Oxford shoes: the story of true rebel shoes

In England they call them Oxford. In Italy they are Oxfords. In France they become Richelieu, while in the United States you can still encounter the name Balmoral.

Four different names for a shoe recognizable by a single detail: the closed lacing, with the cuffs sewn under the vamp.

The curious thing is that each of these names brings with it a story. Oxford takes us among the students of one of the most famous universities in the world. Balmoral takes us to a Scottish castle. Oxford recounts the passage of the shoe through France. Richelieu, on the other hand, immediately evokes the cardinal opponent of the musketeers in the imagery created by Alexandre Dumas.

A shoe, in short, capable of bringing together rebellious students, royal castles, French cardinals and duels with D'Artagnan.

Frechete, and we thought it was just a wedding shoe.

Why are Oxford shoes called that?

The best-known explanation takes us to England in the first half of the nineteenth century, precisely toUniversity of Oxford.

According to the most widespread historical reconstruction, around 1825 some students began to refuse the high boots that were part of the male clothing of the time. They were heavy, rigid, formal and not suitable for the daily life of those who had to walk between colleges, libraries and university classrooms.

Students therefore began to prefer shorter and more practical shoes. Initially it was called Oxonian or Oxonian, precisely to indicate its connection with Oxford.

We don't necessarily have to imagine an organized protest, with students gathered in the courtyard to declare war on the boots.

It is more likely that what still happens today happened: a new generation began to consider what the previous generation considered normal to be uncomfortable, old-fashioned and unnecessarily rigid.

The Oxford rebellion was therefore not born from a sensational gesture, but from a very concrete question: why continue to wear a heavy boot when you can walk with a lower shoe?

The Oxonian was not yet a real Oxford

The ancestor of the modern Oxford did not have exactly the shape we know today.

TheOxonian it was more like a half boot. It still covered part of the ankle, had a higher heel and could feature a side button closure instead of front laces.

The transformation occurred gradually. The upper became increasingly lower, the heel lost height and the laces replaced the previous closures. At a certain point, the original boot remained a low shoe, compact and much easier to wear.

1846 and the first Oxford written in black and white

One of the first commonly cited written attestations of the expression Oxford shoes dates back to 1846.

In that year Joseph Sparkes Hall, an English shoemaker and author also known for his connection with the birth of the Chelsea boot, described the Oxford as a shoe particularly suitable for walking.

The detail is important because it reminds us of the original reason for the model's success. Before it became elegant, the Oxford was above all practical.

The date of 1825, often associated with the appearance of the Oxonian, should be considered a historical reconstruction handed down in the footwear world. 1846 represents one of the first occasions on which the name Oxford shoe appears in writing.

The other theory leads to Balmoral Castle

The English theory is the best known, but it is not the only one.

A second reconstruction links the birth of the shoe to Scotland and to Balmoral Castle, the Scottish residence of the British royal family. This is where the name Balmoral comes from, still used today in part of the Anglo-Saxon world to indicate a shoe with closed lacing.

In the United States the term Balmoral, often shortened to “Bal,” has long been used alongside the name Oxford.

Which of the two theories is correct? It is possible that they tell two steps of the same evolution.

Footwear was not born in isolated laboratories. They traveled with people, were observed, copied and modified by shoemakers. A form might develop in Scotland, spread to Oxford, and change once again when it reached America.

When a shoe spans nearly two centuries of history, its genealogy rarely follows a perfectly straight path.

How do you recognize a real Oxford?

The origins can be debated. The technical detail that defines the Oxford, however, is very clear.

An Oxford shoe can be recognized by its closed closure. The quarters, i.e. the two parts of the upper in which the lace eyelets are inserted, are sewn under the vamp.

When the shoe is laced, the two edges come together forming a compact and continuous line. It is precisely this detail that creates the clean and tidy appearance typical of the Oxford.

Color is not decisive. An Oxford can be black, brown, blue or burgundy. It can have a completely smooth upper or be decorated with brogue perforations. As long as it keeps the clasp closed, it remains an Oxford.

Oxford and Oxford are they the same shoe?

Yes. Oxford and Oxford they essentially indicate the same structure.

Oxford is the English and international name. Oxford is the name that has entered the Italian footwear tradition. In both cases we are talking about a lace-up shoe with the cuffs sewn under the vamp.

An example of Oxford smooth is the model Como by Ciccone: an Oxford with a clean line and no brogue decorations.

What is the difference between Oxford and Derby?

The real difference is therefore not between Oxford and Oxford, because they are two names of the same shoe. The correct comparison is between Oxford or Oxford e Derby.

To distinguish them, just look at the way the cuffs are constructed:

• Oxford or Oxford: the cuffs are sewn under the mask and form a compact closure;
• Derbies: the cuffs are sewn onto the upper and can open further.

Among the Ciccone models, How is the example of Oxford, while Padua It's a Derby.

