Ghillie brogues, yes or no?

[Nighthawk]

I wore mine for several hours this weekend. They looked great (I thought) but the things don't come in wide sizes, so my pinkie toes got a little sore after a while.

[Zardoz]

I have never made a secret of the fact that I loathe Ghillie Brogues! To me they are just about acceptable as pipe band footwear, but nothing else. Ghillie Brogues very often detract from the beauty of the kilt itself by their very fussiness, and one sees some terrible disasters in assorted attempts at tying them. If a job is worth doing, it's worth doing correctly - but, in this case, I often wonder if there can be a correct method (from the appearance point of view!).

Ordinary, everyday brogue shoes serve me perfectly for semi and fully formal occasions, as long as they are clean and well polished and, if I am really dressed up, my Glenfinnan buckle shoes are just the answer.

I am afraid I see Ghillie Brogues, or rather their extravagant lacing, as another opportunity for the wearer to over dress. The shoes themselves are fine - just take away those ghastly laces, replace them with ordinary length ones and enjoy the uncluttered look that results.

Take care,
Ham.

What he said!

[English Bloke]

Mmmm; We're all a bit edgy on this thread me thinks.

At the risk of chucking water at the chip-pan.

I don't really like Ghillies and think they are a bit too dressy for my taste but then again I think PC's are a bit on the grand side too. If you are attending a formal function where everyone is dressing the same (Wedding, Formal Dinner) then that ensamble can really look the business. but unless everyone's doing it I think one in a crowd looks overdone and I certainly would not pop to the shops in Ghillies and Prince Charlie.

I do like BobsYourUncle's example of a smart black brogue shoe and would wear these for smart casual or formal (and do so, I have a pair exactly like those in the photo) I don't have a problem with Ghillies on other folk, I just prefer a less ornate type of footwear on myself. When casual I wear Cat Boots or a rather dapper pair of dark brown X-trainers I recently aquired which I like alot. Wouldn't dream of wearing these to a dinner but they are fine for slobbing about town and go well with T-shirt and fleece. Wore them to a house party last Saturday wearing Black Watch, black leather, black hose and flashes, royal-blue T-shirt and Levi denim jacket. I liked the look and don't really care what anyone else thought. I was the only kilt there anyway.

I personally regard Ghillies (and PC for that matter) as ultra formal and as I have little occasion (or desire) to attend such functions I don't possess them. I like to chill in my kilt and to be bound up like I'm oven-ready doesn't do it for me. No disrespect intended to those that do like them and as I've said, in the right setting they can be exactly right. If I was invited to a 'posh' do I may well consider them if it was to be the norm on the occasion.

When I first delved into the world of kiltedness I hadn't really got a clue about what to wear or how to wear it and it's through this fine forum and it's discussion threads and pictures that I have learned from others what I like and dislike without having to go out and buy it all to make my decision. It's vital that we use this medium to discuss and disagree where appropriate otherwise we'll all just be blowing smoke up each others hinterland.

Kilt on Gents and lets exchange ideas and opinions with each other but lets not fight over it or take the huff. There's no slight or intentional insult here. We're all mates in the kilt. I'd like to think we are anyway.

[BobsYourUncle]

Hear, Hear, English Bloke! Let's not take the debate too seriously, and let's have fun hearing and considering the opinions of others. These opportunities to learn from each other call for open-mindedness, respect and charity. It's all good....

[Tim Little]

All this talk of buckled shoes got me thinking that actually, "monk strap" shoes wouldn't look too bad with a kilt either -- a bit of a contemporary take on the old buckle shoes:

[DWFII]

They were posted to give two examples of dress shoes worn with the kilt. The pictures are artists impressions and don't show any detailing on the shoes so whether or not they are brogues I can't tell. What they all do have in common, however, is buckles, whether they are slip-on type like your penny-loafers or strap and buckle they are a traditional type of men's dress shoe in common usage before the advent of ghillie brogues.

I understand and I was just making sure that there was a distinction drawn and that for the purpose of communication we were on the same page.

However, the buckle shoes I am referring to (and as depicted in your third illustration) are not penny loafers and are not made like penny loafer (although the Glenfinnians may indeed be penny loafers "underneath the skin," now that I think about it). This is important not only with regard to how they fit but it is also important to note that when they are made in a more traditional manner the buckle is not just ornamental, it is fully functional.

And, contrary to what you say that they have "a big honking buckle right over the ball of the foot" the buckle is actually forward of where the shoe bends when worn which is the open part between the strap and the buckle.

I have a hard time coming to terms with that statement because the "normal" foot bends...needs to bend...from the "treadline" (ball joint) forward at least two inches (depending on size). This is my business of over 35 years...you'll be hard pressed to convince me yours are that much different.

So unless the buckle on the buckle brogues (I'll leave off calling them Mary Janes if it bothers you) is right at the very end of the shoe (the last one inch or so), or the shoe is very loose over the joint area, you still have a rigidness there where no rigidness should be.

Do some deep knee bends in them or bend over to kneel on the floor with the sole still touching the floor under your toe and see how they feel. Like I mentioned in another post, at one time there were numerous shoe styles that were intentionally made for display only--undue exertion was not anticipated. Maybe a long Viennese Waltz or a quickstep in buckle brogues would illustrate the problem a little more effectively.

As for sexual stereotyping...weel, laddie I think everyone on this forum would attach some sort of gender reference to what is or is not men's clothing. For instance, it has been said a great many times--ad infinitum, ad nauseum--that the kilt is an article of men's clothing. I don't think it implies any sort of hang up to be consistent in that perspective.

[DWFII]

I thought the buckle on the "mary janes" was up on the instep nearer to the ankle... But I can't look at the pictures. For some reason, I thought the main difference between those and other buckle shoes is that there isn't a tongue or piece of leather over the instep area. Guess the ghillie brogues don't have the tongue either...

Although, I seem to remember the "Quaker" and "Pilgrem" shoes being depicted as having the instep covered, but with the buckle in the same area.

I remember the depictions of the pipers on the short bread tins usually having on the "mary janes," as well as, some kind of doublet and so on...

Just saying what I have to go by...

Since you cannot see the illustrations...allow me to offer a description: There are two buckles on a each shoe of a pair of buckle brogues...one small functional buckle high on the side of the instep and another larger, purely ornamental, one over the ball joint area.

On a buckle shoe such as might have been worn by any man (sometimes women) during the 18th to 19th century, the buckle is centered over the middle cuniform...somewhere near the pronounced bone ridge that may be felt on top of the instep. There is only one buckle per shoe and it may range from and inch and a half square, to two and a half inches long by almost two inches wide..

[DWFII]

Mmmm; We're all a bit edgy on this thread me thinks.

It's vital that we use this medium to discuss and disagree where appropriate otherwise we'll all just be blowing smoke up each others hinterland.

Kilt on Gents and lets exchange ideas and opinions with each other but lets not fight over it or take the huff. There's no slight or intentional insult here. We're all mates in the kilt. I'd like to think we are anyway.

I don't see that...maybe my skin is too thick. But let me offer this counter-point...

If we start with the notion that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion...and that a discussion forum is a place where those opinions may be shared or just expressed, then as long as they are couched in what is important or relevant to that individual, I don't see how anyone can take offense.

Hamish related how he felt about ghillie brogues. If we respect him (or anyone else, for that matter) we have to respect his opinion and his right to it. And we have to respect everyone else's right to hear it.

As long as he is not calling people names or characterizing or denigrating their opinions or feelings, where's the harm? Where's the foul?

I'm no moderator and I'm not trying to make policy...if I'm wrong I request that the moderators let me know. But that's my take on it.

[Phil]

As for sexual stereotyping...weel, laddie I think everyone on this forum would attach some sort of gender reference to what is or is not men's clothing. For instance, it has been said a great many times--ad infinitum, ad nauseum--that the kilt is an article of men's clothing. I don't think it implies any sort of hang up to be consistent in that perspective.

First can I thank you for your compliment. It is the sincerest form of flattery, I am sure, and it is many a long year since anybody called me a "laddie". You describe yourself as a shoemaker of some 35 years and I must obviously defer to your age and experience in your craft. What I must not defer to, however, is your blinkered and unsupported assumption that the buckle brogues I described cannot be comfortable. Might I suggest that you actually obtain a pair and try them before making such unfounded assertions which actually have no basis in reality. As to sexual stereotyping, you are of course correct that the kilt is indeed an article of men's clothing, and nobody on this forum would disagree with this. However, at the same time you glibly sidestep any explanation of your previous assertion that buckle brogues are only for little girls (you call them Mary Janes) which was the point of what I said. If you genuinely do have such opinions then at least have the courage to say so.

[Bugbear]

Since you cannot see the illustrations...allow me to offer a description: There are two buckles on a each shoe of a pair of buckle brogues...one small functional buckle high on the side of the instep and another larger, purely ornamental, one over the ball joint area.

On a buckle shoe such as might have been worn by any man (sometimes women) during the 18th to 19th century, the buckle is centered over the middle cuniform...somewhere near the pronounced bone ridge that may be felt on top of the instep. There is only one buckle per shoe and it may range from and inch and a half square, to two and a half inches long by almost two inches wide..

Oh! Thanks for clearing that up for me, DWFII.

I didn't even know there was a lower, ornamental buckle, and I thought we were talking about the functional buckle.

I think I would rather not have the lower, ornamental buckle on my own shoes. It's kind of stuck that way in my mind's eye for what ever reason...

Although, I would tend to prefer the functional buckle to be a large buckle; just seems to be better looking to me...