# Purpose of black bluchers?



## Hilltopper (Jun 8, 2014)

Until fairly recently, I had never really paid attention to the distinction between bluchers and balmorals. It seems to be that balmorals are considered dressier and it seems like most people on this forum think that they are the only thing that is appropriate for a suit. On the other hand, bluchers are better for more casual wear, like chinos.

This general rule makes sense to me. But one thing I don't get is what purpose a black blucher serves, especially since browns look so much better with casual pants (in my opinion). Allen Edmonds and other nice brands make tons of bluchers in black, so clearly someone is buying them. 

Should they be worn with suits? Casual wear? None of the above?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If one is going to have a pair of black shoes, they should be balmorals. I'm not a fan of black and personally wouldn't buy a pair of black bluchers, but it's also a matter of tastes. Some people like black shoes.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Black captoe bals are one of the main business shoes out there. Black Bluchers have a place (I have a pair of Santoni FAMs) but they are not an "essential" for those with a limited rotation.


----------



## Spex (Nov 25, 2012)

I suppose a few months have passed without this type of question coming up, so it was due.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?103714-balmoral-vs-blucher

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?115420-Bluchers-with-suits

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?60831-Bluchers-with-Suits

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?116090-Could-I-wear-bluchers-formally

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...120-Would-you-wear-these-bluchers-with-a-suit

I think one of the best situations to wear black bluchers is with an odd jacket paired with mid to charcoal grey pants, which are a staple item. Here in North America only those of us on forums such as these would even understand the difference, let alone care. Some simply wear a blucher vs a balmoral due to comfort.

I say if it's good enough for Bond, it's good enough for me: https://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?p=13


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Partially, it depends on where you live. In the UK bluchers are not considered formal enough to wear with suits. In the US the "rules" are more relaxed. The iGents will conform to the British conventions and only wear closed lace shoes with suits, but the rest of America, the 99.5% you will meet will not know the difference or care.

In general bluchers are more casual than oxfords. And for many the open lacing is more comfortable. That said either type runs a gamut of it's own formality depending on the degree of brouging, capping, and texture. The less perfs and brouging the more formal, the smoother the leather, the more formal. The uninterupted sleeker lines of closed lacing makes them more formal in general.

The US divides the shoes into open laced bluchers, and closed lace Bals, calling all laceup leather shoes Oxfords. The UK calls the open lace a derby, and the closed lace are divided into oxfords, and then bals which are oxfords with a straight lie of brouging running horizontally from the vamp across the top of the shoe to the heel. So terminology depends on who you are talking to, here in the US we will be calling all closed laced leather shoes oxfords, and in deference to this difference, some of our UK members will do the same as they know we are ignorant cololnials.

Here in the US you can do whatever makes you comfortable, and no one will be the wiser except forum members. I've seen well dressed men wear suits with penny loafers for God's sake.

Now black bluchers do invoke a special disdain on both sides of the pond from the more discernable members of our board. Black being the most formal color seems a poor combination with the casualness of open lacing, yet many will wear suits with a black wingtip bal which is combining casual brouging with the formality of black. The clashing of these two design aspects apparently does not concern those who otherwise will rail at a black blucher.

Bottom line: Wear what you like and feel comfortable with. If you want to conform to the "rules" for the sake of being safe, wear closed lacing with suit, and save the bluchers for SC and casual wear. And NEVER, EVER mention black bluchers to Shaver under any circumstances.

The following is my own personal opinion, I do not present it as a fashion/style rule, so as not to offend certain sensitive members.

I personally will not wear a blucher with a worsted suit, but I have enough bals (US terminology), that it is not an issue. I will wear both bals and bluchers casualy but that depends on the degree of casualnes I am adopting, and again with over 80 pairs, I have enough of both for most any situation (there are still another 20 or 30 out there I covet, but those are in the EG/AC/JL/St.Crispins catagory and may never find their way into my closet). In general with SC, summer suits, tweed suits I go either way or even loafers, when not wearing a coat I tend to stick with bluchers or loafers (walnut Strands, saddles, and spectators being the exception). However I do have 3 pair of what I consider dressy loafers that I will pair with suits on occasion, usually cotton/linen summer suits, and never for a real buisness meeting or formal occasion. But that's me just showing off my own Sprezzatua.

As for black bluchers with casual pants as opposed to with gaberdine and a SC, I personally find them abbhorant. But I find black penny loafers difficult to wear so burgundy and browns/chilis/tans and suede/bucks predominates my casual wardrobe.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

> Some simply wear a blucher vs a balmoral due to comfort.


And fit. Haven't yet found a balmoral that likes my foot.

Oh I am so glad I got that off my chest. Declaring that to the world allows me to wear my black bluchers without the same degree of shame I might otherwise have. In fact I'm thinking of wearing a sign that preemptively explains it.



Seriously though, it is wonderful how forum members pitch in to explain, refer, opine, etc. It gives a multi-faceted view of the issue.

Those shoes of Bond, they are nice looking. Interesting design.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

I would actually be of the "No Black Blucher" camp. But, I am open minded as well. I do believe that if you are a "Purist" then that is the way to go.

I personally do not own any black shoes at all....so, for me at least, it is not a problem.

I have seen some that were mildly desirable, but not many.

There are some instances where it is understandable that men would wear them, such as zzdocxx above.

With so many excellent oxford options available, I believe one should seek to acquire that first way before ever considering the alternative.

Thanks!


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

zzdocxx said:


> And fit. Haven't yet found a balmoral that likes my foot.
> 
> Oh I am so glad I got that off my chest. Declaring that to the world allows me to wear my black bluchers without the same degree of shame I might otherwise have. In fact I'm thinking of wearing a sign that preemptively explains it.
> 
> ...


Never Fear!

I am scouring the earth for a proper and comfortable balmoral for you my friend!

Until then....Rock them Black Bluchers till the soles fall off!!! :icon_jokercolor:


----------



## shadoman (Jun 8, 2014)

zzdocxx said:


> And fit. Haven't yet found a balmoral that likes my foot.
> 
> Oh I am so glad I got that off my chest. Declaring that to the world allows me to wear my black bluchers without the same degree of shame I might otherwise have. In fact I'm thinking of wearing a sign that preemptively explains it.
> 
> ...


I'm in the same boat, so to speak. 
I have a high arch and instep, and many balmorals are just too tight across there for MY comfort. (good luck , zzdocxx. trial and error, you know?)

I mostly wear bluchers with light grey suits ( black, brown, or otherwise ) and my bals with darker suits .


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

This is really one of the more esoteric rules that the board tries to make important but it is just not followed in the US sans a few dozen people on here. 

It's like *gasp* wearing a metal bracelet watch with a suit. There's an old rule about it, but nobody follows it to the point it's practically extinct


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

I'm a black shoe man, and I have one pair of black Bluchers for rainy/snowy days. They were absurdly cheap, and I bought them with that role in mind, since rain and snow have destroyed too many of my good oxford shoes over the years.

Otherwise I have no use for them.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

I've worn black bluchers with my suits for over 40 years and to date the earth has not noticeably titled off its axis. Some of us can't wear balmorals due to the structure of our feet. As a new member you'll probably learn there are still a few dinosaurs like me crawling across the U.S. that fail to adhere to the "rule" that only bals can be worn with suits.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

It was never a rule to begin with, as I've tried to explain many times...


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Black bluchers (either plain toe or long wing, especially with a stormwelt) go great with a banker's grey flannel sack suit or charcoal flannels with a black/white herringbone harris tweed jacket. Don't forget the OCBD and bow tie!


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Even though I believe their are better options than a Black Blucher...I am thinking about these:









The only turn off is the Barrie last.....so inelegant.....:icon_pale:


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Now here is an incredible shoe IMHO:



Carmina Black Wholecut on Rain Last :cool2:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

L-feld said:


> Black bluchers (either plain toe or long wing, especially with a stormwelt) go great with a banker's grey flannel sack suit or charcoal flannels with a black/white herringbone harris tweed jacket. Don't forget the OCBD and bow tie!


Oh, but now you're just getting into costume.

Quick, retract your comment before a group of self-described inanity experts seize upon it!


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

tigerpac said:


> This is really one of the more esoteric rules that the board tries to make important but it is just not followed in the US sans a few dozen people on here.
> 
> It's like *gasp* wearing a metal bracelet watch with a suit. There's an old rule about it, but nobody follows it to the point it's practically extinct


+1. These goofy "rules" get perpetuated here and have absolutely no validity in the real world.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

I really am thinking about going for that Alden.....


----------



## Mongo (May 9, 2008)

FWIW, I do see the point of having a black blucher for less than semi-formal, but more than completely casual evenings; or with, say, light gray slacks during the day.

However, I've moved away from bluchers per se, and use a black plain toe monkstrap (AE Boston) instead. More versatile, and better looking, IMHO.


----------



## shadoman (Jun 8, 2014)

Jovan said:


> Oh, but now you're just getting into costume.


Aren't we all doing that everyday ?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> Partially, it depends on where you live. *In the UK bluchers are not considered formal enough to wear with suits*. In the US the "rules" are more relaxed. The iGents will conform to the British conventions and only wear closed lace shoes with suits...


I think that is probably only true for a statistically insignificant number of opinionated people who like to broadcast their views. In the population of suit-wearers generally, it's really not the case, contrary to various claims that have been made on this forum from time to time. Observation in any large city here will reveal that vast numbers of suit-wearers have either not heard of the 'convention', or if they have, recognise it as an unfounded, unnecessary, artificial tabu, fetishising a relatively minor aspect of shoe design.

I can't discount the possibility of some unconscious bias on my own part however - I do find derbies/bluchers nicer to wear.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Watchman said:


> Even though I believe their are better options than a Black Blucher...I am thinking about these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Watchman-do you remember who has that shoe? The Barrie is my favorite because it's got so much toe room compared to the Aberdeen.

Thanks.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> If one is going to have a pair of black shoes, they should be balmorals. I'm not a fan of black and personally wouldn't buy a pair of black bluchers, but it's also a matter of tastes. Some people like black shoes.


I would add that some gents have feet with insteps that just don't accommodate bals. They have a need for black shoes too.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Oh, but now you're just getting into costume.
> 
> Quick, retract your comment before a group of self-described inanity experts seize upon it!


Hahaha, well, the point I was trying to make is that bluchers work in formal situations when other elements are a little relaxes as well.

If you're into nothing but peak lapeled, military shouldered suits in super 150's wool, with aggressive waist suppression and shirts with cutaway collars and french cuffs, then maybe you want a sleeker shoe.

If you like softer tailoring and aren't squeamish about the occasional button down collar, bluchers will look just fine with your suit.

Sent from the TARDIS using the chameleon circuit


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Brooksfan said:


> Watchman-do you remember who has that shoe? The Barrie is my favorite because it's got so much toe room compared to the Aberdeen.
> 
> Thanks.


Yes Sir.

Jcrew:

https://www.jcrew.com/index.jsp

Alden Black Cordovan Cadet 6 eye Blucher


----------



## Bassist (Jul 3, 2012)

Watchman said:


> Now here is an incredible shoe IMHO:
> 
> Carmina Black Wholecut on Rain Last :cool2:


Absolutely stunning! Thanks for posting this!

Joe


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1.

Truly, works of art in shoe leather! :thumbs-up:


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

There's bluchers, and then there's bluchers. The Vass 3-eyelet below would look very elegant in black, and bears little in common with the clunky blucher styles of Alden and Allen Edmonds.



This example from Buday also illustrates what I'm talking about.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

MaxBuck said:


> There's bluchers, and then there's bluchers. The Vass 3-eyelet below would look very elegant in black, and bears little in common with the clunky blucher styles of Alden and Allen Edmonds.
> 
> This example from Buday also illustrates what I'm talking about.


Exactly. These can go very well with a suit, and I'd hardly put these in the same category as the American bluchers. The clunky American-style bluchers in black I think of as being worn with military uniforms.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Thank you. I will be trying to score a pair in 13D if they have them. Have a great week.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Brooksfan said:


> Thank you. I will be trying to score a pair in 13D if they have them. Have a great week.


