# Blucher vs Balmoral Differences



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

OK, I've searched threads here and searched google, but I want to make sure I have this all right befor eI start buying new shoes (As an aside on that, particularly looking at AE as basis for my shoe collection, as it seems to be best balance of quality and styling that will last me for years, without exceeding my budget).

Balmorals - Tight or Closed lacing where the sides are actuallly touchign when laces are tight. Appropriate for suits and formal wear (obviously black patent or highly polished calf in second case).

Blucher - "open" lacing or sides don't touch when laced up. Appropriate for blazer or unmathced sportcoat.

That about cover it? Slipons of course being another thing completely. Also, if anyone has a site along lines of Blacktieguide.com, but for shoes instead (oxford vs slipon vs Monk Strap, Balmoral vs blucher, etc) of for black tie, I'd love to expand my knowledge and be a more informed consumer and just better educated to contribute here.

Thanks.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

You're right about the terminology of closed and open lacing and of what to wear what with (though balmorals can be worn with a sport coat as well), but the identifying factor is not the gap between the laces, but the way the part of the leather with the lace holes is attached. See balmoral https://www.aldenshoe.com/cat_ane2_c906.htm and blucher https://www.aldenshoe.com/cat_ane2_972.htm


----------



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

So right on effect, but wrong on cause. Figured I'd probably missed something. Thanks. Too many of posts on here and sites on web didn't have pictures to just quickly show the difference. Those links showed what I had missed though.


----------



## GeorgePaul (Dec 15, 2007)

See . BTW, I think properly-chosen bluchers and slipons are appropriate for suits.


----------



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

Perfect GeorgePaul, thanks. And rather appropriate that it's on a dance shoe site.


----------



## Francisco D'Anconia (Apr 18, 2007)

When looking at Internet discussions and catalogs, to avoid some confusion, keep in mind that in the UK many refer to:

a "Balmoral" as an "Oxford" .
a "Blucher" as a "Derby".


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Indeed, in the UK a "Balmoral" is a specific type of oxford (sometimes termed a "galosh oxford") with a horizontal seam like this pair which the folks at Cleverley crafted for me:

https://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img0342fd5.jpg


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

etp777 said:


> OK, I've searched threads here and searched google, but I want to make sure I have this all right before I start buying new shoes.
> 
> Balmorals - Tight or Closed lacing where the sides are actuallly touching when laces are tight. Appropriate for suits and formal wear (obviously black patent or highly polished calf in second case).
> 
> Blucher - "open" lacing or sides don't touch when laced up. Appropriate for blazer or unmatched sportcoat.


As I am sure you have found, there have been a great number of past discussions on this topic. This particular thread is just one of many, but it has some illustrations that might be of help.

While I only wear oxfords with suits and generally pair derby shoes with sports coats, there are many who find this too limiting. This is particularly true in the United States where derby shoes and suits are as common as their oxford counterparts. It should also be noted that there is a wide continuum of formality within both genres and that one must not only take into account the overarching construction, but the specific styling, weight, bulk, leather, color and finish as well as the occasion to which they are being worn. I should also note that some individuals -- particularly those with high insteps -- seem to be able to find a better fit in shoes in the derby style. That said, while I will readily concede that there are some very sleek and stylish derby shoes that might look more than appropriate with a suit...and certainly such a style can be well matched with country clothing and weekend wear, I am a creature of habit and tradition and have yet to take that approach. But the choice is yours. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Here's a question that might just belong in this thread:

I've underinvested in derbies (bluchers) relative to the number of oxfords in my closet. That's not a real huge problem, as several of the oxfords are brogued to one degree or another, or suede, and can make the transition to odd jackets or flannel suits fairly comfortably. And underinvested is a relative term, here. But there is a point when it would be nice to tilt the wardrobe just a little further to informality.

