# Church’s Grifton Review – Pleasant Surprise



## Duke of Welingotn (Apr 19, 2008)

I was looking for a dark brown wingtip to add to my shoe collection. One of the contenders was the Grifton by Church's. I looked at various other shoes, but none had the color I was looking for. I decided to purchase the Grifton directly from England. Given the negative reviews about Church's, I was a bit concerned about the quality of the shoe. I thought I would take my time and evaluate the shoe. If the quality was not there I would return it and purchase something else (e.g. Tricker's, C&J, Alden, etc.). 

*Background:* I like bulky shoes (mainly double leather soles) and typically do not wear single leather soles. I work at an office with a casual dress code. I currently have AE Leeds in Cordovan, Alden Straight Tip Flex Calf, Alden Indy Boot, and until recently Alden Long Wing Tip in Cordovan. I am rating the shoes on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being great and 1 awful). I did not comment on style as this is a personal choice.

*Presentation: *The Church's box is your typical cardboard box in a dark brown, nothing special here. The shoe bags are average in quality (similar to the AE bags) with slightly better leather strings. The shoe bags from Alden are superior in quality and color. A small booklet is included, which describes the type of leather used (i.e. calf leather) and how to take care of it. I like the AE info sheet slightly better. I was disappointed by not finding an extra pair of shoe laces or shoe horn. *Grade: 6*

*







*

*







*

*Shoe Leather:* From what I can tell this is very nice quality calf leather. I purposely selected the non burnished leather. There is no evidence of this being corrected leather or any way inferior. It has very nice coloring and I like the nice dark color. It is exactly the color I was looking for. The quality of the leather is definitely on par with Aldens, but not as soft.
*Grade: 8*










*







*

*Shoe Construction:* These shoes are completely leather lined. There is no evidence of it being half canvassed or any other cost cutting techniques. I found the stitching and attention to detail to be very good. The stitching is superior to the AE Leeds and only slightly better than the Alden. 







































The heel is nailed using the typical brass nails. The nails are nicely indented. I had a slight problem with the Alden where the brass nails were sticking out scratching my wood flooring (I was able to easily correct this). The double leather sole in the Grifton is nicely done, but nothing extraordinary. 










On the Grifton the metal eyelets are painted on the inside to match the color of the inside leather. This seems to be an odd touch. It does not add anything to the shoe and the paint is very easily scratched and will most likely peel off easily. I prefer the bare metal finish of the Alden and AE. However, this is easy to fix and does not affect the quality of the shoes in anyway.










The Church's stamp on the inside shoe heel is very nicely done. It is very clearly marked and adds a touch of class. The Alden variation is not as nice, it being a bit smudged. The AE use the mass produced insoles. 










The shoe size and model are hand written on the inside of the shoe. This is a refreshing touch. It shows a level of detail not present in many shoes. The Aldens have the info stamped while the AE has the more generic machine stamp.
*Grade: 8*










*Shoe Confort:* The Grifton is very comfortable. The shoe fit my feet like a glove. Wide where it should be and secure where needed. While the Aldens are very comfortable the Church's are outstanding. The Grifton's 173 last works perfectly for my foot and is the most comfortable shoe I currently have. I normally wear 10.5D US which translates to 9.5F UK.
*Grade: 9*

*Value:* I think this is no surprise. It is very hard to beat AE for value. AE consistently produces solid, elegant, and relatively inexpensive shoes. The Aldens are a solid buy. It is hard to argue against either of these two brands. The Church on the other hand are the most expensive of the three brands with the same level of overall quality. Therefore, Church's are not as good a value. There are many shoes that can be purchased at this price. As a reference, I paid $375 for the Alden Leeds, $385 for the Alden, $320 for the Indy boot, $520 for the Alden Cordovan, and $530 for the Church Grifton. 
*Grade 6*

*Conclusion:* With 1% of all shoes manufactured world wide being Goodyear welted, any of these shoes are far superior to just about anything else out there. It is a personal choice whether it is worth to pay the extra money to acquire quality shoes that can be re-crafted or simply buy new shoes every couple of years. I believe the extra money is well worth it. Goodyear welted shoes look and feel better, and will easily outlast many cheaper pairs. 