In fact, the Padova features the open lacing typical of the Derby. The cuffs can separate more, making the shoe more adjustable and often more suitable even for those with a high instep.

The open closure generally makes the Derby more flexible in the fit. The Oxford, on the other hand, offers a visually more collected line and is traditionally considered more formal.

This doesn't mean that a Derby cannot be elegant or that an Oxford should only be worn during a ceremony. The construction suggests a character, but does not impose a uniform.

Because in Italy they are called Oxfords?

The precise origin of the term Oxford it is not definitively documented.

The most prudent explanation is that the model arrived in Italy via France and therefore took on a name linked to its origin. In French, the same shoe family is called Richelieu.

There is also a tradition that connects the Oxford to the French Revolution. According to this story, the people would have adopted a practical shoe without the elaborate buckles associated with aristocratic clothing.

It is an evocative story, but it presents a chronological problem: modern Oxford is generally placed in the nineteenth century, after the years of the French Revolution. The connection cannot therefore be presented as a historically certain fact.

Oxford, Oxford, Richelieu and Balmoral

To recap, the same shoe family can change names across borders:

• Oxford in UK and international language;
• Oxford in Italy;
• Richelieu in France;
• Balmoral in part of the Anglo-Saxon and American world.

The terms may overlap and change slightly between manufacturers, eras and national traditions. The surest way to recognize the shoe is therefore not to read the name on the box, but to look at the lacing.

If the cuffs are sewn under the vamp and form a closed closure, we are faced with an Oxford or Oxford.

The Oxford brogue: when decorations come into play

The word Oxford describes the type of closure, not the presence or absence of decoration.

For this reason an Oxford can be completely smooth or have the broguing, that is, the characteristic decorative perforations made on the leather.

The term brogue derives from ancient footwear used in Ireland and Scotland. Originally the holes had a practical function: they allowed water to escape more easily from the shoes when walking on damp ground.

Over time those perforations lost their original function and became a decoration.

An example of Oxford full brogue it's the model Milan by Ciccone. Maintains the typical closed closure of the Oxford, but adds perforations on the toe and sides of the upper.

How e Milan they therefore belong to the same construction family, but communicate two different characters.

How it's one Oxford smooth, essential and clean. Milan it's one Oxford full brogue, more decorated and visually recognisable.

The structure remains Oxford. What changes is the language of the upper.

The main types of Oxford

Within the same family there are numerous variations:

• Plain toe Oxford: features a clean upper with no stitching on the toe cap;
• Oxford cap toe: it has a toe cap highlighted by a horizontal seam;
• Wholecut Oxford: it is constructed using a single large piece of leather;
• Semi brogue Oxford: has limited decorative perforations;
• Full brogue Oxford: it has a more evident decoration and the characteristic dovetail design on the tip.

The smoother, darker and more devoid of decoration the shoe is, the more formal it is perceived as. With the increase in perforations, contrasts and textures, the model takes on a more informal character.

A smooth black Oxford can accompany a formal dress. A full brogue Oxford can also work with flannel, chino, tweed or dark denim trousers.

How a rebellious shoe became elegant

The passage is almost ironic.

The Oxford was born, at least according to the most widespread theory, from the desire to abandon footwear considered too rigid and formal. Then, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it itself became a symbol of formality.

The explanation is in his line. The closed lacing creates a continuous, clean and space-saving surface. Under suit trousers, the shoe appears composed and discreet.

The smooth black Oxford thus becomes a natural choice for dark suits, formal occasions and ceremonies. The brown, blue or decorated versions instead enter the daily wardrobe.

The paradox is complete: what was probably created to free itself from the rules ends up becoming one of the most rule-abiding shoes.

Are Oxfords suitable for all feet?

The compact shape that makes an Oxford elegant can also make it less adjustable than a Derby.

Anyone with a very high instep or a particularly wide sole must carefully observe the fit. The cuffs should not remain too far apart or put pressure on the top of the foot.

In these cases a Derby, like the Padova, can be easier to adjust thanks to its open lacing.

However, it is not enough to choose your usual number. What matters is the shape, the internal volume, the width of the sole and the point at which the shoe bends during the step.

A good shoe must hold the heel without compressing it, leave room for the toes and accompany the natural flexion of the foot. Elegance, when a shoe hurts, lasts very little.

Classics are often born from someone who changes the rules

The history of the Oxfords is interesting because it completely overturns the image we have of them.

Today they represent order, measure and formality. Originally, however, there was probably the desire to free oneself from footwear considered too heavy and old-fashioned.

The students were looking for something more practical. Shoemakers shortened, modified, and perfected existing lasts. Society changed its way of dressing. Time transformed that choice into a classic.

Perhaps this is precisely the fate of successful objects: first they seem like a deviation, then they become a possibility and finally they appear inevitable to us.

Oxford, Oxford, Richelieu or Balmoral: call it what you want. Look at the legs, observe the closure and remember one thing.

Before becoming the shoe of the rules, it was probably the shoe of those who wanted to change them.