctrine as 'one should dress appropriately'. What that means needs to be determined in the caselaw!

In fact, what we have here is not the absence of authority but the conflict of authority. Bjorn asserts that doctrinal writing is on his side. CuffDaddy provides examples of well-dressed men wearing bluchers with suits. That leaves the position in law unsettled. Unfortunately there is not a sartorial judge before whom we can argue the point!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I have ZERO reservations about wearing a dressy blucher with a suit. Others may choose differently, but I don't consider my choice any less valid than theirs.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour said:


> TBjorn asserts that doctrinal writing is on his side.


And Bjorn overstates his authority. It's easy to find authors who say that bluchers _generally_ will be less formal than bals, or that _many_ bluchers are not for business wear. Nobody is disputing those points.

But Bjorn claims an *absolute* prohibition. If there are (many, many - I just got bored and figured any rational observer would concede the point) counter-examples of well-dressed men violating a supposed absolute, then the absolute is not. Consistent with this, few authors, if any, authors claim an absolute. If Bjorn claims he has support for his actual position, not just a middle ground, he can provide it.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> And Bjorn overstates his authority. It's easy to find authors who say that bluchers _generally_ will be less formal than bals, or that _many_ bluchers are not for business wear. Nobody is disputing those points.
> 
> But Bjorn claims an *absolute* prohibition. If there are (many, many - I just got bored and figured any rational observer would concede the point) counter-examples of well-dressed men violating a supposed absolute, then the absolute is not. Consistent with this, few authors, if any, authors claim an absolute. If Bjorn claims he has support for his actual position, not just a middle ground, he can provide it.


Can I be the sartorial judge?:biggrin2: Just kidding.

I don't disagree with this. As far as I've seen (although I haven't re-read the thread) the doctrinal writing has only been asserted rather than cited. I've never myself claimed this for a rule.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> And Bjorn overstates his authority. It's easy to find authors who say that bluchers _generally_ will be less formal than bals, or that _many_ bluchers are not for business wear. Nobody is disputing those points.
> 
> But Bjorn claims an *absolute* prohibition. If there are (many, many - I just got bored and figured any rational observer would concede the point) counter-examples of well-dressed men violating a supposed absolute, then the absolute is not. Consistent with this, few authors, if any, authors claim an absolute. If Bjorn claims he has support for his actual position, not just a middle ground, he can provide it.


I shall have to return to this when I have my books out of moving boxes and don have to type on my phone, then...

An absolute minus is still nothing more nor less than a minus. I much prefer them over tennis shoes.

Mind the gap


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I much prefer them over tennis shoes.


:biggrin2:


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> All opinions are subjective


Unless they're objective, of course. Oh the irony! :smile:


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

I am now slightly bored with this thread, but, for the record, continue to agree with the people who agree with me.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Balfour said:


> This thread is something else (in a good way, although I suspect an acquired taste).
> 
> I respect the both of you, and probably agree more often with CuffDaddy on the merits. But I think the legal analogy is flawed (albeit amusing): The existence of a legal principle has hard consequences (e.g. criminal or civil sanctions). The existence of a rule or convention as to appropriate dress at worst results in social opprobrium among the discerning.
> 
> ...


 When most of those who write on the subject, both published authors and forum contributors, call something a "rule", they expect the reader to understand what they mean by a "rule" from the context of their pronouncement. Others, Cuff perhaps the most articulate, seeking more exactitude in their language, use the word "rule" in a more limited fashion. Cuff's taxonomy of Rule, Convention, and Preference is a very well thought out attempt to provide terms of art that can bring an exactitude, that would be otherwise lacking, to a discussion. Obviously, when discussing a matter with Cuff it is very useful to understand what he means when he calls something a rule, a convention, or a preference.

Everyone, as Cuff readily admits, does not use these terms with the exactitude he does, nor does he expect everyone to use his terminology. Others use their own terms of art, or just rely on context, to express meaning. (I use Cuff as an example because he has a way with language and has taken the time to create a serious attempt at clarifying the language used here). Nevertheless, most men here are not familiar with Cuff's taxonomy, and no doubt there are a few who are familiar with it but will not use it themselves.

After reading thousands of threads it is my impression that many times what on the surface looks like disagreement is really just the use of different terms to mean the same thing, or the use of the same term to mean different things.

Now I come to the reason I quote Mr. Balfour's post, his observation "there is not a sartorial judge before whom we can argue the point!" It was not always thus. In a story, attributed of both Edward VII and George V, when Lord Harris wore a particular (accounts vary) item , His Majesty is reported to have taken one look at him and asked, "Goin' rattin', Harris?"

While today there is no one judge there are judges, men whose pronouncements are meaningful, pronouncements that carry weight, at least with some of us. (There are certainly men who admit of no authority, we see their posts regularly.) Speaking for myself I admit the authority of a number of authors, and even more than one IGent.

