Antonio Meccariello Shoes

[dalevy]

Haha nice try trying to drag me into this. I like them both, but I think you guys are still answering different questions. Stylistically, I can appreciate both AM and EG, just like one can appreciate an English suit and an Italian suit. One is stiffer, less curvy, etc., but no less valid. AM's waist shaping and welting is...well, sex in shoe form. I can also appreciate the burnishing/polishing differences. EG is flatter, the burnishing just so on the toe and heel (although it appears that AM can do a more English style based on a couple of his IG pics, maybe I was just not explaining it right). I like the waxy feel and the softness of Utah grain but I have no clue if it comes from the best part of the hide or not. If AM could source it, I would use it for sure, but I don't think he can. I could go on, but all of this is subjective. Fit wise, whatever, that's subjective, but I like that AM will make me a shoe on my personal last in whatever design I want and in whatever color I want (mostly, anyways, I cannot really get the nuances of color across all that well in an e-mail), and it'll cost me less than EG (this is probably why I will never buy EG full price or even on sale again). As for the harder quantitative measures of "quality," or "best," I'm honestly not the right person to answer this. I understand the differences between handwelting and GYW. It's secondary to subjective measures like fit and maybe other things like color/design and in particular the proportions of various shoes/burnishing, etc. If I could get a shoe made on my personal last using GYW or Argentum welt for less money I probably would. I'm a middle of the road kind of guy so I'd probably pay a little more for Argentum because I can also appreciate craftsmanship/ingenuity but am not made of money. But that's just me. I also can't tell the difference between the best cut and the third best cut or the difference between a hide reserved for Hermes and one that is left over, but I haven't seen any of that side by side. I can tell the difference between AM/GG/EG on the one hand and Carmina on the other because that's what I have. But I'm not going to be able to spend the money on an Aurum shoe (okay, maybe one in my lifetime) to find out.

@ThunderMarch - Clearly you have biased opinion about some makers like AM/Vass etc and a point of view which differs from many others who buy EG/G&G/Carmina/Alden/Corthay/Allen edmonds etc and their GYW shoes haven't failed. You also own one or two brands above and did they fall apart?
The liking of certain brands to people is due to many factors and not many just cares about hand welting alone.
Well i don't need to again stress enough again but for certain people it has to be a better fit, aesthetics, customer service, better brand and history, quality of leather etc.
IMO, I would always buy an Iphone than a Samsung because Apple has better customer service, design and usability than Samsung which has more features which is clearly a personal preference and not one is better than the other. Lot of people will agree and disagree on this above too.
At the end of day people will buy what they like and can't be bashing a brand because i don't like it and someone else does it more than me.
@dalevy - you also own Utah EG Galway and also AM shoe. Do you think they are inferior quality wise than your AM shoe.
Do you think the gemming is going to fail soon and ur shoes will break apart soon. do you think for this potential unlikely flaw EG will not stand behind their product.
@gmehra - you sell many brands at your store in Vancouver like Enzo Bonafe/Vass/G&G/Corthay etc.
Do you think hand welting is the only factor that people consider buying the shoes.
Did anyone come to you that their GYW shoes fell apart ?
What is your opinion on the quality of uppers comparing EG/G&G vs Vass/EB ?

 

[nkapped]

I've been reading today's posts with great interest. It just shows, really, what one regards as a "good" pair of shoes. Clearly, some prefer construction above all else whereas aesthetics, brand value, prestige etc. may be far more valuable to others. I think there is no definitive answer to this. The differing viewpoints are exactly what makes forums like this so enlightening to us all.

For the record, I do not think this was ever about bashing EG or advocating AM as the ultimate paragon of excellence - neither are perfect. If I'm not mistaken, it evolved from a simple query about the different split toe models in the market. I've now picked up a lot of information and it will certainly inform my future purchases.

 

[ThunderMarch]

Well then, I apologise if any sensitivities were offended.

Of course, there are numerous points of view here. And as in any public forum, most people won't see eye to eye.

