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 3838  

post #57556 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMR16 View Post

I'm really taking a liking to the Firenze as I love a good Italian loafer. Are you saying to abandon both if I have a narrow foot? Besides, the Arezzo didn't really catch my eye anyways. There just seems something that seems off with them.

The Firenze would work better for a narrow foot; it has a flatter, narrower toe box than the Arezzo.
post #57557 of 70737
Opinions on cognac McTavish vs. BB chili grain Macneil? I really like the cognac leather, but i want something I can wear with jeans casually and the blucher makes sense for that. Does the grain Macneil have a black welt? The only hesitation I have is that the chili grain is too close in color to walnut (of which I already have two pairs). The cognac would add a new color to the rotation. Thoughts?

Really wish they would just come out with a short wing blucher already.
post #57558 of 70737

I've been looking to buy a shell macneil but can't figure out the right size. I tried the 10D in calf at my local AE store and it was little bit shorter for my right foot and the SA suggested that 10.5 D will be a good fit, But they didn't have any 10.5 D to try!

10 E in 5 last fits me really well, has anyone else had similar experience i.e. going up size in macneil ?

post #57559 of 70737
Let's see, the 10.0 D in the model shoe you want is too short.

The SA suggested you need the same width in a longer length.

Your idea is to leave length alone and go for a wider shoe just because that size works for you in a totally different model on a different last in an Oxford when you are shopping for a blucher. Hmmm.

My vote would be with the SA's recommendation. smile.gif

EDIT: I didn't mean to sound like such a smart ass. But you are mixing apples and oranges if you compare to the 5 last oxfords. You D shoe was too short. Try it in a longer version leaving width alone. I know all shells are made up now but they could ship in a calf and let you try that. If OK, then order the shell.
post #57560 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by tradbrah View Post

Opinions on cognac McTavish vs. BB chili grain Macneil? I really like the cognac leather, but i want something I can wear with jeans casually and the blucher makes sense for that. Does the grain Macneil have a black welt? The only hesitation I have is that the chili grain is too close in color to walnut (of which I already have two pairs). The cognac would add a new color to the rotation. Thoughts?

Really wish they would just come out with a short wing blucher already.

 

The Cognac McTavish wears great with jeans. Yes, they're a balmoral, but they couldn't be more casual. Stick some colored laces in and it will be fine. Only people on this forum would care that it's a bal.

post #57561 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by tradbrah View Post

Opinions on cognac McTavish vs. BB chili grain Macneil? I really like the cognac leather, but i want something I can wear with jeans casually and the blucher makes sense for that. Does the grain Macneil have a black welt? The only hesitation I have is that the chili grain is too close in color to walnut (of which I already have two pairs). The cognac would add a new color to the rotation. Thoughts?

Really wish they would just come out with a short wing blucher already.
I wouldn't say the BB MacNeil is close to walnut. It's definitely darker, more brown with hues of red. For your intended purpose I would go for the BB MacNeils.
post #57562 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevisIsland View Post

New Walnut courtesy of the shoe bank:


Great looking shoes. Are those the Sanfords?

Chris
post #57563 of 70737
Quote:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Originally Posted by Count de Monet View Post

Let's see, the 10.0 D in the model shoe you want is too short.

The SA suggested you need the same width in a longer length.

Your idea is to leave length alone and go for a wider shoe just because that size works for you in a totally different model on a different last in an Oxford when you are shopping for a blucher. Hmmm.

My vote would be with the SA's recommendation. smile.gif

EDIT: I didn't mean to sound like such a smart ass. But you are mixing apples and oranges if you compare to the 5 last oxfords. You D shoe was too short. Try it in a longer version leaving width alone. I know all shells are made up now but they could ship in a calf and let you try that. If OK, then order the shell.

 

Thanks for the feedback. What if I say that, I know that one is a blucher and the other is a bal and that both are on different lasts 7 vs 5..

I quoted the 5 last size for reference only, but I should have been more clear by specifying my Brannock size which is between 10D and E (more towards E).

post #57564 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMR16 View Post


I'm really taking a liking to the Firenze as I love a good Italian loafer. Are you saying to abandon both if I have a narrow foot? Besides, the Arezzo didn't really catch my eye anyways. There just seems something that seems off with them.


Don't abandon both...:) They're both really good.  If you've never tried AE I don't have much of a baseline to go with so this isn't too easy.  You know how when you get something like the CH Ascot, Santa Barbara, Air Grant, Pinch, they sort of either fit or they don't?  AE has so many different lasts and variations within the lasts that you get a more custom fit.  Brunos & Ferragamos sort of have a range - some are very narrow and sleek, others are wider.  If you have ever tried on a Tods, they run super wide, like a real relaxed fit.  The Arrezo is like that.  The Firenze is more like a normal fit.  I would not consider it narrow by any means.  AE's 222 last (things like the Norwich, San Marco, etc.) are what I would consider narrow.  If you can, try on the Arrezzo & Firenze and see what you think.  The Verona is good but I don't think the leather sole holds up too well on the Italians.

 

BTW - you made a wise decision getting out of the CHs - believe me, I bought them forever and know them all, AE is far better.

post #57565 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1 View Post


Don't abandon both...smile.gif They're both really good.  If you've never tried AE I don't have much of a baseline to go with so this isn't too easy.  You know how when you get something like the CH Ascot, Santa Barbara, Air Grant, Pinch, they sort of either fit or they don't?  AE has so many different lasts and variations within the lasts that you get a more custom fit.  Brunos & Ferragamos sort of have a range - some are very narrow and sleek, others are wider.  If you have ever tried on a Tods, they run super wide, like a real relaxed fit.  The Arrezo is like that.  The Firenze is more like a normal fit.  I would not consider it narrow by any means.  AE's 222 last (things like the Norwich, San Marco, etc.) are what I would consider narrow.  If you can, try on the Arrezzo & Firenze and see what you think.  The Verona is good but I don't think the leather sole holds up too well on the Italians.

BTW - you made a wise decision getting out of the CHs - believe me, I bought them forever and know them all, AE is far better.

I have a couple AE's, including a pair of Lake Shore Tassels that I absolutely love. My feet are narrow but I'm open to anything. I like AE's style of loafers so I'm open to anything as long as they are narrow. I would love to try them on, but the Nordstrom near me doesn't have the Firenze or anything.
post #57566 of 70737

For those of you who have received seconds from the Shoe Bank, can you help me decide if the following defect is acceptable:

 

 

 

 

My wife says it looks like someone chewed on them, but to me, looks like there was excess leather. There is also minor tiger-stripping, but I am not worried about that.

 

Thanks!

post #57567 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzapie View Post

For those of you who have received seconds from the Shoe Bank, can you help me decide if the following defect is acceptable:








My wife says it looks like someone chewed on them, but to me, looks like there was excess leather. There is also minor tiger-stripping, but I am not worried about that.

Thanks!

No, I would not find that acceptable. I just had a stone suede MacGregor with that issue. I did not accept it.
post #57568 of 70737
I don't think it is too bad. That looks like it would be more of a visual issue than structural. It would depend in the price point you got them at as to weather or not I would return them. If you paid $177, I would keep, if they were $299 then I would return.
post #57569 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohneokc View Post

Great looking shoes. Are those the Sanfords?

Chris

Very similar. Same last and I can't tell the difference, but these are the Lamonts made for Jos a Bank. There were a few left at $127 last I spoke with the factory. I almost bought both pairs in 11.5D.
post #57570 of 70737

PSA - There is a walnut shell Dalton on the 'bay in a size 9.5 E.  Unworn.  Not mine.

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...