Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by watchidiot, Feb 12, 2016.
I think those might fit my 10.5 B feet, but I don't think they're shell.
They look pretty sweet though. I guess the question is whether a pair that old is going to wear well - is the cork footbed dried out, is the stitching frail, etc.
Anyone know how old these things are? Do the codes inside the shoe give you clues like Alden's do? I'm guessing those are a solid 25+ years old just based on the graphics, though I know nothing about AE's history when it comes to stuff like that. Just the look alone says 60's/70's to me and I'm guessing they were slow to change...
I'm starting to have some doubt. I look at the pictures and think "got to be shell", then I go back 10 min later and think "maybe not."
The box graphics do intrigue me.
They don't have the dovetail heel. (Did AE previously do shell without it?) And, this close-up view of the texture of the surface of the leather makes me think not shell:
I'm no shell expert, so let me know if I'm wrong....
Those look amazing, and he only wants $85 for them.
Have any of you wanted a shoe so bad that you bought one a full size larger than your usual size to see if it would work?
If I were to guess, these were probably from the 70s based on what I've seen from other vintage shoes and some time spent perusing the AE catalogs on issuu. Look to be CG to me.
Received my order this week. The McTavish seconds has one minor cosmetic defect and some tiger striping but the biggest issue seems to be bowing at the ankle. May be partially how the last fits my foot (although I tried a 5 lasted shoe at Nordstrom that seemed ok) and also because they have likely sat for a while. I applied some conditioner and put in shoe trees, will see how they fit in a day or two. I really like the McTavish style/color and there are very few left so I may simply have to decide if it's something I can live with.
The dark chili Strand firsts are gorgeous, although too loose when bar laced.
Yes, but usually with regret and commitment not to repeat that blunder.
I bought them for $60 and they probably will be a little long and a little narrow for my size 10.5 B feet. Oh well....
Now have both colors of $107 Freiburgs in size 15, which were never offered as firsts above size 14.
Thank you ShoeBank!
^ The Shoebank is a curious thing.
It's the only place that I can go to try on a pair of shoes in my size (non-D width). And yet, shoes are purchased at a discount there.
Maybe if they started carrying B-width shoes in the regular retail stores they could sell shoes for full price.
A pair of rare Bleecker Street boots at the Rack. To bad they weren't my size. I would have liked them better in brown too.
My heel started to separate so I had local cobbler attach new heels. Also shined these. They used Urad creme which I have never heard of. They are definitely more shiny than before.
I have Lincoln neutral shoe polish and Venetian Shoe Cream at home to use. Which would be best for these of VSC, Lincoln Neutral Polish, or Urad neutral/clear creme?
EDIT: I found a helpful urad thread on the forum so nevermind.
Bought Merlot Hopkinson during the memorial day sale at an outlet store for $299 ($100 off). Toe box looks slightly out of shape. Is it just me trying to find a defect or is it crooked? I don't see any other defect. Should i keep it or return it and buy the Strands in Merlot. I love the soft leather material both outside and inside.
Separate names with a comma.