or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Suggestions for Shoes around $200
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Suggestions for Shoes around $200 - Page 2

post #16 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbbuff View Post

With a suit, the Park Aves are best. They are fairly conservative, but not a "Dad's shoe."
I don't like the Sagamore, the Kenilworth is better, but still not nearly as good as a PA. Look at the 5th Ave as well.
The Firenze is a loafer, and not appropriate with a suit.
The Randolph is a nice shoe, but is also casual. If you want a shoe that can dress up or down, consider the McCallister or Strand
Strand
350

Wow, I'm happy for you guys to like what you like. But to me that shoe is the very definition of a 'Dad' shoe. As a matter of fact it looks pretty much exactly like a shoe my father would have worn. UGH!
post #17 of 61
We are talking about a shoe that is appropriate for business, not a shoe to go clubbing. It's all fine and dandy to say "UGH, ugly!", but not very helpful. What would you suggest the OP look at?
post #18 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbbuff View Post

We are talking about a shoe that is appropriate for business, not a shoe to go clubbing. It's all fine and dandy to say "UGH, ugly!", but not very helpful. What would you suggest the OP look at?

As mentioned many times above, AE PAs and 5As. In brown.
post #19 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdot View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbbuff View Post

With a suit, the Park Aves are best. They are fairly conservative, but not a "Dad's shoe."
I don't like the Sagamore, the Kenilworth is better, but still not nearly as good as a PA. Look at the 5th Ave as well.
The Firenze is a loafer, and not appropriate with a suit.
The Randolph is a nice shoe, but is also casual. If you want a shoe that can dress up or down, consider the McCallister or Strand
Strand
350

Wow, I'm happy for you guys to like what you like. But to me that shoe is the very definition of a 'Dad' shoe. As a matter of fact it looks pretty much exactly like a shoe my father would have worn. UGH!

AE stock photos are notoriously bad. They look much much better in real life
post #20 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by cioni2k View Post


AE stock photos are notoriously bad. They look much much better in real life


BrownShoes_Allen-Edmonds-Srand.jpg

 

1378266_270948_10150166869726455_537376454_6898178_8274847_n.jpg?1309657683

 

5414845522_50ba68ba5e_z.jpg

 

 

post #21 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by NiceGuyTom View Post



350x275px-LL-075955ac_BrownShoes_Allen-Edmonds-Srand.jpeg

350x513px-LL-6d83c1f0_1378266_270948_10150166869726455_537376454_6898178_8274847_n.jpeg

350x233px-LL-f653aebc_5414845522_50ba68ba5e_z.jpeg


icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gificon_gu_b_slayer[1].gificon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif - Love the strands. Would like to own a pair in limited edition walnut shell cordovan one day
post #22 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbbuff View Post

We are talking about a shoe that is appropriate for business, not a shoe to go clubbing. It's all fine and dandy to say "UGH, ugly!", but not very helpful. What would you suggest the OP look at?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cioni2k View Post

AE stock photos are notoriously bad. They look much much better in real life

I'm entitled to my opinion as to what is ugly and what is not, no? I believe each of us is allowed to have opinions regarding personal taste. All I'm tell you is that Allen Edmonds shoes in general look pretty much exactly like the conservative business shoes that my father and his cronies have been wearing since the 1960s. And having grown up with them and hating them that I continue to think they are simply ugly. I'm perfectly well aware that there is an entire set of people who love them, that's ok too. I'm just trying to get people to understand that when discussing matters of taste and personal choices that one needs to realize that absolute 'right or wrong' simply doesn't exist. One man's trash is another man's treasure. The poster had said they don't look like Dad shoes and they happen to look exactly like the sorts of shoes my Dad wore (as do most Allen Edmunds shoes) so I thought it would be enlightening to chime in and say so.

