or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › I have the AE bug!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I have the AE bug! - Page 6

post #76 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by bananananana View Post
The leather for the uppers seem the same to me, and better than the $500 retail made in italy RL shoes

+1
I have two of each and my AE's are superior in every way
post #77 of 118
To the OP, a little less than seven years ago, I got the A-E "bug"--bad! Shortly thereafter, A-E opened an outlet store about 100 miles from where I live. In 2004 alone, I bought 17 pairs of A-Es. The most I ever paid during that year was slightly more than $200. I got a couple of pairs for $79. Factory seconds and closeouts, of course, but most of the time I could never find the flaw. I now have 42 pairs of A-Es. For quite a while I was the foremost advocate of A-Es in the forum culture.

I have never really felt a longing for any higher-priced shoes. In my part of the country, wearing A-Es I am as well or better shod than 99.9% of the male population.

You are going to have to get up in the $1,000+ price bracket before you get a really noticeably finer shoe. Even then, the difference may not be very noticeable. I took my wife into the John Lobb Paris store soon after it opened in South Coast Plaza. She said they looked just like the shoes I had (i.e., A-Es). Another time I was in the Beverly Hills Polo Shop. One of the salesmen asked me if my shoes were Edward Greens. They were in fact A-Es I had bought at the outlet for $161.

Given a choice between Edward Greens at $1,200 a pair (last time I looked) and the A-Es I bought on closeout for $129, yeah, I'd prefer the Eddie Greens. However, I would much, much rather have the pair of A-Es and the $1,071 (which I could use to buy a jacket from Chan or something else nice, sartorial or otherwise.)

Bottom line is that hardly anybody except a shoe geek is going to bother noticing the difference between a well-polished well maintained pair of A-Es and a pair of EGs in any event.
post #78 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post
Given a choice between Edward Greens at $1,200 a pair (last time I looked) and the A-Es I bought on closeout for $129, yeah, I'd prefer the Eddie Greens. However, I would much, much rather have the pair of A-Es and the $1,071.
Are you a life-coach. If yes, may I send my wife to you?
post #79 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post
To the OP, a little less than seven years ago, I got the A-E "bug"--bad! Shortly thereafter, A-E opened an outlet store about 100 miles from where I live. In 2004 alone, I bought 17 pairs of A-Es. The most I ever paid during that year was slightly more than $200. I got a couple of pairs for $79. Factory seconds and closeouts, of course, but most of the time I could never find the flaw. I now have 42 pairs of A-Es. For quite a while I was the foremost advocate of A-Es in the forum culture. I have never really felt a longing for any higher-priced shoes. In my part of the country, wearing A-Es I am as well or better shod than 99.9% of the male population. You are going to have to get up in the $1,000+ price bracket before you get a really noticeably finer shoe. Even then, the difference may not be very noticeable. I took my wife into the John Lobb Paris store soon after it opened in South Coast Plaza. She said they looked just like the shoes I had (i.e., A-Es). Another time I was in the Beverly Hills Polo Shop. One of the salesmen asked me if my shoes were Edward Greens. They were in fact A-Es I had bought at the outlet for $161. Given a choice between Edward Greens at $1,200 a pair (last time I looked) and the A-Es I bought on closeout for $129, yeah, I'd prefer the Eddie Greens. However, I would much, much rather have the pair of A-Es and the $1,071 (which I could use to buy a jacket from Chan or something else nice, sartorial or otherwise.) Bottom line is that hardly anybody except a shoe geek is going to bother noticing the difference between a well-polished well maintained pair of A-Es and a pair of EGs in any event.
Not saying you're right or wrong in your tastes, but I think a lot of people would choose 5-6 EGs over 42 AEs, which is the real comparison, and not the 1 to 1+$1000 you're describing.
post #80 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by bananananana View Post
Not saying you're right or wrong in your tastes, but I think a lot of people would choose 5-6 EGs over 42 AEs, which is the real comparison, and not the 1 to 1+$1000 you're describing.

right. i am more and more likening to the mafoofan-esque style of simplifying the wardrobe to only a few but ideal select pieces that are of the best in quality. i collect bargain coat here and bargain coat there, and later find myself unloading these to get that perfect coat that i find later (of 4 or 5 x the price) and happy with converging to that.

