What do you guys think of Loake shoes?

Hello Iroh - the link below should explain all.

http://www.styleforum.net/t/178696/loake-shoes-anybody

One more link for you:

 

http://www.whatmakesaman.net/wordpress/2008/09/22/10-classic-english-shoemakers-part-2-the-traditional-brands/

 

Scroll down a bit, you'll see a nice list of available Loake product lines. It seems that only the Design line is to be avoided :)

Didn't follow the link, but Loakes are not in the same league as C&J, G&G (which themselves aren't in the same league as C&J -- better not worse), or basically any other English maker. AE's that I've seen aren't great compared w/better English brands,so perhaps they're on par w/Loake?

Perhaps there are multiple levels of Loake, but all I've seen have left much to be desired.

He is saying that G&G is better than C&J

It's interesting that the prevailing view on SF on the ranking of shoe brands in terms of 'quality' is almost identical to their ranking in terms of price. Everyone seems to agree that Loake < C&J < G&G in terms of quality, and that is their ranking in price as well.

This might be because 'you get what you pay for,' but one could suspect that the hive mind is (to a greater or lesser degree) influenced simply by price. How many of us really have the ability to distinguish material differences in shoe 'quality'? Not as many as we think, I'm guessing.

FWIW, I own multiple pairs of 1880 Loakes and they do an admirable job of looking good and protecting my feet when I walk places. YMMV.

That pretty presumptuous (and stupid).

Shoes are probably one of the easiest items in a wardrobe to determine quality -- they're basically leather, soles, welts, and stitching. Go to a shoe store and pick up a pair of Aldens, then a pair of C&J -- there are obvious differences in finishing to the most untrained eye. Compare some EGs with C&J and again, the differences are very obvious to someone with a modicum of knowledge.

Price often does reflect quality on mass produced items because manufacturers price their wares relative to their competitors (not speaking about value btw). If one shoe company was 50% more but the exact same quality they wouldn't succeed, but if they were a slightly better quality perhaps people could justify spending the extra £££.

Scientific research suggests that expectations almost always influence judgment.

Many results from empirical studies support the idea: The ratings of professional tasters for the same wine depend on the design of the bottle and the label, for instance. The same wine gets a better rating if the design of the bottle or the label suggests a higher quality.

Judgments even depend on the illumination of the room, for it changes the color of the wine, and consequently, the judgment about the flavors. In fact, many people can not even distinguish between red wine and white wine when they can't see its color -- for instance, when both are served in a black cup. Colors are also used to change the judgments about sodas.

Another example: The effect of placebos depend on their size (larger pills have a stronger effect), and also their price (more expensive pills have a stronger effect than cheaper ones).

Overall, it makes sense to assume that you get what you expect to get. And the price you pay very much affects what you expect to get.

Even economists recognize a similar effect for nearly a century, called Veblen effect. Since Akerlof's classic paper "The market for lemons", any qualified economist knows how information asymmetry affects market outcome. In economic terms, shoes are experience and credence goods: You will only be able to determine their (objective) performance, after you bought them (and sometimes not even then).

So the concept of the "free market forces" does not really apply here.

Anyway… back on topic:

Loake's here in Europe are quite similar to Allen Edmonds in the U.S.: It's one of the cheapest option for Goodyear-welted shoes one can get here. The L1 line (and the design line, IMO) should be avoided, but the 1880 line is generally considered good value for the money.

Unfortunately, they have almost no wide fitting shoes in their regular lines, anymore.

I am more in the budget of Loake's and AE's than C+J's and G+G's. I think the leather quality of the 1880's is far better than AE's. I'm wearing mine right now and love them. I have never had a C+J anything in that range however.

Quote:

 

I picked up a pair of Loake for my father recently, he has a wide foot like a elephant and they fit beautifully!

I promise you that if you lined up a pair of Loakes, C&J Benchgrades, and G&Gs and put them in the hands of 10 totally uninformed individuals that the vast majority would indeed be able to rank them in order of quality appropriately. Yes, the differences are sometimes subtle, but they are there and I believe as long as the shoes are side by side most anyone could make the determination.

Now, in the real world and actually on the foot the waters will get a little murkier. In this context a shoe can easily be perceived as more, or less quality than it actually is. Although even here I doubt that very many would not be able to see the difference between Loake and G&G. Although many could probably not determine that Loake was lesser than C&J or that C&J is lesser than G&G.

As far as being simply presentable you probably have a very accurate point in that all of these brands would probably be quite passible in all but the more exclusive environments as long as they are well maintained.

I agree on most of what you are saying except the "on the foot" part. If you are talking about a third-party observer, then I agree. However, actually wearing different quality shoes does have a different feel.

No doubt!

And of course, not to be forgotten is quality vs diminishing returns on cost. Something might be better, but it's a matter of degrees or improvement and how much it costs to attain that higher quality.

Everyone has their limit to what is "good value" compared to the quality they receive.