As for what I would recommend in a $200 shoe I have little to offer other than to suggest that I believe Allen Edmonds offers a few models with a slightly less round and 'blobby' shape and I suggest looking at those if you wish to look less old fashioned to my eye. The OP might look at the website for 'A Fine Pair of Shoes' to see what they have in his size. They often have high quality shoes at good prices.
Edited by Gdot - 1/12/12 at 4:20am
post #23 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdot View Post

I'm entitled to my opinion as to what is ugly and what is not, no? I believe each of us is allowed to have opinions regarding personal taste. All I'm tell you is that Allen Edmonds shoes in general look pretty much exactly like the conservative business shoes that my father and his cronies have been wearing since the 1960s. And having grown up with them and hating them that I continue to think they are simply ugly. I'm perfectly well aware that there is an entire set of people who love them, that's ok too. I'm just trying to get people to understand that when discussing matters of taste and personal choices that one needs to realize that absolute 'right or wrong' simply doesn't exist. One man's trash is another man's treasure. The poster had said they don't look like Dad shoes and they happen to look exactly like the sorts of shoes my Dad wore (as do most Allen Edmunds shoes) so I thought it would be enlightening to chime in and say so.
As for what I would recommend in a $200 shoe I have little to offer other than to suggest that I believe Allen Edmonds offers a few models with a slightly less round and 'blobby' shape and I suggest looking at those if you wish to look less old fashioned to my eye. The OP might look at the website for 'A Fine Pair of Shoes' to see what they have in his size. They often have high quality shoes at good prices.

So what shoe brands are you a fan of? You're completely entitled to your opinion but I hate the "blobby" argument that seems to have popped up on Styleforum for AE. Exhibit A:

Allen Edmonds Park Ave (Left) - Edward Green Chelsea (Right)

Chelsea_vs_ParkAve.jpg

Where's the blob?
post #24 of 61
The EG shoe tree is clearly quite blobby.
post #25 of 61
Well, I hate the Edward Green's just as much as the AEs in this case, in fact even more - as it is even 'rounder' in it's details than the AE. I also hate the John Lobbs with the same shape.

I just don't shop in the $200 price category to have much to offer in terms of selection. But doesn't AE offer some slightly more oval, less rounded lasts?

As for shape my current favorite makers are G&G (terribly expensive but exceedingly elegant), and C&J on the 348 last (about $500 per shoe).

G&G
187

C&J 348

547

or if you can't go that far into shapely perhaps some more like the C&J 341

520

To my eye, totally rounded toe shoes are only appropriate for streetwear and denim and just look too casual for business dress. I should add it also becomes a matter of how large your feet are in proportion to your body. Meaning longer lasts tend to look better on those with smaller feet as a general rule.
post #26 of 61
how can one brand(Bexley) entire line be ugly
post #27 of 61
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all the ideas! Considering that my work place is pretty casual, I just happen to want to dress a little more formally with slacks and shirts and sometimes a tweed or navy SC. Others even wear black trainers with their slacks and shirts or khaki's polos and bowling shoes!

 

So instead of the much recommended Park Avenues which I find very traditional (haven't worn a suit in 2 years), what do you think of the Delray in black, also wifey isn't too approving of brown shoes with gray pants.

 

I also really like the McAllister in Walnut Calf, but wifey dosen't like all those holes in it so I'm thinking of getting the Randolph which I also like.

 

They both list for $325, I'm assuming I can find them on sale closer to $200 .

 

 

 

allenedmonds_shoes_delray_black_m.jpg 20k .jpg file

 

 

allenedmonds_shoes_delray_black_m.jpg

 

allenedmonds_shoes_randolph_brown-chili_m.jpg 22k .jpg file

 

allenedmonds_shoes_randolph_brown-chili_m.jpg

Would a rubber sole shoes be more appropriate for snow and slushy weather? If so, any suggestions for a good third pair?


Edited by RingTail - 1/12/12 at 4:53pm
post #28 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by cronicmole View Post

how can one brand(Bexley) entire line be ugly

I don't see anything ugly in this

bellagio_chataigne.jpg

or

massimo_noir.jpg
post #29 of 61
OP, do you need wifey's approval for every clothing item that you buy/wear? brown shoes looks great with gray pants...and btw, those holes are called brogueing...
post #30 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by kulata View Post

I don't see anything ugly in this
bellagio_chataigne.jpg
or
massimo_noir.jpg

I think they look more elongated than they actually are. Don't buy them expecting C&J caliber of leather though. I think uprcrust has a pair, and is happy with them for what they cost. IMO suede is pretty hard to mess up, so I plan on trying their double monks soon.

Also, I actually like the look of the PA's better than the EG's in that picture.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Suggestions for Shoes around $200