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

Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread - Page 2424

post #36346 of 53298
Not leaving shoes on their lasts long enough for them to properly take and keep their shape meets my general definition of a manufacturing defect. Paritucularly on a $350 shoe.

Lots of shoes - even some vastly less expensive than AE - manage to sit on display shelves and not visibly wilt while under no more stress than atmospheric pressure.
post #36347 of 53298

FYI, Lands' End has a few more sizes of the Bayfield in stock, and they are still discounted . . . 

 

http://www.landsend.com/products/mens-allen-edmonds-bayfield-captoe-boots/id_260396

post #36348 of 53298
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfnhalfnhalf View Post
 

FYI, Lands' End has a few more sizes of the Bayfield in stock, and they are still discounted . . . 

 

http://www.landsend.com/products/mens-allen-edmonds-bayfield-captoe-boots/id_260396

 

I got my pair about a month ago from Lands End, couldn't be happier with them. Perfect in the snowy winter months along side of my Eagle County boots.

post #36349 of 53298

@coolarrow -- yes paid second prices (and also with the 50/100 discount)

@Sprint76 -- those you just received have the same issue?


Thank you everyone for the opinions/thoughts on the Kenilworth seconds.. since others are reporting the same similar 'issue' on their Kenilworth's and also reporting it on a pair of Kenilworth factory seconds also recently received.. I think it's probably in my best interest to just go ahead and keep them... 

 

I would just hate to send them back and get a different issue I disliked even more, or to get another one with the same thing =] 

 

I'm really liking the Neumok's ... now just to decide what I'm going to grab on the next Factory Seconds sale in Feb... PA and Neumok's or PA and some loafers.. who knows :)

post #36350 of 53298
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

Not leaving shoes on their lasts long enough for them to properly take and keep their shape meets my general definition of a manufacturing defect. Paritucularly on a $350 shoe.

Lots of shoes - even some vastly less expensive than AE - manage to sit on display shelves and not visibly wilt while under no more stress than atmospheric pressure.

 

While you are correct that the shoes which are vastly less expensive than AE manage to avoid some "defects" like this, I presume it is often because of inherent differences in their construction.  For a shoe to be vastly less expensive than AE is it a safe assumption that we are referring to shoes constructed using cement, inferior leathers, etc.?  These shoes are also filled with plastic stiffeners between the leather lining and uppers to maintain the shape of inferior components.  As such, they can't be fairly compared.

 

Good quality leather requires time to conform and shape to the last, when they aren't being helped by synthetic components.

post #36351 of 53298
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post

 

While you are correct that the shoes which are vastly less expensive than AE manage to avoid some "defects" like this, I presume it is often because of inherent differences in their construction.  For a shoe to be vastly less expensive than AE is it a safe assumption that we are referring to shoes constructed using cement, inferior leathers, etc.?  These shoes are also filled with plastic stiffeners between the leather lining and uppers to maintain the shape of inferior components.  As such, they can't be fairly compared.

 

Good quality leather requires time to conform and shape to the last, when they aren't being helped by synthetic components.

 



I wasn't directly comparing them.

I was saying that a manufacturing process that does not allow sufficient time for lasting, resulting in shoes that lose their shape in a gentle breeze is unacceptable at the $350 price point. Unacceptable to me, that is - you are more than welcome to your own view on the subject. But kindly allow me to state my own.

The fact that many cheaper shoes do not exhibit this defect just makes it that much more galling coming from AE, in my view. I was not advancing the proposition that said cheaper shoes are equivalent to or better than AE in all aspects of their materials and construction or in any general sense whatsoever.
post #36352 of 53298

I was just thinking about this... How do things like off center medallions or wings happen? What kind of craftsman is bad enough at their job that they can't get that right? How does a shoemaker in his right mind not sew the tongue of a shoe on straight? Are the people that make these shoes legitimate craftsmen or just Joe Schmoes that prior to being hired by AE have never constructed a shoe before in their life?

 

Sorry if it sounds like I have a bone to pick, I certainly don't. The only pair of AE's that I currently have are superbly crafted in every way. It just seems like there are a lot of issues with this sort of thing. It seems like they have loads of seconds, and loads of supposed firsts with these issues that don't get discovered by QC.

