or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: Labels, heels and nail patterns - Secrets to ID the maker
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HOF: Labels, heels and nail patterns - Secrets to ID the maker - Page 137

post #2041 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMMcL View Post


I drafted something snarky, but I won't.

But I will say I disagree pretty strongly. To me, such exercises provide beginners, especially those who may not have the ability (without spending thousands of dollars), a benchmark to get a rough, qualitative sense of how various items compare, so they can make informed decisions on items they might purchase or pursue sight unseen. Science it isn't, and it must eventually be blended with personal tastes re: last, fit, etc. But knowing that one line uses better leather or construction than another is useful information have, without having to spend literally hundreds of hours sloshing through conflicting online statements, followed by several more hours researching the statement makers to see whether their opinions are reliable.

Having now handled many of the suit and sport coat brands myself, I a) have found the hierarchy roughly correct, and b) have my own sense of what fits me, what doesn't, what's good value and what isn't. But I was able to avoid a lot of stupid purchases with that hierarchy as a starting point. Similarly, a shoe hierarchy could help me benchmark whether, e.g., to spend the extra money on Edward Green vs Alfred Sargent, without having the benefit of touching, feeling and inspecting any of them. Some I've handled, some I haven't. My funds aren't unlimited. How best to spend them will depend, in part, on comparative quality, and that's where the hierarchy can be a useful starting point.

What exactly is the criteria for a shoe hierarchy? Too much personal preference is involved, and this is seen in the debate of Carmina vs Meermin. How much is gemming weighed? How much are plastic vs leather stiffeners weighed? Tight waists? Pegged waists? Fiddleback waists? French box calf vs German calf? These are just a few criteria that would have to be considered. Aniline vs crust leathers? Are we considering stuff like shape and fit which are entirely subjective?

 

I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that JL is better than G&G, and G&G better than EG. How you can say Alfred Sargent is better than C&J. You're also ignoring that shoemakers these day make a whole range of shoes. What are we comparing? JL or JLP to G&G main or G&G deco (I'm ignoring bespoke as I'm assuming it's a RTW hierarchy). AS exclusive or AS for Jcrew vs C&J bench or C&J hand? Meermin LM is so extremely better than Meermin main it'd be an overgeneralization to include them together. Same with Ferraggamo Tramezza to Studio or Sutor norvegese to Sutor cemented. 

 

Not as extreme, but similar problems arise with the suit/jacket hierarchy. Canvassing is weighed so high that you've got Boglioli grouped with Charles Tyrwhitt. I mean really? A cashmere K jacket is close to quality to CT's stuff?

post #2042 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post
 

What exactly is the criteria for a shoe hierarchy? Too much personal preference is involved, and this is seen in the debate of Carmina vs Meermin. How much is gemming weighed? How much are plastic vs leather stiffeners weighed? Tight waists? Pegged waists? Fiddleback waists? French box calf vs German calf? These are just a few criteria that would have to be considered. Aniline vs crust leathers? Are we considering stuff like shape and fit which are entirely subjective?

 

I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that JL is better than G&G, and G&G better than EG. How you can say Alfred Sargent is better than C&J. You're also ignoring that shoemakers these day make a whole range of shoes. What are we comparing? JL or JLP to G&G main or G&G deco (I'm ignoring bespoke as I'm assuming it's a RTW hierarchy). AS exclusive or AS for Jcrew vs C&J bench or C&J hand? Meermin LM is so extremely better than Meermin main it'd be an overgeneralization to include them together. Same with Ferraggamo Tramezza to Studio or Sutor norvegese to Sutor cemented. 

 

Not as extreme, but similar problems arise with the suit/jacket hierarchy. Canvassing is weighed so high that you've got Boglioli grouped with Charles Tyrwhitt. I mean really? A cashmere K jacket is close to quality to CT's stuff?

Sounds like a chart similar to this one would work just fine.....

 

post #2043 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMMcL View Post

I drafted something snarky, but I won't.

But I will say I disagree pretty strongly. To me, such exercises provide beginners, especially those who may not have the ability (without spending thousands of dollars), a benchmark to get a rough, qualitative sense of how various items compare, so they can make informed decisions on items they might purchase or pursue sight unseen. Science it isn't, and it must eventually be blended with personal tastes re: last, fit, etc. But knowing that one line uses better leather or construction than another is useful information have, without having to spend literally hundreds of hours sloshing through conflicting online statements, followed by several more hours researching the statement makers to see whether their opinions are reliable.

Having now handled many of the suit and sport coat brands myself, I a) have found the hierarchy roughly correct, and b) have my own sense of what fits me, what doesn't, what's good value and what isn't. But I was able to avoid a lot of stupid purchases with that hierarchy as a starting point. Similarly, a shoe hierarchy could help me benchmark whether, e.g., to spend the extra money on Edward Green vs Alfred Sargent, without having the benefit of touching, feeling and inspecting any of them. Some I've handled, some I haven't. My funds aren't unlimited. How best to spend them will depend, in part, on comparative quality, and that's where the hierarchy can be a useful starting point.

I agree 110%, have been wanting one of these for a while. Would potentially be willing to start one? GMMcL, would you perhaps want to pool our collective knowledge and try to type out a starters list? PM me if interested.
post #2044 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
What exactly is the criteria for a shoe hierarchy? Too much personal preference is involved, and this is seen in the debate of Carmina vs Meermin. How much is gemming weighed? How much are plastic vs leather stiffeners weighed? Tight waists? Pegged waists? Fiddleback waists? French box calf vs German calf? These are just a few criteria that would have to be considered. Aniline vs crust leathers? Are we considering stuff like shape and fit which are entirely subjective?

I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that JL is better than G&G, and G&G better than EG. How you can say Alfred Sargent is better than C&J. You're also ignoring that shoemakers these day make a whole range of shoes. What are we comparing? JL or JLP to G&G main or G&G deco (I'm ignoring bespoke as I'm assuming it's a RTW hierarchy). AS exclusive or AS for Jcrew vs C&J bench or C&J hand? Meermin LM is so extremely better than Meermin main it'd be an overgeneralization to include them together. Same with Ferraggamo Tramezza to Studio or Sutor norvegese to Sutor cemented. 

Not as extreme, but similar problems arise with the suit/jacket hierarchy. Canvassing is weighed so high that you've got Boglioli grouped with Charles Tyrwhitt. I mean really? A cashmere K jacket is close to quality to CT's stuff?

Did you even bother to read my post?
post #2045 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMMcL View Post

Did you even bother to read my post?
I did. I've said my piece and you've said yours, other members can read them and decide for themself. I'm going to treat you as ignorant and ignore you, and you can do the same. The almost unbelievable flaws and omissions in your hierarchy and the fact you can't see them tells me debating with you is pointless.
post #2046 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post


I did. I've said my piece and you've said yours, other members can read them and decide for themself. I'm going to treat you as ignorant and ignore you, and you can do the same. The almost unbelievable flaws and omissions in your hierarchy and the fact you can't see them tells me debating with you is pointless.

I think you're taking this too seriously. I don't think the list has to take into account every possible variable, I just think a lot of people feel like it would be a useful starting place, from which they could start to incorporate those variables themselves.

post #2047 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post

I did. I've said my piece and you've said yours, other members can read them and decide for themself. I'm going to treat you as ignorant and ignore you, and you can do the same. The almost unbelievable flaws and omissions in your hierarchy and the fact you can't see them tells me debating with you is pointless.

You'd be very wrong.

Check your grammar and tell me again who's ignorant.

I stated in my original post that I was soliciting feedback and taking a wild guess, and acknowledged in my second post that I'd made mistakes.

You clearly read none of that.

--

BTW, wtf with SF today? It's like everyone is itching for a fight. Ask anyone, Jay: I'm a pretty nice guy, and go out of my way to be nice to people on here. I don't think it's asking too much to ask others to do the same.
post #2048 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post


I did. I've said my piece and you've said yours, other members can read them and decide for themself. I'm going to treat you as ignorant and ignore you, and you can do the same. The almost unbelievable flaws and omissions in your hierarchy and the fact you can't see them tells me debating with you is pointless.

I think you missed an important part of the original post. The question....

 

"Incidentally, is there a shoe heirarchy out there somewhere, like there is for suits? For example, is this roughly accurate:
American: Alden > Allen Edmonds = vintage Florsheim = Hanover
English: Lobb > G&G > Edward Green > Alfred Sargent > Grenson > vintage Church's/Cheaney/Royal Tweed = Barrie LTD/Peal (which are usually one of the foregoing) > Crocket & Jones = Trickers > Loake
Continental: Vass > Sassetti > Santoni Fatte a mano > Carmina > Latanazi > Martegani, Meermin > Ferragamo = Tods > Santoni regular = Mezlan = Magnanni = Magli"

post #2049 of 2466

A much much much more useful exercise would be making something like http://www.styleforum.net/t/386970/largest-ready-to-wear-suit-brand-review-44-brands-by-parisian-gentleman-updated for shoes. The suit hierarchy thread is one of the worst things on SF. Overgeneralizations that noobs use as a buying guide rather than doing research on their own on the goal and pros/cons of each house. People should decide on their own what they want rather than looking at some list that arbitrarily ignores some factors while glorifying others. 

post #2050 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post

A much much much more useful exercise would be making something like http://www.styleforum.net/t/386970/largest-ready-to-wear-suit-brand-review-44-brands-by-parisian-gentleman-updated for shoes. The suit hierarchy thread is one of the worst things on SF. Overgeneralizations that noobs use as a buying guide rather than doing research on their own on the goal and pros/cons of each house. People should decide on their own what they want rather than looking at some list that arbitrarily ignores some factors while glorifying others. 

So do it. Be the change you wish to see in the world. Add to the conversation.

Rather than just lording it over in self righteous condescension.

FWIW, I have handled most things on both the hierarchy and Dirnelli's review -- the fortunate result of thousands of hours thrifting and selling. I respectfully disagree with many of his opinions. Not to say I'm right and he's wrong; just different mileage, and to each his own. What I will say is: If you're a BEGINNER (my original premise) and looking for a QUALITATIVE, NON-SCIENTIFIC STARTING POINT, his review is ONE person's view. The hierarchy reflects the collective views of MANY. Individual mileage always varies, but if you've taken statistics (or civics), you'll know that a sample set of 1 is generally less desirable than a sample set of +1.
post #2051 of 2466

I ain't doing it; I care little about helping noobs. You can do your hierarchy. I'm just saying it's silly, and if you actually want to help noobs, best it be a list of each maker and what they offer. 

post #2052 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnwes View Post
 

I know the feeling, this is probably the safest place to ask it today anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrizzy View Post

D&g denim Blazer for 28 dollars in size 40. Bad pass?
 
Bad pass. Probably looking around 80-100.
post #2053 of 2466
Quote:
Originally Posted by tben View Post
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdrizzy View Post

D&g denim Blazer for 28 dollars in size 40. Bad pass?
 
Bad pass. Probably looking around 80-100.

Good thing is its in this whack cosignment store right beside the huge value village. I'll go pick it up tmrw!

post #2054 of 2466

 

 

 

I asked this in the other thread, but anyone know the maker? Made in england- I know nothing about heel patterns or makers.Portfolio - british collection- Thats all the info I have.

 

Thanks fellas

post #2055 of 2466

I do not recognize this maker label, and I don't think I've seen it before. it's from a pair of Hermes made-in-Italy orphan trousers. Anybody recognize it?

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: Labels, heels and nail patterns - Secrets to ID the maker