Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help me choose the right wingtip boots

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I've bought four pairs of Allen Edmonds in 2015 (two on close-out at just under $100 but the other two at more like $175 and $300) so I clearly see the value in welted shoes (from our previous conversations, I believe you live in the north-east. If you live somewhere drier, then I think that there's no advantage and possibly some disadvantage to a goodyear welt over a blake stitch, where the sole is stitched directly to the upper. Italian shoes are rarely goodyear welted, but it's much warmer and somewhat drier there. And the blake stitch makes for a lighter shoe).

    That said, cemented shoes CAN be resoled these days. And there are variations in quality of cemented shoes. Johnston and Murphy will be at the highest end of that range and I think they'd be quite a bit better than the asos ones.

    Also, while J&M get a bad rap, I think the deal with them is not the same as Cole Haan, whom I think we discussed a few months ago. Cole Haan seem to me ludicrously overpriced, probably because they've got such a huge brand profile among people who aren't into shoes. But J&M are: 1) cheaper, and 2) better. J&M continues to sell a lot of goodyear welted shoes (admittedly the Conard isn't one of them); it just extended its range to also include a lot of cheaper, cemented shoes. The J&M melton gets quite a bit of play here as a cheap welted shoe, but they also have shoes more expensive and higher quality than that, such as the Aldwych, Hyde Park, and Georgetown. Some people on Ask Andy About Clothes or Style Forum (I forget which) think that the Georgetown is still a higher-quality shoe than AE's Park Avenue. So although the perception is that J&M went the Cole Haan route of moving to lower-quality shoes alone, it's really slightly different because they do maintain a number of more traditional shoes. Also, their styling is not nearly so garish as that of CH, many of whose shoes are unbelievably ugly. (With some of them, you can see right the way through the shoe because the holes are so big).


    Originally posted by evanparker View Post
    I would like to suggest, as politely as possible, that the problem with shoe construction in general is that it's hard to really construct any shoes in a quality way with out charging $350 for them. the construction of most $200 mens boots is generally the same molded sole construction method and materials as the ones that are $50. maybe there are some incremental improvements along the way to $200, but it usually pretty minimal in my opinion.

    In my opinion, in almost every case, until you get into a real goodyear welted leather/rubber sole you may as well buy some very inexpensive ones. Nothing wrong with that, they do make some good inexpensive ones these days. JCP Stafford has a couple good pairs usually about $50-60 bucks with a sale.

    I'm just not sure there's much value in a $200 Johnson and Murphy boot with GLUED ON FAKE goodyear welting, poor quality calfskin leather, a cemented sole, that is made in china. Especially when you could get a allen edmonds 2nd's pair that is really quite divine for <$240 or so.

    The fact is that cemented-together shoes, while they have lots of good qualities like being able to approach $50 sometimes, they just don't last.

    If it was me? i'd keep the asos ones and save up for the real thing if you like having mens dress boots.

    i started with a set of JCP Deacons before i got my $200 Allen Edmonds Dalton's.

    Comment


    • #17
      Presumably, you want the boots for walking in the snow and rain during winter. If so, is the climate where you live good enough that you can put the decision off until after the post-Thanksgiving sales?

      I disagree slightly with many of the other posters, in that I think that the J&M boot will be better than the ASOS one, in spite of being bond welted, because the leather quality will be better. But I don't think it's worth $175 for that boot. It might go on sale after Thanksgiving, in which case you might be able to get it for a decent price (I would say $125 should be the absolute maximum that you pay for it, though). And if it doesn't go on sale then, you can go back to the ASOS boot (which also might go on sale). If you do manage to pay a bit less for the J&M boot, you can then also save up for a goodyear welted one from somewhere like Allen Edmonds in the future.


      Originally posted by couchpotato View Post
      Hi folks, first time posting. Been a lurker on dappered.com for quite some time now. I even found a relevant article for one of the shoes I am considering but that's 4 years old - http://dappered.com/2011/09/wingtip-...0-asos-option/

      I have never spent more than $70 on a shoe and I have realized how big of a mistake that has been. Now that I have gotten little wiser, I ordered a wingtip boot from Lord & Taylor and have one in transit from Asos. I don't think I am still ready yet to spend more than a say 175. So before I ask you to suggest more alternatives, can you please provide feedback on the following shoes -

      1. Asos - http://us.asos.com/ASOS-Brogue-Boots...B1bGwvUHJvZC8. Are these any better than how they were 4 years back. I plan to wear my boot maybe once a week in fall/winter.

      2. Johnston & Murphy https://www.johnstonmurphy.com/conar...boot/9887.html - Almost double the price of ASOS, but is it significantly better than ASOS because I read on some forums people dissing on JM shoes as well and some even calling them crap. Another problem is they run a little big and I am size 8 which is the smallest they make.

      If both would just last me a season or two, I would prefer ASOS, since they are cheaper and look sleek and less bulky.

      Comment


      • #18
        I recently acquired a pair of these:
        http://www.dsw.com/shoe/aston+grey+p...?prodId=338198

        The ones in the B&M store were tan, so I bought them because I already have the JCP Deacons in cognac. If you only plan on wearing the boots 1-2 times a week, I don't think you can go wrong from a bang-for-buck perspective than these two. The Deacons are obviously half the price (aka, dirt cheap) but I feel the look of the Payton's are a notch above. I've been happy with both and they look good in person.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Matchbook View Post
          You just missed out on the AE RDA sale. They had Daltons on the Shoebank site, Size 8 for a like, $229 or something. You're going to have to wait for another sale. If you're not averse to gently used shoes, you could always look at eBay or the Styleforum classifieds.
          for example, these were $239, a few months ago.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by evanparker View Post
            for example, these were $239, a few months ago.

            I don't know if it's the lighting, but that is an absolute beauty. I guess I should atleast see a dalton in person.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Starbreaker View Post
              I recently acquired a pair of these:
              http://www.dsw.com/shoe/aston+grey+p...?prodId=338198

              The ones in the B&M store were tan, so I bought them because I already have the JCP Deacons in cognac. If you only plan on wearing the boots 1-2 times a week, I don't think you can go wrong from a bang-for-buck perspective than these two. The Deacons are obviously half the price (aka, dirt cheap) but I feel the look of the Payton's are a notch above. I've been happy with both and they look good in person.
              Atleast from pictures, I really like these, better than JM and these are cheaper too. I'll see if the DSW close to me has them in stock. I prefer cognac over tan. Another reason I am not absolutely sure about the JM's I have got, they only have them in Tan.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by srlclark View Post
                Presumably, you want the boots for walking in the snow and rain during winter. If so, is the climate where you live good enough that you can put the decision off until after the post-Thanksgiving sales?

                I disagree slightly with many of the other posters, in that I think that the J&M boot will be better than the ASOS one, in spite of being bond welted, because the leather quality will be better. But I don't think it's worth $175 for that boot. It might go on sale after Thanksgiving, in which case you might be able to get it for a decent price (I would say $125 should be the absolute maximum that you pay for it, though). And if it doesn't go on sale then, you can go back to the ASOS boot (which also might go on sale). If you do manage to pay a bit less for the J&M boot, you can then also save up for a goodyear welted one from somewhere like Allen Edmonds in the future.
                Thanks for the wonderful suggestion. I live close to Chicago btw. I guess what people here including Matchbook have said is that the JMs are good leather shoes, but what good is a leather shoe if the sole comes apart in a year. The product description of the JM boot clearly mentions its a cemented boot and cannot be resoled.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Matchbook View Post
                  Neither. AE 2nds are shoes that didn't pass QA for some reason or another, but are still structurally sound. I own two pairs of 2nds that I've only found the imperfection on one, and it took me months of wearing them to finally find it (there's a single top stitch that's so barely off that it's not even noticeably. I just happened to be examining them super close while conditioning them...oh, it was a pair of Randolph penny loafers, btw). Good thing is that if they're coming from a store, you can ask them to look at them for you before you purchase. If they're coming from the warehouse in WI, well...if you don't like them, you can always ship them back free. AE's customer service is outstanding for returns and exchanges, btw.
                  Thanks for the explanation. [MENTION=12045]Matchbook[/MENTION]

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by couchpotato View Post
                    Thanks for the wonderful suggestion. I live close to Chicago btw. I guess what people here including Matchbook have said is that the JMs are good leather shoes, but what good is a leather shoe if the sole comes apart in a year. The product description of the JM boot clearly mentions its a cemented boot and cannot be resoled.
                    Yes, that's true. However, a few things:

                    1) Resoling is only worth doing if the upper is in good shape. If Matchbook etc. are right that the J&M is a good leather shoe, and if the ASOS is not, then the J&M upper will be in decent shape long after the ASOS one is scuffed up. Perhaps J&M use corrected-grain leather, but for sure ASOS do. I suspect that the leather J&M use is significantly better, even if it is corrected grain.
                    2) Cemented shoes can be resoled by a cobbler. It's just that the process puts the shoe under strain and so they probably can't resole it more than once, whereas with a goodyear welt they can resole it many times. Anyway, a rubber sole lasts longer than a leather one, so rubber-soled shoes don't need resoling as often. J&M just say that they won't refurbish it, not that it can't be done. If you do plan on waiting until November - and I guess that living near Chicago, you might not be able to wait that long - you could think about going to a local cobbler and asking her/him whether he/she can resole a cemented shoe. I think he/she will say yes.
                    3) It's not the case that the sole is likely to come apart in a year. If it does, you'll either have been unlucky or have beaten the hell out of the shoe. Not all cementing process are alike, and I would guess that J&M's bondwelt process is more likely to be durable than whatever method ASOS use. Joe on the main Dappered site has a review of some Banana Republic suede shoes where he makes similar points.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by srlclark View Post
                      J&M continues to sell a lot of goodyear welted shoes (admittedly the Conard isn't one of them); it just extended its range to also include a lot of cheaper, cemented shoes. ...Some people on Ask Andy About Clothes... think that the Georgetown is still a higher-quality shoe than AE's Park Avenue.
                      This is true to some extent. The JM Georgetown is a very nice shoe, which has nice soft Italian leather that the Park Ave. does not have. It has a few slightly different finish details which people view as nice. People like the outer sole bevel, and the detail on the outside of the welt on the JM over the large raw edge on the AE. The stitching on the shoe is overall much finer, and the leather is much more poised and articulate than on the AE shoe.