Finally to the subject of bluchers and balmorals, derbys and oxfords. As George Orwell would have put it, had he been asked: All shoes are equal, but some shoes are more equal than others. As Aristotle often prefaced statements, for the most part, bluchers on a town last certainly can be worn with a suit, on the other hand, the same shoe in balmoral form is more formal. ---that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Happy Thanksgiving,

Regards,

Alan


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> An absolute minus is still nothing more nor less than a minus. I much prefer them over tennis shoes.


You seem to be operating under the presumption that the goal is maximum formality anytime one is in a suit. While, all else held equal, a blucher will be less formal than an identical bal, who says that's a minus? Sometimes one notch less formal is exactly what is called for.

Nothing contributes more to the death of the suit than its treatment as a "formal" garment, a uniform that must be treated not as clothing but as uniform. That's about the most unstylish and uncomfortable view one can have, and its no wonder that men exposed to that view of the suit have abandoned it.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Can I be the sartorial judge?:biggrin2:


Of course you can - you just have to share the job. The community of well-educated men of taste has always been at least the jury, and the judge for the whole of the postwar period.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> You seem to be operating under the presumption that the goal is maximum formality anytime one is in a suit. While, all else held equal, a blucher will be less formal than an identical bal, who says that's a minus? Sometimes one notch less formal is exactly what is called for.
> 
> Nothing contributes more to the death of the suit than its treatment as a "formal" garment, a uniform that must be treated not as clothing but as uniform. That's about the most unstylish and uncomfortable view one can have, and its no wonder that men exposed to that view of the suit have abandoned it.


Or perhaps that individual expression or dandyism is more successfully done within certain strictures of relative formality, and my concept of a business suit being a relatively formal dressing option, to convey respect to the client, the employer etc.

I'd think that there's a certain divide between cultures as I may be coming from a setting that adheres much less to a norm of individuality over group. Perhaps if you consider Swedes (and to some extent, Britons and Germans) as closer to the Japanese, than to Americans, it may come across as slightly less uncomfortable and unstylish. Just a little different in perspective.

I also allow for the fact that there are several types of suits besides a business suit.

However, I do believe that imposing (arbitrary if you wish) strictures on the 'business suit' is not, in fact detrimental to the suit. To some extent, the suit comes directly from military wear. I consider someone whom, within the rather narrow definition of correct business wear that I'm all for, chooses his tie, shoes, socks, shirt excellently, to be better dressed than someone who chooses to deviate somewhere and introduce more casual (not casual per se but more casual) elements into the mix. Typically, as a 'rule of thumb' if you wish.

Because that's way easier. If I pair my navy business suit with a pair of lighter brown shoes, nicely colored socks, no tie, a cool scarf, a bigger sized watch, some multicolored wristbands, a brown Hermes "H" belt, a nice PS then I'm sure ill be wildly successful with the ladies. But that's not what business wear is about, and I'm not Lapo Elkan. I'm dressed for a different purpose than business then, even more so since I'm relatively young. I'm not saying that Bluchers with business suits is like going tieless but it's a step in that direction that (as you say) requires some thought. Is one notch less formal 'really' called for?

Typically, balmorals are therefore more 'correct'. This may come off as a slightly straight edge approach to the business suit, but I'd rather work in that direction than the other. Also, there's a wonderful sense of completeness and correctness with staying within strictures while still looking stylish, wearing a business suit, that does somewhat remind me of the first time I had (correctly, which wasn't the first time I tried...) donned uniform and gear while doing service. Perhaps most of you have been partners at your respective law firms so long that its somewhat lost its appeal 

Also, most men have not abandoned the suit (!), they were just never forced to try it for any duration of time.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> All opinions are subjective


Exactly, QED they're not facts!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

VictorRomeo said:


> Unless they're objective, of course. Oh the irony! :smile:


I'm not sure I accept the concept of objective opinion on dress. It seems firmly in the realm of social science, interpretative at best and postmodern at worst...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Exactly, QED they're not facts!


But that applies equally to both statements:

1. Bluchers are appropriate with business suits, and
2. That they are not.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

You make some interesting points, Bjorn, some of which I find myself agreeing with, but I am unwilling to accept this fetishisation of the balmoral/oxford shoe. Nor is a suit a military uniform, but rather an expression (whether deliberately, subconsciously or accidentally) of personality. There are so many subtle choices and distinctions to be made, which I'm sure I need not catalogue in this forum. The variations, subtle or otherwise, relating to footwear choice to complement the suit are just an extension of the foregoing.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

God forbid we let the lawyers dictate fashion. Next it will be dress designers dictating the law.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ oh that's not so bad, CuffDaddy and Balfour have my general agreement. The lawyers can dictate with my blessing. :icon_smile_wink:

It just seems to always be the subject of shoes where we diverge......


