or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Mod to Suedehead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mod to Suedehead - Page 1176

post #17626 of 18733

*

 

From the Northern Soul facebook page, very ironed jeans!

post #17627 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by con man View Post
 

How much were Royals back then? I would imagine very expensive.....could people really afford a pair on weeks wage? and if mummy was to buy her little Skinhead son a pair, I would think mummy would be quite well off......My Dad only worked for the GPO/ BT and I know what he would tell me to do, if asked for a pair of expensive shoes, that he wouldn't be able to afford for himself!!!

I like Loakes, they are decent quality at a decent price......I have always said.... it not what you wear, it's how you wear it and hold yourself.....some people can afford an Armani Suit, but look like a sack of shit....others could wear a sack of shit and look the dogs bollocks!!!

I agree with a lot of the recent posts about Loakes,I have 3 pairs and I find them very comfortable and a good price for what you get so I agree with con man.

 

However that reasonable price comes by using corrected leather and getting more shoes from a piece of leather so I agree with Mr Knightley.

 

Loake have chosen their position in the market and as Lasttye has pointed out they are hundreds of pound cheaper than Churchs,so is it really right to compare the two ? its a bit like saying that an Aston Martin is better than a Ford Focus.

 

I think that the Loake 771 plain is the same as the Royal but without the brogue pattern ? you can get them for about a £100 if you look about surely pretty good value.

 

I am quite lucky at the moment that I am not on a budget ( it hasn't always been so and life could change again ) but I do look at price when I am buying and think how much I will wear something.

TBH I wouldnt pay over £275 perhaps for shoes,Cheaney and Allen Edmond will still be within that price so you can still get something with good quality and heritage.

post #17628 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post



This is only a few years later. But this is the way I first remember it. The rot had well and truly set in by then, but there were still some pretty decent clothes, record shops left (with actual Mods and Skins working in them). The flea market was still there in the late 70s/early 80s. There were some original old-stock shirts in the flea market, that were obviously bankrupt stock from shops on the main street, that had long since closed. You could half-inch stuff (not implying I did) as it was so dark and dingy, and you could duck out through the back service entrance (so I've been told). It was well past it's prime by my day, but there were still some young Londoners going there to buy clobber and tunes. There were still a few characters about. The big Skin with the massive spider's web tattoo on his face springs to mind. He was always there. Always frightening. He might well have been a real sweetheart in reality. But it didn't stop the apocryphal tales being told in hushed tones about him and his exploits; "Did you hear ? Spider beat up seven coppers single-handedly, Then he nicked their van and run them over." Undoubtedly all BS.

"Donis" was the Boutique where I bought my first pair of Mod "Hipsters" in `64,along with other bits-like a white Belt .....smile.gif
post #17629 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turn it Up View Post

*


From the Northern Soul facebook page, very ironed jeans!

Buttons gets everywhere !!!! smile.gif
post #17630 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Vaughan View Post

Shirts.

Bear with me folks, I know it's the Daily Mail (spit), but Guy Walters does have a point - or two - to make.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2598502/Why-mens-shirts-today-fall-apart-30-washes.html

Ed

Ed,not everybody reads the Guardian,Mate...smile.gif
post #17631 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by cerneabbas View Post

I agree with a lot of the recent posts about Loakes,I have 3 pairs and I find them very comfortable and a good price for what you get so I agree with con man.

However that reasonable price comes by using corrected leather and getting more shoes from a piece of leather so I agree with Mr Knightley.

Loake have chosen their position in the market and as Lasttye has pointed out they are hundreds of pound cheaper than Churchs,so is it really right to compare the two ? its a bit like saying that an Aston Martin is better than a Ford Focus.

I think that the Loake 771 plain is the same as the Royal but without the brogue pattern ? you can get them for about a £100 if you look about surely pretty good value.

I am quite lucky at the moment that I am not on a budget ( it hasn't always been so and life could change again ) but I do look at price when I am buying and think how much I will wear something.
TBH I wouldnt pay over £275 perhaps for shoes,Cheaney and Allen Edmond will still be within that price so you can still get something with good quality and heritage.


