Ghillie brogues, yes or no?

[Phil]

They are not, however...adamantly not...the same as Mary Janes or the shoes depicted in your first two photos. They are not even, in a technical sense, brogues.

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. And they are comfortable, I can assure you. Very much like an old-fashioned "Jesus" sandal is comfortable. 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 do feel there is an element of sexual stereotyping when it comes to shoes and calling buckle brogues "Mary Janes" and inferring they are only worn by little girls is really no different from calling a kilt a "skirt". At one time wearing sandals and/or powder blue jeans was supposed to advertise to the world that you were gay. And how ridiculous is that? Both are long established items of male attire and to infer anything otherwise says a great deal more about ones own personal hang-ups than those of the wearer.

[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.

[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.

[DWFII]

You describe yourself as a shoemaker of some 35 years and I must obviously defer to your age and experience in your craft.

But you aren't really, are you? Deferring, I mean. I never said they can't be comfortable. Besides the fact that "comfortable" is a relative term...and I did stress that a shoemaker has to fit the head before he can fit the foot...what I did say was that the buckle almost has as to lie over an area of flex. And as someone who has studied the dynamics of the foot for lo these many years, I don't see how they can be comfortable.

That said, it is a long established principle that when a person wears a good quality shoe, the bottom of the foot will create a "footbed" in the leather insole. These are as individual as snowflakes or fingerprints. Yet, I have had many people tell me, in high dudgeon, that the thirty year old vintage (and well worn), shoes they bought off of Ebay that were also two sizes too big, fit them like a glove. OK. Go for it. I'd be out on a limb to second guess anyone's headspace.

What I must not defer to, however, is your blinkered and unsupported assumption that the buckle brogues I described cannot be comfortable.

This is a characterization that borders on an unwarranted attack...as someone who has made his entire living in a 19th century Trade (and one that gets paid like it was still the 19th century)...a Trade that requires close observation and the ability to see as well as correct problems with the foot and with feet...and as as one who is pretty well regarded in the Trade, my opinions are anything but "blinkered" or "unsupported." You may have another opinion and you're entitled to them but on balance the physiology if nothing else lends credence to my observations.

And...in case it was missed, by anyone...I did say (several times) that I had never tried a pair on. All I have to go on is what I know about feet and foot structure.

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.

Again, I think you're getting ahead of yourself, if you'll pardon me for saying so. The first time I ever heard the term "Mary Janes" used to describe this type of shoe was on this forum...several different times and any number of different posters. I never heard the word "tank" used to describe a kilt before I got here, either...that doesn't make me a war-monger. Fact is, shoes are shoes to me. Naturally, they do have connotations with regard to history and usage. But I can't recall saying they were for little girls...I think you've confused me with someone else.

[macwilkin]

All right gents, let's step back and take a breath.

We can disagree without being disagreeable. If we can't, then the thread will be locked.

Todd