Recently I re-watched Japan's win over South Africa during their opening match in the RWC 2015. Was a most remarkable match which showed how heart, courage and discipline turned victorious against an old traditional rugby powerhouse (that was also playing well, btw). It was a most inspiring match.

Also, I wonder if Dennis Kimetto's 2:02:57 will fall this year.

 

[Decreased]

As a neutral who owns one each AM, CJ, Carmina, AS, trickers, and a couple of "cheaper" shoes, Cheaney, barker and Carlos santos I have to say that my thunder March is doing his best to bring this argument to objective, measurable facts. Not vague things like "value" and "service". It may not be a necessary discussion, but no one has used logic to counter logic.

I hope to have the money to purchase some dovers and Galways someday, because they are good looking, more versatile options, than most of what I currently own. Nonetheless, they will be at best a lightly better version than the shoes I paid 50% less for (AS are imo particularly good value). They will also cost me significantly more than the best shoes I own, my AMs, which despite being machine stitched display the hallmarks of a quality artisanal product. These include the tightest waist and most impressive sole of any machine stitched shoe I have heard of or seen. The construction without gemming is also important because it means that even if the product is only 1% better than GYW, it can be made at a more attractive price than a HW option. I believe this is also objective, based on the opinion of cobblers (face to face) and unrelated shoemakers (online).

No one can argue subjective desirability, but bringing that as the main point in a discussion based on objective measures of quality is ridiculous. Of course no one can convince anyone, because they are unrelated conversations.

I hope I haven't offended anyone, I appreciate the knowledge and experience of those who have contributed.

 

[Wingtip77]

We all have different opinions, and different ways of measuring quality. However, just because an item is handmade or handwelted, or whatever, does not make it of a higher quality. I could attempt to make a pair of shoes by hand, but they wouldn't be of any quality. I could handwelt them, given the right tools, but they would be terrible. Even skilled makers do not get everything right 100% of the time.

Anyway, I'm 110% sure that not even Mr Meccariello would be of the opinion that his shoes are 'better' than EG or Vass. He has taken ideas from EG and put his own slant on them - imitiation is the best form of flattery. The Vass Kaan uppers are "handclicked & handstitched by skilled craftsman in England, Northampton". By whom?

It's all subjective, but the technical aspect is only one part of defining whether something is quality or not.

 

[ThunderMarch]

Well, this "discussion" is already drawn out far longer than it's supposed to have been.

But sure, let's humor each other.

Of course, handwelting does not guarantee perfection.

Correspondingly, does gluing fabric on an insole guarantee perfection? Does chain stitching instead of lock stitching guarantee perfection? Does glue itself, guarantee perfection? Does a machine never fail? Does a machine, guarantee perfection?

What is the basis of comparison? Which comes closer to GOLD standard? We are not comparing sloppy A vs pristine execution B. We are comparing techniques done to the best of their standards within reasonable limits.

Of course, I am very well aware that construction alone is not the ONLY determinant of quality. I challenge anyone to quote me saying otherwise.

I am honestly, sincerely, still waiting, for someone, anyone, to provide empirical, irrefutable, non-vague, specific, examples of "better quality" in favor of EG. Apart from my earlier explanations / rationalisations of leather quality / cost, I've really yet to hear anything.

 

[Article 26]

Seriously, this is at laughing levels.
Good shoes - the end.

 

[DWFII]

I'm not going to get involved in this discussion...I've had it elsewhere too many times. Just to point out a few things from an actual, hands-on, shoemaker's, perspective....FWIW...

Quality cannot be divorced from technique. Technique is the empirical standard of quality. Material is secondary and often entirely dependent on technique for the full realization of its nature.

Finish, colour, feel, cachet ("iconic" or not)--those are all subjective attributes that cannot be quantified much less agreed upon by any two individuals. And as such, they are not ever substantive--they are superficialities, at best. Like the silver wrapper on a piece of gum--it's shiney but the substance is long gone. It attracts the "magpie eye." But begs the question as to how many people here are actually buying the shoes, as opposed to buying the box.

Esp. on this forum there will never be a discussion of quality that doesn't provoke this defensive and nearly hysterical response. The fact that people cannot put aside their biases and their druthers and their unease at having paid large amounts of money for product that is objectively short of the mark and often not significantly--substantively--better than the bulk of what is being produced elsewhere, is discouraging but not surprising.

If people want to dismiss or ignore...or weasel-word...the facts, the logic, the science, the rationales, well, they should. They get what they deserve. it is called "evolution in action."

And FWIW...if anything, or if there are minds receptive enough to appreciate it...here is a video that might prove interesting, esp. when one considers the (ahem) "iconic" nature" of the product being examined.

And a couple more links just for giggles...or edification, whichever comes first...

http://www.styleforum.net/t/297037/sole-welting/540#post_6874556

http://www.styleforum.net/t/297037/sole-welting/615#post_6878559

that's my 2¢ and my professional opinion...FWIW. Good luck.

 

[ecwy]

Well, this "discussion" is already drawn out far longer than it's supposed to have been.

But sure, let's humor each other.

Of course, handwelting does not guarantee perfection.

Correspondingly, does gluing fabric on an insole guarantee perfection? Does chain stitching instead of lock stitching guarantee perfection? Does glue itself, guarantee perfection? Does a machine never fail? Does a machine, guarantee perfection?

What is the basis of comparison? Which comes closer to GOLD standard? We are not comparing sloppy A vs pristine execution B. We are comparing techniques done to the best of their standards within reasonable limits.

Of course, I am very well aware that construction alone is not the ONLY determinant of quality. I challenge anyone to quote me saying otherwise.

I am honestly, sincerely, still waiting, for someone, anyone, to provide empirical, irrefutable, non-vague, specific, examples of "better quality" in favor of EG. Apart from my earlier explanations / rationalisations of leather quality / cost, I've really yet to hear anything.

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

― Mark Twain

 

[Wingtip77]

Quality cannot be divorced from technique. Technique is the empirical standard of quality. Material is secondary and often entirely dependent on technique for the full realization of its nature.

Genuine question. If a pair of shoes was made by a master craftsmen, but using substandard materials, would the shoe still be a quality shoe?

 

[Newcomer]

Apropos of little, my biggest qualm with English shoes stems from the stratospheric price increases over the last 10 years.

I have at least one pair of shoes from all of the English makers, and each and every one of them is well-worn, and has held up admirably. I love my EGs, G&Gs, etc., and I will continue to buy them. However, when I first purchased a pair of G&G shoes, I paid, if I recall correctly, about $450-500. Likewise, when I first purchased a pair of Carmina shoes, I paid well under $300. The list goes on, and on, and on.

Accordingly, recently I have struggled to take out my credit card to pay for the same thing that I paid - at times - about 40% - 50% of the current price. I do not know what it costs for these various brands to produce shoes. However, I am able to compare what I paid in the past with what is being charged now, and I am allowed to be turned off by these price increases.

I feel the same way about Panerai watches. In the early 2000s, you could easily pick up a Panerai watch for between $1,000 - $2,000. Now, you are looking at more than $5000 for the base model (please ignore that many of the base models are now produced in-house, I understand the analogy is not perfect). It is still a lovely watch, with a great history, from a storied brand, but as a consumer, I am looking for something that provides me with more value.

In the same vein, when it comes to watches that use ETA movements, my brain struggles to arrive at the price that they are charging. By way of example, B&M, Tag, etc., often charge into the $3,000 - $4,500 range for a watch containing a movement that does not cost more than $100. When I start to struggle to see the value in things, I am turned off.

Also, someone earlier asked how I stopped buying shoes for so long? A little bit of the above played into my hiatus. Further, I have been on a bit of a bespoke suit kick.

 

[beargonefishing]

Eventually, I stopped at one pair for GG, 2 pairs of EG, and one pair for StC, and one pair of AC. Thankfully, they have mostly been gotten rid of. Yes, I did buy them. But I don't decide they are good, just because I bought them.

I am curious if you equate the quality of EG and GG with St. C? I always thought of St. C as superior because they are handwelted.

 

[tdes81]

I am curious if you equate the quality of EG and GG with St. C? I always thought of St. C as superior because they are handlasted.

Given my experience (4 pairs of G&G, 2 pairs of St. C), I'd say St. C definitely beats G&G out in construction (at least non-Deco line) - the handwelt and pegged waists are just gorgeous; and they feel much more solid (I believe they use more stiffeners in general). G&G's on the other hand are much more comfortable out of the box, and IMO their lasts and patterns are where they really shine - just much more sleek and fashionable. I'd also say G&G's calf is much nicer than St. C's CRU leather, at least in terms of softness and how it creases. The CRU leather however I'd say is thicker and more durable.

I quite like both of them, but for different reasons. In terms of construction, I'd have to give it to St. Crispins. In terms of aesthetics, I think G&G has them beat.

 

[DWFII]

Genuine question. If a pair of shoes was made by a master craftsmen, but using substandard materials, would the shoe still be a quality shoe?

OK..."genuine question"...(I wasn't going to get involved but who can ignore a 'genuine question?"

Let me ask you a question by way of answering you...if one leather is smooth or shiney, or a colour that is ever so au currant, is it better quality than a leather that is matte and perhaps a dull chocolate brown?

The point is that when it comes to leather, "better" quality is often in the eye of the beholder. And that's a false and entirely subjective presumption.

All other things being equal, the only determinants of quality in leather are 1) the raw stock--where the animal was raised and how old was it at the time of slaughter; and 2) the tannage and finishing.

At bottom, the quality differences--temper, density, flexibility, longevity, etc.,--between any two calf skin vamps cut from the prime part of two different hides is probably marginal, at best. Not a significant factor in strength, durability or longevity...maybe not even measurable, if we even had a way to measure it.

Everything that the uneducated or inexperienced consumer sees and values in a hide is almost certainly superficial--shine, patina depth of dye, etc..

So what is "substandard?" I know. I can see and feel substandard. But I have nigh onto 50 years experience working with leathers of all kinds. But I do not...ever...judge quality by appearance alone.

And if the consumer doesn't handle the leather, doesn't use it, never has a chance to gauge those characteristics (such as how it holds a stitch or whether it is "struck through") what other criteria except appearance, or the often false and self-promotional hype of the maker, are available to him?

The other part of your question postulates a contradiction in logic as well as terms--The "master craftsman" would not, by definition, use a substandard piece of leather. Except for his own personal shoes perhaps.

 

[Wingtip77]

OK..."genuine question"...(I wasn't going to get involved but who can ignore a 'genuine question?"

Let me ask you a question by way of answering you...if one leather is smooth or shiney, or a colour that is ever so au currant, is it better quality than a leather that is matte and perhaps a dull chocolate brown?

The point is that when it comes to leather, "better" quality is often in the eye of the beholder. And that's a false and entirely subjective presumption.

All other things being equal, the only determinants of quality in leather are 1) the raw stock--where the animal was raised and how old was it at the time of slaughter; and 2) the tannage and finishing.

At bottom, the quality differences--temper, density, flexibility, longevity, etc.,--between any two calf skin vamps cut from the prime part of two different hides is probably marginal, at best. Not a significant factor in strength, durability or longevity...maybe not even measurable, if we even had a way to measure it.

Everything that the uneducated or inexperienced consumer sees and values in a hide is almost certainly superficial--shine, patina depth of dye, etc..

So what is "substandard?" I know. I can see and feel substandard. But I have nigh onto 50 years experience working with leathers of all kinds. But I do not...ever...judge quality by appearance alone.

And if the consumer doesn't handle the leather, doesn't use it, never has a chance to gauge those characteristics (such as how it holds a stitch or whether it is "struck through") what other criteria except appearance, or the often false and self-promotional hype of the maker, are available to him?

The other part of your question postulates a contradiction in logic as well as terms--The "master craftsman" would not, by definition, use a substandard piece of leather. Except for his own personal shoes perhaps.

That's not an answer. But thanks anyway.

I'm not asking if the leather is substandard by MY definition. I'm asking if a "master craftsman" was to create a pair of shoes with substandard materials (why he would do that is not the question), would his technique and craft make a good quality pair of shoes?