or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Ultimate "HARDCORE" Shoe Porn Thread (Bespoke only)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ultimate "HARDCORE" Shoe Porn Thread (Bespoke only) - Page 111

post #1651 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pembers View Post

How often have you seen shoes like Butler's on the foot, in real life? In my opinion there is a preference on SF for shoes which photograph well. Lobb St James's, Church's, and so on, look great as shoes, as opposed to statues.

Church's is a good example, because it is by far the most popular "good" shoemaker in the UK, but receives next to no attention on SF.

questionable how many Church's shoes are good today.
post #1652 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pembers View Post

How often have you seen shoes like Butler's on the foot, in real life? In my opinion there is a preference on SF for shoes which photograph well. Lobb St James's, Church's, and so on, look great as shoes, as opposed to statues.

Church's is a good example, because it is by far the most popular "good" shoemaker in the UK, but receives next to no attention on SF.

It is far from "good," in SF standards. It may be good along the lines of Ferragamo, but its construction leaves a lot to be desired and seems to be heading the wrong way as opposed to the right way. I also fail to see your "photograph" logic. If something is attractive, it will look attractive, yet if something is ugly, it will look ugly.
post #1653 of 2606
My point is that shoes are worn and moved about in and comprise only one part of an outfit. They are not stand-alone works of art, which is how they are often presented here. Chiselled-toe shoes by a company like G&G will look great sitting perfectly lit on a velvet cushion, in a way that a pair of Lobbs won't, because the shape of the former is more dramatic. Will a person wearing the G&Gs look better put together? In my opinion, and it's all just opinion, the answer is no.

My own feeling is that shoes are one of the least important parts of an outfit: they should be high-quality, well-polished, and discreet. I'd rather see somebody who has dark trousers on wearing boring black Loakes than tan Cleverley's which stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe that's why I take the view that I do.
post #1654 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

questionable how many Church's shoes are good today.

Well fine - but I'd argue that the reason, say, C&J is infinitely more popular here is not because their shoes are better-made than Church's (even if they are in fact better-made) but because they look a certain way. Nothing wrong with that, but I think that this aesthetic preference exists partly because of "shoe porn" and the type of photo that it entails.
post #1655 of 2606
I'm glad that you recognize that your opinion is inherently your own. Shoes, like anything involving aesthetics, posses a certain individualistic element. I find the shape of the bespoke Lobb, and most British shoes, to be overly boring and "blobby," whereas I prefer a starker look, as seen from G&G, Corthay, etc. To me, the uniqueness gives the shoe an artistic element, much like I would any other piece of art. I can appreciate the beauty of classical artwork, but at some point I go "great, another Jesus." That's how I am with British shoes.
post #1656 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pembers View Post

My point is that shoes are worn and moved about in and comprise only one part of an outfit. They are not stand-alone works of art, which is how they are often presented here. Chiselled-toe shoes by a company like G&G will look great sitting perfectly lit on a velvet cushion, in a way that a pair of Lobbs won't, because the shape of the former is more dramatic. Will a person wearing the G&Gs look better put together? In my opinion, and it's all just opinion, the answer is no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pembers View Post

How often have you seen shoes like Butler's on the foot, in real life? In my opinion there is a preference on SF for shoes which photograph well. Lobb St James's, Church's, and so on, look great as shoes, as opposed to statues.

agree 100%
post #1657 of 2606
Perry Ercolino. We don't see much of his stuff here. He shares space with Ercole in NYC.


post #1658 of 2606
I've always loved Ercolino's stuff, but he is a classic example of what happens when you lack marketing and CRM acumen.
post #1659 of 2606

Never heard of him before...

post #1660 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by usctrojans31 View Post

I've always loved Ercolino's stuff, but he is a classic example of what happens when you lack marketing and CRM acumen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampton View Post

Never heard of him before...

....
post #1661 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pembers View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by VRaivio View Post

While I applaud the skill of Lobb's many makers, I'm always left wanting when seeing their lasts. They lack contours and the toe is more fat than round on most pairs. I interviewed one of their makers about a year ago, she said the customer has the last say when it comes to lasts. Evidently most decide to leave it to Lobb, who favours rotund toes. Wonderful examples are rare, but I've seen a few.


How often have you seen shoes like Butler's on the foot, in real life? In my opinion there is a preference on SF for shoes which photograph well. Lobb St James's, Church's, and so on, look great as shoes, as opposed to statues.

Church's is a good example, because it is by far the most popular "good" shoemaker in the UK, but receives next to no attention on SF.

I've seen a few pairs of Church's, and I honestly wasn't too impressed by their recent offerings. Their shoes from before the Prada takeover are very nice, and wear very well, but the leather, design and last choices have been less than favourable since the acquisition.
post #1662 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post



....

Sorry, if it helps i'm not from the US :D

post #1663 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampton View Post

Sorry, if it helps i'm not from the US biggrin.gif

no need to apologise! I just thought it was a very appropriate post right after usctrojans31's
post #1664 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

no need to apologise! I just thought it was a very appropriate post right after usctrojans31's

I suspect the issue is, however, that a good many bespoke makers simply don't aspire to marketing acumen. If you understand the impulses that drive a bespoke maker...be they shoemaker or tailor or high-end bamboo rod maker...you know just how inappropriate and even absurd such comments (usctrojans31's) really are. It's an entirely different mind-set.
post #1665 of 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pembers View Post


Well fine - but I'd argue that the reason, say, C&J is infinitely more popular here is not because their shoes are better-made than Church's (even if they are in fact better-made) but because they look a certain way. Nothing wrong with that, but I think that this aesthetic preference exists partly because of "shoe porn" and the type of photo that it entails.

Since I don't have any hands on experience with Church shoes I can only go with what I've read or seen somewhere else.

 

One hardly see's any Chuch  threads appear at the top like C&J and when Church is mentioned generally there is at least one person that questions their quality after the Prada take over. When the quality seems to be questioned this often, I typically go somewhere else.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Ultimate "HARDCORE" Shoe Porn Thread (Bespoke only)