Trying to decide between A. Edmonds "Van Ness" vs. "Fifth Ave"

[Cayne-Abel]

This would essentially be my first decent pair of shoes (I currently only have black square-toed Kenneth Coles). So I'm trying to decide between Allen Edmonds' Van Ness (first photo) and Fifth Ave (secind photo):

I'm tempted to go with the Van Ness. It's not as boring as the Fifth Avenue, and seems like it would look great when going out at night as well.

My only two concerns are:

- This would primarily be for work (I'm an attorney that makes court appearances, although my office isn't terribly conservative). Is the Van Ness within the bounds of acceptable business attire? Or would I come across as an attention whore?

- The Van Ness has a rubber sole, as opposed to the Fifth Avenue's leather sole. Is there any substantive difference between a rubber and leather sole? Or is it just aesthetic? Is there is big difference in quality between the two shoes?

 

[patrickBOOTH]

If you are set on either of these I would say the Fifth Ave based on the leather sole alone. It is dressier and more classic. I think you can just as easily wear it out at night depending on your outfit.

I think most people here would really recommend that you save up a few more dimes and get something other than Allen-Edmonds like Alden, which the consensus says is a better shoe for just a bit more. Honestly, if you can't shell out the dough to get the better one you probably should hold off on getting "higher" grade shoes to begin with.

http://www.aldenshop.com/DrawSpecials.asp You can usually find some incredible Alden deals here.

 

[lou]

I like Patrick's link and suggestion. My Wife does not know it yet, but she is buying me something off that link when my Birthday rolls around next time.

 

[Eight]

I'd get the fifth in brown instead (and have). You could use the variety from the black ones and brown is a little bit less formal than black most of the time, not to mention a bit more interesting visually.

 

[Cayne-Abel]

Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH

If you are set on either of these I would say the Fifth Ave based on the leather sole alone. It is dressier and more classic. I think you can just as easily wear it out at night depending on your outfit. I think most people here would really recommend that you save up a few more dimes and get something other than Allen-Edmonds like Alden, which the consensus says is a better shoe for just a bit more. Honestly, if you can't shell out the dough to get the better one you probably should hold off on getting "higher" grade shoes to begin with. http://www.aldenshop.com/DrawSpecials.asp You can usually find some incredible Alden deals here.
It's not that I "can't afford" better shoes. It's just that I'm trying to restrain myself and set some limits. I can go out and buy $800 shoes if I wanted to, without breaking a sweat. But one must consider his priorities - and saving for retirement, a down payment on a home, and a "rainy day" fund are certainly higher on the list than being well-dressed, especially when you have a wife that's aching to get pregnant. I used to sneer at people who spent a lot of effort and money to be well-dressed. Now that I've developed a taste for (and enjoyment of) fine clothing, I notice that being well-dressed can be incredibly addictive. I never thought I'd spend $700 on a suit until I was rich - yet here I am in my Corneliani. If I don't restrain myself, I'll go off the deep end in no time. In fact, it might be worth mentioning that whichever shoe I decided to go with, I'd probably get them used, off of ebay or the FS subforum. With that said, you're not the first person to tell me that Aldens are worth the extra $. I'll consider them and take a look around at pricing. For the purpose of this thread though, let's continue assuming that I'm only looking at the two aforementioned AE shoes.

 

[lou]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

For the purpose of this thread though, let's continue assuming that I'm only looking at the two aforementioned AE shoes.

Fifth Ave.

 

[Cayne-Abel]

Can anyone comment on whether the Van Ness (or a similarly-patterned shoe) is a bit too much for business attire?

 

[bjornb17]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

It's not that I "can't afford" better shoes. It's just that I'm trying to restrain myself and set some limits. I can go out and buy $800 shoes if I wanted to, without breaking a sweat. But one must consider his priorities - and saving for retirement, a down payment on a home, and a "rainy day" fund are certainly higher on the list than being well-dressed, especially when you have a wife that's aching to get pregnant.

I used to sneer at people who spent a lot of effort and money to be well-dressed. Now that I've developed a taste for (and enjoyment of) fine clothing, I notice that being well-dressed can be incredibly addictive. I never thought I'd spend $700 on a suit until I was rich - yet here I am in my Corneliani. If I don't restrain myself, I'll go off the deep end in no time.

In fact, it might be worth mentioning that whichever shoe I decided to go with, I'd probably get them used, off of ebay or the FS subforum.

With that said, you're not the first person to tell me that Aldens are worth the extra $. I'll consider them and take a look around at pricing. For the purpose of this thread though, let's continue assuming that I'm only looking at the two aforementioned AE shoes.

I concur!! There will always be something better or more expensive than what you want. One thing I noticed on here is that if you ask for a recommendation for a $100 item, someone will say you should increase your budget to $300. If you ask for $300, you'll be told to spend $700.

I have a pair of AE shoes and like them very much. It is my first "nice" pair of dress shoes and it is a HUGE step up. Both shoes you are looking at are very nice, and are in fact very similar in style. I think I like the second shoe just a tad sleeker but not by much. I wouldn't worry too much about the leather vs. rubber. There are pros and cons of both. Leather looks like crap as it gets worn out, but the rubber will always look the same.

 

[Harold falcon]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

Can anyone comment on whether the Van Ness (or a similarly-patterned shoe) is a bit too much for business attire?

It's not. I would be hesitant about wearing a wing tip or a blucher to court, but the Van Ness is fine.

I prefer the Fifth Ave for the leather sole.

 

[Bartolo]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

Can anyone comment on whether the Van Ness (or a similarly-patterned shoe) is a bit too much for business attire?

Isn't the question, really, whether it's too little?

 

[Cayne-Abel]

Originally Posted by Bartolo

Isn't the question, really, whether it's too little?

Que? Elaborate please.

 

[southbound35]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

I'm tempted to go with the Van Ness. It's not as boring as the Fifth Avenue, and seems like it would look great when going out at night as well.

Either would be fine for work. I think the Fifth Avenue would be better suited for that purpose based on less broguing. However, IMO the Van Ness would not "look great when going out at night as well"; I think they're a bit bulky to be worn with anything less than a suit. For those reasons, I'd go with the Fifth Avenue for work and find something a bit more sleek for going out.

You're asking one pair of shoes to do two very different things. Although some may argue that a semi-brogue (like the Van Ness) would look fine in a casual setting, most would agree that it isn't your best option.

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

Is the Van Ness within the bounds of acceptable business attire? Or would I come across as an attention whore?
Yes, it's acceptable. No, you would not come across as an attention whore.

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

- The Van Ness has a rubber sole, as opposed to the Fifth Avenue's leather sole. Is there any substantive difference between a rubber and leather sole? Or is it just aesthetic? Is there is big difference in quality between the two shoes?
If you're in a court room with any regularity, I'd go with the Fifth Avenue based on the leather sole and less broguing. But, the Van Ness would be fine; though not ideal, they would be a vast improvement over your square-toed Kenneth Coles.

 

[trekracer20]

I was also looking at the Van Ness and Fifth Avenue (in brown) and ended up going with the Fifth Avenue. It's a very nice-looking shoe. I personally tend to prefer to styling of the Van Ness a little more, but couldn't bring myself to terms with the rubber sole. The Fifth Avenue is a great shoe though.

 

[photoguy]

Fifth Ave >> Van Ness, in terms of both streets and shoes.

 

[Bartolo]

Originally Posted by Cayne-Abel

Que? Elaborate please.

I was getting at the fact that traditionally broguing appeared on more casual shoes -- they are not "too much" of a dress shoe but perhaps "too little" ie not dressy enough. Of course no one but igents will think this and both will pass for "dress shoes" with a dark suit in a courtroom. But the Fifth Avenues are dressier and in my opinion the better choice.