# Stacy Adams



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

What is the quality of Stacy Adams shoes? Furthermore, where on the shoe ladder does it fall. Comments appreciated.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Oh no...


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

Stacy Adams reached rock bottom some time ago. Recently, they started to dig.

I saw their billboard on 125th street and 2nd Ave... Not a pretty sight...

-Ex falso quodlibet-


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

DÃ©tritus... Oops pardon my french.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Very few of us here are fans of Stacy Adams.

"Never underestimate the depth of a curious mind"
Steve aka StevenRocks


----------



## Avers (Feb 28, 2006)

Couple years ago I saw SA cap-toe shoes on deep sale - around $15 and bought them to wear with casual clother to work. 

The shoes looked good, but were very stiff and extremely uncomfortable to wear. Just after one day of wearing I had blisters...
Tried them couple more times and eventually threw away... 

Now just the sound of SA name make me sick...

Never again I will touch this cheap c**p.


----------



## rtdavide (Feb 10, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Golem_
> 
> What is the quality of Stacy Adams shoes? Furthermore, where on the shoe ladder does it fall. Comments appreciated.


I have 2 pairs of Stacy Adams shoes. I haven't had them very long, but I really like them.
I don't know what the others consider to be so bad about them, and like I said, I haven't had them long enough to comment on how they last, but I do like the style and especially the leather soles.

The marketing campaign seems targeted at a different.... umm... "demographic" than mine, and the line contains lots of things I wouldn't want to own, but I really like some of the shoes.

The first pair I got looked great and was super comfortable. The second pair is less comfortable but I like the look so much that I'm working on breaking them in. 
I'm NOT of the demographic that finds it reasonable to spend hundreds of dollars on a pair of shoes. Stacy Adams shoes are generally around 60-100 bucks. That fits my budget OK and I really like the way they look.

I'm also not that concerned about them lasting for years either. Within a year, I'll want something new anyway and will probably just get rid of them. I'm not planning on passing these to my kids as an heirloom.

I suppose that brings up another point: Could it be we are justifying such outrageous prices spent on clothes by appealing to how long they will last?
Undoubtedly, the finest things cost a disproportionate amount above and beyond average or even above average. In a kind of law of diminishing returns that mentioned on another thread recently, getting to 200 mph in an automobile will cost a million. Getting to 210 will cost 2 million. 
One could reason that to get the best it is necessary to spend the extra, but applying this to clothes, spending 4-5K on a suit with the reasoning that it will last longer seems a little silly. Mind you, if that kind of price is no problem for you, then feel free. For me it would be not only financially unfeasible, but in all honesty, unnecessary. 
Maybe this is more of my own quirk, but I get tired of things. I'm not trying to build a wardrobe for the ages. I want something that looks good now. 
I don't want it to fall apart after 6 months, but neither am I likely to be wearing this same stuff 3 years from now. By then, my tastes will have shifted and I will probably be looking at something else.

When I first started spending a little more on clothes and trying to build a wardrobe, I really believed that I would spend the initial amount, get a wardrobe that I would be able to mix and match and whatever I put on would look good. Save time, look/feel better, win/win.
As it turns out, the more I have gotten into it, the more I think about it. I use to get up throw stuff on and head for the door. Now, everything looks better than it did, but Iâ€™m still not happy. I donâ€™t want to look good; I want to look â€˜greatâ€™ whenever I go out. I find myself thinking about it a lot more, hashing over details, wondering if I could have done better, wishing once I was out that I had something else on. Not saving time, definitely looking better, but still not completely satisfied eitherâ€¦â€¦. am I winning?

In trying to be honest with myself and my acquisitions, as well as who I am: a working artist, I have settled the matter that I am looking more for reasonable quality, good fit and great colors, than I am for the top of the line. I know I will change my style/fashion in time, so I'm not trying to build for the long term here.

Returning to Stacy Adams shoes, that's why I'm OK with them. I think they look good, they're comfortable and the price is reasonable for me. My two cents.

dave


----------



## CallMeMrTibbs (Apr 12, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Avers_
> 
> Couple years ago I saw SA cap-toe shoes on deep sale - around $15 and bought them to wear with casual clother to work.
> 
> ...