I've got an EG last (33) that should work, and I've decided to get shoes in Very Dark Brown--- which EG will sometimes do in lieu of Dark Oak. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery based on experience or heartfelt opinions on whether Elmsley (cap toe, only a little perforation at the seam) or Cardiff (basic semi-brogue) might be more useful? This is mostly going to be worn at the office with odd trousers (flannels, twills, frescoes, the occasional worsted tweed, etc.) and to be dressed down with a sweater or up all the way to a navy odd jacket, with or without a tie. I can imagine some duty with a grey flannel or tweed suit, also. 

If need be, I might end up doing another pair in dark oak, so it is not necessary to solve all problems with this one order. Mostly, I'm trying to imagine the Very Dark Brown on my feet, and whether it needs a little surface variety to earn its keep, or if it is too dark even to bother worrying about it.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

I would wear them interchangeably. I like the Cardiff, personally, though I'd opt for a slightly lighter shade.

.


----------



## GeorgePaul (Dec 15, 2007)

medwards said:


> ...This is particularly true in the United States where derby shoes and suits are as common as their oxford counterparts. It should also be noted that there is a wide continuum of formality within both genres and that one must not only take into account the overarching construction, but the specific styling, weight, bulk, leather, color and finish as well as the occasion to which they are being worn.


Hear hear! I live in Southern California and I hardly ever see anyone wearing an Oxford. Most people wear derbys and slip-ons.



> I should also note that some individuals -- particularly those with high insteps -- seem to be able to find a better fit in shoes in the derby style.


Yes. That's because derbys are more adjustable than oxfords.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

DocHolliday said:


> ... though I'd opt for a slightly lighter shade.
> 
> .


Not sure I disagree, but I do not normally prefer EG's antiqued colors. It happens that they have a little aniline leather lurking about in Very Dark Brown, which is something I've always wanted to try. For 24/7 wear without suits, something like Bracken would undoubtedly be more useful.


----------



## GeorgePaul (Dec 15, 2007)

Take a look at "Guess Who I Ran Into Uptown (part 1) - BFMan!!" at https://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html. Don't his derbys look just fine with the suit? Some would frown on black derbys worn with suits during daylight hours, but I don't.


----------



## eguanlao (Feb 15, 2005)

*Three Types of Oxfords*

There are three types of oxfords: balmoral oxfords, adelaide oxfords and wholecut oxfords. (Antongiavanni, Nicholas. "The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men's Style." Collins, 2006. 93.)

*Balmorals:* straight side seams.
*Adelaides:* no side seams, U-shaped throat.
*Wholecuts:* made of a single piece of leather.

The Americans are incorrect for calling all oxfords balmorals.

Balmoral example: medwards' photo above (post #7)
Adelaide example: https://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cleverleybespokeadelaidesantiquechestnuthw5.jpg
Wholecut example (Allen-Edmonds Westgate): https://images.google.com/images?q=allen+edmonds+westgate

Then what is the Allen-Edmonds Park Avenue? It is neither a balmoral nor an adelaide. It is not a wholecut. What is it?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

eguanlao said:


> There are three types of oxfords: balmoral oxfords, adelaide oxfords and wholecut oxfords. (Antongiavanni, Nicholas. "The Suit: A Machiavellian Approach to Men's Style." Collins, 2006. 93.)


There are, in fact, other types of oxford shoes. Consider, for example, the classic full brogue or traditional cap toe approaches.



> Then what is the Allen-Edmonds Park Avenue? It is neither a balmoral nor an adelaide. It is not a wholecut. What is it?


It is a stitched toe oxford.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

etp777 said:


> So right on effect, but wrong on cause. Figured I'd probably missed something. Thanks. Too many of posts on here and sites on web didn't have pictures to just quickly show the difference. Those links showed what I had missed though.


Well, let's try to remedy that for future searchers that find this thread.

This is a cap-toe balmoral (US) or oxford (UK).

This is a cap-toe blucher (US) or derby (UK).

This is a monk strap.

This is a loafer or slip-on. Loafers are also called casuals by at least some English makers.

Now for some different types of oxfords, in the UK sense of the term.

