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 657  

post #9841 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarksdb View Post

Anyone have experience with the Clifton? They are discontinued but still available as seconds. Thinking of picking one up in burgundy. Anyone have it in burgundy? I think it will go nice with slacks and a dress shirt.
Think I'll get a burgundy Clifton and black Park Avenue or Fifth Avenue from the shoe bank on Monday. Already have the Strands in walnut.
how much are th Clifton seconds?
post #9842 of 70737
i'm also curious about cliftons seconds, i could use a pair in black 10D.
post #9843 of 70737
Thanks for the picture kmd, they do indeed look great! What is the difference between them and the Fifth Avenues though? They look similar though obviously Clifton is a blucher and on a different last. Is the cap the same size?

Clifton seconds are $200 regular price and next week they will be discounted at least 15% so yeah. Someone on another site told me he bought Clifton seconds in a previous sale for $150 so hopefully they are around that price.
post #9844 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by clarksdb View Post

Thanks for the picture kmd, they do indeed look great! What is the difference between them and the Fifth Avenues though? They look similar though obviously Clifton is a blucher and on a different last. Is the cap the same size?
Clifton seconds are $200 regular price and next week they will be discounted at least 15% so yeah. Someone on another site told me he bought Clifton seconds in a previous sale for $150 so hopefully they are around that price.

Hey, thanks. Differences between the Clifton and Fifth Avenue are blucher vs. balmoral, as you say. Also, the Clifton is on the 8 last, vs. 5 for the FA. But the cap toe, in my opinion, is much better proportioned on the Clifton than on the FA/PA. It does not appear as short as on those shoes.

I know Cliftons were included in the 2 for 300 sale, which is where the $150 probably came from. Seconds are pretty hit and miss as far as size availability.
post #9845 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by sartorialnoob View Post


I agree with you, to some extent. I do, however, like the Kenilworth in brown. It darkens just enough towards the toe to give it some character. I also think shell gives a PTB a little bit of character as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post

Am I the only one who does not like the leeds? Its the quintessential blobby ugly plain blucher. In fact, i hate all PTBs.
yuck

I don't have the Leeds as I am not a huge fan of the 1 last. I have various Alden shell models in the PTB, and one calf model PTB from Alden as well. They are wonderful for their versatility and the shell cordovan patina displays on a PTB better than probably any other model.

The Kenilworth is on the 5 last (narrow), does not have a storm welt, and has a single leather sole. In other words, it is a completely different type of PTB. It is - for good or for bad - far less substantial than, say, the Leeds. For my taste - and for a PTB - it is not substantial enough. I sold mine. But, obviously, many like the Kenilworth. I have no problem with that.
post #9846 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmdsimpson View Post


Hey, thanks. Differences between the Clifton and Fifth Avenue are blucher vs. balmoral, as you say. Also, the Clifton is on the 8 last, vs. 5 for the FA. But the cap toe, in my opinion, is much better proportioned on the Clifton than on the FA/PA. It does not appear as short as on those shoes.
I know Cliftons were included in the 2 for 300 sale, which is where the $150 probably came from. Seconds are pretty hit and miss as far as size availability.

 

 +1.  The Fifth Avenue cap toe line is too close to the toe, which makes the toe look short and stubby.  Clifton gets the line placement right, but is a blucher (if that bothers you).

post #9847 of 70737

I believe a few pages back someone mentioned that there were a lot of black, flat toe, bicycle style shoes lurking around corporate offices.

I think even Paul (AE CEO) mentioned something similar to this in one of his discussion board posts.

I had never really taken notice of this until about the past week or two after the comments registered... and let me tell you, there definitely are a LOT of black, flat toe, bicycle shoes not only in my office, but in many other venues as well.

 

The interesting part of this is that, of the bicycle shoes I have seen being worn, a few of them look to have actually been shined fairly well. And, some of these guys are wearing properly tailored suits, are well groomed, etc. So, on some level, these guys get it, but not enough to take things to the next level shoe-wise. (Possibly considering leaving the Rediscovering mailer in the break room in hopes someone will connect the dots...)

 

At any rate, confirmed that having great footwear definitely sets you apart from the pack and sets the tone of you being someone that has it all together.

Took a quick (crapy iPhone) pic of my #8 Cambridge shells in a moment of inspiration. The yellow evening sun and glare don't do them justice, but even in the crappy picture, they were head and shoulders above anything else in the office today!

 

 

post #9848 of 70737

Amen, horsey shoes.  Your burgundy cambridges look great, and I especially like the combo with the suit pants (I'm assuming a suit) you are wearing.  I have made some not-so-subtle moves like leaving an AE catalog on the lunch table, offering extra $35 AE discount cards (the ones you get with a recrafting), etc.    Sometimes it gets through, sometimes it doesn't.  

post #9849 of 70737

I used to think of the Leeds as too blobby in pictures, but after getting a pair in black calf for cheap I've grown to like it. Even snatched up a pair of cordovan version in burgundy.

post #9850 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by horsey shoes View Post

I believe a few pages back someone mentioned that there were a lot of black, flat toe, bicycle style shoes lurking around corporate offices.
I think even Paul (AE CEO) mentioned something similar to this in one of his discussion board posts.
I had never really taken notice of this until about the past week or two after the comments registered... and let me tell you, there definitely are a LOT of black, flat toe, bicycle shoes not only in my office, but in many other venues as well.

The interesting part of this is that, of the bicycle shoes I have seen being worn, a few of them look to have actually been shined fairly well. And, some of these guys are wearing properly tailored suits, are well groomed, etc. So, on some level, these guys get it, but not enough to take things to the next level shoe-wise. (Possibly considering leaving the Rediscovering mailer in the break room in hopes someone will connect the dots...)
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
At any rate, confirmed that having great footwear definitely sets you apart from the pack and sets the tone of you being someone that has it all together.
Took a quick (crapy iPhone) pic of my #8 Cambridge shells in a moment of inspiration. The yellow evening sun and glare don't do them justice, but even in the crappy picture, they were head and shoulders above anything else in the office today!



I know people who have custom suits and still wear square toed shoes like this:



What they don't understand is that if they wore a decent, well-fitting $250 OTR suit, but upped their shoe game, they would look much better.

This kind of brings up something I was thinking about yesterday. Mens style blogs and SF members often claim that one of the reasons men should wear nice shoes is because women notice them. If women or people in general do notice shoes, can they recognize good shoes, or would they think the above are the same as or better than a pair of AEs? Before I got into style, I might have been able to tell the difference visually between the two, but I wouldn't have known which was nicer. In fact, I found shoes like the PA or Macneil to be very old fashioned in a bad way. The only reason my wife knows the difference is because I've essentially educated her against her will. I imagine significant others of SF members might also appreciate nice shoes, but they may not represent the norm. Thoughts?

Nice Cambridges by the way.
Edited by Papa Doble - 9/19/12 at 9:31pm
post #9851 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by James77 View Post

Can anyone help me with the sizing difference between the 1 last and the 5 last?
I have the Dalton boot in an 8D and would like to pick up a pair of Fifth Avenue when the sale is on.
Thanks

True to size for me is 5 last shoes in 9.5c, but 9D works very well for me. 

 

That said, I picked up Daltons in 9D, and while slightly snug in the toes, if I wear thin socks, the boots are breaking in and becoming more comfortable.  If there were a 9.5c in the dalton, I might try it, but the 9D works.

post #9852 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by James77 View Post

Can anyone help me with the sizing difference between the 1 last and the 5 last?
I have the Dalton boot in an 8D and would like to pick up a pair of Fifth Avenue when the sale is on.
Thanks

They are essentially the same fit for me.

post #9853 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by sartorialnoob View Post


I agree with you, to some extent. I do, however, like the Kenilworth in brown. It darkens just enough towards the toe to give it some character. I also think shell gives a PTB a little bit of character as well.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa Doble View Post


