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

Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread - Page 1756

post #26326 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nakedsnake View Post

Just bumping my last question, Do the Bayfields ever show up as seconds? I wouldn't mind a pair this winter.

I have not seen them but some on here have mentioned they show up from time to time.

 

They are still being made for Lands End so there is a chance that one could eventually become a second in your size. You could get on a waiting list from one of the outlets. I am a 10D on the 1 and 5 last and a 9.5D in the rough collection. When I ordered my shell Bayfields I talked to Deborah at length about fit because my black calf and CXL Bayfields in 10D both fit snug, just a bit too snug due to the poron insole. They are OK but at the end of the day walking more than a few miles I looked forward to taking them off. She told me they didn't fit and said she was buying them back from me. And sending me a pair in 10.5D and 10E to see which fit better and I could have my shell ones made in which size I picked. There were no more 10E available in the US so she sent the Malvern in 10E instead, they have a memory foam insole which make them fit smaller like the poron insole. I already knew the 10D Malvern didn't fit me as I had to return a pair last year. The 10.5D much to my surprise fit me perfectly with light to medium weight socks. And crease perfectly also, The 10E Malvern was still tight accross the ball of the foot and loose in the heel. I only paid $100 for the black calf Bayfields a year ago during the 2 for $200 seconds sale and paid $220 for the CXL through the military exchange. The trial seconds in black calf she sent me cost $199 so I purchased them as a replacement for the black calf Bayfields. Lands End is the only place that still carries the CXL Bayfield (D width only) but the 10.5D has not been available since I started looking a few months ago. They just showed up again Friday as being available so I am purchasing them. Even at the full price of $350 I feel they are well worth it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rpearlberg View Post

has anyone seen the Elgin's in stock anywhere?  11D or 11E...

The Elgin is still available through Brooks Brothers as the Allen Edmonds for Brooks Brothers Burnished Perforated Captoes ITEM# MH00129. but only in D width. They have the poron insoles so not sure about fit compared to the standard Elgin.

post #26327 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post

eek.gif
  Do you realize that you have just effectively destroyed your shoes!?  Those insoles are not intended to be removable!  There is a reason you were having to "rip" them out!  They are the foundation of the shoe, and the glue you are referring to is the canvas gemming!  The gemming is attached to the bottom of the insole with cement, and then the uppers and welt are stitched to the gemming.  Your shoes are now un-repairable!!!  puzzled.gif

With due respect your comment makes no sense at all. Under the insole there is the cork foot bed. The reason they use glue to attach the insoles so hard around the ball of the foot so the insole don’t move around . And all around the edges of the insole they weren’t attached with glue(glue mostly around the heel and the ball of the foot). With out the insole they look the same as a pair of AE(no insole). RL shoes being premium(!) they had attached those fancy full leather insole. I will take a picture of the details once I get some time. I may actually cut the insole to make half lining around the heel area.

And yes I could be wrong. For a healthy arguments sake do you have any proof to back up your claim ?

**And I am worried at all. I am happy with the results – 2 more pairs I will need to do the same. Wearing a pair today. Made such a big difference. I only wish I had ripped off those insoles earlier.**
post #26328 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2010 View Post


With due respect your comment makes no sense at all. Under the insole there is the cork foot bed. The reason they use glue to attach the insoles so hard around the ball of the foot so the insole don’t move around . And all around the edges of the insole they weren’t attached with glue(glue mostly around the heel and the ball of the foot). With out the insole they look the same as a pair of AE(no insole). RL shoes being premium(!) they had attached those fancy full leather insole. I will take a picture of the details once I get some time. I may actually cut the insole to make half lining around the heel area.

And yes I could be wrong. For a healthy arguments sake do you have any proof to back up your claim ?

**And I am worried at all. I am happy with the results – 2 more pairs I will need to do the same. Wearing a pair today. Made such a big difference. I only wish I had ripped off those insoles earlier.**

 

You said you can see the cork foot bed, correct?  If you can see the cork foot bed, then you have ripped out the insole, and you have destroyed your shoes.  If there is still a thick piece of leather covering the cork foot bed, then you have only removed the sock liner.  Removing the sock liner isn't a big deal.  Trust me, if you have ripped out the insole from a Goodyear-welted shoe, you have destroyed your shoe. 

post #26329 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by nosrep123 View Post

Is this anything to worry about (the inside lining of the sole looks glued, and glued unsuccessfully too)? I"m concerned that this will compromise the structure and durability. These are in my factory seconds.

 

No that's pretty common to see.  Don't worry about it. 

post #26330 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by athenianlion View Post

Thank you both. I had almost bought the Parks in merlot as my first pair. I think they may be my best bet? I'm not crazy about another pair of McAllisters, and feel I need something different than any of the loafers. I work in a business casual office.

 

With the with cap toe and short wing covered...go for a monk strap!

post #26331 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post

You said you can see the cork foot bed, correct?  If you can see the cork foot bed, then you have ripped out the insole, and you have destroyed your shoes.  If there is still a thick piece of leather covering the cork foot bed, then you have only removed the sock liner.  Removing the sock liner isn't a big deal.  Trust me, if you have ripped out the insole from a Goodyear-welted shoe, you have destroyed your shoe. 

Hi Mate,

I am understanding a little bit of the gemming now. Can you please explain a bit more how it has destroyed my shoes. I feel no difference. Does this means my shoes will fall apart (the welt/soles or uppers)?
Or how will they affect the reliability ? What can happen form here on words.
Thank mate. Everyday I learn something new in style forum. My shoes are topyed.
post #26332 of 46992
I am curious about the below listing from eBay. Does anyone know why these soles were used on these shoes?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALLEN-EDMONDS-Macneil-Navy-Suede-Goodyear-Welt-Oxford-Wingtip-Shoes-10-D-345-/400541107076?pt=US_Men_s_Shoes&hash=item5d421c4384
post #26333 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Iron View Post

I have not seen them but some on here have mentioned they show up from time to time.

They are still being made for Lands End so there is a chance that one could eventually become a second in your size. You could get on a waiting list from one of the outlets. I am a 10D on the 1 and 5 last and a 9.5D in the rough collection. When I ordered my shell Bayfields I talked to Deborah at length about fit because my black calf and CXL Bayfields in 10D both fit snug, just a bit too snug due to the poron insole. They are OK but at the end of the day walking more than a few miles I looked forward to taking them off. She told me they didn't fit and said she was buying them back from me. And sending me a pair in 10.5D and 10E to see which fit better and I could have my shell ones made in which size I picked. There were no more 10E available in the US so she sent the Malvern in 10E instead, they have a memory foam insole which make them fit smaller like the poron insole. I already knew the 10D Malvern didn't fit me as I had to return a pair last year. The 10.5D much to my surprise fit me perfectly with light to medium weight socks. And crease perfectly also, The 10E Malvern was still tight accross the ball of the foot and loose in the heel. I only paid $100 for the black calf Bayfields a year ago during the 2 for $200 seconds sale and paid $220 for the CXL through the military exchange. The trial seconds in black calf she sent me cost $199 so I purchased them as a replacement for the black calf Bayfields. Lands End is the only place that still carries the CXL Bayfield (D width only) but the 10.5D has not been available since I started looking a few months ago. They just showed up again Friday as being available so I am purchasing them. Even at the full price of $350 I feel they are well worth.

Hey, thanks for the really thorough response, I appreciate it. I'll keep my eyes open for them to pop up as seconds or maybe a pair of used ones (preferably seconds). I wear a 12D in the 7 last.

Thanks again
post #26334 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olifter View Post

I am curious about the below listing from eBay. Does anyone know why these soles were used on these shoes?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALLEN-EDMONDS-Macneil-Navy-Suede-Goodyear-Welt-Oxford-Wingtip-Shoes-10-D-345-/400541107076?pt=US_Men_s_Shoes&hash=item5d421c4384

I actually bought this pair and returned it as it was listed as black but ended up being navy blue. It has JR soles. 

post #26335 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincikid View Post

I actually bought this pair and returned it as it was listed as black but ended up being navy blue. It has JR soles. 

I should have added that they are seconds, or at least so does say the sticker on the box. I haven't seen any noticeable flow though. 

post #26336 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2010 View Post


Hi Mate,

I am understanding a little bit of the gemming now. Can you please explain a bit more how it has destroyed my shoes. I feel no difference. Does this means my shoes will fall apart (the welt/soles or uppers)?
Or how will they affect the reliability ? What can happen form here on words.
Thank mate. Everyday I learn something new in style forum. My shoes are topyed.

 

When a Goodyear-welted shoe is made, the thick leather insole is tacked to the bottom of the last.  The bottom of the insole has the canvas gemming rib attached to the bottom of this leather insole using cement.  The leather upper of the shoe is wrapped around the last and is stitched to the canvas gemming.  The welt is then stitched through the upper to the gemming.  The sole is then stitched to the welt.  Essentially the gemmed insole is the point at which every vital component of the shoe is attached.  Before they sew on the outsole (the part that contacts the ground), they fill the void underneath the insole with cork.  So, if you rip out the insole and can see the cork, then you have removed the foundation of the shoe that everything is bound to.  Since your sole is rigid, the shoe will not immediately fall apart.  The upper and welt is still sewn to the gemming, and the welt is still sewn to the outsole.  However, the gemming is now just sitting there in the cork, and it isn't secured to anything.  As you wear the shoe, it will begin to walk out of shape.  It will become distorted, and it will begin to not fit properly. 

 

Gemming failure is widely considered the potential "weak-link" of Goodyear-welted shoes.  Gemming failure is what makers of hand-welted shoes claim to be the fundamental problem with Goodyear-welted shoes (hand-welted shoes don't use gemming, they carve a "hold-fast" under the insole instead of gluing on canvas).  The carved hold-fast can't come unglued, whereas gemming can.  That's why hand-welted shoe are theoretically better.  Gemming failure doesn't happen often enough for most people to decide that it isn't ok to use.  However, you have essentially created complete gemming failure by ripping out your insoles. 

post #26337 of 46992

I have always really liked the walnut Clifton, and can spot it in a Nordstroms from a section away. I ended up getting a pair of walnut Strands instead, but thought I would get a pair of Cliftons at some point. So when Mr. Grangaard made his offer for MTO shoes, walnut shell Clifton was my choice. I really like these and think the color is just about perfect, and if I could I would replace many of my shoes with walnut shell. The rest of my AE's should be feeling a bit nervous, as I plan to wear these a lot.

 

AppleMark

 

AppleMark

 

AppleMark

 

 

I think they turned out great, with a small exception. You can't see it in the above pictures, but if you look at the left shoe from a different angle you can see what looks like a stray buff mark on the vamp. I couldn't make this mark go away no matter what I tried, but again you can only see it from certain angles. I don't think I want to send these back as other than this they are just about perfect. Just thought I would ask if anyone has seen something similar before. Does anyone know if this is part of how the leather was prepared, or did this happen while making the shoe (which is what it looks like to me)?

 

AppleMark

post #26338 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olifter View Post

I am curious about the below listing from eBay. Does anyone know why these soles were used on these shoes?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALLEN-EDMONDS-Macneil-Navy-Suede-Goodyear-Welt-Oxford-Wingtip-Shoes-10-D-345-/400541107076?pt=US_Men_s_Shoes&hash=item5d421c4384

These were made for Freeman's Sporting Club.  Retailers can ask that the shoe be made a certain way.

 

Here they are in white:

 

http://shop.freemanssportingclub.com/products/ae-x-fsc-mcneil-2 

post #26339 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by shartmann View Post

I have always really liked the walnut Clifton, and can spot it in a Nordstroms from a section away. I ended up getting a pair of walnut Strands instead, but thought I would get a pair of Cliftons at some point. So when Mr. Grangaard made his offer for MTO shoes, walnut shell Clifton was my choice. I really like these and think the color is just about perfect, and if I could I would replace many of my shoes with walnut shell. The rest of my AE's should be feeling a bit nervous, as I plan to wear these a lot.

 

AppleMark

 

AppleMark

 

AppleMark

 

 

I think they turned out great, with a small exception. You can't see it in the above pictures, but if you look at the left shoe from a different angle you can see what looks like a stray buff mark on the vamp. I couldn't make this mark go away no matter what I tried, but again you can only see it from certain angles. I don't think I want to send these back as other than this they are just about perfect. Just thought I would ask if anyone has seen something similar before. Does anyone know if this is part of how the leather was prepared, or did this happen while making the shoe (which is what it looks like to me)?

 

AppleMark

Try some reno.  I like the Clifton a lot.  I have them in brown calf and black shark.

post #26340 of 46992
Quote:
Originally Posted by polojock615 View Post

These were made for Freeman's Sporting Club.  Retailers can ask that the shoe be made a certain way.

 

Here they are in white:

 

http://shop.freemanssportingclub.com/products/ae-x-fsc-mcneil-2 

Here's the webpage for the shoes in question: http://shop.freemanssportingclub.com/products/ae-x-fsc-mcneil

They still can be bought from Freeman's Sporting Club for $345 as firsts.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread