Vintage Dress shoe appreciation, tips, maintenance and advice

[smfdoc]

I have been impatiently waiting for my shipment. They finally arrived!

Golden Harvest that were in good shape, but they had a cheap house leather sole that was glued on.

Wyatt and Dad replaced the sole and welts and did an antique edge and JR heels. They look fantastic!

I also had a repair done on my 1960 Shark Derby. I have only worn them once just to try them on because i was worried about the stitching coming loose and causing damage. They put JR heels on them also.



View attachment 1609430 View attachment 1609431 View attachment 1609432 View attachment 1609433 View attachment 1609434 View attachment 1609435 View attachment 1609436

The GH pair are really glowing. Such a nice job On them. Tempts me to add a touch of brown polish to my pair.

 

[smfdoc]

As currently written, it’s possible that The Court of Spousel Customs will reject this proposal on the basis that clause 1 substantially compromises the enforceability of the broader agreement. As you are our “spousel customs” counsel, I’d request that you provide demonstrable evidence that such agreements have historically proven workable (e.g.referenceable precedent).

Without said reference, or further modification of the conditions of the proposed probationary agreement, there is significant risk that the agreement, as currently drafted, will lead to further ass-kickings from significant others.

That, my friends, is a $300 lawyerly paragraph. Lol.

 

[wasmisterfu]

Initial post here, Allen Edmonds I got on the 'bay several years ago. Basically a Strand without the medallion. I tried to look up the model a while back and came up with something called the 'Argonaut' from the early '90s. Those of you with better internet sleuthing skills than I may be in a unique position to confirm, or, disconfirm that suspicion.
[Sorry for splotches from my morning glass of water ?]

View attachment 1609572

Got a model or style number (if you provide a shot of the interior numbering and insole, that’d be helpful).

Looks a lot like the old (store special) 7 last Clifton:

 

[wasmisterfu]

That, my friends, is a $300 lawyerly paragraph. Lol.

I’m not a lawyer, but because of all the legal documents and review I’ve had to do over the last two years, I have to stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[KarlHungus]

Got a model or style number (if you provide a shot of the interior numbering and insole, that’d be helpful).

Looks a lot like the old (store special) 7 last Clifton:

Here you go

 

[wasmisterfu]

Here you go View attachment 1609620

Yup, that’s a Clifton (my black Clifton’s are 0317). The 03 is the “root” style code (in this case the 0 denotes a non-catalog model, e.g. store, or other, special model), the 5 is the color and the last digit is the last (which is, for this shoe, the 7 last, aka the McNeil last).

The second 4-digit number is the date code, of which the 1st digit is the day of week, second two digits are the week of the year, the final digit is the last number of the year (in this case, the 2 indicates 1992). Note that the day of week and week of year digits are sometimes reversed, depending on who dialed in the numbers on the stamping machine.

TL;DR: 1992 Clifton, built on the 7 last, store special (e.g. they aren’t listed in a catalog). I believe Nordstrom’s was the big seller of these (along with the Lloyd).

Edit: (I’m very jealous, as I love the old Clifton and wish I could find a pair in that color).

 

[KarlHungus]

Yup, that’s a Clifton (my black Clifton’s are 0317). The 03 is the “root” style code (in this case the 0 denotes a non-catalog model, e.g. store, or other, special model), the 5 is the color and the last digit is the last (which is, for this shoe, the 7 last, aka the McNeil last).

The second 4-digit number is the date code, of which the 1st digit is the day of week, second two digits are the week of the year, the final digit is the last number of the year (in this case, the 2 indicates 1992). Note that the day of week and week of year digits are sometimes reversed, depending on who dialed in the numbers on the stamping machine.

TL;DR: 1992 Clifton, built on the 7 last, store special (e.g. they aren’t listed in a catalog). I believe Nordstrom’s was the big seller of these (along with the Lloyd).

Edit: (I’m very jealous, as I love the old Clifton and wish I could find a pair in that color).

Thanks for the info! Makes sense as the 5 last has always been tight in the forefoot for me and these fit much more comfortably than any size 9D 5 last shoe I've ever tried. The color is very rich and there is a fair amount of burnishing on the brogueing - I think the prior owner must have done it after market as there are clear dark markings inside of the brogue holes. And lastly I must say the leather quality is noticeably different from current production, much more supple and can brush to a really high shine in 10-15 minutes. Blind luck falling into these as they were one of the very first pairs I bought on eBay.

 

[wasmisterfu]

I have been impatiently waiting for my shipment. They finally arrived!

Golden Harvest that were in good shape, but they had a cheap house leather sole that was glued on.

Wyatt and Dad replaced the sole and welts and did an antique edge and JR heels. They look fantastic!

I also had a repair done on my 1960 Shark Derby. I have only worn them once just to try them on because i was worried about the stitching coming loose and causing damage. They put JR heels on them also.



View attachment 1609430 View attachment 1609431 View attachment 1609432 View attachment 1609433 View attachment 1609434 View attachment 1609435 View attachment 1609436

Those GH’s look amazing (the work on those is first-rate). I can’t believe someone just glued a sole on the bottom of those.

