english shoes quality heirachy

[Northants bloke]

It's interesting to me that our attempts at a single objective hierarchy might not reflect our personal preferences. Personally I prefer many of my Cheaneys to my only pair of C&J or Trickers.

I did once visit the John Lobb (Paris) factory shop in Northampton. Beautifully crafted elegant shoes but even apart from their prices, they mostly looked too refined for my purposes.

I'm thinking of trying on some NPS-Solovair when the shops reopen.

 

[oldworldelegance]

It's interesting to me that our attempts at a single objective hierarchy might not reflect our personal preferences. Personally I prefer many of my Cheaneys to my only pair of C&J or Trickers.

I did once visit the John Lobb (Paris) factory shop in Northampton. Beautifully crafted elegant shoes but even apart from their prices, they mostly looked too refined for my purposes.

I'm thinking of trying on some NPS-Solovair when the shops reopen.

It sort of makes sense if you consider that quality isn't necessarily correlated with design. It could also be the case that whilst be recognise a manufacturer as being of higher quality, we have a pair from another further down the ladder that is special to us for personal reasons.

 

[Nikola]

It's interesting to me that our attempts at a single objective hierarchy might not reflect our personal preferences. Personally I prefer many of my Cheaneys to my only pair of C&J or Trickers.

I did once visit the John Lobb (Paris) factory shop in Northampton. Beautifully crafted elegant shoes but even apart from their prices, they mostly looked too refined for my purposes.

I'm thinking of trying on some NPS-Solovair when the shops reopen.

Good observation. I am having the same with Church's shoes. I started with John Lobb thinking it's best out there, then moved to Edward Green as I preferred the classical 202 last. Wore the Crockett Jones here and there as they have some cool looking boots and loafers. However, when I know it will be a long day I always grab a pair of Church's shoes in G width and are my favorite go-to shoes from chukka boots to oxfords and back to their handsome sneakers.

 

[Reiver]

Impressive work. It might be worth trying to place Sanders &Sanders too

I think roughly on a par with Loake 1880 in my experience. Very good shoes

 

[PairOfDerby's]

This thread seems to be a bunch of lists that people have thrown together based on their preferences or on what they have read (mainly on here) rather than any detailed reasoning behind the order of the list.

I have a pair of Crockett and Jones Coniston and they are a very good looking boot. I enjoy putting them on but after a day at the office, my feet ache. There has been no debate about the construction quality of Crockett and Jones. Here is a quote from a commenter on Permanent Style;

Crockett & Jones is still an industrial product. This means rationalization and cutting costs compared to bespoke. The French and German shoe forums depiedencap and newsaboutshoes had some cordwainers take some pairs of C&J’ shoes apart. The picture under the upper leather was not that bright at all. C&J uses cheap synthetic reinforcements in the front and heel, a wooden shank was placed wrong in a so called “handgrade” pair, moreover the shanks were broken in more than 1 pair after just some wear, the upper of the shoe was placed in a deviating angle on the heel and almost no pair of C&J seems to stand even on the floor. I own several pairs of C&J shoes and am happy with them. But they just represent a certain value between cheap and bespoke shoes. Their quality is very relative. However, C&Js marketing pretends they are more. E.g. I wonder how much hand there is in “handgrade”?

Also, Cheaney are ranked very high on here and I use my Cheaney Pennines as beaters. I walk through muddy fields in them when working my dog and basically wear them like a pair of wellies. They are holding up extremely well and I can't imagine a tougher pair of boots but..have a read of the reviews on TrustPilot and you probably would not buy another pair.

Church's seems to be hated on here but I personally have never had a problem with any pair that I own (some over 13 years old) and they are without doubt the most comfortable shoes I own (apart from my Car Shoe driving shoes and Sebago deck shoes). My Church's all take polish extremely well (this has become a hobby and a way to relax for me - especially with a couple of glasses of wine.) The depth of colour on my Church's is way above those on my C&J and Cheaney.

My point is, there is a lot of misinformation on the internet but if you did deeper, there is some very valuable information to enable you to make an informed decision about quality of shoes..

 

[JustPullHarder]

This thread seems to be a bunch of lists that people have thrown together based on their preferences or on what they have read (mainly on here) rather than any detailed reasoning behind the order of the list.

I have a pair of Crockett and Jones Coniston and they are a very good looking boot. I enjoy putting them on but after a day at the office, my feet ache. There has been no debate about the construction quality of Crockett and Jones. Here is a quote from a commenter on Permanent Style;

Crockett & Jones is still an industrial product. This means rationalization and cutting costs compared to bespoke. The French and German shoe forums depiedencap and newsaboutshoes had some cordwainers take some pairs of C&J’ shoes apart. The picture under the upper leather was not that bright at all. C&J uses cheap synthetic reinforcements in the front and heel, a wooden shank was placed wrong in a so called “handgrade” pair, moreover the shanks were broken in more than 1 pair after just some wear, the upper of the shoe was placed in a deviating angle on the heel and almost no pair of C&J seems to stand even on the floor. I own several pairs of C&J shoes and am happy with them. But they just represent a certain value between cheap and bespoke shoes. Their quality is very relative. However, C&Js marketing pretends they are more. E.g. I wonder how much hand there is in “handgrade”?

Also, Cheaney are ranked very high on here and I use my Cheaney Pennines as beaters. I walk through muddy fields in them when working my dog and basically wear them like a pair of wellies. They are holding up extremely well and I can't imagine a tougher pair of boots but..have a read of the reviews on TrustPilot and you probably would not buy another pair.

Church's seems to be hated on here but I personally have never had a problem with any pair that I own (some over 13 years old) and they are without doubt the most comfortable shoes I own (apart from my Car Shoe driving shoes and Sebago deck shoes). My Church's all take polish extremely well (this has become a hobby and a way to relax for me - especially with a couple of glasses of wine.) The depth of colour on my Church's is way above those on my C&J and Cheaney.

My point is, there is a lot of misinformation on the internet but if you did deeper, there is some very valuable information to enable you to make an informed decision about quality of shoes..

I mean, everything is relative and exists on a scale. Bespoke isn't perfect either.

People are more likely to speak vocally when they are on the polar ends of a spectrum. Very few people are going to dedicate the time to write about how perfectly adequate something is.

Permanent style caters to an audience that is more likely to thumb their nose at mid range RTW. Reddit GYW is likely to think anything more expensive than a Viberg is a waste and paying for frivolous details. The truth lies somewhere between more often than not.

That said, when a lot of people share a particular view even if said view is subjectively arrived at its unlikely to be for no reason. Which is to say for a particular crowd C&J could be the perfect product insofar as meeting enough of their needs for a price that seems justifiable.

On Church's I have a pair. I rather like them and I agree that the leather quality and selection is quite good. I don't think many people have much bad to say about the Custom Grade line. Rather the more fashion forward and cheaper stuff seems to draw the ire of shoe nerds which may prevent them from trying the brand.

 

[Reiver]

This thread seems to be a bunch of lists that people have thrown together based on their preferences or on what they have read (mainly on here) rather than any detailed reasoning behind the order of the list.

I have a pair of Crockett and Jones Coniston and they are a very good looking boot. I enjoy putting them on but after a day at the office, my feet ache. There has been no debate about the construction quality of Crockett and Jones. Here is a quote from a commenter on Permanent Style;

Crockett & Jones is still an industrial product. This means rationalization and cutting costs compared to bespoke. The French and German shoe forums depiedencap and newsaboutshoes had some cordwainers take some pairs of C&J’ shoes apart. The picture under the upper leather was not that bright at all. C&J uses cheap synthetic reinforcements in the front and heel, a wooden shank was placed wrong in a so called “handgrade” pair, moreover the shanks were broken in more than 1 pair after just some wear, the upper of the shoe was placed in a deviating angle on the heel and almost no pair of C&J seems to stand even on the floor. I own several pairs of C&J shoes and am happy with them. But they just represent a certain value between cheap and bespoke shoes. Their quality is very relative. However, C&Js marketing pretends they are more. E.g. I wonder how much hand there is in “handgrade”?

Also, Cheaney are ranked very high on here and I use my Cheaney Pennines as beaters. I walk through muddy fields in them when working my dog and basically wear them like a pair of wellies. They are holding up extremely well and I can't imagine a tougher pair of boots but..have a read of the reviews on TrustPilot and you probably would not buy another pair.

Church's seems to be hated on here but I personally have never had a problem with any pair that I own (some over 13 years old) and they are without doubt the most comfortable shoes I own (apart from my Car Shoe driving shoes and Sebago deck shoes). My Church's all take polish extremely well (this has become a hobby and a way to relax for me - especially with a couple of glasses of wine.) The depth of colour on my Church's is way above those on my C&J and Cheaney.

My point is, there is a lot of misinformation on the internet but if you did deeper, there is some very valuable information to enable you to make an informed decision about quality of shoes..

Interesting about C&J, I have 3 pairs including a Coniston and very much enjoy them.

I also agree that Church's are very good shoes if the correct ones are chosen. My Grafton's are probably my best shoe in terms of construction and comfort. Hard to say on the leather as mine are my only cordovan pair so not comparable with calf.

I have heard a lot of positive reviews for Cheaney and I have bee impressed when I have inspected their shoes. The Pennine sounds good.

 

[Nickd]

To some extent the lists are based on personal preference, but some are based on absolutes - eg. G&G and EG use quantifiably better materials than, say C&J.

Church’s are absolutely made to a price, but does that make them bad shoes, of course not, Cheaney‘s will hold up to a lot of abuse and are well made, but do they use the absolute best materials, no.

Bear in mind we are trying to separate a group of manufacturers that make some of the best shoes in the world, they are all good. The jump in quality from, say Aldo to Loake 1881 is much higher than between Loake and any of the companies on people’s lists in this thread.

 

[oldworldelegance]

This thread seems to be a bunch of lists that people have thrown together based on their preferences or on what they have read (mainly on here) rather than any detailed reasoning behind the order of the list.

I have a pair of Crockett and Jones Coniston and they are a very good looking boot. I enjoy putting them on but after a day at the office, my feet ache. There has been no debate about the construction quality of Crockett and Jones. Here is a quote from a commenter on Permanent Style;

Crockett & Jones is still an industrial product. This means rationalization and cutting costs compared to bespoke. The French and German shoe forums depiedencap and newsaboutshoes had some cordwainers take some pairs of C&J’ shoes apart. The picture under the upper leather was not that bright at all. C&J uses cheap synthetic reinforcements in the front and heel, a wooden shank was placed wrong in a so called “handgrade” pair, moreover the shanks were broken in more than 1 pair after just some wear, the upper of the shoe was placed in a deviating angle on the heel and almost no pair of C&J seems to stand even on the floor. I own several pairs of C&J shoes and am happy with them. But they just represent a certain value between cheap and bespoke shoes. Their quality is very relative. However, C&Js marketing pretends they are more. E.g. I wonder how much hand there is in “handgrade”?

Also, Cheaney are ranked very high on here and I use my Cheaney Pennines as beaters. I walk through muddy fields in them when working my dog and basically wear them like a pair of wellies. They are holding up extremely well and I can't imagine a tougher pair of boots but..have a read of the reviews on TrustPilot and you probably would not buy another pair.

Church's seems to be hated on here but I personally have never had a problem with any pair that I own (some over 13 years old) and they are without doubt the most comfortable shoes I own (apart from my Car Shoe driving shoes and Sebago deck shoes). My Church's all take polish extremely well (this has become a hobby and a way to relax for me - especially with a couple of glasses of wine.) The depth of colour on my Church's is way above those on my C&J and Cheaney.

My point is, there is a lot of misinformation on the internet but if you did deeper, there is some very valuable information to enable you to make an informed decision about quality of shoes..

You're an indeed right that the lists are effectively based on preference and (inevitably) subjective opinion. That's certainly what my list was based on. We could perhaps establish some more objective criteria (say celastic heel stiffeners are worse than leather board) but much will remain subjective (for example customer service, fit, design). It's interesting though that many of the lists are rather similar, for example virtually everybody agrees that Loake is a lower quality product than C&J (that doesn't mean it's not good value).

Almost all RTW shoes are an industrial product as you say. However making things by hand isn't always best (as much of SF seems to think). Machines can save time but can also be consistent and more accurate. Would you like hand soldered electronics? Or what about hand riveted cars? Or eye surgery with a surgeon's knife instead of machine guided laser? Now of course many of the machines used in shoe making are quite old and there are reasons why certain hand made techniques are objectively better (for example hand welted vs GYW). This could theoretically change in the future, for example a robot clicker could be better than a human in finding the best leather. There are probably cases nowadays where there are no real significant differences or the machine can be better (such as sowing a rubber sole by machine or by hand). Given the far higher cost of bespoke shoes the question is if the higher quality is worth the price. For most bespoke is simply unaffordable even if it's an objectively better product. For others RTW shoes might need replacing (say because of a damaged upper) long before the failure of something like the GYW ribbing.

I don't know these French and German forums you mention but at least there are partly inaccurate in that C&J doesn't use celastic heel stiffeners, not in the last few years at least. They use leather board. I'm also skeptical of the shank breaking or being placed consistently wrong. After all, one advantage of industrial processes is consistency. Furthermore, if they had regular QA problems you would imagine customers would have noticed by now. Maybe the pair they opened up had these issues, but I doubt it was representative. Regarding C&J Handgrade, I have two pairs and I find the upper leather nicer (seems to polish and age better as well as it comes with a nice burnishing), the lasts 'tighter', the welting finer and they come with oak barked soles. Are they worth £100ish more? Who knows, that's subjective (to me they are when it comes to dressier shoes). I would hesitate even to say that they're more comfortable than the mainline.

So overall it would be ludicrous of course to compare their quality to a bespoke pair that costs at least five times as much. I'm not even sure C&J marketing has claim their shoes are comparable to bespoke, if anything they say their shoes represent the best value for money (all can make this claim of course). I completely agree with you that they sit somewhere between cheap shoes and bespoke of course.

Regarding Cheaney, I do have a pair and I've been very happy with it. I feel the quality of the upper is inferior to C&J, but in terms of construction I haven't had any issues. They are indeed one of my most used shoes because they are very comfortable loafers. Maybe other people have had QA issues? Mine are a pair of subs I got from the factory, so if subs are this good I'd expect the quality to be good overall. They have been resoled by a local cobbler that also makes bespoke shoes and nothing seemed to be out of the ordinary. Maybe I got lucky? It's hard to judge the company on a single pair.

 

[Nickd]

I’ve had around 10 pairs of Cheaney and there have been no construction issues at all, I consider them the entry point for really nice English GYW shoes. Their leather quality can be variable (great on the 4 pairs I still have, not so great on some of the ones I’ve sold), but that’s to be expected at the price.

 

[PairOfDerby's]

All sound comments in reply to my post. I just want people to be honest for the good of the forum and not back their favourite brand out of some kind of fan boy brand loyalty.

 

[PairOfDerby's]

Almost all RTW shoes are an industrial product as you say. However making things by hand isn't always best (as much of SF seems to think). Machines can save time but can also be consistent and more accurate. Would you like hand soldered electronics? Or what about hand riveted cars? Or eye surgery with a surgeon's knife instead of machine guided laser? Now of course many of the machines used in shoe making are quite old and there are reasons why certain hand made techniques are objectively better (for example hand welted vs GYW).

I agree that machines can be more accurate but you could argue that the speed of automated stitching is prone to more inconstancy. Hand stitching is slower and so easier to get two lines parallel for example.
I did read somewhere that Prada completely retooled the Church's factory at a cost of £2m when they bought the business. Edward Green is a modern factory in comparison to most of the others. We all get a bit romantic about artisans and old school techniques but what is the real value in the old techniques? Maybe the slower methods allow more attention to detail, although handmade techniques can still produce a "Friday afternoon job". I know this from the Upholstery trade.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

All sound comments in reply to my post. I just want people to be honest for the good of the forum and not back their favourite brand out of some kind of fan boy brand loyalty.

I think part of the problem, at least in my opinion, is that there are too many English brands and unless someone owns a range of shoes and boots from each brand, it’s a bit tough to give a critical and first person account and determine hierarchy.

all of my English shoes are Edward Green and C&J with a few G&G for Paul Stuart tossed in. Of course my bias Is going to be toward those brands.

 

[oldworldelegance]

I agree that machines can be more accurate but you could argue that the speed of automated stitching is prone to more inconstancy. Hand stitching is slower and so easier to get two lines parallel for example.
I did read somewhere that Prada completely retooled the Church's factory at a cost of £2m when they bought the business. Edward Green is a modern factory in comparison to most of the others. We all get a bit romantic about artisans and old school techniques but what is the real value in the old techniques? Maybe the slower methods allow more attention to detail, although handmade techniques can still produce a "Friday afternoon job". I know this from the Upholstery trade.

Speed can indeed lead to inconsistency, particularly when these machines are hand operated rather than fully automated. So in shoe making it seems that there aren't loads of examples where machines are better. I just made the point that handmade isn't always better, it depends. Romanticism about craft is fine, I myself would be the first to admit that I am attracted to craft and how a product is made and the attention to detail. However it would be wrong to claim that this means a product is always objectively better compared to more modern automated techniques.

Interesting points about the retooling of Church's and the use of more modern machinery by EG. Perhaps that explains some of the difference or consistency in quality compared to those that use older equipment (although some claim older machines can be better in some respects).

 

[JustPullHarder]

Speed can indeed lead to inconsistency, particularly when these machines are hand operated rather than fully automated. So in shoe making it seems that there aren't loads of examples where machines are better. I just made the point that handmade isn't always better, it depends. Romanticism about craft is fine, I myself would be the first to admit that I am attracted to craft and how a product is made and the attention to detail. However it would be wrong to claim that this means a product is always objectively better compared to more modern automated techniques.

Interesting points about the retooling of Church's and the use of more modern machinery by EG. Perhaps that explains some of the difference or consistency in quality compared to those that use older equipment (although some claim older machines can be better in some respects).

For some things like rubber soles hand sewn is impracticable if not impossible since it will dull the needles.

I think a lot of it comes down to not if a machine can do it better but rather what the cost outlay would be to get a machine to do it better. Mechanisation is mostly seen as a labour and money saving mechanism. I don't think there's many people designing for mechanisation that is more expensive and precise in most areas of manufacturing; the scale just isn't there to justify the R&D.

At the end of the day human labour is pretty cheap. If a machine could do it 5 percent better and the machine is in actual operation 20 percent of a workday and costs $1m and still needs an operator the machine there is no market