In stock....in your size....ready to ship. :biggrin:


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

MaxBuck said:


> This example from Buday also illustrates what I'm talking about.


Wow.. that is just a great looking pair of shoes. :thumbs-up:

I always preferred bluchers (or derby shoes) compared to balmorals. I currently have two pairs of bluchers, one pair in chocolate brown suede and another pair in burnished brown calf. I wear them to work everyday with dress slacks. If I had a black pair, I wouldn't hesitate to wear them with my charcoal suit. As long as the color is suitable, I don't think there is anything wrong with them. And, there is really no rule about the formality of bluchers where I live.

I do find it a bit difficult to get a sleek pair with plain toes and less than 4 eyelets like the beautiful example shown above. Most either has bicycle toes or moc toes which I really dislike.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

sethblack said:


> Wow.. that is just a great looking pair of shoes. :thumbs-up:
> 
> I always preferred bluchers (or derby shoes) compared to balmorals. I currently have two pairs of bluchers, one pair in chocolate brown suede and another pair in burnished brown calf. I wear them to work everyday with dress slacks. If I had a black pair, I wouldn't hesitate to wear them with my charcoal suit. As long as the color is suitable, I don't think there is anything wrong with them. And, there is really no rule about the formality of bluchers where I live.
> 
> I do find it a bit difficult to get a sleek pair with plain toes and less than 4 eyelets like the beautiful example shown above. Most either has bicycle toes or moc toes which I really dislike.


Hey Seth why do you prefer bluchers ?

(For me its fit.)


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Most often just takes the look down a notch, wearing suits with derbys.

As I own both types of shoes, I don't see the point in choosing the wrong kind. 

The black derby is the shoe type that has the largest number of truly ugly models, IMO. If it's a derby, why not in brown, seems the relevant question?


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

zzdocxx said:


> Hey Seth why do you prefer bluchers ?
> 
> (For me its fit.)


Well, the fit is one thing. I've never found a balmoral that fits me right (and in my budget) here. Selection is pretty slim.

But mostly I just like the derby style more. I bought my first pair in suede because I saw Sean Connery wearing them in Goldfinger. I like that I can wear them with khakis, jeans or dress slacks. I like how they look, basically. So I bought another pair in dark brown calf to wear to work. I just found this forum and the balmoral/blucher formality thing about a year ago and to be honest, I'm not sure they apply to where I live and work. So I haven't really feel the need to get a pair of balmorals/oxfords.

A pair of plain toe black derby shoes in a sleek last like the Buday above is definitely on my wish list. I'll probably save up for a while until I get enough money to buy a pair I really like. I agree with Bjorn that there a lot of ugly black derby models.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Please allow me to quote myself on the subject of exactly why Oxfords beat Derbys _or_ a bulletproof balmoral bulwark against the blasted blucher barbarians: "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."

Anyway this is a rollockingly good pro/con blucher thread, featuring some sorely-missed posters and some of the usual renegades still amongst us: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...uchers-with-a-suit-Connery-as-Bond-thought-so


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

momsdoc said:


> In the UK bluchers are not considered formal enough to wear with suits.


That is utter nonsense. Standards of suit wearing have become so relaxed in the UK in recent years that sometimes it seems that no one wears Oxfords (Balmorals) with suits anymore. That said Derbies (Bluchers) have always been acceptable footwear with lounge suits in the UK.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Only amongst those savages who simply do not know any better. :devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

True dat, for us cats with sartorial nous!  But I was responding to his blanket statement of_ "In the UK bluchers are not considered formal enough to wear with suits.", _which does not reflect the current reality of the man on the street in the UK. Even before I left in 96, most men were already wearing derbies with suits.

The only time I've ever worn black derbies/gibsons (bluchers) is with blue jeans with turnups, a Fred Perry tennis shirt, a Harrington jacket, long sideburns and very little hair


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Please allow me to quote myself on the subject of exactly why Oxfords beat Derbys _or_ a bulletproof balmoral bulwark against the blasted blucher barbarians: "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."
> 
> Anyway this is a rollockingly good pro/con blucher thread, featuring some sorely-missed posters and some of the usual renegades still amongst us: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...uchers-with-a-suit-Connery-as-Bond-thought-so


Some of the better shoe makers seem capable of producing a derby for which 'Rustic aesthetic' seems fairly wide of the mark. You make an interesting point, but I think that the element of subjectivity in what appeals is such that it might be satisfied by either type of shoe. Some may respond to some form of psychological appeal seemingly inherent in one type of design, others in a quite different way - just as there are followers of architecture who respond differently to classical, baroque, or modernist designs, all for different stylistic or perhaps more obscure, even metaphysical reasons.

I have to point out that, taken to its logical conclusion, your preference for enclosed and seamless objects seems to point towards the whole cut shoe.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Anyone think these are not smart or formal enough for use with a suit?

https://www.coolmenshoes.com/wp-con...-Gabbana-Men-Patent-Leather-Derby-Shoes-1.jpg


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Some of the better shoe makers seem capable of producing a derby for which 'Rustic aesthetic' seems fairly wide of the mark. You make an interesting point, but I think that the element of subjectivity in what appeals is such that it might be satisfied by either type of shoe. Some may respond to some form of psychological appeal seemingly inherent in one type of design, others in a quite different way - just as there are followers of architecture who respond differently to classical, baroque, or modernist designs, all for different stylistic or perhaps more obscure, even metaphysical reasons.
> *
> I have to point out that, taken to its logical conclusion, your preference for enclosed and seamless objects seems to point towards the whole cut shoe*.


It does appear to, doesnt it? And yet I loathe the wholecut even more than the Derby. :icon_scratch:

Allow me a moment or two to reflect upon this quandry......


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> It does appear to, doesnt it? And yet I loathe the wholecut even more than the Derby. :icon_scratch:
> 
> Allow me a moment or two to reflect upon this quandry......


Indeed. For me the wholecut looks vaguely obscene, but I can't put my finger on why.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Indeed. For me the wholecut looks vaguely obscene, but I can't put my finger on why.


