Edward Green rarity/oddity?

[well-kept]

This morning, for some reason, I flashed on a pair of shoes I gave to Goodwill a while ago. I suddenly regretted giving them away. I thought "hmm, I wonder if anyone else had a pair of these or knows about them". They were marked "Designed by Edward Green for Paul Stuart". So far so good, just like my other EG Stuart shoes. They were loafers, black shell cordovan, stamped as such on the sole. They had the countours of an English slipon - the squarish tongue, high-ish vamp. They also had the handsewn look of made-in-Maine loafers. And inside... here's the anomaly, they were marked "Made in U.S.A." Well, even the EG-made Paul Stuarts were marked "Designed by Edward Green..." but these obviously were designed by them and made elsewhere. Any info will ease my nostalgia. I gave them away because having once fit me beautifully the instep had stretched so much they no longer stayed on.

 

[bengal-stripe]

Sorry, never come across any shoes that fit your description.

I have seen, and I possess one pair "Designed by Edward Green for Paul Stuart", but they are the standard EG designs and manufacture.

 

[well-kept]

I also own other pairs of EG for Paul Stuart, all standard EGs except for a pair of Piccadilly loafers in a color I've not seen elsewhere - a medium toned red-mahogany. These particular EG shell cordovans were, if not unique, then rarities, certainly. Bought them many years ago and, as mentioned, regret having donated them.

 

[pejsek]

It seems to me the old EG-made Stuart's Choice shoes were often an improvement on the self-labelled models. I have a beautiful old pair of Stuart's Choice double monks in a color that is probably close to burnt pine. The EG model at the time--forget the name--was a simple double monk, but the PS version added a captoe, medallion, and antiquing--all to considerable effect.
I must admit, though, well-kept, the shell cordovan part of your story throws me for a bit of a loop. immsmc, many on this board have described what seems to be EG's decided aversion to working with shell cordovan. And I have a hard time imagining that EG might have allowed, say, Alden to manufacture a shoe in shell cordovan on an EG last using an EG design. But then who knows?
Which thrift store might these have gone to?

 

[well-kept]

They went to the Goodwill in Westport, Connecticut, about two years ago.

My belief is that these were indeed "designed" by EG for Paul Stuart, as stated on the insole cover, but made by one of the U.S. hand-sewn manufacturers, not Alden but probably Ansewn, about 15 years ago.

By the way, on Centipede's site there is a photo of a pair of EG-made shells, the only ones I've seen.

 

[well-kept]

P.S. My understanding is that all "Stuart's Choice" were made by Grenson. EGs for Stuart were all labeled as such.

 

[pejsek]

Originally Posted by well-kept

P.S. My understanding is that all "Stuart's Choice" were made by Grenson. EGs for Stuart were all labeled as such.
I think this is generally correct. Bullock & Jones, who also sold lots of Edward Green shoes at one time, labeled their shoes this way. My PS EGs simply carry the Paul Stuart name and logo. I suspected they were Greens for a number of reasons--style, craftsmanship, the distinctive handwriting noting, inter alia, a last #88--and Edward Green verified that they did indeed make these shoes for Paul Stuart in the mid 1980s. In fact, it seems EG generally did quite a bit of private label work at the time for clients who felt no need to trumpet the EG name. They also made unmarked shoes for Nordstrom and Wilkes Bashford (and probably many others as well).
Anyway, a good story and cautionary tale about regret. I may pull it out in a time of need. Perhaps someone from Paul Stuart could shed some light on these shoes.

 

[well-kept]

Right you are. My mistake. Many earlier EG for PS only carry the PS logo, but are obviously EGs. However, other English PS shoes from that period are sewn aloft and carry different markings, I don't know from where.

 

[pejsek]

It seems that Alan McAfee made at least some shoes for Paul Stuart. I have a pair of brown half brogues stamped on the inside with the Paul Stuart name but embossed on the sole with the gold McAfee polo player. Which brings up a really murky issue. The consensus here seems to be that McAfee was a fine bespoke shoe maker whose rtw rights may have been owned by Church's (and, indeed, many of the McAfee rtw shoes differ not a whit from well-known Church's models). But why would PS go to the trouble of having Church's make up shoes for them under the McAfee label? No, wait, it's even more subtle than that--Why would PS have Church's make up shoes for them with the gentle hint (the polo player) that they were McAfees. Is it possible that McAfee actually existed as some sort of rtw shoemaker at some point?

 

[well-kept]

Yes, I'm certain they did. I've seen good quality McAfees which were clearly rtw under their own name.