although, i am still always impressed by Jan's collection. he will always be Mr. Allen Edmonds to me.
post #81 of 118
Check my sig - 3 pair of the nicer AEs are still for sale, including the rarest of rare Austin model.
post #82 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by bananananana View Post
Not saying you're right or wrong in your tastes, but I think a lot of people would choose 5-6 EGs over 42 AEs, which is the real comparison, and not the 1 to 1+$1000 you're describing.
I am a value and cheap shoe supporter, and I agree with this statement. however, my ideal shoe wardrobe is < 10 (probably more like 5-7) shoes I love, that are versatile, and will last. I would just assume spend $1k - $1,500 on my collection of AE, Grenson, et al than $3k - $4k on EG, JL, Vass et al. I've recently become a convert to less is more, and blissfully having less stuff. nice stuff, yes, but lots of stuff, no. I basically agree with the sentiment that only shoe geeks will really notice the difference between an AE Park Avenue and a JL equivalent model. I'll accept that Lobbs are built better and will last longer, but not by nearly enough to justify - alone - the upcharge. shoe geeks are kind of like women in this way - they dress more to impress each other than the opposite sex. in fact, I recently had in my possession some EG for RLPL shoes, some G&G for RLPL, and some C&J for RL. I showed them to 5 or 6 normal people (college/postgrad educated, white collar professionals, etc) and they all were like "ok, they are shoes I would wear to work". none of them could believe the price. these people are like most people here, before they discovered SF. that is the majority of people out there
post #83 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by makewayhomer View Post
I am a value and cheap shoe supporter, and I agree with this statement.

however, my ideal shoe wardrobe is < 10 (probably more like 5-7) shoes I love, that are versatile, and will last. I would just assume spend $1k - $1,500 on my collection of AE, Grenson, et al than $3k - $4k on EG, JL, Vass et al.

I've recently become a convert to less is more, and blissfully having less stuff. nice stuff, yes, but lots of stuff, no.

I basically agree with the sentiment that only shoe geeks will really notice the difference between an AE Park Avenue and a JL equivalent model. I'll accept that Lobbs are built better and will last longer, but not by nearly enough to justify - alone - the upcharge. shoe geeks are kind of like women in this way - they dress more to impress each other than the opposite sex
.

i think you are misunderstanding why some of us buy the JLs and EGs over AE and CJs and so forth. it is not because they are better built or last longer, 99% of it has to do with the aesthetics. the visual appeal of the shoes and EG and JL has alot of sexy visual appeal over AE.

and that comes to the other point. that is where we get our kicks wearing them. not to show off. but more so it makes us feel good. we enjoy them , not really to show off.

i dont think anyone here would spend hundreds to put an effort to show-off manifest through clothing and shoes. it doesnt really work. that is where the foray of watches and cars come in
post #84 of 118
Quote:
99% of it has to do with the aesthetics. the visual appeal of the shoes and EG and JL has alot of sexy visual appeal over AE.
I'm saying that this is the part that only shoe geeks appreciate. the ultra fine finishing, detailing, welting, and even the general asthetic...normal people don't notice these things. perhaps (?) they could if you showed them pictures and you asked them to compare, but that's not the real world use case. the real world use case is looking down 6 feet or across the room, and from that distance, the shoes are usually quite identical. simply going up to the AE or $300 price point makes you look A LOT better than the normal guy wearing skechers or obviously clunky rubber boots. but past that, most people won't notice. even in the RL store when I was looking at G&G's and EG's, the very knowledgeable salesman told me how nice my Chelseas were, and asked what they were. they were $250 RM Williams.
post #85 of 118
Interesting that most people are one way or the other. I like to try them all. I have 2 pair of AEs, two pair of G&Gs, three pair of EGs, one pair of Mephistos, two pair of J&Ms (had both for more than 12 years), and I just sold a pair of C&Js and recently a pair of Vass.

Why limit yourself?
post #86 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by makewayhomer View Post
I'm saying that this is the part that only shoe geeks appreciate. the ultra fine finishing, detailing, welting, and even the general asthetic...normal people don't notice these things. perhaps (?) they could if you showed them pictures and you asked them to compare, but that's not the real world use case. the real world use case is looking down 6 feet or across the room, and from that distance, the shoes are usually quite identical.

.

Funny, but my shoes that get the most complements? My AE Greenwich wholecuts. I bought them on SF B&S for $110.00 in a horrifying light tan color. Ron Rider expertly antiqued them a nice dark reddish-brown (harder to see the ridiculous hole-punching). They are the perfect casually elegant shoes. Below is a pic of the original awful color.

post #87 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post
AE makes so many ugly shoes that people forget they offer nice ones too. I like all the models you've picked.

A few members have already voiced opinions regarding their favorite AEs. I want to see the SF members' HOF worst AE models. Maybe that's topic enough for its own thread (I admit I haven't searched yet).

PS: I agree that their nicer models oft go by the wayside on SF's radar. The pairs I own, I very happily own.
post #88 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat-tie-knot View Post
I picked these up at half price.
Which model is at left? I like. *EDIT* Ok, Soho. Which color? Internet is my friend. Cognac. Of course, no longer made by AE. Why would they keep such an attractive, simple shoe as a staple? Ugh.
post #89 of 118
^soho in cognac
post #90 of 118
I really want to like the AEs, but I just can't convince myself to purchase a pair. I'm sure the leather and construction is fine, but the shape just throws me off. The McAllister and Strand aren't bad, but the rest are hard to justify. I don't see why it's so hard for shoe companies to make a more attractive shape for around the same price AE charges. To me, that's the main difference between AE and the 'higher', more expensive brands. If someone could use AE level leather and materials and construct a shoe similar to shape of EG or C&J, most people would not be able to tell the difference. I should not have to pay $400+ to find this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › I have the AE bug!