I have an uncle that used to love Stacy Adam's shoes(like in the early seventies). In his eyes, they dont make SA anymore...talk about real poor brand management.


----------



## briiian13 (Oct 24, 2005)

me no likey sa


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rtdavide_
> 
> I suppose that brings up another point: Could it be we are justifying such outrageous prices spent on clothes by appealing to how long they will last?
> Undoubtedly, the finest things cost a disproportionate amount above and beyond average or even above average. In a kind of law of diminishing returns that mentioned on another thread recently, getting to 200 mph in an automobile will cost a million. Getting to 210 will cost 2 million.


You raise some interesting questions, but I don't think the analogy holds up for the case you're trying to make. A more apt comparison would be the number of miles you could get out of a car. Are you better off buying a $500 cheapie and getting 5,000 miles out of it, suffering all the way, or buying a car that costs five times as much but will take you 100 times farther in style and comfort?


----------



## briiian13 (Oct 24, 2005)

hey Doc,
i definitely would like to find that $2500 car that can take me 500,000 miles in style and comfort. where do you get one?
hehehe.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I used to think Stacy Adams was a decent maker...years ago.

Now I'd be suprised if they weren't made by the TJX company.

-spence


----------



## psykon99 (Nov 3, 2005)

I own a pair of Stacy Adam's (recently aquired) and am quite satisfied with them. 

I too am not one to spend $300 on a pair of shoes, at least not at this time. I'd rather buy a pair for $100 or less, get a few years out of them, and consider another pair after that. 

Don't get me wrong, I do want quality, but I'm not looking for, as was stated earlier, heirlooms. While AE and Aldens are certainly nice shoes, I just cannot afford them. On my budget, why buy one pair of shoes when I can by three or more with reasonable quality for that price.

Granted you're more likely to get corrected grain, pvc or rubber soles, and the like, but if you're picky, you can find higher quality "cheap" shoes. 

Stacy Adam's is a good example. I bought my pair from Marshall's for $40. They're black cap-toe bluchers. The soles are, I believe, PVC or something. THey're not real leather, but they look at feel like leather. They're as thin as leather, but the best part is they don't absorb moisture like leather and they look better than rubber! Also, they are welted too.

I know Stacy Adam's makes various quality levels, some welted, some not, but if you're picky enough you can find a good shoe. Especially for the price. Just remember to take care of them with regular shinings and shoe trees and all will be well.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

I have only owned one pair and they were fine for their intended use. They are a pair of penney loafers I saw at a closeout for thirty dollars. It is true they started out very stiff. This is probably due to sitting on the shelf for a while. However after applying mink oil and wearing them around the house a couple of days to break them in, they were fine. The purchase was intended for simply a casual leather to wear around the house but they have been great for casual dress. They are now about three years old and still look new and are quite confortable.
Looking at some of their offerings on the web, I can see that they are not usually styled the way I like but if once chooses a conservative traditional style they should be fine. One difference is perception of value. It is true that some big dollar shoes will last for a lifetime but if a thirty dollar pair of shoes lasts for a year and look good, they are fine with me. I should disclose I have never owned a pair of shoes costing over two hundred dollars and probably never will. I don't expect then to last forever and would replace them eventually no matter what the price. It's all a matter of value over price.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Mr. Golem_
> 
> What is the quality of Stacy Adams shoes? Furthermore, where on the shoe ladder does it fall. Comments appreciated.


Obviously from most of the responses to this thread, you are not going to find many fans of Stacy Adams shoes on this forum. At great personal risk of being branded a "Fogy," I will share my experience with the brand and how it compares with a brand receiving much broader acceptance by AA Forumites. I have always harbored a fondness for the old style "high top" shoes, worn I believe back at the turn of this past century.

Years ago Allen Edmonds produced an eight-eyelet, captoe boot that enabled me to include a "high top" shoe in my footwear rotation (I believe it was called the Andover). The AE Andovers' wore out (they were worn quite a lot) and could not be recrafted by AE because of some (deficient) work previously done on them by a local cobbler. Allen Edmonds no longer made the boot or anything comparable. I came upon a Stacy Adams Madison boot that, while not of the same quality, were the right style. I bought a pair about two years ago and have since worn them occasionally. The two boots are simply not comparable. The AE boot was constructed of a fairly supple calf with a finnish that improved with age, a leather insole that formed to cradle your foot and would breathe, keeping ones feet cooler and more comfortable, and the boots held up well. The Stacy Adam's (SA) boots are constructed of corrected grain leather that has a very stiff, almost cardboard feel to it, that when scuffed, stays skuffed. The SA insoles are made of pressed cardboard that is not comfortable and does not breathe. The SA's may last awhile because I simply do not wear them...it just isn't the same experience but, they don't appear very durable. Of particular note, is the price differential between the shoes. I bought the AE's as seconds from the AE factory store and paid $220. The SA's cost a little less than half of that ($105) but they are clearly not comparable to the Allen Edmonds at any price. Shop well and pay the modest premium to get a quality pair of shoes that can really be enjoyed and represent real value.


----------



## brugotti (Sep 15, 2005)

I currently own a pair and have had them for about 5 years(only wear them about 8 times a year)and iam happy with them. As a matter of fact when i was young the only dress shoe i would wear was the stacy adams concorde and madison models.


----------



## Aureus (Feb 27, 2006)

First pair of dress shoes was a hand me down from my father, simple black oxford Stacy Adams. These shoes had survived about 10-15 years before they were given to me, and Iâ€™ve been wearing them as my only pair of black dress shoes for two years. While I've expanded my brown dress shoe collection I just donâ€™t see any reason to get more black dress shoes. They can still polish up to near the same shine I can get off my military boots. 

Though based on the comments here, I'm guessing Stacy Adams made nicer shoes in the past than they do now...


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

As the quality of Stacy Adam shoes, they are poorly made. The use corrected grain leather and substandard construction techniques. Also, I think their designs are silly. 

I strive to strike the correct balance between price/value with each clothing acqusition and think they miss the mark. Aside from the poor construction, the very fashionable styles limit the useful lives of the shoes. In 5 years no one will want to wear the shoes that they are offering today. There are much better made shoes that don't cost very much more.


----------



## chat_chapeau (Dec 2, 2005)

I have 2 pairs of Stacys, black and brown captoe bals. Both are still new, but they seem fine so far. Very comfortable and sharp looking. They were way cheap, so even if they only last me a few years until I can afford to upgrade, I'll still be satisfied.


----------



## Crazytree (Feb 6, 2006)

The brand has been hijacked by cheap pimps and dimebag drug dealers.

_-clueless 1st year associate attorney, los angeles._


----------



## FMINUS (Jan 9, 2006)

Please please dont go there. If you wanna go cheap, go Bostonian Italians

Signed, F-


----------



## ptolbert (May 12, 2005)

Your feet will hurt!

Patrick Tolbert
J.A.B. #477


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Who cares about how uncomfortable or poorly made they are? They are ugly as homemade sin. Why would anyone consider putting on the monstrosities to find out if they were comfortable or not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## psykon99 (Nov 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by maxnharry_
> 
> As the quality of Stacy Adam shoes, they are poorly made. The use corrected grain leather and substandard construction techniques. Also, I think their designs are silly.


They do have some silly/ugly designs. But they also have a few more traditional designs as well. Just gotta keep your eye open.



> quote:
> I strive to strike the correct balance between price/value with each clothing acqusition and think they miss the mark.


Well, for those of us living on tight budgets, $25-$40k / yr range, the price and value of Stacy Adams are about right. If I wanted to have one or two pairs of dress shoes, I'd probably save up and buy a pair of black and a pair of brown shoes by AE or the like in very traditional styles. In fact, I eventually intend to do so as those in my current collection wear out.

That being said, I prefer to have a wider assortment of shoes to choose from in my wardrobe and by buying brands like Stacy Adams, Florsheim, etc., I can do so at much lower cost. That means the value and price are just right.

VALUE AND PRICE ARE SUBJECTIVE to one's individual budget, desires, and needs. AE's may have a great value to one, while they are not of great value to another because the price is just too high.



> quote:
> Aside from the poor construction, the very fashionable styles limit the useful lives of the shoes. In 5 years no one will want to wear the shoes that they are offering today.


Thus the versatility of the Stacy Adams, FLorsheim price range: the shoes cost a fraction of AE's, Aldens, etc., AND they tend to be fashionable, AND they wear out with the changing fashion trends. I'm not saying one should dress for the trends, my shoe collection leans toward the traditional in fact, but it really works out quite well: in 5 years when no one wants to wear them, they'll be worn out anyway. Buy another pair! You still won't have gotten to the price of a pair of AE's!

Here's some examples:

If I tally up the approximate costs of all the casual/dress shoes in my collection (some being bought at discount), then I total up to about $450 for ten pairs of shoes - AND THAT'S GOING BACK ALMOST 9 YEARS!

If I were to buy stricty AE's, at retail cost, I could not buy even two pairs for that money! Even if I bought them at extreme discounts for around $150, I still would only have three pairs of shoes!

Now I grant you, AE's are highly quality and will last longer, but the shoes I have bought have lasted me a long time so far, are comfortable, and most others wouldn't be able to tell a difference between them and AE's. In fact, most people already think I'm in pretty nice shoes. Seems other than this board and SF, I'm the only person who knows they're middle-end, not quite AE quality kicks.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

I think of them as the JAB of the shoe world. Ridiculously overpriced at full retail, but worth it with the deep discounts. Where else can you get a pair of shoes that looks ok and clacks when you walk for $20? I have found them to be quite harsh on my feet, but I do a lot of walking and with a heel cup or insert they are much better.

Advantages over other comparable brands
- hold up better than nunn bush
- make a better walking sound than florsheim
- deeper discounts than bostonian

Disadvantages over other comparable brands
- not as comfortable as florsheim
- for the most part not as good quality as bostonian


----------



## Avers (Feb 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ptolbert_
> 
> Your feet will hurt!
> 
> ...


As I said previously - the shoes were impossible to wear. Who cares about quality, designg and price when wearing SA shoes hurts!?!??


----------



## indylion (Feb 28, 2005)

Today's SAs are pure junk. When I got my first pair back in 62, they were are good as any shoe made in American. The cost was $29-33, depending the style. That would be like buying a pair of $500-600 shoes in today's market. This was the "must have" shoe in the black community back then. In today's world, so many of us (Blacks) refuse to let go of the Stacies.

"Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten" Stefano Bemer


----------



## indylion (Feb 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by psykon99_
> 
> I own a pair of Stacy Adam's (recently aquired) and am quite satisfied with them.
> 
> ...


I too am not one to spend $300 on a pair of shoes, at least not at this time. I'd rather buy a pair for $100 or less, get a few years out of them, and consider another pair after that.

With a little time and effort, you can spend $100 for shoes that retail for more than $500. Early this year I got these new shoes for $50:

"Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten" Stefano Bemer


----------



## indylion (Feb 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Crazytree_
> 
> The brand has been hijacked by cheap pimps and dimebag drug dealers.
> 
> _-clueless 1st year associate attorney, los angeles._


I'm quite sure in LA many of the Black lawyers still wear SA. SA is still the most popular brand worn in Black churches across America.

"Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten" Stefano Bemer


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

I didn't think I would start such a debate. I actually own a pair of just plain stacy adams lace ups. I just wanted to hear some opinions on the brand. As far as my experience goes with the shoes, they have been wonderful for me.

Comfort:
A user sent me an email about their pair of SA shoes and I replied that mine were extremely comfortable. I can walk in the the whole day through all my classes and some after school and my feet would still be perfectly fine(I don't know maybe I have weird feet). I've walked all day through NYC in them before and I was content. I would take those shoes over sneakers any day. These shoes are about 2 years old now.

Price:

This is the biggest vantage point for me because I'm a high school student. My money is miniscule compared to some of other members here and I can't even think to afford a pair of Allen Edmonds or Bruno Maglis. I bought those shoes off a sale rack for something like $20 dollars. I wear a size 13 so my size doesn't leave the racks too quickly.

Just my two cents.


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

golem, 
then wear them by all means! you're in high school... and though i would not buy a sa personally, i think you're choice is still above the usual chucks and nikes around. besides, based on my experience, you do appreciate better quality shoes if you start out wearing the "price-friendlier" ones.


----------



## Crazytree (Feb 6, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by indylion_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was not aware of this/.