With this in mind, I would rate the Church's as a solid shoe. While not the best value, they are still well made shoes. Some of the criticism against Church's appears to be based on different models or perhaps misplaced (I cannot speak for other Church models). I would buy another pair of Church's, but probably only on sale. 

I am now looking for a pair of black shoes and will probably buy C&J or Tricker's just to try a different brand.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Fantastic review, thank you. I'll have to go and take a few more close-ups of my new Vass now!

It's great to see Church's recognised for their quality. The Gr_a_fton is a great shoe. Hope you enjoy it.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

Congratulations on your purchase; may you have many happy wearings! What sort of outfits are you planning on wearing with it? It seems suited to more casual wear - chinos, OCBDs, odd jackets, that sort of thing.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

*I am a fan.*

Yes Ross, I agree this is a great review !

The version of the Grafton you have is the most recent, ie on last 173, the shoe was originally on last 100, the version you have is an amalgam of last 100 and 73, the effect is a slightly narrower, more elongated toe, Church's believe this will be more attractive to their purchasing public than the previous incarnation, they may be proved correct.

If you will permit a quick personal peeve here, I feel that shoes and fit are enough of a problematical challenge sometimes, with differing lasts, and even differing width categories and size scales between differing manufacturers, to call what is really a new version by the same name, complicates matters even more, I wish they would just name it 'Graftonish' or even something different altogether, thank you for tolerating the outburst.

I would agree with Holdfast on the best casual option suggestions he makes but am aware that your working circumstances are best gauged by yourself, as you said in your introduction, style is personal and I sometimes think there is a bit more 'adventure' than in the UK.

Value is a bit tricky sometimes, If a pair of shoes in rotation are good for ten years with minimal, if any maintenance, then the difference over the period is cents, particularly if they prove more robust than others on your rack, the value added aspect also, is if you have purchased what _you _want, you may not waste more money getting futher dis - satisfaction.

I like the shoe and I love the colour you have chosen and am glad you are rewarded with a really excellent fit.

Happy walking Duke!
F.


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

Great review!

No surprise to hear the quality is just fine. I have several pairs and have no complaints.

Enjoy your new shoes.


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

I thoroughly enjoyed this excellent review. The pictures are a big plus.

The construction quality between AE, Alden, and middle range English shoes are really all the same. Goodyear welt is used, with AE employing a complete welt (360).

What, to me, distinguishes one shoe manufacture from another is the attention to details. This applies to the quality of leather, the stitiching...etc. I find that AE have the sloppiest of all. Alden is just a bit better but not really by all that much. Most of the English shoes have better attention to detail than AE or Alden.


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)

How very odd, I'm wearing my pair of Grafton's today!!!! I've had them for quit a while and they wear like iron yet are very comfortable... Fantastic review.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

*Forgot to say.*

Welcome to the forum, Duke.

One of the best 'first posts' I've seen during by brief membership.

F.


----------



## Buffalo (Nov 19, 2003)

Thanks, this was an excellent post, and the pics were very helpful. I don't find the Church offerings any better than Alden and to my mind, why pay the premium on the dollar/pound sterling. This makes them quite expensive, almost twice that of the Alden.


----------



## LD111134 (Dec 21, 2007)

+1, Duke. Now I want to go out and buy a pair of Church's to supplement my Aldens (3 pair), AEs (3 dress casuals, 4 more formal pairs), 2 Alfred Sargents (2 pair, nice but corrected grain)


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Franko said:


> The version of the Grafton you have is the most recent, ie on last 173, the shoe was originally on last 100,


And prior to that, for many, many years, the shoe came on last 73.