                      I don't know if I would say it's "nicer" than the AE PA but i definable can say that the excellent quality of both the shoe's construction makes them quite comparable in many ways. They're definitely not the same thing. The JM shoe is much more delicate and formal than the AE. If i had to pick one for keeps, it personally wouldn't be the JM.

                      I have never felt like J+M is serious about actually selling these USA made styles that have some semblance of quality. Right now, they offer literally just 10 USA made shoe models. These seem like they are generally just the top ten hits from the same shoes they did before they shifted production. JM's site currently shows more than 250 different low-quality Chinese shoe designs. I'd love to see the sales figures for each, but i guess we're just left to wonder if they even sell any of the USA shoes.

                      I see Alden's, Allen Edmonds and Cole-Hann ones every day. As much as I would actually be really psyched to see a set out in the wild, I don't ever recall seeing someone wearing a set of the USA Johnson and Murphy shoes in-person. In the a JM store, the USA models do show that JM has the capacity to actually manufacture a couple good shoes, still. The italian ones are also really neat for the money.

                      I actually own a set of 1989 Burgundy Melton's, and they show that JM's main lines used to be SUPER SUPER fantastically nice, let me tell you. they've held up brilliantly. on their second resole. i've gotta post a picture of these, vs their current day coated-leather grossfest.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Can someone please point me in the direction of a cobbler that is re-soling cemented rubber sole shoes? Specifically one that isn't just gluing a piece of sticky-backed rubber to the bottoms?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          You're probably right that the Made in USA shoes are a small part of their sales, but at least they still offer them! And they all have lots of reviews on the website that suggests that they have a small following. My main point wasn't that they sell as many good shoes as AE, even though we're agreed that the Georgetown is pretty comparable to the Park Avenue and that the other members of the Crown Aristocraft line (admittedly only two models: Westchester Tassel loafer and Conley wingtip) are roughly equivalent in quality to their AE alternatives. The custom select line (which is basically Crown Aristocraft but allowing for different sizes on each foot and with monogram options) is also on that level. My view is that the regular Aristocraft line (which includes the Aldwych, the Hyde Park, and a few others), although made in India, are not that much worse. Beyond that, they are indeed much worse than AE. I also like the Italian made shoes, which are often extremely attractive. However, they are mostly bond welted, which is poor. Sleek designs would be fine with a blake stitch, as is, I believe, the Italian tradition, but they shouldn't be glued.

                          My main point was that there's clear blue water between AE and the sort of shoe the OP was considering buying and that I don't agree that all differentiation along the way is insignificant. I think J&M would be much better than that, and considerably better (as well as considerably cheaper) than Cole Haan, too.

                          I'd love to see your Meltons. I agree that the current models are not high-quality leather, but at least they are welted, and so they make for a good shoe if you don't wear it often but want to have one. I rarely wear black shoes, so when my current pair dies in the next year or two, I might get a melton rather than a Park Avenue, just to save money for brown and burgundy shoes. That said, when I held them next to each other in a store a while back, the difference was so obvious that I probably won't end up doing that. The new cognac color that is available on the Melton looks less coated, but I haven't seen it in person.

                          Originally posted by evanparker View Post
                          This is true to some extent. The JM Georgetown is a very nice shoe, which has nice soft Italian leather that the Park Ave. does not have. It has a few slightly different finish details which people view as nice. People like the outer sole bevel, and the detail on the outside of the welt on the JM over the large raw edge on the AE. The stitching on the shoe is overall much finer, and the leather is much more poised and articulate than on the AE shoe.

                          I don't know if I would say it's "nicer" than the AE PA but i definable can say that the excellent quality of both the shoe's construction makes them quite comparable in many ways. They're definitely not the same thing. The JM shoe is much more delicate and formal than the AE. If i had to pick one for keeps, it personally wouldn't be the JM.

                          I have never felt like J+M is serious about actually selling these USA made styles that have some semblance of quality. Right now, they offer literally just 10 USA made shoe models. These seem like they are generally just the top ten hits from the same shoes they did before they shifted production. JM's site currently shows more than 250 different low-quality Chinese shoe designs. I'd love to see the sales figures for each, but i guess we're just left to wonder if they even sell any of the USA shoes.

                          I see Alden's, Allen Edmonds and Cole-Hann ones every day. As much as I would actually be really psyched to see a set out in the wild, I don't ever recall seeing someone wearing a set of the USA Johnson and Murphy shoes in-person. In the a JM store, the USA models do show that JM has the capacity to actually manufacture a couple good shoes, still. The italian ones are also really neat for the money.

                          I actually own a set of 1989 Burgundy Melton's, and they show that JM's main lines used to be SUPER SUPER fantastically nice, let me tell you. they've held up brilliantly. on their second resole. i've gotta post a picture of these, vs their current day coated-leather grossfest.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X