Allen Edmonds = What English shoemaker in quality?

Moras, bitches.

Originally Posted by academe

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of groupthink influencing the opinions here. There's a lot of forum loyalty towards AE and Alden, especially amongst American members. I also think its partly influenced by the fact that those shoes are much more common in the US, and American members have an easier reference frame. I suspect there are many American members here who may have commented who don't actually own some of the "entry level" English shoes, like Loake, Barker, etc. and may have only seen photos in the interwebz or perhaps on the occasional visit to the UK. - Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic and owned the whole gamut of American and English shoes, I wouldn't put AE quality anywhere near benchgrade C&J, Churchs or Trickers. Possibly in the same league as Loake 1880, welted Barkers, or Cheaneys, but I think the comparison to mid-range English makers is off the mark.

(As an aside, I think the dislike of Trickers' "clunkier" shoes is a bit unwarranted. Their Jermyn Street shoes are much sleeker than their country lines -- but perhaps the country lines are all that most American iGents are familiar with, because those are the pictures they see online?)

I think that I need to respectfully disagree with this assessment. I've also lived on both sides of the Atlantic and currently have or have had shoes from all of the above mentioned shoe makers along with others that get plenty of mention in these environs. If quality is defined as including the quality of materials used, durability and refinement of construction, etc., AE and Alden are a significant step up in quality from the Loake 1880s, et al. While it is clearly comparing apples and oranges to an extent, I think that C&J benchgrade, Tricker's city shoes (agree with the above that some of their lines are quite underrated, although I wish that they would develop some lasts to accomodate medium widths more comfortably) or perhaps Sargent (with the exception of their Premier Exclusive line, which is an impressive shoe) is an apt general comparison. Like others, I suspect that some negative reactions to AE do stem from their often (although not always) clunky lasts and styling (and on that measure, I agree that one often wonders about the styling). But on any number of other levels, I think it's unfair to group AE and Alden in with Loake or Barker (I have more limited experience with Cheaney, so can't comment on that, although some of the higher end lines - at one point called Joseph Cheaney - seemed to be decent shoes).

That said, I often find that I'm more impressed with the workmanship of the offerings from what are known here as "mid-range" Italian manufacturers than either the AEs or mid-range English makers. I suppose the knocks are usually the seeming penchant for excessively "exuberant" styling and possibly durability, but in my experience, the more sober offerings from Martegani or Borgioli FAM are usually impressive pieces of work that wear surprisingly well (even in places with snowy / icy winters) and are a terrific value when one can find them on sale.

My two cents...

Es are solid shoes, well made and a very good value when you can get them on sale (which you very often can). They do struggle with their styling. They are very good at classics, but as said above, seem desperate to churn the design line constantly. They need to come up with a set of half a dozen classic designs as constants (eg, the Park Avenue, Fifth Avenue, etc.) and then issue new and changing models besides that.

If one is selective about model selection AE could supply virtually all of one's shoes quite satisfactorily. I'm not saying folks here want to do that, but I'd much rather someone wear AEs than Kenneth Cole, et al.

Someone needs to post the comparison pics Sator did between AE and EG.

Originally Posted by academe

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of groupthink influencing the opinions here. There's a lot of forum loyalty towards AE and Alden, especially amongst American members. I also think its partly influenced by the fact that those shoes are much more common in the US, and American members have an easier reference frame. I suspect there are many American members here who may have commented who don't actually own some of the "entry level" English shoes, like Loake, Barker, etc. and may have only seen photos in the interwebz or perhaps on the occasional visit to the UK. - Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic and owned the whole gamut of American and English shoes, I wouldn't put AE quality anywhere near benchgrade C&J, Churchs or Trickers. Possibly in the same league as Loake 1880, welted Barkers, or Cheaneys, but I think the comparison to mid-range English makers is off the mark.

(As an aside, I think the dislike of Trickers' "clunkier" shoes is a bit unwarranted. Their Jermyn Street shoes are much sleeker than their country lines -- but perhaps the country lines are all that most American iGents are familiar with, because those are the pictures they see online?)

+1

Originally Posted by lee_44106

Click to expand...

While I'm no fan of the 360-welt, to blanketly state that AE has the ugliest last is to ignore the fact that some lasts are quite elegant.

My Park Avenue, Lamberts are in fact quite sleek. There was a thread a while back comparing the shape of the AE Park Avenue to that of the EG Chelsea. The result was NOT as lopsided as one would think.

Agreed. The only trick to buying AEs is to stick to a select few lasts, such as the #5. If you do that you are getting incredible bang for your buck. Nobody has ever pretended that AEs are supposed to be the most stylish, elegant shoes ever created; they are what they are - solid, affordable American shoes.

My father has worn the same pair of Park Avenues to work everyday for the past 11 years. They still look great. No rotation of other work shoes. 1 pair, no joke.

I have to say, I can't see groupthink in action here. Many of AE's defenders, myself included, think a good chunk of their output is pretty awful. No SF-approved company's sins are more transparent, or more often criticized.

In terms of quality, I give the nod to AE over my Loake 1880s. Personally, I'd rank AE above Loake but below C&J benchgrade, which is, as I see it, conventional wisdom around here.

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

Click to expand...

Many of AE's defenders, myself included, think a good chunk of their output is pretty awful.
I agree. Most of their shoes look terrible. But I only buy the ones I think look good (PA, Dryden, Byron, Sanford) and have found them all to be a great value for the money.

I'm a fan of AE's construction and durability. The leathers they use are pretty good and they are comfortable for me. I like the styling of the ones I have as well; Park Ave's, Hale (My favorite), and Sanford. Been looking into getting a pair of wholecuts at some point...

Originally Posted by academe

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of groupthink influencing the opinions here. There's a lot of forum loyalty towards AE and Alden, especially amongst American members. I also think its partly influenced by the fact that those shoes are much more common in the US, and American members have an easier reference frame. I suspect there are many American members here who may have commented who don't actually own some of the "entry level" English shoes, like Loake, Barker, etc. and may have only seen photos in the interwebz or perhaps on the occasional visit to the UK. - Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic and owned the whole gamut of American and English shoes, I wouldn't put AE quality anywhere near benchgrade C&J, Churchs or Trickers. Possibly in the same league as Loake 1880, welted Barkers, or Cheaneys, but I think the comparison to mid-range English makers is off the mark.

(As an aside, I think the dislike of Trickers' "clunkier" shoes is a bit unwarranted. Their Jermyn Street shoes are much sleeker than their country lines -- but perhaps the country lines are all that most American iGents are familiar with, because those are the pictures they see online?)

I own or have owned:

AE
Alden (no longer own, was not very impressed for the $$)
Tricker's - and both are from the Jermyn line, the Marlow and the Lambourn.
C&J Handgrade
Polo Shell Cordovans - basically, C&J Benchgrade quality
Various Polo made in England Calfskin shoes (probably C&J, maybe some AS)
RLPL/EG
Barker
Alfred Sargent
Brooks Brothers (made in England, probably Alfred Sargent)
Grenson Footmaster
Grenson Masterpiece
Paul Stuart (Grenson Masterpiece standards)
Lloyd & Haig

I'm sure there are others that I have left off.

I'll put AE near C&J Benchgrade and Grenson Footmaster. My AE shell cordovan (black Leeds) is comparable to my Polo Cordovans by C&J - the AE's are much more comfortable, the Polo's are nice because they are in the rare brown shell. The material is the same - Horween shell cordovan, and I think AE uses Redenbach for the soles, so they are ahead there. My calf AE's are comparable to the Brooks Brothers. I like AE better than Alden, but can agree that they're comparable. It's slightly better constructed than the Alfred Sargent, but that sole model is a crepe sole desert boot chukka, which isn't really a fair comparison.

