St. Crispin's Appreciation Thread

[Mr. Pink]



I believe its commonly known that lower quality leather can be used for black shoes than for other colors, because as color gets lighter, imperfections become more apparent. This would be an acceptable practice for mere cosmetic imperfections that are concealed when dyed black. However, its anybody's guess how the manufacturers act in practice.

I like the idea that St Crispin's build shoes in the "handmade" manner, but judging from the many many pictures I've seen and the ones I've seen at Leffot, the leather generally does not look as nice to me as what you usually see in EG. It looks a bit crinklier or looser, EG sturdier and smoother. Individual shoes may vary.

I don't own any black St. Crispin's shoes but my experience is that the leather they use is as good as or better than any. I've owned EG, don't now, and own both G&G and Anthony Cleverly in addition to St. Crispin's and Santoni FAM limited editions. I'd put EG leather quality ahead of G&G but slightly behind St. Crispins and Cleverly.

 

[RogerP]

Frankly, given what I do know about the brand, I find the suggestion that St. C. would opt to use lower quality leather on their black shoes quite preposterous.

And as for leather quality being inferior to EG? No freaking way. And I say that as a huge fan and multiple owner of EG shoes.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]

Please note that I have not suggested that they do use worse leather for black. Just saying I've heard that it is an existing practice for some makers, and in the context of cosmetic issues. I think it may be more of an issue with shell cordovan, where it is hard to find pieces appropriate for the lighter colors.

 

[tchoy]



You going to pick it up after this weekend? visiting Karl on sunday

I am sure about this weekend Karl said he is still polishing it. Are you picking up or ordering?

Tchoy - wow, what a spectacular shade! Copious pics when you get them, please, and congrats in advance.

Thanks Roger! I will definitely post photos when I get them.

I
@tchoy
- what color is that? burgundy?

No too sure the colour number but it's burgundy but I ask for darker antique finish.

ah....the wait

You'll know that feeling well.

 

[wurger]

Ordering mate, so I will have a peek

 

[sstomcat]



I don't own any black St. Crispin's shoes but my experience is that the leather they use is as good as or better than any. I've owned EG, don't now, and own both G&G and Anthony Cleverly in addition to St. Crispin's and Santoni FAM limited editions. I'd put EG leather quality ahead of G&G but slightly behind St. Crispins and Cleverly.

Andwhat about Santonis LE?

 

[sstomcat]



   So do I but will take it a step further to label it woefully uneducated through first hand experience & yes, I do own both brands.

OP is saying what he thinks based on his observations and voicing his opinion. Try to develop a inclusive mindset and respectful of other peoples paradigms bcoz no matter how smart you think you are I know there are things that you don't know.

 

[sstomcat]



I don't own any black St. Crispin's shoes but my experience is that the leather they use is as good as or better than any. I've owned EG, don't now, and own both G&G and Anthony Cleverly in addition to St. Crispin's and Santoni FAM limited editions. I'd put EG leather quality ahead of G&G but slightly behind St. Crispins and Cleverly.

Frankly, given what I do know about the brand, I find the suggestion that St. C. would opt to use lower quality leather on their black shoes quite preposterous.

And as for leather quality being inferior to EG?  No freaking way.  And I say that as a huge fan and multiple owner of EG shoes.

Please note that I have not suggested that they do use worse leather for black. Just saying I've heard that it is an existing practice for some makers, and in the context of cosmetic issues. I think it may be more of an issue with shell cordovan, where it is hard to find pieces appropriate for the lighter colors.

There is definitely more to leather quality judgement other than based on observations, ownership, reputation etc. To me these are all anecdotal unless one really works with the leathers or puts it under the microscope. I dont see anyone mentioning the reason as to why they think one is superior than the other...

 

[RogerP]

Yeah, right. Nobody can have an opinion on leather unless they put it under a microscope. Sure. I buy that. Yep.

 

[SoGent]

So do I but will take it a step further to label it woefully uneducated through first hand experience & yes, I do own both brands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie

You're saying this nonsense in response to something as benign as my statement:
"...judging from the many many pictures I've seen and the ones I've seen at Leffot, the leather generally does not look as nice to me as what you usually see in EG. It looks a bit crinklier or looser, EG sturdier and smoother. Individual shoes may vary."

Notice how clear I am in saying that that is how it looks to me.

Is your self worth so tied to your shoes that you are touchy about any criticism or opinion of your favorite shoes? Dickhead.

P.S. I am a potential StC customer, if and when any of my current rotation is replaced. Likely to try StC and Vass.

I want to offer you an apology yuppie.
Not that it's mitigating, but I had just finished handing out some ass chewings to a couple of employees this morning just before my post.
Their excuses for not following through on verbal and written instruction re: how to handle a problem we are dealing with for a client
were so dismissive I was too hot under the collar to interact with another human being . . . . but I did it anyway.

I'm sorry my post was that harsh. You see what you see and interpret accordingly. Personally, I've never seen any St C leather or finish that
could come close to substandard when compared to any other brand on planet earth. That's my experience and not yours.

I would like to ask one concession from you though. Could you reclassify my title to Prick from dickhead ?
I'm being completely selfish with the request but it would jive with the nickname a couple of my employees are using.
I can answer to one calling and not be conflicted between work and Styleforum titles that way. Ima stfu now.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]

Wow, classyness. Accepted and I take back dickhead.

 

[SoGent]

Wow, classyness. Accepted and I take back dickhead.

& the new job title ?

 

[PCK1]

Let's get this thread back on track...

I think my next pair of StC will be a boot/chukka or a double monk.

In terms of models...for the double monk its the 505...though if they came out with a style similar to the JLP chapel/G&G oakham I might go for this.

For a boot/chukka....well RogerP's #524's were def gorgeous...or the 401, 548, or 605.


Or maybe I should just kill 2 birds with one stone and go for the Model #585 double buckle boot or #541 double buckle chukka


I'm really liking the burgundy colors I've been seeing from StC recently too...so this color is in consideration. Or a blue...and I have to admit that aubergine wholecut I keep seeing is beautiful...I think they call the color viola.

Or of course a nice brown.

 

[SoGent]

I have the 505 and luv it. the only other monk I would obsess over is if JLobb brought their Vale model back.
585 is interesting, without some of the contrast stitching I've seen but cannot see a chukka being any better than RogerP's # 524 example. wholecut viola would be a keeper.

and add the 548 boot this fall

 

[HRoi]

The newest Jermyn is close enough to the Vale as to make no difference to me, and I believe you might still find those for sale.

St C monks are not for me, I find that I like their oxfords and single/two eyelet derbies, but not so much their boots and monks