That last 100 has been an unmitigated disaster. I haven't seen 173 yet, it's probably much closer to the quite graceful 73 toe, than that bulbous 100 toe.

But, realizing after about eight years their mistake, why can't the company say "Sorry" and return to last 73? Could it be that the person who initiated the change-over does not want to loose face (when s/he should have been given the sack).


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*A very good review....*

Anyone contemplating the purchase of a Church's Grafton would certainly benefit from your review. Stylystically though it is not my cup of tea. I find thick-soled shoes inelegant and unrefined. The Grafton looks like it was made to tromp through muddy fields, rather than be worn with anything resembling elegance of style. I guess that's why I stick with C&J Handgrades and never venture into A-Es or most Aldens.


----------



## Franko (Nov 11, 2007)

bengal-stripe said:


> And prior to that, for many, many years, the shoe came on last 73.
> 
> That last 100 has been an unmitigated disaster. I haven't seen 173 yet, it's probably much closer to the quite graceful 73 toe, than that bulbous 100 toe.
> 
> But, realizing after about eight years their mistake, why can't the company say "Sorry" and return to last 73? Could it be that the person who initiated the change-over does not want to loose face (when s/he should have been given the sack).


It could be that there is no one person responsible and there may not be agreement that changing lasts was a bad idea,, which may be why nobody has actually said sorry to you, the shareholders and Prada .

A disaster ? what as styling, or to Churches policy of selling the shoes they make?.

I actually don't mind most of what they do, as long as a variety of shoes are available to us, including bulbous toe ones, for our sometimes very mixed shoe rack, my beef, different to yours, I grant you, is using the same name for what to my humble eye and foot are different shoes., sorry I said 'originally last 100', I am obliged, reminded and corrected.

You may well like the new 173 version as it is the toe that you dislike on 100.
The 173 has been described to me as a narrower toe and not such a deep box.

F.


----------



## Tonyp (May 8, 2007)

dfloyd said:


> Anyone contemplating the purchase of a Church's Grafton would certainly benefit from your review. Stylystically though it is not my cup of tea. I find thick-soled shoes inelegant and unrefined. The Grafton looks like it was made to tromp through muddy fields, rather than be worn with anything resembling elegance of style. I guess that's why I stick with C&J Handgrades and never venture into A-Es or most Aldens.


 I agree with this analysis. I to like more elagant and sleek styling. I have never found the heavy soled thick looking shoes to be very attractive but to those that do this was a very inciteful review.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Tonyp said:


> I agree with this analysis. I to like more elagant and sleek styling. I have never found the heavy soled thick looking shoes to be very attractive but to those that do this was a very inciteful review.


No, but they are practical and ruggedly handsome. And these would look good trundling down through the leaves to get the paper on a dirty Sunday in Autumn, or shuffling off to the gym of an afternoon. For those times when you don't really want to pull out the EGs.

Also, I suspect their 'heavy-ness' would suit tweed and other country-wear better than some more elegant options.


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Franko said:


> A disaster ? what as styling, or to Churches policy of selling the shoes they make?


I think the disaster has been changing the whole lot, from one day to another through some edict from on-high.

Church's has always had a policy of using very few different lasts (unlike EG or C&J who have a multitude of lasts in operation). Maybe as much 70% of the entire Church's collection is made on a single last, be it 73, 100, 173. Instead of gently testing the waters, replacing the last for a few designs and seeing how it goes, all designs on the 73 last had to change over night to 100 and now (probably) all have to change to 173.



> The 173 has been described to me as a narrower toe and not such a deep box.


Sounds to me like the 73. I bet the differences between 73 and 173 are microscopic. But someone does not want to loose face and say "Back to Square One again". (What they are doing in reality.)


----------



## Tonyp (May 8, 2007)

Rossini said:


> No, but they are practical and ruggedly handsome. And these would look good trundling down through the leaves to get the paper on a dirty Sunday in Autumn, or shuffling off to the gym of an afternoon. For those times when you don't really want to pull out the EGs.
> 
> Also, I suspect their 'heavy-ness' would suit tweed and other country-wear better than some more elegant options.


 I also agree with you Rossini. but for those days I have other options. I do like the wing tip blucher/derby but don't ever find a great use for it.


----------



## TheBigOne (Mar 5, 2008)

Great review. I have many pairs of Church's including several classics that I got from https://www.herringshoes.co.uk/brands.php?brandID=4

as "seconds"


----------



## Mr Sweden (Jan 21, 2003)

bengal-stripe said:


> Sounds to me like the 73. I bet the differences between 73 and 173 are microscopic. But someone does not want to loose face and say "Back to Square One again". (What they are doing in reality.)


The 173 last is a combination between 73 and 100. It has the toe of 73 and the instep and heel of 100.

/Mr S


----------



## Fuzzypuppy (Mar 30, 2008)

Nice review! Where did you buy them?


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Wonderful piece of work Duke. I think your pictures show the Grafton in a very good light - thanks for pointing out all the little details that go to make a Church's shoe top quality. It is a great shoe IMO and will last you for a great many years.

It is true that the price does let it down compared to Alden but I suspect that is because of the weak dollar versus a relatively strong pound. When the dollar/pound ration was 1.5:1 as it was not so long ago the Church's shoe would have seem much more reasonably priced. You have actually got the shoe at a good price as here we pay £325 for the Grafton ( $650 approx) so I suspect you've got some discount - well done!


----------



## tonup277 (Feb 22, 2008)

hmm...graftons in burgundy on sale at herringshoes


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

tonup277 said:


> hmm...graftons in burgundy on sale at herringshoes


hmmm, and herringshoes web site currently seems to be down!


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rossini said:


> hmmm, and herringshoes web site currently seems to be down!


Indeed Its only just happened though and you never know they might be putting lots more goodies on there:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Duke: Welcome to the forum and thank you for a wonderful first post...great pics and a very thorough review. The only downsides is, as one who loves the wingtip design, now I want another pair...oh no!


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

^ you deserve it


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Leather man said:


> Indeed Its only just happened though and you never know they might be putting lots more goodies on there:icon_smile_wink:


Back up now :icon_smile:


----------



## Fuzzypuppy (Mar 30, 2008)

I have the graftons in sandalwood. Very nice shoes, but not much to distinguish them from my Aldens or AEs. Except price.

I wore them today actually


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Franko said:


> You may well like the new 173 version as it is the toe that you dislike on 100. The 173 has been described to me as a narrower toe and not such a deep box.





bengal-stripe said:


> Sounds to me like the 73. I bet the differences between 73 and 173 are microscopic.





Mr Sweden said:


> The 173 last is a combination between 73 and 100. It has the toe of 73 and the instep and heel of 100.


So what's the final word on the 73 versus 173 comparison? Does anyone have first-hand knowledge of the fit of the two lasts?


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

I do.

Mr Sweden has it about right.

I always found the instep on the 73 last a bit on the shallow side and prefered the fit of the 100 last. However I found the toe box a little bulbous on the 100 last. The 173 last is a good outcome I think.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Leather man said:


> Mr Sweden has it about right.
> 
> I always found the instep on the 73 last a bit on the shallow side and prefered the fit of the 100 last. However I found the toe box a little bulbous on the 100 last. The 173 last is a good outcome I think.


Thank you. I was looking at Herring Shoes and they have some on the 73 last for sale prices. The CAD/UK exchange is pretty good right now, or at least better than it has been for a few years, so I was thinking of buying something.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Doctor Damage said:


> Thank you. I was looking at Herring Shoes and they have some on the 73 last for sale prices. The CAD/UK exchange is pretty good right now, or at least better than it has been for a few years, so I was thinking of buying something.


I have three pairs of Herrings 73 last shoes because I like the Chestnut colour. I would advise you, if I may, that the leather quality on this range is not quite as good as full price Church's. They are good shoes for the money but you are not getting a £300 shoe for £195 - IMO, more like a £220 shoe for £195.