About 10+years ago(when I returned from Cyprus),I bought a pair of Alfred Sargent`s Smooth Gibsons.They have lasted me well-and they did not break the Bank.
post #17632 of 18733
To go back to the subject of Parents buying their Kids Royals,they certainly did.I remember going past a Senior Boys School and youths of 13/14 coming out with Royals with their School Uniforms on.To me that was when the rot really set in.
post #17633 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post
 

This is only a few years later. But this is the way I first remember it. The rot had well and truly set in by then, but there were still some pretty decent clothes, record shops left (with actual Mods and Skins working in them). The flea market was still there in the late 70s/early 80s. There were some original old-stock shirts in the flea market, that were obviously bankrupt stock from shops on the main street, that had long since closed. You could half-inch stuff (not implying I did) as it was so dark and dingy, and you could duck out through the back service entrance (so I've been told). It was well past it's prime by my day, but there were still some young Londoners going there to buy clobber and tunes. There were still a few characters about. The big Skin with the massive spider's web tattoo on his face springs to mind. He was always there. Always frightening. He might well have been a real sweetheart in reality. But it didn't stop the apocryphal tales being told in hushed tones about him and his exploits; "Did you hear ? Spider beat up seven coppers single-handedly, Then he nicked their van and run them over." Undoubtedly all BS.

Remember being taken down there as a kid by aunts, shopping for clothes around 68-70. And then the early to mid 70s, its nadir, the Jam even sung about it  .                          

At a later stage, 77 onwards, I never used the place, many of us associated it either with a very much younger crowd or because the shops sold, in the main, poor quality, mass market appeal stuff. I suppose at least it wasnt Leicester Square though with it 'residents' of glue sniffers!

post #17634 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post
 

Some good points about throw-away culture in that article. Quite unlike the Mail say that some Far East-sweatshop produced shirts are just as well made as pricey ones from the West End.

I was expecting; 'Shirts are rubbish nowadays. The old black ones were much better.'

I try and buy new-old-stock pre mid 70s shirts when I can. They are better in overall quality. Even the mass-produced, cheapo ones.

 

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:  Classic!!

post #17635 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Vaughan View Post

Shirts.

Bear with me folks, I know it's the Daily Mail (spit), but Guy Walters does have a point - or two - to make.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2598502/Why-mens-shirts-today-fall-apart-30-washes.html

Ed

 

When I started 6th form I bought 3 white oxford weave Ben Sherman's to go with school uniform. I was still wearing them 10 years later. (No, not with school uniform!)


Edited by roytonboy - 4/8/14 at 12:34am
post #17636 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasttye View Post


I paid just under £8 for Royals....My wages as a 15 year old in 69 was £11, So the shoes was near a weeks wages for me, Loake was just under half that price, Some parents would buy those shoes for their Kids....London back then had plenty of money ...and Cockneys was flash...and Cockneys was generous....smile.gif


Another thing some people are smart , some people think they are smart, and some people have not a clue....I do agree about the Armani suit ...biggrin.gif

thanks for clearing that up Lasttye, 

I guess you are right, there was more money around back then and little unemployment. And London has always had more money than the rest of the country.

Just looked at average wages in the UK, in London it's about £650, in Cardiff about £450, so I guess an average wage across the UK, would probably be around the £500-£550 mark.

You say you spent around 3/4 of your wage as a Londoner, so I'm guessing, (my maths is shit) that equates (my English is shit) to around £480 in todays terms.

 I love my kids very much, but bollocks to me paying that kind of money for shoes for them when they were teenagers, luckily for me they are in their 20's now and paying their own way.

It's funny how times change, just 14 years after you were earning £11, I was earning £25 per week and giving my parents £10 of it, I'm not 100% sure, (my memory, not as good as yours), but I reckon Doc Martin boots were somewhere around the £25- £30 mark, in 1983, it would have taken me at least 2 weeks to save up for them, but in reality a lot longer, what with, paying out on going to football, ciggys and beer.

