STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by dddrees, Feb 22, 2013.
The austerity is the Widmer on the 8695 last but I don't recall the color.
Cheap John Lobb (starting bid 200, buy it now 350)
not affiliated to seller, would probably have kop myself if it was half size smaller
Worn no more than 2 times...
The owner must have worn the crap out of them the 2 times he wore them.
I was thinking the same thing. How do you get that much wear on the waist in 2 wears unless you're walking in gravel for 2 days straight?
nice contribution . . . . these are Vale ?
Walking in Manhattan for 2 days would probably do that. Though the guy is in CA
We spend more time driving than walking in California.
i started riding my bike to the gym. yeah, huhhhah, me!
On another note: I've seen the 9795 last noted as both "9795" and "9795R". Anyone knows what difference, if any, is hidden behind the "R"?
I think that an S or an R behind any last number refers to Sale and Rejects, respectively.
I am afraid I have to disagree. I am not referring to the R or S stamps in red that signify rejects or sale shoes. Rather I am talking about when the last number written in handwriting on the lining includes an R - "9795R".
Examples: http://www.classicshoesformen.com/sites/default/files/John Lobb William 6.5EE (14).JPG
Rubber sole, I believe.
Nope, thats not it either. I've seen "9795R" many times with the standard original leather soles too.
I just got following answer from the manager at the Jermyn St Lobb store:
Separate names with a comma.