Archibald London Hand Welted Shoes - preorder issues, discussion,and resolution.

[Potatoe]

Has that type of creasing happened on Meermin's dress shoes?

I have a pair of cap toes that I have just worn to break in. The creasing is far more reasonable but still not great.

That said the comparison was a whole cut boot and a plain toe boot.

As noted $200 doesn't get you much when you start putting things under the microscope.

 

[dieworkwear]

Here’s a pair of Meermin cap toes I bought a couple years ago:
View attachment 1594799

I’ve kept shoe trees in them since the beginning too. It’s fine though, and honestly within my expectations. It’s still made with a beautiful French calf leather, but obviously their clicking is more geared towards high yield than perfection.

Those shoes also look fine to me, TBH.

About three or four years ago, I had lunch with a friend. He was wearing a suit and black tassel loafers. I thought he looked nice. After we paid our bill, I briefly glanced down at his shoes and asked where he got them. I thought they were C&J. Turned out to be Meermin.

Sometimes I think "shoe guys" obsess over small details that just don't matter in real-life applications. Granted, 99% of the stuff we obsess about in any category doesn't matter, but shoe discussions -- which have basically taken over CM -- are sometimes so strident.

I have shoes from all sorts of companies -- EG, Templeman, Blundstones, and then Margiela boots that are basically made no better than Cole Haan. I like all of them for different reasons. I personally don't get the appeal of many brands mentioned on this board, but different things resonate with different people. I find AoL's "cut out the middleman" approach a bit cold and clinical. But If I'm being honest, I feel that way about a lot of revered "shoe guy" brands that focus on just "quality."

 

[Wild Strawberry Rabbit]

In my experience Meermin has surprisingly good leather for the price. I had 5 pairs of Meermins in total, 4 from classic line and 1 from Linea Maestro. Out of 5 pairs 4 have really excellent leather, that still looks very good after 5+ years of use. It looks much better than leather of some of more expensive brands I own. Only black leather on a pair of captoes was of worse quality and looked rather poor, I don’t have this pair anymore.

 

[deliku]

Those shoes also look fine to me, TBH.

About three or four years ago, I had lunch with a friend. He was wearing a suit and black tassel loafers. I thought he looked nice. After we paid our bill, I briefly glanced down at his shoes and asked where he got them. I thought they were C&J. Turned out to be Meermin.

Sometimes I think "shoe guys" obsess over small details that just don't matter in real-life applications. Granted, 99% of the stuff we obsess about in any category doesn't matter, but shoe discussions -- which have basically taken over CM -- are sometimes so strident.

I have shoes from all sorts of companies -- EG, Templeman, Blundstones, and then Margiela boots that are basically made no better than Cole Haan. I like all of them for different reasons. I personally don't get the appeal of many brands mentioned on this board, but different things resonate with different people. I find AoL's "cut out the middleman" approach a bit cold and clinical. But If I'm being honest, I feel that way about a lot of revered "shoe guy" brands that focus on just "quality."

Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re fine and I like the way they look. Isn’t that what I said initially?

In regards to the rest of your post, I do agree there are many people who have unreasonable expectations when it comes to shoes, and leather products in general. I personally feel it comes from lack of exposure. Even luxury brands will sell footwear made with corrected grain leather just to achieve a very uniform look, and it kind of makes intuitive sense to a layman that uniformity = high quality.

 

[dieworkwear]

Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re fine and I like the way they look. Isn’t that what I said initially?

Yes, sorry, didn't mean for my post to come off as argumentative. Was only saying that I think your shoes look good.

 

[Potatoe]

Those shoes also look fine to me, TBH.

About three or four years ago, I had lunch with a friend. He was wearing a suit and black tassel loafers. I thought he looked nice. After we paid our bill, I briefly glanced down at his shoes and asked where he got them. I thought they were C&J. Turned out to be Meermin.

Sometimes I think "shoe guys" obsess over small details that just don't matter in real-life applications. Granted, 99% of the stuff we obsess about in any category doesn't matter, but shoe discussions -- which have basically taken over CM -- are sometimes so strident.

I have shoes from all sorts of companies -- EG, Templeman, Blundstones, and then Margiela boots that are basically made no better than Cole Haan. I like all of them for different reasons. I personally don't get the appeal of many brands mentioned on this board, but different things resonate with different people. I find AoL's "cut out the middleman" approach a bit cold and clinical. But If I'm being honest, I feel that way about a lot of revered "shoe guy" brands that focus on just "quality."

For the record I more or less agree with all of this.

My response was to those implying that a person could easily take the extra 200 and find a pair from another company that they would like more.

In my experience that price point is very inconsistent. If I had a pair of shoes I liked I would never send them back for $200.

 

[Wild Strawberry Rabbit]

5 years old Linea Maestro (actually handwelted!), 340 EUR

6 years old Classic Line, 160 EUR

5 years old Classic Line (picture taken a season or two ago, but they still look the same), 220 EUR

 

[deliku]

Was only saying that I think your shoes look good.

Thanks

I do appreciate the elaboration of your viewpoint though. Focusing on personal enjoyment over being too OCD is a healthy way to look at things. If we focus too much on all the features and minutia we “need” before we can be satisfied then we give rise to this notion that one simply can’t get a pair of shoes they’d be happy with for a mere $200. Kind of absurd when you really think about it.

 

[Potatoe]

Thanks

I do appreciate the elaboration of your viewpoint though. Focusing on personal enjoyment over being too OCD is a healthy way to look at things. If we focus too much on all the features and minutia we “need” before we can be satisfied then we give rise to this notion that one simply can’t get a pair of shoes they’d be happy with for a mere $200. Kind of absurd when you really think about it.

Who said that ?
What was asked is if you should give back a pair you like for $200.
Totally different question.

 

[George Mason]

Seems like you don't want to quote people, so I suppose out of respect for your preferences, I won't quote them either ... I guess? (I have no idea why we're talking about people and not quoting them. It makes the conversation confusing).

Two of the comments you reference are from Potatoe. I agree, he seems over the top with his defense of AoL.

One of the comments is from JFWR. I think his rep on this subject has already been attacked.

One of the comments is from the owner of this forum. I don't know what convos he had with AoL behind the scenes. He has a business relationship with them, obviously, so had to be a bit nice about things. I'm personally not bothered by it.

The other comments seem fine to me. One, for example, you seemed to have cherry picked. The full comment (again, feels weird to not directly quote people, but here we go):

"People are just glad that customers are getting some kind of resolution since everyone was kind of fearing the worst. Of course no one has forgotten all the bad stuff, but there’s nothing wrong with a pat on the back for doing the right thing."

^ That seems totally fine to me.

I suppose I'm not that emotional about the situation. I also find "shoe guys" a bit weird, and this whole episode weird. Caring about tiny little creases in a shoe seems unhealthy. No, the shoes don't seem exceptionally well made to me (I think that has been established). Yes, I think the final solution is fair. Personally, I would take the money and buy a pair of RM Williams for $350 or Meermins for $200. But people like different brands for different reasons. I don't get the appeal of many of these brands referenced here.

I didn't expect that AoL would give free shoes, free shoe trees, free shoe horns, or whatever. I suppose it would be nice? But I don't think anyone has heaped praise on the company, as you phrased it. The deal seems fair, and I'm surprised it happened.

I did not wish to attach a name to a quote because I did not want anyone to feel attacked. Glad you no longer believe that it was only Potatoe who made such comments. I think Fok's comments were the most over-the-top, owner or not. Again, wasn't the effusiveness displayed here precisely my point? Please don't try to explain things away - what was written is what I was commenting on.

Nothing was "cherry picked." I simply can't write every word from every post - heck, you've admitted to not reading every word! "Nothing wrong with a pat on the back for doing the right thing." The right thing would have been to reimburse customers immediately, knock off the argumentative and nasty dialogue, and display a bit of humility (while also agreeing to cease the disgustingly deceptive marketing tactics). Nothing close to that happened - but AoL deserves this back pat for finally deciding to do the bare minimum to save its shoe business...a month late?

I disagree that the other comments "seem fine," which is why I highlighted them. Based on "likes" it appears that many agree with me. You need not do so; I've read some of your posts, and don't agree with all of them, either! The many issues with AoL that surfaced here are not ameliorated simply because AoL decides to meet the bare minimum to save its own hide. A refund does not transform dishonesty & deception into integrity.

 

[dieworkwear]

Nothing was "cherry picked." I simply can't write every word from every post - heck, you've admitted to not reading every word! "Nothing wrong with a pat on the back for doing the right thing." The right thing would have been to reimburse customers immediately, knock off the argumentative and nasty dialogue, and display a bit of humility (while also agreeing to cease the disgustingly deceptive marketing tactics). Nothing close to that happened - but AoL deserves this back pat for finally deciding to do the bare minimum to save its shoe business...a month late?

I disagree that the other comments "seem fine," which is why I highlighted them. Based on "likes" it appears that many agree with me. You need not do so; I've read some of your posts, and don't agree with all of them, either! The many issues with AoL that surfaced here are not ameliorated simply because AoL decides to meet the bare minimum to save its own hide. A refund does not transform dishonesty & deception into integrity.

The CM side of this forum is so weird. Everyone seriously should smoke a little weed. AoL, Verrihappi, Potatoe, you, etc.

 

[George Mason]

The CM side of this forum is so weird. Everyone seriously should smoke a little weed. AoL, Verrihappi, Potatoe, you, etc.

Yes, caring about integrity is very weird. Maybe you've smoked too much?

 

[dieworkwear]

Yes, caring about integrity is very weird. Maybe you've smoked too much?

I should prob be smoking more myself, tbh.

I've raised issues with AoL in this thread not only about this shoe episode, but their business model in general. When they offered me a free pair of shoes many months back, I declined. I told them I don't take free products in exchange for "reviews." I think my integrity is OK.

 

[vmss]

Those shoes also look fine to me, TBH.

About three or four years ago, I had lunch with a friend. He was wearing a suit and black tassel loafers. I thought he looked nice. After we paid our bill, I briefly glanced down at his shoes and asked where he got them. I thought they were C&J. Turned out to be Meermin.

Sometimes I think "shoe guys" obsess over small details that just don't matter in real-life applications. Granted, 99% of the stuff we obsess about in any category doesn't matter, but shoe discussions -- which have basically taken over CM -- are sometimes so strident.

I have shoes from all sorts of companies -- EG, Templeman, Blundstones, and then Margiela boots that are basically made no better than Cole Haan. I like all of them for different reasons. I personally don't get the appeal of many brands mentioned on this board, but different things resonate with different people. I find AoL's "cut out the middleman" approach a bit cold and clinical. But If I'm being honest, I feel that way about a lot of revered "shoe guy" brands that focus on just "quality."

You keep mentioning you don't get the appeal of many brands or shoe guy brands. Which brands are you referring to?

 

[George Mason]

I should prob be smoking more myself, tbh.

I've raised issues with AoL in this thread not only about this shoe episode, but their business model in general. When they offered me a free pair of shoes many months back, I declined. I told them I don't take free products in exchange for "reviews." I think my integrity is OK.

No need to be so defensive! I wasn't referring to your integrity, but the concept in general, and especially as related to the business practices of AoL. I thought that was quite clear.