Vintage Dress shoe appreciation, tips, maintenance and advice

[Nobleprofessor]

MAIDEN VOYAGE: Florsheim Royal Imperial alligator algonquins. The follow-on model to these is listed in the 1969 catalog, so I’m placing these somewhere in the 1960s, though the last is slender enough they could conceivably be earlier.

Upon arrival, I sanitized these with a healthy spray of cancer-in-a-can. Then these got one coat of neatsfoot oil, followed by one coat of Bick 4, and three coats of Angelus Reptile / Exotic Skin Conditioner. Some buffing with pig bristle and horsehair brushes, followed by a polishing flannel.

Shiny!

View attachment 1740935
View attachment 1740936

LOVE those!

 

[Nobleprofessor]

Hello SF!

Long-time lurker and this is my first post. Very excited to join the group! I have recently gotten very addicted to tracking down vintage shoes (shell cordovan in particular) and am seeking sizing advice.

I am hoping for advice on vintage Florsheim imperials. I purchased my first pair (97626 imperial LWB in shell) in 12 D, my Brannock and most common size (I wear that in Allen Edmonds 65 last for example).

I think the Florsheims might be a tad big but I’m not too sure. I do have minor heel slip but nothing I couldn’t deal with if the rest of the fit worked…

The biggest/strange problem I’ve never experienced in a dress shoe before with these—the ankle cup “cuts” into the side of my feet and I am trying to troubleshoot what is causing that. Are the shoes too wide and/or too long and my foot is sliding into the cup? Is the shell upper too stiff? Is something with this last incompatible with my instep?

One reason I think they could be too wide is when I lace them tight the top eyelets almost meet in the midline with no V-gap. I tried an insole today with looser lacing but that just made the heel slip worse. Wondering if I need a 12 C or maybe an 11.5? I’m a little lost! Overall they feel a bit big but I do like a slightly looser shoe fit.

I know sizing questions (particularly on vintage) are tough, but I am hopeful someone may have insight. This is my first vintage shell purchase FWIW. I attached a picture showing the problem area for reference. Appreciate any advice! Thanks.
View attachment 1740915

Those do look too wide. The AE 65 last does run semi long and narrow, so the sizing will be different.

My foot tends to run a little narrow and my vintage Florsheim sometimes feel roomy. Others have said try 11.5. I would actually suggest trying an 11.5C in vintage Florsheim if you find a pair.

 

[hamercha]

Hello SF!

Long-time lurker and this is my first post. Very excited to join the group! I have recently gotten very addicted to tracking down vintage shoes (shell cordovan in particular) and am seeking sizing advice.

I am hoping for advice on vintage Florsheim imperials. I purchased my first pair (97626 imperial LWB in shell) in 12 D, my Brannock and most common size (I wear that in Allen Edmonds 65 last for example).

I think the Florsheims might be a tad big but I’m not too sure. I do have minor heel slip but nothing I couldn’t deal with if the rest of the fit worked…

The biggest/strange problem I’ve never experienced in a dress shoe before with these—the ankle cup “cuts” into the side of my feet and I am trying to troubleshoot what is causing that. Are the shoes too wide and/or too long and my foot is sliding into the cup? Is the shell upper too stiff? Is something with this last incompatible with my instep?

One reason I think they could be too wide is when I lace them tight the top eyelets almost meet in the midline with no V-gap. I tried an insole today with looser lacing but that just made the heel slip worse. Wondering if I need a 12 C or maybe an 11.5? I’m a little lost! Overall they feel a bit big but I do like a slightly looser shoe fit.

I know sizing questions (particularly on vintage) are tough, but I am hopeful someone may have insight. This is my first vintage shell purchase FWIW. I attached a picture showing the problem area for reference. Appreciate any advice! Thanks.
View attachment 1740915

@G_Shock,
If this shoe did not have a crease, or very little crease before you bought this, then looking from the creasing, I can tell that it is at least a half size too big (in length) for you. And from the lacing and the spacing you showed that it is wide for you. Half size down in length and width should fit you better on this style.

You can put some water and then lightly hammer to slightly bend the leather bend outward on the part which digs on your ankle.

 

[giangiobomber]

Hello SF!

Long-time lurker and this is my first post. Very excited to join the group! I have recently gotten very addicted to tracking down vintage shoes (shell cordovan in particular) and am seeking sizing advice.

I am hoping for advice on vintage Florsheim imperials. I purchased my first pair (97626 imperial LWB in shell) in 12 D, my Brannock and most common size (I wear that in Allen Edmonds 65 last for example).

I think the Florsheims might be a tad big but I’m not too sure. I do have minor heel slip but nothing I couldn’t deal with if the rest of the fit worked…

The biggest/strange problem I’ve never experienced in a dress shoe before with these—the ankle cup “cuts” into the side of my feet and I am trying to troubleshoot what is causing that. Are the shoes too wide and/or too long and my foot is sliding into the cup? Is the shell upper too stiff? Is something with this last incompatible with my instep?

One reason I think they could be too wide is when I lace them tight the top eyelets almost meet in the midline with no V-gap. I tried an insole today with looser lacing but that just made the heel slip worse. Wondering if I need a 12 C or maybe an 11.5? I’m a little lost! Overall they feel a bit big but I do like a slightly looser shoe fit.

I know sizing questions (particularly on vintage) are tough, but I am hopeful someone may have insight. This is my first vintage shell purchase FWIW. I attached a picture showing the problem area for reference. Appreciate any advice! Thanks.
View attachment 1740915

i find that the Alden 975 is sized the same as the florsheim imperial, especially width-wise.
i tried the 975 on in the store and found that i had to go down to C width.
I then purchased my vintage florsheim in that size and and they fit perfect.

 

[Nobleprofessor]

Sorry in advance for this long possibly pedantic post.

Somebody in the AE Facebook group asked basically, why are vintage Florsheim priced so high, are they really that good etc.

Here is what I responded:

“I have a LOT of vintage Florsheim from 1959 all the way up to when they were last made in the USA. The Florsheim that I have made in the 1960’s and 1970’s are exceptional quality. The fact that I have pairs from that time demonstrates they are quality. Even more than that, a close inspection of them reveals premium leathers and high quality Manufacturing. You can look at the thickness of the leather, the finishes on the leather, the stitches per inch in the sewing, etc. For example one of my pairs from the 60’s has over 80 nails in the heel. Even the pair from the late 70’s has over 60 nails. That is completely unheard of nowadays. It is just an example of how far Florsheim went to make a pair that would last for decades. In my opinion, the 60’s Florsheims are far superior to anything being made today except for possibly ultra-premium handmade bespoke shoes. One of the other reasons they are so expensive is what I call the hipster effect. Big clunky gunboat styles are a fad right now. There is also an interest in buying vintage items that are well made focusing on quality. Another reason for the increase in prices has to do with age. The last of the good Florsheims were made 20+ years ago (with very limited exceptions). Most people would say the last of the good were made as late as the early to mid 1990’s. 25 years ago vintage Florsheim were everywhere. As the collectors died off, I would guess many great versions were simply trashed. Another reason for the escalating prices is the extreme rarity of New Old Stock versions. A collector will pay a premium for a new pair simply because there aren’t any more being made. If you are interested in trying a pair, don’t let the prices dissuade you. A decent 93602 (a very versatile brown LWB) can sell for less than $50. It won’t be perfect. But, it will be wearable. And a 40 year old 93602 will outlast ANY modern Allen Edmonds. Even if you have to have a vintage Florsheim resoled you will still pay less than an AE from the shoe bank.”

I didn’t want to get too far in the weeds by going into differences between 93605 and 97226 or 93602 and 97625 and which ones are better depending on if it’s 1988 or 1994 or some other hyper technical argument. I think my description/argument is fairly complete. Right? It really comes down to quality of materials and quality of manufacturing.

 

[G_Shock]

Welcome to the thread!
That's a nice looking pair of shoes, but unfortunate if the size doesn't work. It took me a few tries to get it right, but hopefully you'll be able to recoup your cost if it turns out you need to size down.

I'm not a sizing expert, but they do look a bit wide to me. It could be worth trying your idea of going to a 12C or even 11.5 if the length of the 12D is a bit long.



Gotta come to Tokyo and visit Super8. You could try vintage shoes to your heart's content. Still waiting for the vintage group offsite to happen.

Thanks for the help! I did order a nice pair of 12 C yesterday that offers returns so I’ll give those a shot. Going to list these 12 D on eBay most likely once I find the right fit.

 

[G_Shock]

Welcome to the thread. Glad you jumped in. I’m no sizing expert, but those look too wide. I find that vintage Florsheim LWBs and PTBs are true to size (TTS). its thought with vintage shoes because it’s not like you can head to your local vint shoe store and try on a bunch of sizes./QUOTE]

The AE 65 last fits me really well at 13A. But I find that the Florsheim Imperial Kenmoors work better for me as a 13AA. This is especially true in shell shoes, which can’t be lasted as snugly as calf.

I have a similar issue in some shoes where the sides dig into my ankles. I largely ignore it, and my tender ankles forget about it after a little while. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i find that the Alden 975 is sized the same as the florsheim imperial, especially width-wise.
i find that the Alden 975 is sized the same as the florsheim imperial, especially width-wise.
i tried the 975 on in the store and found that i had to go down to C width.
I then purchased my vintage florsheim in that size and and they fit perfect.

I hope I am doing this quote thing right. I think I missed some of you. Really appreciate the advice from you all. I ordered a 12 C to try on (seller offers returns) so let’s hope that works. Once I nail the size, my wife is not going to be happy at what comes next ?

 

[friendlygoz]

AE 5th Street boots again. I’m really liking these. Did some work on the edges as part of a larger effort to up my edge game. Seems like a worthwhile life goal…

 

[Nobleprofessor]

It’s COLD and it is Florsheim Friday. What’s better on a cold day than some nice sunshine. How about some Golden Harvest from 1968. These were in good shape but the previous owner decided they wanted house leather resole. When I got them, I knew they deserved a new life. So, Wyatt and Dad brought them back to glory with a restoration.

 

[stook1]

Sorry in advance for this long possibly pedantic post.

Somebody in the AE Facebook group asked basically, why are vintage Florsheim priced so high, are they really that good etc.

Here is what I responded:

“I have a LOT of vintage Florsheim from 1959 all the way up to when they were last made in the USA. The Florsheim that I have made in the 1960’s and 1970’s are exceptional quality. The fact that I have pairs from that time demonstrates they are quality. Even more than that, a close inspection of them reveals premium leathers and high quality Manufacturing. You can look at the thickness of the leather, the finishes on the leather, the stitches per inch in the sewing, etc. For example one of my pairs from the 60’s has over 80 nails in the heel. Even the pair from the late 70’s has over 60 nails. That is completely unheard of nowadays. It is just an example of how far Florsheim went to make a pair that would last for decades. In my opinion, the 60’s Florsheims are far superior to anything being made today except for possibly ultra-premium handmade bespoke shoes. One of the other reasons they are so expensive is what I call the hipster effect. Big clunky gunboat styles are a fad right now. There is also an interest in buying vintage items that are well made focusing on quality. Another reason for the increase in prices has to do with age. The last of the good Florsheims were made 20+ years ago (with very limited exceptions). Most people would say the last of the good were made as late as the early to mid 1990’s. 25 years ago vintage Florsheim were everywhere. As the collectors died off, I would guess many great versions were simply trashed. Another reason for the escalating prices is the extreme rarity of New Old Stock versions. A collector will pay a premium for a new pair simply because there aren’t any more being made. If you are interested in trying a pair, don’t let the prices dissuade you. A decent 93602 (a very versatile brown LWB) can sell for less than $50. It won’t be perfect. But, it will be wearable. And a 40 year old 93602 will outlast ANY modern Allen Edmonds. Even if you have to have a vintage Florsheim resoled you will still pay less than an AE from the shoe bank.”

I didn’t want to get too far in the weeds by going into differences between 93605 and 97226 or 93602 and 97625 and which ones are better depending on if it’s 1988 or 1994 or some other hyper technical argument. I think my description/argument is fairly complete. Right? It really comes down to quality of materials and quality of manufacturing.

I do agree with that... by the way, as an aside, I happen to have a slightly more nuanced perspective on the Florsheim eras. I do agree that the earlier ones are better but they are also a lot more difficult to find exceptional examples. I'd much rather have a pristine 80s or 90s pair than a 60s or early 70s pair that are really beat. To me the biggest difference with the earlier ones is that the leather seems more supple. So you're definitely taking a bit of a hit with the newer ones but the construction quality is still top notch relative to most modern (or vintage) shoes.

As a further aside, I think really early shell pairs are also potentially way more dicey than newer ones. Is that purely age based? Or a function of more time/probability for neglect? Some difference in how they were tanned? I don't have a view. Even the newest Florsheim shell can potentially be risky at this point if left in an attic baking for the last 30 years.

Anyway, to your point... really getting into the weeds. Just adding my own perspective to the vintage focused crowd.

 

[smfdoc]

Sorry in advance for this long possibly pedantic post.

Somebody in the AE Facebook group asked basically, why are vintage Florsheim priced so high, are they really that good etc.

Here is what I responded:

“I have a LOT of vintage Florsheim from 1959 all the way up to when they were last made in the USA. The Florsheim that I have made in the 1960’s and 1970’s are exceptional quality. The fact that I have pairs from that time demonstrates they are quality. Even more than that, a close inspection of them reveals premium leathers and high quality Manufacturing. You can look at the thickness of the leather, the finishes on the leather, the stitches per inch in the sewing, etc. For example one of my pairs from the 60’s has over 80 nails in the heel. Even the pair from the late 70’s has over 60 nails. That is completely unheard of nowadays. It is just an example of how far Florsheim went to make a pair that would last for decades. In my opinion, the 60’s Florsheims are far superior to anything being made today except for possibly ultra-premium handmade bespoke shoes. One of the other reasons they are so expensive is what I call the hipster effect. Big clunky gunboat styles are a fad right now. There is also an interest in buying vintage items that are well made focusing on quality. Another reason for the increase in prices has to do with age. The last of the good Florsheims were made 20+ years ago (with very limited exceptions). Most people would say the last of the good were made as late as the early to mid 1990’s. 25 years ago vintage Florsheim were everywhere. As the collectors died off, I would guess many great versions were simply trashed. Another reason for the escalating prices is the extreme rarity of New Old Stock versions. A collector will pay a premium for a new pair simply because there aren’t any more being made. If you are interested in trying a pair, don’t let the prices dissuade you. A decent 93602 (a very versatile brown LWB) can sell for less than $50. It won’t be perfect. But, it will be wearable. And a 40 year old 93602 will outlast ANY modern Allen Edmonds. Even if you have to have a vintage Florsheim resoled you will still pay less than an AE from the shoe bank.”

I didn’t want to get too far in the weeds by going into differences between 93605 and 97226 or 93602 and 97625 and which ones are better depending on if it’s 1988 or 1994 or some other hyper technical argument. I think my description/argument is fairly complete. Right? It really comes down to quality of materials and quality of manufacturing.

When they asked, "why are vintage Florsheim priced so high, are they really that good?" you should have just referred them to the shoes you wore yesterday and today.

Years ago, when I first started wearing Allen Edmonds, I asked a sales associate what was it about their shell cordovan shoes that made them worth the additional money? Rather than explaining about the difference in shell and calf, and the 6 months it takes to make shell versus 3 months for calf, or the differences in toughness, etc, etc. he simply said "You either 'get shell' or you don't." That kind of answer could be said about modern art, or slam poetry, but it was a lost chance at educating someone who went on to purchase a few pairs of shell shoes, but none from him.

 

[Nobleprofessor]

How about a pair that is less well known? In 1989, the 97625 replaced the 93602. Although the differences are hard to see. The 97625 was still a high quality LWB up to about the mid 1990’s. I suspect the differences are mostly in the materials and the labor of the manufacturing. For example, a 60’s 93602 has 80+ nails in the heel and a 70’s has 60+. These 97625 from 1992 have around 52. They do still have a vcleat. I think another difference is the quality of the leather lining. The uppers feel just slightly thinner than 93602. Looks like these need a good welt stitching clean.

 

[Nobleprofessor]

I do agree with that... by the way, as an aside, I happen to have a slightly more nuanced perspective on the Florsheim eras. I do agree that the earlier ones are better but they are also a lot more difficult to find exceptional examples. I'd much rather have a pristine 80s or 90s pair than a 60s or early 70s pair that are really beat. To me the biggest difference with the earlier ones is that the leather seems more supple. So you're definitely taking a bit of a hit with the newer ones but the construction quality is still top notch relative to most modern (or vintage) shoes.

As a further aside, I think really early shell pairs are also potentially way more dicey than newer ones. Is that purely age based? Or a function of more time/probability for neglect? Some difference in how they were tanned? I don't have a view. Even the newest Florsheim shell can potentially be risky at this point if left in an attic baking for the last 30 years.

Anyway, to your point... really getting into the weeds. Just adding my own perspective to the vintage focused crowd.

very good point. It is all about condition. I would pay more for a NOS pair made in the early late 80s and 90’s, versus a pair from the 70’s that is worn out — in general.

 

[Jiqea]

I just picked up this pair of alligator Edwin Clapps, complete with their original box and dust bags. They are 10.5D so they should fit perfectly, and they are in very good lightly used condition. I have been searching for an early pair of vintage alligator shoes for quite awhile, but finding a pair decent shape and in my size has been a challenge. I am pretty stoked. I will be posting better photos when they arrive.

This model was called the Italio, which is stamped on the insole near the waist. They were offered through the 1960's. The advert is from 1965.

 

[stook1]

I just picked up this pair of alligator Edwin Clapps, complete with their original box and dust bags. They are 10.5D so they should fit perfectly, and they are in very good lightly used condition. I have been searching for an early pair of vintage alligator shoes for quite awhile, but finding a pair decent shape and in my size has been a challenge. I am pretty stoked. I will be posting better photos when they arrive.

View attachment 1741404

How funny, I was just checking those out earlier this evening. Just a little too rich for my blood with other (eh hemmm) interests on my radar. ?

Wear them in good health!