Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Mild Mannered, Sep 27, 2009.
I think the shell McAllister is pretty hot.
I work in a law firm that's suits 24/7/365, so formal is not a bad thing. Decisions...
only in D width and above
Isnt that just called the Cambridge? I think the Cambridge is pretty remarkable.
Agreed. I actually see wheeling on the welts of the Mcgraw and the Mcallister--a very, very nice touch. I truly wonder if they are limited to the widths listed since all of them are MTO. I need a B width in all three but the listings only show D and wider.
fffuuuu indeed! Would love to get these in my C width size...
You can always ask for MTO in "C" width. AE may be willing to make them for a price . . .
These just look awful. Wouldn't ever put them on my feet.
Thank gawd I'm not the only one who thinks this. Those Parson's shoes are just awful. The only one that even seemed like a half-decent idea in concept is the boot with the spat-like front piece. But it looks crappy in real life.
Absolutely. The blucher lacing is much more forgiving for wider or high volume/high instep feet. I could never wear the #5 lasted Park Ave., for instance due to a slightly wide and high instep 11-ish feet. An 11D is too snug as its a bal while the 11E is too wide. However, the same #5 last on the Kenilworth blucher fits perfectly.
Another example is the Alden barrie last which fits great in 10.5D. I was trying to confirm my size but they didn't have a LWB or PTB in stock. She tried to tell me that a barrie lasted balmoral (saddle shoe) would be the exact same fit as the barrie lasted LWB. I tried to explain the difference but she was insistent. I didn't buy anything from her .
Agreed. It's very tempting but since I have two AE brogues in rotation now, Macneil in burgundy shell and Tresana in cabernet brown. While both are bluchers, I'd probably be better served with something else. The shell chukka is calling to me. I always loved the Alden shell chukka but they don't fit me very well. I wonder if the additional eyelet makes a difference. I always kind of figured it was the fact that the alden chukka only had two eyelets that contributed to the poor fit on me (and several others given the number of fit issues listed in the alden thread).
The McGraw loafer is also looking pretty good. I have an unwearable pair of Westchester loafers in walnut that just don't fit great. I ought to sell them and move on. Incidentally, I've never purchased pre-owned shoes or sold any of my own. What's a fair price for a nicely shined, fairly new, excellent condition pair of factory 2nds walnut Westchester loafers?
I agree - I like the double sole on the Cambridge vs the single on the McAllister - but the Cambridge is not available in that dark brown shell...
I am considering the new McAllister, but already have the brown shell Strand... actually, I'm wearing them today, to help me make the decision on whether to get the McAllisters, or just stick with the Strand + MacNeil and maybe get the Cambridge or Dundee instead.
Check the 'Bay for sold items. My starting price is usually 1/2 what I paid for them new.
Here's me in my Strands today:
Those creased really nicely on you.
A few pics of my new macneils in burgundy shell. My first shell shoes and the macneil won out over the Alden LWB. I took advantage of the $499 sale price this week. I love the versatility. These were taken just this am with chinos (Bill's Khakis M2) but they work just as well with worsted wool or flannels & a sport coat. I've worn them for a couple of hours on Wed and Thurs. Haven't even brushed yet.
I just called AE and talked to 3 people there but bottom line is no, they can not have custom soles on the order. She also said the Limited Edition is only available through the Web and not wholesale like the Military Exchange but I'm going to submit a request through anyhow and see if it flies.
The $199 specials like the Malvern, both Bayfields and Fifth Street all have limited sizes available on the web site. Of course my size is not available for any of them go figure.
Separate names with a comma.