or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › My visit to Loake
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My visit to Loake - Page 4

post #46 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli2012 View Post

 

Besides leather quality, the main difference would be that the C&J's sole is bevelled rather than stitched aloft, which creates a sleeker and more elegant design. 

 

Alongside AE and Meermin Loakes are the cats meow in terms of entry level shoes. For most SFers with kids and a mortgage (or those destined for it) they represent a point where bang for buck stops. 


The C&J's do certainly seem to have a more elegant appearance. Also agree wholeheartedly with the "entry level" shoe brands. They're sufficiently nice for a large percentage of the community and much easier to justify financially.

post #47 of 55

Just weighing in on this Loake versus Crockett and Jones (and Tricker's) discussion.

 

I have two pairs of Loakes in the 1880 range, and I also have as many C&Js and more Tricker's than I care to number (or that actually fit me--strange fitting shoes).

 

I think Loakes are a great value shoe, and if they made more I like I would buy more. They are not as well made as either of the other two, however.

 

One thing I would point out is that Loakes soles will delaminate fairly quickly. I don't care about this, as I do log some miles on my Loakes, but I have never seen C&Js do this, with the caveat that I have never walked a couple of miles in a pair of C&J shoes. Tricker's, however, I have put through the paces, and I have never seen the sole layers separate. Both of my Loake 1880s do. They are stitched firmly, of course, so they aren't "coming apart" but it is a noticeable difference.

 

I would add a special vote of confidence on the quality of Loake 1880 calfskins. Really good stuff that blows most other calfskins at that pricepoint clear out of the water. Sanders, not even close. Allen Edmonds, not even close. Cheaney, not that I've seen. Barker, not that I've seen. I think you have to bump up a pricepoint to find the calfskins Loake 1880 is competing with.

post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeland View Post

Just weighing in on this Loake versus Crockett and Jones (and Tricker's) discussion.

 

I have two pairs of Loakes in the 1880 range, and I also have as many C&Js and more Tricker's than I care to number (or that actually fit me--strange fitting shoes).

 

I think Loakes are a great value shoe, and if they made more I like I would buy more. They are not as well made as either of the other two, however.

 

One thing I would point out is that Loakes soles will delaminate fairly quickly. I don't care about this, as I do log some miles on my Loakes, but I have never seen C&Js do this, with the caveat that I have never walked a couple of miles in a pair of C&J shoes. Tricker's, however, I have put through the paces, and I have never seen the sole layers separate. Both of my Loake 1880s do. They are stitched firmly, of course, so they aren't "coming apart" but it is a noticeable difference.

 

I would add a special vote of confidence on the quality of Loake 1880 calfskins. Really good stuff that blows most other calfskins at that pricepoint clear out of the water. Sanders, not even close. Allen Edmonds, not even close. Cheaney, not that I've seen. Barker, not that I've seen. I think you have to bump up a pricepoint to find the calfskins Loake 1880 is competing with.

 

Most but not all of my Loake shoes have Dainite soles and I have not experienced the 'delamination' you describe. If they are leather-soled, I expect this could be down to the type of leather. Tricker's and C&J almost certainly use quite superior oak-tanned sole leather, which is more durable.

post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeland View Post

Allen Edmonds, not even close. Cheaney, not that I've seen. I think you have to bump up a pricepoint to find the calfskins Loake 1880 is competing with.
Disagree, I put AE right on par with Loake 1880s and Cheaney a bit above both (non AE independence)
post #50 of 55

To the OP - that was a most enjoyable and informative post.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post


Disagree, I put AE right on par with Loake 1880s and Cheaney a bit above both (non AE independence)

 

Agreed on AE.  I bought a pair of Loake 1880 monks to replace a pair of AE Neumoras.  Very happy with the Loakes, but there is NOTHING in the materials, finish or assembly that impress as being superior to the AEs they replaced, or indeed any of the other AEs I own.  And I would put  them below, say, Carmina, and not in the same discussion as Vass, EG and G&G (and yes, I own examples of all of the above).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wurger View Post

the Loake's standard width is F, which is equivalent to US D. But I do find it more comparable to US E. But trust me, you rather have a shoe with a bit of room than too tight.

 

Agreed - I find Loake's F-width easily closer to a US E. 

post #51 of 55
They certainly look better than AE, but that all comes down to personal opinion.
post #52 of 55
I find the calf leather better than AE, as in less course and less wrinkles.
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWraith View Post

They certainly look better than AE, but that all comes down to personal opinion.

 

Agreed - if someone felt AEs looked better, they would be just as entitled to their opinion.  I suspect I would prefer individual shoes from either brand for a given purchase decision.  And certainly I would turn to AE for shell - which I don't know that Loake even offer.

 

I find no difference at all in the quality of the calfskin between the Loake monks and the AE Neumoras.  In fact, if the Loakes hold up as well as the Neumoras did over years of frequent wear, I will be very pleased indeed.

post #54 of 55

With regard to Loake 1880 versus Allen Edmonds calfskin shoes, I like Allen Edmonds shoes very much, but I have found that they can be difficult to polish. Black "custom calft" is good enough, but the walnut grain is a real challenge. Like Cheaney, they develop these sharp crease lines. Both pairs of Loake 1880s, by contrast, polish brilliantly and crease with nice, smooth ripples.

post #55 of 55

 

Hi - I've just posted a (somewhat Loake-centric!) website on shoes, shoemaking and etc.  I've created it just for my enjoyment and interest ... and yours.  Please have a look at it and comment on it either as a post here or via the contact form on the site.  I'm especially keen to have others try out the size and fitting calculator and then let me know how well it works. The site is here http://www.alanmurray.org.uk/shoemaking/ Best wishes

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › My visit to Loake