Show us your new shoes

[So]

g3org3y said:

Not sure tbh. My belief was the stock would be seconds from the factory that weren't up to standard (for whatever reason). I have however heard certain designers do indeed produce lower/inferior quality items for their outlet stores which also get shipped over to TK Maxx.

I've bought three pairs of Cheaneys from TK Maxx now. All delivered in proper Cheaney boxes, with the shoe bags.

All marked 'made in England' and seem legit to me.

The top ones - nice,

The middle ones - qualify you to teach geography.

The bottom ones - what were you thinking?

But all of them look like proper retail stock, whereas the TK Maxx ones above look like tat manufactured down to a price. Another example of discount retailers selling product that isn't actually discounted, it's just cheaper product.

If I were TK Maxx I'd avoid doing that sort of thing, because it will eventually come on top when customers twig that they are not actually getting a bargain. But then what do I know?

[FreeLitres]

On the flip side, the price difference is huge.

The Barkers I posted: Retail, £280. TK Maxx version, £89. Seems like 90% of the shoe quality for 30% of the price.

Much better to buy these "cut down" UK shoes rather than some glued tat from Kurt Geiger/Next/Topman IMO.

[-Pete-]

FreeLitres said:

On the flip side, the price difference is huge.

The Barkers I posted: Retail, £280. TK Maxx version, £89. Seems like 90% of the shoe quality for 30% of the price.

Much better to buy these "cut down" UK shoes rather than some glued tat from Kurt Geiger/Next/Topman IMO.

The TX Maxx Barkers don't look anything like Barkers build quality. Much better to buy Clarks for £89 imo.

[So]

FreeLitres said:

On the flip side, the price difference is huge.

The Barkers I posted: Retail, £280. TK Maxx version, £89. Seems like 90% of the shoe quality for 30% of the price.

Much better to buy these "cut down" UK shoes rather than some glued tat from Kurt Geiger/Next/Topman IMO.

I'd need to handle them, but the shoes you posted look cheap.

[g3org3y]

FreeLitres said:

Those Cheaneys do look pretty good. I think the biggest issues I have seen are with the rubber soled shoes.

Have they scribbled out the marking on this shoe?

Haven't seen anything scribbled out. If you mean on the inside, it's bad focus (states 'made in England, Hector II and the sizing).

Unlike the other two, it doesn't say 'goodyear welted' on the sole. I checked them on the Cheaney website (Hector II) and they appear to be GW (despite the lack of marking on this pair).

So said:

The top ones - nice,

The middle ones - qualify you to teach geography.

The bottom ones - what were you thinking?

- Thanks.
- Goes perfectly with my tweed.
- One can only have so many standard brown brogues. Always good to mix it up (hence the recent blue/brown Barker purchase). I don't work in an office, so much more freedom in attire.

So said:

But all of them look like proper retail stock, whereas the TK Maxx ones above look like tat manufactured down to a price. Another example of discount retailers selling product that isn't actually discounted, it's just cheaper product.

Yep, they appear to be the real deal.

FreeLitres said:

On the flip side, the price difference is huge.

The Barkers I posted: Retail, £280. TK Maxx version, £89. Seems like 90% of the shoe quality for 30% of the price.

Much better to buy these "cut down" UK shoes rather than some glued tat from Kurt Geiger/Next/Topman IMO.

My feeling is if you can get a 'proper' goodyear welted shoe for <£100, it's decent value.

I'll feedback on the Barkers when they arrive.

Edited by g3org3y on Thursday 30th March 22:14

[LordGrover]

124spiderfan said:

Trustmeimadoctor said:

Also ordered these cheaney double monk just not sure what to wear them with!

These will look good with a blue jacket/light grey trouser combination. Something like this:

I think that would look a little 'trying too hard'. Blue shoes are very difficult to match/pair, for me anyway.

[Blown2CV]

i think blue shoes are the type of thing that look great in isolation (mostly) but in reality once you buy them you'll find it hard to actually wear them with an outfit without looking like a bit of a bell.

[So]

Blown2CV said:

i think blue shoes are the type of thing that look great in isolation (mostly) but in reality once you buy them you'll find it hard to actually wear them with an outfit without looking like a bit of a bell.

So completely naked apart from a pair of blue monk shoes, then.

[Blown2CV]

So said:

Blown2CV said:

i think blue shoes are the type of thing that look great in isolation (mostly) but in reality once you buy them you'll find it hard to actually wear them with an outfit without looking like a bit of a bell.

So completely naked apart from a pair of blue monk shoes, then.

hilarious but tenuous. Clearly I meant as in the photo above, on their own... or maybe on a shelf in a shop.

[InductionRoar]

FreeLitres said:

Again the retail version appears to have the leather midsole (which might be "painted on" as it looks a little suspect. Also the TK version looks very shiny/reflective which could mean it's the corrected grain/coated stuff.

