or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread - Page 952

post #14266 of 52473
I got the neutral McTavish and Cordovan MacNeil seconds I ordered last week. I don't see any issue with the MacNeil and the flaws with the McTavish were minor (to me). I applied three coats of neatsfoot oil to the McTavish and I think it looks even better having a little more contrast between the upper/welt and sole.

McTavish
CameraZOOM-20130108134818656.jpg

MacNeil
CameraZOOM-20130108134937727.jpg

My meager collection of AE, I have tried to keep it versatile.
CameraZOOM-20130108135336808.jpg
post #14267 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSizzle View Post

 

People do things...

 

I mean, why do people put Kobe beef on a burger? That's expensive material for an extremely casual dish. 

 

Some customers prefer a certain style and they want to try a different, sometimes more formal, material. Maybe they want to work a material they like into a casual style they prefer. If the someone will buy it, it can be worth a shot. Sometimes, the product comes out in an interesting fashion and a new market emerges.

 

Yes, I appreciate what you meant. Personally, I don't see the point of having a patent leather casual shoe, but I guess some people do.

 

 

Yea, I see what you're saying. I mean, walk through any upscale department store and I see a lot of stuff that I can't imagine anyone ever purchasing, but they probably wouldnt be sitting in the store if there wasnt someone out there with interest

post #14268 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckprax View Post

My meager collection of AE, I have tried to keep it versatile.
CameraZOOM-20130108135336808.jpg

wow that is a pretty well-thought-out shoe rotation. you have all your bases covered with only 5 pairs of shoes. i wish i was more like you.
post #14269 of 52473

Seeing the shell Daltons right next to the shell MacNeils reinforces how perfect Daltons are in their wingtip design and shape.  I've just never been a fan of MacNeils.

post #14270 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Shoes1 View Post

Seeing the shell Daltons right next to the shell MacNeils reinforces how perfect Daltons are in their wingtip design and shape.  I've just never been a fan of MacNeils.

I wish that the point on the MacNeil was shorter, like on the dalton. I had been a little on the fence about the MacNeil because of this, even once they came in the mail, but once I put them on my opinion changed. I have never had a shoe that I thought was mediocre on the rack but loved on my feet until now. I am really glad I got them.

Oh and the Dalton's are calf, I hope one day to have them in cordovan, preferably brown or truffle.
post #14271 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckprax View Post

I wish that the point on the MacNeil was shorter, like on the dalton. I had been a little on the fence about the MacNeil because of this, even once they came in the mail, but once I put them on my opinion changed. I have never had a shoe that I thought was mediocre on the rack but loved on my feet until now. I am really glad I got them.
Oh and the Dalton's are calf, I hope one day to have them in cordovan, preferably brown or truffle.

I feel the same way about the MacNeils. In addition to the point, I also find the eyestays a tad too far down on the vamp which makes the shoes look more 'substantial' than I would like. Still great looking shoes though and can always be obtained $$$ less than Aldens.
post #14272 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Shoes1 View Post

Seeing the shell Daltons right next to the shell MacNeils reinforces how perfect Daltons are in their wingtip design and shape.  I've just never been a fan of MacNeils.

I disagree with this 100%, and believe the exact opposite. biggrin.gif

But reasonable people can and do disagree.
post #14273 of 52473

Well, I have seen people post that if they have a large instep they couldn't fit into the 5 last.  I have a very high arch and instep, and my foot measures at about 9.5-10 in a D width on the brannock scale.  The salesman started me off in a 9.5 d.  Too long, too tight in the instep.  The laces wouldn't close into a tight V, and there was probably a 3/4" gap in the vamp.  I asked him to get me an E width in something, and he kept saying "you don't have a wide foot, you want them to be tight."  I repeatedly told him they didn't feel right, too long, too tight, etc.

 

I ended up ordering a couple seconds through the shoebank for the sale in a 9.5D.  The fit just wasn't right.

 

I went back to the store to return them, and the same salesman was there (of course).  I asked him to get me something shorter and wider.  Again with the "you don't have a wide foot, they won't fit" and other silliness such as "it's because of the straight bar lacing that they don't fit" and "because they're seconds, they're not structurally sound.  That's why they don't fit."  Finally, he humored me, telling me all the while that whatever he got me wouldn't fit, and that 9.5 d was my size.  

 

9E was too wide, and the laces closed leather to leather.  Again "you don't have a wide foot, you need a D."  Come on dude.

 

Well, I got him to get me 8.5 EEE, and they are PERFECT.  The laces close to about 1/4", they are extremely comfortable (like way more comfortable than the chucks I was wearing), and felt like slippers.  Love the fit.  The length is great (there is beyond plenty in the toebox of these).  I was scared that I just wouldn't fit the 5 last, but damn if it isn't the most comfortable shoe ever.

For those with high insteps, you CAN find a shoe that fits in the 5 last.  It just may take some careful persuasion :)

post #14274 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by jns425 View Post

It seems to me that everyone has a different opinion...if the bluchers are informal, why is it that AE only has one patent leather shoe and is a blucher? To play devil's advocate in terms of "traditional rules" - wouldnt a patent leather shoe be the "real choice"? But it seems like these days everyone is shying away from that option and opting for something like the Park Aves.

Assuming the blucher is the most casual of the shoes that I mentioned...you guys seem to think if I were planning to wear the blucher then the 5th aves would be also acceptable, could I also then choose to wear the Vernons?

My main issue is - eventhough I really like the Park Ave and 5th Ave, I'd ideally not want to own 2 of almost the exact same shoe (however if it came to that point I would definitely get use out of both)

Not to rehash my micromanifesto of a few pages back, but I completely agree with your confusion about AE's sole "formal" patent offering. I'm biding my time until they see the error of their ways and offer either a proper formal shoe or an unadorned wholecut that I can custom order in black patent leather.

It's not a state dinner or a StyleForum meetup. My hat is thrown in with everybody suggesting the black Fifth Avenues. On a well-shined black calf balmoral, a splash of broguing across the toecap ain't never hurt nobody.
post #14275 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckprax View Post

CameraZOOM-20130108135336808.jpg

I like those Bayfields smile.gif
post #14276 of 52473

Fedex showed up this morning with my new walnut Sheltons, and they're fantastic! The pictures on the website don't do them justice.

 

post #14277 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSizzle View Post

 

Currently, it seems they only have one patent leather shoe, but I wouldn't have used that one criteria (material) to make the call as to formality either.

 

They previously offered the Copley, which was a six-eyelet balmoral, and it was even available through Jos A. Bank. That would have been the suitable choice (no pun intended) for the gentleman who originated this line of questions (searching for tuxedo shoes).

 

However, they also offered the Times Square (McAllister) and Ridgeway in patent leather with colored stitching, and those definitely wouldn't be formal.

 

Like others have said, I think going with either the Park Avenue or Fifth Avenue would be absolutely fine. Most people won't dress that nicely, and you'd be doing far better than men who rent their shoes with their tuxedos. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSizzle View Post

 

People do things...

 

I mean, why do people put Kobe beef on a burger? That's expensive material for an extremely casual dish. 

 

Some customers prefer a certain style and they want to try a different, sometimes more formal, material. Maybe they want to work a material they like into a casual style they prefer. If the someone will buy it, it can be worth a shot. Sometimes, the product comes out in an interesting fashion and a new market emerges.

 

Yes, I appreciate what you meant. Personally, I don't see the point of having a patent leather casual shoe, but I guess some people do.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by random-adam View Post


Not to rehash my micromanifesto of a few pages back, but I completely agree with your confusion about AE's sole "formal" patent offering. I'm biding my time until they see the error of their ways and offer either a proper formal shoe or an unadorned wholecut that I can custom order in black patent leather.
It's not a state dinner or a StyleForum meetup. My hat is thrown in with everybody suggesting the black Fifth Avenues. On a well-shined black calf balmoral, a splash of broguing across the toecap ain't never hurt nobody.

 

Agree on all counts.

post #14278 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSizzle View Post

Fedex showed up this morning with my new walnut Sheltons, and they're fantastic! The pictures on the website don't do them justice.

 

 

I love the Sheltons.  I particularly like the way the double sole is rounded off (rather than squared off) on the profile when looking at the shoe from the side.  It makes it look much more refined. 

post #14279 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post

 

I love the Sheltons.  I particularly like the way the double sole is rounded off (rather than squared off) on the profile when looking at the shoe from the side.  It makes it look much more refined. 

 

I totally agree about the rounded off sole, but the first word that came to my head to describe the shoe's profile was "soft." I don't disagree. I'm just saying the design is easy on the eyes.

post #14280 of 52473
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckprax View Post

I got the neutral McTavish and Cordovan MacNeil seconds I ordered last week. I don't see any issue with the MacNeil and the flaws with the McTavish were minor (to me). I applied three coats of neatsfoot oil to the McTavish and I think it looks even better having a little more contrast between the upper/welt and sole.
McTavish
CameraZOOM-20130108134818656.jpg
MacNeil
CameraZOOM-20130108134937727.jpg
My meager collection of AE, I have tried to keep it versatile.
CameraZOOM-20130108135336808.jpg
Wow the MacNeils are Gorgeous.... Congrats
J
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread