1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

My visit to Loake

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by unbelragazzo, Aug 26, 2013.

  1. unbelragazzo

    unbelragazzo Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    8,355
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    

    Also Shoe Healer:

    http://www.shoehealer.co.uk/loake

    Richard from Shoe Healer set up my tours at Loake and Trickers. Article about their store coming out on Monday.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. unbelragazzo

    unbelragazzo Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    8,355
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    

    They're both burnished calf, made in the same Kettering factory, of course GY welted. Evolution has a more padded and flexible sole construction, and tend to come in wider sizes. The styling is similar to the 1880 line too - classic, conservative English. The "Evolution" name might make you think it's similar to the 'Design' line, but that's not the case.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2013
    1 person likes this.
  3. TheWraith

    TheWraith Senior member

    Messages:
    4,882
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    

    Yes, but as I said, only experts can really tell the difference, not the layman. To the vast majority of people, an 1880 Loake would look just as good as a C&J shoe. Whereas, even a layman would most likely be able to tell the difference in quality and finish etc. between a Porsche and a Kia. Not really a valid comparison.



    +1
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2013
  4. YRR92

    YRR92 Senior member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
  5. Oli2012

    Oli2012 Senior member

    Messages:
    2,267
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Besides leather quality, the main difference would be that the C&J's sole is bevelled rather than stitched aloft, which creates a sleeker and more elegant design.

    Alongside AE and Meermin Loakes are the cats meow in terms of entry level shoes. For most SFers with kids and a mortgage (or those destined for it) they represent a point where bang for buck stops.
     
  6. Bone Stock

    Bone Stock New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    The C&J's do certainly seem to have a more elegant appearance. Also agree wholeheartedly with the "entry level" shoe brands. They're sufficiently nice for a large percentage of the community and much easier to justify financially.
     
  7. Angeland

    Angeland Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Just weighing in on this Loake versus Crockett and Jones (and Tricker's) discussion.

    I have two pairs of Loakes in the 1880 range, and I also have as many C&Js and more Tricker's than I care to number (or that actually fit me--strange fitting shoes).

    I think Loakes are a great value shoe, and if they made more I like I would buy more. They are not as well made as either of the other two, however.

    One thing I would point out is that Loakes soles will delaminate fairly quickly. I don't care about this, as I do log some miles on my Loakes, but I have never seen C&Js do this, with the caveat that I have never walked a couple of miles in a pair of C&J shoes. Tricker's, however, I have put through the paces, and I have never seen the sole layers separate. Both of my Loake 1880s do. They are stitched firmly, of course, so they aren't "coming apart" but it is a noticeable difference.

    I would add a special vote of confidence on the quality of Loake 1880 calfskins. Really good stuff that blows most other calfskins at that pricepoint clear out of the water. Sanders, not even close. Allen Edmonds, not even close. Cheaney, not that I've seen. Barker, not that I've seen. I think you have to bump up a pricepoint to find the calfskins Loake 1880 is competing with.
     
  8. Isbister

    Isbister Senior member

    Messages:
    216
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    Most but not all of my Loake shoes have Dainite soles and I have not experienced the 'delamination' you describe. If they are leather-soled, I expect this could be down to the type of leather. Tricker's and C&J almost certainly use quite superior oak-tanned sole leather, which is more durable.
     
  9. Quadcammer

    Quadcammer Senior member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    
    Disagree, I put AE right on par with Loake 1880s and Cheaney a bit above both (non AE independence)
     
  10. RogerP

    RogerP Senior member

    Messages:
    8,333
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Location:
    Oakville, Ontario, CANADA
    Agreed on AE. I bought a pair of Loake 1880 monks to replace a pair of AE Neumoras. Very happy with the Loakes, but there is NOTHING in the materials, finish or assembly that impress as being superior to the AEs they replaced, or indeed any of the other AEs I own. And I would put them below, say, Carmina, and not in the same discussion as Vass, EG and G&G (and yes, I own examples of all of the above).

    Agreed - I find Loake's F-width easily closer to a US E.
     
  11. TheWraith

    TheWraith Senior member

    Messages:
    4,882
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    They certainly look better than AE, but that all comes down to personal opinion.
     
  12. wurger

    wurger Senior member

    Messages:
    2,887
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Location:
    Sydney
    I find the calf leather better than AE, as in less course and less wrinkles.
     
  13. RogerP

    RogerP Senior member

    Messages:
    8,333
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Location:
    Oakville, Ontario, CANADA
    Agreed - if someone felt AEs looked better, they would be just as entitled to their opinion. I suspect I would prefer individual shoes from either brand for a given purchase decision. And certainly I would turn to AE for shell - which I don't know that Loake even offer.

    I find no difference at all in the quality of the calfskin between the Loake monks and the AE Neumoras. In fact, if the Loakes hold up as well as the Neumoras did over years of frequent wear, I will be very pleased indeed.
     
  14. Angeland

    Angeland Active Member

    Messages:
    28
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    With regard to Loake 1880 versus Allen Edmonds calfskin shoes, I like Allen Edmonds shoes very much, but I have found that they can be difficult to polish. Black "custom calft" is good enough, but the walnut grain is a real challenge. Like Cheaney, they develop these sharp crease lines. Both pairs of Loake 1880s, by contrast, polish brilliantly and crease with nice, smooth ripples.
     
  15. AlanFM

    AlanFM Member

    Messages:
    15
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2013
    [​IMG]

    Hi - I've just posted a (somewhat Loake-centric!) website on shoes, shoemaking and etc. I've created it just for my enjoyment and interest ... and yours. Please have a look at it and comment on it either as a post here or via the contact form on the site. I'm especially keen to have others try out the size and fitting calculator and then let me know how well it works. The site is here http://www.alanmurray.org.uk/shoemaking/ Best wishes
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. SoleFreak

    SoleFreak Active Member

    Messages:
    35
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Does Loake have a factory shop in Northampton?
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by