or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread 2016 - News, Pictures, Sizing, Accessories, Clothing, etc
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread 2016 - News, Pictures, Sizing, Accessories, Clothing, etc - Page 110

post #1636 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet-stream View Post

This is good to know! I wish Horween had shared this info with me when I called them and talked to their CXL "expert." Argh. Thanks for sharing, perhaps I'll try that next time...

 

This is the source of that info for me:  http://horween.com/101/chromexcel-2/  (toward the bottom)

 

The darkening info came from posts here on SF in the Shoe Care subforum

post #1637 of 17636
Another hearty recommendation for neatsfoot oil. I used it to rejuvenate my extremely worn Eastport boat shoes.







It darkened and evened out the old leather very nicely.
post #1638 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by smfdoc View Post
 

The picture says it all.


Schautals! YES!

post #1639 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by smfdoc View Post

The picture says it all.


Is it just me or those wingtips look like a pug?
post #1640 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by smfdoc View Post
 

 

My only experience with Santoni is in the resale of the shoe. They are certainly a nice shoe and the prices, as you have seen at Nordstrom, are not inexpensive and typically more than AE first quality. Oddly, really nice Santoni shoes, in very good condition, tend to have a very low resale value on Ebay and other sites. In many instances they are less than $100, which strikes me as odd given they are frequently over $500 new. Why? Who knows.

I don't feel good dropping that amount of coin on a rubber sole either.  Thank you for the input.  I've caught the loafer bug bad but I'm trying to keep a level head and not just impulse buy.  I will say again that those Paine loafers felt better than any of the AE ones I've tried on so far.  Still hoping there's an AE that fits me like that one did

post #1641 of 17636

On an actual AE note...my absolute favorite pair of shoes is getting their maiden voyage out in the wild today.  Little Sunday dinner at the folks' place.  

 

 

post #1642 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paniolo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by smfdoc View Post

The picture says it all.


Is it just me or those wingtips look like a pug?

Full disclosure: no pugs were harmed in the making of my shoes. Any resemblance between my shoes and any pug, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
post #1643 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCRich View Post

On an actual AE note...my absolute favorite pair of shoes is getting their maiden voyage out in the wild today.  Little Sunday dinner at the folks' place.  






Oxblood Daltons? I've got a pair on the way, in what must be the deal of the century.
post #1644 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterellington View Post


I know that loafers with suits is something of a no-no. I adhere to it pretty closely. Bit loafers—especially a black bit loafer is an awesome look with a nice sweater/scarf/light-colored slack combo, or a blazer/polo/chino ensemble. Of course...NOT with a suit. Even though I see it all the time on old money men of means walking around midtown.

But if you're gonna break a rule—“Loafer With A Suit”, you've gotta do it “right”.

You see a movie like “To Catch A Thief” with Cary Grant (a style idol of mine) in a Black Loafer with a suit and it look so sartorially right that it hurts.




WWCD?

(“What Would Cary Do?”)

Great film! Though I can't see his footwear in that pic.

In most cases one wouldn't dream of pairing a loafer with a suit except for very casual summer seasonal suits like linen or seersucker. But there are some very sleek, minimalist non-penny slippers like the Lobb Lynton or EG Royal Albert that could work, particularly in black calf.

And of course, burgundy tassel loafers with suits was a historical "uniform" among lawyers and politician types in the 70s and 80s...
post #1645 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by danwatts2005 View Post

Oxblood Daltons? I've got a pair on the way, in what must be the deal of the century.
Yes sir. Do I dare ask what the deal was??
post #1646 of 17636
Deleted due to bad formatting.
Edited by misterellington - 3/6/16 at 11:13pm
post #1647 of 17636

Thanks to fellow members here that informed me about the Brooks Brothers corporate discount, I managed to grabbed a pair of the BB-AE captoes and returned the full price Park Avenue I got two days ago. Technically they look the same but the BB fits me better width wise and saves me quite a lot. I read somewhere that BB-AE uses lower graded leather than the original AE but the leather from both pairs look and feel the same for me. Could someone shed light on this?

