Avebury
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2009
- Messages
- 314
- Reaction score
- 0
To my mind, the top three would be Church's, C + J and EG. Tricker's are there or there about. Probably put at 4. However, if you're after a robust, sturdy, traditional no-nonsense country boot or brogue (e.g. Bourton or Keswick) that you can kick about in, then Tricker's are probably top. After all, would you really want to give a pair of £540 EG boot some rough treatment? Probably not. This raises the question of whether 'country boot' is simply a classification or not. Tricker's, uniquely, refer to their boot as 'market day' boots. This tells you where they are coming from.
So sticking with the top three (I don't know about Tricker's other lines), what truly differentiates them? Are they all about the same quality, or are there subtle differences? If the differences are subtle, this may suggest that it's really a matter of personal taste - quality is not the issue.
From my own perspective, I own a pair of C+J "Westfield" semi-brogues in Tan Burnished and pair of Church's "Canberra" Oxfords in Tabac (really chestnut). Having looked at Edward Green, I do not think 'gosh, they are so much better'. There are of course a greater range of colours (e.g. Edwardian Burnt Pine) and the finish, I think, is slighter better. However, that's all my eye can detect in the limited time I had to look at them. They seem equal to the C + J Handgrades.
The other factor is, of course, bottom line, shoe are made to be worn. they wil be scuffed up, bashed about, re-soled, etc. If they are not looked after, they will rapidly decline. In other words, you have to factor in function and the human element into any debate about quality.
It would be interesting to read your views on this subject. Personally, I think if you're able to afford a pair of MTW shoes retailling at £540, excluding shoe trees, you might think about going bespoke. After all, one pair is not enough is it - you'd need to rotate them everyday.
The other point is that there are some extremely good 'lower end' shoes out there. Shouldn't only think about the trinity. Barker make some superb shoes. I often wear a pair of "Hamilton" brogues. They are splendid. A heavy blocked heel, storm welt and waterproof lining. Rare indeed. They look new after a year. In my view, they are better than Church's "Grasmere".
So sticking with the top three (I don't know about Tricker's other lines), what truly differentiates them? Are they all about the same quality, or are there subtle differences? If the differences are subtle, this may suggest that it's really a matter of personal taste - quality is not the issue.
From my own perspective, I own a pair of C+J "Westfield" semi-brogues in Tan Burnished and pair of Church's "Canberra" Oxfords in Tabac (really chestnut). Having looked at Edward Green, I do not think 'gosh, they are so much better'. There are of course a greater range of colours (e.g. Edwardian Burnt Pine) and the finish, I think, is slighter better. However, that's all my eye can detect in the limited time I had to look at them. They seem equal to the C + J Handgrades.
The other factor is, of course, bottom line, shoe are made to be worn. they wil be scuffed up, bashed about, re-soled, etc. If they are not looked after, they will rapidly decline. In other words, you have to factor in function and the human element into any debate about quality.
It would be interesting to read your views on this subject. Personally, I think if you're able to afford a pair of MTW shoes retailling at £540, excluding shoe trees, you might think about going bespoke. After all, one pair is not enough is it - you'd need to rotate them everyday.
The other point is that there are some extremely good 'lower end' shoes out there. Shouldn't only think about the trinity. Barker make some superb shoes. I often wear a pair of "Hamilton" brogues. They are splendid. A heavy blocked heel, storm welt and waterproof lining. Rare indeed. They look new after a year. In my view, they are better than Church's "Grasmere".