 

[wasmisterfu]

Thanks for the info! Makes sense as the 5 last has always been tight in the forefoot for me and these fit much more comfortably than any size 9D 5 last shoe I've ever tried. The color is very rich and there is a fair amount of burnishing on the brogueing - I think the prior owner must have done it after market as there are clear dark markings inside of the brogue holes. And lastly I must say the leather quality is noticeably different from current production, much more supple and can brush to a really high shine in 10-15 minutes. Blind luck falling into these as they were one of the very first pairs I bought on eBay.

So they sourced their leather, back then, from tanneries that simply don’t exist anymore. Back in the day, especially in the 80’s and 90’s, AE (being one of the last standing) had access to a lot of high-quality leather output from highly distressed tanneries, meaning they could get the stuff at very competitive prices.

IMHO, AE from about 1982 to around 1998, was at its quality zenith (with 83-92 being absolute peak). Even the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s stuff (which I own) can’t match the stuff they made during that period. Fit & finish and leather quality during that period is exceptionally good.

All that said, the leather they use now is actually better than people realize (it is cut thicker in many cases), but the upper leather is often incredibly (absurdly) dry by the time you get them home. First thing you have to do, nowadays, is slather them in a lot of conditioner.

Here’s an example of what happens when you do and don’t; both shoes are the same model, made at roughly the same time, with nearly exactly the same wear. One got my condition before first wear, the other clearly didn’t:

Carefully (and heavily) conditioned and maintained:

Not conditioned:

This example doesn’t have much wear:

Granted, this is an extreme example, but you really need to condition new AE’s heavily before first use. BTW, part of the problem is tanneries aren’t even allowed (at least the ones in Europe and NA) to use some of the wonderfully carcinogenic preservative agents they were able to employ back in the day. So make sure you keep your current-era AE’s well hydrated.

 

[stook1]

Yup, that’s a Clifton (my black Clifton’s are 0317). The 03 is the “root” style code (in this case the 0 denotes a non-catalog model, e.g. store, or other, special model), the 5 is the color and the last digit is the last (which is, for this shoe, the 7 last, aka the McNeil last).

The second 4-digit number is the date code, of which the 1st digit is the day of week, second two digits are the week of the year, the final digit is the last number of the year (in this case, the 2 indicates 1992). Note that the day of week and week of year digits are sometimes reversed, depending on who dialed in the numbers on the stamping machine.

TL;DR: 1992 Clifton, built on the 7 last, store special (e.g. they aren’t listed in a catalog). I believe Nordstrom’s was the big seller of these (along with the Lloyd).

Edit: (I’m very jealous, as I love the old Clifton and wish I could find a pair in that color).

I think I am losing my mind, I thought the clifton was a derby for some reason. I tried a pair --- I don't know, must be 10 years ago. I must be mixed up.

edit: I'm not losing it... I guess they changed the pattern at some point.

 

[KarlHungus]

I think I am losing my mind, I thought the clifton was a derby for some reason. I tried a pair --- I don't know, must be 10 years ago. I must be mixed up.

edit: I'm not losing it... I guess they changed the pattern at some point.

View attachment 1609632

correct, there are several examples of names being reused for completely different styles over the years. I guess once they come up with a name they like they stick to it!

 

[KarlHungus]

So they sourced their leather, back then, from tanneries that simply don’t exist anymore. Back in the day, especially in the 80’s and 90’s, AE (being one of the last standing) had access to a lot of high-quality leather output from highly distressed tanneries, meaning they could get the stuff at very competitive prices.

IMHO, AE from about 1982 to around 1998, was at its quality zenith (with 83-92 being absolute peak). Even the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s stuff (which I own) can’t match the stuff they made during that period. Fit & finish and leather quality during that period is exceptionally good.

All that said, the leather they use now is actually better than people realize (it is cut thicker in many cases), but the upper leather is often incredibly (absurdly) dry by the time you get them home. First thing you have to do, nowadays, is slather them in a lot of conditioner.

Here’s an example of what happens when you do and don’t; both shoes are the same model, made at roughly the same time, with nearly exactly the same wear. One got my condition before first wear, the other clearly didn’t:

Carefully (and heavily) conditioned and maintained:

Not conditioned:

This example doesn’t have much wear:

Granted, this is an extreme example, but you really need to condition new AE’s heavily before first use. BTW, part of the problem is tanneries aren’t even allowed (at least the ones in Europe and NA) to use some of the wonderfully carcinogenic preservative agents they were able to employ back in the day. So make sure you keep your current-era AE’s well hydrated.

Really interesting to hear the perspective on quality peak, especially that it was not a linear downhill slide but rather had peaks and valleys. Like I said, dumb luck on my part falling into a great pair.

The difference in the two pairs you showed is striking. What product do you typically use for hydration?

 

[stook1]

New project shoes... I grabbed these off of Ebay the other day and began working on them yesterday. These are Edwin Clapp probably from the 60s. The leather is somewhat of a mystery with guesses ranging from camel to water bison to wildebeest. I'm going with wildebeest since it's it sounds cool even though I am not quite sure what they even look like.

