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 4713  

post #70681 of 70737
in the Mctavish was there only 2 brown colors- cognac and khaki? or was there a tan also? ive found my size in cognac and khaki. anyone happen to own both pair? is the khaki a really light tan color? in photos i cant tell some look light and some look darker
post #70682 of 70737

 

The brown calf Strands are finally starting to break in.  I've had to return some other seconds but I'm quite pleased with this pair.  The best $200 I've spent in 2016 for sure.

post #70683 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by robster35 View Post

in the Mctavish was there only 2 brown colors- cognac and khaki? or was there a tan also? ive found my size in cognac and khaki. anyone happen to own both pair? is the khaki a really light tan color? in photos i cant tell some look light and some look darker


There were colors other than Cognac and Khaki.  Khaki is 4047, Tan (Natural Wax Infused) is 4035.  There was also a Black Wax Infused 4005.  I believe the Tan and Khaki also had different edge finishes between them.

 

Sorry, I have no pictures for side by side comparison.

post #70684 of 70737
I have the black - the black, tan and cognac have natural edges, the khaki edge is black. I forget what edge the distressed or whatever it was called had.
post #70685 of 70737
I've posted these pics here before. Both McT's are worth owning. The cognac are more versatile for me, but I'm really, really happy to have both.

LH7_3394_zpszlb1zcxd.jpg
LH7_3385_zpsqgms4ywx.jpg
LH7_3400_zpsvdyywuy8.jpg
The darker areas on the tan shoes aren't as prominent as they look in the pix. Love the look of that leather. The cognac is getting better with age (no pun intended...).
post #70686 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by M635Guy View Post

I've posted these pics here before. Both McT's are worth owning. The cognac are more versatile for me, but I'm really, really happy to have both.

LH7_3394_zpszlb1zcxd.jpg
LH7_3385_zpsqgms4ywx.jpg
LH7_3400_zpsvdyywuy8.jpg
The darker areas on the tan shoes aren't as prominent as they look in the pix. Love the look of that leather. The cognac if getting better with age (no pun intended...).

do they fit like the strands? i wear a 10D in the strand. ive heard some say they fit the same some say order smaller than the strands


also hows the comfort? seems guys either really like em or either say they arent comfortable
post #70687 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by robster35 View Post

in the Mctavish was there only 2 brown colors- cognac and khaki? or was there a tan also? ive found my size in cognac and khaki. anyone happen to own both pair? is the khaki a really light tan color? in photos i cant tell some look light and some look darker

There is definitely a tan color other than khaki. IIRC, the khaki has a dark welt while the tan is natural. The khaki might also be grain??

post #70688 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by robster35 View Post

do they fit like the strands? i wear a 10D in the strand. ive heard some say they fit the same some say order smaller than the strands


also hows the comfort? seems guys either really like em or either say they arent comfortable
I'm not your best resource since I don't have Strands and I'm not super-fluent in fit terminology it my own feet. This thread inspired me to wear them today, so here's a (bad) on-foot shot:
IMG_20160211_1100432_zps3t8u79t1.jpg

That said, here are my thoughts: I measure an 11.5+ D+. I'm very comfortable in a 11.5 D in the 5-last, but apparently have enough of a high-instep that an 11.5 E would probably be better for me to get more closure on the balmoral style shoe. I notice this far more on my Rush Streets than I do either of the McT's, but it isn't a comfort issue for me on any of them, though I'd probably pick and E in the Rush Streets if I were buying again. Since the Rush Street is really just a Strand with a more casual leather and details, I'd probably go with an E in that too. The McT's are entirely fine for me as a D - they are completely comfortable and I don't use or prefer the bar lacing anyway.

