Shoes for a military wedding

[cmacey]

Originally Posted by Ianiceman

You want answers?
I want the shoes!
You can't handle the shoes!

Yeah, I know...sorry about the rather radical response...didn't mean it to come out like that. Let's just call it to much marching around the living room today...

 

[cmacey]

Originally Posted by naviator

Thanks, that's interesting. I didn't know that about the Corps. I guess that explains why all of the better military tailors out there don't do Marine Corps uniforms. And you're right... I'm not about to question an O-5 on his choice of footwear. In the Navy though it's not uncommon to use outside suppliers instead of the industrial quality uniforms available on base.

That's what I've found out. As I understand it, we too were able [a long time ago] to have Brooks Bros., among one or two others, do our uniforms. Like anything we do in the Corps, a few must have gotten a little carried away...Commandant must have had to reign us in...If I'm not mistaken, you lucky Navy types can still have Brooks make yours. Is that still true?

 

[naviator]

Originally Posted by cmacey

That's what I've found out. As I understand it, we too were able [a long time ago] to have Brooks Bros., among one or two others, do our uniforms. Like anything we do in the Corps, a few must have gotten a little carried away...Commandant must have had to reign us in...If I'm not mistaken, you lucky Navy types can still have Brooks make yours. Is that still true?

That's true! Sold through through the NEX even, although only the very biggest bases have them. Brooks also makes shirts and ties for the service dress uniform as well. There's a Bates "premier" shoe that's supposed to go with it, but it doesn't impress me much. It's nicer than the lites, but still feels kind of cheap. Anyway, here's the link.

 

[Yodan731]

Here is a direct quote from the Marine Corps uniform regs:


3. Male Dress Shoes. (see fig. 3-2). Officers' dress black shoes will be either oxford or chukka boot in style and may be either the bal- or blucher-type.


Looks like balmorals are good to go.

 

[cmacey]

Originally Posted by Yodan731

Here is a direct quote from the Marine Corps uniform regs:


3. Male Dress Shoes. (see fig. 3-2). Officers' dress black shoes will be either oxford or chukka boot in style and may be either the bal- or blucher-type.


Looks like balmorals are good to go.

I give credit where credit is due; you are absolutely right Yodan731. I just learned a new thing. Goes to show, just
because you have never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But then again, that's the problem, you never see
balmorals worn. (I have never seen them sold in the MCX.) The paragraph citation is MCO P1020.34G, par 3012.3.
25 years and I never knew this. Color me red with embarrasment! @#it!

Par 1006.2a(2), "Items listed as approved for purchase from sources other than the
Marine Corps Supply System may be procured from approved commercial vendors.
All items purchased must bear the USMC approval identification to indicate
that they meet Marine Corps standards (see figure 1-3).", still applies though.

Again, thanks Yodan731 for teaching an old dog a new thing.

 

[tgt465]

Originally Posted by Infrasonic

The description says Oxford (Balmoral), the picture is a Derby (Blucher). Somebody needs to make their mind up...

In the USA, "Oxford" usually refers to any kind of lace-up dress shoe, including both Balmorals and Bluchers. In other parts of the world, "Oxford" means Balmorals but not Bluchers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_shoe

 

[Yodan731]

Cmacey,

I just checked my crummy Bates and I don't see the USMC approved logo anywhere on them.

Do you think those standards only apply to clothing? And not footwear?

My reading of the order seems to give us significant latitude in choosing footwear.

Thoughts?

 

[USAF - 1]

As a former Navy officer and current Air Force one, I've got the Allen Edmonds Leeds and they are quite nice. Light years better than the bates crap sold on base. Not cheap though, but I've had mine now for six years and are holding up spectacularly. I dislike the patent leather. I think you can also get the Leeds in brown for you aviator types.

 

[naviator]

Originally Posted by USAF - 1

As a former Navy officer and current Air Force one, I've got the Allen Edmonds Leeds and they are quite nice. Light years better than the bates crap sold on base. Not cheap though, but I've had mine now for six years and are holding up spectacularly. I dislike then patent leather. I think you can also get the Leeds in brown for you aviator types.

You can get them in brown, but they have to be custom made. ($125 extra). I actually do own a pair of brown Leeds that I got second hand a while back from an old retired pilot that happened to be my exact size. I had them recrafted and they're holding up pretty well. I used to wear them all the time with the Aviation Working Green uniform before that got cut this past december. Damn shame. Now, if only AE could also make them in White, then I finally get rid of those awful white Bates shoes.

