Are these Church's corrected grain?

I just bought my first pair of Church's, a really nice looking polished binder shoe from a new line called the City line. Sleek looking design, apparently on a brand new last. HOWEVER, I'm getting paranoid from all the posts here that Church's uses cheap leather. I get the suspicion that some people aren't sure if polished binder actually is corrected grain or not and what that means for the quality.

So......
(1) Is this good quality or low quality leather?
(2) Are they corrected grain?

Thank you!

Polished binder is corrected grain.

I have a pair of Church's (in polished binder) from the pre-Prada era that I still wear and several since the Prada takeover (in what Church's would call calf); although I consider them on par with Crockett & Jones, I favour Church's.

I do not have anything from the City Line, what is the RRP?

Originally Posted by Macallan

Click to expand...

Polished binder is corrected grain.

I have a pair of Church's (in polished binder) from the pre-Prada era that I still wear and several since the Prada takeover (in what Church's would call calf); although I consider them on par with Crockett & Jones, I favour Church's.

I do not have anything from the City Line, what is the RRP?

Thanks! I'm just so paranoid since a lot of people have been dinging on Church's here. I think the new shoes, including this City Line (my model is called "Paris"), are quite stylish looking, in contrast to many complaints about Church's being too stodgy - they look like a good competitor to the C&Js. Actually, I tried on some C&Js with the intention of ordering some from PLal, but they didn't fit - the Church's had a slightly wider last that made them more comfortable.

Sorry, I'm not sure what RRP is, but if you mean price, they were $450 at the Church's store on Madison Ave in NYC. I'm struggling with the price if the leather is low quality, AND they are only 1/2 leather lined (the other 1/2 is linen). But they look gorgeous in person.

Originally Posted by thebigcicero

Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm just so paranoid since a lot of people have been dinging on Church's here. I think the new shoes, including this City Line (my model is called "Paris"), are quite stylish looking, in contrast to many complaints about Church's being too stodgy - they look like a good competitor to the C&Js. Actually, I tried on some C&Js with the intention of ordering some from PLal, but they didn't fit - the Church's had a slightly wider last that made them more comfortable.

Sorry, I'm not sure what RRP is, but if you mean price, they were $450 at the Church's store on Madison Ave in NYC. I'm struggling with the price if the leather is low quality, AND they are only 1/2 leather lined (the other 1/2 is linen). But they look gorgeous in person.

Sounds like you are trying to get people to justify your purchase by recanting previous statements against Church's styling/quality. That's probably not going to happen around here. They are decent, but you can get better quality for you money. Also, they are corrected grain, which most do not like the appearance of.

You've been scammed dude, get your money back

Church's are good at making good quality conservative shoes and that is what the company is about, Lobb is the same in the bespoke department. If you want fancy designs then look elsewhere, if you are not a customer of the two firms.

As for price, they probably cost more in the US then in the UK; Church's do cost slightly more than C&J and I think both should be priced equally. Basing opinion only on price is tricky, Meyer & Mortimer are about £500 cheaper than Dege & Skinner for a two-piece suit, both have a military cut but if you preferred Dege would you go to Meyer?

The opinion that Church's is overprice is flawed.
- Lodger sell Alfred Sargent shoes for £550, Church's Royal Collection is £430.
- Is the quality different between Church's normal range and Edward Green worth over £200
- How about the quality difference between the Royal Range at £430 and G&G at £565; besides more design options G&G are not worth £135.
Even the points above are flawed, but it shows how it is difficult to compare.

We have different styles, I am looking 4 new work shoes and would ideally want, all shoes with a round toe last, in black calfskin: cap-toe, punched-toe, semi-brogue with medallion and full-brogue with medallion. Church's have this in their Royal Collection, although I would prefer a more tradition toe.
Someone else may go for oxfords, derbys and maybe even loafers, in different shades of brown and red in a chisel-toe.

