2quiet
Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2011
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 0
Have heard that John White shoes are low quality for a number of reasons. Namely that they aren't welted and use a lesser quality of leather. This has always made them a brand to avoid, however recently I came across a pair that I wasn't sure whether this would apply to (to such a significant degree). The shoe in question is this: http://www.suitsmen.co.uk/shoes/105/ A black patent balmoral dress shoe. Because it's this kind of shoe, where competitors' shoes (at similar prices) are also rarely welted and more often cemented, and we're now dealing with patent rather than a leather such as calfskin, is it likely still to be of comparably poor quality? Asking because compared to a Sanders Strand (here: http://www.sanders-uk.com/products/Strand---7158BWL.php), the fitting (F) of the John White would be better for me than the fitting (G) of the Strand, and I could get the John White for less than half the price - this is always preferable everything else equal, of course, but seems especially so in this case since I'd attend an event at which I'd wear these maybe once or twice a year. The single difference make wise that I am sure of is that the John Whites have a resin sole, compared to the leather sole of the Sanders (and I'm not sure what I think about that, having not had resin soled shoes before). Other than that can't see much of a difference across the internet, so was wondering if anyone might be so kind as to help out! Thank you guys, have lurked here a while and have learned much from your community.