These are just obvious differences, but I just get the feeling they have been made on the cheap especially for TK Maxx. I'm left thinking where else might they have cut costs?

What's your thoughts?

The leather used in all of those shoes are technically corrected grain, along with the very best in the world. Of course I am being pedantic and I take your point that there does appear to be a big difference between the leather used in those shoes but even the best leathers you can buy are relatively cheap to the makers.

Whilst I strongly suspect you may well be correct on the various tiers of quality the unfortunate fact remains that from a construction standpoint they will likely be identical because Goodyear is Goodyear and assuming the machine is set up correctly there can be little to no variation. The peripheral details in top-tier shoes are largely finishing details which would likely go unnoticed by 99% of the population and some would no doubt even deem such details to be faults.

So in summary I would suggest costs haven't been cut in the cheaper models so much as the price has been inflated on the more expensive ones.

[wolfracesonic]

LordGrover said:

124spiderfan said:

Trustmeimadoctor said:

Also ordered these cheaney double monk just not sure what to wear them with!

These will look good with a blue jacket/light grey trouser combination. Something like this:

I think that would look a little 'trying too hard'. Blue shoes are very difficult to match/pair, for me anyway.

You're a PH'er, wear them with pride man, pride! BTW is the guy in the pic's bag bullet proof do you think?

[g3org3y]

LordGrover said:

I think that would look a little 'trying too hard'. Blue shoes are very difficult to match/pair, for me anyway.

I think it's very much context/person dependant.

Same shoes and same outfit, different people, one looks great and the other terrible. Some can get away with it, others can't. Try hard versus effortless style I suppose.

Wear them with the pictured outfit in Milan or Rome and you'll look right at home, less so in Taunton or Chelmsford.

For me, they are a little too 'avant garde' and the colour/style v limiting with regards what outfit they can be worn with.

(Plus I showed them to my wife and she said I wasn't allowed them )

InductionRoar said:

Good info

Thanks IR.

[Zad]

wolfracesonic said:

You're a PH'er, wear them with pride man, pride! BTW is the guy in the pic's bag bullet proof do you think?

Unlikely. That chap looks as if he is about to board an Air Florida airlines 737, to show a party of octogenarians to their seats.

>.>

[Shaw Tarse]

-Pete- said:

FreeLitres said:

On the flip side, the price difference is huge.

The Barkers I posted: Retail, £280. TK Maxx version, £89. Seems like 90% of the shoe quality for 30% of the price.

Much better to buy these "cut down" UK shoes rather than some glued tat from Kurt Geiger/Next/Topman IMO.

The TX Maxx Barkers don't look anything like Barkers build quality. Much better to buy Clarks for £89 imo.

Based on photos, or have you seen them?

[-Pete-]

Shaw Tarse said:

-Pete- said:

FreeLitres said:

On the flip side, the price difference is huge.

The Barkers I posted: Retail, £280. TK Maxx version, £89. Seems like 90% of the shoe quality for 30% of the price.

Much better to buy these "cut down" UK shoes rather than some glued tat from Kurt Geiger/Next/Topman IMO.

The TX Maxx Barkers don't look anything like Barkers build quality. Much better to buy Clarks for £89 imo.

Based on photos, or have you seen them?

Based on photos. I love TX Maxx for a bargain but the Barkers in the pictures seem to be a totally different construction. I'll see if I can see them up close this weekend and report back.

[FreeLitres]

The TK Maxx product photos are generally rubbish, so I suspect the shoes will look better in the flesh. It's almost like they have an apprentice locked in a dark room with a huge pile of new stock each day they they have to get a photo of. The photos on the manufacturers websites are obviously edited to get the most from the product.

[coldsnap]

Well I just got these TT Barkers from TKMaxx and nothing obvious seems wrong, but I don't have any other Barkers to compare against. They don't seem the quality of Church, Tyrwhitt, Loake that I do have. Here's some photos, anyone know if these are the real deal? [url]

Edited by coldsnap on Saturday 1st April 14:13

Edited by coldsnap on Saturday 1st April 14:14

[InductionRoar]

Uncommon to see brogueing with no gimping but that is more an observation than a criticism. Obviously the edge where the gimping would be is unfinished but fundamentally, and assuming they fit well, I see nothing wrong with them for the price.

Your carpet is excellent.

[anonymous-user]

InductionRoar said:

Uncommon to see brogueing with no gimping but that is more an observation than a criticism. Obviously the edge where the gimping would be is unfinished but fundamentally, and assuming they fit well, I see nothing wrong with them for the price.

Your carpet is excellent.

You may need to explain what gimping is in the context of shoes.

Not the safest google search one could make.

[StuTheGrouch]

Those soles don't look right