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

Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread - Page 1953

post #29281 of 46525
Quote:
Originally Posted by wurger View Post

Hi money, how do you tell from the two photos that they are not lasted properly?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JubeiSpiegel View Post


Look at the side pic, keep an eye on the wingtip brogueing and the spacing from the welt...

 

As JS said, the lines of the brogueing and their spacing from the welt which are what he outlined in the red boxes.  The only way for that to really happen is that when the uppers were lasted, they weren't properly aligned on the last.  It's not a huge deal, unless if becomes distracting to the eye.  It doesn't affect longevity of the shoe.  The ones that the OP showed are acceptable for seconds, but definitely not for firsts, in my opinion.    

post #29282 of 46525
.

Edited by bgp001 - 9/19/13 at 3:19pm
post #29283 of 46525
Received my Shell Cambridge yesterday. Can't see why they were seconds. They are stunning. I've been brushing them like crazy - my wife thinks I'm obsessed. These are easily my favorite AEs so far.

Great deal for the $299 shell 2nds sale a couple of weeks ago.
post #29284 of 46525
Quote:
Originally Posted by 850csi View Post

Question:

I'm a young professional. Just started my first job. Need black and brown oxfords.

I'm thinking
Black: Park Ave
Brown: Fifth Ave/Strand or even Hamptons?

If I'm buying my first brown dress shoe, a dark brown rather than a walnut is the correct choice, right?

Are these firsts




at $150 a better deal than potentially getting Fifth Ave/Strand seconds at $125 later this week?

Those Hamptons are pretty casual, particularly with the pebble grain. I've been considering them myself, but I think that as a first shoe you may want something more formal. You won't want to wear those to a job interview.
post #29285 of 46525
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamAdam View Post
 

 

I think I saw your recent post about these in the spectator porn thread. Was this a seconds sale on this model only for $99?

 

Yep, they're from the Shoe Bank.  I got four pairs, two of which were only $99 - these and the "Times Square" patent things (not sure where I'll wear those but I couldn't resist!).  The latter aren't even marked as seconds, came with bags too.  

post #29286 of 46525
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimjohnil6 View Post

Received my Shell Cambridge yesterday. Can't see why they were seconds. They are stunning. I've been brushing them like crazy - my wife thinks I'm obsessed. These are easily my favorite AEs so far.

Great deal for the $299 shell 2nds sale a couple of weeks ago.

Got Black Cambridges from that sale as well. Look perfect to me! My wife has thought that I am nuts for a while with these shoes.

-Mike
post #29287 of 46525
Found the laces! Not sure about the fit. Laces are 9/64" but I need to measure the dalton eyelets. Am out of town right now...so if anyone can measure theirs I'd be grateful.
post #29288 of 46525
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimjohnil6 View Post

Received my Shell Cambridge yesterday. Can't see why they were seconds. They are stunning. I've been brushing them like crazy - my wife thinks I'm obsessed. These are easily my favorite AEs so far.

Great deal for the $299 shell 2nds sale a couple of weeks ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdubs View Post

Got Black Cambridges from that sale as well. Look perfect to me! My wife has thought that I am nuts for a while with these shoes.

-Mike

Congrats! I got my black shell Cambridges last week, and just got my burgundy shell park aves yesterday. Lots of brushing while watching breaking bad last night (dvr'd). My wife gave up on me long ago.

Today: burgundy shell Bradley.
post #29289 of 46525
Guys,

I just received a great pair of Macneil shells seconds from the outlet (looks great and no creaes). For some reason, the right shoe fits perfectly but the left shoe is a bit uncomfortable on the side of my foot because of slight bump inside the shoe. I would love to keep the shoe if I can somehow rectify this problem. Are there any methods for this? Thanks.
post #29290 of 46525
Quote:
Originally Posted by JezeC View Post

Guys,

I just received a great pair of Macneil shells seconds from the outlet (looks great and no creaes). For some reason, the right shoe fits perfectly but the left shoe is a bit uncomfortable on the side of my foot because of slight bump inside the shoe. I would love to keep the shoe if I can somehow rectify this problem. Are there any methods for this? Thanks.