Hope that helps!
Edited by M635Guy - 2/11/16 at 8:32am
post #70689 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by naspratt View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyMiddles View Post
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Trying to fit in here with a few firsts for me (Allen Edmonds purchase, picture post, attempt at shoe care).  Walnut Wednesday with the Rogues and a coffee mug purchased in Seattle at the original Starbucks.  Thanks for all the help so far everyone!
Those are really sharp; I've been on the fence about the Rogues for a while, but that may have tipped me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danwatts2005 View Post

The Cognac McTavishes came back up in my size on clearance, and I just snagged the last pair.  To whomever returned them, I appreciate it.  I was looking for something to alternate with Rush Streets for casual, and these should hopefully do nicely.
On the other hand; Rush Streets and McTavishes are also available, cheaper, and more obviously casual. Decisions, decisions (and no, I don't think buying all three is a legitimate option).

 

That is a great pic for sure - one of the best I have seen of the rogue

post #70690 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by ace13x View Post
 

I picked up a pair of Normandy boots on the Bay a few days ago.  They arrived today.  Tried them on to check the fit, and haven't taken them off yet; I don't want to.  I feel like going for a run.  I may never wear sneakers again.

 

Could not agree more...they are terrific...going to be wearing mine today

post #70691 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppercorn78 View Post


I wonder why the shell could be thinner. I know that there is variation between hides, but why would all my AE shells feel thinner than all (both) my Carnina shells, for example, that are like thick rubber tanks? It can't just be the lining. Does AE's lasting process make a difference?

 

Maybe 4-5 months ago, the guys over at AE were kind enough to send me some scrap shell pieces they had but couldn't use. I had decided to make a couple envelope style wallets for my brothers for Christmas. Long story short, the dozen or so pieces of shell varied A LOT in thickness, and even varied within the same piece, sometimes drastically. Once I get things unpacked and locate that box, I'll try and snap a few pics. 

post #70692 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolarrow View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieP View Post


Me too! Had a really crappy day at work yesterday, so decided to wear mine today. The fit is so perfect, they still feel like the leather was laid-up around my feet and magically stitched together that way! I've also noticed they're really light (vs. Cambridge shell, Randolph calf) Does that make any sense?

Felt like a million bucks today!

(Sorry did not snap a new pic today)

Good choice. I have Alden shell and other makes shell and my AE shell is always the lightest.  Maybe it's the lack of a shank or they use thinner shell hide (?). Also, my shell dalton boots (unlined) are crazy light too. I don't mind.

 

Lack of steel shank is huge..if AE's weighed more I believe more many would have a different opinion to the good side. People who jump to Alden and are impressed often by literally the wieght which mentally makes it seem so much better...sort of like folks who judge a restaurant by the quantity of food on their plate not the quality.

 

FYI I am in no way comparing Alden to 36 ounce "Select" beef as opposed to a Prime Ribe Eye...Just saying the first time I held an Alden boot I was taken by the weight and the first time I held a Viberg I was in awe of the weight...I now put no stock in weight of the boot or shoe...but it took me a while to get there.

post #70693 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppercorn78 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSO1 View Post

No shank makes a big difference. Shell is often thinner on AE but not universally so. Unlined also makes a big difference.

I wonder why the shell could be thinner. I know that there is variation between hides, but why would all my AE shells feel thinner than all (both) my Carnina shells, for example, that are like thick rubber tanks? It can't just be the lining. Does AE's lasting process make a difference?

 

While I dont have Carmina Shell - my AE shell Bradley's, Bayfields and Leeds feel the same as my typical Alden shell's...My Viberg Shell is very much so thicker than my Alden's and AE...My AE shell Townley is on the thinner side.

post #70694 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by garland View Post

Maybe 4-5 months ago, the guys over at AE were kind enough to send me some scrap shell pieces they had but couldn't use. I had decided to make a couple envelope style wallets for my brothers for Christmas. Long story short, the dozen or so pieces of shell varied A LOT in thickness, and even varied within the same piece, sometimes drastically. Once I get things unpacked and locate that box, I'll try and snap a few pics. 

makes sense to me. my guess is the variance people see across makers is mostly due to the inherent variance in Horween shell, not anything the makers are doing to it
post #70695 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyMiddles View Post






The brown calf Strands are finally starting to break in.  I've had to return some other seconds but I'm quite pleased with this pair.  The best $200 I've spent in 2016 for sure.

where did u get em for $200? those look awesome. just lookin thro the AE site i didnt look too hard at the brown but they look great here
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...