Help Needed - Church's shoes

I have read a number of other threads here that basically BLAST Church's, partially for their association w/ Prada, and for various other reasons. I am seriously considering buying a pair of the custom grades from Sak's and I need some clarification.

I tried on Polo C&J, and A. Testoni Black Label which are both in the same price range ($550), and neither was as comfortable. I looked at Grenson in Paul Stuart, but I really want a burgundy/merlot or cordovan and I don't think they make one. I guess I can look at Santoni in Nordstrom, but I probably don't want to spend for the FAM, so I'm not sure it's worth the trip.

My issue is not that I'm concerned w/ what other people think. The Church's seem to me to be just as high quality as the C&J's , they're made (I'm told) with a single piece of calfskin, and they fit so much better than the others I've tried. I'm just worried, based on what I've read here, that I'm paying too much and I feel like I can't do ANY comparison shopping.

What else is available in Chicago? Does anyone know if the Nieman Marcus in Northbrook has mainline lobbs, or just prestige? Are those comparable prices, or much more expensive? Would they have a pair of burgundy perf-toe? It's kind of a schlep from downtown and I don't want to go if I'm not going to find what I want, or if I won't be able to afford it.

Thanks in advance!

Received my Church' shoes today. Blucher in Oxhide is great. Last 100 works perfectly for that shoe.
Eskdale captoe is not so much. Last 100 ,which seems to be the most popular in Church's line up is very reminiscent of Allen Edmkonds lasts. Granted Church's last is a bit slicker and the heel is particularly better shaped, but.... It still looks like something out of early 30s generic working stiff shoes. The welt around the shoe is not trimmed at all. Even under instep it noticeably protrudes= ugly.
The shape is not elegant. It looks very stubby and heavy in UK7F.
Perhaps last 173 is more elegant since it looks more elongated, but the welt treatment is the same, thus very disappointing.
Leather quality is very good. Smell is wonderful. Soles are thick and look durable. Overall Church's shoes look durable and old fashioned.
However I am not a 59 year old lawyer from Burbank Alabama ,so I will pass on Church shoes as I pass on Allen Edmonds .

Conclusion:
If you are looking for bluchers on a rubber sole for bad weather, go for it. If you are looking for some finesse and elegance stay away form this brand.

I ended up passing on the churches. They were linen-lined, and probably bookbinder leather. They didn't have my size and I'm kind of glad. Instead, I got a pair of TBNY monkstraps that were a little overpriced at retail, but 200 bucks less than the church's, so I didn't feel as bad.

Side note from that trip....Sak's mens store in chicago will soon be carrying JM Weston.

Weston... nice.

The main complaint I have with the Church's I've seen is that they use a lot of that bookbinder leather. It seems to be among the "best" of corrected/coated leathers, but it's still coated. Their lasts are generally more elegant and their styles a bit trimmer than AE IME, but not a lot more.

I did hear recently that they are offering more in a better calf leather. If that's true they may be a better option than before. But still probably not better than C&J IMO, especially at a discount.

Church's are nowhere near C&J in elegance.
However they are closely "related" to JM Weston from what I have seen of both brands.