_-clueless 1st year associate attorney, los angeles._


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by indylion_
> 
> With a little time and effort, you can spend $100 for shoes that retail for more than $500. Early this year I got these new shoes for $50:
> 
> "Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten" Stefano Bemer


Wow, that's quite a steal. Where did you find that bargain, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## Avers (Feb 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by indylion_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are the reasons for such popularity?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Avers_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd bet a big part is history. I'm sure many young men heard their fathers and grandfathers talk about their SA's and now these same men want them. Having had contact with some of these lawyers, I think it is just a style choice. In the black community, SA's are what is still considered "stylish" or trendy. The white community has adopted KC's as their shoe. KC's are of the same poor quality, but they have their place.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## brugotti (Sep 15, 2005)

I agree.Stacey Adams will always hold its place as the number one choice of blacks because it lives off it reputation of old. And with their expansion into apparel it has even more cemented its place as number one in the black community.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

What is the Black community ? and where is the Black community ?
Is there a White community ? I would think that there is as much diversity among Blacks as Whites.
I am a Black American and has never owned a pair of Stacy Adams shoes nor has any of my Black male friends.

Black lawyers wear Stacy Adams and it is the number one choice of Blacks. What is the number one choice in shoes that Whites wear?
Are these racial statements supported by any data?
Black Americans buy on Ebay, read Andy's Forum , respond and ask questions about different dress as other Americans do.
Our fathers as any other groups fathers wore a variety of shoes based on education and income.
My father wore J & M shoes for years and so did his friends.

This is a wonderful forum and has helped me and my Black friends select shoes and other clothing. I have suggested that many of my friends read Andy's Forum.
I had to respond to this sterotyping of Black Americans.
Thanks again for the excellent discussions on men clothing , all of you have been a great help.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

It is easy to place people into categories for the sake of convenience. As my user name suggests I am partially Irish and look very Irish. It does not prohibit me from choosing SA. Choosing SA was not a statement about anything in particular except that don't mind less expensive shoes. That is probably the reason for many of us to have them. If one slips into a stereotypical description when trying to describle a marketing demographic it is most likely a matter of speedy typing than of trying to lock a look or brand to a race.
Are blacks major customers of SA? Maybe.
Are the Irish major customers of Bostonians? Maybe.
Are lawyers to be classified with pimps? Maybe.
Do Irish, blacks, lawyers, and pimps wear SA? If they like the particular style and reasonable prices they probably do.


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

No need to get agitated. I highly doubt that anyone is stereotyping here in a negative way towards anyone. I'm sure Trenditional and Indylion were just describing what trends they saw around their area or heard of(this is an opinion board overall is it not?).

Don't get mad, get more shoes!


----------



## emorel98 (Oct 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by DocHolliday_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please also throw me a bone on that deal!!!!


----------



## kidkim2 (May 31, 2004)

I'm confused (again!) about how the assertion that Stacy Adams shoes were once popular among blacks constitutes stereotyping. Can anyone clarify this for me?

Thanks,

Mike


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

If I may ask what shoes were once popular among Whites constitutes ?
The term Black community was used what ever that is. I have never seen that term referred to White Americans.
Sterotype: A person ,group , event , or issue considered to typity or conform to an unvaring pattern or manner , lacking any individuality.

Stereotyping is negative it infers that a group or person lacks individuality. Once again what is the popular shoes among Whites.
I must ask how does one look Irish ?, German , Russian or English ?
I have been to Europe several times and maybe through my ignorance I could not tell an Englishman from an Irishman only when they spoke.
Peter O'Toole was Irish but played Englishman in most of his movies.

Today we must be careful of what we say or write , while it doesn't bother me it does others. 
Someone wrote " If we can't say what we mean than how can we mean what we say "
Thanks for a wonderful forum , now lets discuss dress.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I'm confused (again!) about how the assertion that Stacy Adams shoes were once popular among blacks constitutes stereotyping. Can anyone clarify this for me?"

I think it was meant as a demographic not a stereotype. With what ever we buy, someone is recording who is buying it. That is just market research.


----------



## CallMeMrTibbs (Apr 12, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by silverporsche_
> 
> If I may ask what shoes were once popular among Whites constitutes ?
> The term Black community was used what ever that is. I have never seen that term referred to White Americans.
> ...


I dont think most black folk have a problem with people talking about trends in the "black community"(well..at least I dont..but no one speaks for everyone). When those opinions come from a position of ignorence, then we have a problem.