 

If you mean a bump under the ball of your foot, I have the exact same problem. I find that the bump does go down a little over time but not completely. For me, I believe this is due to my left foot being a little longer than my right and the shape of the show just fitting differently on each foot. The bump on the ball of my foot pushes the small toe up just a bit causing it to hit the upper of the shoe. I ended up going up a width and even though it's technically a little big on the right foot it fits the left better and is the best middle ground for me. My experience is on the 5 last BTW, not the Macneil (7). If you meant a bump on the side of the shoe, I don't have that issue.

post #29291 of 46525

So, I went and got fitted in the MacNeil at my local AE store....10.5B.  They didn't have that size in the MacNeil, but they did in a tassel loafer on the same last.  The one thing I noticed while having the D-width MacNeil on was that it looked suuuuper wide compared to the B-width shoe on my other foot.  I realize that the double oak sole adds some "heft" to the shoe, and that it will likely be less tank-like in the appropriate width.

 

Now, to my main question.  I'm strongly considering a cordovan MTO MacNeil similar to GOP Shoe Guy (and others)....it'll be in cappuccino or dark brown shell.  Will going with a regular sole, as opposed to the double oak, look out of place or inadequate on a shoe like this? 

 

I'm wanting the shoe to be mainly a casual shoe....jeans, chinos, etc. but they will get some occasional wear when I get to dress business casual (think grey, navy, tan slacks).  I think a natural welt will be too casual, so I was thinking chili.  Is there an option in between those two?

post #29292 of 46525
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamAdam View Post

 

If you mean a bump under the ball of your foot, I have the exact same problem. I find that the bump does go down a little over time but not completely. For me, I believe this is due to my left foot being a little longer than my right and the shape of the show just fitting differently on each foot. The bump on the ball of my foot pushes the small toe up just a bit causing it to hit the upper of the shoe. I ended up going up a width and even though it's technically a little big on the right foot it fits the left better and is the best middle ground for me. My experience is on the 5 last BTW, not the Macneil (7). If you meant a bump on the side of the shoe, I don't have that issue.

 



I meant on the side of the shoe
post #29293 of 46525
Quote:
Originally Posted by JezeC View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamAdam View Post
 

 

If you mean a bump under the ball of your foot, I have the exact same problem. I find that the bump does go down a little over time but not completely. For me, I believe this is due to my left foot being a little longer than my right and the shape of the show just fitting differently on each foot. The bump on the ball of my foot pushes the small toe up just a bit causing it to hit the upper of the shoe. I ended up going up a width and even though it's technically a little big on the right foot it fits the left better and is the best middle ground for me. My experience is on the 5 last BTW, not the Macneil (7). If you meant a bump on the side of the shoe, I don't have that issue.

 



I meant on the side of the shoe

 

Perhaps your left foot is slightly wider than your right? Maybe try going up a width assuming your heel doesn't slip.

post #29294 of 46525

I checked out the suede Strands at the AE store in New York this weekend. I was disappointed by the quality of the leather. It's hard to convey what I mean, but it was not as nice and subtle a suede as on my Amoks or Neumoks. Instead, it was somewhat "disheveled," for a lack of a proper word, as if someone kept brushing it for a while. Perhaps it was an idiosyncrasy of the two pairs on display that I've seen, but the resulting look was not very neat. 

 

I was really hoping that in terms of quality, the Strands would be similar to my very Strand-looking Church's in chocolate suede (pictured below), but they unfortunately fall short. 

 

post #29295 of 46525
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincikid View Post
 

I checked out the suede Strands at the AE store in New York this weekend. I was disappointed by the quality of the leather. It's hard to convey what I mean, but it was not as nice and subtle a suede as on my Amoks or Neumoks. Instead, it was somewhat "disheveled," for a lack of a proper word, as if someone kept brushing it for a while. Perhaps it was an idiosyncrasy of the two pairs on display that I've seen, but the resulting look was not very neat.

 

I was really hoping that in terms of quality, the Strands would be similar to my very Strand-looking Church's in chocolate suede (pictured below), but they unfortunately fall short.

 

 

 

Interesting.  I was looking at a pair at my local AE store yesterday and did not see any issues with the quality of the suede.  I wasn't amazed by the quality, but thought it was on par with the calfskin versions.  Still considering getting a pair for my next purchase.

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