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 601  

post #9001 of 70737

I must say I'm quite happy to see that no one has posted those ostrich leather chelsea boot webgem abominations, lol.  Bravo to all!

post #9002 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by BackInTheJox View Post

This x 2.

It might annoy some, but cordovan is such a prevalent term used for the color.  I have never once looked at, say, a listing on ebay such as the one linked above with the use of "cordovan" in a clearly burgundy/merlot color and mistaken it for shell cordovan leather.  People on ebay seem to be pretty good about specifying "shell cordovan" or actual shell shoes.  That, and anyone who is at the point in their life that they are considering dropping money on shell cordovan shoes should be able to tell in an instant that those shoes were not shell and clearly the seller was referring to the color.

yeah, AE customer service just confirmed that there is no such thing as a cordovan shell mcallister. the closest to it would be the cordovan cambridge.
post #9003 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrizzleCizzle View Post

Shark skin refers to a pattern used on suits and pants, not so much on shoes unless you literally mean the skin of a shark, which AE sells none of.

 

Actually, they do use it for one of their golf shoes, the Redan: http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF9911_1_40000000001_-1 .  I called to get some made at AE, and they told me to ask Nordstrom's to special order them.  I went to Sherman Brothers instead, and they confirmed they can have shark skin (actual skin of the shark) shoes custom made for me.  So now the question is not if, but which style I want.  Thoughts?

post #9004 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by polojock615 View Post

 

Actually, they do use it for one of their golf shoes, the Redan: http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF9911_1_40000000001_-1 .  I called to get some made at AE, and they told me to ask Nordstrom's to special order them.  I went to Sherman Brothers instead, and they confirmed they can have shark skin (actual skin of the shark) shoes custom made for me.  So now the question is not if, but which style I want.  Thoughts?

My apologies. I was in no way or shape aware that they (AE) even offered that service (substitute animal leathers), and have never concerned myself with their golf shoes (or clothes, for that matter). Kudos. I'm actually not a fan of shark skin as a shoe, so I'm of absolutely no use in that effort. Let us know how it goes/pics.

post #9005 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrizzleCizzle View Post

My apologies. I was in no way or shape aware that they (AE) even offered that service (substitute animal leathers), and have never concerned myself with their golf shoes (or clothes, for that matter). Kudos. I'm actually not a fan of shark skin as a shoe, so I'm of absolutely no use in that effort. Let us know how it goes/pics.

No apologies needed.  They do not generally offer animal leathers, but apparently if you know who to ask they can do it.

post #9006 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohneokc View Post


I just had a similar situation with my Fifth Avenues. E-mail AE customer service (you can get the contact information on their website). They e-mailed me a UPS label to ship them back, they did brand new heels, and shipped them back to me in just under 2 weeks free of charge.
As mentioned, they had a problem with some heel adhesive. They will make it right for you.
Chris

 

Thanks.  I emailed and they replied very quickly saying I could take them back to the AE store that I purchased them at and they could hopefully just exchange them for a new pair.

post #9007 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by brchin View Post


yeah, AE customer service just confirmed that there is no such thing as a cordovan shell mcallister. the closest to it would be the cordovan cambridge.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  What's wrong with the Cambridge?  Take a look at the pictures in this thread, the Cambridge in shell is one good looking shoe and virtually identical to the McAllister.

post #9008 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by polojock615 View Post

Actually, they do use it for one of their golf shoes, the Redan: http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF9911_1_40000000001_-1 .  I called to get some made at AE, and they told me to ask Nordstrom's to special order them.  I went to Sherman Brothers instead, and they confirmed they can have shark skin (actual skin of the shark) shoes custom made for me.  So now the question is not if, but which style I want.  Thoughts?

I think shark skin looks best without brogueing, perfs, cap toes, wingtips, etc. I think the grain on the shark skin is enough character for a shoe. That being said, I would suggest the Leeds or Kenilworth. Perhaps the Bradley might work. I also think shark skin might look good in a saddle shoe, so perhaps something in the Shelton? I would even think a saddle in all one color would look good with the saddle and the texture on the shark skin giving the shoe a good look.

