or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › EDWARD GREEN? (Peal and Co for Brooks Brothers)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EDWARD GREEN? (Peal and Co for Brooks Brothers) - Page 2

post #16 of 24
They were made by Edward Green, probably mid-seventies. EG did use cloth fore-lining in the 70s and a numbering system for the Peal line that was unique to the Peals and entirely agrees with the information provided, as does the nail pattern in Rebel's photo.
post #17 of 24
Reference: Pinned: HOF: Labels, Heels, Nails etc. page 12, post 172, or don't.

Rebel222's example appears a bit coarse for vintage BB EG Peal. The waist is too wide, the heel is straight rather than concave, PEAL is in bold block lettering rather than a more understated serifed font, there is no line of convex pindot indentions in front of the heel. The soles extend beyond the upper more than a typical EG, the wheeling treatment near the top of the sides of the heels is absent. The lining of a vintage shoe would probably have darkened with age. They don't seem to exhibit the general aura of EG refinement. The soles are a bit thick for city shoes. Not trying to instigate umbrage. They certainly could have been made by EG, but they're atypical if so.

All the numerical nomenclature of a vintage BB EG Peal was not necessarily hand scribed.
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by I. Gentantithesis View Post
Reference: Pinned: HOF: Labels, Heels, Nails etc. page 12, post 172, or don't.

Rebel222's example appears a bit coarse for vintage BB EG Peal. The waist is too wide, the heel is straight rather than concave, PEAL is in bold block lettering rather than a more understated serifed font, there is no line of convex pindot indentions in front of the heel. The soles extend beyond the upper more than a typical EG, the wheeling treatment near the top of the sides of the heels is absent. The lining of a vintage shoe would probably have darkened with age. They don't seem to exhibit the general aura of EG refinement. The soles are a bit thick for city shoes. Not trying to instigate umbrage. They certainly could have been made by EG, but they're atypical if so.

All the numerical nomenclature of a vintage BB EG Peal was not necessarily hand scribed.

None the less, they were made by EG.
post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by pejsek View Post
Hate to break into your conversation here, guys, but these shoes sound unlikely to be EG. EG has, of course, made shoes for BB (both Peal and English lines). However, I've never seen EG use anything other than a full leather lining and none of the numbers you give seem anything like EG last numbers. The EG shoes would also have all info written by hand rather than stamped. If the soles are original they would be channeled. Pics would answer all questions.



I don't think this is true.
FWIW I have a pair of vintage EG monk shoes last 202 and they have part linen lining (still in great condition - prhaps linen last as long as leather?) The linen is definitely original.
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by I. Gentantithesis View Post
Reference: Pinned: HOF: Labels, Heels, Nails etc. page 12, post 172, or don't.

Rebel222's example appears a bit coarse for vintage BB EG Peal. The waist is too wide, the heel is straight rather than concave, PEAL is in bold block lettering rather than a more understated serifed font, there is no line of convex pindot indentions in front of the heel. The soles extend beyond the upper more than a typical EG, the wheeling treatment near the top of the sides of the heels is absent. The lining of a vintage shoe would probably have darkened with age. They don't seem to exhibit the general aura of EG refinement. The soles are a bit thick for city shoes. Not trying to instigate umbrage. They certainly could have been made by EG, but they're atypical if so.

All the numerical nomenclature of a vintage BB EG Peal was not necessarily hand scribed.

I've had similar thoughts. It's a bit much, I think, to expect that the romantic ideal of the BB Peal line--so lovingly tended and cultivated by Flusser and others--could ever compete with the reality of today's shoe fetishism. I have an old pair of Peal Wigmores (maker is murky)--nice, but really couldn't hold a candle to the current EG rtw model.
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by pejsek View Post
I've had similar thoughts. It's a bit much, I think, to expect that the romantic ideal of the BB Peal line--so lovingly tended and cultivated by Flusser and others--could ever compete with the reality of today's shoe fetishism. I have an old pair of Peal Wigmores (maker is murky)--nice, but really couldn't hold a candle to the current EG rtw model.

I never said that EG for Peal were the same quality as current EG offerings.
post #22 of 24
PM Bengal Stripe, I'm sure he'll know.
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel222 View Post
I never said that EG for Peal were the same quality as current EG offerings.

It seems that pre-Hlustik EGs, in general, are not the same quality as their current RTW offerings. Great thread here: http://www.styleforum.net/showthread...ht=northampton
post #24 of 24
I know these are EG for Peal & Co. based on the fonts used, nail pattern, and etc. As you can see from the pictures below, Inside the shoes, on one side, there are 2 rows of stamped numbers (8392 and 1104 respectively). On the other side, there is a handwritten number 15653. I need experts to shed some lights on the size & last. Thanks.






Here is a pair of EG for Peal & Co from UptownDandy's blog. They appear to be later than mine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › EDWARD GREEN? (Peal and Co for Brooks Brothers)