So , in short - good shoes , good value, but not quite upto full price standard.


----------



## Duke of Welingotn (Apr 19, 2008)

UPDATE

I have been wearing these shoes for three years now. They are still in very good condition.


----------



## granjamo (Dec 19, 2010)

Duke of Welingotn said:


> UPDATE
> 
> I have been wearing these shoes for three years now. They are still in very good condition.


How are the soles holding up?


----------



## Auggie Brine (Feb 23, 2010)

Excellent Review! Church's are by far my favourite shoe and regardless of any criticism they receive, they are always my first choice. One day I would love to visit the Church's factory.


----------



## Duke of Welingotn (Apr 19, 2008)

The soles are in decent shape. I feel I can go another few years with them. They are a bit slippery on some surfaces, but I have that problem with all my leather soled shoes. Overall, they are very good.


----------



## Decadent (Sep 29, 2007)

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Fatman (May 7, 2013)

I revived an old thread that influenced me to buy a pair of Grafton last year. 
My son commandeered them and fled the cold of Maine to North Carolina without a trace of remorse. I had to buy another pair, and Richard (Shoe Healer) came through for me. 

I love these shoes. They are comfortable out of the box and the "F" fitting is as if made for my feet. Having them back will have me giving my Robinson's a bit more breathing time this Spring (should Spring decide to arrive here in Maine) and Summer. (I love the Robinson's). 

Would readers classify these as a "country" brogue? The heavy weight and fit is perfect for me. Mine are the Nevada Calf Ebony (dark brown), same as the ones that fell off the truck into said son's hands. 

I wish not to sin against my brethren but...if they are a country brogue, or a somewhat casual shoe, I will confess my thought: 

I am thinking of wearing them with 18 ounces of Japanese raw denim, a la Gustin, here in the US. 

Might they work?

I had decided to say goodbye to denim until I found a poster here who recommended Gustin and I fell in love with the material. The day they arrived I could only button the top button, but within 2 days of breaking them in, and even using the damp method of fit, I have the most comfortable pair of pants I have ever owned. Straight cut fit is nice, especially given my age. 

Thoughts? Call for shame?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I think they would look fine with denim. 

But pics would be helpful.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

English shoes and denim, an agreeable combination.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Fatman (May 7, 2013)

I was thinking which would look nicer, cuffed or not, and am having them altered at the tailor's next week, as I continue to break them in. This is the Sheldon, the Robinson, and next post, the Grafton. The pants come 36" inseam. I'm a 30" inseam!


----------



## Fatman (May 7, 2013)

*Grafton with 18 ounce Jeans*
















How can I make the pictures larger?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Lose the cuff!!! I never cared for that and it's better left to the hipsters and kids. 

Find a reputable tailor, have then hemmed up and make sure the original hem is kept.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

How do I want to say this???

I feel that the Americans (AE and Alden) build the best blucher/long wings. I feel the English build much better balmorals.

The Alden Atom:





If I am gonna spend the $$$ on a Blucher, then AE And Alden.

Please, this is simply my opinion. 

Thanks!


----------



## Fatman (May 7, 2013)

The photo of both was to see the difference. 

I took them to the tailor and don't use the cuff. I agree about cuff and age. 

I like the heavy feel of the Grafton. I find the English brogues, in general, heavy. I love them. The Robinsons fit like leather wrapping around me. I rotate, but am tempted not to.


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

Small cuff is a possibility with selvedge denim (never with non-selvedge please), but agreed, its a younger look.


----------



## Fatman (May 7, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Lose the cuff!!! I never cared for that and it's better left to the hipsters and kids.
> 
> Find a reputable tailor, have then hemmed up and make sure the original hem is kept.


I've had them cuffed. I agree, the cuffing is for the young.
Tigerpac,

are you a long term Mets fan?


----------

