• Hi, I'm the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted, and where you will find more and more great sales posted as Black Friday approacheds, HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • 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!

Jiqea

Distinguished Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
1,167
Reaction score
5,283
I picked up another pair of the venerable Dacks 2330 water bison whole-cuts. I have 4 pairs in my size now. I plan to try them all out this week and decide which pair to let go. Any man of distinction needs at least three pairs of the same model; one for home, one for the office, and one to keep at the apartment of your mistress.

This model was introduced in the 50's as part of the top of the line S.E. Dack offerings. Up until about 1955 they would have had a 3 digit style code, in this case 330. At some point in the mid 50's Dack's added a fourth digit, with a 2 indicating brown and a 3 indicating black. In the late 70's this model was discontinued, being replaced by the Kudu antelope whole-cut which did not have the decorative stitching. That model was numbered as the 2331 or 3331 depending on if they were brown or black. I have attached the only ad I have ever found for this shoe, which is from 1976. Unfortunately it does not provide the shoe name.

This pair were rebuilt by Dack's sometime in the 70's based on the sock-liner style (not pictured). My understanding is that Dack's maintained a rebuild shop in Toronto even after general production moved to New Brunswick circa 1960. For the longest time a Dack's rebuild cost $10.00, which would have been about 30-35% of the cost of the shoe new through to about 1965. It is interesting that the rebuild stamp that was impressed on the waist of the sole uses the old Dack's script logo from pre-1949. Clearly in the re-branding after S.E. Dack sold the firm in 1949, they didn't bother to have a new re-build stamp cut with the "fat" modern logo.

IMG_4990.jpg
IMG_4989.jpg
IMG_4991.jpg
Dacks water Bison whole cut 1976.JPG
 

Nobleprofessor

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,930
Reaction score
6,943
Is there a way to identify who made these Polo shoes? Thank you.

Dang! Those are fantastic! If I hadn't spent more than my mortgage payment in the last few weeks on shoes, I would be all over these!


Crockett & Jones
I agree. I think they are C&J

The classic 93602 that I bought NOS. All original parts.

These were listed for 185, back in the day when I hesitated and had to consult our leaders @smfdoc and @davidVC .

Given my experience today, I would have jumped on these even for 350.

Wearing them for an online zoom class I am teaching today.

View attachment 1460107View attachment 1460108
You have learned an extremely valuable lesson @suitforcourt. Never pass up the chance to the get NOS vintage Florsheim. I made the mistake numerous times. NOS Florsheim always get snatched up. Realistically, how many more NOS pairs can be out there? Everytime I missed a pair, I regretted it.

Of course, there are limitations. I have seen some people trying to sell NOS Florsheim for $1000 or more. I get that NOS deserves a premium price, but lets not get insane.

I think $350 for NOS 93602, 92604, 93603, etc is a very typical price. There will be times they can be had for $200 or even $250. And if they can bought outside of ebay or other platforms, the seller can save money by avoiding listing fees. But, I think the days of finding them for $100-150 are over.

In other news, I THINK I was able to improve the Golden Harvest I just received. They were looking a little more tan instead of Golden. I don’t know if it was tan polish or just dust/dirt, but I think I got them back closer to Golden.

How did I do?

53BEA165-3843-47A6-94FC-DF289D0D471C.jpeg
2CEFE537-AF22-4502-BE03-9F5DBFB0D958.jpeg
18D13D12-2C15-459D-9EF2-601DCD18F6B0.jpeg


They are still a little tan. But, these are not new. So, this might be as close as I can get.

I used rubbing alcohol to clean them. I was hoping to remove any polish and dirt and gunk. The little cotton pads definitely had light brown/tan gunk afterwards. I didn’t want to get any more aggressive with something like Acetone.
 

suitforcourt

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
6,237
Reaction score
12,526
I saw a pair of Hartt Custom Made grade water bison another day, size 7.5 though.

I noticed that both Hartt and Dack's have very heavy sole. Don't know if it's comfortable when wearing.
They are like any other vintage gunboat. Heavy but still comfortable.
 

Nobleprofessor

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,930
Reaction score
6,943
I’m still waiting on delivery of the second batch of shoes. But, these arrived yesterday. Flosheim 13005 Black Shell Cordovan PTB. These are not NOS. But, they sure are close!

They had a little bit of white bloom on them. I take that as a good sign that they are not dried out. The Shell feels surprisingly supple.

I’m probably keeping these and selling the NOS.

6202C09B-5655-494C-81C3-B0DE48DC1088.jpeg
1C2B0407-BF27-4F35-8C4B-36BE4B294EE4.jpeg
7567ED42-F18F-4527-A28B-5A781C66B1DD.jpeg
 

Nobleprofessor

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,930
Reaction score
6,943
Here is something you don’t see everyday. TWO NOS Florsheim 93605. AND look at the difference in color!

And look at the insole. The darker pair has a black insole but this is not a different style. They are both 93605!

3029E0C8-3153-4E23-A443-6ECAF0D734A8.jpeg
BA3C72C4-0370-44F7-A3A2-F8D585CDF836.jpeg
979CC1AC-6FA5-4D52-80DA-6EF2CEE4F275.jpeg
270C0573-6AAF-458D-944C-B609C9527A4B.jpeg
 

Nealjpage

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
939
Reaction score
2,487

smfdoc

Distinguished Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
9,280
Reaction score
53,748
Here is something you don’t see everyday. TWO NOS Florsheim 93605. AND look at the difference in color!

And look at the insole. The darker pair has a black insole but this is not a different style. They are both 93605!

View attachment 1460540View attachment 1460541View attachment 1460542View attachment 1460543
The lighter pair are similar to mine and I love the shade. @davidVC has been known to refer to that shade as "Coca-Cola red." I consider it to be #8 shell as opposed to #8 like the darker pair. Even though they are the same style, what can you tell us about when the two pairs were made? I
 

meister

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
10,781
Reaction score
2,503

Thomas Crown

Distinguished Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
1,735
Reaction score
8,862
Loving the NOS shell! I’ve been AWOL and apologize,as usual I will make amends with quality shoe porn. 97604 Royal Imperial Florsheim Concord from 1967 with the crazy ass double V-cleat!
1A4A1AE0-C705-4533-9E6E-38A62D5EFB1E.jpeg
8A2D11FB-DF3E-4136-87AF-62FBE3ABBA82.jpeg
ABAA0E1C-677D-4ADC-9F08-2457D553B648.jpeg
50ECFD23-13C0-4B19-B4BD-B0578A304C0F.jpeg
 

Nobleprofessor

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
2,930
Reaction score
6,943
I think I saw somewhere that the darker interior denotes later models. I could be wrong, though.
The lighter pair are similar to mine and I love the shade. @davidVC has been known to refer to that shade as "Coca-Cola red." I consider it to be #8 shell as opposed to #8 like the darker pair. Even though they are the same style, what can you tell us about when the two pairs were made? I
I learned something from vcleat. The 93605 was ordered from Horween in color #4 and treated/colored to be darker. This pair of mine that you are referring to as Coca-cola Red does look closer to #4.

yes, the dark insole is newer. The lighter pair are 1979 and the darker are 1985.
 

JUAN MANUEL

Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
550
Reaction score
1,528

davidVC

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
920
Reaction score
3,492
The lighter pair are similar to mine and I love the shade. @davidVC has been known to refer to that shade as "Coca-Cola red." I consider it to be #8 shell as opposed to #8 like the darker pair. Even though they are the same style, what can you tell us about when the two pairs were made? I
This was the Florsheim 93605 pair I sent your way a few years ago. Very bright red. Rare.

I think Florsheim colored the pairs enough to make sure the left and right Shell matched. The color from pair to pair is similar but not consistent.

IMG_7513.JPG
 
Last edited:

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

Most Interesting Fashion Collaboration of 2020

  • JW Anderson x Uniqlo

  • Nigo x Virgil Abloh

  • Converse x Midnight Studios

  • Rick Owens x Champion

  • Barbour x Engineered Garments

  • Adidas x Bed JW Ford

  • Jordan Brand x Dior

  • Billie Eilish x Takashi Murakami

  • Lego x Levi's


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
448,550
Messages
9,707,137
Members
202,638
Latest member
cfajohnson
Top