or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Avebury

[quote=Cary Grant;2281194]As has been discussed here in the past, shoe trees do not absorb moisture (not enough to matter), contrary to popular belief and even marketing. Their purpose is simply to help retain/protect the shape of the shoe. This is incorrect. Cedar wood shoe trees, for example, do absorb moisture from the shoe. The better shoes trees (think Edward Green) have a hole within the shoe tree designed to funnel out warm air and condensation. They are also...
Quote: Originally Posted by JayJay I may actually like the boots. I'd blacken the holes though. Foul indeed! Something a retired circus artiste might commission. I would recomend you replace the laces with thinner ones. Definitely colour in the holes. Can you dye the suede? The boots are recoverable, but the shoes should be given to a particularly aggressive dog to play with. Here in the UK, with postal delays, aggressive dogs are...
I don't think it's that good to be honest. Far too clunky. http://www.church-footwear.com/ 1. Can't rotate pics of shoes. This is neccessary - you need to be able to see the shape of the last. Last 108 and 116 mean very little in this context - they are just meaningless numbers. 2. Sizes are in European sizes, not UK sizes. Why not show UK sizes too? 3. The 'country collection' - all roughout suedes - is very dull. Why so many chukkas? 4. The...
Looks like pretentious rubbish. Poor designs.
Sator states (in his excellent thread): "The overall quality of their boots can be best described as basic high end comparable to AE and superior to Loakes." Only one opinion, mind, but if true, then RMW is nowhere near C&J 'benchgrade' in quality. Actually, I think he underrates them somewhat: they are far better than AE. Different league to Loake. Better than Barker, but below C&J and Grenson "Rose". That's my impression from having handled most of these boots. ...
Thanks for the feedback. It's always difficult to tell, but from having looked at both boots I'd say that Crockett & Jones has it - the leather and finish (chestnut burnished) is much better. The boots are also £100 more in store, but that's no true guide. You can buy the re-badged boot for a little over £200 from online retailers, so they are about the same price. Quality of construction is equally as good - RMW do make particularly well constructed boots. The...
Any experts here? I suspect C&J has the better leather, but the RMW "Comfort Craftsman" is such a damn fine boot - one piece of leather and all that. Anyway, any advice appreciated.
IMHO I think the chisel only works on a fairly sleek shoe and only then if it's slight, barely noticable even. If the last is too square, then chisel can become too marked.
Quote: Originally Posted by Wes Bourne No. http://www.herringshoes.co.uk/produc...electedFitID=0 http://www.loake.co.uk/Shop/Products...g/PID-ALD.aspx Pretty sure my Loake 1880 "Badminton" was CG. It developed creases like ravines and had all the tell-tale signs. It didn't hold polish well. Maybe a mixed bag: some are, some are not.
Cheers
New Posts  All Forums: