Vintage Edward Green: John Hlustik's Windsor

Nice feature, Philo!

Here is a page from the mid-80s EG catalogue, showing the Windsor:

one of my fave EG designs

I love to learn about the history of particular models of shoe so thank you Philo - nice pics too. I have the London Lounge Windsor and its the shoe I enjoy wearing more than any other.

With all the negativity on the other thread about Edward Green its also worth remembering they are still making great shoes with what I think are the best leathers around ( normally!!)

...
Edited by wiimii - 9/8/11 at 8:27am

I would be surprised if you do not find the quality of their workmanship entirely satisfactory. As you obviously already know, the factory has really skilled people and I have had a few refurbs returned and always in better condition than expected. Their craftsmanship is flawless for the most part.

So far as the marks are concerned, Edward Green's polishers are REALLY good, if the marks are still there when you get the shoes back I would be really surprised. If they can't sort out the problem, nobody else can either.

What does worry me a little is the additional fee for the last. The guarantee which always used to accompany Edward Green shoes, at least the EG shoes I have bought in the past, includes the words, "Edward Green shoes should always be returned to the factory for refurbishment on the original last to ensure they retain their original shape and comfort." - meaning? Well, presumably that means that they are not going to go and ask a client returning an original EG to pay for a new last.

I would have been really surprised in the old days if they asked me to fund the manufacture of a new last, but these days nothing surprises me.

Will you be entitled to keep the last you are required to manufacture, regardless of whether you would want to or not, but it would be interesting to know whether you are required to pay for a last without also becoming the owner.

I heard, when Edward Green (the company) left their old factory in Oliver Street to move into the much smaller premises in Cowper Street, John Hlustik had a bonfire of lasts which were, back then, considered surplus to requirements and nobody could see a potential need to keep them.

One of those lasts might have been the 201 (just a guess, I do not know for certain). The company just kept a reference last (something like size 8E) and got rid of all the other production lasts. From that reference last, you can recreate that last in every size/width required. ‘Grading’ is done to pre-determined rules: If 8E has these dimensions, then 10B will have those dimensions). No big deal, the computer works it out and the new last can simply be turned, which, of course, will cost a certain amount. Now the only question remaining, who ought to pay for that.

This problem will come up every time you want a very old piece restored, be they shoes, watches, cars. Spare parts are no longer available, although they could be re-created, at a cost (which could be quite considerate if new moulds or tools need to be made, just to produce those spare parts). Probably every firm will charge you. If you want Patek Philippe to restore your grandfather’s pocket watch and they have to make an enamelled dial as a one-off, that will cost a hell-of-a-lot. They will present you with the cost, and as the customer you can either accept it or reject it.

That’s exactly what EG has done: initially they said they were unable to do the job and offered a free return of the item. Then they suggested to Philo if he was willing to pay for a reconstructed last, then the job could be done.

I believe, EG has behaved absolutely correct, giving the customer the choice.

Bengal, without tempting any adversarialism between the bloggers in this post, I do not think that we should abandon the enquiry into this issue quite so easily.

I don’t disagree with your logic posed that customised manufacturing can be expected to attract high costs, and we cannot complain at these manufacturing bills.

In this respect I agree with Bengal.

Where we part company is Bengal’s assertion that “probably every firm will charge you” <---- I disagree


I put it to you Bengal that the distinction between those who will charge and those who will not is the very basis upon which we distinguish between firms which offer a prestigious quality product to the market and those who do not.

Let us examine the terms “quality” and “prestigious”

What is the definition of quality?

Quality is traditionally defined as a product which meets certain minimum specifications including:-

(1) features which render the product aesthetically superior AND
(2) with a superior ability to perform its intended use AND
(3) a superior capacity to endure,

In other words a high expected longevity without loss of the product’s ability to be continually used AND without loss of functionality or superior aesthetic qualities despite use.


The term “Prestigious” in this respect may be defined as that illustrious reputation of a company to consistantly meet these quality requirements in the delivery of their products to their clientele.

So, a “prestigious quality product” does cost money, we agree with Bengal, and it can cost a LOT of money, exactly like Bengal says, but by definition, it should not continue to cost without losing one or more of the essential attributes of the definition of the term “quality” or the term “prestigious”

By way of example, let us assume a shoeless client who walks into John Lobb of St James and asks for a pair of shoes.

Well, one can expect complete clarity concerning prices and one can expect good service and delivery of a superior quality product.

Not only that, but one could expect that the client will be capable fo returning to John Lobb at any time in the future with the request to refurbish and I can guarantee you, nobody from John Lobb of St James will telephone you with the loser’s attitude of “sorry, we don’t have the right gear to refurbish your shoes, but we will offer to return the junk to you without charge” - 

---

I can GUARANTEE that will not happen.

I can also guarantee that John Lobb would N E V E R N E V E R E V E R ask you to pay for the manufacture of another pair of lasts. Why? Because we are dealiing with a REPUTABLE, PRESTIGIOUS COMPANY used to supplying GENTLEMEN their footwear.

But then, I can also GUARANTEE that 10 years ago you would receive the same service from Edward Green.

What is the difference? John lobb is still managed by people who understand the terms "QUALITY" "PRESTIGE" "HONOUR" "GENTLEMAN" and Edward Green have forgotten these concepts, all of which may be considered tgraditional English concepts which makes the English quality so unique and so pompously identifiable.

Sorry, but Edward Green has lost those qualities.

Now, on the topic of cost, when a shoe costs $2000.00 as opposed to a very good quality $250.00 Allen Edmonds, you would expect, at the very least, to be able to return the shoe for refurb at a future date, that it is ALREADY BUILT INTO THE LUDICROUSLY HIGH PRICE.

This is what I believe Bengal Stripe is not recognising.

I took an Allen Edmonds Boulevard from the 1960’s, a pair of shoes given as a gift to a decorated veteran of the Korean War, and Uncle of mine, and during November of last year Alice Schaut, of Allen Edmonds, contacted me to advise me that “of course we will refurbish your Boulevard” even though this shoe has not been in production I believe since the 1960’s or 1970’s.


And this is Allen Edmonds, you cannot tell me that Allen Edmonds did not have to remanufacture that old last - they would not have had one simply lying around for 50 years now would they?

I am also not expecting a call from them asking for me to pay for a new Boulevard last.

Ironically, the Allen Edmonds probably cost less than $25.oo in the 1960's!!!

So what we have here is a non-prestigious shoe company and a prestigious shoe company, Allen Edmonds and John Lobb of SJ who are both perfectly capable of meeting minimum quality standards while we all rush off and let a third pretender to the title of “prestigious” company off the hook.

The reason we are so easily letting Edward Green off the hook is because we have developed a favourable prejudice toward Edward Green because they USED to be a PRESTIGIOUS company YEARS ago and we are allowing them to take advantage of their PREVIOUS prestige as well as the current ILLUSION of quality to get away with commercial murder.

We go all hard and pompous about protecting Edward Green's product, and then we go all soft and floppy when we analyse their faults and flaws.

Let’s not get screwed by the new Edward Green and let us try, instead, to be a little more objective in the hope that we can help to maintain standards rather than participate in the decline of those standards by accepting any crap Edward Green delivers. We owe it to those on the factory floor who are being let down by those in suits and Prada outfits.

thank you for thinking of my sentiments. you're welcome.

i am wondering why you sent them for a recraft anyway, though.

fwiw, there must be different approaches in our philosophies about shoes.

Wow! £5 for a shoe last!! Bargain!


So really, they did not charge you for the last - now that is good news.

I guess it just goes to show that we need to check facts before taking a swipe at somebody - I am kind of tempted to remove my posts now.

You really must promise to post pics of the shoes when you get them back, it would be nice to see what they did with the water stains.

Chestnut is a great color, but the metal eyelets are not a major turn on. They do remind me of another Edward Green model called the Braemar




Braemar I believe came from the same era but the eyelets kind of make a really great shoe look a little ordinary, don't you think? But then, there are those who think the metal eyelets give the shoe more character. Go figure.

Check out the thistle pattern, and the Falkirk pattern on the sides of the toe, and look at the dandy shape of the foxing.

You don't see a lot of these shoes and it would be nice to see more of these styles like the Windsor or the Braemar from that era.
Edited by RockJaw - 7/16/11 at 6:55am

removal is an easy game. you will not notice after a few wearings.
Edited by fritzl - 7/16/11 at 4:01pm