I know people who have custom suits and still wear square toed shoes like this:

What they don't understand is that if they wore a decent, well-fitting $250 OTR suit, but upped their shoe game, they would look much better.
This kind of brings up something I was thinking about yesterday. Mens style blogs and SF members often claim that one of the reasons men should wear nice shoes is because women notice them. If women or people in general do notice shoes, can they recognize good shoes, or would they think the above are the same as or better than a pair of AEs? Before I got into style, I might have been able to tell the difference visually between the two, but I wouldn't have known which was nicer. In fact, I found shoes like the PA or Macneil to be very old fashioned in a bad way. The only reason my wife knows the difference is because I've essentially educated her against her will. I imagine significant others of SF members might also appreciate nice shoes, but they may not represent the norm. Thoughts?
Nice Cambridges by the way.

Great stuff. I agree completely with the suit/shoe dichotomy comment.  Since I became interested in style and shoes, I have often thought that shoes make or break the entire look (not an original thought, obviously). However, I think you also have a point about how often "regular" people notice. I will say immodestly that I get complemented on my shoes fairly often by men and women.  Sometimes several times a week. I definitely think women notice more often than men (which works for me, again obviously), and even if they don't understand the inherent quality difference, they recognize the good versus the bad and appreciate it, even if only subconsciously.  I probably would not have understood the difference two years ago, either, but I would at least subconsciously appreciated the difference as far as crafting an opinion as to how well dressed someone is based on whether they were wearing a well-fitted suit with proper dress shoes. 

Assuming that I am doing my new style thing correctly, and I think at least 7 out of 10 times I am (still learning and experimenting), my impression has been that more men and women notice me throughout my day when I'm in public, because I stand out from the other slovenly dressed guys.  Sometimes, I imagine they only look and subconsciously think to themselves, "that guy looks well dressed," without even realizing why.  Sometimes, they may form the same opinion and form some appreciation for why I look different than the vast majority of guys in the south.  (Incidentally, I'll bet many look and say, "what a deuche, why is he dressed all fancy, must be gay." But that is okay with me, because I don't have time for such small minded jerks.)  Okay, enough of my immodest deep thoughts by Jack Handy. Joe at Dappered muses on such matters sometimes, and I like his approach.

I'd like to hear some other opinions on this topic.

post #9854 of 70737

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post


Am I the only one who does not like the leeds? Its the quintessential blobby ugly plain blucher. In fact, i hate all PTBs.
yuck

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sartorialnoob View Post


I agree with you, to some extent. I do, however, like the Kenilworth in brown. It darkens just enough towards the toe to give it some character. I also think shell gives a PTB a little bit of character as well.

I used to feel exactly the same way, but PTB's have recently grown on me, and with my fast-growing addiction to acquiring new shoes, I have obtained two models in the last 2 months.

 

It probably started when I tried on some burgundy shell Leeds at my outlet store in Alabama. They were really comfortable and I just started to like them. I didn't buy though.

 

Then, I think I came across a style blog linking to an image of the specialty Cigar Shell Aldens on the Aberdeen last sold by Harrison Limited in Mountain Brook (Birmingham's swankiest area), which I posted pics of a few days ago.

 

My initial objection to PTB's came when someone did a comparison between the Alden Barrie PTB and the Leeds, which showed that the Leeds were sleeker, which I liked, but thought, "still too bulbous."

 

I wanted a Cigar Shell shoe, and the pics of the Aldens on the slimmest Alden last, the Aberdeen, tempted me to travel to the store to check them out. I walked out with them. Still my most expensive shoe buy to date, by a mile!

 

Then, I came across some vintage Florsheim Imperials burgundy shell PTB's on ebay. I got them for a decent deal, about $125, and then made them my new project (I did the same with some ebay burgundy shell McNeils a few months ago $45!!, which have turned out great.)  In both instances, I used Renomat and stripped off decades of crap in a very long and tedious process, and then polished with AE burgundy shell polish. I also had the Florsheims reheeled, since they had the original v-cleat and nailed construction with significant wear (I almost busted my ass wearing them on a concrete floor last week). Apologies to any purists, but I just didn't see the point in trying to restore the v-cleat heels, if that is possible. I'd rather have rubber heels anyway for safety.

Incidentally, they were pretty comfortable before the reheeling, and I have yet to wear them with the new heels.

Some crappy cell phone pics:

 

This is after I stripped off loads of polish with Renomat, but still had a long way to go.

 

This was taken after all stripping, before reheeling, and before polishing tonight.  I think I had applied a little Renovateur at this stage, but they didn't really pop yet.

 

The blue shoe strings are just a lark, since I plan on wearing these shoes mainly with jeans.  Feel free to share any opinions about them, but be gentle.

 

 

 

 

After burgundy shell polish tonight. The crappy cell phone pic doesn't show much improvement from stage 2, but in person they look much better. I will try to take some in the wild pics, preferrably in sunlight, over the next few days. Not bad for $150 investment.They are also in my exact size, 9.5C, and they fit well.

 

And just for kicks, my $45 McNeils:

 

 

 

 

 

Final word to those learning this stuff like me, who might want to start their own ebay renovation project on an old pair of shell:

After stripping off old polish with Saphir Renomat, I first tended to try to remoisturize the shoe with AE Cleaner/Conditioner, (and later, Saphir Renovateur, after I recently acquired my first jar). I have since learned that too much of either conditioning product tends to clog the pores and not absorb into the shoe, even if left for days. It creates the same problem that too much shell polish creates, a sticky mess that doesn't shine properly.  I have found that a good test is to rub one's thumb across the shell and listen for a clear squeak.  That's when you know you stripped away enough polish buildup on an old shell shoe to then add a light portion of Renovateur, and then follow with a super light portion of polish. I'm still learning (to put it mildly), and am open to additional suggestions, but I think that should be a very helpful tip.  Also, the thumb squeak test is also good for determining whether you have applied too much polish to newer shell. I eventually learned that lesson with my first shell shoes bought earlier this year, my black shell Cambridges (seconds sale at the outlet).

 

Incidentally, my new pair of brown shell Strands had the same problem on the toe medallion of one shoe, where it would not shine out of the box with any amount of brushing or buffing.  The toe failed the thumb test and wouldn't squeak, while the rest of the shoe surface, and the toe medallion on the other shoe passed that test every time. (i can't remember if I caused or contributed to this problem by foolishly applying AE Cleaner/Conditioner out of the box and then brushing, like I have learned to do with calfskin before wearing for the first time.)  Cautiously, I applied Renomat to the toe area two nights ago, and after several applications, I eventually got down to the shell and the squeak test worked. I then brushed (new shell has a lot more oil than old shell, I suppose) and the natural shine of shell started to appear for the first time. I then applied some neutral Saphir shell polish, and the toe finally started to show some promise.  I wore them today and things look much improved.

 

Sorry for the super long post. 

post #9855 of 70737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa Doble View Post

I know people who have custom suits and still wear square toed shoes like this:

What they don't understand is that if they wore a decent, well-fitting $250 OTR suit, but upped their shoe game, they would look much better.
This kind of brings up something I was thinking about yesterday. Mens style blogs and SF members often claim that one of the reasons men should wear nice shoes is because women notice them. If women or people in general do notice shoes, can they recognize good shoes, or would they think the above are the same as or better than a pair of AEs? Before I got into style, I might have been able to tell the difference visually between the two, but I wouldn't have known which was nicer. In fact, I found shoes like the PA or Macneil to be very old fashioned in a bad way. The only reason my wife knows the difference is because I've essentially educated her against her will. I imagine significant others of SF members might also appreciate nice shoes, but they may not represent the norm. Thoughts?
Nice Cambridges by the way.

I would wear those squared toe shoes to mow my lawn. And that is it. biggrin.gif
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...