or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread - reviews, pictures, sizing, etc...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread - reviews, pictures, sizing, etc... - Page 2801  

post #42001 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv2breformed View Post
 

 

Alright buddy, just for you:

 

 

I purchased both shoes in 9.5D. I would say the singleton is narrower in the heel, though slightly roomier in the toebox. The flex point for the singletons is a little higher up on the shoe making them slightly less comfortable to walk in before break-in. All told I would still order the same size.

Much appreciated!

post #42002 of 70737
Mobile site says 97 last for all of them, but the pictures sure look 5-65ish to me.

Maybe that's why McNeil "5"
post #42003 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppercorn78 View Post

Mobile site says 97 last for all of them, but the pictures sure look 5-65ish to me.

Maybe that's why McNeil "5"

I saw that too on the full site. It's kinda odd
post #42004 of 70737

Just got my Viking II Chukkas in Boarhide!

 

They are size 15C, and boy am I surprised how well these fit. I normally wear a 15D but i may consider going to C as my standard size.

Now the question is, what color pants can I wear with these?

 

Does anyone know of any pertinent information to boarhide upkeep?

 

post #42005 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by space grey View Post
 

Hi Allen Edmonds experts,

 

Here's a quick question for you.  I recently received these Fifth Ave's and am pretty pleased with the shoes overall.  When I first took them out of the box, I immediately noticed the oval mark on the left side of the right shoe.  It matches the brand cutout inside the shoe.  If this were just a slight depression in the leather, it wouldn't really bug me, but it looks like a dark ring has been burnished into the leather as a result.  I asked my local AE salesman about the issue and he said it was normal and would probably polish out.  I've worn the shoes once, and tried to diminish the mark with AE color-matched polish, but no dice.

 

An AE customer service rep looked at the pics and said this isn't a flaw.  But having seen the minor imperfections that can render a shoe "second" quality, I'm a little skeptical.  What do you guys think?  Should these have been seconds?  Should I forget about it?  Anyone else seen this kind of mark on their AE bourbons?

 

 

 

Thanks for the advice, all.  I think I'll take a run at getting AE to exchange these... I assume the fact that I wore them once won't be a deal-breaker?

post #42006 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by bl@ster View Post

I just spoke to customer service and they claim all of the new webgems use Chromexcel leather. I thought that was confusing since one was named "Cognac" which I assumed meant Cognac Dublin Leather. Obviously I can't verify this info and the CS rep did seem a little unsure, be they are claiming they're all Chromexcel. For what it's worth....

 

Verry interesting.  My first thought when I saw them was that they were CXL so it's interesting to hear a confirmation of that.  I've been waiting for AE to branch out more into CXL and between these and the Rush/Clark Streets et al. that may very well be happening now . . .

post #42007 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppercorn78 View Post
 

Far be it from me to correct MWS, but the sole of my Jeffersons are definitely and definitively thicker than the soles of my Rutledges. I'll try to snap a pic tonight and upload for the sake of comparison.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peppercorn78 View Post


Here's a picture I snapped comparing the sole thickness of Jefferson and Rutledge. You're right, it's not quite as thick as the double sole on my McTavish, but it's definitely thicker than the sole on the Rutledge. One AE SA once described the Jefferson as having a one-and-a-half sole.


 

 

Please don't hesitate to tell me if I get my facts mixed up. :cheers: I don't pretend to know everything.  While I am confident about the single sole, the extra "iron" thickness that they claim is a bit confusing.  In terms of leather thickness measurement, an iron is only 1/48" in thickness.  The Independence soles are more than 1/48" thicker than the standard single leather sole offerings, so what I suspect is that they are the next iron level offered by their supplier, which may actually be several irons thicker than the standard single sole.  However, it doesn't end up being as thick as a double sole, which by the way isn't two full single soles stacked on top of each other either.  Generally "double" soles are made of two layers, one of which is distinctively thicker than the other.  If you actually took two single soles and stacked them, you would end up with a thicker sole than what shoe manufacturers call a "double" sole.   

post #42008 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Shoes1 View Post
 

 

If these are firsts, return them.  That is unacceptable for first quality AE's.

