Ghillie brogues, yes or no?

[Jock Scot]

Just an observation! Since this thread has been going I have had occasion to don my kilt and attend one or two daytime functions in the Western Highlands and it seems to me that the ghillie brogue is being worn more often, these days, as day attire. The people wearing them are locals and many have lived in the area for all their lives----not incommers ---so they know a thing or two about wearing the kilt.It is a growing trend I fear.

[Scotus]

The people wearing them are locals and many have lived in the area for all their lives----not incommers ---so they know a thing or two about wearing the kilt.

Thanks for that post. This is why I keep repeating that it's a part of modern Scottish attire; not something people are wearing in order to look like something from a period movie.

[DWFII]

Scotus is quite right. What is seen as "costumey" or, if you will, "Brigadooney" in both places is anything that is a deliberate attempt to dress in another era.

I'm not so sure...of course I'm not a costume historian but to me, ghillie brogues are "neither one thing nor the other," if you see what I mean. And neither one period nor the other, either. And it is that aspect that makes me less than fond of them

The "ghillie" (if that's a proper terminology for the tongueless, heel-less, laced shoe we see in old paintings) dates back...well, time out of mind. But it is surely that look and that shoe that the modern ghillie brogue is seeking to emulate. So in a sense, by the definition quoted above it does partake of that "costumey" or "Brigadoonish" image.

Now then, I've not researched this extensively, but from what I know at this moment in time, "broguing" was not used much before the late 19th or early 20th century. It may have even been unknown until quite recently in the 9000 year history of shoemaking.

So here you have a shoe that is clearly a carry-over from a much earlier period; a shoe that, except among those seeking to deliberately dress in another era, has no currency in the greater world; and some johnny-come-lately, post modern, shoemaker decides to "gussie" it up with gimping and broguing. Voila!! the modern ghillie brogue.

I don't know about how uncomfortable the current lacing conventions are with the ghillie brogue...although in the few 19th century paintings I've seen that lacing doesn't seem to be evident. To my eye the lacing is not the problem...maybe a little "affected" (in the sense of "costume") but no more so than jabots or even sgian dubhs, come to that. But the old ghillies or a plainer version of the modern shoe would look a lot less like a "costume" without the gimping and broguing if only because without it a good part of the pretense goes missing.

And not to get too far afield...doesn't almost all aspects of kilt attire fall into that category of deliberately trying to dress in another era? What article of the kilt kit could cross over to be worn with more conventional western dress? The hose perhaps with a pair of shorts...but the kilt itself, the sporran, even the Argyll jacket, being cut way short belong distinctively to another time and place. Especially if we take it as gospel that most Native Scots don't wear the kilt even on special occasions.

Returning to ghillie brogues, I fault them precisely because from a shoemaker's point of view they aren't period enough--they are too much like a wrist watch in a movie about the Crusades; or heels on shoes in any movie/book that is set prior to the late 16th century. The broguing and gimping are that wrist watch.

[RedLichtie]

I voted "Yes, I like them".

I think that in the correct setting they look great.

[English Bloke]

50/50 again... Ooooooh It's a split decision still....

[JerseyLawyer]

Just an observation! Since this thread has been going I have had occasion to don my kilt and attend one or two daytime functions in the Western Highlands and it seems to me that the ghillie brogue is being worn more often, these days, as day attire. The people wearing them are locals and many have lived in the area for all their lives----not incommers ---so they know a thing or two about wearing the kilt.It is a growing trend I fear.

I also wonder, aesthetics aside, if it might have something to do with ghillie brogues being both more available and less costly than they were in the past.

When I bought my first pair, lo those fourteen or fifteen years ago, you had to go to a kilt store to buy this stuff, and the shoes cost, in the early 90's, $150 a pair or something like that. For rather uncomfortable, leather-soled ghillies. When you consider that you can get a pretty good pair of dress shoes for that money, and not be limited to wearing them with the kilt, the investment in special "kilt shoes" doesn't make sense.

Now, there are tons and tons of manufacturers out there and, starting with the "Doc Marten" style ghillies and now the "Piper" ghillies, there are brogues that are designed for more wearability. (I personally think that dress shoes should have leather soles, but, that's not really the point.). I'm pretty sure you can get a pair similar to what I got back in the day for $50 or so.

Not as expensive and more easily available might lead to more people wearing ghillies than in the past.

Just conjecture, though.

[Jack Daw]

It could be worse - they could come in a two-toned version. I hope not to see those.

[Jock Scot]

I also wonder, aesthetics aside, if it might have something to do with ghillie brogues being both more available and less costly than they were in the past.

When I bought my first pair, lo those fourteen or fifteen years ago, you had to go to a kilt store to buy this stuff, and the shoes cost, in the early 90's, $150 a pair or something like that. For rather uncomfortable, leather-soled ghillies. When you consider that you can get a pretty good pair of dress shoes for that money, and not be limited to wearing them with the kilt, the investment in special "kilt shoes" doesn't make sense.

Now, there are tons and tons of manufacturers out there and, starting with the "Doc Marten" style ghillies and now the "Piper" ghillies, there are brogues that are designed for more wearability. (I personally think that dress shoes should have leather soles, but, that's not really the point.). I'm pretty sure you can get a pair similar to what I got back in the day for $50 or so.

Not as expensive and more easily available might lead to more people wearing ghillies than in the past.

Just conjecture, though.

Do you know,I was thinking along the very same lines. When I find some one wearing ghillies at the next function,that I know well enough to ask, I will.

[JerseyLawyer]

Do you know,I was thinking along the very same lines. When I find some one wearing ghillies at the next function,that I know well enough to ask, I will.

Great minds, or something like that...

It could be worse - they could come in a two-toned version. I hope not to see those.

Nothing wrong with spectator shoes, but I just don't see them with a kilt. And remember, they're summer shoes, which means you can only wear them for three days in August when it's warm in Scotland. ;)

[Jack Daw]

Nothing wrong with spectator shoes, but I just don't see them with a kilt. And remember, they're summer shoes, which means you can only wear them for three days in August when it's warm in Scotland. ;)

So it is for Scotland, but in Houston - that would be 10 months out of 12. The high for today is 88F.