post #76 of 76
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
Crust leathers always look cheap, imo. I would never order shoes made out of crust leather.
These G&G look exactly like their RTW models . I don't like that duck-beak toebox. As far as construction is concern it's a shame that 900 dollar shoes are made with so little care for finish. Look at the welts around the instep quarters. Look at the point where heel attaches to the sole.
Sloppy.
As sloppy as C&J handgrade but for double the price.

I think crust leathers can look great. Certainly out of the box these were wonderful to behold. I like the depth of colours that is typically cchieevd with a crust leathetr. Althogh I note that the polishing process can also yield a beautiful result with analine leathers as well.

After a few (six or so) wearings of my Rothschilds, but for a few scuffs on the heel caused by the escalators on the London Underground they still look very near to new. I have applied cream to them after each wearing and have only plished them once - yesterday. They do crease when I wear them... don't all shoes? The cracking of the polish in the high flex areas can be done away with to some extent by the use of cream rather than polishing. Works for me. Dean Girling noted that crust leather is "high maintenance" and needs a lot of attention to keep looking good.

As for a comparison with C&J handgrades made by . I do have a few pairs of thos eand they are great shoes. However, not nearly as good in terms of fit as the G&G shoes I have. The overall shape of the C&J handgrades is not bnearloy so elegant, the heel lower and wider. C&J are good shoes but not in the same league as G&G.

As for the look. Thanks for your opinion on the last shape. I like em though. I deliberately didn't want a shoe that I will feel more comfiortable to wear when I am say 50 or 60. i want to enjoy a younger style while I can pull it off. J