Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

During this sale, I'm wondering if the AE Independence Line is a True Upgrade

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

  • Commisar92
    replied
    Originally posted by mebejoseph View Post
    As you may have noticed, AE has a great sale right now. And some of their upscale Independence Line shoes are on sale for less than $300. I've never liked my black oxford wingtips from Wolf and Sheppard, so this may be the time to replace them. (I'm one in, one out on shoes right now).

    But I'm wondering if the price bump for the Independence Line is work it. Anybody have them? What do you think?

    For example, I can get the Jefferson wingtip for $290 or the MacAllister for $225.

    Worth the extra $$$?
    Yep. The 201 last has a lot more instep room and is a bit wider than the 65 last. The lambskin lining is also excellent and the leather used on the shoes is a step above other AE shoes. However, AE is shrinking the range and removing all colors except black and Walnut and only has three styles for the Oxfords. Cap toe, brouged cap toe and wingtip.

    Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Slubby Linen
    replied
    Originally posted by Token View Post
    Those are Carminas, it might be a European thing but overwhelming majority of my oxfords have the narrowing eyelets as you go up. I canÂ’t remember the source but there was either an article or video interviewing a maker where they explained that it was to accommodate a slight v in the facing.
    Yeah, I could see the tapered eyelets being a European thing. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if having an intentional V versus a closed or nearly closed facing were a European versus Anglo style difference. Sort of like open versus closed quarters on a suit jacket.

    Leave a comment:


  • armedferret
    replied
    There's a suede trunk show happening soon, with all but one color the same Janus reverse calf used on the slipper-like massdrop chukkas.

    I won't be taking part as there isn't a store reasonably close to me with in-store examples so I have no idea which colorway or style I would want.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnR
    replied
    Originally posted by mebejoseph View Post
    Yes, great-looking shoe! I like details better than a plain toe, and the cap is just enough when compared to the Statesman--at least for my taste.
    My feelings, exactly

    Leave a comment:


  • mebejoseph
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnR View Post
    Ha! I was told today that I'm just a rocking chair away from being the old guy on the porch yelling at the kids!



    I bought the Ace cap toe in brown https://www.allenedmonds.com/shoes/m...p-toe-blucher/
    I haven't worn them out yet but I think I love them. I wanted a solid casual shoe for jeans and I think this is it. I had my eyes on the Thursday Boots Statesman in Tobacco for a while but just never fell in love. I still think it's a great looking shoe but the soft leather cap toe of the Ace won me over pretty quickly. I wore them around the house with denim when they arrived and I really loved the look.
    Yes, great-looking shoe! I like details better than a plain toe, and the cap is just enough when compared to the Statesman--at least for my taste.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnR
    replied
    Originally posted by mebejoseph View Post
    Wow, I'm getting cranky in my old age.
    Ha! I was told today that I'm just a rocking chair away from being the old guy on the porch yelling at the kids!

    Also, what new shoes did you get?

    How do you like them?
    I bought the Ace cap toe in brown https://www.allenedmonds.com/shoes/m...81-105-3E.html
    I haven't worn them out yet but I think I love them. I wanted a solid casual shoe for jeans and I think this is it. I had my eyes on the Thursday Boots Statesman in Tobacco for a while but just never fell in love. I still think it's a great looking shoe but the soft leather cap toe of the Ace won me over pretty quickly. I wore them around the house with denim when they arrived and I really loved the look.
    Last edited by JohnR; January 23, 2020, 11:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lax101
    replied
    Originally posted by Token View Post
    Those are Carminas, it might be a European thing but overwhelming majority of my oxfords have the narrowing eyelets as you go up. I can’t remember the source but there was either an article or video interviewing a maker where they explained that it was to accommodate a slight v in the facing.
    I was just about to ask what model of AEs those are, because the shape of that last/toebox is SUPERB. Infinitely more elegant than pretty much anything AE offers...of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Token
    replied
    Originally posted by Slubby Linen View Post
    To me that's at the outer limit of an acceptable V. I would want less gap at the top. But I've seen much wider Vs than that, to the point of looking pretty weird, usually in shoe selfies of 65 last AEs.

    I do see what you mean about the eyelet spacing. Those definitely are spaced closer towards the top. In fact the change is so pronounced that I'd guess the tapering effect is more of a style feature in its own right than a compensation for a V. But of course I could be wrong.

    The eyelets on this pair of AE 5th Avenues I'm looking at are nothing like that. They are uniformly spaced. I can't help but think they were placed to give neat looking parallel rows which would be achieved when there is very little spread.

    What kind of shoes are those in your pic?
    Those are Carminas, it might be a European thing but overwhelming majority of my oxfords have the narrowing eyelets as you go up. I can’t remember the source but there was either an article or video interviewing a maker where they explained that it was to accommodate a slight v in the facing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slubby Linen
    replied
    Originally posted by Token View Post
    I think weÂ’re probably talking about the same thing. There should be a slight gap or V, nothing too extreme. Something like the below. If you look at the eyelets you can see that the bottom most eyelets are further apart and it gets closer together as you go up, thatÂ’s meant to account for the desired slight V in the facings.

    To me that's at the outer limit of an acceptable V. I would want less gap at the top. But I've seen much wider Vs than that, to the point of looking pretty weird, usually in shoe selfies of 65 last AEs.

    I do see what you mean about the eyelet spacing. Those definitely are spaced closer towards the top. In fact the change is so pronounced that I'd guess the tapering effect is more of a style feature in its own right than a compensation for a V. But of course I could be wrong.

    The eyelets on this pair of AE 5th Avenues I'm looking at are nothing like that. They are uniformly spaced. I can't help but think they were placed to give neat looking parallel rows which would be achieved when there is very little spread.

    What kind of shoes are those in your pic?

    Leave a comment:


  • mebejoseph
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnR View Post
    I had the same shoe bag thought when I received a new pair just last week. I mean.... I suppose that it's possible to get both shoes in there but it certainly doesn't seem that it's meant for both. While I haven't had any quality issues myself (aside from the claim that they had to make my custom pair from the trunk show 3 times - which I still haven't received! - because the first two runs didn't pass muster), the AE service lately has been extremely disappointing. Really not sure what's up with them.
    Fortunately, the shoe bags are very inexpensive at $2.00. I just ordered five of them. One for missing one and four others for two other pairs of shoes. It's just a minor annoyance that I could have save the $9 shipping fee if I had ordered them with the shoes.

    Wow, I'm getting cranky in my old age.

    Also, what new shoes did you get?

    How do you like them?

    Leave a comment:


  • Token
    replied
    I think we’re probably talking about the same thing. There should be a slight gap or V, nothing too extreme. Something like the below. If you look at the eyelets you can see that the bottom most eyelets are further apart and it gets closer together as you go up, that’s meant to account for the desired slight V in the facings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slubby Linen
    replied
    Originally posted by Token View Post
    Not sure exactly how much spread you’re seeing, but for most people (not everyone’s feet are the same), having a bit of a spread or v shape in the lacing is proper fit. If you look at the eyelet placing, they actually get a tiny bit closer together as you go upward to account for a proper v. If the facings are touching and there’s no v at all then chances are it’s too wide across the instep.
    When these are well cinched there's about a 1/8" gap at the top of the V. I agree the sides shouldn't touch but I disagree that a V shape is correct. I think the ideal is for the sides to come very close and run nearly parallel. As for the eyelets being spaced closer as you go up, I'm not seeing that. These eyelets seem to be a uniform distance from the edge of the opening.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnR
    replied
    Originally posted by mebejoseph View Post
    Got the shoes, AE Jefferson 2.0, and true to what seems to have become AE standard practice in regard to what they ship me, these shoes should be seconds.

    The edges of the soles where not properly stained/dressed black, but have exposed brown areas in several places (my wife noticed before I did). The leather has what appear to be blemishes or scars--they are small and on the of the upper. On top of the that, the shoe box was moderately damaged. Which bugs me because I like to store my shoes in the box.

    Also, I think it's a cheap-out upgrade to supply just one shoe bag for two shoes--a shoe bag that is only large enough for one shoe. If I weren't going to store the shoes in the box, what good does one dust bag do?

    But I will keep them. I got them for the price of a factory second, about $290, they fit very well, the leather is quite nice, and touching up the missing black stain on the edge of the sole is no big deal. Also, the small blemishes will not be noticeable, especially after a coat or two of shoe cream.

    BTW, while the leather is quite nice and soft, I think the Horween Dublin leather on my AE Stirling boots is just as nice. Those were seconds and I don't notice any difference in the quality at all. Indeed, that box came with slight damage as well and the leather was a tad bit creased.
    I had the same shoe bag thought when I received a new pair just last week. I mean.... I suppose that it's possible to get both shoes in there but it certainly doesn't seem that it's meant for both. While I haven't had any quality issues myself (aside from the claim that they had to make my custom pair from the trunk show 3 times - which I still haven't received! - because the first two runs didn't pass muster), the AE service lately has been extremely disappointing. Really not sure what's up with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Token
    replied
    Originally posted by Slubby Linen View Post
    I can believe this. I just checked my one pair of 65 last AEs. They're E width and fit well in the laces with no spread. I don't have an official brannock measurement but I think my feet are of pretty average width. It's been years since I've worn or thought about these shoes. I had forgotten they were Es.
    Not sure exactly how much spread you’re seeing, but for most people (not everyone’s feet are the same), having a bit of a spread or v shape in the lacing is proper fit. If you look at the eyelet placing, they actually get a tiny bit closer together as you go upward to account for a proper v. If the facings are touching and there’s no v at all then chances are it’s too wide across the instep.

    Leave a comment:


  • Slubby Linen
    replied
    Originally posted by Hebrew Barrister View Post
    If the laces are spread apart, if means you're wearing the wrong width size and need to go up 1 in width. The 65 runs one width size small, so of you're a 10D on a brannock, you need a 10E for a proper fit in the 65 pretty much.
    I can believe this. I just checked my one pair of 65 last AEs. They're E width and fit well in the laces with no spread. I don't have an official brannock measurement but I think my feet are of pretty average width. It's been years since I've worn or thought about these shoes. I had forgotten they were Es.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X