Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread - reviews, pictures, sizing, etc...

[DJTraveler]

I am also looking for a loafer, thoughts?

The top one is the Dornoch. Because it is a waxed leather, I feel it is better suited for casual pants like jeans or khakis. The bottom shoe is the Westchester which I find to be more conservative with a rounder toe. I would tend to wear the Westchester with dress pants or khakis only. I think it would look a bit odd with jeans.

 

[hohneokc]



If I remember correctly, those are suede chukka-like shoes, but they didn't appear to be as structured or as tall as the Malvern. The one of the left was a very dark brown suede that did not photograph well - just looked like a black blob.
Chris

I made a mistake. The item with the Dainite sole - the Haight - is a boot that looks like the Ashbury (I should have remembered Haight Ashbury shouldn't I?). It is like the Ashbury but in brown burnished calf and has a medallion on the toe.

The unstructured chukka-looking thing is called Jodox.

I took photos of all the stuff in the catalog that isn't on the website already. Again, crappy cell phone pics, but I will upload them tonight.

Chris

 

[seer]

I made a mistake. The item with the Dainite sole - the Haight - is a boot that looks like the Ashbury (I should have remembered Haight Ashbury shouldn't I?). It is like the Ashbury but in brown burnished calf and has a medallion on the toe.

Chris

That actually does sound like a bad boot!

 

[hohneokc]



When the Dundee came out earlier this year in cappuccino shell I hesitated because I was afraid it would fit more like the Malvern (which is too tight in the toe box on me) instead of the original Dundee. By the time the feedback from the wild came in and stated fit was the original Dundee the limited run was over. Insert kicking myself in the butt here. Several people had posted that the sales were so high AE was going to release the Dundee in the fall as part of the regular line. But from what I can see those sure do like the Malvern to me. Thanks Chris!

Those chukka boots by the Daltons are the Dundee in cordovan and it shows them available in brown, black and burgundy - all shell cordovan.

Chris

 

[Quadcammer]



 I've seen shoes with less creases after two months of wearing.

no you haven't

 

[bucksfan]



I have Alden #8 and black Shell and thinking of a pair AE walnut shell. Would you mind sharing his and your assessment of Alden and AE Shell?
I have shell from Alden and AE (and C&J) in numerous models, shoes and boots.
Alden and AE each get their shell form Horween, but each adds a different finish to their burgundy and black. In the end you have:
glossy black (Alden) v. somewhat opaque black - sometimes almost gray (AE)
glossy burgundy/deep purple (alden) v. somewhat opaque burgundy/brown (AE)
If you have burgundy and black from each maker, and you make a side by side comparison (and I have), the difference in shine is rather stark (and again, some prefer a high shine (Alden) and some prefer a much more subdued shine (AE)). With respect to burgundy and black, personal preference plays into the equation. I prefer Alden's finish on its black and burgundy by a large margin, but that's just me.
Alden has 3 "exotic" shell colors (cigar, ravello, whiskey), and sometimes an additional exotic color (Color 4). AE has dark brown shell, but only in its Strand. AE from time to time offers limited runs in some other colors, as you know.
Hope this helps ....

Very nice analysis. I have noticed the same differences, but came to the opposite conclusion. I like AE's finish on burgundy and black much better -it lets the leather's natural variation come through. If you want a higher shine on your black shell, there's always kiwi.

I like the finish AE puts on the brown shell better than C&J. C&J just puts way too much polish on in my opinion.

 

[jah1961]

^ Congratz. 2 beautiful shoes to start your collection.


Just received my strands directly from AE. A bit disappointed considering "usage" of the creases and sole:



Clearly these were slightly used and/or returned. Would you guys make a fuss about this? On the other hand those creases and scratches are going to be there after I wear them anyways...just enjoy em?

I would, although they're better than what I just received from Nordstroms. The "good" shoe had a medallion (if that's the right term) that was off center, and the "bad" shoe had severe creasing/cracking, and was missing finish on the heel near the stitching. Mine will be going back - very disappointed..

 

[Winston S.]



no you haven't

My shell Strands have an amazingly little creasing given I have worn them once every week to two weeks. I got them a few months ago. This picture was shot a few minutes ago.

 

[sevenfoldtieguy]



Very nice analysis. I have noticed the same differences, but came to the opposite conclusion. I like AE's finish on burgundy and black much better -it lets the leather's natural variation come through. If you want a higher shine on your black shell, there's always kiwi.
I like the finish AE puts on the brown shell better than C&J. C&J just puts way too much polish on in my opinion.

Thank you. Personal preference and one's fashion sense no doubt play a role; as does the use to which the shoes will be put. For example, my burgundy shell AE Bradleys don't achieve nearly the shine as my color 8 Aldens, but that's okay with me - as I use the Bradley primarily - if not exclusively - in casual settings (settings in which, for me, shine isn't as much desired compared to more formal settings). In my experience, my black shell AE Cambridges do not - indeed, cannot - achieve the shine of my black shell Aldens. But again, some prefer that. It is actually nice to have these differences IMO.

And the way the shoes are treated, of course, makes a difference. My dark brown shell Strands, out of the box, were basically a dull chocolate brown (but still unique even at that). I treat them with Saphir Dark Brown Cordovan Cream Shoe Polish and they are, IMO, a much richer shade of brown with a higher gloss than before.

 

[FifthAve]

Hey everyone, I'm sorry it took me so long to provide pictures for my little conundrum here. But anyways here they are:





Pair 1:

• Really immaculate quality shoes.No blemishes anywhere
• Leather feels really sturdy
• But there is bowing in the left shoe. The left shoe feels noticeably looser than the right shoe

Pair 2:

• Very suspect construction/craftsmanship.
• But the shoes fit quite well. Neither shoe is noticeably looser than the other
• There are a lot of random black mark blemishes throughout. They didn't come off when I tried a simple wipe with a damp paper towel.
• If you look closely at the bottom right picture, the leather quality is kinda weird to me. It's hard to explain, but you can kinda see the web-like marks of the leather itself...as if the leather is kinda dry or weak or something.
• The leather DOES feel noticeably weaker and cheaper than Pair 1. I can't show it from pictures, but when I simply pressed the toe box of Pair 1 and Pair 2 with my thumbs, Pair 2 "gives in" a lot more. Pair 1 was nice and sturdy/firm

So in conclusion, I'm hoping I can get some of your guys' expert advice. Do you think I should keep Pair 1 or Pair 2? Pair 1 looks and feels like really good quality craftsmanship, but has some bowing in the left shoe. Pair 2 fits well on both feet, but the craftsmanship is extremely suspect. Which would you choose?

Most importantly, I'm just wondering if "bowing" is a major flaw that I should be wary of? It personally doesn't really bother me too much, especially since my pant leg would usually cover it. But is there something else I am missing?


Thanks everyone!

Because I'm a new member, SF didn't officially post my post until half a day when I actually posted this so I feel like I should bump this or else I don't think anyone saw it =(

 

[dancingbear]

Quick PSA for those considering MacNeils in shell. I read here that the shell ran larger than calf, but I am surprised how great the difference is.




The pictures above show the width difference between the MacNeil in Navy calf and Burgundy shell.

The shell are at least half and inch looser and that has grown some as they have broken in. The calf have 12 or so wearings while the shell only 4.

 

[spitshine123]

Quick PSA for those considering MacNeils in shell. I read here that the shell ran larger than calf, but I am surprised how great the difference is.




The pictures above show the width difference between the MacNeil in Navy calf and Burgundy shell.

The shell are at least half and inch looser and that has grown some as they have broken in. The calf have 12 or so wearings while the shell only 4.

Where are the shell MacNeils half an inch looser? The regular calf MacNeils are too tight around my pinky toe area because of the clipped toe, but seem to fit my foot well in every other direction. Perhaps this can be my solution!

 

[CalTex]

I received the replacement for the 10.5D strands today and they fit better but my heel is slipping. I am wearing a 12B, should I size down to a 11.5B?

 

[hohneokc]

Here are the rest of the pics from the new AE stuff.

Chris

 

[dancingbear]

Where are the shell MacNeils half an inch looser? The regular calf MacNeils are too tight around my pinky toe area because of the clipped toe, but seem to fit my foot well in every other direction. Perhaps this can be my solution!

I was referring to the vamp, but the toe box is looser as well. I actually bought the navy calf during the 2 for 200 sale to feel out the size before dropping the money for the shell. The toe box was snug but workable on the calf. It did loosen up as they broke in. On the shell, it was roomier and perfectly sized. I noticed that right away when I tried them on in the store.

Caveat: these are size 15, but everything is relative, right?