Show us your new shoes

Show us your new shoes

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

StuTheGrouch

5,714 posts

161 months

Wednesday 3rd May 2017
quotequote all
gizlaroc said:
So said:
Yes I know you don't like rubber soles, but I do (at the very least rubber inserts). There are plenty of high quality, well-finished shoes about with rubber soles, I just haven't come across quite that toe shape.
96% of shoes we sold in the last year were rubber soled, more interesting though is 92% of all Loakes sold last year were rubber soled.

5 years ago Loakes would have been 15 maybe 20% rubber soled at best.
I won't buy anything other than rubber soles from now on. All of my Loakes are rubber (my boots are dainite). The Barker shoes I bought (McLeans- a few pages back) are fking horrendous for grip, I have almost gone over at work numerous times when walking on hard floors, and now avoid wearing them*. I emailed Barkers about this and they didn't give a st, stating that if I wanted more grip then I need to pay them.

  • Jones the Bootmaker store I bought them from went into administration, so I can't return them. Again, Barkers do not give a st and have refused to do anything about it. Woeful shoes, woeful customer service.

So

26,271 posts

221 months

Wednesday 3rd May 2017
quotequote all
FreeLitres said:
To completely rule them out (and to repetedly rubbish them on here!) based on seeing a couple of defects in a C&J store is a real shame and a bit out of order TBH.
It wasn't a couple of defects. I looked at a few pairs in both Jermyn street stores and none of them were spot on. I looked at some more in Selfridges a couple of weeks ago and those hadn't been finished properly either. It doesn't inspire much confidence, does it.

FreeLitres said:
To imply that your Russell & Bromley shoes are somehow better quality or attention to detal than C&J is laughable.
I haven't implied that anywhere. If you're going to be an arse at least get your facts right.

R&B are cheaper shoes (about half the price actually) than C&J and they have some nice styles but, as I've said many times in this thread, they are often average quality. But now you come to mention it, they can at least stick the bloody insoles in straight and finish off the sole unit symmetrically, which is more than can be said for C&J based on what I've seen.

All of which said, when I am next in the Smoke I will take another look at the Hallams.



InductionRoar

2,001 posts

131 months

Wednesday 3rd May 2017
quotequote all
So said:
InductionRoar said:
So said:
Yep I've tried them, but the quality of the C&J shoes I tried on was not what it should have been. Poorly finished and poor attention to detail.
That is heresy in these parts.

I would have thought that somebody who values finishing attention to detail would not be specifying rubber soles in any event.
Yes I know you don't like rubber soles, but I do (at the very least rubber inserts). There are plenty of high quality, well-finished shoes about with rubber soles, I just haven't come across quite that toe shape.
Quite the contrary, I think they have their place. A black cap toe oxford, however, is not one of them IMO.

I do find it odd that you attributed C&J's lack of quality to poor finishing and attention to detail whilst specifying a rubber sole. That is the antithesis of attention to detail. Rubber may well be structurally superior to leather in every respect (I personally don't believe it is but it certainly ought to be and sales figures suggest I am alone) but finishing is an area where it can never compete with leather. You are right though, there are plenty of high quality rubber soled options because all RTW makers I am aware of offer a rubber option.

I would be interested to hear how C&J fell short of your expectations and what brand you were comparing them to.

So

26,271 posts

221 months

Wednesday 3rd May 2017
quotequote all
InductionRoar said:
I do find it odd that you attributed C&J's lack of quality to poor finishing and attention to detail whilst specifying a rubber sole.
Why is that odd? Sole construction and poor finish / attention to detail have nothing to do with each other.

InductionRoar said:
I would be interested to hear how C&J fell short of your expectations and what brand you were comparing them to.
Okay, see the photo below. The left shoe, sole unit, top left. It's not very clear from the photo but it was finished off completely crooked and different from the right shoe. I've seen the same on several pair, though to a lesser extent.



The leather insoles on several of the shoes I saw had been fitted wonkily, with the Crockett and Jones logo either off centre, diagonal or wavy. They are a premium shoe, they should get that sort of stuff right.

What am I comparing them to? Just about every other manufacturer! Even Jones manage to stick their insoles straight.

FreeLitres

6,039 posts

176 months

Wednesday 3rd May 2017
quotequote all
So said:
R&B are cheaper shoes (about half the price actually) than C&J and they have some nice styles but, as I've said many times in this thread, they are often average quality. But now you come to mention it, they can at least stick the bloody insoles in straight and finish off the sole unit symmetrically, which is more than can be said for the C&Js I've seen .
Thats the crux of it. You have been extremely unlucky and I suggest you go see some more C&J examples.

