Bostonian shoes

[masqueofhastur]

I read a post on here suggesting Bostonians were bad quality. What are they being compared to? I've tried on a pair with the 2 pod system and they were very comfortable and fit my feet very well. Is there a reason I wouldn't want them?

 

[DocHolliday]

You can get much nicer shoes -- Allen-Edmonds -- for not much more than you'd pay retail for Bostonians. AEs can be found on discount for $125-$150, and that gets you a shoe of far higher quality, and of much better leather, that was actually made in the U.S.

 

[NoVaguy]

what doc said.

although you can get brand new bostonians for ridiculuous prices. sometimes as low as $20 for NIB. but i would drop the $125-150, or even full retail, for AE's before going for bostonian, assuming that things like rent and food were taken care of. better quality materials. made in the usa. at the typical $125-150 sale price, AE gives the best bang for your buck in shoes.

 

[masqueofhastur]

What kind of stores are AEs sold in? I live in Vancouver, Canada and I've never seen that brand before.

 

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by masqueofhastur

What kind of stores are AEs sold in? I live in Vancouver, Canada and I've never seen that brand before.

Ingledew's and Holt Renfrew have them. I'm not sure of any other stores in Vancouver that do, but I'd assume other men's stores carry them. The problem is that in Canada you will pay $450 retail for AE. Searching the eBay or taking a daytrip to Seattle are probably the best bets for AE at reasonable prices.

 

[masqueofhastur]

Buying shoes online doesn't make sense though, I can't try them on. A good quality shoe that doesn't fit me well is useless. $450 is running a bit high though. I can find the Bostonians here for $90, so 5x the price had better be really comfortable.

 

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by masqueofhastur

Buying shoes online doesn't make sense though, I can't try them on. A good quality shoe that doesn't fit me well is useless. $450 is running a bit high though. I can find the Bostonians here for $90, so 5x the price had better be really comfortable.

Thats why you go downtown and try them on first and then learn your sizes

. I always feel odd doing so, but being that I get such poor service (due to my young age), it makes it easier walk out without buying anything.

 

[oldseed]

Originally Posted by masqueofhastur

Buying shoes online doesn't make sense though, I can't try them on. A good quality shoe that doesn't fit me well is useless. $450 is running a bit high though. I can find the Bostonians here for $90, so 5x the price had better be really comfortable.

the majority of this and andy's forum has inexplicable problems with bostonians, cole haans, and armanis. usually because, they say, there are better "value" options out there. frankly, if it's in my price range, and looks good, that's all that matters to me. so i like bostonians cole haans armanis black suits. i say enjoy your shoe.

seed

 

[Nantucket Red]

The one and only pair of Bostonians I bought were $85 down the drain. They were comfortable in the shop, but after walking a city block in New York they hurt worse than anything I've ever worn and they never broke in. I counted them a total loss.

 

[lee_44106]

Disregard all the advices.

It seems you keep pointing to the fact that the Bostonians are comfortable and inexpensive. Well, if that's the criteria by which you judge shoe purchase, then buy Bostonian.

It's your money, spend it in ways that make you happy.

Oh by the way, if comfortable is all you need try sneakers.

 

[grilledcheese]

Before I "knew better," I purchased a pair of simple Bostonian captoes (they were not a 'comfort' model). While I recognize that the quality is not that great (this is particularly noticable in the leather), the shoes have held up well. Interestingly, I receive compliments on the shoes quite often, almost rivaling the number of compliments I receive on my Tramezzas and C&J handgrades (which I personally find disappointing). These days, the Bostonians are relegated to rain duty, but they're still pretty comfortable and don't look half-bad. There's no conceivable way that I'd pay over $100 for Bostonians ever again, but since they still have a role to play on my shoe roster, I haven't experienced much buyer's remorse.

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by grilledcheese

...and C&J handgrades (which I personally find disappointing).

Just in case. What is the disappointing thing about?

I find you have a good attitude regarding your rotation and your concepts on shoes.

 

[JLibourel]

Back in my prep school and undergraduate days (about 45-50 years ago), Bostonians were among my favorite dress shoes. I didn't care for them well (no one instructed me about rotation, trees, etc.), and I beat the hell out them pretty quickly, but then Edward Greens probably would have suffered the same fate at my hands (or should I say "on my feet"?). I have the feeling they were of considerably better quality, relatively speaking then than now. However, I have no experience with their current production. The current Bostonians just look sort of cheap to me, and I have never seen fit to investigate the matter further.

 

[grilledcheese]

Originally Posted by fritzl

Just in case. What is the disappointing thing about?

I find you have a good attitude regarding your rotation and your concepts on shoes.

Ah, I should have been more clear... I find it disappointing that my Tramezzas and C&Js don't garner significantly more compliments than Bostonians. I meant to imply that this has everything to do with "deficiencies" in the "eyes of the beholder" rather than deficiencies in C&J/Tramezza quality.

 

[masqueofhastur]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

I didn't care for them well (no one instructed me about rotation, trees, etc.), .

Me neither, what's this?

What's characteristic of the leather not being good? I've noticed with some cheap shoes at Winners or Pay Less that they seem to have as much stability as canvas shoes. Bostonians, Aldos, Florscheims and such didn't have that but I haven't looked over $200 for shoes before.