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 1061

post #15901 of 19222
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

Very interesting Vintage Edward Green for Polo Ralph Lauren. I contacted resident Vintage EG expert Philo Vance from the Uptown Dandy Blog to help me ID these (the catalog scan is from his site!).

http://uptowndandy.blogspot.com/2013/02/vintage-edward-green-catalog.html

Model is Braemar, circa 1980's. The last is the 520, which looks similar to the 82 (not the 201 listed in the catalog). Sr. Vance suggested this may bell be a proprietary PRL last. WISH they fit me! Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Anyway...

vintageedwardgreenshoes1.jpg

vintageedwardgreenshoes4.jpg

vintageedwardgreenshoes5.jpg

vintageedwardgreenshoes7.jpg

vintageedwardgreenshoes10.jpg

vintageedwardgreenshoes11.jpg

vintageedwardgreenshoes13.jpg

Tell Philo to call me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbris1;567707 
So here's the reply from Edward Green:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your enquiry. We forwarded your e-mail to the factory and this was their reply:

'Ticket reference number 9793 refers to our style Falkirk which was made for Ralph Lauren in 1992
On the SZ0 last D fitting sizes 8½ through to 12 & 13 (English sizes) in Chestnut Antique.'

We hope this helps.

Kind regards
Edward Green and Co
75 Jermyn Street
London
post #15902 of 19222
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

Very interesting Vintage Edward Green for Polo Ralph Lauren. I contacted resident Vintage EG expert Philo Vance from the Uptown Dandy Blog to help me ID these (the catalog scan is from his site!).

http://uptowndandy.blogspot.com/2013/02/vintage-edward-green-catalog.html

Model is Braemar, circa 1980's. The last is the 520, which looks similar to the 82 (not the 201 listed in the catalog). Sr. Vance suggested this may bell be a proprietary PRL last. WISH they fit me!

Anyway...

vintageedwardgreenshoes1.jpg

]

Hindsight is always 20-20. Back when RL had "made in england" high end shoes in the RL outlet stores. There was always some type of sale that allowed you to buy them for $50 to $200. How many guys knew about EG and C&J back then?frown.gif
post #15903 of 19222
I just picked up a used pair of Braemar's in a 10.5 on the 201 made for New & Lingwood - the 201 is always a bit snug so I'm hoping the extra half size up will be perfect for my size 10 feet.

But nowhere near this condition. These are something to see in pristine condition - I dont recall seeing that last or that RL stamp before.
post #15904 of 19222
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr monty View Post

Hindsight is always 20-20. Back when RL had "made in england" high end shoes in the RL outlet stores. There was always some type of sale that allowed you to buy them for $50 to $200. How many guys knew about EG and C&J back then?frown.gif

Maybe back in those days, firms only make solid shoes, no cut conners. My dad's EG Top Drawer over 20 years ago is still kicking, and the finishing neatness is far superior than my current EG top Drawer.
post #15905 of 19222
Sup, Philo. See my reply upthread which includes an email from EG regarding my pair of those shoes.
post #15906 of 19222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORE View Post

Tell Philo to call me.

I have heard of SZO, probably from your previous discussion on the Falkirks - I guess I'm used to looking for numbers and failed to make the connection. Apologies!
post #15907 of 19222
Accepted. smile.gif
post #15908 of 19222
Wait, am I wrong about the model name too? The Falkirks I own dont have the little flowery motif (which I thought was the only difference between the Falkirk and Braemar), while the Braemar in the 1980s catalog is a dead match for these.

What's good, Nore?
post #15909 of 19222
I direct you to the response from EG above.

My pair was identical to those except mine had the original laces which were wider and looked better with the exposed metal eyelets. His pair were perhaps made for the 1990 season.
post #15910 of 19222
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

20 pairs is very reasonable... and quite small actually, by SF standards. Thanks for the share, poster.
Yeah I went a bit too fast though I think, started in fall 2011 with nicer shoes and this is way too much for my age (22). Thankfully shoes are easy to sell
post #15911 of 19222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORE View Post

I direct you to the response from EG above.

My pair was identical to those except mine had the original laces which were wider and looked better with the exposed metal eyelets. His pair were perhaps made for the 1990 season.

Just respondin' to your post on the EG thread. The copy of your e-mail is fine. However, Philo's scan clearly shows an EG catalog and them selling a model called "Braemar" being sold under the EG label. That pair has the flowery motif that PV refers to. The Falkirk does not have that same additional broguing design.

http://leathersoulhawaii.com/2009/05/08/edward-green-falkirk-in-edwardian-antique/

Isn't the Falkirk on the 82 last as well? I've handled some EG on the 82, and these seem different.

How can you tell this is not a Braemar, like the pair on PV's catalog?

Not sayin' you're wrong, but it's hard to see a definitive answer so far.
post #15912 of 19222
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Just respondin' to your post on the EG thread. The copy of your e-mail is fine. However, Philo's scan clearly shows an EG catalog and them selling a model called "Braemar" being sold under the EG label. That pair has the flowery motif that PV refers to. The Falkirk does not have that same additional broguing design.

http://leathersoulhawaii.com/2009/05/08/edward-green-falkirk-in-edwardian-antique/

Isn't the Falkirk on the 82 last as well? I've handled some EG on the 82, and these seem different.

How can you tell this is not a Braemar, like the pair on PV's catalog?

Not sayin' you're wrong, but it's hard to see a definitive answer so far.

That's why I suggested you do some more research. The Falkirk was produced for more retailers than just RL and the early models had the exposed metal eyelets as well as what you refer to as the flower on the side. A retailer can specify what they want in a shoe and sometimes the manufacturer carries the same or a very similar model with another name. EG made the McKay for RL which was essentially sold by EG as the Asquith with a different toe medallion. C&J produced the Redway loafer for RL and sells the Cavendish, the former having a closed channel welt and the latter is stitched aloft.

Anyway, who better to answer the question than the manufacturer themselves? I provided the email they sent me above. Perhaps you should send them a note.
post #15913 of 19222
But I'm not sure what you're going to ask them. "Is this shoe in my hands, which is called the Braemar in your catalog from year X, actually the Braemar?"

I hear what you're saying about the Falkirk being available in slight variations at one point in time. Perhaps there was a point where the Falkirk had the exact same decoration as the past/current Braemar. But that doesnt change that there is also a shoe in the EG cannon that is the same exact model as what Isshi has now that is referred to as the Braemar in the company's current catalog, and was referred to as the Braemar 25-30 years ago.

I know you guys like to go at it, but in this instance I'm not sure anyone is actually "wrong."
post #15914 of 19222
I actually met Hilary Freeman at the MRket show in January. The owner of this catalog showed it to her at the same time I took my pictures of it. I believe she actually tried to acquire it for EG's archive, as well - the owner who brought it along to show to me happened to be stationed in the next booth over from EG, but he was not interested in parting with it.

At no point did she say "Lovely catalog but I wonder why they incorrectly called that Falkirk a Braemar."
post #15915 of 19222
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiloVance View Post

Wait, am I wrong about the model name too? The Falkirks I own dont have the little flowery motif (which I thought was the only difference between the Falkirk and Braemar), while the Braemar in the 1980s catalog is a dead match for these.

There are two versions of the ‘Falkirk’ in Edward Green’s archive:

‘new’ Falkirk
(I deliberately picked a picture of the new Falkirk in a two-coloured version to make the differences more apparent.)



‘old’ Falkirk



The eyelets on the new one are set into a facing, which runs all the way back to the heel. The vamp seam (the curved seam where vamp and quarters are joined) has also a laid-on facing, about 1 cm. 3/8” wide and gimped (zigzagged) on both sides. That construction makes it the same as the Malvern III (but with a different counter and different perforations).

The old version has neither of the facings, the quarters are just perforated and the vamp seam is not covered. But in addition, it has the thistle-flower pattern which the new version does not have.

Here is the old Falkirk again, as shown on ‘centipede’s’ site.

http://centipede.web.fc2.com/egfalkirk.html

I agree that the old Falkirk version is identical to the Braemar. I have a feeling, that old catalogue which you have posted is prior to John Hlustik taking over the company in 1982. My guess is, although I have no evidence, the Braemar was renamed the Fakirk (for whatever reason) and was updated at some point in the late 90s to become the new Falkirk. (Presumably at the same time when the basic pattern for all the Oxford designs was replaced with a ‘new’ version).
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