I've kept quiet all the other times that you were slating C&J but this time I wanted to give an alternative view for the sake of balace for the casual reader. I own lots of shoes from the likes of Church's, Barker, Tricker's, Grenson and Cheaney and my C&J are by far my "better" shoes and of the highest quality. I know many others on here have been extremely happy with their C&J purchases too. If getting my view across makes me an arse, then so be it.

To give a playful analogy of how I'm seeing this situation - I once saw a dog with 3 legs. I don't hang around the pets thread constantly slating dogs in general due to them all having "leg issues". I've seen enough dogs to know that the 3-legged one was rare and not representative of dogs in general and that a dog can be a faithful companion.

ReaperCushions

5,951 posts

183 months

Wednesday 3rd May 2017
quotequote all
gizlaroc said:
I don't post that often on here, as being a footwear retailer I tend to have loads of 'new shoes', but I have been wearing these recently.
Had them in tan suede and the Chelsea boot (tan and navy) and just had a pair of these.

I wasn't sure at first as they felt narrow, but spread nicely after a couple of days and really comfy, plus they are only £50.

Heavenly Feet, I think the name is Rutland or Oakham, one is the boot.

Nice shoes... not sure on the pairing of those particular jeans though, needs to be darker IMO.

InductionRoar

2,001 posts

131 months

Wednesday 3rd May 2017
quotequote all
So said:
InductionRoar said:
I do find it odd that you attributed C&J's lack of quality to poor finishing and attention to detail whilst specifying a rubber sole.
Why is that odd? Sole construction and poor finish / attention to detail have nothing to do with each other.

InductionRoar said:
I would be interested to hear how C&J fell short of your expectations and what brand you were comparing them to.
Okay, see the photo below. The left shoe, sole unit, top left. It's not very clear from the photo but it was finished off completely crooked and different from the right shoe. I've seen the same on several pair, though to a lesser extent.



The leather insoles on several of the shoes I saw had been fitted wonkily, with the Crockett and Jones logo either off centre, diagonal or wavy. They are a premium shoe, they should get that sort of stuff right.

What am I comparing them to? Just about every other manufacturer! Even Jones manage to stick their insoles straight.
Attention to detail, to me at least, suggests a whole host of features such as leather stiffeners, fine stitching, closely cut heelstacks and nicely finished sole units, amongst other things and rubber soles prevent two of those characteristics. A sheet of rubber glued and stitched to the sole is never going to provide as elegant a solution as a nicely contoured leather unit. Practicality and durability are often cited as being the benefits of rubber but if finishing and attention to detail are important to you, then I see no reason why leather would not be your preference, although I now see your meaning differs to mine.

People generally defend the aesthetics of rubber by saying you can't see them from the side (which is bks) or when you're wearing them (much the same as you can't see them with your eyes shut). People pay a lot of money for finely finished watch movements but are happy for the workmanship to be hidden behind the face. That is attention to detail to me. Crooked insoles and misshapen toecaps are quality control issues as opposed to finishing IMO.

The example in your picture is bad I agree, but then again, so is the alignment of the facings on the right foot, unless it is a trick of the light. I have also seen some shocking quality control issues on C&J's, including awl marks bodged in the heel and even more worryingly, misaligned welt stitching. I wasn't disputing your experience, merely interested to hear other people's experiences.

So

26,271 posts

221 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
InductionRoar said:
Attention to detail, to me at least, suggests a whole host of features such as leather stiffeners, fine stitching, closely cut heelstacks and nicely finished sole units, amongst other things and rubber soles prevent two of those characteristics. A sheet of rubber glued and stitched to the sole is never going to provide as elegant a solution as a nicely contoured leather unit. Practicality and durability are often cited as being the benefits of rubber but if finishing and attention to detail are important to you, then I see no reason why leather would not be your preference, although I now see your meaning differs to mine.
Elegance is a very subjective measure. In an ideal world I might choose leather for little other reason than I am at heart a bit of a traditionalist. But I wear my shoes in all conditions and would happily sacrifice tradition and a minute loss of "elegance" in return for durabiity and not ending up on my arse on shiny or wet floors.

InductionRoar said:
Crooked insoles and misshapen toecaps are quality control issues as opposed to finishing IMO.
It's the same thing. Every production line throws up the occasional dud, the fact that C&J allows them to go to retail shows a lack of attention to detail. The fact that I saw a number of pairs with wonky insoles suggests that they really don't "do" detail. The ones in the picture I would not have bought as seconds.

