I have long promised to write a bit of a blog about the things what I have learned (good grammar not being one of them - I'm already full-brim on that'n) in the lead-up to my wedding. People have questions, it seems, and I'm all for giving the public what it wants, within reason, mind. You may consider me your helper flunky.
Admittedly, most of these questions have been aksed of me by many-footed caterpillars while I have been in the midst of fevered, opiate-induced hallucinations, which really only means that I should go to bed earlier, stop thinking about footwear, stop drinking Vicky's special 'women's tea', and just come to terms with the fact that not that many people read the blog.
I digress. "Your blog is all very well and good-" these caterpillars say, to which I inject with a hearty cry of, "Thank you! Most gracious!" and a preposterous attempt to shake all their hands in gratitude.
"But!" they continue, "it does not help us, you see. All we have learned is that you have learned about the various conventions, attitudes and mechanistics of menswear, but we are still in the dark about what those lessons actually are. Our own knowledge remains confined to how to eat the vegetables you are vainly (and half-heartedly, it must be admitted) trying to grow, and how to walk with dignity, never tripping ourselves up on our hundreds of feet." Hereupon, they take great big drags of apple tobacco from their hookahs and puff a smoke-ring around my face.
Accordingly, I will write some updates about what's what in formalwear for anybody who may be interested.
Please note that this is in no way a dress code to be followed to guarantee entrance at my wedding. Other than asking people to make a bit of an effort to dress nicely, there is no obligation or expectation for any guests to dress any particular way. My obsessions are mine alone and if you'd prefer to attend in a crushed velvet blazer and tweed cap, that will probably be fine. Clearly, I will permit
shoes made of canvas, too.
I will start, obviously, with shoes and what I have been carrying on about: the difference between oxfords/balmorals and derbys/bluchers. The difference between the terminology on either side of the slash can be summarised as pom/yank.
I think most of my friends' dress shoes are derbys; certainly all the shoes I had for work/weddings/funerals have been these. They are distinguished by their 'open' laces, which mostly means that the part where the lace-holes go has been sewn onto the shoe itself, as per the image below.
(By the way, I did try to think of a joke about 'lace-hole' but I couldn't work one in seamlessly enough.)
Notice how the vamp (the decidedly unsexy, non-dangerous front part of the shoe, covering the toes and instep) has the quarters (which are the back two parts of the shoe, from the heel-end to midpoint) sewn on top. This is what distinguishes a derby. The laces-bit is "open", on top of the vamp/front.
Compare this to the oxford:
If you are exceedingly clever, you will note these are a different colour. This is immaterial to my lesson. The key is that the vamp (the front bit) is sewn on top of the quarters (the back bit, with the laces). In this case, the tongue of the shoe will also usually be separate and sewn onto the vamp. In the derbies, the tongue is usually an extension of the vamp; it is the same piece of material.
There are lots of reasons why people consider the oxford to be a more formal shoe than the derby. The key one, to my mind, is that it's more difficult for cobblers to make oxfords well, so they cost more. If things cost more, they are generally considered special occasion items. They are in my case, at any rate.
Obviously you can get shoes without laces, too. If they come with a buckle or strap in place of laces, the cool kids call them "monks". I will not go into these. Considering monks are supposed to be chaste, I doubt that many of them will also get married. (I will also pass over the joke about monks, living under vows of poverty and obedience, being ideal candidates for marriage.)
Now, look back at the derby. See those holes? That's brogueing, a fancy way of saying "decorative punched holes". Generally, the more decorative the shoe, the less formal it is. The derby above is also what's known as a "half brogue" because it has that straight cap-toe. To be considered a "full brogue", they will be wingtips, which, instead of a straight cap, has a pointy bit at the front, like a squiggly bracket ({):
The oxfords, without the brogueing, are called - surprise, surprise - "plain".
And that's as much as I can be bothered writing about the different styles, apart from quickly mentioning that, in addition to captoes and wingtips, you can also get "split toes", which have stitching up the middle of the vamp. Avoid these. They're rubbish.
Now, if you also want to be lectured about the materials, read on. I'll make it quick (said the bishop to the bride).
Most shoes are made from leather. Before I retread my vegetarian agenda, I will cover the basics. Avoid "corrected grain" leather shoes. These are crap. "Corrected" is a euphemism for "shitty" in the same way that "never-before seen footage" means "boring to watch".
Essentially, if shoes are "corrected", it means they have sanded off the rubbish bits of the animal hide (scars, etc) and hidden these with a special plastic coating. This coating will flake off and look awful as you wear the shoes in. Instead, aim for "full grain", which means that the leather was top quality to begin with. In addition to full grain, you could also keep an eye out for shell cordovan. This is a euphemism, too, for "horse's arse", although being made of horses' arses is apparently quite a good thing: the shoes are longer lasting and more durable than ones made from cows or baby seals. Beware, though, that cordovan can also be a colour as well as a material, just to keep things simple.
Now, before you cry "hypocrite!", being familiar with my
earlier conundrum, allow me to gently suggest that one can bear all these tips in mind when shopping for some excellent quality leather shoes second-hand. In this way, not only do fewer horses have to lose their arses, I am also able to push my environmentalist agenda as well as my vegetarian one.
Seriously, the reason that some shoes cost nearly $1,000 and some cost $45 is that the more expensive ones (should, if you're savvy) last more than a lifetime. The soles will be welted on, instead of glued, for one thing, which means they can be replaced as they wear through. Isn't it better just to get one pair of shoes, even second hand, that look great and can be cobbled throughout your life, rather than having to try on new shoes every year or so as the soles wear through and the whole thing has to be thrown away and replaced, forcing you to take a trip back to the shoe-shop and try on awful things while a spotty teenager stands awkwardly nearby and you are sweating because you hate trying on shoes and could be at the pub instead and you're worried about sweating in those shoes that you're trying on and then thinking about all the other people who may have tried them on before you, sweating their own mould-infested sweat into the same shoe and how much protection can a cotton sock offer you, anyway? None, that's how much! Oh god this is awful; why didn't I just follow that nice blog's advice in the first place and get good-quality secondhand shoes? I could be at the pub right now, carefree and soused.
Shoe-shopping stinks, figuratively and literally. Why wouldn't you avoid it if you could?
(Obviously, I assume that secondhand shoes are cleaned and treated better between wearers than a spotty teenager will bother with between try-ons in department stores.)
Shoes, hey? Now you know.
And yes, although I am still a wee bit too knowledgeable about shoes, I can confirm that I remain front-bottom free. This is just as well. Gay marriage is still (!) illegal in this country, despite our atheist prime minister. Incidentally, I am going to aks our celebrant if she can replace the words "marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others" with "marriage is defined as the union of two individuals" because I'm rather sympathetic to the gays.
Look at that! Environmentalist, vegetarian, and now homosexual agendas all pushed in the one post! Tune in next time when I talk about trying to get the "to the exclusion of all others" part removed and push for deregulated trading hours in WA, all in a sneaky attempt to destroy families and western civilisation as you know it. Just 'cause, you know.