 

Those look like they are too wide, but were worn anyway. 

post #42009 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankmartin View Post
 

 

Those look like they are too wide, but were worn anyway.

 

There is a difference between wrinkled leather and creasing.  That appears to be an issue with the integrity of the leather.  OP should not have worn the shoes after seeing that defect, but I'd be surprised if AE does not take them back.

post #42010 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankmartin View Post
 

 

Those look like they are too wide, but were worn anyway. 

 

B/c of those creases?  Those were there before I put the shoes on for the first time.  Actually I think the shoes fit perfectly (judging by the fact that the sides of the uppers don't quite touch when the shoe is on, and the sides don't bow out at all in that spot with the creasing).  The creases don't really bother me as they just blend in with the patina but that oval mark is a regular geometric shape that stands out. 

post #42011 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post



Please don't hesitate to tell me if I get my facts mixed up. cheers.gif  I don't pretend to know everything.  While I am confident about the single sole, the extra "iron" thickness that they claim is a bit confusing.  In terms of leather thickness measurement, an iron is only 1/48" in thickness.  The Independence soles are more than 1/48" thicker than the standard single leather sole offerings, so what I suspect is that they are the next iron level offered by their supplier, which may actually be several irons thicker than the standard single sole.  However, it doesn't end up being as thick as a double sole, which by the way isn't two full single soles stacked on top of each other either.  Generally "double" soles are made of two layers, one of which is distinctively thicker than the other.  If you actually took two single soles and stacked them, you would end up with a thicker sole than what shoe manufacturers call a "double" sole.   

Without disputing any of your intel, I will point out that both shoes are Indy line with Independence soles, but as you can see the Jefferson is still thicker. In fact I can see the three layers: the bottom, thickest layer, the middle "one half" layer, and the top welt layer.

Anyway, I enjoy both shoes, and the soles are pretty boss.
post #42012 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahuna75 View Post

Actually when the shoe comes up in the pop up it says 97 last yet when you click on to bring up the web page it says 65


Quote:
Originally Posted by peppercorn78 View Post

Mobile site says 97 last for all of them, but the pictures sure look 5-65ish to me.

Maybe that's why McNeil "5"

Well the AE rep confirmed to me that the web gems are all on the 65 last. Bizarre.
post #42013 of 70737


 
ohhh..very dandy socks ... where did you buy it? They are pretty cool!
post #42014 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odradek View Post



Well the AE rep confirmed to me that the web gems are all on the 65 last. Bizarre.

I wonder whether they just copy/pasted the descriptions of the 7-97 last version but forgot to change the text on one of the descriptions. Either way I imagine they'll have some upset customers who order MacNeil 5s in their 7-97 last size only to find that they don't fit.

post #42015 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppercorn78 View Post


Without disputing any of your intel, I will point out that both shoes are Indy line with Independence soles, but as you can see the Jefferson is still thicker. In fact I can see the three layers: the bottom, thickest layer, the middle "one half" layer, and the top welt layer.

Anyway, I enjoy both shoes, and the soles are pretty boss.

 

It's interesting, because a Google image search brings up some pairs that reflect what you are describing, where there is a visible extra layer of leather, and some pairs that don't seem to show that.  I see that extra layer in yours as well.  I don't own the Jefferson, but when examining them in person (which has been a while ago), I don't recall noticing this. 

 

That makes me wonder if they've been inconsistent or even changed how they are making the shoes.  When they originally introduced the Independence collection, they were marketed as having thicker outsoles of a heavier iron, which is better quality than simply stacking two layers of thinner leather.  So in other words, don't shoot the messenger. :D  I'm just taking what they originally said at face value, but things may have changed.  As you know, they don't market the shoes as having double leather soles. 

 

Personally, I consider two thin layers of leather to be a thin double sole.  While an extra iron thickness in leather is what it is, thicker leather, which is better than sandwiching two thinner layers together. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread - reviews, pictures, sizing, etc...