The grain pattern on them is pretty neat. The toes are completely smooth presumably from a combination of the leather being so supple and the effect of the lasting when they were made. The quality of the lining is way up there in terms of quality - extremely soft and supple as well. Stitching is pretty immaculate both on the uppers and welt. This pair has their original soles and heels.

Condition is pretty good on this pair. There is some very slight surface cracking on some of the brogue trim around the neck and a couple of other tiny spots but it seems to be minor and my hope is that it's stable and will remain so with the conditioning that I've done. They weren't particularly dry when I got them. I applied two coats of bick4 and a third coat which was a blend of VSC and neatsfoot oil. I will probably stop here for now as far as the conditioning and give them some time...

Finally regarding the size. They are a 10.5 of unknown width. When I received them my first though was that they were pretty narrow looking. But they do seem to more or less fit me. I suspect they are a 10.5C but have no frame of reference as far as EC fitment goes. I have some higher volume trees in them right now with the hope that I will be able to open up a tiny bit more room at the ball.

 

[suitforcourt]

So they sourced their leather, back then, from tanneries that simply don’t exist anymore. Back in the day, especially in the 80’s and 90’s, AE (being one of the last standing) had access to a lot of high-quality leather output from highly distressed tanneries, meaning they could get the stuff at very competitive prices.

IMHO, AE from about 1982 to around 1998, was at its quality zenith (with 83-92 being absolute peak). Even the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s stuff (which I own) can’t match the stuff they made during that period. Fit & finish and leather quality during that period is exceptionally good.

All that said, the leather they use now is actually better than people realize (it is cut thicker in many cases), but the upper leather is often incredibly (absurdly) dry by the time you get them home. First thing you have to do, nowadays, is slather them in a lot of conditioner.

Here’s an example of what happens when you do and don’t; both shoes are the same model, made at roughly the same time, with nearly exactly the same wear. One got my condition before first wear, the other clearly didn’t:

Carefully (and heavily) conditioned and maintained:

Not conditioned:

This example doesn’t have much wear:

Granted, this is an extreme example, but you really need to condition new AE’s heavily before first use. BTW, part of the problem is tanneries aren’t even allowed (at least the ones in Europe and NA) to use some of the wonderfully carcinogenic preservative agents they were able to employ back in the day. So make sure you keep your current-era AE’s well hydrated.

Your posts are always so informative. The new thing(s) I've learned today.

I already knew to always turn off my camera, and to keep mic on mute, during Zoom court.

I was not involved in this case, but a funny Friday read.

‘I would admit that I lost my temper’: Impaired driving case ends in mistrial after Toronto judge uses F-word in Zoom hearing

‘I would admit that I lost my temper’: Impaired driving case ends in mistrial after Toronto judge uses F-word in Zoom hearing

mimicnews.com

 

[Nobleprofessor]

So they sourced their leather, back then, from tanneries that simply don’t exist anymore. Back in the day, especially in the 80’s and 90’s, AE (being one of the last standing) had access to a lot of high-quality leather output from highly distressed tanneries, meaning they could get the stuff at very competitive prices.

IMHO, AE from about 1982 to around 1998, was at its quality zenith (with 83-92 being absolute peak). Even the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s stuff (which I own) can’t match the stuff they made during that period. Fit & finish and leather quality during that period is exceptionally good.

All that said, the leather they use now is actually better than people realize (it is cut thicker in many cases), but the upper leather is often incredibly (absurdly) dry by the time you get them home. First thing you have to do, nowadays, is slather them in a lot of conditioner.

Here’s an example of what happens when you do and don’t; both shoes are the same model, made at roughly the same time, with nearly exactly the same wear. One got my condition before first wear, the other clearly didn’t:

Carefully (and heavily) conditioned and maintained:

Not conditioned:

This example doesn’t have much wear:

Granted, this is an extreme example, but you really need to condition new AE’s heavily before first use. BTW, part of the problem is tanneries aren’t even allowed (at least the ones in Europe and NA) to use some of the wonderfully carcinogenic preservative agents they were able to employ back in the day. So make sure you keep your current-era AE’s well hydrated.

I don’t have enough expertise or experience to disagree with you about the peak in quality. But, I can say I have three pair of AE from different eras that might be pretty good examples of what you are talking about.

I have a pair from the 70’s that are absolutely spectacular in terms of quality and exceptional in things like stitches per inch and perfect details. I’m probably not saying it the right way. I look at them and I know they are high quality.

I also have a pair of Cody loafers that I suspect were made in the time period you are describing as the peak. The leather is really high quality and is so smooth but also supple and strong. They take a shine with almost no effort. I don’t mean a glossy shine like on CG leather. I mean a shine that shows the depth and richness without being hard and glossy.

I also have a pair of Grayson that I bought within the last 3 years. They look worse after a dozen wears than my 70’s wingtips look after decades of use.

Those pictures regarding conditioning should be a public service announcement. It makes me want to get started conditioning all of my shoes!