My uncle that I refered to in an earlier post..holds Stacy Adams as a dead brand (he saw an ad in a popular magazine and refered to them as 'clownish'). His peer group ...professional African American gentlemen in their early fifties..looked at Stacey Adams up until the late seventies as THE BRAND for . My uncle currently wears Allen Edmound and until recently Johnson/Murphy.

I think its sorta sad...you have this brand that had excellent brand recognition ,a pretty respectable history, and made good shoes that has deteriorated into a low end brand.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I saw some last week at Marty's Shoe Outlet, which sells closeouts and overstocks. To me they seemed about the same as the Bostonians and Florsheims at Marty's -- corrected grain, made in Third World countries, but not the worst stuff available. The Stacy Adams I saw were wingtips.


----------



## chat_chapeau (Dec 2, 2005)

I've been out enjoying the holiday with my family. How did this thread about modestly priced shoes become a racial thing? Can't we focus on the "shoe-loving community?" Black, brown, cordovan and white buck unite!


----------



## indylion (Feb 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by DocHolliday_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I got them in downtown Detroit at City Slicker. City Slicker is better know for it's alligator shoes (e.g mauri and mezlan). They sell more gators than any store in the county. Twice a year they have a big sale. The gators are reduced to 2 for 1. The non-gator and more traditional styled shoes like Santoni, Ferragamo, Moreschi, Gravati and Testoni's black label are greatly reduced. The traditional styled shoes come from a store located nearby called The Broadway. Both are owned by the same folks.

"Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten" Stefano Bemer


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by silverporsche_
> 
> If I may ask what shoes were once popular among Whites constitutes ?
> The term Black community was used what ever that is. I have never seen that term referred to White Americans.
> ...


Ah, white guilt gone awry....

There certainly _are_ such things as demographics. Young white kids as a whole buy certain things, older Japanese Americans as a whole buy certain things, thirtysomething single women as a whole buy certain things...this is how the world is.

As a general rule, urban blacks of certain incomes from a certain time periods tended to buy Stacey Adams shoes. Period. These shoes -- which were far better in quality than they are today -- were available in styles, leathers, and colors which just fit in with the styles of this general demographic and of this time period. When I was selling shoes, one of my best customers -- a fifty-year-old black gentleman originally from Detroit -- waxed poetic about Stacey Adams yellow 'gator shoes. (His teenage kids, by the way, were embarassed all to heck.) He would, at one time, have fit somewhere in with what used to be called "Cadillac style." He never bought a single pair of Stacey Adams from me, by the way, but he did by Florsheim and Allen Edmonds (if I recall correctly). Does that make him a walking stereotype? No. It means he fit into a general demographic which represented many (though certainly not all) younger urban black men of his youth.


----------



## kidkim2 (May 31, 2004)

Teacher,

Well said.

Mike


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Probably not a look that will appeal to the membership of this forum regardless of race. Well, Maybe Manton... I know he goes for that sort of thing.

www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## kidkim2 (May 31, 2004)

Chuck,

Too conservative, I'm afraid, for Manton. But just right, I'd think, for demobbed polo players . . .

Mike


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

I dunno KidKim... I'm thinking that one is 180 degrees from Manton's nemesis - the black suit.

PS> I had to look up demobbed. Use small words with me.
www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## brugotti (Sep 15, 2005)

As a retailer(who has delt with the makers of stacy adams as well as a large population of black people)demographics is a large part of my business and as a black man who grew up in the north(Michigan)having spent half of my life in several southern states and having traveled from one coast to the next(i currently live in Washington State),i have found that blacks and non-blacks buy stacys/florshiems, but the majority of individuals that buy stacys are black.They are the number one(preferred)shoe company among the african american community, all you have to do is ask them and their direct competitors.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

I hate to continue this issue , but I have yet to read that any of the members of this forum has presented any data that supports the opinions expressed here that Black Americans perfer Stacy Adams shoes.
When Stacy Adams produced well made shoes years ago , Blacks and Whites bought them. SA no longer produces well made shoes as a result
both Whites and Blacks who are looking for well made shoes no longer buy Stacy Adams shoes.