Church's make their shoes so they can be resoled three times; use shoe-trees, polish and treat the shoes as required and they should last three resoles. I went to Church's a few years ago and was talking shoe rotation with the assistant, he said an older gent recently has his 10 year Church's resoled with some repair and they also had a women bring her husband's 6-month old Church's. Take care of your Church's and they will last a long time.

really, there are better and worse grades of CG, the Church's are on the better end.

on the other hand they are still overpriced.

Originally Posted by Macallan

Click to expand...

Church's are good at making good quality conservative shoes and that is what the company is about, Lobb is the same in the bespoke department. If you want fancy designs then look elsewhere, if you are not a customer of the two firms.

As for price, they probably cost more in the US then in the UK; Church's do cost slightly more than C&J and I think both should be priced equally. Basing opinion only on price is tricky, Meyer & Mortimer are about £500 cheaper than Dege & Skinner for a two-piece suit, both have a military cut but if you preferred Dege would you go to Meyer?

The opinion that Church's is overprice is flawed.
- Lodger sell Alfred Sargent shoes for £550, Church's Royal Collection is £430.
- Is the quality different between Church's normal range and Edward Green worth over £200
- How about the quality difference between the Royal Range at £430 and G&G at £565; besides more design options G&G are not worth £135.
Even the points above are flawed, but it shows how it is difficult to compare.

We have different styles, I am looking 4 new work shoes and would ideally want, all shoes with a round toe last, in black calfskin: cap-toe, punched-toe, semi-brogue with medallion and full-brogue with medallion. Church's have this in their Royal Collection, although I would prefer a more tradition toe.
Someone else may go for oxfords, derbys and maybe even loafers, in different shades of brown and red in a chisel-toe.

Church's make their shoes so they can be resoled three times; use shoe-trees, polish and treat the shoes as required and they should last three resoles. I went to Church's a few years ago and was talking shoe rotation with the assistant, he said an older gent recently has his 10 year Church's resoled with some repair and they also had a women bring her husband's 6-month old Church's. Take care of your Church's and they will last a long time.

There's a lot in what you say. I have a pair of Churchs vintage for Alan Macafee and the leather is superb. Even binder in Churchs is pretty good and very popular. Not for me - I hate CG and won't wear it but there is a lot of bagging of Churchs that is not reasonable IMHO.

Polished binder is a higher quality CG from what I understand ... Vox has a pair that he has posted many rimes:

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

Church's Shannons, purchased new in 1986.

Still on the original double sole.

That said, for $450 you can get alden shell cordovan in black color. Those would be a much better investment.

Originally Posted by srivats

Click to expand...

That said, for $450 you can get alden shell cordovan in black color. Those would be a much better investment.

That is subjective.

Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie

Click to expand...

That is subjective.

Why do you think it is subjective? Shell aldens are built really well (eg full leather lining) and even a simple caring regimen ensures that shell lasts a long time. These are black shoes anyway, so unless someone hates shell cordovan and hates alden's conservative styling, why is it *not* a better choice than polished binder?

Middle picture look cheap,
nasty canvass lining,
me think they cut corners in new line

Originally Posted by pebblegrain

Click to expand...

really, there are better and worse grades of CG, the Church's are on the better end.

yes some shoe have plastik finish, bad
some grind down and paint put on, it better.
Church have both type

Originally Posted by srivats

Click to expand...

Why do you think it is subjective? Shell aldens are built really well (eg full leather lining) and even a simple caring regimen ensures that shell lasts a long time. These are black shoes anyway, so unless someone hates shell cordovan and hates alden's conservative styling, why is it *not* a better choice than polished binder?

Because price isn't the only factor. Cordovan is different from calf, and someone may prefer one to the other. Therefore, whether or not it is a better choice depends on the user. The "unless" you use now was not included in the comment I first replied to.

I don't know anyone here who'd prefer polished binder instead of cordovan, except maybe Vox.

Full grain calfskin is a different matter altogether.