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 111

post #1651 of 17648
@mosy Short answer - the 65 is just not good, plain and simple. "Best for high arches." Love that - anyway, try a balmoral on the 201 and a blucher on the 108 or 222 - don't drive yourself crazy with the 65.

But yes, definitely agree with ace, you could drop down.
post #1652 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppercorn78 View Post


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...

 

Oh, he's rocking black calf loafers there. There are a few bugs devoted to sartorial movie style—with many posts on CG's sense of style, especially between 1949 to about '62 or so. It's been noted in a few places how he willingly broke the "no loafer rule". But he put his look across with such confidence, and subtlety that it always worked.

It's good to be Cary Grant I guess. smile.gif
 

post #1653 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by nqtri View Post

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?



I know nothing, but would be highly surprised if the BB shoes were downgraded in any way (though my understanding is they mainly use the Poron insole - not sure if they have the steel shank vs. fiberglass). Different? Maybe? Lesser? Wouldn't think so.

More informed folks will weigh in I'm sure.
post #1654 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1 View Post

@mosy Short answer - the 65 is just not good, plain and simple. "Best for high arches." Love that - anyway, try a balmoral on the 201 and a blucher on the 108 or 222 - don't drive yourself crazy with the 65.

But yes, definitely agree with ace, you could drop down.

The high arches thing is funny - my McT's don't get great closure, but it is acceptable. My Rush St's are a v-shaped joke, and I've tried sizes and widths all over - a 5-last captoe bal isn't great for high-instep folks. My 5-last bluchers are fine and very comfortable, as are the McT's. The captoe...are saved for days when I know won't involve more than average walking. They are fine until they aren't.
post #1655 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by M635Guy View Post

I know nothing, but would be highly surprised if the BB shoes were downgraded in any way (though my understanding is they mainly use the Poron insole - not sure if they have the steel shank vs. fiberglass). Different? Maybe? Lesser? Wouldn't think so.

More informed folks will weigh in I'm sure.

They're identical except for foam insole and proprietary branded V-Tread sole with combo toplift.

No AE shoes use shanks of any kind.
post #1656 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppercorn78 View Post

No AE shoes use shanks of any kind.

Really? I could have sworn I recall a thread debating the substitution is a fiberglass shank here vs a steel one. Can't imagine that was the Alden thread. Sheesh - my brain is mushy. Thanks for the correction!
post #1657 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by M635Guy View Post

Really? I could have sworn I recall a thread debating the substitution is a fiberglass shank here vs a steel one. Can't imagine that was the Alden thread. Sheesh - my brain is mushy. Thanks for the correction!

No, AE has never used any shanks (except for a brief experiment in the 90s with a line called "executive"). Part of their original marketing idea was the "invention" of using a 360 degree welt to hold the shoe together, thereby eschewing shanks and making the shoes lighter.
post #1658 of 17648

I am interested in picking up my first AE shoe.  I really like the look of the Strand.  I went to my local AE store and was "sized" by the salesman.  He didn't give me much guidance so hopefully you guys can help me make a proper decision.  My brannock measurement is a 9 heel to toe and just under 10 heel to ball.  He said I was inbetween a D & E width.  He suggested I start with a:

 

9E - Very loose feeling, a lot of heel slippage when walking

9D - Still loose with moderate heel slip

8.5D - Very snug around ball of my foot, heel was locked down solid, tightness made it feel very stiff when walking.  Slightly uncomfortable.

8.5E - Comfortable, fit the ball of my foot well with minimal tightness.  Minor heel lift when walking.  If I sat down and grabbed the heel I could rock it up and down on my ankle slightly.

 

It would seem to me from this experience that my perfect size may lay somewhere between the 8.5D and 8.5E.  My questions is which of these fits is what you would typically shoot for when buying a new dress shoe?  Do I go with the tight/stiff fit shoe that locks down the heel completely with the hope that it breaks in and shapes to my foot, or is that a fallacy and the small amount of heel lift in the wider shoe is something I just have to live with to achieve a comfortable fit?  Is there something else entirely I should have tried, like an 8 EEE?  Is your collective experience with the Strand using the 65 last that people usually go down .5 size from their brannock or is it generally true to size?  Same question about the width?