Chris
post #9009 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by hohneokc View Post


I think shark skin looks best without brogueing, perfs, cap toes, wingtips, etc. I think the grain on the shark skin is enough character for a shoe. That being said, I would suggest the Leeds or Kenilworth. Perhaps the Bradley might work. I also think shark skin might look good in a saddle shoe, so perhaps something in the Shelton? I would even think a saddle in all one color would look good with the saddle and the texture on the shark skin giving the shoe a good look.
Chris

 

Good call.  I was thinking maybe a pair of Leeds.  I also love the fit of the Clifton and was thinking about that.  Also, the MacNeil, but I think I'm the only person in the world that does not fit comfoftably in the 7-last.

post #9010 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjr4884 View Post

 

From what AE told me, the sizing it pretty much spot on with the 5 and 1.  I tried a 9.5D on a few weeks back, and it seems to fit well, however before I purchase any shoe, I will always go up/down a half size and try a different width just to see... 9.5E to a 10D should be fine for you, try it on and see how it feels, if not, exchange them.

thx, I went to my local store and tried on the 10D.  With the thicker socks I had

it was very comfy and when I put a pair of thinner socks that I brought w/ me on

the heel slipped a little bit but I think that had to do w/ it being a brand new pair.

 

My first "in the wild" shot :)

 

 

post #9011 of 70737

Received my next size up Bradley's, much better fit.  My first AEs, much thanks to everyone who posts on the thread/forum that helped me make the decision to purchase these.  Sorry for the bad color on the cell phone shot, all I had in short notice.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by mudmutt - 8/23/12 at 6:08pm
post #9012 of 70737

Received my next size up Bradley's, much better fit.  My first AEs, much thanks to everyone who posts on the thread/forum that helped me make the decision to purchase these.  Sorry for the bad color on the cell phone shot, all I had in short notice.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm. I don't know why that's upside down.  I flipped the picture and saved it on my desktop and uploaded again but the same result.  Hmmmm.

 

FIXED!


Edited by mudmutt - 8/23/12 at 6:08pm
post #9013 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsmivtr View Post

If I remember correctly, there was a discussion about Americans having lower insteps compared to our cousins across the pond. Graphics were provided showing different lasts showing American lasts compared to typical UK lasts. This might be why Northampton shoes tend to have higher insteps because of this adjustment.
Maybe opt for a larger AE width or another maker with a more approrpiate last shape for your foot?

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Shoes1 View Post

Try a different width.  My understanding is that a wider width can result in a taller shoe. 

However, all of the pictures of oxfords in this thread exhibit the same laces gap, so I can't believe Americans have sufficiently low insteps to justify this last shape. And the thing that originally attracted me to AEs was the wide availability of narrower widths. I guess AEs just don't suit me.

Not trying to argue, just expressing a little frustration. Hrmph. Anyway, here are my Chesters (in B width).

dfB0G.jpg
post #9014 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by rs232 View Post


However, all of the pictures of oxfords in this thread exhibit the same laces gap, so I can't believe Americans have sufficiently low insteps to justify this last shape. And the thing that originally attracted me to AEs was the wide availability of narrower widths. I guess AEs just don't suit me.
Not trying to argue, just expressing a little frustration. Hrmph. Anyway, here are my Chesters (in B width).
 

False....not all.  The pairs that I have exhibit no lace gap....the leather comes right together, but I have a pretty narrow foot.

post #9015 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolved View Post

False....not all.  The pairs that I have exhibit no lace gap....the leather comes right together, but I have a pretty narrow foot.

 

All of mine come together and i'm on a D width, however when i see pics where there is a half inch or so of that lace gap, i can't help but feel that the person wearing the show should have went up a notch in the width... just my opinion...

 

All my bals fit like a glove, so idk...

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...