or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoe Damage Report & Shoe P0rn Central - Part II
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shoe Damage Report & Shoe P0rn Central - Part II - Page 698

post #10456 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton View Post

Shine is praise worthy. Alden get way too much love on this board but for some reason they seem to make people happy. Personally I do not understand the aesthetic - though I have tried.

For me, it's not so much the aesthetic, but the mediocre construction and lack of attention to detail. That said, I DO want a pair of those PTB boots in whickey shell that are posted here whenever their time comes in the rotation.
post #10457 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzl View Post

nothing wrong with it for sure. i just don't like big framed shoes and massive heel blocks either from alden or any other maker with a lack of aesthetics.

fritzl - These are boots, not shoes, and the original design of the "Indy" was as a workboot and so they would certainly lack the "esthetic" you would be expecting in shoes. Harrison Ford wore his personal Alden workboots in the Indian Jones movie series and so they became popular as "Indys" and now Alden lovers, including me, have tried to make them acceptable as casual footwear. So, when you state that these boots are "clunky," consider/remember their original purpose.
post #10458 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynahFaithful View Post

fritzl - These are boots, not shoes, and the original design of the "Indy" was as a workboot and so they would certainly lack the "esthetic" you would be expecting in shoes. Harrison Ford wore his personal Alden workboots in the Indian Jones movie series and so they became popular as "Indys" and now Alden lovers, including me, have tried to make them acceptable as casual footwear. So, when you state that these boots are "clunky," consider/remember their original purpose.

I doubt Fritzl cares about the history of the boots. He simply doesn't like them.

As a side note, Aldens in general lack the elegant lines and curves that are popular on SF now.
post #10459 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

Closed channel stitching is the LEAST of one's concerns. It's a "finishing touch". Personally, at that price point, I'd rather the maker spent more money on the UPPERS than the sole treatment. Also, are you sure they're closed channel rather than glued on soles?

This statement shows that you know jack about appreciating finely made footwear. The sole is as important as the upper. Newb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lychyrychy View Post

What is your size sir?

12.5
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

For me, it's not so much the aesthetic, but the mediocre construction and lack of attention to detail. That said, I DO want a pair of those PTB boots in whickey shell that are posted here whenever their time comes in the rotation.

See above insult.
post #10460 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

I doubt Fritzl cares about the history of the boots. He simply doesn't like them.
As a side note, Aldens in general lack the elegant lines and curves that are popular on SF now.

That's certainly his choice, and I don't care for a lot of his choices either, which is my choice, but he should not expect shoe esthetic from work boots.

As you well know, Alden is not trying be sleek, elegant, or curvy with much of what they make, but they do appeal to a very specific market segment and they do a great job in satisfying that market. Are they perfect, nope, but nothing is.
post #10461 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynahFaithful View Post


fritzl - These are boots, not shoes, and the original design of the "Indy" was as a workboot and so they would certainly lack the "esthetic" you would be expecting in shoes. Harrison Ford wore his personal Alden workboots in the Indian Jones movie series and so they became popular as "Indys" and now Alden lovers, including me, have tried to make them acceptable as casual footwear. So, when you state that these boots are "clunky," consider/remember their original purpose.


Ugly is ugly.

post #10462 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuadowen View Post



Ugly is ugly.

Then don't buy them.
post #10463 of 19109
Good God this fritzl fellow is one negative character. So many ways to puff off the old passive-aggressiveness, and he chooses SF. Pfft.
post #10464 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuadowen View Post

Ugly is ugly.

"One man's meat is another man's poison."

Nothing is (objectively) 'ugly' unless you (subjectively) perceive it that way.
Good taste is always one's own, bad taste is always someone else's. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
post #10465 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORE View Post

This statement shows that you know jack about appreciating finely made footwear. The sole is as important as the upper. Newb.
12.5
See above insult.

what is your problem? The sole treatment is nowhere as important as the work on the uppers. Corrected grain leather stitched together by a myopic shoemaker (stole that one from DWFII), but placed on a closed channel sole with the G&G treatment ? Good choice.

Open Channel vs closed channel is 99% a question of aesthetics. You have absolutely no idea what I know or don't know. Newb? WTF? I've owned and worn more shoes in the last YEAR than you probably have in your lifetime. AND, although my opinions are based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in a wide breadth of makers and stylings (from EG to Lobb to C&J to AS to Santoni to Lattanzi... AND the Vintage 1920's- 1950's shoes you HATE but have never actually owned or worn), yours are based on a self-inflated ego trip.

You need to focus on your internet porn collection again and try to get carpal tunnel in the OTHER wrist rather than trying to "insult" me.
post #10466 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshuadowen View Post



Ugly is ugly.

this is not necessary
post #10467 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynahFaithful View Post

That's certainly his choice, and I don't care for a lot of his choices either, which is my choice, but he should not expect shoe esthetic from work boots.
As you well know, Alden is not trying be sleek, elegant, or curvy with much of what they make, but they do appeal to a very specific market segment and they do a great job in satisfying that market. Are they perfect, nope, but nothing is.

FYI, I'm actually a fan of the "chunky-style" shoes... and I've taken my share of "they're ugly" and the like comments. I was just noting that that particular style has been replaced with the sleek lines of G&G and the like as the "prime choice" of many SF'ers.

No insult intended.
post #10468 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post

"One man's meat is another man's poison."
Nothing is (objectively) 'ugly' unless you (subjectively) perceive it that way.
Good taste is always one's own, bad taste is always someone else's. biggrin.gifbiggrin.gifbiggrin.gif

Agreed.
post #10469 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post


plain.gif  but the board likes u man

 

 
 

having a couple hundred pairs in the rotation is yr best bet.icon_gu_b_slayer%5B1%5D.gif

 

 

IMO the rippling is inevitable and part of the attraction, but it means shell's better for rustic/casual wear, and I'm not likely to buy any more.

These look fabulous-  the 202 is the most English of lasts-  but what do u mean the burnishing was chestnut?  

 

Here a picture of the same shoes with the original chestnut burnishing

263
post #10470 of 19109
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

what is your problem? The sole treatment is nowhere as important as the work on the uppers. Corrected grain leather stitched together by a myopic shoemaker (stole that one from DWFII), but placed on a closed channel sole with the G&G treatment ? Good choice.
Open Channel vs closed channel is 99% a question of aesthetics. You have absolutely no idea what I know or don't know. Newb? WTF? I've owned and worn more shoes in the last YEAR than you probably have in your lifetime. AND, although my opinions are based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in a wide breadth of makers and stylings (from EG to Lobb to C&J to AS to Santoni to Lattanzi... AND the Vintage 1920's- 1950's shoes you HATE but have never actually owned or worn), yours are based on a self-inflated ego trip.
You need to focus on your internet porn collection again and try to get carpal tunnel in the OTHER wrist rather than trying to "insult" me.

What you say is pretty subjective. In general, closed-channel stitching takes more work and skills to accomplish, therefore it costs more to make. Given a choice, I would go with closed-channel stitching every time because to me, it's elegant and slick. Why do you think only on more expensive brand as you mentioned from EG to Lobb that they always offer closed-stiching channel?

Some people don't care for it, maybe because they're close-minded or whatever the reason might be, but it's hard to argue that closed-channel stitching is cheap to make. At $200 dollars, having it is quite amazing to me.

Admittedly, the upper leather isn't on par with EG or Lobb, I'm not going to talk about upper leather because that's not the point of my post. smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoe Damage Report & Shoe P0rn Central - Part II