George Cleverley Anthony Cleverley Models - Page 2

But none of that says you "know" for a fact that GCs AC line is made by EG. I think it doesn't help anyone when these rumours are spread without more evidence than this.

It is certainly true and in fact blindlingly obvious when one sees the GC RTW range that they are rebadged Crockett and Jones - perhaps upspec'd for GC, I wouldn't know.

My sources examined my A.C. shoes personally, and confirmed, after looking at the shoe, and speaking with folks in the Northampton area who work at E.G., that they are made by E.G. There is no need to reveal the sources as perhaps these folks still look to Cleverlely for exchanges in information or leather. I do not spread rumors, but for now, have opted to not spend the extra $ on a gorgeous Cleverley designed and constructed shoe....perhaps made by Cleverley in London, or under private label by E.G. If some folks do not like Cleverley making his shoes at E.G., but claiming their are made in their shop, then they can decide if they will take their business elsewhere. I got a great shoe out of it and but for the price, would continue to buy more of them. I just wish they were priced similar to what EG or G&G charge for their MTO shoes...as I feel it is a comparable product. Perhaps Tom or someone else can ask George Glasgow if the last shapes used on the A.C. line were based on lasts originally made by Anthony Cleverley or where they by George Cleverley (or George Glasgow/John Carnera)???

Mr. Glasgow added a brogueing along the throat & imitation lacing...which made me want to order it

Edited by Michael Ay329 - 12/15/11 at 8:49pm

Gorgeous shoes, many congrats and thanks for clarifying too!

I thought that the point if these was to offer a stock shoe made and finished like the bespoke numbers, a la Gomez and Scafora? Hand lasted and hand welted, with high quality leathers for the uppers.

- B

They are supposed to be bespoke make on standard lasts. However, several competitors insist that the shoes are factory made. They don't look to me like something that could come out of EG or even Lobb but I have no way of knowing either way.

I suppose it's possible that EG is doing the clicking and the closing then GJC bespoke outworkers do the making by hand. That would make both claims more or less true. Pure speculation on my part.

when, they are clicked and closed, what kind of making should the outworker do?

Lasting, welting, putting on the sole. That's what "making" is in shoe terminology, I believe.

Anyway I think that is where the biggest differentiation between bespoke and RTW comes in (apart from skins and lasts). The uppers for both are sewn together by machine. High end RTW is clicked by hand. So at that point, apart from the skin, there may be little difference in terms of construction. It's the rest where all the time-intensive handwork comes in and where you can see the difference (in the sole and waist, mostly).

I can say this. I've been to the Lobb and EG factories. I've seen and worn Lobb Prestige and seen but not worn EG TD. The soles are very good. But they don't quite look bespoke or handmade--because they aren't. I've also got several pairs of Cleverley bespoke. The AC sole and waist (seen but not worn) look to me like Cleverley bespoke not Lobb Prestige or EG TD.

Not proof of anything, just sayin'.

Ordered in February 2009 and got them 3 months later....they were delivered sooner than quoted.

I had asked if Fosters would replicate their bespoke designs, but on EG lasts since they offer EG's MTO & RTW shoes. Kind of reverse to what Manton noted, I had hoped Fosters would click the leathers and then provide them to EG to put on the last & soles...and then finish them.

To their credit, they looked into it...since they have a good relationship with EG, but they replied it would cost almost as much as bespoke to do this...so this idea was nixed

Without a shadow of a doubt, those soles are stitched-on by machine.

Although the shoemaker in old tales is pictured as being a solitary worker, after the early 1700s shoemakers began to join together in individual shops. Each of the members would specialize in a particular procedure in the process of shoemaking.

Some of the members would do several of the tasks; for instance, the clicker, whose job was to cut the leather for the uppers, was often the maker, who measured the customer's feet and who made the final assembly of the shoes. Other members of the shop would include the patternmaker, who made the patterns from which the leather was cut; the closer, who prepared and sewed the leather uppers together; the finisher, who lined, dyed, and waxed the shoes after the maker had fastened the soles to the uppers.(source: Southern Polytechnic State University)

None of this is different from what I said. I know that one person doesn't produce an entire pair of shoes by himself. What I said was that "making" is the cordwainer's term for putting on the welt and the sole. At G&G, for instance, Tony clicks and closes and Dean "makes." Cleverley is the same way.

All I am saying is that it's possible that the AC line is clicked and closed in a factory and then "made" by Cleverley bespoke workers. Bengal says no, which is fine with me, my eye is not that good.