Shoe Aesthetics

[pantaleon]

I've read through the entire WAYWRN Shoes & Boots thread as well as the Shoe Care thread and I've seen a lot of shoes in the past few weeks.

Many of those shoes look beautiful to me even if I'm unable to articulate why (particularly G&G shoes).

In an effort to better my understanding, below I have two shoes: one from a much hated brand and one from an unfavorable one. I was wondering if I could get input on why these shoes look bad to people?

(Both shoes compared to Walnut Strand.)

If I were to state the brands, they would probably be dismissed outright, but I'd like to avoid the quality concern and focus on aesthetics. They don't look bad to me, so what am I missing? I'm not trolling here, I have a sincere desire to improve my eye for these things. So what is it those of you who know see, that I don't?

 

[jaywhyy]

Judging on aesthetics alone, they are not too bad. Toe curling and obese waists, but versus the Strand they are okay. I'm not a fan of the Strand, however. The difference is build quality.

People are different. Some people stress quality over style; others style over quality. For me, I put style and fit over quality, but still want my shoes to be at minimum goodyear-welted or blake- with fullgrain calfskin. I want my shoes to last a decade; don't need them to last a lifetime. That's why I would rather spend 1k+ on GYW G&G versus handwelted Vass or American bespoke. Others, as you'll see in the shoe welting thread, put a great emphasis on build quality and will only buy hand-welted shoes. It's all personal preference.

 

[Academic2]

Regarding the first (topmost) one: it’s somewhat ill-proportioned to my eye. Specifically, the cap is too big for the rest of the shoe: look how close it comes to the throat. I’d like it better if it extended no more than half the distance between the tip of the toe and the throat, preferably a tad less than that. As it is it looks crude to me.

I can’t tell from the angle of the camera, but a more overhead shot might reveal that the toe is also a bit too pointed for my tastes. Or it might not. And personally I can’t tell anything about the quality of the leather.

This is just one man’s personal preference, not a statement of natural law.

I’ll be very interested in what others say.

Cheers,

Ac

 

[Academic2]

For comparison:

http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF270_1_40000000001_-1


Cheers,

Ac

 

[jaywhyy]

For comparison:

http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF270_1_40000000001_-1


Cheers,

Ac

I'm going to go ahead and say EG Chelsea on 82 is a better comparison, as that's a shoe that is almost universally appreciated, unlike the Park Avenue.

 

[SuitedDx]



I've read through the entire WAYWRN Shoes & Boots thread as well as the Shoe Care thread and I've seen a lot of shoes in the past few weeks. Many of those shoes look beautiful to me even if I'm unable to articulate why (particularly G&G shoes). In an effort to better my understanding, below I have two shoes: one from a much hated brand and one from an unfavorable one. I was wondering if I could get input on why these shoes look bad to people?

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

(Both shoes compared to Walnut Strand.) If I were to state the brands, they would probably be dismissed outright, but I'd like to avoid the quality concern and focus on aesthetics. They don't look bad to me, so what am I missing? I'm not trolling here, I have a sincere desire to improve my eye for these things. So what is it those of you who know see, that I don't?

All three shoes you posted are different in styles (oxford, blucher, & half brogue) which makes stylistic comparisons difficult. It would be best to compare 3 brown cap toe oxfords, 3 bluchers, and 3 half brogues... Overall all the shoes' toes are too bulbous for me. Don't get me wrong, I don't favor G&G's Deco but something like EG's 202 is classic enough for me.

 

[pantaleon]

Toe curling and obese waists.

Regarding the first (topmost) one: it’s somewhat ill-proportioned to my eye. Specifically, the cap is too big for the rest of the shoe: look how close it comes to the throat. I’d like it better if it extended no more than half the distance between the tip of the toe and the throat, preferably a tad less than that. As it is it looks crude to me.

And personally I can’t tell anything about the quality of the leather.

Looking at it now, I can definitely see what you're saying about the cap toe. It's a bit encouraging that you aren't able to judge the quality of the leather, it bodes well for when I wear it, but then again maybe it's just because the pictures are too small?

Overall all the shoes' toes are too bulbous for me.

With everyone pointing it out, I would say I feel similarly. I only put the strand in there as a comparison in shape since I find most options in the sub $300 range to be bulbous/obese but I agree it would have been better if I'd had more similar shoes it's just that these are the only dress shoes I have.

Thanks everyone for your input, this was exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for.

I bought the shoes because I was looking for versatility in my wardrobe but also, it just seemed impossible to find sleeker, classicly-styled shoes at a budget price point...even at $300 which is pretty much my upper limit atm.

Honestly I find J&M and the Bostonion lines to be irredeemably obese but even Alden and AE seem on the chubbier side as well. It seems that most American dress shoes and most available dress shoe options in the US under $300 are all this way. I really wonder why this is....

Does anyone know of a sub-$300 option that has an excellent design aesthetic? I imagine someone will tell me to buy used, but I'm a bit wary of wearing a shoe that's molded to someone else's foot.

 

[Academic2]

Looking at it now, I can definitely see what you're saying about the cap toe. It's a bit encouraging that you aren't able to judge the quality of the leather, it bodes well for when I wear it, but then again maybe it's just because the pictures are too small?

Partly, but mostly it’s just that I’m more attuned to design than to materials, and it’s a lot easier to evaluate the former than the latter from a photo on the internet viewed on a computer screen.

Cheers,

Ac

 

[coop86]

As far as sub-$300 shoes that look pleasing, check out Meermin. I find they look very similar to more expensive brands, probably because they are owned by Carmina.

http://www.meermin.es/home.php

For example:

 

[Fred G. Unn]

In addition to what others have posted, I would also venture that the treatment of the heel counter on both of the non-Strand shoes looks fairly cheap. On the balmoral with the x lacing, there isn't actually another piece of leather there, it's just unnecessary stitching to look like there's something there. On the darker brown blucher, there's just a strip back there which serves no aesthetic purpose IMO, but instead is likely there to hide the seam. I'm guessing it was cheaper for the manufacturer to just sew a small strip on there then to finish the seam in an attractive way. Neither of those treatments of the heels leads me to believe that they are quality shoes.