 

post #1648 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by smfdoc View Post
 

I recently bought a pair of Rutledges on the 333 last and I now hear it is being discontinued. Newer modules, like the Yorktown and Cornwallis, and built on the 1943 last, which is never described on the AE website with the other lasts. I brought this description omission to the powers that be and asked why the 333 was being discontinued. Mr. Grangaard responded thusly:

 

"For me anyway, the 333 had a pinch in the little toe, a long extension beyond the toes that could cause the shoe to curl a bit and to break across the captoe itself (and I could catch the long toe and trip) and it was flatter through the instep. So, essentially, it had the three problems that we fixed in the 1943. ... The 1943 should fit a 333-fitting foot as well as a broader range of feet types. That's why we re-did it. Please try it on in a Cornwallis sometime and, if you don't like it, send them back."

 

Well I don't need to be told something twice, so a pair of Cornwallis in walnut are on the way. I shall report on the fit and a comparison with the Rutledge on the 333 if appears there is any interest

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

I'm gonna call fail on this.  I get the visual linkage between the 333 and 1943, but fit-wise: no.  The 333 is my best-fitting AE last and the 1943 is, literally, my worst (disclaimer: I only have extensive experience with 6 lasts, and have tried on 3-4 others, so not all AE lasts).  The 1943 is about a half-size short and almost a full width slimmer in my experience than the 333 (that is with 3 copies of the 333 and having tried 4 different Cornwallis pairs).  The volume is also quite a bit lower in the 1943; if I could fit one, it would actually be my largest v-gap in AE shoes.  Maybe Paul G's feet are just radically different than mine, but if the above description is what they were shooting for, they missed for this pair of feet.  

 

I'd be interested to see what consumer research they have done on the 1943; opinions on this forum seem to be widely disparate.  I wanted the last to work as I love the Cornwallis design, and the above description sounds great, but it is vastly different than my experience.

 

Oh well - I hope the 1943 works better for you!

post #1649 of 17636

Ok sizing question:

 

I measure an 8.5 in heel to toe, and a 9 in heel to ball.  I am D width but borderline E in certain parts of my foot (mainly at my arch). I have a moderately high instep.  After trying various sizes for the Park Ave, I settled on 9D (which is the most common size in my closet).  They are a bit snug width-wise at my arch, and also in the instep.  However I'm assuming they will loosen up just a bit after some wear.  

 

Now I just bought a pair of McGregors in size 9D, thinking the fit would be similar to my PA's since it's on the same last.  However, perhaps due to the blucher style lacing, they fit much looser than the PA's.  I almost feel like I might need an 8.5D.  

 

Does anyone here find themselves sizing down from oxford to derby in the same last?

post #1650 of 17636
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosy View Post
 

Ok sizing question:

 

I measure an 8.5 in heel to toe, and a 9 in heel to ball.  I am D width but borderline E in certain parts of my foot (mainly at my arch). I have a moderately high instep.  After trying various sizes for the Park Ave, I settled on 9D (which is the most common size in my closet).  They are a bit snug width-wise at my arch, and also in the instep.  However I'm assuming they will loosen up just a bit after some wear.  

 

Now I just bought a pair of McGregors in size 9D, thinking the fit would be similar to my PA's since it's on the same last.  However, perhaps due to the blucher style lacing, they fit much looser than the PA's.  I almost feel like I might need an 8.5D.  

 

Does anyone here find themselves sizing down from oxford to derby in the same last?


Short answer, probably.  My brannock is similar, 8.5/8.5 pretty squarely mid D-E.  I fit best in 8E in 65 balmorals because of my instep.  Bluchers I can take a D.  I can get an OK-ish fit in 8.5D in a balmoral 65, but I generally size down a half lengthwise because I prefer less space in front of my toes as opposed to more.  I don't own the McGregor, but I think the general feeling around here is they run a bit more roomy.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread 2016 - News, Pictures, Sizing, Accessories, Clothing, etc