This is a balmoral (UK). Note the straight side seams.

This is a wholecut. The whole shoe is made from one piece of leather.

This is an adelaide. Note the U-shaped throat.

This is a full brogue. Note the wing tip and decorative punching, or broguing, all over.

This is known as an austerity brogue. So called because the shoe pattern follows that of the full brogue above, but without the punching.

This is a semi-brogue. Note the straight toe cap, rather than the wing-shaped cap of the full brogue. Some make a distinction between quarter- and half brogues, depending on the presence or lack of a heel counter and the amount of broguing.

I'm sure more could be added, but this may be a good start to a pictorial index of shoe types. Now let's just hope Sky Valet keeps their pictures in the same location.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

It should be noted, however, that not even all British shoemakers use the same terminology.  John Lobb (St. James's), for example, has its own lexicon, forgoing the term "derby" shoe while including a wide assortment of "navvy" cut shoes, "v front" models, "hilo" shoes, etc. And so it goes...


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

Orgetorix said:


> This is known as an austerity brogue. So called because the shoe pattern follows that of the full brogue above, but without the punching.


What would be the difference between an austerity brogue, a stitched brogue, and a blind brogue?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

It is my understanding that an *austerity brogue *is a wing-tipped oxford without any of the punching that one typically finds on such a shoe (as Orgetorix notes above). The term is said to date back to the First World War when the style was reportedly fashioned to save leather. Certain makers term this a *stitched brogue *for self-evident reasons. A *blind brogue *has broguing and punching; however, its designs are punched directly into the surface leather of the shoe, whereas the standard brogue has this punching embedded on additional pieces of leather which are added to the shoe's surface.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Orgetorix said:


> .....
> I'm sure more could be added, but this may be a good start to a pictorial index of shoe types. Now let's just hope Sky Valet keeps their pictures in the same location.


Excellent post Orgetorix...very clear and informative! Indeed, a picture must be worth a thousand words, for none in the past have been able to say it quite so clearly.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

GeorgePaul said:


> Take a look at "Guess Who I Ran Into Uptown (part 1) - BFMan!!" at https://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html. Don't his derbys look just fine with the suit? Some would frown on black derbys worn with suits during daylight hours, but I don't.


I would suggest they look a bit busy and informal, attract the eye downward, and really don't add to the overall look. But to each his own.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

eguanlao said:


> The Americans are incorrect for calling all oxfords balmorals.


I can't agree. This is like saying Americans are incorrect for not calling an elevator a "lift" or cuffs "turnups." American English is American English. Affecting British usage when not in Britain is a recipe for confusion.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> I can't agree. This is like saying Americans are incorrect for not calling an elevator a "lift" or cuffs "turnups." American English is American English. Affecting British usage when not in Britain is a recipe for confusion.


It depends whether the difference in usage arises from custom or ignorance.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

StephenRG said:


> It depends whether the difference in usage arises from custom or ignorance.


I'd agree, if we're talking about one person using an incorrect term. But if it's common usage, it's common usage. Some battles are long since over.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

medwards said:


> As I am sure you have found, there have been a great number of past discussions on this topic. This particular thread is just one of many, but it has some illustrations that might be of help.
> 
> While I only wear oxfords with suits and generally pair derby shoes with sports coats, there are many who find this too limiting. This is particularly true in the United States where derby shoes and suits are as common as their oxford counterparts. It should also be noted that there is a wide continuum of formality within both genres and that one must not only take into account the overarching construction, but the specific styling, weight, bulk, leather, color and finish as well as the occasion to which they are being worn. I should also note that some individuals -- particularly those with high insteps -- seem to be able to find a better fit in shoes in the derby style. That said, while I will readily concede that there are some very sleek and stylish derby shoes that might look more than appropriate with a suit...and certainly such a style can be well matched with country clothing and weekend wear, I am a creature of habit and tradition and have yet to take that approach. But the choice is yours. :icon_smile_wink:


As always a considered and useful contribution Medwards, but I do have one question. Like you, I find derbies (I guess that's how we'd spell the plural) less than desirable with suits and wouldn't pair the two. However, how do you feel about the opposite supposed mis-match: oxfords with more casual dress--like a sports jacket with either an open-neck shirt or a shirt and tie? I've grown to quite like this look, with a sleek pair of oxfords giving a little dash to the more-casual outfit.

