Alligator / Crocodile Shoes - Page 10

Well, no disrespect intended but Mr. Weiner was wrong. The difference between a 7 and a 7.5 is, on the American scale, one-sixth of an inch--0.166, if my math is correct. It is not much less, or more, on either the Paris scale or the UK scale. Now, 0.166 is a long, long way from 0.012 especially when you consider that the foot can feel 0.0625 inch difference in girth. Feet have more nerve endings than any other part of the body except the hands, the face, and the genitals. And the foot is one of the most architecturally complex structures in nature....bearing, balancing, and transferring more weight per square inch than many large office buildings. Why indeed would anyone care?

Yeh..l. I agree. I have seen some old Esquire plate with a grey herringbone heavy looking suit with some brown croc or gator Oxfords... sublime.

Enough talking Lasbar: can I get some pictures or what! J

What I'd like to ask all of those who share this opinion is just exactly what is pimpish or "pimp-y"? What image is conjured by the word? Who is this terrible archetype...this boogy man pimp...that we breathe life into to haunt ourselves and frighten little children? Historically, the most stereotypical pimps have always drawn their fashion sense from the general populace and especially the wealthier and most sophisticated strata. Are today's style currencies tomorrow's bete noir? Come to that, pimping has changed immensely in the last 100 years...We don't see the real "pimps" among us because they are so common that we don't notice, anymore. Look around you...you can see pimps all over--they are the politicians, actors and actresses, the Hollywood hangers-on, the owners of sports franchises, the real estate moghuls, the ad men...etc. . And no, they are not all bad people but they are are all trying to sell you something that you don't need on behalf of people who have no scruples. I suspect, today's pimps are exactly like yesterday's--they are people who value impression over substance. Who, in a near hysterical frenzy to project an image of sophistication and importance, will buy a name rather than a product. Who never really wonder why a leather insole is better than a paper insole or a hidden outsole channel preferable to "stitching aloft." Who curl up into themselves for no other reason than some anonymous self-proclaimed fashionista's disapprobation. Maybe it's me...maybe I'm the odd man out but I think "Style" is comprised of objective quality melding with fit and colour harmony...and mixed in with a generous amount of an appropriate sense of occasion. Surely it has more to do with one's self confidence than public perception. Alligator and crocodile have long histories of being the most elegant and sought after leathers for shoes. A good deal of that is simply because it is a leather that in many ways surpasses almost any other for comfort, for maintaining it good looks, and for longevity.

The English/American size is 1/3 inch long 8.5mm, ergo 1/2 size is 4.2mm.
The continental size (Paris Point, also known as ‘Stitch‘) is 6.6mm long. So 1/2 English size is 2/3 of a ‘Stitch, a continental size.

Not only does the length differ, the actual ball measurement (circumference) will increase with every 1/2 size by about 2 1/2mm, 4mm per ‘Stitch‘;
the width-markings, E, F or whatever, remaining the same.

Why would sombody care? Because a shoe size 7 1/2 E is 4mm longer and 3 mm wider than one in size 7 E.

It really doesn’t speak for the quality of Mr Weiner’s measurements, if he believes that there is no difference between shoes when one is 4 mm longer and 3 mm wider.

Why would somebody care? Because 4 mm in length and 3mm in circumference will make a lot of difference.

certainly, mr. weiner didn't make his conclusion in inch but in mm, so it was 3 mm and the mistake with the conversion would sit on my site now. but what made him put a general conclusion, wasn't the fact, that he don't know about the importance of fit, but the fact that 3 mm in length is not necessarily noticeable and his ability to fit a pair in question. of course, with the latter a personal appearance is necessary. ps: the nature of an anecdote are not the facts and the details, but the truth they carry in them, that's why we should care, indeed. not the pickiness.

+10000000000

That is a very eloquently structured post but they're still not for me. Such shoes may well have "long histories of being the most elegant and sought after leathers for shoes" (and to be fair I'm sure the construction of some in this thread is exceptional) , but just as style comes in "objective quality melding with fit and colour harmony" it also comes with not mindlessly following historical trends. I still think that they look naff. I haven't seen any pics in this thread of the shoes as part of an ensemble either, so I'm not close to changing my opinion on this. I guess to sum it up I cannot imagine a look that would not be improved by substituting leather shoes in place of croc or lizardskin shoes.

error

error

it's nile perch executed by Alexandru Maftei, Vienna



this is a nice showcase and they look fabulous.

but it's more fabulous in bruno's sense. imo, the pointy toe takes away the natural look a shoe should have.[/quote]

Not all shoes should have a natural look, IMO. Fabulous alligator shoes should look fabulous, and these do. But I am not yet prepared to pay for them. And I do not really know where I would wear them.

Thank you for the kind words. You are entitled to your opinions and druthers. I wouldn't, for a minute gainsay, you. But to thoughtlessly label alligator shoes "pimpish" is just that--thoughtless. All I'm trying to do is add a balanced perspective. Calfskin Chelsea's with orange or green gore seem a lot closer to the definition than a well made, understated, black alligator chukka. Anything can be "pimpish" if the bearer doesn't have a sense of colour or occasion. BTW, alligator, coc and even snake...in the form it needs to be to make shoes...is leather. JFYI.

When refering to "pimpy" I refer to the image projected by many pimps I saw in american television cop series in the 70s and 80s, like Kojak. Pimps tended to have gaudy clothes and quite noticeable footwear. I know that in real life, pimps may dress differently. Just like the Camorra guys in Gomorra didn¡t dress like the maffia guys in The Godfather. Now, I think that when we say "pimp-y" we all know more or less what is to be understood by that. I like the look of alligator shoes but I still think that they look "pimp-y"; that doesn¡t mean that I would have any problem with wearing them, on certain occasions. I wouldn`t wear them to a job interview in a conservative business, though.

Good to hear that there are alternatives for those of us who want to look pimpish now and then but do not dare to spend USD 2000+ on it...

Sorry there's no pickiness there. I kind of figured that you had made a mistake in conversion but it seemed more politic to assume that you were careful and to question Mr. Weiner rather than accuse you of not doing your homework. (he said kindly) I do understand your point but perhaps you both (Mr. Weiner too) miss the essential truth here...read the post again and pay particular attention to the point about what kinds of deviation from an absolute fit a foot can feel. One sixteen of an inch is half of a half size, no matter which scale you use. And Bengal Stripe's point about girth measurements increasing along with the stick is well taken. Overall length (the "stick") will also increase with width...a little known fact. Read again the point about nerve endings in the foot and what the foot actually does mechanically and structurally. Now, having said all that, yes...if you want to play fast and loose...a size seven foot can find a home in a size seven and a half shoe (although I would be less sanguine going the other way) that's why leather is superior to all other materials for making shoes--it is flexible and can accommodate itself to odd shapes and imperfect fits. But even if your shoemaker is not trying his best to fit you precisely (no accusation, just a hypothetical situation), you probably should not accept anything less than the best you can get.

Well, come on...with all due respect...is it the money or the image of some black hustler wearing purple suits and pointed shoes? This is my problem with the characterization---it draws on images that are not only over-blown (and often false) but in doing so it substitutes imagery for substance. And in doing that, it dumbs down the whole concept of style...or elegance...or even quality. Alligator is a beautiful leather...for all the reasons that leather can be beautiful.