gentleman amateur
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
This amateur has been doing some extensive reading. Manton, Lenius, Roetzel, and Flusser. Plus, I subscribe to Will's blog and visit LL, FNB, and AAAC. However, while I continue to learn a lot and am enjoying myself in the process, when it comes to shoes especially, I am still unsure of some definitions.
Manton (93) writes that Americans err in calling open-laced shoes bluchers and close-laced balmorals; instead, they should be respectively categorized according the English distinctions of derbies and oxfords, with balmorals' being a type of oxford. I am unsure if he considers bluchers a bulky Oxford or bulky shoe distinct from the Oxford.
Lenius (147) classifies balmorals, bluchers, and gillies as subcategories of oxfords, while derbies are another category. However, his descriptions of bluchers and derbies sound very similar to me.
Despite his Anglophilia, Roetzel (158, 160) sounds like he he partially errs in American fashion according to Manton's categorization: while he considers balmorals to be a kind of oxford, he conflates derbies and bluchers. Thus, while for Lenius bluchers are a kind of oxford, for Roetzel they are a kind of derby.
In his most recent book, Flusser, like Lenius, subdivides oxfords into balmorals, bluchers, and gillies (294). He also notes the bluchers are also known as derbies (279). Does this mean he considers derbies to be oxfords or is he being inconsistent, using the English distinction in one instance and the American in another? If the former, he differs from Lenius and Roetzel and perhaps Manton, as well.
Manton (93) writes that Americans err in calling open-laced shoes bluchers and close-laced balmorals; instead, they should be respectively categorized according the English distinctions of derbies and oxfords, with balmorals' being a type of oxford. I am unsure if he considers bluchers a bulky Oxford or bulky shoe distinct from the Oxford.
Lenius (147) classifies balmorals, bluchers, and gillies as subcategories of oxfords, while derbies are another category. However, his descriptions of bluchers and derbies sound very similar to me.
Despite his Anglophilia, Roetzel (158, 160) sounds like he he partially errs in American fashion according to Manton's categorization: while he considers balmorals to be a kind of oxford, he conflates derbies and bluchers. Thus, while for Lenius bluchers are a kind of oxford, for Roetzel they are a kind of derby.
In his most recent book, Flusser, like Lenius, subdivides oxfords into balmorals, bluchers, and gillies (294). He also notes the bluchers are also known as derbies (279). Does this mean he considers derbies to be oxfords or is he being inconsistent, using the English distinction in one instance and the American in another? If the former, he differs from Lenius and Roetzel and perhaps Manton, as well.