As I recall you once described the wholecut as akin to a shaven body part, my friend.

And indeed, to me, the wholecut has a somewhat pre-pubescent appearance (under-developed, immature) that frankly repels me.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> As I recall you once described the wholecut as akin to a shaven body part, my friend.
> 
> And indeed, to me, the wholecut has a somewhat pre-pubescent appearance (under-developed, immature) that frankly repels me.


Exactly, thanks for the reminder. Disgusting!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> It does appear to, doesnt it? And yet I loathe the wholecut even more than the Derby. :icon_scratch:
> 
> Allow me a moment or two to reflect upon this quandry......


It was the inconsistency (or perhaps paradox) in your point if view that I was drawing to your attention.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> It was the inconsistency (or perhaps paradox) in your point if view that I was drawing to your attention.


GRRRR! I shall resolve the paradox with elegant aplomb. I am nothing if not a world-champion wriggler.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Matt S said:


> Exactly. These can go very well with a suit, and I'd hardly put these in the same category as the American bluchers. The clunky American-style bluchers in black I think of as being worn with military uniforms.


The clunky American style bluchers are also worn with law enforcement uniforms.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

What about brogued wholecuts?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaver said:


> As I recall you once described the wholecut as akin to a shaven body part, my friend.
> 
> And indeed, to me, the wholecut has a somewhat pre-pubescent appearance (under-developed, immature) that frankly repels me.


I thought the last time you discussed this topic, the mohel made an appearance.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> I thought the last time you discussed this topic, the mohel made an appearance.


If memory serves, it was a mohalot.


----------



## commandlinegamer (Jun 6, 2013)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That is utter nonsense. Standards of suit wearing have become so relaxed in the UK in recent years that sometimes it seems that no one wears Oxfords (Balmorals) with suits anymore. That said Derbies (Bluchers) have always been acceptable footwear with lounge suits in the UK.


Hell, people over here wear trainers/plimsolls with suits, and civilisation has not ended.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

commandlinegamer said:


> Hell, people over here wear trainers/plimsolls with suits, and* civilisation has not ended*.


Are you certain?


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

MaxBuck said:


> There's bluchers, and then there's bluchers. The Vass 3-eyelet below would look very elegant in black, and bears little in common with the clunky blucher styles of Alden and Allen Edmonds.
> 
> This example from Buday also illustrates what I'm talking about.


Agree completely! The two dressiest pairs of shoes I own are both, technically, bluchers. And they happen to resemble the shoes you've posted. One is a pair of chocolate C&J and the other are black EG for RLPL. Both have a plain, slightly elongated, chiseled toe and a thin leather sole. I wear both with suits and wouldn't hesitate to wear the latter with a tux even.

The C&J are a three-eyelet, the EG two, so to achieve that look, there really isn't any choice but to make the shoe as a blucher. Couldn't have a two or three-eyelet balmoral and still be able to get your foot in. And, in reality, especially with the EG, the trouser will cover the laces completely so nobody will actually know.

In my opinion, "rule" about bluchers vs. balmorals has more to do with the sole, since bluchers traditionally come with a thicker sole. To me, that stands out a lot more, so with a sufficiently thin sole, the difference becomes even less significant.


----------



## espressocycle (Apr 14, 2014)

I recently found a mint condition pair of black bluchers that were made by bespoke shoe artist Perry Ercolino and happen to fit me perfectly. They are beautiful and sleek. I will absolutely wear them with my dark charcoal suit simply because I have very little else in my wardrobe with which to pair them.


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Please allow me to quote myself on the subject of exactly why Oxfords beat Derbys _or_ a bulletproof balmoral bulwark against the blasted blucher barbarians: "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."
> 
> Anyway this is a rollockingly good pro/con blucher thread, featuring some sorely-missed posters and some of the usual renegades still amongst us: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...uchers-with-a-suit-Connery-as-Bond-thought-so


I've seen that thread. Quite entertaining to read as the discussion gets more philosophical and the participants more eloquent as the thread goes on (just like how this thread is going right now) :biggrin:

I like the derby shoes pictures though. Some really nice examples there, especially the pair Cary Grant wore in charade.

By the way, forgive my ignorance but what is a Mohel?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Some of the better shoe makers seem capable of producing a derby for which 'Rustic aesthetic' seems fairly wide of the mark. You make an interesting point, but I think that the element of subjectivity in what appeals is such that it might be satisfied by either type of shoe. Some may respond to some form of psychological appeal seemingly inherent in one type of design, others in a quite different way - just as there are followers of architecture who respond differently to classical, baroque, or modernist designs, all for different stylistic or perhaps more obscure, even metaphysical reasons.
> 
> I have to point out that, taken to its logical conclusion, your preference for enclosed and seamless objects seems to point towards the whole cut shoe.





Shaver said:


> It does appear to, doesnt it? And yet I loathe the wholecut even more than the Derby. :icon_scratch:
> 
> Allow me a moment or two to reflect upon this quandry......


Now where were we....?

Ah, yes. I was about to explain why the logical conclusion of the Universal preference for enclosed and seamless objects does not lead us inevitably towards the wretched wholecut.

The answer is really rather simple: proportion. The Divine Proportion. The Golden Ration. The Fiobonnaci Sequence. Deeply buried within the DNA of living creatures, both implicit and explicit cf the Heraclitus fragment 123. The Cosmos is built upon proportion - from chemical compounds to ferns to spiral galaxies, all structure requires it. Symmetry in Pyhllotaxis and Sacred Geometry and Vitruvian Man. We respond to it instinctually as intelligent creatures in a manner than can only be deprogrammed by perversity, and wholecuts are devoid of adequate proportion and (as previously established) grossly perverse.

So there we have it: Oxfords good, Derbys bad and Wholecuts revolting. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Shaver, your arcane knowledge is quite dazzling. Living in Northampton I perhaps should know more about the theory of shoe design etc than I do. I am aware that there is a course in shoe design and manufacturing at the local uni, but whether the syllabus features divine proportion, sacred geometry, the Fiabonnaci sequence or even the golden ration, I know not.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Shaver said:


> Now where were we....?
> 
> Ah, yes. I was about to explain why the logical conclusion of the Universal preference for enclosed and seamless objects does not lead us inevitably towards the wretched wholecut.
> 
> ...


One of these days you'll be happy with other people having different opinions, I swear.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Jovan said:


> One of these days you'll be happy with other people having different opinions, I swear.


My friend, it is not mere opinion - it is quantifiable truth, the pure essence of verisimilitude.

You are very welcome to postulate a rebuttal.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That is utter nonsense. Standards of suit wearing have become so relaxed in the UK in recent years that sometimes it seems that no one wears Oxfords (Balmorals) with suits anymore. That said Derbies (Bluchers) have always been acceptable footwear with lounge suits in the UK.


"Among people in the know" I think was the only thing missing from momsdocs post.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> What about brogued wholecuts?


Is that not akin to a sandal?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> My friend, it is not mere opinion - it is quantifiable truth, the pure essence of verisimilitude.
> 
> You are very welcome to postulate a rebuttal.


Ah. Very much roughly similar to the truth then


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Ah. Very much roughly similar to the truth then


Accurate to within an increment of the Planck scale. :icon_jokercolor:


----------



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

Let's not forget the distinction between bluchers and derbies, either. In spite of my fondness for heavy, American-style gunboats with sober suits, most bluchers are ill-suited to a "city" look. Derbies tend to dress up a bit better. I have to admit, I only own one pair of "suit-able" derbies, and when the time comes to replace them, I'm likely to opt for something with closed laces.

Though Shaver knows better than me in general, and writes well in defense of a balmoral-only wardrobe, I will stand by my hefty, countryish brown grain AE MacNeil LWB, though of course not with particularly dressy attire. I freely admit that I like them with the same part of my brain that likes jeans and buttondown collars.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Let's not forget the distinction between bluchers and derbies, either. In spite of my fondness for heavy, American-style gunboats with sober suits, most bluchers are ill-suited to a "city" look. Derbies tend to dress up a bit better. I have to admit, I only own one pair of "suit-able" derbies, and when the time comes to replace them, I'm likely to opt for something with closed laces.
> 
> Though Shaver knows better than me in general, and writes well in defense of a balmoral-only wardrobe, I will stand by my hefty, countryish brown grain AE MacNeil LWB, though of course not with particularly dressy attire. I freely admit that I like them with the same part of my brain that likes jeans and buttondown collars.


I don't think there's a difference between Bluchers and derbies (Derby's?)


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I don't think there's a difference between Bluchers and derbies (Derby's?)


Nor between derbies and gibsons. Also known (Shaver will like this) as 'navvy-cut'.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

For no reason except some sense of obligation, I admit that I wear a pair of highly polished black, plain-toe Bluchers for work with my dark suits a few days each week. I would be surprised if anyone noticed they weren't 'bals'. On the other hand, if anyone did notice and commented, it would say a lot about them.


----------



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

Bjorn said:


> I don't think there's a difference between Bluchers and derbies (Derby's?)


To my understanding, in a blucher, the lacing is attached to the same piece of leather that makes up the front, while a derby has the front in one piece and the lacing/sides in another.

Blucher:

















Derby:









Also every other open-lace shoe in this thread has been a derby, as far as I've noticed.

I've heard it equated to balmoral / oxford: in the strictest sense, they're two separate ways of making a closed-lace shoe, but the terms are used near-interchangably.

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty certain about this.


----------



## bobelmore (Jan 26, 2014)

Watchman said:


> Never Fear!
> 
> I am scouring the earth for a proper and comfortable balmoral for you my friend!
> 
> Until then....Rock them Black Bluchers till the soles fall off!!! :icon_jokercolor:


Same here. I tried the AE Park Avenue in black but it was a little too tight in the arch. I opted for the Lexington (same style, but blucher) which fit me much better.


----------



## GWW (Jan 3, 2014)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> *Also every other open-lace shoe in this thread has been a derby, as far as I've noticed.*
> 
> I've heard it equated to balmoral / oxford: in the strictest sense, they're two separate ways of making a closed-lace shoe, but the terms are used near-interchangably.
> 
> I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty certain about this.


Hmm; interesting as I found every open-lace shoe here to be a derby except your two pairs of Blüchers.

Bus I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about any open-lace shoe anyway.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I'd rock these with a suit. Hard.


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

I have precious little to add to my comments two years ago in the already mentioned epic thread.





Except to echo the point made by an earlier poster in this thread that the right sort of black bluchers are not just fine with a suit, but can go exceptionally well with the smarter kind of odd jacket, such as a grey flannel/navy blazer combination. Though, perhaps perversely, I tend to wear brown balmorals with those sorts of outfits. Which is probably equally "wrong". 

Not been round here much recently: nice to see some things haven't changed.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> To my understanding, in a blucher, the lacing is attached to the same piece of leather that makes up the front, while a derby has the front in one piece and the lacing/sides in another.
> 
> Blucher:
> 
> ...


Americans will call all of those bluchers and the English will call all of them derbies.


----------



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

Matt S said:


> Americans will call all of those bluchers and the English will call all of them derbies.


Sure, but people from Pennsylvania will call a sub a hoagie. Doesn't make it right. :icon_viking:

But no, I admit that drawing the distinction borders on pedantry, though it's in service of my point that one style is easier to dress up than the other.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I agree with him on that. I've actually looked at these more than a few times for wearing with suits. Looks sleek enough to me.


----------



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

Jovan said:


> I agree with him on that. I've actually looked at these more than a few times for wearing with suits. Looks sleek enough to me.


Not to editorialize, but you _need_ dark brown half-brogues.

I've seen Mark Rykken, who runs the bespoke department at Paul Stuart (used to be with Flusser), in snuff suede ankle boots with rubber soles (and probably open lacing) with a chalk stripe suit.


----------



## guymac (Nov 16, 2011)

You will see the bluchers/derby everywhere when you are in the UK. I think in the US men are more cautious in wearing them but feel free to wear it with your blazers or sport coat.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

guymac said:


> You will see the bluchers/derby everywhere when you are in the UK..


Exactly! And precisely the point I was making earlier.
I think far from being daring, innovative and reckless with new ideas of attire, US Gents compared to UK Gents are far more cautious when straying from the "party line"


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Not to editorialize


You mean "edit" 

Edit is a perfectly acceptable form of the verb for present tense usage. Why do Americans constantly do this with words? 

A current Americanism I have to keep changing when Swedes use it in texts is "prioritized areas"

NO!! "priority areas" is the correct compund noun form. That they were made a priority i.e. prioritized at some point in the past is irrelevant, they are a priority NOW! 

Bestized regards!


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You mean "edit"
> 
> Edit is a perfectly acceptable form of the verb for present tense usage.


No - to comment in the manner of an editor in the editorial pages of a newspaper is "to editorialis/ze" not "to edit".


----------



## sethblack (Sep 17, 2013)

RogerP said:


> I'd rock these with a suit. Hard.


My God, those are beautiful! These are exactly the type of shoes in my wishlist.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> I'd rock these with a suit. Hard.


Don't like. That's truly a shoe with no meaning. Not sturdy enough to wear without a suit but not quite right to wear with a suit.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> Don't like. That's truly a shoe with no meaning. *Not sturdy enough to wear without a suit* but not quite right to wear with a suit.


What the h#77 do you do when not wearing a suit? Martial arts?


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> Don't like. That's truly a shoe with no meaning. Not sturdy enough to wear without a suit but not quite right to wear with a suit.


I get what you mean, they almost seem too sleek to wear with business-casual any less formal than trim grey flannels and a dark jacket.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> Don't like. That's truly a shoe with no meaning. Not sturdy enough to wear without a suit but not quite right to wear with a suit.


Your first point is well taken but I can't agree on the second; those are absolutely fine to wear with a suit from a formality perspective.


----------



## MRR (Nov 19, 2009)

Shaver said:


> The answer is really rather simple: proportion. The Divine Proportion. The Golden Ration. The Fiobonnaci Sequence.
> 
> So there we have it: Oxfords good, Derbys bad and Wholecuts revolting. :thumbs-up:


The Fibonacci sequence has an interesting relationship with phi, but is not quite the same as the Golden Ratio. I'm still trying to figure out if the Golden Ration is what keeps the rich rich, despite all this "proof" of trickle-down economics.

Doing a Google Image Search for "Mens Oxford Shoes" shows many Derbys (including the first image) and might explain why the common man has such little shoe knowledge. Perhaps the ratio of Oxfords to Derbys in that Google search approaches phi as "n" approaches infinity.

Thank you for letting me know that wholecuts are bad. I'll stop looking for a pair and get back to finding a dark brown Park Ave in my size and budget.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't like shoes with the lacing squeezed all the way to the top like that. It makes the shoe look long and clown like.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

MRR said:


> The Fibonacci sequence has an interesting relationship with phi, but is not quite the same as the Golden Ratio. I'm still trying to figure out if the *Golden Ration *is what keeps the rich rich, despite all this "proof" of trickle-down economics.
> 
> Doing a Google Image Search for "Mens Oxford Shoes" shows many Derbys (including the first image) and might explain why the common man has such little shoe knowledge. Perhaps the ratio of Oxfords to Derbys in that Google search approaches phi as "n" approaches infinity.
> 
> Thank you for letting me know that wholecuts are bad. I'll stop looking for a pair and get back to finding a dark brown Park Ave in my size and budget.


An unfortunate typo. Only you noticed though MRR, a well-educated man after my own heart. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

StephenRG said:


> No - to comment in the manner of an editor in the editorial pages of a newspaper is "to editorialis/ze" not "to edit".


Well most newspapers call that debating or commenting (e.g. Editor's comments) not editorializing.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

As Langham and Björn have already correctly pointed out, derby, gibson, blucher are 3 names for the same type of shoe. There is no difference between them.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> As Langham and Björn have already correctly pointed out, derby, gibson, blucher are 3 names for the same type of shoe. There is no difference between them.


Except the first two are cocktails, and the third makes horses whinny.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I have no idea what you mean. Cocktails? Horses?
I drink Guinness and ride a bicycle!


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I have no idea what you mean. Cocktails? Horses?
> I drink Guinness and ride a bicycle!


Gibson: 2.5 oz Gin
0.5 oz Dry Vermouth
Garnish with cocktail onions

Derby: 2.0 oz Burbon
0.25 oz Benedictine liqueur
Dash of Angostura Bitters
Garnish with lemon twist

Frau Blucher:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> What the h#77 do you do when not wearing a suit? Martial arts?


Lol! That was my thought exactly. If you're not rock climbing, this shoe will be plenty sturdy enough for most non-suit-wearing activities. I don't think a shoe needs to be clunky looking to be worn casually. Sleekness is a commendable design aesthetic for both casual and business wear. While I have some Alden and AE casual shoes that I enjoy that are fairly chunky-looking, most of my casual footwear is pretty sleek.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Jovan said:


> I don't like shoes with the lacing squeezed all the way to the top like that. It makes the shoe look long and *clown like*.


The clowns in your end of the world must dress very well indeed.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

MaxBuck said:


> What the h#77 do you do when not wearing a suit? Martial arts?


Not sturdy enough in the sense that they won't compliment an odd jacket/trousers properly unless perhaps they are a "stroller" outfit (which to my mind is costume anyway). Anything from a country brogue to suede double or monk strap, or loafer, will inevitably be able to contribute better to the overall look.

I'm sure they won't break down, even if I have to judo chop someone 

A monk is technically a derby (?) but I'd allow for that being useful in black with a suit, in a more continental setting (than London).


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> Lol! That was my thought exactly. If you're not rock climbing, this shoe will be plenty sturdy enough for most non-suit-wearing activities. I don't think a shoe needs to be clunky looking to be worn casually. Sleekness is a commendable design aesthetic for both casual and business wear. While I have some Alden and AE casual shoes that I enjoy that are fairly chunky-looking, most of my casual footwear is pretty sleek.


Sleek is fine, I can appreciate sleek if done right, but a black sleek derby like that doesn't really have any greater areas of usefulness. It's inevitably trumped by a number of other possible shoes to buy (including itself in brown) so why buy it?

Maybe if it was black suede it could be useful. But only with a very limited number of trouser/jacket combinations in grey.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Sleek is fine, I can appreciate sleek if done right, but a black sleek derby like that doesn't really have any greater areas of usefulness. *It's inevitably trumped by a number of other possible shoes to buy (including itself in brown) so why buy it?
> *
> Maybe if it was black suede it could be useful. But only with a very limited number of trouser/jacket combinations in grey.


Why buy it? Because it is superbly made pair of shoes, and to my eyes, very beautiful. Unless you start from the proposition that a derby should never be sleek - a concept which I categorically reject - then this pair is definitely "sleek done right" in my books.

I don't dispute that another colour might be more versatile but for me, that's a non-issue. I strive for versatility in my shoe rotation as a whole, as opposed to seeking maximum versatility from each individual pair. If you plan to own only two or three or four pairs of shoes, then getting maximum versatility from each pair is important and I likely would not recommend these shoes as a selection for such a limited rotation. But I passed 4 pairs a great many pairs ago. And while it would be fair to describe these as somewhat niche, that term also describes some of my favourite pairs.

I would get a lot of wear out of this pair - from suits, to navy blazer and grey flannels, to any number of odd jackets, to dress trousers with a smart long sleeve shirt. I wouldn't dress them down to the level of chinos or jeans (and I don't really wear the latter) but so what? I have other shoes well suited for that part of the wardrobe.

And as an added bonus, I would have an excellent pair on hand should I ever decide to moonlight as a clown! ic12337: :biggrin:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> Why buy it? Because it is superbly made pair of shoes, and to my eyes, very beautiful. Unless you start from the proposition that a derby should never be sleek - a concept which I categorically reject - then this pair is definitely "sleek done right" in my books.
> 
> I don't dispute that another colour might be more versatile but for me, that's a non-issue. I strive for versatility in my shoe rotation as a whole, as opposed to seeking maximum versatility from each individual pair. If you plan to own only two or three or four pairs of shoes, then getting maximum versatility from each pair is important and I likely would not recommend these shoes as a selection for such a limited rotation. But I passed 4 pairs a great many pairs ago. And while it would be fair to describe these as somewhat niche, that term also describes some of my favourite pairs.
> 
> ...


No, what I'm saying is they should never be black! 

I'd go with navy before black, and it's a fairly useless color in itself...


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I find both navy and black to be useful colours. Suffice it to say that you would find no use for a sleek black derby such as the one I posted - and hey - I'm not trying to sell you a pair. But I don't think it can fairly be said that others couldn't find a way to incorporate such a pair into an elegant wardrobe. Obviously a premium manufacturer like St. Crispin's didn't think it a pointless exercise to make them. 

Too often we conflate our personal preferences with hard rules of general application. (Not saying you are doing that - not yet, anyway :tongue2: )


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

I can handle the concept of no black bluchers...especially with proper suits.

I can handle the concept of it being okay to have a "blucher-esque" shoe made on an elegant last.

I can handle the concept of that same elegant black blucher maybe even with a proper suit.

What I CANNOT take is likening a wholecut unto pedophilia in some deranged way....:icon_pale:

I can follow the "No Black Blucher" camp all the way to that point and then I must part company. :icon_peaceplease:

Good Day! :biggrin:


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

RogerP said:


> I'd rock these with a suit. Hard.


And how about these from J. Fitzpatrick? 
(I think now a discontinued model, the Broadway).










Reminds me of Adam West's Batmobile.


----------



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

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well most newspapers call that debating or commenting (e.g. Editor's comments) not editorializing.


I'd defend "editorializing" in that context, because it has a negative connotation in my neck of the woods. Editor's comments are fine in moderation, editorializing is inappropriate.

But it is true, Americans tendentially utilize convoluted substitutions for common words. I think it has to do with a sort of fetishization of expertise, but a dearth of people willing to actually become experts in something. It ends up with peop;e throwing around jargon they can't quite handle -- I'm wondering, of course, if that's what I've done with attempting to point out the derby/blucher difference. I'll have to look into it, since I'm not certain I'm wrong.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> As Langham and Björn have already correctly pointed out, derby, gibson, blucher are 3 names for the same type of shoe. There is no difference between them.


Today I have learned that the blucher shoe is named after a famous Prussian General, Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher, who 


> _commissioned a boot with side pieces lapped over the front in an effort to provide his troops with improved footwear. This design was adopted by armies across Europe._




Interestingly, von Blücher fought alongside the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo, in 1815.
And both of them gave their names to footwear.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

The red piping on the JF pair is a bit flash for suit wear (for me) but absent that, another sleek and elegant derby that I would wear in the same circumstances as the St. C's.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> I find both navy and black to be useful colours. Suffice it to say that you would find no use for a sleek black derby such as the one I posted - and hey - I'm not trying to sell you a pair. But I don't think it can fairly be said that others couldn't find a way to incorporate such a pair into an elegant wardrobe. Obviously a premium manufacturer like St. Crispin's didn't think it a pointless exercise to make them.
> 
> Too often we conflate our personal preferences with hard rules of general application. (Not saying you are doing that - not yet, anyway :tongue2: )


There are no hard rules, and one can argue that personal preference is everything. But it's easy to argue for other shoes than black derbys


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Odradek said:


> Today I have learned that the blucher shoe is named after a famous Prussian General, Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher, who
> 
> Interestingly, von Blücher fought alongside the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo, in 1815.
> And both of them gave their names to footwear.


Except that what we call a Wellington today (gumboot, rubber boots) is not what a Wellington boot was in the 1800s.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I'd defend "editorializing" in that context, because it has a negative connotation in my neck of the woods. Editor's comments are fine in moderation, editorializing is inappropriate.
> 
> But it is true, Americans *tendentially* *utilize convoluted substitutions *for common words. I think it has to do with a sort of *fetishization of expertise*, but a dearth of people willing to actually become experts in something. It ends up with peop;e throwing around jargon they can't quite handle -- I'm wondering, of course, if that's what I've done with attempting to point out the derby/blucher difference. *I'll have to look into it, since I'm not certain I'm wrong*.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Except that what we call a Wellington today (gumboot, rubber boots) is not what a Wellington boot was in the 1800s.


And what is now called a Blucher is doubtless quite unlike the Prussian general's invention. Several other military men have given their names to various items of clothing.


----------



## emptym (Feb 22, 2008)

Of all the regular blutchers I've seen, Alden's wholecut ones appeal to me the most. I don't own any of these, but I'd wear them w/ khakis, cords, jeans or maybe a tweed suit.

I do like the sleeker kind, like the one RogerP posted, or Odradak's. In black, those could be worn w/ a similarly minimalist suit, imo. I have a dark brown suede pair from C&J that I wear w/ jeans or flannels and tweed.

But I'm not a fan of captoed blucher shoes of any type. They look good in boots though, like these in shell from Alfred Sargent:








Carmina makes a very nice pair too.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^^^ Those boots are fantastic.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Spex said:


> I suppose a few months have passed without this type of question coming up, so it was due.
> 
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?103714-balmoral-vs-blucher
> 
> ...


Returning from a sabbatical from AAAC I find some things have changed for the better, Jovan is married and our proprietor has a new edition of the Encyclopedia. 
On the other hand, some things have not changed.

Earlier today, while putting off going into work, (and before reading this thread), I reorganized my shoes putting those I rarely if ever wear in storage so as to free up room for the shoes I wear frequently. It was either coincidence or serendipity that the shoes put in storage included all my black blucher/derbys. Certainly they are appropriate for those who, for fit and comfort, choose them over bals . I am fortunate not to have this issue and it seems every time I reach for a black shoe there is at least one black bal that is a better choice than any blucher/derby.

As an active participant in the linked threads I stated my opinions at the time. On my return I find I have grown a bit more tolerant and now feel that if a man decides to put on a black blucher knowing they are less formal, than a bal so be it. Still it is best for most men who choose to go outside tradition to restrict it to one item in an ensemble. The "wrong" shoe and "wrong" tie at the same time probably won't work. Reading Spex's post has reminded me that not only a monk shoe, my usual choice, but also a plain toe blucher/derby go well with grey trousers and a blazer and so a pair will come right back to the closet.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Welcome back!

Wait, I'm what? Was the ceremony done while I was sleeping last night and she posted pictures on my account here? I hope she at least found a morning coat that fit me.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Hello Mr. Kirshner, great to see you here .


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Except that what we call a Wellington today (gumboot, rubber boots) is not what a Wellington boot was in the 1800s.


Probably not, but the footwear connection still stands.

Anyway, an excuse to post a picture of the sign on the "Duke of Wellington" pub a few miles from me.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Thanks for that .

How long has the establishment been a going concern ?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

zzdocxx said:


> Thanks for that .
> 
> How long has the establishment been a going concern ?


https://www.brakspear.co.uk/our_pubs/pub_page/91/duke-of-wellington

I really don't know, but would imagine it's been there quite a while. Not sure how long with that sign though. 
I've lived around here for 10 years and it's been like that.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Welcome back!
> 
> Wait, I'm what? Was the ceremony done while I was sleeping last night and she posted pictures on my account here? I hope she at least found a morning coat that fit me.


You wore a frock coat. She wore a bikini and tribal tattoos


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Supposedly, a lot of pubs have their origins in soldiers returning from wars on the Continent. The Marquis of Granby, a popular commander in the Seven Years' War, is remembered in the name of many such pubs.


----------



## emptym (Feb 22, 2008)

Thanks Roger. They've aged well:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

arkirshner said:


> Returning from a sabbatical from AAAC I find some things have changed for the better, Jovan is married and our proprietor has a new edition of the Encyclopedia.
> On the other hand, some things have not changed.
> 
> Earlier today, while putting off going into work, (and before reading this thread), I reorganized my shoes putting those I rarely if ever wear in storage so as to free up room for the shoes I wear frequently. It was either coincidence or serendipity that the shoes put in storage included all my black blucher/derbys. Certainly they are appropriate for those who, for fit and comfort, choose them over bals . I am fortunate not to have this issue and it seems every time I reach for a black shoe there is at least one black bal that is a better choice than any blucher/derby.
> ...


Welcome back, Sir!


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

I'm wearing these black bluchers today, made for Herring by Alfred Sargent:


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

For fitting purposes blucher footwear is far superior to balmoral style.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

After reading all the responses, I have concluded that the only universal truth and purpose of black bluchers is to P**s Shaver off.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> After reading all the responses, I have concluded that the only universal truth and purpose of black bluchers is to P**s Shaver off.


Black bluchers, blue jeans and a navy blazer with gold buttons.........:crazy:


----------



## GWW (Jan 3, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Black bluchers, blue jeans and a navy blazer with gold buttons.........:crazy:


Paired with an obnoxiously big gingham button down shirt?


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Black bluchers, blue jeans and a navy blazer with gold buttons.........:crazy:


Just for you, ol' chap!
https://www.magnificentbastard.com/posts/the-youtube-yuniform


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

drlivingston said:


> Just for you, ol' chap!
> https://www.magnificentbastard.com/posts/the-youtube-yuniform


oooh...my eyes!!! In Sweden, we call that dansband chic! All the country yokels adopt that as their "sunday best" whether going to a nightclub or to a wedding or christening! "Dansband" is basically white trash music.
Awful!


----------



## Spex (Nov 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Black bluchers, blue jeans and a navy blazer with gold buttons.........:crazy:


Black blucher on one foot and double monkstrap on the other...


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Black bluchers, blue jeans and a navy blazer with gold buttons.........:crazy:


I'll make you a deal. You keep your short sleeve shirts, and I'll keep my gold buttons. But damn the socks with loafers in the summer.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Black bluchers, blue jeans and a navy blazer with gold buttons.........:crazy:


I have a very nice pair of side-laced whole-cuts for your delectation.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)




----------