InductionRoar said:
The example in your picture is bad I agree, but then again, so is the alignment of the facings on the right foot, unless it is a trick of the light. I have also seen some shocking quality control issues on C&J's, including awl marks bodged in the heel and even more worryingly, misaligned welt stitching. I wasn't disputing your experience, merely interested to hear other people's experiences.
I hadn't noticed the facings to be honest, but I don't think it's a trick of the light. I was too fixated on the left shoe and thinking that I wouldn't buy them at any price.

If you've seen numerous problems with their shoes it suggests to me that my experience might be typical, rather than bad luck.

Ben Jk

1,591 posts

165 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
I bought my 2nd pair of Loake Drake's last week (for work use). Now have black and tan pairs.

Bought the Tan ones form A J Farley Country Attire online. http://www.afarleycountryattire.co.uk/


Fantastic service, price was very competitive and also had the choice of a free gift! I went for some shoe trees.

There was also a £10 voucher in the box.

Would recommend them and use again.

InductionRoar

2,001 posts

131 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
I agree with pretty much everything you have said other than the semantics of whether quality control comes under finishing or faulty workmanship but elegance, whilst subjective, is quite easily quantifiable and easily demonstrable.

So said:
Elegance is a very subjective measure. In an ideal world I might choose leather for little other reason than I am at heart a bit of a traditionalist. But I wear my shoes in all conditions and would happily sacrifice tradition and a minute loss of "elegance" in return for durabiity and not ending up on my arse on shiny or wet floors.
Please find me a rubber sole that only suffers a "minute loss of elegance" over these RTW shoes.



The last time I went to London I wore leather soled shoes (in fact, the same sole as the picture above) whilst it was sleeting, raining just generally horrible weather. Not once did I slip or contract trench foot, which you would think from reading this thread, was an impossibility in leather soled dress shoes.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
To be fair, the shoe pictures above is a bit of a specialist interest.

Not your average brogue/work shoe.

Rich_W

12,548 posts

211 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
InductionRoar said:
The last time I went to London I wore leather soled shoes (in fact, the same sole as the picture above) whilst it was sleeting, raining just generally horrible weather. Not once did I slip or contract trench foot, which you would think from reading this thread, was an impossibility in leather soled dress shoes.
Having slid a few times around (generally sems to be in a shop) I can see the appeal.

TBH if the weather is simply ghastly, I would choose appropriate footwear.

So

26,271 posts

221 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
I have a couple of pairs like this



So I remain both elegant and upright.

StuTheGrouch

5,714 posts

161 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
So said:
I have a couple of pairs like this



So I remain both elegant and upright.
It's the wooden bit on the heel which is lethal on my Barker shoes. Massively regret buying them

Shaw Tarse

31,543 posts

202 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
StuTheGrouch said:
It's the wooden bit on the heel which is lethal on my Barker shoes. Massively regret buying them
I'd have thought it was leather?
Why not get it replaced?

StuTheGrouch

5,714 posts

161 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
Shaw Tarse said:
StuTheGrouch said:
It's the wooden bit on the heel which is lethal on my Barker shoes. Massively regret buying them
I'd have thought it was leather?
Why not get it replaced?
No, it's a dovetail heel, so only the back of the heel is rubber. The bit in front is made for ice skating.

I'm not getting it replaced as they want the full re-soling price for it, which is £90. I'm not giving them any money on a pair of shoes just over a month old. I contacted them in the hope they would do the sensible thing and sort it free of charge.

Shaw Tarse

31,543 posts

202 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
StuTheGrouch said:
No, it's a dovetail heel, so only the back of the heel is rubber. The bit in front is made for ice skating.

I'm not getting it replaced as they want the full re-soling price for it, which is £90. I'm not giving them any money on a pair of shoes just over a month old. I contacted them in the hope they would do the sensible thing and sort it free of charge.
I'll put a bet on it's leather, with a 1/4 rubber heel.
If I were you I'd take them to a local shoe repairist & have a stick on sole & possibly a rubber heel fitted.

StuTheGrouch

5,714 posts

161 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all


Here are my iceskates

Shaw Tarse

31,543 posts

202 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
StuTheGrouch said:


Here are my iceskates
Looks like leather to me.

Sorry, but I'd side with Barker in this case(if you add stick on soles & non oem heels, then if the shoes break then they will further ignore you)

StuTheGrouch

5,714 posts

161 months

Thursday 4th May 2017
quotequote all
It's normal for shoes like that to be dangerously slippery? I can't walk on hard floors, or even polished wooden floors, purely because of that heel.


TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED