We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.
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!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
I wouldn't buy those shoes either. Strands are readily available and there is nothing special about this pair in my view. The hacked soles would bug me and I'm not sure it's even worth the cost to properly resole them given that one could probably find a pretty mint pair for around $100 without a great deal of effort. ie. less than the cost of even an AE resole. Had they been MY shoes originally, it very well might change the calculus since they'd be molded to my feet but in that case they wouldn't have been hacked in the first place.
By the way, I will admit that I am somewhat curious about whether AE would resole these. I think they might since it's not like the insoles have been stitched through or some really bad hack.
Random question, but are there any canadian barristers in the room?
View attachment 1398199
OK I'm done for the night!
My understanding is that, more often than not, it’s nails that are the big dealbreaker. Meaning, if a cobbler has knocked nails through the insole, into a heel-base, from the inside out (necessitating installation of a heel liner and such), that’s altered the fundamental construction of the shoe, and they won’t touch it. The other big dealbreakers are if the sole or midsole has been stitched through the insole (blake style), or if the sole/midsole has been cemented, in some fashion, directly to the insole.I wouldn't buy those shoes either. Strands are readily available and there is nothing special about this pair in my view. The hacked soles would bug me and I'm not sure it's even worth the cost to properly resole them given that one could probably find a pretty mint pair for around $100 without a great deal of effort. ie. less than the cost of even an AE resole. Had they been MY shoes originally, it very well might change the calculus since they'd be molded to my feet but in that case they wouldn't have been hacked in the first place.
By the way, I will admit that I am somewhat curious about whether AE would resole these. I think they might since it's not like the insoles have been stitched through or some really bad hack.
First, you gotta cut the Church’s folks some slack. At the factory, they’re probably having trouble figuring out which shoes are new, and which are there for recraft:I agree that the pair should be passed over.
I have never sent a pair of shoes to be recrafted by AE. I once sent them pics of a pair I picked up for cheap, and asked if they would recraft. Their position is (was) that any shoe worked on by non AE cobbler, will not be accepted for recraft. Perhaps they are more flexible now, given the economic reality.
Lastly, I will never use a manufacturer rebuild program again. I used Church's, and it was a gong show.
You can send them to AE with instructions that they inspect them and contact you before they start working on them. But from here they don't look that bad. I would still wear.This is great discussion about AEs recrafting and leads to a specific question that I have about my only pair of badly hacked shoes; my AE Elgins. Not sure this is really answerable. The unfortunate sob story is that they were in immaculate condition and went in to an established cobbler nearer to me than NYC for a topy and heel top lift. I almost had the cobbler resole them but ultimately decided to topy them since the original soles weren't worn through and he couldnt source the sole that I wanted. So far so good... turns out though that he decided to do roughly a 270 degree stitch over the existing storm welt through the topy to "secure it better". It looks like **** and pisses me off ever time I wear them... and so I now wear them infrequently. He also polished them which almost pisses me off even more because I can't seem to restore the perfect finish I had before.
Anyway... This is a case where an AE recraft is probably more economical since they probably need to be rewelted. The insoles were not messed with. I am 99% sure that they would do the recraft. But on the outside chance that they won't do the resole and chuck them, that would also suck since it will be difficult to find another pair of these (I always keep an eye out for another/better pair).
Edit, as you can see... not getting love anymore. Prob just need to find another pair.
View attachment 1398453
This is great discussion about AEs recrafting and leads to a specific question that I have about my only pair of badly hacked shoes; my AE Elgins. Not sure this is really answerable. The unfortunate sob story is that they were in immaculate condition and went in to an established cobbler nearer to me than NYC for a topy and heel top lift. I almost had the cobbler resole them but ultimately decided to topy them since the original soles weren't worn through and he couldnt source the sole that I wanted. So far so good... turns out though that he decided to do roughly a 270 degree stitch over the existing storm welt through the topy to "secure it better". It looks like **** and pisses me off ever time I wear them... and so I now wear them infrequently. He also polished them which almost pisses me off even more because I can't seem to restore the perfect finish I had before.
Anyway... This is a case where an AE recraft is probably more economical since they probably need to be rewelted. The insoles were not messed with. I am 99% sure that they would do the recraft. But on the outside chance that they won't do the resole and chuck them, that would also suck since it will be difficult to find another pair of these (I always keep an eye out for another/better pair).
Edit, as you can see... not getting love anymore. Prob just need to find another pair.
View attachment 1398453
I am finally returning to working in person tomorrow, so it's finally time to start wearing dress shoes again. During quarantine I had some time to take stock of the collection and cull a few pairs. Now that everything is organized, I'll be rotating each pair on a weekly basis. I decided to start with a pair from the deadstock museum portion of my collection. These are Florsheim 31714 "The Laurel" from either 1962 or '72. They're in the 1969 catalog, and I'm leaning towards '72. They will be going on their maiden voyage tomorrow.
View attachment 1398627 View attachment 1398628 View attachment 1398629 View attachment 1398630 View attachment 1398631
I was the same way for a long time, but the mid century-designed shoes of this style are quite sleek and attractive. I think I had been soured by seeing to many clunky ugly versions designed in the 80s/90s.I was never a fan of this style. But this pair is so sleek and stylish. Wow. Now I have to find a pair.
^This.You can send them to AE with instructions that they inspect them and contact you before they start working on them. But from here they don't look that bad. I would still wear.
Whenever they were made, they were made very well. I’m gonna go with 72 also. Great looking shoes.I am finally returning to working in person tomorrow, so it's finally time to start wearing dress shoes again. During quarantine I had some time to take stock of the collection and cull a few pairs. Now that everything is organized, I'll be rotating each pair on a weekly basis. I decided to start with a pair from the deadstock museum portion of my collection. These are Florsheim 31714 "The Laurel" from either 1962 or '72. They're in the 1969 catalog, and I'm leaning towards '72. They will be going on their maiden voyage tomorrow.
View attachment 1398627 View attachment 1398628 View attachment 1398629 View attachment 1398630 View attachment 1398631