 

 

Any help would be appreciated, thanks.


Edited by Shazb0t - 3/7/16 at 9:55am
post #1659 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1 View Post

@mosy Short answer - the 65 is just not good, plain and simple. "Best for high arches." Love that - anyway, try a balmoral on the 201 and a blucher on the 108 or 222 - don't drive yourself crazy with the 65.

But yes, definitely agree with ace, you could drop down.

 

Yes, should have added that the 201 fits me better than the 65, but the independence line hurts me in a  different place.  The wallet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M635Guy View Post


The high arches thing is funny - my McT's don't get great closure, but it is acceptable. My Rush St's are a v-shaped joke, and I've tried sizes and widths all over - a 5-last captoe bal isn't great for high-instep folks. My 5-last bluchers are fine and very comfortable, as are the McT's. The captoe...are saved for days when I know won't involve more than average walking. They are fine until they aren't.

 

You should try a balmoral on the 201, much more comfortable for me than the 65.

post #1660 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazb0t View Post
 

I am interested in picking up my first AE shoe.  I really like the look of the Strand.  I went to my local AE store and was "sized" by the salesman.  He didn't give me much guidance so hopefully you guys can help me make a proper decision.  My brannock measurement is a 9 heel to toe and just under 10 heel to ball.  He said I was inbetween a D & E width.  He suggested I start with a:

 

9E - Very loose feeling, a lot of heel slippage when walking

9D - Still lose with moderate heel slip

8.5D - Very snug around ball of my foot, heel was locked down solid, tightness made it feel very stiff when walking.  Slightly uncomfortable.

8.5E - Comfortable, fit the ball of my foot well with minimal tightness.  Minor heel lift when walking.  If I sat down and grabbed the heel I could rock it up and down on my ankle slightly.

 

It would seem to me from this experience that my perfect size may lay somewhere between the 8.5D and 8.5E.  My questions is which of these fits is what you would typically shoot for when buying a new dress shoe?  Do I go with the tight/stiff fit shoe that locks down the heel completely with the hope that it breaks in and shapes to my foot, or is that a fallacy and the small amount of heel lift in the wider shoe is something I just have to live with to achieve a comfortable fit?  Is there something else entirely I should have tried, like an 8 EEE?  Is your collective experience with the Strand using the 65 last that people usually go down .5 size from their brannock or is it generally true to size?  Same question about the width?

 

 

Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

Somewhat interesting as the 65 should fit pretty close to your brannock, at least with me it did (12B), although they might be a touch long.  Keep in mind that a shoe is going to have some give in the width as you wear it, while the length isn't going to change much, if at all.  If you have "moderate" heel slip, it might go away as the sole breaks in and loosens up.  How do the v-gaps look?  Whatever you do, make sure your pinky toe isn't ramming into the toe box, that is something that will NOT go away and is a sure fire way to know your shoes are too short.

 

I would look at the brannock again, keep in mind that you should be going with the the higher of the two between heel to toe / heel to ball and use that number to see your width (you can even take some pics if you want to show us). 

post #1661 of 17648
@Shazb0t once the shoes break in, the heel slippage will go away. I recommend getting the 8.5E over the 8.5D
post #1662 of 17648
@ace13x Yeah that's bs about the independence line being the sole source of 201 balmorals. Don't forget those Harry Rosen things on shoebank - bloor st, Richmond st, etc, can't remember which is which.
post #1663 of 17648
Can someone who has the cognac mct tell me how dark they are approximately? I've seem crazy variation on these - I'm considering picking up a pair if they look more like the pics online. Super dark brown wouldn't get much use in my wardrobe, plus I already have two mct already. Thanks in advance.
post #1664 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by smfdoc View Post
 

The picture says it all.

Those a great looking casual shoe. Too bad I missed them. 

post #1665 of 17648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo1 View Post

Can someone who has the cognac mct tell me how dark they are approximately? I've seem crazy variation on these - I'm considering picking up a pair if they look more like the pics online. Super dark brown wouldn't get much use in my wardrobe, plus I already have two mct already. Thanks in advance.

Go creep on @M635Guy's profile.  He has a variety of great McTavish photos.

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