or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Archives › Buying and Selling (Archive) › Cool Shoes, Paraphernalia & Desiderata
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cool Shoes, Paraphernalia & Desiderata - Page 314  

post #4696 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by amerikajinda View Post
"TODAY, YOU ARE ROYALTY!"

Even comes with minor scuffs...in fine print
post #4697 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger View Post
Are they really by Edward Green (or possibly Grenson)? The finish looks like the EG antiqued chestnut color, but the heels look different (probably replacements), and the stated price of $595 seems low for EG-made shoes unless bought years ago. Interesting swan's neck treatment; I haven't seen it brogued like this before. In any case, very nice shoes that don't seem too worn to be desirable:

http://cgi.ebay.com/EDWARD-GREEN-for...QQcmdZViewItem


They are probably at least 10 years old, as EGs, and probably were @$595 when new at Paul Stuart. To confirm that they're EGs, I'd ask the seller for the size/last numbers on the inside. If it comes back as last 201 or 202, they're definitely EGs. Still, they're old and shouldn't sell for over $100. I think the heel has been replaced too, and there's probably not much left in the sole.
post #4698 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger View Post
Interesting swan's neck treatment; I haven't seen it brogued like this before.
The style is called 'Isham' (at least in EG catalogue). Roger, you decided against it last year:
http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/f...d.php?p=361172

The shoe is definitely EG; the sizing is American (I have one pair of PS/EG shoes). Made in the early-mid 90s.
post #4699 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post
The style is called 'Isham' (at least in EG catalogue). Roger, you decided against it last year:
http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/f...d.php?p=361172

The shoe is definitely EG; the sizing is American (I have one pair of PS/EG shoes). Made in the early-mid 90s.
Yeah...that does look like the Isham, doesn't it. I'd forgotten about seeing the Isham in that earlier post by Medwards. However, this Paul Stuart version has six eyelets, instead of the Isham's five, and has a toe medallion, which I believe the Isham doesn't normally have (although it could be added easily enough, of course, via MTO). Would it be safe to assume that PS asked for these small changes?
post #4700 of 14986
New EG loafers, in burgundy, size 9, for $349 BIN. Seller has 100 percent positive feedback on more than 1,000 transactions.

http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Edward-Green...QQcmdZViewItem
post #4701 of 14986
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ralph-Lauren-Pur...QQcmdZViewItem

Not like anything I've seen in EG catalog, but appear to be by EG nonetheless; 89 last.

Edit: See my comments in the next post about photographing dark brown suede. These are likely the EG mink suede and are much darker than they appear in the pics. The bottom, right picture of the heel is closer to the actual shade of brown.
post #4702 of 14986
More from the same seller as above ^^

http://cgi.ebay.com/Asprey-Brown-Sue...QQcmdZViewItem

Seller appears to have size description wrong. With the usual EG size designation of 10/10 1/2 E, they would be 10.5 D US, not the 10 E (wide) given by the seller. (At least that's how I would interpret the size--a point I'm making because of the recent debate in this thread about EG width designations.)

It's worth noting that dark brown suede (this is likely what EG calls mink suede) photographs poorly, usually appearing far lighter than it really is. In this set of pics, there is only one that comes close to the right color (bottom, left in the set of four), and even that one is a little lighter than my mink suede EGs.
post #4703 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger View Post
More from the same seller as above ^^

http://cgi.ebay.com/Asprey-Brown-Sue...QQcmdZViewItem

Seller appears to have size description wrong. With the usual EG size designation of 10/10 1/2 E, they would be 10.5 D US, not the 10 E (wide) given by the seller. (At least that's how I would interpret the size--a point I'm making because of the recent debate in this thread about EG width designations.)

It's worth noting that dark brown suede (this is likely what EG calls mink suede) photographs poorly, usually appearing far lighter than it really is. In this set of pics, there is only one that comes close to the right color (bottom, left in the set of four), and even that one is a little lighter than my mink suede EGs.


I am the photographer in question
I posted these auctions in the buying and selling section. I dont think the colors are that off, to be honest with you. That being said, they are both dark suede shoes, but I think the photos convey the color of these shoes accurately.

Also, regarding the size, I havent read the EG width designation discussion you refer to, but the shoe was purchased in the US. The shoe lists the width as E (wide), so I'm not sure your determination of a 10.5D is any better than my listing the shoe as a 10E. As a regular size US 10D in most other EGs and C&Js that I've purchased, this shoe is definitely wider than a normal width, whether the person is a 10 or 10.5.
post #4704 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger View Post
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ralph-Lauren-Pur...QQcmdZViewItem

Not like anything I've seen in EG catalog, but appear to be by EG nonetheless; 89 last.

These are called Avon and are, indeed, mink suede. I've got them too.
post #4705 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by aportnoy View Post
These are called Avon and are, indeed, mink suede. I've got them too.

Andrew, please defend my photographic skillz
post #4706 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiloVance View Post
I am the photographer in question
I posted these auctions in the buying and selling section. I dont think the colors are that off, to be honest with you. That being said, they are both dark suede shoes, but I think the photos convey the color of these shoes accurately.