The shoes that is popular with this forum such as Berluti , Testoni , Edward Green , Mantellassi , John Lobb etc. Are shoes that few people have heard of and even fewer buy.
The shoes named above or outstanding in quality and workmanship.
The image of a young Black man in a cheap suit and a cheaper pair of shoes pictured is the stereotype that many Black Americans would find offensive.
The data states that most American Blacks do not live in urban America , but lives in the suburban America.

Stacy Adams are cheap poorly made shoes and those Black American's that care about their appearence and value quality the same as Whites don't wear Stacy Adams shoes.
We on this forum appreciate fine dress and some of us are Black Americans. There are many Black Americans that feel the same as we do.
There are some Black Americans through ignorance , education or no interest in clothing buy Stacy Adams shoes as do some White Americans.
The members of this board has taught me a great deal about dress , 
I am a 67 year old Black American and I am still learning about clothes.
I look forward to reading your many helpful post every day.
Thanks to all of you.


----------



## Kenneth (Apr 10, 2006)

I went to the website and it looked very gangsta to me. That wouldn't stop me from looking at the shoes if they were of good contruction and priced well. That is just me, but I could see people being turned off by the website. You would never catch me in a suit like that unless it was Halloween.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by hreljan_
> 
> Stacy Adams reached rock bottom some time ago. Recently, they started to dig.
> 
> ...


Saw the same billboard, almost had an accident. Bonfire of the Vanities....


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by silverporsche_
> 
> I hate to continue this issue , but I have yet to read that any of the members of this forum has presented any data that supports the opinions expressed here that Black Americans perfer Stacy Adams shoes.


I doubt Stacy Adams is in any rush to share its sales data with us or anyone else.



> quote:
> 
> The shoes named above or outstanding in quality and workmanship.
> The image of a young Black man in a cheap suit and a cheaper pair of shoes pictured is the stereotype that many Black Americans would find offensive.


Most people, regardless of race, buy clothing based on looks, not quality. There are a lot of white people, too, who wear crap (some of it expensive) because they think it looks good.

Most members of my (white) family wear cheap Florsheim shoes. A main reason is because of Florsheim's reputation for quality shoes, a reputation which is sadly gone. These people are also horrified at paying more than about $100 per pair of shoes, and some of them can certainly afford to. More expensive shoes simply aren't a part of their way of thinking. It isn't a stereotype and it isn't offensive, it's just the way most people (again, regardless of race) are. It's for this reason why so many shoe companies have gone cheap: _that's what people buy._



> quote:
> 
> Stacy Adams are cheap poorly made shoes and those Black American's _(sic)_ that care about their appearence and value quality the same as Whites don't wear Stacy Adams shoes.


Since you brought it up: where's _your_ data? There are a great number of black and non-black people here, many of whom are or have been in the retail clothing business, who attest otherwise. In fact, I think you're the only one proclaiming otherwise. In fact, brugotti seems to have testimonial from SA themselves.

So no, while we haven't proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, our collective experience (and the extended experiences of others not present) would point to the fact that Stacy Adams shoes are purchased by a great many black men. Again, this is the very essence of demographics, a science upon which hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year in order to find out who is buying what.

*ADDENDUM: Regarding your statement about "Black American's (sic) that care about their appearence and value quality the same as Whites," I couldn't agree more. The key phrase here is not care about their appearance, but rather value quality. Customers who are interested in longevity, style, and quality in materials and workmanship don't generally buy Stacy Adams (I'm guessing indylion doesn't rely on SA as his everyday shoes). But like I said above, most people of any demographic don't fit into this category.*



> quote:
> 
> I am a 67 year old Black American


Okay, so much for my "white guilt" observation.


----------



## indylion (Feb 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Teacher_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Teacher, nice reply.

1) All I wanted to do was reply to Crazytree who stated "The brand has been hijacked by cheap pimps and dimebag drug dealers."

2) When I was in high school (Indiana) in the 60's, Americans still made very good shoes. At the top of that list were JM, some Florsheims, Nettletons, Stetsons, ET Wright, and SA. These were the EGs and Lobbs of that time period.

3) Teacher said "Most members of my (white) family wear cheap Florsheim shoes. A main reason is because of Florsheim's reputation for quality shoes, a reputation which is sadly gone. These people are also horrified at paying more than about $100 per pair of shoes, and some of them can certainly afford to. ". This was the same scenario for SA. SA past reputation is still strong in many black coumminities.