I generally don't like patent leather either, but those clean lines on the kendall are pretty appealing. That said, based on the overwhelming consensus that a well polished Leeds is indeed appropriate for the occasion, I will follow your advice and stick with Leeds!

 

[Mr. White]

..

 

[rabiesinfrance]

Sanders do the UK military stuff if that's of interest.

There's a nice Oxford shoe on their website.

They used to have a shop on Jermyn Street three or four years ago, but that has now closed.

http://www.sanders-uk.com/categories...m-Footwear.php

 

[cmacey]

Originally Posted by Yodan731

Cmacey,

I just checked my crummy Bates and I don't see the USMC approved logo anywhere on them.

Do you think those standards only apply to clothing? And not footwear?

My reading of the order seems to give us significant latitude in choosing footwear.

Thoughts?

It's a good question. They should be marked; the combat boot is the prime example. Could be that where the patent leather blucher is concerned, since all the branches of service wear them, it may be the only uniform item not required to display the USMC stamp of approval - considered O.K. if not marked but purchased from an Exchange Uniform shop. (I'd hate to see a guy try this with the combat boot...)

 

[bmac11c]

First, Congrats on your future marriage and thank you for your service! That goes for all you guys who have replied to this thread who wear/used to wear a uniform.

On to business; I would go for the AE Leeds. I think you'll be able to get the most use out of them. Both for your wedding as well as your daily uniform needs. I for one like to purchase items for their multifunctional use...if at all possible. I wore those ugly assed Bates when I was in and I understand your desire to wear something nicer...an option I really didn't have since I didn't make the big bucks like you officer, 1 each, types

.

Good luck with your search!

Bmac

Originally Posted by naviator

I've been a long time reader here, but this is my first post. The wedding in the title is my own, next March. I'm a Naval officer, and my bride-to-be wants me in uniform for the occasion. The appropriate uniform would be the the Formal Dress. Link to uniform spec I generally don't approve of the industrial quality of the uniform items sold in the uniform shop, so I opt for higher quality items from outside sources wherever possible. For this occasion, I want the best quality available. Since I don't own this uniform yet, this is my chance to make it perfect from the ground up. I've already ordered the jacket and trousers from my tailor. For the shirt I'll be wearing Brooks Brothers with detachable collar wing collar, BB Vest, and BB bowtie.

The only remaining question is the shoes. The uniform spec calls for a plain toe oxford, and depicts a 5 eyelet blucher. For this, there are two solutions I'm considering, and I'm stumped on which one to go with. I've always been an Allen Edmonds fan, as they fit me perfectly and are a bit of a family tradition, so that's where I'm focusing.

First option, Allen Edmonds Leeds. Link These shoes are a perfect match for the uniform spec. Plus, I could wear them with any other uniform that calls for black shoes (which is good, since I need new black shoes anyway). For this occasion, I could polish them to a mirror shine (I can almost match patent leather), and perhaps add silk laces to dress them up. The question is, would this be formal enough?

Second option, Allen Edmonds Kendall. Link These shoes are certainly formal enough, but they are too formal and too distinctive to be worn with anything but the formal dress uniform. Therefore, it's a little harder to justify spending that much money.

So, any thoughts? I'd be very interested in hearing outside opinions on the matter. Thanks.

 

[GBR]

Originally Posted by naviator

I'm a Naval officer, and my bride-to-be wants me in uniform for the occasion. The appropriate uniform would be the the Formal Dress. Link to uniform spec Thanks.

Surely way over the top for a daytime wedding which I assume it is? This borders on costume - surely there visa more appropriate formal day dress?

 

[maxnharry]

Originally Posted by GBR

Surely way over the top for a daytime wedding which I assume it is? This borders on costume - surely there visa more appropriate formal day dress?
First, the tradition in the Navy is that the uniform of the day for a wedding is whatever your bride wants it to be. The uniform you linked to is not our full dress, but our winter mess dress and usually worn for evening social events like an evening wedding, ball, dining out, etc.. Full dress would be service dress blue with medals, sword and gloves: http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-np...DressBlue.aspx Either way, wear what your bride wants you to wear. As for the shoes, the Leeds are the ones to get. You can wear them with this and any other uniform that requires black shoes. If you are a SWO you can even wear them with your khakis. I know plenty of Navy and USMC officers who wear shoes other than the Bates sold at the NEX/MCX. -Navy Officer, 22 years of service.