 

and definetly agree........some people do think they are smart, when they look at themselves in the mirror or see a photo of themselves, they must think wow, look at that sharply dressed fellow.........but I guess it's all down to the eye of the beholder, I know of one or two people like this, but little do they know, a lot of people take the piss out them.

post #17637 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Vaughan View Post

The caption said Dublin, 1973 - I reckon it has to be before that.

http://www.thejournal.ie/mods-rockers-ravers-and-skinheads-dublins-street-style-captured-on-film-271301-Nov2011/#slide-slideshow4


With all due respect to our Irish brethren, they weren't exactly bang up-to-date with the fashion elsewhere on these islands. I'm not surprised by the 1973 tag.
post #17638 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basset View Post
 

I had a pair of Loakes royals and a pair of there loafers, i wouldn't say they were terrible shoes, just not comfy for me ( no give ),

Church's, Alden, Royals etc are in a different class, but that comes at a price, unless you go down the 2nd hand route.

 

The Loakes smooths look ok to me, but i've not owned a pair so cant comment on what there like to live with.

I managed to get hold of a pair of Royals, fantastic shoes which sadly i had to let go ( to narrow )


I replaced them with these, virtually indentical, and not far short in terms of quality with the Royals


Thanks to a good mate, i've got a pair of Royals loafers


Back to Flyfronted question regarding smooths, not sure if Jones the bootmakers are doing a smooth at the moment, but if they are i'd snap a pair up,

picked these up a short time ago, the quality of there shoes never fails to impress me.

I have a pair of Jones wingtips that look the part - ill pop into Jones today .. thanks .

post #17639 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by cerneabbas View Post


I think that the Loake 771 plain is the same as the Royal but without the brogue pattern ?

A discussion for the other thread? The 771 fits a half size smaller than the brogue royal for the same size according to the younger bloke in Discount Shoes so something else is going on there (even thicker insoles might do this I think). I agree that the seam on the inside of the foot makes the 771 look a bit 'busy' from that angle but it is less noticeable on the black than on the oxblood.

So here is my chance to reminisce. First time I saw a skinhead I was with my mum on the bus home from primary school around 1970. He could have been anything from 12 to 20 and was wearing crombie, grey stapress, oxblood or cherry red boots. He jumped on as the bus moved off from a stop, quickly followed by a policeman! As he was led from the bus the women referred to him as a skinhead and I knew I wanted to be like that. I wore monkey boots and surfer jacket around then (thanks mum!) - I think we knew them as football jackets as they were supposedly in football colours, but surfer jacket rings a bell too. I wore a succession of three of them aged 7, 8, 9 so must have worn them into 1973 or so - blue with maroon piping (West Ham), orange with black piping (Wolverhampton), light blue with darker blue(?) piping (Manchester City). Trevira is another word from this thread that rang a bell, but from where? Just remembered last week that I was babysat now and then by a couple of sisters of around 15 from a few doors along who wore those long coat and short skirt outfits - another formative moment. Across the road from us were two brothers who cut down their scooters and painted them yellow! Aged 11 I went to secondary school and, with my mouth, started hanging around with the fifth years who were all bootboys, crombie and boots but with the beginnings of those nasty 70s mullets, cropped on top to begin with before the dreaded centre parting took hold. I never went with that but went with a too short for the mid-70s caesar cut with strangely pre-Weller side partings that got me labelled as a punk aged 13/14, which suited me fine as I hated flares and Pink Floyd. From there I went to schoolboy mod then 2 Tone 'rudeboy' then proper skinhead as I knew I always would.
Edited by covskin - 4/8/14 at 6:21am
post #17640 of 18733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasttye View Post

I paid just under £8 for Royals....My wages as a 15 year old in 69 was £11, So the shoes was near a weeks wages for me, Loake was just under half that price, Some parents would buy those shoes for their Kids....London back then had plenty of money ...and Cockneys was flash...and Cockneys was generous....smile.gif


Another thing some people are smart , some people think they are smart, and some people have not a clue....I do agree about the Armani suit ...biggrin.gif

Got my first pair from Timpsons - black then brown - and paid £6.15s for them.

Somewhere back in this forum, someone even posted a pic of the Timpson loafers from that time, which had a little buckle-type affair, almost with a nod to Gucci's iconic loafers. (Though not the quality.) shog[1].gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Mod to Suedehead