Why get an Uetam Loafer when you can get a "Rust Mule" from Andrew McDonald for even more money?
You guys obviously have NO taste!
EDIT: Let it be noted that these are advertised as men's shoes. No amount of goodyear welting, aniline dying or hand finishing of either the Northampton (UK) or Koh Samui (Thailand) variety is going to convince me to wear a pair of these mules.
[/quote] Misinformation is unintentional, as opposed to disinformation and "Not bad" is synonymous with "good", unfortunately.
But come on, AM shoes are just pure phugly. If we can't agree on the idea that most people (particularly SF) hate that particular last/shape, then we will never reach common ground.Perhaps it is SF groupthink, and I'm sure many in the general public think AM shoes are the good stuff. Similarly, many Aussie guys think Aquilla shoes and elf shoes are the pinnacle of menswear. I beg to differ.
And if you can't admit that City II's are pretty sweet-as, then we will never agree. Don't hate on quar, just cuz he has some awesome shoes.
The question has never been about the looks, for that I can agree with you and have stated so previously. It's the same for Crocs, Prada's highboy shoes or any other fashion forward, but there's obviously a market for butcher's shoes and the whole 'drape' phenom.
I personally wouldn't but City IIs because they don't suit my age but I own JL and admitted they are good quality.
Regardless, it appears that nobody actually knows how AM makes his shoe, nor do we know what materials he uses. Even though they are modern clogs (for men?), we (SF) don't know how well/poor they are made... or do we? Which is what I've been asking for.