 

It seems to me that in order for these sorts of issues to take place, people must not take much pride in their jobs. I realize that people make mistakes, but the number of mistakes that are made, and go unnoticed seems to be rather egregious.

 

Once again, I don't have any kind of bone to pick with AE (unless we're talking about their website photos :D). It's just something I was thinking about, and maybe my perception of how many mistakes are made is flawed as a result of being a regular follower of this thread... Just a thought.

post #36353 of 53298

I think the tongue's on my daltons aren't on straight. I was wondering why they were dashing off to the side when I got them.

post #36354 of 53298
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post

While you are correct that the shoes which are vastly less expensive than AE manage to avoid some "defects" like this, I presume it is often because of inherent differences in their construction.  For a shoe to be vastly less expensive than AE is it a safe assumption that we are referring to shoes constructed using cement, inferior leathers, etc.?  These shoes are also filled with plastic stiffeners between the leather lining and uppers to maintain the shape of inferior components.  As such, they can't be fairly compared.

Good quality leather requires time to conform and shape to the last, when they aren't being helped by synthetic components.

You sound like a bit of an AE apologist here, to be honest. Then again, it is an AE appreciation thread so shocking this is not. We all have our biases, myself included.

I'd like to see someone show other shoe makers where retail is $350+ and this issue is a common occurrence. I would venture to guess you'd struggle to form such a list and I think that's the valid point Roger is driving at.
post #36355 of 53298
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post
 

 

While you are correct that the shoes which are vastly less expensive than AE manage to avoid some "defects" like this, I presume it is often because of inherent differences in their construction.  For a shoe to be vastly less expensive than AE is it a safe assumption that we are referring to shoes constructed using cement, inferior leathers, etc.?  These shoes are also filled with plastic stiffeners between the leather lining and uppers to maintain the shape of inferior components.  As such, they can't be fairly compared.

 

Good quality leather requires time to conform and shape to the last, when they aren't being helped by synthetic components.

 



I wasn't directly comparing them.

I was saying that a manufacturing process that does not allow sufficient time for lasting, resulting in shoes that lose their shape in a gentle breeze is unacceptable at the $350 price point. Unacceptable to me, that is - you are more than welcome to your own view on the subject. But kindly allow me to state my own.

The fact that many cheaper shoes do not exhibit this defect just makes it that much more galling coming from AE, in my view. I was not advancing the proposition that said cheaper shoes are equivalent to or better than AE in all aspects of their materials and construction or in any general sense whatsoever.

At the risk of starting another cycle of misunderstanding I state the following: :nest:
Nothing about MWSs comment was not allowing you to state your opinion, he was simply offering possible reasons for the concerns you mentioned in your first post, and FWIW he is correct as usual. Just be grateful that someone with the knowledge that MWS possesses is willing to provide helpful and insightful comments and any and all comments/inquiries regarding shoe construction.

 

MWS does not comment on other peoples' posts in order to prove them wrong, and himself right, he's just offering his opinion, as were you. You are both entitled to such.

 

Sorry in advance if I misinterpreted the tone of your message, I just thought MWS deserved a vote of confidence for his helpful efforts.

post #36356 of 53298
^^^ He suggested that I was drawing a general comparison between AE and cheaper shoes - by pointing out in general terms the differences in construction and materials between AE and those cheaper shoes and stating that they could not be be fairly compared.

But I was making no such comparison. By suggesting that I was, he was misrepresenting my statement.

Hope you can follow that.
post #36357 of 53298
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM79 View Post





I'd like to see someone show other shoe makers where retail is $350+ and this issue is a common occurrence. I would venture to guess you'd struggle to form such a list and I think that's the valid point Roger is driving at.

 



Bingo. And thank you.
post #36358 of 53298
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post
 

I wasn't directly comparing them.

I was saying that a manufacturing process that does not allow sufficient time for lasting, resulting in shoes that lose their shape in a gentle breeze is unacceptable at the $350 price point. Unacceptable to me, that is - you are more than welcome to your own view on the subject. But kindly allow me to state my own.