It is definitely miles better than the Barker's I have, but I wanted that particular shade. Certainly better than the Lloyd & Haig.

The Tricker's, C&J Handgrade, RLPL/EG, Paul Stuart and Grenson Masterpiece are better.

My only experience with the low-to-mid English makers is a pair of Mulberry-branded monks made by Cheaney. I find them to be at least as well-made as my AEs, perhaps a tick better.

My only experience with C&J is with the shoes they make for BrooksPeal. These are usually said to be in between C&J benchgrade and handgrade; in any case, they're significantly nicer in materials, make, and finishing than my AEs are.

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

Click to expand...

I own or have owned:
It is definitely miles better than the Barker's I have, but I wanted that particular shade. Certainly better than the Lloyd & Haig.

The Tricker's, C&J Handgrade, RLPL/EG, Paul Stuart and Grenson Masterpiece are better.

Which Barker's? I know there's not a great deal of love for Barker on this forum, but I don't think many members have tried their benchgrade shoes, which IMO are easily the match for Alfred Sargent Premier or Church's benchgrade.

Originally Posted by Bird's One View

Click to expand...

Other makers build specific shoes with a 360 degree welt but AE builds all of its shoes this way -- even the recently discontinued Ritz formal pump. The shoes depicted in the (animated) opening credits of MAD MEN are clearly 360 degree welted, by the way.
I have an old pair of AE penny loafers that are not 360 welt. The model was discontinued at least 5 years ago. Too bad.. I love them.

Regarding the OP's question, I think NovaGuy has it right. MOST English shoemakers have a line that is on par with AE quality. I have some Grenson's I bought recently from Sak's that are very close. I think they are probably footmaster. But they are also right on par with:

Church's bench grade
C&J bench grade
AS - (using the brooks non-peal as comparison)

They use good, but not the best leather. They use open channel goodyear welting. IMHO the shades of difference are minor between other makers of similar product, if you don't count the last shape.

^^ I must confess I have never paid any attention to AE's (or any maker's) loafers.

What a storm in a teacup!

grimslade - my comment about Groupthink wasn't necessarily meant in a pejorative way. My point was more that there is a received opinion on this forum, especially amongst American members, that AE and Alden are "honestly made" shoes. Good price:quality ratio, decent construction, etc. There are some concerns about how elegant their lasts are, but for the price, generally a good buy... Correct me if I'm wrong?

I don't think I'm disputing weather or not they're a good buy -- they seem to have a good price:quality ratio after all. I'm simply pointing out that, in my opinion, AEs aren't as well-made or well-designed as C&J, Sargent, Churchs, Trickers (Jermyn Street), or some other mid-price English-made shoe. Might I emphasize the stress on design... For me, part of what makes a "good quality" shoe is how elegant or refined the lasts are, not simply construction quality. When I'm evaluating a shoe, I think of it holistically, and not simply pragmatically - i.e., I want something that is both well-constructed and good-looking, too.

The received wisdom on this forum is also that Loake, Barker and other entry-level British shoes are rubbish, and deserving of scorn and general ridicule. I disagree with this sentiment, because in my experience, the better range of Loakes, Barker, Grenson, etc. aren't really "bad" at all. In my experience, they are not so much worse than AE that I would ridicule them in the way they are often attacked here at SF. As I've said, I also have found them to be of roughly similar quality (or, at least the difference is so marginal that I really can't distinguish it - but perhaps I'm not as much of an expert as the rest of you).

Loake, Barker, etc. can also be cheaply bought in the UK -- frequently on sale for <£80 from brick-and-mortar establishments. I suspect the perception of American iGents that these cheaper English shoes are not good value for money stems from the fact that they can never be had online for much less than £100-140. For some strange reason, the online markup for British shoes is higher than for their brick-and-mortar counterparts. For example, I can often buy C&Js at full retail from a local shoe store for £40-50 less than they can be had from online forum favourites like Pediwear.