4) I had my last pair of SA in high school. Never had florsheims, didn't like the styles. I had mostly JM and Nettletons (gator loafers) until the early 70's. Around that time the Italian shoes ( gucci, martegani,mauri, etc.)hit the stores. In my circle of friends SA was finished.

"Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten" Stefano Bemer


----------



## MR MILLER (Feb 23, 2010)

Teacher said:


> I doubt Stacy Adams is in any rush to share its sales data with us or anyone else.
> 
> Most people, regardless of race, buy clothing based on looks, not quality. There are a lot of white people, too, who wear crap (some of it expensive) because they think it looks good.
> 
> ...


The only thing i will say (being an african american though i hate the term) is, growing up in an urban enviorment (dallas,texas) i have always noticed "sa"s at any department store usually catering for browns or blacks this is not to say that whites or any other race for that matter would never buy them but only to say that in my personal experience they were tailord for the brown/black community my father would tell me these are our alen edmonds or bruno's untill we could afford better and as of recently there clothes and shoes seem to have lost quility i believe one of the users said they look clownish and i would have to agree it would seem that they have turned their focus on the younger "hip" community be it black brown or white. i do still have a certain fondness for the shoes but the clothes are just not worth spending money on IMOP


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MR MILLER said:


> The only thing i will say (being an african american though i hate the term) is, growing up in an urban enviorment (dallas,texas) i have always noticed "sa"s at any department store usually catering for browns or blacks...


The Macy's in the DC Metro area are especially guilty.

Lines found in Tyson's corner are completely different than those in Wheaton and other areas.


----------



## InlandIsland (Dec 18, 2009)

FMINUS said:


> Please please dont go there. If you wanna go cheap, go Bostonian Italians
> 
> Signed, F-


Just out of curiosity what are Bostonian Italians? Are the Italians a model, or are they a separate line of shoe, and if they are the latter, what is the difference? I googled and didn't find anything.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

Originally Posted by [B said:


> MR MILLER[/b] https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1072523#post1072523
> _The only thing i will say (being an african american though i hate the term) is, growing up in an urban enviorment (dallas,texas) i have always noticed "sa"s at any department store usually catering for browns or blacks..._


I will also agree with these comments. I spent the last 2 years of high school and the first 3 in college living in Atlanta. Being a tall man with very long arms, there was 1 store near me that consistently carried suits and shirts in lengths that would fit me. This store did cater more to the African American consumer but I loved the ties and the sizes offered in stock. This store was also the only store I knew of to carry SA shoes, so in my experience it was atleast then a brand more geared to African Americans. I see more and more SA shoes in stores around me now(Knoxville, TN) that leads me to believe their fashion forward style is more appealing to the general population. They put them right next to the extreme square/squish toe Kenneth Coles at a few local stores and I can only imagine they are going after the same buyer, which in my corner of the world is probably not African American.


----------



## MR MILLER (Feb 23, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The Macy's in the DC Metro area are especially guilty.
> 
> Lines found in Tyson's corner are completely different than those in Wheaton and other areas.


id have to say the macys in dallas would have to be guilty of the same or any of our "urban" malls in my area for that matter i have also noticed they are trying really hard to make a come back umong urban hip hoppers there is usually some type of clownish ad in a vibe,source or double xl magazine


----------



## MR MILLER (Feb 23, 2010)

MR MILLER said:


> id have to say the macys in dallas would have to be guilty of the same or any of our "urban" malls in my area for that matter i have also noticed they are trying really hard to make a come back umong urban hip hoppers there is usually some type of clownish ad in a vibe,source or double xl magazine


overall id have to say if i wanted to look like dione sanders....id go with stacy adams


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

I like mine because they're rico sauve.
:icon_smile:
Oh and because I got them really cheap.
I think the quality is inline with the discount price I paid.


----------



## My Pet. A Pantsuit (Dec 25, 2008)

Just for fun, I want you all to know that Stacy Adams, Florsheim, and Nunn Bush are all the same company these days, which is why you see this triumvirate of once qualitative names sitting on the same shelf at Shoe Carnival.


----------