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> But that applies equally to both statements:
> 
> 1. Bluchers are appropriate with business suits, and
> 2. That they are not.


Exactly, they're both opinions, not facts.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Having been directed to this entertaining discussion via the "cap-toed bluchers" thread (not to be confused with the "pigeon-toed accountants" thread nor the "camel-toed females" thread), I would like to propose this:

Less-formal shoes (some bluchers; certainly something like a tasseled longwing slip-on) can be useful in abating the formality of a suit that may otherwise appear too stuffy for a particular occasion. This seems to me to be true, but I'd like to hear from others. I've used my AE Manchesters for this purpose for some time now.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

blairrob said:


> the dude is wearing black shoes with a suit! Why we are we even discussing this!!!!:devil:


Well said, my view exactly.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

I wear a pair of spit-shined black, military-style, (no seam at the toe point), round toe bluchers at least twice a week with my suits to work. Not even a shoe or foot fetishist would comment on them being anything but perfect.
If anyone ever notices the vamp enough to see the flaps and comments that a bal woudl be more appropriate, I will suggest that he has paid more than the usual attention to my feet and I will then fear an invitation to drinks and dinner as a means of even closer examination.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The diehard, balmoral-only guys will make me give up my pursuit of black, three eyelet, derby ankle boots (_specifically_ for wearing with suits :eek2 when hell freezes over. Or, you know, I finally buy them.

Also, the revival of this thread has given me a new signature quote. Thank you, CuffDaddy.


----------



## Barcelona (Aug 13, 2009)

Cary Grant wore black two-eyelet derbies in _Charade.

https://bamfstyle.wordpress.com/tag/cary-grant/_


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Those look rather nice, too.


----------



## Busterdog (Jan 1, 2010)

I'm the proud owner of a new puppy (much to the chagrin of my other three dogs - not to mention my cat) she begs to be let out at 'sparrow fart' each morning so I'm taking the opportunity of going through old threads. 

I wear Derby (Bluchers) brogues with tweed suits, sport coats and, occasionally, with a blazer. I would not wear Derbies with 'town' suits. Personal preference though I wouldn't pour scorn on those who do.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

This was a less formal day for Bond so he had some flexibility. If he were meeting with M, then oxfords would be in order.


----------



## AshScache (Feb 4, 2013)

Gh 


Gh.


----------



## kravi (Feb 26, 2013)

Ok, even though this is a half-necro thread, having read through it all I'm going to add in my two cents. And yes, two cents is really about all my advice is worth.

First off, a disclaimer. I am a dual-citizen of the US and Israel. In Israel, a groom is considered over dress if he wears a jacket to his own wedding. CEOs of multimillion dollar companies (and sitting members of Parliament) routinely wear sandals and shorts to work. So when it comes to "formal" fashion, I delete that half of my mind and stick with the American half - no snickering please. (As a complete aside, though, Israelis do have wonderful fashion, it is just very casual. Great shoes there too).

A second disclaimer is that I have done business throughout Europe, the UK, and east Asia (as well as the US obviously). So perhaps that will lend at least a modicum of legitimacy to my observations.

First, discussing bluchers/derbies vs balmorrals out of national context is nearly impossible. It must be accepted that different nations have radically different concepts of dress code and what is appropriate. The English invented the modern suit, it is true, but the rest of the world, despite having adopted it as business/semi-formalwear did not necessarily copy the same "rules" that the English did.

The Italians have learned to make some of the best (and worst) suits in the world, and it is absolutely appropriate to wear a purple suit with shiny yellow balmorals to work in Milan or Rome. I have even seen bright colours worn by bankers over there. In Italy people want to stick out and look both unique and fashionable.

In England, historically (not speaking about right now, necessarily), the suits were worn to fit in and to blend. A nice suit did not show off the wearers body, it did not scream "bling", and the colours of blue and grey (for city wear) fit in to the same colour pallet you saw in the major cities (minus the brick).

The Americans, I think, tried to emulate the English fashions more exactly, but due to less cultural pressure to conform ended up with more variety. So in the US you have some people who wear suits to show off (look at the Hollywood red carpet parades), some people who wear suits to show respect (see a court of law or anyone selling to the DoD or IC in the US government), and some people who wear suits because they have to (look at banks, salesmen at Macey's, etc).

All three examples here have different rules. While yes, the American fashion more closely emulates the English than the Italian, it doesn't mean that the "rules" in the US are or should be the same as the rules in the UK. In the US I would argue that smooth toe black bluchers and cap-toe black oxfords are the same in regards to formality. I would also argue that the US doesn't have the concept of country-wear, and that here earth coloured suits are just as appropriate and formal as navy or grey suits. If Ronald Regan could wear a brown suit for state business, I feel it acceptable for the rest of us.

Cheers!

Adam

P.S. As a complete aside, I don't actually own any earth coloured suits. Mine are all navy or grey.


----------

