Buckle brogues yes, Ghillie no: Come & have a go if you think you are 'ard enough

[Good Egg]

I have a pair of Buckle brogues and think that worn with diced or tartan pattern hose they are the only thing for formal evening wear. I noticed that some one has put them on their list in the stuff you hate thread so I'm here to declare that he is wrong!

My wife doesn't like the bucklies because they evoke the memory of school sandals for her.

I have a pair of Ghillies but don't much care for them - they bring to mind dancing pumps to me and think they are too casual for formal wear and too religious (ie holy ie with holes) for wearing out and about on anything other than a guaranteed dry day - and unless you're in the desert I doubt you can guarantee that. I wear them as casual indoor shoes because they are comfortable.

[DWFII]

There is some confusion about what is being talked about when the term "buckle brogues" is bandied about.

If you are referring to the shoe with the buckle low on the foot...over the "treadline"/joint area...and which have an additional small strap and small buckle at the ankle, well, I personally don't like them. I much prefer the 18th century buckle shoe.--what I call a "Jacobite shoe" although they would have been pretty common in all of the UK and the colonies.

That said, I am a shoe and bootmaker by trade (35 years)...and I got into a slightly heated discussion here with someone about buckle brogues and whether they could possibly be comfortable with that buckle mounted over the very area where the shoe has to flex. To this day I still don't see how it could be comfortable...the mechanics of it raise all sorts of alarums for me...but it wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken about something. Quite obviously, the buckle brogue has been worn, in pretty much its current form, for decades, maybe even a hundred years.

Since I've never owned a pair, never even tried a pair on, I must apologize to the other participants in that earlier thread...I yield to first hand experience and should have done so earlier.

Nevertheless, they are a little too fru-fru for my tastes...just my personal opinion.

[thescot]

Personally, I have always kind of liked the "Mary Jane" style buckle shoes. Like these:



I don't own a pair. Since I so rarely dress that formally, I can't justify the expense. But I do kind of like the look. (Took a little getting used to, though I will admit.)

As to the placement of the buckle and its comfort, I would think that it is similar to a pair of loafers with a low vamp. I wear shoes like that a lot, and they are quite comfortable if the fit is correct. Ah, there's the rub (pun intended). No shoe is comfortable without a proper fit.

It's all matter of taste. And as we all know, de gustibus non disputandum est.

[RedBeard]

Go look thru the vintage photo section. They are woren with pretty much anything.

[Good Egg]

I'm talking about these wee beasties:



I've never had an issue with them being uncomfortable except that mine are quite heavy certaily not a problem across the fold line

[DWFII]

No disrespect or offense intended to anyone who likes this type of shoe, but the theoretical mechanics of the shoe aside, I have always wondered if buckle brogues and even ghillie brogues weren't an attempt by the toffs of Victorian High Society to "dampen" the martial spirit of Highland dress.

On one hand you have all these fierce, heavily bearded, hairy-legged, Scotmen wearing dirks and basket-hilt swords and evoking the bloody battles of not-so-long-ago which so alarmingly threatened the Empire, no mistake...and here they come wearing dainty little rococo shoes that they wouldn't be caught dead in at home.

I mean, as a shoemaker, the brogue with its gimping and broguing is ornamental enough as is, yet it's still a masculine enough look. But it just doesn't seem, to my eyes at least, to marry all that well with the "Mary Jane" cut of the Buckle brogue. Same with the ghillie brogue to some extent...it looks a little like the mating of a platypus and a porcupine. I mean, they're both a bit of a "turducken" from my point of view.

Hey...different strokes....

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I've worn both style of shoe for close to 40 years-- my only complaint about them is that they tend to be heavy, too heavy in my opinion for dancing. Neither shoe is particularly uncomfortable. Having seen photos of DWFII's "Jacobite" shoes I would have no hesitation in wearing those to any more formal event.

The one thing that I have done to my regulation dress shoes is replace the stamped and chrome plated tin buckles with a pair of cut-steel buckles, giving them a tad more character.

[Good Egg]

I've worn both style of shoe for close to 40 years-- my only complaint about them is that they tend to be heavy, too heavy in my opinion for dancing. Neither shoe is particularly uncomfortable. Having seen photos of DWFII's "Jacobite" shoes I would have no hesitation in wearing those to any more formal event.

The one thing that I have done to my regulation dress shoes is replace the stamped and chrome plated tin buckles with a pair of cut-steel buckles, giving them a tad more character.

I'm still wearing the 'issue' buckles but would like to get something with a tad more character. I've seen some with shamrocks for the Irishly inclined but nothing I'd want.

[DWFII]

I've worn both style of shoe for close to 40 years-- my only complaint about them is that they tend to be heavy, too heavy in my opinion for dancing.

Yeah, "dainty" was probably a bad choice of words...it is close to the word I want but I didn't mean lightweight...just overly ornamented and "sophisticated"--in the sense of being cosmopolitan or world-weary...

[Good Egg]

Yeah, "dainty" was probably a bad choice of words...it is close to the word I want but I didn't mean lightweight...just overly ornamented and "sophisticated"--in the sense of being cosmopolitan or world-weary...

As I mentioned my wife says they remind her of children's sandals - she is wrong of course (I can say that because she is not going to read this) but is that what you mean?