Ghillie brogues, yes or no?

[McMurdo]

Not sure if I like them or not, but I cant agree with the not for casual wear comments, I try and go to a lot of rugby matches at Twickenham (for those the other side of the pond its the English national rugby stadium) and kilts are seen more and more, it has to be said that at least %50 will be wearing gillie brogues with kilt and rugby shirt

I would hazard a guess that these same rugby fans would be wearing dress belts or dress sporrans, this does not mean that it is "proper" to wear dress sporrans, belts or ghillie brogues with a rugby shirt. What it means is that most people will think it acceptable as the only sporran or belt these chaps own are the dress ones. As for the Ghillies the reason, I think of the popularity of these has everything to do with the rental industry, so we are at the point where many see these as proper to wear with the kilt.

[bowser]

I would hazard a guess that these same rugby fans would be wearing dress belts or dress sporrans, this does not mean that it is "proper" to wear dress sporrans, belts or ghillie brogues with a rugby shirt. What it means is that most people will think it acceptable as the only sporran or belt these chaps own are the dress ones. As for the Ghillies the reason, I think of the popularity of these has everything to do with the rental industry, so we are at the point where many see these as proper to wear with the kilt.

Not normally, just plain leather sporran, and a plain leather belt, got to say I have quite a few friends who have at least one kilt, almost all only have one belt and one sporran and it fits all uses.
I only have one kilt belt one pewter buckle, ok I have a SK cargo sporran and a leather one but neither are dress (I would post a pic but haven't worked out how yet). I would agree that it is possibly driven by the hire industry, but regardless, it dosent look out of place, and it is something that is being worn in such circumstances.
Not trying to make a judgement as to right or wrong, just stating what is.

[DWFII]

I like them with the Prince Charlie suit. They're obviously not for casual wear. Those buckle brogues look like the shoes little girls wore when I was in elementary school in the '60s.

Not all buckle shoes are created equal.

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/a...&pictureid=546

On the other hand, we call the shoes you're referring to "Mary Janes" simply because they are very similar to what little girls wear/wore.

As a shoemaker, I think they look silly or odd because they violate a number of aesthetic principles...not the least is having a big honking buckle right over the ball of the foot--the area of the foot that must bend and flex, and deeply. I've never worn a pair but I suspect they cannot be all that comfortable. Many of the old books on making shoes speak of techniques and styles that are reserved for people who don't move around much...it's not hard to imagine some styles of footwear and or clothing evolving and coming into vogue in an era when (ahem) "leisure" time was reserved for the very rich.

[Phil]

Not all buckle shoes are created equal.

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/a...&pictureid=546

On the other hand, we call the shoes you're referring to "Mary Janes" simply because they are very similar to what little girls wear/wore.

As a shoemaker, I think they look silly or odd because they violate a number of aesthetic principles...not the least is having a big honking buckle right over the ball of the foot--the area of the foot that must bend and flex, and deeply. I've never worn a pair but I suspect they cannot be all that comfortable.

They are actually quite comfortable - more so than ghillie brogues which I find leave grooves around my legs where the laces were or if you don't tie them tight enough they slip down and you trip over them.

Here's a picture guaranteed to incense all the "Mary-Jane" police who cry out for tolerance on all other aspects of kilt-wearing -



To re-iterate something I have said before, these were the dress shoes to be worn with the kilt. Here are a couple of pictures you will have seen before -





Ghillie brogues along with white hose only started to appear in the 1970's - before that you wore "Mary-Janes" with your kilt to a dressy occasion and ordinary brogues (wing-tips) during the day. Of course nothing in fashion stands still but we of an older generation prefer to retain the style which others have now discarded. No doubt similar arguments will rage in 20 years' time about the merits of white hose etc.

[DWFII]

They are actually quite comfortable - more so than ghillie brogues which I find leave grooves around my legs where the laces were or if you don't tie them tight enough they slip down and you trip over them.

Here's a picture guaranteed to incense all the "Mary-Jane" police who cry out for tolerance on all other aspects of kilt-wearing -

Here are a couple of pictures you will have seen before -

This second photo/illustration shows a shoe that is similar in style and spirit to the shoes that would have been worn throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries. Even at Culloden (if shoes were worn at all).

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.

That said, while I may be surprised that you find Mary Janes comfortable, as I said before I have never tried a pair on. One of the first rules that a shoemaker learns is that you have to fit the customer's head before you can fit their feet. From this shoemaker's POV they may seem aesthetically or technically orphaned, but if they fit your head...and your feet...go for it. I would not deny that they are traditional kilt accessories.

But if you took a poll on Mary Janes, I'd definitely vote thumbs down on this one (I did not vote in this poll). That's just my personal opinion though.

[piperdown]

Everything has its place and time.
No doc martins on a formal night and no gillies with a t-shirt at the pub.
But to each their own...whatever makes YOU comfortable is what you should wear.
It's just that simple.

[Finn]

Boot guy here.

[McMurdo]

bowser have you seen this thread on how to post photos?

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...s_faq_pictures

[Riverkilt]

I guess I like them...would probably own a pair if the manufacturers of them would ever make them in a size WIDE enough to fit a MAN'S foot....particular those with Scottish blood.

Just because shoes are made in the Far East now doesn't mean they only need to be sized for Far Eastern feet.

Why market a product that isn't sized for the folks you wanna sell them to?? Still baffles me...

One size fits all has NEVER applied to feet.

Okay, rant over.

Ron

[DWFII]

PS...

BTW, most of the shoes shown on the above link could easily be worn with a kilt. And many would be perfectly acceptable in a formal situation. After all, when you've paid upwards of £3000.00 for a pair of shoes, there's few who can gainsay you in terms of sheer class.