Please show me your black calf Cleverley shoe

Originally Posted by MarquisMagic

Click to expand...

And I see from another forum that you have added yet another pair of black calf Cleverley's to your collection!

Yes and no First, Cleverley has indeed made up a new pair of rather classic black calf Adelaides for me. So I guess you could say they're another pair. However, they are replacing an almost identical pair the Cleverley folks made for me over two decades ago (before they were even Cleverley). That pair is now retired, so the net sum remains the same. Moreover, I have never thought of the shoes in my closet as a "collection." They have all been purchased to be worn and all of them are on a rather regular basis...season, weather, and occasion permitting. At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

So no one else has a Basil Zaharoff pair in their closet that they can pull out as they are dying and realize that there are always new shirts to wear, new shoes to put on?

Are all black calf Cleverleys made with the same leather or are there different grades, textures, etc?

Why do you guys prefer Cleverley to G&G. From what I have seen G&G make a far superior shoe

What possible evidence do you have for that? Certainly they have a different approach to design. And one can certainly favor G&G over Cleverley on that ground. But the idea that G&G makes a "far superior" shoe is rather questionable at best. Make your case!

G&G is, I believe, a better constructed shoe and there is no question that it is better finished. But the styling is quite different. I can see plenty of good reasons to prefer a Cleverley shape to G&G. Also, and this is anecdotal, but I have heard a not-insignificant number of complaints about G&G fit but never any about Cleverley.

Originally Posted by MarquisMagic

Click to expand...

Are all black calf Cleverleys made with the same leather or are there different grades, textures, etc?

Well, they have pebble and such. Smooth black calf is going to be from the same source where all the bespoke makers get their skins (I think its from eastern France near the Swiss border). Tony G. once told me that when a new shipment comes in to Northampton, whoever gets to pick them over first gets the best ones and it's usually him.

Originally Posted by cdmoore1855

Click to expand...

Why do you guys prefer Cleverley to G&G. From what I have seen G&G make a far superior shoe

Originally Posted by MarquisMagic

Click to expand...

What possible evidence do you have for that? Certainly they have a different approach to design. And one can certainly favor G&G over Cleverley on that ground. But the idea that G&G makes a "far superior" shoe is rather questionable at best. Make your case!

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

G&G is, I believe, a better constructed shoe and there is no question that it is better finished. But the styling is quite different. I can see plenty of good reasons to prefer a Cleverley shape to G&G. Also, and this is anecdotal, but I have heard a not-insignificant number of complaints about G&G fit but never any about Cleverley.

I have been a customer of both. I first met Tony when he was with Cleverley and got to know him when he was with Edward Green. I believe you can find images of the shoes he has made for me elsewhere on this forum. There is no question that he is commited to making a fine product, that he crafts a somewhat different shoe than Cleverley, and that for those looking for design innovations, he has some very intriguing ideas. He believes in an elongated look, slim, but not as closefitting as Cleverley. The shoes he has made for me look to be at least a half size larger than my Cleverley-made footwear and are heavier in weight. It would be a mistake to say Tony puts style over fit, but I think (as manton suggests) his approach to fit is a bit different and more likely to miss the mark initially. He also has more interest in the finishes of his shoes and some indeed find that preferable. That said, I have also been a customer of the folks at Cleverley from the time they were with New & Lingwood/Poulsen Skone. Again, you should be able to find images of some of my Cleverley-made footwear elsewhere on this Forum as well. Cleverley makes a wonderfully light and beautifully fitting shoe, classsic in every respect, and are certainly capable of stretching the design envelope though probably would refrain from trying anything they really did not think would work. Where John Carnera and George Glasgow were really traditionalists at heart, I believe Dominic Casey has brought a new sense of flair to the firm. Their primacy on fit means that their shoes do tend to reflect the shape of one's foot more than G&G's. They certainly have access to all of the hides Tony has and first choice of some additional leathers. I have seen no real evidence of "better construction" by either maker...both can make a superlative product. In the end, it is a question of personal approach and preference.

^^^ Succinct and definitive. Thank you, professor. Nice to have you visitng more often. I hope it becomes a habit.

Originally Posted by medwards

Click to expand...

In the end, it is a question of personal approach and preference.

+1

Manton's and Medward's responses sum it up nicely.
I would repeat would Medwards said regarding Cleverley's "lightness". My bespoke pair and my MTO pair are masterfully free of excess material, bulk and are very light. They make any foot appear smaller by virtue of their design. Or perhaps that is better said, other shoes make your feet appear bigger than they are by virtue of the "wasted" space through the midpoint of the shoe, etc.

All of that aside, I would, and will eventually, happily own shoe's from Toney, too. His are truly beautiful to look at and he is presenting some very interesting designs. He's still finding his style in some ways.

Originally Posted by Cary Grant

Click to expand...

Manton's and Medward's responses sum it up nicely.
I would repeat would Medwards said regarding Cleverley's "lightness". My bespoke pair and my MTO pair are masterfully free of excess material, bulk and are very light. They make any foot appear smaller by virtue of their design. Or perhaps that is better said, other shoes make your feet appear bigger than they are by virtue of the "wasted" space through the midpoint of the shoe, etc. All of that aside, I would, and will eventually, happily own shoe's from Tony, too. His are truly beautiful to look at and he is presenting some very interesting designs. He's still finding his style in some ways.

It is not uncommon on this Forum and elsewhere to find individuals who are intrigued by the images of certain bespoke shoes...shoes of distinct craftsmanship and great beauty. Tony Gaziano's best work falls into this category -- handsome, sleek, even somewhat sensuous in line and feel. Not a few Forum participants have shared the hope that someday they might be able to acquire shoes just like these. There is a problem, however. For many of us, no matter our resources or the accessibility of a bespoke shoemaker, we will never have shoes that look just like these. The problem is not in our wallets; it is in our soles.

Let me begin with a quote from The Suit in which our friend and colleague manton suggests: The foot being an ungainly thing , wise men seek out shoes that minimize its appearance. Bespoke shoes will always fit and feel best, because they are made on lasts carved to the exact requirements of actual feet. Most dandies believe that they also look better even though, by conforming so closely to the shape of your foot, they look quirky when compared to a standardized redy-made shoe.

There's the rub. Bespoke footwear is made to meet the unique needs and measurements of a single customer. A shoe that really provides the best fit and comfort closely conforms to the shape and mechanics of one's actual foot. Talented shoemakers can certainly use their skills to mitigate against ungainliness, but there is a tradeoff between look/style and comfort. Each of us has to determine where that line is, but there are certainly limits. In my own case, my right foot is a bit wider than my left, but more importantly my feet -- not terribly large -- are rather wide in the forefoot. This means there is only the shortest of distance between the widest part of my foot and the tip of my toe. It simply isn't possible to construct a shoe that matches this shape and has the sleekness some would favor or a keenly chiseled toe so very much in vogue, without compromising fit to a large degree. Inasmuch as my longest standing shoemaker (Cleverley) places a primacy on fit, they would undoubtedly caution me away from shoes and styles that would not be best for my particular foot. Other shoemakers have a somewhat different approach. As Tony Gaziano explained to manton in a January 2005 interview: "The service is for the customer so if he prefers shape over fit then I will veer more towards the aesthetics and fit is priority then I will still try to give good aesthetics but concentrate more on the fit, I prefer aesthetics. I love design and creation." That is not to say that Tony disregards fit, simply that he tries to strike a balance.

There is no question in my mind that a talented shoemaker -- and certainly both Cleverley and G&G -- can craft footwear that will enhance the look of one's foot while maintaining as much comfort as possible. Moreover, I believe that bespoke shoes -- because of their craftsmanship, quality, and inherent trimness -- will almost always look better on one than its ready-to-wear counterpart. But one needs to be mindful of the limitations.

There are a lucky few whose feet easily accomodate the most slender and elegant of styles. They are most fortunate. For the rest of us, the choice remains a bit of a trade-off. I fear that a number of individuals expect that a bespoke shoemaker can readily accomplish a perfect fit in any style...and these individuals may therefore be rather disappointed in the end. In any event, it is something to think about.

Originally Posted by Cary Grant

Click to expand...

I would repeat would Medwards said regarding Cleverley's "lightness". My bespoke pair and my MTO pair are masterfully free of excess material, bulk and are very light. They make any foot appear smaller by virtue of their design. Or perhaps that is better said, other shoes make your feet appear bigger than they are by virtue of the "wasted" space through the midpoint of the shoe, etc.

Another Forum member just reminded me of an image I posted a few years back that showed the apparent difference in my Cleverley versus Gaziano shoes. The black calf imitation brogue Cleverley's on the left and the full brogued G&G Adelaides on the right were both made for me around the same time...and both actually fit quite well. However, you can clearly see the difference in look between the two. The shoes Tony made give the appearance of being a full size larger than the Cleverleys.

^ Wow.

Originally Posted by MarquisMagic

Click to expand...

What possible evidence do you have for that? Certainly they have a different approach to design. And one can certainly favor G&G over Cleverley on that ground. But the idea that G&G makes a "far superior" shoe is rather questionable at best. Make your case!

I should add that that my comment was not taking fit into consideration, but merely based on the construction

I have seen numerous examples of both and of course seen many pics on this forum. I have seen some shoes made by cleverley that Tony would unlikely provide as a finished shoe. Russia leather shoes with several cracks in the skin (yes I know this stuff is old but there are good skins out there without cracks), there is also another shoe with the nail poking through the welt. They may fit well but when they are making close to 600 pairs a year they may miss the mark sometimes. As far as the look, yes this is subjective but i being younger prefer the sleeker lines of a G&G shoe. Also another thing I see is that Cleverley seldom do a seamless heel, even on a derby or norwegian where the shoe is stitched at the front they will do a poor heal seem same as a ready to wear shoe. They could at the very least Skin stitch it to make it more subtle

I have some Russia Leather norwegians on order from Tony, I asked for them to made with a seamless heel, he said no problem as long as the full skin is of high enough quality to use the whole piece without compromising the finished product. He won't use a lesser quality skin or one with cracks in it.

Where does Foster and Son fit into all this, I really like the look of Will's Oxblood Adelaides.