The fact that many cheaper shoes do not exhibit this defect just makes it that much more galling coming from AE, in my view. I was not advancing the proposition that said cheaper shoes are equivalent to or better than AE in all aspects of their materials and construction or in any general sense whatsoever.

 

At the risk of having another unintended misunderstanding, I wasn't in any way saying that your view on what qualifies as a defect is wrong, or that you can't state your own viewpoint on the subject.

 

I do read what you are saying as a direct comparison, since it was used as a reason why AE shouldn't produce a product with this type of flaw, even at their price point.  I'm not understanding how you aren't directly comparing them.  If AE isn't allowed to have a potential defect because a cheaper shoe doesn't struggle with the same potential, that sounds like direct comparison to me.  However, when you take into account the reason that a cheaper product doesn't have the same risks for defects (i.e., plastic doesn't sag like leather), the risk for the defect becomes much more understandable.  Leather is considered higher quality (subjectively of course) than plastic.

 

I agree that bowing resulting from insufficient time on the last qualifies as a defect.  I never said otherwise (if implied otherwise, then that's my mistake).  However, allowing for the defect to exist, is completely acceptable (provided they will take corrective action when necessary).  In other words, I don't find it galling, to use your term, that defects like these arise.  I'm sure AE would be more than happy to leave their shoes on the last longer if we were willing to allow them to decrease production output and therefore charge more for their shoes to make their same bottom line.  However, that would remove them from their niche that they fill so well.

 

All I'm saying is that given the production process in place, using the materials being used, defects are going to happen occasionally.  You can't expect otherwise, and you can't use a product that isn't made of materials which are predisposed to other (different) types of defects as the example.  Plastic has it's own issues to deal with, which leather doesn't.

post #36359 of 53298
On a more positve note, my defect-free Bayfields continue to hold up very well in their role as my go-to hard-use boot. By that, I don't mean abuse - but as a hiking / hunting / snow shovelling boot of choice, they see all kinds of wet, mud and dirt. And with good care, they come through all but completely unscathed.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Hosting provided by FotoTime
post #36360 of 53298
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post
 

 

While you are correct that the shoes which are vastly less expensive than AE manage to avoid some "defects" like this, I presume it is often because of inherent differences in their construction.  For a shoe to be vastly less expensive than AE is it a safe assumption that we are referring to shoes constructed using cement, inferior leathers, etc.?  These shoes are also filled with plastic stiffeners between the leather lining and uppers to maintain the shape of inferior components.  As such, they can't be fairly compared.

 

Good quality leather requires time to conform and shape to the last, when they aren't being helped by synthetic components.

 



I wasn't directly comparing them.

I was saying that a manufacturing process that does not allow sufficient time for lasting, resulting in shoes that lose their shape in a gentle breeze is unacceptable at the $350 price point. Unacceptable to me, that is - you are more than welcome to your own view on the subject. But kindly allow me to state my own.

The fact that many cheaper shoes do not exhibit this defect just makes it that much more galling coming from AE, in my view. I was not advancing the proposition that said cheaper shoes are equivalent to or better than AE in all aspects of their materials and construction or in any general sense whatsoever.

 

You lose credibility when you exaggerate like this.  The bowing issue is a valid gripe against AE, but I don't think it occurs as often as you are indicating.  I also echo MWS's point that Ecco's and similar $200 shoes may not have the same issue, but they have vastly different construction and issues all their own.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TM79 View Post


You sound like a bit of an AE apologist here, to be honest. Then again, it is an AE appreciation thread so shocking this is not. We all have our biases, myself included.

I'd like to see someone show other shoe makers where retail is $350+ and this issue is a common occurrence. I would venture to guess you'd struggle to form such a list and I think that's the valid point Roger is driving at.

 

This is a flawed argument due to the fact AE firsts are frequently bought in the $200-250 range.  I have never bought a pair of AE's at the $345 price point ($380 with tax) when I could pay virtually the exact same amount or a few dollars more to get a pair of shoes that are significantly higher in quality (e.g. Carmina, C&J).  A more apt comparison would be shoes in the $200-250 range.

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