Also, regarding the size, I havent read the EG width designation discussion you refer to, but the shoe was purchased in the US. The shoe lists the width as E (wide), so I'm not sure your determination of a 10.5D is any better than my listing the shoe as a 10E. As a regular size US 10D in most other EGs and C&Js that I've purchased, this shoe is definitely wider than a normal width, whether the person is a 10 or 10.5.
Sorry, Philo. I wasn't impugning your photographic skills; the fact is that almost no one (well maybe Zegnamtl can) can get dark-colored suede to look lifelike in a photograph. I think your pictures are excellent given what you're working with. If these are EG's mink suede, they will be close to the darkest color you have in your pictures.

As for size, the Aspreys have the designation 10/10 1/2E. This is the standard EG designation of shoe length: the first number being the size in the UK system, and the second in the US system. All EGs are marked this way (and even the ones they make for the primarily-US-market RLPL line are similarly marked). Thus, we'd read this as size 10 1/2 US. As for the width designation, there was recent discussion earlier in this thread in which the question of whether or not the fitting given by EG corresponded to the same width letter in the US system. Bengal-stripe (who knows a thing or three about shoes) suggested that this was the case--that is, assume that whatever letter is indicated corresponds to the same width in the US system. I (who know less about shoes) suggested, on the other hand, that this wasn't true in my own experience with EGs, and the EG customer-service rep confirmed this. That is, in my opinion, you should consider an EG shoe marked as an E fitting as corresponding to a US D-width--and so on, down the letters, so that, for example an EG C width (which I have) would correspond to a US B width. This "one letter down" rule, as we might say, applies without any question with respect to C&J and other English makers. For this reason (and I qualified this in my comments), I suggested, therefore, that a more precise size description of these Asprey shoes for the North American audience would be 10 1/2D. I don't think that there's any question about the 10 1/2 part. There might be a little disagreement about the D part, but all of my experience points to this one-letter down conversion as well.

That being said, I think these are lovely shoes (hence my flagging them in the first place) and definitely worth the $2.25 that is the current bid.
post #4707 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by aportnoy View Post
These are called Avon and are, indeed, mink suede. I've got them too.
I believe RL re-labels them the Parson. I would dearly love to find a pair in my size, in mink suede rather than the dark oak I've also seen in RL stores. Edit: The Parson does include some broguing, including a punched toecap, as in this expired auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/RALPH-LAUREN-PUR...QQcmdZViewItem
post #4708 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger View Post
Sorry, Philo. I wasn't impugning your photographic skills; the fact is that almost no one (well maybe Zegnamtl can) can get dark-colored suede to look lifelike in a photograph. I think your pictures are excellent given what you're working with. If these are EG's mink suede, they will be close to the darkest color you have in your pictures.

As for size, the Aspreys have the designation 10/10 1/2E. This is the standard EG designation of shoe length: the first number being the size in the UK system, and the second in the US system. All EGs are marked this way (and even the ones they make for the primarily-US-market RLPL line are similarly marked). Thus, we'd read this as size 10 1/2 US. As for the width designation, there was recent discussion earlier in this thread in which the question of whether or not the fitting given by EG corresponded to the same width letter in the US system. Bengal-stripe (who knows a thing or three about shoes) suggested that this was the case--that is, assume that whatever letter is indicated corresponds to the same width in the US system. I (who know less about shoes) suggested, on the other hand, that this wasn't true in my own experience with EGs, and the EG customer-service rep confirmed this. That is, in my opinion, you should consider an EG shoe marked as an E fitting as corresponding to a US D-width--and so on, down the letters, so that, for example an EG C width (which I have) would correspond to a US B width. This "one letter down" rule, as we might say, applies without any question with respect to C&J and other English makers. For this reason (and I qualified this in my comments), I suggested, therefore, that a more precise size description of these Asprey shoes for the North American audience would be 10 1/2D. I don't think that there's any question about the 10 1/2 part. There might be a little disagreement about the D part, but all of my experience points to this one-letter down conversion as well.

That being said, I think these are lovely shoes (hence my flagging them in the first place) and definitely worth the $2.25 that is the current bid.

Roger, thanks for the info. I actually didnt know this. The wider fit makes sense in light of this. I stand corrected . . . I'm not good with ebay, but perhaps I can edit the sizing information . I think I provided a photo of the sizing information, but am not sure.

My shoe collection is a bit sueded out at the moment, which is my main reason for selling these off. I'm hoping to get more than $2.25 for these, I'd like to flip the profits into part of the price for an EG Malvern III
post #4709 of 14986
Quote:
Originally Posted by aportnoy View Post
These are called Avon and are, indeed, mink suede. I've got them too.

What's the difference between this and the Eden model that RL sold last year?
post #4710 of 14986
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Buying and Selling (Archive)
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Archives › Buying and Selling (Archive) › Cool Shoes, Paraphernalia & Desiderata