Quote:
Originally Posted by
imolazhp_ci 
you're absolutely correct.
though i'm not speaking expressly about cordovan. i would never own a cordovan dress shoe. i think the shine is tacky/cheap looking in a formal setting. IMO, calf looks far more elegant on a proper black balmoral.
there are also far better constructed shoes than alden, i own 5 pairs of alden's, 2 john lobb's, 1 church's, and two crockett's. far and away, they are all constructed more precisely and to a higher standard than alden. of my 5 alden's... 3 have had factory damage. one a tear in the brogueing, loose threads, gaps in the heel tap, etc. i don't love them any less, for the stuff they are good at, they are the best... custom make ups, boots, etc.
on the flip, no boot looks as good as a sleek cordovan boot. cordovan looks fantastic on a penny (LHS) or nearly any loafer for that matter.
I will not dispute that there are likely better constructed shoes than Alden but Alden falls right at about the limit for what I am willing to spend for footwear, and, more importantly, I like the chunkiness of most of the Alden lasts - it fits well with my personal style (my go-to English shoemaker is generally Tricker's, which I find often has a similar aesthetic in terms of shape).
Regarding shiny shoes looking cheap and tacky and not appropriate for a formal setting, I feel the exact opposite of you and I think tradition and conventional wisdom probably feel differently than you as well. Just look at formal opera slippers/pumps, patent leather, or formal shoes for military dress - always shiny. I'm not saying that calfskin is inappropriate or that cordovan is, just that shiny shoes are not inappropriate, tacky, or inelegant by any stretch. The degree of shininess can vary, but they should still have a definite shine to them.
That's just my 2¢