_Edit:_ I didn't mean to restrict this question to only Medwards. What do the rest of you think about this combination?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Roger said:


> ...how do you feel about the opposite supposed mis-match: oxfords with more casual dress--like a sports jacket with either an open-neck shirt or a shirt and tie?


I have some oxfords -- indeed the illustration of the buckskin Balmorals elsewhere in this thread being a fair example -- that not only do I wear with such attire but I can't imagine pairing them with anything else.


----------



## GeorgePaul (Dec 15, 2007)

medwards said:


> I would suggest they look a bit busy and informal, attract the eye downward, and really don't add to the overall look.


How about this derby?










Do you think it looks busy?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

No, I generally find such two eyelet derbys very clean and elegant (depending on the last and finish of course).


----------



## GeorgePaul (Dec 15, 2007)

Roger said:


> However, how do you feel about the opposite supposed mis-match: oxfords with more casual dress--like a sports jacket with either an open-neck shirt or a shirt and tie? I've grown to quite like this look, with a sleek pair of oxfords giving a little dash to the more-casual outfit.


It's not a mismatch. It's fine to wear oxfords with sport jackets, just as long as the style of the shoe goes along with the rest of the outfit. I would avoid wearing very sleek wholecuts with a tweed jacket, for example.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

GeorgePaul said:


> It's not a mismatch. It's fine to wear oxfords with sport jackets, just as long as the style of the shoe goes along with the rest of the outfit. I would avoid wearing very sleek wholecuts with a tweed jacket, for example.


Well, I tend to agree, but according to the "rules" that state oxfords with suits, derbies with jackets/trousers, oxfords with the more casual outfit would be seen by some as a mis-match. Hence my use of the term "supposed mis-match." You'll see by my earlier post that this is one "rule" I tend to ignore, so that for me this combination doesn't constitute a mis-match! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

Georgepaul, i'd definitely wear those shoes with a suit. Though there is only so far I'll go against that rule, and the AE Kendall (think that's the name), black patent derbies that they sell for formal wear are the shoes that are past the line for my taste. Particularly when the AE Copleys look so much better and follow the rules.


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

GeorgePaul said:


> How about this derby?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like them, not busy at all IMHO.


----------



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

Orgetorix said:


> Well, let's try to remedy that for future searchers that find this thread.
> 
> This is a cap-toe balmoral (US) or oxford (UK).
> 
> ...


Where did all the pictures go?


----------



## triumph (May 4, 2014)

Could someone revive this thread with pics. :icon_scratch: A lot of threads have mentioned the difference but all the pics have been vanished.


----------



## Fred G. Unn (Jul 12, 2011)

triumph said:


> Could someone revive this thread with pics. :icon_scratch: A lot of threads have mentioned the difference but all the pics have been vanished.


A lot of this info is easily available with pics elsewhere though. Here's one good site:
https://oldleathershoe.com/wordpress/?p=173


----------



## Piqué (Apr 10, 2014)

triumph said:


> Could someone revive this thread with pics. :icon_scratch: A lot of threads have mentioned the difference but all the pics have been vanished.


The difference has to do with how the lacing area of the shoe is constructed.

This is a balmoral. Notice how the lacing area is closed:

And this is a blucher. Notice how the lacing area is open, as if the back part of the shoe is sewn on top of the front part of the shoe:


----------



## colorvision (Aug 7, 2014)

Pique, which blucher is shown above? It looks like the shoe AE calls the Lexington cap-toe oxford:
https://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF2996_1_40000000001_-1_2987


----------



## triumph (May 4, 2014)

Awesome Thanks gentlemen


----------

